Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

Apollonius of Tyana

The Philosopher Explorer and Social

Reformer of the First Century AD

by G.R.S. Mead

Edition published in 1901

CONTENTS

I

Introductory

II

The Religious Associations and Communities of the First Century

III

India and Greece

IV

The Apollonius of Early Opinion

V

Texts, Translations, and Literature

VI

The Biographer of Apollonius

VII

Early Life

VIII

The Travels of Apollonius

IX

In the Shrines of the Temples and the Retreats of Religion

X

The Gymnosophists of Upper Egypt

XI

Apollonius and the Rulers of the Empire

XII

Apollonius The Prophet and Wonder-Worker

XIII

His Mode of Life

XIV Himself and His Circle

XV

From His Sayings and Sermons

XVI From His Letters

XVII The Writings of Apol onius

Page 1

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION I - Introductory

To the student of the origins of Christianity there is natural y no period in Western history of greater

interest and importance than the first century of our era; and yet how little comparatively is known about it

of a really definite and reliable nature. If it be a subject of lasting regret that no non-Christian writer of the

first century had sufficient intuition of the future to record even a line of information concerning the birth

and growth of what was to be the religion of the Western world, equally disappointing is it to find so little

definite information of the general social and religious conditions of the time. The rulers and the wars of

the Empire seem to have formed the chief interest of the historiographers of the succeeding century, and

even in this department of political history, though the public acts of the Emperors may be fairly well

known, for we can check them by records and inscriptions, when we come to their private acts and

motives we find ourselves no longer on the ground of history, but for the most part in the atmosphere of

prejudice, scandal, and speculation. The political acts of Emperors and their officers, however can at best

throw but a dim side-light on the general social conditions of the time, while they shed no light at all on

the religious conditions, except so far as these in any particular contacted the domain of politics. As well

might we seek to reconstruct a picture of the religious life of the time from Imperial acts and rescripts, as

endeavour to glean any idea of the intimate religion of this country from a perusal of statute books or

reports of Parliamentary debates.

The Roman histories so-called, to which we have so far been accustomed, cannot help us in the

reconstruction of a picture of the environment into which, on the one hand, Paul led the new faith in Asia

Minor, Greece, and Rome; and in which, on the other, it already found itself in the districts bordering on

the south-east of the Mediterranean. It is only by piecing together labouriously isolated scraps of

information and fragments of inscriptions, that we become aware of the existence of the life of a world of

religious associations and private cults which existed at this period. Not that even so we have any very

direct information of what went on in these associations, guilds, and brotherhoods; but we have sufficient

evidence to make us keenly regret the absence of further knowledge.

Difficult as this field is to till, it is exceedingly fertile in interest, and it is to be regretted that comparatively

so little work has as yet been done in it; and that, as is so frequently the case, the work which has been

done is, for the most part, not accessible to the English reader. What work has been done on this special

subject may be seen from the bibliographical note appended to this essay, in which is given a list of

books and articles treating of the religious associations among the Greeks and Romans. But if we seek

to obtain a general view of the condition of religious affairs in the first century we find ourselves without a

reliable guide; for of works dealing with this particular subject there are few, and from them we learn little

that does not immediately concern, or is thought to concern, Christianity; whereas, it is just the state of

the non-Christian religious world about which, in the present case, we desire to be informed.

If, for instance, the reader turn to works of general history, such as Merivale’s History of the Romans

under the Empire (London; last ed. 1865), he will find, it is true, in chap iv., a description of the state of

religion up to the death of Nero, but he will be little wiser for perusing it. If he turn to Hermann Schil er’s

Geschichte der römischen Kaiserreichs unter der Regierung des Nero (Berlin; 1872), he will find much

reason for discarding the vulgar opinions about the monstrous crimes imputed to Nero, as indeed he

might do by reading in English G H. Lewes’ article “Was Nero a Monster?” (Cornhill Magazine; July 1863)

—and he will also find (bk IV chap III.) a general view of the religion and philosophy of the time which is

far more intelligent than that of Merivale’s; but al is still very vague and unsatisfactory, and we feel

ourselves still outside the intimate life of the philosophers and religionists of the first century.

Page 2

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

If, again, he turn to the latest writers of Church history who have treated this particular question, he will

find that they are occupied entirely with the contact of the Christian Church with the Roman Empire, and

only incidentally give us any information of the nature of which we are in search. On this special ground

C J. Neumann, in his careful study Der römische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche bis auf Diocletian

(Leipzig; 1890), is interesting; while Prof W M. Ramsay, in The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D.

