![\"\"](\"http:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/files\/2011\/12\/D.74a-Leda.jpg\" "\\"D.74")
<\/a>D.74 Leda<\/p><\/div>\n
c. 1538<\/p>\n
London, Royal Academy, no. 156.<\/p>\n
Fig.D.74a<\/a> Black chalk, 170.1 x 248.8, composed probably of sixteen sheets of paper, each c. 44 x c. 64, or of more sheets, some this size and others c. 44 x c. 32, depending on whether or not what could be vertical creases are instead edges of sheets of paper1<\/sup><\/a>; some tears and losses that have been repaired, with possibly some redrawing here and there and some abrasion; Franklin, 1988, 325, as fragile, and as showing traces of white heightening and several watermarks.<\/p>\n PROVENANCE: French Royal Collection? (see below); 1771, William Lock, the Elder (see below, Serie degli uomini<\/em>).\u00a0 William Lock, the Younger; presented to the Royal Academy in 1821.<\/p>\n Believing that this large drawing is by Rosso, it would in all probability have to be one of the \u201ccartoons\u201d mentioned in Vasari, 1568, II, 211 (Vasari-Milanesi, V, 171): \u201c…si trovarono anco fra le sue cose dopo, che [Rosso] fu morto due bellissimi cartoni, in uno de\u2019quali \u00e8 una Leda, che \u00e8 cosa singolare…\u201d\u00a0 Cassiano del Pozzo (Pozzo-Muntz, 1886, 268-269; Kusenberg, 1931, 102, 201, n. 232) mentions having seen in the Galerie des Peintures at Fontainebleau on 14 August 1625 five works by Rosso, three of which he specifies as paintings, the fourth as a portrait, and the fifth as \u201cuna Leda col Cigno<\/em>, fatta dal disegno di quella di Michel Angnolo.\u201d\u00a0 Not specified as a painting, but rather as a work made from Michelangelo\u2019s \u201cdisegno\u201d (drawing, cartoon, but also, perhaps, meaning simply design), this Leda and the Swan<\/em> could be the \u201ccartoon\u201d mentioned by Vasari.\u00a0 The inventories of the king\u2019s pictures by Le Brun, in 1683, and by Houasse, in 1691, mention a drawing of Leda<\/em> by Michelangelo \u201c\u00e0 la pierre noire sur du papier blanc\u201d and measuring 165 x 222, according to Roy, 1923, 78; it was also inventoried sometime before 1710 as by Michelangelo with dimensions equivalent to 162.4 x 219.18.2<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 As Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon is reported to have been sent back to Florence in the sixteenth century (see below) and, according to Bottari (Vasari-Bottari, 1759-1760, III, 245-246, n. 1), was apparently still there, in Casa Vecchietti, in 1760, the one owned by the French king in the seventeenth century could not have been his (but see below).\u00a0 Hence it is possible that the king\u2019s drawing was the same work that Pozzo saw at Fontainebleau in 1625.\u00a0 However, the measurements of the Royal Academy drawing do not coincide with those of the drawing inventoried in the seventeenth century.\u00a0 But the latter measurements need not be correct, for while the height is very close to that of the London drawing, the width is far less, indicating a dimension that may be too short for its height in relation to the proportions of Michelangelo\u2019s image.\u00a0 What has, however, to be recognized is that this series of references does not constitute a sure history of the \u201ccartoon\u201d that was found after Rosso\u2019s death, nor a provenance for the work that was owned by Lock the Elder in London in 1771 and is now in the Royal Academy.\u00a0 The source from which Lock obtained the cartoon he had does not seem to be known.<\/p>\n Some hesitation might be had in calling the Royal Academy drawing a cartoon when there is no other evidence that it was made to serve in the making of a painting, however much this would seem to be the case.<\/p>\n LITERATURE:<\/p>\n Serie degli uomini…<\/em>, Florence, 1772, 48; the author of the essay on Michelangelo in this publication, a friend of the Englishman Ignaz Hugford, who made and provided the drawings from which the portraits in the book were made, states that Michelangelo\u2019s original Leda<\/em> cartoon, \u201cche \u00e8 nominata dal Vasari, dal Borghini, dal Bocchi, e da altri, e che esisteva in Casa dei Signori Vecchietti, \u00e8 al presente in Londra posseduto dal Sig. Lock…\u201d\u00a0 This comment, published only eleven years after Bottari\u2019s remark that Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon was in the Casa Vecchietti, names the Royal Academy drawing as Michelangelo\u2019s that was in Florence.\u00a0 On stylistic grounds, the London drawing cannot be Michelangelo\u2019s.\u00a0 If it did come from Florence, it would mean that Vasari, who in 1568 (II, 743; Vasari-Milanesi, VII, 203) said that Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon was owned by Bernardo Vecchietti, as well as all other writers thereafter through the middle of the eighteenth century, believed that the Royal Academy drawing was Michelangelo\u2019s.