‘Virtus’ is a Latin word built from the root ‘vir’ which means ‘man’, as is in the English word ‘virile’. The Romans used virtus as an ascription to one's “manly excellence’, courage, and worth as shown in public life,” as per etymology.life. It was like a sort of honor that anyone from a citizen to a soldier to an official could acquire through combat or other trials and tribulations. The virtus was a power, or sort of moral authority. Though the English word virtue is closest sounding to its Latin forefather, it also has its roots in the Greek word “aretē”.

Per philopedia.org, aretē in archaic Greek was representative of people, animals, or even things fulfilling their function excellently – though usually this was aimed towards warriors. My homie Socrates treated aretē as combinations of knowledge (derived from courage, justice, temperance, and piety), which would lend the knower to living an excellent life. The Roman philosopher Cicero was one of those who combined the ideas of Greek aretē: ‘fulfilled and functional, knowledgeable excellence’ and (his country’s) Latin virtus: ‘manliness, valor, courage, moral excellence, and civic duty.’

Late Roman Empire Christian theologians and those who followed, like Augustine of Hippo, further added to virtus: “Virtue is a good habit consonant with our nature." He and his peers added more meanings to the word: humility, charity, peace, and mercy. Old French grabbed the word and changed it to virtu, which was embodied in knightly romance literature (like stories of King Arthur). Virtu then also held in it: the chivalric code, fidelity, purity, and ‘noble’ conduct.

The Greek word aretē was first recorded in Homer’s Iliad in the 8th century B.C.E. However, the Iliad was an oral tradition for hundreds of years, and it was a developed enough word with many nuances that it likely had existed for many hundreds of years prior. Likely born from the even more ancient word ‘aristos’, defined as the "best” – by the time the English had truly inherited the word it had spanned from before two thousand B.C.E. until today, collecting four thousand years of additional meaning and weight (the English themselves also used virtue as a way to describe the potency of herbs and such, which is where we get the phrase ‘by way of the virtue of’ etc.)

So today if a man is described as a ‘man of virtue’, or if a man seems to be virtuous, he is being described as having or seeking most, if not all of the following: purity of desire and thought, courage in the face of danger or tyranny, valor in combat, charity towards the weak or mislead, fidelity with one’s spouse, knowledge of his own body (and of justice, piety, temperance), and well suited to handling his body’s functions, of conduct which could be considered noble, that he is just himself, merciful and is morally excellent with a civic mind  – and from not just one bit of it, but having all of it – he is granted a moral or social authority, or standing. 

He is a man of virtue, embodying four thousand years of the human pursuit for what the ‘ideal’ man is made of. It is not wealth or business savvy, nor looks or conversational renown; it is not needed to be quick with jokes, nor does a virtuous man go around insulting others. If someone said something like,

“John McCain’s not a war hero… I like people who weren’t captured.”

That would mean the speaker is disregarding John McCain’s courage and valor. Or if someone said, “I know more about ISIS than generals do.”

If said by somebody who was not inside ISIS’s organization, that would be a statement made without humility. 

The following would be a statement spoken without a thought for charity or conduct that could be considered noble, “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” 

It would not be of good temperance or morally excellent to say, “While @BetteMidler is an extremely unattractive woman, I refuse to say that because I always insist on being politically correct.” 

Similarly, without moral excellence, “@ariannahuff is attractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man- he made a good decision.” 

When we imagine what a virtuous man looks like, he is not degrading others, grandstanding, or otherwise peacocking, but humble, courageous, and able to control himself. I would make the claim that a virtuous man would not say the aforementioned, and that one should reflect this voting season on politicians who do, in some way, embody the virtuous human.

Austin Petak is an aspiring novelist and freelance journalist who loves seeking stories and the quiet passions of the soul. If you are interested in reaching out to him to cover a story, you may find him at austinpetak@gmail.com.

Opinions expressed by columnists in The Daily Record are not necessarily those of its management or staff, and do not constitute an endorsement or recommendation. Any errors or omissions should be called to our attention so that they may be corrected. Contact us at news@omahadailyrecord.com.