170 (London; 1893), is extraordinary, for he endeavours to interpret Roman history by the New

Testament documents, the dates of the majority of which are so hotly disputed.

But, you may say, what has all this to do with Apollonius of Tyana? The answer is simple: Apollonius lived

in the first century; his work lay precisely among these religious associations, colleges and guilds. A

knowledge of them and their nature would give us the natural environment of a great part of his life; and

information as to their condition in the first century would perhaps help us the better to understand some

of the reasons for the task which he attempted.

If, however, it were only the life and endeavours of Apollonius which would be illuminated by this

knowledge, we could understand why so little effort has been spent in this direction; for the character of

the Tyanean, as we shal see, has since the fourth century been regarded with little favour even by the

few, while the many have been taught to look upon our philosopher not only as a charlatan, but even as

an anti-Christ. But when it is just a knowledge of these religious associations and orders which would

throw a flood of light on the earliest evolution of Christianity, not only with regard to the Pauline

communities, but also with regard to those schools which were subsequently condemned as heretical, it

is astonishing that we have no more satisfactory work done on the subject.

It may be said, however, that this information is not forthcoming simply because it is unprocurable. To a

large extent this is true; nevertheless, a great deal more could be done than has yet been attempted, and

the results of research in special directions and in the byways of history could be combined, so that the

non-specialist could obtain some general idea of the religious conditions of the times, and so be less

inclined to join in the now stereotyped condemnation of all non-Jewish or non-Christian moral and

religious effort in the Roman Empire of the first century.

But the reader may retort: Things social and religious in those days must have been in a very parlous

state, for, as this essay shows, Apollonius himself spent the major part of his life in trying to reform the

institutions and cults of the Empire. To this we answer: No doubt there was much to reform, and when is

there not? But it would not only be not generous, but distinctly mischievous for us to judge our fellows of

those days solely by the lofty standard of an ideal morality, or even to scale them against the weight of

our own supposed virtues and knowledge. Our point is not that there was nothing to reform, far from that,

but that the wholesale accusations of depravity brought against the times will not bear impartial

investigation. On the contrary, there was much good material ready to be worked up in many ways, and if

there has not been, how could there among other things have been any Christianity?

The Roman Empire was at the zenith of its power, and had there not been many admirable

administrators and men of worth in the governing caste, such a political consummation could never have

been reached and maintained. Moreover, as ever previously in the ancient world, religious liberty was

guaranteed, and where we find persecution, as in the reigns of Nero and Domitian, it must be set down to

political and not to theological reasons. Setting aside the disputed question of the persecution of the

Christians under Domitian, the Neronian persecution was directed against those whom the Imperial

Page 3

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

power regarded as Jewish political revolutionaries. So, too, when we find the philosophers imprisoned or

banished from Rome during those two reigns, it was not because they were philosophers, but because

the ideal of some of them was the restoration of the Republic, and this rendered them obnoxious to the

charge not only of being political malcontents, but also of actively plotting against the Emperor’s

majestas. Apollonius, however, was throughout a warm supporter of monarchical rule. When, then, we

hear of the philosophers being banished from Rome or being cast into prison, we must remember that

this was not a wholesale persecution of philosophy throughout the Empire; and when we say that some

of them desired to restore the Republic, we should remember that the vast majority of them refrained

from politics, and especial y was this the case with the disciples of the religio-philosophical schools.

Page 4

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION II - The Religious Associations and Communities of the First Century

In the domain of religion it is quite true that the state cults and national institutions throughout the Empire

were almost without exception in a parlous state, and it is to be noticed that Apollonius devoted much

time and labour to reviving and purifying them. Indeed, their strength had long left the general state-

institutions of religion, where al was now perfunctory; but so far from there being no religious life in the

land, in proportion as the official cultus and ancestral institutions afforded no real satisfaction to their

religious needs, the more earnestly did the people devote themselves to private cults, and eagerly

baptised themselves in al that flood of religious enthusiasm which flowed in with ever increasing volume

from the East. Indubitably in al this fermentation there were many excesses, according to our present

notions of religious decorum, and also grievous abuses; but at the same time in it many found due

satisfaction for their religious emotions, and, if we except those cults which were distinctly vicious, we

have to a large extent before us in popular circles the spectacle of what, in their last analysis, are similar

phenomena to those enthusiasms which in our own day may be frequently witnessed among such sects

as the Shakers and Ranters, and at the general revival meetings of the uninstructed.

