New Primary Evidence for the Rice Portrait

The article below is also reproduced on the Rice Portrait website here: Rice Portrait

The Rice Portrait

©Bridgeman Images 2018

It is rare for new evidence to be uncovered relating to Jane Austen. It is rarer still for a document to come to light from someone who was close to Jane’s immediate family. So, the appearance of a previously unknown note, written by Jane Austen’s great-niece Fanny Caroline Lefroy (1820-1885), is a significant discovery.

Even more exciting is the fact that the note relates to the painting known as the Rice Portrait.

The note was kept in Jane Austen’s writing desk, now in the care of the British Library. It has been placed inside a small brown envelope, on the front of which Fanny has written:

History of the portrait of Jane Austen

.

The note reads:

The history of the portrait of Jane Austen now in the possession of Morland Rice her Gt nephew.

Old Dr Newman, fellow of Magdalen years ago told him that he had a portrait of Jane Austen the novelist, that had been in his family many years. He stated that it was done at Bath when she was about 15 & he promised to leave him (Morland Rice) the picture.

A few months before Dr Newman died, he wrote to a friend of his (a Dr Bloxam) sending him a picture as a farewell present & added “I have another picture that I wish to go to your neighbour Morland Rice. This a portrait of Jane Austen the novelist by Zoffany. Her picture was given to my step-mother by her friend Colonel Austen of Kippendon [sic], Kent because she was a great admirer of her works”.

On the second page Fanny Lefroy continues:

Colonel Austen died 1859. He could not have had the portrait painted himself. He must have inherited it from his father John [corrected to Francis Motley] Austen who was first cousin to Jane Austen’s father, in 1789 the date of the picture Colonel Austen was probably not twenty.

The note is unsigned, but by comparing the note with other documents held in the Hampshire Record Office, we know that it is in the hand of Fanny Caroline Lefroy. A different hand has corrected Fanny’s note by replacing ‘John’ with ‘Francis Motley’.

Although it is undated, the note must have been written before Fanny’s death on 29 January 1885. We know that Henry Austen, nephew of Colonel Thomas Austen, visited Fanny on 8 September 1884 and it is possible that it was written around the time of this visit.

Fanny Caroline Lefroy never met Jane Austen, she was born three years after Austen’s death. However, her mother Anna (1793-1872), daughter of Jane Austen’s brother James, knew Jane Austen very well. As a young child, Anna stayed with her aunts Jane and Cassandra for some time after the death of her mother. As she grew older, she corresponded regularly with Jane - some of the best letters we have from Jane Austen are the ones from 1814 offering advice and encouragement when Anna was trying her own hand at writing and it is evident that the two women had a close relationship.

In 1864 Anna Lefroy wrote her ‘Recollections of Aunt Jane’ in a letter to her brother James Edward Austen-Leigh (1798-1874), who was compiling material for a biography of his aunt. Fanny, who never married, lived with her mother, and Jane Austen must have been a frequent topic of discussion during this time.

In the years after her mother’s death in 1872, Fanny Caroline Lefroy began working on her Family History Manuscript, a detailed history of the Austen and Lefroy families. At around this time she published three articles about Jane Austen in Temple Bar Magazine. In these articles Fanny’s in-depth knowledge of Jane Austen and her works is evident. She was undeniably a devotee of Jane Austen and is also recognised as an authority on Austen family history.

Fanny Caroline Lefroy’s thoughts about this portrait should therefore be taken very seriously indeed and her unequivocal description on the envelope and the heading of her note that this is a portrait of Jane Austen is very striking.

By the time she wrote her note, Fanny must have known about the letter Dr Harding-Newman (1811-1882) sent to John Rouse Bloxam in December 1880 (held in the Bodleian Library, Oxford), in which he outlined the history of the portrait:

I should like to give another painting of Jane Austen, the novelist, by Zoffany, to her relative Morland Rice. It is of a girl about 15 and came into my family the gift of Col. Austen of Chippington [sic], to my mother-in-law, or rather step-mother, my father’s second wife, who was a great admirer of the novelist. I can remember Col. Austen visiting this place. Latterly, when at Bramber, I have failed to fall in with my old friend. I don’t think he can have forgotten me, I was at Oxford when he knocked his head against a post and ascertained that the post was the harder of the two.

Dr Thomas Harding Newman’s step-mother was Eliza(beth) Ann Hall (1791-1831). Eliza Hall may have known Jane Austen personally as her aunt, Ann Humffries, was married to Henry Hawley of Leybourne Grange for 40 years. The Hawleys were friends of the Austens and are mentioned in Jane Austen’s letters. Two of Henry Hawley daughters married into the Bridges family, also close friends of the Austens. Eliza Hall was one of a select band of admirers of Austen in the early nineteenth century at a time when Austen’s works were not widely read and the reason for this may well have been that she had met Jane Austen.

We now have three documents confirming that Fanny Caroline Lefroy believed that the portrait was painted in or around 1789:

1) In a letter to her cousin Mary Augusta Austen Leigh dated 23 October 1883, Fanny wrote: ‘In 1789 the year it was painted she was a school girl in the Abbey School here.’

2) In his letter to Morland Rice dated 9 September 1884 after visiting Fanny, Henry Morland Austen reporting on his visit wrote: ‘The date on your picture is (she thinks) 1788 or 9, making her not 14.’

[note the wording ‘the date ON your picture’]

3) In this newly discovered note, Fanny Caroline Lefroy wrote: In 1789 the date of the picture…

Dr Newman’s letter made no mention of the date the picture was painted so Fanny must have seen or heard something to make her so specific that the portrait was painted in 1789. The most likely explanation is that she saw the date on the picture for herself or that she was told about the date from someone else who had seen it on the picture. 

We must remember that in Fanny’s time it would have been possible to see more detail on the picture than we can now. At that time the painting was housed in an eighteenth-century oak frame. In 1920 the portrait narrowly escaped destruction in a calamitous house fire – it was saved by being thrown from a window – and afterwards it was cleaned and cut to fit a Victorian frame. Later restorations have included overpainting, which has since been removed by more recent conservation work. Recent examination of early twentieth century photographic plates of the painting has revealed the words ‘Jane Austen’ and the date ‘178_’ (the last digit is unclear) on the top right of the picture, as well as the signature of the artist, Ozias Humphry (not Zoffany as was once believed).

As Fanny Lefroy correctly observed, Colonel Thomas Austen (1775-1859) would have been too young to have commissioned the picture himself so he must have inherited it from his father, Francis Motley Austen (1747-1815). It is likely that the portrait was originally commissioned by Francis Motley Austen’s father, Francis Austen (1697-1791), a wealthy lawyer and landowner based in Sevenoaks who is known to have acted in loco parentis to Jane Austen’s father George Austen. John Hubback, grandson of Jane’s brother Francis, lived with his grandfather as a boy. He later recorded that great-uncle Francis Austen was a regular visitor to the Austen family home:

As a boy at Steventon Rectory, before he [Francis Austen] went to sea in 1788, he was a great favourite with another Francis Austen, his grandfather’s brother, a frequent visitor of the Rectory.

It is known from family letters that Jane Austen along with her sister and her parents stayed with old Francis Austen at Sevenoaks in the summer of 1788 when there was a grand family dinner. Jane Austen’s cousin Philadelphia Walter told her brother that they were ‘all in high spirits & disposed to be pleased with each other’. By the time the Austen family made their visit to Kent, the twelve-year-old Jane Austen had already begun writing. Austen’s early pieces are exuberant, full of life and great fun to read. Her characters steal, get drunk, commit sexual misdemeanours and even murder. The young girl who looks out so confidently at the world, is entirely consistent with the intelligent and lively author of these early works.

In her note, Fanny Lefroy refers to ‘Old Dr Newman’, which carries a hint of familiarity. It is possible that she had met Dr Harding Newman as recent research reveals that they were related. Fanny Lefroy’s second cousin, Anne Lefroy Newman, was the sister-in-law of Dr Harding Newman and the niece of Tom Lefroy, who is the subject of the very first letters we have from Jane Austen:

You scold me so much in the nice long letter which I have this moment received from you, that I am almost afraid to tell you how my Irish friend and I behaved. Imagine to yourself everything most profligate and shocking in the way of dancing and sitting down together.

Lefroy Family Tree

It was Anne Lefroy Newman’s son, Benjamin Harding Newman, who passed the portrait to the Rice family. This is recorded in a letter from John Rouse Bloxam to a friend, held at the Bodleian Library, Oxford:

Talking of paintings Hardman-Newman [sic], nephew of Dr Newman has just sent me a full-length portrait by Zoffany of Miss Jane Austen, the novelist, to give to Rice, who is a connection of the Lady. Rice is much pleased with it – I knew Newman intended to leave it to Rice but did not – but his nephew to his great credit has given it.

After the portrait was returned to the wider Austen family, it is apparent that it was accepted as being a portrait of Jane Austen. John Morland Rice, Austen’s great-nephew, had no doubts about it. According to his daughter Marcia:  

Over his drawing-room mantelpiece hung the portrait of Jane Austen by Zoffany – it was his great pride. Often did he relate the story of how Dr Newman of Magdalen used to say to him, 'you ought to possess the portrait of your great Aunt, I shall leave it to you.'

Lord Brabourne (Edward Knatchbull-Hugessen), another great-nephew, accepted it was Jane Austen and used the portrait as the frontispiece for his 'Life and Letters of Jane Austen' published in 1884.

Mary Augusta Austen-Leigh, daughter of Jane Austen’s nephew and biographer James Edward Austen Leigh, used it for the frontispiece of her biography of her great-aunt, Personal Aspects of Jane Austen, noting of the picture that ‘it is of my great Aunt Jane Austen’ and her brother William Austen-Leigh used it in Jane Austen: Her Life and Letters. A Family Record published in 1913.

Great-nephew John Hubback, who recounted in his autobiography that he had spent much of his boyhood at the home of his grandfather Francis, brother of Jane Austen, also had no doubt that the portrait as being of Jane Austen. It was he who the National Portrait Gallery approached in the 1930s when they were looking for a portrait of Jane Austen for the gallery, as they hoped to buy the picture for their collection. It was only at this time that any doubts were raised about the picture being of Jane Austen, and this was only after they were informed by John Hubback that the Rice family would not be selling the picture at that time.

The evidence and the provenance for this painting is extremely strong.

With the discovery of this note written by Fanny Caroline Lefroy, there are now five primary documents which support this portrait being of Jane Austen:

1. A letter from the then owner, Dr Newman, dated 30 December 1880 outlining the provenance. (Thomas Harding Newman to John Rouse Bloxam, Bodleian Library)

2. A letter from John Rouse Bloxam dated 26 March 1883 confirming that the portrait had been given to Morland Rice who was ‘much pleased with it’. (John Rouse Bloxam to General Gibbes Rigaud, Bodleian Library) The portrait has remained in the Rice family ever since.

3. A letter from Fanny Caroline Lefroy confirming she knew about the portrait and that the date of the portrait was 1789. (Fanny Caroline Lefroy to Mary August Austen Leigh, Hampshire Record Office)

4. A letter from Henry Morland Austen to John Morland Rice confirming the date of the portrait as 1788 or 1789. (Kent History and Library Centre)

5. A note written by Fanny Caroline Lefroy again confirming the date of 1789 and re-iterating the provenance.

To continue to doubt the authenticity of this portrait would be surprising, indeed some strange and unusual acrobatics would be required. One would need to set aside all five pieces of documentary evidence, set aside the provenance provided by Dr Harding-Newman which is supported by recent research on Eliza Hall and set aside the compelling evidence that the picture was painted by Ozias Humphry. Such acrobatics are not necessary or justified.

It is now time for this beautiful portrait to be universally accepted as being an endearing representation of a young Jane Austen.

Cambridge Jane Austen Society birthday lunch

The Rice Portrait

Last month I was delighted to be invited to speak to the Cambridge Branch of the Jane Austen Society, at their annual celebration of Jane Austen's birthday. The subject was my ongoing research into Jane Austen's portraits, and especially the Rice Portrait.

What's more, the owner of the Rice Portrait, Mrs Anne Rice, very generously agreed to arrange to bring the portrait to Cambridge; the first time that the portrait has been displayed in public in this country for many years. What a delightful day it was, and what a wonderful experience to be able to talk about this portrait in the beautiful location of Queens' College Cambridge with the picture being in the very room!

Firstly, however, a note about the name of the college itself. As I learned from my hosts, Queens' College is, as far as I am aware, the only college in the country about which there is a lively debate on punctuation. Queens' college was founded in 1448 by Margaret of Anjou and refounded in 1465 by Elizabeth Woodville. But it was only later  - much later - that the apostrophe moved to the end of the word 'queens' - the first known use is in 1823. Before this the college was known as Queen's  - in the singular. You can read more about Queen's vs Queens' debate on the college website HERE.

Cloister Court, Queens' College
photo © Joana Starnes

Within Queens' College, the Mathematical Bridge leads to the oldest building in Cambridge, the President's Lodge which dates to around 1460. Tour guides will tell you that the bridge was built by Newton using nothing but wood with no bolts to hold it together. The story goes that after the great man's death, Newton's students took the bridge down and attempted to rebuild it but failed - and so were forced to use iron pins, nuts and bolts to reassemble it again. Its a lovely story but fanciful. In fact the bridge was built later in the seventeenth century and you can read more about the history of the Mathematical Bridge HERE. Nevertheless, it is a beautiful construct and I cannot imagine a more wonderful means of crossing the River Cam and to enter the historic older buildings of Queens' College.

The Mathematical Bridge
photo © Steff

Before lunch, I was invited to take a look at the stunning Old Hall, the medieval dining hall which has been restored to the opulent and magnificent decor created by William Morris in the 1860s. I love William Morris's designs and to see this hall, restored to such beauty, was an additional extra treat.

The Old Hall
photo © Joana Starnes

Keith Mills in the Great Hall
photo © Joana Starnes

So, on to the pre-luncheon gathering and to see the Rice Portrait on display. The portrait has been painstakingly restored by art restorer, Eva Schwan over a period of two years. Reproductions do not do it justice. It is only when you view the portrait itself that you can appreciate the beauty of this picture; the delicate spots and patterns of the muslin dress, the texture of her hair and the way she seems to look at you from whichever angle you stand. It is also only when you view the portrait itself that you can see the monogram of the artist in the bottom left quadrant. An H within an O, the monogram of Ozias Humphry, which Eva Schwan described in her report when she had finished her work.

Some members of the society dressed in period costume for the event and looked fabulous. It was definitely a good opportunity for a photo shoot!

Hazel and Keith Mills
photo © Vicki Smith

Vicki Smith and Hazel Mills
photo © Vicki Smith

Me and Mrs Anne Rice
photo © Vicki Smith

We and the portrait moved into the adjoining room for luncheon. I was a little overawed to be given the seat at the head of the table and even more so when I realised how knowledgeable the group are about all things Austen. I had been asked to speak for thirty minutes and I wondered whether I would be able to talk for this long. Of course I needn't have worried. The group were so interested in the story and with the presence of Mrs Rice and her son Johnnie who shared their story, the time flew by. Before I knew it, one of the party said that they had enjoyed the talk immensely but really had to leave - and it was only then that I realised that I had been speaking for over an hour and a half.

That's me in the distance!
photo © Joana Starnes

Preparing for lunch!
photo © Vicki Smith

The event was covered in the local press and a lively debate, primarily on the dating of the dress of the girl in the portrait followed. You can read the article HERE.

During lunch I also learned something from the Society which I had not really registered before - that the male heroes in Austen's novels are Oxford men, while the Cambridge men are cads. This set me thinking and when I returned home I did a little research.

Helpfully, Charles Issawi wrote a short essay on this topic some thirty years ago. Sure enough, of the characters whose education we know about, Henry Tilney and James Morland (Northanger Abbey), Edward Bertram (Mansfield Park) and Edward Ferrars (Sense and Sensibility) are all Oxford men. George Wickham (Pride and Prejudice) and Henry Crawford (Mansfield Park), on the other hand, are Cambridge men. And as Charles Issawi pointed out, both Wickham and Crawford, in addition to their other sins, both elope. Wickham elopes with Elizabeth Bennet's younger sister Lydia but only after having run after Mary King and her ten thousand pounds. Henry Crawford has an adulterous affair with Maria Bertram after her marriage. In Austen's world Cambridge men, it seems, are not to be trusted.

Which leads me back to the family of old Francis Austen, who I believe commissioned Ozias Humphry to paint the portrait of Austen which we know as the Rice Portrait.

I have speculated before on this blog that the Rice Portrait may have been an embarrassment to the Austen family for some reason, which may explain why it was so readily given away. I also think there may have been bad feeling between the Hampshire Austens and their cousins, the family of Francis Motley Austen. This is supported by a letter from Jane's brother Henry Austen to his nephew James Edward Austen Leigh written in 1847. (You can read the full letter on the excellent 'Reveries under the sign of Austen' blog HERE.) Henry says of his relatives: 'It is better to be lucky than wise; It is no scandal to say that my aforesaid relations of West Kent never raised any alarming fears of their setting even the Medway on fire'.

Henry goes on to say that the living of Wickham, in the gift of Francis Austen, should rightfully have gone to his father George Austen rather than his cousin Henry, 'not that he preferred him but because he was the son of an older Brother than my father. Primogeniture, with all its ramifications, was more in those days than since the Reform Bill.'

Jane's letters also reveal resentment to the wealth of her relatives in West Kent. 'Such ill gotten Wealth can never prosper!' she wrote to her sister, on hearing that Francis Motley Austen's third son John had inherited the old Austen family home of Broadford at Horsmonden.

I think it is possible, although of course I have no proof, that old Francis Austen, who had always looked after his nephew George and his family, may have intended that George Austen's two daughters Cassandra and Jane would marry his own grandsons, Francis and Thomas, the eldest sons of Francis Motley Austen, who were exactly the same age as Cassandra and Jane respectively. Perhaps this was the reason the portraits of Jane and Cassandra were commissioned (for more on Cassandra's missing portrait see HERE).

If so, obviously the plan never came to fruition. Old Francis Austen died in 1791 and his son Francis Motley inherited his father's considerable wealth. His eldest son Francis Lucius married Penelope Cholmeley in 1805. His second son, Colonel Thomas Austen, married Margaretta Morland in 1803. She was the daughter of wealthy Thomas Morland of Lamberhust. (Margaretta's grandmother Ellen Johnson was the daughter of slave trader and 'founder of Liverpool' Sir Thomas Johnson).

Unlike his father, his brothers and Jane' Austen's own father and brothers, Colonel Thomas Austen did not attend Oxford. He was admitted to St John's College Cambridge on 28 June 1793. By October 1794 his name was off the roll as in that month he joined the 94th Regiment as captain. He remained in the army until he inherited from his father, his elder brother Francis having pre-deceased his father.

