Theseus and Romulus in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives: A Comparative Analysis

Framing history and myth in balance

AI-generated picture by Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano in December 2025

Introductory Note to the Reader

In Parallel Lives, Plutarch does not simply recount heroic legends; he reshapes them. Theseus is deliberately demystified and presented as a fallible human figure, while Romulus remains suspended between history and legend, particularly in the unresolved question of his brother’s death.

Though markedly different in character and leadership, both figures bear the imprint of power, an influence that elevates them while exposing their moral limits. This comparison invites readers to reflect on how authority shapes individuals and how founding figures are remembered, questioned, or transformed by the societies they create.

Theseus and Romulus in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives: A Comparative Analysis

Abstract

This paper examines Plutarch’s comparative treatment of Theseus and Romulus in Parallel Lives, focusing on how myth, history, and moral evaluation intersect in the portrayal of political founders. Plutarch demystifies Theseus, presenting him as a historical agent shaped by rational civic ambition as well as personal excess. Romulus, by contrast, remains ambiguously positioned between legend and history, particularly in the unresolved question of Remus’ death. Through a comparative analysis of founding motives, violence, gender relations, governance, and posthumous memory, this study argues that Plutarch uses these figures to explore the ethical tensions inherent in political power. Ultimately, the comparison reveals Plutarch’s concern with how authority transforms character and how societies retrospectively construct moral meaning around their origins.

Keywords:

Plutarch, Theseus, Romulus, Political Power, Founding Myths, Moral Biography

Resumen

Este trabajo analiza el tratamiento comparativo que Plutarco hace de Teseo y Rómulo en Vidas paralelas, poniendo atención a la manera en que mito, historia y evaluación moral se entrelazan en la representación de los fundadores políticos. Plutarco desmitifica a Teseo y lo presenta como un agente histórico marcado tanto por su proyecto cívico racional como por sus excesos personales. Rómulo, en cambio, permanece en una zona ambigua entre la leyenda y la historia, especialmente en lo relativo a la muerte de su hermano Remo. A través del análisis de los motivos fundacionales, el uso de la violencia, las relaciones de género, el ejercicio del poder y la memoria póstuma, este estudio sostiene que Plutarco utiliza la comparación para examinar las tensiones éticas inherentes al poder político. En última instancia, la comparación revela la preocupación de Plutarco por el modo en que la autoridad transforma al individuo y cómo las sociedades construyen retrospectivamente el significado moral de sus orígenes.

Resumo

Este artigo examina o tratamento comparativo de Teseu e Rômulo em Vidas Paralelas de Plutarco, com foco na interseção entre mito, história e avaliação moral na representação de fundadores políticos. Plutarco desmistifica Teseu, apresentando-o como um agente histórico marcado tanto por um projeto cívico racional quanto por excessos pessoais. Rômulo, por sua vez, permanece numa posição ambígua entre lenda e história, especialmente no que diz respeito à morte de seu irmão Remo. Por meio da análise dos motivos fundacionais, da violência, das relações de gênero, do exercício do poder e da memória póstuma, o estudo argumenta que Plutarco utiliza essa comparação para explorar as tensões éticas inerentes ao poder político. Em última análise, a comparação evidencia a preocupação de Plutarco com o impacto da autoridade sobre o caráter e com a forma como as sociedades constroem retrospectivamente o significado moral de suas origens.

Introduction

In The Life of Noble Grecians and Romans, Plutarch places Theseus and Romulus side-by-side as founding figures whose political and moral trajectories shaped Athens and Rome. While modern scholars often debate the historical foundations of these characters, Plutarch intentionally treats them as semi-historical rather than purely mythical, focusing on leadership, moral conduct, institutional creation, and civic identity. This essay explores Plutarch’s explicit comparisons between Theseus and Romulus and expands the discussion by identifying additional areas beyond those Plutarch foregrounds, where parallels and contrasts illuminate ancient conceptions of political virtue. Two comparative charts support the analysis.

Comparative Chart 1:

Plutarch’s Explicit Comparisons of Theseus and Romulus

Plutarch directly compares the lives of Theseus and Romulus at the end of the two biographies. Key points are summarized below.

Area of Comparison	Theseus (Plutarch)	Romulus (Plutarch)
Motivation for Founding a City	Moved by rational judgment; united scattered communities “as if gathering them into one dwelling” (Theseus, 24).	Driven by necessity and survival after escape from Amulius; he founds Rome “in a spirit of daring and self-reliance” (Romulus, 9).
Relations with Women	The taking of Antiope and later treatment of Helen are criticized; “he committed many acts of violence upon women” (Theseus, 31).	The Rape of the Sabines justified politically: “it was not love but the want of women which drove them” (Romulus, 14).
Rule and Governance	Transformed Athens from monarchy to mixed government, “resigning much of his authority” (Theseus, 25).	Maintained kingship, centralizing power; yet instituted the Senate as advisory body (Romulus, 12).
Death and Legacy	Dies in exile; Athenians honor him later but did not support him at the end.	Vanishes mysteriously; later worshipped as Quirinus (Romulus, 27).
Moral Evaluation	Praised for unification but criticized for arrogance and reckless passions.	Criticized for fratricide; praised for political insight and military genius.

