Let’s face it. Cassandra Austen’s tiny watercolour of her famous sister simply does not satisfy viewers. Jane Austen’s fans have been dying to find another authentic portrait of their favorite author. Has Dr. Paula Byrne accomplished this task? The Guardian.UK features an article with an imaginary portrait that Dr. Byrne believes was drawn from life.
Jane Austen portrait drawing, in graphite on vellum
The portrait drawing, in graphite on vellum, had been in a private collection for years, and was being auctioned as an “imaginary portrait” of Austen, with “Miss Jane Austin” written on the back. “When my husband bought it he thought it was a reasonable portrait of a nice lady writer, but I instantly had a visceral reaction to it. I thought it looks like her family. I recognised the Austen nose, to be honest, I thought it was so striking, so familiar,” Byrne told the Guardian.
Compare this portrait with images of Jane’s family and of Jane herself.
Cassandra's watercolour of Jane
Captain Charles Austen, Jane's brother
Francis Austen, Jane's brother
George Austen, Jane's father
James Austen, Jane's eldest brother
Jane Austen's World 
Oh, for sure that’s her, look at the nose! George, Francis and Charles all have that exact nose. It’s also a little eerie how much Charles resembles Adrian Lukis, Wickham from the BBC’s P&P.
I hadn’t caught the Adrian Lukis resemblance until I saw your comment and went back to look at it. I totally see what you mean!
I really want this picture to be of her. I’d also like the Rice portrait to be of her and the James Stanier Clark painting to be of her. Wouldn’t it be lovely to be able to prove any of these were genuine? Cassandra’s watercolor is abysmal in my opinion.
It would be so cool to unearth some notebook somewhere by one of these artists that proves they’re her!
Trisha, you are so right about that resemblance between Charles and Adrian Lukis.
I agree with Trisha on both points. A handsome family. Interesting post!
It’s very compelling, isn’t it? She’d fit right in.
Very compelling indeed, not just the nose, but the shape of the face and jaw, and also the eyes. It wouldn’t take much more to convince me!
Agreed, Cathy. The cheeks are just like Cassandra drew them, and the chin is the same as Charles’. OK, so we’re all sold, it’s her, right?? *g*
Speaking as a 5th-great-nephew of Jane Austen – no matter how many of us would like the Stanier Clarke sketch to be of Jane, or now this one, our fervently wishing it doesn’t prove it. Not even if we were unanimous in wishing it.
Ron
Presumably your DNA would relate to Janes? If so would you care to contact me fineminiatures@btinternet.com
Cassandra Elizabeth Austen was a precise painter and illustrator, and thorough work was done to prove this fact by Annette Upfal and Christine Alexander in their recent publication through the Juvenilia Press titled ‘The History of England & Cassandra’s Portraits.’ Please take the time to read their work that reveals, through interdisciplinary efforts, the facial features of Cassandra’s watercolor and the portrait of Mary Queen of Scotland as being identical in facial structure/composition. This work should be referenced when concerning any portrait that could be possibly linked to Jane Austen. I personally love Cassandra’s watercolor, because it is of Jane Austen and we have assurance that this is the real Jane Austen. She may not be wearing a beautiful expression on her face, but if you are interested in beauty then look closely at Cassandra’s portrait of Mary Queen of Scots. You will not be dissatisfied!
I think it possible that this might be a portrait of Jane Austen; however, I think it highly probable that it is not contemporary to Jane’s lifetime. Images of women writing or holding pens, holding books, etc. abound in art before, during and after Jane’s life. I think Dr. Byrnes makes too much of the “professional writer” idea. A contemporary portrait of Jane writing, or holding a book for that matter, would have raised no flags; a woman painted at the piano or harp would not have been automatically construed as a professional musician, and Jane was not known as a writer until after her death. The cap and jewelry, the view, the cat, all seem like embellishment (symbols of her success as a known event). My opinion (for what it’s worth!) is that, if it is Jane, this is likely a fan portrait done after her death. (It could still be an antique!)
Can I inquire about the title of your header picture. I just adore it ! I would love a copy of it right above my bed.
Hi Christine, the banner image came with the blog template. The images of the regency ladies and gentlemen and the temple folly were photoshopped in. There is no large, clear image of my banner, but I thank you for your compliment.
Wait,,,that banner is ‘Shopped?? EXCELLENT ‘Shop job!! I never would have guessed!
The nose definitely makes one wonder. But she looks too passive and there’s nothing in her eyes. No sparkle. I just don’t think she’d sit still for her portrait like that, especially for someone who would put columns and a cathedral in the background. Though that might make her laugh.
I’m going to weigh in and say it probably wasn’t done from life as Jane Austen was adamant about not being recognized for her work. However, I do think it’s a portrait of Jane Austen done by someone who had seen Cassandra’s watercolor and the subsequent engravings and was possibly familiar with the Austen family. It’s a great portrait!
What I do not understand in the Guardian article, is why Paula Byrne keeps saying things like “The idea that it was an imaginary portrait – that seemed to me to be a crazy theory. That genre doesn’t exist.” What does she mean, it doesn’t exist? What was Jane Eyre doing, for instance, but drawing “fancy portraits” of people from imagination? Obviously it was a thing people did. And when she asks, “Why would someone have wanted to draw her from their imagination, when she was not popular at that time?” Well, maybe after her death, those who lost her wanted to remember her. How about that for a reason? I don’t know, I like the portrait, it does have a great family resemblance, but I’m a little put off by this grab for “discovery” (Byrne and her husband didn’t discover it), which to me resembles the “arsenic” story as a vehicle for book promotion. I know her book’s not out till 2013 but she’ll have a much bigger name when it does come out. It’s all about the limelight.
“The idea that it was an imaginary portrait – that seemed to me to be a crazy theory. That genre doesn’t exist.” What does she mean, it doesn’t exist? What was Jane Eyre doing, for instance, but drawing “fancy portraits” of people from imagination? Obviously it was a thing people did. And when she asks, “Why would someone have wanted to draw her from their imagination, when she was not popular at that time?”
sigh…I believe imaginary portraiture was about drawing from memory. I have been noticing a fair bit of silly comments form so called experts or journalists about their subjects and this is one of them. And not popular…drawing portraiture had more to do with familiarity that popularity..it was the days snapshot..and every young lady had that facility encouraged.
>
The recent postings concerning the new portrait of Jane Austen prompts me to ask if anyone has noted the resemblance of the apparel in the James Stanier Clarke portrait and the plate called “Morning Dresses” in The Fashion Gallery of April 1797. . This link will provide the picture of two women on a windy day, the one on the right wearing outerwear much like Jane Austen’s. Going to the website for “Jane Austen: Portrait of Jane Austen from James Stanier Clarke” will access the portrait along with an article concerning the portrait’s history and a video of Regency styles.
I can definitely see the resemblance! There may even be other portraits out there, somewhere, in the vastness of antique memorabilia, and which nobody thought to look at in quite this way before.
We can only hope!
Another brilliant post
Rose
However the “tiny watercolor” by Cassandra looks much more like her father than the newly uncovered picture. Quite honestly she’s far less handsome in the new picture…however her beauty doesn’t affect her writing!
Also: how is it that many members of her family have very real portraits yet she and her mother and sister do not? very odd.
An obvious objection to Paula Byrne’s theory is that when Jane Austen went to London in the years 1814-1815, she stayed with her brother Henry at Hans Place. If Jane Austen had posed for a portrait at this time, then Henry would undoubtedly have known about it. In 1832 Henry Austen was negotiating with the publisher Richard Bentley about a new edition of Jane Austen’s novels. Bentley asked for more biographical material about ‘the Authoress’, and hoped for a portrait too; Henry explained that the only one he could find was a study in which her face was concealed, which must have been Cassandra’s watercolour of 1804 showing only a back view of a seated figure. (It was not used.) If Paula Byrne’s portrait was really Jane Austen, it would surely have been natural for Henry to suggest it for the 1832 edition. (See Claire Tomalin’s biography, page 278.)
Another point: Paula Byrne’s fixation on Jane Austen’s nose seems very odd. It actually seems unlikely that Jane Austen had the long Austen nose. Her nephew James-Edward (who wrote the first memoir of Jane Austen, published in 1870) described “full round cheeks with mouth and nose small and well formed”. Another witness also describes Jane Austen’s nose as small. Claire Tomalin writes (p. 108): “She certainly did not have her mother’s aquiline nose, a source of pride to Mrs Austen, who considered it a mark of aristocratic blood.”
