Italian art experts are still arguing about whether or not a 41 centimeter tall, wood sculpture of Jesus on the cross ia a Michelangelo. The problem is that the argument is not merely theoretical. The Italian Ministry of Culture last year shelled out €3.25 million (over $5 million) to buy the undocumented sculpture from a Turin antiques collector, much too much if the crucifix is, as some say, simply a 14th century artefact by an unknown artisan, and far too little if it were, indeed, a Michelangelo. The argument has been going on ever since the Ministry made the purchase and put it on show (the first viewing was for the Pope) but has heated up since Italy's Accounts Court (the Corte dei Conti), tantamount to our Government Accountability Office, raised the question of whether this was, or wasn't, a reasonable expenditure.

YES, IT IS: Those experts who insist the small sculpture is, indeed, a Michelangelo, cite the following reasons.

- the wood can be dated to the late 1400's and Michelangelo is known to have sculpted other objects in the same king of wood, from the linden tree.

-the figure is anatomically similar to other works that Michelangelo did after his research on cadavers

-the head is similar to another Michelangelo sculpture in the S. Spirito church in Florence

-the tendons in the feet, the muscles, in the shoulders and IN the buttocks are in the Michelangelo style, as are the knee joints.

NO, IT ISN'T: Those who don't agree base their evaluation on other factors.

-As his work progressed, Michelangelo increasingly preferred outsized DRAMATIC objects and not small, delicate ones such as this crucifix.

-The proportions are strange: the head is too small, the torso is too compact, the legs are too long.

-The crucifix is closer in style to the typical wood crucifixes produced almost in mass by Florentine woodworkers of the era.

Who is right? Me, I haven't a clue.