| |
The lecture explains why the reading passage's claim that the
painting suggested as Jane Austen's portrait cannot stand by following reasons.
First, reading passage suggests that Austen's family itself has claimed that
the girl in the portrait is Jane Austen. Nevertheless, these family endorsed
this claim after 70 years Jane passed away. Which means that they were never
able to see Jane Austen herself, especially in her teenage period.
Second, reading passage asserts that the girl in the portrait matches
the sketch of Jane's sister Cassandra's, which was considered as only
description of Jane Austen's appearance before the portrait. However, the lecture
disputes this by suggesting that it could be one of Jane's relatives. Jane
Austen had a large family so she had lot of relatives and their off-springs in
that range of age.
Finally, reading passage argues that the style of the portrait links to
a painter Ozias Humpry, who actively painted in the period of Jane Austen's
teenage. The lecture disputes this by looking into the canvas used in the
painting. The fact is, it is only mere assumption that the style might be
Ozias. However, what could be clearly detected is what canvas was used for the
portrait. By tracking the stamp which indicates who made the canvas, it turned
out to be made by Williams Legg. What is more is that he only started to sell
canvas in London when Jane Austen was already 27 years old, which never could
be used for painting teenage Jane on his canvas.
In
a nutshell, by going all these three reasons. the lecture successfully goes
against the reading passage.