Nepos’ Biographical
Purpose and Methods

Jeffrey S. Beneker (University of Wisconsin, Madison)

In his introduction to Nepos’ Atticus, Nicholas Horsfall writes that the book’s hero would not have cared for the ‘insistent didactic morality of his biographer,’ but he also suspects that Atticus would have forgiven his friend’s naïveté (1989, 13). Carlotta Dionisotti, however, has argued that behind the simple moralizing of the Lives of the Foreign Generals lies pointed commentary on contemporary Roman politics (1988). In this paper I will show that Nepos’ moralizing, whether naïve or perceptive, is the result of a conscious attempt to grapple with a basic problem of ancient biography: how to present the life of a historical figure in a way that does not merely transmit his res gestae but elucidates his character. Comparison to Plutarch and Suetonius will reveal a similar recognition of the problem, although, I will argue, their resolutions and purposes were not always the same as Nepos’.

Nepos famously comments on his aims in the preface to his book on foreign generals, where he urges that the actions of his subjects, if they appear strange, be judged by the standards of their foreign cultures rather than by the readers’ own moral values (Preface 1-3). His readers should not be offended when they learn, for example, that a great man played music or married his sister, since these deeds were accepted practice within their social contexts. Without offering justification, then, he establishes that he is writing about the mores of the generals, not simply their military exploits, and equally important, that he expects his readers to pass judgment on their behavior.

Both Nepos and Plutarch make a distinction between historical and biographical writing (Nep., Pel. 1; Plut., Alex. 1), and thus between the reporting of res gestae and the demonstration of mores, and Plutarch further states explicitly that he is presenting examples of good and bad moral behavior for his readers to emulate or avoid (Tim. 1, Demetr. 1). It has been argued based on comparison with Plutarch that Nepos had the same goal (Titchener 2003, 86-7). While Nepos’ project may well have influenced Plutarch (Geiger 1988), the two biographers did not necessarily write within a static genre. Nepos stood in the tradition of Roman prosopographical writing (cf. Momigliano 1993², 97-99; Toher 2002, 140) and, I will argue, was most interested in illustrating virtues that could be appreciated and praised by society as a whole. Plutarch, taking a more philosophical tack, was encouraging the personal ethical development of his readers. Comparison with Suetonius reveals a purpose more similar to Nepos’ than to Plutarch’s, but also an innovative approach to the structure of his narrative (cf. Wallace-Hadrill 1983, 8-15).