The National Gallery is currently embroiled in debate over the authenticity of Peter Paul Rubens’ celebrated painting “Samson and Delilah,” created between 1609 and 1610. This well-known piece dramatically illustrates the mythical tale of Delilah from the Old Testament. She then shaves his head, the source of Samson’s mythical strength. Understanding the painting as more of a trophy than an artwork helps to explain why so many questions still linger about its origins and true artistic value.
Samson and Delilah depicts a climactic scene replete with eroticism and danger. The sonata melodically sketches a heavily sexualized male body and draws attention to Delilah’s own body, specifically her breasts. Critics have hailed Rubens for his successful incorporation of Caravaggio’s trademark style with his own original techniques. This infusion produces an erotic subtext that tantalizes viewers.
After eight years in Italy, Rubens returned to Antwerp, Belgium. His experiences abroad had a profound impact on him, particularly the influence of Caravaggio and their work was everywhere at that time. This warm, buttery light that fills this painting is what we now describe as the Rubensian style. The hoary love story quickly flares with Caravaggio-like brutality. E.g., soldiers hiding behind the door, old woman with the torch, the ‘king’s don’t care about’ candle, creating a moment.
Art historians have praised “Samson and Delilah” as a masterpiece of the Flemish Baroque style, illustrating Rubens’s ability to linger on the bodies of his subjects. The detailed depiction of Samson’s muscular back serves as a testament to the artist’s dedication to anatomy and form. The artist’s precision gives the painting an incredible wow factor. This haunts and invites audiences to explore deeper into its themes.
In recent months, new scrutiny has raised doubts around the painting’s authenticity. Art historians and critics, including Michael Daley and Euphrosyne Doxiadis, have questioned its authenticity. They’re asking if it’s a real Rubens or a copy from today. Doxiadis described it as “a shoddy artefact, lacking the brilliance of my favourite European painter.” This skepticism creates vital conversations around how we judge works of art and their place in history.
Now the National Gallery is on the defensive against allegations that it has covered up the painting’s provenance. Grounds for experts to believe any window for forgery is slim at best. The authors guess that it happened at some point between the 1950s and 1980s. The painting continues to inspire visitors inside the gallery. While the jury may still be out on claims of its authenticity, crowds continue to come and witness Rubens’s extraordinary artistic talents.