Virtus

The origins of the word can be traced back to the Latin word , 'man'. The common list of attributes associated with were considered to be particularly masculine strengths. From the early to the later days of the Roman Empire, there appears to have been a development in how the concept was understood. Originally described specifically martial courage, but it eventually grew to be used to describe a range of Roman virtues. It was often divided into different qualities including (practical wisdom), (justice), (temperance, self-control), and (courage). This division of virtue as a whole into cardinal virtues is an ongoing project of positive psychology or, in philosophy, virtue ethics, following a tradition originating in Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. It implies a link between and the Greek concept of . At one time extended to include a wide range of meanings that covered one general ethical ideal. The use of the word grew and shifted to fit evolving ideas of what manliness meant. Once, meant primarily that a man was a brave warrior, but it came also to mean that he was a good man, someone who did the right thing. During the time of the decline of the Roman elite, the Roman upper class no longer thought of themselves as unmanly if they did not serve in the military. ==In Roman political philosophy==

came from an aristocratic tradition in which it described a specific type of public conduct. It was mainly applicable to those in the , certainly by the late republic at least. It was not a "private" virtue in the way that modern people might consider it. Valor, courage, and manliness were not things to be pursued in the private sphere of the individual or the individual's private concerns. There could be no virtue in exploiting one's manliness in the pursuit of personal wealth, for example. was exercised in the pursuit of for the benefit of the resulting in the winning of eternal . According to D.C. Earl, "Outside the service of the there can be no and therefore, strictly speaking, no , no , no ." The nobility of lay not only in one's personal but also those of one's ancestors. However Cicero, a , asserted that was a virtue particularly suited to the new man just as was suited to the noble. Cicero argued that just as young men from noble families won the favor of the people so too should the earn the favor of the people with his . He asserted that , and not one's family history, should decide a man's worthiness. Because is something that a man earns himself, not something that is given to him by his family, it is a better measure of a man's ability. Cicero's goal was not to impugn the noble class but widen it to include men who had earned their positions by merit. The term was used quite significantly by the historian Sallust, a contemporary of Cicero. Sallust asserted that did not rightfully belong to the as a result of their family background but specifically to the through the exercise of (talent, also means sharpness of mind, sagacity, foresight, and character). For Sallust and Cicero alike, comes from winning glory through illustrious deeds () and the observance of right conduct through . ==Applicability==

was not universally applicable—typically only adult male Roman citizens could be thought of as possessing . Women was occasionally attributed to women, in spite of its association with . Cicero attributes to women several times. He uses it once to describe Caecilia Metella when she helps a man who is being chased by assassins. Twice more he uses it when describing his daughter, Tullia, portraying her in his letters as brave in his absence. He uses it again to describe his first wife Terentia during his exile. is attributed to Cloelia in Book 2 of Livy's Ab Urbe Condita, and also to the woman honored by the Laudatio Turiae. Children was not a term commonly used to describe children. Since was primarily attributed to a full-grown man who had served in the military, children were not particularly suited to obtain this particular virtue. Slaves While a slave was able to be ('man') he was not considered a . Slaves were often referred to as (Latin for 'boy') to denote that they were not citizens. Since a slave could not be a it follows that they could not have the quality of . Once a slave was manumitted, he was able to become a and also classified as a freedman, but this did not allow him to have . A good slave or freedman was said to have , but no . Foreigners Foreigners in the Roman world could be attributed with , for example, if they fought bravely. could also be lost in battle. could even be a qualification for citizenship, as in the case of Spanish cavalry men granted citizenship by Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo in for their in battle. ==Usage==

