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.
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.
Furthermore, the transgressions of Theseus in his rapes of women admit of no plausible excuse. This is true, first, because there were so many; for he carried off Ariadne, Antiope, Anaxo of Troezen, and at last Helen, when he was past his prime and she had not reached her prime, but was an unripe child, while he was already of an age too great for even lawful wedlock. It is true, secondly, because of the reason for them; for the daughters of Troezenians and Laconians and Amazons were not betrothed to him, and were no worthier, surely, to be the mothers of his children than the daughters of Erechtheus and Cecrops at Athens.
But one may suspect that these deeds of his were done in lustful wantonness. Romulus, on the other hand, in the first place, although he carried off nearly eight hundred women, took them not all to wife, but only one, as they say, Hersilia, and distributed the rest among the best of the citizens. And in the second place, by the subsequent honour, love, and righteous treatment given to these women, he made it clear that his deed of violence and injustice was a most honourable achievement, and one most adapted to promote political partnership.