Rocznik Historii Sztuki (41.2016)

40

KATARZYNA KRZYŻAGORSKA-P!SAREK

Rubens co/o/ogTvo 7Y?M07777(? incłudes ai! the works that Burchard regarded as authentic - they were
iliustrated and given a cataiogue number. This fundamentai rute of the CRLB was acknowledged among
others by E. McGrath: 'the basic principle of the Corpus that att the items which were accepted as works
of Rubens by Burchard are accorded a catalogue number'^. So the many paintings tisted as copies ('after
Rubens') or with a question mark before the artist's name (?Rubens), which were given a cataiogue number,
must have been considered authentic by Burchard, but the authors compiling the voiumes disagreed with
his opinion. Some iow quahty paintings with Burchard's certificates of authenticity, which can be found in
the photographic documentation of the Witt Library in London, were altogether omitted in the catalogue.
To compiete the task of writing Rubens c<2t<3/og7ve гомо7777е a iarge number of internationai schoiars
working on specific subjects were brought in over the years. As a resuit, the volumes vary not only in
size but ałso in styłe and approach. In generai however, they fohow the iconographic and patronage-based
groupings in the łargeły humanist tradition, rather than chronołogicał progression as was the case with
the first three volumes of the RRP. Some subjects are treated as monographs with a catalogue section;
others are in the form of a coYTv/ogT/e 7Y77So7777d with essays. There are many detaiłed and erudite essays
in the form of introductory chapters in this series, written by various authors deałing with compłex
historicał and iconographicał aspects of Rubens's oeuvre. The co/o/og/ze 7оАо7777е section usuałły contains
a detaiłed description of the given work, a date, technique, support and dimensions, a detaiłed provenance,
a łist of repłicas and copies, a hst of engravings, exhibitions and hterature. Historica! and iconographic
topics are ałso discussed within the catałogue section, sometimes in great depth. The reievant preparatory
drawings, oił sketches, engravings and tapestries are ałso incłuded in the catałogue, which is one of the
most commendabłe features of the CRLB. The RRP onły hsts paintings in their c<3t<3/og7/<? 7Y7Ao7777<?. On
the other hand, most of the błack and white photographs are disappointing, especiahy when compared to
the RJRP's high quahty cołour images. More importantły, the physical condition of works and the painting
technique are rarely if at alł mentioned or addressed. Regrettabły, no technicał examination of Rubens's
works was carried out as part of the CRLB project. These important shortcomings have not been rectified
in the łatest volumes, in hne with the more advanced authenticating methods of the RRP.
CruciaHy from our point of view, attributions to Rubens are often łett unquestioned, or if challenged
by the author of the given vołume, not discussed or supported by arguments. Ołd opinions of such schołars
as Ołdenbourg or Hełd are sometimes mentioned, but not addressed. If the author of the voiume expresses
his or her personał opinion on attribution. especiahy if they disagree with Burchard, it is usuahy without
providing any specific arguments other than a simpłe judgment of quality ('too weak to be by Rubens' et<r.)
The diverging opinions are mainły expressed in the form of a personał view, rather than a finał verdict.
This coułd perhaps be explained by the fact that some works might not have been viewed in person, but
were judged on the basis of photographs; or it coułd stem from rełying on Burchard's opinions. The weaker
paintings carrying a question mark before the name of Rubens woułd be the equivałent of B paintings in
the ołd RRP's system, but in many cases because of their distinctły łow quaiity they should be cłassified
as C paintings. Overah, the subject of attributions and authenticity is onły treated as marginał in the
volumes of the CRLB. unhke in the vo)umes of the RRP where they rightły take centre stage.
Admittedły, the łarge and weh-documented participation of Rubens's studio makes the differentiation
between various hands working on the same painting particułarły difficułt. Especiałły as the contribution
of Rubens's assistants, with the exception of Van Dyck, remains on the whole visuahy anonymous. We
also know that Rubens retouched paintings executed by his puphs from his own designs (777or/(?//7), mostly
in łarge commissions such as monumentai narrative cycłes or cartoons for tapestries. Nevertheless, some
smaher workshop pieces, rephcas and copies must have been confused with the master's work as they
are of distinctły poor quality. I would agree with Liedtke, who wrote in a rather discreet note to his
article 7?LC07?^?/c/7?7g Т?е777/)7А77?<з?: 'One hesitates to think how many paintings would be dropped from
the Corpus Rubenianum if the same standards were apphed as they are by the Rembrandt team in entries
on previously unquestioned 'C' pictures'^.

^ E. McGrath and A. Balis, ^?</y'ec?^yiw" /7M?o?*y, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard. part ХШ, vot. I, p. 10.
73 W. Liedtke, dteconstructing Rembrandt and his circte: more on the workshop hypothesis,' in: Rew/uYwa'?, R«/7e?<y onr/ ?/<e
X?*? о/*7У?е('г 7?'<7?<?.' Recen? Re7*^pec?;'ve^, 1997, R.E. Fleischer and S. Clare Scott (eds.). Pennsylvania State University, note. 61,
p. 372.