2

IDOLS AND THEIR CRITICS

Data in an enrpiricistepistemeruustbe susceptible

to senseperception.Where
Roman religion is concerned,one or the other of tr'vothings must be true:
either the actionsof the godsin this r,vorldin their efrects,or the godsthenr-
selves,must be nraterial.Of cor-rrse,
tl.reformer in no rvayrequiresthe latter.
But much of Ronran ritual, and nrany strandsoftRonran religiousliterature,
do, in fact, situatethe gods in this r.vorld,whether as recipientsof cult or
asinhabitantsof particular spaces.What is more, nrany but by no meansall
of thoseactionsand representations focalizesuch relationsupon a particular
visible manifestationof the divine, narnely their cult objects.And yet, al-
ready in the ancient world, sr-rchpatternsin religious behavior were con-
strued by critics of contenporary religion asnrisconceivedor even asfun-
damentally confused-as directing rvorship toward the representatrons
themselvesrather than toward the gods:henceidolatry, a contraction for "idol-
olatry," frorn eiSro)oy* Aarpeh,the worship of idols.The critique of idol-
atry hassincehad a iong atrd distinguishedhistory in the philosophicaland
religiousliteraturesof Greeceand Rome and, indeed,of ChristianEurope,l

An earlier version of this chlpter apperrcclin Jlnres LlovclWhite, ecl., Hou, Shuld lfl: Thlk
a b o u t R c l i . q i o n ? ( N o t r e L ) aUn rt rci:v c r s i t v o f N o t r e l ) : r n r c l ) r c s s , z o o 6 ) , 3-35 . 1 .
t. Besangonz,ooo provides r rvidc-ra:rqing overvien'. Ile\'f,r) r94o lrrd ]Jlrrsch rgg2 sur-
vey attitudcs to reliqiotrs rrt irr the ancient Mediterr:rncln. On Circck lurcll{orrrarrcritics of
i d o l a t r v s c e( l l e r c I 9 r 5 , l ] o r r i e s r 9 r l l , a n d C e f l l - k e r r 9 t 6 / r t 1 . O n i c o n o c h s n ri n l ] l , z r n r i r r n r

l*d:
 rrrrclthc sophistic;rtionof tl'rattrldition, and of its nrorlcrn stuclents,has ur consistedin p:rrt of a paradc of crnptl, chairs,in clirect col)tr:rstto the 1cc-
n)eny ways overdctcrnrinedthc stuclyof iclolatrv itself, as though anLrient a feastat rvhich rvicker represclitationsof the headsof goclsrested
ilsterniunr,
philosopl.rersor rnedicvalor c:rrlylrodern (lhristians coulclbe expectcdto on couchesand sharecl,r nre.rl.5Richrrd (lorclon calledattention to this
dcscriberaccr.rratelyancl farthfirlly the rvorkings atrcl presuppositionsof problenr in a lhtlotts article on religioLrsart in rvl.ricl.r
he observeclthat P.m-
'Athenrr"
rt.rrr rcligio:lty.I
C r.tc,'o-R,rt saniaswas as likely to refer to as to "a statue of Athena" 'nvhen
This chaptcr exploresthc problenr of theorizrng the ru:rtc-'riality
of the he describeclany eiven tenrple."At one level, Ciordon did no niore than
godsrrndthcir susceptibilityto representationthroush considerationof trvo revisita long-stanclinepuzzie,nanrelvthe tendencvof particip:rrrtsin Clreek
stralrdsin :rncientphilosophy:first, that tenet of ancicntthcoriesof repre- and Rornan cr-rltto confuse "irn:rge :rnd prototype, representecland repre-
scntationthat requireclidols either to be or to rcpreselttthe gods; :rnd sec- AsJol.rannes
sentation."T Geilckenobservedlong ago,this chargehad bccn
ond, the problenr of nratter-u,.hich is to s:ry,rvhat sort of thing a nr:rterial the mainstay of rationalizing critics of idolatry throughout antiquity:
god nught be.The latter is oflered by way of suggestiononly; fbr asa nrar- Geffcken coulcl do little rnore than docunrent that fact, hor,vever,becar-rse
ter of nrethocl,it r,vor,r1cl
be perverseto denounce the corrupting influencc he affirmcd it. Accorcling to hinr, this confirsior-rof categorieswas symp-
of :rncientphilosophy in its the-oriesof rcprcsentationr,vhileco-opting its tomatic of the "sirnplistic habits and supcrstitionsr/e-s[/o/A.'-s."*
understandingof natter. What that r-rnclc-rstanding
ollers, I sugeest,is but Few recentscholarshavetakenLrpthe challengepresentedby Clordon's
one resollrceanrong nranv lor the imlginative .,vork norv recluiredto rur- observation,n:rrnelvthat of explaining the seenringconfusion of onto-
derstandarrclultinrately to describegods wlro are and are not idols. diction, in largenreasurebec:ruse
logical catesoriesimplied by P:rusanias's
they, like Geffc'ken,unr,vittingly subscribeto a theory of representation
incompatible with paganrelieiosity. For exarnplc,although severalschol-
THE STONE THAT WAS THE C]OI)DESS
ars have catalogucd rituals in which idols were treated as gods and fed,
Our ability to recognizethe particularityof Ronr:rnreligion and to conr- washed,and clothed, none of thenr hassought to explain the pl'rilosoph-
preherrdits ritualsdependsin large nlcasureon our unclerstanding of its ical or theologicalunderpinningsof this beh:rvior."Schohrship on rittr-
idols.r lleconstructiorl of- Greek and Rornan rituals revealsthat virtually
all inch-rdedthe godsasparticipants.4
Indeecl,the ferv ritualsheld r,vithout On the ltttisttniun scc csp. Fcstus s.r'. -strrrppi(47:L) and ultilt dtorrrm (.5(tL'.nltita tleo-
5.
the gods inevitably observedtheir absence:the .rc//i-slcrrium,
for c-xanrplc. rtnt appellttbantrtr.l,tstituli.l,tttitx rubtnis). and cf. s.v .it/l)pllrl.\(4I oL), together rvith [-i\,,v .to. -59.7
(ttrra nrttuit; itt-fnnis prrltlids, ulti krtisttrniwn uit, dtt)tutil tapita, Eti in lutis t'rurtl, t1!utuutlt s(',
lanxquc rum intt'lunrcntis, quat'Ltui adposttLt.lilit,dt'ridit dt lror-sr) ancl psr'udo-Acro on Horace
i Carm. t .37.3 ( nr,znsrn oroauv pulvinaril dicebantur aut lecti cleorlrrn aut tabulata, in cluibns

lii s e e H e r r n c p h o f r 9 6 9 a n d P e l i k a n r 9 9 o ; o r r i c o n o c l a s n i n J u r i a i s r n:,r r r o t h e ri n r p o r t a n t i n
g r e d i e n tr n t h c a f i e ' r l i f et o f , n c i e r ) rt e l i q i o u sa r t , s c ef J l a n d : o o o .
. 2 . P i c t z r 9 l i 5 , r 9 8 7 , ; u r d t 9 8 l l c x p l o r e f r o n t h i s p e r s p e c t i v et h e d e v c l o p n r c n o
crn attthropoloeical cateqorv of thc lctislr. For other recerrt historics of religrous historiog-
t f the nrocl
stabant nunrina, nt crrrinentiora viclerentur ). C)n thc' scllistr:rninn see T:rvlor r 93-J, corrcct-
rng a long tradition of overrelilnce on Valerius Marirrrr.rs -2,.t.z.

6.

7.
(lordon

Geffcken t9t6/
rL;79,7 8',cl Schnapp r994 :rnd Burkert rt;7o, 36o.

t t 1 , : 8 ( r : " F i i r c l a su r s p r i i n u l i c h e ( l e f i i h l . d e n n a i v u r ( l h u b e n , h r l l e r l l i l c l

llL r a p h v s c e A n d o z o o 3 b , 3 7 3 7 5 : : r n c lb r . l o w ic h a p t e r ; , p p . 9 6 - 9 9 .

3 . I r v o u l d r r o t f o l l o r v V c r n e n t r 9 l J S ,- l : - S - - S ri,n a r g u i n l i t h a t t h c c o n v e r s e* ' : r sr r u e , t l r r t
und Original, l)arstellenclcs urrd I )argestelltes, jetlerzcit zu eincr gcrvissen Einheit zusanttttelr."

f l . G e l l c k e n t 9 t ( t / t L | , - u , 9 7 c; l - . L i n k r 9 r o , 3 ; t : ' A n t i q u i s s i r n a e n i r l a e t r t e s i n u l a c r : t s t t n t d i

li
iclolsfunctioneclas idols rather th:rn objets d'art only irrsotarls thcl *ere useclin rituals (sce i p s i , c u i u s o p i n i o n i s r e c c n t i o r e q u o ( l u e : r e t f , t e r e l i q u i e e n r : l n s e r u r ) t ,c l u o n i l n r a u x i l i i t t u t r t l t t s
e s p .- j 3 7 a n d 3 4 , 3 - . 1 - 5l )f . t h r t r v e r e t r L l c ,o l r c r v o u l d c x p c c t r l r a n yn l o r e c u l t s t l t u c st o p c r - parttcipes essc, si cius sirrrul:rcnrnr possitlerent, opinrb:urtur. Cuius vetustioris scrttcttti.re
lirrtn Irtiraclcs,:urclone nrieht expect flurrouslvbcautilul st:rtuc'sbv renorvncd artists to lc rcliquias cosrnoscinrus s co, quocl vivendi signrr sirrml:rcrrr clcdisse feruntur: riclurt, locluun-

lltl
lli
c o u n t t o r : r d i s p r o p o r t i o n l t en u n r b c r o f s r - r c hr r r i r a c l e s[.] u t 1 : r n r o u G
r l r e l v t t t o r c t h a n s c u l p t u r e sI.L o r r r a na r r r i c t i c sa b o u t t h c c f i l c a c t o

q.
s r c c k s c u l p t u r e sr v c r c
, f r i t u r l i r r r l c s r c r a l i z i no
j e c t s a l s os t l g g e s ttsh r t V e r n l r r t ' sr s s o c i l t i o no f i n r a g el n c l r i t r r l l n e e c l sr r r o c l i f l c r t i o n .
( ) l a c l i g o n ,I 9 8 J / i i 6 e n d r 9 9 . 1s u r v e l , t h et r s eo f c u l t s t a t u e si n ( i r c e k r n c i I l o n r . r r rr i t t r r l :
cf-.Estirnnc t 997.
gb -
tur, se avertunt, sucl.tnt, se ntoveltt, quin etirnr ulciscuntur rniurias sibi illrrtas."

9. K u h n e r t r i i S j ; ( i l a d i g o r v r q l l - S / 8 6a n d r 9 9 , 1 .V e r n r r n t r 9 8 j , . l 3 l , c o r r s t i t u t e sl n i r n p o r
tal)t cxc!'ptiolr, obsening of tlrc krr1,rr.r,,.r

alike rvith the soul end rvith eibo,\o (-1:s--lli; ct-. M,rc(lornrrck
in tlrc ;rrchaic (lrcck mrrld thrt one snorc "bv thc
stone": it wls, ils Vornant shorvs, r double in this u'orlcl tor sorrrething invrsiblc,.rssocirtccl
r97i on the .grrtil.i).l3ut

i ll IIIti ttNlIfS ()t ()Rtlt()l)RAxY 1l)ots ANI) IHBIII cRlflcs fl

 l1sin r.r.hichhunranstook the placeof goclshasivith feu, r'xcrcptions
been marking anc'lobserving nretephvsic:rlbounclrrrics,through lauguagc, riturl,
sinrilarl-vabortive: extensivcrcscarchhas revealcdthat such rituals con- and lar,'r',has ttc-rtelicited :r corresporrclinuly sophisticateci ancl svnrpathetic
to be pcrfbrrned rvell into the (lhristi:ur era, but thev are labclccl
tir.rr.recl explanation for the tl.reolou,vof idols and sacrality of niaterill objects.li
the rclics of earlierrelieiositv ancltheir survivll evidenceof institutional Let nre strrt with an episocle lioni tl'rc historv of lLorne. n'hose nlrra-
fornr:rlisni.l"Jas Elsner'sdisc--ussion of "inrage asritu:rl," in l.risessayargu- tives, attcient artcl trrodcrn, Irettlv illustratc the prrrticular nrtllre of nr)'
ing fbr a "religious r,vayof vierving inr:r{es," artclGreg Woolf's kindrcd concerns. In thc last years of tlie Hannibalic rvar, thc lLontans \verc told
r t u d yo f r h c J u p i t ccr o l u r r r r cr ro n \ t i t u t ct w o i l l ) f( ) r t i l t tet x c e p t i o r t \o t l l c \ c to brins Cybele, thc nrother of the gocls, tiorn Pessinusto llornc. l'' Re-
seneralizations, both explicitly indebted to (lordon's rvork.II joicine in the ntattv olllclls ancl prophecie's that pres:rqcclits ultinrate vrc-
llcsearchin other areasof Greek and Ronranreligion hasnradesigrific:rnt tory, the Senate siithcred to clelibcr:rte qu(lt t'dtio trdnsp()rtdndd(Rotil(lnld((1(
in unpacking ancient clescriptionsof rcligious art. For exatlple,
:rdr,'ances "by lr'hat nreans thc gocldessshouid bc transportecl to llonre."lT It
es-sel,
Creek and Latin ternrinology for statuaryalr,vaysreflected the ontcllogical is not rnere captiolrsr)essthlt leads nre ltow to cplote thc Pengtrin transla-
statusof the indiviclual clepictedand could rccord whether or not a giverr tion of Ar-rbrcy de S6lincourt, who \\irote for this cl:ruse,"the best llleans
Sinrilarll',Greeksbrotight to the ap-
statllc had been ritually consecrated.l2 of transferrirlq the irrrarrc
of the Cloddessto lLotrie."rs For the :rnxietv felt
preciationof religiousart a complex aesthcticth:rtdilTerentiatecl it fronr other' by the tr,ventieth-century tr:rltsl:rtor r.r,hett confrontecl bv a godcless tvho
fornrs of artistic production and assinrilatedit to a specificallyliterary the- was a rock, r.r,hich lecl hinr to rcplace the gocldess r.vith her inraee, r,r.ls
oloeicaldiscourse.lsFor their part, the Ronranspositionedartvu'ork iu their shared by Liv1, hintself, :rltd it is tl.re historv of that an-rietr,'.as ttrttch :rs
ternplesin patternsthat reflected ontological hierarchies,fronr god to hu- anything, that recluircs-incleecl, clernands-cluciclation.
rn:rn, rvhose appreciationmight rvell aid r.noderninvestis:rtionsof Ronratr I say that Lir,ry shared this anxiety becanse he vacillated in his cstuna-
theologicalliter:rture:rnclilnperial cult.r+But this ancientsophistication
in tiolr of the nrctaphysical or existcntial statusof Cvbele's bainilos.In Livy's
narrative, the Senate sent legates to Attalus of Perg:ununi ancl sought his
'Att:ilus
aid in obtaining the goddess. I quote: receivcd rhe Rontans anr-
Vernrnt nrerelv recortis ruther tharr cxplairrs thc clisrppcrrunce of thc conceptu:rl fi:rnret'ork icably, led thern to Pessinusin Phryeia, g:rve theln the slcrecl stone tltat tlrc
that untierpinned thc r.rscoi such cloubles, lnd so he does not ask rvhat one hrcl to believc natiuessaid wds tltc nrctlm ol-tltc,qod-r,
:rnd ordered thenr to take it to Ronrc."t"
of both visiblc :Lrrclrnvrsrlrle thincs in orcler to rssert their iclentitr':
The qualnrs reflected irr the diction of tl.ratsentence had disappearcd by
r o. l3ack r ll83 cclncludcs :r irscinltins chrpter rvith the judqnrent that "Hae actiones, c1u:ts
proprie saccrdotalcs dircrinr, norr ab ipsius religionis initiis repeterl(lac sunt. seclnt.tniL:sto pcr- the tinre the /api.sriigcr :rrrived in Ronre: there Pr-rblir.rs(lornelir,rs Scipio
tirrcrrt ad id tcnrpr.rs quo cultus deorunr patrirrchico illo statu rt'licto j:urr su:rc potcstrtis fac- was ordcred to nleet the .qor/dc-r-s at ()stia; there he receiveci /rer front the
tus erat ltqLle :rd nr:rxinrirnr partern in sacerdotunt nlaltus pcrvcl)crat. Attlrncn denronsrrrnt,
ship; and in the tenrple of Victory on the Palatine he installeclthe,qor/r/r,s-r
qurnrtur)r lnticluitus apucl honrines (lrlecos ipse, acl cluorurrr sinrilitudirrern ilhc celebraban-
tur, spect:rcula floruerint. Recte igitur Augustinus cil. 7. r 8: cr cuir.rsquc dei inqenio rnoribus
on the clay before the Ides of April zo4.r('
rctibus c:rsibus sacr2retc sollenrnir institutr srurt" (:il :9). Kicchlc t97o ends r similrr survcl
rvith thejuclggnent that hunrans replacing gorls irr ritulls u,:rsa ii'uttrre of "der nuqiscllen Vorstcl
hrngsrvelt f iiher l{eligiosit;it." Scheid r 9ll(r constitutcs :l vcrv irllportf,nt exccptiol} to thc schol-
o f t h a t c r a , l t n t l h i s i r t s i s t e n c teh r r t p : u t : u r l o d sd u , c l l c c il r r p : r r t i c u l l t rl o c a t i o n si s u c l c o r l c . S c c
a r s h i p i r r t h i s l r e a , : r s i n n r l n v n ' a , v st l o e s L i n k l9to, csp.,t(r 48:rncl is-s6.
a l s oS c h c r c rl 9 9 6 r n d r 9 9 9 b ; A n c l r - : , o o 3 bt,. 1 r - . 1 ( m r d:47 -so.
rt. Elsncr r99(r, Woolf :oo t .
I -5. C)n the srrcralito
v i o b . j c c t s e cW h i t c h o u s e r 9 9 6 , c s p . r . 3. r n r l r 9 ; a u d C l l i n i s t c r: o o o .
r2.. Schubrrt t 86(r, Estienne t997.
t6. l l e r r c l . N o r t l r , r l r t l I ) r i c c t 9 9 l l , l : 9 ( r 9 8 . t l i s c r r stsh i s c p i s o d c r n t l c i t c e . r r l i c rl i t e n t r r r e .
II. M a d l d a r 9 3 9 . C l l a d i g o r vt 9 9 o .
t7. L i v r ' : . 9 .r o . B .
r4. A r n o n g c a r l i e r r v o r k I s i n g l c o u t L i n k r 9 r o . L r n k i r r v e s t i q a t c c lt l t c t e r t n - i a l t r l t t . i : r I r dI r . t c l
I ll. S i l i n c o u r t r 9 ( r . 5 5, 7 9 .
t o c o n f i o n t i t s a p p l i c a t i o r r t o t , i c l c l v c l i s p r r u t c t h i r r q s : q o d s , p l r t c c s .r l r t l p e o p J c . H i s r r s t l l r t c l l t
1 9 . L i v r .: 9 . r r . 7 .
rbout thc tlcvelopnrent of llornrn belief doc'snot pcrsurclc-his clrrot:ologv is in rnv cvelrt
intlistinct btrt his uork i s c o n s p i c L r o L r s l ri.l - e e o f t h c l r r r c h r o r r i s n r s t h r t c l o u d r t t t t c h m r r k 20. I i l r ' : 9 . r . l .I o r : [ .