It is not, however, to be thought that the private cults and the doings of the religious associations were all

of this nature or confined to this class; far from it. There were religious brotherhoods, communities and

clubs— thiasi, erani, and orgeônes— of all sorts and conditions. There were also mutual benefit societies,

burial clubs, and dining companies, the prototypes of our present-day Masonic bodies, Oddfellows, and

the rest. These religious associations were not only private in the sense that they were not maintained by

the State, but also for the most part they were private in the sense that what they did was kept secret,

and this is perhaps the main reason why we have so defective a record of them.

Among them are to be numbered not only the lower forms of mystery-cultus of various kinds, but also the

greater ones, such as the Phrygian, Bacchic, Isiac, and Mithriac Mysteries, which were spread

everywhere throughout the Empire. The famous Eleusinia were, however, still under the ægis of the

State, but though so famous were, as a state-cultus, far more perfunctory.

It is, moreover, not to be thought that the great types of mystery-cultus above mentioned were uniform

even among themselves. There were not only various degrees and grades within them, but also in all

probability many forms of each line of tradition, good, bad, and indifferent. For instance, we know that it

was considered de rigueur for every respectable citizen of Athens to be initiated into the Eleusinia, and

therefore the tests could not have been very stringent; whereas in the most recent work on the subject,

De Apuleio Isiacorum Mysteriorum Teste (Leyden; 1900), Dr K H E. De Jong shows that in one form of

the Isiac Mysteries the candidate was invited to initiation by means of dream; that is to say, he had to be

psychically impressionable before his acceptance.

Here, then, we have a vast intermediate ground for religious exercise between the most popular and

undisciplined forms of private cults and the highest forms, which could only be approached through the

discipline and training of the philosophic life. The higher side of these mystery-institutions aroused the

enthusiasm of al that was best in antiquity, and unstinted praise was given to one or another form of

them by the greatest thinkers and writers of Greece and Rome; so that we cannot but think that here the

instructed found that satisfaction for their religious needs which was necessary not only for those who

could not rise into the keen air of pure reason, but also for those who had climbed so high upon the

heights of reason that they could catch a glimpse of the other side. The official cults were notoriously

Page 5

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

unable to give them this satisfaction, and were only tolerated by the instructed as an aid for the people

and a means of preserving the traditional life of the city or state.

By common consent the most virtuous livers of Greece were the members of the Pythagorean schools,

both men and women. After the death of their founder the Pythagoreans seem to have gradually blended

with the Orphic communities and the “Orphic life” was the recognised term for a life of purity and self-

denial. We also know that the Orphics, and therefore the Pythagoreans, were actively engaged in the

reformation, or even the entire reforming, of the Baccho-Eleusinian rites; they seem to have brought back

the pure side of the Bacchic cult with their reinstitution or reimportation of the Bacchic mysteries, and it is

very evident that such stern livers and deep thinkers could not have been contented with a low form of

cult. Their influence also spread far and wide in general Bacchic circles, so that we find Euripides putting

the following words into the mouth of the chorus of Bacchic initiates: “Clad in white robes I speed me

from the genesis of mortal men, and never more approach the vase of death, for I have done with eating

food that ever housed a soul.” [From a fragment of The Cretans. See Lobeck’s Aglaophamus p 622.]

Such words could well be put into the mouth of a Brâhman or Buddhist ascetic, eager to escape the

bonds of Samsâra; and such men cannot therefore justly be classed together indiscriminately with ribald

revelers -- the general mind-picture of a Bacchic company.

But, some one may say, Euripides and the Pythagoreans and Orphics are no evidence for the first

century; whatever good there may have been in such schools and communities, it had ceased long

before. On the contrary, the evidence is all against this objection. Philo, writing about 25 A.D., tel s us that

in his day numerous groups of men, who in all respects led this life of religion, who abandoned their

property, retired from the world and devoted themselves entirely to the search for wisdom and the

cultivation of virtue, were scattered far and wide throughout the world. In his treatise, On the

Contemplative Life, he writes: “This natural class of men is to be found in many parts of the inhabited

world, both the Grecian and non-Grecian world, sharing in the perfect good. In Egypt there are crowds of

them in every province, or nome as they call it, and especially round Alexandria.” This is a most important

statement, for if there were so many devoted to the religious life at this time, it fol ows that the age was

not one of unmixed depravity.

It is not, however, to be thought that these communities were all of an exactly similar nature, or of one

and the same origin, least of all that they were all Therapeut or Essene. We have only to remember the

various lines of descent of the doctrines held by innumerable schools classed together as Gnostic, as

sketched in my recent work, Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, and to turn to the beautiful treatises of the

Hermetic schools, to persuade us that in the first century the striving after the religious and philosophic

life was wide-spread and various.

