Humanitext Reader

Plutarch · On Affection for Offspring §2#2

Selfless Love in Animals and the Critique of Epicureanism

Passage 3 of 5 · Greek

Summary

The author presents vivid examples of animals sacrificing themselves out of natural, uncalculated love for their young, and sharply contrasts this with the Epicurean view of human love as purely utility-based and transactional.

§2#2"" ἆρʼ οὐχ ὅμοιός; ἐστι, διανοουμένῳ πρὸς τοὺς κυνηγοὺς σπένδεσθαι περὶ τῶν τέκνων;
"" Is he not like one who intends to make terms with the hunters for the sake of his children?
καθόλου γὰρ ἡ πρὸς τὰ ἔκγονα φιλοστοργία καὶ τολμηρὰ τὰ δειλὰ ποιεῖ, καὶ φιλόπονα τὰ ῥᾴθυμα καὶ φειδωλὰ τὰ γαστρίμαργα καὶ ὥσπερ ἡ Ὁμηρικὴ ὄρνις προσφέρουσα τοῖς νεοττοῖς "μάστακʼ, ἐπεί κε λάβῃσι, κακῶς δέ τε οἱ πέλει αὐτῇ" τῷ γὰρ αὑτῆς τρέφει λιμῷ τὰ ἔκγονα, καὶ τὴν τροφὴν τῆς γαστρὸς ἁπτομένην ἀποκρατεῖ καὶ πιέζει τῷ στόματι, μὴ λάθῃ καταπιοῦσα " ὡς δὲ κύων ἀμαλῇσι περὶ σκυλάκεσσι βεβῶσα ἄνδρʼ ἀγνοιήσασʼ ὑλάει μέμονέν τε μάχεσθαι " τὸν περὶ τῶν τέκνων φόβον ὡς δεύτερον προσλαβοῦσα θυμόν.
For in general, affection toward offspring makes the cowardly bold, the lazy industrious, and the gluttonous thrifty; and just as the Homeric bird, bringing to her nestlings "a morsel, whenever she catches it, though it goes hard with herself," for she nourishes her offspring by her own hunger, and restrains the food when it touches her belly, pressing it in her beak, lest she should swallow it unawares "And as a dog, standing over her tender puppies, barks at a man she does not know, and is eager to fight," taking her fear for her children as a second spirit.
αἱ δὲ πέρδικες ὅταν διώκωνται μετὰ τῶν τέκνων, ἐκεῖνα μὲν ἐῶσι προπέτεσθαι καὶ φεύγειν, αὑταῖς δὲ μηχανώμεναι προσέχειν τοὺς θηρεύοντας ἐγγὺς κυλινδούμεναι καὶ καταλαμβανόμεναι, μικρὸν ὑπεκθέουσιν, εἶτα πάλιν ἵστανται καὶ παρέχουσιν ἐν ἐφικτῷ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἑαυτάς, ἄχρι ἂν οὕτω προκινδυνεύουσαι τῶν νεοττῶν τῆς ἀσφαλείας προαγάγωνται πόρρω τοὺς διώκοντας.
And partridges, when they are pursued along with their young, allow them to fly ahead and escape, while they themselves, scheming to draw the attention of the hunters, roll about nearby and let themselves be almost caught, run on a little ahead, then stop again, and present themselves within reach of hope, until, by thus risking themselves for the safety of their nestlings, they draw the pursuers far away.
τὰς δʼ ἀλεκτορίδας ἐν τοῖς ὄμμασι καθʼ ἡμέραν ἔχομεν, ὃν τρόπον τὰ νεόττια περιέπουσι, τοῖς μὲν ἐνδῦναι χαλῶσαι τὰς πτέρυγας, τὰ δʼ ἐπιβαίνοντα τῶν νώτων καὶ προσέρποντα πανταχόθεν ἀναδεχόμεναι μετὰ τοῦ γεγηθός τι καὶ προσφιλὲς ἐπιφθέγγεσθαι· κύνας δὲ καὶ δράκοντας, ἂν περὶ αὑτῶν φοβηθῶσι, φεύγουσιν, ἂν δὲ περὶ τῶν τέκνων, ἀμύνονται καὶ διαμάχονται παρὰ δύναμιν.
And we have hens before our eyes every day, in what manner they tend their chicks, drooping their wings for some to creep under, and receiving others that climb upon their backs or crawl under from all sides, while uttering some joyful and affectionate clucking; and they flee from dogs and snakes if they fear for themselves, but if they fear for their chicks, they defend them and fight beyond their strength.
εἶτα ταῦτʼ οἰόμεθα τὰ πάθη τούτοις ἐνειργάσθαι τὴν φύσιν, ἀλεκτορίδων ἐπιγονῆς καὶ κυνῶν καὶ ἄρκτων προνοοῦσαν, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ἡμᾶς δυσωποῦσαν καὶ τιτρώσκουσαν ἐπιλογιζομένους, ὅτι ταῦτα παραδείγματα τοῖς ἑπομένοις, τοῖς δʼ ἀναλγήτοις ὀνείδη περίεστι τῆς ἀπαθείας, διʼ ὧν κατηγοροῦσι τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως μόνης μὴ προῖκα τὸ στέργειν ἐχούσης μηδʼ ἐπισταμένης φιλεῖν ἄνευ χρείας θαυμάζεται γὰρ ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις ὁ εἰπών "μισθοῦ γὰρ ἄνθρωπον τίς ἄνθρωπον φιλεῖ" κατʼ Ἐπίκουρον ὁ πατὴρ τὸν υἱόν, ἡ μήτηρ τὸ τέκνον, οἱ παῖδες τοὺς τεκόντας.
Then, do we think that Nature has implanted these feelings in them because she takes thought for the offspring of hens, dogs, and bears, and not rather because she wishes to shame and wound us as we reflect that these are examples for those who follow nature, while for the unfeeling they remain as reproaches for their apathy, through which they accuse human nature of being the only one that does not possess love freely, nor knows how to love without utility? For he who said in the theaters is admired: "For who loves a human being for a reward?" According to Epicurus, the father loves the son, the mother the child, and children their parents [for a reward].
ἀλλʼ εἰ λόγου γένοιτο τοῖς θηρίοις σύνεσις, καὶ τοῦτό τις εἰς κοινὸν θέατρον συναγαγὼν ἵππους καὶ βόας καὶ κύνας καὶ ὄρνιθας; ἀναφθέγξαιτο μεταγράψας, ὡς οὔτε κύνες ἐπὶ μισθῷ σκύλακας φιλοῦσιν οὔθʼ ἵπποι πώλους οὔτʼ ὄρνιθες νεοττοὺς ἀλλὰ προῖκα καὶ φυσικῶς, ἐπιγνωσθήσεται τοῖς ἁπάντων πάθεσιν ὡς εὖ καὶ ἀληθῶς λεγόμενον.
But if beasts had understanding of reason, and someone, gathering horses, oxen, dogs, and birds into a common theater, should cry out, having rewritten this: "Neither do dogs love their puppies, nor horses their colts, nor birds their nestlings for a reward, but freely and by nature," it would be recognized by the feelings of them all as being well and truly said.
αἰσχρὸν γάρ, ὦ Ζεῦ, τὰς θηρίων γενέσεις καὶ λοχείας καὶ ὠδῖνας καὶ τεκνοτροφίας φύσιν εἶναι καὶ χάριν, τὰς δʼ ἀνθρώπων δάνεια καὶ μισθοὺς καὶ ἀρραβῶνας ἐπὶ χρείαις διδομένους.
For it is shameful, O Zeus, that the births, deliveries, labors, and child-rearings of beasts should be nature and free grace, while those of humans are loans, wages, and earnest-money given for utilities.

