A short Plutarch essay arguing that an uneducated ruler is a danger to himself and his subjects, and that only philosophy makes power safe to hold.
Ad Principem Ineruditum ("To an Uneducated Ruler") is a brief essay from Plutarch's Moralia addressed to the problem of political power without philosophical training. Plutarch opens with Plato's refusal to write laws for the prosperous Cyrenaeans, on the grounds that success makes men "proud and harsh and hard to govern," and builds from there an argument that rulers most need what they are least willing to accept: a rational check on themselves. He praises the Spartan king Theopompus for voluntarily sharing power with the Ephors, calling the diminished but more secure kingship "greater... inasmuch as it is more secure," and contrasts this with rulers who mistake harshness and unapproachability for dignity, comparing them to hollow colossal statues, godlike outside, full of earth and stone within.
The essay's central claim is that law must live inside the ruler as "a living reason within him" rather than sit in written books, and that a ruler who has not first straightened his own soul cannot straighten his subjects, just as a mason's rule must itself be true before it can correct anything else. Plutarch develops an extended analogy between the ruler and god: the good ruler is not one who wields a scepter or thunderbolt like the outward trappings of Zeus, but one who imitates Zeus's justice and self-control, since "justice is the end of law; law is the work of the ruler; and the ruler is the image of the god who orders all things." He works through a gallery of examples, positive and negative, from Persian court ritual to the tyrant Clearchus sleeping in a locked chest out of fear of his own subjects, to Alexander's grief over killing Cleitus and his admiration for Diogenes.
The essay matters as a compact statement of the Greco-Roman ideal of the philosopher-ruler that shaped later thinking about kingship, and as a specimen of Plutarch's method of teaching through anecdote rather than abstract argument. Its warning that unchecked power "adds sinew to the passions" and turns minor faults into catastrophes, illustrated by the aside that even small failings in famous men get magnified by slander, gives it continuing relevance to any discussion of accountability and character in leadership. The text as preserved is fragmentary, breaking off mid-argument.
“for nothing is so proud and harsh and hard to govern as a man" once he has laid hold of what seems to be good fortune”
— Ad Principem Ineruditum · read this chapter →
“No, a greater one, inasmuch as it is more secure.”
— Ad Principem Ineruditum · read this chapter →
“Justice, then, is the end of law; law is the work of the ruler; and the ruler is the image of the god who orders all things”
— Ad Principem Ineruditum · read this chapter →
“If I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes”
— Ad Principem Ineruditum · read this chapter →
“Great, then, is the danger for one who is able to do what he wishes, of wishing what he ought not.”
— Ad Principem Ineruditum · read this chapter →
It is a short essay by Plutarch arguing that rulers without philosophical education are dangerous, because power removes the restraints that keep ordinary people's vices in check. Plutarch contends that a ruler must first govern himself before he can rightly govern others, and that true law is a "living reason" carried within the ruler rather than words written in books.
Plutarch says the ruler should imitate god's justice, self-control, and good order, not the outward symbols of divine power like the thunderbolt, scepter, or trident. Rulers who imitate only force and pomp are compared to hollow colossal statues, impressive outside but full of earth and stone within.
Theopompus was a king of Sparta who voluntarily shared his royal power with the newly created office of the Ephors. When his wife complained he was leaving their children a lesser kingship, he answered that it was greater because it was more secure, and Plutarch uses him as a model of a ruler who accepts checks on his own power.
Plutarch describes Alexander's grief after killing Cleitus and his admiration for the philosopher Diogenes, whom he encountered at Corinth and said he would want to be if he were not Alexander. Plutarch reads this as Alexander sensing that his own fortune and power were a burden that only philosophy could make bearable.
Plutarch says kings fear on behalf of their subjects, giving the examples of Epaminondas staying sober to guard drunken Thebans and Cato at Utica securing his men's escape before his own death, while tyrants fear their subjects, illustrated by Clearchus of Pontus sleeping locked in a chest and Aristodemus of Argos barricaded in an upper room.
No, the essay as it survives from antiquity is fragmentary and the surviving text breaks off before reaching a formal conclusion.
Moralia: Adversus Colotem · Moralia: Amatoriae Narrationes · Moralia: Amatorius · Moralia: An Recte Dictum Sit Latenter Esse Vivendum · Moralia: An Seni Respublica Gerenda Sit · Moralia: An Virtus Doceri Possit · Moralia: An Vitiositas Ad Infelicitatem Sufficia · Moralia: Animine An Corporis Affectiones Sint Piores · Moralia: Apophthegmata Laconica · Moralia: Aquane An Ignis Sit Utilior · Moralia: Bruta Animalia Ratione Uti · Moralia: Comparationis Aristophanes Et Menandri Compendium