(From Jane Austen's letters to her sister Cassandra)
"I will not say your mulberry-trees are dead, but I am afraid they are not alive."
"At the bottom of Kingdown Hill we met a gentleman in a buggy, who, on minute examination, turned out to be Dr Hill - and Dr Hill in in such very deep mourning that either his mother, his wife, or himself must be dead."
As a 16 year old living in a tumultuous household, Jane Austen's novels were balm to my troubled soul. What sparkling wit! No fiction writer is Austen's equal in writing dialogue. What limpid prose! Reading Jane was sheer delight, not to mention that reading her books took me out of myself and out of my environment. After reading the first of her novels, which happened to be Pride and Prejudice, and which is still my favorite although I dearly love them all, I rushed to read the other five. I wanted to be Elizabeth Bennet. I read Jane's novels, and I read them again, and again, and again, up until now, and when I need cleansing and freshening from the load of drivel in print and on the tee-vee, I plunge into the novels and come away refreshed and renewed. One last thing: I believe that reading Jane Austen's novels in my impressionable teen years contributed for the good to the formation of my moral center, which should give pause to anyone who says, "It's just a novel."So. My tribute to Jane Austen and her lovely novel, originally titled First Impressions, which is 200 years old today, is a rehash but is no less fervent and admiring than if I'd written the words today.
Jane's gift for irony is, to me, unsurpassed. Disclosure: my alcoholic and verbally abusive father had a gift for irony which was not always inflicted on his wife and daughters, and I learned from him to view our mad world through ironic eyes. I owe him for his gifts of books from an early age and for encouraging me to read by always having books and magazines around the house, even when my mother had to borrow grocery money from extended family. We never lacked for music, either. There's irony for you. To this day, I feel sorry for my poor mother's plight, but, in my heart of hearts, I can't regret that the books and music were present.
At the Sotheby’s English Literature, History, Children’s Books and Illustrations sale in London this July, a turquoise and gold ring which had once belonged to Jane Austen was purchased for £152,450 ($244,000). As is their wont, Sotheby’s did not release the name of the buyer, but now the buyer has revealed herself. In an interview with British tabloid the Daily Star, singer and first American Idol Kelly Clarkson identified herself as the bidder who won Jane Austen’s ring.Yes, the ring really did belong to Jane Austen. But there is a twist to the story.
Unfortunately for Ms. Clarkson, she won’t be wearing Jane’s ring back home. She applied for an export license as required by law, but the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest advised the Secretary of State not to grant it on the grounds that the object is of national importance. With the export ban in place, the item cannot leave British soil. Kelly is going to have to cross an ocean to visit her ring.I’m sorry for Ms Clarkson's sake, but I think the ring IS a national treasure. I hope Sotheby forewarned her that she might not be able to take the ring out of the country. My suggestion to Ms Clarkson is to donate the ring to the Chawton House Museum in Hampshire, Jane Austen’s last home, where her other jewelry and personal items are on display. I was fortunate to visit the museum on two occasions a number of years ago, and I recommend it highly.
A turquoise ring which once belonged to Jane Austen is up for auction at Sotheby's next week. But fans of the romantic novelist will need deep pockets if they are to win the rare piece of jewellery, which has a guide price of £20,000 to £30,000.Other pieces of jewelry belonging to Jane Austen are on display in Chawton Cottage, her final home until she was moved to Winchester to be nearer to her doctors preceding her death a few months thereafter.
The turquoise and gold ring came to Sotheby's from Austen's family, complete with a note sent by Jane's sister-in-law, Eleanor Austen, in November 1863, to Jane's niece, Caroline Austen. "My dear Caroline," wrote Eleanor. "The enclosed ring once belonged to your Aunt Jane. It was given to me by your Aunt Cassandra as soon as she knew that I was engaged to your uncle. I bequeath it to you. God bless you!"
In a display case in the drawing room, for example, is a delicate blue bead bracelet with a gold clasp, which belonged to Jane Austen. It somehow seems to symbolize the refinement of her turn of mind. She may have worn the bracelet to balls when she lived in the resort town of Bath - such as those Catherine Morland had the confused pleasure of attending in ''Northanger Abbey.'' In the same case is the topaz cross given to her by her brother Charles and an ivory-colored miniature similar to one that may have inspired the observation: ''The little bit (two inches wide) of Ivory on which I work with so fine a Brush, as produces little effect after much labor.''How romantic it would be to think that the young Irishman, Tom Lefroy, with whom she flirted shamelessly, gave her the ring, but, since the box is from a London jeweler, it is much more likely that the ring was given to Jane by her brother Henry, who was a banker in London. And would it be proper for a young man to whom she was not engaged to be married to give Jane a ring?
Exciting indeed. I'd bid on the ring if I had the money to spare, but then what would I do with it? Alas, my collections no longer interest me much any more as I draw closer to the end of life. It has dawned that you really can't take them with you, and none of my children are interested, except for furniture and my few pieces of good jewelry, which are not antique collector's items.Should one quote oneself on one's blog? Well, why not?
New evidence may have revealed the true face of one of Britain's most beloved authors. Using digital photographic tools analysis has revealed writing on a long-disputed oil painting that its owners claim shows Jane Austen as a teenage girl. No other professional likeness of the writer exists.
The discovered words appear to include not only the novelist's name, but also that of the suspected artist.I'd seen an article about the painting of the teenage girl who might be Austen previously but before the new information came to light. I believe most lovers of Austen's books would want her to be more attractive than than the unfinished portrait by her sister, Cassandra, of the prim, spinsterly-looking woman, although I don't know why it matters. It's the set of the mouth and the arms folded firmly in front that put me off.
In the top-right corner of a reproduction of a photograph of the portrait taken before the painting was restored, the name Jane Austen is visible. Next to it is revealed in two places the name Ozias Humphry - an established portrait painter of the period. He was a member of the Royal Academy, and a friend of other better-known artists of the day, such as Gainsborough and Romney.
It has been written about before, but new research makes it very probable that it is genuine (have you read the accompanying article?) and it has a history of descent in the family of one of Austen's brothers.Yes, Mr Expert Consultant, I had read the article. Reading Jane Austen's books for the first time as a teenager changed my life, and I've read her works over and over throughout the years. I'd really like an alternative look to that of the watercolor by Cassandra Austen, so I hope, in the end, that the experts who are studying the painting conclude that the subject is, indeed, my Jane. Not that it really matters... Read the entire article.
