... Je vois que M. Dormer veut rester à Rosette, et en ce cas je

n’y resterai pas. J’ai dit autant à Madame, pour lui donner le

tems de se retirer à Alexandrie avant mon arrivée. Je coucherai

demain à Raimhé; dimanche à Aboukir, lundi à Etikon, et mardi,

s’il plaît à Dieu, je serai à Rosette, et si j’y trouve M. Dormer

je n’y resterai qu’autant qu’il faudra pour empaqueter quelques

livres, car je ne veux pas rester dans la même ville avec M.

Dormer. J’aurais été charmé de le voir ici, mais je ne veux

pas le voir à Rosette; ainsi, mon cher, persuadez-le de partir

immédiatement; car si je le trouve je n’y coucherai pas; cela est

certain.

What the ground of dissension was that induced Montagu to declare

that he would not remain in the same city with Dormer is not known.

Whatever it was, the Egyptian home was broken up. The wife and her

sister subsequently established themselves, temporarily, at Marseilles,

definitively at Nancy. Montagu moved about the Continent in moody

restlessness. In 1773 and the following year he settled for awhile in

Venice. He lived in frequent retirement, and to all outward appearance

in as truly a Turkish fashion as if he were a faithful child of Islam.

While Mr. Montagu was residing at Venice an illustrious traveller,

the Duke of Hamilton, arrived in that city, under the care of his

physician, Dr. John Moore, afterwards the author of ‘Zeluco,’ and the

father of a glorious son, Sir John Moore the hero of Corunna. The

Doctor had probably talked with his patron or ward about the more

eccentric traveller, of whom he had more to say than most people

as to the affair between Montagu and the Jew Payba, Moore having

been official medical man at the English Embassy in France, when

Lord Albemarle was ambassador, and Montagu was appealing to him for

aid and protection. At Venice, the Duke, according to Moore, ‘had

the curiosity’ (he does not say the _courtesy_) ‘to wait on this

extraordinary man.’ ‘Montagu,’ says the Doctor, in his published

letters,

met his Grace at the stair-head, and led us through some

apartments furnished in the Venetian manner, into an inner room in

quite a different style. There were no chairs, but he desired us

to seat ourselves on a sofa, whilst he placed himself on a cushion

on the floor, with his legs crossed in the Turkish fashion. A

young black slave sat by him, and a venerable old man, with a

long beard, served us with coffee. After this collation some

aromatic gums were brought, and burnt in a little silver vessel.

Mr. Montagu held his nose over the steam for some minutes, and

sniffed up the perfume with peculiar satisfaction; he afterwards

endeavoured to collect the smoke with his hands, spreading and

rubbing it carefully along his beard, which hung in hoary ringlets

to his girdle.... We had a great deal of conversation with this

venerable looking person, who is, to the last degree, acute,

communicative, and entertaining, and in whose discourse and

manners are blended the vivacity of a Frenchman with the gravity

of a Turk.

Moore does not say that Montagu had assumed the Mohammedan faith,

but simply that he considered the Turkish way of life to surpass

that of all other nations. Indeed they deserved to be ‘the happiest

of mankind,’ if they were, as Montagu held them to be, distinguished

for integrity, hospitality, and most other virtues. Egypt was, in his

eyes, ‘a perfect paradise,’ to which he was longing to return; and he

was convinced that if the Israelites of old could have had their own

way they would have stuck to the land and the flesh-pots and driven

the Egyptians into Canaan. But he added, with a fine sense of what

the occasion required, that ‘it had been otherwise ordered, for wise

purposes, of which it did not become us to judge.’

Subsequently Montagu returned the visit of the Duke and his medical

guardian. He seated himself on a sofa with his legs drawn up under

him, as the most natural and convenient position that a gentleman

could take. Moore, in the course of the conversation which ensued,

slily adverted to the Mohammedan views with regard to women. The

quasi Turk became Oriental to the very ends of his fingers, and grew

eloquent on this delicate question. Of course, he defended polygamy

and concubinage, even as Solomon had wisely observed it. Women liked

neither, and but for this foolish objection they would have had

influence enough to have spread Islam as one religion throughout

Europe. The men hated Christianity on more valid ground. Auricular

confession they abhorred. ‘No Turk of any delicacy would ever allow his

wife (particularly if he had but one) to hold private conference with

a man on any pretext whatever.’ When the Doctor (for the Duke seems to

have been generally silent) insinuated that the Turks had not the same

grounds to hate Protestantism, Montagu remarked that the Turks could

not tolerate the Christian idea of the equality of women and men, nor

accept the Christian view of an exceedingly dull heaven, where the

souls of ordinary women were to be assembled, instead of the graceful

bodies of Houris, who were to welcome the sons of Islam to a joyous

paradise.

The self-exile continued to be the observed of all curious travellers;

but he directed his steps at last in the direction of home, if with

no decided resolution to return thither. The cause, perhaps, is found

in a phrase of a letter from Mrs. Delany, written in February 1776:

‘Mr. Wortley Montagu’s wife is dead.’ This was the laundress, his only

legitimate wife, who had married him in his youthful time. Her husband

had recently been entertaining Romney, and Romney had painted the

portrait of his friend in Turkish costume, which bespeaks the talent

of the artist and the sad yet manly beauty of the friend. The latter

had been the victim of more lies and jests than any man of his time,

and these were multiplied now, but they are not worth repeating. The

wanderer himself was near the end of his course. Two months subsequent

to his lawful wife’s decease he died, after a brief illness, at Padua.

He is said to have expressed a hope that he should die as a good

Moslem; but that he was held to have died in the Roman Catholic faith

is best proved by the fact that he lies beneath a church roof in Padua,

and with a Latin inscription over him, which describes him as ‘ubique

civis,’ and which credits him with nearly all the qualities that can

dignify humanity. If much eccentricity has been ascribed to him by

the world, it is because his acts and words gave some warrant for it.

There was scarcely any condition in life but in some country or another

he had assumed it. He used to boast that he had never committed a

_small_ folly; and his gambling was certainly, at one time, of gigantic

proportions. A memoir of him, published in Dublin two years after

his death, reckoned among his boyish assumptions those of link-boy,

chimney-sweep, and shoe-black! The same veracious volume numbered among

his wives, with the English laundress, a Dutch Jewess, a Turkish lady,

a Greek girl, a Circassian damsel, and an Arabian maiden. Even to the

English laundress he is said to have been married by an official of

the Fleet prison. His old tutor, Forster, claimed the merit of having

written the work on Ancient Republics, but this claim, made when

the author could not answer it, was universally scouted, as was the

contemptible pretender. Lady Louisa Stuart, referring to the various

ladies who assumed a right to bear his name, remarks:--

More than one lady took the title of his wife, with or without

the pretext of a ceremony which, it is to be feared, he would

not scruple to go through any number of times, if requisite

for the accomplishment of his wishes. But the last person so

circumstanced, and the loudest in asserting her claims, met him

upon equal ground, having herself a husband living, from whom

she had eloped; therefore, she at least could not complain of

deception.

The above lady was the _ci-devant_ Miss Dormer. She appeared in London

soon after Edward Wortley Montagu’s death; and in her family papers it

is stated that she received one hundred pounds annually from Coutts’s

out of her alleged husband’s estate. For a long period she resided

at Nancy, and she may yet live in the recollection of not very old

persons, English and others, who dwelt in that pleasant city in their

youth, for the last of the wives of Wortley Montagu survived till

January 1821. She lived and died as Countess of Montagu, and her death

finally closed a romance of real life, the unfortunate hero of which

would probably have won honourable fame if he had been blessed with a

mother of a different quality.

_ROYAL AND IMPERIAL JOKERS._

In that marvellous work of history, the ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman

Empire,’ Gibbon somewhere remarks, in reference to sovereign ladies

in love, that they are by their social position, or rather by their

position above society, placed at a manifest disadvantage, inasmuch as

the first advances must come from themselves. If this was the case in

the olden time, it is not exactly so now--though, of course, the outer

world knows little about the matter. Many princesses have not been

at all troubled at the idea of having to speak, or look, first; and

the great Russian Czarina had as little embarrassment in choosing her

lovers as she had in murdering that holy and august madman, her husband.

