'It's the death of science.' (Manu Reino/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Amid the storm of US election headlines in recent weeks, a snippet of news began bubbling up on social media that, only a few years ago, would have whipped up a frenzied media hurricane. President Biden had tested positive for Covid and videos posted on X showed him boarding and exiting Airforce One, but without a mask.
“Listen to the scientists, support masks,” Biden said at a campaign rally, four years ago, berating Trump for not wearing a mask after he had caught Covid. “Support a mask mandate nationwide,” Biden thundered to cheers and adulation. His campaign message captured a “follow the science” sentiment among Left-leaning American voters who derided anyone questioning mask effectiveness with the label “anti-mask”. This, despite a smattering of articles in Scientific American, Wired, New York Magazine and The Atlantic reporting that scientific studies found masks didn’t seem to stop viruses.
The debate over mask effectiveness took an odd turn last year when ardent mask advocate, Zeynep Tufekci, wrote a New York Times essay claiming “the science is clear that masks work”. Tufekci’s piece denigrated and belittled a scientific review by the prestigious medical nonprofit, Cochrane, for concluding that the evidence is “uncertain”.
Shortly after Tufekci published her essay, Cochrane’s editor-in-chief, Karla Soares-Weiser, dashed out a statement, to assure mask advocates that Cochrane would update the review’s language. Cochrane reviews are widely considered as the “gold standard” for high‐quality information to inform medicine, and their process is laborious, with multiple rounds of internal checks and expert peer review. Having Cochrane’s head make a personal pronouncement about a published review is unprecedented — akin to having the executive editor of The New York Times write an essay expressing personal opinions about one of the paper’s own deep-dive investigations.
The incident also marked an odd point in the timeline of mask use. Before the pandemic, few, if any, prominent organisations promoted masks to stop influenza or other respiratory viruses. As the WHO concluded in their 2019 pandemic preparedness plan: “There have been a number of high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating that personal protective measures such as hand hygiene and face masks have, at best, a small effect on influenza transmission.” So, it was not surprising that both Tufekci’s claims “masks work” and Karla Soares-Weiser’s allegations that something was wrong with the Cochrane mask review were later found themselves to have no real evidence.
Earlier this year, Soares-Weiser issued another statement, this time explaining the mask review was fine and no changes would be made. Despite the 180, damage to Cochrane’s mask review had already been done. Google sends you straight to Tufekci’s New York Times essay alleging problems in the Cochrane review.
But why did Soares-Weiser change her mind?
I have discovered, through hundreds of emails provided to me by freedom of information requests and a Cochrane whistleblower, that Tufekci bumped Soares-Weiser into making the statement against Cochrane’s own mask review — a move that landed like a grenade inside the organisation.
While Soares-Weiser runs Cochrane, scientists with expertise in each specific subject matter write and edit the reviews. When she rushed out her statement complaining about the mask review, the review authors charged that Cochrane had thrown science under the bus by working with “controversial writer” Zeynep Tufekci; meanwhile, the editor of the mask review reminded Cochrane’s leadership that changes were only being considered because of “intense media coverage and criticism”, not because there were any problems in the review’s science. “I had a very challenging meeting with the [governing board] yesterday,” Soares-Weiser wrote a few days afterwards. “I am holding on, stressed, but OK.”
But the story doesn’t end there. Because the attack by Soares-Weiser and Cochrane’s leadership on their own mask review is illustrative of how media and political pressure undermined and suppressed inconvenient scientific conclusions during the pandemic — and are still attempting to do so. The incident also raises questions about media ethics and whether Cochrane’s leadership is still fit for purpose.
When Cochrane published their 2023 mask review, it was the seventh iteration of a process that began 18 years previously. Back in 2006, Cochrane researchers raked through the scientific literature to see if they could determine what interventions could halt the spread of viruses. They found no good evidence that masks work. The scientists then updated their review in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2020.
With all six updates, each time scouring any new peer-reviewed studies, Cochrane researchers concluded the same: there is no good scientific evidence that masks work to control viruses. And each time, the scientific community yawned. Because until the Covid pandemic, nobody had conceived of a political movement to advocate for masks. Not even Zeynep Tufekci.
