The Mansfield Park Silhouette

Is the MP silhouette an image of Jane Austen? I've found scattered arguments for and against. There are many data to evaluate but, like a good jigsaw puzzle, it's not initially obvious how they fit together. I'd like to suggest a way they might form a coherent picture. I'd appreciate your comments and any relevant links you might be aware of.


Arguments in favour: 1. The Missing Piece

We possess verifiable silhouettes for Jane's sister Cassandra, and for her parents, George and Cassandra Austen, as well as portraits of the brothers. Jane is the only one for whom we have no formal likeness. Does this not seem odd? These likenesses were the equivalent of our family photo album; unless you were well off (and the Austens weren't), a silhouette was the only likeness of a loved one you could ever hope to have. It's conceivable no silhouette of Jane was ever made; but perhaps one WAS made, and went missing, for a reason I will discuss presently. This does not contribute to proof of identity, as such, but it is a material circumstance which is worth keeping in mind, because it establishes a logical space which the MP silhouette would fill.


Arguments in favour: 2. The Scene Of The Crime

The silhouette was found inside a second-edition copy of Mansfield Park (1816), and it can be dated to the period 1810-1820. This justifies a tentative identification; as R W Chapman asked, what other Jane would have her silhouette in such a place? Why would somebody label a silhouette as "Jane", and put it inside a novel written by Jane Austen, knowing it to be some other person? Not conclusive, of course, but definitely a brick in the wall.


Arguments in favour: 3. The Family Resemblance

The facial features are consistent with a recombination of the silhouettes of Mr, Mrs, and Miss Austen, and such as we would expect to see in a sibling of the Austen family. There is the "classical" Austen nose, with a slight Leigh kink towards the tip; below the nose, the somewhat receding line of the Austen mouth features, terminating in a Leigh chin. An AI analysis would be useful here, particularly in comparison with the silhouette found among sundry papers (if I understand correctly) when Godmersham was auctioned in 1983. This second silhouette, possibly a self-portrait c.1815, faces the opposite direction, and the features are not quite perfectly identical, but they are sufficiently alike to be the same person done by a different hand.


Arguments in favour: 4. The Lovable Jane

The superscription "L'Aimable Jane" is definitely a worry. It would appear to have been written by someone who knew Jane, loved her, and either was French, or liked to affect French manners. No prizes for guessing who THAT would be. Jane and Eliza de Feullide loved each other; as Eliza lay dying of breast cancer, Jane's presence was all the comfort she needed; she died while Jane held her hand; indeed, quite possibly, while Jane held her in her arms. It is possible Jane had sometime gifted the silhouette to Eliza, and she had endorsed it "L'Aimable Jane". This would be quite in character. An AI analysis of handwritings would be useful here; unfortunately, though her letters survive, no image of Eliza's handwriting is in the public domain (as far as I know). The book was printed after Eliza's death, so she could not have put the silhouette into it herself; this must have been done by another - husband Henry, or perhaps even Jane herself? She would have treasured such a "memento mei". It may even be significant, that the book was Mansfield Park; like Fanny Price, Eliza was lifted out of obscurity and into a life of privilege. Subsequently, the silhouette was overlooked as the book passed into other hands. It is curious that the two silhouettes date to around the same period - was the second done to replace the one given to Eliza? Or did the existence of two make it possible to give one away?


Arguments against: 1. The Tits Are Too Big

One (female) commentator has suggested that the breasts in the MP silhouette are too generous to belong to one as tall and slender as Jane was reported to be. This is problematic on so many grounds, it is difficult to know where to begin.

(a) There is no law which says tall, skinny women cannot have breasts.

(b) In any case, the breasts in the silhouette are not so big as all that; they are just being pushed unnaturally high by the stays. On bath nights, they must have appeared much less formidable.

(c) With human nature in mind, I assume a silhouette artist might sometimes exaggerate a lady's bust to make her more attractive. In portraiture, length of arm and leg was often exaggerated for this purpose; Emma's sketch of Harriet is criticised for it.

(d) In any case, the "tall and slender" descriptions apply chiefly to young Jane. The silhouette probably dates to her thirties, by which time she may have put on a few pounds.


Arguments against: 2. It Could Have Been A Fanboy/Fangirl Fantasy

It's been suggested an unknown lady's silhouette could have been co-opted as part of a Janeite fantasy-obsession. One must concede that anything is possible but, currently, there are no data to support or imply this hypothesis.


There is no conclusive argument on either side of the question, but the balance of probability points to an identification with Jane Austen. Further advances in AI and DNA analysis will doubtless add more fuel to the debate. We haven't heard the last of this yet!