The Mystery in the Rue Mont-Thabor
As we saw in Part 1 of this story, on 10 April 1882, Arthur Sullivan arrived in Paris in the early morning hours and checked into the Grand Hotel. At noon he “went to keep appointment at No. 4 Rue M.T.”, where he “stayed till 5.30 (2)”.
The Rue M.T. was almost certainly the Rue Mont-Thabor. Because of Sullivan’s shorthand “(2)”, his biographer Arthur Jacobs assumed that during his five hours there, Arthur Sullivan had sex, twice. Building on that assertion, Jacobs suggested that Sullivan had visited a brothel.
Readers of Part 1 of this story know that I have doubts about that suggestion. But my doubts rest only upon Jacobs’ conclusion. I believe that indeed Arthur Sullivan visited 4, Rue du Mont-Thabor, and that he had sex there, twice. I also believe that, later that evening, he also had sex, once, with his mistress Fanny Ronalds, to whom he often referred as “D.H.” in his diaries. Even for a Sullivan diary entry, that is an exceptional amount of sexual activity for a single day.
The questions for me are, was 4, Rue M.T. truly a brothel? And with whom did Sullivan enjoy his first two sexual adventures of that day? This sort of research may seem trivial and perhaps unseemly at first glance. But I believe the answers reveal a side of Sullivan’s nature that isn’t well presented in his modern biographies.
If we assume that the facts as stated above are all correct, then I think we are presented with only three possible scenarios:
- 4, Rue M.T. was a brothel. Sullivan had sex with its sex workers, then later that day also had sex with Fanny Ronalds.
- 4, Rue M.T. was an apartment, or a public lodging, not a brothel. Sullivan had sex there, probably with a person who was not a sex worker, then later that day also had sex with Fanny Ronalds.
- 4, Rue M.T. was an apartment, or a public lodging, not a brothel. Sullivan had sex there with Fanny Ronalds, then, in the evening, had sex with her there again.
Only if case #1 is true does Sullivan’s diary entry for 10 April, 1882 indicate that Sullivan visited a brothel. As I wrote in Part 1, the Rue Mont-Thabor is not a likely location for a brothel.
So is there some reason that Sullivan might have had an extraordinary amount of sex on 10 April, 1882?
Before I give my answer, let me also reveal that his sexual streak in no way terminated on 10 April. Here are a few diary excerpts from the following days:
11 April, 1882
Dined at Véfours’ with D.H. – then went to No 4 till midnight (2).
13 April, 1882
Spent a couple of hours at No. 4 (1)
14 April, 1882
Spent an hour & a half at No. 4 (1)
15 April, 1882
Dined at Véfours’ then to No. 4 till 12.30 (2)
16 April, 1882
Spent an hour & a half at No. 4. [left some blank space—perhaps he was too tired to immediately record the number of sexual incidents?]
17 April, 1882
couple of hours at No 4. (1)
Whew! If this is sexual tourism, Arthur Sullivan was there for it!
But I’ve left out most of the details from those diary entries. On 11 April Sullivan went driving and shopping with Ronalds and her daughter. On the 12th, there was more shopping and dining with “Mrs R.” On the 13th they again dined at Véfours’ (which must have been the happening hotspot that season). On the 14th Sullivan spent the evening at Prince Leopold’s, with Fanny and her daughter. On the 15th he went shopping with Fanny at The Louvre (which was then a shopping extravaganza). Then dined again at Véfours’, before retiring to “No. 4”. On the 16th he doesn’t mention “Mrs R” but had a busy day of social engagements, in the middle of which he could only steal an hour and a half at “No. 4”. On the 17th, more shopping at The Louvre, before his “couple of hours at No. 4”
If No. 4 was a brothel, or the home of another lover, it’s hard to imagine how Sullivan might have managed to so easily slip away, almost every day, from his attentions to Fanny Ronalds, just to have sex with someone else.
So by now, you’ve probably guessed…
… that I believe Arthur was having an extraordinary amount of sexy fun times, with his long term mistress, Fanny Ronalds. I have not been able to identify who might have lived at 4, Rue du Mont-Thabor, nor whether it was an apartment house or public lodging. But it seems most likely that for Arthur and Fanny, it served as a week’s “love nest” in Paris .
And there is still more to this story. As I alluded to above, this is an extraordinary amount of sex in a short time for these two lovers. Could there have been a reason for it, on 10 April, 1882?
Of course I will cover that in Part 3.