RKD STUDIES

¹ De Poorter 2004: ‘149 x 229.5 cm. (including an original added 12.7 cm strip at the top)’. According to Lammertse (in Vergara & Lammertse 2012, p. 100, note 9, under no. 3) Van Dyck used the same dimensions for pictures with religious subjects at about the same time. Although the three pictures mentioned there – The Adoration of the Shepherds (now 155 x 232.2 cm), The Miracle of the Loaves and the Fishes (lost), and The Entry of Christ into Jerusalem (now 151 x 229 cm) – have the same dimensions, they were not part of a series. However it is not made clear what dimensions those pictures had originally.

² Duverger 2004, p. 85. Letter from Quirijn van Biesum (Rotterdam) to Francisco-Jacomo van den Berghe (Ghent), 4 April 1710: ik crige schrifens van Amsterdam dat Blok [art dealer Jan van der Block] heeft sijnen Samson vernegotieert aen d’heer Amorij (I have heard from Amsterdam that Blok has sold his Samson to Mr. Amorij). This information is mentioned in an email from Stephanie Dickey to Ellinoor Bergvelt, 12 Oct. 2019 (DPG127 file); her email includes part of an email (from Jonathan Bikker to her) where Duverger’s quote is cited. With many thanks to both of them.

³ GPID (27 July 2013): Hoet 1752, i, p. 259, no. 1: Een Kapitael konstig stuk, verbeeldende Simson in de schoot van Delila, daer hem het hair afgesneden werd, vyf figuren Levens groote, en drie in 't Harnas in 't verschiet, door Anthony van Dyk, in zyn beste tyd heerlyk kragtig en fris geschildert (A capital, ingenious work, depicting Samson in Delilah’s lap, when his hair was cut off, five life-size figures, and three figures in armour in the distance, by Anthony van Dyck, from his best period, painted in a beautiful, powerful and fresh way), h. 5 en een half v., br. 8 v. 3 d. (h 5½ ft, w 8 ft 3 in. = 155.7 x 233.6 cm [this could serve as a pendant to lot 2, by Rubens, see below]); 4300,–; no. 2: De Fabel van Juno en Ixion, zes figuren Levens grote door Petro Paulo Rubbens, zeer konstig en helder geschildert, in zyn alderbeste tyd (The Fable of Juno and Ixion, six life-size figures by Petro Paulo Rubbens, very artistically and brightly painted, in his best period), h. 6 v., br. 8 en een half v. [h 6 ft, w 8½ ft = 169.9 x 240.6 cm] dit stuk kan dienen tot een Weerga (this piece can serve as a pendant to lot 1, by Anthony van Dyck); 3,850.–’). The current dimensions of both pictures are 151.4 x 230.5 cm (Van Dyck) and 175 x 245 cm (Rubens).

⁴ GPID (29 Jan. 2019): ‘Sampson and Dalilah, being one of the first pictures at the late Sir Gregory Page’s, and for drawing, colouring, and effect, one of the most capital pictures in Europe. It was purchased for the late Sir Gregory, at an immense price, out of one of the first private collections abroad, where it had remained many years a considerable ornament and object of admiration.’ NB: Page also had the Ixion by Rubens (now Louvre; Related works, no. 1a) [1], or at least that is said in the sale catalogue of Welbore Agar Ellis, London, 3 May 1806 (Lugt 7080a), lot 60: Il étoit autrefois dans la Collection du Chev. Gr. Page (previously in the collection of Sir Gregory Page); ‘£3000’ (GPID, 29 Jan. 2019).

⁵ GPID (18 Nov. 2014).

⁶ ibid.

⁷ (Drawing Room) ‘Samson betrayed by Dalila, a composition of ten figures, Rubens’.

⁸ Sir Joshua Reynolds sale, Christie’s, 13 March 1795 (Lugt 5284), lot 99: ‘Sampson and Delilah. This grand and spirited composition has much of Rubens, but shews more correctness of design. Considering how few historical subjects Van Dyck painted, it becomes a real treasure to possess a picture so capital 152 / 5 / 0 bt. Offley’. See Editorial 1945, iii, p. 267.

⁹ As there were two Samson and Delilah paintings in this sale, one by Van Dyck and one by Rubens, the most logical is that the Rubens was DPG127, as that came from the collection of Page. GPID (25 May 2015): ‘Rubens; Samson and Delilah. This picture alone would be sufficient to establish the reputation of this great artist; the expression of anxiety or mistrust in Delilah, with the eager attention of her attendants so animated, every spectator might take himself for a party present; the colouring luxuriant and rich, evidently painted after seeing the best works of the Venetian School. One of the first rate performances of this great master, out of the collection of the late Sir Gregory Page.’

¹⁰ p. 645: Das beste Gemälde aber, davor er sieben tausend Gulden bezahlt, war eines von van Dyck, auf welchem Simson abgebildet ist, wie er in der Delila Schoos schläffet, und ihme die Philister die Haare abschneiden wollen. Die Affecten sind vortrefflich exprimirt, wie forchtsam die Philister und Delila aussehen, aus Beysorge, Simson möchte erwachen (The best painting. however, for which he paid seven thousand guilders, was one by Van Dyck, in which Sampson is depicted, who sleeps in Delilah’s lap, and whose hair the Philistines want to cut off. The emotions are excellently expressed: how fearful the Philistines and Delilah look, as they are afraid that Sampson might wake). It is remarkable that Rubens’s Ixion is not mentioned by Uffenbach, but that picture seems to have reached Amsterdam only in August 1711: see note 137 (Miedema).

¹¹ On pp. 90–96 the collection of Sir Gregory Page, Bart., is described with ‘many capital pictures’; a list whereof is here given (p. 91): ‘Sampson and Dalilah Vandyke; St. Cyprian, a ¾ length Ditto; The Three Royal Children, ½ length Ditto; Juno and Ixion Rubens; Rubens and his Mistress Ditto’.

¹² http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39890/39890-h/39890-h.htm (July 26, 2020); Fuseli & Knowles 1831, ii, pp. 266–7: ‘If her figure, elegant, attractive, such as Rembrandt never conceived before or after, deserve our wonder rather than our praise, no words can do justice to the expression that animates her face, and shows her less shrinking from the horrid scene than exulting in being its cause. Such is the work whose magic of colour, tone and chiaroscuro irresistibly entrap the eye, whilst we detest the brutal choice of the moment.[89] = note 89: The form, but not the soul, of Julio [Romano]’s composition has been borrowed by Rubens, or the master of the well-known picture in the gallery of Dulwich college].’ Fuseli questions Rubens’s authorship of DPG127. Bungarten, who edited Fuseli’s lectures with commentary, was not able to identify a picture by Giulio Romano with this subject (nor could Bernard Aikema and Paul Joannides; with many thanks to them): Bungarten 2005, ii, pp. 341–2. She seems to suggest that Fuseli has mixed up the two Van Dyck compositions (DPG127 and Related works 17b): see notes 36 and 180.

¹³ ‘Sir P. P. Rubens. Samson and Dalilah. No picture in the room presents so brilliant an appearance as this resplendent work, which has been pronounced as one of the very best of the master. It is glowing, rich, and varied: the dusky skin and masculine body of Samson finely contrasts with the mature delicacy of tint of the flesh of Dalilah, which is again contrasted by the old woman behind: our great pictorial critic Fuseli pronounced a just panegyric on it in his Lectures.’ The comment quoted in the preceding note cannot be called a panegyric; but no remark by Fuseli on DPG127 could be found in other lectures.

¹⁴ ‘This work, though far from being agreeable, evinces infinite talent in almost all the details, as well as in the general effect. The figure of Sampson is nobly designed, and coloured in a fine deep sun-burnt tone, which contrasts and yet harmonizes with all the rest of the picture, – being made to blend with it by means of other objects (particularly the gorgeous robe of Dalilah), which are painted in a similar tone. The face of Dalilah is also full of the most intense and appropriate expression – eager, anxious, and conscious of the danger that she is incurring – yet penetrating, confident, and determined to accomplish her purpose at all risks. The face is one which, in a state of quiescence, would possess considerable beauty – being much more regular and well-formed than Rubens’s usually are; but the open mouth, contracted brow, and intense piercing eyes, give it an expression of fierceness which destroys all its feminine charms.

