Lady+Mary+Wortley+Montagu

Letters to a Friend Concerning Lady Mary Wortley Montagu

To Mrs. S, How delighted I am to receive word of your arrival in N. My new writing table just arrived today, I though it best to attend to your request of a timely response on account of your being laid up with a sore throat. It is quite fortunate that I have just finished the most interesting publication of one Lady Mary Wortley Montagu—a book full of her personal correspondence from her travel through Europe and the Ottoman Empire! Her account is much more engaging than other travel narrative types, which I am sure you have indulged yourself from your husband’s expansive library, due to its opinionated specifics; it is to say that Lady Mary avoids sweeping generalizations of culture and exposes those elements which hide in the deepest places of the earth, yet give the richest education to those able to uncover them.

Of course, I assume you are aware of such a woman, though I will include a brief mention of her particulars for your benefit alone, my darling! Lady Mary is attached to Mr. Edward Wortley Montagu, ambassador to Turkey. The marriage seems to be quite loveless and birthed of a scandalous elopement (Oxford). I hope you will forgive my tendency toward gossip—it composes the best letters! Lady Mary arrived in Turkey sometime in 1717, and from there sent much correspondence home to friends, including Mr. Pope (Oxford), which mention I included knowing his poetry much pleases you. It seems Lady Mary herself was not fond of leaving the Empire with her husband on his return, though she consented in following him back to England (Oxford). How fortunate for those of us who will never have a chance to journey quite so far as she that her narrative was published!

Taking such a stand against the social norms for women in our age is no small feat, but I feel Lady Mary’s status gives her a sort of protection from much scrutiny, which would be directed at the best of our sex. I hope I am not too forward in mentioning that in her marriage to the ambassador she has found freedom to explore and voice her opinion of the world around her. Her strength of independence is apparent in her influence of both fashion and medicine. Lady Mary herself has practiced inoculation for small pox on her own children (Oxford), which I find foreign and unreliable. Ms. P claims to have seen the child in good health, but I do not believe her. I cannot blame Lady Mary, as “she had lost her only brother to this dread disease as well as nearly dying of it herself. In Turkey she had discovered that inoculation (with live smallpox virus) was a common procedure in folk medicine” (Oxford). Under such circumstances, I find it difficult to hate her too entirely as some here in London do. I wonder if such news reaches you in the country?

I hope my letter finds you in better health than I suppose you are in now. The tea is just come in. Yours, Miss R

To Mrs. S, My dear, had I known of your desire to discuss Lady Mary’s //Turkish Embassy Letters//, I would have certainly given you a deeper opinion of them! But of course our literary tastes still remain similar despite our separation after your marriage! I have read letter XXVII, as you have, and was utterly astonished at the casual narrative of the ladies at the Turkish Bath! To have women in such states of undress reported in a public book is quite a modern view of the world, is it not? I hope I will not tire you with a quotation which, however, I found exactly right and proper of Lady Mary to include: “I am sure I have now entertained you with an account of such a sight as you never saw in your life, and what no book of travels could inform you of, as ‘tis no less than death for a man to be found in one of these places” (Turkish 60). Indeed! Her feminine perspective of the world is quite inspiring and astounding.

In my own opinion, which I hope will not be suffered by you in your ill state, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu is the prime example of female empowerment in our present time of the eighteenth century. While her book //Turkish Embassy Letters// is one example of her independence from, not only her husband, but all men and their often oppressing opinions, her poetry offers concise lyric advice to other women around her. (I would not hope to entertain such an opinion with anyone but you, of course). Perhaps you have had the privilege of reading a few of her poetical works. Unlike the historical credibility found in her travel narrative, Lady Mary’s poetry is stinging in its description of men, particularly those men who hunt unprotected young ladies. The purpose of many of her works seems to encourage women to stand strong in their right to resist the male hunters seeking to tarnish their reputation as well as to offer solace in revealing that all women can unite in the burden of oppression and lack of representation. Her lines are quite shocking and I have the greatest sense of femininity whilst reading them!

I do not have but one volume of her letters—my father Lord Edward R- does not like to keep such literature around the library. He fears I will desire a similar detestation of men, which you know, I cannot. I pray to be as fortunate in finding a connection as you have been!

I promise to write you again. Dear Miss K- has just come in to alter my green riding dress; the lace on the hem has torn on account of Mr. G- forgetting to mind it while helping me from my carriage. I had rather he had not helped at all. I remain yours, etc.

Mrs. S, I was so relieved to hear you have quite mended. As soon as you feel strong enough, I hope you will pay a visit. It quite shocked me that your dear husband does not have even one poem of Lady Mary’s in his library! Of course I do not mind explicating a few for your benefit, and when you visit next, I will be sure to lend you all I own.

