Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
Willem de Poorter(Haarlem? 1608 – after 1648 Haarlem?)ca. 1630
oil on panel
35.3 x 44.4 cm
WP-100How to cite
Van Tuinen, Ilona. “Solomon and the Queen of Sheba” (2017). In The Leiden Collection Catalogue, 3rd ed. Edited byArthur K. Wheelock Jr. and Lara Yeager-Crasselt. New York, 2020–23. https://www.theleidencollection.com/archive/(archived December 2023).
A PDF of every version of this entry is available in this Online Catalogue's Archive, and the Archive is managed by apermanent URL. New versions are added only when a substantive change to the narrative occurs.

© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
Page 2 of 7

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

Comparative Figures

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 (probablymodern Yemen) to the king’s court in Jerusalem 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 king and 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 theelegant yellow mantle draped over her white dress. With her back slightly bent andher 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 aFig 1. Detail of infrared reflectogramof Solomon and the Queen ofSheba, WP-100, showing the Queen’sface

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 and directed
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 the queen andher entourage with the subdued purples, greens and grays worn by Solomon and hiscourt, in order to emphasize the different cultural traditions represented in this scene.
Indeed, De Poorter depicted the visitors gazing at the king with awe and the locals
watching their guests with curiosity. This sense of curiosity is repeated in theFig 2. Willem de Poorter, Tarquinius
Finding Lucretia at Work, 1633, oil onpanel, 44 x 54 cm, Musée desAugustins, Toulouse, inv. no. RO 481

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 painting byWillem de Poorter in 1983.[1] 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 at Work, 1633 (fig 2), and his Sacrifice ofJephta’s Daughter (fig 3).[2] In all three works, De Poorter created similar figure[3]groupings and positioned them close to the picture plane.

Each composition is also

closed at the 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 theFig 3. Willem de Poorter, The
Sacrifice of Jephta’s Daughter, ca.
1630s, oil on canvas, 46.9 x 57.1 cm,Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister,
Dresden, inv. no. 94/01

high priest in Sacrifice of Jephta’s Daughter. Stylistic similarities are even foundbetween the underdrawing of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (fig 4) and De
Poorter’s drawn copy of Rembrandt’s 1630 Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
Page 3 of 7

Jerusalem in the Rijksmuseum (fig 5).[4] In each instance, De Poorter drew contours
with unbroken, firm lines and modeled his forms with straight, parallel lines and freeflowing, zigzagged hatchings.
A striking difference between these works is that Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
has no strong contrasts of light and dark. From the mid-1630s onwards, De Poorter
increasingly used dramatic lighting in his history paintings.[5] Thus, it is probable thathe executed Solomon and the Queen of Sheba in the early 1630s, before he started todevelop his interest in chiaroscuro effects.[6] At this early stage of his career, De
Poorter looked carefully at a number of his predecessors for inspiration. For thegeneral composition of this scene, De Poorter seems to have referred to the engraving
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 inFig 4. Detail of the infrared
reflectogram of Solomon and theQueen of Sheba, WP-100, showing theQueen

the center of the scene, with her followers to the left and the king and his court to theright.[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 the main scene and a division between the colorful foreground and gray-huedbackground appear in Lastman’s 1619 David Gives Uriah a Letter for Joab in theLeiden Collection.[8] Finally, the unusually high throne suggests that De Poorterknew 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 wasregarded as a prefiguration of the Adoration of the Magi. The magi also came fromafar and carried exotic gifts to acknowledge the Lord.[10] This typology seemingly
inspired Leonaert Bramer to pair his painting Solomon and the Queen of Sheba with
[11]Adoration of the Magi.

It is possible that De Poorter’s painting was originallyconceived as part of such a typological pair, or belonged to a larger series of the lifeof Solomon.[12]Fig 5. Willem de Poorter, Jeremiah
Laments the Destruction of Jerusalem,
after 1630, pen and brown ink withbrown wash, 406 x 304 cm, Cincinnati
Art Museum, inv. no. 1953:72- Ilona van Tuinen, 2017

© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
Page 4 of 7Endnotes
1. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau and Pfalz, 1983–94), 4: 2406,2418, no. 1605. While in the collection of Lord Forbes, the painting was attributed to Salomon deKoninck (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, the attribution to Willem de Poorter
originally came from Albert Blankert, who was working at the RKD (Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische
Documentatie/Netherlands Institute for Art History) at the time.
2. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau and Pfalz, 1983–94), 4:2406, no.
1604, for Tarquinius Finding Lucretia at Work, and 2407, no. 1606, for Sacrifice of Jephta’s Daughter, atthe 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 theearly 1640s and in which the figures are smaller and further away from the picture plane. See Werner
Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau and Pfalz, 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’s painting, was formerly
attributed to Ferdinand Bol (1616–80), but Sumowski attributed it to De 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 on panel, 55 x 82 cm,
with a strong use of chiaroscuro inspired by Rembrandt, see Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., “Willem dePoorter: Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas at Lystra,” in Albert Blankert 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 de Poorter: Rembrandt/Not Rembrandt Pupil,” Journal of Historians ofNetherlandish 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 in November
2012 on the lower of the two horizontal boards that make up the panel (the upper board cannot beexamined, report on file at the Leiden Collection, New York). According to Tyers, 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 of Sheba, 1549,© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
Page 5 of 7engraving, 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 and Pfalz,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, 29x 39 cm, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Dijon, to The Judgment of Solomon, 1640s, oil on panel, St. AnnenMuseum, Lubeck.
10. In the Biblia Pauperum, one of the most common medieval typological sources, the Adoration of theMagi is juxtaposed with two Old Testament scenes, Abner Visiting King David and the Queen of Sheba
Visiting King Solomon. See Biblia Pauperum: Faksimileausgabe der Vierzigblättrigen ArmenbibelBlockbuches in der Bibliothek der Erzdiözese 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,” inLeonaert Bramer 1596–1674: Ingenious Painter and Draughtsman in Rome and 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 depictions of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, one ofwhich had a pendant depicting the Adoration of the Magi. Two of them were possibly paired with otherscenes from the life of Solomon.
12. Although no paintings of the Adoration of the Magi by De Poorter survive, a copy after his compositionof this subject was auctioned at Butterfields, 31 May 1990, no. 5151 (oil on canvas, 63.5 x 76 cm).

