Rocznik Historii Sztuki (41.2016)

42

KATARZYNA KRZYŻAGORSKA-PISARJEK

and the Bass picture seems, at ieast from photographs, very impressive. It also raises the question why
in 1613 1615 Rubens would have allowed an assistant to carry out such as substantia) part in what must
have been a major commission: is there a lost prime version?'so

PROBLEMS OF ATTRIBUTION
Rubens has been credited with a number of rediscovered early works which were supposedly
misattributed to his pupils and fotlowers. Some found their way into the volumes of the CRLB. These
paintings were executed soon after Rubens's return from Italy in 1608. They display a strong modelling
with hard dark outlines, garish colouring, and an overall crude impression. A good example of such
a painting dated c. 1609 rediscovered by Burchard in the 1920s and reattributed to Rubens, is the large
&7?7?,sw7 <777<f DD//rV7 (Fig. 7), now iti the National Gallery in London. It was listed in Volume III of the
CRLB, 7У7<? G/<7 7Ls'L7777(?777', as cat no. 31. &377?,sw7 yfs/<?ep 777 D<?/7'/77/7ls Lop, oil on panel, 185 x 205 cm,
c. 1609-1610, London, National Gallery. The entry does not mention that the panel was at some time
planed down to a thickness of a few millimetres and glued onto a modem blockboard, despite being in
excellent condition, as noted by Burchard in his 1930 certificate of authenticity^. The catalogue also fails
to address the fact that the original Rubens panel was last recorded in 1640 in the collection of Antwerp
mayor Nicolas Rockox, and that all later records in the Antwerp inventories referred to copies only. It
does not mention that the Rockox panel was sold at an auction in 1641, and then disappeared for the
next 300 years. In the year 1700 a similar painting of &777?.sw7 <27?r/ De/7/77/7 by Rubens was mentioned
as bought by Johann Adam Andreas F Prince of Liechtenstein in Vienna, but in later catalogues of the
collection it was attributed to Jan Van den Hoecke, a follower of Rubens. The Prince sold the work in
1881 in Paris where it was rediscovered by L. Burchard in 1929 and sold to a German millionaire August
Neuerburg. In 1980 the National Gallery of London purchased the work at an auction for a record price
as an early Rubens masterpiece.
The painting now in the National Gallery, which most likely came from the Liechtenstein's collection.
was acquired in 1700 from Councillor Segers in Antwerp, through art dealers Forschondt. Gathering from
their correspondence, the brothers Forchondt thought it might have been a copy: 4 have duly received
the painting of Samson by Rubens, but when I look at it closely, it appears to me that it's a copy, and
Mr Segers has sold it as a Rubens, which is not right; I fear that Prince Adam does not want to keep it'^.
In 2004 Carolien de Staelen has established that Councillor Seger's N77777^077 came from the Antwerp
collection of Maria de Sweerdt, the wife of Jan II Moretus, where it was indeed listed as a copy: 'Although
not every link in the chain is equally strong, we may conclude on the basis of the available inlormation
that the painting at the National Gatlery can be traced to Liechtenstein and ultimately back to the 1655
inventory of Maria de Sweerdt's possessions, where the panel is described as a copy after Rubens'^.
&7777SW7 77777/ De/7/77/7 immediately raised doubts when first displayed at the National Gallery, because
of its style and execution. Critics noted the strong modelling, the harsh colouring and lighting, and the
paucity of the rendering of textures^. They also noted Samson's extremely long arm, while his toes were
awkwardly cut off by the frame. My in-depth study^ of this 'unusual' Rubens demonstrated that the

s° C. Brown. 'Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, Part Ш. book review', 77?<? T?«r/<7?g7o?? Afog7?r?'r?e, no. 1063, vol. 133,
October 1991, pp. 716-717.
s* L. Burchard's certificate of authenticity, quoted as part of a letter dated 8th of April 1930. is in the dossier of the National
Gallery's archive in London, and was pubhshed in уЕгИГУс/? UA' Tozo*????/. N. 21, Spring 2006.
32 J. Denucé, H/T-Dyoo?-? ?'?? 7/?g 777/? cg??7?r?*v ?'?? yl?r7u'g?y?.' 77?e T?'?*??; /Tu-c/rozraT Antwerp 1931. p. 249.
33 C. de Staelen, 'Rubens's "Samson and Dehlah' in the National Gallery: new facts relating to its provenance', 77?<? R???-/???g7o??
№7gr?r?'?7<?, CXLVI. July 2004. p. 468.
34 In 1992, an independent scholar and artist. Euphrosyne Doxiadis, and the London artists Steven Harvey and Siân Hopkinson.
submitted a written analysis to the National Gallery, challenging the authorship of &????.уо?? a??a' D<?/;7r?/?. Michael Daley, artist and Director
of ArtWatch UK. has also been campaigning for many years against the attribution to Rubens, followed by me in the late 1990s. Their
websites are: www.afterrubens.org and http://artwatch.org.uk/.
33 The chapter on Аг????^о?? r7??r/ De/;7r?/? was part of my PhD thesis А??/?е??^ r???r?' Co????07'^e???-y/?;p. O?? 7/?e p?*o/?/e???J of <777?*?/???-
7;'o?? r??;r/ т-ег/Асог'Ёту ?'?? 7/7C йтАА/? r???r/ H???e?-7'cr?7? co//cc7?'o??y //r?7e ADU-AA cj, 2009. written under the supervision of Prof. Juliusz
A. Chrościcki at the University of Warsaw. Also see articles: 'The Аг???7^07? r7??r/ De/;7r?/7 - a question of attribution', T?-7l4r?7c/; DA, Jo???--
??r7/, no. 21, spring 2006. pp. 6—16: 'Rubens: mistrzowskie poczqtki', Dr??-oL Т77Т7о7-7'г?-С7'?е7-г7????-г?-&???/:г7, XIII, 25. 2006, pp. 245-249;