We are not, however, among those who believe that the origin of the Therapeut communities of Philo and

of the Essenes of Philo and Josephus is to be traced to Orphic and Pythagorean influence. The question

of precise origin is as yet beyond the power of historical research, and we are not of those who would

exaggerate one element of the mass into a universal source. But when we remember the existence of al

these so widely scattered communities in the first century, when we study the imperfect but important

record of the very numerous schools and brotherhoods of a like nature which came into intimate contact

with Christianity in its origins, we cannot but feel that there was the leaven of a strong religious life

working in many parts of the Empire.

Our great difficulty is that these communities, brotherhoods, and associations kept themselves apart, and

with rare exceptions left no records of their intimate practices and beliefs, or if they left any it has been

Page 6

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

destroyed or lost. For the most part then we have to rely upon general indications of a very superficial

character. But this imperfect record is no justification for us to deny or ignore their existence and the

intensity of their endeavours; and a history which purports to paint a picture of the times is utterly

insufficient so long as it omits this most vital subject from its canvas.

Among such surroundings as these Apollonius moved; but how little does his biographer seem to have

been aware of the fact! Philostratus has a rhetorician’s appreciation of a philosophical court life, but no

feeling for the life of religion. It is only indirectly that the Life of Apollonius, as it is now depicted, can

throw any light on these most interesting communities, but even an occasional side-light is precious

where all is in such obscurity. Were it but possible to enter into the living memory of Apollonius, and see

with his eyes the things he saw when he lived nineteen hundred years ago, what an enormously

interesting page of the world’s history could be recovered! He not only traversed all the countries where

the new faith was taking root, but he lived for years in most of them, and was intimately acquainted with

numbers of mystic communities in Egypt, Arabia, and Syria. Surely he must have visited some of the

earliest Christian communities as well, must even have conversed with some of the “disciples of the

Lord”! And yet no word is breathed of this, not one single scrap of information on these points do we

glean from what is recorded of him. Surely he must have met with Paul, if not elsewhere, then at Rome,

in 66, when he had to leave because of the edict of banishment against the philosophers, the very year

according to some when Paul was beheaded!

Page 7

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION III - India and Greece

THERE is, however, another reason why Apol onius is of importance to us. He was an enthusiastic

admirer of the wisdom of India. Here again a subject of wide interest opens up. What influences, if any,

had Brâhmanism and Buddhism on Western thought in these early years? It is strongly asserted by some

that they had great influence; it is as strongly denied by others that they had any influence at al . It is,

therefore, apparent that there is no really indisputable evidence on the subject.

Just as some would ascribe the constitution of the Essene and Therapeut communities to Pythagorean

influence, so others would ascribe their origin to Buddhist propaganda; and not only would they trace this

influence in the Essene tenets and practices, but they would even refer the general teaching of the Christ

to a Buddhist source in a Jewish monotheistic setting. Not only so, but some would have it that two

centuries before the direct general contact of Greece with India, brought about by the conquests of

Alexander, India through Pythagoras strongly and lastingly influenced al subsequent Greek thought.

The question can certainly not be settled by hasty affirmation or denial; it requires not only a wise

knowledge of general history and a minute study of scattered and imperfect indications of thought and

practice, but also a fine appreciation of the correct value of indirect evidence, for of direct testimony there

is none of a real y decisive nature. To such high qualifications we can make no pretension, and our

highest ambition is simply to give a few very general indications of the nature of the subject.

It is plainly asserted by the ancient Greeks that Pythagoras went to India, but as the statement is made

by Neo-Pythagorean and Neo-Platonic writers subsequent to the time of Apollonius, it is objected that the

travels of the Tyanean suggested not only this item in the biography of the great Samian but several

others, or even that Apol onius himself in his Life of Pythagoras was father of the rumour. The close

resemblance, however, between many of the features of Pythagorean discipline and doctrine and Indo-

Aryan thought and practice, make us hesitate entirely to reject the possibility of Pythagoras having visited

ancient Âryâvarta.

And even if we cannot go so far as to entertain the possibility of direct personal contact, there has to be

taken into consideration the fact that Pherecydes, the master of Pythagoras, may have been acquainted

with some of the main ideas of Vaidic lore. Pherecydes taught at Ephesus, but was himself most

probably a Persian, and it is quite credible that a learned Asiatic, teaching a mystic philosophy and

basing his doctrine upon the idea of rebirth, may have had some indirect, if not direct, knowledge of Indo-

Aryan thought.

