The character of Hannibal, as drawn by Livy, [Footnote:  Lib. xxi. cap. 4] is esteemed partial, but allows him many eminent virtues.  Never was there a genius, says the historian, more equally fitted for those opposite offices of commanding and obeying; and it were, therefore, difficult to determine whether he rendered himself dearer to the general or to the army.  To none would Hasdrubal entrust more willingly the conduct of any dangerous enterprize; under none did the soldiers discover more courage and confidence.  Great boldness in facing danger; great prudence in the midst of it.  No labour could fatigue his body or subdue his mind.  Cold and heat were indifferent to him:  meat and drink he sought as supplies to the necessities of nature, not as gratifications of his voluptuous appetites.  Waking or rest he used indiscriminately, by night or by day.—­These great Virtues were balanced by great Vices; inhuman cruelty; perfidy more than punic; no truth, no faith, no regard to oaths, promises, or religion.

The character of Alexander the Sixth, to be found in Guicciardin, [Footnote:  Lib. i.] is pretty similar, but juster; and is a proof that even the moderns, where they speak naturally, hold the same language with the ancients.  In this pope, says he, there was a singular capacity and judgement:  admirable prudence; a wonderful talent of persuasion; and in all momentous enterprizes a diligence and dexterity incredible.  But these virtues were infinitely overbalanced by his vices; no faith, no religion, insatiable avarice, exorbitant ambition, and a more than barbarous cruelty.

Polybius, [Footnote:  Lib. xii.] reprehending Timaeus for his partiality against Agathocles, whom he himself allows to be the most cruel and impious of all tyrants, says:  if he took refuge in Syracuse, as asserted by that historian, flying the dirt and smoke and toil of his former profession of a potter; and if proceeding from such slender beginnings, he became master, in a little time, of all Sicily; brought the Carthaginian state into the utmost danger; and at last died in old age, and in possession of sovereign dignity:  must he not be allowed something prodigious and extraordinary, and to have possessed great talents and capacity for business and action?  His historian, therefore, ought not to have alone related what tended to his reproach and infamy; but also what might redound to his Praise and Honour.

In general, we may observe, that the distinction of voluntary or involuntary was little regarded by the ancients in their moral reasonings; where they frequently treated the question as very doubtful, whether virtue could be taught or not [Vid.  Plato in Menone, Seneca de otio sap. cap. 31.  So also Horace, Virtutem doctrina paret, naturane donet, Epist. lib.  I. ep. 18.  Aeschines Socraticus, Dial.  I.]?  They justly considered that cowardice, meanness, levity, anxiety, impatience, folly, and many other qualities of the mind, might appear ridiculous and deformed, contemptible and odious, though independent of the will.  Nor could it be supposed, at all times, in every man’s power to attain every kind of mental more than of exterior beauty.