SOURCE: Bowie, Ewen Lyall. “Apollonius of Tyana: Tradition and Reality.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt 2, no. 16, 2 (1978): 1652-71.

[In the following excerpt, Bowie asserts that although Philostratus's work is a primary source of information on Apollonius of Tyana, the writer altered and amplified the subject of his biography, and therefore, the information contained in this text must be studied with discrimination.]

Modern accounts of Apollonius of Tyana are necessarily dominated by the biographic work of Philostratus¹. Earlier independent testimony is exiguous, and much of the later tradition in antiquity betrays the influence of his work. But it is clear that the sophist Philostratus has greatly altered and amplified the picture of a Cappadocian magician such as must have been presented to him by part at least of his material: investigators of Apollonius must try to determine how much belongs to the first century character and how much is attributable to elaborations in the second century and to Philostratus himself, while a student of Philostratus will wish to concentrate on the latter part of the enquiry and add the question how far and with what intent Philostratus was perpetrating a work of fiction. This paper does not concern itself with the tradition after Philostratus except where it is pertinent to an assessment of the questions outlined above: recent work has made some progress in the later tradition². However advances in our understanding of Philostratus' rôle and materials have been vestigial since the fundamental work of Eduard Meyer published in 1917: some will judge the analogy ominous, but in my view Meyer did for Philostratus' work on Apollonius what Dessau did 30 years earlier for the ‘Scriptores Historiae Augustae’³. Accordingly I offer no apology for taking Meyer's position as a starting point for the following discussion, some of which aims to do no more than to refine or correct it in details while taking account of subsequent adversaria.

I. THE DAMIS QUESTION

1. INTRODUCTION

Meyer saw Philostratus' work as a ‘Reiseroman’ offering a mixture of fantasy and education. Apollonius' travels to the orient and Egypt were a fiction in whose construction Philostratus drew on Herodotus, Ctesias, Xenophon and the historians of Alexander: the discourses of Apollonius treat themes of general sophistic interest, sometimes peculiarly Philostratean. These elements discounted, little remains for the scribe and disciple Damis whom Philostratus parades as his source: Damis is an invention of Philostratus, who will not have expected his readers to take him seriously⁴.

So bold a contention could not win universal support: in 1919 Mesk reiterated arguments for Damis' existence in some form, and further points in his favour were made by Hempel in 1920⁵. But an extended rehabilitation of Damis was only put forward by Grosso in 1954. Grosso mounted a close comparison of the historical information on the first century A.D. in Philostratus with our other evidence for the period and tried to show both that Philostratus' account of historical events is accurate and that the part given to Apollonius therein is coherent. From this, and from the distribution of praise and blame between Domitian and the circle of Nerva, Grosso concluded that the picture was composed in the reign of Nerva and that the composer was, as Philostratus claims, a pupil of Apollonius called Damis⁶.

Grosso's arguments have been either accepted or ignored by scholars dealing with Apollonius⁷ and must be assessed before investigation of Damis can proceed further. It should first be pointed out that Grosso's method has no formal validity. The coherence of Philostratus' picture only requires him to know the history of the period well enough to insert the activities of Apollonius without contradictions of the existing tradition. It does not of itself demonstrate that the part given to Apollonius is historical. Since Philostratus must have had at his disposal a wider range of literary sources than are available to us we should not be surprised if he avoids contradicting our tradition.

Here, however, the further difficulty arises that in many details Philostratus does contradict what is either recorded explicitly or inherently probable in the light of other testimony. The contention that Philostratus cannot be refuted “sul terreno documentato” cannot be upheld; and little is achieved by the argument that the most improbable assertions must be factual or Philostratus would not have made them!⁸ The following paragraphs analyse some passages where there is conflict with other evidence and also offer some suggestions about the origins of Philostratus' version.

2. THE VARDANES EPISODE

Vardanes appears to have acceded to the throne of Parthia in 42 A.D. and to have died in 45 A.D. In Philostratus' narrative⁹ Apollonius arrives in his kingdom two years and two months after his accession and leaves him in good health after one year and eight months: moreover he is still king on Apollonius' return from India some considerable if unspecified time later. This crux has driven most scholars to the view that Philostratus is working in ignorance of the length of Vardanes' reign. There is little that is convincing in Grosso's attempt to save him on the hypothesis that he calculated the beginning of Vardanes' reign from a different year and that the ‘sources’ on Apollonius' return from India referred to him simply as ὁ βασιλεύs, then interpreted by Philostratus as referring to Vardanes.

3. MUSONIUS RUFUS

The tradition concerning Musonius Rufus preserved in Tacitus and Cassius Dio conflicts with that of Philostratus in one important point. The historians record that Musonius was banished in the year 65: the sophist has him imprisoned and divulges an exchange of letters with Apollonius in which, as Grosso remarks, he emerges as a man of lesser stature than Musonius. This Grosso tried to adduce as evidence that ‘Damis’ cannot be the source of the incident. The conclusion may be correct (it will not disturb the unbeliever) but it does not follow that we are thereby disqualified from using this passage to discredit the existence of such a source as ‘Damis’ at all. The more often we find Philostratus purveying material which cannot derive from a pupil of Apollonius writing in the reign of Nerva the less plausibility remains for such an hypothesis¹⁰.

As Grosso remarks, Philostratus was attracted by the character of Musonius and picked up some of the traditions which circulated uncontrolled (for Musonius himself allegedly committed nothing to writing). These included the story of his hard labour on the Isthmus and his exile on Gyara until Nero's death. The latter very probably has a factual basis, albeit somewhat embroidered by legend, but the former is hard to credit. It is the sort of detail we might expect to appear in the Neronian life of Suetonius, but it is not there, nor in any other reliable source: no corroboration is offered by its exploitation in the pseudo-Lucianic ‘Nero’, usually attributed to one of the Philostrati¹¹.

The exchange between Musonius and Apollonius is equally hard to accept. We know the former as a Stoic who opposed Demetrius the Cynic in a prosecution and had for his followers Euphrates and Dio¹². It could be argued, of course, that Apollonius' quarrel with Euphrates, a major theme in Philostratus, had not yet developed in 65, but the suspicion remains that Philostratus has infiltrated his sage into a circle of Stoic philosophers where he has no proper place. The traditional connection with Euphrates, albeit one which portrayed the men as enemies, might have suggested the adaptation of the story, and Philostratus will have gained on two counts. He wanted, we are told, to tone down the bitterness of the quarrel, and we can also infer that he sought a coherent backcloth to his presentation of Apollonius as a constructive philosopher offering positive advice to cities and individuals¹³. It is most embarrassing that Apollonius does not elsewhere appear in the extensive catalogue of Musonius' friends¹⁴. In this situation it is only safe to remain sceptical about the alleged connection. The possible relevance of Philostratus' use of a tradition on Musonius to his characterisation of Apollonius will be considered further in due course¹⁵. Here it suffices to establish the divergence of Philostratus' account from our other evidence.

4. DEMETRIUS THE CYNIC

It is frequently observed that the tales offered by Philostratus are almost unrecognisable as an account of the philosopher Demetrius we have in other sources¹⁶. In the year 66, the consulate of Telesinus, Philostratus' Demetrius inveighs against the dedication of a new gymnasium in Rome and is expelled from the city by Tigellinus. The gymnasium is indeed attested elsewhere, but for the year 61 or 60: the expulsion appears nowhere. Indeed the testimony on Demetrius, obscure and incomplete though it is, affords hints that he might not have been uncomfortable under Neronian rule. In 70 A.D. he is found defending P. Egnatius Celer against the prosecution of Musonius Rufus, ambitiosius quam honestius. Celer had turned against his friend Barea Soranus in 66, allegedly bearing false witness. It is strange to find Demetrius defending a man responsible for a persecution of which he himself, if expelled in 66, must have been a victim¹⁷. Tantalisingly, the last chapters of the ‘Annales’ have been so mutilated as to rob us of Tacitus' full story of the relationship between Demetrius and Thrasea Paetus: we are left with the cynic in attendance at Thrasea's death bed¹⁸. This in itself is not enough to show that Demetrius displayed active opposition to Nero or was likely to have been exiled in 66: the scene could well have been narrated as a foil to Demetrius' own readiness to compromise and have given openings for vicious and exposing Tacitean comment¹⁹. The balance of Tacitus' evidence is against the likelihood of an expulsion in 66, but is too fragmentary to permit certainty.

Grosso postulates a brief or imperfectly observed expulsion order in 62 which Philostratus amalgamated with another in 66, eschewed because it would involve Philostratus in discussion of Thrasea Paetus' circle²⁰. The expulsion invented for 62 not only lacks foundation but does not in fact help Grosso's case. If ‘Damis’ synchronises Demetrius' castigation of the practice of bathing on the dedication of a gymnasium in 60/61 A.D. with Apollonius' arrival in Rome in 66 A.D. then he is not narrating fact, and any support this passage might give to the ‘Damis’ hypothesis crumbles. Alternatively, if Philostratus is distorting the narrative of ‘Damis’, then this distortion amounts to more than an “inesattezza del retore” which “non deve sorprendere”, and attempts to establish Damis' credibility from what is passed on by Philostratus are destined for ruin. We may reasonably doubt if Philostratus had any evidence at all for a meeting of Demetrius and Apollonius. Grosso gives the false impression that he adduces the testimony of Favorinus: but this is claimed only for the character of Demetrius, whereas the meeting purports to be part of the Damis narrative²¹.

Demetrius' relations with the Flavians are equally disturbing. Apolonius commends him to Titus: yet all traditions attest implacable hostility of Cynics to the régime, and Demetrius' banishment is recorded for the very year in which Apollonius is made to introduce him to Titus²². The motive for distortion is patent. The philosopher is shown to be in favour with good rulers and hostile to tyrants: thus under Domitian Demetrius is presented as living defiantly near Rome. His exile by Vespasian is never hinted, and we may suspect that it has been transferred to the door of Nero. It might be that this is not Philostratus' perpetration, since it is less easy to see a motive for him than for a Demetrian biographer chronicling the opposition of great men to Nero (cf. n. 20). What is certain is that a ‘Damis’ of Grosso's specification would have little incentive to distort, for men alive in 96-98 A.D. could expose the fiction and discredit his story of Apollonius in Neronian Rome²³.

5. THE CONSECRATION AT ALEXANDRIA

Apollonius' encounter with Vespasian at Alexandria is integral to his presentation as a politically active philosopher. The rumoured summons of the new autocrat, his arrival and request to be made basileus by Apollonius, the debate of Euphrates, Dio and Apollonius culminating in a decisive symbouleutic speech by the last—all these combine to elevate the Greek intellectual world and reveal the Italian as an executive in the hands of policy-making Greeks. Behind the incident lies the truth that Vespasian's power derived from the East. Many details fit 69 A.D., such as enthusiasm in Alexandria and widespread anti-Semitism, and on the constitutional level the emphasis on Vespasian's sons as a guarantee of dynastic stability.