Persia must have been even at this time in close contact with India, for about the date of the death of

Pythagoras, in the reign of Dareius, son of Hystaspes, at the end of the sixth and beginning of the fifth

century before our era, we hear of the expedition of the Persian general Scylax down the Indus, and

learn from Herodotus that in this reign India (that is the Punjâb) formed the twentieth satrapy of the

Persian monarchy. Moreover, Indian troops were among the hosts of Xerxes; they invaded Thessaly and

fought at Platæa.

From the time of Alexander onwards there was direct and constant contact between Âryâvarta and the

Page 8

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

kingdoms of the successors of the world-conqueror, and many Greeks wrote about this land of mystery;

but in all that has come down to us we look in vain for anything but the vaguest indications of what the

“philosophers” of India systematically thought.

That the Brâhmans would at this time have permitted their sacred books to be read by the Yavanas

(Ionians, the general name for Greeks in Indian records) is contrary to all we know of their history. The

Yavanas were Mlechchhas, outside the pale of the Ãryas, and al they could glean of the jealously

guarded Brahmâ-vidyâ or theosophy must have depended solely upon outside observation. But the

dominant religious activity at this time in India was Buddhist, and it is to this protest against the rigid

distinctions of case and race made by Brâhmanical pride, and to the startling novelty of an enthusiastic

religious propaganda among al classes and races in India, and outside India to al nations, that we must

look for the most direct contact of thought between India and Greece.

For instance, in the middle of the third century B.C., we know from Asoka’s thirteenth edict, that this

Buddhist Emperor of India, the Constantine of the East, sent missionaries to Antiochus II of Syria,

Ptolemy II of Egypt, Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia, Magas of Cyrene, and Alexander II of Epirus.

When, in a land of such imperfect records, the evidence on the side of India is so clear and indubitable,

all the more extraordinary is it that we have no direct testimony on our side of so great a missionary

activity. Although, then, merely because of the absence of al direct information from Greek sources, it is

very unsafe to generalize, nevertheless from our general knowledge of the times it is not illegitimate to

conclude that no great public stir could have been made by these pioneers of the Dharma in the West. In

every probability these Buddhist Bhikshus produced no effect on the rulers or on the people. But was

their mission entirely abortive; and did Buddhist missionary enterprise westwards cease with them?

The answer to this question, as it seems to us, is hidden in the obscurity of the religious communities.

We cannot, however, go so far as to agree with those who would cut the gordian knot by asserting

dogmatically that the ascetic communities in Syria and Egypt were founded by these Buddhist

propagandists. Already even in Greece itself were not only Pythagorean but even prior to them Orphic

communities, for even on this ground we believe that Pythagoras rather developed what he found

already existing, than that he established something entirely new. And if they were found in Greece,

much more than is it reasonable to suppose that such communities already existed in Syria, Arabia, and

Egypt, whose populations were given far more to religious exercises than the sceptical and laughter-

loving Greeks.

It is, however, credible that in such communities, if anywhere, Buddhist propaganda would find an

appreciative and attentive audience; but even so it is remarkable that they have left no distinctly direct

trace of their influence. Nevertheless, both by the sea way and by the great caravan route there was an

ever open line of communication between India and the Empire of the successors of Alexander; and it is

even permissible to speculate, that if we could recover a catalogue of the great Alexandrian library, for

instance, we should perchance find that in it Indian MSS were to be found among the other rol s and

parchments of the scriptures of the nations.

Indeed, there are phrases in the oldest treatises of the Trismegistic Hermetic literature which can be so

closely paralleled with phrases in the Upanishads and in the Bhagavad Gîtâ, that one is almost tempted

to believe that the writers had some acquaintance with the general contents of these Brâhmanical

scriptures. The Trismegistic literature had its genesis in Egypt, and its earliest deposit must be dated at

Page 9

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

least in the first century A.D., if it cannot even be pushed back earlier. Even more striking is the similarity

between the lofty mystic metaphysic of the Gnostic doctor Basilides, who lived at the end of the first and

beginning of the second century A.D., and Vedântic ideas. Moreover, both the Hermetic and the

Basilidean schools and their immediate predecessors were devoted to a stern self-discipline and deep

philosophical study which would make them welcome eagerly any philosopher or mystic student who

might come from the far East.

