© 2018 The Leiden Collection

Woman Plucking a Duck
Page 2 of 11

Woman Plucking a Duckca. 1645

School of Rembrandt van Rijn

oil on panel
99.8 x 73 cm
inscribed (incorrectly) in light-colored paint,
lower left corner: “816 Renbrant” (written with“n” and no “d”); and lower right corner: “112.”
AD-100How To Cite
Van Tuinen, Ilona. "Woman Plucking a Duck." In The Leiden Collection Catalogue. Edited by Arthur K.
Wheelock Jr. New York.
https://www.theleidencollection.com/archive/(accessed March 29, 2018).
This page is available on the site's Archive. PDF of every version of this page is available on the Archive,and the Archive is managed by a permanent URL. Archival copies will never be deleted. New versions areadded only when a substantive change to the narrative occurs.

© 2018 The Leiden Collection

Woman Plucking a Duck
Page 3 of 11

In a composition dominated by a warm palette of deep red, ochre, andComparative Figures

brown hues, an old woman holds a dead duck above a wicker basket as
she carefully plucks the last few feathers off its bare belly. Peering throughspectacles perched on her nose, the woman’s squinting eyes, raised
eyebrows and slightly parted lips betray her total concentration as she
attempts to remove every feather from the duck’s body. To seventeenthcentury viewers, the woman’s care in properly preparing a meal would
have have been an exemplar of female domestic virtue.[1]Lying on the table in front of the woman is an exotic, white bird of paradise,
identifiable by its elegant tail with distinctive fine plumage, framed by two

Fig 1. Dirck de Bray, Still Life witha Hunting Sword and a RedVelvet Cap Decorated with thePlumage of a Bird of Paradise,
1672, oil on panel, 37.5 x 25.1
cm, Private Collection, England

black filamentary feathers. The red velvet beret next to its head
foreshadows the bird’s ornamental destination: the woman will soon attach
the feathers to the hat with a needle and thread—another reference todomesticity—to create an elegantly adorned beret similar to one depicted
by Dirck de Bray in 1672 (fig 1).[2] Against the wall at the right is a deadsnipe that gracefully hangs over the edge of a round box covered by awhite satin cloth. Suspended from an empty sconce on the wall above thesnipe, to be tenderized before being plucked and consumed, are a deadpartridge and a chicken.[3] As much as these four dead fowls present a
glorious display of lush materials and various colorful bird feathers, they
are also a subtle reference to the woman’s old age and the foreshadowingof her imminent end.[4]Although the painting is signed “Renbrant” [sic] in the lower left corner,Fig 2. Attributed to School ofRembrandt, An Old Woman
Plucking a Duck, probably themid-1640s, oil on panel, 72.9 x
62.1 cm, The MichaelisCollection, Cape Town, SouthAfrica

this signature is spurious and the artist of the work, who was probably
associated with Rembrandt’s workshop, has not been identified.[5] This
unknown master used strong lighting to accentuate the chicken, thepartridge and the snipe, and painted these birds with much detail,particularly in the feathers, where he added shimmering highlights inraised impasto. In contrast, he left the woman and the bird of paradise inshadow, and executed their forms with muted colors and broad
brushstrokes. The subdued cream-colored hues used in rendering thesmooth, silky feathers of the bird of paradise are comparable to the broad
handling seen in the woman’s flowing scarf.

Fig 3. Rembrandt van Rijn, The
Toilet of Bathsheba, 1643, oil onpanel, 57.2 x 76.2 cm, The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, NewYork, Bequest of Benjamin
Altman, 1913, inv.
14.40.651, www.metmuseum.org

Another more tightly cropped version of this composition is in the Michaelis
Collection in Cape Town, where it is also attributed to the School ofRembrandt (fig 2).[6] The relationship between these two works is unclear© 2018 The Leiden Collection

Woman Plucking a Duck
Page 4 of 11

and probably cannot be determined with certainty until they are comparedside by side. The few pentimenti in the Leiden Collection painting occur
either in areas of the composition that fall outside the Cape Town version,or are too minor to indicate which of the two paintings is the primaryversion.[7] Werner Sumowski considered the Cape Town painting to be of
better quality than the present work.[8] Indeed, the execution of that work ismore carefully rendered in many areas, specifically in the hair on thewoman’s proper left temple, the ornamental element on the woman’supper sleeve, and the feathers of the tail of the bird of paradise, all ofwhich suggests that the Cape Town work is the primary version of thiscomposition.

Fig 4. Rembrandt van Rijn, Still
Life with Peacocks, ca. 1639, oilon canvas, 145 x 135.5 cm,
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv.
no. SK-A-3981

In the early twentieth century, both paintings were considered to be byRembrandt.[9] By the 1940s scholars recognized that although the generalcomposition, stark lighting, and figure type are reminiscent of Rembrandt,
the execution of neither work was by the master.[10] Attributions to a
specific artist in Rembrandt’s studio, including Abraham van Dyck
(1635–72), Arent de Gelder (1645–1727), Christopher Paudiss (1630–66),
and Karel van der Pluym (1625–72), however, have proven to beunconvincing.[11]Sumowski noted that the facial features and spectacles of the woman inthis composition are strikingly similar to those of the old servant inRembrandt’s 1643 Toilet of Bathsheba (fig 3). On this basis, he proposeda dating of the present work to ca. 1645–50.[12] This dating correspondswith the results of dendrochronological analysis, which reveal that theyoungest year ring can be dated to 1629. The panel, thus, could havebeen ready for use by around 1646. Another connection to Rembrandt’s
work from this period is the arrangement of brightly lit dead birds in theforeground and a shaded figure in the background, which is reminiscent ofRembrandt’s 1639 Self-Portrait with Dead Bittern[14] and his Still Life with
Peacocks of ca. 1639 (fig 4). Although we do not know who executed thepresent painting, it clearly reflects the impact of Rembrandt’s manner inthe mid-1640s.

© 2018 The Leiden Collection

Woman Plucking a Duck
Page 5 of 11-Ilona van Tuinen-2017© 2018 The Leiden Collection

Woman Plucking a Duck
Page 6 of 11

Endnotes
1. Compositions featuring young girls plucking birds, on the other hand, often contained sexual
allusions to the Dutch verb vogelen (a slang word for copulating). For a discussion of thesexual symbolism of a young woman plucking a duck in a painting of ca. 1655–56 in thePhiladelphia Museum of Art by Nicolaes Maes, see Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., “Nicolaes Maes,Woman Plucking a Duck,” in The Public and Private in the Age of Vermeer (Exh. cat.
Osaka, Osaka Municipal Museum of Art) (London, 2000), 132–35, no. 21. In this painting,objects such as a shotgun (presumably of the girl’s suitor) and a wine pitcher and glass inthe next room enhance the sensual undertone of the girl’s act. In the present painting,however, there are no such objects pointing to male company. For another painting featuring
an old woman plucking a duck, see Quentin Buvelot’s entry in the present catalogue on
Frans van Mieris the Elder’s Elderly Couple in an Interior , ca. 1650–55 (FM-100), in which
the old woman’s husband looks at the viewer as though to emphasize his wife’s domesticity.
2. The exotic bird of paradise, native to Papua New Guinea and Indonesia and accessible to
the Dutch via the Dutch East India Company, had long captured the imagination of artists, as
is signified by a drawing by Joris Hoefnagel as early as ca. 1580 (watercolor and gouacheon parchment set in gold leaf, 143 x 184 mm, National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C., inv.
no. 1987.20.8.35), as well as a study by Rembrandt of two birds of paradise (pen in brownon paper, ca. 1637, 181 x 154 mm, Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. 1195). See also
Joachim Wolfgang von Moltke, Arent de Gelder, Dordrecht, 1645–1727 (Doornspijk, 1994),
185, no. R 68, where the present painting is erroneously identified as representing ataxidermist.
3. For the practice of hanging dead birds to allow the blood to flow out as a means to tenderize
the meat, as depicted in Rembrandt’s Still Life with Dead Peacocks of ca. 1639 (fig. 4below), see Ruud Priem, Rembrandt and the Golden Age of Dutch Art: Treasures from theRijksmuseum Amsterdam (Exh. cat. Dayton, Dayton Art Institute; Phoenix, Phoenix ArtMuseum; Portland, Portland Art Museum) (Seattle, 2006), 37–38, no. 14.
4. For the symbolism of dead birds in combination with old age, see Dominique Surh’s entry in
the present catalogue on Gerrit Dou’s Old Woman at a Niche by Candlelight , 1671
(GD-103), in which a dead chicken lies in close proximity to an old woman.
5. See Technical Summary. It is unclear when this signature was added. The number “816”next to this signature is presumably an old inventory number, but it is unknown to whichcollection it refers.
6. See Hans Fransen, Michaelis Collection: The Old Town House, Cape Town—Catalogue ofthe Collection of Paintings and Drawings (Zwolle, 1996), 132. The painting does not include
the space above the woman’s head with the sconce, and has less space next to the© 2018 The Leiden Collection

Woman Plucking a DuckPage 7 of 11

woman’s hands on the left and the hanging birds on the right. The conservation history ofthis painting is unknown, and it is therefore not clear if the panel was cut. Bredius, in a letterto the keeper of the Michaelis Collection, dated 22 December 1937, mentioned a third
version as well, though it is unknown where this version was at the time or is now. See also
Joachim Wolfgang von Moltke, Arent de Gelder, Dordrecht, 1645–1727 (Doornspijk, 1994),
185, no. R 68, who believed that one of these works was a copy of the other, but could notconclude which was the original. Many thanks to Hayden Russell Proud, curator of theMichaelis Collection, for sending a photograph of the Cape Town version. According to Mr.
Proud, the painting has developed matte areas and is scheduled to be examined by thepaintings conservator (correspondence, April 2014, copy on file at the Leiden Collection).
7. For a discussion of the pentimenti, see the Technical Summary.
8. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler in vier Bänden , 6 vols. (Landau andPfalz, 1983–94), 4:2964, no. 1984. Sumowski does not give any reasons for thisobservation.
9. For an overview of the early attribution history of the Cape Town painting, which includes
oral or unpublished references to the Leiden Collection painting, see Hans Fransen,
Michaelis Collection: The Old Town House, Cape Town—Catalogue of the Collection ofPaintings and Drawings (Zwolle, 1996), 132.
10. See Hans Fransen, Michaelis Collection: The Old Town House, Cape Town—Catalogue ofthe Collection of Paintings and Drawings (Zwolle, 1996), 132. Although Bredius attributed
the Cape Town painting to Rembrandt in a letter to the keeper of the Michaelis Collection in
1937, he did not include it in his 1942 The Paintings of Rembrandt (London, 1942).
11. For the attribution history to the School of Rembrandt, see Werner Sumowski,Gemälde derRembrandt-Schüler in vier Bänden, 6 vols. (Landau and Pfalz, 1983–94), 4:2964, no. 1984;
Hans Fransen, Michaelis Collection: The Old Town House, Cape Town—Catalogue of theCollection of Paintings and Drawings (Zwolle, 1996), 132. The Cape Town painting bore an
attribution to Arent De Gelder in 1913. When the Leiden Collection painting was auctioned in1972 and 1977 at Sotheby’s London (see Provenance), it was attributed to De Gelder aswell. De Gelder, however, trained with Rembrandt in the early 1660s, later than when thepaintings were presumably executed. Moreover, De Gelder adopted Rembrandt’s late,patchy painting style, which is not exemplified in these paintings. In 1994 J. W. von Moltke
definitively rejected the attributions to De Gelder, see J. W. von Moltke,Arent de Gelder,Dordrecht, 1645–1727 (Doornspijk, 1994), 184–85, nos. R 67–68. The other three artists
mentioned were all in Rembrandt’s workshop in the 1640s (Van der Pluym around 1645,Paudiss around 1642, and Van Dyck around 1650), which fits better with the dating of thesepaintings. Of these artists, Paudiss comes closest in terms of figure types (which was also
noted by Sumowski), the delicate modeling, and the atmospheric lighting. See, for instance,
his Still Life with Cow Heads , dated 1658, and his Old Man with Fur Hat , dated 1654, both
© 2018 The Leiden Collection