“Don’t worry if you cannot find masks,” Tufekci wrote in a February 2020 article for Scientific American. “For non–health care people, washing your hands often, using alcohol-based hand-sanitiser liberally and learning not to touch your face are the most important clinically-proven interventions there are.” Promoting the article on X, Tufekci reiterated this point: “Clinical studies show hand-washing is the crucial step not masks.”
But the following month, a New York Times media reporter praised Tufekci for reversing her former opinion in a 1 March tweetstorm. This was followed by a 17 March essay for The New York Times that convinced the CDC to alter federal guidance and advise Americans to mask.
What makes this all alarming is that Tufekci is an academic sociologist, with no training in medicine or public health. And yet, she managed to alter public health policy with a bunch of tweets and an essay followed, two months later, by a co-authored scientific preprint that promoted mask mandates. “We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation,” it said.
The study’s lead author is Jeremy Howard, a mask advocate and Australian software entrepreneur, who, like Tufekci, has no training in public health or medicine. The review was later published in a medical journal and remains the only article I could find that Tufekci has published in the scientific literature on masks.
Despite such a thin publishing record in the scientific literature, the Raleigh News & Observer (an influential paper among academics) anointed Tufekci a Covid media hero who had challenged the medical and public health establishment and got the facts right — but with essays, not science. “Instead of conducting lab experiments related to Covid-19, she used her platform on Twitter and in the opinion sections of Scientific American, The Atlantic and The New York Times to inform the public with practical advice about what to do and why.”
In retrospect, it’s hard to read this article — celebrating an academic for doing science by essay — and not wonder if it’s a satirical piece for The Onion: “Monkey Solves Grand Unified Theory of Physics in a Single Tweet.” Nonetheless, Tufekci played along with the gag, amazed at her magical ability to solve complex scientific problems without doing any actual science — just writing essays.
“I never thought in a million years I’d be writing something that basically said the World Health Organization and CDC and medical establishment in the United States and Europe are wrong,” she told the paper. But one tiny obstacle stood between Tufekci and full acceptance of mask mandates: Cochrane.
When Cochrane released their mask update in January 2023, which again said the efficacy of masks was uncertain, critics of pandemic policies naturally used these scientific conclusions to cast doubt on the mask advocates. “Mask mandates were a bust,” wrote New York Times columnist Brett Stephens, citing an interview by Tom Jefferson, the lead author of the Cochrane mask review. “Those skeptics who were furiously mocked as cranks and occasionally censored as ‘misinformers’ for opposing mandates were right.”
Tufekci’s rise to public prominence is tied closely to her mask advocacy. Reading this column in The New York Times, the most prominent paper in the country, and where she also worked, must have been irksome for her. Three days after the Stephens column, Tufekci emailed Cochrane for an interview. But rather than contacting Jefferson or any of the scientists who authored the review, Tufekci went straight to Michael Brown, one of Cochrane’s editors. She also asked if he would introduce her to Cochrane editor-in-chief, Karla Soares-Weiser, to which Brown agreed.
Some days later, Karla Soares-Weiser emailed a Cochrane official that she had been “back and forth with NYT about the mask review”, asking for help responding to questions. “I’m navigating a difficult situation,” Soares-Weiser emailed. Tufekci meanwhile, had contacted Jefferson for comment, but he ignored her.
The very following day, the Times published Tufekci’s “masks work” essay. Given the way American journalism works, the piece had most likely been written and edited before she had contacted Jefferson the night before for comment. Although 12 different scientists had been involved in writing and researching the Cochrane mask review, Zeynep singled out Jefferson. She named him several times in her essay for making alleged false statements about the pandemic. Hours later, Cochrane rushed out Soares-Weiser’s statement, and then apologised to the review authors. “We hoped to inform you all before publication but have been blindsided by the NYT and have scrabbled to upload our statement,” Cochrane emailed the review authors.
