Comparison of Theseus and Romulus

Both Theseus and Romulus were by nature meant for governors; yet
neither lived up to the true character of a king, but fell off,
and ran, the one into popularity, the other into tyranny, falling
both into the same fault out of different passions. For a ruler's
first end is to maintain his office, which is done no less by
avoiding what is unfit than by observing what is suitable. Whoever
is either too remiss or too strict is no more a king or a
governor, but either a demagogue or a despot, and so becomes
either odious or contemptible to his subjects. Though certainly
the one seems to be the fault of easiness and good-nature, the
other of pride and severity.

But Romulus has, first of all, one great plea, that his
performances proceeded from very small beginnings; for both the
brothers, being thought servants and the sons of swineherds,
before becoming freemen themselves gave liberty to almost all the
Latins, obtaining at once all the most honorable titles, as,
destroyers of their country's enemies, preservers of their friends
and kindred, princes of the people, founders of cities; not
removers, like Theseus, who raised and compiled only one house out
of many, demolishing many cities bearing the names of ancient
kings and heroes. Romulus, indeed, did the same afterwards,
forcing his enemies to deface and ruin their own dwellings, and to
sojourn with their conquerors; but at first, not by removal, or
increase of an existing city, but by foundation of a new one, he
obtained himself lands, a country, a kingdom, wives, children, and
relations. And, in so doing, he killed or destroyed nobody, but