These elements of historical accuracy cannot prove the historicity of Apollonius' part. It can be challenged on a general and on a particular level. Both Tacitus and Suetonius have a surprisingly full account of Vespasian's confirmation as emperor in Alexandria, but in neither are the philosophers mentioned, and nothing emerges from our other testimonia on Dio or Euphrates. Worse still, the career of Vespasian betrays only limited sympathy for the intellectual life of the Greek world, and the elevation of a Greek to a privileged role as imperial friend and adviser seems an anachronism in the first century and evokes the status alleged by Philostratus in his Lives of the Sophists for Dio, Polemo or Herodes²⁴.

It is hard to dismiss the suspicion that Philostratus is inventing. Apart from a brief notice in Josephus, who had reasons to be silent²⁵, Vespasian's arrival figures in a papyrus and in the narratives of Tacitus, Suetonius and Philostratus²⁶. The papyrus merely attests enthusiasm for Vespasian and offers some support for a visit to the Serapeum. It is the relationship between the others that bears on the veracity of Philostratus.

In Tacitus one Basilides, e primoribus Aegyptiorum, appears to Vespasian in a vision in the Serapeum after Vespasian has already enhanced his own authority by the performing of miracles. The name Basilides is taken as confirmation of his destined principate. But nothing is said or done by Basilides, who is later proved to have been eighty miles distant at the time.

In Suetonius a libertus Basilides appears to Vespasian in the same circumstances and offers him ritual gifts associable with Egyptian insignia of kingship²⁷: he is proved to have been ill and far distant at the time. Miracles by Vespasian follow the incident, and, as it were in confirmation, letters arrive from Rome statim announcing the Flavian victory.

In Philostratus' account Apollonius is waiting in the temple (unspecified, but for Alexandria most obviously the Serapeum): in reply to Vespasian's request ποίησόν με βασιλέα Apollonius says he has already made him king, and after an uplifting exchange on imperial virtues concludes with a reference to the burning of the Capitolium at Rome which has been communicated to him in a vision.

The conflicting traditions have been analysed by Derchain and Hubaux with corrections and modifications by Henrichs²⁸. Derchain and Hubaux give no precise pattern of development for the traditions, and it is hard to accept their hypothesis that an original version involved ‘bilocation’ in the form offered by Philostratus, as they use the same term ‘bilocation’ to connote both Apollonius' vision of events in Rome (while he is in Alexandria) and the appearance of Basilides to Vespasian simultaneously with his presence in reality elsewhere. It may also be doubted whether an Alexandrian version included the connection with events in Rome that is common to Suetonius and Philostratus. Derchain and Hubaux rightly detect a depreciation of Alexandria's king-making rôle in both Tacitus and Suetonius. Accordingly it cannot be, as they suggest²⁹, that the confirmation of news from Rome is an original element retained by Suetonius. This would date the incidents some time after 21st December, 69 A.D., whereas the original version, to have point as Alexandrian propaganda, must have located the confirmation of Vespasian's principate in Alexandria before the decision in Rome. This indeed is implied by Philostratus' narration, setting the king-making at Vespasian's arrival in Alexandria, well before 21st December³⁰: at the same time his chronology is complicated by a different dating, to 21st December, given by Apollonius' vision. The contradictions show that at least two versions lie behind Philostratus and the Roman writers:

(A) Alexandrian propaganda, reflected in the papyrus, in which he is confirmed emperor in the Serapeum by Egyptian ritual and performs miracles demonstrating the power and favour of Serapis. This happens immediately on his arrival and before victory in Italy.

(B) A version with Roman bias. The coronation of Vespasian is made more symbolic and mysterious, partly to obscure the presumptuous act of formal investiture, and is robbed of its primacy among the confirmations of his principate by being itself confirmed and post-dated by association with the arrival of news from Rome. However, embedded elements, the context of his arrival in Alexandria and his miracles, are retained despite inconsistency with the remodelled account.

It is (B) that was available both to the Latin historians and to Philostratus. Speculation on its precise origin would be unproductive³¹. Its exploitation by Philostratus is easier to conjecture. He found a tradition in which some Alexandrian dignitary gave mystical confirmation of Vespasian's principate. This suggests to him a similar role for Apollonius: instead of corroboration by letters from Rome he has a vision of events there that looks suspiciously like a doublet of Apollonius' vision in Ephesus of Domitian's assassination in Rome (the only event in Apollonius' career noticed by Cassius Dio³²). Vespasian's miracles are omitted because all divinity must pass through the sage Apollonius.

If such an hypothesis is near the truth then we need not be surprised at contemporary themes and atmosphere in Philostratus' account. His source would be a Flavian historian with contemporary documents at his disposal. He is no doubt responsible for the anti-Semitism which emerges only in the context of Apollonius' oriental meetings with Flavian princes. The astounding assertion that Egypt's decline was arrested by Vespasian may also be from this source, arguably a supporter and encomiast of the régime³³. Nowhere is there room for an eye-witness account of ‘Damis’: the chronological confusions would be unexplained, whereas the political background is treated in too competent a manner for the naïve scribe and disciple introduced by Philostratus. This objection is common to all the above passages: ‘Damis’ presents a historical background too sophisticated for his station while the palpable inexactitudes come precisely where he ought to be best informed, at Apollonius' entrances on stage. If ‘Damis’ was not what Philostratus asserts, what was he?

5. THE INVENTION OF DAMIS

Many scholars are prepared to admit that ‘Damis’ was not what he is said to be by Philostratus yet shrink from dismissing him as mere invention. The reference to Julia Domna's receipt of Damis' ‘Deltoi’ and request to Philostratus to rewrite the narrative with suitable attention to style has played a central part in the debate³⁴. Philostratus, it is urged, could not have abused the name of his patron, so he must in truth have received a book from her purporting to be a memoir of Damis. The most recent proponent of this view, W. Speyer, suggests that it was a forgery of neo-Pythagorean admirers of Apollonius, stimulated by the analogous diary which appears in the introduction of Dictys of Crete. Dictys claims to have been taken to Troy by Idomeneus and Meriones especially to set down a narrative of the war. When he died in Crete his work was buried beside him on wooden tablets and discovered when the grave was opened in the 13th year of the emperor Nero: Nero had it translated from the Phoenician in which it was written and put in his library, and it was then translated into Latin by one L. Septimius³⁵. The recognition that Damis is in the same category is of fundamental importance³⁶. It is extraordinary, however, that once Speyer saw the connection, and even pointed out that the Dictys fabrication was almost certainly known to Philostratus (he might have added that our evidence for this, the Heroicus, betrays Philostratus using roughly the same technique in inventing his ghostseeing vintner!³⁷) he failed to proceed to one easy and obvious hypothesis: that Philostratus (and not neo-Pythagorean friends of Julia Domna) could himself be responsible for the invention of Damis in conscious evocation of a novelistic tone and setting. No abuse of Julia Domna's name is involved if the technique and its implications were as patent to every Greek reader as is suggested by consideration of the motif's ramifications in novelistic productions.

For Dictys is not alone. The Τὰ ὑπὲρ Tούλην ἄπιστα of Antonius Diogenes (published by the time Lucian wrote his ‘Verae historiae’) claimed to have been written on cypress-wood tablets and buried beside the grave of one of the characters, there to be discovered by historical figures at the sack of Tyre in 332 B.C.³⁸ One of the two versions of the ‘Historia Apollonii regis Tyrii’ concludes: casus suos suorumque ipse descripsit et duo volumina fecit: unum Dianae in templo Ephesiorum, aliud in bibliotheca sua exposuit³⁹. An analogous frame is alleged by Xenophon for his ‘Ephesiaca’, although here the form of the record is not written but pictorial: a dedicatory painting set up in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. A similar sort of picture is alleged as the source of his narrative by Longus and stimulates the romance of Achilles Tatius⁴⁰. Iamblichus follows a different technique: he learned his story from a Babylonian τροφεύs whose authenticity he purports to guarantee by referring to his capture in Trajan's Parthian wars⁴¹.

That Philostratus' work on Apollonius must have been approached by ancient readers as « presque un roman »⁴² can be established by further considerations of form and content. In the latter category the travels are the most obvious element. They link the work on Apollonius with the ‘Historia Alexandri Magni’ and with those romances where travel plays a greater part than love, most obviously those of Antonius Diogenes and Heliodorus. Ninos, the home town of Damis (which Meyer argues to be Hierapolis-Bambyke rather than ancient Nineveh) and Babylon, where the travellers find a Persian monarch whom history would have located in Parthian Ctesiphon, are names evocative of romance with its Near Eastern locations⁴³. A particular link with Iamblichus' ‘Babyloniaca’ might be suggested by other shared themes. One factor which marks Philostratus' work off from the rest of the novelistic genre (if there was such) is the absence of a love interest (necessarily, given the ascetic limitations of its central figure!) but as if to redress the balance the author introduces a spectacular tale of incest and both discussion and example of eunuchs' sexuality in the first book⁴⁴. The theme of the eunuch in love seems to have been prominent in Iamblichus' ‘Babyloniaca’⁴⁵. So too the dead maiden shown to be alive by the sage at the very time of her funeral—in Iamblichus a Kαλδαῖοs γέρων, in Philostratus Apollonius: the motif also appears in the ‘Historia Apollonii regis Tyrii’ and is widespread in various forms in the novels⁴⁶. It is also of interest that Iamblichus' aged Chaldean makes a prophecy of kingship to the hero: the same prophecy appears in the ‘Historia Apollonii regis Tyrii’ and its variant in Vespasian's interview with Apollonius should not require us to see that episode as serious biographical history in the manner of Josephus⁴⁷.

The form and structure support this interpretation. The title Τὰ ἐs τὸν Τυανέα 'Απολλώνιον is not of the normal biographic form τοῦ δεῖνοs βίοs but rather suggests the novelistic formula Τὰ περὶ / κατὰ Λευκίππην καὶ Κλειτοφῶντα etc.⁴⁸ The work's division into eight books would be unparalleled for a biography: but this is precisely the form of Achilles Tatius' and Chariton's novels, and is the rough scale of several others⁴⁹. Moreover the structure whereby hero or heroes are persecuted by some hostile power appears in several novels. In Antonius Diogenes the power of evil is chiefly represented by the wicked wizard Paapis, although at times he appears as minister of persecution to the tyrant Aenesidemos, rather as is Euphrates to Domitian. In Iamblichus the bad king Garmos persecutes hero and heroine, and a similar rôle is given in the ‘Historia Apollonii regis Tyrii’ to king Antiochus. Apollonius of Tyana's persecution by Nero and Domitian, although it has respectable parallels in historiography and acta martyrum, is quite at home in a novelistic narrative⁵⁰.