¹⁵ ‘In this room is Rubens’s Samson and Delilah [168 [DPG127]], a coarse daub – at least it looks so between two pictures by Vandyke, Charity [124 [DPG81]], and a Madonna and Infant Christ [135 [DPG90]]. […] See further note 290 below.

¹⁶ ‘Samson, while sleeping in the lap of Delilah, is being shorn of his hair by a young man, at whose side stands an old woman holding a candle to light him in the operation; an open door in the back of the room shows the armed Philistines waiting to enter. Engraved by Matham.’

¹⁷ ‘As is usual with Rubens the story is admirably told, but the subject is always hateful and painful, and this is a coarse version of it; the figure of Samson is fine; the head of the old woman behind Dalilah admirable. The picture has been horribly maltreated. Engraved by Matham.’

¹⁸ Almost the same text as in 1824: see note 15.

¹⁹ ‘Rubens’s “Samson and Dalilah” is not a good example of the painter’s power. Dalilah is too repulsively ugly and coarse to have ever wheedled a man to his destruction. The Samson is better. The idea of sleeping strength is finely conveyed in his attitude; but the colour of his skin is so outrageously tawny, that a violent attack of jaundice seems to have broken out over his whole body – he is such an orange-peel giant, that he is positively sultry to look upon!’

²⁰ ‘Cf: Judges XVI. 19. “And she made him sleep upon her knees; and she called for a man, and she caused him to shave off the seven locks of his head; and she began to afflict him, and his strength went from him.” At Mr Desenfans sale in 1786 a picture of this subject by Rubens was offered, which had been in Sir Gregory Page’s Collection. It was however 6 ft: 2. by 8 ft: 9. [This does not differ much from the Britton dimensions in 1813, also with frame: 6'6"x 9'10".] [Denning continues of the left page] Some have attributed this picture to Jordaens. Sir J. Reynolds speaks of a Sampson & Dalila in the Rubens Room at Dusseldorf. Cf: Sup: (37) That is now at Munich 3 ft: 5 by 4 ft: [inserted: Cf: Smith: 186]. It is not like this. There is (or was) a duplicate of this picture at Valenciennes – there attributed to Jordaens. It has been engraved by Matham.’

²¹ ‘Some good judges have attributed parts, if not the whole, of this picture to Jacob Jordaens. (See 37.) If we were to judge from the utter absence of all refinement, we should agree with them. It has been engraved by Matham.’

²² Samson endormi, la tête posée sur les genoux de Dalila. Un homme d’âge mûr s’apprête à priver le héros de sa force, en lui coupant les cheveux. Ce dernier est une sorte de Goliath d’une teinte plus que basané. Sa maîtresse, blanche comme une Anversoise, est couchée, le haut du corps un peu relevé. On voit qu’elle craint le réveil de Samson. A droite, derrière, vieille femme et jeune fille allongeant toutes deux la tête pour voir tomber la formidable chevelure. Plus loin, à gauche, soldats. Peinture peu soignée. (Samson asleep, with his head on the knees of Delilah. A mature man is about to deprive the hero of his strength, by cutting his hair. The latter is a sort of Goliath with a hue that is more than swarthy. His mistress, who is white as an Antwerp lady, is lying down, with her upper body slightly raised. One can see that she is afraid that Samson will wake up. To the right, behind them, an old woman and a girl both stretching out their heads to see the formidable hair fall. Farther to the left, soldiers. Sloppily painted.)

²³ ‘In its composition and in colouring of great effect. Painted in imitation of Rubens, but differs from his style in the harmony of the colours. Engraved by Matham.’

²⁴ Note 2: ‘In Desenfans’ Catalogue of 1786 this picture (No. 174) is priced at 1,000l. See William Young’s History of Dulwich College, i, p. 486.’

²⁵ p. 246: ‘Works by Van Dyck. Series III. Miscellaneous subjects painted after his return from Italy’, no. 3: ‘Samson and Delilah. Samson resting his head on the lap of Delilah, with other figures. Engraved by Matham. Picture Gallery, Dulwich.’

²⁶ für ein derbes, sehr frühes Werk des Anton van Dyck halte ich auch das als Rubens ausgegebene groβe Bild der Galerie im Dulwich College, “Simson und Delilah” (Nr. 168)’. (for a coarse, very early work of Anthony van Dyck, I hold the large picture at Dulwich College, that goes under the name of Rubens).

²⁷ ‘This picture was formerly attributed to Rubens […] It is very characteristic of the early work of Van Dyck, by whom there is another version of the subject at Vienna (replica at Hampton Court).’ (This is a later Van Dyck painting: see Related works, no. 17b.) Cook also gives a quote from Patmore 1824b, which he wrongly attributes to Hazlitt.

²⁸ Der Aufbau des Bildes mit den allzu übertriebenenen perspektivischen Verkleinerungen in der Tiefdiagonale trägt – vielleicht unbewuβt – Züge von Tintorettos Gestaltungsweise. (The structure of the picture, in which the perspectival reduction of the forms is overdone, bears witness – perhaps unconsciously – to Tintoretto’s compositions.)

²⁹ une œuvre caractéristique de jeunesse […] un rapport avec le Caravage est évident [Caravaggio’s Madonna with the Rosary was at the time in Antwerp, see note 144]; le motif de Samson endormi fait présumer la connaissance de […] Titien’ [the print after Titian, Related works, no. 7f] (a characteristic work of youth […] a relationship to Caravaggio is obvious […] the motif of the sleeping Samson assumes knowledge of […] Titian). Grossmann refers to Rooses 1907, p. 8, who deals with other examples of Titian used by Van Dyck, as do Tietze & Tietze-Conrat 1938 (Titian’s woodcuts).

³⁰ The drawing in Fondation Custodia (collection Lugt) that Vey mentions here is related to the other Samson composition by Van Dyck (Related works, no. 17b). See Depauw & Luijten 1999, p. 306, under no. 41 (fig. 2).

³¹ See notes 109 and 110.

³² Jan Steen, Samson and Delilah, signed and dated JSteen 1668, in Los Angeles, see RKD, no. 50732: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/50732 (Oct. 17, 2018); Van Suchtelen 2018, pp. 96–9, no. 5; Westermann 1997, pp. 283–4 (fig. 163), 307–8 (notes 16–18); Chapman, Kloek & Wheelock 1996, pp. 209–11, no. 34 (A. K. Wheelock); Kirschenbaum 1977, pp. 79, 113, no. 10, fig. 67. Cf. the barber’s instrument case.

³³ In his review Stewart states that Van Dyck was interested in antiquity, unlike Brown 1982.

³⁴ However Bleyerveld does not illustrate DPG127, and (in consequence?) does not see the importance of the Van Dyck image in the visual tradition in the North. Only Rubens and Matham’s print are mentioned as the sources for the Dutch Samson and Delilahs.

³⁵ De Poorter says that DPG127 was also intended to hung over a mantelpiece, like Rubens’s picture. Disagrees with Kahr’s 1972 interpretation: scenes like these are not about bad women, but are moralising: lust induces the downfall of men.

³⁶ See notes 12 and 180; Vermütlich hatte F. ein Gemälde (oder ein Stich) gesehen, das auf den Van Dyck’schen Typ zurückgriff, ihn variierte und als Giulio Romano geführt wurde (Fuseli had probably seen a painting (or a print) that went back to the Van Dyck model [she probably means Related works, no. 17b], that was a variant and presented as Giulio Romano).

³⁷ See note 133.

³⁸ According to Barrett, Soutman saw Van Dyck’s picture in Antwerp while he was there.

