Jane Austen, The Rice Portrait and the National Portrait Gallery

“A mistake repeated more than once is a decision” Paulo Coelho

Is the Rice Portrait truly a portrait of a young Jane Austen?

It is a question which has been the subject of intense debate and disagreement between its supporters and detractors, a debate which has raged on for decades.

In recent years a steady flow of evidence has emerged supporting the long held belief of the portrait’s owners that the Rice Portrait is genuine. And yet the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) continues to deny that the portrait is either of Jane Austen or by Ozias Humphry, insisting that it dates from the early nineteenth century. They justify this on the grounds of the dating of the costume and the stamp on the back of the canvas, notwithstanding the evidence that has been produced demonstrating that both dress and stamp could potentially date to before 1800. Why is there such reluctance on the part of the NPG to accept any of this new evidence? 

Why does the NPG remain so implacably opposed to this portrait being a picture of the young Jane Austen?

Robert Chapman and the National Portrait Gallery

In the 1930s Austen studies were dominated by Oxford scholar Robert (RW) Chapman. The Director of the National Portrait Gallery was Sir Henry Hake and it is clear from reading the archives at the NPG that the two were working together on the subject of the Rice Portrait or the Zoffany as it was then known.

RW Chapman

In 1931/32 Henry Hake tried to acquire the portrait for the NPG. Following the failed attempt to purchase the portrait, Robert Chapman wrote in a letter to Henry Hake dated 26 October 1932: ‘I never feel happy about this picture, and I know that R.A. Austen-Leigh is very sceptical.’ He continues: ‘But it is possible that it may have been commissioned, e.g. by James Leigh Perrot, Jane Austen’s mother’s brother who was a man of wealth living, for the most part, in Bath’. But as Chapman said himself, he was no iconographer.

In 1939 Chapman wrote to Hake: ‘I have finished a small book on Jane Austen, which collects the facts. But I am not competent to write on the Portraits, being (as Jane says) that I never saw either, and for other reasons.’

Henry Hake
Director of the NPG

Chapman was also no fashion expert. He relied on the opinion of Charles Kingsley Adams of the NPG (later the Director) who reported in 1941 that the dress the girl in the portrait was wearing must date to after 1805 on the basis of the puffed sleeves and high waistline. The assessment gave Robert Chapman the ammunition he needed to justify his antipathy towards the portrait.

In 1948, immediately after the NPG purchased the ‘Cassandra scribble of her sister’ as Hake called it, Chapman unequivocally declared in his Jane Austen Facts and Problems that the Rice portrait ‘had a pedigree that any layman might think watertight; but it cannot be Jane Austen. It is a portrait of a young girl which can be dated by the costume to about 1805 (when J.A. was thirty) or later.’

The timing, immediately after the NPG had acquired the small portrait of Austen, cannot have been coincidence. The Rice family had refused to sell their portrait to the Gallery and all the latter had managed to purchase was a small, inferior amateur drawing.

From this point on, the NPG had a motive for downplaying any claim by the Rice family that their portrait was genuine and to talk up their own picture which they had swiftly claimed was the only authentic portrait of the novelist. Meanwhile Chapman’s assessment, based solely on the flawed judgement of CK Adams, continued to be relied upon and given a weight far greater than it deserved.

Chapman’s 1948 assessment that ‘it cannot be Jane Austen’ was cited by the Jane Austen Society in 1973 when they announced they believed the portrait was not of the novelist.  

Jane Austen Society Report 1973

But in March 1998 the Chairman of the Jane Austen Society, Brian Southam, wrote to the Director of the NPG about the portrait. He said:

The Jane Austen Society has itself considered the question of the authenticity of the Rice/Zoffany portrait on several occasions in the past, each time coming to a negative verdict. It has to be said, however, that the Society possessed no expertise in the history of portraiture, fashion and other relevant factors, and I do not think that anyone would nowadays attach much weight to these past pronouncements.

Yet Robert Chapman’s assessment continued to influence the debate about the portrait. Even as late as 2007 when the portrait failed to sell at auction (of which more later) press reports at the time repeatedly cited the declaration made by Chapman way back in 1948, that the style of the dress did not match the date of the portrait.

That the opinion of one man who was not even in possession of the correct facts at the time – Chapman thought that the portrait was by Zoffany, and that it may have been commissioned by James Leigh-Perrot and painted in Bath – was still being quoted as evidence over sixty years later is quite incredible.  

Deirdre Le Faye and the National Portrait Gallery

Deirdre Le Faye, an administrator at the British Museum, joined the Jane Austen Society in the 1960s and began researching Jane Austen in earnest in the 1970s.

In many ways Le Faye assumed the mantle of RW Chapman. Like him, she dominated debate about Austen for decades and assumed a proprietary interest in the novelist. Like Chapman, she is also dogmatic in her opinions and she is fiercely critical of anyone who disagrees with her.

In April 1983 Le Faye was researching the Rice Portrait and wrote to John Kerslake at the NPG. She  described herself as a ‘devoted member of the Jane Austen Society’ and explained that she was ‘trying to find another little girl in the prolific Austen family to whom the picture can be correctly related.’ Her opinion of the Rice Portrait was clearly already fixed: ‘I don’t for a moment believe it is a portrait of JA the authoress,’ she said.

By now, however, John Kerslake had retired and Richard Walker, archivist at the NPG, replied instead. He  reiterated the opinion of Madeleine Ginsberg of the V&A that the puffed sleeves and high waist on the dress dated the portrait to around 1805 – 1810. Le Faye replied that this suited her line of research very well. Of Henry Rice she said condescendingly: 

He is now prepared to accept that the picture can't be Zoffany, but still clings to the idea that it is of the genuine Jane Austen; he now considers it might be by Ozias Humphry, because Humphry had Kentish connections and undoubtedly did paint the portrait of Jane's great-uncle Francis Austen which is presently in the Graves Art Gallery, Sheffield. This, however, seems to me an equally unlikely attribution. 

In October 1993, Richard Walker, now retired, wrote to Le Faye again. He had been reading her revised edition of Jane Austen A Family Record and was interested to note that she had not mentioned the Rice Portrait. ‘I imagine, like me, you do not wholeheartedly believe in it,’ he wrote. But he concluded his letter: ‘I think the costume experts have been over-confident and the dress she wears could be of the 1790s – but I am still not convinced she is Jane.’

