Jane Austen

Jane Austen (1775-1817), English author wrote numerous influential works contributing to the Western literary canon including Pride and Prejudice (1813) which starts;

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.” —Chapter 1

Austen had rejected suitor Harris Bigg Wither at the last minute and never ended up marrying, but still she expresses a keen grasp of the traditional female role and the ensuing hopes and heartbreaks with her memorable protagonists including Emma Woodhouse, Fanny Price, Catherine Morland, Anne Elliot, and Elizabeth Bennett of Pride and Prejudice. Writing in the romantic vein, Austen was also a realist and has been lauded for her form and structure of plot and intensely detailed characters who struggle with the issues of class-consciousness versus individualism: self-respecting men were supposed to become lawyers or join the church or military, and respectable women married to improve their station in life.

Jane had started writing at an early age and her family were highly supportive, though as was done at the time her works were published anonymously. Her combination of irony, humour, and sophisticated observations of the societal and cultural machinations between the classes epitomise the often absurd problems of inheritance, courtship, morals, and marriage in Regency England. Modestly successful during her life, her works have gone on to inspire adaptations to the stage and film and have endured the test of time even into the 21st century.

Born on 16 December, 1775 Jane Austen was the daughter of Cassandra (née Leigh) (1739–1827) and the reverend George Austen (1731–1805). The Austens were a very close-knit family; Jane had six brothers and one sister, Cassandra, who would later draw a famous portrait of Jane. They lived in the village of Steventon in Hampshire county, England, where George was rector. Young Jane was tutored at home and attended the Abbey School in Reading, Berkshire.

Jane was inseparable from her older sister Cassandra. They sang and danced and attended balls together. When George retired around 1801, he moved his family to Bath where he died in 1805. Adjusting to the ensuing financial difficulties, Jane, Cassandra and their mother then moved to Southampton for a time before settling in a cottage on the estate of Edward Austen in the village of Chawton, Hampshire in 1809, which is now a museum. Austen had missed Steventon life and now returning to the Hampshire countryside she wrote in earnest, revising and writing new works including Sense and Sensibility (1811), Pride and Prejudice (1813), Mansfield Park (1814), and Emma (1815).

Possibly suffering from Addington’s disease, Jane Austen died on 18 July, 1817. She lies buried in the north aisle of the nave in Winchester Cathedral in Winchester, England.

In the Memory of
Jane Austen
youngest daughter of the Late
Rev.d George Austen
formerly rector of Steventon in this County
She departed this Life on the 18th of July, 1817,
Aged 41, after a long illness supported with
the patience and the hopes of a Christian

Posthumous publications were Persuasion (1817) and Northanger Abbey, a satirisation of Ann Radcliffe’s Gothic novels like The Mysteries of Udolpho (1794). Although Austen had many critics, among them Charlotte Bronte, Mark Twain and Lionel Trilling, she also had many admirers during her life and since, including the Prince Regent, Andrew Lang, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Virginia Woolf, and Sir Walter Scott who wrote;

“That young lady has a talent for describing the involvements of feelings and characters of ordinary life which is to me the most wonderful I ever met with.”

The above biography is copyrighted. Do not republish it without permission.

Quizzes on Jane Austen

Please submit a quiz here.

