ando idols critics

8/8/2019 ANDO Idols Critics

1/13

2I DOLS AND THEI R CRI T I CS

Data n an enrpiricist pisteme uustbe susceptibleo sense erception.WhereRoman religion is concerned,one or the other of tr'vo hi ngs must be true:either he actionsof the gods n this r,vorldn their efrects, r the gods henr-selves, ustbe nraterial.Of cor-rrse,l.re ormer in no rvay equires he atter.Bu t much of Ronran itual, and nranystrands ftRonran eligious iterature,do, in fact, situate he gods n this r.vorld,whether as ecipientsof cult oras nhabitantsof par ticular spaces.What is more, nrany but by no meansallof thoseactionsand representation socalize uch elations pon a particularvisiblemanifestationof the divine, narnely heir cult objects.And yet, al-ready n the ancient world, sr-rch atterns n religious behavior were con-struedby critics of conte nporary reli gion asnrisconceive d r ev en as un-damentally confused-as directing rvorship toward the representatronsthemselvesather han oward the gods:hence dolatry, a contraction or "idol-olatry," rorn eiSro)oy Aarpeh, he worsh ip of idols.The critique of idol-atry hassincehad a ong atrd distinguished isto ry n the philosophicalandreligious iteratures f Greeceand Rome and, ndeed,of ChristianEurope,lAn earl ierversion of this chlpter apperrccl n Jlnres LlovclWhite, ecl.,Hou, Shuld lfl: ThlkaboutRc l i . q i on?(Not reL)an t c :r r i vc r s i t vo fNot re l ) : r n r c l ) r css , zoo6) , 335 .1 .t. Besangon ,oooprovides rvidc-ra:rqing overvien'. le\'f,r) r94o lrrd ]Jlrrsch rgg2 sur-vey attitudcs o reliqiotrs rt irr the ancient Mediterr:rncln. On Circck urcl {orrrarr ri tics ofidolat rvsce l lerc I9r5, l ]or r ies r9r l l , and Cef l l -kerr 9t6/ rt1. On iconochsnr n l ] l ,zrnr i r rnr


2/13

iliillLlilltlllii

rrrrclhc sophistic;rtion f tl'rat rldition, and of its nrorlcrn stuclents, asurn)eny waysoverdctcrnrined hc stuclyof iclolatrv tself, as hough anLrientphilosopl.rers r rnedicvalor c:rrly rodern (lhristians coulclbe expectcd odcscriberaccr.rrately ncl farthfirlly the rvorkings atrcl presupposition sofC r. tc, 'o-R,rt.r r rcl igio: l t .

This chaptcrexplores hc problenr of theor izrng the ru:rtc-'rialityf thegods rnd hcir susceptibility o representationhroush consideration f trvostralrdsn :rncient hi losophy: irst, hat enetof ancicnt hcoriesof repre-scntation hat requirecl dols either to be or to rcpreseltt he gods; rnd sec-ond, the problenr of nratter-u,.hich is to s:ry,vhat sort of thing a nr:rterialgod nught be.The latter s oflered by way of suggestion nly; fbr asa nrar-ter of nrethocl, t r,vor,r1cle perverse o denounce he corrupting influenccof :rncientphilosophy n its the-ories f rcprcsentation ,vhileco-opting itsunderstandingof natter. What that r-rnclc-rstandingllers, I sugeest,s butone resollrceanrong nranv lor the imlginative .,vorknorv recluired o rur-derstandarrcl ltinrately o describegodswlro are and are not idols.

THE STONE THAT WAS THE C]OI )DESSOur abil i ty o recognizehe part iculari tyof Ronr:rn el igion and o conr-preherrd ts ri tualsdepends n largenlcasure n our unclerstanding f it sidols.r leconstructiorl of- Greek and Rornan rituals reveals hat virtuallyal l nch-rdedhe godsaspart icipants.4ndeecl, he ferv i tualsheld r,vithoutthe gods nevitably observed heir absence: he .rc//i-slcrrium ,or c-xanrplc.

se eHerrncphof r969 and Pel ikan 99o; orr conoclasn n Jur iaisrn,r r rothernrpor tant ngredient n thc af ie 'r l i feo f ,ncier ) t el iq ious r t , sce Jland:ooo..2 . P ictz r9l i5, r987, ur d 98l l cxplore ron thisperspect ivehe devclopnrcnt f the nroclcrn attthropoloeicalcateqorv of thc lctislr. For other recerrthistoricsof religroushistoriog-raphvsc eAndo zoo3b, 373 75: : rncl r . lowi hapter ; , pp.96-99.3. I rvould rot ol lorvVcrnent r9lJS, l :-S--Sr,n arguinl i hat hc converse ' : rs rue, l r r ticlols unctioneclas dols rather h:rn objetsd'art only irrsotar s thcl *ere usecl n rituals(sceesp. j3 7an d 34,3- .1-5) .f thr t rvere rLlc, l rc rvould cxpcct r l ranynlore cul t st l tucs o pcr-lirrtn Irtiraclcs,:urcl ne nrieht expect flurrouslvbcautilul s t:rtuc's v renorvnc d artists o lccount tor: r dispropor t ionl te unrbcrof sr-rchrr i racles.]u t 1:rnrous rcck sculpturesvcrcr l relv t t torc han sculptures.Lorr ran rr r ict i cs bout hc cf i l cact , f r i tur l i r r l csrcral iz ingb-jectsalso t lggestshr t Vernl r r t 's ssoci l t ionof inrage ncl r i t r r l l neeclsr rocl i f l cr t ion.q. ( ) lacl igon,98J/ i i6 end r99.1 urvel , the rse f cul t statuesn ( i rcek rnci lonr . r r r i t t r r l :cf-.Estirnnc t 997.