This did not go down well with the authors. “I will not speak for the others but am deeply distressed by this course of events which have occurred without our knowledge,” replied Jon Conly, a professor and former head of the department of medicine at the University of Calgary. He insisted that Cochrane had thrown the review authors under the bus. “Very naive to think you and the [editor in chief Soares-Weiser] spoke to the media at NYTs (without informing us) and would trust them and that they would not immediately publish what you said, especially with this woman who is well known as a controversial writer.”
“There was no intention to ‘throw you or anyone under the bus’,” Brown responded, “since I would be throwing myself under the bus as the sign-off editor.” He added that he had told Tufekci that he stood by the review and had asked her to contact the review authors for their statements.
Conly confirmed to me later that Tufekci — who did not respond to repeated requests for comment — never contacted him, even though he is named as the review’s corresponding author, who Tufekci should have contacted for comment. “Not sure who Tufekci would have corresponded with to find any of the authors who would have agreed with her,” Conly said.
As I have seen from internal correspondence, Cochrane’s editors then began discussing how to manage blowback from Soares Weiser’s statement. Brown reminded them the update used the same language from 2020 and that revisions were now being suggested because Cochrane was flinching from media critics, not because the science was wrong. “Although I agree that the proposed changes to the [summary] add clarity, it was only under intense media coverage and criticism that these revisions were suggested,” Brown wrote.
Seeking another angle to quell criticism of Soares-Weiser’s statement, Lisa Bero, a professor medicine at the University of Colorado who serves as Cochrane ethics advisor, suggested that Cochrane publish comments being submitted by outsiders that were also critical of the mask review. “That should be published as soon as possible (following screening for libel or profanity),” Bero emailed. “It is important for readers to know that criticism has not just come through the media, but through the formal channels that we have.”
But according to Conly, the review had already undergone extensive, detailed peer review. “If the editor-in-chief and ethics officer were colluding to find criticism afterwards,” he told me, “that would appear to be unethical.”
Meanwhile, Soares-Weiser’s statement and Tufekci’s article were having a significant effect outside the organisation, spurring several news articles as well as ridicule of the mask authors on social media. Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and author of several books on pandemics, Laurie Garret, accused the mask authors of fraud. “[T]hese bozos have undermined public faith in [masks] & biz/govt willingness to promote use,” she posted on X. (It is notable that, prior to the pandemic, Garrett posted on X in 2018 that masks don’t work for influenza and other respiratory viruses. “We have also known for 100+ years that masks do no good.”)
The argument was even reverberating through politics. Testifying in her final appearance before Congress, CDC Director, Rochelle Walensky, cited Soares-Weiser’s statement, falsely stating that Cochrane had “retracted” the mask review. Congressional staff were forced to correct her testimony: “The lack of trust in public health officials is becoming an enormous problem,” a congressional staffer later wrote.
Word of Soares-Weiser’s actions even reached the highest levels of the British government. That summer, while she was in London for a Cochrane event, an MP invited her to Parliament’s Portcullis House to explain her statement. However, according to a staffer in Parliament, Soares-Weiser dodged the invite and never appeared.
Although he was noted prominently in the “masks work” essay, Cochrane’s Michael Brown told me the Times had engaged in a lot of of “spinning” of his comments and he hadn’t been aware that Tufekci had campaigned for mask mandates, nor that she had published a review whose conclusions contradicted those of Cochrane. In her initial email to Brown, Tufekci had highlighted her ostensibly scientific background, introducing herself as both a New York Times columnist and an academic with a background in statistics and causal inference, and an interest in scientific reviews. “I use and participate in reviews myself (I’m writing one in my own field soon) and thus am familiar with many of the challenges and issues.”
This is something of an embellishment of Tufekci’s bona fides. According to Google Scholar, she has published no academic articles this year and the only one she published in all of 2023 was an opinion piece in Nature. As for the review article Tufekci had pointed to, it has never appeared.
“I’m a trusting person,” Brown told me, explaining that he had never looked up Tufekci’s history before speaking with her. “She’s definitely more of a journalist than a scientist. I didn’t agree with her, the way she then spun it: masks work.”
“The bottom line is that [our] review was well-done,” Brown said. As for the proposed changes to review’s language, Brown explained that the summary language had been written by Cochrane staff reporting to Karla Soares-Weiser, not Tom Jefferson and the other review authors.
