This is the Rice portrait; it has been owned by members of the Rice family for generations and they have long claimed that it shows the 13 year old Jane Austen and is a work commissioned by Jane's uncle, Francis Austen, in 1788. Through letters and family papers, the family believe that the painting is the work of Ozias Humphry, Painter in Crayons to the King.
The portrait has long been the subject of dispute as its supporters and detractors argue back and forth as to whether it truly is of Jane Austen. In 1948, Dr RW Chapman drew attention to the costume of the young lady in the portrait and argued that such clothes were not popular until the early nineteenth century, so the girl could not possibly by Austen, nor could the artist be Humphry, who had been forced by blindness to give up painting by this point.
Although others have disputed this and pointed to other similar costumes in apparently earlier paintings, this remains one of the major sticking points in the dating of the work.
In 2012, a 1910 photograph of the painting held in the Heinz Archive and Library was examined in forensic detail and appeared to show both the signature of Humphry and the name Jane Austen. The Rice family claim that restoration destroyed these inscriptions but the Naitonal Portrait Gallery have disputed these findings and state that the inscriptions were not visible in 1985, when they had the painting photographed.
Today the family continue to petition the National Portrait Gallery to accept the authenticity of the painting and the Gallery in its turn restates its position that this is not a Humphry, nor does it show Jane Austen.
What do you think?
13 comments:
It is a lovely picture of a girl but not the Author Jane Austen. The clothes and dates are wrong for the Jane Austen born on Dec,16th. I don't think this is Austen any more than I think the Stanier Clark ink drawing is of her, elegant as it is. One question about the Rice potrait-- who had the money to paint the portrait of Jane? And why just one girl when there was an older sister and several brothers. I doubt any one knew in 1790 that Jane Austen would be famous.
I would love to know who she is and what became of her.
I have to say I have my doubts. If a portrait had been commissioned at the time, it would almost certainly have been of both sisters, not just the youngest.
I do share your doubts, I must admit!
I absolutely adore this! Wouldn't you have loved to have had tea with Jane Austen - that would be an amazing afternoon of vivid conversation!
And excellent tea, I imagine!
That is an excellent point. The evidence is strongly against it being Jane.A portrait of this quality of one child in a large family would be odd. At thirteen no one knew how exceptional her life would be. I vote NO.
I can certainly see why the family are very keen for it to be yes, but I don't think so either.
There was also a portrait of Cassandra, It is now lost - somewhere in France...
I wonder what became of it...
The owner died in Grasse, France and the contents of her house auctioned. She was a descendant of the original owner of the portrait(s), Col Austen. No-one knows where it is now, but it seems likely that it was a sister portrait in every sense of the word…
Thank you!
There was also a portrait of her brother, Edward, who inherited Godmersham and Chawton. Her uncle had Edward's portrait taken, which has since been lost; the two sisters as well. As you can see from Ellie the portrait of Cassandra is also lost. Why can this NOT be a portrait of a young Jane? The Rice family has just been great in keeping it in good condition. Having been so fortunate as to actually see the original (for several hours), I can tell you there is something most compelling about it, especially her eyes.
Post a Comment