Humanitext Reader

Plutarch · Life of Numa §3.1-3.7

Election of Numa Pompilius and His Virtues

Passage 3 of 22 · Greek

Summary

Fearing patrician oligarchic control, the Romans and Sabines agree to choose a king from each other's faction, resulting in the nomination of the virtuous Sabine Numa Pompilius. Numa's philosophical discipline, noble character, and background as the son-in-law of Tatius are introduced.

§3.1ἀλλὰ καίπερ οὕτω πολιτικῶς καὶ ἀνεπαχθῶς ἀφηγεῖσθαι δοκοῦντες, ὑπονοίαις καὶ θορύβοις περιέπιπτον, ὡς μεθιστάντες εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν τὰ πράγματα καὶ διαπαιδαγωγοῦντες ἐν σφίσιν αὐτοῖς τὴν πολιτείαν, βασιλεύεσθαι δὲ οὐκ ἐθέλοιεν.
But although they seemed to rule in such a public-spirited and unoffensive manner, they fell into suspicions and disturbances, as though they were changing the state into an oligarchy and keeping the government entirely in their own hands, and did not wish to be ruled by a king.
ἐκ τούτου συνέβησαν ἀμφότεραι πρὸς ἀλλήλας αἱ στάσεις, ὥστε τὴν ἑτέραν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας ἀποδεῖξαι βασιλέα· §3.2μάλιστα γάρ ἂν οὕτως ἔν τε τῷ παρόντι παύσασθαι τὴν φιλονεικίαν, καὶ τὸν ἀποδειχθέντα πρὸς ἀμφοτέρους ἴσον γενέσθαι, τοὺς μὲν ὡς ἑλομένους ἀγαπῶντα, τοῖς δὲ εὔνουν ὄντα διὰ συγγένειαν, ἐπιτρεψάντων δὲ προτέροις τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις τῶν Σαβίνων τὴν αἵρεσιν, ἔδοξε μᾶλλον ἑλέσθαι Σαβῖνον αὐτοὺς ἀποδείξαντας ἢ παρασχεῖν Ῥωμαῖον ἐκείνων ἑλομένων.
From this, both factions came to an agreement with each other, so that the one should appoint a king from the other; for indeed they thought that in this way the rivalry would best cease for the present, and the man appointed would be impartial to both sides, loving the one as having chosen him, and being well-disposed to the other because of relationship; and when the Sabines left the choice to the Romans first, it seemed better to them to choose a Sabine appointed by themselves rather than to provide a Roman chosen by the Sabines.
§3.3καὶ βουλευσάμενοι καθʼ ἑαυτοὺς ἀποδεικνύουσιν ἐκ Σαβίνων Νομᾶν Πομπίλιον, ἄνδρα τῶν μὲν εἰς Ῥώμην ἀπῳκισμένων οὐ γενόμενον.
And having consulted among themselves, they appointed from the Sabines Numa Pompilius, a man who was not one of those who had migrated to Rome, but was so well known to all for his virtue that when his name was mentioned, the Sabines accepted him even more eagerly than those who had chosen him.
γνώριμον δ’ οὕτω διʼ ἀρετὴν ὄντα πᾶσιν ὥστε τῶν ἑλομένων προθυμότερον ὀνομασθέντος αὐτοῦ δέξασθαι τοὺς Σαβίνους, φράσαντες οὖν τῷ δήμῳ τὰ δεδογμένα, πρέσβεις ἐκπέμπουσι πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα κοινῇ τοὺς πρωτεύοντας ἀπʼ ἀμφοτέρων, ἥκειν δεησομένους καὶ παραλαβεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν.
Having, then, declared their decision to the people, they sent as ambassadors to the man, in common, the leading men from both factions, to entreat him to come and receive the kingdom.
§3.4ἦν δὲ πόλεως μὲν ὁ Νομᾶς ἐπιφανοῦς ἐν Σαβίνοις τῆς Κύρεων, ἀφʼ ἧς καὶ Κυρίτας Ῥωμαῖοι σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἅμα τοῖς ἀνακραθεῖσι Σαβίνοις προσηγόρευσαν, υἱὸς δὲ Πόμπωνος, ἀνδρὸς εὐδοκίμου, τεσσάρων ἀδελφῶν νεώτατος· ἡμέρᾳ δὲ γεγονὼς κατὰ δή τινα θείαν τύχην ἐν ᾗ τὴν Ῥώμην ἔκτισαν οἱ περὶ Ῥωμύλον αὕτη δὲ ἐστι πρὸ δεκαμιᾶς καλανδῶν Μαΐων.
Now Numa was of Cures, an illustrious city of the Sabines, from which also the Romans called themselves Quirites, together with the Sabines who were blended with them; and he was the son of Pompon, a man of reputation, the youngest of four brothers, and had been born, by some divine fortune, on the very day on which Romulus and his people founded Rome, which is the eleventh day before the Calends of May.
§3.5φύσει δὲ πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀρετὴν εὖ κεκραμένος τὸ ἦθος, ἔτι μᾶλλον αὑτὸν ἐξημέρωσε διὰ παιδείας καὶ κακοπαθείας καὶ φιλοσοφίας, οὐ μόνον τὰ λοιδορούμενα πάθη τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν εὐδοκιμοῦσαν ἐν τοῖς βαρβάροις βίαν καὶ πλεονεξίαν ἐκποδὼν ποιησάμενος, ἀνδρείαν δὲ ἀληθῆ τὴν ὑπὸ λόγου τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ἐν αὑτῷ κάθειρξιν ἡγούμενος.
And being by nature well tempered in his character toward every virtue, he subdued himself still more through education, hardship, and philosophy, putting out of the way not only the passions of the soul that are commonly reviled, but also the violence and greed that are in repute among barbarians, and thinking that true bravery was the imprisonment of the desires within oneself under the control of reason.
§3.6ἐκ δὲ τούτου πᾶσαν οἴκοθεν ἅμα τρυφὴν καὶ πολυτέλειαν ἐξελαύνων, παντὶ δὲ πολίτῃ καὶ ξένῳ χρῆσθαι παρέχων ἑαυτὸν ἄμεμπτον δικαστὴν καὶ σύμβουλον, αὐτὸς δ’ ἑαυτῷ σχολάζοντι χρώμενος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡδυπαθείας καὶ πορισμούς, ἀλλὰ θεραπείαν θεῶν καὶ θεωρίαν διὰ λόγου φύσεώς τε αὐτῶν καὶ δυνάμεως, ὄνομα μέγα καὶ δόξαν εἶχεν, ὥστε καὶ Τάτιον τὸν ἐν Ῥώμῃ συμβασιλεύσαντα Ῥωμύλῳ, μιᾶς αὐτῷ θυγατρὸς οὔσης Τατίας, ποιήσασθαι γαμβρὸν ἐκεῖνον.
And from this, banishing all luxury and extravagance from his house, and presenting himself to every citizen and stranger as a blameless judge and counselor, while using his leisure for himself not at all for pleasure and gain, but for the service of the gods and the contemplation, through reason, of their nature and power, he had a great name and reputation, so that even Tatius, who had reigned jointly with Romulus in Rome, having an only daughter, Tatia, made him his son-in-law.
§3.7οὐ μὴν ἐπήρθη γε τῷ γάμῳ μετοικίσασθαι πρὸς τὸν πενθερόν, ἀλλʼ αὐτοῦ περιέπων πατέρα γηραιὸν ἐν Σαβίνοις ὑπέμενεν, ἅμα καὶ τῆς Τατίας ἑλομένης τὴν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἰδιωτεύοντος ἡσυχίαν πρὸ τῆς ἐν Ῥώμῃ διὰ τὸν πατέρα τιμῆς καὶ δόξης, αὕτη μὲν οὖν λέγεται τρίτῳ καὶ δεκάτῳ μετὰ τὸν γάμον ἔτει τελευτῆσαι.
Yet he was not so elated by the marriage as to remove to his father-in-law, but remained in the country of the Sabines, tending his aged father, while Tatia also preferred the quiet of her husband as a private citizen to the honor and glory she might have had in Rome because of her father. And she is said to have died in the thirteenth year after their marriage.

