Skip to content
The Daily Triptych225 / 365
A small, nearly square sheet of brown-washed paper bearing a chalk head-and-shoulders portrait of a young woman in black, red and white chalk. She wears a stiff ruff and a dark cap, and looks slightly to one side with a faint smile.
Peter Paul Rubens, Public domain
Public domain

I · THE OBJECT · BRITISH MUSEUM

Isabella Brant

Antwerp, Southern Netherlands · 1621 · Chalk on paper · 1893,0731.21

▶ Listen · narrated

Rubens drew his wife once, in chalk, on a sheet of brown paper about the size of his hand. 3 oil paintings came from it — and its back kept a secret until 1964.

At a glance

Maker
Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640)
Date
1621
Technique
Trois crayons: black and red chalk, white heightening
Support
Paper, with a brown wash
Dimensions
16.9 × 15.8 cm (6 in)
Museum number
1893,0731.21, British Museum

Look closer

  1. Why the paper is brown

    The sheet was given a wash before any drawing happened — a thin layer of diluted brownish colour brushed over the surface. That matters mechanically. On white paper an artist can only ever add darkness: every mark takes light away. On a toned sheet he begins from a middle value and can move in two directions. Black chalk pushes down into shadow, white chalk sits on top to stand for the places light strikes, and the brown of the paper does the work in between, left unmarked. Adding white in this way has a name in the cataloguing of drawings: heightening.

  2. Three chalks, counted

    Trois crayons is French for three chalks, and the term is literal rather than decorative: black, red and white, used on the same sheet. The red is the reason the face reads as flesh rather than as a grey study. Red chalk warms the lips, the cheeks, the shadow under the nose and the rims of the eyelids, where blood is close to the surface in a living face. Black handles hair, the darks of the eyes, the folds of cloth. The division of labour is deliberate and it is visible: look for where the red stops and the black takes over.

  3. The size of it

    Just under seventeen centimetres tall and just under sixteen wide — roughly a hand's span each way, and very nearly square. That is not the format of a public portrait. It is the format of something made in a room with the sitter present and finished in one sustained stretch of looking, then kept. The scale is worth holding in mind when you meet the three large oil portraits that descend from it: the whole chain begins with a sheet you could cover with a spread palm.

The story

The woman on the sheet is Isabella Brant. She was born in 1591, married Peter Paul Rubens, modelled for his portraits, and died in 1626. The man holding the chalk was her husband. In 1621, when he drew her, Rubens was the busiest painter in Antwerp, and also worked as a diplomat, carrying messages between courts. She was 30. The sheet he used is small and nearly square: 16.9 centimetres (7 in) tall and 15.8 centimetres (6 in) wide, roughly the span of a hand. That size tells you the setting. This was not made for a wall. It was made across a table, with the sitter present, in one sustained stretch of looking.

Before he drew a line, the paper was prepared. It was brushed with a brown wash — a thin, watered-down layer of brownish colour that turns the whole page a middle tone. The wash is the engine of the method, and the reason is simple. On white paper an artist can only darken: every mark takes light away, and the brightest thing on the page is the paper itself. On brown paper he starts in the middle and can move both ways. Black chalk pushes down into shadow. White chalk sits on top and stands for the places light strikes. The untouched brown does everything in between, for free. The technique has a French name, trois crayons, which means exactly what it says: 3 chalks — black, red and white — used together on one sheet. The red is the ingredient that makes the face read as skin rather than stone. It warms the lips, the cheeks and the rims of the eyelids — the places where blood sits close to the surface in a living face. Black is kept for the hair, the eyes and the dark of the dress. The division of labour is visible if you look for where the red stops.

To understand why the drawing exists at all, forget the frame it hangs in now. In Rubens's workshop a drawing like this was not a finished product for sale. It was stored information: a particular face, recorded accurately once from life, then kept and consulted whenever that face was needed for a painting. The sitter did not have to come back; the sheet stood in for her. This sheet proves the point 3 times over, because 3 oil paintings were built from it. The first came in the same year, 1621, and not from Rubens's hand. Anthony van Dyck, then Rubens's pupil, painted Isabella Brant in oils and gave the picture to his teacher as a gift; it now hangs in the National Gallery of Art in Washington. Consider what that transaction means. A pupil painted his master's wife without needing her to sit for him, because the record of her face already existed on his master's sheet, and he was allowed to use it. Rubens then painted his own versions: one between 1620 and 1625, now in the Cleveland Museum of Art, and another in 1625, now in the Uffizi in Florence. Isabella Brant sat once, for a drawing. 4 images of her came of it.

The dating is uneven, and the unevenness is honest. The drawing and the Uffizi painting carry firm years, 1621 and 1625. The Cleveland painting can only be placed within a 5-year span, 1620 to 1625. That is normal for workshop pictures: a drawing made from life in one sitting is easier to pin down than a canvas that may have been begun, set aside and finished as commissions allowed.