“She sort of got caught in the crossfire,” Brown said of Soares-Weiser, adding that colleagues pressured her because they didn’t like the conclusions that there is no evidence masks work. “Which is really hard for her, for someone in her position as editor in chief.”
Brown made his views on the science clear last September when he emailed the organiser of a talk he was giving that masks “do not make a major impact at the community level when promoted as a public health intervention”. He also told me that a recent scientific review in the Annals of Internal Medicine complemented the findings of Cochrane. “In the end, the conclusions were the same.”
But while Cochrane has ceased attacking its own mask review, The New York Times continues to promote the “masks work” narrative — despite evidence to the contrary. Last May, the paper ran an essay by Tulane University’s John M. Barry. In his piece, Barry wrote: “Masks present a much simpler question. They work. We’ve known they work since 1917, when they helped protect soldiers from a measles epidemic.”
And yet, we know this is not true. Even Barry does. As he wrote his bestselling tome, The Great Influenza: “The masks worn by millions were useless as designed and could not prevent influenza. Only preventing exposure to the virus could.”
But as has become clear, and as Brown confirmed in our conversation, masks are no longer about science: “Instead of just talking about the science, it became a political thing. And people fell on one side or the other,” he said. “And they said some things, and then they have to back up what they’ve said previously. And they’re just digging a hole deeper and deeper.”
What The New York Times did was to embrace a scientific opinion — masks work! — and then defend that notion like a divine ruling — ignoring contrary evidence and attacking researchers such as Tom Jefferson who have spent decades toiling away on a once-obscure topic. “This is what the future holds,” Jefferson told me. “It’s an upside-down world. It’s the death of science.”
Paul D. Thacker is a former congressional investigator who runs The Disinformation Chronicle newsletter, and was awarded a British Journalism Award for a series that investigated COVID-19 pandemic policies.
thackerpd 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI found this rather interesting, on several levels.
There’s the anecdotal element, regarding eminent figures such as Isaiah Berlin and (to a lesser degree) Brian Sewell. Then there’s a dive into the training techniques of art academies. There’s also historical narrative about the movement of works of art plus fascinating (to a fellow artist) examples of how previous generations used materials, especially as the basis for their work.
Most of all, of course, the arcane and often murky world of art provenance, gallery prestige, human failings and financial liability.
As this article shows (and i congratulate the author for her persistence), the production of works of art isn’t just about the humanity involved in their making, but the ripples of wider human traits in their subsequent history and conservation.
I could imagine some might react by saying “Oh, this is just a tale about movers in an exclusive world, far removed from the pressing concerns of our lives”. But i’d disagree. What it reveals is that no matter how exclusive or privileged the environment, all the human failings but also better aspects of our natures – in particular, integrity – remain constant, which is an important insight for anyone seeking to take their own place in a more rarified circle of life.
I hope the author can follow this up with a further article, should there be a satifactory outcome to this tale from her perpective. Possibly, articles on other art matters too, with her knowledge and insight.
I found this rather interesting, on several levels.
There’s the anecdotal element, regarding eminent figures such as Isaiah Berlin and (to a lesser degree) Brian Sewell. Then there’s a dive into the training techniques of art academies. There’s also historical narrative about the movement of works of art plus fascinating (to a fellow artist) examples of how previous generations used materials, especially as the basis for their work.
Most of all, of course, the arcane and often murky world of art provenance, gallery prestige, human failings and financial liability.
As this article shows (and i congratulate the author for her persistence), the production of works of art isn’t just about the humanity involved in their making, but the ripples of wider human traits in their subsequent history and conservation.
I could imagine some might react by saying “Oh, this is just a tale about movers in an exclusive world, far removed from the pressing concerns of our lives”. But i’d disagree. What it reveals is that no matter how exclusive or privileged the environment, all the human failings but also better aspects of our natures – in particular, integrity – remain constant, which is an important insight for anyone seeking to take their own place in a more rarified circle of life.
I hope the author can follow this up with a further article, should there be a satifactory outcome to this tale from her perpective. Possibly, articles on other art matters too, with her knowledge and insight.