One volume of her poems, //The poetical works of the Right Honourable Lady M- - -y W- - -y M- - -e,// includes “Epilogue to Mary Queen of Scots.” While the play for which the epilogue was intended was never finished, Lady Mary’s poem stands on its own as amusing and insightful (Epilogue Footnote, 49). The poetess advises, “If you will love, love like Eliza then; / Love for amusement, like those traitors men. / Think that the pastime of a leisure hour / She favour’d oft---but never shar’d her pow’r” (lines 23-6). It seems as though the object of Lady Mary’s chagrin is the men who court ladies simply for the game or “amusement” with no intension of marriage or a lasting relationship. Of course we will exclude your honorable Mr. H from this heinous group. It is most courageous of her, I feel, for prompting women such as I to treat men in exactly the same manner, yet only if they must love in the first place!

Interestingly, Lady Mary mentions this female power as something attained in the solace of “a leisure hour.” There, perhaps in our dressing rooms or at a personal tea table, does she feel we are entitled to rule a small universe, yet only in the absence of our husbands. I do not, as do you, have the privilege of comparing an unattached lady’s tea table to a married woman’s. Newly married, how do you find your power, my dear? Specifically, the poem says, “never shar’d her pow’r” suggesting that even in a husband’s society, Lady Mary insists on keeping her share of power and not simply reducing her opinion to nothingness. It is clear that she has experienced the plight of an oppressive husband, though her poem seeks to remedy the situation through biting accusations toward men and advise to women of how to retain some independence. I wonder at her change of opinion were she to be acquainted with your dear love! He, I have always said, is everything a lady should hope to attain in marriage.

Perhaps you will excuse my abrupt salutation—I forgot I am obliged to make a call on Miss L’s cousin arrived yesterday from Bath.

Of course, yours etc.

P.S. I have just remembered an especially surprising passage I wanted to ask your opinion of on account of your new married status. Lady Mary’s poem “A Caveat to the Fair Sex” compares the suitor turned husband to “an Eastern prince” (line 9). I wonder if she is suffering influence from her journey to the Ottoman Empire? I was quite at a loss at what to think? “When she the word obey has said, / And man by law supreme is made, / Then all that’s kind is laid aside, / And nothing left but state and pride” (5-8). //and// “Then shun, O shun that wretched state, / And all the fawning flatterers hate: / Value yourselves; and men despise, / You must be proud, if you be wise” (21-4). Simply put, the humorous, yet somehow ultimate answer is to refuse men at all costs, I suppose. Do not leave me in suspense!

To Mrs. S, To hear that you will be visiting London in the Spring is a delight to my heart! I look forward to our meeting. You surprise me with your utter damnation of Lady Mary’s poetic views on marriage. Had I known they were to offend you so deeply, I never would have mentioned them. It seems Lady Mary’s views on gender relations are quite the minority here as well. Am I alone, wrong even, in my admiration of her? Even newspapers such as //The Entertainer//, circulate the wide-spread belief in man’s dominance. Of course, you know, the specific purpose of //The Entertainer// is as such: “ The //Diversion// and //Edification// of the //Reader// are two great Ends which every //Writer// ought to have in view, and unless he aims at these, he cannot expect either to be acceptable to the World, or, in any wise, service-able in his Generation” (Entertainer Issue 1). I am usually taken by how their “correcting” of society stems from a morally Christian perspective and not simply from the desire to improve anyone’s (including women’s) convention of life.

However, some passages take an interesting stand on social issues. One, published recently, tackles the wrongness of polygamy of all things. Though the majority of the paper cites Christian doctrine as the reason men should not practice polygamy, or even entertain a courtesan while married, one passage almost takes a stand for the rights of women harmed at the expense of male affairs: “For a Man to indulge himself these Liberties is the ready Way to make him licentious; and his Wife too. If Marriage is a //Conjunction//, if //Man and Wife are one Flesh//, the Female has as much Right by that Argument to choose a //Husband//, as the //Husband// has to chuse a second //Wife”// (Entertainer Issue 15). //The Entertainer// mentioning a woman’s side of things at all was surprising to me.

Another recent issue of //The Entertainer// speaks on the topic of conjugal love in marriage. How immediately I though of you and your happy connection! The unidentified author writes that love and friendship “are essential to the Completion of Happiness in a marry'd Life, and so scarce; //their Felicity// is the more elevated, //their Happiness// is the more finish'd, and //themselves// are more to be admir'd, who enjoy the greatest Portion of those S//atisfactions//” (Issue 20). He is convinced that marriage without love is not as it was intended to be, and seems frustrated by the views of his time, calling “Love and Friendship in Wedlock…like Apparitions; much talked of but never seen” (Issue 20). I, my dear, have had the privilege of seeing you (how unlike Lady Mary from our recent correspondence!) in a loving and friendly marriage.