I I I t i t t N l I f S ( ) t ( ) R t l t ( ) l ) R A x Y

consisted n p:rr t of a paradcof crnptl, chairs, n clirectcol)tr:rst o the 1cc-ilsterniunr, east t rvhich rvicker epresclitations f the heads f gocls estedon couchesand shareclr nre.rl .5 ichrrd (lorclon calledattention o thisproblenr n a htlotts article on religioLrs rt in rvl.ricl.r e observeclhat P.m-saniaswas as ikely to refer to 'Athenrr" as o "a statueof Athena" 'nvhenhe describecl ny eiven tenrple."At one evel,Ciordondi d no niore thanrevisita ong-stancline uzzie,nanrelv he tendencvof particip:rrrtsn Clreekand Rornan cr-rlt o confus e irn:rge rnd prototype, representecl nd repre-sentat ion."TsJol.ranneseilckenobservedong ago, hischarge adbccnthe mainstay of rationalizing critics of idolatry throughout antiquity:Geffcken coulcl do little rnore than docunrent that fact, hor,vever, ecar-rsehe affirmcd it. Accorcli ng o hinr, this confirsior-r f cate gorieswas symp-tomatic of the "sirnplistic habits and supcrstitions /e-s/o/A.'-s."*

Fe w recentscholars av e akenLrp he challenge resented y Clordon'sobservat ion, :rrnelv hat of explaining he seenring onfusionof onto-logicalcatesoriesmplied by P:rusanias'sict ion, n largenreasure ec:rusethey, ike Geffc'ken,unr,vittingly subscribe o a theory of representationincompatible with pagan elieiosity.For exarnplc,although several chol-ars have catalogucd ituals in which idols wer e treate d as gods and fed,washed, nd clothed,none of thenr hassought o explain he pl 'r i losoph-ical or theologicalunderpinningsof this beh:rvior." chohrshipon ri t t r-5. On the l t t tist tniun scc csp. Fcstus s.r'. -strrrppi 47:L) and ult i l t dtorrrm (.5(tL'.nlt i ta t leo-rtnt appell t tbantr tr . l , tst i tul i . l , t t t ix rubtnis) . and cf. s.v . i t / l )pl lr l . \4I oL), together rvith [- i \ , ,v to. 5 .7(ttrra nrttuit ; i t t - fnnis prr l t l ids, ult i kr t ist trniwn uit , dtt) tut i l tapita, Eti in lut is t 'rur t l , t1!utuutlt s(',lanxquc rum intt ' lunrcnt is, quat 'Ltui adposttLt. li l i t , t'ridit dt lror-sr) ancl psr'udo-Acro on HoraceCarm. t .37.3 ( nr,znsrn oroauv pulvinaril dicebantur aut lect i cleor lr rn aut tabulata, in cluibnsstabant nunrina, nt crrrinentiora viclerentur ). C)n thc' scl l istr :rninn see T:rvlor r 93-J, corrcct-rng a long tradition of overrelilnce on Valerius Marirrrr.rs -2,..z.6. ( lo rdon rL ;79 ,7 8 ' ,c l Schnapp r994 : rnd Burker t r t ;7o , 36o .7. Gef fcken t9 t6 / t t1 , :8 ( r : " F i i r c las r sp r i inu l i che ( le f i ih l . de n na ivur ( lhuben , h r l le r l l i l c lund Original, l)arstel lenclcs urrd I )argestelltes, et lerzcit zu eincr gcrvissenEinheit zusanttt telr."fl . Ge l lcken t9 t ( t / tL | , - u ,97 ; l- .L ink r9 ro , 3 ; t : 'An t iqu iss i rna en i r l ae t r te s inu lacr : t s t tn t d iips i , cu ius op in ion is reccn t io re quo( lue : re t f , te re l iqu iee n r : lnseru r) t ,c luon i ln r aux i l i i t t u t r t l t t sparttcipes essc, si cius sir r rul:rcnrnr possit lerent, opinrb:urtur . Cuius vetust ior is scrt tctt t i . rercl iquias cosrnoscinrus s co, quocl vivendi signrr sirrml:rcrrr clcdisse eruntur: riclurt, locluun-tur, se avertunt, sucl.tnt, se ntovelt t , quin et irnr ulciscuntur rniur ias sibi i l l rr tas."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 6 n d r 9 9 , 1 .V e r n r r n t 9 8 , . l 3 l , c o r r s t i t u t e sn i r n p o rtal) t cxc! 'pt iolr , obsening of t lrc krr1,rr.r,,.rn tlrc ;rrchaic (lrcck mrr ld thr t one snorc "bv thcs tone" : i t w ls , i l s Vornan t shorvs , doub le in th is u 'o r lc l to r so r r re th ing invrs ib lc , . rssoc i r t cc la l i ke rv i th the sou l end r v i th e ibo , \o ( -1 :s - - l l i ; c t - .M, rc ( lo rn r r ck r97 i on the .g r r t i l . i ) . 3u t

l l 1 l ) o t s A N I ) I H B I I I c R l f l c s f l


3/13

l1s n r.r.hich unrans ook the placeof gocls as vith feu, 'xcrcpt ionsee nsinri larl-v bort ive:extensivc cscarch as evealcd hat such ri tuals con-tir.rr.reclo b e pcrfbrrned rvell into the (lhristi:ur era, but thev are abclcclthe rcl icsof earl ier el ieiositvancl heir survivl l evidenceof inst i tut ionalfornr:rl isni. l"Jaslsner's isc--ussionf "inrageas itu:rl ," n l . r is ssay rgu-ing fbr a "religious r,vayof vierving inr:r{es," artclGreg Woolf's kindrcdr tudyo f rhcJup i t c r o lu r r r r r ron \ t i t u t cwo l l ) f ) r t i l t t t xcep t io r t \o l l c \ cseneral izat ions,oth explicit ly ndebted o (lordon's rvork. I

llcsearchn otherareas f Greek and Ronran eligion hasnrade igrific:rnt:rdr,'ancesn unp acking ancient clescriptions f rcligious art. For exatlple,Creek and Latin ternrinology for statuaryalr,vayseflected he ontcllogicalstatus f the indiviclual clepicted nd could rccord whether or not a giverrstatllchad been ritually cons ecrated.l2 inrilarll',Greeksbrotight to the ap-preciationof religiousart a complexaesthctich:rtdilTerentiateclt fronr other'fornrs of artisticproduction and assinrilatedt to a specifically iterary the-oloeicaldiscourse. lsor heirpart, he Ronrans osit ioned rtvu'orku theirternples n patterns hat reflectedontological hierarchies, ronr god to hu-rn:rn, vhoseappreciationmight rvell aid r.nodern nvestis:rtions f Ronratrtheologicali ter:rturerncllnperialcult .r+But this ancient ophist icat ionn