21 IIII: IIN,IITS oI: ORITIOI']IAXY II)0IS ANI) 1'IIIiIIT (]RIII(]S tr\

 Ovicl's narrltivc of Cybele'sarrivel sharesthis leeturervith Livv's his-
tory: he referreclto the stonc asthe goclcless at every opportr:nity blrt one,
rvlren he clescribecl(llauclia Qr-rintl fixing hcr sazc irr irrta.,qirtc
diuac,"on
the inragc of the gocldess."rlBut rrot evcryr)llefelt this ncccl to be clis-
tanced frorn those rvho identiflecliclol ancl qodcless.Writir-rgfour cen-
turieslaterin clefense
of tl.realt:rranclstatueof Victorv in the Senatehouse.
Quintus Aurclius Synrnrachus askedthe ernperor, "Where shall we swear
Bv rvhat scruple rvill the deceitful nrind
to obcy your lar,vsanclclecrees?
bc tcrrified, lest it perjure itself under oath? To bc sure, :rli things :rrc fi-rll
of god, nor is any placc safefor perjurers.Nevertheless,the 1rrrTc-sclttia
rru-
nririis,the preselrceof the eodc-less, is a porvcrful induccmcnt to a fcar of
lvror-rgdoing."2rlt is, I think, insufllcientto saythat Synrnrachushasdone
no nlore than elicle a clistinction betr.veenirnage and prototypc, cvcn in
tl.reservice of a psychologicalor emotional understanclingof reiieions
rrt, for what r,vasat stake for hinr in his qr-rarrellvith Anrbr-oseof Mil:rn
w:rs:r lyeat deal nrore th:rn a pl-rilosophyof reprcsent.ltioll.
Lct nre provide two nrore exarnples,one historioeraphic,the other
historical,thc bettcr to lrticulate nry concernsby lvay of triansulatron.
In the frrst chapte'r ol NIimasis,Erich Auerbach taniously contr:rsts
Horneric and biblical narrrtive in their stratesiesfor "representingreal-
ity." The episodesthat he readsin that chapter are Eurycleia'srecogni-
tion of Odyssc-us'sscar and the sacrificeof Isaacin (lencsis 22. Auer-
bach iclentifiesthe implrlse of Homeric style as a desire "to represent
phenornen:rin a fullv externalizedfornr, visible and palpablein all their
parts, and conrpletelyfixeclin their spatialand tenrporalrelations."lr Of
colrrsc,thc intcraction between two nretaphysic:rlly
equivalentsr-rbjects
lends itself to this reading; tl.requestion is rvhy Auerbach contraststhe
one encounter betlvecn trvo humanswith another between Clod :rnd a
nran. Although ire alludesin a singleline to the occasionalarrival clf Zeus
or Poseiclonfrorn feastsof the Aethiopians,he refi'ainsfi'onr suggestrrrg
that Horneric poetry and its rcprcscntationaiinrpulsescould have theo-
logical implications,:rsthe representationof God in Genesissurelydoes;
indeed,by refusingto selecttrue colrp:lranda,l.redenicsthe texts ecltltv-
()r'id l],r-rri4.r r 7.
S t r r n r a c h u sR r ' / .j . - 5
A t r e r b r c hr 9 j - l , 6 .
lHl: 1.lMI l S ()1. ()R I II()t'liAX\
alent sacrelitl'.(llassicalliterature is, on his reaclins,not rclisious litcr-.r*
ture at all.
Second,in a honrily cleliveredlate in the 39os, Ar.reustine beratedhis
audiencelbr celcbratingthe birthday of Cartlrasein a public lbastfor the
leniLtsof the citl'. Had thev not known that they were practicine idola*
'becausc
try? "'lt is no god,' sonreonesays, it is ther'criu-sof C)arth:rgc.'
As though, were it Mars or Mercur\,', it lvould be a god. lJr.rtlearn horv
it is regardedby thenr: not fbr rvhat it is. For vou :rnd I knor,v that it is a
stone.. . . lJut thev regard [t]rerrcrrirr.i]^s a ilumut, and they acrceptthat
'What
statue in the place of thc tuurtcn; the altartcstifiesto this. is the al-
tar doing thcrc, if the ,qolilr-sis r)ot regardedas a ntrnterr? Let no one tell
n r e , ' l t i s n o t a n u i l t c n ; i t i s n o t a g o d . ' I h a v ea l r e a d ys a r d , ' W o r - r l tdh a t
they knerv this, as lve :rll do.' But that altar testifiesto their belief con-
cerningthcr'cniri-r
and tl.restatueand to their practice.lt convictsthe rninds
of thclservho."vorsl.ripit; let it not convict thoser,vhoreclirrebefore it."2r
To the eviclerttconcern of an Ovid or a Livy rvith the representational
capacity of reiigious art, Ar,rgustineadded an indictrnent againstthe nra-
teriality of the idols thenrselves-he and his fellorv Christians knew that
-\
the statue 'nvasmerely a stone-:ls :is a denial that pagan divinities
"vell
had a rletaphysicalstatusequivalernt to that of the true God.25These re-
lated concerns,the seerninglyirreduciblenraterialityof idols, on the one
hand, and the sccrninginrpossibilityof representinganything invisiblc
and irtcorporealin or through nlatter, on the other, lbrnred the basisof
all critiques of idolatry in Graeco-Rornan literature. I r.vantnorv selec-
tively to revierv that literature, in ternrs that drarv or-rtits origins r,vithin
a specificphilosophicaltradition, in the l-ropethat doingsnrigl'rtcl:rrif, sorue
dillculties iri rvriting about religion in the ancient and rnodcrn r,vorlds,
and in reaclingrvhat hasbeen written.
IDOLS AS (MIS)REI)ITESENTATIONS:
PLATO AND THE TRAt)rTrON ()F CTRITIQUE
Even the lirrrited fr:rsnrentsthat rve now possess
revealPrersocr:rtic
philoso-
phers to havebcen absorbcdrvith the issuesthat wcrc to e-rercise Ausus-
21. Ausustine ScflL 6:.6. ro.
2-j. Altlo - 2o,o r . : 6 - t o .
 tinc, llbcit in difierent fbnnul:rtions rrrrclorr the blsis of dilJcrcnt postr-l- r o . T a k e a n v t h i n g a r r , l t vf i - o r t r t o a n c i i t i s n o l o n g e r r o . S o , i l p c r l c c t u r 1 -
latcs :urd preoccupatiotts. Xenophrtucs' lnnrous rttrtck on anthroponror- age of C)rat,vluswould be another Crlrtvlus. Whrt. then, is the prinerplc
phisnr, For cxarnplc, ccnslrrcd it :rsnrole tlnn a strltcq,v of representatiou. o l r ( ' o r r c ( ' n r c s sr v i t l r u l t i , l t u e ( ' . l r )j u d g c i r t t . r q c r ? - W
'" lrr'r.' rcpr('sr'nt:lti()n
C)f cor,rrse,hc rrrgucd, clttie thrt coulcl clrar.r,u'or.rlcldrarv gocls that looke d as such was concerlrecl, Plato ans\\.ereclthis clucstion lllost fllll,v earlv in
like cattle, :rs hunrltns clrerv gocls .uvith hurnan fornrs; br-rt:rnthroponror- the Sop/ri.rt.Writinc there oI rhe :rlt ,rf rrr.rlle nrlkinq, rvhich he called r)
phisnr llso concretizec'l theoloqicrrl ancl nrctrrphysical presuppositions of eiiuAonourcl or eixaort,<i1 riyvl,Plato arglled that artists llnlst llcccssar-
llrr gre:rtcr lllolllcllt, of rvhich the joke abotrt cattlc :rncl horses ancl lions ily leavc behind the trtrth in or.lcr to givc their cre:rtions rlot the actual
\\rasulerelv a recluctio acl abstrrdunr.2t'And altl.rough Her:rclitus attacked proportions of their exenrplars, but such proportions as .iccr/rto be beau-
the fbrnrs of cotrtetr;rorarv relisious ritual rvitli particular vehenrenee, tiful. For this rclson, plastic inr:rges,rvhich arc c:rllcd "likcnesscs" bcc:ruse
like Xenophancs hc did so bccause l.rebelievecl thrt ritr-ralc-xpressedbe- they:rre "hke" therr protot)rpt:s,clo not even cleservethat nanre, but should
rl
hcfs that he founcl insupportlble. hrsisting that iclols as nraterial objects be c.rllc.l $aurdosrarrr. ".tppt'Jr-.ll)t'c:.
hrcl the senre nretaphr,'sic:rl
status as other such obiects-hc likc-ned prrv- In the Cra4,/lr-i,the cluest for a provisional principle of correctness bv
's
ing to :r strrtr-lcto conversing u'ith one housc-he lanrented that cievo- which to juclge inr:rgcs soor) viclds to a very clifferent cprestion, one fi-anrecl
tecs of iclols clid not r.rnc-lerstand
the true natLrre of the eods.lT as a choice betr,veenstarkh' opposecl alternativc-s.Is it bctter to learn abor-it
It r,vasPllto, not srlrprisingl,v,lvho exercised thc grcatcst influence on the truth of things frorrr inraqes of thenr, and fionr those iurrrgesto con-
tl.recriticlue of idolatrl'. Hc nright hrve expec-tedto c1oso throush his .rt- jecture abor-rtthc :lccllracv of the inr:rgc rtself? C)r is it better to learn the
teck on the inunoralitv of traclitional nrvthopoiesis, but thosc sections of r r u t h f r o l ) r t h c t l r r t l r . . l n ( l o r ) t h , r r b . r s i st o J u d g e i t r r c P r e r c r r t r r t i o n s j r !l 1 v
the Rtpttblir rvere largelv ignored until their:lrgruncl)ts :rnc1their clata rvere equatilila paraclignr or prototype rvith trr.rth, Pl:rto tr:rnsfornrecl a problerrr
appropriatecl bv Clhristian apologists of thc second L--enturvand beyond.2s of reprcsentation into one of epistenrologr'. This argllnlent:rtivc slcight-
llathcr, it u'as his cornplex sr-rbordin:rtionof representation :rnd cprstc- of-hancl has its lnalog in the Srp/ri-st,too. In tl-rat rvork, The:retctus :rnd
nrolosy to nictlphvsics that soundecl the cleath kncll tor synrpathetic ep- the Stranser had reachecla seenring parrldox, that insofar as beir-rgbelongs
pre ci:rtions of iclolltror-rsreligiositv alllollg later intellectuals, both pagan to what is truc, and iln:rges are inherently false because inaccurate, nci-
)Lr
llltd L,ltr1stl.ur.- ther inrages or idols nor rpperr'.luccs c.ln crist at all, in any wa)', at alry
Of course,Plato hacl severenrissivinssabout the stttus of inragesof time.33 [3ut they soon satisfled each othcr that both f:rlse speecl.rancl f,rlsc
even nrateri:rlob3ccts.Early in the Crcryltr.r,firr ex:rnrplc,hc drerv an anal- opinion rvere possiblc, and this :illolved thenr to conccdc a fbrnr of exis-
ogv bet'nvcen
producine inragesof Cratylusand reprodr.rcins
the nurtrber t e n c c t o i r t t i t . r t i r r r ot rl ' t h i r r q st l r r t r c r l l y . r r c . l l
Plato h:rsshifteclgrourrcl once again. For rvhat are these thines that rc.rlly
are? Not Cratylus, of course, nor any corporeal object: lbr all such tl-rinss
t(t. X c n o p h : r n c s t i r . r 6 6 - 6 9 I { l l S , e s p . 1 6 7 ( C l c r n c n t S t r , , r r r .- j . r o 9 . : ) : n r o r t r l s t h i n k t h e
g o c i s l r c b o r n r r t d h . t v c c l r > t h e s .r ' o i c e s , r n d b o i l i c s l i k c t l r u i r , r u n . are subject to generation and corruption, and insofar rs they arc allv:rys in
)7. H c r a c l i t u s f i . . u- 1 r K l l S . flux, no knorviedgc of thcrn is possible. What had sccrned an argunlent
:S. Weinstock l9-u(r.