³⁹ Quotes Uffenbach visiting ‘Amoree’ in 1711: see note 10 (Uffenbach).

⁴⁰ ‘a copy by Lely is in the museum at Ghent’; see note 88 below for Related works, no. 13f.

⁴¹ RKD, no. 198003: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/198003 (Oct. 9, 2018); Joconde (26 July 2013); Foucart & Foucart-Walter 2009, p. 243, no. RF 2121; Jaffé 1989, p. 205, no. 299. Until now its provenance has also been said to start in 1722, with the sale in Amsterdam (Lugt 298) For the iconography see Georgievska-Shine 2002.

⁴² RKD, no. 54133: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/54133 (Oct. 9, 2018). See also http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.358245 (Oct. 2, 2018); Barrett 2012, p. 172, no. DR-3 (under rejected drawings; attributed to Pieter van Sompel), 288 (pl. D32); Spies & Van Schaik 2008, pp. 44–5 (M. van Berge-Gerbaud).

⁴³ RKD, no. 291976: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/291976 (Oct. 9, 2018); see also https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_R-4-59 (July 25, 2020). It is not clear (yet) whether this is Marten van den Heuvel, the Amsterdam collector as discussed in Lammertse & Van der Veen 2006, pp. 121 (notes 16, 17), 123 (note 26), 124 (notes 27, 28). See email from Jaap van der Veen to Michiel Jonker, 2 March 2012 (DPG127 file); also Barrett 2012, pp. 196, no. Pr-46, 306 (pl. Pr19).

⁴⁴ RKD, no. 292044: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/292044 (Oct. 21, 2018); Logan 2012, p. 87; Vergara & Lammertse 2012, pp. 168–71, no. 27 (A.-M. Logan); Kline 1998; Vey 1962, i, pp. 73–4; ii, fig. 2.

⁴⁵ RKD, no. 291978: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/291978 (Oct. 9, 2018); Logan 2012, p. 82; Vergara & Lammertse 2012, pp. 168–71, no. 28 (A.-M. Logan); Brown 1991a, pp. 71–3, no. 9; McNairn 1980, pp. 56–8, no. 15; Martin & Feigenbaum 1979, pp. 57–9, no. 9; Vey 1962, i, pp. 74–6, no. 3, ii, fig. 3l; D’Hulst & Vey 1960, pp. 39–41, no. 4, fig. III.

⁴⁶ RKD, no. 245396: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/245396 (Oct. 9, 2018). See also http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/drawings-watercolors/sir-peter-paul-rubens-samson-and-delilah-5812663-details.aspx?from=salesummary&intObjectID=5812663&sid=f42e5bc6-79e8-4fce-ae9e-56d8c2c8e0a5 (July 25, 2020); Logan & Plomp 2004c, pp. 124–7, no. 28; D’Hulst & Vandenven 1989, pp. 113–14, no. 31a; email from Michiel Plomp to Ellinoor Bergvelt, 15 Dec. 2014 (DPG127 file). Leon Black, an American collector, seems to have purchased the Rubens drawing.

⁴⁷ RKD, no. 27846: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/27846 (Oct. 9, 2018); David Jaffé suggests that this sketch might be a ricordo made for Matham to make his engraving (3d), Jaffé & McGrath 2005, p. 166, under no. 77 (Related works, no. 3c). An argument for David Jaffé’s suggestion is that the Cincinnati picture does not differ as much from the National Gallery painting as other Rubens modelli differ from the definitive versions. However, in the Cincinnati oil sketch the foot of Samson is cut off somewhat comparable as on the painting in the National Gallery (although the edge of the door is also cut off, with which the foot aligns in the Matham print), while in Matham's (mirror-image) print it is completely visible, with extra space on the left. All other authors consider this sketch to be a modello for Related works, no. 3c: Sutton & Wieseman 2004, pp. 88–92, no. 2 (M. E. Wieseman); D’Hulst & Vandenven 1989, pp. 114–15, no. 31b; Jaffé 1989, p. 165, no. 89; Held 1980, i, pp. 8, 10, 430–34, no. 312, 439, ii, pl. 309, colour pl. 2.

⁴⁸ RKD, no. 27844: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/27844 (Oct. 9, 2018). See also https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/peter-paul-rubens-samson-and-delilah (Oct. 9, 2018); Jaffé 2007; Jaffé & McGrath 2005, p. 166, no. 77; D’Hulst & Vandenven 1989, pp. 107–13, no. 31, fig. 72; Jaffé 1989, pp. 165–6, no. 90; Buddensieg 1977. See http://www.afterrubens.org/home.asp (Oct. 21, 2018) for the arguments of a group who question the authenticity of the National Gallery picture. It seems that nothing has been added to this website since 2007. However see also http://artwatch.org.uk/the-samson-and-delilah-ink-sketch-cutting-rubens-to-the-quick/ (April 10, 2019). That article was written in 2014.

⁴⁹ Jameson 1842, Denning 1858 and 1859, Sparkes 1876, Richter & Sparkes 1880 (at least until Cook 1926 in catalogues of the Dulwich Gallery) and Cust 1900 assumed that the Matham print was made after DPG127.

⁵⁰ NB: different dates have been given: after 1609, 1613, 1612, and 1611, RKD, no. 27850: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/27850 (Oct. 9, 2018; Albertina version); see also https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1857-0613-528 (July 25, 2020); Barrett 2012, p. 328, fig. 4; Neumeister 2003a, p. 166 (fig. 98); Van der Coelen 1996, p. 109, no. 28 (P. van der Coelen & G. Pastoor); Hartley 1990, p. 7, no. 3 (ex Fitzwilliam Museum).

⁵¹ RKD, no. 27854: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/27854 (Oct. 9, 2018). See also https://www.artic.edu/artworks/8953/the-capture-of-samson (July 25, 2020); Lammertse & Vergara 2018, pp. 68–9, no. 6 (A. Vergara); Jaffé & McGrath 2005, pp. 160–61, no. 73; Sutton & Wieseman 2004, pp. 94–7, no. 3 (M. E. Wieseman); Ebbinge Wubben, Fierens & Haverkamp Begemann 1953, pp. 37–9, no. 6, pl. 5 (E. Haverkamp Begemann).

⁵² https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1850-0413-131 (July 25, 2020); Rosand & Muraro 1976, pp. 185–7, no. 39; Mauroner 1943, p. 50, no. 18, fig. 34; Tietze & Tietze-Conrat 1938, pp. 350, 353, no. 11 (early 1540s).

⁵³ See note 12. See also email from Giles Waterfield to Ellinoor Bergvelt, 25 May 2015 (DPG127 file). A picture with this subject by Giulio Romano could not be found. For Giulio Romano in the Hermitage, see https://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/01.+Paintings/30438/ (Nov. 20, 2018).

⁵⁴ Sutton & Wieseman 2004, p. 91, under no. 2 (Related works, no. 3b; M. E. Wieseman); Pallucchini & Rossi 1990, p. 230, no. 455 ; Pallucchini & Rossi 1982, p. 230, no. 455, fig. 580.

⁵⁵ Pallucchini & Rossi 1990, p. 242, no. A21; Pallucchini & Rossi 1982, p. 242, no. A21, fig. 648.

⁵⁶ RKD, no. 293237: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/293237 (Feb. 21, 2019); Beaujean & Tanner 2014, pp. 100, 102, 123, no. 430; Manuth 1990, p. 176, fig. 6. Manuth’s article was not used, or the print mentioned, in Belkin 2009.

⁵⁷ RKD, no. 291984: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/291984 (Oct. 9, 2018). See also https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_V-2-32 (July 25, 2020) .

⁵⁸ RKD, no. 292665: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/292665 (Jan. 29, 2019). See also https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1853-0312-13 (July 25, 2020).

