Hagar the slave girl was the first recorded mistress in history. In ancient times the role of the other woman differed from today‘s. The then-barren Sarah pragmatically let Hagar sleep with her husband. Eventually, jealousy kicked in and Sarah exiled the mistress and her son to the wilderness of Beersheba.
Throughout history princes and kings have openly had mistresses. Notable examples being Nell Gwyn and Lillie Langtry. Nell Gwyn has a horse race named after her; I knew of the race before I knew who she was. The Lillie Langtry maiden stakes for fillies has still to be made.
At the bottom of society there’s not much historical evidence of marital flings between the lower classes. There was no internet to register the writings of the under-privileged. It must have gone on, to a certain extent, though with much difficulty as the cramped living conditions would have made concealing an affair challenging. The underclass in modern times is better off and can jot down their life story, willy-nilly.
Today’s mistresses are a shabby lot compared with the cultured concubine of the past. Imogen Thomas for all her charms doesn’t have the appeal of the courtly Madame de Pompadour. Monica Lewinsky with her unusual uses for cigars won’t inspire works of art like Cleopatra did.
I don’t classify the Duchess of Cornwall as a mistress because she got promoted to full blown wife status. Marriage legalises the relationship. This affair was obviously based on love and not just for illicit carnal pleasure. Similarly, after falling out of love with his first wife, Robin Cook married Gaynor Regan albeit with a little push from Alistair Campbell. It is the women who mess about with men who have no intention of leaving their spouse that are the black heart of infidelity.
For the record, while understanding that relations can deteriorate to an extent that separation or divorce is the only answer, I do not see the attraction in two-timing. If you love and respect your wife why would you jeopardise your family life for a casual relationship or a one night stand. Sooner or later, your betrayal will become known. You’ve lost everything for a moment of madness.
Notwithstanding being happily married there are two things that stop me from cheating. The arthritic shoulder makes me unappetizing to the opposite sex. The lady would wonder what will be the next malady to befall me. Then there is the long, torturous process of getting to know your new bit on the side. Everything is completely different: personality, clothes style, the way they walk, their hobbies, their idiosyncro, idiosychr, indio… structural or behavioural characteristics peculiar to an individual. I’m not going through all that again.
Boadicea's Chariot 
I agree with you here, JW, extramarital activities are abhorrent to me, I wouldn’t want it done to me, and certainly wouldn’t do it to my husband, if your love for a person is strong, you have no need.
I’ve always thought that one woman is enough trouble to handle – why would anyone want to double it 😀
I’ve always thought that early Judaism permitted polygamy – that’s why those sects purporting to ‘follow’ the Bible allow men to take a number of wives. I think I read somewhere that the reason that Christianity only permits one wife per man is that the break-away Judaic cult wanted to attract Romans – who were, unlike the Eastern cultures of the time, strictly monogamous.
There doesn’t seem to be much doubt that at the time of the Patriarchs (Abraham and Sarah) polygamy was practised. Deuteronomy 25.5 says that a man should marry the widow of his brother if she has no children. Perhaps that was just a ploy to ‘keep it in the family”!
Polygamy makes sense in a society where women have no access to economic independence – and no other sort of independence either! It does ensure that older women aren’t just thrown out to fend for themselves when their husbands want a new, and younger body… 🙂 As I understand it, Islam requires a man to treat all of a man’s four wives equally – that was probably quite easy when the height of luxury was a tent, some silken cushions and three meals a day. Not so easy when it involves the purchase of a house and a car.
As to ‘cheating on the side’ – there are, unfortunately, some men and women who are so immature and insecure that they need the thrill of the ‘chase and capture’ to boost their egos. The immature usually grow up to realise what they risk by their actions – the insecure never do…
JW.
Interesting post.
I must admit that adultery is far too much trouble, and an easy cop out. Yes, relationships deteriorate and some are awful, but perhaps the expectations are a tad unrealistic these days.
Boredom or lack of self fulfilment seems to be the order of the day.
This was written in a semi-serious vein although it is distressing when families fall apart because of indiscretions. Thanks all for the comments and likes, especially Boadicea for fleshing out the historical background; my script is just a simple sweep through the ages of the adulterer.
Lightening the mood somewhat, I recall an old episode of Married with Children. Bud Bundy, Al Bundy’s luckless son, has somehow managed to have two women on the go. This is too much for him and he asks for Al’s advice on who he should choose to be the only one.
“It doesn’t matter who you pick. It’ll be the wrong one.”
