Black and white chalk on light brown prepared paper, 195 x 234 mm. Strokes of brown chalk on the arm added later. Some light brown stains in the centre, and a larger oil stain at the bottom centre. Watermark: Horn in a coat of arms, and the letters ABL (monogrammed). Chain lines: 22 mm. On the verso, inscribed Rhimbrandt (Tessin) and difficilement (later hand), and numbered 3.f., all in pen and brown ink.

This drawing was first published by Nils Lindhagen in 1953, and three years later it was acquired by the Museum and reunited with the Tessin Collection. The rendering of the naked body with a careful outline and modelling with fine hatching is similar to the chalk drawing of Diana in the British Museum, as was noted by Sumowski; it is the model for an etching of c. 1631 (Bartsch 201). Sumowski dates our drawing to the beginning of the 1630s. For Benesch, the similarities with two drawings in Rotterdam and one in the Count Seilern Collection in London confirmed the attribution. But he dated the drawing to about 1635, as he considered it more mature than several other nude studies, which he dated around 1632. However, two of these drawings have recently been reattributed: one to Jacob Backer, while the other, a much weaker drawing, has been relegated to an anonymous school drawing.

The attribution of the present drawing was contested by Lugt and von Moltke, who opted for Govert Flinck. Recently an attribution to Flinck has been reproposed by Schatborn, who notes several important similarities with the signed drawing in the École de Beaux-Arts in Paris and a drawing in the Abrams album in the Fogg Museum, Cambridge, Mass. In his opinion, it forms a link between Flinck’s early dependence on Rembrandt and his later, independent style.

However, Schatborn’s observation that the shapeless drapery under the figure “seems to exclude Rembrandt” is exaggerated. It compares well with the drapery on which Diana sits in the drawing at the British Museum, and the summary hatching around the body and the thin lines modelling it are also comparable. The similarities with the London drawing caused Sumowski to reject the attribution to Flinck. Of importance here is Lindhagen’s suggestion that the drawing might be a study for the painting Diana, Actaeon and Callisto in the Museum Wasserburg in Anholt, dated no later than 1634. None of the naked nymphs in the painting correspond to that of the drawing, but the type is the same. Our sheet is briefly touched upon by the authors of the Rembrandt Research Corpus, who also point out that Rembrandt had collected an album of drawings of nude men and women.

The drawing differs in many respects from Rembrandt’s later chalk studies of nude models, most of them in red chalk, but this could be a drawing from the early 1630s.

There is a slight sketch of a head just above the woman, crossed out. The thick tufts of hair indicated with a few strokes are similar to those of Actaeon in the painting mentioned above. [Magnusson, Dutch Drawings no. 308]