Abstract:
In III. 978-1002, Lucretius examines the eternal punishments in hell of Tantalus, Tityus, and Sisyphus and explains how each story is simply a representation for behavior in life. In these explanations, he depicts a person struggling in life in a similar manner to the mythological characters. Lucretius does not name these living people, however, so I have taken it upon myself for this project to replace the mythological characters in the afterlife with characters from television shows who struggle in a similar way to emphasize Lucretius’ argument that these Hellish punishments can be found on Earth too.
Hell is Within
The Paper: Hell’s Punishments as TV Show Characters
In the third book of De Rerum Natura, Lucretius uses the last 250 lines to argue that death is no worry to us as mortals. One way that he supports his claim about death is by focusing on different mythological punishments in the afterlife. Lucretius debunks the need to fear these stories because arguing that they already exist in life. In III. 978-1002, Lucretius examines the eternal punishments in hell of Tantalus, Tityus, and Sisyphus and explains how each story is simply a representation for behavior in life. In these explanations, he depicts a person struggling in life in a similar manner to the mythological characters. Lucretius does not name these living people, however, so I have taken it upon myself for this project to replace the mythological characters in the afterlife with characters from television shows who struggle in a similar way to emphasize Lucretius’ argument that these Hellish punishments can be found on Earth too.
Lucretius begins his short catalogue of mythological characters with Tantalus. He depicts Tantalus’ punishment as a large rock that is constantly overhanging him: nec miser impendens magnum timet aere saxum / Tantlaus, ut famast, cassa formidine torpens (“and wretched Tantalus does not fear the large rock hanging above in the air, as the story is, being numb with empty fear”) (III. 980-1). Lucretius equates this punishment to someone who lives their life in constant fear of the gods or misfortune. Tantalus in the tv world, then, is Chidi Anagonye from The Good Place. This show is about the afterlife, which is somewhat appropriate for a parallel to Tantalus, in which the main character Eleanor ends up in ‘the Good Place’ as a reward for her excellent and selfless behavior in her life. The problem is that there has been a mistake and all of the deeds and qualities that Eleanor is being praised for in ‘the Good Place’ were from the life of a different person, not her. Consequently, Eleanor enlists the help of Chidi, a professor of moral philosophy, to help her become a better person.
Chidi lived his life on earth constantly concerned with the moral and ethical ramifications of each little choice he made. He believed that this intense scrutiny over each choice would ultimately lead him to be a good person. Even when he has reached ‘the Good Place’, he obsesses over each decision he makes. I equate Chidi with Lucretius’ personification of the punishment of Tantalus because he is constantly weighed down by each choice he must make and lives in fear of making morally or ethically bad decisions. In this sense, Chidi’ s moral and ethical philosophy studies are his own religio, and like divom metus … inanis (“an empty fear of the gods”), it is a terror of a wrong decision that drives him in his life. (Spoiler Alert) Since the existence of an afterlife in the show contradicts Epicurean philosophy, Chidi’s constant worries are not necessarily inanis, but there are costly because it is revealed that he, Eleanor, and the other two main characters are actually in ‘the Bad Place’ rather than ‘the Good Place.’ His incessant anxieties over moral and ethical repercussions never allowed him to make a decision and severed many of his relationships in life. Additionally, the ultimate connection tying Chidi to Tantalus is that Chidi dies and is sent to the afterlife because an air conditioner unit falls out of an apartment window and lands on him. An impendens magnum object is his cause of death, which is as ironic as it is comedic, in my opinion.
