Stoicism and the Family: On Seneca's Ethics

An interview with Dr. Liz Gloyn

Dr. Liz Gloyn is a Reader in Latin Language and Literature in the Department of Classics at Royal Holloway, University of London. She completed her PhD at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. Her research focuses on the intersections between Latin literature, ancient philosophy and gender studies; she also has a strong specialism in classical reception. Her books include The Ethics of the Family in Seneca (2017, Cambridge University Press) and Tracking Classical Monsters in Popular Culture (2019, Bloomsbury), as well as a broad range of chapters and articles exploring her research interests.

Dr. Gloyn is also an esteemed guest speaker at our forthcoming virtual event The Philosophy of Love and Relationships Saturday, Oct 25th at 1 pm EDT. All are welcome and the event is free to register. Donations are welcome, however, and we invite you to donate what you feel the event is worth. Can’t make it on the day? Not to worry. There will be a recording available for all that register.

Tell us about The Ethics of the Family in Seneca.

This is the book which emerged from my PhD work. It focuses on Seneca’s philosophical writing, and is the first book to put the family at the core of ancient philosophy. It explores whether philosophical systems of thought can offer guidance on how to live morally in every-day life. My research found that Seneca saw the family as a place where the aspiring Stoic can learn how to behave virtuously. The first four chapters of the book each look at a different relationship - mothers, brothers, marriage and fathers - to explore key texts that help us unpick Seneca’s approach to them. The fifth chapter focuses on how Seneca talks about the imperial family (and their very real failings), while the final chapter focuses on the Moral Letters and the very different approach that Seneca takes to the family in them.

Stoicism champions both self-sufficiency (autarkeia) and learning from others. How does Seneca’s model of the biological and intellectual family resolve this tension, transforming social learning into a tool for achieving authentic individual virtue?

The idea of self-sufficiency is very much embodied in the Stoic sage, who will have everything they need for happiness within themselves, but at the same time will participate in what is according to nature (secundum naturam) if that is in harmony with virtuous behaviour. This includes family life!

Seneca is always very clear that the family is not the only place you can learn virtue, but that it is a significant place that most people will begin to reach towards virtue. The theory of oikeiōsis is central to this idea; a key example the Stoics use of that process of making something oikeion to oneself is the way that a mother sees the interests of her baby as her own, rather than simply leaving the infant to fend for themselves. They see this happening both in the animal kingdom and among humans. This places the family at the centre of how to expand our sense of what is oikeion to ourselves, and thus whose interests we see as shared with our own. The sage will ultimately see the interests of all humanity, and arguably all forms of life, as the same as their own interests; the family is where many of us take the first small steps towards that lofty goal.

Your book positions the Stoic theory of oikeiôsis (appropriation) as central to Seneca’s ethics of the family.

Could you elaborate on how the family unit functions as the primary “training ground” where an individual learns to progressively extend their concern from themselves to all of humanity, and where does this model place the limits of familial obligation?

The Stoic Hierocles described this process as a set of concentric circles. In the very centre sits the self; in the next circle out sit our immediate family, then our extended family, then the people in the same neighbourhood, then in the same city, and so on until the rings include the whole of humanity. The process of oikeiōsis involves expanding who is included in that first circle, first to immediate family, then to extended family, and so on until finally the Stoic sage encompasses all of humanity in the same circle as themselves.

Learning how to see the interests of our family as the same as our own can be seen as the foundational step which is then repeated, over and over, in the continued process of oikeiōsis. Similarly, it is in the interactions with our closest family that we experience true tests of our values and priorities, not least of which is the control of our irrational emotions like anger and frustration! I don’t think that the model places limits on family obligation so much as it demands close attention to what actions are in the family’s interest and which are not; as an example, just because your parents think it would be a good idea for you to go into politics does not mean that it is automatically a good idea for you to go into politics, particularly if that is not an action which you think will help you pursue virtue.

Seneca’s discussion of the father-son relationship in De Beneficiis is described as “revisionist.”

In what specific ways did his Stoic ideals challenge the traditional Roman paterfamilias model, and how did he philosophically reconcile the duty to honor one’s parents with the Stoic imperative to pursue wisdom, even if it meant (as with his own father) disagreeing with their values?

The core of how Seneca overturns the traditional model of the paterfamilias at the head of the family also sits in Hierocles’ model of concentric circles. The first circle beyond the self contains a person’s parents, siblings, spouse and children; all these relationships are positioned as having the same level of importance. The traditional paterfamilias model, by contrast, places the Roman pater at the top of the family tree, with a clear hierarchy of those subordinate below him.

Seneca’s description of fathers in De Beneficiis (On Benefits) also points out that claims to superiority that are made simply on the basis of having fathered a son mean nothing if a father hasn’t then cared for the son and sought to raise him well. Seneca describes the father-son relationship, when it works well, as a ‘desirable contest’ where both people seek to outdo the other in virtuous acts, each constantly encouraging the other to surpass them in demonstrating their grasp of wisdom. This description was very much the opposite of the zero-sum game in the paterfamilias relationship, where the pater always had the final word; in the Stoic model Seneca proposes in De Beneficiis, it is possible for the son to show he has a better grasp on virtue and wisdom than his father, and for his father to take delight in this fact.

Given that your study focuses on Seneca’s prose works, setting his tragedies aside, how should we read a character like the vengeful, passion-driven Medea?

Is she simply a negative exemplar? Or, does the dramatic form allow Seneca to explore the complex, and sometimes destructive, power of familial bonds in a way that his philosophical treatises cannot?

A lot of ink has been spilled over the centuries about the relationship between Seneca’s philosophical works and his tragedies! It’s certainly clear that the tragedies aren’t just philosophical essays dressed up in poetry - in terms of characterisation, style and stagecraft, he’s an extremely accomplished dramatist. My position is that the tragedies offer a space for Seneca to set up a universe that runs according to Stoic rules, but to see what happens when things go wrong in them - and that includes the family. His philosophy is very much about setting up the ideal and seeking to draw his readers towards practicing Stoicism; his tragedies offer a creative space, using familiar mythic templates, for seeing what happens when people don’t seek to control their irrational passions and pursue things that are not virtue.

Where can we find you?

I run a blog, Classically Inclined, where I write about my research and on-going work.

If you’re interested in my work on classical reception, then my book Tracking Classical Monsters in Popular Culture will take you on a journey around how monsters from Greek and Roman myth have been represented in film, television and literature from the 1950s to the present day.

You can also find me on Bluesky.

What question would you like to leave us to think about?

We only have fragments of Seneca’s On Marriage, preserved in a rather aggressive essay by St. Jerome. What kinds of subjects would the complete book have talked about?