New evidence has reignited questions regarding the authenticity of Peter Paul Rubens’ painting, Samson and Delilah, currently held at the National Gallery.
Forty-five years after its acquisition for a then-record price, experts are now labeling it a 20th-century replica of a long-lost work by the Flemish master from the 17th century.
Art historian Euphrosyne Doxiadis will showcase a comprehensive stylistic analysis contrasting this painting with unquestionably authentic Rubens pieces in a forthcoming book and lecture at King’s College London this March.
Doxiadis will delve into her findings in her upcoming book, NG6461: The Fake National Gallery Rubens, which is set to release on March 12, just a day before her talk.
She will contend that “the characteristic flowing and twisting brushstrokes associated with Rubens are entirely absent” from Samson and Delilah.
The artwork illustrates the Biblical tale of Samson, an Israelite hero betrayed by the alluring Delilah. Rubens is known to have created a similar subject between 1608 and 1609 for his Antwerp patron, Nicolaas Rockox.
Doxiadis has drawn comparisons between various elements in Samson and Delilah, such as the depiction of Venus and Cupid, and the back of a putto in Rubens’ Minerva protects Pax from Mars. She states, “It exhibits poor craftsmanship. During the 17th century, such work would have been deemed a significant failure.”
She added that Rubens would never have depicted Samson missing toes and noted that this detail deviates from known contemporary reproductions of his “lost” original. The toes are referenced in an engraving by Jacob Matham and a work by Frans Francken the Younger.
Furthermore, Doxiadis possesses a witness account from the late Jan Bosselaers, a banker and art enthusiast, which contradicts the National Gallery’s claim that the painting’s backing was adhered to a blockboard sheet “likely during the [20th] century.”
Bosselaers provided a historical photograph of the painting outside its frame prior to its sale in 1980, indicating that the gluing to the blockboard occurred afterward.
Michael Daley, director of ArtWatch UK, who has extensively investigated the piece, including additional evidence casting doubt on the Rubens attribution, referred to the Bosselaers revelation as “explosive.”
“Understanding that the painting remained a panel when it arrived in London in 1980 raises important questions about who altered it and why,” Daley stated.
He has secured documentation indicating that the painting was purchased in 1929 by a German dealer from conservator Gaston Lévy, a Brazilian connected to the Madrid circle of Spanish artist Joaquín Sorolla y Bastida.
“I went directly to the Sorolla Museum. As soon as I saw the first artwork, I instantly recognized the style of NG6461 [the painting’s inventory number],” Doxiadis recounted. “Sorolla and his students typically practiced their classical technique by copying old masters.”
She theorizes that Lévy and his peers attempted to recreate the lost masterpiece based on existing copies, pointing out that Lévy even visited the Munich museum housing the Francken painting, residing just down the street.
“I suspect that NG6461 is likely a legitimate replica executed by Lévy and his fellow artists, mentored by Sorolla, in early 20th-century Madrid. The missing toes may be explained: as an unwritten rule, students making copies are expected to leave something out to avoid misconstruing their work as authentic.”
In 2021, AI analysis conducted by Art Recognition, a Swiss company, found a 91% likelihood that the artwork is not genuine.
Doxiadis claims that shortly before his passing in 1997, Sir Isaiah Berlin, a philosopher and former National Gallery trustee, privately expressed to her that he believed her doubts to be valid, noting, “The truth will ultimately emerge; it always does.”
Both the National Gallery and Christie’s have opted not to comment on the matter.
