What Jane Austen Looked Like According to Forensic Science
From Electric Lit:
In the nearly 200 years since the beloved author’s death, readers have been unsure what Jane Austen actually looked like. The only portrait available was a watercolor by her sister Cassandra that Austen’s niece claimed was “hideously unlike” the author.
Although one would hope the appearance of an author is irrelevant to enjoying their work, Jane Austen fans who’ve been curious about her appearance now have a life-size wax sculpture courtesy of the Jane Austen Centre. The sculpture is based on work done by FBI-trained forensic artist’ Melissa Dring. Dring used first hand accounts of Austen’s appearance of which there are several. The Guardian points out this passage from the memoir of her nephew, James Edward Austen-Leigh:
“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 well-formed, bright hazel eyes, and brown hair forming natural curls close round her face.”
Link to the rest at Electric Lit
, Amazon will pay Passive Guy a small affiliate commission on any of your purchases. 
Maybe it’s just me, but the link seems borked.
The site seems to be down. Even the link from their Facebook page doesn’t work:
https://www.facebook.com/ELlitmag
Now back up and running.
That’s right – science has determined that Jane Austen looked almost exactly like Mary Robinette Kowall.
http://maryrobinettekowal.com/
Heh, that was the first thought I had when I saw that pic.
Second thought was that dress is not particularly flattering. Closely followed by the third thought, which was that I know squat about historical fashion.
Honestly when I first saw that article I assumed it was extremely clever marketing to promote the Glamourist series. I immediately wanted to find a dead author with a large devoted following I could try to impersonate.
It is Regency fashion and it wasn’t particularly flattering to anyone.
Which only supports my theory that MRK is in fact the reincarnation of Jane Austen.
I thought she looked just like the actress who plays Rosalee on Grimm.
I totally agree.
Also, Grimm FTW.
She does, doesn’t she?
Also, the recreation is totally unlike the description the artist allegedly used.
Claire Chilton (from post further down)looks more like Jane Austen as described by her family.
WHOAH. That’s eerie.
Pish tush. Nobody looks like that, or ever did. That nose is hardly ‘small and well-formed’. And the dress – it’s what my mother would have described as loving hands at home.
So “forensic science” is creating a sculpture based on first hand descriptions… no. Forensic science would be using Jane Austens skull to recreate her face.
That’s how I understood forensic reconstructions to work, too. More like how Bones & Angela do it and less like a sketch artist. I’ll bet, though, that an experienced forensic reconstructor is probably good at using description to determine what underlying bone structure you’d have to have to fit the description. Or am I way off?
Just for fun, for the word-choice policeman inside us all –
Weird Al Yankovic schools everyone on word crimes
thank you Jamie and Matt. i agree that forensics is science. This sounds like interpretative art. Not sure, if peeps want to know what she looked like, they dont exhume the body and do it right. But then, our native american side of the family is fond of saying ‘they dig us up and they are archeological heroes, we dig them up and we are sent to prison.”
the wax version looks quite thin lipped, rather than small mouth, no?, really prominent at the bridge long nosed with bulby end, not quite developed young girl, small breasted Irish redhead. That’s supposed to be an ‘empire waist dress’ and its bodice darts are illfitting completely. And the regimented little winged propellers all over it, are bery bery blah, I think. Not sure I’d call those ‘curls.’ Looks more like lank wavy hair. BUT, the entire wax figure is also sweet, I think. However, since she was a woman of such passion, one would think she would rather go buck nekkid than wear a dress the color of yellow-beige face powder.
That was my thought – they’d dug up her body & used her bones to create structure & then descriptions for color – could they get DNA to determine color & stuff from a 200 year-old corpse?
Good question Tasha, but I’m not sure. I’ve maybe been reading too much Crighton–thinking you can clone from a bone frag. lol
To me, the face looks more like a man’s face, though only slightly so. Plus, the smile makes her look a little goofy, not like the intelligent woman she obviously was. Anyway, that’s just my impression, for what it’s worth.
Maybe I’ve been too influenced by modern plastic surgery, but I wouldn’t call that nose “small and well-formed.” It has no bridge and it’s the same width all the way. (Apologies to Jane Austen for insulting her if this is accurate.)
Apparently, witnesses described her as flat-chested, too.
I totally hate that waxwork. Slender in the early 1800′s did not have bones sticking out of it. And a ‘small of nose and mouth’ does not mean a giant pointy honker.
I compared me (as a round-faced, hazel-eyed, dark-haired English girl) to the 1870 portrait, and came to the conclusion that I look more like Jane Austen that that waxwork does. But then, I’m not a forensic scientist, so maybe I’m wrong. You can see my comparison photo here:
http://www.claire-chilton.com/blog/what-did-jane-austen-really-look-like/
If for nothing else, it’s good for a laugh, and my mother likes it :p.
Wow you do look very much like she was drawn by her sister.