The foregoing arguments are offered to support the view that ‘Damis’ was most probably an invention of Philostratus himself, and, in that his readers would be expected to recognise the novelistic topos, the connection with Julia Domna cannot be used to warrant his authenticity. I would question the distinction that Speyer draws between Dictys and Damis when he classes the former as “nur eine literarische Erfindung“whereas the latter's fabrication had “auβerliterarische Absichten“⁵¹. That would be true if Damis had indeed been a creation of neo-Pythagorean associates of Julia Domna. But if Philostratus is entirely responsible then his aim was most plausibly that of a professional writer, to produce a well-rounded and entertaining piece of literature, rather than to further a propagandist interpretation of Apollonius as a Pythagorean sage. Speyer justly remarks that Philostratus' other writings give no hint of enthusiasm for neo-Pythagoreans or Apollonius. This leaves open the possibilities (to which I shall later return) that Apollonius had indeed Pythagorean tendencies or that these were foisted on him at some stage in the tradition before the Severan period: a neo-Pythagorean côterie of Julia Domna is not the only explanation.

Other considerations reinforce the arguments against a non-Philostratean ‘Damis’. Just what was in it? Speyer suggests: “Die Erinnerungen des Damis werden die Geschichte von der wunderbaren Geburt des Apollonius enthalten haben, ferner Berichte über seine Wundertaten, Hinweise auf seine Reisen, Aussprüche und Prophezeiungen, seinen Bekennermut und wunderbares Ende⁵².” One of these can be excluded forthwith: Philostratus states explicitly that Damis' narrative said nothing about Apollonius' end, and it is clear that several oral or written traditions were available⁵³. The novelistic links of travels, miracles and prophecies have already been adumbrated above: but of course miracles and prophecies, even if represented in a sinister light, will have featured in Moiragenes' work on Apollonius which Philostratus attacks and which we know from Origen to have presented Apollonius partly in the guise he is given by Cassius Dio, γόηs καὶ μάγοs. Speyer later suggests that Moiragenes did narrate Indian and Ethiopian travels, but his only evidence is a passage of Basil of Thecla which could stem exclusively from a hostile reading of Philostratus' account, and I would be hesitant firmly to accept the attribution to Moiragenes⁵⁴. If accepted, of course, it should surely deny their invention to Damis!

The remaining element is the story of the miraculous birth. Again Philostratus does not attribute this to Damis but says λέγεται and οἱ δὲ ἐγχώριοί φασιν. The latter phrase introduces a miraculous thunderbolt: it is disturbing that a thunderbolt also intervenes in Philostratus' account of the sophist Scopelianus' birth, this time killing his concumbent twin and slaying or injuring many bystanders⁵⁵!

7. PHILOSTRATUS' PICTURE OF APOLLONIUS: SOME INFLUENCES AND MODELS

The birth is not the only affinity with Philostratus' Scopelianus. A similar generous and disinterested administration of his inherited property is asserted for Apollonius as for Scopelianus, even to the adaptation of the same gnome of Anaxagoras⁵⁶. Scopelianus is indeed brought into personal contact with Apollonius both in the Lives and in the work on Apollonius: the former passage asserts Apollonius' high opinion of Scopelianus, the latter quotes a letter in which “he urges the sophist to take pity on the Eretrians and prays him, in case he should ever compose a discourse about them, not to deprecate even the shedding of tears over their fate”⁵⁷. The fiction of this attribution of sophistic friendship and interests to the Cappadocian magus is patent. Why did Philostratus choose Scopelianus as Apollonius' only sophistic friend (allowing Dio his philosophic claims)? Chronology must be the chief limitation: Scopelianus' successor in the series of the Lives, Dionysius of Miletus, was still active under Hadrian. Thus only Nicetes, Isaeus and Scopelianus were in question. Nicetes was stained by Neronian favour, Isaeus had a dissolute youth: by contrast Scopelianus successfully opposed Domitian's vine edict⁵⁸. It is no surprise that Apollonius turns out to know about the vine edict and delivers a conceit worthy of a sophist's lecture hall on Domitian's legislation: in this context Philostratus is silent about Scopelianus—understandably, for readers might suspect that both attitude and apophthegm had been stolen from Scopelianus⁵⁹. Even the link with the Eretrians is illuminated by the sophist's biography: Scopelianus was especially admired for his treatment of themes involving Dareius and Xerxes⁶⁰.

These points raise two related questions. How far does Apollonius' range of intellectual interests and conversations overlap with the sophists of the Lives and the known predilections of the author? Secondly, how many traits in Apollonius' public activity can be related to sophists or philosophers described by or known to Philostratus?

The first question need not detain us long. The overlap has long been recognised and documentation is readily available: as early as Göttsching it has been seen that much credited by Philostratus to Damis smacks of his own sophistic tastes⁶¹.

The second issue has not been so fully exploited. The sophist's role as imperial adviser is a recurrent theme in the Lives: most memorably Dio, but Polemo, Herodes and Aristides are also given a part as σύμβουλοs⁶². In Apollonius' advice to Vespasian, Titus and Nerva, another model also suggests himself, the very Musonius Rufus with whom Philostratus fabricates an association. The Greek tradition knew Musonius as an adviser of Titus and an authority on the philosophy of kingship⁶³.

A related sophistic function is intervention to quell or avert city strife. Several speeches of Dio and two of Aristides have this aim, and the part is attested for Marcus of Byzantium and Polemo of Laodicea. Moreover Tacitus gives a caustic description of Musonius' attempt to exercise intempestivam sapientiam in this way in the Roman civil disturbances⁶⁴.

More telling is the exploitation by the Philostraten Apollonius of themes developed in Dio or ascribed to Musonius. We are told by Dio that a distinguished Roman philosopher rebuked the Athenians for watching gladiatorial shows in the theatre of Dionysus: that philosopher is now generally agreed to have been Musonius. However Apollonius is made to deliver a similar homily, sophistic in its allusion to classical antiquities and tragedy⁶⁵. It follows a still more florid condemnation of dancing which has close links with a passage in Dio's speech to the Alexandrians⁶⁶. It must be admitted to be a common enough theme in the literature of the period, but there are some close parallels. Dio asks aρά γε μὴ Λακεδαιμονίουs μιμεῖσθε⁶⁷; which Philostratus adapts to εἰ μὲν γὰρ Λακωνικὴ ταῦτα ὄρχησιs, εὖ γε οἱ στρατιῶται, γυμνάζεσθε γὰρ πολέμῳ καὶ ξυνορχήσομαι. Dio alludes to Bacchae, so Philostratus actually furnishes the allusion with a quotation⁶⁸.

The same Alexandrian speech of Dio seems to be used to build up Apollonius' address to the Alexandrians castigating their fondness for horse-racing, and one or two other echoes can be detected.

It should be no surprise to discover sophistic and philosophic models for Apollonius, but it raises a further question of chronology. How deeply was Philostratus involved in the Lives of the Sophists when he wrote the work on Apollonius? A reference to the latter in the life of Alexander Peloplaton is normally taken to establish the simple priority of the work on Apollonius⁶⁹. But all that follows is that the work on Apollonius was published by the time the passage was written: preparation of both works could have been proceeding concurrently for some time. A date before 238 A.D. seems mandatory for the Lives. There is no firm terminus post quem for the work on Apollonius other than Julia Domna's death in 217 A.D., and it would be naïve to insist on a date as soon after that as possible. The attested admiration of Severus Alexander for Apollonius and the possibility that elements of the Philostratean picture of monarchs' dealings with Apollonius are aimed at the young Alexander would suggest a date between 222 and 235 A.D.⁷⁰ The probability of an overlap in preparation is high.

8. WHY DAMIS?

A conjectural elucidation of the Damis figure may now be hazarded before that theme is finally abandoned. If Damis is a fiction, Philostratus may have meant the story of a descendent approaching Julia Domna to be discounted as part of the novelistic topos. But there might be a hint for the discerning reader. A descendant of one Damis who had been in favour with Vespasian and Titus would predictably be styled Flavius Damianus: such was the name of one of the richest of the late second century sophists at Ephesus, greatly admired in Philostratus' Life and offered as a source for Philostratus' information on Aristeides and Hadrianus. Damianus showed loyalty to the Severan house (for which the advancement of his sons to senatorial rank was doubtless a due reward) and granted Philostratus three interviews in his old age⁷¹. They may have been devoted to sophistic discussion. But it is notable how much that is arguably genuine tradition on Apollonius comes from western Asia Minor and in particular from Ephesus (as does the only story outside Philostratus before Byzantine legends, viz. the vision of Domitian's death in Cassius Dio). Philostratus' own family has no obvious connections with Ephesus, and I would suggest (no more than tentatively) that Philostratus' information on Apollonius in Ephesus came partly from the philoseveran sophist Damianus, and that in his introduction of a novelistic ‘witness’ to his version Philostratus incorporated a complimentary allusion to the now deceased Damianus⁷².

Notes

1. Philostratus' Τὰ ἐs τὸν Τυανέα’Απολλώνιον is cited from C. L. Kayser, Flavii Philostrati Opera, vol. I (Leipzig, 1870) and will throughout be abbreviated as VA (although the work is not properly a Vita); likewise’Απολλωνίου τοῦ Τυανέωs ἐπιστολαί (abbreviated as Epist. Ap.). His Βίοι σοϕιστῶν are cited from C. L. Kayser, Flavii Philostrati Opera, vol. II (Leipzig, 1871) with the addition of the Olearius (ed. Leipzig, 1709) pagination, and will be abbreviated Vit. Soph. Likewise the Heroicus.

2. W. L. Dulière, Protection permanente contre des animaux nuisibles assurée par Apollonius de Tyane dans Byzance et Antioch. Evolution de son mythe, Byz. Zeits. 63 (1970), 247-277; W. Speyer, Zum Bild des Apollonius von Tyana bei Heiden und Christen, Jahrb. f. Ant. u. Christentum 17 (1974), 47-63 (hereafter simply cited as Speyer). The most recent extensive discussion of all stages of the tradition on Apollonius is by G. Petzke. Die Traditionen über Apollonius von Tyana und das neue Testament (Leiden, 1970): for reservations cf. W. Speyer, Jahrb. f. Ant. u. Christentum 16 (1973), 133-135. Petzke treats most problems raised in this paper but I cite him only where his arguments are of particular relevance.

