The History of Prostitution Part 28

Even the voluntary vows of knights and troubadours were, in the end, as little observed as these ecclesiastical precepts. The profligacy of the Troubadours became open and undisguised, and the virtue of their mistresses naturally kept pace with their example. The knights who enlisted in the Crusades, with a large amount of zeal and but a small share of wealth, supported their retainers by robberies on the way, and the females who accompanied them acted as camp followers usually do. No inst.i.tution which deals merely in external observances can restrain immorality in circ.u.mstances favorable to its development, and hence chivalry was forced to yield before more powerful influences. That it served its purpose in elevating the condition of woman, and in giving a better tone to society at large, it would be unjust to deny.

Even when chivalry declined and ceased to inspire feats of knight-errantry, we find women, instead of falling back into the degrading position they had formerly occupied, employing themselves in intellectual pursuits, publis.h.i.+ng books, mixing in public controversies, distinguis.h.i.+ng themselves in the acquisition of languages, and even taking a leading part in the political affairs of the times.

Among the women who acquired a historical notoriety by their position as royal mistresses, during the epoch comprised between the Norman conquest and the reign of Henry VIII., were the Fair Rosamond, concubine of Henry II., and Jane Sh.o.r.e, the mistress of Edward IV. The misfortunes, as well as the generous qualities of these fair sinners have thrown a sort of halo around them.

Rosamond, surnamed the Fair on account of her exquisite beauty, was the daughter of Walter, Lord Clifford, and was educated in the nunnery of G.o.dstow. The popular tradition concerning her is that Henry, hearing of her charms, paid her a visit, but, finding her virtue inflexible, had to exercise his authority as sovereign to compel her to yield to his wishes.

He placed her in a building erected in the midst of a labyrinth at Woodstock, access to which could only be obtained by a clew of thread.

Henry located her here to protect her from the jealousy of his queen Eleanor. She bore the king two sons, William Longsword, Earl of Salisbury, and Geoffrey, Bishop of Lincoln. During the king's absence in France he intrusted the keeping of Woodstock and the care of the Fair Rosamond to one Lord Thomas, who endeavored to seduce her. In revenge for the rejection of his overtures, the faithless warden conducted Queen Eleanor to her retreat, and the latter is said to have mixed a cup of poison, which her minions compelled the unfortunate Rosamond to drink. It is also alleged that the queen struck the poor girl on her lip with her clenched hand.[293] Some a.s.sert that Rosamond died a natural death in a convent at Oxford, and attribute the origin of the story of poisoning to the figure of a cup which was sculptured on her tomb. It is more probable that this effigy was placed there to commemorate the actual event. Rosamond was buried in the church of G.o.dstow, opposite the high altar, where her remains lay undisturbed until they were ordered to be removed, with every mark of indignity, by Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln, in the year 1191. She was regarded by the people as a saint, if not a martyr, and wonderful legends were related concerning her.

Jane Sh.o.r.e, the celebrated concubine of Edward IV., was the wife of Matthew Sh.o.r.e, a goldsmith in Lombard Street, London. Edward possessed a good figure and pleasing address, and was fond of athletic sports and exercises, which he enjoyed in company with the citizens, among whom he became exceedingly popular. His popularity extended to many of the citizens' wives, and it was not considered out of the natural course of things that Mrs. Sh.o.r.e should be removed from Lombard Street to s.h.i.+ne at court as the royal favorite. Historians represent her as extremely beautiful, remarkably gay in temperament, and of uncommon generosity. The king, it is said, was no less charmed with her temper and disposition than with her person. She never made use of her influence over him to the prejudice of any one, and if she ever importuned him it was in favor of the unfortunate.

After the death of Edward she attached herself to Lord Hastings, and when Richard III. cut off that n.o.bleman as an obstacle to his schemes, she was arrested as an accomplice on the ridiculous charge of witchcraft. This accusation, however, terminated in a public penance, with the loss of whatever little property she possessed. Notwithstanding the severities exercised against her, it is certain that she was alive in the reign of Henry VIII., when Sir Thomas More mentions having seen her, poor and shriveled, without the least trace of her former beauty. Mr. Rowe, in his tragedy of "Jane Sh.o.r.e," has adopted the popular story related in the old ballad, of her peris.h.i.+ng from hunger in a ditch where Sh.o.r.editch now stands, but Stow a.s.sures us that that street was thus named previous to the time of Jane Sh.o.r.e.

