Judah and Tamar
Arent de Gelder(Dordrecht 1645 – 1727 Dordrecht)

ca. 1680–85
oil on canvas
111 x 103.1 cm
AG-100© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Judah and Tamar
Page 2 of 8

How to cite
Manuth, Volker. “Judah and Tamar” (2017). In The Leiden Collection Catalogue, 3rd ed. Edited by Arthur 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.

Arent de Gelder, perhaps more than any other Rembrandt pupil, shared his master’sComparative Figures

profound interest in the human aspect of biblical stories. Most of De Gelder’s history
paintings focus on the private interaction of a few large-scale figures wherepsychological relationships rather than narrative gestures are emphasized. Although
De Gelder repeatedly portrayed the tender warmth of the holy family in his paintings,
he was also fascinated with the human frailties of biblical characters that underlie andhelp explain their actions. In this instance, he has focused on the sexual exchange
between Judah and his stepdaughter Tamar, disguised as a harlot, bringing the viewer
so close to this indecent encounter that one can almost feel the physical intensity oftheir relationship.

Fig 1. Maarten van Heemskerck,
Judah and Tamar, 1532, oil on canvas,
138 x 163 cm, formerly Berlin,
Schloss Grunewald (now lost)

The story that inspired De Gelder’s painting occurs in chapter 38 of the book ofGenesis. There it is told how Judah, the fourth son of Jacob and Leah, married off theeldest of his three sons, Er, to Tamar. The marriage remained childless, for “Er,Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him”
(Genesis 38:7). After Er’s death, his brother Onan—now bound by the Law ofLevirate to marry Tamar—refused to procreate in his brother’s place and was likewiseslain by God (Genesis 38:9–10). After the still-childless Tamar was prevented by
Judah from marrying his youngest son, Shelah, and Judah’s wife had died,Tamar—dressed as a prostitute—seduced her unsuspecting father-in-law. “WhenJudah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot; because she had covered her face”

Fig 2. Ferdinand Bol, Judah andTamar, 1644, oil on canvas, Museumof Fine Arts, Boston, inv. 17.3268,
Photograph ©2017 Museum of FineArts, Boston(Genesis 38:15). As payment, Judah promised Tamar a kid from his flock and gave
her three pledges. “And he said, what pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy
signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, andcame in unto her, and she conceived by him” (Genesis 38:18). When her pregnancy
was discovered, Tamar was accused of harlotry and condemned, also by Judah, to© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Judah and Tamar
Page 3 of 8

death by burning. Only when she came forth with the pledges did Judah admit hisguilt and she was spared. The offspring produced by Tamar and her father-in-law
were the twins Pharez and Zarah.
The special meaning to Christianity of the story of Judah and Tamar lies in the factthat the “indecent relationship” between the two produced Pharez who, according toMatthew 1:3 (see also Luke 3:33), was a forefather of David and therefore anancestor of Christ. Tamar thus appears in the genealogical tree as the progenitrix ofthe royal house from which—in addition to David and Solomon—Christ was born.
Tamar’s significance for the genealogy of Christ therefore explains her important rolein patristic literature and later biblical exegesis. For example, Tamar is equated with
the Church (ekklesia), which gave twins to Judah, son of the patriarch Jacob. In otherreadings, Judah’s surrendering of his staff and signet to Tamar is interpreted as areference to Christ, who gave the Church his treasures: the seal of faith and belief inthe Cross.[1] Nonetheless, pictorial representations of the story of Judah and Tamar
are rare in medieval art.[2] Even series of prints from the late Middle Ages andRenaissance that center on representations of men who were the victims of crafty
women—and certainly Judah could count among them—do not include this couple.[3]Of particular importance to the development of the theme in late medieval art are twoseries of prints by Maarten van Heemskerck (1498–1574). Each of the fouretchings/engravings that comprise each set shows a different scene, with the depictionof the handing over of the pledges at the side of the road forming the prelude to thestory.[4] As early as 1532, Van Heemskerck had portrayed this episode in what wasprobably the earliest known large-format painting, which hung in Jagdschloss
Grunewald in Berlin until 1945 but subsequently disappeared (fig 1).[5] His painting
contains certain motifs that find an echo in De Gelder’s work: the proximity to theviewer of the figures, Tamar’s seductive hand on her father-in-law’s chin, and theslung legs of the couple, a motif that stresses the sexual nature of the encounter.[6]Most of the examples produced in the Northern Netherlands in the seventeenth
century also show the meeting of Judah and Tamar on the road and the handing overof the pledges (Genesis 38:14–18).[7] These depictions, however, are mostly paintings
with small figures, usually with a luxuriant landscape in the background.[8]Surprisingly, no firmly attributed representation of the theme is known by Rembrandt
van Rijn (1606–69), with whom De Gelder studied.[9] Before De Gelder, the only
Rembrandt pupil to treat this subject was Ferdinand Bol (1616–80), who produced alarge painting with three-quarter-length figures in 1644 (fig 2).[10]The story of Judah and Tamar belongs, along with scenes from the book of Esther, tothe Old Testament events De Gelder most frequently depicted. In addition to thepresent work, De Gelder painted at least five other versions of this theme.[11] A© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Judah and Tamar
Page 4 of 8