Recent Forum Posts on Jane Austen

Death comes to Pemberley

Yes, there is another sequel to Pride & Prejudice, but not one of the most straightforward kind. Firstly it is written by the revered P.D. James and secondly it is not foremost concerned with what happened after Lydia, Elizabeth and Jane finally got married. Despite its subject, the death of Captain Denny who also featured in the original, it keeps an odd balance between Austen’s world and characters and the investigation of the murder in its timeframe. As P.D. James is herself a fan of Austen, she has written her sequel with much respect for the three things that define a good Austen read: style, knowledge of the times and a world that is always smaller than one thinks at first sight. Although Death comes to Pemberley is a spin-off from P&P, other Austen characters feature as well: Mrs Reynolds happens to know Mrs Goddard, Harriet Martin’s (née Smith) ex headmistress and Mr and Mrs Knightley of Donwell Abbey (do we need to say, Emma), Mr Wickham once worked briefly for Mr Elliot whose daughter made an advantageous match with a sea captain who has now become a famous admiral (do we need to mention that this is Persuasion?). Maybe it is to be concluded that these happen to be P.D. James’s favourite Austen novels? After a brief filling in about the past six years pretty much in an Austen tone of voice, in which Jane and Bingley have had three children (a boy and twin girls), bought an estate far away from Mrs Bennet and closer to the Darcys; in which Elizabeth and Darcy have had two boys; in which Lydia and Wickham still none; in which Mary Bennet made a divine match with a very boring curate who happened to find himself preaching boring long sermons to the congregation of Bingley’s estate of Highmarten; and in which Georgiana Darcy is, as it turns out, now being pursued by two suitors: Colonel Fitzwilliam on the one side and a Mr Alveston (a successful lawyer-and-impoverished-baronet friend to the Bingleys) on the other whom she clearly prefers; on the stormy night of the 14th of October 1803, the night before Lady Anne’s ball, the social occasion for Derbyshire, a chase comes riding down the road to Permberley at frightening speed so much so that Darcy cannot help asking what the hell the coachman is doing. The family run out to see what is up and who should get out but Lydia who screams they killed her husband? Of course indisposed, they take her upstairs, but a search party is organised by Darcy (who else?). Colonel Fitzwilliam briefly incriminates himself by having gone for a ride in the dark and returning shortly after the chase has arrived. Deep in the woodland they find Denny’s body and Wickham with a face smeared with blood saying that he killed his friend, his only friend and that it was his fault… To be sure, Wickham is a nasty creature, but is he really capable of murder? None of them believe so, but in the absence of a murder weapon and any other more plausible murderer, Wickham is the one, must be the killer. Although James’s style does turn factual, it is not a surprise. A murder mystery is factual and it should remain so, but from time to time James seems to fondly return to an Austen tone. Governesses and nursery maids commenting on children’s progress and the Bingley sisters who let the Darcys stay with them because they want themselves to be seen with them is a quintessential Austen point of view. James did not abandon her own writing style and in that at least did not try to imitate to her own detriment. She displays a good knowledge of the timeframe she is writing about. About servants and their feelings, discipline and ways, forms of address. When she mentions small details like Elizabeth walking along the corridor early in the morning and thinking that, even if she were to meet a maid, the latter would flatten herself against the wall and smile, she displays great knowledge that is to be respected. It is equally a funny detail that Stoughton, I believe, is cheesed off about using such good wax candles (the best) for examining Denny’s body in the gunroom. Indeed, candles were an expensive commodity and should the best bees’ wax candles really be used for such business rather than the ball? But, what all Austen fans want to know is, ‘How did she do with all the characters?’ I am delighted to say, pretty well. James does admit that she has read and re-read this novel, but there are enough of such people who still cannot seem to understand the characters no matter how many times they read their favourite novel. James, however, makes a good stab at it. Only Elizabeth, I found, was a little lacking, although maybe we could not picture her as the natural, respectable and at ease mistress of a large house like Pemberley. Jane and Bingley regretfully did not make much of an appearance, but of course Elizabeth did and in the six years she has been married, she has calmed down quite a lot. Probably not surprising though, if we acknowledge that she was ‘not one-and-twenty’ when she was at Rosings and she should now be about 26 and mother to two boys, SPOILER ALERT and may we say about to bring a third Darcy into the world SPOILER OVER. People change a lot in those few years and certainly becoming a parent changes a woman profoundly, even if she is only 26. Lydia, on the other hand, forasmuch as she made an appearance still seems to be the very same… Darcy has a remarkable inner life in this novel. Indeed, it is he and not his wife who has to deal with the business of the murder in his woodland and as such he has to face his demons: what happened to Georgiana and why he does not wish to talk about it. How he needs to confront himself with Wickham, someone who is never received at Pemberley and whom he would prefer to keep out of his life and mind forever. But as he is rich, he is compelled to help him, just as Bingley and Mr Gardiner: Wickham he is their brother or nephew and they have money. If they do not help him to escape the noose and the disgrace, then who will? With this, of course, Darcy can finally accept the past and deal with it. But the past is not only Wickham, it is also the heavy burden of duty. Reminiscent of the shock king Edward VIII’s abdication caused the English royal family, Darcy’s great grandfather forsook his duty and had a cottage built in the woodland which will prove essential to the plot. He went to live there alone with his dog, not even taking a servant to cook. When the dog got old and ill, he shot it and himself, asking to be buried with the dog. The estate has not crumbled, but Darcy is raised with that legend in mind and it hovers over his existence permanently and at some point explains why he does not regret marrying Elizabeth, but still thinks it was in spite of… Mr Bennet also makes a brief appearance as well as Lady Catherine de Bourgh through a letter. They are both very faithful renderings of their originals and it is a shame Mr Bennet could not stay longer, with even Mrs Reynolds commenting that he is like a friendly ghost whom you never see but you miss when he is gone… But now for criticism. I think James missed a chance. Since I finished the book I have been pondering over a possible part for Darcy or at least a possible incrimination for him. He could easily have had a motive to kill Wickham, he could easily have mistaken Denny for him in the dark, and it would have been great to try that, but it was not to be. Maybe James justly felt that a person like Darcy, or Colonel Fitzwilliam for that matter as well, would never be put on trial in the first place, whatever or whatever not their alibi. Fitzwilliam was briefly incriminated as he was suspiciously out on a night ride despite the storm, but that course of thought was quickly abandoned a few days later. However, I suppose Darcy could have challenged Wickham to a duel years before if he felt that was necessary… On the other hand we all know Darcy is not a killer, by no means, I can’t even see him shooting birds out of the sky (now that was missing in the novel ;)), but maybe James could have cast some doubt. Possibly she found that too obvious, though. Be the aforementioned as it may, Death comes to Pemberley was worthy of Austen and her characters and, indeed, to be sure, upon my word, I daresay, and all that, it was by no means a novel sold because it is a sequel of P&P alone.