One last point: Jane Austen’s novels were published anonymously. Her brother Henry began telling people about her authorship, around the time of the publication of Pride and Prejudice (1813); she forgave him, and began to grow used to it, but would not be taken to literary gatherings. Claire Tomalin (p. 241): “An attempt to introduce her to the French writer Madame de Staël, who was in London meeting everyone in the winter of 1813/14, was firmly refused.” Does this sound like a woman who would pose for a portrait as a professional writer?
so are you saying that the portrait was an extrapolation from the portraits of her father and brothers?
This is only a “like” post, but I just want to say, rather belatedly, that I thought the points Christoper Eva made were excellent.
I’m afraid that there is no hard evidence to link this image with anyone in the family of Jane Austen.
What an interesting set of posts, especially Christopher Eva’s astute comments about Henry Austen’s ignorance of any such portrait later. I’ve seen the picture up close, as I was one of the people asked for my opinion on it by the makers of the BBC 2 documentary that’s going out on Boxing Day. I wasn’t told anything about the image before the crew arrived with the cameras – they wanted an immediate response, and my immediate response was to say ‘I’ve seen this before’ because I remembered it (vaguely) from Deirdre le Faye’s round-up of imaginary portraits of JA in the JA Society Report a couple of years ago. She had an explanation that it was probably by a man who did a series of imaginary pictures of authors he admired.
It was very interesting to be able to scrutinize the portrait: it’s not a flattering image, so hardly ‘idealised’ in the usual sense and there are so many oddities about it that it would give one pause for thought under any circumstances. The most immediately striking thing is the skill with which it has been executed (in graphite, on vellum); the lines are extremely delicate and meticulous, especially in the lace and silks of the dress, the tracery on that massy cathedral-like building outside the window, and the turreted buildings in the further distance. But the subject seems posed in an unreal room, with props rather than ‘things’ (the curtain is like studio drapery; the column theatrical, the tiny cat surely imaginary, the writing paper held at an angle no one could write at, the pen going backwards – as in a mirror). As to whether it could be JA herself, drawn from the life, the clincher for me (quite apart from the general unlikeliness of her agreeing to have her portrait drawn, or looking so complacent and dreamy during the process) is that the things this person is wearing are far too fine and expensive to have belonged to or on JA. We know she had very little to spend on clothes (the Letters show very clearly how cleverly she managed a small clothes budget, how much of her own dress was home-made from cheap materials and how big a deal it was to get a new pair of gloves etc) and had very little jewelry and finery (her amber cross from her brother Charles is one of the only items of adornment she owned). The many rings on this subject, the fine gold necklaces (plural), the extreme elegance of the lace and tasteful, expensive, tailored style of the dress are out of line with everything we know about Austen’s resources, temperament and self-presentation. It looks to me just like a wealthy person’s IDEA of what a parson’s intellectual spinster daughter might look like.
I’m looking forward to seeing the film to find out what makes Paula Byrne so sure this is a life portrait. Perhaps they have some clinching forensic evidence that they are keeping to themselves, though it doesn’t sound like it. My section was cut in the edit, it seems, so the balance of expert opinion rests at a favourable two to one in favour of a JA identification.
Christine Shih on this thread mentions the, to me, much more interesting speculation that Austen may be depicted in her own ‘History of England’ in the guise of Mary, Queen of Scots. I’ve got a short piece on this on my website (‘A Hidden Portrait of Jane Austen?’ http:/www.claireharman.com/austen.html) and it has been suggested independently, and at greater length, by Annette Upfal and Christine Alexander in their recent Juvenilia Press publication. Deirdre le Faye’s review of their book in a JA Society newsletter last year furnished more identifications.
I made the same point as Clare Harman in my blog: that the dress is far too expensive:
http://reveriesunderthesignofausten.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/they-prefer-another-jane-austen-than-the-real-one/
I’d like to add here also that Byrne’s distaste for Cassandra’s portrait is expressed as a distaste for a spinster. She wants an image of a woman who is marriageable. It seems to me this shows Byrne has missed a central value of Austen’s books: women are not to be valued only if marriageable; the next step is only if marriageable to rich men.
Very grateful to Claire Harman for sharing her lucid thoughts. One point though: Jane Austen DID do mirror-writing for her nieces, remember? So maybe it was an in-joke!
