Comparison of Lycurgus and Numa

Plutarch

Plutarch. Plutarch's Lives, Vol. I. Perrin, Bernadotte, translator. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1914.

Further, the practice of the two peoples in the matter of giving their young maids in marriage conforms to their education of them in general. Lycurgus made them brides only when they were fully ripe and eager for it, in order that intercourse with a husband, coming at a time when nature craved it, might produce a kindly love, instead of the timorous hate that follows unnatural compulsion; also that their bodies might be vigorous enough to endure the strain of conception and child-birth, convinced as he was that marriage had no other end than the production of children. The Romans, on the other hand, gave their maidens in marriage when they were twelve years old, or even younger. In this way more than any other, it was thought, both their bodies and their dispositions would be pure and undefiled when their husbands took control of them.

It is clear, therefore, that one practice regarded nature more, with children in view; the other regarded more the formation of character, with married life in view.

But surely, by his careful attention to boys, by their collection into companies, their discipline and constant association, and by his painstaking arrangements for their meals and bodily exercise and sports, Lycurgus proves that Numa was no more than an ordinary lawgiver. For Numa left the bringing up of youths to the wishes or necessities of their fathers.

A father might, if he wished, make his son a tiller of the soil, or a shipwright, or might teach him to be a smith or a flute-player, as if it were not important that all of them should be trained with one and the same end in view from the outset, and have their dispositions formed alike; but rather as if they were like passengers on a ship, each coming with a different object and purpose, and each therefore uniting with the rest for the common good only in times of peril, through fear of private loss, but otherwise consulting only his own interests.

Now, it is not worth while to censure the common run of legislators, who fail through ignorance or weakness. But when a wise man had consented to be king over a people newly constituted and pliant to his every wish, what should have been his first care, unless it was the rearing of boys and the training of youths so that there might be no confusing differences in their characters, but that they might be moulded and fashioned from the very outset so as to walk harmoniously together in the same path of virtue?

This, indeed, was what helped Lycurgus to secure, among other things, the stability and permanence of his laws. The Spartans took oaths to maintain these laws, it is true, but this would have availed little had he not, by means of his training and education of the boys, infused his laws, as it were, into their characters, and made the emulous love of his government an integral part of their rearing. The result was that for more than five hundred years the sovereign and fundamental features of his legislation remained in force, like a strong and penetrating dye.

But that which was the end and aim of Numa’s government, namely, the continuance of peace and friendship between Rome and other nations, straightway vanished from the earth with him. After his death the double doors of the temple[*](Cf. Numa, xx. 1. ) which he had kept continuously closed, as if he really had war caged and confined there, were thrown wide open, and Italy was filled with the blood of the slain. Thus not even for a little time did the beautiful edifice of justice which he had reared remain standing, because it lacked the cement of education.

What, then! some one will say, was not Rome advanced and bettered by her wars? That is a question which will need a long answer, if I am to satisfy men who hold that betterment consists in wealth, luxury and empire, rather than in safety, gentleness, and that independence which is attended by righteousness. However, it will be thought, I suppose, to favour the superior claims of Lycurgus, that, whereas the Romans increased in power as they did after abandoning the institutions of Numa’s time,

the Lacedaemonians, on the other hand, just as soon as they forsook the precepts of Lycurgus, sank from the highest to the lowest place, lost their supremacy over the Greeks, and were in danger of utter destruction. Nevertheless, this remains a great feature in Numa’s career, and one really divine, that he was a stranger, and yet was summoned to the throne, where he changed the whole nature of the state by force of persuasion alone, and mastered a city which was not yet in sympathy with his views; and that he accomplished this without appeal to arms or any violence (unlike Lycurgus, who led the nobles in arms against the commons), but by his wisdom and justice won the hearts of all the citizens and brought them into harmony.