In the 2007 Report of the Jane Austen Society, Deirdre Le Faye wrote an article entitled Imaginary portraits of Jane Austen. In it she commented on portraits of Jane Austen which were not taken from life, and she included in this category this image, below, which is now owned by Paula Byrne and the subject of so much interest today.
She writes:
This might well be the creation of the Reverend William Jones (1777-1821) curate and vicar of Broxbourne and Hoddesdon- or if not him someone with very similar interests. On 17th April 1818 Mr Jones confided to his diary:
“Whenever I am very much “taken with” an author,I generally draw his or her likeness in my own fancy: but I am a flattering painter. I had done this of Laetitia-Matilda Hawkins; but Mrs Davis has told me that somebody has told her( I don’t know how many somebodies deep) that L.M.H. is “very plain”. I still long to see her and to become acquainted with her”.
Le Faye remarks that the artist-whom so ever that may be!- seems to have read Henry Austen’s Biographical Notice of Jane Austen, published with the first editions of Persuasion and Northanger Abbey in 1817, and imagined this vision of her as a result. She also notes that elements of the portrait are symbolic: the cat asleep on the table to the right of the portrait indicates spinsterhood.The church tower she thinks is reminiscent of Canterbury Cathedral and is a nod to Jane Austen being, in Henry Austen’s word, ”throughly religious and devout”.
The plot thickens….
21 comments
December 5, 2011 at 11:25 am
26 de Diciembre, Documental en BBC2: “Jane Austen, the Unseen Portrait” (Jane Austen, el retrato desconocido) « Hablando de Jane
[...] http://austenonly.com/2011/12/05/but-is-the-new-portrait-merely-imaginary/ [...]
December 5, 2011 at 12:59 pm
They prefer another Jane Austen than the real one « Reveries Under the Sign of Austen, Two
[...] AustenOnly 1 and [...]
December 5, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Jane Odiwe
I’m looking forward to seeing the argument for it, but I have seen this before, and for me, it doesn’t tick all the boxes. It looks like a 20th century drawing to me, and her bonnet in particular reminds me of the sort of headdress my grandmother wore in the 1920s. The cat on the table seems all wrong-symbolic it might be, but I think it’s a ‘modern’ symbol based on the imagination.
I’m wondering if the media have quoted Paula Byrne correctly – she is a very pretty girl herself – proof that you can be both attractive and intelligent. It seems odd to me that she would have said of the memoir picture, “…It makes her look pretty and dim…” The memoir is a sentimental image but I think at the time they wanted an artist’s interpretation of Cassandra’s sketch of Jane, which they clearly felt wasn’t quite up to the mark.
Still, it’s always interesting to see something that gets us all talking about Jane!
December 5, 2011 at 5:50 pm
jfwakefield
I think we agreed earlier today on Twitter that the cap reminded us of our grandmother’s wedding veils circa 1920! However, I presume that the vellum has undergone testing for dating purposes, and I hope the documentary that will be aired on Boxing Day, will throw some light on this particular point. I’m not sure I really agree with Paula’s harsh assessment of the Memoir portrait, and part of me questions whether any of the points she made in which she objected to the Memoir portrait can be clarified by this particular drawing. In the radio interview on the Today programme, linked in my post, Paula clearly says that this portrait is important because it portrays Jane Austen as a professional writer, and that, however else she may have/may not have been misquoted, the 1870 image is saccharine. As I say, I don’t necessarily agree with that assertion, nor that begin thought “pretty” equates with being thought dim or un-threatening. My gut instinct is to query if Jane Austen would have allowed anyone to portray her as a professional writer/woman especially as early as 1815, and most especially if they were from outside her family circle, given her reluctance to being made the object of curiosity and publicity.
December 6, 2011 at 12:42 pm
jfwakefield
Regarding your comments about Dr Byrne possibly being misquoted, I bought a copy of the Radio Times today to see if it could throw any light on it,as it seems to have been the original article from which the others have taken their information. This is what she is quoted as saying in an article on page 47 written by E.Jane Dickson:
“The memoir portrait has always rather annoyed me”, Byrne continues.”It makes her look pretty and dim. It feeds this whole notion of “Aunt Jane” the demure spinster who was very good at spillikins and enjoyed scribbling on the side,but was content with her life in the shadows. Scholars know there is so much more to her.And for me this new picture encapsulates- almost too perfectly- that other side. She’s a professional woman presenting herself to the world with the tools of her trade.Its the image of Jane Austen so many of us had been waiting for”
It would not appear that that particular quote is incorrectly repotted by me and by others
December 5, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Karen
Hello Julie: Well, I guess I would *like* it to be a portrait of Austen, but I have my doubts. Meanwhile, as this is the sort of program that will never be exported by BBC America (it being neither Top Gear nor featuring Gordon Ramsey), I’ll just pop over for Boxing Day, shall I, and watch it with you? LOL!