Hmmmmmm…I wondered that as well about the possibility of making a joke with the portrait. Claire Harman’s comments about the excessive jewelry, lace, and very expensive fabric of the dress does make a case for the idea of a parody in the effort. But from the perspective of living in poverty, the joke would be infused with cruelty (which unfortunately does not make it an impossible thought – thinking of Fanny Knight’s comments about JA when Fanny was much older). Also, I am a nurse practitioner specializing in Medical Oncology/Hematologic Malignancies, and as I look as this portrait I see the figure as having a chronic illness. She looks sick to me (“looks sick” is code terminology for health care professionals in cancer care – this actually is a specific presentation that signifies the patient is experiencing the effects of an acute and/or terminal illness). She looks pale, very thin, and with somewhat sunken cheeks. Any thoughts about this? Especially from Claire Harman since she has had the opportunity to view the portrait in person.
As stated before, it would be very interesting to take this portrait and put it through the rigors of objective assessment that was done by Annette Upfal and Christine Alexander with the HOE. This text, published by the Juvenilia Press is beginning to develop a wide readership. At the Juvenilia Press table at the JASNA AGM in October, it was the first book to sell out (and it sold out quickly).
Concerning Ellen Moody’s comment – spot on. Slippery slope,that is, when one is distressed by an “unflattering” portrait of an iconic figure.
JANE AUSTEN WAS A BRUNETTE OF COMPLEXION
And she was quite pretty. All her personages are brown and black of skin.
Let’s compare the so-called new portrait with the descriptions of her person by friends and family.
“In person she was very attractive; her figure was rather tall and slender, her step light and firm, and her whole appearance expressive of health and animation. In complexion she was a clear brunette with a rich colour; she had full round cheeks, with mouth and nose small and wellformed bright hazel eyes, and brown hair forming natural curls close round her face.”
James-Edward Austen,
Jane’s nephew
~
“… certainly pretty-bright & a good deal of colour in her face – like a doll – no that would not give at all the idea for she had so much expression – she was like a child – quite a child very lively and full of humour.”
Mr Fowle,
family friend
~
“… her’s was the first face I can remember thinking pretty … Her hair, a darkish brown, curled naturally – it was in short curls round her face…Her face was rather round than long – she had a bright but not a pink colour – a clear brown complexion and very good hazel eyes. Her hair, a darkish brown, curled naturally, it was in short curls around her face. She always wore a cap … before she left Steventon she was established as a very pretty girl, in the opinion of most of her neighbours.”
Caroline Austen,
Jane’s niece
~
“Her hair was dark brown and curled naturally, her large dark eyes were widely opened and expressive. She had clear brown skin and blushed so brightly and so readily.”
An early description of young Jane at Steventon by Sir Egerton Brydges
~
“She was tall and slender; her face was rounded with a clear brunette complexion and bright hazel eyes. Her curly brown hair
escaped all round her forehead, but from the time of her coming to live at Chawton she always wore a cap, except when her nieces had her in London and forbade it.”
Edward Austen Leigh of Jane’s appearence in the years just after the family left Southampton
~
” Her stature rather exceeded the middle height; her carriage and deportment were quiet but graceful; her complexion of the finest texture, it might with truth be said that her eloquent blood spoke through her modest
cheek.”
” Her pure and eloquent blood spake in her cheeks and so distinctly wrought that you had almost said her body thought.”
Henry Austen said of his sister
~
SOURCE; JASA
[…] those who wonder about Paula Byrne’s “fixation” on the nose (see for instance the debate at Jane Austen’s World): the nose is often where I start when tracking down drawings, miniatures or (especially) photos of […]
The programme presented a better argument for its authenticity than I had expected from the advance publicity, and Deirdre La Faye’s contemptuous obduracy encouraged the hope that she might be proved wrong. The misspellling of the surname is irrelevant. Unless it was written down it could very well be heard as “Austin” by an artist who did not know the sitter intimately. Murrays spelled it wrong despite seeing the name correctly written in correspondence. Surnames are so often taken down inaccurately, from Shakespeare down to my own, Forster, which so often comes back to me as Foster or Forester that I have given up correcting it.
But (Byron’s favourite word) the nose is nothing like the biographical description “small and well formed”, and even granted that Cassandra had no gift for getting a likeness, she might have exaggerated the prominence of the nose as a feature which an amateur could more readily ‘get’. The “L’aimiable Jane” silhouette, pasted in a copy of Mansfield Park, has characteristics similar to the Cassandra watercolour, but it was not mentioned or shown, even in passing. But (again) the line up of Austen noses did match, though the asymmetry of the eyes is irrelevent. The one side of all our faces do not exacty match the other. Stand a handmirror down the middle of your passport photo, look at it with the reflection and you won’t recognise yourself.