Woman Plucking a DuckPage 8 of 11

reproduced in Christopher Paudiss, 1630–1666, ed. Sylvia Hahn et al. (Exh. cat. Freising,
Diözesanmuseum) (Regensburg, 2007), nos. 7 and 12. A close comparison between thesetwo paintings and the present work, however, shows that the handling of paint in the latter isoverall smoother and the modeling less complex. The unpublished attribution to Van Dyck
pertains only to the New York painting and was recorded in a note of ca. 2006 in The Leiden
Collection curatorial files. In around 1660, Van Dyck paintedStill Life with Hunting Gear anda Dead Bittern, oil on canvas, 121 x 104.8 cm, signed “Av Dÿck” (Rafael Valls Ltd., London,
2000–1), with a similar attention to details in the feathers as in the present painting. Van
Dyck’s handling of paint, however, is rougher, with more impasto, making an attribution tohim unlikely. The author would like to thank Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. for sharing his thoughtson these matters of attribution.
12. See Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler in vier Bänden , 6 vols. (Landauand Pfalz, 1983–45), 4:2964, no. 1984. For a discussion of The Toilet of Bathsheba, see
Walter Liedtke, “The Toilet of Bathsheba,” in Dutch Paintings in the Metropolitan Museumof Art, 2 vols. (New Haven and London, 2007), 2:613–23, no. 149. Liedtke points to thesimilarities between the servant holding Bathsheba’s foot in the 1643 painting andRembrandt’s earlier painting of the same theme from ca. 1632, known only through copies. A
copy of this early work is discussed in A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings , vol. 2 (Dordrecht,Boston, and Lancaster, 1986), 591–94, no. C 45. The latter source also mentions therecurrence of the same model in Rembrandt’s 1654 Bathsheba, now at the Musée duLouvre in Paris. Whereas it is true that the servant in the 1643 painting bears generalsimilarities to the servants in the paintings of ca. 1632 and 1654, her lorgnette and her facialfeatures, especially the pronounced chin, correspond most with the Leiden Collection
painting. This supports a dating of the latter work to around the same time as the 1643
painting.
13. The painting was examined by Peter Klein at an unknown date, who concluded that theyoungest heartwood ring was formed in 1628, and that the panel could plausibly have been
ready for use from 1645 upwards, with a median of fifteen sapwood rings and two years forseasoning. The panel was also examined by Ian Tyers in November 2010, who concluded
that the youngest heartwood ring in the central plank is a sapwood ring that can be dated to1629. Tyers estimated a felling date between 1636 and 1652, based on the minimum andmaximum number of sapwood rings. Considering that Tyers identified a sapwood ring, which
was thus formed nearer the felling date than a regular-year ring, it is plausible that the fellingdate was nearer the minimum or median and not the maximum. It is reasonable to assume
that with a median of fifteen sapwood rings and two years for seasoning, the panel,according to Tyers’s dating of the sapwood ring, could have been ready for use from 1646
onwards. There are copies of both dendrochronological reports in the curatorial files at The
Leiden Collection.