)t). V c r r t . r n t I 9 7 9 , r o - j 1 7 . p r o v i c l c s . r n c x c c p t i o r r r l l v u s c f i r l O l e r v i c N o i l ) l . r t o ' st l r c r t r r ' , , i

r c p r c s c r ) t r t i o n b u t c L r e sr ) o t c o r ) s i a l c ri t s c o r r r : c c t i o r r t o n r r t c r i r l i n ' o r i t s s p c c i f i c c o n r ) c . t i r ) i l -3o. Craryltrs.l.j-:b
d.
t o t c l i q i o u s . r r t . ( ) s [ r o r r r e 1 9 i l 7 o R c r s i l t r c r ) c h r n t r e r r l i n u o f ' l ) l r t o ' s c r i t i c i s r r r o i r n i n r c s r sr n
3I . Si?/ri-sr:3 .5cl :3 6c.
R t p r t b l i r t o . b u r h e r d i s c t r s s i o no f i t s " r c p c r c u s s i o n s " i s d c e p l l r r l r i s t o r i c r r l l, c r p i n u f i ' o n r l ) J r t o
-12,. Cruryltr.l.l9rr b.
to lll zrntine icoroclrsrr. rrrrl slrc is in lrrr, cvcrrt rrot conccnrccl l ith cult prrctice. Hcr cltoicc
33. Sryr/ii-it:64c t1: ojs orize ei'<-v ,tJre <[}ru)u, ,,Jr< dtrirtrtopl eirl ri r,rprir,tv oti62,' 8,ri
o i " i r t c r r r r t r t t i o n " l \ r t e r n r s h e n c l i s c r r s s i r rrgr r i r r r c s i si r r r e l i g i o L r sJ r t \ \ , r \ r i n f b r t u n r t t c : i t s c t n t s
rit yrl}alLits 1t131nore piSalLoi feJ,Jns eit"r.
rrrrplicidv tojrrsrifi (or rt sirrrplv rctlccts) rr clccisronn()t to conlc to grips u.ith rhc nrrtcri,tl
itv of'qods rrrtl iclolsoursiclc (lhristilrr thouqht. l+. (r411:tyyotpei iti pttltilLnr,:L ,r?tr i,,r,.,tl el.t,,u.
Sryriri-il-2,

Il)()lS ANI) llll:ll{ (illlll(lS f()

 about epistenrologvhasits lounrlation in a sinrple-inc'leed.sinrplistrc-
ontologv. It infonneclrluch of Plato'srvork, includinq anelogieshc drer,v
rvith irrragcnraking.So, for exanrple,he likened thc p:rrricularexarnples
u r e db l g c o r r e t r i c i . r nt\o \ o r n . r r r iyr r r . r g ci sr r r v l t c r .ei r o ' r e ri y r i | a o r , rr,r r c . l
fbr seekinqlealitiesthat lre visrbleonlv through irrtellection.15
'I-hesc'vrricd
strandsof arqunrentflnd their nexlrsin thc Zlr,rcrr-s.
in that rvork. Pl;ito ciistinsuished bcnveentr,vokinds of things:those that
:rreand haveno origin, arrdthose that are alwaysin a processof bcconr-
l and yet it crr'not be cailed"eartlr" or "air" or "fire" or "rvatcr,',bur rs an
ins but nevcr are.The lbnlLcr arc rpprpghsnded
reason;the Iatter by opinion il,ith rl.reaid of senseperception.Jr,Ljrrcler-
stood ir-rtheserernrs,Plato obserr.ecl.the u'orld itselFisan objcct of sense
perceptionand ruusthavebeen cre:rtcdthrough participationin sonieob-
ject of intellectior.r:
the rvorld, in othcr rvorcls,is a copv of sclnrethins.iT
I3ut applyi'e rvordslike "i'rage" and "par:rdi*'r" to cosmogorricprocesses
rnrrdePlato une:lsy.He had e:irliercleliberatedw'herherto designatetire
unir,erscbs,oipards or xdopoEor sorne othel- nal)le, and larrrerrtedthat it
would be inrpossibleto speakeve'nthc little that one misht knor,r.of the
father and nrakerof the lvorld.38He no lonser hesitated.In speakire rn
this rval',he continued, we nrust assunrethat rlords are akin to rvl-ratthey
describe:r"'hen the1.relrte ro the lastinsanclpernranenrand inrelligible,
thev ought to be irrefutable ancl u'alterabie. but rvhe' they exprcsso,ly
likeness.rvordsneed be onlv sinrilaror analoqousto what tl.revdcscribe.
Tl.re problem of representationwas thus resolveclb1,the paracloxicalas_
sertion that the ',vordsof cliscursivellnguage can representthe truly ex-
istentnrore accuratelythan objecrsof nretaphysical st:rtuslike r_rnto
thcnr-
nanrely those subject to generatio. arrcldecay:'As being is to
sel'"'es,
becorninq," Plato could therr conclucle."so rrurh is to belief-."1e
Plato had begu' by p.siting a direct connection berwt-ena particular
ontoloey and a set of epistgnologicaldistinctions,and onlv a fer.vpa{res
later usedthe sarnetwo assertior.rs,
betbre either h:rcibee' provecl,to conl-
plete a syllogisrnabout represent:rtion. 'l-irrtrcus
Llter irr tl'te he r.'turned
to problerllsof reprcscnt:rtion, lskirig u hethcr onc cJn clesiqrratc .()rpo-
real objectsusing raJzrjr,,"the sclfiurnething,,' ,'the r-err,one,"sincc clo_
ing so rvo'ld 'r:rke a c.'plex asscrtio' about tl-reicle'titv a'd ontolog_
ical integritv of the ob.iectin q'estion. plato co'ch,rdcclthat orily rvhat
receivesall boclies.rndall tbr'rs can be so clesignated, becauseit'ever cle-
Earlv partsfronr its orvn natrlrelncl ncver.particil-r1gs:5
itr lny rv.r1,.iri:urv
fbrnr.
It is the rrother and reccpt2l-leof all createdrrrcl'isihle and sensiblethirrss.
by intelligencc:ilong \,vith
invisibleancishapeless fbr'r; all-rcceiving,it p:rrticipatesin so.ie rvav irr
the intclligible and is itself Lltterlvipcoltpre.hcrrsiblc.+,)
so far, s. good. llut Platc'r
cl.scd this sectionby rr,rrni'g.,ce asairrto
epistemology."Thcrc: I har-cput forth 'rv :ug'lrert. rf nrirrcJa'cr cor-
rect opiniorl are two dili-ercntcrteg<>ries,
then there rrrustbe scif cxrsrent
ideas,rvhich :lre .ot susceptibleto scnseperceptiontrrlt are apprc.he'ciecl
only by'the .rind."+l The tbr'rulatiorr of the firral arslrrrenr :rsa co'cli_
tioral is a rvpic.rlPl.rtonicsleight-ot-hard.For irs arriculaticr'in'ites orrc
unreflectivelyto assentto precisclyrvhat had been arrd largely rerrrai.ed
at issue.'arrely that the disti'ction bern,eenknorvk,dseand belief cor_
responclsr'vith or, rather, restsLlpor a rnetaphysicsconceived in ontolog-
ical ternrs.
ART AS ]I.EI)ITESENTA
ION
what has all this r. do with idols? A sreat dear. I' r,vhatfbllorvs, I shall
follow ll.roclerlltrends in thc str-rdyof lncienr philosophy ancl
treat the
rwin foundatio's of idolatrl,critique separ-atell;
corrcerrtretingflrsr on rcp-
resentationand otrly later on ntateriality.a2But theseproblenrscatrnotbc
entirely divorced. On thc contrar\,,I shallarsue in closing
that it is pre_
suppositionsabour nrarerialitvand 'etaphysics that leacl
's, as they lecl
Augustine, to i'sisr that idols r'ust be-indeetl, c:r. orrly be-idois
of
solncthi,g. [)agrrrunclcrstandings
of the r-eprcsertatiorral
cap:rcityof iclols

'l
I -j. I?cpr1r1r-sr ocl-r. 40. inrts ,sob-l r r.
j6. 'I'intrtr:
l7d l3a. 4 t. 1 ' i l l , r r r r - ri r t l .

37. Thtu(us 2q1r. 42 ot clrlptcr 7 btlori, w'ltii:lr rtrtlttprs to brcrk dorvn

tlrc drstlnctior)\ clrlrr,l 5r r))oLlcrrl
schollrs benvec:r Clrrjsti.rn entl prgrn
. 1 8 . l " i r l , r c r i .: if J b c . t h e o r i c s o f t l r e s ; r c r . , l i z - , t i r r roli 5 F - 1 . g 1 , . , " . , , r i t , , . , 1 , , r f
s a c r l l i z : r t i o r r .: r r r d ( l h r i s t i r r r r e l i r n c e
jt). o n s l c r c c l r r r r n t i v e s l n d t l t c c o l r t i n r _ l c r tl o c a t r o r r o i l r o l r , ,
Tilr,rtrr-r:9[--r'.
relics, prcrtrpposc r.crt. sirrrilrr thcorics
r r t -t l i v i n e i n l r r r r n c r r c c .