striking feature of the painting in the Leiden Collection is the fact that, although
Tamar wears a veil as described in the Bible (Genesis 38:15), the veil is lifted,
whereas according to scripture it was precisely Tamar’s covered face that prevented
Judah from recognizing her. De Gelder depicted her fully veiled in the two versionsin private collections and the one in the Mauritshuis.[12] In this context, it is interesting
to note what contemporary theologians had to say about the veil motif. For example,
the Utrecht theologian Franciscus Burmans (Burmanus) wrote in 1668 that Tamarwore a veil only so that she would not be recognized, because it was not whores but
respectable women who covered their faces in public out of modesty.[13]The version in the Leiden Collection differs from the other versions of the theme inthe less drastic manner of the couple’s advances. Even though a number ofmotifs—Judah’s embrace of Tamar, each of them touching the other’s chin, and thephallic shape of the staff visible between Judah’s legs—clearly refer to the sexual
character of the scene, here De Gelder has depicted it with more restraint anddelicacy than in his other versions of the theme. Similarly, the two appear to differ
less in age than in the version in Agnes Etherington Art Centre in Kingston,[14] whichis dated to 1681 and tones down the aspect of the “unequal lovers.” It was this very
theme of the “unequal couple” that, since the sixteenth century, had become firmly
established as a subject in literature and art, providing opportunities for moralizing
and mockery. Both stylistically and with respect to the color scheme, which isdominated by brown, green, and red tones, this painting can be dated to the first halfof the 1680s.