⁵⁹ RKD, no. 67829: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/67829 (Oct. 9, 2018). See also https://www.clevelandart.org/art/1968.23 (July 27, 2020; c. 1621); Marandel 2012, pp. 120–21, 163, no. 40 (L. Federle Orr; c. 1615); Westermann 2008, pp. 82 (fig. 41), 83; Neumeister 2003a, pp. 163–6, 252 (notes 243–57), fig. 97; Brown 2001, p. 313, no. 116; Müller Hofstede 1988, pp. 26–7, fig. 25 (after Rubens NG); Lurie 1969 (c. 1618–20).

⁶⁰ https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_Kk-6-78 (July 25, 2020). Later Lucas made other Samson and Delilah scenes in woodcut, as part of The Large Power of Women series, c. 1514, and as part of The Small Power of Women series), c. 1517, see https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1849-1027-89 (July 25, 2020) and https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1895-0122-1159 (July 25, 2020)

⁶¹ https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1850-0223-91 (July 25, 2020).

⁶² RKD, no. 291981: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/291981 (Oct. 9, 2018). See also http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.30274. See also https://media.britishmuseum.org/media/Repository/Documents/2014_10/11_6/a8dde740_c8be_40ff_8d4c_a3c10070a115/mid_00610890_001.jpg (July 25, 2020; NB: the print in the BM is cut off on the right).

⁶³ https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1949-0709-62 (July 25, 2020); Sellink & Leesberg 2001, i, pp. 25, no. 16, 30 (fig.). Also Cornelis Massys made a Samson and Delilah scene as no. 11 of his series with The History of Samson in 12 prints, see https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1928-1212-80 (July 25, 2020); this version is dated 1562. See also after Maarten van Heemskerck’s, Samson and Delilah, 1553, etching and engraving: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1869-0410-131 (July 25, 2020).

⁶⁴ RKD, no. 292457: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/292457 (Dec. 21, 2018). See also https://www.themorgan.org/drawings/item/144273 (Nov. 20, 2018); Vergara & Lammertse 2012, pp. 176–82, no. 31 verso (A.-M. Logan); Jaffé 2002, i, p. 131, fig. 4 (Borghese Hermaphrodite); Brown 1994, p. 53 (fig. 11); Brown 1991a, pp. 96–7, no. 17; Jaffé 1969a, p. 436, note 1); Vey 1962, i, p. 123, no. 54 verso, ii, fig. 73 (might have been inspired by an antique statue). The first who suggested a connection with DPG127, which he dates c. 1616, was Jaffé in 1969 and not Brown (as Logan in 2012 states).

⁶⁵ Meij & De Haan 2001, pp. 216–17, no. 58.

⁶⁶ Bober & Rubinstein 1986, pp. 166–8; the Torso seen from behind in Meij & de Haan 2001, p. 89, fig. 5.

⁶⁷ Meij & De Haan 2001, pp. 88–9, under no. 11, fig. 6; Van der Meulen 1994–5, ii, pp. 58–9, no. 39 (copy), iii, fig. 77.

⁶⁸ Bober & Rubinstein 1986, p. 139, no. 98, fig. According to Hughes the drawing was made after a hermaphrodite in the Uffizi (Hughes 1977, p. 1030, note 7).

⁶⁹ Held 1986, pp. 81–2; Jaffé 1977, p. 81, fig. 290.

⁷⁰ https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1946-0713-1005 (July 26, 2020); Balis 2001, pp. 29, 32 (fig. 3; Van Dyck); Bober & Rubinstein 1986, p. 130, no. 98a [the inv. no. given here seems to be wrong], fig. 98a; Rowlands 1977, p. 31, no. 18, fig. (Rubens).

⁷¹ Mauroner 1943, p. 55, no. 26, fig. 44.

⁷² https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/H_WB-93 (July 26, 2020).

⁷³ https://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/charles-v-s-ewer-and-basin (Oct. 9, 2018); Soly & Van de Wiele 1999, pp. 288–9, no. 180 (G. Van Hemeldonck); Liebaers 1985, pp. 330–31.

⁷⁴ Old inventory number 3059; RKD, no. 27521: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/27521 (Oct. 9, 2018); Jaffé 1989, p. 177, no. 150.

⁷⁵ Shand 2008, p. 41 (fig. 2).

⁷⁶ Koester 2005, pp. 32–4, no. 2; Koester 1999, pp. 160–61, no. 10 (a pair with no. 9, inv. no. 5059, which is signed and dated 1668).

⁷⁷ Letter from Roger Morgan to Giles Waterfield, 6 July 1995 (DPG127 file); Starkey 1991, p. 144, no. XI.5.

⁷⁸ Formerly 362 x 246 cm; the rounded top and a strip at the bottom were removed in 1951; triangular corners were then added to complete the present rectangular shape; RKD, no. 258478: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/258478 (Nov. 21, 2018). See also https://www.khm.at/objektdb/detail/1618/ (July 26, 2029); Monnas 2008, pp. 259–63 (fig. 292); Kräftner, Seipel & Trnek 2005, pp. 114–17, no. 25 (Rubens); De Poorter 2004, pp. 86–7, no. I.86 (Van Dyck after Rubens); McGrath 1997, ii, pp. 297–308, no. 55; figs 204, 208, 210 (Van Dyck after Rubens).

⁷⁹ RKD, no. 37078: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/37078 (Nov. 21, 2018). See also https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/anthony-van-dyck-st-ambrose-barring-theodosius-from-milan-cathedral (Oct. 9, 2018); Monnas 2008, pp. 259–63 (fig. 293, detail); De Poorter 2004, p. 87, no. I.87; McGrath 1997, ii, pp. 297–8, no. 55 copy 1, fig. 205.

⁸⁰ RKD, no. 105971: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/105971 (Nov. 21, 2018). See also https://www.museodelprado.es/en/the-collection/art-work/the-mystic-marriage-of-saint-catherine/ee116786-64e7-42df-a423-57ea61086944 (Oct. 9, 2018); Monnas 2008, p. 260; De Poorter 2004, p. 46, no. I.30; Díaz Padrón 1996, i, pp. 478–81, no. 1544.

⁸¹ RKD, no. 240023: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/240023 (Nov. 21, 2018). See also www.khm.at/de/object/0ff39bbbf9/ (Oct. 9, 2018); Salomon 2012, p. 46 (fig. 35); Vey 2004, p. 285, no. III.50; Bernardini 2004, pp. 140 (fig.), 167, no. 24.

⁸² Kopetzky, Kräftner & Schweller 2004, pp. 34–7, no. 8.

⁸³ RKD, no. 101456: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/101456 (Oct. 9, 2018); Döring 1999, p. 33, no. 14: ein interessantes Beispiel für eine interpretierende Kopie eines Van Dyck-Gemäldes in einer an Van Dyck geschulten Skizzierweise (an interesting example of a copy that gives an interpretation of a painting by Van Dyck by someone who had learned sketching from Van Dyck). The enlargement of the composition in the copy points to the later taste of the copyist rather than that to the possibility that the original composition was later reduced in size, see D’Hulst & Vey 1960, p. 41, under no. 4 (Related works, no. 2b) [3]. See also note 134. Michiel Jonker suggested that the drawing might have been a design for a print after the Dulwich painting, never realized.

⁸⁴ RKD, no. 196260: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/196260 (Oct. 9, 2018). See also De Poorter 2004, p. 24, under no. I.5.

⁸⁵ According to Murray, Related works, no. 13b is the same picture as 13c: Murray’s note in DPG127 file.

⁸⁶ De Poorter 2004, p. 24, under no. I.5; L. Burchard in London/Leeds 1947–53, under no. 13.

⁸⁷ De Poorter 2004, p. 24, under no. I.5.

⁸⁸ As mentioned by L. Burchard in London/Leeds 1947–53, under no. 13. However that picture is related to (not a copy of) Van Dyck’s other Samson and Delilah composition in Vienna (Related works, no. 17b), which the museum considers to be by an anonymous 17th-century master: De Schryver & Van de Velde 1972, pp. 195–6, no. 151, fig. 21. Two other Samson and Delilah scenes by Van Dyck are mentioned there, with dimensions: in Bruges of 1696 (137 x 192 or 149 x 208 cm) and in the museum of ’s-Hertogenbosch, by Abraham van Diepenbeeck (143 x 206 cm).