The well-favoured individuals on whom high and mighty princesses have

been ready to smile had a delicate task to perform. They had to look

more than twice before they leaped, and were compelled to feel their

way very cautiously lest a false step or a too boldly ventured word

should cost them their head. But after all this perilous condition of

aspiring lovers was as nothing compared with the dangers of too wittily

endowed courtiers who should indulge in jesting with a king, especially

of the olden type and of mediæval and morose temper. When the courtiers

of Amarose, King of Little Britain, gently awoke him with the glee--

‘Awake, awake your royal nob,

The kettle boils upon the hob’--

his surly and too suddenly aroused majesty descended to his tea, toast,

and eggs, entered the breakfast-room with the gracious greeting, ‘My

lords and gentlemen, get out!’ King Arthur, in ‘Tom Thumb,’ returns

homage in much the same civil humour. These, however, are but stage

kings--kings of shreds and patches. The flesh-and-blood, genuine,

despotic monarch was a far more dreadful animal.

Jesting with kings, particularly uninvited--why, it was as if a

swimmer, however experienced, should venture within the smooth but

death-bearing current of Niagara, which inevitably carries all within

its power over the Falls. People have played little teasing jokes with

elephants, and when the jokers have forgotten all about it the gravely

majestic beast has put his foot upon the offender, and crushed the

humour out of him for ever. It has been just so with malice-bearing

monarchs, and with courtiers who thought they might joke with them.

The incarnation of all such monarchs existed in the person of an

African king named Chaka. He was given to joking at others, and woe

betide them if they did not burst with ecstacy at the joke; but if

a ‘fellow of infinite humour’ happened to cap the royal joke with a

better, Chaka broke into hilarity, which he ended by exclaiming, ‘Cut

off that wretch’s head; he has made me laugh.’

The Cæsars must have been almost as dreadfully dangerous men to joke

with as Chaka. The great Julius, indeed, after he became great, had no

leisure for jesting, but was the object of some popular jokes which he

took with indifference. The guests of Augustus were afraid to ‘crack

a joke’ in his presence. They would whisper one to a neighbour, and

then turn pale if the emperor invited them to ‘speak up.’ The imperial

table was as grand and dull as that of the copper Augustus, Louis

the Fourteenth, and the emperor had recourse to merryandrews, just

as the Grand Monarque had to harlequins. But the harlequins of those

days were gentlemen and scholars. The grim Tiberius, on the other

hand, was remarkably facetious. His delight was to puzzle his learned

guests with unanswerable questions, such as, ‘What was the name of the

song the Syrens sang?’ and the like. Fancy half a dozen members of

the Society of Antiquaries dining with her Majesty and being gravely

asked who built the marble halls the Bohemian girl dreamt she dwelt

in? or what was the Christian name of the ‘Minstrel Boy?’ and at what

period ‘Auld lang syne’ had been young? Nevertheless, Tiberius was a

nicer man to deal with than Caligula, all of whose jests were brutally

cruel, in words, and oftener in deeds. What a serious joke was that

when, having nothing on but the linen apron of a victim-slayer, he

raised the mallet, and instead of slaying the beast, knocked out the

brains of the sacrificing priest! Claudius was too huge a feeder to

have appetite for wit; but he would have eaten the whole beast that

his predecessor should have killed. Yet Claudius, half beast himself,

had a good deal of the scholar in him; as Nero had, who loved science,

admired art, was mildly witty, and therewith as savage as an insane

hyæna. We must except the occasions of his visiting the theatre, when

he sat in an upper seat, and found delight in flinging nuts down upon

the bald head of the prætor below. That official was as proud of the

attention as if every nut had been an especial honour. Joyless Galba

had none of the Neronic fun in him. But though not mirthful himself,

Galba could smile when he heard the popular slang name, in allusion to

his flat nose, ‘Simius.’ His successor, Otho, was just such a wit as

a man might be expected to be who washed his face in asses’ milk. If

witty men went away from him feeling dull and heavy, it was the result

of their exchanging ideas with their imperial master. He had his wit at

second-hand, as Vitellius had, who got his jokes from a stage-player

and charioteer. In more modern times, when Astley’s was in its glory,

and the clown of the ring a joker that people went to listen to, that

circus clown got his jokes, not from his own brains, but from the

Westminster boys. Jokes used to be made at Westminster as they now are

at the Stock Exchange, where fresh batches are served each morning,

like hot rolls. But to return to the Cæsars. Perhaps Vespasian was a

greater joker than any of them, but his jokes were often broad and

scurrilous. Titus was rather gracious than given to jesting, though he

enjoyed one sorry joke, in promising to every suitor that his request

should be granted. They went away radiant. ‘Every one,’ he said,

‘ought to depart joyfully from the presence of his prince;’ and then,

‘the delight of mankind’ thought no more of his promise. The chief

recreation of the gloomy Domitian was in playing dice; but he always

won. Every antagonist knew what the joke would cost him if he beat the

emperor.