Vernrnt nrerelv recortis ruther tharr cxplairrs thc clisrppcrrunce of thc conceptu:r l fi:rnret'orkthat unt ierpinned thc r.rscoi such cloubles, lnd so he does not ask rvhat one hrcl to bel ievcof both visiblc :Lrrcl nvrsr lr le thincs in orcler to rssert their iclent i tr ' :r o. l3ack r l83 cclncludcs :r rscinlt ins chrpter rvith the judqnrent that "Hae actiones, c1u:tsproprie s accrdotalcs dircrinr, norr ab ipsius rel igionis init i is repeter l( lac sunt. seclnt. tniL:sto pcr-tirrcrrt ad id tcnrpr.rs quo cultus deorunr patr ir rchico i l lo statu rt ' l icto j:urr su:rc potcstr t is fac-tus erat ltqLle :rd nr:rxinrirnr partern in sacerdotunt nlaltus pcrvcl)crat. Attlrncn denronsrrrnt,qurnrtur)r lnt icluitus apucl honr ines ( lr lecos ipse, acl cluorurrr sin rilitudirrern i lhc celebraban-tur, spect:rcula f loruer int. Recte igitur Augustinus ci l . 7. 8: cr cuir .rsquc dei inqenio rno ribusrct ibus c:rsibus sacr2r tc sol lenrnir inst i tutr srurt" ( : i l :9) . K icchlc t97o ends r similr r survclrvith thej uclggnent that hunrans replacing gorls rr r i tul ls u,:rs i'uttrre of "der nuqiscl len Vorstclhrngsrvelt f i iher l{el igiosit ; i t ." Scheid r 9l l( r const i tutcs : l vcrv ir l lportf ,nt exccptiol} to thc schol-a rsh ip i r r th is l r ea, : r s in n r lnv n 'a ,vs loesL ink l9 to , csp . , t ( r 48 : rnc l i s - s6 .r t . E lsncr r99( r , Woo l f :oo t .r 2 . . Schubr r t t 86 ( r , Es t ienne t997 .I I . M a d l d a r 9 3 9 . C l l a d i g o r v 9 9 o .r4 . A rnong car l ie r r vo rk I s ing lc ou t L ink r9 ro . L rnk i r r ves t iqa tcc l l t c te r tn - ia l t r l t t . i : r I r dr . t c lto con f ion t i t s app l ica t io r r o t , i c lc lv c l i sp r ru tc h i r rqs :qods, p l r t ccs . l r t l peopJc . His r r s t l l r t c l l tr bou t thc t l cve lopnren t o f l lo rn rn be l ie f doc 'sno t pcrsurc lc -h is c l r ro t :o logv is n rnv cve l r tin t l i s t inc t b t r t h is uork is consp icL roLrs l r .l - ee o f thc l r r r ch ro r r isn rs th r t c loud r t t t t ch mr rk

I I I I : I I N , I I T S o I : O R I T I O I ' ] I A X Y

marking anc'l bserving nretephvsic:rl ounclrrrics,hrough lauguagc, i turl ,and lar,'r', as ttc-rt licited :r corresporrclin uly sophisticateci ancl svnrpatheticexplanation for the tl .reolou,v f idols and sacral i tyof niateri l l objects. l i

Le t nre strrt wi th an episocle ioni t l ' rc historv of lLorne. n'hose nlrra-tives, attc ient artc l rrodcrn, Irett lv i l lustratc the prrrt icular nrt l l re of nr)'concerns. In thc last years of t l ie Hannibal ic rvar, thc lLontans \verc toldto brins Cybele, thc nrother of the gocls, iorn Pessinus o l lornc. l' ' Re -joic ine in the ntattv oll lclls ancl prophecie's hat pres:rqcclts ul t inrate vrc-tory, the Senate siithcred to clelibcr:rte qu(lt t'dtio rdnsp()rtdndd(Rotil(lnld((1(es-sel ,by lr 'hat nreans thc gocldess houid bc transportecl to l lonre."lT Itis no t rnere captiol rsr)esshl t leads nre l tow to cplote thc Pengtrin transla-t ion of Ar-rbrcy de S6l incourt, who \\ i rote for this c l :ruse, th e best l l leansof transferri r lq the i rrrarrc f the Cloddess o lLotrie."rs For the :rnxietv fel tby the tr,ventieth-century tr:rltsl:rtor r.r,hettconfrontecl bv a godcless vhowas a rock, r.r,hich lecl hinr to rcplace the gocldess r.vith her inraee, r,r.lsshared by Liv1, hintself, :rltd it is tl.re historv of that an-rietr,'.as ttrttch :rsanything, that reclui rcs-incleecl , c lernands-clucic lat ion.

I say that Li r,ryshared this anxiety becanse he vacil lated in his cstuna-t iol r of the nrctaphysicalor existcntial statusof Cvbele's baini los. n Livy 'snarrative, the Senate sent legates to Attalus of Perg :ununi ancl sought hisaid in obtaining the goddess. quote: 'Att: i lus receivcd rhe Rontans anr-icably, led thern to Pessinus n Phryeia, g:rve heln the slcrecl stone tltat tlrcnatiues aid wds ltc nrctlm ol- ltc,qod-r,rnd ordered thenr to take it to Ronrc."t"Th e qualnrs ref lected irr the diction of t l .ratsentence had disappearcd bythe tinre the /api.s iigcr :rrrived in Ronre: there Pr-rblir.rslornelir,rs Scipiowas ordcred to nleet the .qor/dc-r-st ()stia; there he receiveci /rer ront theship; and in the tenrple of Victory on th e Palat ine he instal lecl he,qor/r/r,s-ron th e claybefore the Ides of Apri l zo4.r( '

of that cra, tnt l his r ts istencehrr tp:ut :urlodsdu,cl l cclrr p: r r t i cul l t rocat ionss uclcor lc. SccalsoSchcrcl99 6 rnd r999b; Ancl r - : ,oo3b,.1r-.1(r d:47 -so.I -5 . C) n he sr rcral i tvi ob. jccts ecWhi tchouse 996, csp. 3 rnrl 9; aud Cl l in istcrooo.t6 . l ler rc l .Nor t l r , r l r t l I ) r i cc t99l l , l :9( r 98 . t l i scr rsshi s cpisodc nt l c i tc e. r r l i cr i tent r r re.t7 . L i v r ' . 9 . o .B .I l. S i l incour t r9( r .5, 79 .19 . L i v r . 9. r r . 7 .20 . I i l r ' : 9 . r . l . o r : [ .

