The place of a Roman in society was a function of his position in the social
hierarchy, membership of a family, and involvement in a web of personal
relationships extending out from the household. Romans were obligated to
and could expect support from their families, kinsmen and dependants both
inside and outside the household, and friends, patrons, protégés and clients.
In the eyes of Seneca, whose longest moral essay was devoted to the subject,
the exchange of favours and services ( benefi cia ) which underlay these
relationships ‘most especially binds together human society’ ( Ben. 1.4.2).^1
Seneca’s emphasis on reciprocal exchange is justifi able on several grounds:
it eased tensions and confl icts provoked by divisions and inequalities; and it
provided many of the services for which today we turn to impersonal
governmental or private institutions.^2
Honour, status and the reciprocity ethic
Despite the general comment about human society quoted above, Seneca’s
On Benefi ts is not a work of sociology or anthropology, but an ethical
treatise about how men ought to conduct themselves in the giving and
receiving of favours and services. His central premise is that a man in receipt
of a favour owes his benefactor gratitude and a return in kind. Of the man
who neglects this ethical precept, Seneca wrote: ‘Homicides, tyrants, traitors
there always will be; but worse than all these is the crime of ingratitude’
( Ben. 1.10.4). A century earlier Cicero expressed the same view: ‘To fail to
repay [a favour] is not permitted to a good man’ ( Off. 1.48). The ideal
benefactor was supposed to act without thought of what was due to him,
but this was unrealistic. It was understood both by the author of the
Handbook on Canvassing attributed to Q. Cicero and by Tacitus in his
Dialogue on the Orators that the orator and politician would succeed by
distributing benefi ts that would subsequently be reciprocated. Consequently,
Seneca could use the metaphor of treasure for benefi ts that could be recalled
10
Social relations
173