The Wounded Table

Introduction

Frida Kahlo's The Wounded Table is missing, but its history is not blank. A 1940 Mexican exhibition catalogue names it, a 1955 Polish catalogue records its support and size, and surviving photographs preserve a remarkably crowded scene in which a table seems to acquire a body. Most importantly, two contemporary Polish reviews place the painting in Kraków in April 1955, later than the Warsaw showing often described as its last. ^{[1] [5] [6] [7]}

The picture brings together Kahlo, two children, a festival effigy, a West Mexican figure, a skeleton and a deer behind a long table cut by wound-like openings. Its historical trail runs from a Surrealist exhibition in Mexico through Soviet custody to postwar Poland, then stops without a verified return receipt. Looking closely and tracing that trail are complementary tasks: neither the missing object nor the evocative title permits an invented ending or a single psychological key. ^{[3] [5] [8]}

At a Glance

Contents

1. Introduction
2. A Stage Built Around a Wounded Table
3. What the Historical Photographs Can—and Cannot—Show
4. Making the Painting for the Surrealist Exhibition
5. One Table, Several Histories of Figures
6. From Mexico to Soviet Custody
7. Warsaw, Kraków and the Last Secure Evidence
8. After Poland: Missing Is Not Destroyed
9. Books and Archival Records

A Stage Built Around a Wounded Table

The surviving full-composition photograph shows a very wide, shallow setting framed by gathered curtains. Floorboards cross the foreground, while an atmospheric opening and large leaves appear behind the figures. The arrangement is stage-like, but the photograph does not identify a real theatre or performance; it shows a constructed pictorial space. ^[5]

A long rectangular table occupies the centre and divides the actors from the floor. Dark openings interrupt its top and dark trails descend across or from it, inviting the wound language already given in the title. Several supports below the tabletop thicken into human-like forms and at least two end in feet. Furniture and body meet visibly here, though monochrome reproductions cannot establish the colour or precise substance of every dark mark. ^[5]

Kahlo's likeness stands behind the table at the centre, facing out beneath arranged dark hair. Her lower clothing aligns with the table supports, while no ordinary pair of her own arms is clearly distinguishable. Other hands gather around her instead: a small figure extends a limb near her side, and a skeletal hand reaches into or toward her hair. This distribution of touch is visible; the stronger claim that each companion is literally a missing part of Kahlo belongs to interpretation. ^{[3] [5]}

Two children stand at the viewer's left. Helga Prignitz-Poda identifies them as Isolda and Antonio, Kahlo's niece and nephew through her sister Cristina, a family relationship corroborated by Museo Frida Kahlo's chronology. Their names and kinship come from documents, not from facial recognition in the old plate. ^{[3] [13]}

Beside them rises a much taller pale figure with enlarged head and hands and fine projecting lines. Prignitz-Poda identifies it as a papier-mâché worker Judas, constructed with fireworks, rather than an ordinary man posing at the table. The term refers here to a Mexican festival effigy; the grinning skeleton at Kahlo's other side is a separate figure, not the Judas in another guise. ^[3]

The small stylised figure near Kahlo is identified in the scholarship as West Mexican or Nayarit. The skeleton on her other side is described by Prignitz-Poda as made with wire and plaster; at the far right is a deer-like animal that the same catalogue calls a doe. These source-led identifications matter because the black-and-white image alone cannot establish the small figure's exact archaeological origin, the skeleton's material or the animal's sex. The earlier description “antelope” has no comparable support. ^{[3] [5]}

The group faces the viewer more than it shares a meal. Prignitz-Poda therefore allows a comparison with the Last Supper but notes the absence of tablecloth, bread and wine. The analogy may help a reader notice the long table and assembled cast; calling the work a direct biblical illustration would flatten the different histories of a living family, a festival object, an archaeological form, a constructed skeleton and an animal. ^[3]

Watch: Frida Kahlo

Five perspectives to view here alongside the article.

Frida Kahlo’s The Two Fridas: Great Art Explained

Great Art Explained

A focused visual introduction to the painting and its context.