The example of none of the English kings had a greater influence in bringing the marriage tie into disrepute than that of Henry VIII. An effort has been made by Mr. Fronde, in his new history of England, to redeem the character of this monarch from some portion of the obloquy with which it is covered, but there is no doubt that he was an unmitigated monster. Curious to say, during his youth and early manhood he betrayed no evidence of the brutal pa.s.sions which afterward moved him. He was the husband of Catharine for seventeen years before his domestic conduct incurred reproach. At that late period of his career he conceived a violent pa.s.sion for Anne Boleyn, and, in order to get her to share his bed, sought to divorce his wife. From this period he seemed to become the prey of a restless concupiscence, which sought gratification in new objects of indulgence, and his pa.s.sion for the women he married and beheaded was as short-lived as it was violent.

There is reason to believe that his marriage with Anne Boleyn was more than adulterous. It is said Anne's mother had been more complaisant to Henry than her duty to her husband or the laws of morality would have sanctioned, and we have the authority of Bishop Fisher for concluding that Anne was the result of this illicit connection, and that, when the king expressed an intention of marrying her, Lady Boleyn exhorted him to abandon his design, as Anne was his own daughter. Henry was not to be deterred by an obstacle of this sort. He had great difficulty in procuring a divorce, and in the mean while he and Anne had become so intimate that she began to exhibit proofs of the connection which could not be concealed. A private marriage was resorted to, considerations of state rendering it prudent to keep the union secret.

Catharine was divorced through the instrumentality of Cranmer, but Henry did not long continue to repose confidence in his new bride. Soon after the marriage was made public, and she had been formally inaugurated as queen, she attended a tilting-match at Greenwich, accompanied by the king and a large concourse of spectators. The king observed her exchange amorous signals with one of the combatants, who was also one of her paramours. Henry had entertained suspicions of her connection with this man, and this proof, as he regarded it, of her infidelity aroused his jealousy. He left the scene on the instant and returned to Westminster, where he issued orders to have her immediately arrested. She was thrown into prison, and tried on the joint charges of adultery and incest. She was accused of having committed adultery with four separate members of the king's household, and of having had incestuous intercourse with her own brother, Lord Rochford. She was tried, found guilty, and executed.

Whether she committed the entire criminality laid to her charge it is impossible to say, but that the incidents of the career just described were in perfect unison with the doings of Henry and his court there is no doubt. Of the influence of such examples on the morals of the people at large, there is, unfortunately, as little question. If court manners and court styles are zealously followed, the vices that spring from them are not less a.s.siduously improved upon.

Henry's strong s.e.xual pa.s.sions, as well as his arbitrary disposition, were bequeathed to his daughter Elizabeth. However historians may differ as to the degree of her depravity, they all agree that her right to the t.i.tle of "Virgin Queen" was exceedingly ill founded. Many of her delinquencies with persons of the opposite s.e.x were notorious, although perhaps difficult of proof. While she had not the slightest claim to beauty, she delighted in flattery, and could swallow any amount of gross and fulsome adulation. Her vanity so blinded her that she never perceived that the extravagant praises lavished on her personal attractions were merely covert satire.

It is said that Elizabeth indulged in almost indiscriminate lewdness, and that Leicester, Hatton, Ess.e.x, Mountjoy, and numerous others shared her favors. In one of the notes appended to Hume's fourth volume, the nature of Elizabeth's dealings with a large number of her favorites is set forth, the author of the statement being the Countess of Shrewsbury.

Mary, Queen of Scots, at a time when friendly relations existed between her and Elizabeth, wrote to the latter that the countess had reported that Elizabeth had given a promise of marriage to a certain courtier, but, finding the marriage inexpedient, had dispensed with the ceremony and admitted him to her bed. The countess also stated that she had been equally indulgent to Simier, the French agent, and that Hatton, another of her paramours, had spread many reports indicative of her extreme s.e.xual pa.s.sion.

The immediate successors of Elizabeth were of a different personal temperament, and did not abandon themselves to such scandalous excesses.

James I. had no mistresses, and was not of a character to seek pleasure in extravagant licentiousness, but his court was not free from the scenes which had disgraced those of Henry and Elizabeth. James, being desirous of uniting the Earl of Ess.e.x with the Lady Frances Howard, daughter of the Earl of Suffolk, had the young couple betrothed, although they had not attained the age of p.u.b.erty. The earl was only fourteen years of age, while Lady Frances was but thirteen, and it was deemed proper for the youth to travel until both should have arrived at the maturity necessary for the consummation of the marriage relation. After four years spent on the Continent, the earl returned to England, and found his affianced bride in the full l.u.s.tre of extraordinary beauty, and of the fame which great personal charms excite. He had also the mortification to find himself repulsed when he approached her as a husband, and was met by every manifestation of dislike and contempt. He complained to her parents on the subject, and they compelled her to accompany him to the country.

