These concepts of character and moral agency form the basis of presentation of individuals by the historians of the hellenistic and Roman periods. Nevertheless, each historian’s interpretation of character and its effects reflects his own background and political context. The rise first of the hellenistic monarchies and then of the Roman Republic meant that the underlying civic structure changed considerably from that of the city-states of fourth century Greece, and with it the virtues most important in a given society. In particular, the communal government of the Roman republican oligarchy required a respect for others and a limitation of one’s own ambitions, but was not well fitted to control great men who rose to power in times of crisis, especially in the last years of the Republic. Nevertheless, historians continued to focus on the presence or absence of virtues in political leaders, as we see in the histories of Polybius and Livy.
Polybius (ca. 200-ca. 118 bc) was trained in the Greek aristocratic tradition of honor, duty, and glory. Taken to Rome after the defeat of Macedonia in 168 bc, he conceived the idea of a grand history of Rome’s rapid conquest of the Mediterranean world. Many factors contributed to Rome’s success, including her unusually stable constitution, highly organized army, and customs which promoted courage and moral character. Polybius finds the Roman constitution much superior to those of Sparta and Carthage in exactly this respect, and moreover, in that it was well adapted to acquiring and holding an empire (Polyb. 6.43-58). Not the least factor in its greatness was the character of its leaders and that of its opponents. Although only fragments survive of much of his history, many of these derive from a Byzantine collection of excerpts on virtue and vice, and thus are especially illuminating in this regard. Three features distinguish his treatment of character.
First, Polybius recognized the difficulty of establishing a person’s character. Analyzing Hannibal’s behavior, he comments on the difficulty of pinning down a person’s underlying qualities, because the pressure and complexity of circumstances and the persuasion of friends can strongly influence action (9.22-6). Obviously Hannibal was outstandingly capable, managing not only the campaign in Italy, but those in Spain and Sicily. But was he extraordinarily cruel and greedy for money, as many said? Polybius questioned the accusation, and cited several examples of persons who had acted harshly under one set of circumstances, and nobly under others. In particular, he thought Hannibal’s harsh treatment of his Italian allies after the Roman capture of Capua in 211 bc forced on him by circumstance, not a feature of his character. Men, he noted, can act contrary to their basic direction. Similar passages discuss the Greek leader Aratus (4.8) and other rulers (9.23).
Second, even when the city offered a conducive environment, a proper education was essential to the formation of character. He praised the Greek hero Philopoemen’s early training, which taught him courage, endurance, and a moderate style of life (10.22). He himself became a mentor for the young Scipio Aemilianus and writes at some length, full of pride and pleasure, of the young man’s moderation (sophrosune) regarding sex and other diversions, his liberality and lack of avarice regarding money, and the physical courage he learned while hunting (31.25-30). Polybius conceived his own work as both a moral and a political education for his readers.
Third, as Eckstein says, ‘‘Polybius viewed human character as complex and malleable, but fundamentally weak’’ (1995: 239). Of the many persons among the Romans, their allies, and their opponents whose character he sketches, very few show great virtues. The Second Punic War produced the greatest number: men like Hamilcar Barca, Hannibal, and Scipio Africanus; later, Greece could boast of Philo-poemen. The victories of Scipio Africanus had changed the whole Mediterranean world; the others were worthy opponents of Rome. Taking advantage of the fact that Philopoemen, Hannibal, and Scipio all died in the same year, he reviews their characters (23.12-14). Philopoemen had an active political career for 40 years, and had spoken frankly at all times, but never aroused envy. Hannibal was a born leader, for although he led a motley army of many nationalities and barbarian tribes, he never was conspired against or deserted by those who served under him. Scipio won unprecedented popularity with the people and respect from the Roman senate. But many men were dominated by passion or vice and so accomplished little. A great general, like Hannibal before Cannae, considers the character of his opponent, Polybius observes, and lists possible weaknesses: idleness, drunkenness, sexual pleasure, cowardice, rashness, foolish ambition, and vanity (3.81.3-9). Polybius’ pessimism seems to grow as his work progresses. Even at Rome luxury and self-interest come to overwhelm virtue. Cato the Censor and Aemilius Paullus showed some of the old virtue (31.25.5a, 31.22), but such figures were rare. Among the young men, Scipio Aemilianus’ moderation was exceptional.
Polybius, initially impressed by the outstanding success of the Romans, sadly reflected that most men, too weak to develop the moral strength and inner discipline to restrain their less noble impulses, could never become suitable leaders.
