Copyright (c) Jane Austen’s World. Post written by Tony Grant, London Calling.
The pencil and watercolour picture Cassandra made of Jane Austen in about 1810, is in the National Portrait Gallery, St Martin’s Place, London, just off Trafalgar Square. It is unique within the exhibits there because, although it is grouped with other 18th century portraits, it is displayed in a glass case on a plinth in the general concourse of room 18. It is not hung on the walls with her other contemporaries.
Jane Austen by Cassandra Austen, pencil and watercolour, circa 1810
The portrait is also unique in another way. It is the only portrait within the gallery made by an amateur. All the other portraits are of famous politicians, the lords and ladies of the time, rich merchants and industrialists, and the powerful. They were painted for a particular purpose by professional artists, some of whom, like Sir Joshua Reynolds, Thomas Gainsborough and Thomas Lawrence, were the best, most sort after and amongst the most brilliant artists of their day. Cassandra, was an ordinary, lower middle class person dabbling in sketching and painting for her own interest and edification. A pastime, thousands of other ladies participated in, along with playing the pianoforte, singing and dancing. It was an important element in their home entertainment. We can only guess as to why Cassandra drew a portrait of Jane on that day in 1810 and for what purpose. The drawing and painting process, techniques and style of famous artists like Reynolds , Gainsborough and Lawrence can be found out through evidence and documents, expert analysis of their paintings and by charting their careers as painters. How Cassandra sketched can only be surmised. But one thing is for sure, you can look at her sketch of Jane carefully and there are no apparent errors or mistakes. There is no working out on the picture. It is a finished product. So how did Cassandra produce it and what does it tell you and I about Jane and Cassandra?
From where I live it is an interesting journey to The National Portrait Gallery. I go out of my front door, turn right and walk for five hundred yards, past the newsagents, butchers, chemist and green grocers in Motspur Park, to the station. Motspur Park being part of the London Borough of Merton and next to the town of Wimbledon. It’s famous for the London University playing fields and athletics track and it is home to Fulham Football Club’s training ground. The one-minute mile was nearly broken at the London University track here in the 1950’s.before it was eventually achieved at Oxford.
The train journey from Motspur Park, passing through, Raynes Park, Wimbledon, Earlsfield, Clapham Junction, Vauxhall and Waterloo takes about twenty minutes. It is sixteen miles to the centre of London from where I live.
Waterloo Station. Image @Wikimedia Commons
Waterloo Station is an Edwardian masterpiece of acres of glass roof corrugated like a sea of glass waves. Beneath its roof, during the April of 1912, the rich and wealthy caught the boat train to Southampton Docks and then bordered The Titanic. Millions of soldiers between 1914 and 1918 caught troop trains to the same Southampton Docks to board troop ships for France and the trenches. In the Second World War, the same again. Millions of troops travelled from Waterloo to Southampton to sail to Normandy. In Waterloo the ghosts of the past begin to cling to your consciousness like suffocating cobwebs. The giant concourse clock hanging from the roof reminds you of the lovers trysts famously enacted beneath it’s ticking mechanism from the time the station began.
Villiers Street. Image @Wikimedia Commons
Walking out of Waterloo station on to the South bank and the breezes of The River Thames brings it’s ghosts too, of millennia’s of people, famous, infamous, notorious and where many events throughout history took place. You walk across the pedestrian path attached to Hungerford Railway Bridge across which Virginia Woolf walked and along Villiers Street next to Charring Cross Station and past where Rudyard Kipling lived when he came back from India, past the house where Herman Melville lived for a short while and past the house where Benjamin Franklin lived for many years with his common law wife and wrote, printed, invented and had revolutionary ideas.
Twinings. Image @Tony Grant
Trafalgar Square. Image @Wikimedia Commons
… then into Trafalgar Square, Nelsons Column, Landseers giant lions and round the side of The National Gallery and into the entrance of The National Portait gallery in St Martin’s Place, opposite The Garrick Theatre. All those ghosts now thickly clinging about neck, arms, legs and hair, streaming like veils of gossamer as you walk, playing with the imagination.
Entrance to the National Portrait Gallery. Image @Tony Grant
The entrance to The National Portrait Gallery is inauspicious. It is arched and fine but doesn’t compare with the more grandiose entrance in Trafalgar Square of The National Gallery with it’s entrance on a raised platform, Ionic pillars, fine Greek portico and temple dome. Entering, The Portrait Gallery, is almost like going into the sombre muted entrance of a cathedral. Some arches, mosaic floor, heavy wooden doors to right and left and then up some limestone steps.
Escalator up to the second floor
Once at the top of the entrance staircase you enter into a modern, light and airy hall with a ceiling four floors high and a tall escalator reaching high, up to the second floor.
Looking down.
Open plan galleries , rows of computer screens and a library for research are to your right as you go up the escalator.
On the way to the second floor. Image @TonyGrant
Cassandras portrait of Jane is on the second floor in room 18. As you get to the top of the escalator turn left and you are soon in room 18.
Second floor of the National Portrait Gallery, Room 18
The walls have the rich and famous of the early 19th century hanging on them but just to left and almost as soon as you enter the gallery, there is a glass cube positioned on a plinth and the painting in it is about chest height. It is Cassandra’s portrait of Jane, set within a heavy, elaborate, gold frame.
Jane Austen's portrait framed and in situ.
The frame seems too heavy and wide for the small picture. It dominates the picture. The portrait is positioned so the back of it is towards you. You have to walk around it to see it.
Mezzotint print of Gainsborough's portrait of the Duchess of Devonshire
We can compare a portrait executed by Thomas Gainsborough, with Cassandra’s sketch of Jane. The portrait of Georgianna The Duchess of Devonshire done by Gainsborough in 1787, is nicknamed, “the large black hat,”and has many similarities to Cassandra’s portrait of Jane. Both show the sitter with their face in profile, Jane facing left and Georgianna facing right. Both have curled and ringletted hair, both have young smooth looking faces and both have their arms folded in front of them. Gainsborough’s portrait of Georgiana is about fashion, position in society, and has a beautiful and intelligent face. The way she is standing, side on, even with the luxurious folds , creases and layers of the expensive materials of the dress and bodice you can see the sensuous curve of her back, the relaxed slender manicured fingers of her left hand are resting on her right arm. Georgianna’s eyes are looking straight at the observer, inviting you to look back and admire, a slight whimsical glance and that mouth, sensuous, waiting to be kissed. The picture speaks of wealth, confidence, beauty, calmness, style, luxury and is executed by a master painter at the top of his profession.
Jane Austen by Cassandra Austen. Image @National Portrait Gallery
Cassandras picture on the other hand shows Jane, shoulders full on towards the observer. She looks solid and lumpy. The drawing is a pencil sketch. The four fingers of the left hand resting on her right arm is a claw, four talons, more appropriate on a hawk. What disappoints me most is that Jane is looking away. If Cassandra had got her to look at her and had drawn a direct look, I would have forgiven all the amateurism and lack of skill shown in the picture. That one thing would have had Jane Austen looking at us. We could have made contact, seen into her soul. That would have lifted the picture immeasurably. Georgiana looks at us and we immediately have a relationship with her. Cassandra keeps Jane away from us. She keeps her private. Maybe that one fact tells us about Jane and Cassandra’s relationship. Or, perhaps Cassandra was trying, merely, to keep to the conventions of portraiture too closely. It showed lack of imagination. The mouth is thin, small and tight. Not one to be kissed easily. There is some colour in her cheeks. Her face is given a three-dimensional quality by the deep, long, unattractive creases leading from the wings of her nostrils to the corners of her mouth. There is a long aquiline nose, smooth and thin. Her eyebrows are pronounced, dark thin curves above her wide-open intelligent eyes. In some way the eyes do save the picture even though you do not have eye contact. They show wide-open, hazel orbs, thoughtful and carefully looking. The pronounced fringe of curls and ringlets above her brow are what strike you most about the picture. Cassandra wanted to emphasise them for some reason. Maybe she could draw hair better than other things.
One other thing. This picture was made in 1810. Jane was thirty-five years old. The picture is of a girl no older than a teenager.
When sketching, a sketcher has to look and look and keep looking. They make many marks, some right and some wrong. A process of catching the subject happens on the paper. There is no sign of a sketching process going on in this picture. Either Cassandra drew without wanting to change anything so keeping mistakes, although I think that is impossible for an artist, or she did a series sketches first and then created this one from her rough attempts. I think she did make other sketches leading up to this finished product. Presumably, like many of Jane’s letters they were destroyed by Cassandra in later life.
Queen Elizabeth I, one of Jane Austen's neighbors.