Colonel Thomas Austen

It's hard to resist a comparison with George Wickham. Both are Cambridge men. Both bought into positions in the military. (Breihan and Caplan on Jane Austen and the Militia is an excellent read on this topic.)

George Wickham played by Adrian Lukis

Then there is Austen's choice of name for her anti-hero. Wickham is the name of the manor which belonged the family of old Francis Austen's second wife, Jane Chadwick. Henry Austen explains what happened in the letter to his nephew James Edward Austen Leigh mentioned above:

'Wickham estate & advowson was the property of a Mr. Lennard some ninety years ago. He left it to his widow for life, & afterwards to his and her only child, a Lennard. The widow was legally attacked by the nearest male relatives of this defunct - she flung her cause into the hands of my Great Uncle, old Frank Austen; he won the cause and the wealthy widow's heart and hand. A very pleasing woman she was; I remember her about 1780, & thought her a great deal handsomer than her Daughter who always lived with her & my uncle until her death.'

The widow, Jane Chadwick, had married Samuel Lennard of Wickham Court in about 1750. He was the illegitimate son of Sir Samuel Lennard and four years after his death in 1754 she married Francis Austen. Jane Chadwick's young daughter Mary Lennard evidently came to live with them too, according to Henry. It seems that during this time Wickham Court was let to Samuel Beachcroft, Governor of the Bank of England from 1775-77.

Wickham Court

Jane Austen née Chadwick was later named as one of Austen's godmothers. She died in 1782 and  two years later her daughter Mary Lennard married Major Sir John Farnaby of Kippington. The couple moved into Wickham Court sometime after her marriage; Farnaby is certainly listed as resident in 1798. Wickham Court remained in the Lennard/Farnaby family until it was sold in 1929. It is now a private school and wedding venue.

George Wickham is one of the most unpleasant of Austen's characters. A scoundrel, a layabout, a gold-digger and a liar. Was it coincidence that, like Thomas Austen, he was a Cambridge man and a military man? Was it also a coincidence that Austen gave him a name which was bound to resonate with that branch of the family, being the name of the estate belonging to Francis Motley Austen's half-sister Mary Lennard?

Or was Jane Austen exacting revenge for some past wrong in the only way she could, through the pages of her novels?

I would like to extend my grateful thanks to Hazel Mills and to all the members of Cambridge Jane Austen Society - for inviting me to speak, for lively and erudite debate on the Rice Portrait and on Jane Austen and her life, and for offering me the most wonderful experience of joining you all in the magnificent surroundings of Queens' College, Cambridge.

My lovely gift -
A beautiful watercolour of Queens' College

A Kentish Neighbour - Mrs Humphry

In Deirdre Le Faye's 2011 edition of Jane Austen's Letters Letter 8, dated Sunday 8 April 1798, is from Jane Austen to Philadelphia (Phylly) Walter. Jane is writing to express her condolences at the death of Phylly's father, William Hampson Walter.

Philadelphia Walter and Jane Austen were both granddaughters of Rebecca Hampson. Rebecca's first husband was Philadelphia's grandfather William Walter; her second husband was Jane Austen's grandfather, William Austen.

Phylly's father William Hampson Walter was therefore the step-brother of George Austen. The two remained close and maintained an affectionate correspondence throughout their lives. (See Maggie Lane Jane Austen's Family Through Five Generations for more on the wider Austen family)

William Hampson Walter died at the age of 77 on Good Friday 6 April 1798, after a short illness and buried at the church at Seal the following Thursday. (I am indebted to the excellent resource maintained by Ronald Dunning, a descendant of Francis Austen, for this information. You can read an interview with Ronald Dunning on the blog Jane Austen's World HERE).

We know that the Austens were immediately informed of the sad event because the reply from Jane Austen is written only two days later, on Easter Sunday.

Jane wrote: As Cassandra is at present from home, You must accept from my pen, our sincere Condolence on the melancholy Event which Mrs Humphries Letter announced to my Father this morning.

Le Faye's footnote reads: 'Mrs Humphries A Kentish neighbour of the Walter familty - recte Humphry.'

In the Biographical Index Le Faye records: 'Humphry family: Revd William Humphry was the incumbent of Seal, Kent, and consequently his family were neighbours of the Walters; it was no doubt his wife who wrote to the Austens in 1798 to announce the death of William Hampson Walter.'

Deirdre Le Faye does not mention however that Revd William Humphry was the brother of artist Ozias Humphry.

William Humphry had been Vicar of St Peters, Kemsing and Seal since 1770. The living was in the gift of the Duke of Dorset who was also a patron of Ozias Humphry and it was Ozias who had petitioned the Duke to grant his brother the living. William Humphry's incumbency lasted for forty-five years until his death in July 1816.

William and Ozias Humphry were very close and Ozias frequently visited his brother at Seal. In June 1782 Ozias wrote to his brother about the impending cricket match at Sevenoaks Vine between Kent and Hampshire:  Dear Brother, I trouble you with this to beg to know for certain from you when the great cricket day and Ball will be at Sevenoaks, because it is my Intention to come and to bring with me Mr. Jackson of Exeter for a day or two. 

It was William Humphry's wife Elizabeth Humphry who wrote to the Austens to inform them of the death of George Austen's step-brother in 1798 and which prompted the reply by Jane Austen.

Elizabeth Humphry's maiden name was Woodgate. She married William Humphry in 1778. The Woodgates were, like the Austens, a long established Kentish family living in Tonbridge. You can read more about the Woodgate family HERE.

In 1787 Elizabeth's brother William Woodgate inherited Somerhill House on the outskirts of the town. Built for Richard de Burgh in 1611, the library in the south wing was the second longest room in Kent, surpassed only by the Gallery at Knole House, the Duke of Dorset's residence at nearby Sevenoaks. By the time William Woodgate inherited the house, it was sorely in need of restoration; Horace Walpole who visited in the 1750s or 1760s said 'the house is little better than a farm, but has been an excellent one and is entire though out of repair.'

Summer Hill (Somerhill) House

JMW Turner painted the house in 1810, the painting is now owned by the National Galleries of Scotland (sadly not on display).

On the same excursion, Turner also visited and sketched nearby Rosehill Park in Sussex, home of 'Mad Jack' John Fuller. (It is noteworthy that the previous owner of Somerhill House was named 'de Burgh' and that Rosehill Park sounds so similar to 'Rosings Park'. John Fuller was a close friend of Hester Thrale, later 'my dear Mrs Piozzi' as Austen referred to her; he unsuccessfully proposed to her daughter Susannah Thrale.)