Notes

  1. 494cἆρʼ οὐχ ὅμοιός ἐστι, διανοουμένῳ... — The dative participle διανοουμένῳ depends on ὅμοιός ἐστι ('Is he not like one who intends...'). The implied subject of this question is the 'lion' from the Homeric quotation mentioned immediately beforehand.
  2. 494eμὴ λάθῃ καταπιοῦσα — An idiomatic construction where λανθάνω is combined with a participle (here καταπιοῦσα) to mean 'to do something unawares.' Together with the negative μὴ (and the subjunctive λάθῃ), it expresses prevention: 'lest she should swallow it unawares.'
  3. 495aἀλλʼ οὐχ ἡμᾶς δυσωποῦσαν καὶ τιτρώσκουσαν ἐπιλογιζομένους — The second part of the alternative question ἆρα... ἀλλʼ οὐχ... ('Is it...? Or is it not rather...?'). The feminine singular accusative participles δυσωποῦσαν and τιτρώσκουσαν agree with τὴν φύσιν (the object of οἰόμεθα/the subject of the infinitive clause), while the masculine/common plural accusative ἐπιλογιζομένους agrees with ἡμᾶς, forming a nested accusative structure meaning 'but rather shaming and wounding us as we reflect...'.
  4. 495aκατʼ Ἐπίκουρον — This phrase follows the theatrical quotation ('For who loves a human being for a reward?'). In the context of criticising the utilitarian anthropology of Epicureans, the verb phrase [φιλεῖ μισθοῦ] (loves for a reward) from the preceding quotation is understood as omitted after each subject-object pair (father-son, mother-child, children-parents).
  5. 495bἀλλʼ εἰ λόγου γένοιτο... ἐπιγνωσθήσεται — A mixed conditional construction. The protasis uses εἰ + optative (γένοιτο... ἀναφθέγξαιτο) to present a hypothetical, potential assumption, while the apodosis uses the future indicative (ἐπιγνωσθήσεται) to state a certain consequence that would inevitably follow.

Cite this passage

Plutarch, On Affection for Offspring §2#2. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0007.tlg098.humanitext-grc2:2%232

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.