▶01 · The Two FridasLooking at The Two FridasGreat Art Explained▶02 · Global iconThe making of an iconThe Museum of Fine Arts, Houston▶03 · Fashion and colourKahlo’s colourful wardrobeFashionUnited TV▶04 · Clothes and contextAppearances Can Be DeceivingFine Arts Museums of San Francisco▶05 · U.S. yearsFrida in AmericaUC Berkeley CLACS

What the Historical Photographs Can—and Cannot—Show

The 1955 Polish exhibition catalogue contains a monochrome whole-scene plate. Bernard Silberstein's photograph, catalogued by the Cincinnati Art Museum as circa 1940, shows Kahlo beside the large framed painting with palette and brush, apparently touching or approaching her painted hair. Because her body obscures part of the work and the camera views it at an angle, that image is especially useful for scale and studio context, while the catalogue plate is better for following the composition. ^{[5] [14]}

A third controlled photographic record emerged from Polish research. The Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences published a 1955 Jan Świderski photograph showing the framed work and a small, illegible label during the Warsaw exhibition; its list of illustrations identifies the institute's original negative as number 8228 PL. The photograph independently strengthens the Warsaw object record and offers a precise archive lead, but it predates the Kraków reviews and says nothing about the painting's later whereabouts. It is not proof that only three images of the work exist. ^[26]

The framed picture dwarfs the seated artist, consistent with the 1955 measurement of 121 by 241 centimetres. Yet none of these images proves the exact day on which Kahlo finished it, whether Silberstein recorded a final touch or a posed gesture, or what the painting's colours and surface were. The photographs also cannot establish current condition, inscriptions on the reverse, or the reported attachment of real jade at the neck; the last point is Arturo Estrada's testimony as relayed by Prignitz-Poda, not a verified mixed-media entry. ^{[3] [5] [14] [26]}

The 1955 catalogue plate and Świderski photograph preserve different views of the painting, while Silberstein's portrait shows it in context. They are historical witnesses, not substitutes for a present examination of the missing object. ^{[5] [14] [26]}

Timeline source: Museo Frida Kahlo chronology ^[27].

Making the Painting for the Surrealist Exhibition

The contemporary Mexican exhibition list identifies La Mesa Herida as item 45, a painting dated 1940, at the Galería de Arte Mexicano's Exposición Internacional del Surrealismo. The gallery and organisers André Breton, Wolfgang Paalen and César Moro locate the work in a deliberately international exhibition, not in an imagined “Amor's Gallery.” Its inclusion does not by itself prove that Breton commissioned the picture or that Kahlo accepted “Surrealist” as a complete description of her practice. ^{[1] [2]}

A January 1940 letter from Kahlo to Nickolas Muray, reported by MALBA, says she had a large painting to finish for the opening on 18 January. The original letter and its complete text have not been directly examined, so the making schedule is mediated through the museum's account rather than quoted as a new primary transcription. Mexico's INBAL separately associates La mesa herida with Kahlo's San Ángel studio; neither record fixes her first brushstroke or exact completion day. ^{[4] [15]}

The surviving 1940 exhibition documentation places this labour beside Surrealist framing, while Dafne Cruz Porchini's Spanish-language study describes a show that brought pre-Hispanic and then-labelled “primitive” objects into its curatorial environment. That setting helps explain why a West Mexican figure and festival effigy could be seen by contemporary viewers amid international Surrealism without being reducible to it. The picture's measured scale, staged ensemble and preparatory deadline also resist any easy suggestion that its dreamlike appearance was merely automatic or unplanned. ^{[1] [16]}

A later report of Prignitz-Poda's lecture claims that the painting also appeared in MoMA's 1940 Twenty Centuries of Mexican Art without Kahlo's knowledge. MoMA's published catalogue and master checklist instead identify Kahlo's The Two Fridas as item 125 and do not name The Wounded Table. An unlisted loan is theoretically possible, but no registrar, installation or correspondence record has been read to substantiate this particular claim, let alone Kahlo's alleged lack of consent. It should not be folded into the painting's established exhibition history. ^{[17] [18]}

One Table, Several Histories of Figures

Prignitz-Poda compares this ensemble with Kahlo's earlier Four Inhabitants of Mexico City, noting that some of the same characters appear in both. The earlier work places them in an open urban scene; The Wounded Table compresses its group into a monumental, curtained encounter with Kahlo and her family. The resemblance does not by itself establish that she copied the same physical artefact twice. ^[3]

The Judas, Nayarit figure and skeleton do not all belong to a single, timeless category of “Mexican symbols.” One evokes a popular festival-making tradition, another an archaeological and collecting history, and the third a constructed figure whose grinning bones touch the painted artist. Isolda and Antonio are named family members, while the deer remains an animal; the cast's dissimilarity is part of what the table holds together. ^{[3] [13]}

Prignitz-Poda reads the apparent absence of Kahlo's arms, nearby companion limbs and the table's human-like supports as a dispersed body. She also connects wound imagery to vulnerability and a will to survive, and proposes a qualified Last Supper echo rather than a literal meal. The observation supports the bodily alignments; it does not independently verify her account of the artist's inner state, still less a documented intention to die. ^{[3] [5]}

Luis Roberto Vera's Spanish-language essay takes a different route through pre-Columbian inheritance. He reads the small figure as a nahual or Indigenous component and the assembled group as an egalitarian collective, even a Trotskyist cell. That politically charged reading opens a dimension beyond private injury, but it remains Vera's critical proposal: no inspected statement from Kahlo supplies a complete symbolic key or names every actor as a political surrogate. ^[19]

Kahlo divorced Rivera in November 1939 and remarried him in December 1940, placing the work in a year of changed relationship. Her earlier 1925 accident and subsequent bodily history are likewise relevant context for a table made to appear wounded. Neither chronology proves that one operation or one marital event caused this image, and the picture should not be reduced to a clinical diagram or a single episode of grief. Its figures, scale and public exhibition make more than one register available. ^{[3] [20]}

From Mexico to Soviet Custody

The painting's postwar movement is reconstructed chiefly through Katarina Lopatkina's archive-based studies, not through a currently accessible owner file. She records a formal expression of thanks in August 1945 and a receipt dated 13 September for the painting entering the Soviet cultural system. Accounts differ in whether the gift was “to the Soviet people,” the state or a museum; those formulations do not by themselves settle legal ownership. ^{[8] [21]}

Lopatkina says the State Museum of New Western Art was an intended destination, but VOKS, the Soviet organisation for cultural relations abroad, retained control. The museum was abolished in 1948, and the inspected research does not show that it ever accessioned the painting. In a 1952 international-loan episode, VOKS reportedly described it as having no artistic value and never having been exhibited there; a proposed transfer to the Mexican Embassy was also impeded by transport costs. These are records of an institution's decision and the constraints around movement, not the page's judgment of Kahlo's work. ^[21]

Published accounts differ over the proposed 1952 foreign destination, and the original loan file has not been consulted. What is supported is the larger sequence: the painting was in Soviet custody, an international request did not bring it into that exhibition, and no evidence inspected shows a completed embassy transfer. The work's obscurity within this system helps explain how much of its later history depends on scattered receipts, catalogues and press rather than a continuous museum object record. ^{[8] [21]}

After Kahlo's death in July 1954, Rivera asked that the painting be included in the Mexican art exhibition being organised for Poland. Lopatkina dates his request to October and the shipment from Soviet custody to 2 December 1954. That is a documented movement toward the Polish organisers, but the published articles do not supply every crate, courier, customs form, condition report or later return document. ^{[8] [21]}

Warsaw, Kraków and the Last Secure Evidence

The 1955 Polish exhibition catalogue lists Kahlo's picture as number 49, Raniony stół, with the medium “olej na masonicie” and dimensions 121 × 241 centimetres. Its full photographic plate gives later researchers a rare whole-scene record, although a printed image is not a conservation report. Modern size descriptions vary, including 121 × 244 and approximately 120 × 245 centimetres; the exact figures on this page are explicitly the contemporary catalogue's, not a claim that the lost object has been remeasured. ^{[5] [3] [17]}

Zachęta dates the Warsaw exhibition to 19 February–13 March 1955 and records 58,698 visitors there. The event belonged to a much larger circulation of modern Mexican art, with works later entering Polish collections, but the fact that the National Museum in Warsaw acquired many exhibition objects is not evidence that it acquired this one. The Wounded Table's particular route must be established object by object. ^{[11] [3]}

This public Polish reception followed a very different Soviet response. The same work that VOKS reportedly judged unsuitable for exhibition was catalogued, photographed and shown within a broad presentation of Mexican art requested after Kahlo's death. That contrast is evidence of changing institutional settings, not proof that every Polish critic admired it or that a state-owned collection acquired it. ^{[3] [8] [21] [26]}

