Jane Again?
Apr. 20th, 2007 12:48 pm![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O.K. guys, so what do we make of this?
It's a portrait of an unidentified woman by Jane Austen's friend and admirer the Rev James Stanier Clarke.
Is it Jane?
All the evidence in its favour is circumstantial, but there's nothing about it that rules it out of court.
Stanier Clarke was the Prince Regent's librarian and Jane visited him at Carlton House. Obviously she would have dressed up for the occasion.

no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 01:08 pm (UTC)The funny thing (to me) is that the principle reason for doubting it was her is because the face was "too pretty for someone who believed in the beauty within". She died almost 200 years ago--do YOU know what the standards of beauty were then? I sure don't, and frankly, I don't think those guys do either. And in any case, I don't see what pretty has to do with believing in the beauty within.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 01:28 pm (UTC)"The beauty within"- what a terribly modern idea.
Friends and family described Jane as pretty, round-faced, doll-like. I don't think she was beautiful- by either Regency or modern standards- but I think she was reasonably good-looking.
Which fits perfectly well with the Rice portrait- especially since you have to allow for the likelihood that the painter was flattering his subject.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-21 12:35 pm (UTC)I guess this debacle is testimony to the power of rumor. Also, judging from this report of the sale, it was just a bad day all round for consumer optimism: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=amolkVank3X0&refer=home
no subject
Date: 2007-04-21 01:06 pm (UTC)A Ruysdael at under $3 million- that's a snip!