Chapter 1. in Search of Memling in Rogier's Workshop

Home , Annunciation (Memling), Beaune Altarpiece, Hans Memling, Hugo van der Goes, Rogier van der Weyden

CHAPTER 1. IN SEARCH OF MEMLING IN ROGIER’S WORKSHOP

Scholars have long assumed that Memling trained with Rogier van der Weyden in Brussels,1 although no documents place him in Rogier’s workshop. Yet several sixteenth-century sources link the two artists, and Memling’s works refl ect a knowledge of many of Rogier’s fi gure types, compositions, and iconographical motifs. Such resemblances do not prove that Memling was Rogier’s apprentice, however, for Rogier was quoted extensively well into the sixteenth century by a variety of artists who did not train with him. In fact, Memling’s paintings are far from cop- ies of their Rogierian prototypes, belying the traditional argument that he saw them in Rogier’s workshop. Although drawings of these paintings remained in Rogier’s workshop long after his death, the paintings themselves left Brussels well before the period of Memling’s presumed apprenticeship with Rogier from 1459 or 1460 until Rogier’s death in 1464.2 Writers have often suggested that Memling participated in some of Rogier’s paintings, although no evidence of his hand has been found in the technical examinations of paintings in the Rogier group.3 One might argue that his style would naturally be obscured in these works because assistants were trained to work in the style of the master.4 Yet other styles have been revealed in the underdrawing of a number of paintings of the Rogier group; this is especially true of the Beaune and Columba Altarpieces (pl. 3 and fi g. 9), the two works with which paintings by Memling are so often associated.5 Molly Faries and Maryan Ainsworth have demonstrated that some of Memling’s early works contain brush underdrawings in a style remarkably close to that of the underdrawings in paintings of the Rogier group, and they have argued that Memling must have learned this technique in Rogier’s workshop.6 Although these arguments are convincing, they do not establish when and in what capacity Memling entered Rogier’s workshop or how long he remained there. Ex- amination of the traditional arguments linking the two artists will demonstrate the problematic nature of their relationship.

I. Sixteenth-Century Sources Associating Memling with Rogier van der Weyden

A. Vasari and Guicciardini The belief that Memling was Rogier’s apprentice derives from Vasari’s references to him in the Lives of the Painters, although writers have long recognized that Vasari’s information about Flem- ish painting is often incorrect and misleading. This is especially true, for instance, of his inven- tive description of Jan van Eyck’s alleged discovery of oil painting that appears in both the 1550 and 1568 editions of the Lives.7 In chapter 21 of both editions, Vasari states correctly that Dirk Bouts, Petrus Christus, Hugo van der Goes, and Joos van Ghent were active at the same time as Memling; he then contradicts himself in a chapter on various Flemish artists added to the 1568 edition, in which he claims that these painters succeeded Memling.8 As Vasari’s comments about

