Virtus Romana: Politics and Morality in the Roman Historians by Catalina Balmaceda (review)

Although several monographs addressing virtus have been published over the last decade or so, such as J. Sarsila’s Being a Man: The Roman Virtus as a Contribution to Moral Philosophy (Frankfurt 2006) and M. McDonnell’s Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic (Cambridge 2006), Balmaceda provides a definitive and affirmative answer to any who would doubt that more deserved to be said on the subject.

Balmaceda introduces the topic with an overview of the elements of Roman historiography and its connection to virtus. Here Balmaceda proposes the classification of virtus’ two primary meanings, virilis-virtus (courage) and humana-virtus (virtue), which she will use for the remainder of the book (11). The first chapter addresses the broader concept of virtus in earlier sources and its relation to the Greek ideas of andreia (courage) and arete (excellence). This chapter also examines the relationship between virtus and Stoicism and then Cicero’s understanding of the word. Cicero is clearly formative for later writers, and Balmaceda avoids the oversimplified interpretation that the orations simply extol virilis-virtus while the philosophic works emphasize humana-virtus.

The following four chapters form the heart of the book and explore chronologically the major Roman historians: Sallust, Livy, Velleius Paterculus, and Tacitus. In chapter 2 Balmaceda argues that Sallust expands the traditional notion of virtus beyond its connection to nobilitas. In Sallust’s view, all Romans had the potential to demonstrate virtus, and, moreover, nobiles needed to prove their virtus as individuals in order to inherit any ancestral claims to the virtue. Nonetheless, for Sallust virtus was in a state of decline for both nobiles and novi homines. Though Livy, the focus of chapter 3, turns his attention to the distant past, he tightly connects virtus and libertas, a theme Tacitus will turn to as well. Livy presents the idea, still relevant to his contemporaries, that virtus Romana shines most brightly when it is in the service of the common good. Livy rarely uses virtus to designate actions that are explicitly imperialistic or politically self-serving, even if those deeds demonstrate courage.

In chapter 4 Balmaceda shifts to imperial history with the Tiberian historian Velleius Paterculus. Balmaceda effectively shows how Velleius rejects Sallust’s notion of decline and at the same time Livy’s suggestion that the ancients were the best exemplars of virtus Romana. For Velleius, virtus was only coming to its full promise under emperors like Augustus and Tiberius. Chapter 5, which comprises more than one third of the entire book, is devoted to Tacitus. Balmaceda admirably tracks Tacitus’ views on virtus from the Agricola through the Annales. Tacitus, like Livy, attaches great importance to the relationship of virtus and libertas, almost to the point that the two concepts cannot exist independently. Unlike Livy, however, Tacitus seems to take a more pessimistic view of reviving the old virtus. Consequently, Balmaceda argues that Tacitus sees virtus under the principate as needing to be accompanied by moderatio and constantia.

There are many merits to Balmaceda’s interpretations, which are clearly expressed and formidably argued. Although I am inclined to agree with a great deal that she presents, there are a few omissions worth mentioning. First, Balmaceda individually situates the historians in their given context and highlights their status in Rome, yet she never addresses the fact that all of these writers were novi homines, or that Livy for one did not enter politics at all. One wonders how this might have framed their collective understanding of virtus, to say nothing of how the concept has come down to us. Another item Balmaceda could have tackled is the meaning of Tacitus’ central point, namely the difficulty of expressing virtus under an autocrat. Certainly, Tacitus presents alternatives to the traditional expressions of virtus, but he is also offering a sharp critique of the principate by stating that traditional virtus Romana can no longer be freely expressed in...