2 1 I I ) 0 I S A N I ) 1 ' I I I i I I T ( ] R I I I ( ] S t r \


4/13

Ovicl 'snarrl t ivc of Cybele'sarrivelshareshi s eeture vith Livv's his-tory: he referreclo the stoncas he goclclesst everyopportr:nityblrt one,rvlren he clescribeclllauclia Qr-rintl fixing hcr sazc irr irrta.,qirtciuac, onth e inragc of the gocldess."rl ut rrot evcryr)l le elt this ncccl o be cl is-tanced rorn those rvho identif lecl clol anclqodcless. ri t i r-rg our cen-turies ater n clefensef t l . re l t : rr ncl tatue f Victorv in the Senate ouseQuintus Aurclius Synrnrachus sked he ernperor, Where shallwe swearto obcy your lar,vs nclclecrees?v rvhatscruple vi l l the deceit fulnrindbc tcrrified, lest t perjure itself under oath?To bc sure, rli hings :rrc i-rllof god, nor is an y placcsafe or perjurers.Nevertheless,he 1rrrTc-sclt t iaru -nriri is,he preselrce f the eodc-less,s a porvcrful nduccmcnt o a fcar oflvror-rgdoing."2rt is, think, insuf l lcient o say hat Synrnrachusasdoneno nlore than eliclea clistinctionbetr.veenrnage and prototypc, cvcn int l . re erviceof a psychological r emotional understancl ing f rei ieionsrrt, for what r,vas t stake or hinr in his qr-rarrelvith Anrbr-ose f Mil:rnw:rs r lyeat dealnrore h:rna pl-ri losophy f reprcsent. l t iol l .Lct nre provide two nrore exarnples, ne historioeraphic, he otherhistorical, hc bettcr to lrt iculate nry concernsby lvay of triansulatron.In the frrst chapte'rol NI imasis, rich Auerbach taniously contr:rstsHorneric and bibl ical narrrt ive n their stratesiesor "representing eal-i ty." The episodes hat he reads n that chapterare Eurycleia's ecogni-t ion of Odyssc-us'sca rand the sacrif iceof Isaac n (lencsis22. Auer-bach iclent i f ies he implrlseof Homeric style as a desire to representphenornen:rn a ful lv externalized ornr, visibleand palpable n al l theirparts,and conrpletely ixecl n their spatial nd tenrporal elat ions."lrOfcolrrsc, hc intcract ion between wo nretaphysic:rl lyquivalentsr-rbjectslends tself to this reading; l.re uest ion s rvhy Auerbach contrastsheone encounterbetlvecn rv o humanswith another between Clod :rnd anran.Although ire al ludesn a single ine to the occasional rrivalcl fZeusor Poseiclonrorn feasts f the Aethiopians,he ref i 'ains i 'onr suggestrrrgthat Horneric poetry an d ts rcprcscntat ionainrpulses ould have heo-logical mplicat ions, rs he representation f God in Genesis urelydoes;indeed,by refusing o select rue colrp: lranda, .r e enics he textseclt l tv-

()r'id l],r-rri .r r 7.St rnrachusRr'/. .- 5A t r e r b r c h9 j - l , 6 .

alentsacrel i t l ' .l lassicali terature s, on his reacl ins, ot rcl isious i tcr-.r*ture at al l .

Second, n a honri ly clel iveredat e n the 39os,Ar.reust ineeratedhi saudiencebr celcbrat ing he birthday of Cart lrase n a public bast or th eleniLts f the cit l ' . Had thev not known that they were pract icine dola*try? "'l t is no god, ' sonreone ays,becauscit is ther'criu-s f C)arth:rgc. 'As though, were it Mars or Mercur\,', t lvould be a god. lJr.rt earn horvit is regardedby thenr: not fbr rvhat it is. For vou :rnd I k nor,v hat it is astone. . . lJut thev regard[t ]re rcrrirr. i ]s a i lumut, and they acrceptha tstatuen the placeof thc tuurtcn;he altar cst i f ies o this. Whatis the al-ta r doing thcrc, f th e qolir- ss r)ot regarded sa ntrnterr?et no one tel lnre, ' l t is not a nui l tcn; i t s not a god. ' I haveal ready ard, 'Wor-r ldha tthey knerv this, as ve :rl l do. ' But that altar est i f ies o their bel ief con-cerning hcr'cniri-rnd l .re tatue nd o their pract ice.t convicts he rnindsof thclse vho."vorsl.ript; let t not convict hose ,vho ecl irre efore t ."2r

To the eviclert t oncern of an Ovid or a Livy rvith the representat ionalcapacityof rei igious art, Ar,rgustine dded an indictrnent ag ainst he nra-teriality of the idols thenrselves-he and his fellorv Christians knew thatthe statue nvasmerely a stone-:ls

"vell:is a denial that pagan divinities

had a rletaphysical tatus quivalernto that of the true God.25 hese e-latedconcerns, he seerninglyrreduciblenraterial i ty f idols,on the onehand, and the sccrning nrpossibi l i tyof representing nything nvisiblcand rtcorporeal n or through nlatter,on the other, brnred the basis fall critiques of idolatry in Graec o-Rornan iterature. I r.vantnorv selec-tively to revierv that literature, n ternrs that drarv or-rt ts origins r,vithina specificphilosophical radition, n the -ropehat doingsnrigl'rt l:rrif, soruedillculties iri rvriting about religion in the ancient and rnodcrn r,vorlds,an d n reacling vhat hasbeen writ ten.

IDOLS AS (MIS)REI ) ITESENTATIONS:PL AT OAND THE TRAt ) rT rON () F CTRIT IQUEEven the irrrited r:rsnrents hat rve now possessevealPrersocr:rtichiloso-phers o havebcen absorbcd vith th e ssueshat wcrc to e-rercise usus-

21 . Ausust ine Scf lL 6 : .6 . ro.2 - j . A l t lo -2 ,o r . :6 - to .

-\

l H l : 1 . l M I l S ( ) 1 . ( ) R I I I ( ) t ' l i A X \


5/13

t inc, l lbci t in di f ierent fbnnul :rt ions rrrrc l rr the bls is of di lJcrcnt postr-l -latcs :urd preoccupatiotts. Xenophrtucs' lnnrous rt trtck on anthroponror-phisnr, For cxarnplc, ccnslrrcd i t :rsnrole t lnn a strl tcq,v of representatiou.C)f cor,rrse,hc rrrgucd, clttie thr t coulcl clrar.r, 'or.rlcldrarv gocls hat looke dl ike catt le, :rshunrl tns clrerv gocls uvi thhurnan fornrs; br-rt rnthroponror-phisnr l lso concretizec' l heoloqicrrl ancl nrctrrphysicalpresupposi t ions ofllrr gre:rtcr l loll lcl lt, of rvhich th e joke abotrt catt lc :rnclhorses ancl ions\\rasulerelv a recluct io acl abstrrdunr.2t ' nd al t l .rough Her:rc l i tus attackedth e fbrnrs of cotrtetr;rorarv rel is ious ri tual rv i t l i part icular vehenrenee,l ike Xenophancs hc did so bccause .rebel ievecl hrt r i tr-ral -xpressed e-hcfs that he founcl insupport lble. hrsist ing that ic lols as nraterial objectshrcl the senrenretaphr, 's ic:rltatusas other such obiects-hc l ikc-ned prrv-in g to :r strrtr-lco conversing u' i th one s housc-he lanrented that c ievo-tecs of ic lols c l id not r.rnc-lerstandhe true natLrreof the eods.lT

