More on Alexander's sex life...

[tino]

Hello all,I just found this in Plutarch's Moralia:"When Antipatrides brought to dinner a beautiful harp-player, Alexander, stirred to love at the sight of her, asked Antipatrides whether he happened to be at all in love with the girl; and when he admitted that he was, Alexander said, "You abonminable wretch! Please take her away from here at once.""A girl was brought to him late in the evening with the intent that she should spend the night with him, and he asked her, "Why at this time?" She replied, "I had to wait to get my husband to go to bed"; whereupon Alexander bitterly rebuked his servants, since, owing to them, he had so narrowly escaped becoming an adulterer.

[Halil]

Or rather, on the lack of one!
Halil

[ruthaki]

You mean even in those days there was a "National Enquirer" reporting the intimate details of the famous's love life?

[chris]

Is this Melissa?Chris

[xxx]

Err, that's a fictional character...

[Nax]

Nah- it took a few decades for that- in his own time, like someone here said, most people seem to have respected him enough not to discuss it- NOW its common fodder, and I think he'd be cringing right about now- or pissed off as hell

[chris]

Hello xxxSo I gather. Sorry, a lame attempt at a joke. I spent six months researching the life and times of Melissa...and that's not funny.Chris

[amyntoros]

I'm not so sure that Alexander didn't realize he was being talked about, though he probably never knew to what extent or for how long he would be discussed after his death. It seems credible to me that some of his more famous quotes such as remarks to Parmenion, and to Philip, his doctor, were probably spoken with Alexander's knowledge that that word would pass quickly through the camp. And it's funny how we accept these so much more readily than anything of a more personal nature.Yet there had to be times when word got around about details that Alexander never deliberately intended to be made public. Let's face it, Alexander was hardly ever alone. Even when sleeping, he had pages guarding his bedroom all night - comings and goings would have been noticed. And during his bath he not only had servants to attend to the bath itself, but people to entertain him while he bathed! People observe and listen - people talk - and when you are the biggest "star" in the known world, people eventually write it down. Yes, much can be said for the respect that his friends had for Alexander in that his serious relationships were not discussed, though there could have also been other reasons such as envy of those closest to him. But I see no reason why trivial or even intimate details such as these shouldn't have some credibility. I'm not saying we should blindly accept *everything* that is written, but I believe passages should be assessed on whether we believe they could have happened and not on whether we think people would have spoken of them at the time. A different example - Athenaeus records this about Antipater:"Carystius of Pergamum in Historical Notes quotes Cephisodorus of Thebes as saying that Polydorus, the physician of Teos, ate at the same mess with Antipater; the latter had a cheap curtain to which the rings were still attached as in the case of the bales used for carrying rugs; on this he would recline at dinner, with a few bronze jars and cups for service; for he lived on a small scale and was entirely alien to a life of luxury."Now, that IS a fit quote for an ancient National Enquirer! If gossip such as this was repeated about Antipater, why not about Alexander? If we were able to read all the original histories and biographies, it wouldn't suprise me if we found that someone had noted how many times a day Alexander had a bowel movement! :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[Nax]

I'm not saying it didn't happen with those NOT close to the man, I'm saying I agree his close friends probably didn't do it outside their circles because they knew it wouldn't be appreciated. Of COURSE the Big A would know things got around- gossip is life- and yeah, I'm sure his parents AND his enemies talked but I still don't think he'd of liked it and I'm also guessing he DID have some private moments, with NO one in the room but the person he wanted there. King's right. Who's gonna argue past a certain point?

[amyntoros]

Oh, absolutely! I won't argue with you on that point - Alexander surely had some carefully guarded time "without witnesses," but that time had to have been quite precious. I still think that tales such as those on this thread would not have concerned Alexander at all, had he heard them. They are used by Plutarch to illustrate aspects of Alexander's personality in that he didn't approve of adultery and he would not abuse his position of power where personal relations are concerned. Presumably they were originally told for the same effect. The fact that unknown women (not wives or known mistresses) are involved in the tales and that they have a sexual aspect would have had no importance in the telling. It was the way of the world back then - and most definitely a man's world. These kind of stories have far greater impact today because of the endless discussions about Alexander's sexuality, yet implied possible sexual relations with courtesans and slaves wouldn't have caused anyone's head to turn in Alexander's time.Best regards,Linda Ann

[Linda]

Do you think he did as rock stars do now: see someone in a crowd, and asked his servants to bring her/him "backstage"? I should read more contemporary stuff, I think.
Whcih reminds me, thanks for the Plutarch ref, Linda Ann.Linda

[Nax]

It might've been- and happily still is- a man's world, but I just think the Big A would NOT have liked being the one whose sex life was the topic of conversation-

[amyntoros]

Hey, I respect your opinion! I simply think that the cultural differences betwen A's time and ours (and specifically the male attitude towards sex with slaves and courtesans)would mean otherwise, especially as all these tales about Alexander are unusually respectful for the period - they almost always mention "love," in marked contrast to (what we think of as) Philip's licentiousness. But I promise not to belabor my point any further.