- Volker Manuth, 2017

© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Judah and Tamar
Page 5 of 8Endnotes
1. For the interpretation of Genesis 38 in the writings of the church fathers and other medieval
theologians, see Hans Martin von Erffa, Ikonologie der Genesis: Die christlichen Bildthemen aus dem
Alten Testament und ihre Quellen, 2 vols. (Munich, 1995), 2: 438–45, esp. 442.
2. See Reiner Haussherr, “Juda und Thamar,” in Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, ed. Engelbert
Kirschbaum, 8 vols. (Rome, 1968–76), 2: 443.
3. See Yvonne Bleyerveld, Hoe bedriechelijck dat die vrouwen zijn: Vrouwenlisten in de beeldende kunst inde Nederlanden circa 1350–1650 (Leiden, 2000), 247–48.
4. For the first series of prints, see Friedrich Wilhelm Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings,and Woodcuts, ca. 1450–1700, 72 vols. (Amsterdam, 1949–2010), 4: 228, nos. 58–62; 8: 229, nos. 2–4,and Wouter Kloek, et al., Kunst voor de beeldenstorm: Noordnederlandse kunst 1525–1580 (Exh. cat.
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) (Amsterdam, 1986), 260, no. 142.1–4 (ill.); for the other series of prints,
see Friedrich Wilhelm Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings, and Woodcuts, ca.
1450–1700, 72 vols. (Amsterdam, 1949–2010), 4: 101, nos. 31–34; 8: 246, nos. 423–26, and Wouter
Kloek, et al., Kunst voor de beeldenstorm: Noordnederlandse kunst 1525–1580 (Exh. cat. Amsterdam,Rijksmuseum) (Amsterdam, 1986), 324, 203.1–4 (ill.).
5. Rainald Grosshans, Maerten van Heemskerck: Die Gemälde (Berlin, 1980), no. 14 (ill.).
6. See Leo Steinberg, “Michelangelo’s Florentine Pietà: The Missing Leg,” Art Bulletin 50 (1968): 343–53.
For the motif of the “slung leg” in different contexts, see also Leo Steinberg, “The Metaphors of Loveand Birth in Michelangelo’s Pietàs,” in Studies in Erotic Art, ed. Theodore Bowie and Cornelia V.
Christenson (New York, 1970), 240–42.
7. On the iconography of the subject in Netherlandish painting of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
see Gina Strumwasser, “Heroes, Heroines, and Heroic Tales from the Old Testament: An IconographicAnalysis of the Most Frequently Represented Old Testament Subjects in Netherlandish Painting, ca.
1430–1570” (PhD diss. University of California, Los Angeles, 1979), 129–31, and Volker Manuth,“Ikonographische Studien zu den Historien des Alten Testaments bei Rembrandt und seiner frühen
Amsterdamer Schule: Mit einem Katalog der biblischen Gemälde des Jan Victors” (PhD diss. Freie
Universität Berlin, 1987), 101–17.
8. See, for example, Gerbrand van den Eeckhout’s painting of 1645 in the Pushkin Museum in Moscow(Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. [Landau and Pfalz, 1983–94], 2: no. 401[ill.], and, more recently, Marina Senenko, The Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts: Collection of Dutch
Paintings: XVII–XIX Centuries [Moscow, 2009], 142, no. 406). See also the related drawing in theAlbertina in Vienna (Werner Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School, ed. and trans. Walter L.
Strauss 10 vols. [New York, 1979–92], 3: no. 610 [ill.]).
9. A drawing in the collection of the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam (pen and brown ink© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Judah and TamarPage 6 of 8and brown washes, 130 x 155 mm, inv. no. R9; Benesch A113) with a depiction of the turbaned Judahsitting next to the veiled Tamar in front of trees and bushes, formerly attributed to Rembrandt, hasrecently been attributed to his pupil Willem Drost (1633–59); see Werner Sumowski, Drawings of theRembrandt School, ed. and trans. Walter L. Struass, 10 vols. (New York, 1979–), 3: no. 560x (ill.).
10. See Albert Blankert, Ferdinand Bol (1616–1680): Rembrandt’s Pupil (Doornspijk, 1982), 30, 92, no. 7.
11. The other versions are: (1) Private collection, The Netherlands; see Werner Sumowski, Gemälde derRembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau and Pfalz, 1983–95), 2: no. 728 (ill.); Joachim Wolfgang vonMoltke, Arent de Gelder, Dordrecht 1645–1727 (Doornspijk, 1994), no. 11. (2) Koninklijk Kabinet vanSchilderijen, Mauritshuis, The Hague; see Sumowski, 2: no. 758 (ill.); Von Moltke, no. 12 (ill.). (3) TheAgnes Etherington Art Centre (from the Bader Collection), Kingston, Ontario; see Sumowski, 2: no. 729(ill.); Von Moltke, no. 13 (ill.); and David DeWitt, The Bader Collection: Dutch and Flemish Paintings(Exh. cat. Kingston, Ontario, The Agnes Etherington Art Centre) (Kingston, 2008), no. 82 (ill.). (4)Gemäldegalerie der Akademie der bildenden Künste, Vienna; see Werner Sumowski, Gemälde derRembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau and Pfalz, 1983–95), 2: no. 725 (ill., as “Boas and Ruth”); Renate
Trnek, Die holländischen Gemälde des 17. Jahrhunderts in der Gemäldegalerie der Akademie derbildenden Künste in Wien (Vienna, 1992), no. 47 (ill., as “Judah and Tamar?”); and Von Moltke, no. 2(ill., as “Lot and His Daughters”). (5) Present whereabouts unknown (formerly Wetzlar Collection,Amsterdam); see Sumowski, 2:1158 n. 28.
12. Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen, Mauritshuis, The Hague; see Werner Sumowski, Gemälde derRembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau and Pfalz, 1983–95), 2: no. 758 (ill.); Joachim Wolfgang vonMoltke, Arent de Gelder, Dordrecht 1645–1727 (Doornspijk, 1994), no. 12 (ill.).
13. See Franciscus Burmans, De Wet ende Getuigenisse, ofte Uitlegginge ende Btragtinge van deverborgentheden ende voornaamste saken des Wets, ofte boeken Mosis (Utrecht, 1668), 264; Volker
Manuth in Dirck Bijker et al., eds., Arent de Gelder (1645–1727), Rembrandts laatste leerling (Exh. cat.
Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum; Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum) (Ghent, 1998), 142 nn. 5 and 6.
14. The Agnes Etherington Art Centre (from the Bader Collection), Kingston, Ontario; see Werner
Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau and Pfalz, 1983–95), 2: no. 729 (ill.);
Joachim Wolfgang von Moltke, Arent de Gelder, Dordrecht 1645–1727 (Doornspijk, 1994), no. 13 (ill.);and David DeWitt, The Bader Collection: Dutch and Flemish Paintings (Exh. cat. Kingston, Ontario, TheAgnes Etherington Art Centre) (Kingston, 2008), no. 82 (ill.).

