Both the article and the lecture are about a portrait of a teenage girl who was concidered to be Jane

Austin. The author of the article claims that the girl depicted in the portrait is Jane Austin. He believes
that Jane's family members agreed that it is her, the face in the portrait is similar to the one in
Cassandra's sketch and the portrait was painted when Austin was a teenage girl. The lecturer casts
doubt on the claims made in the article. She mentions that the descendent family members have never
seen Jane, the portrait can be of one of Jane's relatives as well as the painting was not sold when Austin
was a teenager.

Firstly, the author mentions that Austin's family members gave permission to use the portrait as an
illustration in an edition of her letters and the family has accepted that the girl in the portrait is Jane.
The lecturer, on the other hand, claims that the portrait was authorized when Jane was head for 70
years. She states that the family members of her had never actually seen her.

Secondly, the author mentions that the face of the girl in the portrait is alike the one in Cassandra's( the
only portrait of Jane in which she is an adult). The lecturer disagrees with the statement by mentioning
that the girl in the portrait can be one of Jane's relatives. She claims that Austin family used to be very
large and Jane's cousing were teenagers in thaet period. So, it could have been one of her distant
relatives.

Finally, the author believes that even though the painting is undated and unsigned, the painting could
have been painted when Austin was a teenager. The painting is in style of a society portrait painter Ozias
Humphrey and he worked in the period when Austin was a teenager. The lecturer states that people did
not sell the canveses when Jane was a teenager. They started to sell them when Jane was at the age of
26-27.