In 1996 Deirdre Le Faye published the results of her research. In her article, published in The Book Collector, Le Faye misled her readers by labelling four miniature portraits as specific female members of the Austen family when in fact only one of the portraits, that of Mrs Jane Campion, was identified - by a piece of paper in the back of the miniature on which was written ‘Jane Austen who married William Campion’ and the name WS Lethbridge together with an address in the Strand. Two years later Richard Walker wrote to Le Faye: ‘I am interested in the Lethbridge idea. He usually signed and dated on the back of the ivory and I imagine the Kippington miniatures are so inscribed.’ None of the miniatures were so inscribed. If Le Faye wrote to tell him so, there is no record of this letter in the NPG archives. Her thesis was that the portrait is of a distant relative of Jane Austen's, Mary Anne Campion, and was painted by Matthew William Peters. Le Faye presented no documentary evidence to support her theory. 

Nevertheless, Deirdre Le Faye’s article in The Book Collector received the enthusiastic approval of the 18th Century Curator at the National Portrait Gallery. Jacob Simon had joined the NPG in 1983 and by the 1990s it is clear from the documents in the Heinz Archive at the NPG that Jacob Simon and Deirdre Le Faye had joined forces in their opposition to the picture.

Simon wrote to Le Faye in September 1996: ‘Your article is brilliant - just what is wanted – and must be published. Do keep me informed.’ A few months later in January 1997 he wrote, ‘Delighted to see your article on Jane Austen in published form. Congratulations. I shall make sure that my colleagues are aware of your excellent work. And it will be available to future enquirers, of course.’

Deirdre Le Faye's postcard to the NPG

In October 1997 Deirdre Le Faye wrote a postcard to Jacob Simon enclosing correspondence from Richard Wheeler who had been campaigning in favour of the picture. On the front of the postcard were cartoon images from Wind in the Willows showing Toad, Badger, Ratty and Mole. On the back she wrote: ‘I find the Toad family portraits more convincing!’

In 2001 Deirdre Le Faye, having retired from the British Museum, wrote to Jacob Simon telling him that ‘research flourishes’. She was, she said, 
‘determined to bring your correct dating to the attention of the literary world upon every possible occasion!’

On 18 October 2003 an article appeared in The Times newspaper by Jack Malvern reporting that the portrait was indeed of Jane Austen. The article reported that this was supported by the opinions of Conall Macfarlane of Christie’s who believed the portrait was by Ozias Humphry; Regency costume collectors Lillian and Ted Williams who believed the costume dated to the eighteenth century; and Austen expert Dr Marilyn Butler, who pointed out that there were several possible references to the portrait in Austen’s writing.

Deirdre Le Faye immediately wrote to Conall Macfarlane, disputing his assessment. He replied on 23 October 2003:

Thank you for your letter of 20th October with the enclosures. I knew of Dr Jacob Simon’s theories about the dress depicted in the Rice portrait.

I am afraid I am not entering the lists regarding the sitter in the picture which I will leave to others better placed than I. My only contribution was to propose the attribution to Ozias Humphrey [sic], which seems to have gained general approval subsequently.

Le Faye wrote back to him:

Dr Simon as befits an impartial curator at one of the national galleries, is concerned only with the facts regarding the dating of the canvas; it is Mr Rice and his family, with a financial interest in the portrait, who invent theories regarding the dress of the sitter and like to claim the picture is by Ozias Humphrey [sic]. My years of likewise impartial research into the Austen family background have convinced me that the sitter is Mary Anne Campion.

On the enclosed copy of her letter to Conall Macfarlane which she sent to the NPG she wrote ‘Jacob: I thought CMacf’s muddle-headed letter deserved a clarifying response. Le Faye also sent a postcard to Jacob Simon on which she wrote: ‘Enclosed copy for your interest/amusement  - do you know this Conal MacF? I assume he must be a new recruit to Christie’s, unaware of the background controversy.’  

In fact Conall Macfarlane, who studied at the V&A, had been at Christie’s since the 1970s and had been a Director since 1991. But Le Faye’s comment is instructive – she clearly assumed that anyone who knew about the portrait’s history would not have the temerity to disagree with her or with Jacob Simon of the NPG.

Le Faye also launched a scathing criticism of Dr Butler, and claimed that she had ‘allowed her friendship with the owner of this picture to outweigh considerations of scholarly impartiality when assessing evidence.’ A remarkable statement, in the light of Le Faye’s longstanding and ongoing campaign against this portrait, which has been anything but impartial.

Deirdre Le Faye continues to maintain that the portrait is of Mary Anne Campion and that it was painted by Matthew William Peters. In her latest edition of her Chronology of Jane Austen and her Family, published in 2013, she presents her theory as if it were fact, and yet he only citation is her own article in The Book Collector. Her theory, supported by Jacob Simon, managed to gain some traction over the years, yet my own research has shown that the theory does not stand up to scrutiny.

It seems that, just as with Dr Robert Chapman, Deirdre Le Faye’s opinions were given more credit than was warranted, simply due to her stature in Austen circles.

Henry Rice and the National Portrait Gallery

Meanwhile, the owners of the portrait were initially oblivious, or at least inattentive, to criticism of their portrait.

Henry Rice

Edward Rice inherited the portrait from his father Henry Edward Harcourt Rice in 1943 and the painting hung at his home Dane Court until his death thirty years later. In 1973 Henry Rice inherited Dane Court on the death of his father, Edward. The entire contents of the house had been removed by Henry’s step-mother but she was unable to take the portrait which was entailed to him. Two years later Henry Rice sold Dane Court and he and his wife Anne moved to Guernsey, taking the portrait with them.

In 1983 Henry and Anne Rice returned to England. By now it was apparent that the portrait faced serious opposition and Henry began a campaign to prove that the portrait was indeed of Jane Austen the novelist. It was a fight which would continue for the rest of his life.

Henry Rice proposed that the portrait was not by Zoffany but by the lesser known artist Ozias Humphry which, as noted above, had also been suggested by Conall Macfarlane of Christie’s.

In 1985 the National Portrait Gallery published their directory, Regency Portraits, compiled by Richard Walker. In his book, Walker tried to keep a foot in both camps by stating that the portrait was by Ozias Humphry but that the dress dated it to around 1805. (This was not possible as Humphry was functionally blind by 1797.)

Richard Walker had been curator at the Palace of Westminster for 26 years and was also official art adviser to the Government from 1949 until 1976. For the following nine years he was employed at the National Portrait Gallery as cataloguer in the NPG archive. An unassuming man, Walker had a passion for cataloguing and research. He wrote to Henry Rice that he would try to be as impartial as possible and he seems to have been true to his word.  

Ozias Humphry

Despite having written to Deirdre Le Faye in 1983 that the costume experts dated the portrait to after 1805, Richard Walker wrote to Madeleine Marsh in March 1985 that he thought she was ‘on the right track with the attribution to Ozias Humphry. It fits very well with his style of painting and your research shows that he would have been a likely artist to have been employed by the family.’

Walker was apparently convinced by BOTH the costume experts’ opinion AND Henry Rice's research which explains his contradictory entry in Regency Portraits that year.