Posted By kiki1982 at Thu 26 Jan 2012, 11:43 AM in Austen, Jane || 0 Replies

Jane Austen comparison questions

I am planning on reading Pride and Prejudice this spring or summer, maybe closer to summer, when I can devote more time to it. I have summers off, I work in a school. I have never read Austen, but cannot imagine neglecting to read her most famous book, being a classics fan! I have an interesting question, I hope. I am currently rereading Jane Eyre, which I LOVE!! I love the writing style; the formality of it, the suspense, and the wonderful narration by Eyre. I am wondering about a comparison in writing styles. I have not researched this, but as I am reading this book I can't help but anticipate reading Austen - the time period is not quite the same, but it is very close. I am thinking maybe you Austen fans and experts can chime in with your opinions, if you also like Charlotte Bronte, and if you see similarities in their work.

Posted By KCurtis at Fri 20 Jan 2012, 7:04 PM in Austen, Jane || 5 Replies

good articles about Jane Austen and her world

I just began a college course called bibliography and research. The basic purpose of this course is to prepare the students for further college research and writing. In this course we are required to choose a work of fiction of our choice to analyze and use as our primary research text throughout the course. Being a Jane Austen fan, I chose Pride and Prejudice. I am just now doing some preliminary research for a couple short summaries about Austen, Pride and Prejudice, and the times she lived in. I'm just wondering if anyone knows of any good sources regarding this sort of thing; summaries of the themes she addresses, the issues facing the world she lived in, and how they influenced her, are all questions that I want to look into.

Posted By missmeadowsweet at Mon 9 Jan 2012, 1:49 PM in Austen, Jane || 2 Replies

pride and prejudice paper!

