Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:57:18.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lucretius on the Nature of Parental Love

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2018

Sean McConnell
Sean McConnell*
Affiliation:
University of [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper outlines the full details of Lucretius’ treatment of parental love. It shows that Lucretius is faithful to Epicurus’ notorious claim that parental love is not natural: in addition to orthodox Epicurean hedonist concerns, Lucretius asserts that children do not ‘belong to’ their parents by nature; as such, even though parental love is now ubiquitous and indeed a cultural norm, there is no basis for the naturalness of parental love. This model of the relationship between parents and children does not, however, apply in the case of certain animals, who do have natural parental love for their offspring. Focussing on two famous scenes, the sacrifice of Iphigenia and the forlorn heifer seeking her sacrificed calf, the paper argues that, by highlighting the fragility of human parental love in comparison to that of the animals, Lucretius brings to his Roman readers’ attention the relative weakness of the familial ties that bond human beings together. At the same time, he emphasises the need to maintain these ties, if social and political concord, with all its benefits, is to continue. It transpires that unlocking the details of Lucretius’ treatment of parental love brings a key lesson of the poem into clearer focus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 52 , 2018 , pp. 72 - 89
Copyright
© The Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the University of Melbourne. I would like to thank the audience for their comments. I would also like to thank the anonymous referees for the journal and the editor, Han Baltussen, for their constructive criticism and helpful advice on how to improve the paper. Any errors that remain are my own.

