outside the portico of the family home, was done by Rubens' pupil, Anthony van Dyck as a parting gift to his mentor. The striking similarity between the portrait and drawing meant that van Dyck would have had access to the sketch for this work. The Cleveland portrait by Rubens, painted between 1620 and 1625, displays similarities such as the pulled-back hair and the mocking smile (although it is somewhat forced in the painting), however the sitter is tilted more to the left. The Uffizi, portrait (also by Rubens) was produced close to Brant's death in June 1626. Although the pose is similar, the face exhibits puffiness as a result of her illness. Discovery of sketch In 1964, the drawing was re-mounted in preparation for its inaugural showing at the 1965 "Masterpieces of the Print Room" exhibition at the British Museum. The removal of the mount revealed a rough sketch in red and black chalk of a bearded man with hat standing beside a woman and a small child. This sketch is upside-down relative to the front side. The discovery was first published by Michael Jaffé in The Burlington Magazine in 1965. He dated the sketch around the 1630s according to the impressionist technique. He went on further to identify the people in the sketch as Rubens with his second wife Hélène Fourment and their child. He surmised that the sketch would not necessarily have been used as a basis for portraits containing similar family groupings such as Rubens and Hélène Fourment in their Garden at Munich, or Rubens and Hélène Fourment and their son Peter Paul in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Opinions also varied on the date of the sketch and the age and sex of the child. Anne-Marie Logan based her analysis on the New York painting and suggested the child to be either their first born, Clara Johanna (b.1632) or Peter Paul (b.1637) thus dating the sketch to about 1638. The opinion was not shared by Hans Vlieghe who compared the similarity of Fourment's pose with that of the portrait of Rubens, Hélène Fourment and Nicolaas Rubens (The Walk in the Garden). Vlieghe supported Daughtery's stance that the child would have been Nicolaas Rubens from the evidence of the garden portrait. Based on these findings, it was presumed that Rubens kept the Brant drawing and other drawings of his family in his studio to refer