Plutarch’s comparisons revolve around political motivations, treatment of women, governance, moral character, and legacy. These elements underpin his effort to show that virtuous leadership is a complex and contested space shaped by both personal character and historical circumstances.

Expanding the Comparison:

Additional Areas Based on Plutarch’s Narrative

Beyond Plutarch’s explicit parallel section, his detailed narratives allow for further comparative categories relevant to political ethics and civic foundations.

Comparative Chart 2:

Additional Areas of Comparison Suggested by Plutarch

Area of Comparison	Theseus	Romulus
Relationship with Violence	Often acts impulsively; kills bandits individually, symbolizing moral purification of Attica.	Violence is institutional: city defense, military organization, territorial expansion.
Use of Myth to Legitimize Power	Claims descent from Poseidon; uses heroic deeds to build reputation.	Claims divine paternity through Mars; uses omens such as the vultures to justify kingship.
Interaction with Foreigners	Integrates outsiders; Athens becomes cosmopolitan.	Distrustful; early Rome cautious about granting citizenship.
Civic Identity Formation	Establishes Panathenaic festival; fosters shared Athenian identity.	Creates Roman tribes and military units, embedding identity in discipline.
Handling of Internal Dissent	His later years show tension with the Athenian aristocracy leading to exile.	Conflict with Remus and later with senators; ultimately disappears amid political division.

These additional areas underscore how Theseus and Romulus serve as prototypes of different political ideals: Athenian openness and syncretism versus Roman discipline and militaristic identity.

Analysis and Scholarly Context

Plutarch’s comparative method emerges from his broader philosophical conviction that biography is a moral instrument rather than a purely historical enterprise. His aim is not to chronicle events with annalistic precision but to examine character, intention, and moral disposition. As Duff (2011) observes, Plutarch “uses parallels to cultivate reflection on virtue and vice, rather than to assert historical equivalence.” This means that the comparison between Theseus and Romulus is constructed deliberately, not because the two founders share identical historical circumstances, but because their lives serve as contrasting models for thinking about leadership, civic foundations, and moral decision-making. It can be supposed that Plutarch expects his readers to engage in ethical introspection, using these figures as mirrors through which one sees the tensions between ambition and restraint, violence and justice, or destiny and choice.

Thus, his comparison operates on two levels: (1) as a reflection on the origins of two iconic cities, Athens and Rome, and (2) as an inquiry into how leaders embody (or fail to embody) the philosophical virtues central to political life. Plutarch’s text therefore becomes a space where historical narrative, philosophical reflection, and cultural identity intersect.

Founding a City: Rationality vs. Necessity

The founding narratives in Plutarch’s Theseus and Romulus encapsulate divergent models of political legitimacy. Theseus emerges as an intentional founder whose project is intellectual and civic rather than merely strategic. Plutarch emphasizes that Theseus “delivered the people from their dispersed way of life” (Theseus 24), portraying him as an architect of social cohesion. His synoecism, unifying scattered Attic communities into a single political entity, reflects a belief in consensus, rational planning, and civic harmony. Scholars often point out that Theseus’ synoecism mirrors Plutarch’s own admiration for constitutional balance (Pelling, 2002). In this view, Theseus’ greatness emerges not from conquest but from persuasion and institution-building.

Romulus, in contrast, founds Rome under the pressure of exile and necessity. His founding act is depicted less as a rational civic project and more as the result of survival, divine signs, and boldness. Plutarch states that Romulus, after escaping his usurping uncle Amulius, established Rome “in a spirit of daring and self-reliance” (Romulus 9). This founding moment emphasizes heroism over deliberation. Pelling (2002) observes that Plutarch frequently “contrasts logos and bia—reason and force—when evaluating political origins,” and this contrast is unmistakable: Theseus exemplifies rational political synthesis, while Romulus embodies a heroic, necessity-driven creation.

The distinction has moral implications. For Plutarch, political legitimacy grounded in rational persuasion carries moral superiority over legitimacy derived from personal need or martial prowess. By contrasting these two models, Plutarch invites readers to reflect on the ethical foundations of political communities themselves. Athens symbolizes rational civic unity; Rome symbolizes courageous self-assertion under pressure.

Violence and Moral Ambiguity

Violence is another crucial dimension in which Plutarch probes the nature of leadership. Both founders engage in acts of violence, yet the character and moral framing of that violence diverge sharply. Theseus’ violence is episodic and individualized. His slaying of Periphetes, Sinis, Sciron, and Procrustes is portrayed not merely as heroic adventure but as symbolic cleansing. Plutarch suggests that Theseus’ deeds remove corruption from the roadways, allowing civilization to flourish. His violence thus has a purgative and moralizing quality: he eliminates predators who threaten the safety of others. This allows Plutarch to frame Theseus’ brutality as part of a larger moral narrative of order overcoming chaos.

Romulus, however, engages in systemic and political violence. The fratricide, Romulus killing Remus, is the most morally troubling act in the Roman founder’s biography. Plutarch treats it with discomfort, noting that Romulus “was not altogether free from blame” (Romulus 10). After this act, Romulus’ violence becomes institutional: he organizes Rome’s military, wages war against neighboring peoples, and expands Roman territory. Whereas Theseus’ violence is retaliatory or restorative, Romulus’ is constitutive; it shapes the structure, identity, and destiny of Rome.

According to Whitmarsh (2015), Plutarch uses violence “as a lens through which the ethics of power are interrogated.” The contrast between individual moral purification (Theseus) and collective political formation (Romulus) illustrates two fundamentally different uses of force: one aiming to restore justice, the other establishing political dominance. Plutarch does not allow either figure to escape scrutiny but positions their violent actions within a broader ethical framework that asks readers to consider when, if ever, violence is justified in political life.

Women as Political Catalysts

Plutarch’s treatment of women in both biographies reveals his sensitivity to gender as a political issue, even within the constraints of ancient norms where women were not equal to men. Theseus’ relationships with women, Ariadne, Antiope, and Helen, punctuate his narrative and complicate his moral standing. Plutarch comments that “his errors were those of youth and love” (Theseus 31), a phrase that softens Theseus’ guilt while simultaneously acknowledging his failings. His impulsive actions toward women introduce moral tension into his life: his abduction of Antiope leads to external conflict, and his abandonment of Ariadne signals emotional instability.

For Romulus, Plutarch frames the Rape of the Sabines as a civic necessity rather than personal desire: “it was not love but the want of women which drove them” (Romulus 14). This justification highlights the idea that Roman expansion, both demographic and territorial, is built upon acts of violence that the narrative retroactively rationalizes. Kaplan (2010) argues that Plutarch subtly critiques the patriarchal assumptions underlying such myths. Though he does not openly condemn Theseus or Romulus, he positions their treatment of women as morally ambiguous, inviting readers to consider the ethical tensions between personal conduct and political ambition. Women thus function not simply as narrative accessories but as catalysts for broader political transformations, and as moral indicators by which the founders can be judged.

Legacy and the Politics of Memory

Perhaps the most striking contrast lies in their deaths and subsequent commemoration. Plutarch’s depiction of Theseus’ final years is tragic: he dies in exile, abandoned by the very people he once unified. Only later do the Athenians recover his relics and honor him as a hero. This posthumous rehabilitation reveals, as Mossman (1992) notes, Plutarch’s awareness of the “malleability of historical memory.” A community may reject a leader in life yet idealize him in retrospect.

Romulus, conversely, vanishes mysteriously amid a storm, and the Romans promptly deify him as Quirinus. This divine metamorphosis reflects Rome’s propensity for constructing mythic foundations that sanctify political authority. Plutarch subtly suggests that Romulus’ divinization compensates for moral ambiguity, including fratricide, by recasting him as a god whose flaws are overshadowed by Rome’s greatness.

Both founders’ legacies expose Plutarch’s interest in how societies rationalize, reinterpret, or mythologize political origins. In comparing Theseus and Romulus, Plutarch illuminates the ways in which civic identity depends not only on the deeds themselves but on the stories communities choose to tell about those deeds.

Conclusion: Why Did Plutarch Compare Theseus and Romulus?

It can be supposed that Plutarch’s decision to parallel Theseus and Romulus reflects his broader pedagogical aim: illustrating how leaders combine virtue, ambition, error, and fate. By pairing the founders of Athens and Rome, he invites readers to reflect on political beginnings not as fixed truths but as ethical narratives.

Plutarch likely believed these comparisons offered several benefits:

Moral Instruction:

Juxtaposing their choices highlights universal lessons about leadership, restraint, and ambition.

Cultural Dialogue:

Athens and Rome were cultural pillars of the Mediterranean world; comparing their founders symbolized a dialogue between Greek and Roman values.

Examination of Power:

Through these biographies, Plutarch explores how power is established, legitimized, and remembered.

Most importantly, Plutarch seems to suggest that greatness is inseparable from moral complexity. By comparing Theseus and Romulus, he teaches that political beginnings are always ethically ambiguous, shaped by both noble intentions and human flaws.

📚 References

Duff, T. (2011). Plutarch’s Lives: Exploring virtue and vice in biography. Oxford University Press. https://www.academia.edu/458221/Plutarchs_Lives_exploring_virtue_and_vice

Kaplan, D. (2010). Women in the foundation myths of Greece and Rome. Classical Journal, 105(3), 241–263. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3288346.pdf

Mossman, J. (1992). Plutarch’s characterization techniques. Greece & Rome, 39(1), 23–31.

Pelling, C. (2002). Plutarch and history: Ancient lives and modern experience. Duckworth. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:f8490d2b-548a-4452-a63a-3c4e8987e6d1

Plutarch. (1914). Plutarch’s Lives (B. Perrin, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published ca. 100 CE).

Whitmarsh, T. (2015). Narrative and Identity in the Ancient Greek Novel. Cambridge University Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287832363_Narrative_and_identity_in_the_ancient_Greek_novel_Returning_romance