References

Alberti, A. (1995), ‘The Epicurean Theory of Law and Justice’, in A. Laks and M. Schofield (eds.), Justice and Generosity: Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy. 164-75. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Alesse, F. (2011), ‘ΤΕΚΝΟΠΟΙΙΑ e amore parentale in Epicuro e nell’epicureismo’, CronErcol 41, 207-215.Google Scholar
Algra, K. (1997), ‘Lucretius and the Epicurean Other’, in K. Algra, M. Koenen, and P. Schrijvers (eds.), Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. 141-150. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Annas, J. (1993), The Morality of Happiness. Oxford.Google Scholar
Arkins, B. (1984), ‘Epicurus and Lucretius on Sex, Love and Marriage’, Apeiron 18, 141-143.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. M. (1997), ‘Epicurean Justice’, Phronesis 42, 324-334.Google Scholar
Barigazzi, A. (1994), ‘Ancora una declamazione contro Epicuro: De amore prolis ’, in A. Barigazzi (ed.), Studi su Plutarco. 99-114. Florence.Google Scholar
Blundell, M. W. (1990), ‘Parental Nature and Stoic Oἰκείωσις’, AncPhil 10, 221-242.Google Scholar
Bolotin, D. (1979), Plato’s Dialogue on Friendship: An Interpretation of the Lysis with a New Translation . Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Brennan, T. (1996), ‘Epicurus on Sex, Marriage, and Children’, CPh 91, 346-352.Google Scholar
Brown, R. D. (1987), Lucretius on Love and Sex: A Commentary on De rerum natura IV, 1030-1287, with Prolegomena, Text, and Translation . Leiden.Google Scholar
Brunschwig, J. (1986), ‘The Cradle Argument in Epicureanism and Stoicism’, in M. Schofield and G. Striker (eds.), The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics. 113-144. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Campbell, G. (2003), Lucretius on Creation and Evolution: A Commentary on De rerum natura 5.772-1104 . Oxford.Google Scholar
Chilton, C. W. (1960), ‘Did Epicurus Approve of Marriage? A Study of Diogenes Laertius X, 119’, Phronesis 5, 71-74.Google Scholar
Cole, T. C. (1967), Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology. Cleveland, OH.Google Scholar
Concolino Mancini, A. (1976), ‘Sulle opera polemiche di Colote’, CronErcol 6, 61-67.Google Scholar
Crönert, W. (1906), Kolotes und Menedemos: Texte und Untersuchungen zur Philosophen- und Literaturgeschichte. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Dobbin, R. F. (1998), Epictetus: Discourses, Book 1. Oxford.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, T. (1986), ‘Discovering the Good: Oikeiōsis and Kathēkonta in Stoic Ethics’, in M. Schofield and G. Striker (eds.), The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics. 145-183. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, T. (1990), The Stoic Theory of Oikeiosis: Moral Development and Social Interaction in Early Stoicism . Aarhus.Google Scholar
Evans, M. (2004), ‘Can Epicureans Be Friends?’, AncPhil 24, 407-424.Google Scholar
Farrar, C. (1988), The Origins of Democratic Thinking: The Invention of Politics in Classical Athens. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. (1991), ‘Man and Beast in Lucretius and the Georgics ’, CQ 41, 416-426.Google Scholar
Glidden, D. K. (1981), ‘The Lysis on Loving One’s Own’, CQ 31, 39-59.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, V. (1982), ‘La théorie épicurienne du droit’, in J. Barnes et al. (eds.), Science and Speculation: Studies in Hellenistic Theory and Practice. 304-326. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. (1983), ‘The Two Forms of Oikeiōsis in Arius and the Stoa’, in W. W. Fortenbaugh (ed.), On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics: The Work of Arius Didymus. 190-201. New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. (1985), Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism. Oxford.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. (1996), ‘L’oikeiosis sociale chez Epictète’, in K. A. Algra, P. W. van der Horst, and D. T. Runia (eds.), Polyhistor: Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy Presented to Jaap Mansfeld on His Sixtieth Birthday. 243-264. Leiden.Google Scholar
Jufresa, M. (1994), ‘Love in Epicureanism’, in Storia, poesia e pensiero nel mondo antico: Studi in onore di Marcello Gigante. 299-311. Naples.Google Scholar
Kechagia, E. (2010), ‘Rethinking a Professional Rivalry: Early Epicureans against the Stoa’, CQ 60, 132-155.Google Scholar
Kechagia, E. (2011), Plutarch against Colotes: A Lesson in History of Philosophy. Oxford.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. (1986), ‘Pleasure and Social Utility: The Virtues of Being Epicurean’, in H. Flashar and O. Gigon (eds.), Aspects de la philosophie hellénistique. 283-324. Geneva.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. N. (1987), The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols. Cambridge.Google Scholar
McConnell, S. (2010), ‘Epicureans on Kingship’, CCJ 56, 178-198.Google Scholar
McConnell, S. (2012), ‘Lucretius and Civil Strife’, Phoenix 66, 97-121.Google Scholar
McConnell, S. (2017), ‘Demetrius of Laconia and the Debate between the Stoics and the Epicureans on the Nature of Parental Love’, CQ 67, 149-162.Google Scholar
Mitsis, P. (1988), Epicurus’ Ethical Theory: The Pleasures of Invulnerability. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
O’Connor, D. K. (1989), ‘The Invulnerable Pleasures of Epicurean Friendship’, GRBS 30, 165-186.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, T. (2001), ‘Is Epicurean Friendship Altruistic?’, Apeiron 34, 269-306.Google Scholar
Pangle, L. S. (2001), ‘Friendship and Human Neediness in Plato’s Lysis ’, AncPhil 21, 305-323.Google Scholar
Pembroke, S. G. (1971), ‘ Oikeiōsis ’, in A. A. Long (ed.), Problems in Stoicism. 114-149. London.Google Scholar
Penner, T. and Rowe, C. (2005), Plato’s Lysis. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Roskam, G. (2007), Live Unnoticed (Λάθε βιώσας) On the Vicissitudes of an Epicurean Doctrine. Leiden.Google Scholar
Roskam, G. (2011), ‘Plutarch against Epicurus on Affection for Offspring: A Reading of De amore prolis ’, in G. Roskam and L. van der Stockt (eds.), Virtues for the People: Aspects of Plutarchan Ethics. 175-201. Leuven.Google Scholar
Saylor, C. F. (1972), ‘Man, Animal, and the Bestial in Lucretius’, CJ 67, 306-316.Google Scholar
Segal, C. (1970), ‘ Delubra decora: Lucretius II.352-66’, Latomus 29, 104-116.Google Scholar
Stearns, J. B. (1936), ‘Epicurus and Lucretius on Love’, CJ 31, 343-351.Google Scholar
Striker, G. (1983), ‘The Role of Oikeiosis in Stoic Ethics’, OSAPh 1, 145-168.Google Scholar
Treggiari, S. (2005), ‘Putting the Family Across: Cicero on Natural Affection’, in M. George (ed.), The Roman Family in the Empire: Rome, Italy, and Beyond. 9-36. Oxford.Google Scholar
Vander Waerdt, P. A. (1987), ‘The Justice of the Epicurean Wise Man’, CQ 37, 402-422.Google Scholar
Vander Waerdt, P. A. (1988), ‘Hermarchus and the Epicurean Genealogy of Morals’, TAPhA 118, 87-106.Google Scholar
Vlastos, G. (1973), ‘The Individual as Object of Love in Plato’, in G. Vlastos (ed.), Platonic Studies. 3-34. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar