Jane Austen’s Ring
You may have read the news that Jane Austen’s ring is coming up for auction at Sotheby’s. Of all the various artefacts assocated with her, this must be one of the most important and meaningful, and it seems to have been previously almost unknown in the Austen world.
Photo from the Sotheby’s catalogue announcing the July auction
The ring’s provenance is that Jane, of course, left it to Cassandra, who gave it in 1820 to her sister-in-law Eleanor Jackson Austen, second wife of Rev. Henry Thomas Austen. Eleanor gave it in 1869 to her niece Caroline Mary Craven Austen (1805-1880, the daughter of Rev. James Austen). It then passed to her niece Mary A. Austen-Leigh; then her niece Mary Dorothy Austen-Leigh, who gave it to her sister Winifred Jenkyns in 1962. My Austen genealogist friend Ron Dunning tells me that Violet Winifred Jenkyns died in 1973, so there is a generation missing in this provenance. However, it seems that the ring has been in the family of Professor Richard Jenkyns, the Oxford classics professor who is the author of the sublimely written appreciation of Jane Austen, A Fine Brush on Ivory. Who is the exact seller, Sotheby’s does not say, though it is a family member.
More from the Sotheby’s catalogue, which can be perused here:
“An intimate personal possession of Jane Austen’s hitherto unknown to scholars, that has remained with the author’s descendants until the present day. The stone is probably odontalite, a form of fossilized dentine that has been heated to give it a distinctive blue colour, which came into fashion in the early 19th century as a substitute for turquoise. It is an attractive but simply designed piece, befitting not only its owner’s modest income but also what is known of her taste in jewellery. Fanny Price is given a gold chain by her cousin Edmund ‘in all the neatness of jewellers packing,’ with the comment that when making his choice, ‘I consulted the simplicity of your taste’ – in contrast to the more elaborately decorated chain that she had been given by Mary Crawford. Similar sentiments are found in one of Austen’s letters when she informed her sister Cassandra that ‘I have bought your locket…it is neat and plain, set in gold’ (24 May 1813).On Jane’s death her jewellery, along with other personal possessions, passed to Cassandra, and she gave a number of pieces as mementoes. After Jane’s death Cassandra wrote to Fanny Knight that Jane had left ‘one of her gold chains’ to Fanny’s god-daughter Louisa, and she appears to have given the best-known piece of jewellery known to have belonged to her sister, the topaz cross given to her by her brother Charles in 1801, to their mutual friend Martha Lloyd.
Three years after Jane’s death, Cassandra gave the ring to Eleanor Jackson, on hearing that she was about to marry her brother Henry…Eleanor, his second wife, was the niece of the rector of Chawton, Rev. Papillon, and seems to have been known to the Austen family for many years. Eleanor bequeathed the ring to her niece Caroline in the crucial year of 1869; this was the year that Caroline’s brother, James-Edward-Austen-Leigh, wrote A Memoir of Jane Austen, and Caroline herself had assisted this project. It seems likely that Eleanor felt that the ring should pass to a woman in the family who was deeply engaged in preserving Jane Austen’s memory, and who had many childhood memories of her. Caroline never married and the ring passed in turn to James-Edward’s daughter Mary, at which point it passed beyond the generation who had personal memories of Jane.”
The catalogue does not say who gave the ring to Jane; perhaps a tradition has come down in the family and it may yet be revealed. Also not mentioned is that turquoise was Jane Austen’s own birthstone, as her birthday was December 16. The fact that it was made from odontolite is interesting; odontolite (like cabochons, which are stones that have been polished rather than faceted) is out of fashion now, but the ivory or fossilized bone colored by proximity to copper/turquoise, is softer in color than turquoise itself. Judging from the picture it has an almost milky quality that’s gentler than the more piercing turquoise colors we see from New Mexico. The cheaper price also gives mute eloquence to Jane Austen’s modest financial situation, whether she bought the ring herself, or alternatively, if it was given to her as suitable for her circumstances.
This was published by Tiffany’s in 1870, showing that turquoise was associated with December at least as long ago as that:
So it seems possible that Jane Austen knew her birthstone to be turquoise; and perhaps one of her brothers gave her the ring. Or there may be a more romantic story. In any case, my research filled me with a desire to own a turquoise ring as much like hers as possible – particularly since my own birthstone is the turquoise. Where to find one? On eBay of course; but Jane’s design is really much too elegant and simple to find easily. This one on Etsy is the closest I can find so far:
Most of the rings available, even expensive ones, look so shoddy next to Jane Austen’s, as to give testimony to the delicacy and elegance of the jewellers’ work in her day.