But even so, we are not of those who by their own self-imposed limitations of possibility are condemned

to find some direct physical contact to account for a similarity of ideas or even of phrasing. Granting, for

instance, that there is much resemblance between the teachings of the Dharma of the Buddha and of the

Gospel of the Christ, and that the same spirit of love and gentleness pervades them both, stil there is no

necessity to look for the reason of this resemblance to purely physical transmission. And so for other

schools and other teachers; like conditions will produce similar phenomena; like effort and like aspiration

will produce similar ideas, similar experience, and similar response. And this we believe to be the case in

no general way, but that it is all very definitely ordered from within by the servants of the real guardians of

things religious in this world.

We are, then, not compel ed to lay so much stress on the question of physical transmission, or to be

seeking even to find proof of copying. The human mind in its various degrees is much the same in all

climes and ages, and its inner experience has a common ground into which seed may be sown, as it is

tilled and cleared of weeds. The good seed comes al from the same granary, and those who sow it pay

no attention to the man-made outer distinctions of race and creed.

However difficult, therefore, it may be to prove, from unquestionably historical statements, any direct

influence of Indian thought on the conceptions and practices of some of these religious communities and

philosophic schools of the Græco-Roman Empire, and although in any particular case similarity of ideas

need not necessarily be assigned to direct physical transmission, nevertheless the highest probability, if

not the greatest assurance, remains that even prior to the days of Apollonius there was some private

knowledge in Greece of the general ideas of the Vedânta and Dharma; while in the case of Apollonius

himself, even if we discount nine-tenths of what is related of him, his one idea seems to have been to

spread abroad among the religious brotherhoods and institutions of the Empire some portion of the

wisdom which he brought back with him from India.

When, then, we find at the end of the first and during the first half of the second century, among such

mystic associations as the Hermetic and Gnostic schools, ideas which strongly remind us of the

theosophy of the Upanishads or the reasoned ethics of the Suttas, we have always to take into

consideration not only the high probability of Apol onius having visited such schools, but also the

possibility of his having discoursed at length therein on the Indian wisdom. Not only so, but the memory

of his influence may have lingered for long in such circles, for do we not find Plotinus, the coryphæus of

Neo-Platonism, as it is called, so enamoured with what he had heard of the wisdom of India at

Alexandria, that in 242 he started off with the il -starred expedition of Gordian to the East in the hope of

reaching that land of philosophy? With the failure of the expedition and assassination of the Emperor,

however, he had to return, for ever disappointed of his hope.

It is not, however, to be thought that Apollonius set out to make a propaganda of Indian philosophy in the

same way that the ordinary missionary sets forth to preach his conception of the Gospel. By no means;

Apollonius seems to have endeavoured to help his hearers, whoever they might be, in the way best

suited to each of them. He did not begin by tel ing them that what they believed was utterly false and

Page 10

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

soul-destroying, and that their eternal welfare depended upon their instantly adopting his own special

scheme of salvation; he simply endeavoured to purge and further explain what they already believed and

practised. That some strong power supported him in his ceaseless activity, and in his almost world-wide

task, is not so difficult of belief; and it is a question of deep interest for those who strive to peer through

the mists of appearance, to speculate how that not only a Paul but also an Apollonius was aided and

directed in his task from within.

The day, however, has not yet dawned when it will be possible for the general mind in the West to

approach the question with such freedom from prejudice, as to bear the thought that, seen from within,

not only Paul but also Apol onius may well have been a “disciple of the Lord” in the true sense of the

words; and that too although on the surface of things their tasks seem in many ways so dissimilar, and

even, to theological preconceptions, entirely antagonistic.

Fortunately, however, even today there is an ever growing number of thinking people who will not only be

shocked by such a belief, but who will receive it with joy as the herald of the dawning of a true sun of

righteousness, which will do more to illumine the manifold ways of the religion of our common humanity

than all the self-righteousness of any particular body of exclusive religionists.

It is, then, in this atmosphere of charity and tolerance that we would ask the reader to approach the

consideration of Apollonius and his doings, and not only the life and deeds of an Apol onius, but also of

all those who have striven to help their fellows the world over.

Page 11

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION IV - The Apollonius of Early Opinion

APOLLONIUS of Tyana [Pronounced Týâna, with the accent on the first syllable and the first a short.]

was the most famous philosopher of the Græco-Roman world of the first century, and devoted the major

part of his long life to the purification of the many cults of the Empire and to the instruction of the

ministers and priests of its religions. With the exception of the Christ no more interesting personage

appears upon the stage of Western history in these early years. Many and various and oft-times mutually

contradictory are the opinions which have been held about Apollonius, for the account of his life which

has come down to us is in the guise of a romantic story rather than in the form of a plain history. And this

is perhaps to some extent to be expected, for Apollonius, besides his public teaching, had a life apart, a

life into which even his favourite disciple does not enter. He journeys into the most distant lands, and is

lost to the world for years; he enters the shrines of the most sacred temples and the inner circles of the

most exclusive communities, and what he says or does therein remains a mystery, or serves only as an

opportunity for the weaving of some fantastic story by those who did not understand.