Hi! I'm in high school and am writing an english paper on Pride and Prejudice. Particularly on the theme of marriage. For examples of the different views on marriage, i will be using Elizabeth, Charlotte, and Mrs. Bennet. Do you think I would have better luck analyzing Lydia rather than Mrs Bennet?

Posted By explorer at Fri 30 Dec 2011, 10:15 PM in Austen, Jane || 0 Replies

Did Jane Austen write "shadow stories"?

I recently came across the blog Sharp Elves Society, which is dedicated to the exploration of Jane Austen's "shadow stories". Among the author's ideas are that Jane Austen was a more radical feminist than Mary Wollstonecraft, that there really was something nefarious going on in Captain Tilney's marriage and that Jane Fairfax had a baby, gave it to Mrs Weston ... and the father was not Frank. I am in no way affiliated with the author, and indeed, find some of his hypotheses extremely circumstantial. However, I appreciate his bringing to light the complexity of Austen's intelligence and her knowledge of other authors. Here's the link to his blog. I'd encourage anyone interested in Austen to check it out and come back here with some thoughts. http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/

Posted By L.M. The Third at Thu 10 Nov 2011, 6:15 PM in Austen, Jane || 0 Replies

Research help!

Hi! I am a third year undergraduate student currently studying towards a degree in geography and, as part of this, am completing a project on how the novels of Jane Austen have sculpted both the imagined and physical landscape of Bath. One of the facets of this is how the idea of Bath is constructed in the novels and how this is achieved through associating it with certain characters. With this in mind, I was wondering if anyone could be a huge help and let me know their thoughts on some of Austen’s characters such as feelings towards them or words you would associate with them. The characters I need to know opinions on are Mr Woodhouse, Mr Elton, Mrs Elton (Emma); Mr Rushworth, Mr Crawford, Miss Crawford (Mansfield Park); Mr Wickham, Lydia Bennett (Pride and Prejudice). Thank you – I would be hugely grateful for any input at all!

Posted By helenmck1 at Wed 3 Aug 2011, 11:29 AM in Austen, Jane || 1 Reply

Jane Austen couldn't spell!

It has been revealed that Jane Austen couldn't spell, wrote in a regional accent and didn't have sufficient punctuation! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323056/How-Jane-Austen-failed-spelling-Study-shows-author-used-regional-accent-poor-punctuation.html?ITO=1490 That puts this piece of her own writing in perspective: "Henry Tilney: It appears to me that the usual tyle of letter-writing among women is faultless except in three particulars. Miss Morland (?): And what are they? Tilney: A general deficiency of subject, a total inattention to stops, and a very frequent ignorance of grammar.' Not to mention spelling, no doubt :lol: I mean, she wrote 'recieve'. :lol: Just liked to mention it because it was nice to know :) And they are going to put free Austen manuscripts online via the British library. Would like to see it for myself. ;)

Posted By kiki1982 at Sat 23 Oct 2010, 11:42 AM in Austen, Jane || 16 Replies

Putting the boot in - Miss Austin style

This is just brilliant! The language may be genteel and elegant, but no one puts the boot in quite like Miss Austin. - a lucky contraction of the brow had rescued her countenance from the disgrace of insipidity, by giving it the strong character of pride and ill-nature. She was not a woman of many words: for unlike people in general, she proportioned them to the number of her ideas.

Posted By prendrelemick at Sun 10 Oct 2010, 2:34 PM in Austen, Jane || 2 Replies

Was Jane Austen (1775-1817) Black?

http://www.jasa.net.au/images/cassportrait.jpg Cassandra Austen or Jane Austen? WAS JANE AUSTEN (1775-1817) BLACK? "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: http://www.jasa.net.au/images/austen.htm

Posted By Egmond Codfried at Mon 26 Jul 2010, 8:11 AM in Austen, Jane || 123 Replies

Was jane austen (1775-1817) black?

