‘everyone’ wanted to see the drawings he had received from the artist. 18 These eminent men were also Cavalieri’s cousins, and they may have exploited the familial connection to persuade Cavalieri not only to let them see the drawings, but to lend them so they might be copied. As Cavalieri related, Ippolito de’ Medici was so taken with the drawings that ‘he wanted to have the Tityus and Ganymede made in crystal [. . .] and now maestro Giovanni is doing it’. 19 ‘Maestro Giovanni’ was the gem engraver Giovanni Bernardi, who produced a group of rock crystal intaglios after the drawings for Ippolito de’ Medici. 20 After Ippolito’s death in 1535, the crystals were dispersed, and have generally been assumed to have been acquired by Pier Luigi Farnese. 21 But at least one of them, the Fall of Phaeton (Fig.10), was in Tommaso de’ Cavalieri’s possession in 1580, as Lothar Sickel has recently discovered. 22 It may well have passed to Cavalieri because of his familial link to Ippolito, his third cousin. The implications of Cavalieri’s family ties are subtle but significant. They shed light on how Michelangelo and Cavalieri may have been introduced, on the larger social network in which they were embedded and on the early circulation of Michelangelo’s presentation drawings. Finally, Cavalieri’s pedi- gree meant that Michelangelo could plausibly present the young man as a distant relation, allowing Michelangelo simultaneously to link himself to one of the most powerful families in Rome, and to deflect accusations of impropriety about his relationship with the much younger man and with the community of Florentine fuorusciti, at once protecting his reputation and embellishing his own family tree. The Holy Family’s early provenance remains speculative. The largely uninspiring print of the Virgin and Child with an apple after Carracci’s painting (Fig.12) by the little-known Bomarzo print- maker Ferrante Rosati is the first work that takes figures directly from the Melbourne Holy Family. Its caption suggests that the painting, erroneously attributed to Agostino Carracci, was in the collection of Ippolito Lante Montefeltro della Rovere: ‘Illmo e Exmo D.D. Hppolito Lantes de Ruvere duci Polimartii Ferrantes Rosattus 18 Barocchi and Ristori, op. cit. (note 15), IV, p.49. 19 Ibid. 20 See V. Sloman: ‘Rock Crystals by Giovanni Bernardi’, THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE 48 (1926), pp.9–23; and L. Syson and D. Thornton: Objects of Virtue: Art in Renaissance Italy, London 2001, pp.175–81. 21 Ibid., p.179. 22 See L. Sickel: ‘Die Sammlung des Tommaso de’ Cavalieri und die Provenienz der Zeichnungen Michelangelos’, Römisches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana 37 (2006), pp.163–221. 532 august 2015 • clvi1 • the burlington magazine MICHELANGELO’S MEDICI COUSIN 10. Fall of Phaeton, by Giovanni Bernardi da Castel Bolognese. 1533–35. Panel: rock crystal; frame: silver, silver-gilt and enamel, 7.3 by 6.2 cm. (Walters Art Museum, Baltimore). ANNIBALE CARRACCI’S Holy Family in the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne (Fig.11), dates from early in the artist’s career. Datable to c.1589, it was painted on the artist’s return to Bologna after a period in Venice. 1 The artist adopted a profoundly Venetian style which was assimilated with his Bolognese training; as Bene- dict Nicholson observed, ‘it is the kind of Annibale on which Guercino was brought up’. 2 We can now add two important unpublished documents concerning the work’s provenance. New documents concerning Annibale Carracci’s ‘Holy Family’ in Melbourne by CALLUM REID I am grateful to Christopher Marshall and Jaynie Anderson at the University of Mel- bourne for their help with this article. I also wish to thank Miriam Stewart at the Fogg Museum, Cambridge MA, for her help with the study of Reynolds’s sketchbook. 1 The date of c.1589 was first proposed in S. Pepper: ‘I limiti del positivismo: “L’Annibale Carracci” di Donald Posner’, Arte Illustrata 49 (1972), p.267; see also U. Hoff: European paintings before 1800 in the National Gallery of Victoria, 4th ed., Melbourne 1995, pp.50–51. 2 B. Nicolson: ‘The Hazlitt Gallery’ (in ‘Forthcoming Exhibitions’), THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE 113 (1971), p.148. 3 I propose a date between 1645 and 1649, after Ippolito Lante Montefeltro della Rovere was granted the title of Duke of Bomarzo and before the more accomplished