Then I remembered that I actually HAVE an antique turquoise ring already. It belonged to my husband Peter’s great-grandmother Kobak, a Lithuanian Jewish woman who supported her family after her husband’s death as a travelling bookseller in Poland and Russia. She probably bought the ring around 1880. This certainly ties in with my research about Polish Jewish gem merchants, doesn’t it? And, to my surprise, when I went to look at the ring, I realized that it very well may be odontolite, like Jane Austen’s ring! It has that soft, robin’s-egg-blue colour. Doesn’t it look like that to you? You can also see that it has that old-fashioned little ring guard, very like Jane Austen’s.
A family ring
In Jane Austen’s novels, rings are signs of luxury, foolishness, and vanity, with only one exception. First we have Lydia, absurdly showing off her wedding ring:
“Oh! mamma, do the people hereabouts know I am married to-day? I was afraid they might not; and we overtook William Goulding in his curricle, so I was determined he should know it, and so I let down the side-glass next to him, and took off my glove and let my hand just rest upon the window-frame, so that he might see the ring; and then I bowed and smiled like anything.”
Also in Pride and Prejudice we have the vain and idle Mrs. Hurst:
“Mrs. Hurst, principally occupied in playing with her bracelets and rings, joined now and then in her brother’s conversation with Miss Bennet.”
Another frivolous and shallow character who has rings in the forefront of her mind is Isabella Thorpe in Northanger Abbey:
“She saw herself at the end of a few weeks, the gaze and admiration of every new acquaintance at Fullerton, the envy of every valued old friend in Putney, with a carriage at her command, a new name on her tickets, and a brilliant exhibition of hoop rings on her finger.”
The exception to these frivolous examples is in Sense and Sensibility, in which the ring forms a rather ominous plot device. The ring, you will remember, is worn by Edward Ferrars:
“his hand passed so directly before her as to make a ring, with a plait of hair in the centre, very conspicuous on one of his fingers.”
The hair, of course, belongs to Lucy Steele, to whom he is secretly engaged. What would Edward’s ring have looked like? Here is an early 19th century English gold locket ring containing the plaited hair of Napoleon Bonaparte, shown on the Three Graces website:
This beautifully worked late Georgian gold ring was auctioned by Christie’s in 2009, with these notes: “When Napoleon was exiled, a second and final time, on St. Helena in 1815, he befriended the family of William Balcombe, and in particular the youngest daughter Elizabeth, who was called Betsy. According to her memoirs, before the family left the tiny 47 square mile island in 1818, Napoleon gave her a lock of his hair. Once ensconced in Devonshire, England, Betsy gav the memento to Sir John Sloane, a keen admirer and collector of all things relating to the Little General. He had a this ring made with an inscription engraved on the back citing the owner of the dark braided hair that rests beneath its crystal.”The hair is braided, as in Edward Ferrars’ ring, but is certainly far more ornate than anything Edward would have worn. Perhaps this one is closer:
But in our cogitations about rings of the period, we are straying away from Jane Austen’s own little bit of turquoise. At first I did not think it very pretty, but after thinking about it and examining the pictures I have come to see that it is in accordance with the simplicity of her perfect taste, and seems to reflect blue of a clear English sky on a soft summer day in Hampshire, long ago.
Now we only need Sandy Lerner to acquire it for Chawton, so we all can have the chance to gaze upon it in person!
Diana Birchall
Diana is the author of the Jane Austen sequels Mrs. Darcy's Dilemma and Mrs. Elton in America, the Austen-related plays You are Passionate, Jane, and The Austen Assizes (co-written with Syrie James), and much other Austenesque writing. She has also written the biography of her grandmother, Onoto Watanna, the first Asian American novelist. Diana works as a Story Analyst at Warner Bros Studios. Originally from New York City, she now lives in Santa Monica, California with her husband, son, and three cats.
- Web |
- More Posts
25 Responses to Jane Austen’s Ring
Our Novels
P&P: RC
Be sure to vote!