2. Hans Memling, Last Judgment Triptych, right panel: demon, detail of pl. 2 and ﬁ g. 30 17 CHAPTER 1

Flemish painting are not always reliable, his statements concerning Memling’s relationship to Rogier van der Weyden must be examined carefully. The 1550 edition of the Lives contains two references to a painter named “Ausse,” whom scholars have long identifi ed as Memling; this spelling is said to have resulted from a misunder- standing of the German “Hans” in which the “n” was incorrectly transcribed as a “u”.9 Vasari’s fi rst mention of “Ausse” occurs in his chapter on oil painting, the invention of which he ascribes to “Giovanni da Bruggia.” After listing “Giovanni’s” works, Vasari writes: “Lo sequitò poi Rugieri da Bruggia suo discipolo, et Ausse creato di Rugieri, che fece a’ Portinari in Sancta Maria Nuova di Fiorenza un quadro picciolo, il qual è oggi apress’al duca Cosimo….”10 The second reference to “Ausse” in the 1550 edition appears in the chapter on Antonello da Messina, where Vasari states that “Giovanni da Bruggia” taught the secret of oil painting to Rogier of Bruges: “Ma poi che egli [Giovanni], già divenuto vec[c]hio, ne fece grazia a Ruggieri da Bruggia suo creato che la insegnò ad Ausse suo discepolo….”11 Waagen was one of the fi rst scholars to associate these references with Memling. In a letter dated January 8, 1825, he questions the facts known about the Flemish primitives: “Dans quelle relation, selon vous, a été Hans Hemling avec les van Eyck? Je serais porté à prendre pour lui ce Havesse, Hausse, Ausse, que Vasari dit avoir été disciple de Roger de Bruges….”12 Support for this identifi cation is found in the fi rst passage cited above, where Vasari mentions a “little painting” (“quadro picciolo”) in the collection of Duke Cosimo de’ Medici, which he claims was commissioned by Portinari for S. Maria Nuova in Florence. In the 1568 edition of the Lives, Vasari identifi es the subject of this painting as “the Passion of Christ” (“la Passione di Cristo”).13 Most scholars believe that he was referring to the Scenes of the Passion in Turin (cat. 68; pl. 12), in which Tommaso and Maria Portinari kneel in the lower left and right corners.14 If so, it follows that “Ausse” is indeed Memling. Nevertheless, a careful reading of Vasari’s text indicates that he does not identify “Ausse” as Rogier’s student. In the fi rst passage cited above, Vasari refers to Rogier as the “discipolo” of Jan and to “Ausse” as the “creato” of Rogier—words that can mean “follower” as well as “student.”15 In the chapter on Antonello da Messina, however, he reverses these words, designating Rogier as the “creato” of Jan and “Ausse” as the “discepolo” of Rogier. Vasari therefore seems to have used the words “creato” and “discipolo” (or “discepolo”) interchangeably in the 1550 edition. His use of these terms to describe the relationship of “Ruggieri” to “Giovanni da Bruggia” led to a long contro- versy over the question of whether Rogier van der Weyden trained with Jan van Eyck.16 Early scholars argued for the identifi cation of a separate artist, “Rogier of Bruges,” to whom they at- tempted to assign a number of paintings associated with Rogier van der Weyden.17 Writers now accept Vasari’s “Ruggieri da Bruggia” as Rogier van der Weyden, interpreting the statements that he was the “creato” and “discipolo” of Van Eyck to mean simply that he was Jan’s follower. In the case of Memling, on the other hand, these same words are always translated as “student,” thereby perpetuating the idea that he trained with Rogier. Guicciardini’s information concerning Flemish painting in his Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi of 1567 is somewhat more accurate than that in Vasari’s 1550 edition of the Lives. After his discussion of the Van Eycks, he writes, “A Giovanni, & a Huberto successe nella virtu & nella fama Rugieri vander Vveiden di Bruselles … A Ruggieri successe Hausse suo scolare, il quale fece vn’ bel’ quadro a Portinari, che hoggi ha il Duca di Fiorenza….”18 Here he indicates that Rogier, whose full name he gives, succeeded the Van Eycks. Referring to Memling as “Hausse,” he states both that Memling followed Rogier and that he was Rogier’s student. The word he uses, “scolare,” is admittedly more specifi c than “discepolo.” Yet there is reason to doubt Guicciardini’s account, for his information may have been based on hearsay. His brief description of Memling appears to be based on the similar passage in Vasari’s 1550 edition, quoted above, rather than on his own observation of Memling’s work.19 In the 1568 edition of the Lives, Vasari repeats his references to “Ausse” in the chapters on

