Émile Galichon. "Description des dessins de M. Ingres au salon des arts-unis." Gazette des beaux-arts 9 (March 15, 1861), pp. 359–60, calls it a copy of an original in the collection of Prince Napoleon; identifies this painting as a copy more closely related to the 1804 self-portrait than to the 1850 revised version (W17, Musée Condé, Chantilly).
Henri Delaborde. Ingres: Sa vie, ses travaux, sa doctrine. Paris, 1870, p. 251, under no. 129, mentions two reproductions, one of which is this one, of the portrait "Ingres (Jean-Auguste-Dominique), à l'âge de vingt-quatre ans"; claims that they were executed by two of Ingres's students and probably retouched by Ingres in the last years of his life; states that both of the reproductions were owned by Mme Ingres.
Henry Lapauze. Ingres: Sa vie & son oeuvre (1780–1867), d'après des documents inédits. Paris, 1911, p. 48, mentions this reproduction of the 1804 self-portrait as having been retouched by Ingres and owned by Mme Ramel.
Walter Pach. Ingres. New York, 1939, p. 13, ill. (frontispiece).
Georges Wildenstein. The Paintings of J. A. D. Ingres. 1st ed. 1954, pp. 162–63, no. 18, fig. 9, as "Self-Portrait at the Age of Twenty-Four"; notes that it is signed "Ingres Rom"; claims that this portrait remained in Ingres's studio and was retouched by him several times, especially towards the end of his life; believes that this is probably the painting that was exhibited at the École des Beaux-Arts in 1885, under the title "Ingres à vingt-deux ans," no. 156; gives the complete provenance of the work.
Painting: School of France. Exh. cat., Atlanta Art Association Galleries. Atlanta, 1955, unpaginated, no. 4, ill., as by Ingres.
Georges Wildenstein. The Paintings of J. A. D. Ingres. 2nd revised ed. London, 1956, pp. 162–63, no. 18, fig. 9.
Louise Burroughs. "A Portrait of Ingres as a Young Man." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin (Summer 1960), pp. 1–7, ill., dates it between 1841 and 1851, and revised by a less accomplished hand before 1877; discusses various versions of the Chantilly portrait: the Forestier copy, the Marville photograph, and the Armand Cambon copy of the MMA painting (Musée Ingres, Montauban); publishes the drawings for the cape; comments that the execution indicates that the MMA portrait was made by an artist familiar with Ingres's method, probably a pupil; notes the differences and similarities to the self-portrait at Chantilly, painted in 1804 and reworked in 1850; proposes that the MMA portrait is a blend of Ingres's self-portrait of 1804 and the reworked version of 1850, arguing that the artist was copying Ingres's portrait while it was in transition from its early to its ultimate state; dismisses the possibility that Ingres reworked this portrait; demonstrates that two hands are at work, noting the discrepancies in workmanship, the difference in the texture of the paint, and the brushwork; mentions that x-ray shadowgraphs clearly show that the artist's left hand against his breast is in the same position that it assumes in the Chantilly portrait, and reveals no trace of the present left arm, hand, handkerchief, or canvas; concludes that the original composition of the MMA painting was closer to the Chantilly portrait than to the 1804 version, and that the conspicuous features of the early version must have been added later.
Louise Burroughs. "Un portrait d'Ingres jeune." Bulletin du Musée Ingres no. 8 (January 1961), pp. 3–8, no. 1, ill. on cover [translation of Ref. Burroughs 1960], erroneously reproduces a photograph of an unknown work (fig. 4) as the Forestier copy.
Daniel Ternois. "L'Ingrisme dans le Monde Chronique du Musée: A propos du portrait D'Ingres jeune." Bulletin du Musée Ingres no. 8 (January 1961), note opp. p. 20, comments on two drawings for the Chantilly portrait in the Musée Ingres, which are probably by a pupil of Ingres, confirming the possibility of student participation in some versions of this portrait.
Charles Sterling and Margaretta M. Salinger. French Paintings: A Catalogue of the Collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Vol. 2, XIX Century. New York, 1966, pp. 13–15, ill., note that it bears a fraudulent signature and date (?) at lower left, with illegible letters or numbers; remark that the sketch on the canvas is a portrait of Ingres's friend Gilibert, whose early portrait of him (W15; Musée Ingres, Montauban) was returned to Ingres's studio for cleaning and restoration when Gilibert died in 1850; propose that Ingres had the idea of including the sketch of the Gilibert portrait in the empty canvas in his own portrait, a change recorded in the Marville photograph and included here but deleted in the final state of the Chantilly painting.
Ettore Camesasca in L'opera completa di Ingres. Milan, 1968, p. 88, no. 17b, ill., calls it a replica of the 1804 self-portrait by a student of Ingres; notes that it was in Ingres's studio, where he retouched it numerous times.
Gaëtan Picon. Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres. 2nd ed. [1st ed. 1967]. New York, 1980, p. 8, ill. [1st edition has different page numbers], states that it comes closer to the first state as seen in the Forestier copy and the Marville photograph, except that the cloak is absent.
John L. Connolly Jr. "Napoleon and the Age of Gold: A Bicentennial Celebration of the Birth of J. A. D. Ingres." The Consortium of Revolutionary Europe, 1750–1850: Proceedings, vol. 2. Ed. John L. Connolly Jr., Donald D. Horward, and Harold T. Parker. Vol. 2, Athens, Ga., 1980, pp. 52–53, 62 n. 2, fig. I [see Ref. Tinterow 1999].
Daniel Ternois. Ingres. Milan, 1980, p. 174, no. 20, ill., calls it a studio copy; states that it was retouched by Ingres in the last years of his life.
Uwe Fleckner. "Die Kunst des Porträts im Werk von Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres." Abbild und Abstraktion. Mainz, 1995, p. 25.
Gary Tinterow in Portraits by Ingres: Image of an Epoch. Ed. Gary Tinterow and Philip Conisbee. Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1999, pp. 12, 36, 74, 454–59, 462, 499, 516 n. 18, no. 147, ill. (color), dates it about 1850–60; believes that it was executed under the supervision of Ingres by one of his pupils, perhaps Madame Gustave Héquet; states that Ingres probably did not acquire this painting until 1866; proposes that before Ingres's death in 1867, this work was enlarged at the bottom and the canvas with Gilibert was painted in, but that these changes were made by a different hand, as they are inferior in technique; remarks that the second artist was working from the Forestier copy or the Marville photograph, since only those two works contain the Gilibert sketch and the extended left arm; comments on Bertin's hypothesis [see Ref. Bertin 1999] concluding that if the MMA portrait is the one sold at the Hôtel Drouot, February 21, 1866, then it was neither ordered by Ingres nor given to him as a gift, but that it was bought by Ingres or his wife sometime before 1870 when Delaborde [see Ref. Delaborde 1870] records it as in the collection of Mme Ingres; expands on Delaborde's comment that Mme Ingres had two copies of the original portrait, stating that the second copy was probably made by Atala Varcollier (née Stamaty) and was modelled on the Chantilly painting rather than on the earlier portrait.
Éric Bertin in Portraits by Ingres: Image of an Epoch. Ed. Gary Tinterow and Philip Conisbee. Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1999, p. 457 n. 2 [see Ref. Hôtel Drouot 1866], suggests that it may be the work described in the Hôtel Drouot sale catalogue of February 21, 1866.