Altogether, those Twelve Cæsars were men compounded of the most

opposite qualities, with a small modicum of what is called wit among

the whole of them. Out of all those who followed, one alone, Hadrian,

made a standing and a sterling joke--a joke which has descended to us

and added a slang phrase to our vulgar tongue. To ‘scrape acquaintance’

comes to us from Hadrian. He was at the public baths one day when he

saw one of his veteran soldiers scraping his body with a tile. That was

such poor luxury that Hadrian ordered that his old comrade should be

supplied with more suitable cleansing materials, and also with money.

On a subsequent occasion when the emperor again went to the bath, the

spectacle before him was highly amusing. A score of old soldiers who

had fought under Hadrian were standing in the water, and each was

currying himself with a tile and wincing at the self-inflicted rubbing.

The emperor perfectly understood what he saw and what was the purpose

of the sight. ‘Ha! ha!’ he exclaimed, ‘you had better scrape one

another, my good fellows!’ He added, ‘You certainly shall not scrape

acquaintance with me!’

Heliogabalus was perhaps the most practical joker among the imperial

jesters. We have seen at the Surrey Oval, in old days, eleven

one-legged Greenwich pensioners playing cricket against eleven

pensioners with only one arm. By the way, the one-legged men had the

advantage, as the one-armed men often fell in stooping for the ball,

wanting the missing arm to balance themselves withal. It was the

humour of Heliogabalus to get together companies of individuals all

marked by the same peculiarity. He would now have at dinner a dozen

baldheaded men, or twelve ladies with one eye each; he would have

been delighted to have got hold of triple assortments of the three

famous sisters who had but one eye and one tooth between them! Failing

that, the ‘lord of the sun,’ as he called himself, was content to

have a score of hunchbacks, or of flat-nosed men, or squinting women.

He is said on one occasion to have put into a very small chamber,

where dinner was prepared, so many excessively fat and hungry men

that they had no room for anything but to perspire, and not much for

that. Heliogabalus was an expensive joker, but then his good people

paid for the fun, and he might therefore indulge his humour without

restraint at the time, or remorse after it. His supremely imperial joke

lay in placing a number of guests on table-couches (guests reclined,

and did not sit down to dinner) which were blown up with air instead

of being stuffed with wool. At a moment when the cups were filled to

the brim with the choicest wine, and the guests were lifting them

to their lips with anticipations of liquid Elysium, a tap was drawn

beneath the carpet, which suddenly emptied the couches of their air,

and consequently tumbled all the recliners on to the floor, where they

lay pell-mell, with wine spilt, goblets lost, and utter confusion

prevailing, except on the face of Heliogabalus, who looked on and

indulged in laughter inextinguishable. Having but indifferent appetite

himself, he was fond of sauces, and he highly rewarded any inventor of

a sauce that was to the imperial liking. But if it failed to tickle

his very sacred majesty’s palate he had recourse to a joke of a very

practical character indeed; that is to say, he condemned the unlucky

candidate for his favour to live upon nothing else but the sauce in

question until he had discovered another more successful in its object.

Fancy having to live on anchovy, without fish, for a twelvemonth, or

catsup and a little bread, from the Ides of March to the Kalends of

December! Think of what your palate and liver would be had you nothing

to sit down to but pickled walnuts without the chop, or mustard without

the beef, from Christmas to Easter, even if your wits enabled you to

make deliverance then.

There was grim but honest joking in the Emperor Carus. The frugal man

was once seated, as was his wont, on the grass, supping on dry bread,

grey peas, and stale bacon. He gave audience at the same time to

Persian ambassadors who came to sue for peace. As the emperor was about

to reply, he opened his mouth for the reception of a huge spoonful of

peas, but he paused to say--at the same time taking off his skull-cap

with his disengaged hand--‘Look here! If your master does not confess

the superiority of Rome, I will render Persia as destitute of trees

as my head is of hair.’ Having said which, he swallowed his shovelful

of peas, and chuckled as the Persian legates went homeward with that

significant message.