Jane Austen dedicated Emma to the Prince Regent, though it is assumed that this was at the suggestion of her publisher. That she saw herself as an ‘arrived’ author, knowing her literary worth, even though she remained nameless on her title pages, suggests she might have consented to be portrayed as a woman of letters. The high finish of the drawing did not require her presence once she had sat for the face and pose, any more than she herself needed to sit in front of a column, drape and Westminster Abbey. It might be that the portrait was for someone else, and therefore was not sent off to Chawton, or for any one or several of any number of reasons it was not dispatched to the sitter. That the Austen family was unaware of its existance does not tell against it. Maybe she sat for her portrait and did not like it, perhaps because it emphasized the size of the nose, a feature about which she was sensitive, a sensitivity respected by Cassandra’s diminuation of it and the posthumous tact of the biography.
The suspicion must remain that this is the portrait of a city-dwelling upper-class literary blue stocking, but (again) I earnestly hope that it might be proved to be a portrait of Jane Austen. It matches her sharp intelligence and puts her on a par with George Eliot and Virginia Woolf.
To my mind, the BBC programme “Jane Austen: the Unseen Portrait” was excellent. The presenter, Martha Kearney, didn’t take sides, and let everyone state their case. Deirdre Le Faye was implacably opposed, and I felt that there was an undertone of defensiveness – but Sir Roy Strong was also opposed and contemptuously so, and Claire Tomalin had misgivings that she couldn’t overcome. It’s a shame, knowing that Claire Harman contributed to the making of the programme, that her contribution wasn’t included in the final edit. Two experts took a more liberal point of view, Kathryn Sutherland, and an American professor who I hope will forgive me for forgetting her name, who both thought that it would be interesting if Jane *was* the subject.
There was no circumstantial evidence that would have made the attribution impossible. A pigment expert said that the materials were in use at the time; a costumes expert said that the clothing was spot on for the period circa 1815; a forensic physiognomist said that the sitter’s features might indicate that she was related to the Austen men who are recorded in portraits. An art expert said that the use of vellum, and the drawing technique, were surprisingly anachronistic, but in the right direction since they head been used much earlier in the 18th century.
The previous owner of the portrait, an art dealer, had made efforts to determine whether the attribution was accurate. He had a record of the lady who sold it to him, but (as I remember) she was acting as the executor of an estate. He finally put it into the auction because, among other things, there was no paper trail that led back to an original owner or artist, which might connect it in some way to Jane Austen. (None of the news reports that I’d seen said that someone had had a brass title plate attached to the frame. No one knows who put it there or when.)
Paula Byrne wants us to believe that the absence of contradictory evidence proves that the portrait must be of Jane. She wants us to accept that because we don’t know much about her activities during her long stay in London in 1815, she must, among other things, have sat for a portrait. I can’t imagine that the programme will convince impartial and sober viewers. Martha Kearney did appeal for anyone who has information about the woman who sold it to the art dealer, to get in touch. My own sympathy lies with Deirdre Le Faye, Sir Roy Strong, and Claire Tomalin – unless something can be proven, it isn’t proven.
Ron
The writing going the wrong way. Acute observation. If this was a drawing for an engraving or etching the resultant image would be reversed left to right, and, when printed, the writing would appear to be correct.
Ignore my previous submission. Correction. If the picture was reversed for the making of a print, Westminster Abbey & St. Margarets would be facing the other way too!
Sorry to disappoint all of you, but the May 4, 2012 issue of the Times Literary supplement clearly exposes this as a hoax. The real disappointment is in reading how willing all of you were to be taken in.
Mike, thanks for your comment, but please read my post more closely, as I am skeptical, and so are half of my readers.
I’ll be a little less polite than Vic. That was a rude thing to say. We love Jane Austen so much that we get very excited about anything in the news that relates to her. And the fact that Vic’s post was posted on Dec 8, 20011, not May 4, 2012 means that time has elapsed to find information to prove the hoax. There’s a polite way to point out a myth busted rather than to accuse the readers of this blog as being taken in. If you ever stop by this blog again, I hope you’ll abide by the good manners understood by the other readers of this blog and the other blogs on Jane Austen.