\u00a0 This is unlikely, especially in view of the fact that Ammannati\u2019s small sculptured Leda<\/em>, in the Museo Nazionale in Florence, is not based upon the drawing in London but upon some other image, which in all likelihood was Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon.3<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that the author of the essay in the Serie degli uomini<\/em>, while right to record that a Leda<\/em> cartoon was then owned by Sig. Lock in London, perhaps as reported to him by Hugford, was wrong in his belief that it was the cartoon that was in the Casa Vecchietti.\u00a0 It is not known what happened to Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon.<\/p>\n Stendhal, 1817, II, 325, as Michelangelo\u2019s, in Lock\u2019s collection.<\/p>\n J.D. Passavant, Kunstreise durch England und Belgien<\/em>, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1833, 33, as not by Michelangelo, according to Thode, and as at the Royal Academy.<\/p>\n Waagen, 1854, I, 351-352, as from the Casa Vecchietti and as once erroneously ascribed to Michelangelo, but rather an old copy of great merit of his cartoon.<\/p>\n Milanesi, in Vasari-Milanesi, VII, 1881, 203, n. 1, stated that the cartoon owned by the Vecchietti was in Bottari\u2019s time acquired by Lock and taken to London.<\/p>\n A. Michaelis, \u201cMichelangelos Leda and ihr antikes Vorbild,\u201d Strassburger Festgruss an Anton Springer<\/em>, Berlin, 1885, 31-43.<\/p>\n Symonds, 1893, 433, as a copy after Michelangelo.<\/p>\n Thode, II, 1908, 314, 317, III, 1913, 260, no. 553, as Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon owned by the Vecchietti.<\/p>\n Dorez, 1916, 469, mentions the opinion that it is by Michelangelo.<\/p>\n National Gallery Catalogue<\/em>, London, 1920, 187, under no. 186, states that Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon in Vasari\u2019s time was owned by Bernardo Vecchietti, that in Bottari\u2019s time, Lock acquired a cartoon of Leda<\/em> and took it to London, and that the Royal Academy drawing has generally been accepted as Michelangelo\u2019s.<\/p>\n Roy, 1923, 77-78 (1929, 133-134), as by Rosso and the cartoon by him found after his death, the picture in the National Gallery, London, as also by Rosso; Roy believes both were done before July 1531 from a drawing of Michelangelo\u2019s image that Rosso had brought to France in 1530.<\/p>\n W.T. Whitley, Art in England 1821-37<\/em>, Cambridge, 1930, 16.<\/p>\n Kusenberg, 1931, 47, 137, 143, no. 54, 191, n. 101, as Rosso\u2019s, executed in Florence in 1529-1530, and used later in France to paint the Leda<\/em> in the National Gallery, London; also as the cartoon found at Rosso\u2019s death.<\/p>\n Paintings and Sculpture in the Diploma & Gibson Galleries<\/em>, London, 1931, 142, Fig.<\/p>\n Tolnay, III, 1948, 192-193, Fig. 280, seems to accept the attribution to Rosso, and, recapitulating Roy\u2019s arguments, states that Rosso would have made a drawing in Italy of Michelangelo\u2019s Leda<\/em>, from which he painted his picture in the National Gallery in London before Michelangelo\u2019s work arrived in France.<\/p>\n Papini, 1949, 224, as by Rosso.\u00a0 Barocchi, 1950, 78-80, Fig. 53, as a copy of the Leda<\/em> in the National Gallery, which she believes is by Rosso.<\/p>\n Goldscheider, 1951, Fig. 173, as by Rosso, c. 1531.<\/p>\n Adh\u00e9mar, Dessins<\/em>, 1954, 105, thought Vasari may have been wrong that there was a Leda<\/em> cartoon by Rosso.<\/p>\n Wilde, 1957, 277-278, as a copy of Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon, probably on the scale of the original, but not by Rosso.<\/p>\n Maison, 1960, 46, Fig. 15, 214, no. 16 (actually referring to Fig. 15), as a contemporary copy of Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon, the attribution to Rosso not generally accepted.<\/p>\n Barocchi, in Vasari-Barocchi, Michelangelo<\/em>, III, 1962, 1124-1125, reviews all the literature on it, repeating her earlier comment that the drawing is probably a copy of the picture in the National Gallery, London.<\/p>\n Gould, 1962, 98, as attributed to Michelangelo.<\/p>\n St. John Gore, in Treasures of the Royal Academy<\/em>, London, 1963, 30-31, no. 70, as after Michelangelo, but its association with Rosso open to considerable doubt.<\/p>\n Carroll, 1964 (1976), I, Bk. I, 224-226, II, Bk. II, 343-355, D.36, Bk. III, Fig. 98, as Rosso, c. 1532-1533.<\/p>\n Grossman, in Between Renaissance and Baroque<\/em>, 1965, 102, no. 342, as after Michelangelo.<\/p>\n B\u00e9guin, 1966, 57, agreed with Wilde and Grossman.<\/p>\n Carroll, 1966, 176, n. 43, as probably made by Rosso around 1532-1533.<\/p>\n S.C. Hutchison, History of the Royal Academy<\/em>, London, 1968, 97, as artist unknown.<\/p>\n St. John Gore in Royal Academy of Arts Bicentenary, 1768-1968<\/em>, London, 1968, 253, no. 878.