You know that one photo of Emily Dickinson. The one where she looks like a stiff, slightly startled teenager with a velvet ribbon around her neck? It’s basically the "Mona Lisa" of American literature. For decades, that 1847 daguerreotype was all we had. It shaped the entire myth of the "Belle of Amherst" as this fragile, ghostly recluse who lived in a permanent state of Victorian melancholy.
But honestly? That’s only half the story.
There is a huge, messy debate involving emily dickinson photographs that most people don't even know about. It involves "junk" dealers, neuro-ophthalmologists, and a second potential photo that shows a very different version of the poet. We’re talking about a woman who looks confident, powerful, and—dare I say—kinda cool.
The Iconic 1847 Portrait: Why it’s (Mostly) Misleading
The only 100% authenticated photograph of Emily Dickinson was taken when she was about 16 or 17. She was a student at Mount Holyoke Female Seminary at the time. It’s a tiny thing, a "sixth-plate" daguerreotype that fits in the palm of your hand.
If you look at it closely, she’s not actually "reclusive" yet. She was a teenager who liked botany and hung out with friends. But because this is the only confirmed image, we’ve frozen her in time as a child.
👉 See also: Sleeping With Your Neighbor: Why It Is More Complicated Than You Think
Imagine if the only photo the world ever saw of you was your 10th-grade school picture. You’d be pretty annoyed, right? That’s the "Dickinson Problem." This image, held by the Amherst College Archives, has become a visual shorthand for her entire life, even though she lived to be 55.
The 2012 Controversy: The "Second" Photograph
In 1995, a collector bought a batch of old photos from a junk dealer in Springfield, Massachusetts. Among them was a daguerreotype of two women sitting together. One of them looked suspiciously like a grown-up Emily.
It took years of research before this image went public in 2012. When it did, the literary world basically lost its mind.
Why scholars think it’s her:
- The Companion: The woman on the right has been identified as Kate Scott Turner (Anthon), a known friend of Emily’s. She has two very distinct moles on her chin that match other known portraits of her.
- The Eyes: Dr. Susan Pepin, a neuro-ophthalmologist at Dartmouth, compared the 1847 photo with the 1859 "mystery" photo. She noted a specific asymmetry in the pupils—a likely result of astigmatism or iritis—that appears in both women.
- The Clothes: The woman in the photo is wearing a blue-checked dress that was about ten years out of style by 1859. This fits Emily’s reputation for not really caring about the latest trends.
Why some people are skeptical:
The woman in the 1859 photo has her arm around Kate Scott Turner. Critics argue that the "Recluse of Amherst" would never be so physically expressive. But scholars like Martha Nell Smith argue this is exactly why the photo is so important. It shows a human being, not a ghost. It suggests a deep, perhaps even romantic, intimacy that changes how we read her "Wild Nights" poems.
✨ Don't miss: At Home French Manicure: Why Yours Looks Cheap and How to Fix It
The "Lost" Images and Fakes
People are constantly trying to find "new" emily dickinson photographs. It’s like a historical gold rush. Every few years, someone finds a photo of a woman in a white dress and tries to claim it's her.
Most of these are debunked pretty quickly.
One famous example was the "Looice" photograph, which turned out to be someone else entirely. The reality is that Emily likely hated being photographed. She once told Thomas Wentworth Higginson that she had "no portrait" and described herself as being "small, like the Wren."
She seemed to think photographs were a bit of a "dishonor" to the living spirit. She told him her father wanted a "mould" of her because he was afraid she’d die, but she resisted.
🔗 Read more: Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Menu: Why You’re Probably Ordering Wrong
Where to See Them Today
If you want to see the real deal, you have to go to Amherst, Massachusetts.
- Amherst College Archives and Special Collections: They hold the original 1847 daguerreotype. It's rarely on public display because light destroys these old silver plates, but you can see high-res digital scans.
- The Emily Dickinson Museum: This is her actual house (The Homestead). While they don't keep the original photo there, the house itself is the best way to understand the scale of her life.
Why This Matters for You
Why do we care so much about a 150-year-old picture?
Because we want to know if the person who wrote "I'm Nobody! Who are you?" was actually a "nobody" or if she was a woman who knew exactly who she was. Seeing her as a 30-year-old woman sitting with a friend makes her poetry feel less like the ramblings of a hermit and more like the observations of a genius.
Actionable Insights for Fans and Researchers:
- Check the Provenance: If you see a "new" Emily photo online, look for the source. If it doesn't come from Amherst College or Harvard's Houghton Library, be skeptical.
- Look Beyond the White Dress: The "woman in white" image was a later development in her life. Most potential early photos show her in dark or patterned fabrics.
- Read the Letters: To understand why she didn't like photos, read her 1862 correspondence with Higginson. It’s the closest thing we have to a "selfie" in words.
If you’re ever in Western Massachusetts, take the tour of her bedroom. Stand where she stood. You'll realize that while we only have one or two emily dickinson photographs, her real image is scattered across the 1,800 poems she left behind in her dresser drawer.