William Woodgate married Frances Hooker in 1769. The Hookers were another prominent family in Tonbridge; Frances Hooker's father, John Hooker owned Tonbridge Castle. He bought the castle in 1736 and as soon as he bought it he began dismantling it and selling of pieces of land. You can read HERE how he sold one plot known as the Lords Garden in 1740, half to Francis Austen of Sevenoaks (Jane's great-uncle Francis) and half to the Woodgates and how closely the Woodgates and Austens in Tonbridge were linked. Francis Austen acted as attorney to at least one member of the Woodgate family.

Tonbridge Castle 1808 

Frances Hooker's sister Mary Hooker had married Henry Austen, George Austen's cousin, in 1763. Henry was five years George's senior  - he was still at Tonbridge school when George Austen started attending there aged nine. Both entered the clergy with George Austen following on from his cousin Henry first as curate of Shipbourne and later into the living of Steventon when Francis Austen gave Henry the living at West Wickham. Jane Austen's mother and father visited them at Tonbridge in 1783. In another link between these families, a house on Tonbridge High Street known as Fosse Bank (thought to be number 182) belonged to Francis Austen of Sevenoaks who sold it to Thomas Hooker in 1780. Thomas in turn gave it to his brother-in-law, Henry Austen. You can read more about  the Austen links to Tonbridge HERE

When William Woodgate died in 1809 he left bequests of five guineas to various friends to buy memorial rings, including Revd William Humphry and Henry Austen. Willliam Woodgate died a wealthy man; according to a rather mercenary letter Ozias Humphry subsequently wrote to Lord Clarendon; he said of William Woodgate: 'by his frugality and skill in agricultural concerns he enlarged his original fortune very considerably, insomuch that at his Death the Property he possessed is estimated at full three hundred thousand pounds.' Ozias Humphry after outlining the comfortable situation of the various members of William Woodgate's family, concluded with: 'By this it must appear that I have many inducements to visit my Family in Kent.'.

The families of Austen, Woodgate and Hooker were closely linked through marriage, land ownership and profession, and the Humphrys formed part of this circle. Ozias Humphry knew the Austens and had painted Francis Austen in 1780 as a commission for the Duke of Dorset.

Francis Austen wrote to Ozias Humphry  on 11 July 1780 to tell him how pleased he was.

Dear Sir,

The Duke of Dorset does me great honour in wishing to have my picture and as tis to be your hand I feel myself very happy with the thought of this being in his Grace’s collection and will submit myself to sit for you whenever will be convenient to yourself. I mean after this weeke as I returne home from Maidstone on Friday or Saturday and don’t know of any particular engagements that will interfere. I shall have company at my house on Monday but not till about or near dining time and I know of no other engagements. I am

Dear Sir

Yr most obed’t servant

Fr. Austen

Francis Austen by Ozias Humphry

In November of that year, Ozias Humphry was staying with Stephen Woodgate at his residence, because a letter from his friend Jo Green (Reference  HU/2/114 Royal Academy) was directed there. He is staying there again in  October 1788, (Reference HU/4/10 Royal Academy) the year the Rice portrait is believed to have been painted.

This family tree demonstrates how closely these families are intertwined:

We know therefore that Jane Austen wrote to Ozias Humphry's sister-in-law, that the Humphrys knew the Kent branch of the Austen family as well as the Woodgates and that Ozias Humphry was staying in the area at the date the portrait is thought to have been painted, 1788. These close connections of course are not conclusive evidence that Ozias Humphry is the artist responsible for the Rice Portrait. But they certainly point in that direction.

A Literary Portrait Re-Examined. Jane Austen and Mary Anne Campion. Part Two

In 1996 Deirdre Le Faye published an article in The Book Collector titled A Literary Portrait Re-Examined. Jane Austen and Mary Anne Campion. Having summarised the history of the portrait in the first part of her article (you can read my critique of her arguments HERE), Faye then criticises and rejects the suggestion that the portrait may have been commissioned by Jane's Great-Uncle Francis Austen and proposes her own theory - that the portrait is of Mary Anne Campion and painted by Revd Matthew William Peters.

Le Faye notes that it is on record that Jane Austen's parents took Jane and Cassandra to Sevenoaks in 1788 "to introduce them to Mr Austen's uncle and benefactor, Francis Austen". But she argues that it was unlikely he commissioned the portrait because he was "a stickler for primogeniture" - an assessment based on a remark later made by Jane's brother Henry. Le Faye also notes that Francis Austen left bequests to his nephews but nothing to his nieces. From this she argues that he would have been more likely to commission a portrait of one of the men, such as Jane's father George, or her eldest brother James rather than the younger daughters.

Uncle Francis Austen by Ozias Humphry

Her reasoning confuses different aspects of English society in this period. Transferring wealth to the males of the family was usual practice. But wealth, position and the application of the rules of primogeniture in the granting of an ecclesiastical living are very different scenarios to the commissioning of a portrait. Wealthy members of the merchant and professional class like Francis Austen commissioned portraits frequently and for many reasons - to record status and achievement, to mark special occasions and often - simply because they could. It was a physical statement to demonstrate their success in society. "The mayor, the soldier, the banker, the cleric and the politician - together with their respective wives and sometimes children - all required a brush with immortality." (Philip Mould). It is a ridiculous argument to claim that because women and girls were not entitled to inherit wealth that their portraits would not be commissioned - the NPG and other galleries are full of portraits of various female relatives of wealthy individuals.

Furthermore it was not only Jane who had her portrait painted. Edward Austen Knight's portrait was probably commissioned to mark his 21st birthday in 1788.

Edward Austen Knight

And there is some evidence that there was also a portrait painted of Jane's sister, Cassandra. In 1952 a Mrs May Harrison wrote to Austen academic Robert Chapman from her home in Grasse, France, advising him that she owned a portrait that she thought might be of Jane Austen, enclosing a photograph and asking for his opinion. Mrs Harrison was the great-granddaughter of John Austen, the third son of Francis Motley Austen; he inherited the family home of Kippington from Colonel Thomas Austen. Chapman consulted with Richard Arthur Austen-Leigh, grandson of James Edward Austen-Leigh who concluded that the painting could be the same girl as in the ‘Zoffany’ portrait as the Rice Portrait was then known:

"Indeed, as it comes via Mrs Harrison from the Kippington (or Capel Manor) stable, the Zoffany one belonged to a Kippington Austen, there seems quite a possibility of it and the Zoffany being the same person," Arthur Leigh wrote. As they had decided the Zoffany/Rice Portrait was not Jane Austen, it never occurred to the two of them that this could have been literally a sister portrait. Mrs Harrison left no descendants and the whereabouts of this portrait is now unknown. But it remains an intriguing possibility that this was a portrait of Cassandra.