The origins of the story are completely believable: budding arts students discover fraud of national significance and are shouted down by the establishment. I am sympathetic to this story as a hard-headed student myself at one point. However, it doesn’t do to spend half your life on a crusade going nowhere (art history isn’t exactly going to chage the world no matter what the Da Vinci Code might say).
The authority of the author’s side is simply not credible and reads like something out of a novel. Would Isaiah Berlin (a man not known for hiding controversial opinions) have just gone along with a huge cover up? It discredits his memory rather than enhancing it. A bunch of students having a hunch is not evidence and her own studies – as Sewell unkindly puts it – are in another field. This is not even debated let alone refuted by the author. Quoting two scholars who have seen “high resolution photos” i.e. not inspected it,
More links would have been useful – a frequent refrain from me on a lot if Unherd articles – about why Buchard is “flawed” or why the Antwerp scholars are overly deferential to him for instance. Especially in a specialised subject like this it isnt obvious why the general audience would agree with these statements.
An interesting article but one that I think Unherd should consider having the other side told on, especially as I assume most people on here like myself have no expertise.
The origins of the story are completely believable: budding arts students discover fraud of national significance and are shouted down by the establishment. I am sympathetic to this story as a hard-headed student myself at one point. However, it doesn’t do to spend half your life on a crusade going nowhere (art history isn’t exactly going to chage the world no matter what the Da Vinci Code might say).
The authority of the author’s side is simply not credible and reads like something out of a novel. Would Isaiah Berlin (a man not known for hiding controversial opinions) have just gone along with a huge cover up? It discredits his memory rather than enhancing it. A bunch of students having a hunch is not evidence and her own studies – as Sewell unkindly puts it – are in another field. This is not even debated let alone refuted by the author. Quoting two scholars who have seen “high resolution photos” i.e. not inspected it,
More links would have been useful – a frequent refrain from me on a lot if Unherd articles – about why Buchard is “flawed” or why the Antwerp scholars are overly deferential to him for instance. Especially in a specialised subject like this it isnt obvious why the general audience would agree with these statements.
An interesting article but one that I think Unherd should consider having the other side told on, especially as I assume most people on here like myself have no expertise.
Here’s a question – as a piece of art, is it any good? This is all that matters to me.
It should matter – if it’s not the original. The National Gallery, whilst having charitable status, also relies on public funding (i.e. from the government); in other words, your tax and mine. Paying a significant sum for a copy is a huge waste of public funds.
Whatever the truth may be, there is no way that the National Gallery is going to be able to get the money back. So unless they are contemplating reselling it, at one level it doesn’t actually matter.
Personally I have always hated it – Delilah has breasts that look like bags of marbles to my eye, but it doesn’t matter what I think.
Plus, a rather manly shoulder…
I’m not a fan of Rubens (or whoever chooses to copy him). By the time his era came around, history painting was on its last legs and only by the over-emphasis on certain aspects of physicality was he able to make a name for himself. I couldn’t actually care less about his technique – since that’s all it is.
Off course those parvenu Stewarts loved him, particularly that unwashed old botty bandit otherwise known a James I, and his useless son Charles I.
Off course those parvenu Stewarts loved him, particularly that unwashed old botty bandit otherwise known a James I, and his useless son Charles I.
Plus, a rather manly shoulder…
I’m not a fan of Rubens (or whoever chooses to copy him). By the time his era came around, history painting was on its last legs and only by the over-emphasis on certain aspects of physicality was he able to make a name for himself. I couldn’t actually care less about his technique – since that’s all it is.
Right you are, Steve. And there’s something else. Why did the tax-supported National Gallery pay the high price for a painting that is not particularly effective from a purely artistic point of view? It’s because the reputed artist’s name is so famous. This purchase was about the gallery’s prestige more than the aesthetic quality of its collection.
Spot on! Thank you.
Spot on! Thank you.
Whatever the truth may be, there is no way that the National Gallery is going to be able to get the money back. So unless they are contemplating reselling it, at one level it doesn’t actually matter.