http://www.jasa.net.au/images/cassportrait.jpg WAS JANE AUSTEN (1775-1817) BLACK? By Egmond Codfried The chief glory of nations is derived from their writers wrote Dr. Samuel Johnson (1708-1784). And many around the world deeply enjoy Jane Austen’s books and letters, of which the interpretation is constantly fine-tuned and made into movies and TV series. They study human behaviour and are satirical of human failings. Her style was based on Dr. Samuel Johnson’s: ‘cool, well-ordered, witty and incisive observations of life.’ But because Austen’s live straddled the decisive period around the French Revolution (1789-1795), her life, her books and surviving letters can also be mined for her ideas about the radical changing times. Although she wrote novels in the Romantic fashion: ‘The passion of Romantism did not inspire her.’ So I, because of my research interests, look for Austen’s ideas about the changing views on the emergence and the controversial role of Race. In this light, the fact that there is no credible portrait of Britain’s finest nineteen-century female writer should be considered as highly problematic. Jane Austen, properly read, might grow into our greatest activist in proclaiming the glory of Blacks. Austen is very insistent about the brown and very brown complexion and the special beauty of her heroines. There can be no doubt that she is writing about brown, very brown and black skinned persons belonging to the gentry and aristocracy. Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park (1814) is ‘absolutely plain, black and plain.’ His description can be compared to the Moor, always a Classical African, in many eighteen-century scenes by painter Wiiliam Hogarth (1697-1764), which show a Moor in the middle of a noble assembly. The Moor, often disguised as a servant, is one symbol of blue blood, and informs us about the true looks and high birth of the company. In Northanger Abbey (1818) two women talk about there favourite complexion in a man: ‘dark or fair.’ This is answered as: ‘I hardly know. I never much thought about it. Something between both, I think. Brown—not fair, and not very dark.’ The other woman prefers light eyes and likes ‘a sallow better then any other.’ Marianna Dashwood from Sense and Sensibility (1811) is Austen’s heroine who is ‘so lovely,’ ‘uncommonly brilliant’ and a delightful beauty: ‘that when, in the common cant of praise, she was called a beautiful girl, truth was less violently outraged then usually happens.’ But only after all this staggering praise we are told that: ‘Her skin was very brown.’ The most famous of Austen’s heroines, Eliza Bennet from Pride and Prejudice (1813) is described deprecatingly by her rival in love, Miss Caroline Bingley, as: ‘grown brown and coarse’ and ‘her complexion has no brilliancy.’ However, Mr. Darcy, their love interest; does not find any fault in any of that but perceives her as ‘rather tanned’ because of her ‘travelling in summer.’ From The Watsons, we learn about its heroine Emma Watson: ‘Her skin was very brown, but clear, smooth, and glowing.’ Austen is clearly not talking about whites who happen to be more or less tanned. In a letter to her sister Cassandra Austen she mentions a Mrs. Blount with: ‘Her Pink husband & Fat neck’ (20-21 November 1800). White skin is referred to as ‘Pink.’ She rather discusses the many shades we see among Blacks, in a way that Blacks today have abandoned. We consider this talk today as colorism, the dangerous antagonism between ‘good’ and ‘bad complexion.’ So naturally Emma Watson’s beauty does not ‘improve on acquaintance’ with everybody. Austen states: ‘Some saw no fault, and some no beauty.’ And: ‘With some her brown skin was the annihilation of every grace.’ But Miss Austen is clearly not fooling around when she discusses complexion. In Persuasion (1818) she never mentions brown or black complexion, but subtle yet with devastating force mentions ‘Gowland’ twice. She refers to real life Gowland’s Lotion, a skin-bleaching potion introduced in 1760. So it had grown into quite an institution in her lifetime. Although advertised as a panacea for many beauty problems, the real purpose was to bleach a black or brown skin by peeling with lead white, a corrosive ingredient. Lead white was also used during the Renaissance by Elizabeth I and Catherine de Medici, Queen of France, as a whitening make-up and bleaching agent named Venetian Ceruse or Spirits of Saturn. By the addition of mercury derivates, another corrosive substance, to Gowland’s, it also functions as our Botox today, as it paralyses the facial muscles and causes a youthful radiance, but an immobile facial expression. Both substances are poisonous and their constant and excessive use attracted censure by scientists. Austen ascribes the use of Gowland to Sir Walter Elliot, the father of the heroine Anne Elliot. Her personage had ‘an elegance of mind and sweetness of character.’ She had taken after her mother who was: ‘ an excellent woman, sensible and amiable.’ Austen introduced Sir Elliot as: ‘Handsome with the blessing of beauty,’ through Anne’s eyes, and as a ‘failing’ and ‘conceited, silly father.’ So we may assume Austen decidedly rejects the skin-bleaching practises by the black and brown Europeans in her books. The brown beauty of Emma and Eliza and the very brown beauty of Marianne and Emma Watson are reflected in the six detailed descriptions of Jane Austen by her family and friends. Even towards the controversial nature of the views of black and brown looks that we can derive from her books. Austen is described as: ‘in complexion she was a clear brunette with a rich colour’ (1864) and: ‘- she had a bright but not a pink colour – a clear brown complexion’ and: ‘she had clear brown skin.’ But the language also becomes cryptic: ‘Her pure and eloquent blood spoke in her cheeks,’ and needs deciphering. Her niece Eliza de Feuillide (1761-1813) married a French aristocrat, who was guillotined during the French revolution (1789-1795), describes her own looks as: ‘add to all this a very share of Tan with which I have contrived to heighten the native brown of my Complexion, during a two years residence in the country.’ One takes notice of the self-deprecating tone of voice, which is also encountered in the works by contemporary Isabelle de Charrière (1740-1805). She described herself as: ‘She does not have the white hands, she knows this and even jokes about it, but its not a laughing matter.’(1764) And in Lettres écrites de Lausanne (1785) her heroine Cécile is described by her doting mother as: ‘she would have been beautiful if her throat was whither.’ Jane Austen died young from a still unidentified disease and she wrote in a final letter: ‘I’m recovering my Looks a little, which have been bad enough, black and white & every wrong colour.’(1817) The prevailing emphasise on brown and very brown skin in both her works and the way she herself was described, forces us to consider Jane Austen’s personal identity as Black. And there we are double crossed by the absence of an authenticated portrait which shows her own rich brown complexion and prettiness. In my ongoing research, my Blue Blood is Black Blood (1500-1789) Theory (2005), I have already encountered some so-called ‘missing’ portraits, which however do exist, or existing portraits which are not put on display in a museum because of African looks, or those portraits which show the same person who is described as ‘noir et basané’ (black brown) and ‘chimney sweeper’ as a blue eyed, white man. This scandalous falsehood we also encounter in the present day depictions of Austen’s personages by white actors and actresses. Marianne Dashwood, who was ‘very brown,’ is played by the lovely Miss Kate Winslet, who is blond and white. Miss Jennifer Ehle is white and has ethnic looks, derived from her Rumanian grandmother, but does not look ‘brown’ nor ‘’rather tanned’ as Austen describes Eliza Bennet. Apparently, I’m not the only one who has discovered Jane Austen’s blackness. Yet where I welcome this as a valuable addition to my research after Blacks and coloured Europeans who were a dominating elite, others seek to deny, hide and submerge. They are denying Blacks the glory that derives from Black achievement and Black writers. The one un-authenticated portrait, which was acquired in 2000 by The Jane Austen Trust is supposed to show Cassandra Austen, but can be considered to be Jane’s, as it perfectly conforms to all her descriptions. Yet she will not be identified by them as Black because eurocentrism claims ‘There were no Blacks!’ Or what one might perceive as a Black is most likely a ‘Black Caucasian’ and not a ‘True Negro,’ they say. As some might know that according to eurocentrism Africans should be divided in African Caucasians, who might be pitch black but display no prognatism, and the ‘True Negroes’ who are prognastic. Apparently an unforgivable offence, we will see. And eurocentrism will blithely insist that there is no proof because we cannot employ biometric pliers to measure Austen’s skull to proof her a Negress. Or some easily disproved nonsense about Blacks who cannot be rendered in paintings. And their final obstacle is demanding from a researcher a Black ancestor, who must be named. And has to be a ‘True Negro’ who is a SSA, from below the ‘South of Sahara.’