Jane Again?

[poliphilo]

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.

Comments

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

The other painting you posted evidently didn't sell--I gather from what I heard on NPR on my drive in that it was expected to sell for $800,000, but that there were no bids.

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.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

How very strange. I thought it would go for over a million.

"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.

[oakmouse]

Interesting! I'd like to see a higher-res image of it. Can you point me to the location whence came your image?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The image I've used comes from here- http://www.artworksgallery.co.uk/book.html

And there's an essay with a higher resolution black and white image here- http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/printed/Ray-Clarke.pdf

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Is it Jane? Who knows. But given the relationship between the two, and the date of the painting, there seems to be no obvious reason why it can't be. The strong colors surprise me, but that's true irrespective of the woman in the portrait -- and probably in part due to how many of the plates I've seen being in black and white.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I like to think of her as a woman of fashion, strutting her stuff in Carlton House.

[oakmouse]

Thank you!

I must say this one has higher claims to authenticity than the other. Very interesting.

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

I agree with you completely on every point. (Whew, how often do we get to say THAT!:))

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

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

If the portrait isn't of Jane Austen it was hugely overpriced. As the portait of an unknown girl It's an attractive, journeyman piece- worth a few thou at the most.

A Ruysdael at under $3 million- that's a snip!