This poor, amateurish and unsatisfying drawing of Jane Austen is in pride of place in room 18 of The National Portrait Gallery. There it is, amongst some of the finest examples of 18th and early 19th century portraits. It is one of the most popular pictures in the gallery. It is Jane Austen.
Gentle reader: This post was written by Tony Grant from London Calling. Except for the Wikimedia images, he provided all the images for this post.
More on the topic:
Jane Austen's World 
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol30no2/upfal-alexander.html
Scroll down to the first images in the above Persuasions Online article, and you will see the full significance of Cassandra’s 1810 portrait of Jane–it was a reprise of her 1791 portrait of Jane!
As Annette Upfal persuasively argues, Cassandra portrayed Jane as Mary Queen of Scots, and the wicked witch of the west, aka Queen Elizabeth, was none other than Mrs. Austen!
Cheers, ARNIE
sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com
Thank you for this detailed post. I enjoyed the telling of your journey to the gallery as much as your portrait commentary very much! Your comparison of Jane and Georgianna’s pictures is enlightening. I wonder if Cassandra had any idea of the extent of public interest her little sketch of her sister would generate! And I wonder if Jane would be pleased to be placed so near QEI!
Jen, Tony’s post brought back to mind my trip to the NPG. I walked around for a bit until I found the side entrance, then was attracted to the book store before I even went up the escalator.
How interesting to read about your trip to the Gallery. I went to see this, too, in the summer, and was surprised at how tiny the portrait was and what a silly frame it was in! I did think, though, that it looked quite unfinished – Cassandra has only coloured in the face and left the rest blank…
I’m sure there was no special occasion for this portrait to be made – she must have been practising her skills on Jane. Perhaps Jane scowls because she doesn’t enjoy being portrayed, modest as she was …
I agree with you, Anna. I was surprised to see how tiny this portrait was in real life. It is not much larger than the first image placed on this post. Coupled with the fact that it is (by necessity) placed in low light, it has a modest presence among the many large oil paintings surrounding it. Cassandra did capture the ruddy cheeks that so many who described Jane spoke about.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vic , Jean P and Chawton House, Tiffany Miller. Tiffany Miller said: Going to See Cassandra's Portrait of Her Sister Jane Austen « Jane …: There is no sign of a sketching process … http://bit.ly/aQ5sjY […]
Poor Georgianna, Duchess of Devonshire. She got the
better portrayal but lives on only in that painting, while
our Jane and her novels will live on forever…..
I have visited Jane Austen’s portrait many times and thought about it a lot. I have also visited Waterloo Station many times, but never thought about it at all. This account of a graceful flowing visit, like a wafting invisible presence, was beautifully written, and laced with fascinating historical tidbits. But was Cassandra *lower* middle class?
Every time I go to London I visit the NPG. This post made me very nostalgic. Thank you.
What? I see a 35-year-old, not a teenager.
As a writer, I know that even those of us who are lesser lights need every bit of the toughness and ferocity shown mercilessly in her sister’s drawing.
This drawing tells me her sister knew the real Jane.
Hi Diane, thanks for your comment. I did mean to use the term lower middle class. I’ve written a definition that I hope helps you see why I chose to write that. All the best, Tony
Classes in society.
Whether we like to admit it or not, all societies have a class structure. We in Britain have a three-layer structure. In America , Australia, Canada and a lot of European Countries these days, they have just two layers.
I n Britain we have the Monarchy and the aristocracy which is the top class. We have a middle class and a poor lower class. I suppose in other countries that have the two classes, they can’t actually have a middle class, it’s a matter of upper and lower classes, but it is a useful term to describe the affluent classes.
The aristocracy are born into their class unless marriage brings in new blood.It is such a rigid class that it is secure and contained within itself. Not much movement or change happens to it. The poor, although not restricted by birth, are almost as immoveable. Various governments use the tool of education to dilute and change this class and there is some movement upwards but it is almost as rigid and secure as the aristocracy at the top. The middle class on the other hand is often seen as a three-layer cake itself, top, middle and lower. The key defining factors in the middle class are education and wealth. It is the powerhouse of any society. It is full of the brains of society. It’s where creativity, change, wealth, ideas, art, music, the power of thought, is really felt and it is a very volatile strata of society. People are ambitious, they strive for more and they are more keenly aware of failure as well as success. They are always looking up, to get better and down to see who is challenging them and to where they might fall. It could be argued that the middle classes are the most unhappy part of society because of this. It’s a schizophrenic part of our society. To define where you are in the middle class nowadays you look to wealth first and education second. You have got to have a combination of the two. Education is probably the equal factor here amongst the middle classes and wealth is the dividing factor.
In Mansfield Park Fanny Price’s family bridge all three layers of the middle classes. Her uncle and one aunt are the wealthy landowners and at the top of this strata. They are not aristocracy by the way. Fanny’s own family are scraping along the bottom and are in danger of falling into the strata of the poor. Throughout Jane Austens novels you can see the various levels of the middle classes at work. This is because Jane knew this class so well with it’s intricate nuances, it’s different layers within the overall strata. Her own family, Edward Knight at the top, her brothers who became Admirals reached the top and her brother Henry fluctuated from the top to sink to middle perhaps touching on the lower levels eventually. See what I mean about the volatility of this class. Jane herself, her mother and sister were firmly rooted in the lower middle class eventually. They were educated as much as any middle class women of the time but they had no money and relied on family help.
I hope this helps explain why I described Jane Austen as being lower middle class.
As several others have said in their comments, above, this was VERY interesting and informative. Since I don’t expect to ever get there to see her portrait in person, this virtual trip was lovely! Thank you Tony, and Vic.
Cathy Allen
Another fascinating post. When I was in Victoria Station, I thought about all the American soliders and sailors who must have walked through its doors during WWII, in a city cast in darkness, with men who had too much to drink, falling down stairs leading to subways. But with most of the art scattered about the country in safe sites, these men and women had to savor England’s architecture, and London does not disappoint.
Excellent post and I enjoyed reading the link from JASNA. I’ve been studying the portrait and I really think there is something more to it. Whether it’s related to the JASNA article or an inside joke between Jane and Cassandra. I don’t think it was meant as a serious portrait so it’s rather amusing to see it with serious portraits.
Responding to Jen:
“And I wonder if Jane would be pleased to be placed so near QEI!”
I am sure Jane would have vastly enjoyed the rich irony of her having been in close proximity to QE1 (aka her own mother) in her own teenaged History of England, and then being in close proximity, via portraits (including a second portrait of herself by her own dear sister!), to the historical QE1, in perpetuity, in the museum devoted to the History of England more than any other, i.e., the National Portrait Gallery!
Responding to Jael:
“…I enjoyed reading the link from JASNA. I’ve been studying the portrait and I really think there is something more to it. Whether it’s related to the JASNA article or an inside joke between Jane and Cassandra.”
But I would suggest that is precisely the point of Upfal’s article in Persuasions Online, i.e., that it WAS a very dark inside joke between Jane and Cassandra about their own mother.
“I don’t think it was meant as a serious portrait so it’s rather amusing to see it with serious portraits.”
I dunno, I think it WAS meant as a serious portrait, precisely because it is not romanticized or gussied up, it shows an intelligent woman approaching middle age with arms powerfully folded, ready for business. If it was done in 1810, that would be exactly the moment when Jane and Cassandra no longer had to live like transients, but had a Cottage of Their Own–and it’s no accident that Jane published 4 novels in the next 6 years, and left two more in finished form for posthumous publication.
Very inspiring stuff, the victimized Mary Queen of Scots in the History of England became the woman who made history herself.
Cheers,
Arnie
sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com
Thanks for all your great comments. I’ve enjoyed reading what everybody has to say immensely.
All the best,
Tony
PS If ever you get the opportunity to go to the National Portrait Gallery it’s great to choose a period in history and meet all the famous people of that time.
I’ve placed one picture of Elizabeth I on this post, as a sort of joke, because she is displayed in a gallery close to Jane’s portrait. There are actually many Tudor portraits in that particular gallery. The Tudors went into portraiture big time. It showed wealth and position but mostly they are about power. The Tudor portraits are especially interesting because of the complex imagery nd meanings behind the imagery. All art, good art, has meanings. The Tudors took this to a very deep level. There a few portraits of Elizabeth at different times in her reign, and each tell a different story.
I must admit, apart from going to see Jane’s portrait in the 18th century gallery, seeing all the politicians of that time fascinates me too. Wilberforce, the emancipator, Pitt and all that lot. You can meet many of the people from British history there and as with all good and great portraits learn from them and dare I say form a relationship. You are, in a way, meeting those people.