Notes

  1. 3.1ὡς μεθιστάντες — The particle ὡς with the participles (μεθιστάντες... καὶ διαπαιδαγωγοῦντες) expresses the subjective thoughts or allegations behind the citizens' suspicions. This ὡς also functions as a conjunction introducing the finite verb οὐκ ἐθέλοιεν.
  2. 3.1ὥστε τὴν ἑτέραν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας ἀποδεῖξαι βασιλέα — A clause of result introduced by ὥστε. It employs an accusative and infinitive construction, where the feminine singular accusative τὴν ἑτέραν (referring to the faction, στάσιν) is the subject of the infinitive ἀποδεῖξαι, and βασιλέα is its object complement.
  3. 3.2ἂν ... παύσασθαι — The combination of the particle ἄν with the infinitive (παύσασθαι and γενέσθαι). In indirect discourse depending on a verb of thinking or seeming (implied by the context), it represents a potential optative (ἄν + optative) or a potential/future nuance of the direct speech.
  4. 3.5ἀνδρείαν δὲ ἀληθῆ τὴν ὑπὸ λόγου τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ἐν αὑτῷ κάθειρξιν ἡγούμενος — The participle ἡγούμενος ('thinking/considering') governs a double accusative construction. The first accusative, ἀνδρείαν ἀληθῆ ('true bravery'), is the object, and the second accusative with the article, τὴν ... κάθειρξιν ('the imprisonment...'), is the object complement.

Cite this passage

Plutarch, Life of Numa §3.1-3.7. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0007.tlg005.humanitext-grc2:3.1-3.7

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.