Early Photographic Evidence
The Rice Portrait was first photographed in 1883 by the eminent Victorian photographer Emery Walker at the request of John Morland Rice. He had recently been given the Rice Portrait by the beneficiary of Rev Dr. Thomas Harding Newman (see Provenance Section). The top half of this photograph was used by Edward Knatchbull-Hugesson, 1st Lord Brabourne, as a frontispiece for his Life and Letters of Jane Austen published in 1884. Edward Knatchbull-Hugesson was the grandson of Jane Austen’s brother, Edward Austen Knight, and a cousin of John Morland Rice. The full version of this 1883 photograph was used by Mary Augusta Austen-Leigh as a frontispiece for her book Personal Aspects of Jane Austen, completed in 1895, but not published until 1920. Mary Augusta says of the photograph that ‘it is of my great Aunt Jane Austen’. Mary Augusta Austen-Leigh was the granddaughter of Jane Austen’s brother, James Austen.
Frontispiece to Personal Aspects of Jane Austen by Mary A Austen-Leigh
The Rice Portrait was photographed again by Emery Walker in 1910 at the request of the then owner, Sir Ernest Rice. This photograph was used by William Austen-Leigh (grandson of Jane Austen’s brother, James) and his nephew Richard Austen-Leigh, in their book Jane Austen: Her Life and Letters. A Family Record published in 1913. On the title page, opposite the image of the Rice Portrait they add: ‘With a portrait’.
Close-up of photograph showing markings in the top right corner
Close inspection of the image in William Austen-Leigh’s book reveals markings in the top right-hand corner.
Emery Walker’s Glass Plate Negatives
Card at NPG holding the Rice Portrait showing date of c.1790
Although the original photograph taken by Emery Walker is now lost to us, by an unlucky coincidence, these plates was later donated to the NPG and the Heinz Library at the National Portrait Gallery now holds the original two plate negatives of the photograph taken by Emery Walker in 1910. (Interestingly, the NPG held them in a folder on which they stated that the date of the portrait was c1790.)
They now, of course, deny the painting dates to 1790 and list the portrait as ‘Unknown girl formerly known as Jane Austen’.
In 2010, the archivist at the NPG’s Heinz Archive allowed us to take the glass plate negatives to the studio of photographer Richard Valencia, who developed the plates using original techniques in his own studio. At that time we had no idea that there was information on the negatives, taken in 1910, which due to subsequent cleanings and restorations, had since been lost from the original painting.
The images were placed on our website whereupon a member of the public who was interested in the story contacted us to say that he believed he had detected inscriptions in the top right quadrant of the image.
We needed to corroborate this discovery and were put in contact with digital forensic expert Stephen Cole of Acumé Forensic. Stephen Cole, a former Senior Imaging Officer with West Yorkshire Police, left in 2004 to set up with colleagues Acumé Forensic, who have an international reputation in the field of specialised photographic imaging. Their expertise is in using digital technology to assist with the prosecution of serious crime and in this they are leaders in their field. 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 is valued as a distinguished witness and we feel extremely privileged to have had the benefit of his expertise. We very much appreciate the many hours of work he has carried out on these photographic plates. This work has all been done without recompense.
We asked the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) for access to the glass plate negatives again for photographing. However, this time, we were refused access to the original Emery Walker negatives. Instead, the NPG supplied Stephen Cole with digital scans of both plates. It is from these scans that Stephen worked. The results were more than we could possibly have hoped for. Journalist Ed Butler broke the story in an article published in the Guardian newspaper on 08 June 2012. In this article, Ed Butler announced that not only the artist’s signature, but the name Jane Austen had been detected by forensic experts, on the glass plate negatives of the painting.
Acumé’s Report
The results of the forensic analysis was unequivocal. Ozias Humphry’s signature was indeed present on the glass plate negatives of the Rice Portrait, a photograph taken in 1910 and what was more, the words ‘Jane Austen’ and a partial date were also visible on the negative.
You can view Acumé’s full report HERE
We were, of course, delighted to learn that our belief that the painting was indeed by Ozias Humphry - a theory supported by several experts, as explained in the Ozias Humphry Section - had now been corroborated beyond any doubt by a leading forensic expert. It was impossible for us to believe that the National Portrait Gallery would still resist the overwhelming evidence that Humphry was the artist responsible for the Rice Portrait, despite their previous opposition to the portrait, now that we had presented them with incontrovertible proof.
In August 2013, Professor Claudia Johnson published an article in the Times Literary Settlement, Jane Austen to the Life? In this article, Professor Johnson pointed out that the signatures detected on the Rice Portrait prove beyond any doubt that the painting is Jane Austen, by Ozias Humphry. As she noted, ‘the important matter for now is that substantive questions about it are settled. Jane Austen’s portrait has spoken for itself.’ The portrait had been proved to be Jane Austen by Ozias Humphry.