By referring to Jane as "an unknown little Hampshire cousin" and "a hitherto unknown great-niece", Le Faye seeks to distance Austen from her great uncle Francis Austen. But as she implies in her reference to him as a "benefactor", Francis Austen was much more than a distant relative. When Jane's father George and his two sisters were orphaned by the death of their father William in 1737, Francis Austen who by then had become a wealthy and successful lawyer, stepped in and acted in loco parentis, using his money and influence to help his brother’s family along. He arranged for George Austen’s schooling at Tonbridge and was instrumental in providing him with clerical livings; the living in Steventon which was presented to George Austen by Thomas Knight was made available by Francis Austen offering the incumbent, George's cousin Henry Austen, the living of West Wickham. Later, Francis Austen also purchased the living of Deane to give to George Austen.

Francis Austen was no distant relative, he was very much part of the Austen story and a major influence in the life of George Austen and his family. While we have no record of Jane Austen visiting her great uncle before 1788, her father's progression in life was very much due to the influence of his Uncle Francis. Commissioning a portrait of his young great-niece (or nieces) would have been a perfectly natural thing for Francis to do.

Le Faye claims that Jane Austen was "far from being a charming child" and argues that he would therefore not have wanted to commission her portrait, quoting Philadelphia (Phylly) Walter, a cousin, who was meeting Jane for the first time and who later described Jane as "not at all pretty & very prim, unlike a girl of twelve...whimsical and affected." Le Faye, from this comment, transforms the young Jane Austen into "a tiresome ugly duckling". Three years later, when another of Jane's cousins, Eliza Hancock, is writing to Phylly, she refers to Jane and Cassandra as "perfect beauties" who were gaining "hearts by the dozen". Either the ugly duckling had turned into a swan, or perhaps Phylly Walter was expressing her personal dislike of Jane; she certainly disapproved of the Austen theatricals which she had refused to attend at Steventon the previous Christmas.

Le Faye asks why, if the portrait had been commissioned by Francis Austen, did it not return to Steventon either at the end of the visit or after his death. She argues that Francis Austen's descendants would have no desire to keep the portrait or to hang it at the large family home of Kippington which his son, Francis Motley Austen, moved into in 1796. But why not? Kippington was a very large house, and would have had many portraits hanging there. The Motley Austens were very wealthy. In his will Francis Motley Austen left property in six English counties. This portrait would have been just one amongst many.

Moreover, if the portrait is by Ozias Humphry then the commission may have been as much for his benefit as Jane's - Humphry had not long returned from India and was out of pocket and in low spirits after the Nabob of Oudh had refused to pay him for a large commission. (Chasing this payment consumed Ozias Humphry for the rest of his life.) Francis Austen knew Ozias Humphry, who had painted his portrait a few years before. Perhaps he wanted to assist Humphry by offering him this commission.

Le Faye claims that that no-one in the Austen family ever mentioned the picture: "How could it possibly be that all of them - including Jane herself - never made any reference to the existence of the picture, in all the years to come?" But Le Faye cannot possibly know this. Cassandra and other family members destroyed most of Jane's letters and and only a handful survive some of which are heavily censored. We cannot possibly know from this paltry evidence what Jane or her family discussed. 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]". There is no mention of the portrait in the very few letters that survive  - that is all that can be said. (There is also no mention of the Cassandra sketch now held by the NPG in the family letters but Le Faye apparently has no problem in accepting this as being genuine.)

Having discounted Jane Austen as the subject of the portrait, Le Faye proposes her own theory - that it is a painting of Mary Anne Campion, the eldest daughter of Jane Austen's cousin, also Jane, who married William Campion. She bases her suggestion on a set of miniatures privately owned by a an Austen descendant. The collection includes miniatures of various members of the Austen family, mostly unidentified, but one of the portraits has written on the back "Jane Austen who married William Campion". Also stuffed into the back of this miniature was a piece of paper with W.S. Lethbridge on it. 

Among the miniatures are two of unidentified women. Neither of the miniatures has any clue as to the identity of the sitter of the artist. Nevertheless, Le Faye in her article, without any evidence, labels both of them definitively as being portraits of Elizabeth Austen and Frances Austen respectively, the sisters of Jane Campion.

Portrait identified on the back as
"Jane Austen married William J Campion"

Back of miniature

Unidentified woman
Described by Le Faye as
Elizabeth Austen (1780-1858) 

Unidentified woman
Described by Le Faye as
Frances Austen (1783-18??)

In the collection of miniatures there is also a portrait of a young girl, described unequivocally by Le Faye as being "Jane's daughter Mary Anne Campion". But she has no evidence of this. The portrait is unsigned, undated and the sitter unidentified. She could be any member of the Austen family.

Unidentified girl
No signature and no date

Le Faye also states as a fact that "These miniatures were painted by W.S. Lethbridge, who visited Canterbury in 1805." But this is by no means proven. These miniatures may have been painted by W S Lethbridge, they may have been painted in 1805 and they may depict members of the extended family of Francis Motley Austen. But there is no evidence that this is the case.

Le Faye speculates that Mary Anne Campion was a favourite of her grandmother Elizabeth Motley Austen and that Mrs Austen, unhappy with the unflattering miniature, had a full sized portrait commissioned of her eldest grand-daughter. She remarks that "it will be noted that the girl in the so-called Jane Austen picture wears a dress almost exactly like Mary Anne Campion's i.e. definitely 1805 onwards".

There exists a miniature portrait of an unknown girl painted by William Marshall Craig, held at the V&A. It is signed - and it is dated 1794. You can see it on their website HERE. This dress is very similar to the one worn by the girl in the miniature portrait - and it is painted eleven years before Le Faye says is possible. She too has short hair in a similar hairstyle to the girl holding a birdcage. Given this evidence, Le Faye's certainty regarding the date is mis-placed. The portrait of the un-named girl holding the birdcage which Le Faye claims to be Mary Anne Campion may have been painted after 1805 - or it may have been painted before. It is by no means definitely 1805 onwards as Le Faye asserts.