3. E. Meyer, Apollonios von Tyana und die Biographie des Philostratos, Hermes 52 (1917), 371-424, repr. in: Id., Kleine Schriften 2 (Halle, 1924), 131-191, hereafter cited as Meyer with the original pagination. The analogy of the ‘Historia Augusta’, not seen by Meyer himself, is pertinently drawn by B. F. Harris, Apollonius of Tyana: Fact and Fiction, Journ. Relig. Hist. 5 (1969), 189-199, at p. 192, n. 16, in relation to the authentication techniques of the historical romancer, and invoked to parallel mixture of real and bogus sources by G. W. Bowersock in his introduction to C. P. Jones' translation of Philostratus' ‘Apollonius’ (Harmondsworth, 1970), 17.

4. Meyer, esp. 371-382, and 421f. He was not working in a vacuum. Notable landmarks had been C. L. Nielsen, Apollonius fra Tyana (Copenhagen, 1879); J. Göttsching, Apollonius von Tyana (Leipzig, 1889); J. Miller, Die Beziehungen der Vita Apollonii des Philostratus zur Pythagorassage, Philologus 51 (1892), 137-145; Id., Zur Frage nach der Persönlichkeit des Apollonius von Tyana, ibid. 51 (1892), 581-584; Id., Apollonius von Tyana, in: Pauly-Wissowa, RE [Real-Encyclopädie der Klassischen Altertumswissenshaft] 2.1 (Stuttgart, 1895), col. 146-148; Id., Die Damispapiere in Philostratos Apolloniosbiographie, Philologus 66 (1907), 511-525; R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzählungen (Leipzig, 1906), 40-54 (hereafter cited as Reitzenstein). On the novelistic form E. Schwartz, Fünf Vorträge über den griechischen Roman (Berlin, 1896).

5. J. Mesk, Die Damisquelle des Philostratos in der Biographie des Apollonios von Tyana, Wiener Studien 41 (1919), 121-138; J. Hempel, Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung von Apollonios von Tyana (Stockholm, 1920), esp. 26-32 (hereafter cited as Hempel); Id., Zu Apollonius von Tyana, ZKG [Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte] 40 (1922), 130f.

6. F. Grosso, La ‘vita di Apollonio di Tiana’ come fonte storico, Acme 7 (1954), 333-533. (This work was unfortunately unknown to Petzke). An earlier attempt to vindicate the Indian travels of Apollonius had been made by J. Charpentier, The Indian Travels of Apollonius (Uppsala, 1934). A more sceptical view was taken by T. Hopfner, Apollonios von Tyana und Philostratos, Studien des Seminarium Kondakovianum (Prague, 1931), 135-164 and again in: Die Brachmanen Indiens und die Gymnosophisten Aegyptens in der Apolloniosbiographie des Philostratos, Archiv Orientální 6 (1934), 58-67. Pertinent to the Damis problem are also the remarks of E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 2nd. ed. (Leipzig/Berlin, 1923), esp. 37, n. 1.

7. Grosso is not cited by Petzke or Speyer, nor by J. Palm, Rom, Römertum und Imperium in der griechischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit (Lund, 1959). B. P. Reardon, Courants littéraires grecs des II^e et III^e siècles après J.-C. (Paris, 1971), 189 cites Grosso but maintains a sceptical position. Grosso is accepted by B. Forte, Rome and the Romans as the Greeks Saw Them, Pap. & Monogr. Amer. Acad. Rome 24 (1972), 232, nn. 138-139, and the VA continued to be used as if it provided valuable documentary evidence for the 90s by G. S. Knabe, Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana and Cornelius Tacitus (Russian, with an English Summary), Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 121 (1972), 30-73 as it was by A. Vassileiou, Sur la date des thermes de Néron, Rev. Ét. Anc. 74 (1972), 93-106 for the 60s (cf. below n. 17). The need to reach a firm and clear decision on the problem (properly emphasised by Bowersock, op. cit. [n. 3], 17 who silently rejects Grosso's conclusions) is underlined by the approach of R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (Cambridge, Mass., 1967): at 311, n. 28 he is critical of Grosso, but he clings to a belief in Damis and the trial scene before Domitian, so that in his text (p. 71) Apollonius' anti-Domitianic exploitation of Harmodius and Aristogeiton is presented as a fact about the 90s whereas his note (310, n. 24) adds “whether or not historically”. G. M. Lee, Had Apollonius of Tyana read St. Mark?, Symbolae Osloenses 48 (1973), 115-116 even tried to use the presumed date of the Damis narrative to give a terminus ante quem for the composition of St. Mark's gospel.

8. So Grosso, 511f.; and, with particular reference to Apollonius' commendation of Demetrius to Titus, 383f.

9. VA 1.28; 1.39; 3.58 (Grosso dates this return to the year 61). Most scholars concede a problem (e.g. Göttsching, op. cit. 47f., countering Gutschmid; Meyer, op. cit. 374-375 dismisses Philostratus' details as worthless). Grosso's case is not supported by his other wise interesting connection of VA 1.37 with Tac. ann. 11.10.1.

10. Banishment Tac. ann. 15.71; Cassius Dio 62.27.4: imprisonment VA 4.35 and 46. Grosso 373f. There is a problem in the designation of Musonius as ὁ Βαβυλώνιοs in 4.35 whereas in 7.16 he is τὸν Τυρρηνόν. The eques Romanus of Tacitus is Tusci generis (ann. 14.59 cf. ILS 2944) and it is out of the question that Philostratus refers to two homonymous foes of Nero (nor need we postulate two Musonii to explain the fragments and traditions, as von Fritz, Musonius, in: Pauly-Wissowa RE XVI.1 [Stuttgart, 1933], 893-897). Nieuwland's conjecture ὁ Βουλσίνιοs is tempting. But given the context of μαντική in which Musonius is introduced it should be considered whether ὁ Βαβυλώνιοs might here indicate the practice of astrology: this is a common enough use of Babylonius in Latin, but none is cited by LSJ for Greek: note however Teucros of Cyzicus, arguably the same as Teucros ὁ Βαβυλώνιοs, who wrote περὶ τῶν παρανατελλόντων (W. Schmid-O. Stählin, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, 2.1. [Munich, ⁶1959], 416 and 448). That Philostratus believed Musonius to have dabbled in astrology could not be taken as evidence that he did, but the charge may well have been made in material available to Philostratus.

11. The relationship with the ‘Nero’ is sensibly discussed by Meyer, 416f. The dialogue ‘Nero’ was first attributed to Philostratus II (the biographer) by Kayser: it was assigned to Philostratus I, the father of the biographer, by K. Münscher, Die Philostrate, Philologus Suppl. 10 (1905/07), 469ff. G. W. Bowersock, Greek sophists in the Roman empire (Oxford, 1969), 3, assigns a ‘Nero’ to the father of the biographer but leaves open its identification with the surviving work. The remark in VA 5.19 is frequently brought into this discussion: καὶ ἐάσθω τὰ Μουσωνίου πλείω ὄντα καὶ θαυμασιώτερα, ὡs μὴ δοκοίην θρασύνεσθαι πρὸs τὸν ἀμελῶs αὐτὰ εἰπόντα. A reading of the Lucianic ‘Nero’ should suffice to show that it cannot be the work in question: there nothing but Gyara, the Isthmus excavations and criticisms of Nero are involved, i. e. no more than mentioned by VA, certainly not πλείω … καὶ θαυμασιώτερα. Nor can ἀμελῶs stand: how can one θρασύνεσθαι against something admittedly inferior? Olearius' conjecture ἐμμελῶs is attractive, but if accepted excludes reference to a work by the biographer himself, even once allowances have been made for sophistic self-importance, while θρασύνεσθαι seems to me to exclude reference to a work of his father as being too strong a term for emulation within the family circle. Therefore if Philostratus the biographer did write the ‘Nero’ it must have been after VA (so, on other grounds, F. Solmsen, Some Works of Philostratus the Elder, TAPA [Transactions of the American Philological Association] 71 [1940], 556ff.) and not before (as Meyer 416f.). This may be the best solution for the Lucianic ‘Nero’, since little weight can be given to the distribution of works among the Philostrati by the Suda, giving a ‘Nero’ to Philostratus I, or to circumstantial arguments about the Antonine topicality of cutting the Isthmus as advanced by Bowersock. There remains a problem at VA 5.19, which should probably be seen as a reference to a full biography (this was seen by Schmid-Stählin⁶, 357, n. 4, hazarding an allusion to Pollio: the Lucius of VS 556-57, there much admired by Philostratus and described as Μουσωνίῳ δὲ τ[ω] Τυρίῳ [? leg. Τυρρην[ω] προσϕιλοσοϕήσαs might also be considered, if one is prepared to identify him with Lucius the collector and editor of Musonius' works and admit προσϕιλοσοϕήσαs as a description of posthumous study). ἀϕελῶs might be what Philostratus wrote: ἀϕέλεια was a quality admired by Philostratus (W. Schmid, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern [Stuttgart, 1887-96], IV. 1-11) and would fit philosophic apomnemoneumata.

    For a list of references to Musonius' banishment see O. Hense, C. Musonii Rufi Reliquiae, (Leipzig, 1905), XXVf., to which should now be added Favorinus, Περὶ ϕυγῆs, ed. M. Norsa and G. Vitelli, Studi e testi 53 (Roma, 1931), 21,1.35.

12. Tac. hist. 4.40 (cf. 4.10); followers: Fronto 2.50 (Haines) = 133.9-10 (van den Hout).

13. VA 5.39.

14. See Hense, op. cit. XXIIf., XXVII.

15. [See in this article] p. 1668.

16. Most recently Bowersock, op. cit. (n. 3), 17-18.

17. For testimonia on Demetrius see Pros. Imp. Rom.² D 39 (Stein). A. Vassileiou, op. cit. (n. 7), 93-106, attempts to vindicate the date of 66 A.D. for the dedication of thermae Neronianae which he wishes to distinguish from the gymnasium of Tac. ann. 14.47: neither his attempt to distinguish the Greek γυμνάσιον (applicable to baths) from the Latin gymnasium (allegedly not so extended) nor his analysis of Suet. Nero 12.7-8 (where the atque of dedicatis thermis atque gymnasio excludes their separation) carry conviction, and the postulate that the baths' dedication figured in the lost chapters of Annales 16 raises a problem (seen but inadequately explained) in the silence of Dio. If the chronographers' dates of 63 (Jerome) and 64 (Cassiodorus) are not simply errors for 61 (Tacitus) then they may refer to the rebuilding of the complex or parts of it burned down in 62: they are no support for Philostratus' date of 66.