applies exclusively to a man's behaviour in the public sphere; that is, to the application of duty to the in the . His private business was no place to earn , even when it involved courage, feats of arms, or other associated qualities performed for the public good. In private While in many cultures it is considered "manly" to father and provide for a family, family life was considered in the Roman world to be part of the private sphere, in which there was no place for . Most uses of to describe any part of private life are ambiguous and refer to another similar quality. In the Roman world the oldest living patriarch of the family was called the . This title implied that he could make all legal and binding decisions for the family; he also owned all its money, land, and other property. His wife, daughters, sons, and his sons' families were all under his . The only time a son was seen as separate from his father's control in the eyes of other Romans was when he assumed his public identity as a citizen. He could earn his by serving in the military, and thus he could only demonstrate manliness outside of the family setting. This is another reason that is not often used to describe Roman private life. In public was a crucial component for a political career. Its broad definition led to it being used to describe a number of qualities that the Roman people idealized in their leaders. In everyday life a typical Roman, especially a young boy, would have been inculcated with the idea of . Since military service was a part of the lives of most Roman men, military training would have started fairly early. Young boys would have learned how to wield weapons and military tactics starting at home with their fathers and older male relatives and later in school. Also a young boy would have heard numerous stories about past heroes, battles, and wars. Some of these stories would have told of the of past heroes, and even family members. Publicly it was easy to see the rewards of . Public triumphs were held for victorious generals and rewards were given to brave fighters. This propaganda encouraged young boys coming into their manhood to be brave fighters and earn . It was the duty of every generation of men to maintain the which his family had already earned and to enlarge it. Pressure to live up to the standards of one's ancestors was great. In achieving one could also achieve . By gaining and one could hope to aspire to high political office and great renown. Cicero suggested that was real manhood and that it boiled down to "Ever to excel". He declared that, "The whole glory of virtue [] resides in activity." A Roman political man would only need to show scars in defense of the Republic to prove his worth. Romans established their status through activity, creating a pecking order of honour. This involved —a test, trial, or ordeal requiring active effort to overcome. This activity was thought to banish certain characteristics of Roman thought that were believed to be negative. Such negative characteristics included being shameless, inactive, isolated, or leisurely and were the absence of ; placing into a static, frozen state. The contest established one's being and constructed the reality of one's . Romans were willing to suffer shame, humiliation, victory, defeat, glory, destruction, success, and failure in pursuit of this. was often associated with being aggressive and this could be dangerous in the public sphere and the political world. Displays of violent were controlled through several methods. Men seeking to hold political office typically had to follow the . Many political offices had an age minimum which ensured that the men filling the positions had the proper amount of experience in the military and in government. Thus, even if a man proved himself capable of filling a position or was able to persuade people that he was capable, he would not necessarily be able to hold the position until he had reached a certain age. Minimum age also ensured an equal basis for candidates in elections for public offices, because by the time most men went into public office they would have retired from military service. Furthermore, before any Roman soldier could partake in single combat, he had to gain permission from his general. This was meant to keep soldiers from putting themselves in unnecessary danger in order to gain . Politically, also tended to be a concept of morality. In contrast to its representation of manliness—as seen in aggression and the ruthless acquisition of money, land, and power—the lighter, more idealistic political meaning almost took on the extended meaning of , as a man who was morally upright and concerned with the matters of the state. Plautus in Amphitruo contrasted and . is seen as a positive attribute, while though itself is not necessarily a negative attribute it is often associated with negative methods such as bribery. Plautus said that just as great generals and armies win victory by , so should political candidates. "is the wrong method of reaching a good end". Part of , in the political sphere, was to deal justly in every aspect of one's life, especially in political and state matters. According to Brett and Kate McKay, ; Rome was a contest culture and honor culture. Romans believed "your identity was neither fixed nor permanent, your worth was a moving target, and you had to always be actively engaged in proving yourself." Sexuality While in many cultures the virtue of manliness is seen as being partly sexual, in the Roman world the word did not necessitate sexuality. Similar words deriving from the same stem often have sexual connotations, such as the word for man itself () and the concept of "virility" (). Nonetheless, poems such as Catullus 16 and the Carmina Priapea, as well as speeches such as Cicero's In Verrem, demonstrate that manliness and , or sexual propriety, were linked. Marcellus and the Temple M. Claudius Marcellus, during the battle of Clastidium in , dedicated a temple to Honos and Virtus. This was one of the first times that Virtus had been recognized as divine. The connection with Honos would have been obvious to most Romans, as demonstrations of led to election to public office, and both were considered . The cult of Honos was already a long-standing tradition in Rome. The marriage of the two deities ensured that Virtus would also get proper respect from the Romans. But the pontiffs objected that one temple could not properly house two gods because there would be no way of knowing to which god to sacrifice should a miracle happen in the temple. Augustus During the reign of Augustus, the Senate voted that a golden shield be inscribed with Augustus' attributes and displayed in the Curia Iulia, these virtues including , , , and . These political catchwords continued to be used as propaganda by later emperors. In literature The comic poet Plautus made use of in his play Trinummus, which concerned family , honor, public office, and obligations to the state. He also offered commentary on the concept of in Amphitruo (see above). Cicero said, "[only] usually wards off a cruel and dishonorable death, and is the badge of the Roman race and breed. Cling fast to [], I beg you men of Rome, as a heritage that your ancestors bequeathed to you. All else is false and doubtful, ephemeral and changeful: only stands firmly fixed, its roots run deep, it can never be shaken by any violence, never moved from its place." ==See also==