Personally I have always hated it – Delilah has breasts that look like bags of marbles to my eye, but it doesn’t matter what I think.
Right you are, Steve. And there’s something else. Why did the tax-supported National Gallery pay the high price for a painting that is not particularly effective from a purely artistic point of view? It’s because the reputed artist’s name is so famous. This purchase was about the gallery’s prestige more than the aesthetic quality of its collection.
No. It’s a lurid mess masquerading as a great master who’s use of light and color were transcendent, and that absolutely should matter.
After reading this interesting article, I went to the National Gallery to examine the painting, up close. No way is it an original Rubens! A child of tender years would easily see this, given that it is in the same room along with a number of glorious original Rubens’ paintings and can therefore be closely compared. I questioned an attendant as to whether visitors ever asked after the “Samson and Delilah” painting. At first he replied, “I cannot comment” but when pressed, he said, “You’re not the first to ask this question”. Enough said.
After reading this interesting article, I went to the National Gallery to examine the painting, up close. No way is it an original Rubens! A child of tender years would easily see this, given that it is in the same room along with a number of glorious original Rubens’ paintings and can therefore be closely compared. I questioned an attendant as to whether visitors ever asked after the “Samson and Delilah” painting. At first he replied, “I cannot comment” but when pressed, he said, “You’re not the first to ask this question”. Enough said.
It should matter – if it’s not the original. The National Gallery, whilst having charitable status, also relies on public funding (i.e. from the government); in other words, your tax and mine. Paying a significant sum for a copy is a huge waste of public funds.
No. It’s a lurid mess masquerading as a great master who’s use of light and color were transcendent, and that absolutely should matter.
Here’s a question – as a piece of art, is it any good? This is all that matters to me.
The international Art market will forever to sullied by the scandalous conduct of the partnership between one Joseph Duveen (UK) and one Bernard Berenson (USA).
Both now reside in the ‘pit of eternal stench’ but the damage they wrought is incalculable.
The international Art market will forever to sullied by the scandalous conduct of the partnership between one Joseph Duveen (UK) and one Bernard Berenson (USA).
Both now reside in the ‘pit of eternal stench’ but the damage they wrought is incalculable.
Ήμουνα έτοιμος να το αγοράσω, άλλα τώρα θα πρέπει να το ξανά σκεφτώ.
“Caveat emptor!”
αν είναι ψεύτικο τότε ίσως θα μπορούσατε να το αντέξετε οικονομικά.
“Caveat emptor!”
αν είναι ψεύτικο τότε ίσως θα μπορούσατε να το αντέξετε οικονομικά.
Ήμουνα έτοιμος να το αγοράσω, άλλα τώρα θα πρέπει να το ξανά σκεφτώ.
Any doubters of the facts of the case as set out by Doxiades would be well advised to go hot-foot to the National Gallery to test out this theory for themselves. The case rests on the material facts as can be seen by the naked eye but is greatly amplified by half a lifetime’s research on the subject. Summaries of this research can be found on the dedicated website, In Rubens Name, https://www.inrubensname.org/. The astonishing part of the story is not the waste of public funds, anyone can make an honest mistake, but in the refusal to square up to it and present the picture to the public as an interesting case study and as the surviving copy of a splendid original. Currently it is shown not just as a real Rubens but as a highlight, one of the best paintings in the gallery.
Any doubters of the facts of the case as set out by Doxiades would be well advised to go hot-foot to the National Gallery to test out this theory for themselves. The case rests on the material facts as can be seen by the naked eye but is greatly amplified by half a lifetime’s research on the subject. Summaries of this research can be found on the dedicated website, In Rubens Name, https://www.inrubensname.org/. The astonishing part of the story is not the waste of public funds, anyone can make an honest mistake, but in the refusal to square up to it and present the picture to the public as an interesting case study and as the surviving copy of a splendid original. Currently it is shown not just as a real Rubens but as a highlight, one of the best paintings in the gallery.
My husband and I are both professional artists, and it’s funny, but he just walked in as I was finishing this article. “Yeah, I saw that,” he said. “Absolutely. Rubens didn’t paint with those gross greenish grays. It’s obvious.”
