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.

[oakmouse]

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

[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.