Mrs
Edwards, an oyster seller near Star Court, testified that a coach had
passed by her between eleven and twelve o'clock ; the coach stopped at
the end of Star Court ; in it were a gentleman in a scarlet cloak and a
woman whom she described as "talking, laughing, and laying out her hands
very briskly". She had commented on this to Mary Dent, who confirmed
the testimony, adding that she knew the house to be one of ill repute
and that the gentleman walked very well and did not appear ill. Another
witness, Mary Brimmer, a servant in the house next door, testified that
at about eleven o'clock she had gone out to wash a pot, had looked into
Mrs Simmerton's house, and had observed the gentleman in the scarlet
cloak standing with his face to the fireplace and a woman facing him and
that he stooped down and kissed her. She identified the woman as Mary
Roberts and added that Elizabeth Shepherd lit a candle, lighted the
gentleman upstairs, and that Mary Broberts had followed them. She also
supplied the information that Elizabeth Shepherd came downstairs and
paid the coachman three shillings.
Up
to this point, the Crown's evidence appears to account fairly
thoroughly for Motteux's movements from the time that he closed his
shop, donned his scarlet cloak, and sported around London, to the
time that he went upstairs to the chamber in which his fatal
assignation occurred. But questions remain unasked and unresolved.
They are the schoolchild's problem of time, rate, and distance. We
cannot gauge Motteux's rate, but approximate times are recorded, and
the distances remain unchanged three centuries later. Assuming that
Motteux's shop was at the bottom of Leadenhall Street and that he
closed his shutters at five o'clock, the conventional hour, allowing
him a quarter of an hour to change his clothes, count his money, and
arrange with Mr. Serjeant to accompany him as far as the Royal
Exchange, it is not easy to account for his time. The distance from
the bottom of Leadenhall Street to the Royal Exchange at Cornhill and
Threadneedle Street is a scant kilometer. On a recent visit to
London, I walked that distance at a pace suited to my years and
claudication, and it took me 14 minutes. According to Mr. Serjeant,
the seven o'clock chimes furnished a neat fix in time for their
taking leave of each other. What had they been doing for an hour and
three-quarters? Surely not parading up and down Cornhill and
Leadenhall Street in the waning light of a February afternoon.
Perhaps they stopped off for refreshments, not an unreasonable
thought at that hour, but it is not so stated in the evidence,
Possibly the point was not raised.
Relying
on evidence given later, we know that Motteux walked three short
blocks to the vicinity of Ludgate, where he encountered Mary Roberts.
Who first accosted whom is not in evidence, but in general such
encounters depend upon mutual recognition of desire, intent, and
willingness to supply the required professional services; a bargain
is usually struck after a minute or two of conversation. In this
case, such details are not in evidence, but the arrangement must have
been satisfactory to both parties.
Motteux
then hired a carriage and rode to White's chocolate house in the West
End, a distance of about three miles. Francis White (Francisco
Bianco) had opened his chocolate house in St. James' Street, just
down the slope from Piccadilly in 1693, and it soon became a popular
and fashionable establishment. It is the forerunner of White's, still
in St. James's, now a well-known gentleman's club. Just why Motteux
chose to have Mary Roberts accompany him three miles to White's when
her place of assignation in Butcher Row lay one mile east of where
they met is not clear. The record of the trial makes no mention of
Motteux's having bought tickets to a ball, nor were tickets found in
his pockets after he died.
Nor can one account for Mary Roberts being
willing to sit unaccompanied in an unheated carriage on a chilly
February night. Mr. Arthur testified that, while at White's, Motteux
ate a couple of 'Jellies," but whatever else he did there is not
in evidence. How many 'Tellies" can one eat in two hours? In any
case, Motteux does not seem to have been in any haste to consummate
his transaction. Perhaps he apprehended a failure of the flesh and
ate the 'Jellies" to bolster his faltering energies.