In December 1985 Richard Walker visited Henry Rice at his home to examine the portrait. Afterwards he wrote to thank Henry for the visit. He went on to say:

I must say I do think your research team has done admirable work and clearly we must all be less adamant in our opposition to her identification as Jane.  It looks as though there is a distinct possibility of the ‘experts’ being mistaken in rigorously brushing aside any suggestion that it should be earlier than 1800.

And as recorded above, in 1993 he told Deirdre Le Faye that he thought the costume could date to the 1790s. In a report, written in October 1993, Richard Walker wrote: ‘I myself, inexcusably dazzled by all these formidable authorities, accepted the costume objection and upheld it in my Regency Portraits of 1984.’  

He went on to note that a great deal of research had been carried out by Henry Rice with ‘the disconcerting result that the costume experts may well have been over-confident in their judgement.’

At some point in the 1980s, Henry Rice attended a meeting with Jacob Simon at the National Portrait Gallery to discuss the portrait. I have been unable to find any record of this in the Heinz Archive but according to the recollection of Henry’s widow, Anne Rice, the meeting did not go well. Henry Rice apparently took great offence at Jacob Simon’s opinion that the portrait was not of Jane Austen. From that point on it seems that the dispute became entrenched on both sides. This would perhaps explain why Jacob Simon went to such great lengths to oppose the portrait. 

In February 1994, art critic and curator Angus Stewart organised an exhibition at Olympia, London, under the title 'Jane Austen and her Family'. The exhibition gathered together a large array of artefacts, paintings and documents relating to Jane Austen's life and included the Rice Portrait, which also featured on the promotional leaflet for the exhibition. Angus Stewart invited Jacob Simon to examine the portrait prior to it going on display. According to Angus Stewart, his invitation to examine the portrait was not taken up and although Jacob Simon did visit the exhibition, he failed to scrutinise the portrait in any detail and gave it only cursory attention. 

In April 1998 Jacob Simon published a letter in the Times Literary Supplement (TLS) arguing that the costume dated the portrait to 1800-1810. He wrote that ‘the Gallery has no axe to grind when it comes to the Rice portrait – only a search for truth based on sound evidence’. Yet he encouraged Aileen Ribeiro at the Courtauld Institute to write in opposition to the portrait, he supported Deirdre Le Faye in her opposition to the picture and he began researching any evidence which would disprove it was Jane Austen. These letters can all be viewed in the Heinz Archive at the NPG.

Then, on 18 December 1998, another letter from Jacob Simon was published in the TLS which seemed, on face value, to finish the argument.

In 1986 the backing of the portrait had been removed and had revealed a stamp on the linen which read Wm Legg, High Holbourn 1 Linen. Jacob Simon announced that there was indeed a William Legg trading as an artists colourman at 163 High Holborn – but that he was only trading there from 1801 until 1806  -  therefore the canvas must date to after 1801.

Letters immediately followed in the TLS from supporters of the portrait, pointing out that the paucity of records for the eighteenth century meant Jacob Simon could not be certain that there was no William Legg trading in High Holborn prior to this date. Nevertheless the stamp convinced Richard Walker.

On 15 January 1999 he wrote to Jacob Simon:

I have only just got round to reading your letter to the TLS about the Rice Portrait and hasten to congratulate you on finally scotching this sorry tale. As evidence the Wm. Legg stamp seems conclusive and, as you say, the identification with Jane can now be eliminated.

I do hope this is the last we shall hear about her but I am afraid the opposition is pretty obstinate and I have no doubt she will surface again in the millennium.

Into the Millennium - the 2007 Auction

In 1995, Henry Rice wanted to send the portrait to the USA for an Austen exhibition. In order to leave the country, the portrait required an export licence. A temporary export licence was granted, on the advice of the NPG. 

In 2001, Henry again wanted to send the portrait to the USA and approached the NPG. An unsigned draft of a letter to Henry Rice from the NPG, dated 3 August 2001, referred to the Gallery's position 'should you wish to apply for an export licence for your putative portrait of Jane Austen'. The NPG wrote that they were still of the opinion that there was insufficient evidence that the portrait was of Jane Austen, and concluded on the grounds of ‘stylistic features’ and the William Legg stamp on the reverse that 'the evidence is still not sufficiently conclusive and thus the identity of the sitter remains unresolved.' 

Another export licence was granted, and this time the licence that was granted was permanent. This export licence remains valid to this day.

'L'amiable Jane silhouette

On 9 November 2004, Sandy Nairne, Director of the NPG, reaffirmed their position in a letter to Brian Southam, chairman of the Jane Austen Society, stating that ‘It is not a portrait that at this time we would wish to pursue for acquisition.’ He added ‘You may have noted that in addition to the sketch by Cassandra, we currently have on view a silhouette believed to be of Jane Austin [sic] and to have been cut from the life.’ This, despite the fact that the evidence for the silhouette being of Jane Austen is thinner than the paper from which it is cut. (The silhouette is no longer on display.)

So that, it seemed, was that. The National Portrait Gallery, despite apparently never having closely examined the picture, had decided that the Rice Portrait was not of Jane Austen and had washed their hands of the picture for good. Henry Rice was now free to sell the portrait wherever he chose and to whomever he liked. 

Which makes what happened three years later quite extraordinary.

In 2007, Henry Rice put the portrait up for sale at auction with Christie’s of New York. Christie’s published a press release on 23 March 2007 describing the portrait as of Jane Austen by Ozias Humphry. They cited  the support of Austen scholar Claudia Johnson and of Brian Southam, chairman of the Jane Austen Society. Christie’s concluded:

Christie’s supports the Rice portrait as a true depiction of Jane Austen and is honored to have been chosen by the family to organize a public auction – and to publicly exhibit the painting in New York City.

Christie's, New York

Christie's auction was due to take place on 19 April 2007. 

The announcement generated another flurry of interest from the media. It also generated a flurry of internal emails at the National Portrait Gallery, where there was some discussion as to how to handle the publicity. On 23 March 2007 the press officer, Neil Evans, emailed Dr. Lucy Peltz, (Jacob Simon’s colleague and Curator of 18th Century Collections) and Jacob Simon, asking whether Christie’s had sought authentication of the portrait since 1994 (when the portrait was first granted an export licence and was sent to New York). Both confirmed that they had not been contacted by Christie’s during that time.

Jacob Simon also commented: ‘The message should be that we are quite open about the past history but that we do not comment on portraits while on the market.’

Lucy Peltz wrote on 24 March 2007 -  ‘any reiterations of our past position could influence the value of the painting and the credibility of the auctioneers. She went on to say ‘we feel we cannot say anything further at this point as our institutional comments could prejudice the outcome of the sale.’