Although Christian doctrine, I feel, is again the most given reason for these claims, the author himself seems to truly have a tenderness toward the love he feels should be shared in a marriage: “The very Name of //Wife// is //Sacred//, and should secure her //Person// from all unjust Indignities; the //Nuptial Ties// are not to be dissolv'd upon slight and trivial Occasions; and if not those, yet the [ILL]enderness of her //Sex// ought to protect her from //[ILL]ies”// (Issue 20). This view is so refreshing to a yet unmarried lady so often reminded of connections constructed for financial gain!

Must I be reformed? You must instruct me, my dear friend, for I am at a loss whether to accept a modern view of marriage for love, which my heart desires, or fall in with our less fortunate friends who must learn to admire a man for his protection. Please send comfort in your next letter—I am quite in want of resolve!

Yours etc,

To Mrs. S, My sincerest wishes to you on the first day of February! How modern we are to be living in 1720. Since you have been living in the country now for most a year, I realize you do not have the easy convenience that I do for visiting the theatre. I remember you asking last month how the plays are after “the Lord Chamberlain, on 19 December 1719 silenced Colley Cibber and on 23 January 1720 closed Drury Lane for several days” (Stage 547). I must tell you that all has been restored as the theatre “reopened under a new license which excluded Sir Richard Steele from legal participation in its affairs and which precipitated a pamphlet war of considerable intensity” (Stage 547). I must remark, however, that though I do enjoy a play every now and then, the titles seem to thrive on poking fun at the “wife.”

I remember a few for your amusement: In October 1719 “Rule A Wife and Have A Wife” at Drury Lane; “The Devil of a Wife”; In November “The Silent Woman” (Stage 551-3). I remember our discussion of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu last year and wonder what she must think of these monstrous titles! Surely there can be theatre which delights and amuses without a woman being tortured with laughing at her own plighted sex?

The most refreshing play I had the privilege to attend last November was “The Way of the World” by a Mr. Congreve put on at Drury Lane (Stage 554). I must relate how at ease I was in the theatre my dear. While the play is full of traitorous men, the ladies have their hand in the jilting, and, in my opinion, appear more intelligent than their male counterparts. Mr. G- accompanied me and laughed but once, but I could hardly restrain my amusement. It is a shame that the play was only put on once, or I certainly would have attended again, Mr. G- or not!

Of course the theatre is not without its tiring favorites. I had the interest two times to see in December, “King Richard the Second” by William Shakespeare. But my dear Mrs. S, it continued being put on at least five different times throughout December alone! I certainly cannot pretend to have quite a love for the theatre where a play can be endured in such repetition. However, I could make an exception for Mr. Congreve’s play, which, I believe, I could engage in endlessly.

I do hope this information enlightens you and tempts you back for a visit. The theatre is blossoming and, perhaps if I and our Lady Mary will be appeased, even Drury Lane will more openly include the tastes of ladies and protect their most sacred virtues. I cannot accept the dreadful rumors circulating about the actresses here in the city—you would think they were all horrendous human beings, while the men are praised for their variety of lovers! I will wait for your reply. What news from the country?

Of course, yours, Miss R

Grundy, Isobel. “Lady Mary Wortley Montagu.” //Oxford// //Dictionary of National Biography//. University of Maryland Databases. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.

Montagu, Mary Wortley, Lady. “A Caveat to the Fair Sex.” //The poetical works of the Right// //Honourable Lady M- - -y W- - -y M- - -e.// Dublin, 1768. //Eighteenth Century Collections// //Online.//Web. 67-8. 2 Dec. 2012.

---.“Epilogue to Mary Queen of Scots.” //The poetical works of the Right Honourable Lady// //M- - -y W- - -y M- - -e.// Dublin, 1768. //Eighteenth Century Collections Online.//Web. 49-51. 2 Dec. 2012. //The Entertainer.// Issue 1, 6 Nov. 1717. //Eighteenth Century Journals//. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.

//The Entertainer//. Issue 15, 12 Feb. 1718. //Eighteenth Century Journals//. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.

//The Entertainer.// Issue 20, 16 March 1718. //Eighteenth Century Journals//. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.

//The London Stage 1660-1800.// Part 2: 1700-1729//.// Ed. Emmet L. Avery. Vol. 2. Illinois: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press, 1960. 547-61. Print.