Although the young countess obeyed this mandate literally, the feud between her and Ess.e.x was far from terminated: she recognized him as her husband in name only, and sedulously kept herself aloof from his society, nor could any of his endeavors overcome her repugnance. The lady persisted in her obstinacy; the husband redoubled his attentions and importunities, but, finding that she was invincible, he finally abandoned the pursuit, and separated from her.

The cause of this strange conduct on the part of the countess was the pa.s.sion which she entertained for a Scotch adventurer named Robert Carr, who had found a favorable reception from the king, by whom he was created Viscount Rochester. She believed that by refusing to consummate her marriage with Ess.e.x she would not be considered by the world in the light of his wife, and she hoped to procure a divorce, which would enable her to marry Rochester.[294] As their mutual attachment was ardent, and their opportunities for being together frequent, they antic.i.p.ated the probability of a marriage, and indulged their pa.s.sions without waiting for the ceremony. They did not find as much trouble in procuring a divorce as they had antic.i.p.ated.

The king, who had a strong partiality for Rochester, favored their views, and Ess.e.x, finding that his suit was hopeless with his wife, opposed no obstacle to the nullification of his marriage. The grounds on which the countess sued out the divorce were of rather a curious character. The chief allegation against Ess.e.x was impotency. At that time a firm faith existed in the absurd notions that there were people who possessed the power of witchcraft, enabling them, among other things, to deprive a man of his virility. It was a.s.serted and maintained that Ess.e.x had been subjected to this influence, and was therefore incompetent to occupy the position of a married man. The divorce was secured, and Rochester and the countess experienced no farther obstacle to the gratification of their desires.

Rochester had previously consulted Overbury on the difficulties of his position, and the latter strongly advised him not to marry the countess.

These facts coming to the ears of Lady Frances, she induced Rochester to have Overbury poisoned. On the discovery of the murder, Rochester and his wife were brought to trial and convicted, but the mistaken clemency of the king interposed between them and the doom they so richly merited. They pa.s.sed the remainder of their days in obscurity, but as bitter enemies, and although they resided in the same house for many years, no word or message was ever exchanged between them.

CHAPTER XXIV.

GREAT BRITAIN.--HISTORY FROM THE COMMONWEALTH TO THE PRESENT DAY.

Puritans.--Results of Asceticism.--Excesses of the Restoration.-- General Licentiousness.--Art.--Literature.--The Stage.--Nell Gwynne.-- Nationality in Vice.--Sabbath at Court.--James II.--Literature of the seventeenth and eighteenth Centuries.--Lord Chesterfield.--House of Hanover.--Royal Princes.--George III.--George IV.--Influence of French Literature.--Marriage Laws.--Increase of Population.

On gaining the ascendant, the Puritans endeavored to reform the general corruption of society by cutting to the root of the disorders that afflicted it. Instead, however, of applying the knife judiciously, they excised the sound as well as the unhealthy parts. Their measures went to the extreme of killing all the affections and impulses natural to the human breast, in order to repress the excesses arising from too free an abandonment to them. Some fanatics, for instance, gravely suggested that, in order to put an end to fornication and adultery, all intercourse should be prohibited between the s.e.xes.

In our days it is found that innocent amus.e.m.e.nts are the best safeguard against criminal indulgence, but the Puritans thought otherwise, and looked upon joyous exhilaration of any kind as almost sinful. They enforced their gloomy doctrines with a tyranny as unbending as their tenets themselves were harsh and unnatural. Theatrical entertainments, dancing, etc., were sternly placed under ban, and Puritanism presented merely a heavy and murky atmosphere, with scarcely a social star to enliven its gloomy aspect.