IO IHL l-lMIls ()1,()RrII()t'ltAXY

II){)IS .\Nl) flll:tR (jl{ttt(jS
3l
 ancltl.rcontologicrrlprcnrisesof prruanritual turrr out to be frtrInore lltricJ, his clefcnseof religious rrrt bv reflcctins on its firnction rncl porvcr.I)io
cornplex, ancl potcntillly conflictinq thln anl inter'pr-etrttiotr cotrsistetit adnritteclthat it u'asclifllcult lbr huru:rnstc-rglin acccssto anclsccureknorvl-
rvith l Platonic nretlphvsics rvoulcl allou'. edge about thc clivine.Hc identifled ft>ursourcesof rccuratc infbrrrra-
of iclolatrvexisteclin a v:rricty of forrns, br-rt
Philosophizingclefenscs tion: poets, larvgivcrs,ertists,rncl philosophers.Althotreh he kncii,' the
attcl
thc,vaii accepteclthc prcnrisethat the firr"rctionof idols \\,asr()r(?rc-rcrr/, story that Phcicliashad bccn inspireclb,vHorncr, he alsoinsistecl
rhat arrlsts
not in anv \\rry /o fc, the goc1.I hbcl thesctexts "philosophizing" in part could becomc tl.reri'u'als anclpecrs of the poets, as "through their eves
becausethcir authors are dctnotrstr:iblv1:uniliarrvith Pl:rto,but especially they interpretecl thc clir.ine
for their nnnrerousand lesserperienccclspcc-
becauseclefendingidohtr.v bv recourseto theoriesof representatiotr itself tators."r5llv rllorvins that artistsi(lyoripevot rd geia,"irrterp',rs1
rhe di,
takcs place onlv lvithin a plrticul:rr intellectual and cliscr.rrsive
traclition. vine," Dio iurplicitly elevrtcclthenr to rivalry rvith the philosophers,as
The problcnr for iclolatr,v'schanrpionsr'vastu'ofolcl: flrst to clefendthe he had cxplicitlv conrparedthenr rvith the poets,fbr it is the philosopher,
use of irrraqesand only seconclarilyto defer-rcl anthropotnorphisru.As so accordingto l)io, "rvl.roir-rtcrprets the clivinein speechanclruost rruth-
often, rve knolv the nrost influential defenseof inrasesirt the Westcrll tr:l- fully and perfectlv procl:rirnsits inrnrortal nrlture."+('In ()t Ltt,t.qe.r,
I)or-
dition onlv fronr its opponents.For it u.asthe flrst-centr,rry
Rorrranpolv- phyry follor,vedVarro anclI)io in construins the interpretationof sr:rrlles
nrath Varro rvho introcluccdthe Latin-speakingrvorld to the :rllegorical asmaterialobjectson analogvrvith the re:rdingof rvorclsasrtr:rtcrialsigns.
interpretation of rcligious staturry, :urclrve knorv his r'r.orksott religron In the prcfaceto that rvork Porphyrl'promised"to thoseu'ho luve learned
tl.rroughthe extractsof thenr cluotedbv Ar-rgtrstine.
ahnost cxclr-rsively We to read fronr statucsas fronr books u'hat is rvritten abor.rttl.regocls" that
are, thcrefore,in no position to sayrvhetl.rerVarro developeclthis tlreorv he rvould reve:rl"the tl-rouehtsof 'nvisetheolos\,',in rvhich nren have rc-
art hinrself,on analoqvlvith Stoic :rllegorizineinterpret:rtions
of religior-rs vealedClod and Gocl'spor.vcrsthroush irrragcssr"rsceptible
to sel)scper,
of Hesiod, llthougl'r it seenrsclearth:rt both he and Ciccro ktrelv Zeno's ceptiorl,bv rendering the invisiblein visiblelbrnts."+7
Itr any evcnt,accorclinqto Attgustine,Varrc-r
re:idingof Hesiod'sTlttrrg<t111,. All theseauthorssharedrvith Pl:rtothc basicnretaphysical:rssunrptrolr
argued th:rt the nraterirrlolrjccts useclin religiotrs rituals serveclto c-lraw that incorporcal deitiesand, indeecl,incorporealide:rsexistnc'rtsirnplvon
the eyes'attelrtiol)to thenr in order to direct the sight clf the rnind to in- a dilTerentbtrt on :r higher plane than cnibodied llrurans; it u,'astl.us;rs-
visiblcthings.lr Augrtstincplacecl:l terseforrnnlationof Varro'srrglutlellt sunrptionthat triqsereclthe need lbr the clivineto be interprcted rather
in the nror-rthof a fictive paeanin :l serrllolrdelivereclduring the closing than rrerely depicted and that recluireclartists to rcnder tl.reclivine not
yearsof the fourth centurv: "supposesonredebaterstandsforth, otre rvho from a corporcal rtroclelbut frorn sontc olltstanclingforrtr of thc be.ruti*
'l ful that existedin tlieir nrinds.18
seenrslearnecl,lnd says: do not u'orsl'ripthe stotre.I rnerelv venerate The philosophicalbasisof thesedebates
rvl.ratI sec,but I rvorship hirn r'vhontI do not sce.'Who is this? An rn- rs nowherc nrore apparcntthalr in C)rigen'srctirtation of Celsusor the
t r e s i c l eosv e r t h a t i d o l . ' P e o p l er v h o c l e f e r t d
v i s i b l er t t r r t r t ' n , ' hsea y s , ' t h a p first book of John of l)anr:rscus'sOrr lrn,t,qes.l')
C]elsr.rs
hacl arsuc-clthat
they rlrav
the use of inrascsin this rva1,seetnlerarnedortly to thetlLselves:
not \\rorshipiclols,but they still rvorship detnotrr."ll
4j. I)io ()r. r:..16.

ilIi
()thcr advocatesfor idolatry sinrilally accepteclthe prctuisethat iclols
46. l ) i o ( ) r . r : . 4 7 ; M r t l v d r r 9 . 1 9 ,9 . r n d . l f i - - t 9 .
sot.ttcthitrq.Although both l)io Clhrvscrs*
haclto be clefendeda,srcltrcserttir4q 47. I)orptrvrv Ilepi riyoApdratr.,ti'. 3.5I Snrith (ti. r l3idcz).Scc alsofi. .l j:: ,,1,\)' ?ne',nciurc,
torn ancJPorphyry ultinratel,vc'lefcndccl rnthropontorphistrt,each bcsarr rdv nepi roirtov rinrJpptlro,,3r) rcol
lruorr,rr'lrepovAr.iyot,eis docolttirousdu"cllrerspera$opLx,irs
,ivijyov,tiore iorceir,
1qxlr' lni ri 6p<,J1Lert 1Llp1 roi xriolrou,i1,0eoroLirLt,uir<iv ouvreiv<w,
d,\)' izi rtv6. iopriroug xtri r)o<,t1tri.roys rJuydpers, ore,lx,ipeIn ei pi1 xui otir-g pL,rv Xpil ,r,1,
Aehv drh'alLu,rino|rului(<u,, ri,\)' ori ro,\,\ris i1y<io0ot.

lit Vrrro.4rrt. r/il fr. -::s (l.trchuns -

,lj. Atruttstinc Oir'.7.;.
()rr Auqusrinc'riritirltrc oiiclolrtrv rnd itsplrilosopbitrl brses 4 8 . ( l i c c r o ( ) r , r i , ru
r . l i 9 ; M e d r . d r r 9 - 1 9 .1 ( )r r r t l : , 7 - u9 .
+ . 1 . A u s u s t i r r cl t t . I ) s . 9 6 .r r .
scc Arrclo:oo r. + 9 . S c ee s n .J o l r r r . 7 .

ll ll)()t.s ANt) trllitt (ittftcs -l-l

 Clhristianslvere both idolaters:rndpoor rnetaphysicians
becausethev be- In his engatenreutr'r'ithPlato'sphysics.Aristotle rcactedabove :r11 to
lieveclhurnanshad been createclin everv rv:rysirnilarto God. I)id thcy two relateclproblenrs, the flrst having to do with tl'reorv ancl tl-iesecc'rncl
not clepictGocl saying,"Lct us createnran in our irnagc-rncl rcserublance with thc particr"rl:rr
lrticulations by i,vhichtheorl, r,vaselaboratecl.
So, ac-
lxar' eixdva rco,i
\polaou flperepavl?"'')Thisrvasinrpossiblc,Clelsusccln- cordin{rto Aristotle, Plato o1l-creclno theorv of nratter or, rather, lrone
tinr-red,becauseGod did not nr:rkehunransin liis inrase,nor does (loc-l that satisfiedAristotle's clern:rndfor logical coherence.The thcory of
reser.nbleany other visil-rlel.eirrq.tlt)rigen .lefbnded(lhristiansfrrst r,vith Forms,for exarlple,denrandedthe existenceof urrfonnednratter,r.l,hether
a specioussenlanticar{rulllcnt,insistingthat (}ocl nracJenran only in his of chronological or rncrely loeicrl priority'.This denrandPlato signallv
inragebut not in his resenrblance,
a cl:rinrfor r,vhichhc ollers no proof farledto n1eet.Hence Aristotle askedrvhethcr Plato'sLllriversal recepta-
but a forrnulation that :rchicvedlasting influence. Origer-ralso undertook cle or his "space"
so-callccl nrisht be interpretedas prinre nr:rtte'r
but de-
a more rigorons defenseof Christiar-inretaphysics.
Celsushasclearlyrnis- clared the text insutTicier-rtly
prcciseto allorv rnv ccrtrintv.il It rv,rsnot
representeclthe Christians,Origen wrote, rvhen he suggests that we think that Plato faiicd to :rpprcciatethe existenceof this problcm, rrsAristotle
r,vhatis made "after the iniage of God" is the bodv r.vhcre:rs thc soul, pointecllvobserves.For his p:rrt, Plato wants the Fornrsto preexist,to be
rvhich is better,is deprived of .,vh:rtis "after his irnage."For none of us, prior to corporcal nratter. But as Aristotlernotcs, Pl:rto's or,vnill-rstration
C)rigenasserted, thinks that your idols are actu:rllyirtrasesof gods,asvou of fornration-thrt of a golclsnrithimposing a clesignon prcviously un-
clo, as though such things could depict the shapeof an invisibleand in- formed gold-did not require that the clesignexistbelore the gold, nor,
corporcal deity; still lessdo 'uveimagine that anytiring createdafter God's in fact, could it explailrthe existenceof the gold :rt rll.ti
's
irnage cor-rldbe Zv rCt $0aprQ o,iy"art, "in a colrul'ttible lrodv."ir I do not w:urt to belabor the det:rilsof Aristotle reading of Plato. It
is, however,cmcial to understandtwo things,both conncctcd to thc p:rr-
adoxicalreceptionof Aristotle'scritique anronglater Platonists.
The flrst
T H E M A T T E I I A N I ) M A T E i I I A L I T Y O F R E L I G I O U SA R T
has to do rvith the elaborlte connection Aristotle clrer'vbetr'veenfcrrnrs
What is ir corruptible body? Are there incormptible boclies?
Thcse qucs- and particulars,on the one hand, and the ontologicalst:rtusof tlre differ-
tions return r-rsto theories of ru:rtter and to the reception of Plat<'r's ent kinds of nratterfionr r.vhicheach is nrade,on thc othcr; thc secoircl
Timacus.For anrongancientrcaders,th:rttext renrainedto the end of an- principally rvith the tools for discussir-rg
nrateriality tl.ratAristotle bc-
ticluity a touchstonein debatesabout creation and hence about rnatter. queathedto Graeco-Romanposterity'.
Not surprisingly,the featuresthat rnakeit most characteristically
Platonic- As regarcls the flrst legacyof Aristotle'scritique of Plato,althoughAris-
its peculiarand misleadingcl:rim to clebatefirst principles,and its use of totle insistedth:it prirnc nl:rttcr existed prior to its ftrrnr;rtion oniy in po-
nryth to describe things it elservherelabelsr-rnrcprcsentable
in discursrve tentiaiity and not in actuJity-only, that is, logically anclnot tenlporally-
l:rngu:ree-serveasliehtning rodsin subsequentdebate.In revielvingth.rt he did concecleto Plato that the nretaphor of the goldsnrithnray have
literature, I turrt first to Aristotle, Plato's rlost influential readcr and nrost been r-rsefulasa narrativc represent:rtionof processesthat rvere thenrselves
powerful critic.5l atenrporal.56 Writing in the Mctapliy-rir.i
of tl.renraking of a bronze sphere