*Giveaways
Enter our monthly contest using the Rafflecopter form on the
Giveaway Page.
All rules and prizes are listed there! Click the image or link provided.
Our Imprint
Purchasing
Austen Authors Amazon Marketplace
April 14
Comment to be entered into the Giveaway!
Contact Us
Authors can be contacted via their email link on the Austen Authors page. For general information or to contact the admins, click the image to the left.
April 2
April 8
April 30
Facebook
RSS
Twitter
The Writers Block
Amazon Store
Thank you for all this fascinating information – I was intrigued and loved the history lesson !!!!!!!!
Amazing information! Love the history of it all. I have often wished that I had been old enough to assert myself when my maternal grandmother died as she had beautiful old rings that she would wear in honor of her ancestors but my mother thought me too young (I was 11) to have them and gave them all to her brothers children. Such history in a small piece of stone.
P.S. The whole hair ring thing always grosses me out. LOL Ridiculous I know, but it is one of those things that I just don’t get. No, I will NOT wear your hair around my finger, eeeyyyeeewwww…
Thank you for a fascinating article! I had never heard of this ring before. I wonder where Jane’s other jewelry may be.
The only piece of information you might have added is the size of the stone. It looks enormous in the closeup, but when it is shown in its box I can see it is not.
You are right. Your family ring is MUCH prettier than the modern rings. I think the color of the gold has a lot to do with it. The gold they use now has a “brassy” look to it.
And thank you for the photos of the hair rings. I had never seen one like the third one you show. Does it open? Is that what is shown behind the ring — another photo of the ring with the compartment open?
And finally, I wonder who gave it to her? Perhaps her brother Henry, as at one time he was prosperous enough to give nice gifts and Cassandra felt it was appropriate to give it to his wife.
I enjoyed the posting and also the quotations from the novels. I’d agree that the plainness of the ring is also a result of Austen’s taste. The topaz cross (given to Martha Lloyd) is equally plain.
(This helps refute Paula Byrne’s contention that the miniature she owns is Jane Austen. The woman in that portrait is dressed fancily.)
Like another commentator, I wish we knew if it was a gift who gave it to her.
Ellen Moody
Diana, thank you for bringing this fabulous news to us! I am afraid I am too much like Lydia-I have a weakness for a pretty ring, and if only I had a spare £20-30,000 I would bid for Jane’s. However, as an alternative to this fantasy, it would be lovely to think that some wealthy person out there could buy it for the nation, and bring to home to Chawton. Failing that, if they would like to buy it and pass it on to me, I can be contacted very easily by email. A fantastic article with all your usual fascinating tidbits and research!
I don’t think I saw this mentioned yet — JA possessed a bracelet of turquoise or similarly colored beads, currently on view at Chawton Cottage. Reproductions are sold by the Jane Austen Centre, and they have a pattern online for making your own, as well.
Actually, I’m wrong — the JA Centre item for sale may be a turquoise bracelet, but it looks nothing like Austen’s.
Jewelry and Jane Austen–can’t get much better than that.
I happen to love turquoise, so I’m glad to see Jane and I share a similar taste!
Thank you for all the information here, Diana. A veritable font of knowledge. Like everyone else, I’m hoping it will end up in Chawton so we can go visit it.
That was so intersting, and cool! I thought the hair ring was weird, and I would be afraid to touch it unless it was my hair! lol!
Thanks all, for nice comments! Stephanie, I think wearing other people’s hair is icky, too. Dorothy, I believe the second hair ring picture shows a ring that’s also some kind of buckle. It does look like the braided hair is uncovered, you can reach right out and touch it. I wish I knew the size of the stone, but the catalogue doesn’t mention it. Linda, that’s very interesting – I’ve never noticed a turquoise bracelet at Chawton. Now I have to look next time I go! Makes me wonder if Jane Austen’s ring was part of a set.
I must thank Linda again. I looked up the turquoise bracelet at Chawton, and their website has an excellent picture of it. It looks strangely like an Indian bracelet, and is nothing at all like the ring that’s being sold now. So now at least we know that they aren’t a set. It does seem to indicate that Jane Austen liked turquoise, though! Here is the website, so you can see the bracelet:
http://www.janeausten.co.uk/jane-austens-bracelet/
Diana,
I read your amazing account of this ring with my breath pretty much held, from the awe of such a simple little thing, and yet so meaningful! To be worn by Austen, during intimate moments of her life, there with her accompanying her creative thoughts and dreams… *AWE!* Thank you so much for this post!!!