18. Tac. ann. 16.34-35.

19. It might be objected that the frequent allusions of Seneca show the character of Demetrius as incapable of evil. But the career and earlier rank of Seneca himself should suffice to show how far he could allow a philosopher's conduct to diverge from his professed ideals. It is clear that Tacitus' judgement on Demetrius was less favourable, and the anecdote in Lucian, de salt. 63 suggests that Demetrius knew when to abandon cynic convicia for praise of what Nero liked. Not much reliance can be placed on the Juvenal scholiast (ad sat. 1.33) who offers a Demetrius causidicum cui multos Nero detulit. If the reference is to our Demetrius (doubted by Stein loc. cit.) it is hardly good evidence for extensive delation but only for an unfavourable tradition about him which may have well derived from and generalised his role in 66 and 70: if there had been good evidence for multos … detulit Tacitus would hardly have characterised his defence of Celer with the mild ambitiosius quam honestius.

20. Grosso had to abandon Philostratus' synchronisation with the opening of the gymnasium (60-61 A.D.) since Tigellinus had not yet come to power, and tried to link the anecdote with its conflagration in 62 ictu fulminis (Tac. ann. 15.22) by which time Tigellinus (pace Bowersock, loc. cit.) was praefectus praetorio. The fire he tries to connect with the ground of Tigellinus' accusation VA 4.42 ὡs τὸ βαλανεῖον κατασκάψαντα, οἶs εἶπε … : but this is simply a grandiloquent sophistic metaphor to point up the injustice of Tigellinus' jurisdiction-a verbal dismantling of the baths counted as a real one; and there is no hint that Philostratus knew of their destruction unless it is his exploitation of the fulmen in a different context in 4.43. Even if he did, his narration of the whole matter as an event of 66 does not suggest he was closely following a reliable source (? a laudatory life of Demetrius which moved the invective to 66 precisely to distract from his dubious loyalty to Paetus in that year: it might be that Lucian, de salt. 63, derives from the same source as VA 4.42 since each highlights Nero's artistic penchant).

    Grosso's explanation for Philostratus' ‘distortion’ is odd: avoidance of the Stoic circle of Paetus as part of a purely Roman world from which Apollonius is always excluded. But elsewhere Philostratus repeatedly attempts to equip Apollonius with Roman connections! It should be emphasised that the only explicit date (presumably that to which Philostratus wants readers to attach the incident) is 66 A.D., the consulate of Telesinus (VA 4.40) and not, as Grosso's argument would require, ca. 62 A.D.

21. Grosso, 379; VA 4.25.

22. VA 6.31-33; the friendship of Musonius with Titus does not help to show (as Grosso wishes) that Titus might have philosopher friends who were not liked by Vespasian, for Musonius was also exempted from Vespasian's banishment decree (Cassius Dio 66.13.2).

23. For such biographers of Neronian martyrs cf. Plin. ep. 5.5 (C. Fannius); 8.12 (Titinius Capito). Were such a biography of Demetrius published by the reign of Nerva it would be formally possible that ‘Damis’ (rather than Philostratus) used it for the Neronian deeds of Apollonius. But why should ‘Damis’ have to use such a source? To suggest (as Grosso, 52) that ‘Damis’ did not have much material on Apollonius under Nero gives the lie to the claim of a Damis who accompanied Apollonius from the start of his travels, and effectively to the whole Damis story.

24. Ti. Iulius Alexander is of course in a different category, as are others who enter equestrian or senatorial service. Informal power as an amicus of the princeps (a matter of concern in Rome at the time: Tac. hist. 4.7) can be documented for some Greeks in the reign of Augustus, e. g. Areius of Alexandria, as characterised in Themistius Or. 13.173a, 248.19 (Downey), or Athenodorus of Tarsus: cf. PIR² 1035 and 1288 and G. W. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford, 1965): but this can be seen as a direct consequence of the conflict of Octavian with Antonius, and in the settled period of the Julio-Claudians the importance of the Greek world was much reduced.

25. Bell. Iud. 4.603-606 and 616-618. Cf. A. Briessman, Tacitus und das flavische Geschichtsbild (Wiesbaden, 1955), 12f.; A. Henrichs, Vespasian's Visit to Alexandria, Zeits. f. Pap. u. Epig. 3 (1968), 76f.

26. Tac. hist. 4.81-82; Suet. div. Vesp. 7; VA 5.27 ff. The papyrus is P. Fouad I.8, cf. Henrichs, op. cit. 59, n. 24 for bibliography. I do not accept the view that P. Vind. Gr. 25 787 (= SB 9528) relates to Vespasian as argued by its publisher H. Gerstinger, Anz. d. Oester. Akad. d. Wiss. 15 (1958), 192f., but this cannot be argued here. Cf. Henrichs, 54, n. 11.

27. P. Derchain, J. Hubaux, Vespasien au Sérapéum, Latomus 12 (1953), 38-52; cf. Henrichs, op. cit., 61.

28. Opp. citt. (nn. 25 and 27).

29. Op. cit., 49.

30. A date in November or very early December seems most probable: cf. Tac. hist. 3.48.

31. The problem of its relation to the confirmation of Vespasian by a Jewish priest Basilides on Mount Carmel (Tac. hist. 2.78) cannot be discussed in detail here: cf. Derchain and Hubaux, op. cit.; K. Scott, The Rôle of Basilides in the Events of A.D. 69, Journ. Rom. Stud. 24 (1934), 138f.; L. Hermann, Basilides, Latomus 12 (1953), 312f.

32. 67.18.

33. For anti-Semitism cf. VA 5.27; 33; 34 and 6.29. The aggressive dismissal of the view that Vespasian developed imperial ambitions while blockading Jerusalem (VA 5.27) looks like a thrust at Josephus' version where he is (reluctantly) proclaimed in Judaea before Alexandria (cf. Henrichs, 76f.). The arrest of Egypt's decline (VA 5.29 init.) is incompatible with Suet. Vesp. 19.5; Cassius Dio 66.8.2-4: cf. M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire² (Oxford, 1957), 294-295 with notes p. 674.

34. Since at least Göttsching, op. cit., 71: most recently Speyer, 49 with n. 17. For a distribution of other scholars between outright and modified scepticism, ib. n. 16. …

35. Dictys, ed. W. Eisenhut² (Leipzig, 1958, 1973), prol. 2-3 and 5.17.119. Cf. Speyer, 51 with nn. 29-34.

36. Speyer's “noch nicht angestellt worden” (51) is true of material in print. Not to assert priority, but simply to indicate independent observation and similar conclusions, I should note that I propounded the views argued in the text in lectures in Oxford in 1964/65.

37. Speyer, 50, n. 28: add perhaps the interview of Apollonius with Achilles in VA 4.12f. where he obtains new information on the Troian war (Palamedes' grave).

38. Photius Biblioth. cod. 166, 111 a 20 f. (II.146 Henry).

39. Version β c. 51. Note also the fraudulent tablets of Lucian, Alex. 10.

40. Xen. Ephes. 5.15.2; Longus, praef. 1-2; Achilles Tatius 1.1-2.

41. Photius Biblioth. cod. 94 (II.40 n. 1 Henry) = Iamblichi Babyloniacorum reliquiae, ed. Habrich (Leipzig, 1960), 2.

42. The correct assessment of Reardon, 189.

43. Meyer, 376f. discusses dependence on Alexander histories. Reardon, 189 adduces the parallel of Heliodorus: since, however, Heliodorus may well be under the influence of Philostratus (as Reardon suggests) and his date is still in dispute (cf. B. E. Perry, The Ancient Romances [Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1967], 349, n. 13) I do not wish to pursue parallels in this context. Ninos the Assyrian prince notoriously figures in our earliest dated novelistic fragment: the choice of Ninos/Nineveh for Damis' origo is hardly accidental, and although geography suggests Philostratus must be thinking of Hierapolis-Bambyke (so Meyer 373/74) on the Roman side of the Euphrates the name evocative of Assyrian antiquity is more important to him than facts of topography. Babylon, VA 1.25f.

44. The absence of erotica is seen as crucial by Reardon, 189 and Perry, op. cit., 85. Incest VA 1.10; eunuchs VA 1.33,36. For other erotica cf. 3.38; 4.16, 25.

45. ed. Habrich, 3; 64; 72 (fr. 96).

46. ib. 20; VA 4.45; hist. Apoll. reg. Tyr. 26. Similarly Luke 7.11f., cf. Petzke, 129, who ignores the novelistic flavour. The Scheintod is a repeated motif in Achilles Tatius and is fundamental to Chariton's plot.

47. Iamblichus, ed. Habrich 6; hist. Apoll. reg. Tyr. 8.

48. A. Henrichs, Lollianus, Phoinikika, Zeits. f. Pap. u. Epig. 4 (1969), 205f. argues that this form of title is a Byzantine invention, the Greco-Roman convention being ‘Ephesiaka’, etc. This might only be true of those novels which pretended (without attempting deception) to be local histories: Τὰ ὑπὲρ Tούλην ἄπιστα evades harmonisation to this stereotype as do the Alexander histories.

49. Heliodorus and (according to the Suda) Xenophon divided their novels into 10 books (as Curtius Rufus his Alexander history). It is relevant that Xenophon's ‘Cyropaedeia’ has eight books: it falls on the same frontier between biography and novel.

50. Perhaps the culmination in a trial scene should be added: so Achilles Tatius and Heliodorus. A court scene also figured in Chariton and Iamblichus. But this may well be a feature deriving from other genres (especially as manipulated by declamatory sophists) and in the case of VA the biography of Pythagoras could be the chief influence (cf. Meyer, 383f.; 414f.).

51. op. cit., 52.

52. ibid.

53. VA 8. 29-30.

54. op. cit. 59-60: Basil. Pat. Gr. 85, 540 C (cf. Speyer, n. 80) asserts that Apollonius παρὰ τῶν ἐν Αἰθίοψι καὶ 'ὶνδοῖs γυμνοσοφιστῶν μήτε ὑποδεχθῆναι σπουδαίωs, ἀλλὰ γὰρ θaττον ἀποπεμφθῆναι, ὡs οὐκ εὐαγὴs οὐδὲ ὅσιοs ἄνθρωποs, οὐδὲ φιλόσοφοs ἀληθῶs, πολὺ δὲ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν γοητείαν μιάσματοs ἔχων. This is certainly not what Philostratus says, but in his account Apollonius does depart from the Indian and Ethiopian gymnosophists after a relatively short visit rather than becoming a long-term member of their community, and a hostile witness could distort this into θaττον ἀποπεμφθῆναι, adding his own explanation with ὡs on the basis of allegations against Apollonius known from elsewhere in Philostratus. On the travels and Moiragenes see further below p. 1675 with n. 89.

