Solomon and the Queen of Sheba

ca. 1630

Willem de Poorter(Haarlem [?] 1608 – after 1648 Haarlem [?])

oil on panel
35.3 x 44.4 cm
WP-100Currently on view at: The National Museum ofChina, Beijing

How To Cite
Van Tuinen, Ilona. "Solomon and the Queen of Sheba." In The Leiden Collection Catalogue. Edited by
Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. New York, 2017.
https://www.theleidencollection.com/archive/.
This page is available on the site's Archive. PDF of every version of this page is available on the Archive,
and the Archive is managed by a permanent URL. Archival copies will never be deleted. New versions areadded only when a substantive change to the narrative occurs.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
Page 2 of 8

In this vibrantly colored little painting, Willem de Poorter depicts the Old

Comparative Figures

Testament story of the Queen of Sheba’s visit to King Solomon, recounted
in 1 Kings 10:1–13. The queen, increasingly skeptical about the legendary
wisdom and monotheistic religion of King Solomon, traveled with a large
caravan from Sheba (probably modern Yemen) to the king’s court inJerusalem to test him with challenging questions. After Solomon had
answered each of her queries successfully, and after she had witnessed
his peaceful, civilized court, she was moved with admiration for the kingand his God. She then lavished Solomon with gold, spices, and preciousstones.
De Poorter depicts the moment just after the Queen of Sheba’s disbelief
has turned into conviction. Accompanied by servants who hold the vessels
with expensive gifts, she kneels before the king, her royal status evident in
her golden crown and the elegant yellow mantle draped over her white

Fig 1. Detail of infrared
reflectogram of Solomon and theQueen of Sheba, WP-100,
showing the Queen’s facedress. With her back slightly bent and her right palm open, she respectfully
looks up to the king, who, clad in purple robes and a white turban, towers
above the queen on a high, canopied throne with a brocaded tapestry
cascading down from its platform. An infrared image indicates that De
Poorter had originally planned for the queen’s head to be more raised anddirected at the king’s face, but he lowered her gaze during the painting
process to emphasize her humility (fig 1).
De Poorter contrasted the bright, primary colors of the robes worn by thequeen and her entourage with the subdued purples, greens and grays

Fig 2. Willem dePoorter, Tarquinius Finding
Lucretia at Work, 1633, oil onpanel, 44 x 54 cm, Musée desAugustins, Toulouse, inv. no. RO
481

worn by Solomon and his court, in order to emphasize the different culturaltraditions represented in this scene. Indeed, De Poorter depicted thevisitors gazing at the king with awe and the locals watching their guests
with curiosity. This sense of curiosity is repeated in the background, where
the court’s guards watch members of the queen’s caravan carrying
vessels into the spacious interior.
Werner Sumowski first published this unsigned and undated work as a[1]painting by Willem de Poorter in 1983.

Sumowski convincingly related

the panel to two early paintings by De Poorter of roughly the same
dimensions: the artist’s earliest dated painting, Tarquinius Finding Lucretia

Fig 3. Willem de Poorter, The
Sacrifice of Jephta’s Daughter,ca. 1630s, oil on canvas, 46.9 x
57.1 cm, Gemäldegalerie AlteMeister, Dresden, inv. no. 94/01

at Work, 1633 (fig 2), and his Sacrifice of Jephta’s Daughter (fig 3).[2] In
all three works, De Poorter created similar figure groupings and positioned
them close to the picture plane.[3] Each composition is also closed at the© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
Page 3 of 8

right by a large repoussoir figure. Moreover, the facial features of thequeen’s servant dressed in red are identical to those of the figure standing
behind the high priest in Sacrifice of Jephta’s Daughter. Stylistic
similarities are even found between the underdrawing ofSolomon and theQueen of Sheba (fig 4) and De Poorter’s drawn copy of Rembrandt’s
1630 Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem

in theRijksmuseum (fig 5).[4] In each instance, De Poorter drew contours withunbroken, firm lines and modeled his forms with straight, parallel lines andfree-flowing, zigzagged hatchings.
A striking difference between these works is thatSolomon and the Queenof Sheba has no strong contrasts of light and dark. From the mid-1630s