18 IN SEARCH OF MEMLING IN ROGIER’S WORKSHOP oil painting and Antonello da Messina, in passages that are almost identical to the ones from the 1550 edition.20 In a new chapter entitled “Di diversi artefi ci fi amminghi,” however, he incor- porates much of Guicciardini’s information,21 correcting the names of the artists as well as their relationships to each other: Lasciando adunque da parte Martino d’Olanda, Giovanni Eick da Bruggia et Huberto suo fratello… dico che, dopo costoro seguitò Ruggieri Vander Vveiden di Bruselles … Di cos- tui fu discepolo Hausse, del quale abbiàn, come si disse, in Fiorenza in un quatretto pic- colo che è in man del Duca, la Passione di Cristo.22 Here he states that Rogier “followed” (“seguitò”) Van Eyck, implying nothing more than a tem- poral connection between the two artists: that is, that Rogier was active after Van Eyck. He then identifi es Memling as the “discepolo” of Rogier, adding an “H” to Memling’s name as in Guic- ciardini’s text; he thus brings his spelling closer to the original “Hans” and, as in his references to Jan and Rogier, corrects his earlier citation of the artist’s name. Once again, however, Vasari refers to Memling as Rogier’s “discepolo,” rather than “scolare.”23 As noted above, Vasari apparently used “discepolo” to mean “follower” in his description of Rogier’s relationship to Van Eyck in the 1550 edition, and there is no reason to translate it differently here. In other words, Vasari’s text identifi es Memling as a follower of Rogier but not necessarily his student. It is vital to keep in mind that Vasari was writing in Italy more than half a century after Memling’s death in Bruges. Separated from fi fteenth-century Flanders in both time and space, he was forced to depend on oral traditions for his information. This is apparently also true of Guicciardini, even though he lived in Antwerp. Assuming that both “Ausse” and “Hausse” do indeed refer to Memling, these misspellings exemplify how little Vasari and Guicciardini knew about him. Neither writer cites Memling’s full name or the place where he worked, for instance, although they provide this information for both Van Eyck and Rogier. Vasari’s and Guicciardini’s statements about Memling are therefore too ambiguous to be used as support for the theory that Memling trained in Rogier’s workshop.

B. Inventories of the Collection of Margaret of Austria Another sixteenth-century source often cited in support of Memling’s association with Rogier van der Weyden is an inventory of 1516 listing the art treasures of Margaret of Austria. This inventory mentions a triptych with a center panel by Rogier and wings depicting angels by “maistre Hans,”24 which are probably Memling’s Angel panels at the Louvre and the Wallace Collection in London (cat. 60; fi gs. 3A-B). The tall, narrow proportions of the London Angel Holding a Sword (fi g. 3B) and the hinge marks that appear on its left side support the theory that it was the right wing of a triptych. The Angel Holding an Olive Branch (fi g. 3A) is probably the top half of the left wing of the same triptych.25 As Friedländer has proposed, the center panel, which portrayed a Man of Sorrows in the arms of the Virgin, may be refl ected in a number of versions of this theme associated with Memling; among these are the panels in Melbourne (cat. B7; fi g. 264) and the Capilla Réal in Granada.26 Since the clouds at the bottom of the Granada version closely resemble those at the feet of the Angel in London, it may best refl ect the appearance of the center panel of the triptych.27 A second reference to the triptych in question occurs in another inventory of Margaret of Austria’s collection drawn up in 1524. This time, one of the angels is described as holding a sword, but no attributions are given.28 Although the names of the artists may have been omitted from this entry simply for the sake of brevity, it is also possible that the writer of the inventory was uncertain how to attribute the panels. In any case, the presence of this triptych in the collection of Margaret of Austria offers no more conclusive proof of a direct association between Memling and Rogier than do the remarks about Memling by Vasari and Guicciardini,29 because

19 CHAPTER 1

3A. Left wing: Angel Holding an Olive Branch, 15.7 x 10.1 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris, R.F. 1993-1 (cat. 60a)

3B. Right wing: Angel Holding a Sword, 40.7 x 16.4 cm, Wallace Collection, London, P528 (cat. 60b)

3. Hans Memling, Two wings of a triptych

20 IN SEARCH OF MEMLING IN ROGIER’S WORKSHOP the attributions in the inventory may be incorrect and there is no way to determine if the wings were executed at the same time as the center panel.30 McFarlane suggests that they were commissioned from Memling well after Rogier’s death, whereas De Vos raises the possibility that Memling executed the entire triptych.31 Moreover, as Memling’s Angel panels probably date to around 1479-80,32 they do not support the hypothesis that he was in Rogier’s workshop before his death in 1464.33

II. Paintings Related to Works by Rogier van der Weyden

Writers have often argued that the similarities between a number of Memling’s paintings and those of Rogier van der Weyden support the notion that he trained with Rogier. Such arguments usually concentrate on those works that seem to quote paintings by Rogier most clearly: the Last Judgment Triptych (cat. 29; pl. 2) and the two triptychs with Infancy scenes in Bruges and Madrid (cat. 11 and 42; fi gs. 10 and 145). Yet these works differ considerably from their Rogerian prototypes, and their refl ection of paintings by Rogier does not necessarily mean that Memling trained with Rogier. Furthermore, technical examination of some of the paintings long identifi ed as Memling’s “early works” because of their Rogierian qualities has revealed a style of underdrawing unrelated to that of Memling’s paintings. Considering all of these works is essential in the search for Memling in Rogier’s workshop.