Tony
I so agree with your last statement, Tony. It feels as if you are meeting these people you have read about and who have influenced the world, one way or the other. My only regret is that we do not have an oil portrait of a mature Jane Austen painted by a master artist.
Wow, I hate to say it, but this post was singularly uninspiring. I think too much time was spent trying to set a mood of ephemeral brushes with the ghosts of ages past and not enough time was taken to really analyse the portrait. My other complaint (aside from the poor punctuation…my inner stickler shudders) is that I don’t think Cassandra was so poor an artist as she has been made out to be. By no means was she a Romney or a Reynolds, but I think Jane’s averted gaze and distasteful expression are the result of the fact that she did not like having her picture done. She probably only sat grudgingly for the portrait, even when the artist was her beloved sister. That said, given the cheerful manner Jane was alleged to have by her contemporaries and family members, I have to agree that the portrait doesn’t do her justice.
Indiana, thanks for your comment. The article was about going to see the portrait, so the journey there is implied in the title. When going to places, most of us are unaware of the treasures that we miss on the way. I’m sorry you found that bit boring. However, not many people live in Wimbledon, who read this blog and I thought it would be interesting for some, to know about my unique journey to get there.
As for punctuation, I’ve always been terrible at it. However, it can create unexpected laughs along the way.
I’m sorry to hear that you are so particular about punctuation. That can be a draw back you know.Shakespeare, Jane Austen ,e e cummings (didn’t use any in much of his poetry) James Joyce and the list could go on,were either experimental with it or omitted to use it completely. Just think how creative you can be without punctuation. You should try it. The liberation might make you feel good.
Tony, I do appreciate that not everyone knows the ins and outs of the journey from Wimbledon to the NPG. That said, I did recognise the spots you pointed out along the way and though I felt the pace drag a bit as you took the approach to the gallery, it was still a very faithful description and it was easy for me to visualise the route you took. Well done on that score.
As for my Lynn Trust-like puncutation stance: while I know that e.e. cummings was experimental and Jane Austen was negligent of it (and these approaches to punctuation diminish the genius of neither writer!), I’m afraid that my years of American schooling – and the introduction to Ms. Truss’s book – have left me with a need to use punctuation to signpost my writing.
On an entirely different note: I found it interesting that you chose to contrast Jane’s portrait with that of Georgiana Spencer. What made you choose the latter as a point of comparison rather than any other painting/sketch?
Hi Indiana,
It sounds as though you know South London.
I wanted to compare Cassandra’s portrait of Jane with a portrait by one of the professionals.Making a comparison often helps to highlight features and meanings which otherwise you would find difficult to describe in isolation.In this case it shows the difference in stark contrast between a mere amateur and somebody at the top of their profession.
I chose a Thomas Gainsborough portrait because I have seen the house he lived in in Bath. I wrote a post about a Bath front door a while ago and it featured Gainsborough’s front door.
I chose the Georgiana picture for two reasons really, first because everybody has heard about her and secondly because I think there are similarities between the two pictures. The pose, hair and obvious contrasts in the position of the heads. A mere tilt of the head or slight turn of the face can change the meaning.
As you can tell I am not an expert art historian so I couldn’t go into it in as great a detail as you would like. I did a short art history unit as part of a masters I did many years ago.
All the best,
Tony
PS Indiana: is that where you come from?
Tony,
You’re right. I’ve spent a great deal of time in South London as that’s where my husband lived just before we got married. I was quite familiar with that branch of the District Line!
I think the proficiency of the artist and the fame of the subject were very good points on which to contrast the portraits. In some ways, they do seem to have more in common than Jane’s portrait might with a more contemporary pencil sketch of a woman for a fashion magazine with hair and dress in the same [if slightly more ornate] style. Of course, that comes down mostly to the artist’s intent, I would think. I’ll have to find your post about the front door in Bath.
While I’m not actually from Indiana, at least the country is right! I used to live near Washington D.C.
Indiana, the Bath Front Doors article is on my own Blog, London Calling.
Originally I used to place all my Jane Austen/18th century articles on there. Vic at Jane Austens World, asked me very kindly, one day, if I would write some articles for her. I tend to place all my 18th century stuff with Vic now.
If you type, Bath Front Doors, into the search facility of London Calling it should come up in the list.
All the best,
Tony