Fig 4. Detail of the infrared
reflectogram of Solomon and theQueen of Sheba, WP-100,
showing the Queen

onwards, De Poorter increasingly used dramatic lighting in his history
paintings.[5] Thus, it is probable that he executed Solomon and the Queenof Sheba in the early 1630s, before he started to develop his interest inchiaroscuro effects.[6] At this early stage of his career, De Poorter looked
carefully at a number of his predecessors for inspiration. For the generalcomposition of this scene, De Poorter seems to have referred to theengraving Solomon and the Queen of Sheba , 1549, based on a design by
his fellow townsman Maarten van Heemskerck (1498–1574). In that print
the queen is similarly situated in the center of the scene, with her followers
to the left and the king and his court to the right.[7] Known also to De
Poorter would have been the works of the most important history painter of
his day, Pieter Lastman (1583–1633). A similar ornate curtain behind themain scene and a division between the colorful foreground and gray-huedbackground appear in Lastman’s 1619 David Gives Uriah a Letter forJoab in the Leiden Collection.[8] Finally, the unusually high throne suggests

Fig 5. Willem de Poorter,
Jeremiah Laments theDestruction of Jerusalem, after
1630, pen and brown ink withbrown wash, 406 x 304 cm,
Cincinnati Art Museum, inv. no.
1953:72that De Poorter knew the history paintings of the Delft master Leonaert
Bramer (1596–1674).[9]In medieval typology, the story of Solomon visited by the Queen of Sheba
was regarded as a prefiguration of the Adoration of the Magi. The magi
also came from afar and carried exotic gifts to acknowledge theLord.[10] This typology seemingly inspired Leonaert Bramer to pair hispainting Solomon and the Queen of Sheba with Adoration of theMagi.[11] It is possible that De Poorter’s painting was originally conceived
as part of such a typological pair, or belonged to a larger series of the lifeof Solomon.[12]© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
Page 4 of 8-Ilona van Tuinen© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
Page 5 of 8Endnotes
1. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau, 1983–94), 4:2406,2418, no. 1605. While in the collection of Lord Forbes, the painting was attributed toSalomon de Koninck (1609–56). De Koninck painted several similar, small history scenes,
but with a more subdued palette and a looser handling of the paint. As Sumowski notes, theattribution to Willem de Poorter originally came from Albert Blankert, who was working at theRKD (Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie/Netherlands Institute for Art History)
at the time.
2. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau, 1983–94), 4:2406,
no. 1604, for Tarquinius Finding Lucretia at Work, and 2407, no. 1606, for Sacrifice ofJephta’s Daughter, at the time in the Marquis of Bristol collection as Sacrifice of Iphegenia,
oil on canvas, 46.9 x 57.1 cm, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden, inv. no. 94/01.
3. Compare, for instance, an earlier Solomon and the Queen of Sheba , which De Poorter
executed in the early 1640s and in which the figures are smaller and further away from thepicture plane. See Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau,1983–94), 4:2409, no. 1615.
4. See Werner Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School , 10 vols. (New York, 1979–92),
9:4796–97, no. 2136x. This unsigned drawing, which is the mirror image of Rembrandt’spainting, was formerly attributed to Ferdinand Bol (1616–80), but Sumowski attributed it toDe Poorter on the basis of stylistic similarities with De Poorter’s signed and dated 1636
drawing after Rembrandt’s Susanna at Her Bath at the Mauritshuis.
5. For a discussion of De Poorter’s Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas at Lystra , 1636, oil onpanel, 55 x 82 cm, with a strong use of chiaroscuro inspired by Rembrandt, see Arthur K.
Wheelock Jr., “Willem de Poorter: Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas at Lystra ,” in AlbertBlankert et al., Gods, Saints and Heroes: Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt (Exh. cat.
Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art; Detroit, The Detroit Institute of Arts; Amsterdam,Rijksmuseum) (Washington, D.C., 1980), 158–59, no. 33. It remains unclear whether De
Poorter ever studied with Rembrandt, and if so, when. See Adriaan Waiboer, “Willem dePoorter: Rembrandt/Not Rembrandt Pupil,” Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 5, no.
2 (2013): DOI:10.5092/jhna.2013.5.2.12
Although it is traditionally assumed that he studied in Rembrandt’s Leiden workshop around
1628–31, Waiboer suggests that he might have briefly worked in the master’s Amsterdam
atelier around 1636 instead.
6. This dating is also supported by dendrochronological analysis performed by Ian Tyers inNovember 2012 on the lower of the two horizontal boards that make up the panel (the upperboard cannot be examined, report on file at the Leiden Collection, New York). According to© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
Page 6 of 8Tyers, the youngest heartwood ring was formed in 1616 and the panel could have been
ready for use from 1624 onwards.
7. Dirck Volkertsz Coornhert after Maarten van Heemskerck, Solomon and the Queen ofSheba, 1549, engraving, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 49.95.112.
8. See Rachel Pollock’s entry on PL-100 in this catalogue.
9. This was first noticed by Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols.
(Landau, 1983–94), 4:2406, 2418, no. 1605. Indeed, the characteristically high throne
appears throughout Bramer’s oeuvre, from his earliest dated painting, The Fall of Simon
Magus, ca. 1623, oil on copper, 29 x 39 cm, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Dijon, toThe Judgmentof Solomon, 1640s, oil on panel, St. Annen-Museum, Lubeck.
10. In the Biblia Pauperum, one of the most common medieval typological sources,
the Adoration of the Magi is juxtaposed with two Old Testament scenes, Abner Visiting KingDavid and the Queen of Sheba Visiting King Solomon. See Biblia Pauperum:
Faksimileausgabe der Vierzigblättrigen Armenbibel-Blockbuches in der Bibliothek derErzdiözese Esztergom, with an introduction and commentary by Elisabeth Soltész (Hanau,1967), xxix, no. 3.
11. See Jane ten Brink Goldsmith et al., “Leonaert Bramer’s The Queen of Sheba Before
Solomon,” in Leonaert Bramer 1596–1674: Ingenious Painter and Draughtsman in Romeand Delft (Exh. cat. Delft, Stedelijk Museum Het Prinsenhof) (Zwolle, 1994), 164–65, no. 44;
see also the appendix, 279, nos. 24–S27.2: Bramer appears to have executed six depictionsof Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, one of which had a pendant depicting theAdoration ofthe Magi. Two of them were possibly paired with other scenes from the life of Solomon.
12. Although no paintings of the Adoration of the Magi by De Poorter survive, a copy after hiscomposition of this subject was auctioned at Butterfields, 31 May 1990, no. 5151 (oil oncanvas, 63.5 x 76 cm).