Jo. ( ) r i q e n ( - ' ( , / . r, .1 . 3 o , m c l c f . 7 . 6 2 . l ) l r t o T i l r , l c t i . i - 5r c - , 5 - : , b : A r i s t o r l c l \ . r d t i o t t td i l r n t p t i 0 n (
i.t. .gtrt 3r9ti-2;1. r,ith Jorrclrirl
-jI. C ) n g u r C c / - i .6 . 6 j . 1922.t91 9;;cf-. l l r t , i | / r 1 , . s i :
r ,
o t J b J t - t 0 3 a ) : t r 3 rncl ro-]8b-j-j ro:9br3:rntllLoss r9a)o.-i6i.
j j. 'I
iz. ()ricen C - i ' l . . . 6 . 6 3r n t i 7 . ( 1 6 . Plrto l r i a a l - s + 9 e - j o i r : A r i s t o t l e D t ' , q t , t t t r i l i o r t rd [ t ) r { 1 t l t i ( ) n ( , ] r 9 t i - l + . rnri ct'. .\Icta-
-frro p f i y - s i r -rso 3 - 1 r : , 1 r o j 4 . r i l r n d r o i o b ( r .28.
j-1. rcccnt ovcrvict,s oitlrc l)latorrist tr:clition obliquell,relevrnt to tiris chrptcr rrc
(icrson :oo5 lnd Krrrnrrnolis :oo6. Thet, hrr.e rluitc clistinct perspcctivcs, rhough erch is -j6. ()rr the lorricel prioritv of prirnr rrrrttcr sce Aristotlc l)t.,lutLrdtiottt (t ilrtltltinnL
jz,9a:4 b-u. ri'itlr
c o n c c r r r c c l t o c x p l i c . r t c A r i s t o t l c ' s p h c c i n t l r r t t r u d i t i o n . N e i t h c r i s i n r - e s r e cilr t t h c c l u e r t t t r r t r Jorchirrr l9ll. Igfi 99. ,rs urll .rs llosr r9(ro,47 encl 5o. on 1)/r;,-ri11
tirrcqrou rrcleti lrcrc. zo(rbr:-r6.

1.1 lt)()t.s i\NI) fIIIiIR clllllcs 3j

I fi-oni unfbrnreclbronze, he observedthrrt r.r'cclll the particulir and the lems:first, tl.regractralevolution of :rspccificallyLatin vocabularyfor nr.rt-
tornr bv the sarle rtanre,anclvet whllt rve call the forrn crlnnot have anv ters of nratcrialityprior tc'rAr.rsustine(anclso prior to Iris historicallycle-
cxistence-is not, in his tcrnrs, rr selflsubsistent substancc-nrerely be- cisivearticulatiotrof :rL:rtitridolatry criticpe), artcl,scconcl,the rccursive
( ' . l u s \c\ ' c h . r v c . r t . t t t t tco r i t . i - applicationof an Aristotelianvoc:rbularvto problenrsof thcology raisecl
If Aristotle resenrblesPlato in havins connectcd problenrsof episte- (or discovcrcdby laterreaclers) in the Tirndcir-s.
The testinron)rof Cicero's
nroloey, representation,and nrctapl.rysics,
he dicl so in nclically difcrcr-rt Acddcriric-s
Posterittr is crucial to both protrlenrs,both for its accountof the
rv:rys.So, for exrrrnplc,Aristotie conccdccl that nrost people clefinecl of
eclecticisnr Antiochus of Ascaionand fbr its explicit cliscr.rssion
of prob-
processes of gcnerationand cormption, ylveots xo,i$)opci,by drauirrq lemsof translation.Tl.reseissuesbecenreintertrvineclrvhcn Cicero turned
:rn incorrect ontological disti.nctionbct'uveen
perceptibleanclinrpercep- to iiAq,"nratter," becausein bnef conrp:rss
he ecluateclAristotelianpriuic
tible lratter.5sOn the other hand he insisted,first, th:rt solne nratterw.is matter rvith Pl:rtonic space,called thenr both tndtcria,:rnd idcntifled cor-
potcntially srlsceptiblenot tr) scriscperception,but onlv to ir-rtellection; pus, or bodr,',as the product of this ru:rtter and Stoic notdrls, rvhich he
rendered.rith qrrttlitns.l
ancl seconcl,that both kinds of nratter \vere properly spe:rkingunknorv- " (-iccro inrplicitly'.rcknorvleclged
the eclecticrsnr
able prior to their fornration.That is rvhy rve assignthe sanrenanre to of tlris brief essayon irrititt,"first principles,"rvhen hc assignecl
author-
h o r h t b r r r r sr n d p : r r t i tr r l r r r s . i ' r ity for its various conrponentsto Antiochus, Aristotle. or the Stoics,but
The secor-rd
crucial legacyof Aristotle'scritique of Pl:rtois rnorc snb- he often labeleclthe rvhole as thc thoullht of the Greeks."l
tle. It consistsof the concc-ptual:rnd tcrnrinologicalrpparatusthat Aris- But the full cxtcnt of Aristotle'sinfluence on Platonicphysicsenlergcs
totlc dcvelopedto correct Platc'r,
rvhich was appropriatedby lrter Platon- with particular clarity in the philosophicalhandbooksof Alcinous and
ists rncrelv to suppler-nenthinr. Of particular inrportance werc thc Apuleius. Alcinous tc'rokfi-onr Plato his correlations betr.vccnknor,vl.-dge
:rssinrihtionof Aristotle'slogicallyanclpotentially cxtant nratter,rvhat he and intellection,on the one haud, and sensepcrccption and opil1ion,o1r
cellsthe npairrl ri)1, to Plato'suniversalreccptacle,on the one hand, and the other.('l Indccd, likc Plato, Alcinous accepteclthis distinction rlsax-
the conrplex belief that "intelligiblc" particularshad sonrefonr of irn- iomatic: it is becauseintellection and opinion are categoricallyclillerent
perccptilrlc n1:rtter,dillcrcnt in kind 6'onr ri)1 yevvrlrr)xai {dopz{, scnsc- that their objectspossess differentialontolosicalstatus;there nrustbe pri-
perceptible nratter sr-rbjcctto gener:ltion rrnd corrnption, increaseand mary objcctsof intellection,np}ra voqrd,,x there :rreprirnarv objcctsof
ch:rnse.This endorvedPlato's ontologic:rl fi:rnrcwork lvith a fornr of un- sensepcrceptit;n.npira aio?qrci."1
rlerlying and unchansine rihT vorlrf, ii'ttelltsible nratter, that could bc the Post-Aristoteiianmetaphysicirns, lackine the couraseof Aristotle'srig-
object of reason:urdudqors,to correspondto thc corruptible lrlatterthat orous enrpiricisnr,and adheringto :r Platonizinephvsicsthat u'ould have
was thc obje'ctof opinion and senseperception.r'" disrn:ryedPlato and Aristotle :rlike, concludcd quite n:rturaliy that objccts
The coruplex afterlitr-'of thcse dcb:rtcslvitirin micldle Platonic physics
lies to one side of nry project, cc'rncerned
as it is rvith paganand Christ-
61. Ciccro.4rlrl. p()st.21 ).7.
ian theorizing abor:t idolatry I therefore'concentr:lte he'rc on t'uvoprob-
()2 1 s e t l t s i c l cl r e r e c o n s i d t r a t i o n o f p h i l o s o p h v l t I l o r n c b c n v c e n ( l i c c r o r n c l t h e h t e f i r s t
c e n t u r v c t . E .T h c r c i s . h o l , e v c r . r n u t l r o f i n t e r c s t i n t l t i s r r r r t e r i r l . S e n e c l ' s e r t e n c l e t l n t e c l i -

57. Aristotlc .\l'taplry-rir:i r o-l.lir.r,.l r oJ418. tatron orr first prirrciplcs, lor erlnplc. uoukl repl crrelul srtrclr'.both firr its l)latonic snrith
A r i s t o t l e D t ' , q t ' t n ' r u t i L t r t t ' ( ' t L t ) t n t f t i t )-n3I( l' l b r S - u 7 : c t - . . \ 1 r n r y r l r 1 , . iri o
r rj 6 b - j : Io-j7e5 w h o i t l l p o s e s l b r n t o n A r i s t o t c l i . r n b r u z e . l r c l t i r r i t s v o c r b u l r r l ' , n h i c h i s J . r r g e l - vi r r r l e p c r r
i8.
dentofcliccro(scc.c.q.,E).5fi.r6
j9. A r i s t o t l c . \ ' ; l c t , ? / r y . i i rt-orj 5 b j r ro.l(rltl .rnd ro-t(rb3: loJTrro. 3 r ; c f - . L 1 r . 6 5 . E 9 . r n c l9 o . : f i : 9 ) . I n c l c c c l , s d r c c ; r . s l . u r
g t t a s c r c v c a l sj u s t h o u ' f l r r i c l t h c L r t i n p h r l o s o p h r c . r l t n t l i t i o n r e n r r i r r e c l i n r h e r n i L l c l l eo f r h c
60. A s b o t h J o e c h i n r t 9 : : . x x x i v r r r d t . 1 . 3 , 1 . 1 ,. r n c l l S o s t o c k I 9 9 - 1 , I , 5 6 - 5 7 r r r r d r 6 j ( 1 6 .
first ccltturv.
r r r r k c c l c r r r , A r i s t o t l e r c g i r r c l c t li n t c l l c c t r - r r l r ) l l r r t c r i r s r r o t h i n u r n o r c t h r r r r t n i r t t l g i n r r v k r u i c r l
63. Alcinous .1.1,.1.
po\tulrte. usefirl fbr tliscussing thc applicrtiorr of'corrccpts likc "phce" rntl "touch" to rri
y<(DtL<TpLK{i. 61- A l c i n o L r s t ) . 1 : c t ' . J r l r , r c r i - i. r d i-zr.

