Historical and Comparative Sources: Plutarch and Livy

Two ways of judging a city’s origins

Theseus and Romulus were remembered as founding figures of Athens and Rome. Stories about them explained more than how cities began: they explored what made a good leader, how communities formed and whether the gods supported their founders.

Plutarch and Livy approach these traditions differently. Plutarch, a Greek author who lived approximately AD 46–122, pairs Greek and Roman lives in The Parallel Lives. His Comparison of Theseus and Romulus weighs the founders’ characters rather than simply retelling their adventures. Livy, a Roman historian who lived from 59 BC to AD 17, places Rome’s foundation within a longer history extending back to Troy. The prescribed selections from his The Early History of Rome are 1.0–1.1, 1.3.7–1.4 and 1.6.3–1.7.3.

Both wrote long after the legendary events. Their accounts are particularly useful for understanding how ancient writers interpreted myths and used them to teach values, not as eyewitness evidence for the founders’ lives.

Plutarch: courage chosen or courage forced upon someone?

In Chapter 1, Plutarch begins with motivation. Theseus could have remained safely at Troezen and inherited power, but voluntarily pursued great achievements. Romulus, by contrast, faced slavery and threatened punishment. Plutarch argues that necessity and fear drove him to bravery.

The comparison turns on the difference between helping others freely and fighting because one’s own safety is threatened. Theseus could have reached Athens safely by sea. Instead, he confronted Sciron, Sinis, Procrustes and Corynetes, whom Plutarch describes as terrible tyrants, before the people he rescued even knew who he was. Romulus and Remus challenged Amulius, the tyrant of Alba, only once they themselves had suffered. Plutarch therefore presents Theseus’ actions as more selfless.

He also matches military achievements. Romulus’ fighting against the Sabines, destruction of Acron and victories over enemies can be compared with Theseus’ battles against the Centaurs and Amazons. This prevents military success alone from deciding which hero was greater.

Theseus’ voluntary participation in the Cretan tribute receives especially strong praise. He sailed with the young women and men sent to Crete. Plutarch gives several versions of the danger: becoming food for a wild beast, a sacrificial victim at the tomb of Androgeus, or an enslaved servant of hostile men. Whatever the version, Theseus willingly risked himself for the common people. Plutarch praises his courage, justice and desire for honour and excellence.

Ariadne’s love then becomes part of the moral and religious argument. Plutarch interprets it as a god’s plan to save Theseus. He praises her attraction to honour and goodness rather than blaming her for loving him. Divine assistance appears to recognise the hero’s worth.

Leadership and anger: neither founder is faultless

Chapter 2 judges the founders as rulers. Both possessed statesmanlike abilities, but neither maintained the proper balance of leadership. Theseus moved towards pleasing the people and surrendering control; Romulus towards tyranny and an excessively tight grip on power.

For Plutarch, a ruler should neither give away authority nor abuse it. The first extreme creates a demagogue, the second a despot, and both provoke hostility among the governed. Nevertheless, he distinguishes their motives: Theseus’ weakness arose from goodwill and an easy-going nature, whereas Romulus’ severity arose from selfishness. Similar political failures can therefore carry different moral weight.

Chapter 3 asks whether family disasters should be blamed on divine fate or on human character. Plutarch criticises Romulus’ irrational anger towards his brother and Theseus’ anger towards his son. He does not excuse either, but regards Theseus’ anger as more understandable because it arose from love, jealousy and a woman’s false accusations.

Romulus’ dispute concerned a proposal about the common good, so Plutarch finds less justification for his rage. He also contrasts its expression: Romulus’ anger became a destructive deed, whereas Theseus expressed his anger through words and curses. Plutarch suggests that fortune contributed to the son’s fate. On these criteria, he gives Theseus the advantage. This is a judgement about provocation and responsibility, not a claim that Theseus behaved well.

Romulus’ achievements as a founder and family member

Chapter 4 changes the criterion and makes a case for Romulus. He and Remus rose from extremely low beginnings: they were regarded as slaves and the children of swineherds. They became liberators, saviours of their family, kings and city founders.

Plutarch contrasts creating a new community with combining existing communities. Theseus brought settlements together into one dwelling-place, destroying the separate existence of cities associated with earlier kings and heroes. Romulus initially created a country, kingdom, people and families where these had not existed before. He provided a community and citizenship for homeless people in need.

Plutarch qualifies this praise. Romulus later forced defeated enemies to leave their homes and submit to their conquerors. His favourable description of the initial foundation does not mean that Rome’s subsequent growth was peaceful. Although Romulus did not match Theseus as a destroyer of individual villains, he conquered peoples, cities, kings and commanders.

Chapter 5 compares their treatment of their families. Plutarch acknowledges disagreement about who caused Remus’ death, with much blame assigned to others. He praises Romulus for saving his mother and restoring his grandfather to the ancestral throne, then continuing to help him without causing harm.