Unknown Girl by William Marshall Craig
signed and dated 1794

According to Le Faye the bigger portrait is "more tactfully posed and delineated" by which she presumably means that it is "tact" on the part of the artist that results in the girl in the oil painting looking nothing like the girl in the miniature. But isn't it more likely they look dis-similar because they are not in fact the same child?

Left - unknown child with a birdcage  Right  - girl in the Rice Portrait

Having come up with Mary Anne Campion as the subject, Le Faye is now in need of a possible artist. Her suggestion is Revd (Matthew) William Peters. (Peters used his second name rather than his first.)

Peters was born in 1742 and achieved some fame and notoriety as an artist, known primarily for his risqué portraits of half-naked women. He was undoubtedly a talented artist but after taking holy orders he turned to more religious subjects with considerably less success than he had previously enjoyed and for the most part he stopped exhibiting his paintings publicly. Appointed as chaplain to the Prince of Wales, Peters resigned from the  Royal Academy in 1790 and in that year he also married Margaret Knowsley, daughter of Revd. John Knowsley of Burton Fleming. Peters and his wife lived at the Rectory at Knipton in Leicestershire. According to his biographer, Victoria Manners, the entries in the parish register are almost invariably signed by him, suggesting he was seldom away from home. In 1808 or thereabouts Peters moved to Langford in Oxfordshire and he appears to have remained here until 1811 when, according to John Hodgson in his book The Royal Academy and its Members 1768-1830 (1905) a scandal erupted involving Peters and:

"we find him in dreadful trouble and agony of mind, which well nigh brought him to his end. He had continued practicing his art, probably only as an amusement, when a certain sketch and the incidents connected with it aroused the indignation of the British matrons of his parish. As we gather, the storm was so violent that he had to fly before it, taking refuge at Brasted Place in Kent, where he lived his troubles down, supported and encouraged by a good wife, who had, in 1811, been his partner for twenty-one years, and who probably understood all about the customs of studios and thought nothing of them"

"Lydia"
by Matthew William Peters

There is no corroboration for this story. But we do know that in 1810 Peters' fourteen year-old son Edmund inherited Brasted Place in Kent which would explain why the family moved there in 1811. William Peters was now around sixty-nine years old and he died at Brasted Place three years later on March 20th, 1814.

Revd Matthew William Peters

According to Deirdre Le Faye, "there were many social and family connections to link the Kippington Austens with Revd Matthew William Peters." The first she notes was that "while in Lincolnshire Mr Peters had met the baronet family of Welby, who were intermarried with the Cholmeley baronets, also in the same area, and Penelope Cholmeley of the latter family married into the Kippington Austens in 1805." So Peters had met someone whose family had intermarried with another family, one of whom had married an Austen - not a very compelling connection!

The second connection was the fact that the celebrated physician Dr Turton bequeathed his home at Brasted Place to young Edmund Peters. William Peters' wife Margaret Knowsley was the niece of Dr and Mrs Turton, her mother was Mrs Turton's sister. Brasted Place was not far from Sevenoaks or from Kippington, the home of the Motley Austens. Le Faye writes that the Austens "must have been well acquainted with Dr Turton and his artist nephew for many years past." But while the Austens probably knew Dr Turton, there is no evidence that they knew William Peters. Le Faye states that Edmund Peters inherited Brasted Place in 1806 on the death of Dr Turton, but as Mrs Turton had a life interest in the estate he did not actually inherit until her death in 1810. In her will Mary Turton gave permission to her niece Mrs Peters to live at Brasted Place rent free. At the time Mary Turton wrote her will in April 1807, William Peters is still described as living at Knipton in Leicestershire.

Brasted Park, Kent
Inherited by Edmund Peters 1810 

In her Chronology Jane Austen and Her Family  1600-2000 Le Faye records for the year 1806:
"Probably this year that a full-length portrait of Mary Anne Campion [1797-1825] is painted in oils."

At the time Mary Anne Campion was eleven, younger than the girl in the Rice Portrait appears to be, and Revd Matthew William Peters was living in Leicestershire, having resigned his membership of the Royal Academy seventeen years previously. There is no evidence whatsoever that he travelled to Kent to paint this portrait. Le Faye appears to have picked the year 1806 because she thought Peters  had moved to Kent in that year but in this she appears to be mistaken.

Stylistically, Peters is unlikely to be the artist. Jacob Simon of the National Portrait Gallery, generally effusive in his praise of Le Faye's work, was doubtful. In a letter to Le Faye, written prior to publication of her article, he wrote: "My only reservation is the artist. Peters is a good idea but unless you provide more stylistic evidence it may be wise to advance the idea as a possibility deserving fuller study rather than a conclusion."

As far as I am aware, no art expert has ever endorsed the theory that Revd Matthew William Peters is the artist responsible for the Rice Portrait.

According to Le Faye's theory, the portrait then remained at Kippington until the death of Elizabeth Motley Austen in 1817 when her son, Colonel Thomas Austen, took up residence. According to Le Faye, Colonel Austen was anxious to "clear the house of his mother's possessions" and "his siblings were either dead or dispersed by marriage from the Kippington area, and he would have no reason to consult any of them for information regarding the contents of the house, as these were bequeathed to him alone."

This is not true. Many of Colonel Thomas Austen's siblings were alive and still living in Kent or nearby. His sister Jane, now Mrs Campion was living at Danny near Hurstpierpoint. Brother John Austen had inherited the family home of Broadford, Kent in 1807. Another sister, Elizabeth Austen, now Mrs Cooke, was living just down the road at Ashgrove on the edge of Sevenoaks. His brother George Austen was still living in Sevenoaks, as was his sister Frances Austen, now Mrs Holcroft.

It is nonsense to suggest there were no family nearby. Furthermore, as Le Faye knew very well, Colonel Austen would also have needed to discuss the disposal of his mother's property with the named executors of her will, his brothers-in-law William Campion and Christopher Cooke, who had also acted as executors of his father Francis Motley Austen's estate two years previously. There are over 90 documents in the Campion archive at the county record office in Brighton which relate to William Campion's duties as executor for Francis and Elizabeth Motley Austen.