The painting component then moved to Pałac Sztuki in Kraków, where Zachęta gives the exhibition dates as 19 March–11 April; Wrocław received graphics, not the paintings. The Kraków itinerary alone would not demonstrate that Kahlo's picture travelled with every other canvas. Two original reviews held in Zachęta's press archive supply the missing object-level check. ^{[6] [7] [11]}

A review signed A.Ł. in the Kraków issue of Tygodnik Powszechny dated 3 April 1955 discusses the exhibition and reproduces a picture captioned “Frida Kahlo: Raniony stół.” Jerzy Malina's separate review of Współczesna plastyka Meksyku names the painting among works at Pałac Sztuki. The second clipping's periodical masthead is cropped, so its title should not be supplied by guesswork; the independent author, issue and location are enough to make the Kraków correction substantial. ^{[6] [7]}

Lopatkina's 2021 article cites organisers' correspondence stating that the painting appeared only in Warsaw and was regretted elsewhere. The two contemporary Kraków reviews conflict with that administrative report; their object-specific caption and named listing are stronger evidence for the actual later presentation. Why the correspondence missed Kraków—an early plan, a changed shipment or a reporting error—cannot be determined from the documents read here. ^{[6] [7] [8]}

Kraków in early April is therefore the last securely documented exhibition location found in the cited sources. Zachęta's scheduled close of 11 April is not a dated sighting of the individual painting on that final day, and there is no verified record of its next journey. Saying that it “vanished in Kraków” or that it was “last seen in Warsaw” would turn an evidentiary gap into a story the sources do not tell. ^{[6] [7] [11]}

After Poland: Missing Is Not Destroyed

The uncertainty begins after, not before, the Polish evidence. One later catalogue presumes a return to Moscow; another scholarly reconstruction follows possible exhibition-catalogue traces toward Sofia and Bucharest. Neither a presumed return nor a later catalogue route supplies the shipping receipt, installation image or local object-specific review needed to place the actual painting there. No inspected document establishes an accession by the Pushkin Museum. ^{[3] [21]}

Mexican museum records now describe the work as missing, and the Museo de Arte Moderno calls it desaparecida. This status is narrower than a claim of destruction, theft or secret museum possession. The object may have travelled, remained in storage or met another fate; the current records do not decide among those possibilities or establish its present legal owner. ^{[10] [12]}

A widely publicised 2020 recovery claim did not close the case. La Jornada reported that specialists Prignitz-Poda and Martha Zamora rejected the offered object; it was described as canvas, whereas the 1955 catalogue records the original on Masonite, and the claimant's full documentation was not made public for independent scrutiny. That material mismatch is strong contrary evidence, though authentication of any future candidate would also require physical examination and a continuous, reconcilable provenance. ^{[5] [22]}

New searches and documentary projects can bring neglected records into view, but a search is not a recovery. A Polish return record, Soviet re-entry receipt, customs document, post-exhibition correspondence or independently examined physical object could clarify the later route. Until one appears, the honest statement is that The Wounded Table is missing after its documented Kraków showing. ^{[6] [7] [10] [21]}

Books and Archival Records

The 2017 bilingual Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera: Polish Context catalogue has been read at its object-specific pages and is central to the cast and interpretive discussion. Lopatkina's 2017 and 2021 archive-based articles have also been read, but the GARF and VOKS files on which they draw have not. The Prignitz-Poda/Lopatkina article “Frida Kahlo's Lost Painting The Wounded Table – A Mystery” in IFAR Journal is known bibliographically, but its full text and notes have not been consulted here. ^{[3] [8] [21] [23]}

Frida Kahlo: The Complete Paintings by Luis-Martín Lozano, Andrea Kettenmann and Marina Vázquez Ramos is a substantial further-reading catalogue. Its 624-page publisher record is available, but the The Wounded Table entry, plates, apparatus and bibliography have not been read here. Gannit Ankori's Frida Kahlo is another relevant critical route, not a substitute for an inspected object file. Nancy Deffebach's discussion of Four Inhabitants is a further-reading lead whose exact passage has not been verified from a lawful copy. They are relevant further reading, not sources for claims attributed to chapters that have not been consulted. ^{[9] [24] [25]}

The original Muray letter, restricted 1940 exhibition-catalogue leaves, Galería de Arte Mexicano files, Soviet archive records and post-Kraków Polish movement documents remain unconsulted primary records. A MoMA registrar file would test the separate unverified New York claim. No complete commercial monograph, owner technical file, direct Pushkin correspondence or authenticated recent sighting has been supplied by this research, and those limits explain why the article keeps some seemingly simple questions open. ^{[2] [4] [8] [21]}

Related Reading

The style and Surrealism guide explains the exhibition label in wider context. The Two Fridas examines the other Kahlo work documented in MoMA's 1940 Mexican-art list, while The Broken Column offers a later, distinct image of bodily injury.

Questions Readers Often Ask

What the Missing Painting Still Teaches

The lost object remains unusually legible in some respects. Its 1940 exhibition identity, 1955 support and size record, three controlled photographic records, Soviet custody trail and Polish press reception can be set beside one another without pretending to have examined the painting itself. Kraków's original reviews correct a repeated English-language claim, while Świderski's negative gives the Warsaw portion a more precise archive lead; multilingual work matters here to more than translation. ^{[1] [5] [6] [7] [8] [26]}

The gaps matter just as much. The photographs do not restore colour or condition; critical interpretations do not become Kahlo's own explanation; a scheduled exhibition close does not become a final sighting; and a missing work is not necessarily a destroyed one. The strongest account holds close looking and documentary restraint together while leaving the next archival discovery genuinely open. ^{[3] [5] [6] [7] [10]}

