We all know the face. That one grainy, sepia-toned image of a teenage girl with her hair pulled back so tight it looks painful. She has these wide, haunting eyes and a mouth that seems like it’s holding back a thousand secrets. It’s the only confirmed emily dickinson photo most people have ever seen. It was taken in late 1847 or early 1848 when she was just sixteen, a student at Mount Holyoke Female Seminary.
For over a century, that was it. That was our Emily.
But imagine being defined for eternity by your awkward high school yearbook photo. It’s kinda brutal, right?
In 2012, a bombshell hit the literary world. A second daguerreotype surfaced, and it didn't show a timid girl. It showed a woman. A strong, self-possessed, thirty-something woman with her arm around a friend. If this really is her, it changes everything we think we know about the "Recluse of Amherst."
The Mystery of the Second Emily Dickinson Photo
So, where did this new picture come from? Honestly, the story is almost as weird as a Dickinson poem. A collector bought it at a junk shop in Springfield, Massachusetts, back in 1995. For years, it just sat there. People didn't realize what they were looking at until a bunch of scholars—including Martha Nell Smith—started digging into the details.
The image shows two women sitting together on a bench. The woman on the right has been identified with almost 100% certainty as Kate Scott Turner (later Kate Scott Anthon). We know it’s her because of two very specific moles on her chin that match other known portraits.
Now, here’s the kicker: Kate was a very close friend of Emily’s. They were tight. Some historians even think they were romantic. If the woman on the right is Kate, who is the woman on the left with her arm around her?
She has the same heavy-lidded eyes as the teenage Emily. She has the same slightly asymmetrical features.
Why the "Expert" Verdict Is Still Split
You’d think with modern technology we’d have a "yes" or "no" by now. But history is messy. Dr. Susan Pepin, an ophthalmologist at Dartmouth, did a deep dive into the facial structures. She compared the 1847 emily dickinson photo with this new one and concluded they are almost certainly the same person. She looked at the distance between the nose and the lip. She looked at the thinning of the right eyelid.
💡 You might also like: Why Every Mom and Daughter Photo You Take Actually Matters
Basically, the math adds up.
But then you have the skeptics. They point to the clothes. The woman in the 1859 photo is wearing a dress that was technically out of style by about ten years. Critics say a woman of Emily’s social standing wouldn't be caught dead in "last decade's" fashion.
Then again, this is Emily Dickinson we're talking about. She wasn't exactly known for following the crowd. She spent most of her later life wearing white housedresses and hiding from visitors. Is it really that hard to believe she wore an old dress for a casual photo with a friend?
What the "New" Photo Tells Us About the Poet
If we accept this second emily dickinson photo as real, the "lonely hermit" narrative starts to crumble. In the 1847 portrait, she looks frail. She’d recently been sick. She looks like someone the world happens to.
In the 1859 image? She’s staring straight into the lens. She looks confident. There’s a ghost of a smile, or maybe just a bit of defiance. She looks like the person who wrote, "I'm Nobody! Who are you?" with a wink and a nudge.
It suggests that she wasn't always hiding. She had a social life. She had deep, physical friendships. She was a grown woman with a presence that could fill a room, even if she eventually chose to leave that room and lock the door behind her.
The Clothes and the "Blue Swatch" Clue
One of the coolest pieces of evidence involves a tiny scrap of fabric. The Emily Dickinson Museum actually has a swatch of blue-checked fabric that belonged to the family. When researchers compared the pattern to the dress in the 1859 photo, it was a striking match.
It’s not a "smoking gun," but it’s a very loud "maybe."
📖 Related: Sport watch water resist explained: why 50 meters doesn't mean you can dive
Think about the context of 1859. This was the peak of her creative powers. She was writing hundreds of poems. She was intense. Looking at this photo, you can actually see the "Sherry in the Glass" eyes she described in her letters.
Why We Are So Obsessed With Finding Her
Why does one emily dickinson photo matter so much? Because we hate mystery. We want to pin her down. We want to see the face behind the "Master" letters and the scraps of poetry written on the backs of envelopes.
For years, the world wanted her to be a fragile ghost. The 1847 photo fits that. It’s easy to market a "sad girl" poet.
It’s much harder to market a woman who looks like she might know more than you do. A woman who looks like she’s in on the joke.
There are other "candidate" photos out there, too. One popped up a few years ago showing a woman who looked a bit like her, but she was wearing fancy earrings. Most scholars shot that one down pretty fast. Emily just wasn't an earring person. It didn't fit the "vibe."
But the 1859 daguerreotype? That one sticks. It haunts the archives because it feels right.
How to See the Photos for Yourself
If you want to do your own detective work, you don't have to go to a museum (though you should).
- The 1847 Daguerreotype: This is held by Amherst College. It’s the gold standard. You can find high-res scans online through the Emily Dickinson Museum’s digital archives.
- The 1859 "Kate Scott Turner" Photo: This is also at Amherst. Compare the eyes. Look at the way the hair is parted.
- The Portraits: There’s an oil painting of Emily and her siblings as children. It’s cute, but it doesn't help much with the adult "look."
Don't just look at the faces. Look at the hands. In the 1859 photo, the hands are strong. They look like hands that spent a lot of time writing, gardening, and baking bread.
👉 See also: Pink White Nail Studio Secrets and Why Your Manicure Isn't Lasting
The Practical Reality of Historical Identification
We might never get a 100% confirmation. Unless someone finds a letter from Kate Scott Turner saying, "Hey Emily, remember that time we went to the Springfield junk shop and got that photo taken?" we are stuck with "highly probable."
But that's okay.
Part of the magic of Dickinson is the "slant." She told us to "Tell all the truth but tell it slant." Maybe her visual history is supposed to be the same way. We get glimpses. We get reflections. We never get the whole thing.
If you're diving into Dickinson’s world, start with her letters first, then the poems, and then look at the 1859 photo. See if the voice you hear in the writing matches the woman sitting next to Kate.
What You Can Do Next
If you’re fascinated by the visual history of the poet, your best bet is to check out the Emily Dickinson Archive (EDA) online. It’s a massive, open-access site that lets you see her actual handwriting.
Honestly, her handwriting is almost as revealing as a photograph. It’s wild, slanted, and full of dashes that look like heartbeats. Seeing the ink she laid down in 1860 tells you more about her state of mind than a sepia-toned image ever could.
Take a look at the "Master" letters while you're at it. Then look back at that 1859 photo. The confidence in her gaze suddenly starts to make a lot more sense. You realize she wasn't just a girl in a house; she was a giant in a small room.