Occam’s Razor or the principle of parsimony -

the theory that requires the least speculation is usually correct.

If the Rice Portrait is NOT Jane Austen and NOT painted by Ozias Humphry we must assume:

For the painting NOT be to of Jane Austen assumes that her second cousin and immediate contemporary, Thomas Austen, was mistaken when he gave the painting as Jane Austen to Eliza Hall; that Eliza Hall was mistaken in believing it be to Jane Austen, despite the fact her aunt knew the Austen family personally; that her step-son Thomas Harding-Newman was mistaken even though he could recall Thomas Austen visiting their house, that John Morland Rice was mistaken even though his own mother and aunt, nieces of Jane, had known her personally and were both still alive at the time he was given the portrait; that his sister the Countess of Winchilsea was mistaken when she went to the trouble of painting a watercolour of the portrait; that their cousin Lord Brabourne and son of Austen’s niece, Fanny Knight, was mistaken when he used the painting in his book on Jane Austen, that Fanny Caroline Lefroy, daughter of Jane Austen’s niece Anna Austen was mistaken when she described the painting as being Jane Austen, that Mary Augusta Austen-Leigh, daughter of James Edward Austen-Leigh was mistaken when she used the portrait in her book about Austen, that her brother William Austen-Leigh, was mistaken when he used the portrait in his own book and that John Hubback, the grandson of Jane Austen’s brother, Frances Austen and who lived with his grandfather for the first fifteen years of his life, was mistaken when he told the National Portrait Gallery that his relative owned a fine portrait of Jane Austen.

For the painting NOT to be by Ozias Humphry assumes that Christie’s were mistaken in identifying his monogram on the portrait in 1985, that Regency portraits expert at the NPG, Richard Walker was mistaken in attributing the portrait to Ozias Humphry in the NPG volume Directory of Regency Portraits, that art critic Brian Sewell, art critic and curator Angus Stewart and curator and Regency portrait expert Brian Stewart were all mistaken in attributing the portrait to Humphry, that Christie’s New York were mistaken in attributing the painting to Humphry in 2007, that conservator Eva Schwan was mistaken in identifying Humphry’s monogram on the portrait when she cleaned and restored it, that forensic photography expert Stephen Cole was mistaken when he identified Humphry’s signature on old glass negatives of the portrait. The fact that Ozias Humphry painted portraits of other members of the Austen family and frequently stayed with his brother who was a neighbour of the Austens and the Walters (step-brother of Jane’s father) was just a coincidence.

Isn’t it more likely that, rather than all these people being wrong, the Rice Portrait is, as claimed, a portrait of Jane Austen by Ozias Humphry?

Below we examine objections and alternative theories which have been proposed over the years:

Objections to the Rice Portrait

1.The Painting is another member of the Austen family

Candidate One - Mary Anne Campion

In an article for the Book Collector, written in 1996, Deirdre Le Faye suggested that the portrait is of Mary Anne Campion, the eldest daughter of Jane Austen's second cousin, also Jane, who married William Campion. She claims that Colonel Thomas Austen gave the portrait to Eliza Harding Newman either because he mistook his niece Mary Anne Campion for his second cousin Jane Austen, or alternatively, that he simply pretended that the portrait of his niece was a portrait of Jane Austen. You can read our full critique of this article HERE.

That Thomas Austen would not know the difference between his second cousin and his niece is ridiculous. Thomas Austen had extensive dealings with the two executors for his parents' extensive estates, one of whom was Mary Anne Campion's father. 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 parents’ estate, failed to recognise a portrait of Campion's daughter and mistook her for Jane Austen.

Le Faye’s alternative theory was 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, "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 Eliza Hall, the new 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" in the mistaken belief that she was a relative of Hugh Kirkpatrick Hall of Hollybush Hall in Derbyshire. In fact she was the daughter of Thomas Hall of Egham in Surrey and his wife Elizabeth Humffrey. 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. The Hawleys were known to Jane Austen and are mentioned in her letters. Two Hawley daughters married into the Bridges family, also close friends of the Austens. (Elizabeth Bridges married Jane Austen’s brother, Edward.) 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. This theory is simply not credible.

