I recently read the following quote from a letter to Cassandra in an excellent work by Josephine Ross, “Jane Austen: A Companion” (Rutgers University Press, 2002) in reference to Jane’s 15-year-old niece Anna: “‘Anna will not be surprised that the cutting off her hair [sic] is very much regretted by several of the party. I am tolerably reconciled to it by considering that two or three years may restore it again.’” Ms. Ross adds that “a year later [Jane] was still disconcerted by ‘that sad cropt head.’” That doesn’t sound to me like someone who approved of, or had herself ever had, “cropt hair.” Could the portrait have been of Anna?

I also take umbrage at those who find “our” Jane less than attractive, as I do not find her so; and it troubles me that the Rice portrait is now being definitely attributed to Ozias Humphry, which as I understand it is still not known for sure.

Alas! Part of why we love her so is that so much about her remains a mystery!

Without going so far as to say it is or it isn’t, I find it perfectly possible that the young girl in the portrait grew into the woman in Cassandra’s painting. Setting aside a difference in age of some twenty years, ill health, from which Jane suffered, makes a tremendous difference in one’s appearance. I have a wedding portrait of my mother, and more than one person has innocently asked which movie star it was; twenty years later, when she was afflicted with ill health – it wasn’t a question that anyone would have asked. Yet she was the same person.

There is a lot to be said for artistic convention, as well as interpretation; I’ve seen different portraits of Mme. Recamier, painted during the same time period, and they’re certainly not identical! A couple of them look very similar, and with one it’s just possible to see a relationship. A portrait painted just ten years later, with Mme. Recamier wearing a cap, no less, disguises her entirely.

I find it possible to believe that indeed, most people now would consider, and would have then considered Jane to be “pretty” – especially when she was animated and talking.

We should also remember that what is generally considered to be “pretty” today is not necessarily the same standard held at other times! Jane was “pretty” during a time period when a small mouth on a woman was considered attractive – as indeed the gentle fullness around her chin was also considered. This is not a period that would have favored angular cheekbones, a square jaw, and a full mouth – all considered attractive by many people today (to the extent that many people in Hollywood and out of it get cheekbone implants and lip injections). Our sitter here has an oval face, regular features, large, well-opened eyes, and eyebrows that are strongly marked without being heavy. She is a pretty woman.

And yes, Miss Chancellor is pretty. Jennifer Ehle (whom I admire vastly) was not the only woman in the room with “fine eyes!”

I was at the hair salon tonight and my stylist said to me, “Someday we’re going to flatiron your hair.” I said, “Why? It will just go curly again.” Besides, I’m a child of the 80s. I don’t like flat hair, at least on me.

Hmm I always thought it was the other way around. I agree there are some similarities in the particularities of the face, but I will say, at the risk of sounding like a total jerk, the Rice portrait has just never struck me as right; can I say my sixth sense doesn’t think it is Jane? I have naturally curly hair, and my hair has never looked, no matter what I do, like the hair in the Rice portrait. It just isn’t right, I mean are there any other portraits like this of the other Austen children? Then why Jane?

I also like Robin’s point about Jane Motley Austen, who might also have been known as simply Jane Austen.

Mr. Rice is allowed to be irascible & cantankerous at the age of 78, but I’m surprised that he doesn’t know the difference between “you and your family are liars” and “after weighing up decades of research, we think it possibele you might be mistaken.”

Christie’s auctioneers is sufficiently sure of recent research to go ahead with the sale of the painting, by English society artist Ozias Humphry.
“Christie’s supports the Rice portrait as a true depiction of Jane Austen and is honored to have been chosen by the family to organize a public auction,” the company said in a statement.

Two comments. First, we don’t really know the portrait is by Ozias Humphry. Until the mid-twentieth century, the Rice portrait was assumed to be by Johann Zoffany (1733-1810.) Second, I wonder if Christies are choosing their words carefully when they say the portrait is a depiction of Jane Austen .. since expert opinion for many years has surmised that it may well be a portrait of Jane Motley Austen, another granddaughter of Francis Austen.