55. VA 1.5; Vit. Soph. 1.21 (515). Again there are links with the Pythagoras legend, Meyer 414f.

56. Vit. Soph. 1.21 (517-518); VA 1.13.

57. VA 1.23, transl. F. C. Conybeare, vol. 1 (Loeb, London/New York, 1912), 69.

58. Nicetes, Vit. Soph. 1.19 (512): of the MSS readings Nέρωνα suits Philostratus' chronology better than Nερούαν: cf. Bowersock, Greek Sophists …, 9, n. 1. Isaeus, Vit. Soph. 1.20 (513). Scopelianus and vines ib. 1.21 (520).

59. VA 6.42: the conceit cannot be Scopelianus' as it stands, for he was no eunuch, but Favorinus may have been exploited by Philostratus too.

60. Vit. Soph. 1.21 (519/20). Cf. now R. T. Penella, Scopelianus and the Eretrians in Cissia, Athenaeum 52 (1974), 295-300.

61. Göttsching, 61f. Cf. Meyer, 376f.

62. Dio, Vit. Soph. 1.7 (488); Polemo, ib. 1.25 (534); Herodes, ib. 2.1 (562); Aristides, ib. 2.9 (583).

63. Musonius advises Titus, Themistius Or. 13.173a, 248.19 (Downey); discusses kingship Hense, 32f., cf. VA 5.27f.

64. Dio Orr. 33-34; 38-41; Aristides Orr. 23-24 (Keil); Polemo, Vit. Soph. 1.25 (531); Marcus, ib. 1.24 (529); Musonius, Tac. hist. 3.81. Of course non-sophistic holy men might also intervene in city affairs, cf. below p. 1690 with n. 149.

65. Dio Or. 31. 122; VA 4.22. On Musonius as Dio's reference, H. von Arnim, Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa (Berlin, 1898), 216. A similar condemnation of Athens is put into the mouth of Demonax by Lucian, Dem. Vit. 57: here too the Corinthians are mentioned. The form of Lucian's work is such that Dio's reference is more likely to be factual and transferred by the satirist to his ‘hero’ than vice versa, although it is conceivable that both are historical. On the Demonax cf. K. Funk, Untersuchungen über Lukians Vita Demonactis, Philol. Suppl. 10 (1907), 561f. (on this passage 652). One further link with Apollonius should be registered: Apollonius' silent appearance quelled a bread riot at Aspendus (VA 1.15), precisely the effect of Demonax's appearance at a riot in Athens (Lucian, Dem. Vit. 64): this may be a philosopher's topos (Philostratus, Vit. Soph. 1.23 [526] has a similar story of Pancrates the cynic at Athens, but Pancrates actually utters), but it would not be surprising if he looked to the ‘Demonax’ or its models for material. Cf. [in this article] p. 1681 with nn. 110-111, 149. The link between Philostratus' image of Apollonius and Dio was already seen by Schwartz, op. cit. (n. 4), 129.

66. VA 4.21; Dio Or. 32. 58f.

67. Dio Or. 32.60.

68. γυναικομίμὲ δώ μορφὰματι, κατὸ τὐν Εὐριπίδην, αἰσχρῶs διαπρέπον, quoting the Antiope (Eur. fr. 185 Nauck) γυναικομίμῳ διαπρέπειs μορφώματι (already exploited by Plato, Gorgias 485 E). …

69. Vit. Soph. 2.5 (570). If this is a reference to a specific refutation of a story that Apollonius was in love with Alexander's mother then no such refutation appears in the work on Apollonius and the suspicion must arise that the term εἴρηται is prospective (as might be argued for some of the cross-references in Plutarch's Lives): hence no priority for the work on Apollonius. But the reference may simply be to the unswerving asceticism attributed to Apollonius in the work.

70. On the date of the Lives see Bowersock, Greek Sophists …, 7 with bibliography: add V. Nutton, Herodes and Gordian, Latomus 29 (1970), 719f. The work on Apollonius is normally dated after Julia Domna's death on the grounds that Philostratus would have dedicated it to her, its inspiration, had she been alive. This supposition might also be questioned: if the work required a dedication, then it should have one, to another if not to Julia Domna. That it has no dedication merely assimilates it to other novelistic literature and should not, perhaps, be used as a dating argument. There is, however, some plausibility in Göttsching's arguments, 74-87, that descriptions of good and bad rulers in the work on Apollonius are intended to criticise the reigns of Caracalla and Elagabalus and inspire the young Severus Alexander, though they cannot be taken so far as Göttsching wishes: and Alexander's admiration for Apollonius attested by the Historia Augusta, Alex. Sev. 29.2 (if reliable: dismissed by R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta [Oxford, 1968], 61 and 138; for a less sceptical interpretation, S. Settis, Severo Alessandro e i suoi lari, Athenaeum 50 [1972], 237f.) might offer slender support. (I am not persuaded by A. Calderini's arguments for a first redaction ca. 202-205 in: Teoria e pratica politica nella ‘Vita di Apollonio di Tiana’, Rendic. dell. Ist. Lomb. 74 [1940/41], 213.)

71. Vit. Soph. 2.23 (606).

72. VA 4.4,10 on the plague at Ephesus fit the popular tradition of the miracle worker and provider of talismans. For Domitian's death, Cassius Dio 67.18.

I. Texts and translations

E. Baltzer, Apollonius von Tyana, übersetzt und erläutert (Rudolstadt, 1883).

F. Boll, Βίβλοs σοφίαs καὶ συνέσεωs ἀποτελεσμάτων 'Απολλωνίου τοῦ Τυανέωs, in: Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum VII (Bruxelles, 1908), 175f.

F. C. Conybeare, Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (London/New York, 1912), 2 vols.

R. Hercher, Epistolographi Graeci (Paris, 1973), 110f.

C. L. Kayser, Flavii Philostrati Opera (Zürich, 1844).

C. L. Kayser, Flavii Philostrati Opera, vol. I (Leipzig, 1870), vol. II (Leipzig, 1871).

F. Nau, Βίβλοs σοφίαs καὶ συνέσεωs ἀποτελεσμάτων 'Απολλωνίου τοῦ Τυανέωs, in: Patrologia Syriaca I.2 (Paris, 1907), 1363f.

G. Olearius, Philostratorum quae supersunt omnia (Leipzig, 1709).

R. J. Penella, An Unpublished Letter of Apollonius to the Sardians, Harv. Stud. Class. Phil. 79 (1975), 305-311.

R. J. Penella, The Letters of Apollonius of Tyana: Introd., transl. and selective commentary (Diss. Harvard 1971: microfilm).

J. S. Phillimore, Philostratus in Honour of Apollonius of Tyana (Oxford, 1912).

W. C. Wright, Philostratus and Eunapius, Lives of the Sophists (Loeb, London/Cambridge, Mass., 1921).

Note: an abridged translation by C. P. Jones with an introduction by G. W. Bowersock has been published by Penguin with the title ‘Philostratus, Life of Apollonius’ (Harmondsworth, 1970).

II. Secondary Literature

G. Anderson, Lucian: Theme and Variation in the Second Sophistic, Mnemosyne Suppl. 41 (Leiden, 1976).

G. Anderson, Studies in Lucian's Comic Fiction, Mnemosyne Suppl. 43 (Leiden, 1976).

J. Annequin, Recherches sur l'action magique et ses représentations, Ann. litt. de l'Univ. de Besançon 146, Centre de Rech. d'hist. ancienne 8 (Paris, 1973).

H. von Arnim, Damis, in: Pauly-Wissowa, RE [Real-Encyclopädie der Klassischen Altertumswissenshaft] 4 (Stuttgart, 1901), 2056-2057.

F. C. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie und ihres Verhältnisses zum Christentum, ed. E. Zeller (Leipzig, 1876).

N. A. Bees, Darstellungen altheidnischer Denker und Autoren in der Kirchenmalerei der Griechen, Byzant.-neugriechische Jahrb. 4 (Berlin, 1923), 107-128.

O. Béliard, Un saint païen, Apollonius de Tyana, Les Annales 53 (1936), 584-586.

Th. Bergk, Fünf Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie und Astronomie (Leipzig, 1883).

G. Bertermann, De Iamblichi vitae Pythagoricae fontibus (Königsberg, 1913).

H. D. Betz, Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament (Diss. Mainz 1957) (Berlin, 1961).

L. Bieler, TΕΙΟσ ΑNΗΡ, Das Bild des ‘göttlichen Menschen’ in Spätantike und Frühchristentum, vol. I (Wien, 1935), vol. II (Wien, 1936).

A. Bigelmair, Apollonius von Tyana, in: Lex. Theol. Kirch., 2nd ed., vol. I (Freiburg, 1957), 718-720.

E. Birmelin, Die Kunsttheoretischen Gedanken in Philostrats Apollonius, Philol. 88 (1933), 149-180, 392-414.

F. Boll, Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie, Neue Jahrb. f. d. klass. Altertum 21 (1908), 103-126.

G. W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1969).

E. L. Bowie, Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic, Past and Present 46 (1970), 3-41, repr. in: Studies in Ancient Society, ed. M. I. Finley (London, 1974), 166-209.

M. Bowman, A Lost Work of Apollonius of Tyana, Trans. Glasgow Univ. Oriental Soc. 14 (1950-1952), 1-10.

M. Braun, Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung (Frankfurt, 1934).

M. Braun, History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Oxford, 1938).

A. Brinkmann, Ein Denkmal des Neupythagoreismus, Rhein. Mus. 66 (1911), 616-625.

P. Brown, The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity, Journ. Rom. Stud. 61 (1971), 80-101.

K. Buresch, Klaros. Untersuchungen zum Orakelwesen des späteren Altertums (Leipzig, 1889).

W. Burkert, Hellenistische Pseudopythagorica, Philologus 105 (1961), 16-42 and 226-246.

W. Burkert, GΟΗσ. Zum Griechischen ‘Schamanismus’, Rhein. Mus. 150 (1962), 36-55.

W. Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft. Studien zu Pythagoras, Philolaos und Platon, Erlanger Beiträge z. Sprach- u. Kunstwiss. 10 (Nürnberg, 1962), transl. as: Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (Cambridge, Mass., 1972).

W. Burkert, Zur geistesgeschichtlichen Einordnung einiger Pseudopythagorica, in: Entretiens Hardt 18: Pseudepigrapha I (Vandoeuvres, 1971), 25-55.

A. Calderini, Teoria e pratica politica nella ‘Vita di Apollonio di Tiana’, Rend. Ist. Lomb. di scienze e lettere 74 (1940-1941), 213-241.

F. W. G. Campbell, Apollonius of Tyana. A Study of His Life and Times (London, 1908).

M. Canney, Apollonius of Tyana, in: Encycl. of Relig. and Ethics, 3rd ed. 1 (Edinburgh, 1955), 609-611.

W. Capelle, Altgriechische Askese, Neue Jahrb. f. d. klass. Altertum 25 (1910), 681-708.

F. J. Carmody, Arabic Astronomical and Astrological Sciences in Latin Translation, a Critical Bibliography (Berkeley, 1956).

H. Chadwick, The Sentences of Sextus (Cambridge, 1959).

J. Charpentier, The Indian Travels of Apollonius of Tyana, in: Skrifter utgivna av. K. Humanistika Vetenkaps-Samfundet i Uppsala 29.3 (1934), 1-66.

W. v. Christ-W. Schmid-O. Stählin, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, 6th. ed., Handb. d. Altertumswiss. VII, II.1 (München, 1920), II.2 (München, 1924).

P. Corssen, Der Abaris des Heraklides Ponticus. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Pythagoraslegende, Rhein. Mus. 67 (1912), 20-47.

P. Corssen, Der Altar des unbekannten Gottes, Zeits. f. Neut. Wiss. 14 (1913), 309-323.

F. Cumont, Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, 4th ed. (Paris, 1929).

L. W. Daly and W. Suchier, The ‘Altercatio Hadriani Augusti et Epicteti philosophi’ and the Question and Answer Dialogue, Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 24 (1939), no. 1-2.

A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten (Tübingen, 1908).

K. Deissner, Das Idealbild des stoischen Weisen (Greifswald, 1930).

P. Derchain and J. Hubaux, Vespasien au Sérapéum, Latomus 12 (1953), 38-52.

E. Diehl, Maximos (36), in: Pauly-Wissowa, RE 14.2 (Stuttgart, 1930), 2555-2556.

H. Diels, Hippokratische Forschungen V, Hermes 53 (1918), 77, n. 1.

A. Dihle, Studien zur griechischen Biographie, Abh. Ak. Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl. 3.37 (Göttingen, 1956).

A. Dihle, The Conception of India in Hellenistic and Roman Literature, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 10 (1964), 15-23.

E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine (Cambridge, 1965).

H. Dörrie, Apollonios (3), in: Der Kleine Pauly 1 (Stuttgart, 1964), 452-453.

D. R. Dudley, A History of Cynicism from Diogenes to the 6th century A.D. (London, 1937).

W. L. Dulière, Protection permanente contre des animaux nuisibles assurée par Apollonius de Tyane dans Byzance et Antioch. Évolution de son mythe, Byz. Zeits. 63 (1970), 247 to 277.

J. Fertig, De Philostrati sophistis (Bamberg, 1894).

A.-J. Festugière, Sur une nouvelle édition du ‘De Vita Pythagorica’ de Jamblique, Rev. Ét. Gr. 50 (1937), 470-484.

A.-J. Festugière, Trois rencontres entre la Grèce et l'Inde, Rev. Hist. Rel. 125 (1942-1943), 35-57.

A.-J. Festugière, La révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste, I. L'astrologie et les sciences occultes, (Paris, 1944).

B. Forte, Rome and the Romans as the Greeks saw them, Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 24 (Rome, 1972).

K. von Fritz, Musonius (1)-(3), in: Pauly-Wissowa, RE 16.1 (Stuttgart, 1933), 893-897.

H. Fuchs, Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt (Berlin, 1938, repr. ibid. 1964).

H. Gärtner, Philostratos (3)-(6), in: Der Kleine Pauly 4 (Stuttgart, 1972), 780-784.

J. Geffcken, Die christlichen Martyrien, Hermes 45 (1910), 481-505.

J. Geffcken, Der Ausgang des griechisch-römischen Heidentums, Religionswiss. Bibl. 6 (Heidelberg, 1920, repr. Darmstadt 1963).

J. Geffcken, Religiöse Strömungen im ersten Jahrhundert nach Christus (Gütersloh, 1922)

J. Göttsching, Apollonius von Tyana (Leipzig, 1889).

B. A. van Groningen, Apollonius de Tyane, Bull. de la Fac. des Lettres de Strasbourg 30 (1951), 107-116.

P. Grimal, Deux figures de la correspondance de Pline: le philosophe Euphratès et le rhéteur Isée, Latomus 14 (1955), 370-389.

F. Grosso, La vita di Apollonio Tianeo come fonte storica, Acme 7 (1954), 333-552.

K. Gross, Apollonius, in: Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 1 (Stuttgart, 1950), 529 to 532.

A. von Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften V. Schriften zur römischen und mittelalterlichen Geschichte und Literatur, hrsg. v. F. Rühl (Leipzig, 1894).

E. H. Haight, More Essays on the Greek Romances (New York, 1945).

W. R. Halliday, Damis of Nineveh and Walter of Oxford, Ann. Brit. Sch. Athens 18 (1911 to 1912), 234-238, repr. in: Id., Folklore Studies (Oxford, 1924).

B. F. Harris, Apollonius of Tyana: Fact or Fiction?, Journ. Rel. Hist. 5 (1969), 189-199.

E. B. Harrison, The Athenian Agora. Results of Excavations conducted by the American School of Class. Studies at Athens, vol. 1. Portrait Sculpture (Princeton, 1953).

R. Helm, Der antike Roman, Handb. d. griech. u. lat. Philol. I,1 (Berlin, 1948).

J. Hempel, Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung von Apollonius von Tyana (Leipzig, 1920).

J. Hempel, Zu Apollonius von Tyana, Zeits. f. Kirchengeschichte 40 (1922), 130-131.

J. Hempel, Apollonius, in: Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 2nd ed., I (Tübingen, 1927), 410f.

A. Henrichs, Vespasian's visit to Alexandria, Zeits. f. Papyrologie u. Epigraphik 3 (1968), 51-80.

L. Herrmann, Basilides, Latomus 12 (1953), 312-315.

G. Herzog-Hauser, Die Tendenzen der Apollonius-Biographie, in: Jahrb. d. österreichischen Leo-Gesellschaft (Wien, 1930), 177-200.

G. Hofmann, Über Apollonius von Tyana und zwei in seinem Leben berichtete Erscheinungen am Himmel, Programm des k.k. Gymnasiums in Triest, 21 (1871), 1-29.

R. Höistad, Cynic Hero and Cynic King (Uppsala, 1948).

K. Holl, Die schriftstellerische Form des griechischen Heiligenlebens, Neue Jahrb. f. d. klass. Altertum 29 (1912), 406-427.

T. Hopfner, Apollonios von Tyana und Philostratos, in: Studien des Seminarium Kondakovianum 4 (Prag, 1931), 135-164.

T. Hopfner, Die Brahmanen Indiens und die Gymnosophisten Ägyptens in der Apollonios-biographie des Philostratos, Archiv Orientální 6 (1934), 58-67.

F. Huhn and E. Bethe, Philostratos Heroikos und Diktys, Hermes 52 (1917), 614-624.

H. Jaeger, Die Quellen des Porphyrios in seiner Pythagoras-Biographie (Diss. Zürich, 1919).

W. Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Cambridge, Mass., 1961).

J. Jessen, Apollonius von Tyana und sein Biograph Philostratus (Hamburg, 1885).

C. P. Jones, The Reliability of Philostratus, in: Approaches to the Second Sophistic, ed. G. W. Bowersock (Pennsylvania, 1974), 11-16.

J. Jüthner, Hellenen und Barbaren (Leipzig, 1923).

K. Kerényi, Die griechisch-orientalische Romanliteratur in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung, 2nd ed. (Darmstadt, 1962).

C. Kiesewetter, Apollonius von Tyana, Sphinx 2 (1887), 245-252 and 374-380.

G. S. Knabe, Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana and Cornelius Tacitus, Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 121 (1972), 30-63 (Russian, Eng. summary).

W. Jackson Knight, Apollonius of Tyana, Psychic News (London, 1962), May 26, June 2 and June 9.

P. Kraus, Jãbir Ibn Hayyãn. Contribution à l'histoire des idées scientifiques dans l'Islam, vol. 2, Mém. prés. à l'Inst. d'Égypte 45 (Cairo, 1946).

P. de Labriolle, La réaction paienne. Étude sur la polémique antichrétienne du Ier au VIe siècle (Paris, 1934).

M. J. Lagrange, Les légendes pythagoriennes et l'évangile, Rev. Bibl. 46 (1937), 13-28.

K. Latte, Römische Religionsgeschichte, Handb. d. Altertumswiss. V 4 (München, 1960).

B. Latzarus, Un pythagoricien thaumaturge: Apollonius de Tyane, Rév. des cours et conférences 40.2 (1939), 33-47; 240-252; 516-525 and 41.1 (1940), 51-64; 267-280; 420-434.

M. L. Leclerc, De l'identité de Balinas et d'Apollonius de Tyane, Journ. Asiat. 6e. sér. 14 (1869), 111-131.

G. M. Lee, Had Apollonius of Tyana read St. Mark?, Symb. Oslo. 48 (1973), 115-116.

F. Leo, Die griechisch-römische Biographie nach ihrer litterarischen Form (Leipzig, 1901).

A. Lesky, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, 2nd. ed. (Bern, 1963) (Eng. trans. London, 1965).

G. Levi della Vida, Something more about Artefius and his Clavis Sapientiae, Speculum 13 (1938), 80-85.

G. Levi della Vida, La dottrina e i dodici legati di Stomathalassa, Atti dell'Accad. Naz. dei Lincei, Classe Sc. Mor. Stor. Filol., 8.3 (1951), 477-542.

I. Levy, Recherches sur les sources de la légende de Pythagore (Paris, 1926).

L. Lo Cascio, La forma letteraria della Vita di Apollonio Tianeo, Quad. dell. ist. di filol. grec. dell. Univ. di Palermo 6 (Palermo, 1974).

R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (Cambridge, Mass., 1966).

D. Magie, Roman rule in Asia Minor, 2 vols. (Princeton, 1950).

G. R. S. Mead, Apollonius of Tyana (London/Benares, 1901).

R. Merkelbach, Roman und Mysterium in der Antike. Eine Untersuchung zur antiken Religion (München, 1962).

J. Mesk, Ein unedierter Tractat περὶ λίθων, Wien. Stud. 20 (1898), 309-321.

J. Mesk, Die Damisquelle des Philostratos in der Biographie des Apollonios von Tyana, Wien. Stud. 41 (1919), 121-138.

M. Meunier, Apollonius de Tyane ou le séjour d'un dieu parmi les hommes (Paris, 1936).

E. Meyer, Apollonius von Tyana und die Biographie des Philostratos, Hermes 52 (1917), 371-424, repr. in: Id., Kleine Schriften 2 (Halle, 1924), 131-191.

R. Meyer-Krämer, Apollonius von Tyana, der Magus aus Osten, Monatsh. d. Comeniusgesellschaft 15 (1906), 1-41.

F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1964).