December 5, 2011 at 5:55 pm
jfwakefield
Sure! We have one spare bed for Boxing Day and I can very easily make the necessary arrangements.
As for myself, I’m not particularly convinced ,but I am looking forward to the BBC Austen fest over Christmas and to this programme in particular to discover exactly what arguments are used to give it more credibility than at present.
December 6, 2011 at 12:22 am
Cathy Allen
Yeah, I think Deirdre Le Faye has the right of it. Thanks, Julie. I’m glad you added this because I’d not have known of it, otherwise. The Boxing Day program sounds more and more interesting, though. Since Karen gets the spare bed, could I have the couch?
December 6, 2011 at 12:46 pm
jfwakefield
Of course!
December 5, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Dody Jane
I find it difficult to believe that given her popularity in the 19th century, this portrait (if painted from life) would have remained undiscovered. I find the notion that it was painted by someone who admired her writing as credible. Perhaps, someone who met her after she achieved some of her fame painted this from memory? That is a more believeable scenario, I think.
December 5, 2011 at 6:00 pm
jfwakefield
In the article I quoted by Deirdre Le Faye in the JAS Report of 2007, (which is where I first saw a print of this particular drawing) the provenance of it is given as follows:
The present owner(a Mr Roy Davids-jfw) bought it through a dealer, from another private owner, in the 1980s but no information as to provenance came with it
Hmm…..I am very interesting in watching the programme and seeing what evidence there is regarding dating and authorship.
December 5, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Is dit een echt portret van Jane Austen? — JaneAusten.nl
[...] Ondertussen heeft het bericht voor heel wat opschudding gezorgd in Austenland. Volgens het blog Austenonly is de tekening eerder al door Austen-expert Deirdre Le Faye afgedaan als een denkbeeldig portret [...]
December 5, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Katherine C.
I like Cassandra’s portrait of Jane, especially the subtle satirical curve of her mouth.
Not dim at all.
In all honesty I don’t really like this portrait. It seems a little contrived and busy. If it is meant to be Jane, it seems more like ‘fan-art,’ judging from Rev. Jones’ journal; from imagination rather than a meeting. Which makes it interesting but not a valid portrait.
December 6, 2011 at 12:44 pm
jfwakefield
I agree Katherine, I like that image.I do think the Memoir image is prettified but no one takes that too seriously these days , do they?
December 6, 2011 at 12:37 am
Caitlin
This is so interesting – am looking forward to your post holiday update. I think I’m with the fan-art crowd-
December 6, 2011 at 12:46 pm
jfwakefield
Me too- on balance
December 6, 2011 at 8:44 am
hablandodejane
Though one has to admit Jane doesn’t look pretty at all in this picture (noone ever said she was, any way. Her family reported Cassandra was prettier), in my opinion it is the one that could come closer to how she looked, taking into consideration the other portraits of the Austen family, specially of young Frank’s. A nose coming from the mother, and inherited by most of her children. There is nothing to be ashamed of: Mrs. Cassandra Austen was deeply loved by her husband in spite of this, and her continous indispositions for one reason or another.
This is not romantic, but it is more realistic. And I’m sure Jane would have loved that. Besides, she was extremely attractive (tall, thin and lively) and fun to be with. As far as I’m concerned, this is the winner for the time being.
December 6, 2011 at 12:50 pm
jfwakefield
Mrs Austen was terribly proud of her aquiline nose,IIRC
She thought it was evidence of her rather grand forebears 
As Deirdre Le Faye writes in Jane Austen: A Family Record:
She( Mrs Austen-jfw)was amusingly particular about people’s noses, having a very aristocratic one herself, which use had the pleasure of transmitting to a great many of her children.
December 6, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Paula Byrne’s Portrait of “Jane Austen”: The Debate Continues « Austenonly
[...] Hmm. I’m not quite sure that is correct, and while no imaginary portrait might be extant from the period, we read yesterday that such things were being created by enthusiastic fans. Go here to see Deirdre Le Faye’s comments . [...]
December 6, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Anne
I Googled portraits of Jane’s brothers and noted how like this portrait was to Frank’s. If the portraits are superimposed, some interesting points emerge: the noses, the tip of nose/mouth and mouth/chin ratios are very similar. The chin, where it joins the rather strange bonnet bow, has a very similar contour to the portrait of Frank, and the bow and darpery on the neck may disguise the gentleman’s stock. The ‘lost’ Jane portrait is quite masculine, in other words. Other elements of the picture reveal it, to me, to be fanciful: what looks like a composite Westminster Abbey (in place of Winchester which the artist couldn’t be bothered researching?), the poorly drawn cat (I gather she did not have one).
December 6, 2011 at 3:10 pm
jfwakefield
I should imagine there were cats at Chawton but only in the barn….I can see it being a picture full of symbols, but as to whether it is from life, now, that * is* the question