A. The Gdańsk Last Judgment and the Beaune Altarpiece One of the paintings central to the question of Memling’s relationship to Rogier van der Weyden is the Last Judgment Triptych, which is often described as a reinterpretation of Rogier’s altarpiece of the same subject in the Hôtel-Dieu in Beaune.34 In both of these works, which are among the largest and most prestigious commissions in early Netherlandish painting,35 the exterior wings portray the donor and his wife kneeling in prayer before simulated statues of saints (fi gs. 4 and 95).36 Each interior depicts a majestic fi gure of the blessing Christ above the Archangel Michael, who holds the scales of judgment between the blessed and the damned (pls. 2-3). The interced- ing Virgin and St. John the Baptist fl ank the fi gure of Christ in both Last Judgments, which also include seated fi gures of the twelve apostles, four angels holding the instruments of the Passion, and trumpeting angels who announce the day of judgment to the dead rising from their tombs. These resemblances have led many scholars to argue that Memling modeled his triptych on Rogier’s altarpiece, but some have recognized that the differences between the two works are just as striking as their similarities.37 The deep space and tumultuous activity in the center panel of the Gdańsk triptych (pl. 9), for instance, contrast sharply with the limited space and hushed serenity of Rogier’s composition. Memling’s version depicts crowds of the resurrected dead in the earthly realm, which fi lls the entire lower half of the center panel, and it places more em- phasis on the scenes of paradise and hell in the wings. In contrast to the few timid souls who approach the gates of heaven at the far left of Rogier’s altarpiece, the left wing of the Gdańsk triptych portrays a long procession of the blessed being welcomed at the foot of the crystal steps to paradise by St. Peter himself and then ascending to an elaborate Gothic portal, where angels clothe them for their entry into the golden light of heaven (pl. 1). On the right wing of Memling’s triptych, more of the damned undergo the pains of hell than in the Beaune Altarpiece, and gri- macing demons (fi gs. 2 and 30) infl ict physical tortures that replace Rogier’s more subtle agonies of the mind.38 Nevertheless, certain aspects of Memling’s composition, especially the Christ fi gure, are strongly reminiscent of the Beaune Last Judgment (fi gs. 5-6). Yet this similarity does not prove that Memling saw the Beaune Altarpiece as most scholars assume.39 Since the precise under-

21 CHAPTER 1

4. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgment Altarpiece, exterior, Hôtel-Dieu, Beaune

drawing of Memling’s Christ fi gure (fi g. 7) differs from the spontaneous modifi cations that occur in much of the underdrawing in the rest of the painting, it may have been based on a pattern that Memling acquired from Rogier’s workshop or a drawing that he copied from a workshop pattern.40 That a pattern for Rogier’s Christ fi gure existed is suggested by two German drawings of the blessing Christ that are remarkably similar to the image at Beaune. One of these, at the Louvre (Inv.18785; fi g. 8), bears Schongauer’s monogram and a date of 1469. Although writers often argue that this drawing was copied directly from Rogier’s polyptych, its source may well have been a workshop pattern, perhaps even one in Memling’s possession.41 The other drawing, dated 1493 and preserved in Karlsruhe, could be based on a similar pattern.42 Since there were apparently a number of workshop drawings of Rogier’s works available to artists during this period, some of the other similarities of Memling’s Last Judgment to Rogier’s polyptych probably also derive from drawings rather than the fi nished painting.43 It is more likely that Memling knew such workshop drawings than the Beaune Altarpiece itself, which probably left Brussels long before his alleged period in Rogier’s workshop. Scholars agree that Rogier’s altarpiece was executed between 1443 and 1451, the years of the foundation and dedication of the Hôtel-Dieu in Beaune for which it was commissioned.44 If the polyptych was in its place on the altar of the ward chapel by the time of the hospital dedication on December

22 IN SEARCH OF MEMLING IN ROGIER’S WORKSHOP

5. Hans Memling, Last Judgment Triptych, center panel: 6. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgment Altarpiece, Christ, detail of pls. 2 and 9 center panel: Christ, detail of pl. 3

