TPO-12

The article states that a portrait recently commissioned for sale by a member of Jane Austen’s family is of Jane Austin herself when she was teenager and provides three evidence of support. However, the professor says that the painting could not be a portrait of Jane Austen and refutes each of the evidence.

First, the reading claims that in 1882, several decades after Austen’s death, Austen family gave permission to use the portrait as an illustration in an edition of her letter. The professor refutes this point by stating that when the portrait was authorized in 1882, Jane Austen have been dead for 70 years ago. Moreover, family member who gave this permission never seen her by themselves.

Second, the author says that the face in the portrait clearly resembles the one in Cassandra’s sketch, which we know depicts Austen. In contrast the professor says that the portrait could be one of a relative of Austen’s. Jane Austin had a large family and female cousins were teenagers in the relevant period resembles her, such as Austin’s decent niece Maryanne.

Third, the reading posits that the painting has been attributed to Ozias Humphrey, although the painting is unsigned and dated, but Humphrey was active in the period when Jane Austen was the age of the girl in the painting. The professor refutes this point by saying that the painting has been attributed to Humphrey just because the style. The evidence points that the stamp on the canvas indicates that the painting was sold by a man called William Leg. William leg did not sell canvas in London when Jane Austin was teenagers. He started selling canvas when Austen was 27 years old, which this indicates that Austen was older than the one in the portrait