Arkins Epicurus and Lucretius on Sex, Love and Marriage Apeiron 1984

8/11/2019 Arkins Epicurus and Lucretius on Sex, Love and Marriage Apeiron 1984

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arkins-epicurus-and-lucretius-on-sex-love-and-marriage-apeiron-1984 1/3

EPICURUS ND LUCRETIUS ON SEX LOVE ND M RRI GE

The purpose of this note is to argue (1) that Epicurus condoned casual sexual intcourse, condemned sexual love, and approved of marriage under ce cir-cumstances, and (2) that Epicurus' Roman disciple, Lucretius, adheres strdoctrines of his philosophical mentor in these matters. In thus arguing for a consis-tent Epicurean view of sex, love, and marriage I seek to clarify exactly what

Epicurus' teaching, as reported in Diogenes Laertius 10.119, on marriage was1

andto reject the opinion that Lucretius held a specifically Roman and more tolerantview of marriage than Epicurus.2

In Epicurus' ethical system it is clear that sexual activity in general is suspectbecause it tends to preclude the ataraxia that is essential for the wise man: óõíïõó äå, öáóéí, ùùíçóå ìåí ïõä # ïôå, Üãá#çôüí äå À ìç êáé âëáøå (D.L. 10.118 =Us. 62). But nevertheless, since sex is a natural, although unnecessary, pcasual sexual intercourse with a woman, which avoids any emotional distpermitted VS SI).3 This doctrine is formulated in a most explicit manner byLucretius, who posits a rigid dichotomy between sexual love, which is to be avoided,and casual sexual intercourse, which is permitted. The advantages of casual sex arethat it meets the Epicurean requirement of constituting a real pleasure wiplications and provides a purer — because uncomplicated — form of pleasure tothose not in love than to the love-sick (4. 1073-76): nee Veneris fructu caret is quivitat amorem,/sed potius quae sunt sine poena commoda sumit; nam certe purastsanis magis inde voluptas/quam miseris.

That Epicurus condemned sexual love because it precludes ataraxia is clearfrom D.L. 10.118 = Us. 574): ñáóè óåóèáé ô ïí óïöüí ïõ äïêåú áïôïÀò.. .ïõä èåü#åì#ôïí åßíáé ôïí ñùôá and Hermias, in Plat. Phaedrum, p. 76 = Us. 483): olìå í ãáñ $# ëáâïí á#ë%ò öáûëïí ôï ñáí, ùò Å#ßêïõñïò üñéóÜìåíïò áõôüí [ôïí ñùôá] ó íôïíïí äñåîéí áöñïäßóéùí ìåôÜ ïßóôñïõ êáÀ áäçìïíßáò, and thatLucretius followed his master in this condemnation is evident from the violent andjustly famous attack on sexual love at 4. 1037-1191.It is unnecessary to postulatepersonal reasons for the violence of Lucretius' sentiments here: it is adequately ex-plained both by the general vehemence with which he advocates Epicureanism andby a desire to counter the new emphasis on sexual love in the Late Republicas exemplified most notably by his contemporary Catullus.9

What, then, of Epicurus' view of marriage? The correct text of D.L. 10. 118-19 = Us. 62 and 19), crucial to the explication of this matter, is as follows: óõíïõóßçäå, öáóéí, %íçóå ìå í ïõä # ïôå, Üãá#çôüí äå À ìç êáÀ âëáùå êáß ìçí êáßãáì óåéí êáé ôåêíï#ïé óåéí ôïí óïöïí ùò Å#ßêïõñïò åí ôáúò Äéá#ïñßáéò êáé åíôïéò &åñß ö$óåùò, êáôÜ#åñßóôáóéí äå #ïô âßïõ ãáì óåéí. This passage may beparaphrased:6 although sexual intercourse is unlikely to be other than harmful,nevertheless the wise man should marry, but only if this is made necessary by somecritical situation in his life, that is only if he cannot achieve ataraxia other than by liv-

ing with a woman. So Epicurus' view of marriage is that in general a man shouldavoid it, but that if he cannot do so because of his craving for the sexual companion-ship of a woman, then he should marry: because a greater degree of disturbance wouldresult from not marrying than from marrying.7 Marriage, in other words, is a second-best for the wise man, but is clearly envisaged as likely to occur in some cases.

It is precisely this view of marriage as a second-best, which is likely to occur in

141 #$%&'('#()#$(*)(+( #,-./01(2/* 0 /.3(#4('&.(51/6. 3/')(#4(784# ,

9$'&.1'/:0'.,(+(;<=>?@>?A>;B@

C#D1-#0,(C0'.(+(EF<?F;G(;<HAB(9I



some cases, that Luc retius endorses at 4. 1192-1287. In by far the greater part of thispassage — lines 1192-1277 — Lucretius simply assumes that marriage will take placeand that what happens in it should be examined: he therefore concerns himself withthe reciprocal nature of sexual pleasure and with physiological detail about inter-course and conception. Up to this point one might argue that Lucretius makes amore positive evaluation of marriage than Epicurus because no judgement, explicitor implicit, is made about it. But in the concluding lines of Book 4 — 1278-87 —

Lucretius does make an implicit judgemen t about marriage and clearly suggests thatmarriage is a tedious business for the wise man. For the contemptuous diminutivemuliercula (line 1279) is used to refer to the woman that the man marries and thebook ends with a sarcastic, and deliberately unattractive, depiction of the constantcompanionship of marriage: by means of this companionship marriage wears a manout just as the repeated, continuous impact of drops of w ater upon a stone eventual-ly wears out the stone (lines 1283-87).

