A[braham]. Bredius. "Darf die Kritik sich nicht mit Bildern in Privatbesitz befassen?" Kunstchronik, n.s., 24 (February 14, 1913), col. 275, as in the Ehrich Galleries, New York, formerly with Lesser, London; records the inscription as "Wilhelm Drost 1655"; identifies the portrait of a woman now in the Bredius Museum, The Hague, as the pendant.
C. Hofstede de Groot in Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler. Ed. Ulrich Thieme. Vol. 9, Leipzig, 1913, pp. 576–77, records the inscription as "Wilhelmus Drost f 1655".
A[braham]. Bredius. Künstler-Inventare. Vol. 3, The Hague, 1917, pp. 887, 890, no. 2, suggests that two pictures by Drost included in the 1655 inventory of Jacob Gerritsz van Velsen, Leiden, as portraits of the deceased and his wife are the MMA and Hague paintings; records the inscription of the MMA work as "Wilhelm Drost f 1653".
Algernon Graves. Art Sales from Early in the Eighteenth Century to Early in the Twentieth Century. Vol. 1, London, 1918, p. 238, as sold for £462 to Lesser at the 1903 MacAndrew sale.
John C. van Dyke. Rembrandt and His School. New York, 1923, pp. 60–63, pl. X-35, mentions only a signature, not a date; calls it "an excellent portrait than which there are few better in the Rembrandt 'œuvre'".
G[erard]. Knuttel. Museum Bredius: Gids met beknopten Catalogus van de Schilderijen en Teekeningen. [The Hague], 1926, p. 8.
A[braham]. Bredius. "Een portret van Willem Drost." Oud-Holland 46 (1929), pp. 96–98, ill., recounts seeing this picture in the Warburg collection, New York; calls it very Rembrandtesque; suggests that the MMA and Hague portraits represent the painter and his wife; questions whether the date is 1655 or 1653.
Corn[elis]. Hofstede de Groot. "Rembrandt of W. Drost?" Oud-Holland 46 (1929), p. 36, as formerly in the Mac Cormick collection [sic for MacAndrew?].
Wilhelm R. Valentiner. "Willem Drost: Pupil of Rembrandt." Art Quarterly 2 (Autumn 1939), pp. 300, 303–4, 325 n. 4, fig. 4, as in the collection of Mrs. Felix M. Warburg, New York; states that it is "clearly signed Wilhelm Drost", adding that "the German form Wilhelm instead of the Dutch Willem makes it probable that Drost was of German origin"; supports a date of 1655 for both this work and its pendant; calls the two paintings very Rembrandtesque and states that they were attributed to Rembrandt before the signatures were found; identifies the two pictures with pendants included in a sale in Amsterdam on December 17, 1850.
Walter Pach in Masterpieces of Art: Catalogue of European and American Paintings, 1500–1900. Exh. cat., World's Fair. New York, 1940, p. 74, no. 99, calls it a self-portrait and reads the date as 1655.
Harry B. Wehle. "A Gift of Paintings and Drawings." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 38 (June 1942), pp. 160–61, ill., records the inscription as "Wilhelm Drost F / Amsterdam", without a date.
W[ilhelm]. Martin. De Schilderkunst in de tweede Helft van de zeventiende Eeuw. Amsterdam, 1950, p. 56, under no. 35, states that it is dated 1655.
W. R. Valentiner. Rembrandt and His Pupils. Exh. cat., North Carolina Museum of Art. Raleigh, 1956, pp. 38, 116, no. 21 of pupils, calls it "Portrait of a Middle-aged Man (Jacob Gerritsz van Velsen?)" and records the date as 1655.
Neil MacLaren. The Dutch School. London, 1960, pp. 107–8, states that the Hague portrait is dated 1653, not 1655, and that the MMA pendant is definitely of the same date, though not itself dated.
H. van Hall. Portretten van nederlandse beeldende Kunstenaars. Amsterdam, 1963, p. 86, no. 2 under Willem Drost.
Hermann Kühn. "Untersuchungen zu den Malgründen Rembrandts." Jahrbuch der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen in Baden-Württemberg 2 (1965), p. 206, dates it 1665.
Gerhard Ewald. Johann Carl Loth, 1632–1698. Amsterdam, 1965, pp. 36–37 n. 3.
Bob Haak. Rembrandt: His Life, His Work, His Time. New York, , p. 223, fig. 371.
J. Richard Judson in Rembrandt After Three Hundred Years. Exh. cat., Art Institute of Chicago. [Chicago], 1969, pp. 53–55, 148, no. 40, ill., reads the signature as "Wilhelmus," the Latinized form of the Dutch Willem, thus rejecting the proposed German origins of the painter; sees a date inscribed on the picture, which could read either 1653, 1655, 1656, or 1666, but supports a date of 1653 based on the picture's association with the dated Hague painting and on the costume of the sitter; tentatively agrees with Bredius that the picture is a self-portrait and the Hague pendant the painter's wife.
Benjamin A. Rifkin. "Rembrandt and His Circle, Part 3." Art News 68 (November 1969), p. 33.
Werner Sumowski. "Beiträge zu Willem Drost." Pantheon 27 (September–October 1969), pp. 376, 383 n. 23, calls it a portrait of Van Velsen [see Ref. Bredius 1917] and dates it 1655.
C. C. Cunningham in Rembrandt After Three Hundred Years. Exh. cat., Art Institute of Chicago. [Chicago], 1969, p. 19.
Josua Bruyn in Rembrandt and His Pupils. Exh. cat., Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. [Montreal], 1969, pp. 35, 79–80, no. 39, ill.
