In the reading section, the writer contends that the elaborate, full-length portrait of teenage girl belongs to extended family of Jane Austen, the celebrated English novelist, depicts young Jane based on some evidence including Austin family confirmation, resembling to documented sketch of Jane, and applied painting style ; however, in the lecture, the professor casts doubts on the reading points by presenting some reasons and examples.
First of all, the writer claims that Austen extended family's approval to release the portrait in later editions of her book is an evidence of being recognized by her relatives; in contrast, the professor rejects this notion by pointing to the fact that this confirmation dates back to several decades after Austen's death, around 70th years. Therefore, even a member of her family could not have seen her, let alone to evoke his face.
Moreover, contrary to the theory in the reading suggesting that there exists some similarity between amateurish sketch of Jane which was drawing by her sister, Cassandra, the lecturer asserts that the overall shape of face is not a convincing evidence and it could likely belong to the other teenagers of her great family too.
In addition, even though the writer indicates that the style of the painting refers to Ozias Humphrey works, the one who was hired by Austen family at the same period of Jane juvenile, the professor mentions that aforementioned reason is questionable owing to existence of a stamp on blank canvas which reveals the canvas was fabricated and sold almost 70th years after the time portrait assumed to be drawn. In fact in according to stamp's date, Jane should be an old person rather than a young lady in painting.
- ۹۸/۰۲/۰۱