CHAPTER THREE WAX GODS AND THE SHADOW OF THE MOON Another impression of hostility toward traditional religious belief is given by the attitude of De superstitione toward the cult of images.1 The hostile passage states that the superstitious stand in awe of those who fashion gods for them out of metal, stone, or wax in the likeness of human beings (&v0pc.m6µopipoc -.wv 0ewv -.oc ern"1) 1t0Loumv) which they dress up and worship, but that they hold in contempt philosophers and statesmen, in whose person the highest virtues of God are best represented; thus the atheists are indifferent to their benefactors (the gods) while the super­ stitious fear what is most helpful to them (167e-f). This seems like bald iconoclasm, but it must be taken with a grain of salt, since both in this essay and elsewhere, Plutarch speaks of the great joys which come to men in the observance of religious festivals; and these, in Greek life, are often associated with the cult of a particular statue. One could think of his description of Alcibiades' return to Athens on the day when the Plynteria of the goddess Athena were being celebrated, "the day on which the Praxiergidai in strict secrecy removed the robes of the goddess and covered up her image" (Alcibiades, 34). Views reflecting the ideas of the De superstitione passage appear elsewhere as one might expect, and as usual, with subtle variations. The opinion that a better likeness of God is to be found in the living ruler rather in inanimate wood or stone is found both in 1 Plutarch's attitude was discussed at some length by C. Clerc, Les Theories Relatives au Culte des Images (Paris: 1915), pp. 110-14, also printed as "Plutarque et le culte des images," Rev. Hist. Rel., 70 (1914), 8-114. Clerc, who was not aware that De superstitione might be early, gives a confused account: in the first part of his work Plutarch is hostile; in the second he is a moderate and conservative thinker who maintained a tenuous balance between his religious and philosophical views. A short, uncritical survey of the problem in antiquity is given as an appendix by Moellering, Plutarch on Superstition, pp. 165-173. Unfortunately, Moellering does not bring out the subtleties of the Christian iconoclasts, who based their distinctions on the dual nature of Christ; and, therefore, introduce more complexities into their opposition. WAX GODS AND THE SHADOW OF THE MOON the Vitae and the Moralia. In Plutarch's very flattering biography of Pericles he explains that Pericles was called Olympian "because his pure and undefiled exercise of power was an image of the immortal gods," and that this representation was far superior to the literary conceptions of the poets who attributed the basest passions to them (Pericles, 39). Added to the De superstitione sentiment is the familiar Platonic criticism of the myths. A similar critique is to be found in Ad principem ineruditwn, a fragmentary essay, and one of the few surviving works of Plutarch which give political advice. This particular one is part of the genre which is directed to a young prince. Many of the ideas are stock Platonic thought, but there are a few touches characteristically Plutarchan such as the comparison between God and the sun. The gist of the essay is that rulers fear for their power but should rather concern themselves with the soundness of their inner self: the ruler should carry law (nomos) within himself in the image of Zeus who rules the entire universe; the untiring care for justice should be his greatest concern; freedom from responsibility keeps one from mistakes, but with power there is a great temptation to surrender to the passions; it does not conceal the vices of the soul but only makes them more evident. All this is a far cry from Machiavelli's prince, but in his exposition of his ideas in 78oe Plutarch goes even farther: the ruler is the image of the divinity which rules the world, a being which needs no famous artists to represent it. Then in a vein similar to that of the theology contained in the religious treatises, De E apud Delphos and De genio Socratis, the passage states that just as the sun and the moon are the most beautiful images of God in the visible universe, so the ruler is the image of God in the polis. Plutarch expresses his disgust at the artistic representations of the ruler in the guise of Zeus as a symbol of power, which he regards as repugnant to the true nature of the divine which is rooted in nomos rather than force. Thus the iconoclast strain is revealed again, this time in his attack on the type of representation which is to be found, not in foreign, superstitious cults alone, but in classical Greek religion itself. The same iconoclast tendency is thinly disguised in Numa. Here, laboring under the mistaken belief that the early Romans did not portray their gods in visible form because they had been forbidden to do so by Numa, and because he in turn had probably been so instructed by Pythagoras, Plutarch commends Numa for his .