The excellent Alison Flood of the Guardian wrote this very good summation of the situation in The Guardian online yesterday. She has some additional informative quotes from Paula Byrne and I thought you might like to read some of them:
“When my husband bought it he thought it was a reasonable portrait of a nice lady writer, but I instantly had a visceral reaction to it. I thought it looks like her family. I recognised the Austen nose, to be honest, I thought it was so striking, so familiar,” Byrne told the Guardian. “The idea that it was an imaginary portrait – that seemed to me to be a crazy theory. That genre doesn’t exist, and this looks too specific, too like the rest of her family, to have been drawn from imagination.”
Here are some of the silhouettes and portraits of Jane Austen’s family for you to compare the “Austen nose“
George Austen, Jane’s father, above, and below, and this is him in silhouette:
Jane’s mother, Cassandra Austen nee Leigh, in silhouette:
And now her siblings: first James Austen, Jane’s eldest brother:
Edward Knight:
Henry Austen:
Frank Austen:
Charles Austen:
and a silhouette of Cassandra Austen, Jane’s sister:
And here is a silhouette thought to be of Jane Austen- L’aimiable Jane”- found in a second edition of Mansfield Park
Paula Byrne is also quoted regarding her forthcoming documentary about the portrait:
She approached the BBC, and together they put together a documentary on the portrait, working with various experts including art historians, fashion experts and forensic analysts on the picture’s background. “We approached it with an open mind,” said Byrne. “We tried to cover all leads, and in the end we put our findings to three top Jane Austen scholars, and two out of three thought it was her.”
The Jane Austen experts were Professor Kathryn Sutherland of Oxford University, Professor Claudia Johnson of Princeton and Deirdre Le Faye. Kathryn Sutherland and Claudia Johnson both agreed the picture was of Jane Austen. As we suspected, Deirdre Le Faye thought otherwise. As Paula Byrne comments:
“She thinks it is an imaginary portrait. I did try so hard to find one single example of an imaginary portrait, but nobody could find one – they just don’t exist,” said Byrne. “But it’s great to have the debate – it opens up a very interesting question about who Jane Austen was and who we want her to be.”
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 .
Paula Byrne also thinks the the portrait shows Jane Austen to be in London:
“This new picture first roots her in a London setting – by Westminster Abbey. And second, it presents her as a professional woman writer; there are pens on the table, a sheaf of paper. She seems to be a woman very confident in her own skin, very happy to be presented as a professional woman writer and a novelist, which does fly in the face of the cutesy, heritage spinster view.“
This is how Westminster Abbey appeared in the 1780s, depicted by Paul Sandby. You can enlarge these pictures for a closer look by clicking on them, remember.
The towers of the Abbey, below, have similarities…
I think you will agree, to the tower depicted in the portrait.
Here’s a photograph I took last year for you to compare:
But why would Jane Austen be shown in London? Could one of Henry Austen’s circle of friends have drawn her? If so, why include an image of Westminster Abbey? I think we have to await the broadcast of the documentary to discover exactly what the evidence is, aside from the presence of what would appear to be the Austen nose ;)
Personally, I’d like to see a report on the dating evidence for the vellum and the ink used to inscribe the reverse of the portrait ( with an interesting misspelling of Jane Austen’s surname: “Miss Jane Austin”.) Other questions I’d like answered include why that name was misspelt? Why is she depicted as a writer, when no one in her immediate family ever depicted her so and she clearly did not want to be known in the wider world as a woman who earned money as a professional writer? Who could have created a portrait? If it was taken from life it must surely have been made by someone intimate with her and her family? In that case when was the misspelt inscription put on it, and why was it misspelt if it was drawn by an intimate? Why has it not come to light before the 1980s and what research has been made into its life before that date? Too many questions to list here to be frank.