\u00a0 Art into Art<\/em>, 1971, 20, no. 79, as by an unknown artist, about 1530(?).<\/p>\n B\u00e9guin, in EdF<\/em>, 1972, 181, 182, Fig., 183, no. 205, as Rosso, done early in his French period.<\/p>\n Cox-Rearick, 1972, 39-40, no. 47, as Rosso?, and believes it comes from the French Royal Collection and is the work that Del Pozzo saw in 1625.<\/p>\n Miles, 1973, 32, as not certainly by Rosso.<\/p>\n Evelina Borea, in Primato del disegno<\/em>, 1980, 191-192, no. 454, as by Rosso, but cannot be determined if derived from Michelangelo\u2019s painting or from his cartoon for it.<\/p>\n L\u00e9v\u00eaque, 1984, 71, 163, Fig., as Rosso, indicating that he painted a copy of Michelangelo\u2019s picture.<\/p>\n Vasari-Darragon, 1984, 193, n. 52, the attribution to Rosso controversial.<\/p>\n McGovern, 1985, 187-188, Fig. 50, as Rosso, copied from Michelangelo\u2019s lost picture.<\/p>\n B\u00e9guin, in Delay, 1987, 76, that Rosso had made a copy of Michelangelo\u2019s Leda<\/em> seen by Pozzo, but not known if it was a cartoon or a painting.<\/p>\n Carroll, 1987, 10, 30, 31, 318-327, no. 102, with Figs.<\/p>\n B\u00e9guin, 1988 (1989), 7, its attribution to Rosso debated.<\/p>\n Boorsch, 1988, as Rosso.<\/p>\n Rosand, 1988, 31, as by Rosso.<\/p>\n Franklin, 1989, 325, as stylistically not by Rosso.<\/p>\n Costamagna, 1991, 53, 60, n. 13, as Rosso\u2019s cartoon mentioned by Vasari.<\/p>\n Miller, 1992, 112, commented on the difficulty of attributing cartoons, but that the Leda<\/em> bears a plausible similarity to Rosso\u2019s style.<\/p>\n Scalli\u00e9rez, 1992, 14, 19, Fig. 13, as by Rosso and done in 1531.<\/p>\n B\u00e9guin, 1992 (1987), 91, n. 10, as without doubt not by Rosso.<\/p>\n Costamagna, 1994, 98, n. 7.<\/p>\n The only primary evidence that makes it possible to entertain the possibility that the large drawing in the Royal Academy is Rosso\u2019s is Vasari\u2019s remark that a cartoon by Rosso representing Leda<\/em> was found among his possessions at the time of his death in November 1540.\u00a0 Vasari had this information second hand and he makes no mention that this cartoon was based on Michelangelo\u2019s image.\u00a0 But as the London drawing cannot, on stylistic grounds, be Michelangelo\u2019s, and as Rosso certainly knew Michelangelo\u2019s image in France, it is reasonable to look at the surviving drawing with Rosso\u2019s name in mind.\u00a0 Such an investigation is made plausible by the quality of the drawing, which is worthy of Rosso, and by the fact that the drawing is not a literal copy after Michelangelo\u2019s Leda<\/em>, but shows modifications of it that are compatible with Rosso\u2019s style.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Although it is on the basis of style that the drawing ultimately will be acceptable as Rosso\u2019s, there is a certain amount of documentary evidence that should be reviewed to indicate where and when Rosso was in a position to make such a drawing after Michelangelo\u2019s Leda<\/em>.\u00a0 But it should here be pointed out that the large drawing in London, which does not show the prolepsis – the birth of Castor and Pollux from Leda\u2019s egg – and other details that are found in Bos\u2019s engraving (Fig.Bos<\/a>) of Michelangelo\u2019s lost painting (see below), would seem to have been derived not from that painting but from the lost cartoon of Michelangelo\u2019s picture.\u00a0 All the known painted replicas of this image would also seem to be dependent upon that lost drawing.4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Michelangelo executed the Leda and the Swan<\/em>, the cartoon and the painting, in Florence between November 1529 and 22 October 1530, working on them during the Siege of that city, which lasted until August of 1530.5<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Rosso had fled from Arezzo to Borgo Sansepolcro in mid-September 1529 and there painted his Christ in Glory <\/em>(P.20<\/a>).\u00a0 In mid-April 1530, he went, via Pesaro, to Venice.\u00a0 From Venice he traveled to France and was in Paris by November 1530.\u00a0 He could not have seen Michelangelo\u2019s Leda<\/em> before leaving Italy because the Siege of Florence would have prevented him from visiting the city, and by August he was in Venice, very probably already negotiating his move to France.\u00a0 In 1531, Michelangelo gave the Leda<\/em> and the cartoon for it to his pupil Antonio Mini so that he might sell them in France.6<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Michelangelo also gave to him other cartoons, as well as drawings and \u201cmodegli,\u201d and these, or some of them, together with the Leda<\/em> painting, were packed in two cases and sent to France.\u00a0 We know that the Leda<\/em> cartoon also went to France because Vasari comments upon its return from there to Florence after Mini\u2019s death in that country.\u00a0 It is, however, not definitely known if it was in one of the two cases that were sent from Florence or whether Mini carried it himself on his trip north.\u00a0 Mini himself set out for France with Benedetto del Bene in November 1531 and arrived in Lyons on 20 December.7<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 For two months they awaited the arrival of Michelangelo\u2019s painting.\u00a0 However, before its arrival, and before 11 February 1532, Mini and del Bene had already begun a copy of the Leda<\/em>, which seems later to be the one referred to as by the latter alone.\u00a0 But as this copy was not made from Michelangelo\u2019s painting, it could have been and most likely was made from the cartoon, which would therefore have been in Lyons before the painting.\u00a0 By 27 February 1532, the painting had arrived and Mini, while awaiting the opportunity to sell it to King Francis I, gave it to the banker Leonardo Spina for safekeeping.\u00a0 Now everyone seems to have wanted a copy of the Leda<\/em>.\u00a0 On 9 March 1532, Mini wrote to Michelangelo that he had three Ledas<\/em> to paint from the cartoon: \u201cSapiate che di quello cartone n\u2019ar\u00f2 a fare 3 de le Lede…\u201d\u00a0 Before 8 May 1532, Mini made two trips to Paris in an attempt to see the king who was, however, away, and, Mini was told, would not return for a year.\u00a0 He deposited \u201c2 tavole\u201d with Giuliano Buonaccorsi, the king\u2019s treasurer of Province, in Paris.\u00a0 These two pictures would have been Michelangelo\u2019s painting and a copy made most likely from the cartoon, probably the copy by Benedetto del Bene.8<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Shortly thereafter, Mini took these two pictures back, and, following a trip to Nantes where, it appears, he went, unsuccessfully, to see the king, he traveled once more to Paris in August 1532 and again left two pictures, Michelangelo\u2019s and, as we know for sure, a copy by Benedetto del Bene, with Buonaccorsi.9<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 This copy may have been the same one deposited earlier.<\/p>\n It was after this time, but still within 1532, that Rosso\u2019s name first appears in connection with these paintings.\u00a0 Writing from Paris to Francesco Tedaldi in Lyons – Mini had borrowed half the value of Michelangelo\u2019s painting from Tedaldi to finance the further pursuit of the selling of the picture – Mini states that \u201cle Lede sieno inte [ite] cossi tra Rosso, M. Luigi [Alamanni] e sere Buonacorso\u201d and speaks of the very close friendship between Rosso and Buonaccorsi.\u00a0 Mini also says that Rosso had made a very large and very heavy frame (adornamento<\/em>), which in the content of the letter must mean a frame for one of the Ledas<\/em> (see L.38<\/a>).\u00a0 This would seem to have been a frame for Michelangelo\u2019s original painting.<\/p>\n Mini tried to get the two pictures back from Buonaccorsi and on 6 August 1533 started legal proceedings to accomplish this.\u00a0 But at the end of that year Mini died without having gotten the two paintings back.\u00a0 After Mini\u2019s death, Tedaldi and Mini\u2019s uncle tried to have Michelangelo\u2019s picture returned to them or to receive compensation for it, but to no avail.\u00a0 Then in September 1536, Rosso was paid to have a painting of Leda<\/em> shipped from the house of Buonaccorsi, in Paris presumably, to the king\u2019s ch\u00e2teau at Fontainebleau.10<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 This Leda<\/em> would seem to have been Michelangelo\u2019s.\u00a0 It was probably sent to Fontainebleau in the frame that Rosso had designed for it (L.38<\/a>), which would account for his having been occupied with the transportation of the painting.\u00a0 It is not known what happened to Benedetto del Bene\u2019s copy, although it is just possible that one of the surviving painted copies, made from the Michelangelo cartoon, is his (but see below).\u00a0 Michelangelo\u2019s original painting may have survived until the middle of the seventeenth century, although Cassiano del Pozzo does not record it at Fontainebleau in 1625.<\/p>\n The last mention of Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon in France is that in Mini\u2019s letter of 9 March 1532 where he writes of having three Ledas<\/em> to paint from it.\u00a0 It is likely that he still had it at the time of his death.\u00a0 Subsequently it returned to Florence where, according to Vasari in 1568, it was owned by Bernardo Vecchietti.\u00a0 The earliest known moment that it was in Florence is between October 1540 and mid-July 1541 when Vasari made a painting from it.11<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 It could, however, have been there earlier.<\/p>\n As stated above, the large drawing in the Royal Academy is most probably derived from Michelangelo\u2019s lost cartoon and not from Michelangelo\u2019s lost painting.\u00a0 This painting is known from Cornelius Bos\u2019s reversed engraving (Fig.Bos<\/a>), which shows several details – the prolepsis, Leda\u2019s discarded dress, and the arrangement of her hair – that are not found in the London drawing.\u00a0 These differences relate the drawing to the two sixteenth century painted replicas in London and in Venice of Michelangelo\u2019s image, both of which seem ultimately also to be dependent upon Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon and not upon the lost painting.12<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 What cannot be known is whether or not the Royal Academy drawing is directly derived from that lost cartoon.\u00a0 The large drawing in London could have been made from a painting that was executed from the lost cartoon, although the drawing was almost certainly not done from either of the two surviving sixteenth century painted versions in London and Venice.\u00a0 However, it might have been made from Benedetto del Bene\u2019s copy if his is not one of the two sixteenth century Leda<\/em> paintings mentioned above.13<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Del Bene\u2019s copy was left by Mini in Paris, first probably early in 1532, and then again in August of the same year.\u00a0 From that moment on, Rosso could have known it until his death, as this copy was never returned to Mini or to Tedaldi or to Mini\u2019s heirs after the latter\u2019s death.\u00a0 Rosso probably could not have known Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon until after Mini\u2019s death late in 1533.\u00a0 But it is not at all certain that Rosso actually knew the cartoon at all.\u00a0 There is no evidence that the cartoon was ever in Paris or at Fontainebleau and it could have left France not very long after Mini died.\u00a0 It may, however, have still been in France at the time of Rosso\u2019s death in November of 1540.<\/p>\n If Rosso did not know Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon, then the large drawing in the Royal Academy would, as Rosso\u2019s, have been done after a copy of the lost cartoon.\u00a0 As Rosso most probably knew Del Bene\u2019s painting done from Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon, then it is quite likely that Rosso, knowing the cartoon only second hand, knew it from that painted copy.\u00a0 Although Rosso would also have known Michelangelo\u2019s painting, he may not have had access to it long enough to make the large and carefully executed London drawing, while Del Bene\u2019s copy, not being so valuable and not having the kind of claims made on it as were being made on Michelangelo\u2019s original work, could have been kept by Rosso in his studio.\u00a0 In 1536 the original painting was still held by Buonaccorsi in Paris until the time that Rosso was paid to have it shipped to Fontainebleau in September of that year.<\/p>\n As Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon is lost, as well as, it would seem, Benedetto del Bene\u2019s painted version of it, the Royal Academy drawing has to be judged and evaluated by comparisons with Cornelius Bos\u2019s reversed engraving of Michelangelo\u2019s lost picture and with the painting in the National Gallery in London that appears to be the most faithful copy of Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon.\u00a0 These comparisons are fully made in Chapter IX and indicate the drawing\u2019s particular stylistic character that identifies it closely with that of Rosso\u2019s Piet\u00e0<\/em> of around 1538 in the Louvre (Fig.P.23a<\/a>).\u00a0 What may be repeated here is how much the head of the Leda, with its squarish forms, so unlike what appears in the National Gallery painting and in Bos\u2019s engraving, resembles the Magdalen\u2019s in the Louvre painting, and how much Leda\u2019s right foot looks like Christ\u2019s in the same picture.\u00a0 Also, the subtle elongation of the figure, which differentiates it from the figure of Leda in Bos\u2019s engraving and in the London painting, relates it to the whole figure of Christ and to the entire design of the Louvre Piet\u00e0<\/em>.\u00a0 What needs to be more fully considered here is the draughtsmanship of the drawing.<\/p>\n Although the handling of the large drawing has a degree of breadth that would seem required by the size of the drawing, the draughtsmanship of it is not so special as to suggest that it would be totally unlike that of the smaller drawings done by the same artist.\u00a0 The Royal Academy work can be quite easily compared with several chalk drawings by Rosso that are executed in a remarkably similar manner.<\/p>\n Rosso\u2019s black chalk Head of a Woman<\/em> of 1525-1527, in the Fogg Museum (Fig.D.20<\/a>), has parallel shading quite like that in the large London drawing.\u00a0 The comparison is especially close in the area around Leda\u2019s ear and on the face of the head in the Fogg drawing.\u00a0 The profile of this head, although not gone over to the extent that the contours in the Leda<\/em> have been, is, nevertheless, modulated with the same kind of sensitivity as are the contours in the large drawing.\u00a0 These same graphic characteristics are also found in Rosso\u2019s red chalk drawings, such as the Roman St. Roch Distributing His Inheritance to the Poor<\/em> (Fig.D.13<\/a>) and the very late Empedocles-St. Roch<\/em> (Fig.D.80a<\/a>).\u00a0 It is true that these drawings have a slightly less smooth texture than that of the larger Leda<\/em>, but it is quite easy to see that what appears in the latter is only a somewhat broader handling of the terms of these and many other smaller drawings by Rosso.\u00a0 But the continuous and fine texture of the shadows in the large drawing can also be found in some of the passages of Rosso\u2019s late red chalk Reclining Nude Woman<\/em> in the British Museum (Fig.D.79a<\/a>).\u00a0 Given all of these similarities between the draughtsmanship of the Leda<\/em> and that of several drawings by Rosso, it is only reasonable to recognize him as also the author of the London drawing.<\/p>\n Reflecting a kind of draughtsmanship used by Rosso over an extended period of time and, furthermore, having a breadth that is not precisely like that of his smaller drawings, the execution of the large drawing cannot be used to determine when it was done.\u00a0 Other factors must be considered to date it.\u00a0 As stated above, Rosso could not have known Michelangelo\u2019s Leda<\/em> to make a copy of it before he went to France in the autumn of 1530.\u00a0 In February 1532, Michelangelo\u2019s painting and the cartoon of it were with Mini, in Lyons.\u00a0 Some time before early May 1532, and again in August of that year, Mini took the original painting and a copy of it to Paris, where he deposited them with Giuliano Buonaccorsi.\u00a0 It is most likely that only after this latter date could Rosso have made his large drawing, most probably from the painted copy of it by Benedetto del Bene.\u00a0 At this time, Rosso was working on the first compositions for the Gallery of Francis I, but none of the figures of these early designs are closely related to the Leda<\/em>.\u00a0 Even if the Nymph of Fontainebleau<\/em>, engraved by Milan and Boyvin (Fig.E.103<\/a>), reflects a knowledge of Michelangelo\u2019s figure, it does not, either in its pose or in its elongated proportions, indicate a serious study of Michelangelo\u2019s Leda<\/em>.\u00a0 It is only in the second phase of Ross\u2019s activity in the gallery that Michelangelo\u2019s influence is first strongly felt, in such works as the Enlightenment of Francis I <\/em>(Fig.P.22, VII S a<\/a>) and the Revenge of Nauplius <\/em>(Fig.P.22, III N a<\/a>).\u00a0 But none of the figures that seem to have been done in this period suggest the Leda<\/em>.\u00a0 Where the specific and broadly effective study of this figure does appear is in the reclining nude woman in the lower left corner of the Death of Adonis <\/em>wall (Fig.P.22, III S c<\/a>) and in the figure of Adonis himself in the central fresco (Fig.P.22, III S a<\/a>).\u00a0 The pose of the reclining woman has several aspects in common with that of the Leda<\/em> and the proportions of the figures are similar, although the reclining woman is slightly stockier.\u00a0 The headdresses of these figures are also very much alike.\u00a0 Adonis\u2019s turning body is, aside from the difference of sex, not strikingly like Leda\u2019s, but the positioning of his legs is similar to the placement of hers.\u00a0 It is very likely, then, that Rosso\u2019s Leda<\/em> was not done before the last phase of his activity in the gallery, when the Death of Adonis<\/em> wall was designed, that is, not before August 1536.\u00a0 Other figures decorating this wall, as well as the nudes, of about the same time, flanking the Education of Achilles<\/em> (Fig.P.22, II N a<\/a>), also indicate an intensive study of Michelangelo\u2019s art in this period.<\/p>\n But it may not be necessary to date Rosso\u2019s Leda<\/em> exactly at this time, although it was in this period that he first gave Michelangelo\u2019s Leda<\/em> serious attention.\u00a0 There is an elegance in Rosso\u2019s figure – in the alignment of her left breast, shoulder, and arm, and in the smoothly continuous and stretched arched forms and contours of her left leg – that mitigates the physical robustness of Michelangelo\u2019s image and suggests a somewhat later date for the Royal Academy drawing.\u00a0 Attenuated slightly beyond the proportions of Michelangelo\u2019s figure and given a grace and a surface smoothness that were, apparently, not found in the lost original cartoon and painting of Leda<\/em>, Rosso\u2019s Leda<\/em> is most closely related to his Piet\u00e0<\/em> in the Louvre, probably done in 1538.