Good post. It reminds me of this poem, although I can’t think why.http://www.poetry-archive.com/h/the_ruined_maid.html
Boadicea: ‘Judaic cult wanted to attract Romans – who were, unlike the Eastern cultures of the time, strictly monogamous.’ …. but not averse to a little promiscuity with young boys? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? Probably!
Good post theroyalist.
The institution of marriage as we now know it is a relatively recent phenomenon. For most of history it was simply a legal arrangement to secure favourable economic unions between families. The deed would be done, children would be had, and then the two would have their own lives being at best friends. This was fairly universal. In some countries, such as Japan, it would be even more flexible. As Japanese commoners didn’t have surnames until the late 19th century, bloodlines were not even remotely important. Divorce was extremely common, as was the practise of the “night visit”.
Monogamous doesn’t have to be monotonous
Pseu: of course not. Nor does having a number of “lovers” make ones life any more interesting or rewarding. In my opinion the best is when two people dedicate their lives to and nurture each other through time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/8739533/Women-and-divorce-Goodbye-darling-youre-just-too-dull….html
Both men and women are generally promiscuous. Despite protests to the contrary, it is a genetic imperative to be that way. Men are more open about it because it boosts their standing and makes them more attractive. Women tend to be discreet because they cannot afford to lose the protection offered by a spouse. It takes two to go astray. Many women who have had affairs would not normally have considered it until a man started to show them particular attention.
Boa, “Romans – who were, unlike the Eastern cultures of the time, strictly monogamous.” Well, I think ‘strictly’ might be overegging it! Wiki says:
“Roman poetry is the main basis for (mis)information about adulterous Roman wives or glamorous mistresses. Propertius (who flourished 30-20 BC), Tibullus (48-19 BC) and Ovid (43 BC-AD 17) wrote love poems in the first person, each about a named mistress, following the lead of Catullus (c.84-54 BC), who had written short lyric poems about ‘Lesbia’. These poems are set in a kind of fantasy world, and had a great influence on later European poetry.
To give just a flavour of his style, perhaps the most famous poem (LXXXV) by Catullus is:
‘I hate you and I love you. Perhaps you ask how I can? I don’t know, but I feel it to be true and I am in torment.’
Scholars have speculated that the ‘Lesbia’ he addressed in some poems was the elegant widow Clodia, who was attacked by the orator Cicero in court (in his defence of Caelius, 56 BC) for her loose living, but I think that is wishful thinking.
Ovid’s delightful short poem about a rendezvous with the imaginary ‘Corinna’ in the evocative half-light of the afternoon has inspired many poets. Marlowe’s version is great poetry, and a good rendering of the Latin. Here is an extract:
‘In summer’s heat and mid-time of the day To rest my limbs upon a bed I lay … Then came Corinna in her long loose gown, Her white neck hid with tresses hanging down … Stark naked as she stood before mine eye, Not one wen in her body could I spy. What arms and shoulders did I touch and see, How apt her breasts were to be pressed by me, How smooth a belly under her waist saw I, How large a leg, and what a lusty thigh. To leave the rest, all liked me passing well; I clinged her naked body, down she fell: Judge you the rest, being tired she bade me kiss; Jove send me more such afternoons as this! Ovid, Loves (Amores) 1.5
The second-century satirist Juvenal devoted his longest poem to the horrors of marriage. It is a gallery of awful married women whose vices (such as body-building and correcting their husbands’ grammar) include committing adultery with men, women and even donkeys! It’s racy reading, but not exactly reportage.
At a pithier level, the eruption of Vesuvius over Pompeii in AD 79 caused a whole range of everyday comments about women to be preserved, although needless to say we don’t have the women’s version of the stories uncovered there.
It is known for sure that married men and women had affairs …
We have a graffito from a Pompeian workshop which describes the cloth-worker Amaryllis in lewd terms. And a famous exchange on a pub wall records some banter between a weaver, Successus, and his mate, Severus, over the unrequited passion of Successus for the lovely barmaid Iris (Corpus of Latin Inscriptions, CIL 5.1507; 4.8259). Less romantically, a customer at another pub claimed to have made love with the landlady (CIL 4.8442).”
Talk about missing the point, Pseu and Janus!
Boadicea was contrasting the formal polygamy of old Judaism with the formal monogamy of the Roman, polytheist culture. She did not make any observation on Romans’ lack of adherence to their own laws.
Reminds me of the comment I heard after that poor chap got eaten by a shark on his honeymoon last month….
“He didn’t suffer much…..he was only married for ten days!”
Just adding a little colour! What would the Chariot be in monochrome? 🙂