And another thought: if this is of Jane Austen does it really affect the way you think of her?How you perceive her and her genius? I have to say that , personally, it doesn’t affect my opinion of her at all. Her works- the juvenilia, the novels (completed and unfinished) and her letters- are more important to me in informing how I think about her than any of these images. I really don’t need another sadly amateur portrait to influence this. If a fashionable less frumpy image is required of her, and I may quickly insert that for me it is not, let us not forget that there may be one in existence already- but it’s attribution is hotly contested by the National Portrait Gallery and other experts. This is James Stanier Clarke’s little water colour of a fashionably dressed woman and it is thought by some to be Jane Austen visiting him at Carlton House, the Prince of Wales’ London residence:
Stanier Clarke was, of course, the Prince of Wales’ librarian who so infuriated Jane Austen with his hints to her as to how a novel should be written.
However, I will own that I do wish a great professional artist could have depicted her in adult hood. Someone like Zoffany, Hoppner or even Thomas Lawrence, whom we know to have been an admirer of her talent. Now, that really would be something to shout about. For these artists would have given us not only a good representation of her features, but would also have captured, surely, something of her vivacity, her intelligence, which sadly to my eye, these amateur portraits do not. That really would be a fantastic discovery don’t you think?
26 comments
December 6, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Jane Odiwe
So many questions, I agree! If it’s real, of course, it’s wonderful to think there is another portrait of Jane. And there is no reason why every portrait should be exactly the same-every artist paints their own interpretation. The one thing that really bothers me is the long, thin face-most descriptions mention her full, round cheeks. I’m not convinced yet, but I am looking forward to seeing the programme very much!
December 6, 2011 at 2:53 pm
jfwakefield
BI do hope to see the programme, probably via the BBC’s Iplayer! Of course different artist saw their subjects differently, Im not arguing that every portrait of a subject should look the same, not at all. And it would appear that the Austen nose is in evidence. But did JAne possess it? The nose in the “L’aimable Jane” silhouette looks rather different. And my unease is more centered around the provenance, the dating and the way “Jane Austen” is depicted. And why all the symbols?
December 6, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Jennifer
As always an excellent post! It really is amazing that after all these years Austen has such a presence in the collective imagination. For my part I think the new portrait (if proven genuine) would change how I view Austen. It does seem to show an Austen more concerned with her “image,” for lack of a better word, than I previously thought; in other words more interested in promoting herself as a writer. I would very much like to see the documentary- I hope it airs in the US.
December 6, 2011 at 3:14 pm
jfwakefield
Now, I find your comment very interesting, Jennifer, as I don’t feel this way about it at all. I wonder if it’s because I only saw an image of Jane Austen when I was half way through reading her novels( all those years ago!). Now it is rather difficult to avoid the images derived from eithe Cassanra Austen’s watercolour or the Memoir portrait, and perhaps image and reputation are difficult to separate.
December 6, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Katherine Louise
Thank you for continuing to write about this. Yes, the nose is very like, but that isn’t absolute confirmation–the lady in Mr Clark’s drawing also has the so-called Austen nose. I read what Dr Byrne had to say; really, her comments sound as if she created her own imaginary portrait of Austen, and this drawing simply fits with her mental image. I agree–I do not need a drawing to define Miss Austen for me. Interesting discussion about imaginary portraits–I have no evidence, but I suspect that many people drew and draw them for their own entertainment, both of real people and of fictional characters. A lovely mystery!
December 6, 2011 at 10:55 pm
jfwakefield
Thanks Katherine. This is a very interesting situation, and I do look forward to hearing the evidence in the documentary, though rather worryingly I heard from Paula Byrne this afternoon to the effect that a lot of evidence has been left on the cutting room floor. We shall just have to wait and see;)
December 6, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Katherine Louise
Can you clarify something–I just reread Ms Flood’s article, in which Dr Byrne says the portrait was dated to the early 19th century based on the subject’s clothes. Surely they did other tests?! I haven’t read that the paper or the frame were tested–do you know if they were?
December 6, 2011 at 3:08 pm
jfwakefield
I think we are going to have to wait for the documentary to air to have those questions answered, Katherine. I agree they are rather fundamental. Perhaps Paula Byrne is not telling us all at the moment and is laying a trail….
December 6, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Lauren Gilbert
Very thought-provoking! I think that the idea of this depicting the subject as a professional writer is a wishful thinking-a quick google search of images of ladies brings up all manner of portraits of women writing letters or in bound volumes, holding books or sheets of paper, and so forth (Vermeer and others, before, during and after Austen’s time). Women wrote a lot, letters, inventories, etc., so a portrait of a female holding a pen does not authomatically imply a professional author, any more than a portrait of a woman seated at a harp or piano means she’s a professional musician. I can see some resemblance to the known pictures of Jane, but whether it is an actual contemporary portrait or a fanciful drawing done later by a “fan” has yet to be seen… (Even if the vellum and frame are old, the drawing could have been done much later.) My personal opinion is that it is a later “fan art” piece, but time will tell! The show will be interesting!
December 6, 2011 at 11:00 pm
jfwakefield
Mt feeling is that Jane Austen , who towards the end of her life was in a rather perilous position financially, with the loss of some of her profits in the failure of Henry’s bank, and the threat to her Chawton home due to the court case involving the breaking of the entail on Edwards estate, had only her genteel reputation to cling to. I doubt she would have wanted to have been portrayed as a writer, in order to preserve her anonymity. But that’s just my humble opinion. Let’s see what the experts have to say in the documentary ;)
December 6, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Ramya
Hard to know if this is a real or an imaginary portrait at this point. I agree with you Julie that we don’t need a “fashionable” image of Jane to respect her talents. Poor Cassandra! How she has been reviled over the years for producing the only authenticated representation of her sister!
December 6, 2011 at 10:57 pm
jfwakefield
Thanks, Ramya. I’m glad we agree, but I’m not surprised ;) Poor Cassandra indeed.
December 6, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Jane Odiwe
That is, of course, if the sketch said to be executed by Cassandra – is by Cassandra. It is not signed by Jane’s sister, only by a later family member who attributed it to her, I believe.
December 6, 2011 at 9:03 pm
jfwakefield
I think we have to accept that this one is the best we have, and while the image may not be the best “likeness”, its provenance is not contested. The NPG describes it as
This frank sketch by her sister and closest confidante Cassandra is the only reasonably certain portrait from life. Even so, Jane’s relatives were not entirely convinced by it: ‘there is a look which I recognise as hers’, her niece wrote, ‘though the general resemblance is not strong, yet as it represents a pleasing countenance it is so far a truth.’
In my view, it is vitally important to make a distinction between provenance of the item and the accuracy( or not)of the image. Look at this extract from Jane Austen in Context,edited by Janet Todd, taken from the chapter, Portraits by Margaret Kirkham:
Although it (the 1810 watercolour-jfw) is unsigned and undated ,there are good reasons for accepting that the artist and the sitter are the same as for the earlier sketch. It was not produced in 1833 when Richard Bentley wanted a portrait for a new edition of ‘Sense and Sensibility”…A letter from Henry Austen to Bentley dated 4th October 1832 includes the following: ” When I saw you in London I mentioned that a sketch of her had been taken- on further enquiry & inspection I find that it was merely the figure and attitude-The countenance is concealed by a veil- nor was there any resemblance of features intended-It was a “Study”. It looks as though Henry had rashly mentioned the existence of a sketch showing Jane Austen’s face,and then had to back down, possibly because Cassadnra would not sanction publication or because they jointly decided agasint it. There is something evasive here for although the 1804 signed sketch does not show the sitter’s face, there is no veil, only a large bonnet and some billowing bonnet strings. The inaccuracy may betray a decision to draw a veil over the unsigned sketch. What Henry Austen wrote in his revised “Biogrpahical Notice” re-entitled “Memoir of Miss Austen” and published with the new edition of “Sense and Sensibility”, avoids an outright denial that a portrait showing her face existed. All he does is to quote, without comment, from an article by Maria Jewsbury, which had appeared in “The Athenaeum” in 1831: “So retired , so unmarked by literary notoriety, was the life Miss Austen led that if any likeness as ever taken of her, none has ever been engraved, which has often been taken to mean “no professional likeness”, though this is capable of interpretation. Taking both the letter to Bentley and the guarded wording in the Memoir into account, it seems likely that Henry Austen knew of both sketches, though he was not open about them.
Both sketches were entrusted to Cassy Esten Austen, to whom Cassandra had been close in her later years. Documentation is lacking as to what if anything, Cassy had been told about them, but she evidently believed this one to be a portrait of Jane by Casandra and offered it as such to her first cousin, James Edward Austen-Leigh, when he wanted a portrait for A Memoir of Jane Austen, published in 1870. Its authenticity rests on its having passed directly from Cassandra Austen to one of her nieces, all old enough to have known the novelist…
Cassandra’s unsigned sketch remained in the posession of descendants of Charles Austen until around 1920. It was bought by the NPG in 1848. Why it was not produced or openly referred to in 1832 is not known but it is easy to see that this portrait does not match the 1833 Memoir. The woman depicted here does not look as though she would be entirely “submissive to criticism” either in “the bosom of her family ” or anywhere else, and she looks perfectly capable of uttering the odd “hasty, evilly or severe expression”…
The identity of the sitter and artist are not in serious doubt, though how good a likeness Cassandra Austen caught is. The contrast between the visual image, privately preserved by Austen’s sister and the verbal image published by her brother, is striking”
Does that help?
December 7, 2011 at 1:57 am
Cathy Allen
Yes, that does help, thank you. This is all very fascinating, and I look forward to hearing about the documentary, and the testing. Anything else I could add would be redundant. Thanks, Julie!
December 6, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Katherine C.
Ooh, I agree, Julie! A Lawrence portrait of Jane would have been incredible! :)
Perhaps the Rev. Jones knew Jane’s father or brothers? That could explain the nose. It is after all its he that admits the idea of ‘imaginary’ portraits, so I still don’t discount the idea:
“Whenever I am very much “taken with” an author,I generally draw his or her likeness in my own fancy:”
It would have been interesting to see the other two drawings Rev. Jones mentions of Laetitia-Matilda Hawkins and Mrs. Wilson.
Thank you for keeping us up-to-date Julie! I wish the program would come to the US as I’m very curious to see it.
December 6, 2011 at 10:52 pm
jfwakefield
I think Deirdre Le Faye wasn’t suggesting the Reverend Jones painted this particular portrait, but rather that his diary entry was indicative that this type of fan portrait was executed by, well…literary fans. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
I do hope you get to see the documentary too! ( and yes, I do fantasise about a Lawrence portrait!)
December 7, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Katherine C.
Oops, my fault for skimming through. That does change things. I had assumed it was sketched by the Rev. Jones.
December 7, 2011 at 7:44 pm
jfwakefield
Don’t worry,I don’t thin I was very clear :) I think the extract does show that fan art was not an unknown phenomenon even then;) I think a lot of these would not survive because they were amateur pieces of work,and as they had no family value, ( not being of a loved one) they would not be preserved with the same amount of care.
December 8, 2011 at 3:20 am
Karen Field
I’m just wondering, how many painters did portraits that showed vivacity and intelligence? I’m not very knowledgeable about this topic so I admit that right up front. My thought is that I don’t see many portraits where the subject is natural, not posed. I would be glad to be corrected and references.
I totally want the James Stanier Clark portrait to be confirmed as her. I would also love to have the Rice portrait turn out to be her. I can see vivacity in that portrait.
December 8, 2011 at 7:09 am
jfwakefield
Art being so subjective a subject, I suppose it is all a matter of opinion and taste, Karen. But I do think the great artists, Rembrandt, for example , can capture some aspects of a persons personality. I do think that , had he been on top form, we might have seen something interesting from Thomas Lawrence, had he the opportunity to paint her. To think , had she continued to live and write what might have happended? She might not have been able to avoid a certain amount of fame, and may have met Sir Walter Scott, for example, whose work she admired, and who returned the compliment. As he knew Sir Thomas ….( off to write a novel based on this premise!)
December 11, 2011 at 9:07 am
dianabirchall
I want, I want. If we’re going to talk about what we want, well, I want a photograph of Jane Austen!
I feel there’s some disingenuousness going on, mostly from The Guardian. Headline: “Jane Austen biographer discovers lost portrait.” This misleading title is supported by Byrne’s implication that she and her husband are the discoverers, with him thinking it’s just a “nice lady writer” until she had her “visceral reaction.” But they didn’t discover it, nor were they the first to consider it as a possible Jane Austen portrait. Why does Byrne bring in the 1870 portrait as “sentimentalized Victorian” when that is only a distorted engraving? One could be sentimental, the other look like Virginia Woolf, and it makes no difference to the provenance. Why does she bafflingly insist the genre of imaginary portraits doesn’t even exist, as if it’s something perversely made up by Deirdre Le Faye (what was Jane Eyre doing making imaginary fancy portraits of Rochester then? Obviously it’s something people did, and do). What purpose can the show in England at Christmas serve – publicity purpose, perhaps. Doesn’t sound like scholarly knowledge purpose. If there’s actual information it’s not likely to be first mparted in a BBC show for the popular audience. I’d like to see it but I can hold my breath.
December 11, 2011 at 10:27 am
jfwakefield
I don’t think you cam blame a girl for wanting…I’d still like to see a good, professional portrait of her, but as I’ve explained ad nauesum , or so it seems to me, her image, in whatever form it takes, is certainly not essential at all to my great admiration of Jane Austen as a writer. And I really do not feel I am alone in holding this opinion.
As to your doubting that the BBC are capable of screening scholarly documentaries during the Christmas holiday period, well, I am afraid I have to respectfully disagree with you. There have been many instances of scholarly programmes that have been( and will continue to be I have no doubt) broadcast on BBC TV and Radio during our religious festivals. Many of us look forward to them. The Scared Chrsitmas and Easter Music programmes are some very recent and excellent examples. Believe what you like, but the BBC has not totally dumbed down, and can still cater to those amongst us in the UK who would prefer to to watch or listen to something other than the dour Christmas Edition of Eastenders ;) So, I still hold out hope that the documentary will not be a totally tabloid venture and will be of some value. Certainly, the producer of the documentary has a wonderful track record: one of his recent projects was the excellent Behind Closed Doors series with Amanda Vickery.
I do agree with you, however, that the approach taken thus far by Dr Bryne has been sensationalist and she may come to regret it. I do trust that lessons will be learned, for the future, but in the meantime, I’m still very interested to see the documentary, my duties as a hostess permitting, to discover exactly what claims are being made for this particular picture, and what evidence there is to support them.
December 11, 2011 at 10:50 am
dianabirchall
Right – we have done very well heretofore with nothing but Cassandra’s slight sketch and our imaginations. As for my doubting the possibility of scholarly accuracy on TV, I’m showing my unfortunate accustomization to American television. Of course I’d love to see the documentary, though it’s frustrating that she says much has been edited out. If there’s real information (about the jewellery apparently), I hope it will emerge. And yes, it’s the sensationalism, with all the earmarks of a publicity stunt, that stirs feelings of revulsion. Hello, by the way – I enjoy your lucid, informative, deeply interesting blog very much!
December 16, 2011 at 10:59 am
imogen88
All interesting reading, these posts. I wonder what will be? I don’t feel it’s definitive of JA, but that’s just me. It seems very stylized, and staged, not like other portraits, but then, who knows? Will be glad to hear your review when you watch this, Julie.
December 17, 2011 at 2:37 pm
jfwakefield
I agree, Moni, especially about the pose, which looks unnatural and forced. Still, I hope to be able to see the programme and report back.