Probably Cabinet Johan de Bye, Leiden 1665, no. 7 ('Een bok en lantscap');
De Preuil, Conseiller d'Etat du Grande-Duché de Berg;
His sale, Paris, Lebrun, 25 November 1811, lot 65;
J.B.P. Lebrun;
His sale, Paris, Lebrun, 2 February 1813, lot 176;
Edward Loyd, by 1857;
By descent to M. Lewis Loyd, Beckenham, Kent;
By descent to Captain E.N.F. Loyd, Shaw Hill, Melksham, Wiltshire;
His sale, London, Christie's, 30 April 1937, lot 101, for £168 to Heather;
Dr. Hans Wetzlar, Amsterdam, since 1950.

Manchester, Art Treasures Exhibition, 1857, no 1039 (where lent by Edward Loyd Esq.);
London, Matthiesen Gallery, Rembrandt's influence in the 17^th Century, 1953, no. 17;
Paris, Institut Néerlandais, Bestiaire Hollandais, 1960, no. 64;
Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum, Leeuwaerden, Fries Museum, Meesterlijk Vee.  Nederlandse veeschilders 1600-1900, 1988-9, no. 37.

W. Burger (Th. Thoré), Trésors d'art exposés à Manchester en 1857..., Paris 1857, no. 258;
W. Martin, Het leven en de werken van Gerard Dou, Leiden 1901, no. 359;
C. Hofstede de Groot, A Catalogue Raisonné..., vol. I, London 1907, p. 462, no. 385;
W. Martin (translated and supplemented by L. Dimier), Gerard Dou, sa vie et son oeuvre, Paris 1911, no. 288;
W. Martin, Klassiker der Kunst ... Gerard Dou, Stuttgart/Berlin 1913, p. xviii;
Wetzlar cat., 1952, p. 11, no. 26, reproduced;
W. Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt Schüler, vol. I, Landau/Pfalz 1983, p. 538, no. 306, reproduced p. 603;
Voorkeuren, 1985, p. 28, reproduced p. 29;
G. Jansen, in C. Boschma etc., Meesterlijk Vee.  Nederlandse veeschilders 1600-1900, exhibition catalogue, Zwolle 1988, pp. 189-191, no. 37, reproduced;
R. Baer, The paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613-1675), diss., New York University, 1990, ♌vol. 2, (unp♐aginated), no. 106. 

"The following condition report has been provided by Henry Gentle, an independent restorer who is not an employee of Sotheby's. The oak panel is in good condition, it is evenly chamfered with the later addition of oak edging strips. The paint layer is stable. In raking light the vertical wood grain is raised into furrows with dark shrinkage cracks running down the centre. These cracks have been reduced by restoration and this restoration has now discoloured; in my opinion some of this restoration is excessive. In the upper left of the picture the ground colour can be seen to have broken through the thin paint here and retouchings have been applied to reduce this. The darker paint on the goat's head has been compromised in the past and has been poorly strengthened; note the pentiment to the goat's horns. The paler paint of the goat's shaggy coat is well preserved, the detail and impasto intact, although there is some minor thinness allowing the ground colour to appear. Thinness to the mid ground layer, e.g. the goatherd and his female companion, has led to strengthening of the paint here; similarly the paint around the tree has been augmented where the ground colour has broken through; there is a possibility that this has been added to reduce further pentimenti. A filigree of fine pale cracking can be seen through the tree trunk, right. The paint to the foliage, lower left, is in good original condition. The removal of the discoloured and degraded varnish would considerably enhance the overall tonality. Offered in a carved gilt wood frame with minor losses."
"This lot is offered for sale subject to Sotheby's Conditions of Business, which are available on request and printed in Sotheby's sale catalogues. The independent reports contained in this document are provided for prospective bidders' information only and without warranty by Sotheby's or the Seller."

This is a most unusual work within Dou's oeuvre, since it is one of only two pure animal still lifes by him known to us today.  The other, depicting a sleeping dog, faggots, basketware and a cooking pot, is in an unspecific setting, but presumably an interior, while the goat depicted here is in a landscape setting.¹  The sleeping dog is dated 1650, but the Wetzlar picture is likely to be much later, and is generally dated circa 1660-1665.  It is likely to date from before 1665, when Johan de Bye seems to have exhibited it, and as Ronni Baer has noted, there are similarities in the elements of landscape with those in Dou's Nude Woman in St. Petersburg, which was also exhibited by De Bye in 1665, and which is dated to the same time.² 

Maarten Jager has drawn attention to the close similarities beween the goat depicted in the Wetzlar picture and another seen in reverse in Marcus de Bye's engraving after Potter (see fig. 1).³ 

Goats had a rather bad press in the 17th Century.  Jager, followed by Jansen and Baer saw in this picture an allegorical meaning, since the goat was a well-understood emblem of lust and unchaste behaviour.  Van Mander had spelt this out in 1604: 'Unchastity is signified by the goat... the goat signifies the whore, who corrupts young men just as the goat gnaws off and ruins young green sprouts'.⁴

1. Signed and dated 1650, oil on panel, 16.5 by 21.6 cm.  Private collection (sold, New York, Christie's, 25 May 2005, lot 12, for $4,200,000).
2.  See for both Baer & Sumowski under Literature.  For the St Petersburg picture, see Baer, no. 103.
3.  See under Literature: Voorkeuren; and G. Jansen, reproduced p. 191, fig. 127.
4. K. van Mander, Het Schilderboeck..., Haarlem 1604, fol. 129r.