7. Hans Memling, Last Judgment Triptych, infrared 8. Martin Schongauer, Christ as Judge, pen and brown photograph of Christ in ﬁ g. 5 ink, 26 x 18.5 cm, Musée du Louvre, Département des Arts Graphiques, Paris, Inv. 18785

23 CHAPTER 1

31, 1451, as most writers assume,45 it left Brussels eight or nine years before Memling’s presumed entry into Rogier’s workshop in 1459 or 1460. If Memling was born around 1435, which is quite possible, he could have entered Rogier’s workshop as an apprentice by 1450 or early 1451, before the altarpiece was delivered to Beaune.46 In this case, he could have worked on it himself as some writers have claimed, although the most recent analysis of the underdrawing of Rogier’s polyptych has revealed no evidence of Memling’s participation.47 As he is not mentioned in Bruges until 1465, moreover, this would mean that he was in Rogier’s workshop for fourteen or fi fteen years. Such a long period is unlikely—but not impossible—if Memling was a journeyman in Rogier’s workshop, for some journeymen remained in a single workshop for many years.48 Another possibility is that Memling traveled to Beaune to see Rogier’s altarpiece, either during his Wanderjahre or at the patron’s request when his own Last Judgment was commissioned.49 Veronee-Verhaegen has argued, however, that this painting would have resembled Rogier’s more closely if Memling had actually seen it.50 Moreover, as I argue in chapter 7, section I, some of the resemblances between Memling’s triptych and the Beaune Altarpiece were probably specifi ed by the patron. Faries has argued that Memling’s underdrawing in the Last Judgment Triptych presupposes a familiarity with Rogier’s working methods, as well as with the overall composition of the Beaune Altarpiece itself.51 Nevertheless, the question of how Memling could have seen Rogier’s painting during its execution a decade before he is said to have entered Rogier’s workshop remains a mystery. On the other hand, Memling could easily have seen drawings of the Beaune Last Judg- ment, which probably remained in Rogier’s workshop after the polyptych was delivered to its fi nal destination. If Memling was Rogier’s apprentice, he would have known such drawings, but he could also have had access to them as a journeyman in Rogier’s workshop even after Rogier’s death. As a journeyman, he would also have been trained in Rogier’s working methods. A similar solution would explain the infl uence of the other painting that writers cite most frequently as evidence of Memling’s dependence on Rogier: the Columba Altarpiece.

B. Memling’s Adoration Triptychs and the Columba Altarpiece Rogier’s Columba Altarpiece (Munich, Alte Pinakothek; fi g. 9)52 bears a striking resemblance to Memling’s Triptych of Jan Floreins (cat. 11; fi g. 145) and Adoration of the Magi Triptych at the Prado (cat. 42; fi g. 10). As in Rogier’s altarpiece, the Adoration of the Magi and Presentation in the Temple fi ll the center and right panels of Memling’s triptychs, although the Nativity in the left panel of each of these works replaces the Annunciation depicted in the left wing of the Columba Altarpiece. At fi rst glance, Memling’s two versions of the Adoration of the Magi seem especially close to Rogier’s painting of this theme (fi gs. 11-13). In all three panels, a central fi gure group consisting of the Madonna, Christ-child, and kneeling king dominates the composition, and a stone stable with a thatched roof opens to reveal a cityscape in the background. These resemblances led Friedländer to conclude that Memling was in Rogier’s workshop during the years of the execution of the Columba Altarpiece, which he dated to around 1462.53 Panofsky placed Memling in Rogier’s workshop from 1459/60 to Rogier’s death in 1464,54 probably because he dated the Columba Altarpiece to 1458 or 1459.55 Some writers still support this view.56 As in the case of the Beaune Last Judgment, a few have even suggested that Memling worked on the Columba Altarpiece himself, although the most recent technical examination of the Columba Altarpiece has revealed no evidence of Memling’s participation.57 Once again, Memling’s paintings differ considerably from their presumed prototype. The clear separation between the fi gures, especially in the Prado Adoration (fi g. 12), creates greater spaciousness and a quieter mood than in the center panel of Rogier’s triptych. Both of Memling’s Adorations depict Joseph at the right behind the Virgin rather than in the left foreground, and both portray the kneeling king kissing the Christ-child’s foot instead of his hand. In the Floreins version (fi g. 13),

