Embryology, female semina and male vincibility in lucretius, de rervm natvra

Classical Quarterly:1-17 (forthcoming)

Abstract
In a poem setting forth the way things are in nature, it is fitting for Lucretius to address, among many other phenomena, human conception and embryonic determination. With an eye toward ethics, Lucretius demonstrates how sexual reproduction at the seminal level can be explained by Epicurean atomism. In this paper, I am concerned with the biological ‘how’ of conception as explained in De Rerum Natura but also with the ethical ‘therefore’ for Lucretius’ readership and estimations of male autonomy. For modern audiences with a basic grasp of procreation that includes sperm supplied by a male and egg supplied by a female, encountering Lucretius’ verses on women contributing semen to the process of conception can be surprising. The idea of female semen may give us pause as we calibrate it with our understanding of eggs and ovulation, but Lucretius, in his time, was not advancing some novel theory. Wading into established debates on male-only or joint male-female semen production and gendered insemination, Lucretius sides with those promulgating mutuality for both questions and rejects Aristotle's representative exclusivist claim of male activity vs female passivity. That is to say, a sexually mature female, like her male counterpart, emits semen that has determining potency in the formation of a human embryo. Although the discharge and activity of female semen is the focus of this paper, my investigation is not a Quellenforschung or historical survey of Greco-Roman ideas about women's contributions to insemination and fertility, since others have treated these matters extensively. I concentrate rather on how Lucretius employs the concept of female semen in terms of his poetics in Book 4 and what I see as an ethical argument against the domineering nature of Roman masculinity. The problem of female semen, from the point of view of Lucretius’ Roman male audience, is that it is potentially costly to men because it rivals and threatens their status from the physiological to the discursive level. Iain Lonie broaches the same issue from Greek perspectives.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0009838819000612
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 42,236
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Guinevere’s Choice.Margaret H. Nesse - 1995 - Human Nature 6 (2):145-163.
Writing Men Imagining Women.Kirsty Gunn - 2017 - Angelaki 22 (1):315-320.
Male Aggression Against Women.Barbara Smuts - 1992 - Human Nature 3 (1):1-44.
Lucretius and the History of Science.Monte Ransome Johnson & Catherine Wilson - 2007 - In Stuart Gillespie & Philip R. Hardie (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge University Press.
Male Genital Modification.Raven Rowanchilde - 1996 - Human Nature 7 (2):189-215.
On the Subjectivity of the Feminine Literature.Ling Li - 2007 - Nankai University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) 4:1-6.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-09-08

Total views
6 ( #924,908 of 2,254,263 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #308,536 of 2,254,263 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature