Плутарх - Plutarch's Lives - Volume I

II. Both were born statesmen, yet neither behaved himself as a king should do, but, from similar motives, the one erred on the side of democracy, the other on that of despotism. The first duty of a king is to preserve his crown; and this can be effected as well by refraining from improperly extending his rights as by too great eagerness to keep them. For he who either gives up or overstrains his prerogative ceases to be a king or constitutional ruler, but becomes either a despot or demagogue; and in the one case is feared, in the other despised by his subjects. Still the one is the result of kindliness of disposition, and the other that of selfishness and ferocity.

III. If we are not to attribute their misfortunes to chance, but to peculiarities of disposition, then we cannot acquit Romulus of blame in his treatment of his brother, nor Theseus in that of his son; but the greatest excuse must be made for the one who acted under the greatest provocation. One would not have thought that Romulus would have flown into such a passion during a grave deliberation on matters of state; while Theseus was misled, in his treatment of his son, by love and jealousy and a woman's slander, influences which few men are able to withstand. And what is more, Romulus's fury resulted in actual deeds of unfortunate result; whereas the anger of Theseus spent itself in words and an old man's curses, and the youth seems to have owed the rest of his suffering to chance; so here, at any rate, one would give one's vote for Theseus.

IV. Romulus, however, has the credit of having started with the most slender resources, and yet of having succeeded. The twins were called slaves and the sons of a swineherd before they achieved their liberty; yet they freed nearly all the Latin race, and at one and the same time gained those titles which are the most glorious among men, of slayers of their enemies, preservers of their own house, kings of their own nation, and founders of a new city, not by transferring the population of old ones, as Theseus did, when he brought together many towns into one, and destroyed many cities that bore the names of kings and heroes of old. Romulus did this afterwards, when he compelled his conquered enemies to cast down and obliterate their own dwellings, and become fellow–citizens with their conquerors; yet at first he did not change the site of his city nor increase it, but starting with nothing to help him, he obtained for himself territory, patrimony, sovereignty, family, marriage, and relatives, and he killed no one, but conferred great benefits on those who, instead of homeless vagrants, wished to become a people and inhabitants of a city. He slew no brigands or robbers, but he conquered kingdoms, took cities, and triumphed over kings and princes.

V. As for the misfortune of Remus, it seems doubtful whether Romulus slew him with his own hand, as most writers attribute the act to others. He certainly rescued his mother from death, and gloriously replaced his grandfather, whom he found in an ignoble and servile position, on the throne of Aeneas. He did him many kindnesses, and never harmed him even against his will. But I can scarcely imagine that Theseus's forgetfulness and carelessness in hoisting the black sail can, by any excuses or before the mildest judges, come much short of parricide: indeed, an Athenian, seeing how hard it is even for his admirers to exculpate him, has made up a story that Aegeus, when the ship was approaching, hurriedly ran up to the acropolis to view it, and fell down, as though he were unattended, or would hurry along the road to the shore without servants.

VI. The crimes of Theseus in carrying off women are without any decent excuse; first, because he did it so often, for he carried off Ariadne and Antiope and Anaxo of Troezen, and above all when he was an old man he carried off Helen, when she was not yet grown up, and a mere child, though he was past the age for even legitimate marriage. Besides, there was no reason for it, for these Troezenian, Laconian, and Amazonian maidens, besides their not being betrothed to him, were no worthier mothers for his children than the Athenian daughters of Erechtheus and Kekrops would have been, so we must suspect that these acts were done out of mere riotous wantonness.

Now Romulus, though he carried off nearly eight hundred women, yet kept only one, Hersilia, for himself, and distributed the others among the unmarried citizens; and afterwards, by the respect, love, and justice with which he treated them, proved that his wrongful violence was the most admirable and politic contrivance for effecting the union of the two nations. By means of it he welded them into one, and made it the starting–point of harmony at home and strength abroad. The dignity, love, and permanence with which he invested the institution of marriage is proved by the fact that during two hundred and thirty years no man separated from his wife or woman from her husband; but, just as in Greece, very exact persons can mention the first instance of parricide or matricide, so all the Romans know that Spurius Carvilius was the first who put away his wife, upon a charge of barrenness. Events also testify to the superior wisdom of Romulus, for, in consequence of that intermarriage, the two kings and the two races shared the empire, whereas, from the marriage of Theseus, the Athenians obtained no alliance or intercourse with any nation, but only hatreds and wars and deaths of citizens and at last the destruction of Aphidnae, and they themselves escaped from the fate which Paris brought upon Troy, only by the mercy of their enemies and their own entreaties and supplications. The mother of Theseus, not nearly but quite, suffered the fate of Hekuba, who was abandoned and given up by her son, unless the story of her captivity is false, as I hope it is, together with much of the rest.

Also the religious part of their histories makes a great distinction between them. For Romulus's success was due to the great favour of Heaven, whereas the oracle given to Aegeus, to refrain from all women in foreign parts, seems to argue that the birth of Theseus took place contrary to the will of the gods.

I. With regard to Lykurgus the lawgiver there is nothing whatever that is undisputed; as his birth, his travels, his death, and, besides all this, his legislation, have all been related in various ways; and also the dates of his birth do not in any way accord. Some say that he was contemporary with Iphitus, and with him settled the conditions of the Olympic truce; and among these is Aristotle the philosopher, who adduces as a proof of it the quoit which is at Olympia, on which the name of Lykurgus is still preserved. Others, among them Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, by computing the reigns of the kings of Sparta, [12] In the Spartan constitution there were two kings, who were believed to be descended from two brothers, Eurysthenes and Prokles, the two sons of Aristodemus. When the descendants of Herakles returned to Peloponnesus, and divided that country amongst them, Lacedaemon fell to the lot of Aristodemus, who left his two sons joint heirs to the monarchy. The kings of Sparta had little real power, and to this no doubt they owed the fact of their retaining their dignity when every other Hellenic state adopted a democratic form of government. prove that he must have lived many years before the first Olympiad. Timaeus conjectures that there were two men of the name of Lykurgus in Sparta at different times, and that the deeds of both are attributed to one of them, on account of his celebrity. The elder, he thinks, must have lived not far off the time of Homer; indeed some say that he came into the presence of Homer. Xenophon gives an idea of his antiquity when he speaks of him as living in the time of the Herakleidae. By descent of course the last kings of Sparta are Herakleidae, but he appears to mean by Herakleidae the earliest of all, who were next to Herakles himself.