When the Restoration removed the oppressive weight of fanaticism from the public spirit, it rebounded as far above a healthy pitch as it had been formerly depressed below it. An immediate revolution took place in the manners and habits of the people. The theatres, which had been closed by the Puritans, were at once reopened, and the populace abandoned themselves to pleasurable excesses with an eagerness proportionate to the restraint which had been imposed on them. This license would, in time, have been checked by reflection, had not the impulse been supplied from the quarter where a repressive influence should have been exercised. The Merry Monarch and his court led the race in this national carnival, and the examples which they set only served to stimulate the public appet.i.te for debauchery. Indeed, the court of Charles was little better than a public brothel, and the wit with which its orgies were embellished only served to increase the dangers arising from its conspicuous position, and its power over men's minds as the centre from which all rank and consideration flowed. The conduct of the courtiers was strictly modeled on that of their royal master, and their social accomplishments only imperfectly varnished over the gross features of a coa.r.s.e sensuality. Women were flattered and caressed, but not respected, and the homage paid them was such as no decent woman in our time would consent to receive.

The most faithful portraiture of the manners of this epoch is to be found in its dramatic literature. The staple incidents of the pieces represented at the theatres consisted of love intrigues, seductions, and rapes. The fop of the play never elicited such hearty applause as when he recounted his exploits in the ruin of female virtue among the citizens' wives.

The theatre not only fostered lewdness by depicting it in glowing and attractive colors, but its actors spread abroad the corruption which it was their business to delineate. Their personal character corresponded, in too many instances, with the parts which they performed, and they re-enacted in private the debaucheries which they presented on the stage.

The theatre itself became a central rendezvous for immoral characters, and the place where a.s.signations were most conveniently fixed. Lively wenches, under the pretense of selling oranges to the spectators, frequented the pit, and took their places in the front row, with their backs to the stage. It was well understood that they were as ready to sell favors as fruit, and, in fact, that they had come from the neighboring brothels for that express purpose.

Deep drinking was another characteristic feature of the times, and baccha.n.a.lian orgies were freely indulged in by all cla.s.ses, from the king to the beggar, differing little in the extremes to which they were pushed.

Conversation, even in what was called the best society, was disfigured by the grossest obscenity and blasphemy, and _bon ton_ consisted in the extravagance to which this vicious conduct was extended.

Even the peasantry endeavored to imitate the costumes and carriage of the courtiers, and country women were to be seen in flaunting dresses cut so as to expose as much as possible of the person.

Up to this period no female had ever appeared upon the English stage; where women were introduced, their parts had been filled by boys. Neither was it customary for a monarch to show himself at a public representation of a play; but, when they were enacted for his amus.e.m.e.nt, the performance took place in some apartment of the royal palace. In Charles's reign, women for the first time appeared on the stage, and performed the parts allotted to the heroines of the drama.

The king and queen became regular frequenters of the theatre, and encouraged by their presence the _double entendre_ and broad indecencies of the pieces in vogue. We may remark, parenthetically, that unmarried actresses usually adopted the t.i.tle Mistress before their names, the word Miss, as then applied, signifying that she who bore it was a concubine. In modern days it is the habit to reverse this practice, as the marriage state is considered to divest the actress of half her attractions.

There were but two theatres in London at this period: the King's Theatre, where the celebrated Nell Gwynne and Mrs. Rebecca Marshall were the chief actresses, and the Duke's, where another company performed. One day the reigning favorites at the King's Theatre had a violent quarrel, and Mrs.

Marshall called Nell "Lord Buckhurst's mistress." Nell contented herself with rejoining that she was but one man's mistress, though brought up in a brothel, while Mrs. Marshall bore the same relation to three or four, notwithstanding she was the daughter of a Presbyterian. Their own accounts of each other leave no doubt as to their morality.

The pieces represented in the London theatres in the time of Charles II.

were, as we have before stated, filled with indecent allusions, and their interest with the public turned on the number and intensity of these prurient pa.s.sages. The ladies never attended the first representation of a comedy except in masks; and when the dames of the court, with their established reputations for gallantry, were apprehensive of being seen at them, some idea may be formed of the licentious character of the pieces most in favor.

But many of these plays are still in evidence to speak for themselves. It will be seen that in the majority the plot is so framed as to admit the greatest license in libidinous allusions. The distinguis.h.i.+ng feature of them is that the most immodest pa.s.sages are put into the mouths of women, and, indeed, we know that that actress was the most successful who took the greatest liberties with the text, and most improved upon its lewdness of expression.

As a specimen of the general character of these plays, we may name "All Mistaken, or the Mad Couple," quite a favorite with the public in its day.

The hero is importuned by six clamorous unfortunates whose ruin he has effected, and dunned in addition by the nurses of their illegitimate offspring for wages owing to them. The delectable superstructure of obscene dialogue which is raised on this foundation may be better imagined than described.