3() ll){)t.s ,\NI) t - I I t jI R cl{t I l(js 37

 of intellectionanrl scrrscperceptione:rchr-ecluirc thcir cxvn kirrd of nrer- Alcinous clrerv his corrcsponcleltces betweelr epi51s111ologv
and rrretr-
ter. What Alcinor-rsprovided, tl.rcrctbrc,is :r thoroushlv Ar-istotelianizetl phvsics in a section of his h.rncibook seplrrte tltrnr that on first prrinciples.
'1'rrirccrr-s.
accoLlntof the Not only .1idhe :rcceptr,vithourhesitationth:rt Apuleitrs tor his part undcrstood th:rt knon'lcd{-{e of first principles rvas
the universalrecept:rclc, the niothcr and nursc of all thincs, and spaceare insep.irablc fronr our c:rplcity to articulate or represent it. So, for exaln-
onc atrd the s:rtnc,but he eqr-ratccl
thenr r,vithan Aristotelirrnsubstratun.r ple, hc tentatively concluded that prirne nlatter was unsllsceptiblc to scnsc
inacc--essible
to sel)sepefception :rnclconsistingof nratter.u5 This strbstra- perccption blrt accessibleto intellecriorr.-l Hc grcw ntore certairt *'hen
turrris neithcr corporc:rlnor iltcorporeal.brrt is body in potc-ntialitv(,(,Thar he turner'l to thc clistinction between objects of intellection and their
thcre rvasrreitherl contiluitv irr hnqtragt nor in anv nre.rningfulsense:l esserlcc,and objects of senseperception ancl tl-reiressencc.Thc fornrer lre
continuity of nre.rrringilt the conccptsof "sr-rbstr:rtuni," "rrratter,"ancl visible t() the eyes of the urind and cxist alu'rr\.sin the sanre wav. €'.1r.1 ,.)
"potentiality"' betrveenPlato'stirtre anclhis orvn 'uvouldnot luvc concerned thenrsclvcs; the l:rtter niLlst be jLlclgecl by opinion, rvhether ratioltriI or tr-
Aicinons; the do-rt)graphictraclition,rtswc rvould ternr it. was not con- rational, because they are crc:rted and pass:rrvav-.
What is rnore, the essence
ccrned r'vithhistorv in tl.ratsense.So it u.astl-ratAlcinorrscor.rlclconjoin of objccts of inteilection, insofar as it is the strtrject of discoursc, olTers
thoseequationsbr- aclaptingf,lt .lrqLlpglt iiorri Aristotle's,\,lct,qrlr1,-sir-s
and grountls firr- rational lnd :rbiding true statenrelrts;the essel)ceof ol.r.jects
so idcntify trlrlttcras I flrst prirrciple.tront rvhicl.rthe rv'orlclu,:rscreated. of setrseperception. n.hich lre like thc shatlou'sand irnases of trtre thir.rgs,
rnd then :rskby *'honr and rvith retercnceto what it rvasf:rshionecl.,,7 The ollbrs gror-rnd fbr disptrt.rtion ancl rvorcls that are inherentlv inconst:int.72
answersto those qucstionsrvere,of course,Clod anclthe Fornrs,the fbr- It n.oulcl be interesting to tr:rce the developrrrent of tl.risconcepturll frarne-
nrcr irlposing thc latter on a chaotic,inrperceptiblepreexistentsubstra- work in lareater detail, for its influencc on theology and the exegesisof crc-
tunr of nrattcr.('xlf on the one hand u.e have l-reretravclctlllir fronr thc ation narratives fronr the -Jervish diaspora to latc antiquity, lronr Philo to
Tirrtrcus,we ;tre far fi-onrthe Crrrty/ll.i,
too. and resident>u'arnonq gods Hernrosenes and Tertulliarr. to Calciclius,Proclus. rind John Pl'riloponus. In
rvith a far rttorc cotnplex, if sonrcu,hatnebtrlous,rc'l;rtionshipto rnatter. this area as in so nreny othcrs, Plotinus broke u,ith his predcccssors:l.risrrroclel
Apuleius pror,iclesour bcsr glinrpseinro the Latin reccprion of plato of divine inrrnanence, tlut of a nirror reflecting inrages, cre:rtct-lconcep-
betrveencicero andLactantius.In book r of ol Platohedc.scribcd Platcr's tual space for grolvth in nerv directions.T'rJulian the Apostate's writinss orr
first principles:Gocl,nt:ltter,and tl.reForrrrs.According to Apuleius,pnnre embodinrent sinflarly ailowed for ner,v understandings of ritual practicc,
nratter is improrrmbilurrirtcttrruptililqu?,
t-rvr,r,l.rich
he rncant it is not sub- which lrave been largely iqnorcd bv those convinced that paganisnr \vas o1l
.icct to ylveots ,<ai$)opri, qencration lncl corruption.("'This nratteris po- the wlne [-rvthe mid-fourth century.Ta At prcsent, lrolvever, I war]t onlv to
tentiilly recipierrtof fornr and is the snbsrraturnof crerrion. It is, finalh: return to the problcrn of cocls arrd iclols. .rncl I do so by lr,'lv of Augustirre.
indeternrinatelnrl irrrperceptiblc:ir is inflnitc insofar ls its nragnitudeis
indetcrrninate;it is nc-itl.rer
corporealor incorporeal.It clnnot be bodl
AUGUSTINE, IDOLS.ANI)
sinceit lacksfornr; br-rtr,vithoutboclv it cannot be saidto cxist.T{'
THE AFFEC]TIONS OF THE MISEITABLE
In his gl-eat comnlentrrry orr (ienesis, rvritten e.rriy in thc tlfth.:clrtrlry,
(,j. Alcinoui li.::Kqi np<-nri ye zep) ri)ris Alyru1rr,,. Tcuirrlr,i ,ut, i<lL,q,eici, re rerrlnoy-
iieles xai trltil1, xti ltltipo xa't Xaip,'.L,3Lo1Lri(et xrrlt Jnorc<ilettl rirrtit
Attqustine \\':ls concernecl to reconcile his orr'n tor-nr of a (lhristiln I)lrr-
r< 1rcri ri.varc|r1-
oirLs xai vri1t,o )tytoltti tr1trriL.
66. A l c i r r o t r s 8 . . 3.
(r7. Alcirrous 9.3, firllol'ltg A r i s t o t l e . \ l ' n r y r l r y . r ir r o - l t t r t to. 7 r . Aprrleirrs
1)r'1)/rrl.
r .,s.
6fi. Alcinous r:.-:. 72. A p u l e i r r sI ) L P l t t . t . ( t .
(,9. A p t r l c i r r sl ) c l ) l t t . t . s . 73. l)loti:tus.1.3.
;o. ApulcirrsI) l)1,r.t.:. 74. S e c .c . q . ,J u J i r n , l : ) r S
. t . , r . - : 9 3t lr.r t < r s c t l r cr v i t l r l l . S r r r i t l rr r t g i .

