An investigation again calls into question the authenticity of a Rubens of the National Gallery

The picture of the Flemish master Rubens Samto and jililiw. Exhibited at the National Gallery in London is it only a copy? This is what the investigation of a painter and historian is inquired who wants to relaunch the debate on the authenticity of the work, already suspected in the past to be a false.

The London museum acquired this canvas of 17^e A century allocated to Pierre Paul Rubens in 1980 for 2.5 million pounds of the time (around 3 million euros). According to its description by the National Gallery, the famous painting is distinguished in particular by “A work of very contrasting shadow and light and rich and deep colors”.

This is not the opinion of the artist and historian of Greek art Euphrosyne Doxiadis, author of NG6461: The false Rubenswhich is released next Wednesday. The title alludes to the reference number of the work in the museum collection. “Rubens painted a table called Samto and jililiw. (but) this canvas at the National Gallery is certainly not this one ”says Euphrosyne Doxiadis, in an interview with AFP.

 

“An examination of the table was presented in an article in the technical bulletin of the National Gallery in 1983.”

National Gallery.

Contacted, the National Gallery maintains that the work it bought is “Long considered by the greatest specialists in Rubens as a masterpiece of Pierre Paul Rubens”. “An examination of the table was presented in an article in the technical bulletin of the National Gallery in 1983. The conclusions remain valid”adds the institution.

The work is inspired by the episode of the Old Testament in which Samson, asleep on the knees of Dalila, of whom he is in love, is cut, without his knowledge, the hair, source of his immense force. Weakened, he will then be taken prisoner. Rubens finished her work around 1609. She then mysteriously disappeared for almost three centuries, until he resurfaced in Paris in 1929.

 

“This is just a bad copy borrowed. »»

Euphrosyne Doxiadis

After having several owners, she is finally acquired by the National Gallery. In 1985, Euphrosyne Doxiadis saw the work and immediately said to be that‘”This is just a bad copy borrowed” by the museum. These are the colors “Crasths” who first alerted her. “Above all, it was the lack of colors’ harmony (…) and the drawing, the composition were completely incoherent”she recalls. “And I hadn’t noticed at the time, but Samson’s foot was absent from the painting, the toes are missing”what she considers impossible if the work was that of Rubens.

Others before she have already expressed doubts about the authenticity of this canvas. These criticisms notably highlighted that other reproductions, dating from the time when Rubens painted his canvas, show three soldiers positioned behind the door in the background, against five for the National Gallery table. Shocked to learn that the National Gallery had bought the work as a real Rubens, Euphrosyne Doxiadis, best known for having worked on the funeral portraits of the time of ancient Egypt, embarked on what it calls a survey of “Detective”.

A copy made by students?

In her book, she claims to have identified the real author of the canvas hung in the London museum. According to her, it would be a collective work carried out by three students from the Royal Academy of Fine Arts San Fernando de Madrid. “It was a practice within the Academy to see students copy works by former masters”she says.

Originally, there was no question of claiming that the canvas was from Rubens, but after it was sold in Paris in good faith, its new owner managed to do it “Authenticate” by an expert as a work of the Flemish master, erecting it to the status of “Masterpiece”.

Euphrosyne Doxiadis suffered refusals from several publishers before finally convincing the house based in London Eris Press, distributed by Columbia University Press, to publish his book. “Everyone slammed the door to me because they did not want to be involved in something so controversial”she accuses, denouncing a “Experts dictatorship”.