Nevertheless, Lucretius makes another — albeit secondary — point at the sametime: the fact that he uses the verb am o (line 1279) and the noun amor (line 1283) ap-

pears to indicate that Lucretius thought that something approaching the Epicureanconcept of friendship' could result from marriage. Now according to Seneca (Us.19) Epicurus held that, despite the many inconveniences of marriage, wives come in-to the same category as other things which are morally neutral and may turn ou t toconstitute a good or an evil, and Lucretius adopts that doctrine here to imply that awife could constitute a good by eventually providing the wise man with the pleasureof friendship. To sum up: Lucretius accepts Epicurus' view that marriage is ingeneral bad for the wise man, but is nevertheless likely to occur in some cases, andhe envisages that in the long term it could both wear a man out and provide him withfriendship.

B. Arkins,University College, Galway,

Republic of Ireland.

Notes

1. Obscured by C.W. Chilton, Did Epicurus approve of Marriage? A Study of DiogenesLaertius X, 119 , Phronesis 5(1960) 71-74, J.M. Rist, Epicurus: An Introduction (Cam-bridge 1972) 134 (although the latter scholar is more clear in CP 75(1980) 123), but cor-rectly expounded by A. Grilli, Epicuro e il Matrimonio (D.L. X, 119) , Riv. crit. dstoria d ftlos 26(1971) 51-56.

2. Proposed by R.J. Goar, On the End of Lucretius' Fourth Book , CB 47(1971) 75-77,A. Betensky, Lucretius and Love , CW 73(1980) 291-99 (esp. 294), but correctlyrefuted by K. Kleve, Lucrece, l'epicurisme et Pamour , Actesdu Vlll Congre G Bude(Paris 1969) 376-83.

3. For the same view see the Cynic Cercidas in J.U. Powell, Collectanea Alexandrina (Ox-ford 1970) 206-07, with N. Rudd, The Satires of Horace (Cambridge 1966) 24-25.

4. Yeats held that the finest description of sexual intercourse ever written was in Dryden'stranslation of Lucretius, and it was justified; it was introduced to illustrate the difficultyof two becoming a unity ; cf. N. Jeffares, W.B. Yeats — Man and Poet (London 19622)267. For the text of Dryden's translation of Book 4 see The Poems of John Dryden ed. J.

142

#$%&'('#()#$(*)(+( #,-./01(2/* 0 /.3(#4('&.(51/6. 3/')(#4(784# ,9$'&.1'/:0'.,(+(;<=>?@>?A>;B@

C#D1-#0,(C0'.(+(EF<?F;G(;<HAB(9I



Kingsley (Oxford 1958), 1413-21 and for recent comment P. Hammond, The Integrityof Dryden's Lucretius , Mod Lang Rev 78(1983) 1-23.

5. For Catullus on love see B. Arkins, Sexuality in Catullus (Hildesheim 1982) esp. 46-103.That Lucretius specifically echoes Catullus' poetry, or vice versa, cannot be established;the parallels adduced by G. Friedrich, Catulli Veronensis Liber (Leipzig/Berlin 1908)395-97 are not particularly striking.

6. For the detail of this reading see Grilli (note 1).

7. For a similar view from a Christian perspective see Paul 1 Corinthians 7. 8-9: ë ãù äåôïéò ÜãÜìïéò êáÀ ôáúò ÷ ñáéò, êáëüí á#ôïÀò åÜí ìåßíùóéí ùò êÜãù' el äå ïõê ãêñáôå#ïíôáé, ãáìçóÜôùóáí, êñåÀôôïí ãáñ åóôßí ãáìåÀí $õñïûóèáé. For theinfluence of Lucretius and of Virgil (who had strong Epicurean tendencies) onAugustine's view of sexuality see J. J. O'Meara, Virgil and Saint Augustine. The Romanbackground to Christian Sexuality Augustinus 13(1968) 307-26.

8. For this see J.M. Rist, Epicurus on Friendship , CP 75(1980) 121-29.

143 #$%&'('#()#$(*)(+( #,-./01(2/* 0 /.3(#4('&.(51/6. 3/')(#4(784# ,

9$'&.1'/:0'.,(+(;<=>?@>?A>;B@

C#D1-#0 (C0' (+(EF<?F;G(;<HAB(9I

Documents

Arkins Epicurus and Lucretius on Sex, Love and Marriage Apeiron 1984