Lola Montez : $b An adventuress of the 'fortiesD'Auvergne, Edmund B. (Edmund Basil)
History
Lola Montez : $b An adventuress of the 'forties
D'Auvergne, Edmund B. (Edmund Basil)
Montez, Lola, 1818-1861
The audience are bewitched, enraptured. The stage is strewn with bouquets.
Suddenly from the right omnibus-box comes the surprised exclamation: "Why,
it's Betty James!" Lord Ranelagh has recognised the woman who rebuffed
him, and hurriedly whispers to his friends. Above the applause from stalls
and gallery, there is heard on the stage, at least, a prolonged and
ominous hiss. My lord's friends in the opposite box act upon the hint, and
the hissing grows louder and more insistent. The body of the audience,
knowing nothing about the matter, conclude that the dancer cannot know
her business, and presently begin to hiss, too. In ten minutes more the
curtain comes down upon her, and Lola's career as a dancer is terminated
in England.
Lord Ranelagh had had his revenge. This species of blackguardism was only
too common in those days. The notorious Duke of Brunswick that same year
had gone with his attorney, Mr. Vallance, and a party of friends, to
Covent Garden Theatre, for the express purpose of hooting down an actor,
Gregory, who took the part of Faust. He succeeded in his design, and
bragged about it afterwards. In Early Victorian times the theatre was
completely under the thumb of certain aristocratic sets. The exasperated
Lumley was powerless to resist the fiat of these gilded snobs. Lola
Montez, they insisted, must never appear on his stage again. He obeyed.
The Press was very far from imitating his subserviency. The _Era_ and
_Morning Herald_ praised the new _danseuse_ in what seem to us extravagant
terms, and deliberately ignored the inglorious _denouement_ of her
performance. Indeed, but for the pen of "Q." we might be left to share the
surprise expressed at her disappearance by the _Illustrated London News_,
which, ironically perhaps, suggested that the votaries of what might be
called the classical dance had set their faces against the national.
Lola herself was under no misapprehension as to the cause and authors of
her defeat. She wrote to the _Era_ on 13th June, protesting passionately
against a report that was being circulated to the effect that she had long
been known in London as a disreputable character. She positively asserted
that she was a native of Seville, and had never before been in London. She
complains of the cruel calumnies that had got abroad concerning her, and
says that she has instructed her lawyer to prosecute their utterers. Of
course, the greater part of this statement was untrue, but she had her
back against the wall, and with their reputation, social and professional,
and means of livelihood at stake, few women would have acted otherwise. My
own view is that after her affair with Lennox, Lola tried hard "to keep
straight," and made powerful enemies in consequence. The alliance of
Pecksniff and Sir Mulberry proved too strong for her.
VII
WANDERJAHRE
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account