Comparison of Theseus and Romulus

Plutarch

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

For since the difference between Romulus and his brother arose from a deliberate investigation of the common welfare, there could have been no good reason for his flying into such a passion; while Theseus was impelled to wrong his son by love, jealousy, and a woman’s slanders, the overmastering power of which very few men have escaped. And what is of greater weight, the anger of Romulus vented itself in action and a deed of most unfortunate issue; whereas the wrath of Theseus got no farther than words of abuse and an old man’s curse, and the rest of the youth’s calamities seem to have been due to fortune. On these counts, therefore, one would give his vote of preference to Theseus.

But Romulus has, in the first place, this great superiority, that he rose to eminence from the smallest beginnings. For he and his brother were reputed to be slaves and sons of swineherds, and yet they not only made themselves free, but freed first almost all the Latins, enjoying at one and the same time such most honourable titles as slayers of their foes, saviours of their kindred and friends, kings of races and peoples, founders of cities; not transplanters, as Theseus was, who put together and consolidated one dwelling-place out of many, but demolished many cities bearing the names of ancient kings and heroes.

Romulus, it is true, did this later, compelling his enemies to tear down and obliterate their dwellings and enrol themselves among their conquerors; but at first, not by removing or enlarging a city which already existed, but by creating one from nothing, and by acquiring for himself at once territory, country, kingdom, clans, marriages and relationships, he ruined no one and killed no one, but was a benefactor of men without homes and hearths, who wished instead to be a people and citizens of a common city. Robbers and miscreants, it is true, he did not slay, but he subdued nations in war, laid cities low, and triumphed over kings and commanders.

Besides, there is dispute as to who actually slew Remus, and most of the blame for the deed is put upon others than Romulus; but Romulus did unquestionably save his mother from destruction, and he set his grandfather, who was living in inglorious and dishonourable subjection upon the throne of Aeneas. Moreover, he did him many favours of his own accord, and did him no harm not even inadvertently.

Theseus, on the contrary, for his forgetfulness and neglect of the command about the sail, can hardly, I think, escape the charge of parricide, be the plea of his advocate ever so long and his judges ever so lenient. Indeed, a certain Attic writer, conscious that would-be defenders of Theseus have a difficult task, feigns that Aegeus, on the approach of the ship, ran up to the acropolis in his eagerness to catch sight of her, and stumbled and fell down the cliff; as though he were without a retinue, or was hurrying down to the sea without any servants.