Good work, and keep at it, Ms. Doxiadis!
My husband and I are both professional artists, and it’s funny, but he just walked in as I was finishing this article. “Yeah, I saw that,” he said. “Absolutely. Rubens didn’t paint with those gross greenish grays. It’s obvious.”
Good work, and keep at it, Ms. Doxiadis!
Fascinating article.
‘But after 1641, that original disappeared’. Are there any theories as to its fate?
After the public auction in Antwerp during which all the contents of Rockox’s house including all art works are sold we really loose its traces. (We have in the Antwerp Archives the 1641 document of the announcement of the auction by the town crier). Sadly we have no document as to who bought what at the auction. Throughout these 339 years from 1641 until 1980 anything could have happened to the original. The past is such a complex maze which is impossible to imagine once it has gone. It could have been burnt in a fire, stored in a basement which flooded, over-painted, forgotten in an attic, in the storage of a small museum or home. Rubens experts from the Rubenianum have given it a totally cockamamy provenance which my long research has proven wrong. No airtight evidence at all. I believe the Catalogue of Rubens’ Engravings by Max Rooses who in around 1800 calls the original Samson and Delilah : “Tableau Inconnu”. He publishes the Engravings of paintings by Rubens including the engraving of Samson and Delilah by the Dutch engraver Jacob Matham of 1613 (one of the two eyewitnesses who copied the original in-situ the other was Frans Francken II who painted a Kunstkammer of Rockox’s Groote Saleth, Great Salon around 1634).Rooses declares the original S&D UNKNOWN. Therefore lost.
After the public auction in Antwerp during which all the contents of Rockox’s house including all art works are sold we really loose its traces. (We have in the Antwerp Archives the 1641 document of the announcement of the auction by the town crier). Sadly we have no document as to who bought what at the auction. Throughout these 339 years from 1641 until 1980 anything could have happened to the original. The past is such a complex maze which is impossible to imagine once it has gone. It could have been burnt in a fire, stored in a basement which flooded, over-painted, forgotten in an attic, in the storage of a small museum or home. Rubens experts from the Rubenianum have given it a totally cockamamy provenance which my long research has proven wrong. No airtight evidence at all. I believe the Catalogue of Rubens’ Engravings by Max Rooses who in around 1800 calls the original Samson and Delilah : “Tableau Inconnu”. He publishes the Engravings of paintings by Rubens including the engraving of Samson and Delilah by the Dutch engraver Jacob Matham of 1613 (one of the two eyewitnesses who copied the original in-situ the other was Frans Francken II who painted a Kunstkammer of Rockox’s Groote Saleth, Great Salon around 1634).Rooses declares the original S&D UNKNOWN. Therefore lost.
Fascinating article.
‘But after 1641, that original disappeared’. Are there any theories as to its fate?
The whole art market is a racket. Christie’s and Sotheby’s have cancelled Eric Gill because he went to bed with his daughter. Fair enough.
However I doubt very much, given the prices they fetch, that these auctions houses will cancel Picasso or Lucien Freud for mistreating vulnerable women.
“Mistreating vulnerable women”? I wonder if you have a list of flaws that justify cancellation and a list of those that don’t. I for one would be curious.
Sophy can no doubt speak for herself but I don’t think she’s looking to cancel anyone, rather she would like to see Gill uncancelled. Art in its widest sense now seems to be all about the morals and sex (at birth or otherwise) of the artist, not the quality of the work.
Sophy can no doubt speak for herself but I don’t think she’s looking to cancel anyone, rather she would like to see Gill uncancelled. Art in its widest sense now seems to be all about the morals and sex (at birth or otherwise) of the artist, not the quality of the work.
“Mistreating vulnerable women”? I wonder if you have a list of flaws that justify cancellation and a list of those that don’t. I for one would be curious.
The whole art market is a racket. Christie’s and Sotheby’s have cancelled Eric Gill because he went to bed with his daughter. Fair enough.
However I doubt very much, given the prices they fetch, that these auctions houses will cancel Picasso or Lucien Freud for mistreating vulnerable women.