|
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:
|
1. |
Moral Instruction:
|
Juxtaposing their choices highlights universal
lessons about leadership, restraint, and ambition. |
|
2. |
Cultural Dialogue:
|
Athens and Rome were cultural pillars of the
Mediterranean world; comparing their founders symbolized a dialogue between
Greek and Roman values. |
|
3. |
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
Handout
Post 508 - Reader's Handout by Jonathan Acuña
Theseus and Romulus in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives - A Comparative Analysis by Jonathan Acuña
Listen to the podcast version of this article!
If the Google Drive player doesn’t load, please refresh the page.
You can also listen in your favorite podcast app: simply copy the link below and paste it into your podcast app to enjoy a conversation about the ideas explored in this blog post.
https://podpod.me/rss/1worOGGkLrw1Z.rss
No comments:
Post a Comment