pothos.org

Hello,
I was just curious how in the film and also in mary Renault's writings, how the idea of Alexander being a keen player of the lyre?
He is ridiculed in the film by his father if memory serves me right as being an effeminate singer or muscician and so I was just wondering in which of the sources does it tell us of the virtuoso Alexander at an early age-
I wonder if it was a normal thing for those times or if it was yet another example of Alexander' s attempt to copy Achilles, as I believe Achilles is also seen in the Iliad with lute or lyre or whatever singing a song to heroes long since gone.

Yours curiously,
Dean

'And so Philip once said to his son, who, as the wine went round, plucked the strings charmingly and skilfully, "Are you not ashamed to pluck the strings so well?"'

Plutarch, Life of Pericles 1.5

Hello,
Cheers mate!

I supposed that there must be some quote somewhere, as the anecdote is mentioned in so many places.

I think also that it is quite unusual that Alexander should be so dextrous in music you would have thought that his education would have been more limited the sword and horse than the lyre- yet as I mentioned in the original post- I am sure that the intention in Alexander's education was to make him a Greek in the educational sense of the word and have a broad command of most subjects- music included.

Best regards,
Dean

Hi Dean,

The Alexander of the ancient sources was an artist and an intellectual; a gifted musician who could recite the entire Iliad by heart and had annotated his personal copy (which he considered his most precious possession); he was fond of eristics and debated life, the universe and everything with the leading philosophers of his day in person and by letter; he would quote Euripides at you as soon as look at you. According to Onesicritus, the Indians considered Alexander to be a philosopher in arms. If people have found a different Alexander elsewhere than in the sources, then they may have been deceived.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Exactly. Music was part of the hellenic educational system, and as it seems Alexander was good at music and arts.

Without wanting to turn this post into other directions, it is also a part of a quote of Athenaus.

"And Hieronymus. in his "Letters", says, that Theophrastus says, that Alexander was not open to 'bodily pleasures'; and accordingly, when Olympian had given him Callixene, a Thessaian courtesan, for a mistress, who was a most beautiful woman, and all this was done with the consent of Philip, for they were afraid that he would become effeminate (ευλαβουντο γαρ μη γυννις ειη) she was constantly obliged to ask him herself to do his duty by her."

So according to Athenaus Philip indeed didnt like that his son was good in the lyre and maybe in arts generally, because in adittion with him not being open to bodily pleasures, he thought that he could become effeminate.

I am under the impression that Philip's comment had more to do with musicians being considered declasse in ancient Greece... I can't remember where in the campaign it happened or which source had it, but I recall an incident in which a soldier who was also a musician was praised roundly for fighting bravely even though he was a musician.

There's another incident, and again I don't recall the source(s), in which Alexander as a boy asked a tutor who was teaching him how to play the lyre, "How important is it to get the right note?" To which the tutor answered, "For a musician, it's important. For a king, it's not," or words to that effect. Which points up two things: a prince was expected to learn the basics, but not consider it important enough to become expert; and that lyre-playing was indeed part of Alexander's education.

I've never seen any evidence that Alexander did anything in the visual arts... has anyone else?

Warmly,
Karen

Stahthi, well might might he have been good with the lyre, but, apparently not so good with the lay...according to his parents via Theophrastus' telling of it.

So What?

Theopompus paints an absolutely decadent picture of Philp's court, do you see me getting upset?

The boy liked the finer stuff and appeared to not like women - unlike his rather ecumenical father. In any case, the fact is - as you say - it was part of the education. As Karen says, the boy had to learn the basics - of most everything - so as to be king. The point of Philip's jibe that he should be "ashamed" to play "so well" is as Plutarch says: "...for a king it is surely enough if he can find time to hear others play".

Ah, yes. Plutarch, always the moralist.

Karen wrote:I've never seen any evidence that Alexander did anything in the visual arts... has anyone else?

Other than sit for a portrait holding a lightning bolt? No.

Hello,

Karen says,
I've never seen any evidence that Alexander did anything in the visual arts... has anyone else?

No, I haven't ever read of Alexander doing anything in the visual arts- although it must be said that he was a great "lover" of the arts- which is why sometimes I can't believe that Persepolis was ever burned to the ground- the palace itself must have been the eighth wonder of the world not to mention the arts held therin.