⁸⁹ RKD, no. 294728: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/294728 (Nov. 29, 2019).

⁹⁰ RKD, no. 292595: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/292595 (Jan. 3, 2019). See also http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O123161/samson-and-delilah-after-van-oil-painting-hilton-william-ii/ (Oct. 9, 2018). DPG 127 was on loan at the RA for copying in 1817, 1818 and 1835. It is probable that Hilton made his copy in 1835: see the following note.

⁹¹ RKD, no. 292216: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/292216 (Nov. 13, 2018). See also https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1913-0524-179 (July 26, 2020). As the other drawings on the page are other copies by Hilton after pictures by Rubens and Van Dyck, dated 1835, this drawing may also have been made in that year; see RKD, nos 292218, 292224 and 292229. Moreover in 1835 DPG127 was lent to the RA to be copied.

⁹² RKD, no. 6942: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/6942 (Oct. 9, 2018). See also http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.8902 (Oct. 9, 2018); Brown, Van Camp & Vogelaar 2019, pp. 190–94, 293, no. 82 (K. Kleinert); Blankert & Blokhuis 1997, pp. 222–3, no. 36 (P. C. Sutton)

⁹³ RKD, no. 206142: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/206142 (Oct. 9, 2018). See also http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.8903 (Oct. 9, 2018); Brown, Van Camp & Vogelaar 2019, pp. 190–94, 293, no. 83 (K. Kleinert); Kleinert & Laurenze-Landsberg 2009, pp. 151–2, fig. 6; Wallert 2006.

⁹⁴ RKD, no. 48131: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/48131 (Oct. 9, 2018); Brown, Van Camp & Vogelaar 2019, pp. 190–94, 293, no. 84 (K. Kleinert); Van de Wetering 2017, i, p. 98, no. 37, ii, p. 499, no. 37; Rembrandt 2006, pp. 254–5, no. 8 (K. Kleinert); Van der Ploeg & Vermeeren 1997, pp. 184–7, no. 21; Bruyn, i, 1982, pp. 249–57, A 24.

⁹⁵ Weber 2006, pp. 94–6, no. 5 (G. J. M. Weber); there a Samson and Delilah by Isaac de Jouderville is illustrated (fig. 5.3), dated after 1631, in which the procuress is also shown cutting Samson’s hair (panel, 61 x 48.3 cm. Private collection).

⁹⁶ RKD, no. 292047: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/292047 (Oct. 17, 2018); Dittrich & Ketelsen 2004, pp. 161–2, no. 86, 213 (note 1). Related by these and older authors to Rembrandt’s Samson in Frankfurt (1636; see Related works, no. 17f) [19]. There are elements that resemble those in DPG127, including the position of the male body and the women seen full-face. According to Peter Schatborn the drawing in Dresden is by Rembrandt himself (email from Peter Schatborn to Michiel Jonker, 15 July 2013, DPG127 file). On the website of Martin Royalton-Kisch the drawing is also considered to be by Rembrandt (c. 1638): see http://rembrandtcatalogue.net, Benesch 0093 (posted 4 June 2012), with many thanks to him, oral communication in Edinburgh, during a CODART meeting, October 2018. It is also a Rembrandt in Schatborn & Hinterding 2019, p. 60, T47. However in the recent Dresden catalogue the drawing is printed in reverse and still considered to be made in the Rembrandt workshop (attributed to Jan Victors) and not to Rembrandt: Buck, Müller & Mallach 2019, pp. 63, 65 (fig. 25).

⁹⁷ https://collectie.groningermuseum.nl/Details/collect/10000983 (1636–40; July 26, 2020); Benesch 1973, iii, p. 146, no. 530, fig. 698 (c. 1642–3).

⁹⁸ RKD, no. 292525: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/292525 (Jan. 3, 2019); Roethlisberger & Bok 1993, i, pp. 463–4, no. H46, ii, fig. H49 (c. 1632; somehow related to the Couwenbergh picture in Dordrecht, Related works, no. 15h); Trnek 1992, pp. 74–7, no. 26 (mid-1630s); Manuth 1990, pp. 177–8, fig. 7 (c. 1630). The silver ewer (with a centaur and a dragon) in this picture has been related to a print after a design by the Utrecht silversmith Adam van Vianen: Ter Molen 1984, i, p. 142, figs 35–6, ii, 127, no. 718 (print 47 by Christiaan van Vianen after Adam van Vianen). The ewer itself is lost. See also Baarsen 2018, pp. 127, 129 (fig. 164), 252 (note 187).

⁹⁹ RKD, no. 1156: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/1156 (Oct. 9, 2018). See also https://www.dordrechtsmuseum.nl/objecten/id/dm-975-502/ (Oct. 9, 2018); Liedtke, Plomp & Rüger 2001, pp. 240–42, no. 14 (W. Liedtke); Huiskamp 1998, p. 553, fig. 5; Tümpel & De Beer 1994, p. 266, no. 36; Maier-Preusker 1991, pp. 175, 187–8 (fig. 24), 235, note 93; not related to the picture by Bloemaert (Related works, no. 15g, as Roethlisberger suggests: see the preceding note), p. 212, no. A8; Tümpel 1991, pp. 238–9, no. 23 (G. Pastoor; where DPG127 is not mentioned); Schwartz 1985, p. 83, fig. 70.

¹⁰⁰ RKD, no. 293015: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/293015 (Feb. 5, 2019); Van Haute 2008, pp. 221–3, figs 4 and 5 (then in private collection, Zurich). According to Van de Watering (expertise 24 May 1991) and Sluijter Bartsius’s picture was the model for De Poorter: see Sluijter 2015, pp. 324 (fig. VI–4), 325, 441 (note 10). Waiboer 2013, however, like Sumowski (iv, 1989, p. 2386, 2388 (note 9), 2390 (colour pl.)), assumes that Bartsius followed De Poorter.

¹⁰¹ RKD, no. 293013: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/293013 (Feb. 5, 2019); Sluijter 2015, p. 324, 325 (fig. VI-5), 441, note 11; Van Haute 2008, p. 223; Sumowski, iv, 1989, pp. 2406 (no. 1602), 2416 (fig.), see the preceding note.

¹⁰² RKD, no. 292051: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/292051 (Oct. 17, 2018); Barrett 2012, pp. 99, 139 (no. PA-5), 152, 240 (colour pl. P4); Held 1980, i, p. 432, under no. 312 (Related works, no. 3b); Hughes 1977.

¹⁰³ RKD, no. 242481: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/242481 (Oct. 17, 2018); Sluijter 2015, pp. 369 (fig. VII-54), 371; Weber 2005, pp. 56–8, no. 7 (figs 41–2), 78 (note 95), 80–81, no. 7; Sumowski 1989, iv, pp. 2600 (no. 1736), 2635 (fig.); Klessmann 1983, p. 213, no. 254 (mentions the relationship with DPG127).

¹⁰⁴ RKD, no. 196648: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/196648 (Oct.17, 2018).

¹⁰⁵ RKD, no. 298720: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/298720 (Feb. 10, 2021); Bleyerveld 2000, p. 244, fig. 139.

¹⁰⁶ Previously attributed to Gesina ter Borch; RKD, no. 1043: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/1043 (Oct. 17, 2018); Brouwer 2010, p. 26; Bleyerveld 2000, p. 232 (fig. 124); Roethlisberger & Bok 1993, i, p. 497, no. H132, ii, fig. H131 [sic]; Tümpel 1991, p. 237, no. 22 (G. Pastoor); Wansink 1988 (ascribed to Hendrik Bloemaert).