Theseus receives the opposite judgement over Aegeus’ death. He neglected the instruction concerning the sail on his returning ship. Plutarch considers this negligence so serious that Theseus could barely escape an accusation of parricide. He rejects an alternative explanation in which Aegeus hurried to the Acropolis, tripped and fell: he finds it implausible that Aegeus would have had no attendants. Here, Plutarch challenges a tradition which would protect Theseus from blame.

Women, marriage and the consequences for a community

Chapter 6 is the strongest sustained argument in Romulus’ favour. Plutarch condemns Theseus’ abduction and sexual violence against women, naming Ariadne, Antiope, Anaxo of Troezen and Helen. Helen’s childhood and Theseus’ advanced age intensify his criticism. He argues that Theseus’ choices were driven by lust and pleasure, not a need to find women more suitable than Athenians to bear his children.

Romulus also used violence: Plutarch says that he abducted approximately 800 women. However, he claims that Romulus took only Hersilia for himself and distributed the others among leading citizens. Plutarch argues that subsequent honour, affection and justice towards the women transformed the consequences of an initially violent and unjust act into a harmonious community.

The distinction is between personal gratification and supposed public benefit. Plutarch credits the marriages with joining peoples, establishing shared citizenship and allowing kings to share power. As evidence of marital stability, he claims that no husband or wife left a marriage for 230 years, until Spurius Carvilius divorced his wife because she was childless. These are Plutarch’s claims, not independent proof that the women consented or that the abduction ceased to be wrong.

By contrast, Theseus’ relationships supposedly produced enemies, wars, deaths and the destruction of Aphidnae. Plutarch compares the danger to the catastrophe caused at Troy by Paris. Theseus’ mother was also, according to the tradition he discusses, abandoned and taken captive, suffering a fate comparable to Hecuba’s. He does acknowledge that this captivity might be an invention.

The chapter ends with contrasting divine signs. Romulus’ rescue suggests goodwill from the gods, whereas an oracle warning Aegeus to avoid a foreign woman suggests to Plutarch that Theseus’ birth went against their wishes. His argument thus connects personal conduct, public consequences and divine approval.

How to read Plutarch’s changing judgements

Plutarch does not simply praise a Greek and condemn a Roman, or the reverse. Theseus has the advantage in voluntary courage and, comparatively, in the explanation of his anger. Romulus has the advantage in rising from low beginnings, creating a community, helping his family and the alleged public consequences of marriage.

His opening reference to matters agreeing with his own opinion makes his evaluative role explicit. He chooses criteria, weighs motives and challenges some traditions while accepting others. This makes the comparison valuable evidence for moral ideals such as selflessness, self-control and public service. Its defence of Romulus’ treatment of women also exposes the limits of those ideals: community benefit receives greater attention than the women’s own experiences.

Livy’s preface: what should history teach?

In 1.0, Livy introduces an enormous undertaking: a history looking back over more than 700 years. He wishes to commemorate the achievements of the Roman people, whom he calls the greatest and most powerful people on earth. His admiration is clear, but so is his anxiety about Rome’s present condition.

Writing after a period of civil wars, Livy finds relief in studying the distant past. He argues that declining discipline and morality have brought Rome into crisis. Earlier frugality and modest means contrast with later greed, luxury and excessive pleasure. For him, history should offer examples which individuals and their community can imitate or avoid.

Livy also sets out a cautious approach to foundation legends. He neither confirms nor denies traditions from before or during the city’s foundation, describing them as more appropriate to poetry than to uncorrupted historical records. Mixing human and divine actions makes a city’s origins sacred. He argues that Rome’s military fame makes its claim to Mars as a divine ancestor fitting, without demonstrating that the claim is true.

His principal questions concern customs, conduct, leaders and policies in war and peace. This combination of patriotic admiration, moral criticism and caution about supernatural stories shapes the narrative that follows.

Aeneas: from displaced Trojan to founder of Lavinium

In 1.1, Livy begins with Troy’s capture. The Achaeans spared Aeneas and Antenor because of established friendship and their support for peace and the return of Helen.

Their journeys explain different communities’ origins. Antenor led displaced Eneti from Paphlagonia, whose king Pylaemenes had died at Troy, to the head of the Adriatic. They expelled the Euganei from land between the sea and the Alps. The combined Trojan and Eneti population became known as the Veneti, while place names preserved the connection with Troy.

Aeneas, guided towards a greater destiny by the fates, travelled first to Macedonia, then Sicily, then Laurentum. His followers possessed only their weapons and ships, so they took spoils from the fields. King Latinus and the local people, the Aborigines, armed themselves against these newcomers.

Livy preserves two versions of their agreement:

• Latinus was defeated in battle, then made peace and a marriage alliance with Aeneas.
• Latinus met Aeneas before battle began and learned about the Trojans’ displacement and search for a homeland. Admiring Aeneas’ readiness for both war and peace, he agreed to friendship and a treaty.

In the second version, hospitality and marriage reinforce the political agreement. Latinus gives his daughter to Aeneas in the presence of his household gods, joining a domestic bond to the public treaty. Aeneas establishes Lavinium, named after his wife, and the marriage produces Ascanius.

The story links settlement with leadership, religious observance and cooperation between peoples. Livy’s inclusion of alternatives also shows that he is preserving disputed traditions rather than presenting one fully verified account.

The Alban kings and Amulius’ misuse of religious office

The selection beginning at 1.3.7 traces the Alban royal line. Ascanius is followed by Silvius, then Aeneas Silvius and Latinus Silvius. Latinus Silvius establishes colonies of the Ancient Latins, and later Alban rulers retain the family name Silvius.

The succession continues through Alba, Atys, Capys, Capetus and Tiberinus. Tiberinus drowns in the River Albula, explaining its later name, the Tiber. After Agrippa comes Romulus Silvius, who dies when struck by lightning. This is an earlier king, not Rome’s founder. His successor Aventinus is buried on the hill that bears his name. The genealogy therefore links royal ancestors to familiar features of the landscape.

Proca follows and leaves the kingdom to his elder son, Numitor. His younger son, Amulius, seizes it instead. He kills Numitor’s son and makes Numitor’s daughter, Rhea Silvia, a Vestal. The appointment looks honourable, but its purpose is to prevent her from having children who could challenge his rule. Livy presents religious office being exploited for political security.

The twins’ survival: divine destiny and human explanations

In 1.4, Rhea Silvia gives birth to twin boys after being abducted and claims Mars as their father. Livy offers two possible explanations for that claim: she believed it, or divine parentage made what had happened seem more honourable. He does not simply certify Mars’ fatherhood.

Amulius imprisons her and orders the babies to be thrown into the river. The flooded Tiber prevents the servants from reaching its main channel, so they leave the twins in a nearby overflow pool. Livy describes this circumstance as divine providence. As the water recedes, their basket is left on dry ground.

A she-wolf supposedly responds to their cries and suckles them. Faustulus, the king’s herdsman, finds them and takes them to his wife, Larentia, to raise. Livy also gives a human explanation: Larentia was nicknamed ‘she-wolf’ because of her promiscuity, and that nickname generated the animal story.

As adolescents, the twins hunt, care for the homestead and flocks, attack robbers and share captured goods with the shepherds. These activities strengthen them and attract followers. Livy thus combines an extraordinary survival tradition with practical explanations for their strength, generosity and emerging leadership.

Augury, rivalry and the foundation of Rome

In 1.6.3, Alba has been restored to Numitor. Romulus and Remus want to found a city where they were abandoned and raised. The large Alban and Latin populations, together with the shepherds, provide potential inhabitants. Livy then identifies royal greed as the force that disrupts their plans, echoing the earlier family struggle for power.

Because the twins are the same age, seniority cannot decide who should rule or name the city. They seek an augury, a sign of the gods’ wishes. Romulus observes from the Palatine, Remus from the Aventine.

Remus sees six vultures first; Romulus then sees twelve. Each group of followers declares its own leader king. Remus’ supporters value the timing, while Romulus’ supporters value the greater number. The religious sign does not resolve the rivalry because its interpretation is disputed. Words turn into fighting and Remus dies.

Livy records two versions of that death. In one, Remus is killed in the clash. In the more popular account, he mocks Romulus by leaping over the new walls, and Romulus kills him, warning that anyone who crosses his walls will die. This version associates the city’s boundary with the founder’s authority, but also makes its beginning an act of violence against a brother.

Romulus gains sole power, and the city takes his name. He fortifies the Palatine and makes sacrifices: Alban ritual for the other gods, but Greek custom for Hercules, following Evander’s instructions. Rome’s beginnings therefore combine political authority, military protection and religious traditions from different origins.

Comparing the authors as evidence

Both writers use myth to investigate human conduct, not merely to entertain. Plutarch compares individuals using changing moral criteria; Livy places conduct within a story of Rome’s origins, growth and later decline. Both preserve uncertainty: Plutarch acknowledges disputed blame for Remus’ death, while Livy offers alternative accounts of agreements, parentage, rescue and death.

Their treatment of Romulus is especially revealing. Plutarch can criticise his anger yet praise his community-building. Livy presents divine destiny alongside ambition, disputed omens and bloodshed. Neither gives a founder without faults.

A useful reading therefore separates the event narrated, the author’s interpretation and what the passage can establish. The disputed vultures story, for example, reveals the importance of seeking divine authority and the danger of competing interpretations. It does not prove that the gods selected Romulus. These works offer rich evidence for ancient ideas about leadership, religion and communal identity, while leaving the historical reality of many foundation traditions uncertain.