Proof Disregarded
In any usual circumstance, this evidence would have settled the matter. But when presented with these images the National Portrait Gallery responded with the following: ‘to be accepted as valid evidence the analysis would need to be replicated and the reported inscriptions identified by at least one independent and impartial expert. This would imply working under controlled conditions with no prior knowledge of the possible subject of the portrait, the location of any possible inscriptions or the sort of wording being looked for.’ This ludicrous requirement was one which was almost impossible to fulfil. Normally when authenticating a portrait, one would NOT demand that the expert has no knowledge of the subject. On the contrary, if one wanted to authenticate – a Constable, say – then one would ask a Constable expert for their opinion. In this case, apparently, it needed to be someone who knew nothing about the picture at all and had no idea who the artist might be.
In their article Brimful of Tricks, published in the Times Literary Supplement in July 2014, Henrietta Foster and Kathryn Sutherland claimed that the signatures were just scratches. In this article, the authors claim: ‘It is at least possible that markings on the photographed canvas are the effect of the cracked glaze glinting against the flash of Walker’s camera, faults in the films of later versions, and even hairline scratches on the original glass negative, held at the National Portrait Gallery.’
We invite you, the reader, to consider whether these markings are cracked glaze or hairline scratches:
If you would like to read our full critique of the Brimful of Tricks article written by Foster and Sutherland, you can do so HERE.
Access Refused
As noted above, the NPG twice refused us permission to view the glass plate negatives of our painting for legitimate research purposes. This is contrary to the stated position of the NPG, as outlined by the Director, Sandy Nairne, in 2012: ‘Like the rest of the Collection, these negatives are open for inspection, as they have been for many years, by any member of the public making an appointment to use the Public Study Room’.
The plates had always been made available to researchers and indeed, we had been given permission to take them to be photographed in the past, but the NPG said (and still say) they are too fragile for us to be allowed to see them. Meanwhile, journalist Henrietta Foster was allowed access to the plates when she asked to see them without any objection or difficulty whatsoever. Archivist Robin Francis replied to her request to see the plates with: ‘I am in a meeting from 10.00 until 11.00 but can fetch out the negatives for you after that. I’ll copy this to the study room so they can book you in before noon’. (09 March 2012). Similarly, when curator Lucy Peltz asked to see the plates in 2017 it was no problem. 'Archivist Paul Cox wrote, ‘I’ve put the light box out in the PSR (Public Study Room) and the negs are in the cupboard, near the supervisor’s desk. If I’m not around, Jack will be able to get them out for you.’ (04 May 2017)
In 2017 we decided to revisit Stephen’s painstaking work so we contacted the Heinz Library with a request to come in and take digital photographs of the photographic plates of the Rice Portrait. Once again, we were refused access to the plates, on the grounds they were too fragile. It was perfectly clear to us that the NPG were refusing access, not on grounds of fragility, but as yet another attempt to obstruct our research. Once more, Stephen Cole was supplied with a photograph of the plates instead, from which he was able to replicate the previous results. However we always felt that it was desirable to view the plates themselves, rather than a photograph.
On 10 May 2017 Philip Prodger, Head of Photographs at the National Portrait Gallery wrote a report about the findings in which he said: ‘I do see the squiggles which are supposed to be attribution and signature on both negatives. I see other squiggles in different directions throughout the plate and find it highly implausible that the squiggles at top right are what is being claimed.’
We considered this to be another bizarre statement. While one could perhaps argue that the lettering was not contemporaneous with the portrait, it was ridiculous to claim the inscriptions were not there at all.
As the negatives were the creative work of Emery Walker who died some 85 years ago, it is doubtful the Heinz Archive hold the copyright for their negatives. Even if they do, refusing access to them for the purposes of legitimate research for so long was, in our view, unethical and contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Portrait Gallery (of which the Heinz Archive is part) to spread knowledge and make their collections accessible.
In October 2019 the NPG finally agreed to allow Stephen Cole access to the original plates so that he could take his own photographs rather than rely on images supplied by the NPG. We are awaiting these results but the indications are that they are very promising.
We should never have had to fight for so long for Stephen Cole to be given access to the original plates, particularly when researchers known to be hostile to the Rice Portrait have not had access restricted in the same way. Access to the plates is still refused to members of the Rice family and researchers working on their behalf. (While the NPG did reluctantly allow Stephen Cole access to the plates, Mrs Rice’s son who accompanied him, was made to wait outside.)