Candidate Two - Jane Austen the second cousin

The other candidate who has been proposed is Jane Austen’s second cousin, also called Jane Austen, who was born in 1776 and was the daughter of Francis Motley Austen. This theory may seem superficially attractive but does not stand up to scrutiny. Firstly, why would Colonel Thomas Austen give a portrait of his own sister to Elizabeth Hall? Elizabeth’s step-son tells us that Thomas Austen gave his step-mother the painting specifically because Elizabeth Hall was an admirer of the novelist. Secondly, as noted above, Elizabeth Hall’s relatives knew Jane Austen, so it is not credible that Thomas Austen could have passed off a painting of his sister as being his second cousin (even supposing for one moment that he wanted to.) Thirdly, when the painting was given to John Morland Rice, both his mother and aunt would have known if it was the other Jane Austen, the second cousin - who did not die until 1857. Both women had known their aunt, the novelist Jane Austen in their youth. It should also be pointed out that this theory is not attractive to the National Portrait Gallery, which maintains that the portrait dates to the nineteenth century. They claim to base this opinion on the dating of the dress and the stamp on the back of the Rice Portrait.

2.THE PORTRAIT IS A FAKE, PAINTED BY THOMAS HARDING-NEWMAN

One of the more outlandish theories was that suggested by Henrietta Foster and Professor Kathryn Sutherland in their article Brimful of Tricks, published in the Times Literary Supplement in 2014. You can read our full critique of the article HERE. In their article they suggest that Dr Thomas Harding-Newman, an erudite man but also an inveterate practical joker, bought a painting in a junk shop and touched it up to look like the novelist. This theory has no credence whatsoever.

Neither author has ever asked to see the Rice Portrait and has never examined it. Neither the painting nor photographs of it show any indication of reworking. Expert art conservator Eva Schwan, having carried out months of painstaking restoration on the picture, has not detected any ‘reworking’ of the mouth and eye areas. Many experts attribute the painting to Ozias Humphry, including Richard Walker of the National Portrait Gallery. Correspondence in the National Portrait Gallery archive indicate that both Foster and Sutherland are hostile to the Rice Portrait.

3.THE PORTRAIT IS OF AN UNKNOWN GIRL PAINTED BY AN UNKNOWN ARTIST AFTER 1800

This is the latest position of the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) who are clinging to the discredited claim that the dress dates to the nineteenth century (see Dating and Costume Section) and that the Legg Stamp on the back of the Rice Portrait dates the painting to 1801-1806 (see Canvas Stamps Section). Despite the list of individuals who believed the painting to be Austen and the overwhelming evidence that the portrait is the work of Ozias Humphry, the NPG continue to admit to neither artist or sitter.

Balance Sheet of Evidence

EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE RICE PORTRAIT

The painting has solid, incontrovertible provenance back to Jane Austen’s generation.

It was accepted by family members who had known Jane Austen personally.

It was always accepted as being Jane Austen by the wider family.

There is proof that Jane Austen visited her uncle Francis in 1788, the date the painting was commissioned.

It was used as a frontispiece in three biographies of Austen written by family members.

There are five primary documents supporting the provenance of the painting.

Three of the primary documents cite the date of the painting as being 1789.

The artist, Ozias Humphry, was known to have been a friend of the Austen family.

Ozias Humphry’s brother was a neighbour of George Austen’s step-brother and stayed in Sevenoaks in 1788.

Ozias Humphry painted other members of the Austen family.

Ozias Humphry’s signature is detectable on old photographs of the portrait.

Ozias Humphry’s distinctive monogram is still detectable on the portrait as confirmed by the conservator Eva Schwan and by Christie’s auction house.

Several Regency experts have confirmed the painting is Ozias Humphry’s style including the NPG’s Richard Walker.