© 2018 The Leiden Collection

Woman Plucking a Duck
Page 9 of 11

14. Rembrandt, Self-Portrait with Dead Bittern, 1639, oil on panel, 89 x 121 cm, Gemäldegalerie
Alte Meister, Dresden.

ProvenanceWilhelm II (1859–1941), the Last German Emperor and King of Prussia, before 1920 [HugoMoser, Aerdenhout, the Netherlands, 1926–38; Zuppinger, Herliberg, Switzerland, 1953–62;
Galerie Rudolf Beckers, Düsseldorf, Germany, 1964].
(Sale, Sotheby’s, London, 12 July 1972, no. 26, as by Aert de Gelder [to Arlington, for£3,200]; sale, Sotheby’s, London, 6 April 1977, no. 94, as by Aert de Gelder, [for £3,000]).
Private collection, Switzerland, by 1994 [Jack Kilgore & Co., New York, 2006 (as byRembrandt School)].
From whom acquired by the present owner in 2006.

Exhibition History
Düsseldorf, Galerie Rudolf Beckers, “Special Exhibition of Fine Dutch, Flemish, German,
and Italian Old Master Paintings,” 1964 (as by Aert de Gelder).

References
Sumowski, Werner. Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler in vier Bänden . 6 vols. Landau andPfalz, 1983–94, 4:2964, no. 1984, as by School of Rembrandt.
Von Moltke, Joachim Wolfgang. Arent de Gelder, Dordrecht, 1645–1727 . Doornspijk, 1994,185, no. R 68, fig. 97, as by School of Rembrandt.
Fransen, Hans. Michaelis Collection: The Old Town House, Cape Town—Catalogue of theCollection of Paintings and Drawings. Zwolle, 1996, 132, as by School of Rembrandt.

Versions© 2018 The Leiden Collection

Woman Plucking a Duck
Page 10 of 11

Versions and Copies
1. Attributed to School of Rembrandt, A Woman Plucking a Fowl , probably mid-1640s, oil onpanel, 72.9 x 62.1 cm, The Michaelis Collection, Capetown.

Versions Notes

Technical Summary
The support is a rectangular-shaped composite panel made up of three vertically grained
Eastern Baltic oak planks of similar widths, derived from a tree felled between 1636 and 1652.[1]The composite panel is unthinned and uncradled and has bevels along all but the right verticaledge, which may have been trimmed. A metal staple along the thickness of the lower panel edge
bridges the join between the center and right plank, and indicates previous panel work.[2] There
are mechanical toolmarks along the outer two planks and five import stamps, a stencil, a black
inscription and chalk, but no wax collection seals or panel maker’s marks.
A light-colored ground has been thinly and evenly applied and spills over onto the three edges
with bevels. The image was constructed with thin, smooth glazes through the background,allowing the ground to show through, with low impasto through the figure’s hands and face, andwith crisp delicate strokes of raised impasto defining the fine details of the four dead fowl, thewhite fabric, and the leaf draped over the box.
No underdrawing is readily apparent in infrared images captured at 780–1000 nanometers.
Compositional changes evident in the images and as pentimenti indicate the edge of the whitefabric along the lower right corner was shortened and rounded off during the paint stage.
Changes were also made to the figure’s hat and shawl and to the left side of the figure’s profile
from her nose to beneath her chin. In addition, a pentimento along the back of the figure’s proper
right hand and infrared images indicate that originally only the thumb, pointer and middle finger
were depicted; the ring finger and pinky were added later in the paint stage.
The painting is unsigned and undated.
The painting has not undergone conservation treatment since its acquisition and remains in agood state of preservation.

Technical Summary Endnotes

1. The characterization of the wood is based on Ian Tyers’s 2010 dendrochronology report.
The painting underwent previous dendrochronology by Peter Klein.
© 2018 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Woman Plucking a Duck
Page 11 of 11

2. As viewed from the reverse.

© 2018 The Leiden Collection