. Someone, just like Alexander Pushkin’s great-grandfather, Abraham Hannibal. Or Alexander Dumas’ father, General Dumas whose mother was an enslaved woman from Martinique. Yet Africa is just across the very narrow Straights of Gibraltar and Africans first arrived 43.000 years ago in Europe. Who knows their names? Whites, descendents of Albino’s who are in my experience just normal and healthy people who need a sunblock, are only 6000 years in Europe, coming from Central Asia. But mostly whites claim, unconvincingly, not to be the least interested in whether Jane Austen was white or Black, but rather focus on her work and personality. As if personality is not also informed by an ethnic identity. As if any writer can be studied without some reference to the personal context. Jane Austen also wrote about persons whose fortune was derived from slavery, as Isabelle de Charrière did and struggled with her own wealth. Fanny Price’s outburst against slavery is met with silence, in Mansfield Park, by the slaveholding Bertram family. Reverend George Austen (1731-1805), Jane’s father, acted as a trustee for a plantation on Antigua owned by Mr. Nibbs. Jane Austen was perfectly in the know about emerging views of Blacks. Does she refer to this when she cries out in a letter to her sister: ‘If I’m a wild Beast I cannot help it’ and ‘It is not my own fault.’(1813) The Moor, the Classical African who symbolised blue blood and black superiority was demoted to the base of the evolutionary ladder, now a creature between the superior white Human and Apes. This part also highlights the role of European Blacks in exploiting Africans in slavery. Yet eurocentrism blocks any dialogue or argument as if these views are dangerous and extremely pernicious and would threaten the very fundaments of the whole western civilisation. Any solicitation is met with rudeness and next dead silence. And even sabotage by library workers, as I have found out. Interesting is that on the Internet this portrait is shown out of focus which renders her prognastic lips fuzzy. And therein I find the reason for suppressing her portrait: Jane Austen displays clear Classical African features that make her Blackness undeniable. The suppression of Jane Austen’s true portrait had already started during her lifetime and apparently no public portrait was issued by her in 1811 when she debuted with Sense and Sensibility. She knew that her ‘peculiar charm,’ which pointed to ‘the purity and eloquence of her blood’, put her straight in the line of fire of revolutionaries who had violently brought down the Ancien Regime. This regime I have defined as Reversed Apartheid. Sadly, I sometimes have to point out to some that South African Apartheid was an unjust and a wholly evil system. Likewise Reversed Apartheid, but this Black and Coloured nation shaped Europe in the way we know it today. My research shows a great and universal scramble to amend ancestral portraits to hide Blackness, even to the point of defacement. Now I can safely push back this panic to at least around 1811. I have concluded that there most certainly were many portraits of Jane Austen adorning the walls of the stately homes of family and friends were she was received as a favourite relative and guest. Yet they displayed her Classical African features, a mark of ‘her pure blood,’ and thus became a liability. Black Europeans who considered their blackness as proof of their superiority over whites, who they derisively called ‘Pink’ or ‘t Graauw’ (the Grey’s), were bullied into abstaining the propagation of Black Supremacy. As total revisionism was aimed at, I seriously doubt any documents toward this directive will be found. They would have defeated the revisionist purpose. I consider the horrible practice of using white human skin for bookbinding’s by the Black nobility as further proof how some viewed their white subjects. But they still alluded to their black superiority with jewellery and imagery with Moors and what I perceive as cryptic phrases: ‘blue blood,’ ‘not the white hands’ or ‘the purity and eloquence of her blood.’ Austen’s heroines could have only been Blacks as she was Black and her pride was based on her blackness. She considered herself through her accomplishments as a writer combined with her blackness as a true noble. The titled aristocrats are often portrayed in her books as: ‘ill-bred’, ‘sickly and crossed,’ ‘cold,’ ‘insignificant’ and ‘plain and awkward.’ And even the final blow by sweet Anne Elliot: ‘they are nothing.’ Jane Austen who was Black did not renounce Black Superiority if it was enforced by personal brilliance by applying ones talents to become accomplished. Mr. Darcy, the ideal hero who ravaged Eliza Bennet’s heart, was extremely rich, but not a titled noble. His fortune was achieved by trade, thus by accomplishment. And his housekeeper said: `He is the best landlord, and the best master,’ Austen’s family and publishers would have been perceived as promoters of Ancien Regime values and would have placed themselves in great danger if they would have promoted her portrait. Even Austen herself might have experienced ridicule, hatred, violence and harsh rejection based on her Black appearance. Yet through restorations the nobility slashed its way back into power but was finally subdued in 1848. And only then whites came into power, whitewashed European history, and claimed the glory like any conqueror would usurp the spoils of war. The absence of a portrait of Jane Austen and the portrayal of her personages by white actresses should be viewed as the ongoing revisionism of history. Any European museum should be regarded as a Church of Revisionism because they show whitened copies, over painted authentic portraits and outright fake images of the black kings and nobles. A practice facilitated by these persons themselves by issuing whitened portraits. A look they did achieved in real life with white face paint and bleaching crèmes. It seems that the views from whites about Blacks were frozen in 1760, when nationhood was hence identified by colour. Queen Alexandra (1844-1925) (1902-1910) was famous for her beauty in advanced age, achieved by a practice called enamelling. She preferred an application of paint which made her pink all over. This technique also prescribed the careful application of blue pigments to the temple veins to heighten the illusion of a translucent, super white skin. Her rather lifeless and ethereal look suggests paralysed facial muscles by mercury derivates, as well. This miraculous vision of beauty was then further enhanced with mysterious veils that blurred the view. Yet there are photographs which show her and her mother, Queen Louise of Denmark, as brown and frizzy haired. Her husband, Edward VII was a son of Queen Victoria, who was a granddaughter of Queen Charlotte-Sophie whose ‘true mulatto’ and ‘brown’ looks were deemed ‘propagandistic’ and gave rise to many comments. Some over painted portraits of the nobility show a solid pink face, and excessive, gruesome blue veins in the face and on the hands. This undoubtedly gave rise to the nonsense about the nobility to be very white and that blue blood meant blue veins showing. It could only be understood that frightened and indoctrinated coloured Europeans took to protecting themselves from the sun with umbrellas, veils and gloves, as Blacks tan easily. This article should be understood in connection with my Blue Blood is Black Blood (1500-1789) thread elsewhere on this site and in Google. Any writer writes less then he knows; for sake of brevity, yet all my conclusions are based in facts and argument. Voltaire was accused by his detractors of ‘inventing his own facts.’ What are facts? I reject eurocentrism which is supposedly based in ‘fact’ and ‘empirism’ yet its a fake and evil science to hide the traumatic fact that Europe was a Black Civilisation, with Blacks despotically oppressing whites. Nobody observed Evolution, no one reproduced Evolution, and there are many ‘Missing Links,’ yet to Evolutionist, the Evolution Theory is a fact, as it better explains nature and human descent then Genesis’s Believers can. No one should believe anything; they should research everything by Google. The more sources to confirm a fact, the better. I will post more sources and welcome serious questions from readers. Whites seem to perceive Blacks as biased and therefore not capable to research these matters. But whites do not seem to suffer the same bias when researching the same matter. How come? Egmond Codfried The Hague June 2010

Posted By Egmond Codfried at Thu 1 Jul 2010, 2:03 PM in Austen, Jane || 52 Replies

Post a New Comment/Question on Austen

Jane Austen

Related Links:

Quizzes on Jane Austen

Recent Forum Posts on Jane Austen

Fiction