The
Crown's evidence places Motteux at Star Court in Butcher Row shortly
before midnight, not an unreasonable time for a carriage ride from
St. James' to a brothel at a short distance from the tower of London,
just off East Smithfield Street, au area since obliterated by the
Royal Mint and St. Katharine's Docks. Mary Brimmer's evidence that
she saw Motteux in his scarlet cloak standing in front of the
fireplace and kissing Mary Roberts recalls that at time the streets
of London were not illuminated, and it was easy to look into rooms
lit only by candles and oil lamps. The essential point of her
testimony is that Motteux was in full possession of his faculties
when he entered Mrs. Simmerton's bordello and that he was able to
mount the stairs under his own power. One would think that the madam
of a house of assignation would have the common sense to draw the
drapes or shades to conceal the carryings on from the eyes of
prurient neighbors, but perhaps the lateness of the hour can account
for Mrs. Simmerton's lack of discretion.
At this juncture, the
coachman Tomas White was called to the stand. He proved to be a
reluctant witness, unwilling to recall the events of the fateful
evening in detail. It was established that he had told his master
Richard Taylor that he had received only one shilling for his long
drive from the City to the West End and back to the East End. Having
skimmed two shillings from the fare, he was embarrassed by having his
petty cheating exposed in court, but Mary Roberts and others
identified him as the coachman who had carried her and Motteux to
their destinations. The record of the trial comments that "upon
which the Court wondered at his forgetfulness of so many remarkable
Passages depos'd, by his Master, Mistress, and Fellow-Servant, bid
him recollect himself, but still he would remember nothing."
The
only medically qualified witness was Mr. Chaloner, an apothecary. He
stated that he had
been awakened between midnight and one o'clock and
summoned to Star Court. When he arrived, Elizabeth Shepherd informed
him that a gentleman had had a fit upstairs.
When his servant, William
Limmer, came to Star Court, he was told that Motteux had on his
person four guineas, four shillings sixpence, plus some ha'pennies.
This contradicts Ann Bateman's statement that she was told Motteux
had about eight guineas (which Mrs. Simmerton "chink'd in her
hand") and considerably less than the 20 or more guineas that
Mary Dowty saw him counting at the door of his shop at five o'clock.
This evidence was given to support the charge of robbery, and it
concluded the prosecution's case.
Mary Roberts was the chief witness
for the defense. She stated that, as she was walking near Ludgate,
Motteux "looked very hard upon her, and walking before her . . .
halted until she came up to
him and invited her into a Tavern to
drink, but she refus'd; but afterwards . . . they had two full Pots
of Ale and Brandy." She also stated that Motteux said that he
had business at the other end of town, and she agreed to accompany
him. She also stated that, when they arrived at White's, he left his
scarlet cloak and sword with her in the coach "to assure her he
would not bilk her." After waiting in the coach for an hour and
a half, she sent the coachman into White's, and Motteux returned word
that he would join her in a minute. So he did, and they set off for
Star Court and, according to Mary Roberts, as they were passing the
New Exchange in the Strand, he complained that he was not well
and
said,
"My Dear. don't
be affrighted, I am going into one of my Dumb Fits which I us'd to be
troubled with, and leaning his Head upon her Shoulder, she supported
him till she came to Star Court, and sent the Coachman to tell her
Landlady to bring a Candle to the Coach. which she did. and that the
Deceased remained speechless and helpless; that they got a soldier
(Edward Williams the Prisoner, who she said was a stranger) coming by
in the interim of time, to take him upon his back and carry him into
Simmer- ton's House, which he did, the Coachman holding up his Legs;
that then they sat him down on a Chair, but he continued Speechless;
that then they carried him up Stairs, put him into Bed, hoping that
might bring him to himself, and afterwards sent for the Apothecary,
and taking a Looking-Glass to see if he breath'd found he was dead."