¹⁰⁷ https://www.bridgemanimages.com/de/asset/61192/caravaggio-michelangelo-1571-1610-follower-of/samson-and-delilah (Dec. 3, 2019).

¹⁰⁸ RKD, no. 232603: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/232603 (Oct. 17, 2018); Clark & Whitfield 2010, pp. 31 (fig.), 36; Bodart 1970a, pp. 143–4, no. 22, fig. 45 (private collection, Paris; attributed to Louis Finson).

¹⁰⁹ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Assereto,_Gioacchino_-_Sansone_e_Dalila.jpg (Nov. 6, 2018); Ostrowski 1977/1981, p. 42 suggests links between DPG127 and two pictures by Assereto, this one and one in the Palazzo Cattaneo Adorno at Genoa: dans le tableau de Fiasella [see the next note] l’analogie se borne à un arrangement semblable de la scène principale, avec Samson endormi sur les genoux de Dalila. Dans la version du Palazzo Cattaneo Adorno la ressemblance est renforcée quelque peu par le geste de la traîtresse qui cherche à imposer la prudence (in the painting by Fiasella [see the next note] the analogy is confined to a general arrangement of the main scene, with Samson asleep on the knees of Delilah. In the version in the Palazzo Cattaneo Adorno the resemblance is strengthened somewhat by the gesture of the traitress who is seeking to impose caution).

¹¹⁰ http://www2.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/image/joconde/0337/m503604_p0003611-001_p.jpg (Nov. 13, 2018); Ostrowski 1977/1981, pp. 38–9, fig. 17. He suggests Van Dyck’s influence and he mentions DPG127: Il n’est pas exclu que Fiasella se soit servi d’une version de la composition de van Dyck, encore plus proche de la sienne que le tableau de Dulwich, comme par example le dessin du Cabinet d´Estampes à Berlin-Dahlem (It is not impossible that Fiasella used a version of Van Dyck’s composition even closer to this one than the picture in Dulwich, such as the drawing in the Printroom in Berlin (fig. 16; Related works, no. 2b) [3].

¹¹¹ Rosenbaum (1928, p. 56) only knew a photograph; Buddensieg 1977, pp. 332–4 (fig. 6), 334 (note 10). According to Buddensieg the picture was at the time in the same collection, then in Basel.

¹¹² RKD, no. 233926: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/233926 (Nov. 26, 2018); Brown & Vlieghe 1999, pp. 222–3, no. 58 (H. Vlieghe). Ferino-Pagden, Prohaska & Schütz 1991, p. 53, pl. 420. See also Depauw & Luijten 1999, p. 305 (fig. 1), under no. 41 (G. Luijten). Under no. 41 (pp. 305–10) both the grisaille by Abraham van Diepenbeeck in Luxemburg after the Vienna picture by Van Dyck and the engraving by Hendrick Snyers after the grisaille are discussed; Tietze-Conrat 1932.

¹¹³ Monochrome 2012, n.p., no. 5 (Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert).

¹¹⁴ RKD, no. 224453: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/224453 (Oct. 17, 2018); school of Peter Paul Rubens; attributed by J. S. Held to Peter van Lint.

¹¹⁵ Vergara & Lammertse 2012, pp. 149–51, no. 21 (J. J. Pérez Preciado); De Poorter 2004, pp. 41–2, no. I.25.

¹¹⁶ RKD, no. 105888: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/105888 (Nov. 29, 2018). See also https://www.museodelprado.es/en/the-collection/art-work/the-brazen-serpent/4bc2120c-fa25-4b35-af7c-dda70e463a0d (Jan. 22, 2021); Vergara & Lammertse 2012, pp. 164–7, no. 26 (J. J. Pérez Preciado); Díaz Padrón 1996, i, pp. 482–7, no. 1637.

¹¹⁷ RKD, no. 47569: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/47569 (Oct. 17, 2018); Van de Wetering 2017, i, pp. 240, 242–3, no. 148, ii, p. 554, no. 148; Neumeister 2005, pp. 395–422; Manuth 1990; Bruyn 1989, pp. 183–95, A 116.

¹¹⁸ RKD, no. 67826: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/67826 (Oct. 17, 2018); Judson & Ekkart 1999, pp. 137–8, no. 157, figs IX and 73.

¹¹⁹ RKD, no. 58484: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/58484 (Oct. 17, 2018); Sluijter 2015, p. 307 calls it a ‘remarkably Rubenesque’ oil sketch and illustrates it next to an image of DPG451 (Venus and Adonis; Rubens), figs V-58-9.

¹²⁰ Except for Larsen in his œuvre catalogues of Van Dyck (1980 and 1988), who surprisingly considers DPG127 to be an 18th-century copy after an original of c. 1616.

¹²¹ See for instance Moses and the Brazen Serpent, now in the Prado, dated c. 1618–20 (Related works, no. 17e). See also A.-M. Logan in Vergara & Lammertse 2012, p. 168.

¹²² Convincingly Sluijter argues that Rembrandt must have known Van Dyck’s Samson and Delilah when he painted his Blinding of Samson of 1636 (Related works, no. 17f) , Sluijter 2015, pp. 43, 45–6 (fig. IIA-44), 409 (note 126), 410 (notes 127, 128). However in the note in which Sluijter discusses Van Uffelen’s collection he does not mention the Van Dyck picture as part of it, ibid., pp. 38 and 407 (note 84). NB: in the Van Dyck literature he is called Lucas van Uffel; in Dutch publications he is called Lucas van Uffelen. Van Dyck painted at least two portraits of him, one now in Brunswick (c. 1622) and another in New York (before Jan 1623). According to H. Vey (in Barnes 2004, p. 208, no. II.68), the Brunswick picture might have been painted in Genoa, as the Ligurian coast seems to be depicted in the background, see RKD, no. 54757: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/54757 (Oct. 17, 2018); for the portrait in New York see RKD, no. 54761: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/54761 (Oct. 17, 2018); Barnes 2004, pp. 209–10, no. II.70.

¹²³ H. Vey in Barnes 2004, p. 209, under no. II.69.

¹²⁴ That this Tintoretto composition was the inspiration for the Rubens picture now in the National Gallery, London (Related works, no. 3c [5], see below) was suggested by Oldenbourg (1922, pp. 82–6, 196–9) and Evers (1943, p. 151). That it also lay behind Van Dyck’s DPG127, see S. J. Barnes in Wheelock, Barnes & Held 1990, p. 103.

¹²⁵ There was even the unlikely suggestion that DPG127 was by the 18th-century Venetian painter Giambattista Tiepolo: letter of J. M. Hartog to Sir Gerald Kelly, 24 Sept. 1955 (DPG127 file).

¹²⁶ In The Mystic Marriage of St Catherine (Related works, no. 12c), painted before Van Dyck left for Italy, he followed a Venetian prototype: Lammertse & Vergara 2012, p. 41.

¹²⁷ As spelling of his name we find Amory, De Amory and Des Amory: see email from Jaap van der Veen to Ellinoor Bergvelt, 14 Dec. 2014 (DPG127 file).

¹²⁸ De[s] Amory had acquired the Van Dyck for 7,000 guilders (according to Uffenbach, see note 10), and the Rubens for 6,000 (at least that was the price that was asked); see note 133 (Miedema). According to Hoet (1752) at the 1722 sale the Rubens was purchased for 3,850 guilders and the Van Dyck for 4,300: see note 3.

¹²⁹ GPID (2 Dec. 2014): Ixion was sold, as coming from the collection of Sir George Page, at the auction of Welbore Ellis Agar in London on 3 May 1806 (Lugt 7080a) and bought for £3,000 by Robert Grosvenor, 1st Marquis of Westminster. See also note 4 above.

¹³⁰ Ixion, King of the Lapiths, lived as an outlaw and was shunned because of his wrongdoings. Zeus (Jupiter) however had pity on him and brought him to Olympus. Instead of being grateful, Ixion grew lustful for Hera (Juno), Zeus’s wife. Zeus found out about his intentions and made a cloud in the shape of Hera, which became known as Nephele, and tricked Ixion into coupling with it. That scene is depicted by Rubens, with both the ‘real’ Hera and the one in the form of a cloud; for the iconography of Ixion see further Georgievska-Shine 2002.

¹³¹ There are however many reasons why an engraver would not make a print after the second picture of a pair (made as such, or later made into a pair). With many thanks to Gerdien Wuestman and Yvonne Bleyerveld: see their emails of 21 and 22 Feb. 2019, DPG127 file).

¹³² Bert van de Roemer has not found extra information in the manuscript notes by Uffenbach, which are in the Göttingen Library, with many thanks to him.

¹³³ Miedema 2006, i, pp. 192–4, ii, pp. 153, 155, 298 (fig. 34). Miedema discusses two letters from the linguist and art theorist Lambert ten Kate to the artist Hendrik van Limborch (23 Aug. and 29 Oct. 1711) in which Ten Kate mentions Rubens’s Ixion (Related works, no. 1a) [1] that he had seen on 22 Aug. 1711 in Amsterdam, recently brought from Flanders by art dealers, who asked 6,000 guilders for it. So it seems that Van Dyck’s Samson and Delilah and Rubens’s Ixion had found their way to Amsterdam separately.

¹³⁴ The drawing in Brunswick that was previously seen as a preparatory drawing for DPG127 (Related works, no. 13a) [12] has since 1960 been considered to be a free copy after the painting (D’Hulst & Vey 1960, p. 41). According to D’Hulst & Vey the much larger space above the heads of the protagonists was an addition by the copyist, and does not prove that DPG127 had originally been larger. See also note 83 above.

¹³⁵ D’Hulst & Vandenven 1989, pp. 109–10.

¹³⁶ See note 56 above (Manuth).

¹³⁷ De Poorter 2004, pp. 99–100, no. I.105.

¹³⁸ See Van Gent & Pastoor 1994, pp. 72, 81 and Van Gent & Pastoor 1991, pp. 72, 81; in the latter article however DPG127 is not mentioned. See also Manuth 1990, and the Freudian-inspired article about Delilah by Kahr 1972. For a general overview of Samson & Delilah scenes, starting with Andrea Mantegna, see Pigler 1974, i, pp. 127–32.

¹³⁹ See note 60. Philips Galle made a Samson and Delilah scene as no. 4 of his series (of 6) The Power of Women, see https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1875-0710-521 (July 25, 2020); Sellink & Leesberg 2001, i, pp. 181, no. 128, 185 (fig.).

¹⁴⁰ Manuth 1990, pp. 176–7.

¹⁴¹ According to Stewart (1986, pp. 139–41), however, the column symbolises strength (Fortitudo).

¹⁴² Bleyerveld (2000, pp. 146–51, figs 61, 62a–h) gives a ground plan and details of the boardroom in the Town Hall of Courtrai (Kortrijk) where the sculptural decoration included Samson and Delilah and seven other dangerous women deceiving men, from mythology and the Bible. See also Van Gent & Pastoor 1991 and 1994, and the article by Kahr (1972).

¹⁴³ Bleyerveld 2000, p. 233.

¹⁴⁴ See https://www.khm.at/objektdb/detail/425/ (July 26, 2020). Between 1617 and 1781 this picture was in Antwerp, where Van Dyck could have seen it.

¹⁴⁵ Although we have to take into account that the dimensions of both pictures have changed since the 17th century; for instance the Rubens must have been wider at the right, as Samson’s foot has been partly cut off, which is shown complete in the Matham print (Related works, no. 3d) [6] and in the Francken picture, see RKD, no. 232905: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/232905 (April 10, 2019). But in both of those the foot aligns with the right edge of the door, leaving a space similar to that on the left.

¹⁴⁶ Email from Hillie Smit to Ellinoor Bergvelt, 12 Feb. 2015 (DPG127 file).

¹⁴⁷ Martin suggests that Van Dyck shows Samson as already emasculated, prefiguring his symbolic castration by the cutting of his hair: Martin 1983b, p. 38.

¹⁴⁸ Analysed by Brown in 1994 (pp. 49–54).

¹⁴⁹ A.- M. Logan in Vergara & Lammertse 2012, p. 169.

¹⁵⁰ Lammertse & Vergara 2012, p. 56.

¹⁵¹ Brown 1994, p. 32; also the position of the legs has been altered.

¹⁵² According to Vey (1955, p. 48; D’Hulst & Vey 1960, pp. 39–41, no. 4, fig. III; and Vey 1962, i, p. 75) Samson’s pose in DPG127 may be linked with the Rubens drawing in New York (Related works, no. 7e.II) and Boldrini’s print after Titian’s Sleeping Cupid (Related works, no. 7f). According to Hughes (1977, p. 1030 [note 7]) the Rubens drawing is not of the Borghese Hermaphrodite in the Terme in Rome but of a Hellenistic Hermaphrodite in the Uffizi, Florence.

¹⁵³ Lammertse & Vergara 2012, p. 43. It seems however strange to mention in the same sentence the drawing of the Borghese Hermaphrodite and the figure in the St Paul’s altarpiece, since the latter is definitely muscular and male: J. J. Pérez Preciado in Vergara & Lammertse 2012, p. 151, under no. 21. These drawings depict different types of male and hermaphrodite bodies, which requires some explanation.

¹⁵⁴ 161 Lammertse & Vergara 2012, p. 43.

¹⁵⁵ S. J. Barnes (in Wheelock, Barnes & Held 1990, p. 103) even says that Van Dyck must have had that drawing before him; McNairn (1980, p. 57) also says that the drawings are close.

¹⁵⁶ As also was stated by Brown 1994, p. 53. Also Cornelis Massys made an outdoor scene, see note 63 above. See for an interior the print by Philips Galle mentioned in note 146 above.

¹⁵⁷ It was even suggested by Lia Gorter, during a CODART meeting at Dulwich, 21 Jan. 2015, that DPG127 might have been painted for the barbers’ guild in Antwerp, but in that case it would have been kept by the guild.

¹⁵⁸ Monnas 2008, pp. 259–64. She says (p. 258) that brocaded velvets woven with serpentine branches bearing pomegranates, thistles, pineapples and other fruits are nowadays often referred to collectively as ‘pomegranate’ designs. She assumes that the piece of textile depicted in Related works, nos 12a–12c was in Rubens’s collection, and stayed there. She does not mention Related works, nos 12d–12f. Indeed 12d is not a brocaded velvet, but brocate (with thanks to Hillie Smit, email to Ellinoor Bergvelt of 19 June 2019 (DPG127 file)), although the pattern on that piece of textile looks very similar.

¹⁵⁹ The depiction of such pieces of luxurious textile we find primarily in earlier Venetian pictures like Veronese’s Venus, Mars and Cupid, c. 1580 in Edinburgh, see https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/5541/mars-venus-and-cupid (Oct. 9, 2018); Salomon 2014, pp. 194, 196 (fig. 143), 198 (fig. 145), 263, no. 43; Brown & Elliott 2002, pp. 190–91, no. 23 (J. Brown). See also Veronese’s Portrait of a Lady as St Agnes, 1580s in Houston, see https://www.mfah.org/art/detail/20446?returnUrl=%2Fart%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DVeronese (Oct. 9, 2018). See also a later one as Alessandro Turchi’s, Allegory of Hope, c. 1617–18 in Detroit, see Bissell, Derstine & Miller 2005, pp. 208–11, no. 66 (W. Bissell).

¹⁶⁰ Vey 1955, p. 51: So hätte er Rubens´ bedeutsame Anspielung in einem nur dekorativen und etwas ablenkendes Element verwandelt (Thus he changed Rubens’s important allusion into an element that is merely decorative and somewhat distracting). He does say that it came in the place of Rubens’s Venus.

