Plutarch - Lycurgus and Numa Pompilius Compared

In my humble opinion, this is the genius of Plutarch. He selected various Greek figures and then chose a Roman figure to compare them to. You can imagine how that could be done with contemporary books. The only one that I can think of offhand is a very good book by Chris Matthews (yes, the pundit) on Kennedy and Nixon. Sadly, only 18 of Plutarch's comparisons are still around.
Both Lycurgus and Numa were close to power. Plutarch notes that Lycurgus turned it down and Numa (reluctantly) accepted it. Both men were scholars. Neither one was harsh. Lycurgus molded his society while Numa was somewhat hands off. Plutarch notes:

But by his superintendence of the young, his collecting them into
companies, his training and drill, with the table and exercises common to all,
Lykurgus showed that he was immensely superior to Numa, who, like any
commonplace lawgiver, left the whole training of the young in the hands of their
fathers, regulated only by their caprice or needs; so that whoever chose might
bring up his son as a shipwright, a coppersmith, or a musician, as though the
citizens ought not from the very outset to direct their attention to one object,
but were like people who have embarked in the same ship for various causes, who
only in time of danger act together for the common advantage of all, and at
other times pursue each his own private ends. Allowance must be made for
ordinary lawgivers, who fail through want of power or of knowledge in
establishing such a system; but no such excuse can be made for Numa, who was a
wise man, and who was made king of a newly-created state which would not have
opposed any of his designs.

Of course today we seem more value in letting people pick their own way through. We can see more of Plutarch's judgment with his closing here:

Yet this fact seems to tell for Lykurgus, that the Romans gained such an
enormous increase of power by departing from Numa's policy, while the
Lacedaemonians, as soon as they fell away from the discipline of Lykurgus,
having been the haughtiest became the most contemptible of Greeks, and not only
lost their supremacy, but had even to struggle for their bare existence. On the
other hand, it was truly glorious for Numa that he was a stranger and sent for
by the Romans to be their king; that he effected all his reforms without
violence, and ruled a city composed of discordant elements without any armed
force such as Lykurgus had to assist him, winning over all men and reducing them
to order by his wisdom and justice.

The Spartan way certainly had its success but it proved brittle in the end.

Plutarch - 'Numa Pompilius'

According to Plutarch, Numa Pompilius was the second king of Rome. The first king was the legendary Romulus and after he died there was quite a dispute over who should succeed him. At the time, the city of Rome was basically peopled by two tribes, the Sabines and the Romans. In trying to find a successor, both tribes wanted one of their people to lead them. As a compromise, each tribe decided to pick someone from the other. This exercise made it clear that Numa should be their new king.
He was reluctant but they argued him into the spot. He consulted the augers and they told him that the gods were fine with it. So he accepted. One of the reasons that he held back is because he thought that Rome would want to continue its warlike ways and he was a man of peace. In fact his reign was something of a pause for the Romans.
Numa was scholarly and deeply dedicated to pleasing the gods. In his time he created several temples and orders of priests. In fact, the word Pontiff is thought to come from his name.
He also tried to fix the calendar so that it matched up with the solar cycle. He did fairly well at this but didn't account for the quarter day (or so) of slippage. It fell to Julius Caesar to add in the leap year.
I was moved by this:

At his own wish, it is said, the body was not burned, but placed in two
stone coffins and buried on the Janiculum Hill. One of these contained his body,
and the other the sacred books which he himself had written, as Greek
legislators write their laws upon tablets. During his life he had taught the
priests the contents of these books, and their meaning and spirit, and ordered
them to be buried with his corpse, because it was right that holy mysteries
should be contained, not in soulless writings, but in the minds of living men.
. . .
Four hundred years afterwards, when Publius Cornelius and Marcus Baebius
were consuls, a great fall of rain took place, and the torrent washed away the
earth and exposed the coffins. When the lids were removed, one of the coffins
was seen by all men to be empty, and without any trace of a corpse in it; the
other contained the books, which were read by Petilius the praetor, who reported
to the Senate that in his opinion it was not right that their contents should be
made known to the people, and they were therefore carried to the Comitium and
burned there.

We are all dust in the end but it's particulary sad when books are lost forever.

Plutarch - 'Lycurgus'

I'm going to roll these out in pieces every couple of days. I think that will work best for general discussion.