 |
| William Hogarth - The Tavern Scene (1735) |
She also added that the four guineas, half crown, two shillings, and some ha'pennies were returned to the family. Mrs. Simmerton supported Mary Roberts' testimony, adding that she had scolded her for bringing "Trouble and Scandal upon her House." Edward Williams' testimony was that he was only passing by accidentally when he became involved (though it was proved that he lodged in the house) and that he had acted only out of a desire to be helpful. His wife, Elizabeth Williams, said that she had only come by to call her husband home. Elizabeth Shepherd denied having lighted Mary Roberts and Motteux upstairs. Having heard all of this testimony, the jury acquitted the five defendants. The jury accepted the explanation of Motteux's death as given by a madam, three whores, and a bouncer over the testimony of over a dozen neutral, uninvolved witnesses who only testified as to what they had seen with their own eyes and when they had seen it. In one sense, they were right; there was no evidence of malice aforethought, and deliberate murder was not in Mary Roberts' mind, nor in the minds of the other denizens on Star Court.
It seems to be
a case of death due to sexual misadventure. But it is difficult to
reconcile the testimony of the Crown's witnesses with that offered by
the defense. For example, if Motteux had left his scarlet cloak and
sword in the coach as a pledge of good faith, how could the waiter at
White's have described him as wearing it? Likewise, the evidence
given by a witness who saw him inside Mrs. Simmerton's establishment
kissing Mary Roberts does not match her account of a man in a "fit,"
unable to speak. Nor did the defense offer any explanation of the
blackish mark seen on Motteux's neck the following morning. That the
circular mark may not have been visible a quarter to half an hour
after his death can be explained by both the inadequate illumination
when the apothecary examined the body (and the probability that the
examination was incomplete) as well as by the fact that such marks
become more readily visible a few hours after death after the
extravasated blood beneath the ligature undergoes changes that
produce the characteristic discoloration. Another point of
inconsistency is the amount
of money found on Motteux's body. It is
difficult to reconcile the four guineas and change found on the body
with the 20 to 30 guineas that he was stated to have when he left his
shop in Leadenhall Street. A drink or two with Mr. Serjeant, some
jellies at White's, and coach fare could not have come to more than a
guinea; food and drink in l8th century London were retailed at the
level of shillings and pence, and the coach fare was only three
shillings.
En guise d'épitaphe
Ci-git, qui par pure impuissance,Faisant un trop puissant effort,Mourut le jour de sa naissance,En serrant son col par trop fort.
Reviewed through the retrospective of 20th-century
forensic medicine, Motteux's death in a London brothel seems more
likely to have been the result of assisted erotic asphyxia. The
blackish circular mark around the neck and the unsigned, undated
annotation in Langbaine's "Lives of the English Dramatick Poets"
seem persuasive. When a 55-year-old man dies in a whorehouse, the two
most likely diagnoses are occlusive coronary arteriosclerosis with a
terminal arrhythmia as the result of excessive exertion (or a
comparable vascular accident involving the aorta or cerebral
arteries) or else a death due to a misguided form of sexual
experimentation. If the latter proves to be the case, and I do
believe that Motteux's death was the result of "the Whores who
forgot to cut the Cord," it is the earliest known example of
death as a result of attempting to induce an erection by reducing
carotid circulation to the brain-dubious at best, fatal at worst.
Medical examiners are familiar with auto-erotic asphyxia, an act
practiced privately, almost invariably by males, ranging in age from
prepubescence to maturity, with a peak in adolescence and young
manhood, with a variable degree of associated cross-dressing,
fetishism, and bondage. The examples of Motteux and Koczwara are
somewhat different in that the ligature was applied by a prostitute
to assist the asphyxia, a variation on the theme. A single case may
be dismissed as anecdotal, but now we have two cases, and one notes
that the plural of anecdote is data. It would appear that Motteux was
out cruising for sex, but got it in the neck, and thus was the
translator translated.
We are left with the opening stanza of
Kipling's 'The Benefactors', albeit the irony was not intended:
Ah!
what avails the classic bent
And
what the cultured word
Against
the undoctored incident
That
actually occurred.
Henry Purcell/P.A. Motteux - Man is for the woman made (1695)
