You may have read of the new evidence found that seems to provide a stronger argument that the the Rice portrait is indeed a portrait of a young Jane Austen. Here is a link that presents an argument in favor of the attribution: http://www.janeaustenriceportrait.com/new-primary-evidence/4594513362
What do you think?
I believe it is Jane. I wish to believe it is Jane and I will accept 5 documents of support as proof positive <g> It is such a darling portrait....I wish someone would do an age advance to extrapolate a possible Jane in later years. I can see how the age differs by a year and the artist name differs-----oral history is often full of misquotes and discrepancies. Thanks for the article, Candice!
I am skeptical, both because the Rice family says it was painted by a different painter (Ozias Humphrey) and because the style of dress came in later than 1788, when the portrait was supposed to have been done. I assume that the attribution of the note’s author as Caroline Lefroy is based on other samples of her writing, but I would like to know how the note came to be put in the desk and what the connection was to the Austens that the “Dr. Newman, Fellow of Magdalen” had, since he apparently was the person who gave it to the Rice family.
I do not know if we will ever know the truth about this portrait.
I had no idea until I read "Jane's Fame" that the picture always used for Jane on all the books was not even a certain likeness. I highly recommend Jane's Fame by the way. Hennepin County Library has the audio book, narrated by Wanda McCaddon, It is a fun and easy read/listen.
This is really interesting. I’m new to this forum and have not heard of rice portrait. At first I thought it was painting on a rice paper (silly me). Now that I’ve read the link, I’m intrigued to read more about it.
it definitely sounds like it is the real thing. Here’s another article I found.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/23/jane-austen-family-say-note-establishes-disputed-portraits-identity