were all for her women, not for her lovers and admirers.
But come, what is the difference in merit and repute betwixt a woman which hath had several husbands in her life,—and there be plenty that have had as many as three, four or even five, and another which in her life shall have had but her husband and a lover, or two or three,—and I have actually known some women continent and faithful to that degree? As to this, I have heard a noble lady of the great world say she found naught to choose betwixt a lady who had had several husbands, and one that had had but a lover or so, along with her husband,—unless it be that the marriage veil doth cover a multitude of sins. But in point of sensuality and naughtiness, she said there was not a doit of difference. Herein do they but illustrate the Spanish proverb, which saith that algunas mugeres son de natura de anguilas en retener, y de lobas en excoger,—"some women are like eels to hold, and she-wolves to choose," for that the eel is mighty slippery and ill to hold, and the she-wolf doth alway choose the ugliest wolf for mate.
It befell me once at Court, as I have described elsewhere, that a lady of a sufficiently exalted rank, which had been four times married, did happen to tell me she had just been dining with her brother-in-law, and I must guess who 'twas. This she said quite simply, without any thought of roguishness; and I answered with a touch of waggery, yet laughing the while: "Am I a diviner to guess such a riddle? You have been married four times: I leave to the imagination how many brothers-in-law you may have." To this she retorted: "Nay! but you speak knavishly," and named me the particular brother-in-law.
[292]