References

1. UNAM Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, Catálogo de Exposiciones, 1940, printed p.92, item 45, “La Mesa Herida—Pintura (1940),” and exhibition front matter. Complete relevant catalogue pages were read. View source text.
2. Museo Reina Sofía Library, Exposición Internacional del Surrealismo catalogue record, item 5108, January–February 1940, 26 unnumbered leaves. Public bibliographic record read; the restricted original leaves were not. View source text.
3. Helga Prignitz-Poda, ed., Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera: Polish Context, ZAMEK Culture Centre, 2017, PDF pp.20–23 / printed pp.38–45, bilingual object discussion. Complete relevant pages read; its Warsaw-last-seen assumption is corrected by references 6–7. View source text.
4. MALBA, “André Breton y Frida Kahlo”, relevant essay paragraph and note 8 on Kahlo's January 1940 letter to Nickolas Muray. This is a museum mediation; the original complete letter was not inspected. View source text.
5. Wystawa sztuki meksykańskiej, exhibition catalogue, Poland, 1955, printed p.23 / PDF p.24, entry 49, Raniony stół, “121 × 241 / olej na masonicie”; full monochrome plate at PDF p.64. The inspected 86-page scan includes the entry and plate; the linked public library record identifies the edition but does not expose these pages. View source text.
6. A.Ł., “Na wystawie sztuki meksykańskiej,” Tygodnik Powszechny, Kraków, no.14, 3 April 1955, original clipping in Zachęta's exhibition press archive, PDF p.7. The article is situated at the exhibition and reproduces the caption “Frida Kahlo: Raniony stół”. View source text.
7. Jerzy Malina, “Współczesna plastyka Meksyku,” no.15, 1955, original clipping in the same Zachęta archive, press-file PDF p.13. It places Raniony stół at Pałac Sztuki; the periodical masthead is cropped in the inspected scan. View source text.
8. Katarina Lopatkina, “Hidden Mexican Treasures: Works by Modern Mexican Artists in Soviet Collections”, Art History Studies 9 (2021), pp.221–238, especially printed pp.234–235 and GARF citations. Complete relevant article read; original files unread. View source text.
9. Nancy Deffebach, publisher record for María Izquierdo and Frida Kahlo: Challenging Visions in Modern Mexican Art, chapter on Four Inhabitants. The exact book passage is not independently verified from a lawful copy and is listed only for further reading; the comparison above rests on reference 3. View source text.
10. Museo Frida Kahlo, “Frida” chronology, 1940 entry on the large panel and missing-after-Poland status, plus relevant family and marriage entries. The current museum wording “wood panel” is broader than reference 5's Masonite. View source text.
11. Zachęta National Gallery of Art, Wystawa sztuki meksykańskiej researched exhibition history, Warsaw dates and attendance, Kraków itinerary and Wrocław graphics-only route. The Kraków object-level finding rests additionally on references 6–7. View source text.
12. Museo de Arte Moderno / INBAL, “Obras destacadas”, La mesa herida described as currently missing and paired with Las dos Fridas in scale. Current status, not proof of the work's fate. View source text.
13. Museo Frida Kahlo, family chronology, entries identifying Cristina Kahlo's children Isolda and Antonio; identification of their painted likenesses comes from reference 3. View source text.
14. Cincinnati Art Museum, Bernard Silberstein, Frida Kahlo painting The Wounded Table, circa 1940 gelatin-silver photograph, museum record via Google Arts & Culture. Its curatorial “likely complete” wording and old Warsaw-last-seen line are not treated as primary proof. View source text.
15. INBAL / Museo Casa Estudio Diego Rivera y Frida Kahlo, San Ángel studio bulletin, relevant paragraph naming La mesa herida among studio works. View source text.
16. Dafne Cruz Porchini, “La Exposición Internacional del Surrealismo en México”, in Museo Reina Sofía's Modernidad y vanguardia research publication (2013), complete relevant section on the gallery and the exhibition's object categories; historical curatorial context, not evidence of a commission for this painting. View source text.
17. Gaceta UNAM, “La mesa herida, la obra más buscada de Frida Kahlo”, 2018 report of Prignitz-Poda's lecture, including the unverified MoMA assertion and reported jade testimony. View source text.
18. Museum of Modern Art, Twenty Centuries of Mexican Art, 1940, complete 204-page catalogue at modern-art printed p.160 and complete 132-page master checklist at PDF p.110; both list The Two Fridas as Kahlo item 125, not this painting. The official exhibition record supplies its dates and publication access. View source text.
19. Luis Roberto Vera, “Octavio Paz y Frida Kahlo: La herencia precolombina”, Casa del Tiempo no.2 (December 2007–January 2008), printed pp.52–53 / PDF pp.12–13, complete relevant Spanish argument read; nahual and collective readings are attributed. View source text.
20. Museo Frida Kahlo, “Frida” chronology, dated 1939 divorce and 8 December 1940 remarriage; Museo Frida Kahlo and Museo Dolores Olmedo institutional accident accounts provide bounded bodily-history context, not a documented causal explanation for this painting. View source text.
21. Katarina Lopatkina, “From Mexican Artists to the Soviet State: The Story of an Unwanted Gift”, Romanian Political Science Review XVII, no.3 (2017), pp.379–398, especially PDF pp.6–7 and 15–18. Complete article read; underlying GARF/VOKS files remain unread. View source text.
22. La Jornada, “Pretenden vender ‘el mismo falso de Frida Kahlo que circuló el año pasado’”, 16 June 2020, culture p.3, complete article read; reports Prignitz-Poda's and Martha Zamora's rejection of the canvas claimant. View source text.
23. Helga Prignitz-Poda and Katarina Lopatkina, “Frida Kahlo's Lost Painting The Wounded Table – A Mystery,” IFAR Journal 18, nos.2–3 (2017), pp.46–57. Bibliographic record only; full article and notes were not acquired.
24. Luis-Martín Lozano, Andrea Kettenmann and Marina Vázquez Ramos, Frida Kahlo: The Complete Paintings (TASCHEN, 2021), publisher record, 624 pages; the entry and apparatus for this painting have not been consulted. View source text.
25. Gannit Ankori, Frida Kahlo (Reaktion Books, Critical Lives, 2013), publisher/distributor record only; pages on this painting have not been consulted. View source text.
26. Anna Marcinowska, Katarzyna Anna Kesling and Anna Straszewska, Polskie życie artystyczne w latach 1944–1960, vol.9, part I, 1955 (Institute of Art, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, 2023), list of illustrations printed p.382 / PDF p.33 and figure 37 printed p.398 / PDF p.49. The image is credited to Jan Świderski, 1955, negative IS PAN 8228 PL; the original negative was not inspected. Its bracketed Warsaw date range ends 14 March, whereas Zachęta gives 13 March; neither date is an April object sighting. View source text.
27. Museo Frida Kahlo, Frida interactive chronology, selected work dates used for the comparison timeline. The current work's date follows its cited object record. View source text.