See Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 1, 1625–1631, ed. Josua Bruyn et al. (The Hague, Boston, and London, 1982), 274.
Kurt Bauch, Der frühe Rembrandt und seine Zeit (Berlin, 1960), 208.
Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 1, 1625–1631, ed. Josua Bruyn et al. (The Hague, Boston, and London, 1982), 681–84.
Gerbrand Korevaar asserted that the X-radiograph shows that the eyes originally were downcast, as in Rembrandt’s print, but the dense patches of paint containing lead-white fall too low to read as upper eyelids, and must have represented bulging lower orbicularis oculis muscles, suggesting surprise.
Gerbrand Korevaar in Rembrandts moeder: Mythe en werkelijkheid, ed. Christiaan Vogelaar and Gerbrand Korevaar (Exh. cat. Leiden, Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal) (Zwolle, 2005), 91, wrongly asserts that the monogram and date are later additions.
See Fred Meijer, The Ashmolean Museum Oxford: The Collection of Dutch and Flemish Still Life Paintings Bequeathed by Daisy Linda Ward (Zwolle, 2003), 219. The museum now ascribes the work to an anonymous follower of Rembrandt.
As urged by Fred Meijer in e-mail correspondence with the author, 2 November 2013.
The characterization of the wood is based on Ian Tyers’s 2010 and Peter Klein’s 2008 dendrochronology reports.
Peter Klein writes: “An earliest felling date can be derived for the year 1626, more plausible is a felling date between 1629..1632….1636 + x. With a minimum of 2 years for seasoning an earliest creation of the painting is possible from 1628 upwards. Under the assumption of a median of 15 sapwood rings and 2 years for seasoning a creation is plausible from 1634 upwards.”