24 IN SEARCH OF MEMLING IN ROGIER’S WORKSHOP moreover, the infant Christ turns away from the kneeling king to look out at the viewer, while the Virgin supports his hand and wrist gently with her fi ngertips rather than placing her left hand across her breast. These differences suggest that Memling’s two Adoration triptychs do not derive directly from the Columba Altarpiece,58 which, as in the case of the Beaune Altarpiece, probably dates from before his presumed period in Rogier’s workshop in the early 1460s. In a reconsideration of Rogier’s chronology, Schulz argues that the Columba Altarpiece was painted in the fi rst half of the 1450s, almost a decade earlier than the date traditionally assigned to it.59 Technical studies of Rogier’s triptych support a date in this early period,60 and Klein’s dendrochronological examination of the triptych has led him to postulate a probable execution date of 1449 or 1450.61 As in the case of the Beaune Altarpiece, then, the Columba Altarpiece left Brussels well before 1459 or 1460, when Memling is said to have entered Rogier’s workshop. Once again, Memling could have seen it there only if he trained with Rogier much earlier than is generally believed. On the other hand, it is quite possible that Memling saw the Columba Altarpiece in the church for which it was commissioned in Cologne,62 where he may have begun his training.63 Judging from the infl uence of this triptych on a number of German paintings from 1462 onward, it was in Cologne by the early 1460s; Schulz argues that it was there even earlier on the basis of its ap- parent infl uence on Hans Multscher’s Sterzing Altarpiece (Vipiteno, Museo Civico), which was commissioned in 1456 and fi nished by 1458.64 The experience of seeing the Columba Altarpiece in Cologne may even have inspired Memling to go to Brussels in order to work with Rogier;65 he could have seen it there in the early 1460s, resolved to work with its creator, and arrived in Brussels after Rogier’s death on June 18, 1464.66 Even if Memling did not train in Cologne, he surely stopped there on his way from his native Seligenstadt to Flanders, and his knowledge of the Columba Altarpiece may well have resulted from his exposure to it there rather than in Rogier’s workshop. Whereas the Floreins and Prado triptychs refl ect a knowledge of the composition of the Columba Altarpiece, Dijkstra has demonstrated that some of their features resemble the underdrawing of Rogier’s altarpiece rather than the fi nished painting.67 These include the pointed wooden fence behind the Virgin in the Floreins Adoration (fi gs. 13 and 32) and the raised arm of the Christ-child in the center panel of the Prado triptych (fi g. 12). Such similarities do not prove, however, that Memling knew the underdrawing of the Columba Altarpiece. As in the case of the Gdańsk Last Judgment, the parallels between his Adorations and their Rogerian prototype may well derive from patterns remaining in Rogier’s workshop after the delivery of the altarpiece. That patterns of the Columba Altarpiece existed is suggested by preserved drawings that refl ect the fi gures in its Annunciation; these drawings differ in a number of details from both the underdrawing and the painted surface of Rogier’s panel, suggesting that they were copied from preparatory drawings rather than from the painting itself.68 During a period as a journeyman in Rogier’s workshop, Memling would naturally have come into contact with such drawings.

C. “Rogerian” Paintings Erroneously Attributed to the Youthful Memling

The “Infancy Panels” In support of Memling’s training in Rogier’s workshop, scholars have long sought examples of his early works among the numerous anonymous paintings that seem closest to Rogier’s style. Hull reviewed this problem, noting that writers have had difﬁ culty dividing the so-called “late” works of Rogier from the “early” ones of Memling.69 Among the paintings that were most frequently used to prove a link between the two artists are the so-called “Infancy Panels” attributed to Memling by Hulin de Loo.70 Hulin proposed that an Adoration of the Magi at the Prado (ﬁ g. 14), referred to here as the “small Prado Adoration” to distinguish it from Memling’s Prado

25 CHAPTER 1 9. Rogier van der Weyden, Columba Altarpiece, 138 x 153 cm (center panel), 70 (each wing), Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek, Munich, 9. Rogier van der Weyden, 1189-1191 WAF Inv. Nr.

26 IN SEARCH OF MEMLING IN ROGIER’S WORKSHOP 10. Hans Memling, Adoration of the Magi Triptych , 95 x 145 cm (center panel), 63 (wings), Museo del Prado, Madrid, cat. no. 1557 (cat. 42)

27 CHAPTER 1

11. Rogier van der Weyden, Columba Altarpiece, center panel: Adoration of the Magi, detail of ﬁ g. 9

13. Hans Memling, Triptych of Jan Floreins, center panel: Adoration of the Magi, detail of ﬁ g. 145

28 IN SEARCH OF MEMLING IN ROGIER’S WORKSHOP

12. Hans Memling, Adoration of the Magi Triptych, center panel: Adoration of the Magi, detail of ﬁ g. 10

14. Master of the Prado Adoration of the Magi, Adoration of the Magi, 59.5 x 54.6 cm, Museo del Prado, Madrid, cat. no. 1558

29 CHAPTER 1

15. Master of the Prado Adoration of the Magi, Presentation in the Temple, 57.9 x 47.8 cm, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., Samuel H. Kress Collection, 1961.9.28.(1389)/PA

16. Rogier van der Weyden, Columba Altarpiece, right panel: Presentation in the Temple, detail of fi g. 9 triptych of the same theme, was the center panel of a triptych by the youthful Memling; accord- ing to Hulin, the wings of this triptych consisted of an Annunciation, a fragment of which is in the Burrell Collection in Glasgow, and a Presentation in the Temple (Washington, National Gallery of Art; fi g. 15). Expanding the series to a polyptych, Friedländer later added a Nativity (Birmingham, City Museum and Art Gallery) and a Rest on the Flight into Egypt (Glasgow, Burrell Collection).71 The attribution of these fi ve panels to the youthful Memling was widely accepted because of their numerous similarities to Rogier’s paintings.72 Comparison of these works to their Rogerian prototypes and Memling’s Adoration triptychs reveals the fallacies of this theory. There is no question that the “Infancy Panels” contain numerous quotations from Rogier’s works. The Presentation in the Temple in Washington (fi g. 15), for instance, echoes the right wing of the Columba Altarpiece (fi g. 16) in its composition, architectural setting, and the elabo- rately garbed fi gure of Simeon.73 On the other hand, a number of motifs in the “Infancy Panels” that do not derive from an extant Rogerian prototype recur in Memling’s two Adoration triptychs. Examples of such motifs in the small Prado Adoration include the town with wide streets behind the stable and the motif of the kneeling king kissing the Christ-child’s foot instead of his hand (fi gs. 12-14 and 32).74 In the Washington Presentation (fi g. 15), the wicker bird cage carried by Joseph and the fringed altar-cloth with decorative stripes resemble the Presentations in both

30 IN SEARCH OF MEMLING IN ROGIER’S WORKSHOP

18. Hans Memling, Triptych of Jan Floreins, right panel: Presentation in the Temple, detail of ﬁ g. 145

17. Hans Memling, Adoration of the Magi Triptych, right panel: Presentation in the Temple, detail of fi g. 10 of Memling’s triptychs (fi gs. 17-18) rather than the right wing of the Columba Altarpiece (fi g. 16). Furthermore, certain aspects of the Columba Presentation, such as the elegantly dressed maiden carrying a basket of turtledoves in the left foreground, are absent from the Washington Presenta- tion as well as Memling’s versions of the theme.75 The parallels between the Floreins and Prado triptychs and the “Infancy Panels” do not prove that the latter are by Memling. Dijkstra has suggested that these similarities derive from a com- mon source in workshop drawings.76 The application of paint in the “Infancy Panels” is freer than in Memling’s accepted works, their sharp contour lines occur nowhere in his oeuvre, and laboratory examination of the small Prado Adoration and the Washington Presentation (fi gs. 14-15) has revealed that their black chalk underdrawing is more angular than any of the underdrawing associated with Memling.77 Scholars now agree that the “Infancy Panels” were painted by one of Memling’s contempo- raries, who probably also spent some time in Rogier’s workshop. Wolff named this artist the “Master of the Prado Adoration of the Magi” in reference to the center panel of the triptych proposed by Hulin de Loo,78 and Dijkstra has suggested that he was an intermediary between Rogier and Memling.79 Thus, Hulin’s original suggestion that the “Infancy Panels” are a link between the two artists may be correct,80 but his theory that they are by the youthful Memling is untenable.