Since the applicability of modern notions of ‘‘character’’ to the texts of classical antiquity has come under scrutiny, it is perhaps helpful to establish certain minima from the outset. Can the idea that an individual has a consistent set of traits and patterns of behavior be identified beyond a doubt in Greco-Roman historiography?
The answer to this question is a definite ‘‘yes.’’ Throughout the works of the classical historians, one finds instances of both the narrator and individuals within the text basing inferences and speculations on the assumption of a consistent character. Consider the following extracts:
[Xerxes on Demaratus:] I will not accept that he is not well-disposed towards my affairs, judging from his past speeches... (Hdt. 7.237.1)
[On the importance of taking precautions before surrendering:] It is unexceptionable to behave rationally when one has received adequate pledges - these being oaths, wives, children, and above all the past life of the individual in question. (Pol. 8.36.2-3) [Of Hannibal’s father, Hamilcar:] He then spent nine years in Hispania increasing Punic influence in such a fashion that it was clear that he was gearing up in his mind for a war greater than that which he was presently conducting, and that, if he had lived longer, the Carthaginians who waged war on Italy under Hannibal’s command would have done so under the leadership of Hamilcar. (Livy 21.2.1-2)
[Rejecting a version of events in 69 found in ‘‘certain authors’’:] I do not believe that Paulinus, with his practical good sense, ever hoped for such moderation on the part of the people in that most corrupt age that the very men whose passion for war had destroyed peace would now abandon war for love of peace. (Tac. Hist. 2.37)
[On the assertion that Augustus had planned the murder of Agrippa Postumus:] Beyond a doubt, Augustus had made many harsh complaints about the ways of the young man, and had seen to it that his exile was sanctioned by decree of the Senate, but he did not show indifference to the death of any of his own, and it was not believable that he had brought death upon his grandson in order to assure the well-being of his stepson. (Tac. Ann. 1.6)
These extracts do not just assume consistency of character; the assumption makes possible the drawing of various conclusions. Xerxes in Herodotus deduces Demar-atus’ present goodwill towards him from the way in which the latter has acted towards him previously, and Polybius sees the way someone has behaved in the past as being as sure a guarantee of reliable conduct in the future as actual hostages. Tacitus uses the conception of the characters of Paulinus and Augustus which he has built up from elsewhere to adjudicate the more likely, the more ‘‘characteristic,’’ one might say, from differing accounts of events. Livy, yet more ambitious, uses his sense of what drove Hamilcar to plot a contrafactual scenario, a history which never happened. All such pieces of ratiocination function from the premise that an individual’s behavior is, or can be, consistent and (within limits) predictable.
The passage from Herodotus leads us to a further point. From the outset of the extant historiographical tradition, it is not merely the narrator who manifests an interest in determining individual character and making deductions from it. Agents within the text are equally adept at the same maneuvers. One might adduce another example from Herodotus: Cleisthenes, who makes trial of the potential suitors of his daughter to determine their ‘‘virtue and temper and breeding and way of life’’ (6.128.1). The characters of others can also be revealed or demonstrated, through a skillful manipulation of circumstances. Theramenes, in Xenophon’s Hellenica, dramatically seeks sanctuary from his destroyers, not in the belief that the sanctity of the altar will actually ward them off, but because, as he himself puts it, ‘‘I wish to demonstrate this: that these people are not only most unjust towards men, but also most impious towards the gods’’ (2.3.53).
A notion of consistency in individual human behavior is, then, prevalent in ancient historiography. But what sorts of individuality are explored by the ancient historians? Is there any change or development in the capacity to articulate the nuances of human personality as the historiographical tradition progresses? And do particular historians have different ways of bringing these nuances out?
World History