On 29 March 2007, Neil Evans sent another internal email explaining that BBC Radio Four’s PM Programme wanted to do an item on the Jane Austen portrait and wanted the views of the NPG. Evans reported that he had explained to BBC Radio Four that: ‘it was not our policy to speak about a portrait coming up for sale where we do not have a current interest.’Jacob Simon replied:‘I would not answer questions relating to the sale of the portrait which is not our business.’So, everyone seems clear – the NPG should not and would not comment on a portrait which was on the market as any such comment could affect the sale. As Lucy Peltz had asserted, a reiteration of the NPG’s past position could ‘influence the value of the painting and the credibility of the auctioneers’.  

And yet just one week before the sale was due to take place, Jacob Simon, apparently without invitation from the auctioneers, did exactly that.

On Thursday 12 April 2007, Jacob Simon emailed Christie’s Auction House in New York at 16.47 in the afternoon. His email read:

            Subject: Jane Austen

Dear Mr. Hall

William Legg is mentioned in the catalogue entry of your forthcoming Old Master Paintings sale on 19 April of the portrait described as the Rice portrait of Jane Austen, lot 120. I would like to draw your attention to new research on William Legg, which is now publicly available as part of the Directory of artists’ suppliers and colourmen, 1650 -1939 on the Gallery website at National Portrait Gallery/Research/Artists’ Suppliers/ Directory. The text of this entry is given below. I propose to communicate this research to the Times Literary Supplement where previous discussion has taken place on the dating of the portrait and its impact on the putative claims of the portrait to represent Jane Austen.

I am copying this e-mail to Piers Davies

Yours sincerely

Jacob Simon

Chief Curator

National Portrait Gallery

The research to which Jacob Simon was referring concerned William Legg of Reading and the birth records for his children which proved conclusively that Legg was definitely living in Reading until 1801.

However, Jacob Simon did not explain in his communication with Christie’s, nor in his article subsequently published in the TLS, that the stamp on the Rice Portrait differs from the other known stamps for William Legg of Reading. The Rice stamp reads Wm Legg whereas the other known stamps are for ‘W&J Legg’ and it also spells Holbourn differently, with a 'u'. It is by no means conclusive, therefore, that the stamps belong to the same person. 

The stamp on the Rice Portrait (right) is not the same
as the other known stamps for William Legg of Reading

The case for William Legg of Reading being responsible for the linen stamp on the Rice Portrait was thus not as strong as Jacob Simon had suggested. And even if it were, what was Jacob Simon’s motivation for interfering in a private sale which was nothing to do with the NPG and contrary to their stated policy of making no comment on a sale in which they had no current interest?

Jacob Simon must have known that this email put Christie’s in a very difficult position. If they ignored Simon’s email and the portrait was sold as a picture of Austen, if it later transpired that it was not as claimed then – as they had been put on notice of Jacob Simon’s latest research - any purchaser may well have had a legal case against the auctioneer. But if they informed Henry Rice of the email, which would inevitably have led to him cancelling the sale, then this would have resulted in some very awkward questions being asked as to why the sale had not gone ahead.

Is it not at least possible that Christie’s informed prospective buyers that to bid on the portrait would not be such a good idea in the light of this recent revelation?

As it was, Henry Rice knew nothing of the communication between Jacob Simon and Christie’s New York and the sale went ahead as scheduled on 19 April 2007. The portrait failed to meet the reserve and did not sell.

The failure of the 2007 auction was then subsequently used as evidence that the art world did not believe it to be a portrait of Jane Austen, not least by Jacob Simon himself. Less than a month after the failed auction, on 4 May 2007, Jacob Simon wrote to the TLS. His letter opened with: ‘The Rice portrait of Jane Austen as a girl which recently failed to sell at auction in New York…’ He did not mention his own involvement, in emailing Christie’s, yet he was willing, almost immediately, to take advantage of the failed auction to press his own point of view.

Not long after the failed New York sale Henry Rice had a heart attack. His wife Anne believes it was caused by the stress of the failure of the sale. He never fully recovered and died three years later. Reprehensibly, Deirdre Le Faye then used Henry Rice’s obituary in The Times to attack his belief that his portrait was genuinely a portrait of Jane Austen.

It was not until 2013, following a Freedom of Information request from the Rice family, that Mrs Anne Rice, now the legal owner of the portrait, became aware for the first time that Jacob Simon in his capacity as Chief Curator of the NPG, had written an unsolicited email to Christie’s prior to the 2007 auction. This email has never been made public until now, although it can be viewed in the Rice Portrait files at the Heinz Archive of the NPG.

In 2014 the Rice family complained to the NPG that Jacob Simon’s actions constituted an interference with a private sale which was nothing to do with the Gallery and none of its concern.

The Director of the NPG, Sandy Nairne, responded in an email dated 11 April that ‘the new research pasted into the e-mail to Christie’s did not in itself directly concern the Rice portrait, but was about William Legg’.

This is clearly nonsense – Jacob Simon’s email was headed ‘Jane Austen’ and specifically referred to the portrait of Jane Austen, even quoting the lot number.

Recent developments

Since Henry Rice’s death in 2010, the fight to prove the portrait is indeed a painting of the young Jane Austen has been taken up by his widow Anne Rice and members of their family.

But they have been opposed every step of the way by the NPG.

In 2011 respected art restorer Eva Schwan, who had spent two years restoring the portrait, sent a report to the NPG stating she believed the artist to be Ozias Humphry and showing a photograph of his monogram on the portrait. Sandy Nairne replied that it was ‘certainly of interest’ and that he would ask for it to be ‘added to the material in the Heinz Archive and Library.’ An invitation from the Rice family for the NPG to view the portrait while it was at Eva Schwan's studio in Paris had been turned down. 

The same year, in August 2011, the NPG issued a statement about the Rice Portrait in which Jacob Simon stated that the attribution to Ozias Humphry was ‘not tenable’ and that ‘he worked in a very different style to this portrait’. Yet Richard Walker, an acknowledged expert on Regency Paintings, had said that ‘It fits very well with his style of painting.’ Jacob Simon also again referred to the dating of the costume, citing ‘specialist curators and costume historians’ who ‘widely agree’ on an early 19th century dating ‘as set out by Deirdre Le Faye in her article on the portrait published in The Book Collector in 1996.’ Simon also cited the linen stamp, claiming that the existence of another William Legg was ‘unlikely’.

Signatures on the Emery Walker plate

In 2012, Stephen Cole of Acumé Forensics confirmed that he detected signatures of Ozias Humphry and words which he read as Jane Austen_7 written on a glass negative of a photograph of the portrait taken in 1910. Sandy Nairne wrote that ‘we are skeptical [sic] about the signatures that have allegedly been found on the 1910 photograph by Emery Walker.’ These photographic plates are owned by and in the possession of the National Portrait Gallery and yet, as far as I am aware,  they have made no attempt to verify Acumé’s findings.