(Christopher and Elizabeth Cooke's son, John George Cooke, later entered the Royal Naval College at Portsmouth and in his memoirs he records meeting Admiral Sir Francis Austen and Captain Charles Austen - "own brothers to my beloved Jane Austen whose works I know by heart".)

Le Faye speculates that Colonel Thomas Austen visited his friend Thomas Harding Newman in Essex, where "the new young second wife" (she was actually 28) "had mentioned to him her interest in Jane Austen the novelist" and that he then took the opportunity of giving to her a portrait "unwanted by him but valued by the recipient."

Colonel Thomas Austen

But if Le Faye is arguing that this is not a portrait of Jane Austen, why would Colonel Thomas Austen give it to Thomas Harding-Newman's wife? Le Faye offers two alternative explanations:

1) Colonel Austen mistook his niece Mary Anne Campion for his second cousin Jane Austen
or alternatively,
2) He merely pretended the portrait of his niece was a portrait of Jane Austen.

So how likely is it that Colonel Austen would not have known the difference between his niece and his second cousin? Although it was true that he had been away in America and more recently in Ireland with the army, Colonel Austen was not estranged from his family. He had been in England in 1803 for he married Margaretta Morland in April at Walcot Street in Bath and is described as being a resident of Bath at that time.

Thomas Austen's mother died on February 17, 1817 and Colonel Austen resigned his position in the army at Dublin just over a month later, on 24 March, 1817 having inherited the family wealth. On his return he had extensive dealings with the two executors for his parents' extensive estates one of whom was Mary Anne Campion's father.

Thomas Harding-Newman did not marry his second wife, Eliza Hall, until 31 December, 1817. So according to Le Faye's theory, Colonel Thomas Austen, despite having spent months dealing with his brother-in-law William Campion to sort out his parent's estate, failed to recognise a portrait of Campion's daughter and mistook her for Jane Austen. The painting, according to Le Faye,was less than ten years old at this point and yet we are asked to believe that Colonel Austen thought it was a portrait of his recently deceased relation, Jane Austen.

Le Faye evidently knows this is not a strong argument for she proposes an alternative - that Colonel Austen did know the difference between his niece and his second cousin but that he pretended it was a portrait of Jane Austen in order to please the new Mrs Harding-Newman, as Le Faye put it - "taking the proverbial view that a nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse" being "secure in the knowledge that she would never know the difference".

Le Faye is in error in supposing that Mrs Harding Newman would not know the difference between Mary Anne Campion and Jane Austen. Le Faye describes Eliza Hall as "from a Midlands family" presumably in the mistaken belief that she was a relative of Hugh Kirkpatrick Hall of Hollybush Hall in Derbyshire. In fact she was from a different branch of the Hall family. Eliza(beth) Hall was the daughter of Thomas Hall of Egham in Surrey and his wife Elizabeth Humffrey. The latter had died when Eliza was young and at the time of her marriage in 1817 Eliza and her father were recorded as living at Cumberland Street in London.

By 1817 Eliza Hall's aunt, Ann Humffrey, had already been married for over thirty years to Sir Henry Hawley of Leybourne Grange in Kent and Harley Street, London. Henry Hawley had one son, Henry, and three daughters, Dorothy, Harriot and Charlotte, from his first marriage to Dorothy Ashwood and four children from his second marriage to Ann Humffrey. The Hawleys were definitely known to Jane Austen for she mentions the older Hawley daughters in her letters:

"We are to meet a party from Goodnestone, Lady B [Dorothy], Miss Hawley [Harriott] & Lucy Foote." Jane Austen wrote to Cassandra in 1813. Charlotte Bridges, Jane noted, preferred Emma to all Jane’s previous novels.

Dorothy Hawley married Brooke William Bridges, heir to Sir William Bridges, she became his second wife in December 1809 and Charlotte Hawley married William’s brother Brooke John Bridges in 1810. Their sister Elizabeth Bridges, of course, was married to Jane Austen’s brother Edward Austen Knight, who was also a close friend of the younger Henry Hawley. 

Brooke Edward Bridges was particularly friendly with Jane Austen and may even have proposed to her. Jane Austen knew all the Bridges family very well indeed and by extension probably knew the Hawleys well too. It is very likely therefore, that Eliza Hall's aunt Mrs Ann Hawley knew Jane Austen personally, and quite possible that Eliza Hall had also met her. At the very least we know that the new Mrs Harding-Newman moved within a social circle of people who had known Jane Austen. And yet we are asked to believe that not one of them noticed that the portrait was not in fact of Austen but of a child 22 years younger than her and from another branch of the Austen family.

Furthermore the number of people who would have to have been involved in this deception makes it even more implausible. Colonel Austen's wife, Margaretta, for example, and other family members living nearby, including Mary Anne Campion's own parents apparently all went along with the plan.
One might think that the girl's father or mother might have objected to the portrait of their daughter being given away under the pretext it was someone else. Mary Anne Campion died young, in 1825, aged 27. If this was really a portrait of her and not Jane Austen, wouldn't the Campions have wanted the portrait of their daughter retrieved?

Nevertheless, Le Faye's article gained the enthusiastic approval of Jacob Simon at the National Portrait Gallery. On 24 September he wrote:

"Your article is brilliant – just what is wanted – and must be published. Do keep me informed."

What did Jacob Simon mean, the article was "just what is wanted?" Wanted by the National Portrait Gallery? Why? It is obvious that the NPG were not behaving impartially in the debate over the Rice Portrait. The previous year Jacob Simon had been urging Aileen Ribeiro to write to the press about the portrait and now here he is again, actively supporting Deirdre Le Faye and her specious theory. After her article was published in The Book Collector, Jacob Simon again wrote to Le Faye, on 21 January 1997 saying that he was:

‘Delighted to see your article on Jane Austen in its 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.’


Of course.

The NPG have not been impartial 

Le Faye continues to assert as a statement of fact that the Rice Portrait is a portrait of Mary Anne Campion. But for her theory to hold up, the arguments are so convoluted and the scenarios so unlikely that the only surprise to me is that it has not been seriously challenged more often in the twenty years since she proposed it. Applying Ockham's Razor and supposing that the simplest answer is more likely to be the correct one, isn't it more likely that Colonel Austen gave the portrait to Eliza Hall because it really is a portrait of the novelist?

The Rice Portrait

Thank you for reading. I would very much appreciate any feedback or comments you would care to make about my research. You can contact me via this blog or via my email: ellie.bennett@gmail.com