ProvenancePossibly Nicolaes van Suchtelen (his sale, Hoorn, 17 April 1715, no. 60, “De Koningin van Seba door dePoorter” (for 14.10 florins).
General Andrew Bissett, 1723; by descent to his niece, Marjory Winram, wife of Sir Robert Innes ofOrton and Balvenie; by descent to their daughter, Catherine, wife of James, 16th Lord 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]).
From whom acquired by the present owner.

Exhibition History
Ithaca, Cornell University, Johnson Museum of Art, “An Eye for Detail: Dutch Painting from the© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
Page 6 of 7

Leiden Collection,” September 2014–May 2015 [lent by the present owner].
Beijing, National Museum of China, “Rembrandt and His Time: Masterpieces from The LeidenCollection,” 17 June–3 September 2017 [lent by the present owner].
Shanghai, Long Museum, West Bund, “Rembrandt, Vermeer and Hals in the Dutch Golden Age:
Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection,” 23 September 2017–25 February 2018 [lent by the presentowner].
Moscow, The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, “The Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer: Masterpiecesof The Leiden Collection,” 28 March 2018–22 July 2018 [lent by the present owner].
St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum, “The Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer: Masterpieces ofThe Leiden Collection,” 5 September 2018–13 January 2019 [lent by the present owner].
Amsterdam, Hermitage Amsterdam, “Rembrandt and his Contemporaries: History Paintings from TheLeiden Collection,” 4 February–27 August 2023, no. 4 [lent by the present owner].

References
Sumowski, Werner. Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler. 6 vols. Landau and Pfalz, 1983–94, 4:2406, 2418,no. 1605.
Tátrai, Júlia. “Allegory on the Colonial Power: A Recently Discovered Work by Willem de Poorter.”
Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts 114–15 (2011): 99.
McCarthy, Alexa. “Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.” In Rembrandt and His Time: Masterpieces fromThe Leiden Collection. Edited by Lara Yeager-Crasselt, 66; 177, no. 23. Translated by Li Ying. Exh. cat.
Beijing, National Museum of China. Beijing, 2017.
Long Museum, West Bund. Rembrandt, Vermeer and Hals in the Dutch Golden Age: Masterpieces fromThe Leiden Collection. Exh. cat. Shanghai, Long Museum, West Bund. Shanghai, 2017, 80–81.
McCarthy, Alexa. “Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.” In The Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer:
Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection. Edited by Polina Lyubimova, 158– 59; 241, no. 46. Translated byDaria Babich and Daria Kuzina. Exh. cat. Moscow, The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts; St.
Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum. Moscow, 2018.
Jager, Angela. The Mass Market for History Paintings in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam. Amsterdam,
2020, 144, 147, fig. 41 (as attributed to Willem de Poorter).
Wheelock, Arthur K., Jr., Christiaan Vogelaar, and Caroline van Cauwenberge. Rembrandt and His
Contemporaries: History Paintings from The Leiden Collection. Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Hermitage
Amsterdam. Zwolle, 2023, 32–35, no. 4. [Exhibition catalogue also published in Dutch.]

Technical Summary© 2024 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
Page 7 of 7

The support, an octagonal composite panel comprised of two horizontally grained oak planks with thehorizontal panel join above Solomon’s knee, has been thinned.[1] Triangular oak additions have been added to
the four corners to create a rectangular format, and the painted composition has been extended onto theadditions. A rectangular marouflage backing board, composed of two horizontally grained Baltic oak planks
dating from 1512, has been applied to the composite panel.[2] The horizontal panel join of the marouflage
panel is in almost exactly the same location as the horizontal panel join of the original planks. One paperlabel and a number of handwritten inscriptions are located along the backing board, but there are no wax
seals, import stamps, stencils or panel maker’s mark.
A light-colored, radio-opaque ground has been thinly applied to the original, octagonal composite panel, anda non-radio-opaque ground has been applied to the four triangular additions. The paint has been thinly andsmoothly 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 throughthe folds of the Queen of Sheba’s yellow cloak and along the folds of red 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 whitegown 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 to date.

© 2024 The Leiden Collection