\u00a0 Rosso\u2019s large drawing would seem to have been done about the same time.\u00a0 However, it is possible that the Royal Academy drawing was executed first and that the making of it had its effect in shaping the subtly Michelangelesque character of the Louvre Piet\u00e0<\/em>.<\/p>\n It is reasonable to assume that this drawing was made to be executed as a painting, but there is no record that one was ever made.\u00a0 The Leda<\/em> by Rosso that Cassiano del Pozzo saw at Fontainebleau in 1625 could have been the Royal Academy drawing.\u00a0 As Rosso\u2019s \u201ccartoon\u201d was found at his death along with another \u201ccartoon\u201d that was, apparently, never executed as a painting, it is possible to assume that both were \u201ccartoons\u201d that his death in November 1540 prevented him from executing as painted works.\u00a0 This supposition gives some further indication that the Leda<\/em> drawing is a late work by Rosso.\u00a0 One is even inclined, therefore, to think that the Leda<\/em> was done after 1538, and, hence, the Louvre Piet\u00e0<\/em> as well.\u00a0 But stylistically both appear to precede those works the style of which seems to represent a moment later than that of the Royal Academy drawing and the painting in the Louvre.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>1<\/sup> A Bolognese foglio reale<\/em> measures about 44.5 x 61.5 (see Master Drawings<\/em>, 30, 1, 1992, 3), indicating the Leda<\/em> drawing is probably made-up of sixteen fogli<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/a>2<\/sup> From Cox-Rearick, 1972, 40, 55: Charles Le Brun, Inventaire des tableaux du Cabinet du Roy<\/em>, 18 October 1683, Paris, Archives nationales, 01<\/sup>19648<\/sup>, no. 369; Inventaire des tableaux et dessins du Roy \u00e9tant \u00e0 la garde du sieur Houasse \u00e0 Paris, 18 juin 1691<\/em>, Paris, Archives nationales, 01<\/sup>1964, no. 369.1; on the third inventory see Engerund, Fernand, Inventaire des Tableaux du Roy r\u00e9dig\u00e9 en 1709 et 1710 par Nicolas Bailly<\/em>, Paris, 1899, 623, as \u201chault de 5 pieds; large de 6 pieds 9 pouces.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/a>3<\/sup> Ammannati\u2019s statue, done, according to Ciardi Dupr\u00e9 (1961, 15-16), between 1535 and 1540, or in the following decade, according to Micheletti (Primato del Disegno<\/em>, 1980, 57-58, no. 22, Fig.), and which is in the same direction as Michelangelo\u2019s original image, shows Leda\u2019s hair and headdress more as they appear in Bos\u2019s (reversed) engraving than as they look in the London drawing.\u00a0 The statue presents the swan\u2019s front wing as extending to the tip of Leda\u2019s foot, as in the Royal Academy drawing, which goes back to Michelangelo\u2019s cartoon, and not longer, as in the engraving.\u00a0 Also, the statue shows generalized drapery, as in the London drawing, rather than a dress, as in the print derived from Michelangelo\u2019s lost painting.\u00a0 The appearance of all these details in the sculpture indicates that it was made from Michelangelo\u2019s original cartoon and not from the drawing in London where Leda\u2019s hair and headdress are different.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/a>4<\/sup> The absence of the prolepsis from all the painted copies is the most important factor in concluding that they are all ultimately dependent upon Michelangelo\u2019s lost cartoon rather than upon the lost painting.\u00a0 This detail could, of course, have simply been eliminated if the copies were made from the painting.\u00a0 But the paintings in London, Dresden, and Venice (see Tolnay, III, 1948, 192-193, and Figs. 282-284; on the London picture see also n. 11) are also lacking the elaborate description of Leda\u2019s dress that appears in Bos\u2019s engraving.\u00a0 This second omission strengthens the supposition that all the painted copies go back to the lost cartoon.\u00a0 A fourth painted copy in Berlin (formerly? K. Schloss) is unknown to me but it also lacks the prolepsis (Thode, II, 1908, 319-320, suggested that it is by Vasari; see also Tolnay, III, 1948, 192, 193).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/a>5<\/sup> See Tolnay, III, 1948, 11, 190.\u00a0 Florence surrendered on 12 August 1530.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/a>6<\/sup> On the history of Michelangelo\u2019s Leda<\/em>, the painting and the cartoon, see Vasari, 1558, II, 743 (Vasari-Milanesi, VII, 202-203); Thode, II, 1908, 311-324; Dorez, 1916, 448-470; Dorez, 1917, 193-196, 199-203; and Tolnay, III, 1948, 190-193; and especially Vasari-Barocchi, Michelangelo<\/em>, III, 1962, 1101-1126.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/a>7<\/sup> On Lyons and its four annual international fairs, see Lucien Romier, \u201cLyons and Cosmopolitanism at the Beginning of the French Renaissance,\u201d in French Humanism 1470-1600<\/em>, ed. Werner L. Gunderheimer, London, 1969, 91-94.