The fol owing study will be simply an attempt to put before the reader a brief sketch of the problem which

the records and traditions of the life of the famous Tyanean present; but before we deal with the Life of

Apollonius, written by Flavius Philostratus at the beginning of the third century, we must give the reader a

brief account of the references to Apollonius among the classical writers and the Church Fathers, and a

short sketch of the literature of the subject in more recent times, and of the varying fortunes of the war of

opinion concerning his life in the last four centuries.

First, then, with regard to the references in classical and patristic authors. Lucian, the witty writer of the

first half of the second century, makes the subject of one of his satires the pupil of a disciple of

Apollonius, of one of those who were acquainted with “al the tragedy” [Alexander sive Pseudomantis, vi.]

of his life. And Appuleius, a contemporary of Lucian, classes Apol onius with Moses and Zoroaster, and

other famous Magi of antiquity. [De Magia, xc (ed Hildebrand, 1842, ii 614.)

About the same period, in a work entitled Quæstiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos, formerly

attributed to Justin Martyr, who flourished in the second quarter of the second century, we find the

fol owing interesting statement:

“Question 24: If God is the maker and master of creation, how do the consecrated objects [τελεσματα.

Telesma was “a consecrated object, turned by the Arabs into telsam (talisman)” ; see Liddell and Scott’s

Lexicon, sub voc.] of Apol onius have power in the [various] orders of that creation? For, as we see, they

check the fury of the waves and the power of the winds and the inroads of vermin and attacks of wild

beasts.” ‡ [Justin Martyr, Opera ed. Otto (2nd edition ; Jena 1849) i i 32.]

Dion Cassius in his history [Lib Ixxvii 18.] which he wrote A.D., 211-222, states that Caracal a (Emp

211-216) honoured the memory of Apollonius with a chapel or monument ( heroum).

It was just at this time (216) that Philostratus composed his Life of Apollonius, at the request of Domna

Julia, Caracalla’s mother, and it is with this document principally that we shall have to deal in the sequel.

Lampridius, who flourished about the middle of the third century, further informs us that Alexander

Page 12

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

Severus (Emp 222-235) placed the statue of Apol onius in his lararium together with those of Christ,

Abraham, and Orpheus. [Life of Alexander Severus xxix.]

Vopiscus, writing in the last decade of the third century, tells us that Aurelian (Emp 270-275) vowed a

temple to Apollonius, of whom he had seen a vision when besieging Tyana. Vopiscus speaks of the

Tyanean as “a sage of the most wide-spread renown and authority, an ancient philosopher, and a true

friend of the Gods,” nay, as a manifestation of deity. “For what among men,” exclaims the historian, “was

more holy, what more worthy of reverence, what more venerable, what more god-like than he? He, it

was, who gave life to the dead. He it was, who did and said so many things beyond the power of men.”

[Life of Aurelian xxiv.] So enthusiastic is Vopiscus about Apol onius, that he promises, if he lives, to write

a short account of his life in Latin, so that his deeds and words may be on the tongue of all, for as yet the

only accounts are in Greek. [“Quae qui velit nosse, groecos legat libros qui de ejus vita conscripti sunt.”

These accounts were probably the books of Maximus, Mœragenes, and Philostratus.] Vopiscus,

however, did not fulfil his promise, but we learn that about this date both Soterichus [An Egyptian epic

poet, who wrote several poetical histories in Greek; he flourished in the last decade of the third century.]

and Nichomachus wrote Lives of our philosopher, and shortly afterwards Tascius Victorianus, working on

the papers of Nichomachus, [Sidonius Apollinaris, Epp., viii 3. See also Legrand d’Aussy, Vie

d’Apollonius de Tyane (Paris 1807), p xIvii.] also composed a Life. None of these Lives, however, have

reached us.

It was just at this period also, namely, in the last years of the third century and the first years of the fourth,

that Porphyry and Iamblichus composed their treatises on Pythagoras and his school; both mention

Apollonius as one of their authorities, and it is probable that the first 30 seconds of Iamblichus are taken

from Apollonius. [Porphyry, De Vita Pythagoræ, section i ., ed Kiessling (Leipzig 1816). Iamblichus De

Vita Pythagorica, chap xxv., ed Kiessling (Leipzig 1813); see especial y K’s note, pp II Sqq. See also

Porphyry, Frag., De Styge, p 285, ed Holst.]