And it should be said upfront that there is no way to really tell how reliable a historian Plutarch was. That's especially true when it comes to semi-legendary figures like Lycurgus. This doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention, just that we should keep a dose of salt handy.

Lycurgus was the father of the Spartan way of life. He was somewhat in in line for the throne but kept away from it out of fear that he would be blamed if his nephew died. He went so far as to choose exile in Crete so as to be beyond suspicion. While there he studied the way different societies work (or don't work) and decided to create a perfect society in Sparta.
This was done by force. He got together a band of armed men and took over the marketplace. The king was worried that he would be assassinated but they soon convinced him to join them. A Senate was formed and only it would decided when matters would be put to a vote. Plutarch finds that this solved the problems presented by either monarchy or democracy.
He went about this methodically. Lycurgus redistributed the wealth of everyone so that there would be no envy or greed. He also pushed the citizens away from arts and crafts. He purposefully made outside trade difficult so that everyone would have 'moderation'.
He also redefined the family structure. Men and women barely spent time together. Husbands would allow other men to sleep with their wives if the husband thought better children would result. (I can't, for even a single moment, comprehend how that thought process would work out in practice.) At the age of seven, boys would go from their families to the Spartan academy. There they would learn the Spartan code and be raised as warriors. Plutarch tells of a young boy who stole a fox and hid it under his coat. He didn't cry out, even as the fox disemboweled and killed him. They were pretty tough.

Lycurgus had some strong ideas on what a perfect society would look like. Unlike other philosophic theorists, he was able to actually bring this about. To my modern ears, it sounds awful. It should be noted that Sparta became a power after these reforms took place. They became the most feared army in Greece. But at what price?

Biography of Plutarch

Plutarch was a Greek man, from a wealthy family, who grew up near Delphi. He was a Roman citizen, in the time of the Roman empire. Plutarch is known primarily for two things, his biographies and a series of essays and lectures on morals and customs.
The biographies (or histories) are the most important because they provide some unique links to ancient history. Without Plutarch, we would have lost quite a bit of knowledge. For instance, he provided one of only five accounts of Alexander the Great.
His technique was interesting, he would write about a Greek subject and then a Roman citizen. In some cases (possibly all of them) he would then write a comparison of the two. Scholars believe that less than half of his works still exist.

Subject Timeline

I thought it might be helpful to know when our various subjects were around. Plutarch himself was born in 46 AD and lived until 120 AD. We'll be reading about:

Lycurgus 820 - 730 BC (?)
Numa Pompilius 753 - 673 BC
Alexander 356 - 323 BC
Caesar 100 BC - 44 BC

Author Timeline

BC
Aristophanes 446 - 386
Plato 424? - 348?
Aristotle 384 - 322

AD
Plutarch 46 - 120
Gospel of Matthew, Acts of the Apostles (around the end of the first century)
St. Augistine 354 - 430
Machiavelli 1469 - 1527
Rabelais 1494 - 1553
Montaigne 1533 - 1592
Shakespeare 1564 - 1616
Locke 1632 - 1704
Rousseau 1712 - 1778
Gibbon 1737 - 1794
Declaration of Independence - 1776
The Constitution of the US - 1787
Federalist Papers 1787 -1788
Smith 1723 - 1790
Marx/Engles 1818 - 1883/1820 - 1895

March Reading

March
Plutarch: 'Lives of Noble Grecians and Romans' (only Lycurgus, Numa Pompilius, Lycurgus and Numa compared, Alexander, Caesar) Kindle/Nook/Google

And with this we leave the Greek writers. But not the Greeks themselves as we open with the history of Lycurgus, the founder of the Spartan way of life. Numa Pompilius was the second king of Rome. And of course you've probably heard of Alexander the Great and Caesar. Sadly, this is the only Plutarch on the list.

I'm tempted to suggest a viewing of the movie '300' to familiarize yourself with the Spartans but from what I understand they might have taken a few liberties. (No, really.)
A couple of years ago I read 'Fire from Heaven' by Mary Renault, an historical novel dealing with Alexander's early years. The book was striking for it's heroic portrayal of the boy with an nearly indomitable spirit from early days. It apparently was the inspiration for the Oliver Stone film 'Alexander'. I thought 'Fire from Heaven' was pretty good.
We'll cover Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar' in year seven. I'd recommend Shaw's version too.