After Rubens died in 1640, the sheet began a second life as a collector's object. It passed through 5 collectors whose names are recorded, and the British Museum bought it in 1893. The purchase date survives inside the object's own catalogue label: the museum number, 1893,0731.21, begins with the year of acquisition. What the record does not say is just as telling — not what anyone paid, nor what each owner thought they had. Between 1640 and 1893 the drawing's history is a list of names.

The strangest chapter came in 1964, during re-mounting. A mount is the stiff backing a drawing is glued to so it can be handled and displayed; re-mounting is the routine conservation job of lifting the sheet off a worn-out backing and fitting a fresh one. A mount holds one face outwards and seals the other out of sight — so for as long as the old mount had been in place, nobody could see the back of this sheet. When conservators lifted it free and turned it over, they found a rough sketch there, also in red and black chalk. It is presumed to show Rubens himself with Hélène Fourment (1614–1673), the woman he married after Isabella Brant's death, together with a child of his. Presumed is the right word, used deliberately. The sketch is rough, nobody labelled it, and the identification rests on what the drawing appears to show, not on any statement by the people involved.

Hold the two sides together, because the pairing is the point. The front is a careful, warm portrait of a first wife, drawn from life in 1621 and praised ever since for its immediacy. The back carries a hurried sketch understood to show the second wife and a child, made later by a man who turned over a used sheet because paper was worth reusing. The two images travelled back to back through 5 collectors, a museum purchase and 7 decades of institutional care — and they were only ever seen as a pair because a backing board wore out.

Why it mattered then

In Rubens's Antwerp, a portrait drawing was a tool, not a product. His workshop took on more commissions than any one hand could paint, and the way to keep up was simple: record from life the one thing that could only be recorded from life — a particular face — and then build the paintings from that record, as often as needed, without asking the sitter to return. This sheet is that system caught in the act. It was drawn in 1621, and in the same year Van Dyck, Rubens's pupil, used it to paint an oil portrait of the same woman as a gift to his teacher. A pupil painting his master's wife, from his master's drawing, as a present to his master: that shows how freely material circulated inside the studio. Rubens then painted his own versions, one between 1620 and 1625 and another in 1625. The drawing kept supplying paintings; the drawing itself never had to be made again. Underneath the professional fact sits a plain domestic one. Isabella Brant died in 1626, 5 years after this sheet was drawn. Whatever else it was for, in 1621 it was a husband looking hard at a wife who was patient, present, and 30 years old.

Why it matters now

Two things keep this small sheet worth your attention. The first is that it shows how pictures were actually made, more plainly than any finished painting can. Count the ingredients: 3 chalks, 1 brown wash, 1 hand-sized square of paper. Count the results: 3 oil portraits, now in 3 museums on 2 continents. The evidence for how a 17th-century workshop used drawings is the object itself and its descendants — no essay required. The second is the 1964 discovery, which is a standing argument that conservation is research, not just repair. A sketch sat on the back of a famous drawing, in the collection since 1893, unseen for 71 years. Nobody hid it. The mount — the stiff backing a drawing is glued to for display — had simply decided in advance which side counted as the picture, and nobody questioned the decision until the mount wore out. Collections everywhere hold objects whose backs, undersides and insides have never been looked at for the same reason. The lesson cuts both ways, though: the figures on the reverse are presumed to be Rubens, his second wife Hélène Fourment and his child. Presumed is the honest word, and it should stay in the sentence.

The surprising detail

The British Museum had owned this drawing since 1893, and for 71 years half of it could not be looked at. Drawings of this kind are glued to a mount — a stiff backing — with one face outwards, which settles, indefinitely, which side counts as the picture. When the mount was replaced in 1964 and the sheet was lifted free, the reverse came into view for the first time in living memory: a rough sketch in red and black chalk, thought to show Rubens with his second wife Hélène Fourment and his child. So a portrait of the first wife carried an image of the second family on its back through 5 known collectors, a museum purchase, and 7 decades of careful keeping. The identification rests on what the sketch appears to show, not on any statement by the people involved.

What is disputed

The sketch found on the reverse in 1964 is described as presumed to show Rubens with his second wife, Hélène Fourment, and his child. That is an interpretation of a rough drawing, not an attested identification, and it should be treated as provisional. The date of the front is likewise given as 1621 in the museum's record, while the Rubens oil painting in Cleveland derived from it is dated only within a span of 1620 to 1625 — a reminder that dating in this group is firmer in some places than others.

How it got here

After Rubens's death in 1640 the drawing passed through five collectors whose names are recorded, before entering the British Museum in 1893. The acquisition year is embedded in its museum number, 1893,0731.21. No contested-ownership claim is attached to the sheet in the sources consulted here.

Remember this

3 chalks on brown paper, a hand-sized sheet drawn in 1621 — the stored face behind 3 oil paintings. In 1964 a new mount revealed a second sketch hidden on the back.

Test yourself

Van Dyck painted an oil portrait of Isabella Brant in 1621, the same year Rubens drew this sheet, and gave the painting to Rubens. What does that arrangement tell you about how a seventeenth-century studio treated drawings?

Go deeper

Image: Peter Paul Rubens, Public domain. Licence: Public domain. Source.

← Back to day 225