Best regards,
Dean

dean wrote:...although it must be said that he was a great "lover" of the arts- which is why sometimes I can't believe that Persepolis was ever burned to the ground- the palace itself must have been the eighth wonder of the world not to mention the arts held therin.

Not to mention what else it might have held of cultural worth that was destroyed. Amazing what can happen in an acohol - or panhellenic - inspired rage.

Hello all. Interesting chit chat.

Here’s my tuppence. First of all on music. A random thought, but I’ll fire it out anyway. I wonder if there were reasons other than the purely aesthetic for music to feature in Alexander‘s education. The ideas of the Pythagoreans whilst peculiarly cultish in some respects, were, one would have thought, pretty familiar fare for educationalists of the time. If not Lysimachus, certainly Aristotle would have had some notion of their teachings in regard to (awful phrase) the music of the spheres. It’s not really worth developing the theory I suppose, but it’s worth a mention.

What hasn’t been touched on yet is how music was known to be a tremendous motivator in Alexander‘s time. Even the hairy Spartans admitted as much. And martial music was king. Alexander clearly had an enthusiastic ear for this. Call to mind the anecdote that has him springing to his feet during a Doric recital by Timotheus/Antigenides (different sources give different names) and rushing for his arms. Evidently he’d managed to get quite worked up. The martial tone is in keeping with Plutarch’s anecdote of Alexander being offered a look at Paris’ lyre at Troy only to turn it down, preferring instead to see that of Achilles. There’s a consistency here: not the music of the lover but the music of the hero.

Playing on the same theme; the harper who was killed was Aristonicus. Arrian reports his death in Scythia. It appears to have been an ambush on a small party of Companions and mercenaries returning from a successful punitive raid on some locals. Plutarch follows up with Alexander commissioning a statue of him at Delphi with a spear in one hand and a harp in the other. It sits pat with what we know of him that Alexander would place the two side by side. Plu adds that in doing this the king paid homage not only to Aristonicus but to music herself. It’s implied that this was a specific intention of Alexander’s. Interesting.

Re Philip’s chiding of Alexander’s musical ability: there’s a humorous counterpoint. Moralia indicates that Philip himself took a dressing down from a lyrist. Plutarch (yet again) has the pair arguing over technique, with Philip very much ascendant, until the musician finished matters off with the quip: "God forbid, your Majesty, that you should ever fall so low as to know more of these matters than I." It’s another speculative theory of mine, but perhaps this exchange was in fact with Alexander’s music teacher, which may explain the sourness of the king’s later(??) remark to his son.

It wasn’t the last time an Argead took correction from an artistic type. Apelles, Pliny tells us, asked Alexander to put a sock in it when, during a visit to his studio, the king started to hold forth on painting. Apelles pointed out that he was making the studio apprentices laugh. Dangerously close to an insult you would have thought, but by all accounts the two got on very well. Mind you, others like Ptolemy had no time for Apelles at all. Actually, it appears Ptolemy positively loathed the man.

Apart from the human angle, what’s intriguing here (and this ties in with Karen’s remark on his relationship with the visual arts) is evidence of Alexander having firm notions on painting. Even if he never directly tried his hand, he clearly felt au-fait enough to hold forth. And in sculpture he was emphatic that Lysippus alone should depict him. Given the sheer number of refined and cultivated types attached to his retinue, I doubt these opinions were those of a mere dilettante.

Laters.

Hello,

Thanx for the post- I think that it is for sure that Alexander must have adored music but on campaign he was more like his father and didn't have a mo'. There is no mention of him playing, like Homer tells us of Achilles, playing a melancholy song with his lyre to the fallen dead- but like I say, he must have had a great love for music though what songs or what poems or what tunes were played we will never know.

Best regards,
Dean

An insightful post Aengus. Thank you!

Fascinating and very knowledgeable post.

I wonder if there is any truth to the story about Alexander criticizing Apelles' painting of a horse, then a real horse (was it Boukephalos?) reacting to the painting as if it were real, whereupon Apelles said "My lord, your horse is a better appreciator of art than you"?

I always loved that one.

Warmly,
Karen

Hi Karen,

I heard the story but the main character was Philip, not Alexander (don't know about the painter though).
Can you direct me to the sources?

Thanks!
Alejandro