The usual hour at which the theatres opened their doors was four in the afternoon, and after the close of the performances the audience generally repaired to some garden or other place of public amus.e.m.e.nt. Here scenes were enacted which proved a fit sequel to those witnessed on the stage.

The orange-girls had a superior known as "Orange Moll," who occupied a position somewhat a.n.a.logous to that of the modern brothel-keeper. She attended the girls to the theatre, and superintended and directed their operations there. During the _entreactes_ lewd conversations were carried on between the orange-girls and the gallants, which were interspersed with obscene jokes, and highly relished by the audience. The custom of interpellating the gay women who frequented the theatre was continued to a period comparatively recent. Every one has heard the story of Peg Plunket and the Duke of Rutland, in the days when the G.o.ds of the Dublin theatre were esteemed the most discriminating, though boisterous and rollicking audience of the three kingdoms.

Charles selected several of his mistresses from the stage, for which he had a pa.s.sionate fondness. Miss Davis literally sang and danced her way into his affections. Her conquest of the king was consummated by the manner in which she sang the popular ballad "My lodging is on the cold ground." Charles thought she was deserving of warmer quarters, and raised her to his own bed. He established her in a splendid residence, and lavished on her the most extravagant gifts.

The queen at first resented the open and undisguised infidelities of the king, and publicly manifested her sense of them on one occasion by quitting the theatre when Miss Davis made her appearance on the stage; but, finding it impossible to reclaim him from his vicious propensities, she abandoned all hopes of restricting his libertinism, or even of keeping him within the bounds of conventional decency.

The Countess of Castlemaine (afterward created d.u.c.h.ess of Cleveland) was of a more jealous temperament than the queen, and took a more characteristic revenge on Charles for his frailties. She took another lover, and went to reside at his house, very much to the comfort of her royal patron, who had a kingly dislike of trouble.

After quarreling with Lord Buckhurst, Nell Gwynne returned to the stage, but had not long resumed her profession when it was rumored that she had made a conquest of the king. These reports were apparently contradicted by her continued appearance at the theatre, and the progress she made in her art, which could only be the result of careful study. A tragedy by Dryden was advertised, the princ.i.p.al character to be performed by Nell; but, before the night of its first representation arrived, it was found necessary to postpone the performance, owing to Nell's not being in a condition to appear. From this time her connection with Charles no longer remained a secret.

Nell, like her predecessors, was not long suffered to maintain uncontested her supremacy over the king's affections. When the d.u.c.h.esse d'Orleans, the sister of Charles, paid a visit to the English court in 1670, she had in her train a handsome maid, who was admired for her simple and childish style of beauty. Whether instigated by the courtiers who accompanied her mistress, whose visit was a political one, or prompted by her own sagacity, she made her acquiescence in the king's desires conditional upon his executing the shameful treaty which gave France such important advantages, and rendered Charles a mere tributary to the French king. This girl, Louise de Querouaille, became the rival of Nell Gwynne, and had a child by Charles, who was created Duke of Richmond.

So scandalously public had the relations of Charles with the loose women who surrounded him become, and so flagrant and unblus.h.i.+ng was the conduct of the latter, that the queen could no longer reside in the palace of Whitehall, and accordingly removed to Somerset House in the Strand. This feeling of indignation on the part of her majesty soon extended to the virtuously disposed part of the public. Efforts were made to apply a remedy to the disorder which threatened to corrupt the whole framework of English society. In Parliament it was proposed to levy a tax on the play-houses, which had become undisguised nests of prost.i.tution. The debate which ensued elicited a witticism which led to serious consequences to the gentleman who uttered it. On Sir John Birkenhead's remarking that "the players were the king's servants and part of his pleasures," Sir John Coventry was imprudent enough to inquire "whether the king's pleasures lay among the men that acted or the women." For this offense to Charles he was waylaid by some of the courtiers, who slit his nose, and otherwise maltreated him.

It is impossible, however, to deny that this very license of manners rendered the king popular with a certain cla.s.s of his subjects. The only exception taken by them to his conduct was the selection of a foreigner as one of his mistresses, and even this would have pa.s.sed without comment but for the political consequences of the connection. It was generally understood among the people that Mademoiselle de Querouaille, or Mrs.

Carwell, as she was commonly called, was an agent used for the purpose of securing the ascendency of French interests. This brought upon her the hostility of the populace, who availed themselves of every opportunity of manifesting their dislike to her.