After I had written yesterday’s post on the new discoveries regarding the “portrait ” of below, I discovered a dissenting voice about these new findings. I thought you might like to read these thoughts, written by Dr. Bendor Grosvenor of Philip Mould and Company. This is a renowned art company which specialises in British art and Old Masters. They have become famous for discovering sleepers, that is, previously unattributed or misattributed portraits. Dr.Grosvenor is the author of the erudite and entertaining Art History News website.
- The “Rice Portrait”, which purports to show Jane Austen as a child
In an article on his site he discusses The Rice Portrait. You can read the article in full here. He doubts that the new-found inscriptions will alter the position regarding the painting’s questioned authenticity:
I applaud the owner’s attempts to prove their painting is Jane. But I’m afraid these apparent inscriptions in old photos of the painting, which I have been shown, are (to me at least) not compelling. Nor is this the first time apparently conclusive ‘writing’ on the painting, seen in questionably interpreted and magnified old photographs, has been claimed. For the best critique of the painting’s identity, read former NPG chief curator Jacob Simon’s brief note here. In particular, he deals with the question of the apparent inscriptions written on the painting:
“The [Rice Portrait] website claims that the portrait is signed several times in monogram, inscribed JANE and dated 1788 but, from my lengthy experience of examining British portraits, these apppear to be purely incidental and meaningless markings. They were not noted by Thomas Harding Newman, owner of the portrait in 1880, who attributed it to Zoffany. They do not appear in photographs taken by Emery Walker in about 1910, despite claims to the contrary on the website. They were not apparent to the professional painting conservator who examined the portrait with others at Henry Rice’s request before cleaning it in 1985. They were not apparent to Christie’s experienced cataloguing staff in 2007 when the portrait was put up for sale in New York, despite an earlier report of initials on the portrait”.
All this will, I fear, run and run….No doubt, I’ll be reporting back to you;)
13 comments
June 14, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Tina
I confess, I love all this hub a dub. It’s an artistic CSI that’s very interesting! Dr. Grosvenor does have an argument, it’s very strange that after all this first-hand handling by so many experts before the cleaning, that none took into account the markings, or applied them as arguments from the very begining. Well, he seems to think it’s downright ridiculous (and I can see his point). Anyway, in complete agreement with Raquel’s comment to your last post, I could accept the Rice picture of sweet little Jane (it does have an air of similarity to Cassandra’s painting), but find it very hard to see anything of her in that severe, hook nosed lady of Dr. Byrne’s. Although I’m open to surprises……
June 15, 2012 at 8:40 am
jfwakefield
It is fascinating- all the twists and turns. As a lawyer an intrigued by the whole process. What is considered “good” evidence as opposed to “poor”? And I do wonder what the standard of proof has to be for these contested portraits- is it the civil requirement of the balance of possibilities or the harder criminal standard, beyond all reasonable doubt? I think we will be having lots more of these conversations before any firm conclusions are made ,Tina ;)
June 15, 2012 at 8:30 am
garmard
I find the portrait that purports to be a young Jane Austen intriguing indeed, but I believe, like Dr Grosvenor that without solid proof this is going to be nothing but a red herring.
On the other hand — Why would anybody want to fabricate a portrait of a young girl when one would have thought to fabricate a Miss Austen portrait when she was much older and the famous writer she eventually morphed into?
I will watch this space with great interest!
June 15, 2012 at 8:44 am
jfwakefield
That’s a very interesting point, isn’t it? If you are going to attempt to fabricate a portrait, surely one of the author as an adult would be the way to go? I’m no criminal master-mind but I agree with your reasoning ;)
I should imagine that that branch of the family are non-plussed ( to say the least) to find that a portrait they all thought was of Jane, and was included in the Brabourne Edition of The Letters as such all those years ago, has since the 1940s been dismissed as not of her.
This will turn and run…;)
June 15, 2012 at 6:22 pm
cathyallen
Ahhh…the plot thickens! I’m enjoying this whole saga. Thank you for keeping us up-to-date, Julie!
June 17, 2012 at 10:48 am
jfwakefield
It certainly does.As soon as I have more news I’ll post it here;)
June 17, 2012 at 8:45 pm
garmard
The portrait is certainly provoking much interest, and to me has that certain likeness of her which is indicative within the amatuer sketch that was attributed to her sister Cassandra when she was a little older……..As you say, the plot thickens!
June 20, 2012 at 9:41 am
Jane Odiwe
I would just like to point out that contrary to Dr. Grosvenor’s comments that the inscriptions were not found on the 1910 Emery Walker photographs, they were found on the glass plates which made the photographs. You can actually see the words Jane Austen quite faintly on the E.W. photograph, and that is how the member of the public alerted Mrs. Rice!
June 21, 2012 at 8:54 am
jfwakefield
Thank you Jane.I must admit I found his comments puzzling, especially given the photographs which you can see on Mrs Rice’s website.I wonder if he has access to information we don’t?
June 23, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Pamela
But unless I missed something…. 1788, wearing Empire dress style? Jane Austen would have been 13 in 1788, and the figure in the portrait could perhaps be that, but the Empire costume style wasn’t began until sometime in the mid or late 1790s.
June 23, 2012 at 7:35 pm
jfwakefield
Hi Pamela, yes the costume has been under discussion, and, as ever there are two sides to the argument. Aileen Riberio is against it being a dress of the late 18th century. Go here to read a differing opinion.
The spotty fabric gives food for thought. When Jane Austen was writing about Fanny Price’s white spotted ball gown in Chapter 23 og Mansfield Park, was this a memory of her own white dress?
June 27, 2012 at 9:20 am
Jane Odiwe
If Jane was not ‘out’, and at the age she is meant to be in the portrait, it is possible that she would have been wearing the high-waisted muslin dresses that children wore, and had been wearing for twenty years. I haven’t found many, but there are examples of dresses like these.
June 27, 2012 at 9:32 am
jfwakefield
If the portrait was taken in 1789,then she most certainly was not out, Jane. She made her debut into society in 1792, when she was staying at Ibthorpe with the Lloyds when she attended her first dance as an adult at Enham House near Andover.