Walther Bernt. The Netherlandish Painters of the Seventeenth Century. London, 1970, vol. 1, p. 33, no. 331, ill.
Eduard Plietzsch. Holländische und flämische Maler des XVII. Jahrh. 2nd ed. Leipzig, 1972, p. 181.
Albert Blankert. Museum Bredius: Catalogus van de Schilderijen en Tekeningen. The Hague, 1978, pp. 51–52, fig. 12, under no. 49, believes that the two pendants represent neither the artist and his wife nor Van Velsen and his wife, but possibly members of the Van Valkenburg family, based on the pictures' presumed inclusion in the 1850 sale in Amsterdam, composed of works from the collection of C. G. van Valkenburg of Aerdenhout.
Master Paintings 1470–1820 and a Group of Watercolours by J. M. W. Turner, R.A. Exh. cat., Thos. Agnew & Son. London, 1982, under no. 34, calls it "a possible self-portrait".
Werner Sumowski. Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler. Vol. 1, J. A. Backer–A. van Dijck. Landau/Pfalz, 1983–[94?], pp. 610, 617, no. 335, ill. p. 644, gives the inscription as "Wilhelmus Drost F. / Amsterdam 1653"; rejects all former identifications of the sitters in the two pendants.
Werner Sumowski. Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler. Vol. 6, Landau/Pfalz, 1983–[94?], p. 3598, provides updated bibliographic information.
Bob Haak. The Golden Age: Dutch Painters of the Seventeenth Century. New York, 1984, p. 369.
A[lbert]. Blankert and Th. van Velzen, ed. Dutch Masterworks from the Bredius Museum: A Connoisseur's Collection. Exh. cat., National Academy of Design, New York. The Hague, 1985, p. 50, under no. 10, believe that the two pendants are more likely to depict members of the Van Valkenburg family than the painter and his wife.
Mary Ann Scott. Dutch, Flemish, and German Paintings in the Cincinnati Art Museum: Fifteenth through Eighteenth Centuries. Cincinnati, 1987, pp. 51, 54 n. 3, notes that the inscription confirms that Drost worked in Amsterdam.
Jacques Foucart. Peintres rembranesques au Louvre. Exh. cat., Musée du Louvre. Paris, 1988, p. 95, states that it is dated 1653.
Neil MacLaren revised and expanded by Christopher Brown in The Dutch School, 1600–1900. 2nd ed. London, 1991, vol. 1, pp. 113–15 n. 3.
Albert Blankert. Museum Bredius: Catalogus van de Schilderijen en Tekeningen. The Hague, 1991, p. 74, fig. 49A.
John Ingamells. The Wallace Collection: Catalogue of Pictures. Vol. 4, Dutch and Flemish. London, 1992, p. 87.
Paul Huys Janssen in The Hoogsteder Exhibition of Rembrandt's Academy. Exh. cat., Hoogsteder & Hoogsteder. The Hague, 1992, pp. 110–11, 113–14, no. 5, ill. (color), considers that the two pendants may depict members of the Van Valkenburg family or the artist and his wife.
Werner Sumowski in The Hoogsteder Exhibition of Rembrandt's Academy. Exh. cat., Hoogsteder & Hoogsteder. The Hague, 1992, p. 72, refers to the two pendants as portraits of a married couple.
Walter Liedtke in Rembrandt/Not Rembrandt in The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Aspects of Connoisseurship. Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Vol. 2, "Paintings, Drawings, and Prints: Art-Historical Perspectives."New York, , pp. 28–29, 106, 108, 119, 144, no. 46, ill., as dated 1653.
Hubert von Sonnenburg. Rembrandt/Not Rembrandt in The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Aspects of Connoisseurship. Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Vol. 1, "Paintings: Problems and Issues."New York, 1995, p. 24.
B. P. J. Broos in The Dictionary of Art. Ed. Jane Turner. Vol. 9, New York, 1996, p. 300, as signed and dated "Wilhelmus Drost F. / Amsterdam 1653"; perpetuates the theory of the artist's German origins.
Christopher White. Dutch, Flemish, and German Paintings before 1900. Oxford, 1999, p. 33, as dated 1653.
Thomas Ketelsen in Rembrandt, oder nicht? Exh. cat., Hamburger Kunsthalle. Vol. 2, "Die Gemälde."Ostfildern-Ruit, Germany, 2000, pp. 32, 40 n. 145, dates it 1652.
Jonathan Bikker. "Willem Drost (1633–1658): A Rembrandt Pupil in Amsterdam, Rome, and Venice." PhD diss., Universiteit Utrecht, 2001, pp. 123–27, no. 23, ill., states that although the painting is not dated, it does date from the mid-1650s; discusses the various attempts to identify the sitter, rejecting his identification as Van Velsen, and finding arguments against his identification as a self-portrait and as a member of the Van Valkenburg family; questions whether the MMA and Hague works are in fact pendants.
Rudi Ekkart. Hidden Dutch and Flemish Paintings of the 16th and 17th Centuries from the Collection W. C. Escher. Exh. cat., Centraal Museum. Utrecht, 2002, pp. 70, 72, 120 n. 6 under no. 11, as "until recently considered" the pendant to the Hague portrait.
Jonathan Bikker. Willem Drost (1633–1659): A Rembrandt Pupil in Amsterdam and Venice. New Haven, 2005, pp. 7, 17, 33, 67, 74, 92, 95–99, 101–2, 106, 163, 183 n. 1 (under no. 18), p. 184 nn. 1–20 (under no. 22), p. 190 n. 1 (under no. L1), no. 22, ill. (color).
Walter Liedtke. Dutch Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 2007, vol. 1, pp. 167–73, no. 38, colorpl. 38.