Dear Diana W.,
Thanks much for the essay on jewels and Jane, and for introducing me to her elegant ring. Always having loved gems, I read Kunz’ book years ago, and only regretted that its pictures of gems were nearly all in black and white.
There is another series of twelve stones in the Bible which probably draws on Aaron’s breastplate, namely, the foundations of the New Jerusalem in Rev. 21:19-20. This series may be a distant ancestor of the twelve jewelers’ birthstones of 1912; in the Revised Standard Version none of the stones are the same, but emerald, associated with Venus, is in the late spring, and topaz is in the fall. Some of the translations may be guesses, as what the ancients meant by a particular stone name isn’t always known to us. Also, they had a narrower range to choose from, and faceting hadn’t been invented in any case; they might have considered particular stones precious that we would value much less. Certainly pearls were very highly regarded before the invention of cultured pearls, and each gate of the City was a single, huge pearl–the ultimate in splendor. Jesus’ parable of the jewel merchant who found one pearl of supreme value and sold all he had to buy it suggests the same supremacy in value. (I suspect that if he lived now, Jesus would have made the stone a diamond.)
Mrs. Elton at the ball at the Crown was definitely of one mind with Jesus at this point, if not often otherwise!
–Gracia Fay
Thank you for more sparkling enlightenment on the historical allure of gems, Gracia Fay! There are so many different reports as confuse me exceedingly (as Elizabeth said about Wickham). But none of our research is set in stone (groan!). Seriously, that’s very interesting about the second Biblical set of twelve stones. I hadn’t thought about there being so many fewer sorts of gems known then, either…but as for Mrs. Elton, you know I think she is a Pearl of Great Price!
Very interesting essay, Diana. Thank you! I’d add two things: I agree that if Edward was choosing his own jewelry, his taste would have been simple–but the offending ring was, presumably, selected by Lucy and so I’d guess it was anything but! Also, in December’s Persuasions On-Line there’s a very interesting article by Kristen Miller Zohn on miniatures and hair jewelry. It includes images of Austen family hair as well as an unrelated ring. Here’s the link: http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol32no1/zohn.html.
Best–
Susan
I’d wear Jane’s ring…it’s beautiful, it’d go with so much of my closet, and it was JANE AUSTEN’s!!!
But somehow methinks it’s beyond my realm of probability…so I will embrace my own antique turquoise rings and bangles. Hair jewels need not apply, ick… 
Thank you very much for commenting, Susan. Of course you are right, Lucy’s taste would have been anything but simple; still she would hardly have had the budget for a ring of Napoleonic grandeur! Thanks, too, for citing that superb article. I hadn’t realized that a young woman could give a young man a lock of hair only if it was not set in a piece of jewelry – which shows that Marianne was less naughty than Lucy. It remains murky for me, however, what portrait was around Marianne’s neck. Did Jane Austen really mean us to believe she would wear her great-uncle’s portrait? Another revelation for me was that miniature portrait in the collector’s hands that “might” be JA. Not that the world needs another in the series of contenders, but my goodness, that one really is a ringer, isn’t it! So thanks thrice, and warmest best wishes.
Thanks Diana for your post. I enjoyed reading about the ring and the history behind it. I think it would be best kept in a museum for all Jane Austen fans to enjoy.
What an interesting development in the world of Jane Austen. Thanks Diana for sharing this information. You have certainly enlightened me on gemstones in Jane Austen’s time. I hope that some generous person or organization will buy it and put it in The Jane Austen House Museum, Chawton or The Jane Austen Centre, Bath. That way, visitors can see it and share the riches around.
A fascinating post! I, too, loved the history lesson contained in the essay and the comments~~Thank you!
Diana, this was eye-opening. I learned something new today. I’ve never been one to wear much jewelry, but I recognize quality when I see it.
Turquoise was popular around Jane Austen’s time. To me personally, it reminds me of nature like water and the sky.
I saw a British news piece on this and thought it so interesting. It makes me wonder what else will come out in the future. I loved the point you made about the jewelry being suitable to her lifestyle. And all those ominous ring references in her stories was something new for me to think about.
Thanks!