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/a>8<\/sup>\u00a0 Tolnay, III, 1948, 191, states that the two pictures that Mini took to Paris were Michelangelo\u2019s original painting and the original cartoon.\u00a0 But Mini\u2019s letter of 8 May 1532 (Vasari-Barocchi, Michelangelo<\/em>, III, 1962, 1113) specifically mentions that it was \u201c2 tavole\u201d that Mini took to Paris, indicating that both works were paintings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/a>9<\/sup> See the memorandum of Francesco Tedaldi of 1 July 1540 (Vasari-Barocchi, Michelangelo<\/em>, III, 1962, 1114).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/a>10<\/sup> The document is transcribed in P.22 under September 1536; see also Laborde, I, 1877, 104; Roy, 1923, 70; and Venturi, IX, 5, 198.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/a>11<\/sup> See Kallab, 1908, 68-69, no. 90, and Thode, 1908, 315.\u00a0 See n. 3 above on a copy of the Leda<\/em> in Berlin that could be by Vasari.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/a>12<\/sup> On these two paintings and the third sixteenth century painted copy in Berlin, see n. 3.\u00a0 On the London painting, see also n. 13.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/a>13<\/sup> Mini speaks of the two pictures he took to Paris before 8 May 1532 (see n. 6) as \u201ctavole,\u201d apparently indicating that the copy, which may have been by Benedetto del Bene, as well as Michelangelo\u2019s original painting, were panel paintings.\u00a0 But Tedaldi in 1540 (see n. 7) mentions Benedetto del Bene\u2019s picture that was left in Paris in August 1532 merely as \u201cun\u2019altra\u201d Leda<\/em>.\u00a0 Hence, it cannot be known for sure whether Benedetto del Bene\u2019s copy was on panel or on canvas, although if his was the one also left in Paris before early May 1532 then it is likely that it was a panel painting.\u00a0 The copy in the National Gallery in London (Fig.National Gallery Leda<\/em><\/a>), on which see below, is on canvas and therefore on purely technical grounds could possibly be eliminated as Benedetto\u2019s picture.\u00a0 The painting in the Museo Correr in Venice is on panel, but it seems to be a later picture.\u00a0 The support of the picture in Berlin, which Thode thought might be by Vasari (see n. 3), is not known to me.\u00a0 Although no certain conclusion can be reached on the authorship of these paintings, it is likely that none is by Benedetto del Bene.\u00a0 Adh\u00e9mar, Dessins<\/em>, 1954, 105, believes the London painting to be by Rosso and thinks that Vasari may have been mistaken in his reference to a Leda\u00a0<\/em>cartoon by Rosso found at the time of his death.<\/p>\n The London painting, National Gallery, no. 1868, (canvas, 105 x 135, cut on all sides and remounted, very poor condition), has been attributed to Rosso; in addition to what appears under LITERATURE above, see: Fr\u00e9deric Reiset, \u201cUne visite aux mus\u00e9es de Londres,\u201d GdBA<\/em>, 1877, I, 246, as Michelangelo and from Fontainebleau; Dimier, 1904, 148, repeated Reiset; Kusenberg, 1935, as Rosso, 1530-1531; Delacre, 1938, 444, as Rosso; Dimier, 1942, 24, as by Rosso and from Fontainebleau.\u00a0 Becherucci, 1944, 31-32 (1949, 31), as possibly Rosso, in 1536.\u00a0 Adh\u00e9mar, Dessins<\/em>, 1954, 105, as Rosso; Gould, 1962, 97-99, as possibly from Fontainebleau and by Rosso; Erwin Panofsky, Problems in Titian, Mostly Iconographic<\/em>, New York, 1969, 146, and Fig. 153, as Rosso.\u00a0 Art into Art<\/em>, 1971, 20, no. 81, as by an unknown artist of the second quarter of the sixteenth century.\u00a0 Paul F. Watson, \u201cTitian and Michelangelo. The Dana\u00eb of 1545-1546,\u201d in Collaboration in Italian Renaissance Art<\/em>, ed. by W. Stedman Sheard and J. T. Paoletti, New Haven-London, 1978, 246, 258, and Fig. 14.3, as Rosso; Evelina Borea, in Primato del disegno<\/em>, 1980, 192, under no. 454, as generally considered an anonymous copy of Michelangelo\u2019s painting or cartoon.\u00a0 Bober and Rubenstein, 1986, 54, under no. 5, Fig. 5c, as Rosso?\u00a0 M. Boeckle, in Zauber der Medusa<\/em>, 1987, 87, under no. III, 19, as from the circle of Rosso.<\/p>\n Although Roy in 1923 tried to prove that this picture is by Rosso, neither its provenance nor any other documentary evidence supports this attribution.\u00a0 The extremely poor condition of the work makes it unlikely that an attribution of it to a specific artist can be made.\u00a0 But it has no stylistic features that can be identified as Rosso.\u00a0 It is certainly not based on the Royal Academy drawing, where the proportions of the figure, the description of details, and the alignment of forms are different.<\/p>\n
\nFig.D.74b<\/a> bw, head
\nFig.D.74c <\/a>bw, swan
\nFig.D.74d<\/a> bw, legs
\nFig.D.74e<\/a> bw, foot<\/p>\n
\n