Livy and Sallust wrote during the last days of the Roman Republic, when its collapse was complete and the new structure of monarchy was emerging. Both saw the decay of moral character in the state’s leaders as a major cause of the crisis. Sallust wrote of the arrogance, greed, and lust for power of the aristocracy at Rome. Livy (59-17 Bc) took a longer view, choosing to trace the history of Rome from its foundation, in the hope that his readers would find models to imitate. He proudly asserts, ‘‘No country has ever been greater or more upright than ours or richer in fine examples; none has been free for so many generations from the vices of avarice and luxury’’ (Preface 11). For Livy, as for Polybius, early Rome was a city in which virtue could flourish. The sturdy simplicity of the farmer-warrior could shape a courageous, honest, and straightforward leader. As the centuries wore on, Rome’s virtue declined, until the Republic finally collapsed. In the first ten books, treating the earliest history of Rome and its expansion in Italy, Livy retells on the basis of flimsy traditions exemplary stories of good and bad behavior. These include the tales of Lucretia, Horatius at the bridge, and Camillus, the victor over Veii, who patiently endured an unjust exile, then returned to save Rome from the Gauls and rebuild the city. The books treating the Hannibalic War and Rome’s expansion eastward (20-45) draw upon Polybius’ history, but reconceive the period from a Roman and mid-first century perspective. The later books, which chronicled the struggles for domination
By the great generals and dynasts, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, and Augustus, are lost. Not surprisingly, given the tumult of his age, Livy constantly favors moderation and concord in individuals and in the state as a whole.
In contrast to Polybius, Livy prefers an indirect presentation of character to direct authorial statements. He much prefers to use speeches by the person in question (which according to convention he himself composed), in combination with opinions expressed or reactions shown by contemporaries. He will rewrite a direct judgment by Polybius as an opinion, speech or letter by another party. From time to time he will offer a few sentences at the death of important persons. These obituaries are not simple eulogies, but compressed evaluations of the impact of the person’s character and career on the city.
On a few occasions, Livy will offer a full character sketch. One of the most impressive introduces his reader to Hannibal (21.4). Livy’s portrait rhetorically combines standard features of a great general and an implacable enemy, without attempting a particularized analysis of character. As a leader, Hannibal is vigorous, able both to command and obey, a risk-taker and skilled tactician, tireless and tough in mind and body, and an unequaled warrior on foot or horseback. As an enemy, he is cruel, treacherous, and without regard for truth, honor, the gods, oaths, or anything sacred. This characterization states the challenge that Rome faced from the implacable hatred of a brilliant general and creates the background against which Roman virtues will be demonstrated.
The great figure in our extant books is Scipio Africanus, the victor over Hannibal. Livy praises his generalship, but gives little attention to the finer details of tactics or strategy, preferring to emphasize his moral qualities. In war, his courage, dynamism, hard work, courage, and commanding presence make him an ideal military leader. But he also shows self-control, clemency, and amiability in interacting with Romans and with enemies. His extraordinary pursuit of glory did provoke envy, however, and he was attacked by Cato and others. In the unseemly trials to which he and his brother were subjected at the end of his life, he stands out as a unique individual, the savior of Rome, imperious and self-confident in his extraordinary service to the state and the blessings of the gods. Even a personal enemy, Sempronius Gracchus, delivers a speech recognizing Rome’s debt to him (38.50.4-53, cf. 38.55.10-13). Nevertheless, Livy notes that Scipio excelled more in war than in peace; he could not endure the pettiness of political life after the greatness of his achievements.
The outstanding hero presages the great dynasts of the late republic, hungry for glory and power, and unwilling to respect the customs of oligarchy. Scipio may have reminded Livy of Pompey the Great, who hoped that his many victories would give him an honored and secure place in political life, without the need constantly to defend and strengthen his position. The fragment preserving Livy’s opinion on Cicero, immediately after his murder on the orders of Mark Antony (frr. 60-1 Weissenborn from book 120 = Sen. Suas. 6.17, 22), speaks to the violence of those years:
He bore none of his misfortunes like a man, except his death, which, if one judges rightly, might seem less unsuitable, since he suffered nothing worse from his victorious enemy
Than, if had been fortunate, he would have done to his defeated opponent. Nevertheless, if one should weigh his vices against his virtues, he was a great and memorable man, who would need a Cicero to speak his praises properly.
Livy compresses into a few words his disgust at the viciousness of civil war and his admiration for Cicero’s eloquence and service to Rome. Both Antony and Cicero exceeded any usual civic norms: their violence and extremism are both symptoms and causes of the destruction of the Republic.
World History