In 2013 journalist Henrietta Foster wrote to Sandy Nairne stating that she was ‘sorry to bring up the misery that is the Rice portrait again’, and criticised the work of Claudia Johnson, a long time supporter of the portrait. Foster informed Nairne that she and Austen scholar Dr Kathryn Sutherland were planning to write a challenge to the Rice Portrait via the columns of the TLS. The result was the article Brimful of Tricks which dismissed the findings of Stephen Cole and claimed that the portrait was a nineteenth century amateur fake. Not one expert, either for or against the portrait, had ever suggested this before. The article was published in the TLS in July 2014.

Despite the lack of forensic analysis offered by the authors of the article, the Foster/Sutherland thesis that the portrait was a fake was endorsed on his blog by Dr Bendor Grosvenor in a post titled ‘Still, sadly not Jane Austen’. Dr Grosvenor evidently takes some interest in the subject as there are a number of posts on his blog arguing that the Rice Portrait is not a portrait of Jane Austen. 

For ten years, from 2004 until 2014, Bendor Grosvenor worked for the art dealing firm of Philip Mould & Company. Philip Mould was a member of the National Portrait Gallery Development Board for five years from 2003 until 2007 and is a life patron of the NPG. The NPG has purchased a number of paintings from Philip Mould Ltd over the years. In the minutes for November 2006 the Trustees expressed some unease about purchasing a portrait at full price from a business owned by a member of the NPG Development Board but concluded that there was ‘no formal conflict of interest’ (although I am not sure how you can have an informal conflict of interest). Two years later, the minutes for May 2008  recorded that ‘Trustees were particularly concerned about the relationship between the Gallery and Philip Mould Ltd’. The minutes record that the Chief Curator (Jacob Simon) said that the Gallery's good working relationship with Philip Mould has been to its advantage. 

(Both Bendor Grosvenor and Philip Mould (who was given an OBE for services to art in 2005) are now familiar figures on British TV screens, featuring in programmes such as Antiques Roadshow, Fake or Fortune, The Culture Show and most recently Britain’s Lost Masterpieces.)

Since 2014, my own and others’ research has shown how closely connected Ozias Humphry was to the Austen family. We have shown that the costume evidence is flawed and provided examples of comparable dresses dating from before 1800 and have also demonstrated that the evidence of the Legg Stamp on the back of the portrait, so relied upon by Jacob Simon, is far from conclusive. My research has also shown that Eliza Hall, the recipient of the portrait when it temporarily left the family, was likely to have known Jane Austen personally.

The available evidence points towards Ozias Humphry being the artist and Jane Austen the sitter. No other credible candidate exists.

What is needed now from the NPG is courage  - courage to admit that mistakes have been made in the past, and that they acted beyond their remit in 2007. Whether they have this courage remains to be seen. But it should be remembered that the NPG is a public body, financially supported by the British taxpayer and as such it is governed by the seven principles of  public life -  selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. 

Will the NPG learn lessons from the past?

It is time for the National Portrait Gallery to draw a line under this whole sorry story and start afresh by looking at the evidence impartially and give the Rice Portrait a fair hearing.

Next year is the 200th anniversary of Jane’s death – wouldn’t it be great if we could celebrate her life with the conflict over this portrait resolved?

Ellie Bennett

18 October 2015

Facts Are Stubborn Things - Why a Brimful of Tricks doesn't stack up - Part One.

On 9 July 2014 The Times Literary Supplement published an article titled 'Brimful of Tricks' co-authored by journalist Henrietta Foster and Austen academic Dr Kathryn Sutherland. You can read the article HERE. In it, the authors sought to dismiss the claim to authenticity of the Rice portrait and to advance an adventurous new theory - that the portrait is a fake, painted by the Rev Dr Thomas Harding Newman.

In the next two blog-posts I will be examining the arguments advanced by Foster and Sutherland in their article, which for convenience I'll refer to as Brimful.

(For background information you can read about the Rice Portrait on wikipedia HERE and in much more detail on the official website HERE. There is a brief summary of the history of the portrait on the Jane Austen Centre website HERE and an overview of the latest evidence on the TLS website HERE.)

The Brimful article is formed of two distinct parts  - the first section is the authors' (not entirely objective!) overview of the history of the portrait. The second part of the article then goes on to look at the character of Rev. Dr Thomas Harding-Newman and to advance the authors' new theory that Rev. Dr Thomas Harding Newman faked the portrait of Jane Austen for malicious reasons of his own.

The partisan nature of the article is hinted at in the very first paragraph: 'The Rice family, who own it [the portrait], and their champions, among whom are some distinguished academics, claim that the girl depicted is Jane Austen, and produce at intervals a new discovery in support of their claim - a new artist, a new hidden message, a linen stamp or yet another family anecdote about Great Aunt Jane.' In a stroke, the flow of new evidence which has steadily emerged is discounted and, as the authors themselves record, 'each new proof of authenticity has been dismissed by the art establishment on one set of grounds or another.' Whether the refusal by the art establishment to even consider the evidence is justified or is motivated by other concerns is, of course, another matter entirely.

The Brimful article moves on to the latest new evidence to emerge - the research carried out by Stephen Cole of Acumé Forensics in 2012 - evidence which is roundly dismissed by Foster and Sutherland. It is therefore worth taking a closer look at the credentials of Stephen Cole. Acumé Forensics is a private company, set up by Stephen Cole and colleague Michael Dixon, together with two former police officers, in 2004. Their expertise is in using all forms of digital technology to solve crime and in this they are leaders in their field. You can see HERE  a list of criminal investigations which they have been involved in. Acumé have also been used for historical investigations: they were employed by National Geographic and ITN to reconstruct the case of Jack the Ripper and they also worked with Clare Balding analysing the film footage for Channel 4's documentary 'Secrets of a Suffragette' on the death of Suffragette Emily Davison, which aired in 2013.

Stephen Cole was asked to examine a photograph of the Rice Portrait which had been taken by Sir Emery Walker, well known photographer, engraver and printer, in 1910. The National Portrait Gallery hold two original glass negatives of the photograph Walker took of the Rice Portrait in that year. It was a high resolution digital scan of these two negatives provided by the National Portrait Gallery that Stephen Cole was asked to analyse.

His conclusion was that there were two signatures of Ozias Humphry, the words  'Jane Austen _7' and the possible date of 178_ in the upper right hand corner of the portrait.

You can read his full report HERE.

Given the reputation of Stephen Cole in his field of expertise, the response of Foster and Sutherland is surprising considering that neither of them claim to be either art experts or experts in digital technology. They explain away the findings as 'the effect of the cracked glaze glinting against the flash of Walker's camera, faults in the film of later version, or even hairline scratches on the original glass negative.' Their dismissal of the findings is quite remarkable. It must be of great comfort to the criminals currently spending a total of 850 years behind bars thanks to Acumé's research to hear that their work can be so easily discounted! Stephen Cole's work is internationally recognised by criminal courts. As such his analysis deserves to be treated with some consideration rather than simply dismissed out of hand. (In a letter to the Times Literary Supplement in response to the Foster/Sutherland article published in August 2014, Stephen Cole was understandably less than impressed by the manner in which his work, and by extension, the reputation of Acumé Forensics had been impugned. In their turn Foster and Sutherland responded that Acumé's expertise was not in authenticating works of art and that they could not see the relevance of Acume's investigation to authenticating the portrait.)

Ozias Humphry, self-portrait

Recent evidence, included that cited above, is suggesting that the portrait is not by Johann Zoffany as was once thought, but by Ozias Humphry, who was a competent but by no means a great portraitist; Humphry's real talent had been in miniatures.

The authors point out that Ozias Humphry would not have been entitled to sign his paintings 'RA' until he was elected to the Royal Academy as a full member in 1791. Until then he should be signing 'ARA' as an associate member. Foster and Sutherland advance this as further evidence that the findings of Stephen Cole are inaccurate.

However, whilst it is true that Ozias Humphry was not admitted as a full member of the Royal Academy until 1791, there is clear evidence that Humphry WAS signing his portraits RA long before this date, and as early as 1786.

In his biography of Ozias Humphry published in 1918, G C Williamson published images of some of Humphry's miniatures which he'd painted in India during his time there from 1785 until 1787, including a miniature of a young boy, Saib Zada, son and heir to Asoph ul Dowlah whose portrait Humphry also painted while at Lucknow in 1786. At the time Williamson was writing his biography these miniatures were in the ownership of R.S. Aitchison. The miniature of Saib Zaida later came into the ownership of Valerie Eliot, widow of TS Eliot, and after her death it was sold along with the rest of her collection at Christie's in 2013 for £56,250. It is signed by 'Ozias Humphry RA Pinxt' and is dated 1786. As far as I am aware no-one is claiming that this portrait is a fake, despite the fact Humphry had signed the portrait RA a full five years before he was formally entitled to do so.

Entry in Blouin Art Sales Index

Saib Zada by Ozias Humphry in G C Williamson
  Life and Works of Ozias Humphry, R.A. London, 1918, p 146.
reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland

The Brimful article goes on to point out that until the 1980s the painting was thought to be by Zoffany and so it was. But misattribution is not that unusual. Ozias Humphry's The Ladies Waldegrave as Venus and Juno (not to be confused with Joshua Reynolds' The Ladies Waldegrave), for example, was once thought to have been painted by Romney. The portrait was sold by art dealers Lewis and Simmons for $100,000 to New York art collector Henry Edward Huntington as being a portrait of Mrs Siddons and Miss Kemble by George Romney. The latter subsequently sued for breach of warranty.

The Ladies Waldegrave by Ozias Humphry

It took a seven day court case in May 1917 in the Kings Bench Division in front of Mr Justice Darling for the matter to be decided. The portrait had been owned by a Mr John Adams and apparently 'the family got into the habit of calling it Reynolds.' (1).  The case ended suddenly when the plaintiff produced a sketch of the painting which had been discovered in the archives of the Royal Academy and which was undoubtedly by Ozias Humphry with his distinctive monogram of an H within an O in the bottom right-hand corner. Moreover, it was held that the subjects of the portrait were not Mrs Siddons and Miss Kemble but (Charlotte) Maria and (Anne) Horatia Waldegrave. No blame was attached to the defendants, who had sold the portrait believing it was a Romney.

The Times, London, England,  24 May 1917: 4

As the Devonian Yearbook for 1918 remarked in its article The Great Picture Case - 'an interesting feature of the case is the evidence it gives of the fallibility of experts and of the fictitious value of pictures.'

The Times put it more bluntly. 'The fallibility of expert judgements in the matter of art has long been notorious, and a single mistake, however serious, need not necessarily cast discredit on the skills of those who make it,' the paper observed in its editorial of May 24, 1917. 'The experts who blundered in this instance may feel a little sore.' After recounting other mistakes of the art world, the author of the editorial continued with the following advice: 'the lesson for experts from these and other cases is the old lesson - not to be too "cocksure" in their opinions, and still more, not to be too positive in stating them.'

After the sudden culmination of the court case, the Humphry portrait of the Ladies Waldegrave was offered by the defendants to the National Portrait Gallery. It was thought it may have been of interest as a rare example of Ozias Humphry's work in oils. Presumably the offer was rejected by the NPG as the portrait is now in private hands.

It was in the 1980's that Ozias Humphry's name was connected to the Rice Portrait. The authors of Brimful of Tricks record that art historian Madeleine Marsh suggested it was by Ozias Humphry and in this she was supported by an insurance valuation of 1985 by fine art valuer Conall Macfarlane, who for many years was a director of Christie's Auction House. In his valuation he described the portrait as by Ozias Humphry and of a 'Portrait of a girl, possibly Jane Austen but certainly a member of the Austen family shown standing full length in a white dress holding a green parasol, a landscape beyond - signed with initials'. He goes on to say: 'Recent research would appear to indicate that this may be a portrait of the novelist as a child, circa 1790.'

Valuation by Christie's in 1985

The authors of Brimful don't mention that the National Portrait Gallery also attributed the portrait to Ozias Humphry in their Directory of Regency Portraits published in 1985. NPG curator RichardWalker stated that the portrait which had formerly been attributed to Zoffany was more likely to be by Ozias Humphry and was of a young girl in the costume of about 1805, when Jane would have been 30. As Ozias Humphry went blind in 1797 this was an impossibility - which just goes to show that the experts at the NPG, like other experts, are capable of making mistakes.

(In the same year the linen stamp bearing the name W Legg was discovered on the back of the canvas which the NPG then claimed was proof that the portrait was painted after 1800. I have covered this issue at length in previous posts on this blog. I do not believe that this evidence is in any way conclusive. It is quite possible that this is not the stamp of William Legg the colourman from Reading but of another W Legg.)

The Brimful article then moves on discuss the written evidence for the portrait. As the authors note, the first known reference to the portrait was in December 1880 when Rev Dr. Thomas Harding Newman wrote to his friend John Rouse Bloxham that he had a portrait of the novelist that he would like to give to their mutual friend and Jane's relative, John Morland Rice. But how much weight can - or should - be placed on this lack of written evidence? After all, the first documentary evidence for the Cassandra sketch held in the National Portrait Gallery (NPG), dates only from 1869 when it was produced for James Edward Austen-Leigh's Memoir. Like the Rice Portrait, no mention of the Cassandra sketch was made when Richard Bentley was looking for a portrait to accompany his reissue of Austen's works in 1833. And the Byrne portrait, which I believe Dr Sutherland (as do I) thinks may also be a portrait of Jane Austen, has no written documentary evidence whatsoever.

Indeed, the lack of documentary evidence is not really that surprising. If there's one thing the Austens were good at, it was destroying documentary evidence. Cassandra Austen destroyed most of the letters from Jane, and then in 1865 when Admiral Francis Austen's daughter Frances (Fanny) inherited all the letters Jane Austen had written to Fanny's mother, she promptly burned the lot. Hardly any documentary evidence survives of the Austen family. As Caroline Austen wrote to her brother Austen-Leigh when he was preparing to write his biography of Jane Austen - 'I am sure you will do justice to what there is - but I feel it must be a difficult task to dig up the materials, so carefully have they been buried out of our sight by the past generat[ion]' (2)

It is likely that the only reason Austen Leigh wrote his biography of Jane Austen at all was to pre-empt someone else writing it - at least that way the family could control the narrative. As Caroline wrote in her Memoir in 1867, 'A memoir of Miss Jane Austen has often been asked for, and strangers have declared themselves willing and desirous to undertake the task of writing it - and have wondered that the family should have refused to supply the necessary materials.' 'Private' would be one word to describe the Austen family; 'Secretive' would be equally appropriate.

Did James Edward Austen-Leigh know about the Rice portrait? I believe that he probably did. I have described HERE how Colonel Thomas Harding Newman's third wife Anna Maria Parry was connected to Speen, the small village between Kintbury and Newbury. Anna Maria's father Charles Parry was the Vicar of Speen and her mother, Mary Parry, rented her house to James Edward Austen-Leigh for four years, from 1833 until 1837 when he inherited nearby Scarlets. When he moved out his mother Mary and sister Caroline moved into the house, which by now had been inherited by Anna Maria Parry and her sister, Harriet Allen. According to Deirdre Le Faye's Chronology they took over the house for one year. However it seems that Mary Austen and Caroline Austen remained at Speen until after Mary's death in 1843. According to Le Faye, Caroline Austen left Speen on July 10, 1844. Anna Maria Parry had married Thomas Harding Newman in 1840 and they initially lived in Northam near Bideford, Devon, where Harding Newman's son also lived. Later they moved to Speen and are recorded as living here on the 1851 census where they remained until their respective deaths in 1856 and 1872. Given these links it is likely that James Edward Austen-Leigh and Thomas Harding Newman did know each other, in which case it is also highly likely that James Edward Austen-Leigh knew that Thomas Harding Newman possessed a portrait of Jane Austen which had been given to his wife.

So why did James Edward Austen-Leigh not use the portrait in his Memoir? It is possible that this portrait had - for some reason - become a subject of embarrassment or resentment to this side of the Austen family. Despite their efforts to present a close knit loving family, one does not have to look far under the surface to realise that this was very far from reality, despite the Austen family's efforts at concealment. It appears that by the time Austen-Leigh became persuaded that a biography of his aunt was necessary, that there was already a serious rift within the family.

Foster and Sutherland state that Austen-Leigh's biography was 'a joint effort by various relatives who had known the novelist.' It was a joint effort - but only from certain sections of the family. It did not include the members of Jane's brother Edward Austen Knight's family. As Dr Sutherland explains in her own excellent introduction to Austen-Leigh's Memoir of Jane Austen, before publishing his biography of Jane Austen, Austen-Leigh had written to Edward's daughter Fanny Knight, now Lady Knatchbull, asking for sight of Jane's letters to her sister Cassandra which Fanny Knight had inherited. His request had been refused, not just by Fanny, who was now senile, but also by Fanny's sister Elizabeth Rice and her daughter Louisa. In the end, Austen-Leigh had to publish without them.

That there was a family rift is also suggested by the later actions of Lord Brabourne, Edward Knatchbull. As Foster and Sutherland recount, Fanny Knight's son, Lord Brabourne, in 1884 published his Letters of Jane Austen which was intended as a rival publication to Austen-Leigh's Memoir. Dr Sutherland in her introduction to the Memoir relates how when Brabourne published his mother's collection of letters 'he attached to them a short introduction whose chief purpose appears to be to oust Austen-Leigh's biography and assert his rival claims to the more authentic portrait.' Brabourne is explicit; these letters 'have never been in [Austen-Leigh's] hands' and they 'afford a picture of her such as no history written by another person could give.' (3)

The two sides of the family were clearly in competition with each other and Lord Brabourne did use the Rice portrait as his frontispiece. But immediately after his own book was published, he set about selling off the precious letters written by Jane that he had inherited. They obviously held no sentimental value for him. In 1919 Austen scholar Robert Chapman wrote to Richard Arthur Austen-Leigh about it: 'It is very disappointing about the Letters, I wish they might have come back to the family, and [I'm] incensed at the vandalism of the late Lordship - scandalous old man!' (4)

Perhaps James Edward Austen-Leigh and his siblings know very well about the portrait - but for reasons of their own, chose to ignore it.

Foster and Sutherland remark that 'even at the time, it seemed extraordinary to some that a family as socially aspiring as the Austens should nowhere have mentioned the fact before 1883 that their eminent ancestor had been painted by one of the great portraitists of the age.' But while Rev. Dr. Thomas Harding Newman referred to the painting as being by Zoffany, there is no evidence of what previous owners believed. It now seems likely that it was painted by Ozias Humphry, who was a lesser known portraitist. Furthermore, we have absolutely no idea what the Austen family discussed between them. If the portrait had been commissioned by another branch of the family, from which they were now estranged, and had never been in the possession of the immediate relations of Jane Austen, is it really so extraordinary that we have no documentary record of them mentioning the fact?

Despite being previously unaware of the portrait, there were many in the next generation who nevertheless believed it to be a portrait of the novelist. Foster and Sutherland relate that 'members of the family were urged to authenticate the painting.' There was no 'urging' as far as I can tell - however the recipient of the portrait, Morland Rice, having been given the portrait by a descendant of the Harding Newman family, was naturally keen to ascertain its history, and there is no reason why this should be surprising. The authors relate how:

'Fanny Caroline Lefroy, a great-niece born three years after Austen's death and then in her sixties, considered to know "more than anybody about family history", wrote to Mary Augusta Austen-Leigh on October 23, 1883. "I never heard before of the portrait of Jane Austen . . . . I suppose Mr Morland Rice can throw some light on the matter, or is it a picture he has picked up of a Jane Austen painted by Romney but not the Jane. Mr Morland Austen picked one up & fondly believed it was her, but it was painted at Malta where she never was." '

But when you read the whole letter which Fanny wrote to Mary, she sounds much more open to the idea of it being genuine:

I never heard before of the portrait of Jane Austen I feel sure it never was either at Steventon or Chawton. My mother & Aunt Caroline would certainly have recollected it had they ever seen it. In 1789 the year it was painted she was a school girl in the Abbey School here. Possibly she might have been to Godmersham to stay with her cousins & companionise her brother Edward & possibly Mr and Mrs Knight had it done. I suppose Mr Morland Rice can throw some light on the matter or is it a picture he has picked up of a Jane Austen painted by Romney but not the Jane. Mr Morland Austen picked one up & fondly believed it was her, but it was painted at Malta where she never was. I will write & ask Cassie if she knows anything of it. I am sure her father & mother never had any money to spend on portraits of their children. If it is genuine would not would not [sic] Mr M.R. generously allow it to be photographed? I should greatly like to see it. (5)


(In her article A Literary Portrait Re-examined, published in the Book Collector in 1996, Deirdre Le Faye in quoting the above letter writes 1787 but I think this is a transcription error for I read the date as 1789. See below.)

The date 1789 from Fanny Lefroy's letter to
Mary Augusta Austen-Leigh

According to Foster and Sutherland, a year later Fanny is still 'struggling with one or two difficulties,' as recorded in a letter of September 9, 1884 from Morland Austen to Morland Rice They don't finish the sentence as he actually wrote it however. In full it reads: 'Except for one or two difficulties, she would have no doubts about its genuineness.'

The complete letter is reproduced below:

My dear Rice,

I thank you very much for your interesting letter, which puts the matter in a very different light. I saw Miss Lefroy yesterday. She knows more than anybody about the family history. She knew before of the portrait in your possession. Except for one or two difficulties, she would have no doubts about its genuineness. 

1. Jane A. was born Dec, 1775. The date on your picture is (she thinks) 1788 or 9, making her not 14.

2. Her parents did not go to Bath till they left Stevenson in 1801.

3. Jane and Cassandra were at school in Reading at that period. 

But on the other hand her Uncle and Aunt Leigh Perrot often visited Bath and she may have been with them, also "Northanger Abbey" was written long before 1801 and the local colouring is such as to show that she must have been there before she wrote it. 

There was only one Col Austen of Kippington, my father's elder brother, who married 1st Miss Morland, your mother's dear friend from girlhood, and from whom you have your own name as your mother told me three years ago.  

2nd Caroline Manning - who now lives at Hurstpierpoint and whom you met the other day.

My father was a second cousin of Jane Austen. My brother sold Kippington on inheriting some twenty years since and built a new house on the really old family property at Horsmonden, which my father had from old John Austen from Broadford and also the Tenterden property from another branch. Sir Henry A. whose wife (as mentioned in his life) was the great friend of Cowper the poet. The Tunbridge branch was the same. 

If you really want it, I could perhaps get the whole pedigree for you. 

We live in 45 Hertford St.Mayfair and are only here till the 24th. 

We should be very glad to see you any time you may be in London, if you will look us up I may have some more information to give you. 

Yours sincerely 

H Morland Austen 


Fanny's certainty about the date is intriguing. In her letter to Mary Augusta Austen-Leigh she refers to '1789 the year it was painted,' and in Morland Austen's letter he says 'the date on your portrait is (she thinks) 1788 or 9'  - which suggests that she has seen the date on the portrait itself.

Far from 'invent an alternative provenance,' as the authors of Brimful state, it seems to me that Fanny Lefroy and Morland Rice are quite reasonably trying to square the information they have been given about the portrait with the known facts about Jane Austen's younger years. Quite possibly Morland Rice knew that Zoffany was in India from 1784 until 1790 which of course presents him with a difficulty if the portrait was painted in 1788 or 1789 as Fanny Lefroy believed. Doubts about the Zoffany attribution may also explain why Romney was mentioned as the possible artist.

The case might have been different if the mistake over the artist had not occurred  - Ozias Humphry had been in India at the same time as Zoffany - however he returned earlier, in the spring of 1788, and we know that later that year he was staying at Stephen Woodgate's residence in Sevenoaks as his post was redirected there from London. See HERE for the record in the Royal Academy. Ozias' brother William was married to Elizabeth Woodgate and Humphry spent a great deal of time at Seal and Sevenoaks. 

The portrait was used by James Edward's son, William, and the latter's nephew Richard Arthur Austen-Leigh in their biography of 1913 and by his daughter Mary Augusta Austen-Leigh in her biography, published in 1920. And as the authors of Brimful relate, John Hubback, the grandson of Jane's brother, Francis, was particularly enthusiastic about it - although whether he was in a position to exert pressure on the National Portrait Gallery, as is asserted by the authors, is very questionable.

Frontispiece to Mary Augusta Austen Leigh's
Personal Aspects of Jane Austen
Published 1920

In fact it was the NPG who first contacted Hubback via a Mrs Graveson because at the time Director Henry Hake was hunting for a portrait of Jane Austen for his gallery. John Hubback then contacted Henry Edward Harcourt Rice and subsequently wrote back to the NPG directly. He informed Hake that Henry Rice did not wish to sell the portrait but that he was willing for a copy to be made. Hubback suggested his own daughter, who was an artist, could carry out the task. Hake met with Hubback and explained that the Trustees did not buy modern copies of portraits. He did however note in a memorandum of the meeting on 6 October 1932 that ‘in the event of the picture having to come to this Institution we would like to have the opportunity of acquiring it.’(6)

One can assume, therefore, that at this stage the NPG were happy to accept the portrait as genuine or why would they wish to acquire it?

It was only later that NPG Director, Henry Hake, perhaps persuaded by Austen academic Robert Chapman who was not an enthusiast of the Rice Portrait, came out against it. After the Gallery acquired the 'Cassandra scribble' their position hardened still further. It was only after this that Richard Austen Leigh, co-author of the Austen biography published in 1913, reported that he had always had his doubts about the portrait. One can't help wondering how things would have worked out if the Rice family had sold it to the NPG in 1932.

In the next post I will look at the next part of the Brimful of Tricks article, which examines the life of Rev. Dr. Thomas Harding Newman and makes a quite extraordinary claim - that the Rice Portrait is in fact a fake.






References

(1) The Times May 16, 1817.
(2) Caroline Austen to JEAL NPG RWC/HH. fos 4-7 in Sutherland, Kathryn (Ed) J.R. Austen-Leigh A Memoir of Jane Austen and Other Family Recollections (Oxford University Press, 2002) 
pp186-7.
(3) Ibid. Sutherland. Introduction: xxv
(4) Hampshire Record Office 23M93/97/4
(5) Hampshire Record Office 39M89/F25/2
(6) Rice Family Archive
(7) Heinz Archive, National Portrait Gallery