After all, this joke was made up of the rudest boasting. There is

something in it and its attending circumstances which remind one of the

last war in Europe. Rome declared war against Persia, and the Roman

cry was ‘The Tigris for a boundary!’ ‘To Susa!’ ‘To Ecbatana!’ and so

forth. The later cry of the enraptured Gauls, ‘Le Rhin! le Rhin!’ ‘À

Berlin! à Berlin!’ seem like Irish echoes of the old cry. What disaster

came of it Gibbon tells and readers of history remember, but even among

the degenerate Romans there was no one ignoble enough to set an example

to the poor French _feuilletonist_, who said of the brave German

officers that they would be too proud to brush French boots with their

blonde moustaches. Brave Frenchmen must have shuddered at this wretched

jest, and Louis Napoleon, who loved a good joke though he never made

one, must have curled his lip with indignation if he read the piece of

miserable wit over his coffee at Metz.

In Prussia, which dates as a kingdom from the year 1702, there is not

one of its seven kings who can be called a wit, though more than one

had what is far better, strong, far-seeing, uncommon sense. Unclean in

their vagaries the Prussian royal jokers have assuredly been, and one

or two admitted of no liberty whatever being taken with them, as far

as repartee went. So stern were the most of the Prussian margraves,

electors, and dukes, that, to express the peril of joking with them,

there arose the well-known popular proverb, ‘It is advisable not to

eat cherries with princes.’ The queens of Prussia, on the other hand,

brought their own wit with them into the royal family, and there was

not a sharper lady among them than Queen Sophia Charlotte, the first

queen of Prussia. Leibnitz, whom she delighted to honour as a man and a

philosopher, once asked her if she could imagine the infinitely little?

‘Why, of course I can!’ exclaimed the hilarious queen. ‘What a question

to ask the wife of Frederick the First!’

There was good common sense in the humour of Frederick the Great of

Prussia. In his hours of joviality with his boon companions, smoking

and drinking around a table, in a cottage specially devoted to such

recreation, the king was understood to be absent. Frederick gave the

loosest rein to his own spirit of jesting, and took the roughest jokes

of his guests with perfect good temper. He has been immoderately

praised for this control over himself; but in truth there was none. He

could always escape from raillery that was tinged with bitterness. At

critical moments, when an ordinary mortal, hard pressed by satirical

assailants, would lose his equanimity and fly into a rage, Fritz

could quietly remark, ‘Friends, the king has come back;’ after which

observation he neither joked himself nor was attacked by the jokers.

Neither did the king bear any ill-will if his own jesting was turned

roughly against him, and he was made to smart by a repartee more

stinging than the royal sarcasm which gave it birth.

There was often a childlike simplicity about the old soldier-king. He

would joke and laugh with the children in the streets of Potsdam, as he

slowly rode along on his veteran Molwitz gray. He loved to have them

at his stirrup, and watch them struggling to kiss his boot or pat the

proud old horse; and he would laugh joyously if their young throats set

up the famous chorus:

Victoria! with us is God!

The haughty foe lies there!

One Saturday afternoon they carried the matter further than his

patience would tolerate, and Fritz, raising his crutched cane

menacingly, cried out in affected anger, ‘Young rascals! to school

with you all! to school!’ The cry was met by a counter-shout from

the ragamuffins of ‘Ha! ha! Papa Fritz don’t know that there’s no

school on Saturday afternoon!’ At which the absolute king rode away

rebuked. His humour, however, made such rebuffs welcome. He took truths

from the popular tongue with alacrity. After the Seven Years’ War,

riding towards Sans Souci, he recognised an old fruit-woman near the

Brandenburg Gate, whom he remembered to have seen there before the war

broke out. Fritz at once greeted her with a ‘Well, mother, how have the

times been treating you?’ ‘Middling,’ was the concise reply; ‘but where

have you been for this ever so long?’ ‘Don’t you know, mother, I have

been making war for these seven years past?’ ‘How should I know?’ asked

the venerable Pomona, ‘and why should I care?

“Rabble fight, and rabble slay;

And rabble are friends another day.”’

In and About Drury Lane, and Other Papers, Vol. 2 (of 2) Reprinted from the pages of the 'Temple Bar' Magazine · 第 18 / 19 段