ProvenancePossibly Count Santar, Lisbon, March 1909.
Conde de Magãlhaes, Palace of S. José, Lisbon, and by descent (sale, Christie’s, London, 7 December
2006, no. 25 [Johnny van Haeften, London, 2006]).
© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Judah and Tamar
Page 7 of 8From whom acquired by the present owner in 2006.

Exhibition History
Kansas City, The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, on loan with the permanent collection, December
2008–December 2009 [lent by the present owner].

References
Lilienfeld, Karl. Arent de Gelder: Sein Leben und seine Kunst. The Hague, 1914, 131–32, no. 14.
Sumowski, Werner. Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler. 6 vols. Landau and Pfalz, 1983–94, 5: 3101, no.
2090, 3223.
Huys Janssen, Paul, and Werner Sumowski, eds. The Hoogsteder Exhibition of Rembrandt’s Academy.
Exh. cat. The Hague, Hoogsteder & Hoogsteder. Zwolle, 1992, 166 n. 9.
Von Moltke, Joachim Wolfgang. Arent de Gelder, Dordrecht 1645–1727. Doornspijk, 1994, 111–12,no. D3, 120, no. L11.

Technical Summary
The support, a single piece of a medium-weight, plain-weave fabric with tacking margins removed, has beenlined. A large square of red lead priming surrounded by narrrow unprimed borders was revealed along thesupport reverse when the previous lining was removed. The unprimed borders indicate the priming wasapplied while the support was attached to a four-member stretcher, and the various border widths suggestthat the support dimensions are unaltered along the upper edge, are trimmed slightly along the left edge, aretrimmed a bit more along the lower edge, and are trimmed an unknown amount along the right edge where
no border remains. There is a black stencil, two paper labels, and white chalk along the stretcher and red leadpriming along the support reverse but no wax collection seals or import stamps along the support, lining, orstretcher reverse.
A light-colored ground has been thinly and evenly applied. The paint has been applied with loose, fluid
brushstrokes in thin, smooth, transparent glazes through the background, allowing the underlayers to show
through, and more opaquely through the two figures. Highlights have been applied in low impasto; areas ofdetail along Tamar’s proper left sleeve and along the edge of the brocade and clasp of Judah’s cape, which
has fallen to his waist, have been scratched into glazes of wet paint with the reverse of a brush.[1]© 2024 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Judah and Tamar
Page 8 of 8

No underdrawing is readily apparent in infrared images captured at 780–1000 nanometers. The images andpentimenti reveal minor compositional changes to the position of the back of Judah’s proper left hand and to
the fingers on both of Tamar’s hands.
The painting is unsigned and undated. A false signature that read “Rembrandt f.” was removed duringconservation treatment.
The painting was cleaned, lined, and restored in 2007 and remains in a good state of preservation.

Technical Summary Endnotes

1. See Bader Collection version of this subject in which the brocade edge of Judah’s cape remains fastenedwith a clasp along his collar (digital image provided by Dominique Surh, curator, The Leiden
Collection).

© 2024 The Leiden Collection