J. Miller, Die Beziehungen der Vita Apollonii des Philostratos zur Pythagorassage, Philol. 51 (1892), 137-145.

J. Miller, Zur Frage nach der Persönlichkeit des Apollonius von Tyana, Philol. 51 (1892), 581-584.

J. Miller, Apollonius (98), in: Pauly-Wissowa, RE 2 (Stuttgart, 1895), 146-148.

J. Miller, Die Damispapiere in Philostratos Apolloniosbiographie, Philol. 66 (1907), 511-525.

C. Mönckeberg, Apollonius von Tyana (Hamburg, 1877).

K. Münscher, Die Philostrate, Philolog. Suppl. 10 (1907), 496-558.

F. Nau, Une ancienne traduction latine du Bélinous arabe, Rev. de l'orient chrét. 12 (1907), 99-106.

W. Nestle, Griechische Religiosität von Alexander dem Großen bis auf Proklos (Berlin, 1934).

C. L. Nielsen, Apollonios fra Tyana og Filostrats Beskrivelse af hans Levnet (Copenhagen, 1879).

M. P. Nilsson, Die Religion in den griechischen Zauberpapyri, in: Id., Opuscula selecta 3 (Lund, 1960), 129-166.

M. P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, 2nd ed., vol. II, Handb. d. Altertumswiss. V 2, 2 (München, 1961).

A. D. Nock, Oracles théologiques, Rev. Ét. Anc. 30 (1928), 280-290, repr. in: Id., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, I (Oxford, 1972), 160-168.

A. D. Nock, Conversion (Oxford, 1933).

A. D. Nock, Orphism or popular philosophy?, Harv. Theol. Rev. 33 (1940), 301-315, repr. in: Id., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, I (Oxford, 1972), 503-515.

A. D. Nock, A Cult Ordinance in Verse, Harv. Stud. Class. Phil. 63 (1968), 415-421, repr. in: Id., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, II (Oxford, 1972), 847-852.

E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 2nd ed. (Leipzig-Berlin, 1923).

J. Palm, Rom, Römertum und Imperium in der griechischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit, Acta Soc. hum. Litt. Lundensis 57 (Lund, 1959).

E. Pélagaud, Un conservateur du second siècle (Laon, 1878).

R. J. Penella, Scopelianus and the Eretrians in Cissia, Athenaeum 52 (1974), 295-300.

B. E. Perry, Secundus the Silent Philosopher, Philol. Monogr. publ. by the Amer. Philol. Assoc. 22 (Ithaca, 1964).

B. E. Perry, The Ancient Romances. A literary-historical account of their origines, Sather Class. Lect. 37 (Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1967).

G. Petzke, Die Traditionen über Apollonius von Tyana und das Neue Testament, Studia ad Corp. Hellenist. N.T. 1 (Leiden, 1970).

M. Plessner, Neue Materialien zur Geschichte der Tabula Smaragdina, Der Islam 16 (1927), 77-113.

M. Plessner, Beiträge zur islamischen Literaturgeschichte, Islamica 4 (1929-1931), 551f.

M. Plessner, Hermes Trismegistos and Arab Science, in: Studia Islamica 2 (Paris, 1954), 45-59.

M. Plessner, Balinus, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., I (Paris, 1960), 1024-1026.

T. Plüss, Apollonius von Tyana auf dem Nil und der unbekannte Gott zu Athen, in: Festgabe f. H. Blümmer (Zürich, 1914), 36-48.

K. Preisendanz, Papyri graecae magicae, II (Leipzig, 1931).

O. de B. Priaulx, The Indian Travels of Apollonius of Tyana, Journ. Roy. As. Soc. 17 (1860), 70-105.

A. Priessnig, Die literarische Form der spätantiken Philosophenromane, Byz. Zeits. 30 (1929), 23-30.

A. Priessnig, Die biographische Form der Plotinvita des Porphyrios und des Antonioslebens des Athanasios, Byz. Zeits. 64 (1971), 1-5.

K. Prümm, Religionsgeschichtliches Handbuch für den Raum der altchristlichen Umwelt (Rome, 1954).

L. Radermacher, Zur Sacherklärung des Heroikos, Sitzungsb. d. Wiener Akad. 182 (1916), 18-23, 108-111.

B. P. Reardon, The Greek Novel, Phoenix 23 (1969), 55-73.

B. P. Reardon, Courants littéraires grecs des IIe et IIIe siècles après J.-C., Annales litt. Univ. de Nantes 3 (Paris, 1971).

B. P. Reardon, The Second Sophistic and the Novel, Approaches to the Second Sophistic, ed. G. W. Bowersock (Pennsylvania, 1974), 23-29.

R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzählungen (Leipzig, 1908).

R. Reitzenstein, Die Areopagrede des Apostels Paulus, Neue Jahrb. f. d. klass. Altertum 31 (1913), 393-422.

R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 3rd. ed. (Leipzig, 1927).

K. Reyhl, Antonius Diogenes (Diss. Tübingen, 1969).

H. Ritter and M. Plessner, Picatrix. Das Ziel des Weisen von Pseudo-Magriti (London, 1962).

E. Rohde, Die Quellen des Jamblichus in seiner Biographie des Pythagoras, Rhein. Mus. 26 (1871), 554-576 and 27 (1872), 23-61, repr. in: Id., Kleine Schriften, II (Tübingen-Leipzig, 1901), 102f.

E. Rohde, Besprechung von Th. Bergk, Fünf Abhandlungen, in: Id., Kleine Schriften, I (Tübingen-Leipzig, 1901), 338-344.

E. Rohde, Besprechung von E. Schwartz, Fünf Vorträge, in: Id., Kleine Schriften, I (Tübingen-Leipzig, 1901), 5-9.

E. Rohde, Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer, 4th ed. (Darmstadt, 1960).

H. Rommel, Die naturwissenschaftlich-paradoxographischen Exkurse bei Philostratos, Heliodoros und Achilleus Tatios (Stuttgart, 1923).

V. Rose, Damigeron, De lapidibus, Hermes 9 (1874), 471-491.

F. Rosenthal, Das Fortleben der Antike im Islam (Zürich, 1965).

J. Ruska, Tabula Smaragdina. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Hermetischen Literatur, Arbeiten aus dem Inst. f. Gesch. d. Naturwiss. 16 (Heidelberg, 1926).

N. Sacerdoti, A proposito delle fonti di un passo di Porfirio (vita Pyth. 14-17), in: In memoriam A. Beltrami (Genova, 1954), 213-219.

W. Schmid, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius von Halikarnaß bis auf den zweiten Philostratus, vol. IV (Stuttgart, 1896).

G. Schnayder, De infenso alienigenarum in Romanos animo, Eos 30 (1927), 113-149.

G. Schnayder, Quibus conviciis alienigenae Romanos carpserint (Cracow, 1928).

H. J. Schütz, Beiträge zur Formgeschichte synoptischer Wundererzählungen, dargestellt an der Vita Apollonii des Philostratus (Diss. Jena, 1953).

E. Schwartz, Fünf Vorträge über den griechischen Roman (Berlin, 1896).

S. Settis, Severo Alessandro e i suoi lari, Athenaeum 50 (1972), 237-251.

V. A. Smith, The Indian Travels of Apollonius of Tyana, Zeits. d. Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesellsch. 68 (1914), 329-344.

R. Söder, Die apokryphen Apostolgeschichten und die romanhafte Literatur der Antike, Würzburger Studien z. Altertumswiss. 3 (Stuttgart, 1932).

F. Solmsen, Some Works of Philostratus the Elder, Trans. Amer. Philol. Soc. 71 (1940), 556-572.

F. Solmsen, Philostratus (9-12), in: Pauly-Wissowa, RE 20.1 (Stuttgart, 1941), 124-177.

W. Speyer, Besprechung von G. Petzke, Die Traditionen von Apollonius von Tyana und das neue Testament, Jahrb. f. Ant. u. Christentum 16 (1973), 133-135.

W. Speyer, Zum Bild des Apollonius von Tyana bei Heiden und Christen, Jahrb. f. Ant. u. Christentum 17 (1974), 47-63.

E. Strazzeri, Apollonio di Tiana e la cronologia dei suoi viaggi (Terranova, 1901).

R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford, 1968).

M. Steinschneider, Apollonius von Tyana (oder Balinas) bei den Arabern, Zeits. d. Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesellsch. 45 (1891), 439-446.

D. M. Tredwell, A Sketch of the Life of Apollonius of Tyana (New York, 1886).

A. Treloar, Ethiopians, Prudentia 4 (1972), 42-50.

A. Vassileiou, Sur la date des thermes de Néron, Rev. Ét. Anc. 74 (1972), 93-106.

B. Carra de Vaux, Balinus, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1st ed., I (Leiden/Leipzig, 1913), 645.

W. Weinberger, Zur Philostrat-Frage, Philol. 57 (1898), 335-337.

O. Weinreich, Antike Heilungswunder, Religionsgeschichtl. Versuche und Vorarbeiten 8 (Gießen, 1909).

O. Weinreich, Alexander der Lügenprophet und seine Stellung in der Religiosität des zweiten Jahrhunderts nach Christus, Neue Jahrb. f. d. klass. Altertum 47 (1921), 129-151.

O. Weinreich, Antikes Gottmenschentum, Neue Jahrb. f. Wissenschaft u. Jugendbildung 2 (1926), 633-651.

O. Weinreich, Gebet und Wunder, in: Genethliakon W. Schmid zum 70. Geb. (Stuttgart, 1929), 169-464.

M. Wellmann, Die Georgika des Demokritos, Abh. Preuss. Ak. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. (Berlin, 1921, Nr. 4).

M. Wellmann, Die ΦUσΙΚΑ des Bolos Demokritos und der Magier Anaxilaos aus Larissa, 1, Abh. Preuß. Ak. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. (Berlin, 1928, Nr. 7).

P. Wendland, Antike Geister- und Gespenstergeschichten, Festschrift zur Jahrhundertfeier der Universität Breslau, ed. T. Siebs (Breslau, 1911), 33-55.

P. Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur, 3rd ed. (Tübingen, 1912).

T. Whittaker, Apollonius of Tyana and Other Essays (London, 1906).

U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Der Glaube der Hellenen, ii, 2nd. ed. (Basel, 1956).

U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Lesefrüchte 198(a), Hermes 60 (1925), 307-313, repr. in: Id., Kleine Schriften, IV (Berlin, 1962), 394-401.

F. A. Wright, A History of Later Greek Literature (London, 1932).

M. Wundt, Apollonius von Tyana: Prophetie und Mythenbildung, Zeits. Wiss. Theol. 49 (1906), 309-366.

E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 2nd. ed., III.2 (Leipzig, 1923).