ts
 tortizing nretaphysicsrvith r narrativc of creatiol) that ruthcr unfortunatelv
corrcretizcd vcry cliflerent thcological presuppositior rs.;i Yct rn.rlysisof anci
r,vriting ubout such issuesraiscd irresolv:rblc problenrs of representarrc-rn,
ones th:rt Augtrstine sought to expirin by appcal to thc verv ntetaphvsi-
cal postlll:rtcs that hacl ltlotivatecl his project in thc first place.7t,
When, therefore, Auqustinc lsked horv it rvas that God had saicl,"Let
there be light," he r,vavereclbetrveen trvo possibilities: (lod had spokcn
either in tinrc or in tlre etcrnitv of his Word. The first option he clisnrissed:
si tunpLtralitct',
utiquc nrtttdbilitcr,if God had spoken in tirne, then his r,vorcls
rvould havc been subject to change, for nraterial rvords inevitablv sound
ancl passarvay;thcir nratter is sr,rl.rject
to scncratiorr and corruption.TT "But
tl'ris is an absurd urd flcshlv r.vayof thir-rking and speculatins."Ts Ausus-
tirie's diction , mrndlis, "fleshlv" rnvoked two closelv relatcclproblerns. Be-
ir-rgerubodiecl souls, not onlv did hunrans interact rvith the rvorld through
scnse perception, but their lanquase ancl tlreir phvsics had c'levelopedto
cxplain the phvsical and not the intellisible worlcl. (lcnesis had, there-
fbre, to acconrnrod:rte its narrative to the lilnitations of clisctrrsivespcech
lncJ the p:rttenrs ancl habits of thought that hurnan speech cor-rlclarticu-
late. Clcnesis r .2,,fbr exartrple, rcpresented thc "r,vaters" as preexistent not
becausenratter participlted in Gocl's eternitv in anv rva,v,but because Gocl
h:rcl ttr bc said to be stirrine :rbove sourething: in actu:rlitv Alr&rstine in-
sistecl,thc verse referred not to spltial relations, but to Clocl's powcrs,
lvhich were transcendent over al1 tl.rines.T')
As this exartrple inclicates,Augustitrc took pains throughout the ccrn-
nrentary to be as precise as possible in ntatters of priority, both lcxric:rl
and terrporal, and never rllore so than in nratters of nratter. Unfornrecl
nratter, he insisted, rvas created at thc sarlte tinrc as the thines rnacle frorrr
it: .1ustas a spe:rkcr cloes not utter sound ancl then fasirion words frorn ir,
so Cod dicl not flrst trrake unfonned ntatter ancl then inrpose fornt upou
it. unforrrred nr.rtter is thus prior not in tirle, but in origin; anci Scrip-
ture has, in narrating r.vith thc lnaterial rvords of discursive l:rngnaee-,sep-
I lJo.
7,s. The fbllutirrgprrrgr;rplrstrcrt nrrtcriulstudicdin deprhin Ancir:oor.
76. ArrtLrr Arrtlo
99.1tct-. :oo r .
77. A r r u r r s t i r r c( ) t t t . l r t t . t . z . q .
-\.
{ t r l r r ' t i r r . ( ; r ' / / ./ i/ r . r . j . \ .
r-t). ALrsustruc ()ttt. litt. t.7.t 1.
+u
aratediltto a tenlporrl scLluencreactiol)sthat (loc1clid not seprr:rtcin trnre
i1 thc act of creation.s(' Atrgustirree-\tclrLlcLl
his concern fbr precrsron
about nratcrillity to tl.retheolory of dcrnonsenclangels:dcnronsnraybe
animals,btrt they arc etl.rerealones.Thcir ctl-rcrealbociiesrenrlin ever
stron!,and clo not strflercorruption in cleath.Er
Forrned not fi-ontcotpo-
real nlatter br.rtfronr rvhat Ar-rgustinccalleclspiritual subst:urccor r,vhet
Apuleir-rsnright h:rvccalleclintelligiblernattcr,the bodies of denronsrvere
not susceptibleto senseperception.The antl.rroponrorphisur of thcir iclols
wasthusdotrbl,vcorruptillg: the fanriliaritvof their :rppcrrancewasasre-
assuringas it 'uvnsdeceptive, :rnclit granteclto thenr such porver as thcv
had over the affcctionsof the rliserable.sl
The particularnretaphysics anclthcorv of matter that unclerpinnedAu-
's
gustine understandinsof (lenesisanclthe bocliesof clenronsalsotran'red
his vier,vof idol:rtr,,'.In a sernron delivercd in Oarth:rge in 4o,1,he once
again pcrsitecla fictive interlocutor as :r lc:rrned defi:nclerof paurtnpmc-
t i c e . " ' W h e n I w o r s h i p M c r c u r v . ' h e s a y s , ' l r v o r s h i pt a l e n t . T a l e t rct a n -
not be sccn; it is sornethinsinvisible.'We readily conceclethat talcnt is
sornethirrsinvisiblelaliquidirrrtisiltilcl,
anclinsotarasit is invisible,it is bc't-
ter than sk,v,or earth, or sea,or anything visiblc. Inde'ed,invisible sr"rb-
stancesfnrbstdrrtia
inuisibilisl,
such:rslifi:, are better than every visiblesr,rb-
stance,sinceeverythingvisibleis a ph,vsicllthing [4rriattmrterrisibibcorltrts
and t:rlentis indeec'la great thins. Nevertheless,if you r,vereto crolt-
e-srl,
sider the talent that they s:rythe,vr,vorship,lvh:rt clocsit do? For do rrot
many with sreat talcnt errr?Pcrhapsthey crr grc:rtly rvho think that t:rl-
ent is to be tvorshippcdr-rsing an itnageof Mercurr:"s'
What, then, of (lvbele? Was the black stone reallv the goclcless?
I)icl the
Romans get the one anclonl,v black stone that ruav havc bccn tlic god-
dess?Misht tl.rey,in f:rct, hlve receivecla cluplicrrteof tl-restone housed
Arrqnstinc (]rn. litt. j. r j.29.
l Jr . A u q u s t i r r c ( ) t t t . l r t r .J . r o . r + .
l i - 2 . A r t g u s t i r t c l ; r i . 1 ) - r .t t 3 . : . 6 . A u g u s t i r r c r e g r r t l e t l l ) h t o ' s i r r : r b i l i l t o c o n c r i v c o i " s p r n -
t u l l s r t b s t . r n c c ". t s t h c p r i n c i p r l t l i l i n q o i I ) h t o n i c t h c o l o g r ' : o n t l r i s p r o b l c r r r s c c A r r r l o : o o r ,
.18 43.
I t - 1 . A l r q L r s t i n e . S , 1 ) r r / 1 l r r rll6 . t + ; cf-.l:r. 1)r. r r-j.:.-g.
 lt Pcssinus,or evelt one copv aniong nrany?Let nre srlggcstolte wuy ro
iluswcrthescqucstiorrs'uvithoutlooking at tlre historv of pcssiru.rs.
I)latc'r's
rrretaphysics
3
of rcprescntationl.rasinfluenceclthe reaclirrgof this
episodeand others like it in t\r.o wa),s.()n the oric hand, Lrecltrsewe as- 1N7'Ir RPR E'L-ATI O RO,U,.l AI,{
snmc that copiesarenot onlv cliflerentfronr but infbrior to their exer.nplers,
rve irisist th:rt religior,rsartilacts cannot be duplicatecl.Hcncc thc lLonrans
nrust h:r."'ereceir.cdthe onc lnd orrly blrrckstone.paracloxic:illy, bec:rusewe
assun)ethat the divine existson a hi{:her plane th:rn the-cor}.roreal,rve alscl
believethat the black rock nlust have rcprest'rftcd, rather thalr bccri,the gocl-
tlcss.B.t s.relv a sig'r or a syrrbol or lr inrrgc crr' be repr.ocl-rcer1?
I suggestthat :rncicnt unc-lerstanclings of nrateriality,anclthe philoso-
phy oi representationuncicrlyingreliqior-rs ritual, provide :l lne.lnsto ob_
viate this n)ostPlatonicof firlsebinarisrrrs.
Recogrizing further hvpostascs
beyond or between the divire ard tlre corporeal,peoplc in thc ancie'r
il 'r'orld rrrightu'ell ha'c undcrstoodthat o1'beleso.rehorv*,as,a'c1yet w:rs
not cocxtensivervith. their black stone; and in that rvay,she nrisht also
havc been, but not been ic{er-rtical r,vith.orher black stones. Arrrong scholars of chssical religion, the ternrs intcrprctdtio (]r,trcrt ar.td
I dtl not krlo'nvwhat the Ronransbrotrght fronr Pessinus to the Palatirre intatpretntio Rtttlldtltt coltttttoltly reier to the "broac'l iclentiflcltiorr :ulr()l1I
ln 204 B.(i.E.llur I sr-rspcct
that the nreraphysical anclepistenrologicaldoc- Greeks ancl Ilonrans of :r foreign qodheacl r,r'ith a nrerlber of their o-nvn
trines beclueathedto us fi't-rnrPirto lre not eoing to help us to find ar) rll.l- pancheons." These idenrificaciorrs :rrc generallv str-rclicdrrt the level of
s'vcr.what I do knou is that cybele's shrine il pessinusrcnrainedan rc- nanrins-rrot least becar,rse nrost easily collectcd er.idence for thenr is lin-
tive site of cult and fbcus lor pilgrinragc tbr at lcast -56oyearsafter her guistic, nanrely the eprg'aphically attestecluse of "rhconynrs asappellatives."
baitttlos
\\/elrtto Ronre. For that rcasonalone, I suspectthat Ltrcir-rs
clor- Wlrat is rrrore, nlany arguc that thc central interest of irttL,rltrcfdtitrrrr,.s
lics
nclius Scipio receiveclboth rnore ancllessthan the black rock rhat r.vlsrhc lrore or less exclusively in thc act of narning, ancl not in the rrct of idcnti-
goddessin tl'report oi C)stiatwcnty-two hnndrtd ve;rrsago. ficatiorr, ar-rclthat interprctatioitself is "thcrefbre a phenonrenon in thc lin-
guistic-concepttral realnr."lThis see's ro r'e shortsightcd. It is tlre object
of this chapter to sll€l€iestthat an incltiiry tr.tto intcr,ltretatioRollana ntisht
rvell rer'eal as much abor-rtRonran gods as it cloes :rbout Ronran languase.
For intcrpretariois not, at its herrrt, an act of translation, brrt one of namins.
and its unpackine conjoins trvo conrplcx problenrs. Tl.rerc is first tlrat of
knor'vleclge, oi discc'ring ."r,hatgod one is cleali'g w.ith ancl rlie ';rrrrc by
which he or shc 'uvoulcllike to be k'olvr; ancJseconcl o'e of theoloey,
'f

i gods w'ho cxist in particular locations, sonre of r,vhonr llright

or nrisrht not

A n c r r f i e r v e r s i o r r o f r h i s c h r p t c r r t p p e u r ( , r lt t (.lrlt r Lto (:oos), .(1.

4 r j r, urrivcrsitv of
Clrr..rg,'.

t. Orai r qrtSb.
XXXIX T l t t t I s \ i r ( . ' 1 ; , , , ' . 1 1 r ' l ' l t o sl l c. ' h o H t l t O l t r r s t :/ ? c l i q l o l . r
I : r o l t , r t t t , t tttl t c
O l t r t s t t a tlt? t ) t n n tEt n t l i r ( . b v M i c h : r e l C a d c l i s
'lltc
XL I , , q u t d , t l '. \ l t r ( ) a r d a . q l t\;r i l ' r r r i l r , , t t t t !C l t r i s t i a t t
I l L , r o i s t trtt t L t r t cA t t t i q t u ,
/r,i4, br,-[oel l-honrls Wrlke r-
xLI o i t l ' , 1 1 1. ,s1r i i r r oi /, L t t t ' , 4 t t t t q t t t. . ' r t r t t t tast t r r, 4 r , . a r t t r r t a ,
b'Ed*,ard J. watts
XLII t l t ' , r t i o t t. :4 r t t i t ' t t (r . l l t r i s t i , t n i tal ,n d t l t t ( ) l l o t t o r l , l t t t L t . q i t t a t ibovl , S n s r n
. S r ' r ' r r r i rSi q
Ashbrook Harr.er, THE MATTER OF THE,GODS
xLlll . \ l d t tL r n dr l t c l l i , r d : ' r ' l t t ( ) r a r i o r t so f ' L I i u t t r i t t se ,d i t e d b r . l r o b e r t J . p e r e l l : i
XLIV Tltt .\Iatt'r ttl rltt Cods, br, CliHbrrl Antlo
Rcligion(md tltc RornanEntpirc

Clifford Arrdo

UNIVLIiSII'Y OI (]AI,IIoIiNIA I'RESS

llcrkclev Los Angclcs Lont]orr