The case against the ‘Samson and Delilah’

The National Gallery in London owns a large and dramatic ‘Samson and Delilah’, which it displays as a masterpiece by Peter Paul Rubens. For more than three decades, artists, art historians and journalists have raised serious questions about that attribution. This page sets out, briefly, why we believe the painting is not by Rubens, and where to read the evidence in full.

A lost original

Rubens did paint a ‘Samson and Delilah’, in 1609, commissioned by his wealthy and cultured patron Nicholas Rockox. That painting was lost. The picture now in the National Gallery was discovered in 1929 and certified as the long-lost original by the Rubens expert Ludwig Burchard in 1930, although he had no documentary evidence to back up his certification.

For the next fifty years it stayed in private hands, unavailable for detailed study. It was lent to an exhibition in Antwerp in 1977, and in 1980 the National Gallery bought it, with public money, for a record sum.

Why we doubt it

  • It differs dramatically from two contemporary copies of Rubens’ original.

  • It looks markedly different from any of Rubens’ other works.

  • 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.

  • Details a master would not get wrong. As the film-maker Terry Gilliam put it: “cutting off the toes of the hero’s foot is a clear sign this painting is not the work of a master...”

  • There are big gaps in its provenance, which even the Gallery’s own recent research acknowledges.

  • The attribution rests on Burchard’s authority, yet the art historian Dr Kasia Pisarek has identified more than 60 of his Rubens attributions that have since been demoted.

What the AI analysis found

In 2021 the Swiss company Art Recognition, which is not connected to this campaign, analysed the brushwork across the whole surface of the painting and compared it with authentic Rubens paintings of different periods. It found a 91% probability that the painting is not by Rubens’ hand. More on the AI analysis in our FAQs.

Three decades of unanswered questions

  • 1983 – The National Gallery publishes a technical study of the painting by Joyce Plesters.

  • 1992 – Artists Euphrosyne Doxiadis, Steve Harvey and Sian Hopkinson send the Gallery a report setting out stylistic, technical and provenance problems.

  • 1997 – Research by Dr Kasia Pisarek prompts the then Director, Neil MacGregor, to say it raises “some serious questions that I cannot easily answer”. The Gallery issues a press release defending the attribution and promising a public lecture and debate “over the next few months”. It never takes place.

  • 2000 and 2006 – Artwatch publishes special issues on Rubens and the ‘Samson and Delilah’, including Dr Pisarek’s ‘a question of attribution’.

  • 2021 – The AI analysis is reported by the Observer.

  • 2022 – An open briefing note is sent to the Director, Gabriele Finaldi, and every Trustee. There is no response or acknowledgement.

  • 2025 – The Gallery says new research ‘confirms’ the attribution, and a new book is published about the saga.

What the National Gallery says

Since the start of this controversy, the Gallery has always stood by the attribution – despite acknowledging questions that cannot easily be answered. In 2025 its Director, Gabriele Finaldi, said that new research ‘confirms’ the painting is by Rubens, yet this research ignores key issues raised in the 2022 briefing note. Both sides deserve to be heard, which is why we are asking for the public debate that the Gallery itself promised in 1997.

Read the full reports, articles and documents on our Resources page.

Whatever you think of the painting, please help ensure that both sides of this argument are heard in a public debate: sign the open letter and watch the 3-minute video.