It r,vas l l to, not srl rpris ingl ,v, vho exercised thc grcatcst inf luence ontl .re ri t ic lue of idolatrl ' . Hc nright hrve expec-ted o c1o o throush his .rt-teck on the inunoral i tv of tracl i t ional nrvthopoiesis, but thosc se t ions ofthe Rtpttblir rvere largelv ignore d until their:lrgruncl)ts :rnc1heir clata vereappropriatecl bv Clhrist ian apologists of thc se ond L--enturv nd beyond.2sl lathcr, i t u'as his cornplex sr-rbordin:rt ionof representation :rnd cprstc-nrolosy to nict lphvsics that soundecl he cleath kncl l tor synrpathetic ep -pre ci :rt ions of ic lol l tror-rs el igiosi tv al l lol lg later intel lectuals,both pagan

) Lrl l l t d L , l t r 1s t l . u r . -Of course,Plato haclsevere rissivinssabout the stt tus of inrages f

evennrateri:rlob3ccts. arly in the Crcryltr.r,irr ex:rnrplc, c drerv an anal-ogv bet 'nvcenroducine nrages f Cratylusand reprodr.rcinshe nurtrber

t ( t . Xcnoph : rncs t i r . r 66 -69 I { l lS , esp . 167 (Clc rncn t S t r , , r r r . j . r o9 . : ) : n ro r t r l s th ink thegoc is rc born r r td h . tvc c l r> thes . 'o ices , nd bo i l i cs l i kc t l r u i r ,r u n.)7 . Hcrac l i tus f i . .u 1r K l lS .:S . We ins tock l9 -u ( r .) t ) . Vcr r t . r n t I979 , ro - j 17 . p rov ic lcs . rn cxccp t io r r r l l v usc f i r l O le rv icN o i l ) l . r to 's l r c rt r r ' , , ir cp rcscr ) t r t ion bu t cL res )o t co r ) s ia lc r t s cor r r : cc t io r r o n r r t c r i r l in ' o r i t s spcc i f i c conr )c . t i r ) i lt o t c l iq ious . r r t . ( ) s [ ro r r re 19 i l7 oRcrs i l t r c r ) chrn t re r r l inu o f ' l ) l r to 's c r i t i c is r r r o i r n in rcsrs nRtp r tb l i r o . bu r her d isc t r ss ion f it s " r cpcrcuss ions" is dcep l l r r l r i s to r ic r r l ,c rp inu f i 'on r ) J r toto l l l z rn t ine ico roc l r s r r . r r r r l s l r c s n l r r r , cvcr r t r rot conccnrcc l l i t h cu l t p r rc t i ce . Hcr c l to iccoi " i r t c r r r r t r t t ion" \ r te rn r s hen c l i sc r r ss i r rgr r i r r r cs isr r re l ig ioL rs r t \ \ , r \ r in fb r tunr t t c : i t sc tn tsr r r rp l i c idv to j r r s r i f i (o r r t s i r r rp lv c t l cc ts ) rr c lcc is ronn( ) t to con lc to g r ips u . i th rhc n r r t c r i , t li t v o f 'qods r r r t l i c lo ls ours ic lc lh r is t i l r r thouqh t .

ro .Take anv th ing arr , l tv i -or t r o anc i t i s no longer ro. So, l pc r l cc t ur1-ag e of C)rat,v luswould be another Crl rtv lus. Whrt. then, is th e prinerplcol r 'o rrc ( 'nrcss v i t l r u l t i , t u e ( ' . l r )udgc i r t t . rqc r?- ' " l r r ' r . ' rcpr( 's r 'n t : l t i ( )nas such was concerl recl , Plato ans\\.erecl his c lucstion ll lost fl l l l ,v earlv inth e Sop/ri .rt .Wri t inc there oI rhe :rl t ,rf rrr.r l le nrlk inq, rvhich he called r)eiiuAonourcl or eixaort,


6/13

l

about epistenrologv as ts ounrlat ion n a sinrple-inc'leed.sinrpl istrc-ontologv. t infonnecl luch of Plato's vork, ncludinqanelogies c drer,vrvith irrragc raking.So, or exanrple, e l ikened hc p:rrricular xarnplesuredbl gcorret r ic i . rn\o \o rn. rrryrrr . rgcsrr v l tcr .e ro 'rer y r i |aor, r ,r rc. lfb r seekinq eali t ies ha t re visrbleonlv through irrtel lect ion.15'I-hesc'vrricdstrands f arqunrent ln d their nexlrs n th c Zlr,rcrr-s.arlvin that rvork.Pl; i toci ist insuishedcnveen r,vo inds of things: hose ha t:rrean d haveno origin, arrd hose ha t are alwaysn a process f bcconr-in s bu t nevcrare. he lbnlLcrar c pprpghsndedy intel l igencc i long ,vithreason; he Iatterby opinion il,ith rl .re id of sense erception.Jr,Ljrrcler-stood r-rhese ernrs,Platoobserr.ecl.he u'orld tselFis n objcct of senseperceptionan d uusthavebeencre:rtcdhroughpart icipat ionn sonieob -ject of intel lect ior.r:he rvorld, n othcr rvorcls,s a copv of sclnrethins. iTI3utapplyi'e rvords ike "i'rage" and "par:rdi*'r" to cosmogorric rocessesrnrrdePlato une:lsy. e ha d e:irl ierclel iberated 'herher o designateir eunir,erscbs ,oipards or xdopoEor sorneothel-nal)le, and larrrerrtedhat itwould be inrpossibleo speakeve'n hc l i t t le that one misht knor,r. f thefatheran d nrakerof the lvorld.38He no lonser hesitated.n speakire nthis rval',he continued, we nrustassunrehat rlords are akin to rvl-ratheydescribe: "'hen he1. elrte ro the last insanclpernranenr nd nrel l igible,thev ought to be irrefutable anclu'alterabie. but rvhe' they exprcsso,lyl ikeness.vordsneed be onlv sinri laror analoqouso what t l . rev cscribe.Tl.reproblem of representationwas thus resolvecl 1, he paracloxical s_sertion that the ',vordsof cliscursivelnguage can represent he truly ex-istentnroreaccuratelyha n objecrs f nretaphysicalt:rtusike r_rntohcnr-sel '" 'es,anrely those subject to generat io. arrcldecay: As being is tobecorninq,"Platocould therrconclucle. so rrurh is to belief-."1ePlatoha d begu' by p.sit ing a direct connectionberwt-en part icularontoloey an d a set of epistgnologicaldist inct ions, nd onlv a fer.v a{reslater used he sarne wo assertior.rs,etbre either h:rci ee' provecl, o conl-pletea syl logisrn bout represent:rt ion.lter ir r t l ' te l-irrtrcushe r. 'turned

I -j. I?cpr1r1rs ocl-r.j6 . ' I ' i n t r t r :l 7d l 3a .37. Thtu(us 2q1r..18. l " i r l , rcr i . ifJ b c.jt). Tilr,rtrr-r 9[--r'.

