• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

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, al- though 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 paint- ings 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 appar- ently 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.

Load more

  15

Copy Link