DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68074#0145
VII
THE SECOND MARRIAGE AND A JOURNEY TO ITALY
‘ Elizabeth Crosby of Deptford in the County of Kent, a Spinster aged upwards of twenty
four years —Roubiliac’s Second Marriage Allegation.
‘ The captivating and luxuriant splendour of Bernini —Roubiliac to Reynolds.
IITTLE is known at this period of the sculptor’s private life. For an un-
_J published glimpse into his civic responsibilities I am indebted to Mr. J.
Paul de Castro, who, on consulting the eighteenth-century Sewer Rolls of the
St. Martin’s district, consisting of ‘ assessment lists and the sums to be levied
on each inhabitant ’, found and noted the following entries under the heading:
‘ Presentment for Raiseing Money to pay for work about Hartshorne Lane Sewer 1749.’
‘ St. Martin’s-Lane:
‘ Roubiliac £34.’ (Roll 275, Membrane No. 24.)
By way of comparison Mr. de Castro sends me:
‘St. Martin’s Lane West.
Mary Misaubin [widow of the Doctor] £55.’ (Membrane No. 22.)
‘ New Street Ward, Leicester Fields. East Side.
Hogarth £45.’ (Membrane No. 21.)
Here again, as we gather from the St. Martin’s Rate Books, it is clear that
Leicester Fields was a quarter more fashionable, less commercial, and therefore
more highly assessed than St. Martin’s Lane.
A more interesting, because more personal, event belongs to 1750. On the
31st March ‘ Roubiliac was robbed in Dean Street, Soho, between eleven and
twelve at night, by three men, one of whom held a pistol at him, while the
others rifled his pockets and took his watch and money ’? Whether the loss
was a serious one, or whether it has any connexion with Tyers’ loan of £20 in
the following June, it is impossible to say.
When it was that Roubiliac’s first wife died I have been unable to discover;
all we know is that he was a widower before the close of 1751, since his second
marriage took place on 12th January, 1752. Every circumstance concerning
the marriage is mysterious, how mysterious de Sainte-Croix, who discovered
the incorrectly dated reference in the Gentleman’s Magazine, did not himself
know. It did not take place in the parish church of either party; almost
1 Wheatley’s London, i, p. 493. He gives no the statement; Mr. Austin Dobson was equally
reference, and though I have searched several unsuccessful.
newspapers, I have failed to find the authority for
THE SECOND MARRIAGE AND A JOURNEY TO ITALY
‘ Elizabeth Crosby of Deptford in the County of Kent, a Spinster aged upwards of twenty
four years —Roubiliac’s Second Marriage Allegation.
‘ The captivating and luxuriant splendour of Bernini —Roubiliac to Reynolds.
IITTLE is known at this period of the sculptor’s private life. For an un-
_J published glimpse into his civic responsibilities I am indebted to Mr. J.
Paul de Castro, who, on consulting the eighteenth-century Sewer Rolls of the
St. Martin’s district, consisting of ‘ assessment lists and the sums to be levied
on each inhabitant ’, found and noted the following entries under the heading:
‘ Presentment for Raiseing Money to pay for work about Hartshorne Lane Sewer 1749.’
‘ St. Martin’s-Lane:
‘ Roubiliac £34.’ (Roll 275, Membrane No. 24.)
By way of comparison Mr. de Castro sends me:
‘St. Martin’s Lane West.
Mary Misaubin [widow of the Doctor] £55.’ (Membrane No. 22.)
‘ New Street Ward, Leicester Fields. East Side.
Hogarth £45.’ (Membrane No. 21.)
Here again, as we gather from the St. Martin’s Rate Books, it is clear that
Leicester Fields was a quarter more fashionable, less commercial, and therefore
more highly assessed than St. Martin’s Lane.
A more interesting, because more personal, event belongs to 1750. On the
31st March ‘ Roubiliac was robbed in Dean Street, Soho, between eleven and
twelve at night, by three men, one of whom held a pistol at him, while the
others rifled his pockets and took his watch and money ’? Whether the loss
was a serious one, or whether it has any connexion with Tyers’ loan of £20 in
the following June, it is impossible to say.
When it was that Roubiliac’s first wife died I have been unable to discover;
all we know is that he was a widower before the close of 1751, since his second
marriage took place on 12th January, 1752. Every circumstance concerning
the marriage is mysterious, how mysterious de Sainte-Croix, who discovered
the incorrectly dated reference in the Gentleman’s Magazine, did not himself
know. It did not take place in the parish church of either party; almost
1 Wheatley’s London, i, p. 493. He gives no the statement; Mr. Austin Dobson was equally
reference, and though I have searched several unsuccessful.
newspapers, I have failed to find the authority for