Here is a short clip from the show about Chidi’s death that also gives a good view into the type of person the character is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4x9G0yQRrY
The second mythological character in Lucretius’ passage is Tityus. For his eternal punishment, Tityus is repeatedly fed on by vultures: nec Tityon volucres ineunt Acherunte jacentem (“and vultures do not work their way into Tityus lying in Acherusia”) (III.984). Lucretius’ equivalent for this punishment in life is someone who is obsessively in love with another person to the point of anguish. Lucretius says sed Tityos nobis hic est, in amore jacentem / quem volucres lacerant (“but Tityus is here for us, he whom lying in love vultures ravage”) (III.992-3). My tv show equivalent for this type of person is Ted Mosby, the protagonist in How I Met Your Mother. In this show, Ted spends 9 seasons worth of episodes telling his kids the story of how he met their mother. In doing so, he recounts all the trials and tribulations he underwent in his search for love. While this journey is a stereotypical trope in many stories, the character of Ted takes the concept to another level. From the first episode, Ted is determined and borderline obsessed to find ‘the one’ for him and get married. He goes out on a first date with a woman named Robin, and after the date goes well, he accidently tells her that he loves her. This over eagerness for love scares Robin away and ruins Ted’s chances with Robin. (Spoiler Alert) The two remain friendly, though, and Robin is assimilated into Ted’s group of friends. Ted, however, remains partially in love with Robin. Throughout the years on the show, Ted, in his search for love, sacrifices a long-term relationship to date Robin, dates and breaks up with Robin, is left at the altar by another woman, tries and fails again with Robin, tries and fails with dating many other women, and then watches Robin marry one of his close friends before finally meeting his wife.
The perpetual search and failure for love with Robin and other women is very similar to vultures picking at Ted’s insides day after day. Further, Ted brings the anxius angor upon himself because of his need to find the love of his life in the beginning and his need to be with Robin at different points throughout the series. (Spoiler Alert) In the series finale, it is revealed that while Ted was eventually very happy once he was with his wife, his wife has died of an illness before the point of him telling the story to his kids. He then reveals to his children that he has told them this long story as a way to see if they would be ok if he tried to start dating Robin again, who had since gotten a divorce. Although Ted seems to end up happy, the ending reaffirms the notion that the plot of the show is driven by his obsession to find and be in love with a woman whom he obsesses over from the first episode.
For some context, here is a scene from season 8 where the character Barney recaps all the main events from the first 7 years of the show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8f-Q3ebsAw
The third mythological exemplum that Lucretius uses in book 3 is Sisyphus. His punishment in hell is to push a large rock up a steep hill, and when he reaches the top, the rock immediately rolls back down the hill to the bottom, and he must start again (III.1000-2). The person in life that Lucretius compares Sisyphus to is a person struggles and suffers long and hard labors in the pursuit for power which is ultimately empty. Lucretius writes,
qui petere a populo fasces saevasque secures
imbibit, et semper victus tristisque recedit.
nam petere imperium, quod inanest nec datur umquam,
atque in eo semper durum sufferer laborem
hoc est …
“he who absorbs to seek the fasces and savage axes from the people, and having conquered always withdraws sad. For to seek power, which is empty and is not ever given, and to undergo hard labor always in this power is this” (III.996-1000).
The television equivalent for this type of person is Tommy Shelby from Peaky Blinders. In the show, Tommy is the leader of the Peaky Blinders, a street gang in 1920s Birmingham, England. Throughout the show, Tommy constantly fights to gain power for himself and his family, first through illegal activities, such as running a gambling shop, and then ultimately through political means after being elected to public office. Coming from modest beginnings and serving as a tunnel digger in World War I, durum laborem is a constant in his life and applies in his pursuit of money and power. The strongest connection between Tommy and the description in Lucretius, however, is semper victus tristisque recedit. (Spoiler Alert) From season to season in the show, he incrementally gains power, both among other street gangs and politically. As he gains power, though, he loses family members, friends, and even his wife as a price for that control. Although he is getting the money and notability he wants, the experience and losses often leave him broken, sad, and empty. He is often depressed and relies heavily on drugs and alcohol throughout the show. Each time he can get the rock to the top of the hill and pull off a successful plan, something goes awry, or someone dies, and the rocks rushes back down the hill, leaving Tommy Shelby to start from the bottom again.
Here is a scene from Peaky Blinders which I think encapsulates the continuous struggle that Tommy Shelby goes through in the show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfRr3C0-AFQ
While the writers of these shows most likely did not read De Rerum Natura and then shape their characters from these descriptions, the similarities emphasize the claim that Lucretius is making in the passage that these hellish punishments people fear after death already exist in life. Further, these characters that I chose are not the only that fit Lucretius’ descriptions. The archetype of a worrier, a helpless romantic, and someone who will do whatever it takes to gain power are found throughout different books, plays, tv shows, and movies, and these types of people were clearly prominent enough in Lucretius’ time for him to use them as examples.
Leave a Reply