FAQs

Is the ‘Samson and Delilah’ in the National Gallery really by Rubens?

We believe it is not. Rubens did paint a ‘Samson and Delilah’ in 1609, commissioned by his patron Nicholas Rockox, but that painting was lost. The version the National Gallery bought in 1980 was only discovered in 1929. It differs markedly from two contemporary copies of Rubens’ original, and looks very different from his other work. In 2021 an AI analysis of its brushwork suggested a 91% probability that it is not by Rubens’ hand.

The National Gallery maintains the attribution. In 1997 it promised a public debate on the evidence, which has never taken place. Read the case against the attribution.

WHO IS BEHIND IN RUBENS’ NAME?

In Rubens’ Name has been created by a group of people who believe that the ‘Samson and Delilah’ in the National Gallery is not by Rubens.

Much of the research presented here is based upon the work of the painter Euphrosyne Doxiadis, who with her colleagues sent a first report questioning the painting to the National Gallery back in 1992, and has continued to research it since. Many other academics, artists and journalists have entered into the case, several of whom are referenced here. Notable among them are Mike Daley of Artwatch who has long campaigned on this issue, and Rubens expert Dr. Katarzyna Krzyżagórska-Pisarek (referenced on this site as Dr. Kasia Pisarek) whose Ph.D. thesis ‘Rubens and Connoisseurship: On the problems of attribution and rediscovery in British and American collections’ examines the Samson and Delilah in depth. Kasia is the scholar referenced by former Gallery Director Neil MacGregor in our video, whose research raised questions he could ‘not easily answer’.

We have no professional or commercial interests in this matter, and we have great respect for the National Gallery, recognising it to be one of the finest art institutions in the world.

It is our conviction, however, that by not acknowledging, over a period of three decades, that doubts about the ‘Samson and Delilah’ are serious, the Gallery is doing a disservice to itself, to the British public and art-lovers around the world and also to the reputation of Rubens.

WHAT DOES THE CAMPAIGN WANT THE NATIONAL GALLERY TO DO?

We want to bring the available information about the ‘Samson and Delilah’ into the public domain, and to invite an inclusive and transparent debate.

There is an opportunity for the National Gallery to admit an honest mistake and to create an instructive and informative display of the fascinating detective work which has been done around this painting.

At the very least we would like the label to reflect the doubts about the work based on the extensive research we and others have done. The painting will still be a striking work but we believe it should not stand as a Rubens.

Could Rubens have painted the ‘Samson and Delilah’ in a new, experimental style after his trip to Italy?

We reject this explanation for two main reasons:

a) The ‘Samson and Delilah’ was an extremely important painting for Rubens, commissioned by a wealthy and cultured patron Nicholas Rockox. It is inconceivable that an experimental or inferior painting would have been acceptable to either of them.

b) The painterly deficiencies which characterise the ‘Samson and Delilah’ relate particularly to the brushstrokes and the way the paint has been applied to the panel – even if Rubens had been experimenting with a new style, we believe he could not fundamentally alter the quality of his painterly ‘signature’ in this way. New AI analysis demonstrates a 91% lack of correlation with authenticated Rubens brushstrokes taking into account his entire oeuvre.

What did the AI analysis of the ‘Samson and Delilah’ find?

This AI computer analysis was undertaken by Swiss group Art Recognition, and is not related to this site. However, we are delighted that it appears to fully support all our doubts about the painting. As we understand it the computer analyses the quality of the brush marks throughout the entire surface of the painting and compares them with similar detailed studies of a large number of authentic Rubens paintings of different periods. If the data is a close match it would suggest a likely probability of this being a Rubens. On the other hand a correlation of less than 9%, as in this case, would suggest it is not by the hand of Rubens.

Computer analysis is helpful in that it is not biased by previously held opinions. Arguably a trained eye should be able to detect these factors and it has been frustrating that the connoisseurs have chosen not to engage with doubts expressed by outsiders.

Why does the National Gallery say the ‘Samson and Delilah’ is by Rubens?

We are not aware of any serious evidence linking this actual painting to the hand of Rubens.   However the ‘Samson and Delilah’ today in the National Gallery had in fact been certified as the long-lost original by the Rubens expert Ludwig Burchard in 1930 (a year after it was discovered) and over the next fifty years it remained privately owned and was therefore not available for detailed study. Although Burchard had no documentary evidence to back up his certification he has until recently been a highly respected figure in the art world and his opinion still carries great weight. However, Dr Kasia Krzyżagórska-Pisarek, an art historian, has identified more than 60 of Burchard’s Rubens attributions that have subsequently been demoted.

When the painting was lent by its owners to a 1977 exhibition in Antwerp, the rare opportunity to see the painting – which nobody at the time had doubted was Rubens’ 1609 masterpiece – understandably generated great excitement. When it then came up for sale three years later in 1980, some of the more obvious inconsistencies seem not to have registered against the background of the unquestioned status quo established since 1930.

It was only after the painting went on display in the National Gallery in London that a wider group of scholars and art-lovers had the opportunity to examine and investigate the work for themselves. Over the next years a great deal of new research brought to light information that was simply not known in 1980.

Why is the ‘Samson and Delilah’ a ‘highlight painting’ of the National Gallery?

There is no doubt that the painting is very striking in scale, composition and dramatic effect but we would argue that these qualities derive from a now lost original. Closer inspection brings numerous questions. We are tempted to assume that by highlighting the painting the National Gallery have tried to silence debate on the matter. Who dares to challenge the experts? As long as it is a ‘Highlight Painting’, we believe that there is a particularly pressing need for an inclusive and open debate on its attribution.