A prolonged longing?
As I wrote in Parts 1 and 2 of this story, I believe that Sullivan’s biographer Arthur Jacobs erred when he suggested that Sullivan frequented a Parisian brothel at the address “No. 4 Rue M.T.” Instead, I suggested that Sullivan and his mistress Fanny Ronalds used that location for their own pleasures together in 1882. As I noted, if I’m correct, then the two lovers enjoyed sexual relations during the week of Monday, 10 April 1882 at a rate rarely recorded in Sullivan’s diaries.
Might there have been a reason for so much coupling?
Rewind to the previous year, 1881. On 21 December, 1881, Sullivan departs from Charing Cross Station in London on what will be one of the longest voyages of his life. With his friend Ed Dicey—an adventurer who, as a journalist, had witnessed the American Civil War—Sullivan travels to Cairo, Egypt, where he passes three months. As his diaries make plain, his written correspondences with “L.W.” soon extend in delay from three days, to a week. In other periods of his life, when he is away from London, Sullivan often exchanges letters with Fanny daily.
During this vacation, there is no trace of Sullivan’s sexual “code” in his diary entries. No “(1)s”, no heavenly nights, no check marks. He spends some time in tourism with some unmarried ladies, but there is no insinuation of any sexual activity. This is a boy’s road trip. There’s even a duel involved.
By 1 April, Sullivan and Dicey have left Cairo and sailed to Naples. Now letters to and from “L.W.” are more frequent, and telegrams are possible. Sullivan visits Pompeii—”a thousand times more interesting than I had imagined”—then trains to Rome. He spends a day seeing the Roman sights with Dicey, who then splits off from Sullivan and heads to Paris on 5 April.
On 6 April, alone in Rome, Sullivan writes he is “Telegraphing & writing (Paris) all day”, and it is an “anxious and painful time.” The next day he is still telegraphing and writing; probably he has a lot of business to catch up on, but he doesn’t share any details with us.
On 8 April Sullivan buys a train ticket from Rome direct to Paris, which takes him through Pisa, Turin, Mâcon, and finally to Paris, early in the morning of 10 April. He hasn’t slept much, on the train. Nonetheless this is the day he visits “No. 4 Rue M.T.” at noon, and this is the day he makes love to “D.H.” in the evening, and this is the day in which the final words he writes in his diary are “very tired.” According to that diary, the last time he and Fanny Ronalds were together was 20 December of the previous year, “(1)”.
I’m not sure, but that may have been their longest separation, ever. On Sullivan’s trips within Europe, Ronalds often joined him for a few days. But in 1882, Egypt was still a long and difficult journey from England.
As I wrote in Part 2, in Paris, from 10 April through 17 April, Arthur Sullivan had a lot of sex. But only on 10 April does he write that it was with “D.H.” All the other encounters were at “No. 4”. I see no reason to believe that “D.H.” and “No. 4” are not the same woman. During this period, Sullivan records no letters or wires to or from “L.W.” I believe she is now with him.
But this story is far from over. On 18 April, Sullivan and Ronalds return to London, on separate trains. Sullivan takes possession of his new home, at No. 1 Queen’s Mansions, and according to Sullivan’s diary code, he and Fanny christen his new digs several times in April. In May, Sullivan begins to note sexual activity with Fanny with the phrase at home. After some weeks, their frequency diminishes.
On 25 May, 1882, a new story develops.
Drove after dinner with D.H. to M. who advised a delay
in taking action until 20th June. Submitted to this advise[sic] – (fee £4.1)
Note the date here. It is five weeks since Sullivan’s reunion with Ronalds. “M.” is advising them to do nothing for another four weeks. For this advice, Sullivan has paid M. over £4—over £600 today.
On 27 May, Sullivan’s beloved mother dies. And yet, three days later he records
Dined at home. L.W. (1) to shake the matter.
The underline is Sullivan’s. Two days later, L.W. “had seen A.C. symptoms beginning.” A.C. was Dr. Alfred Cooper, Sullivan’s physician. The evidence is clear. Whoever Sullivan was enjoying sex with in Paris, Fanny Ronalds is now the pregnant one.
Thus endeth my case against the address “No. 4 Rue M.T.” being a brothel. But are there any other Sullivan diary entries that might suggest he had visited a brothel?
Of course there is a Part 4.