¹⁶¹ See for triton and satyr so called Lomellini ewer and basin made in 1621–2 in Genoa: http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O82550/lomellini-ewer-and-basin-ewer-and-basin-tavarone-lavazzo/ (Oct. 9, 2018); Boccardo 2004, pp. 126–8, no. 8c (F. Boggero); Verdi 2003, p. 189, no. 121; Schleier 1992, pp. 282–4, no. 151 (F. Boggero), fig. 155. For Hercules as a child see the ewer and basin made in 1619 in Genoa, by an Antwerp silversmith, now in Oxford: Schroder 2009, iii, pp. 1044, 1052–60, no. 452; Boccardo 2004, pp. 126–8, no. 8a–b (F. Boggero); Schleier 1992, pp. 279–81, no. 150 (F. Simonetti), fig. 154. For the female herm see the ewer and basin marked London 1617–8, but made in the Netherlands or Germany?, now in Norwich: Claessens-Peré 1999, pp. 136–41, no. 30.

¹⁶² Schroder 2009, ii, pp. 565–6.

¹⁶³ See for the ampulla with a handle in the form of a female herm and tray, 1635–6, in a private collection: Claessens-Peré 1999, pp. 230–33, no. 65. Were these ampullae really made as religious objects, or did they start their life as secular objects?

¹⁶⁴ See for a scene with Delilah https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/H_WB-91 and https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/H_WB-92 (both July 26, 2020). For a scene with Susannah and the elders see the basin and ewer made by Theodoor Rogiers I or De Rasières, Antwerp, 1635–6, Rubenshuis, Antwerp, RHK.021; Nys 2006, pp. 233–4, no. 182; Fuhring 2001.

¹⁶⁵ Lot was another sinful man in the Old Testament, who slept with his daughters after drinking the wine they gave him. A very similar ewer with a handle in the form of a human figure appears in Bernardo Strozzi’s painting The Cook or The Kitchen of c. 1625 in Genoa: there it is curiously out of place, as the cook is preparing poultry in the kitchen, and one doesn’t know what the ewer contains. See Cataldi Gallo 2003, pp. 142–3, no. 54 (P. Boccardo); another version, in the National Gallery of Scotland in Edinburgh, depicts not a silver ewer but a copper one: https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/76170/cook (Oct. 9, 2018), and the picture is somewhat smaller, 174.6 x 160 cm. See also Gavazza, Nepi Sciré & Rotondi Terminelli 1995, pp. 184–7, no. 44 (P. Boccardo) and Mortari 1995, p. 160, no. 355.

¹⁶⁶ J. J. Pérez Preciado in Vergara & Lammertse 2012, pp. 164–6.

¹⁶⁷ Plinths can also be seen for instance in the outer wings of the altarpiece by Rubens for St Walburga’s, Antwerp (see under the modelli by Rubens, DPG40A–B); there they seem to have been for sculptured figures of saints.

¹⁶⁸ According to Langendijk (1964, p. 15) the figure of St John was originally meant as Harpocrates, as described by Vincenzo Cartari in 1556 and later editions.

¹⁶⁹ Lurie 1969, p. 339 (fig. 11). NB in Ripa 1603 there is no image of Silentio, only descriptions.

¹⁷⁰ As was remarked by Fiona Healy during a CODART meeting at Dulwich, 21 Jan. 2015.

¹⁷¹ See for instance Nakamura 2004 and Bleyerveld 2000 (see note 34 above). Sluijter 2015 is the first to suggest that DPG127 must have been known in the Northern Netherlands, but he discusses the picture in relation to Rembrandt’s The Blinding of Samson of 1636 (Related works, no. 17f) [19], not to the many Dutch Samson and Delilah scenes that were made, starting c. 1625 (Related works, nos 15a–15o). However Klessmann 1983, p. 213, mentions a PhD by C. Müller-Hofstede (‘Beiträge zur Geschichte des biblischen Historienbildes im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert’, Diss. (ms.) Berlin 1925, p. 212) where the author connects the Brunswick picture by Jan Victors (Related works, no. 15l) to DPG127. It seems that Müller’s PhD is present only in Germany.

¹⁷² Huiskamp 1998, p. 553, where she also gives a contra-argument: how to explain the Dutch lion on the right, hiding between the curtains?

¹⁷³ Hughes 1977 and Held 1980, i, p. 432.

¹⁷⁴ Stephanie Dickey in conversation with the authors in May 2012, during a CODART meeting in Prague, and Eric Jan Sluijter in conversation (2013) and Sluijter 2015, pp. 45–6 (fig. IIA–44), 409 (note 126), 410 (notes 127, 128), where he discusses the relation between DPG127 and Rembrandt’s Blinding of Samson of 1636 (Related works, no. 17f) [19].

¹⁷⁵ One of the exceptions is a female body in a work by a follower of Rembrandt: The Death of Lucretia (?), mid-1640s, in Detroit, see RKD, no. 289743: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/289743 (Oct. 17, 2018). See also https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Rembrandt_Harmensz_van_Rijn_-_The_Death_of_Lucretia_(%5E)_-_89.44_-_Detroit_Institute_of_Arts.jpg (July 26, 2020).

¹⁷⁶ See for instance Annibale Carracci’s Rinaldo and Armida of c. 1601–2, in Naples: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinaldo_e_Armida_(Annibale_Carracci) (Oct. 17, 2018) and the same scene by Domenichino of c. 1617–21, in the Louvre: http://cartelfr.louvre.fr/cartelfr/visite?srv=car_not_frame&idNotice=20891 (Nov. 14, 2018). Artemisia Gentileschi made in 1620 Jael and Sisera, now in Budapest, see https://www.mfab.hu/artworks/jael-and-sisera/ (Feb. 9, 2021); Christiansen & Mann 2001, pp. 344–7, no. 61. After a print by Philip Galle: Sellink & Leesberg 2001, i, pp. 180 (no. 127), 184 (fig.). Gerard van Honthorst made a Granida and Daifilo, in 1625, now in Utrecht, see RKD, no. 1168: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/1168 (Oct 17, 2018); Judson & Ekkart 1999, pp. 159–61, no. 189, figs XIV and 101. 18g. Alessandro Turchi’s, Erminia and Vafrino look after the Wounded Tancredi, of c. 1630, is now in Vienna:

¹⁷⁷ For Strozzi see Mortari 1995, pp. 50 (fig. XXIII), 181, no. 453, where two copies are mentioned (nos 454, 455), and a different composition by Strozzi of the same subject (no. 456).

¹⁷⁸ Ostrowski (1977/1981), writing about Van Dyck’s influence in Genoa, suggests drawings that had been left in Genoa as sources for Italian artists: see above, notes 116 and especially 117.

¹⁷⁹ Desenfans placed this on sale on three occasions in 1786, after which nothing is known of it. GPID (13 Jan. 2015); 8 April 1786 (Lugt 4022), lot 171 (sold or bought in, £315.0); again 8 June 1786 (Lugt 4059a), lot 234, and 17 July 1786, Christie’s (Lugt 4071), lot 38. It could be the St Cyprian by Van Dyck that is mentioned in the Jaubert auction on 8 March 1810 (Lugt 7717), lot 65.

¹⁸⁰ According to Bungarten (2005, ii, p. 332) Fuseli wrote his text c. 1802 and read it on several occasions between 1802 and 1820; the first printed edition was in 1820. See note 12 above.

¹⁸¹ White 1999b, p. 634.

¹⁸² Sluijter 2015, p. 46: ‘[Rembrandt] must have been impressed by the beautifully flowing spatial movements in Van Dyck’s painting, which were missing in Rubens’s invention. […] For Van Dyck this [light blue sky] was a motif to open up Rubens’s oppressive, dark space and so place the barber and the woman at the left with beautiful contours against a bright sky. […] Rembrandt knew how to use the grace of Van Dyck’s koppeling and sprong [the way in which the shapes are linked and projected in space], but for the gracefulness of Van Dyck’s figures he had no use’.