I H L l - l M I l s ( ) 1 , ) R r I I ( ) t ' l t A X Y

to problerl ls f reprcscnt:rt ion,skirig u hethcron c cJ n clesiqrratc()rpo-realobjectsusing aJzrjr, , th e sclf iurnehing,, ' ' the r-err,one," inccclo_in g so rvo'ld 'r:rke a c. 'plex asscrt io'about t l-recle't i tv a' d ontolog_ical ntegritv of th e ob.iectn q'est ion. plato co'ch,rdcclha t ori ly rvhatreceives ll bocl iesrn dal l br'rs ca nbe so clesignated,ecauset 'ever cle-parts ronr its orvn natrlre nc l ncver.part ici l-r1gs:5tr lny rv.r1,. ir i :urvbrnr.It is he rrother and eccpt2l-le f al lcreatedrrcl isihle and sensiblehirrss.an dyet t crr'not be cailed eart lr" or "air" or "f ire" or "rvatcr, ', ur rsaninvisibleanci hapelessbr'r; al l-rcceiving, t p:rrt icipatesn so.ie rvav rrth e ntcl l igibleand s tself Llt terlv pcoltpre.hcrrsiblc.+,)

so far,s. good. lu t Platc'rl .scd this sect ionby rr,rrni 'g.,ce asairr oepistemology.Thcrc: I har-c ut forth 'r v :ug'lrert . rf nrirrcJ 'c r cor-rect opiniorl ar e wo dil i-ercnt rtegries,he n there rrust e scif cxrsrentideas, vhich :lre ot susceptibleo scnse erception rrl tar eapprc.he'cieclonly by'the .rind."+l Th e tbr'rulat iorr of th e f irralarslrrrenr rsa co'cl i_t ioral is a rvpic.rlPl.rtonic leight-ot-hard.Fo r rs arriculat icr' n'i tes orrcunref lect ivelyo assento preciscly vhatha d beenarrd argely errrai.edat ssue.arrely that th e dist i 'ct ion bern,een norvk,dsean d belief cor_responcls'vith or, rather, restsLlpor a rnetaphysics onceived n ontolog-ical ernrs.

AR T AS ] I .EI ) ITESENTAIO Nwhat has all this r. do with idols? A sreat dear. ' r,vhat bllorvs, I shallfol low ll .roclerl lrends n th c str-rdy f lncienr philosophyancl reat th erwin foundatio'sof idolatrl ,cri t iquesepar-atel l ;orrcerrtret inglrsron rcp-resentat ion nd otrly ateron ntaterial i ty.a2ut theseproblenrs atrnotbcentirelydivorced.On th c contrar\ , , shallarsue n closing hat t is pre_supposit ions bour nrarerial i tvan d 'etaphysics that leacl s, as hey leclAugustine, o i 'sisr that idols r'ust be-indeetl, c:r. orrly be-idois ofsolncthi,g. [)agrrr nclcrstandingsf th e r-eprcsertat iorralap:rcity f iclols

40 . 'l in r t s ,sob- l r .4 t. 1 ' i l l , r r r r - r r l.42 ot c l r lp tc r 7 b t lo r i , w ' l t i i : l r t r t l t tp r s to b rc rk dorvn t l r c d rs t lnc t io r ) \ c l r l r r , l 5 r r ) )oL lc r r lscho l l r s benvec: r Cl r r j s t i . r n en t l p rg rn theor ics o f t l r e s ; r c r . , l i z - , t i rr r li 5F -1 .g 1 , . , " . , , r i t , , . ,1 , rfsacr l l i z : r t io r r .: r r rd lh r is t i r r r re l i r nce on s lc r cc l r r r rn t i ves lnd t l t c co l r t in r_ lc r t oca t ro r r o i l r o l r , ,r e l i cs , p rc r t rpposc r .c r t . s i r r r i l r r thcor ics r r t - l i v ine in l r r r rncr r cc .

I OI I ) { ) I S . \ N l ) f l l l : t R ( j l { t t t ( j S 3 l


7/13

ilIilit

ancl l . rc ntologicrrl rcnrises f prruan itual turrr out to be frtr nore l tr icJ,cornplex, anclpotcnt i l l ly confl ict inq thln anl inter'pr-etrt t iotrotrsistet i trvith l Platonic nretlphvsics voulclallou'.

Philosophizing lefenscsf iclolatrvexistecln a v:rricty of forrns,br-rtthc,vaii accepteclhc prcnrise hat the firr"rction f idols \,as () (?rc-rcrr/,ttclnot in anv \rry o fc, the goc1. hbcl thesc exts philosophizing" n partbecausehcir auth ors are dctnotrstr:iblv1:uniliar vith Pl:rto,but especiallybecause lefendingdohtr.vbv recourse o theoriesof representat iotrtselftakcs place onlv lvithin a plrticul:rr intellectual and cliscr.rrsiveraclition.The problcnr for iclolatr,v's hanrpions 'vasu'ofolcl: lrst to clefend heus eof irrraqes nd only seconclari lyo defer-rclnthropotnorphisru. s sooften, rveknolv the nrost nfluential defense f inrases rt the Westcrll tr:l-dition onlv fronr ts opponents.For t u.as he f lrst-centr,rry orrran olv-nrathVarro rvho introcluccd he Latin-speaking vorld to the :rl legoricalinterpretation of rcligious staturry, urcl ve knorv his r'r.orks tt religronahnostcxclr-rsivelyl.rrough he extractsof then r cluotedbv Ar-rgtrstine. eare, hcrefore, n no posit ion o say vhetl.rer arro developeclhis lreorvof rel igior-rsrt hinrself , n analoqv vith Stoic rl legorizinenterpret:rt ionsof Hesiod, l thougl 'r t seenrs lear h:rtboth he and Ciccro ktrelvZeno'sre: iding f Hesiod'sTlt trrg


8/13

Clhrist iansvere both idolaters rndpoor rnetaphysiciansecausehev be-l ievecl urnansha d been createcln everv rv:rysirni lar o God. I)id thcynot clepictGoclsaying, Lc t us create ra n n our irnagc-ncl cserublancelxar' eixdva co,ipolaou f lperepavl?"' ')Thisvas nrpossiblc, lelsus cln-t inr-red, ecauseGod did no t nr:rkehunrans n l i is inrase,no r does loc-lreser.nbleny other visi l-rle.eirrq.t l )rigen . lefbnded lhrist ians rrst ,vitha specious enlant ic r{rul l lcnt, nsist ing hat (}ocl nracJe ran only in hisinragebu t not in his resenrblance, cl:rinr or r,vhichhc ollers no proofbut a forrnulation that :rchicved asting nfluence. Origer-ralsoundertooka more rigoronsdefense f Christ iar-i retaphysics. elsus asclearly nis-representeclhe Christ ians,Origen wrote, rvhenhe suggestshat we thinkr,vhat s made "after the iniage of God" is the bodv r.vhcre:rshc soul,rvhich s better, s deprivedof .,vh:rtis "after his rnage."For none of us,C)rigenasserted,hinks hat your idolsar eactu:rl lyrtrases f gods,as ouclo,as hough such hings could depict the shapeof an invisibleand n-corporcal deity; still essdo 'uveimagine that anytiring createdafter God'sirnage cor-rld e Zv rCt $0aprQ o,iy"art, "in a colrul'ttible lrodv."ir

THE MATTEI I ANI ) MA TEi I IAL ITY OF RELIGIOUSARTWhat is r corrupt iblebody? Ar e there ncormptible boclies? hcse qucs-t ions return r-rs o theories of ru:rt terand to the reception of Plat


9/13

I f i -oniunfbrnreclbronze,he observed hrrt .r 'c l l l th e part icul ir and thetornr bv the sarle rtanre, ncl et whll t rve call he forrn crlnnothavean vcxistence-is not, in his tcrnrs, r self lsubsistentubstancc-nrerely be-( ' . l usc\ ' ch . rvc . r t . t t t t co r t . i -

I f Aristot le resenrbles lato n havins connectcd problenrsof episte-nroloey, epresentat ion, nd nrctapl.rysics,e dicl so n ncl ical ly difcrcr-rtrv:rys.So, for exrrrnplc,Aristot ie conccdccl hat nrost people clef ineclprocesses f gcnerat ionand cormption, ylveots xo, i$)opci, y drauirrq:rn ncorrect ontologicaldist i .nct ion ct 'uveen erceptible ncl nrpercep-t ible lratter.5sOn the other hand he insisted, irst, th:rtsolnenratterw.ispotcnt ial ly srlsceptible ot tr) scrisc erception,but onlv to ir-rtel lect ion;anclseconcl, hat both kinds of nratter \vere properly spe:r kingunknorv-able prior to their fornrat ion.That is rvhy rve assign he sanrenanre ohorh tbrrrrs nd p: rr t i t r l r r rs. i ' r

Th e secor-rdrucial egacyof Aristot le's ri t ique of Pl:rto s rnorc snb-t le. I t consists f the concc-ptualrnd crnrinological pparatus ha t Aris-tot lc dcveloped o correctPlatc'r,vhich wasappropriated y lrter Platon-ists rncrelv to suppler-nent inr. Of part icular inrportance werc thc:rssinriht ion f Aristot le's ogical lyancl otent ial lycxtantnratter, vhathecells he npairrl r i)1, o Plato'suniversal eccptacle, n the one hand,an dthe conrplex belief that "intel l igiblc" part iculars ad sonre on r of irn-perccptilrlc n1:rtter, illcrcnt in kind 6'onr ri)1 yevvrlrr)xai {dopz{, scnsc-perceptiblenrattersr-rbjccto gener: l t ion rnd corrnpt ion, increase ndch:rnse. his endorvedPlato's ontologic:rl fi:rnrcwork lvith a fornr of un-rlerlying and unchansine rihTvorlrf, ii'ttelltsiblenratter, hat could bc theobject of reason:urd dqors, o correspond o thc corrupt ible rlatter ha twas hc obje'ct f opinion and sense erception.r'"

The coruplex afterlitr-' f thcse dcb:rtcs vitirin micldle Platonic physicsl ies o one sideof nry project, cc'rncerneds t is rvith paganand Christ-ian theorizing abor:t dolatry I therefore'concentr:lte he'rc on t'uv o r ob-57. Ar istot lc . \ l ' taplry-rir : i r o- l . l i r . r , . l r oJ418.i8 . A r is to t le Dt ' ,q t ' tn ' r u t iL t r t t ' ( ' t L t ) tnt f t i t ) n ( '3 l lb rS -u7 :c t - . . \1 rn ry r l r 1 , . i i r ro j6b - j : Io - j7e5j9 . A r is to t l c . \ ' ; l c t ,? / r y . i i r - ro j5b j r r o . l ( r l t l . r nd ro - t ( rb3 : loJT r ro .60 . As bo th Joech in r t9 : : . xxx iv r r rd t .1 .3 1 .1 , rnc l Sostock I99-1 , I ,56 -57 r r r rd r6 j (16 .r r r r kc c lc r r r ,A r is to t le r cg i r r c lc t l n tc l l cc t r - r r l ) l l r r t c r r s ro th inu rnorc th r r r r tn r t t lg in r r v k ru ic r lpo \ tu l r te . use f i r l fb r t l i scuss ing hc app l ic r t io r r o f ' co r r ccp ts l i kc "phce" rn t l " touch" to r r iy


10/13

of intel lect ionanrlscrrsc erceptione:rch -ecluirchcir cxvnkirrd of nrer-ter. What Alcinor-rs rovided, l . rcrctbrc,s :r horoushlv Ar-istotel ianizet laccoLlnt f the '1'rrirccrr-s.No t only .1idhe :rccept ,vithour esitat ion h:rtth e universal ecept:rclc,he niothcr and nursc of al l hincs,an dspace reon c atrd he s:rtnc, ut he eqr-ratcclhenr r,vithan Aristotel irrn ubstratun.rinacc--essibleo sel)se efception rncl onsist ing f nratter.u5his strbstra-turrr s neithcrcorporc:rl or l tcorporeal. rr t sbody n potc-nt ial i tv(,(,Tharthcre rvas reither conti luitv irr hnqtragt nor in an v nre.rningful enselcontinuity of nre.rrringlt the conccptsof "sr-rbstr:rtuni,"rrratter,"ancl"potentiality"' betrveenPlato's irtreanclhis orvn uvouldnot luvc concernedAicinons; he do-rt)graphicracl i t ion, tswc rvould ternr t . was not con-ccrned r'vithhistorv n t l . rat ense. o it u.as l-rat lcinorrscor.rlclonjointhoseequations r- aclapt ing, l t l rqLlpglt i iorri Aristot le's \ , lct ,qrlr1,-sir-sndso dcntify trlr lt tcras f lrst prirrciple. ront rvhicl.rhe rv'orlcl ,:rs reated.rn d then rsk y * 'honr and vith retercnceo what t rvas :rshionecl. , ,7heanswerso thosequcst ions vere, f course,Clod ancl he Fornrs, he fbr-nrcr ir lposing th c latter on a chaotic, nrperceptible reexistent ubstra-tunr of nrattcr.( 'xf on the one hand u. e have -rereravclct l l i r f ronr th cTirrtrcus, e ;tre ar f i-onr he Crrrty/ l l . i ,oo . and resident>u'arnonqgodsrvith a far rt torc cotnplex, f sonrcu,hat ebtrlous, c'l ; rt ionshipo rnatter.

Apuleiuspror, icles ur bcsr gl inrpse nro the Lat in reccprionof platobetrveen icero andLactantius.n book r of ol Platohe c.scribcd latcr'sf irst principles:Gocl,nt: l t ter, nd l .re orrrrs. ccording o Apuleius, nnrenratter s improrrmbilurrrtcttrruptililqu?,-rv ,r,l.riche rncant it is not sub-. icct o ylveots


11/13


12/13

i l

l t Pcssinus, r evelton e copv aniong nrany? et nr e srlggcst l te wuy roi luswcr hescqucst iorrsuvithoutlooking at t lre historv of pcssiru.rs.I)latc'r'srretaphysics f rcprescntation .rasnfluencecl he reaclirrg f thisepisode nd others ike it in t\r.owa),s. )n th e oric hand,Lrecltrse e as -snmc ha tcopies reno t onlv cl i f lerentronrbut nfbrior o theirexer.nplers,rve risist h:rt religior,rs rtilactscannot be duplicatecl.Hcncc thc lLonransnrusth:r."'eeceir.cd he onc lnd orrly blrrck tone.paracloxic:illy,bec:ruse eassun)ehat the divine existson a hi{:herplane h:rn he- or}.roreal,ve alsclbelieve hat the blackrock nlusthave cprest'rftcd,ather halr bccri, he gocl-tlcss.B.t s.relv a sig'ror a syrrbol or lr inrrgc crr' be repr.ocl-rcer1?I suggestha t :rncicntunc-lerstancl ingsf nraterial i ty, nc l he philoso-ph y oi representat ion ncicrlying eliqior-rsitual, provide l ne.lns o ob _viate his n)ostPlatonicof f ir lse inarisrrrs.ecogrizing urther hvpostascsbeyond or between he divire ard t lre corporeal,peoplc n thc ancie'r'r 'orld rrightu'el l ha'c undcrstood ha to1'bele o.rehorv ,as, 'c1 etw:rsnot cocxtensive vith. their black stone;and in that rvay, he nrisht alsohavcbeen,but not been c{er-rt ical,vith. rher blackstones.I dt l not krlo'nv ha t th e Ronrans rotrght ronr Pessinuso the Palat irreln 204 B.(i .E.lu r I sr-rspcctha t he nreraphysicalnc l pistenrologicaloc -trines beclueathed o us i't-rnr irto lre not eoing to help us to find ar) ll.l-s'vcr.what I do knou is that cybele's shrine l pessinusrcnrainedan rc-t ive site of cult an d fbcus or pi lgrinragc br at lcast 56 o earsafter herbait t t los\/elrt o Ronre.Fo r that rcasonalone, suspectha t Ltrcir-rslor-ncl iusScipio eceivecl oth rnoreancl ess ha n he black oc k rhat .vls hcgoddessn tl 're ort oi C)st iawcnty-two hnndrtd ve;rrs go .

31N7'Ir RPR E'L-AT O RO,U,.lAI,{

Arrrong scholars of chssical rel igion, th e ternrs intcrprctdt io (]r, trcrt ar.tdintatpretntio Rtttlldtltt coltttttoltly reier to the "broac'l iclentiflcltiorr :ulr()l1IGreeks ancl Ilonrans of :r foreign qodheacl r,r'i th a nrerlber of their o-nvnpancheons." These idenri f icaciorrs :rrc general lv str-rc l icd rt th e level ofnanrins-rrot leastbecar,rse rost easi lycol lectcd er. idence or thenr is l in-guistic, nanrely the eprg'aphically attestecl se of "rhconynrs asappellatives."Wlrat is rrrore, nlany arguc that thc central interest of irttL,rltrcfdtitrrrr,.sicslrore or less exclusively in thc act of narning, ancl not in the rrct of idcnti-ficatiorr, ar-rclhat interprctatio tself is "thcrefbre a phenonrenon in thc lin-guist ic-concepttralrealnr."lThis see's ro r 'e shorts ightcd. It is t l re objectof this chapter to sllliest hat an incltiiry tr.tto ntcr,ltretatio ollana ntishtrvell rer'eal as much abor-rtRonran gods as t cloes rbout Ronran languase.Fo r intcrpretarios not, at i ts herrrt ,an ac t of translat ion,brrt on e of namins.and its unpackine conjoins trvo conrplcx problenrs. Tl.rerc is first tlrat ofknor'vleclge, oi discc'ring ."r,hatgod one is cleali'g w.ith ancl rl ie ';rrrrc bywhich he or shc 'uvoulcllike to be k'olvr; ancJseconcl o'e of theoloey, 'fgods w'ho cxist in particular locations, sonre of r,vhonr llright or nrisrht not

An cr r f er vers io r r of rh is ch rp tc r r tppeur ( , r l t ( . l r l t r Lt o :oos) , 4 r j r . ( 1 .u r r i vc rs i t v ofC l r r . . r g , ' .t. Ora i r q r tSb .

i


13/13

XXXIX Tl t t t Is ir ( . '1; , , , ' .11r ' l ' l toscl l . 'hoHt l t Oltrrst: ?cl iqlol . r:rol t,rt t t , t t t lt cOltrtsttatt?t)tnntt nt l i r ( . bv Mich: relCadcl isXL ' l l tc I,,qutd tl ' \ l t r ( )arda.ql t ;\ r i l ' r r r i l r , , t t t t !C l t r i st iat tlL, roist t ttt Lt r tcAt t t iqtu,/r,i4, br,-[oel -honrls Wrlke r-

xL I oi t l ' ,111,1sr i i r ro/, Lttt ' ,4ttt tqttt . 'rtrt t t tsttrr 4r,.arttrrta, 'Ed*,ard J. wat tsXLII .Sr ' r ' r r r i r iqt l t ' , r t iot t :4r t t i t ' t t r. l l t r i s t i , tni t l ,an d lt t ( ) l lot tor l , l t t tLt .qi t tat iol ,v SnsrnAshbrook Harr.er,xL l l l . \ l d t tL rnd l t c 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 s ,d i t edbr . r ober t J . pere l l : iXLIV Tltt .\Iatt'r ttl rltt Cods, br, CliHbrrl Antlo

THE MATTER OF THE,GODSRcligion md ltc Rornan ntpirc

Clifford Arrdo

U N I V L I i S I I ' Y O Il l c r kc lev Los

( ] A I , I I o I i N I A I ' R E S SAngc lcs Lon t ]o r r

ando idols critics

Documents