ProvenancePossibly Nicolaes van Suchtelen (his sale, Hoorn, 17 April 1715, no. 60, “De Koningin vanSeba door de Poorter” (for 14.10 florins).
General Andrew Bissett, 1723; by descent to his niece, Marjory Winram, wife of Sir RobertInnes of Orton and Balvenie; by descent to their daughter, Catherine, wife of James, 16thLord Forbes (1725–1804); by descent to Lord Forbes, Castle Forbes in Balforbes,
Aberdeenshire (sale, Christie’s, London, 6 July 2007, no. 187 [Johnny van Haeften, Ltd.,London, 2007]).
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
Page 7 of 8

From whom acquired by the present owner.

Exhibition History
Ithaca, Cornell University, Johnson Museum of Art, “An Eye for Detail: Dutch Painting fromthe Leiden Collection,” September 2014–May 2015 [lent by the present owner].
Beijing, National Museum of China, “Rembrandt and His Time: Masterpieces from The
Leiden Collection,” 17 June–3 September 2017 [lent by the present owner].

References
Sumowski, Werner. Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler. 6 vols. Landau, 1983–94, 4:2406,2418, no. 1605.
Tátrai, Júlia. “Allegory on the Colonial Power: A Recently Discovered Work by Willem dePoorter.” Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts 114–15 (2011): 99.

Technical Summary
The support, an octagonal composite panel comprised of two horizontally grained oak planks
with the horizontal panel join above Solomon’s knee, has been thinned.[1] Triangular oakadditions have been added to the four corners to create a rectangular format, and the painted
composition has been extended onto the additions. A rectangular marouflage backing board,
composed of two horizontally grained Baltic oak planks dating from 1512, has been applied tothe composite panel.[2] The horizontal panel join of the marouflage panel is in almost exactly thesame location as the horizontal panel join of the original planks. One paper label and a number ofhandwritten inscriptions are located along the backing board, but there are no wax seals, importstamps, stencils or panel maker’s mark.
A light-colored, radio-opaque ground has been thinly applied to the original, octagonal composite
panel, and a non-radio-opaque ground has been applied to the four triangular additions. The
paint has been thinly and smoothly applied along the background and flesh tones, with low
visible brushwork along the figure’s contours and drapery folds.
Infrared images captured at 780–1700 nanometers reveal an extensive graphite (est.)
underdrawing through the folds of the Queen of Sheba’s yellow cloak and along the folds of red© 2017 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
Page 8 of 8

drapery on the figure to her left. The images and pentimenti suggest the shape and position of
the lower edge of the Queen of Sheeba’s white gown and her profile were shifted slightly during
the paint stage.
The painting is unsigned and undated.
The painting was cleaned and restored in 2007 and remains in a good state of preservation.

Technical Summary Endnotes

1. The characterization of the wood is based on Ian Tyers’s dendrochronology report.
2. According to Ian Tyers’s dendrochronology report. Unfortunately, the two original planks
and four triangular additions are too short and provide too few rings along the end-grain todate.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection