Documentary Evidence

When it was acquired by the Städel Museum in 1850, the drawing was described as a Michelangelo, which might seem like persuasive evidence, except that many such 19th-century attributions have fallen under scrutiny from modern researchers. Two major 20th-century scholars, Bernard Berenson and Luitpold Dussler, both rejected the claim.

The recent consensus among Dr. Bambach’s colleagues was that the reclining nude was either by an unknown artist or a Clovio copy after a lost Michelangelo original.

But she argued that the general skepticism directed at 19th-century attributions does a disservice to Johann David Passavant, who bought the drawing as a Michelangelo and was “the greatest connoisseur of his generation.”

There is also a detailed inventory of Clovio’s possessions made in 1577, the year before his death. It included many of his own works, of course, but also two Michelangelo drawings, which, Dr. Bambach suggested, could include the reclining nude. (She was quick to note that without further evidence, this particular detail was a hypothesis, not a conclusion.)

Michelangelo’s Lines

All these signs would be merely suggestive, though, without the key evidence of Michelangelo’s style, Dr. Bambach said. In particular, she focused on the deeply incised contours of his work.

Michelangelo’s drawings on paper are marked by a forceful use of chalk. It’s very difficult to see in a reproduction, or even in person, without the use of a magnifying glass. But looking closely, you can discern what seem like two lines outlining the body of the reclining nude. But that is the result of the artist pressing with such force that the chalk gouges a slight channel in the surface of the paper, leaving behind a barely visible striation that distinguishes Michelangelo from the other possibilities, Dr. Bambach said.