We now come to an incident which hurled the character of Apollonius into the arena of Christian

polemics, where it has been tossed about until the present day. Hierocles, successively governor of

Palmyra, Bithynia, and Alexandria, and a philosopher, about the year 305 wrote a criticism on the claims

of the Christians, in two books, cal ed A Truthful Address to the Christians, or more shortly The Truth-

lover. He seems to have based himself for the most part on the previous work of Celsus and Porphyry,

[See Duchesne on the recently discovered works of Macarious Magnes (Paris 1877)], but introduced a

new subject of controversy by opposing the wonderful works of Apollonius to the claims of the Christians

to exclusive right in “miracles” as proof of the divinity of their Master. In this part of his treatise Hierocles

used Philostratus’ Life of Apol onius.

To this pertinent criticism of Hierocles Eusebius of Cæsarea immediately replied in a treatise still extant,

entitled Contra Hieroclem. [The most convenient text is by Gaisford (Oxford 1852), Eusebii Pamphili

contra Hieroclem; it is also printed in a number of editions of Philostratus. There are two translations in

Latin, one in Italian, one in Danish, all bound up with Philostratus’ Vita, and one in French printed apart

(Discours d’Eusèbe Evêque de Cesarée touchant les Miracles attribuez par les Payens à Apol onius de

Tyane, tr by Cousin. Paris; 1584, 12mo, 135 pp.] Eusebius admits that Apollonius was a wise and

virtuous man, but denies that there is sufficient proof that the wonderful things ascribed to him ever took

place; and even if they did take place, they were the work of “dæmons,” and not of God. The treatise of

Eusebius is interesting; he severely scrutinises the statements in Philostratus, and shows himself

possessed of a first rate critical faculty. Had he only used the same faculty on the documents of the

Page 13

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

Church, of which he was the first historian, posterity would have owed him an eternal debt of gratitude.

But Eusebius, like so many other apologists, could only see one side; justice, when anything touching

Christianity was cal ed into question, was a stranger to his mind, and he would have considered it

blasphemy to use his critical faculty on the documents which relate the “miracles” of Jesus. Stil the

problem of “miracle” was the same, as Hierocles pointed out, and remains the same to this day.

After the controversy reincarnated again in the sixteenth century, and when the hypothesis of the “Devil”

as the prime-mover in all “miracles” but those of the Church lost its hold with the progress of scientific

thought, the nature of the wonders related in the Life of Apol onius was still so great a difficulty that it

gave rise to a new hypothesis of plagiarism. The life of Apollonius was a Pagan plagiarism of the life of

Jesus. But Eusebius and the Fathers who fol owed him had no suspicion of this; they lived in times when

such an assertion could have been easily refuted. There is not a word in Philostratus to show he had any

acquaintance with the life of Jesus, and fascinating as Baur’s “tendency-writing” theory is to many, we

can only say that as a plagiarist of the Gospel story Philostratus is a conspicuous failure. Philostratus

writes the history of a good and wise man, a man with a mission of teaching, clothed in the wonder

stories preserved in the memory and embellished by the imagination of fond posterity, but not the drama

of incarnate Deity as the fulfilment of world prophecy.

Lactantius, writing about 315, also attacked the treatise of Hierocles, who seems to have put forward

some very pertinent criticisms; for the Church Father says that he enumerates so many of their Christian

inner teachings ( intima) that sometimes he would seem to have at one time undergone the same training

( disciplina). But it is in vain, says Lactantius, that Hierocles endeavours to show that Apol onius

performed similar or even greater deeds than Jesus, for Christians do not believe that Christ is God

because he did wonderful things, but because al the things wrought in him were those which were

announced by the prophets. [Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones, v 2, 3; ed Fritsche (Leipzig 1842) pp 233,

236] And in taking this ground Lactantius saw far more clearly than Eusebius the weakness of the proof

from “miracle.”

Arnobius, the teacher of Lactantius, however, writing at the end of the third century, before the

controversy, in referring to Apollonius simply classes him among Magi, such as Zoroaster and others

mentioned in the passage of Appuleius to which we have already referred. [Arnobius, Adversus Nationes,

i, 52; ed Hildebrand (Halle 1844) p 86. The Church Father, however, with that exclusiveness peculiar to

the Judæo-Christian view, omits Moses from the list of Magi.]

But even after the controversy there is a wide difference of opinion among the Fathers, for although at

the end of the fourth century John Chrysostom with great bitterness calls Apol onius a deceiver and evil-

doer, and declares that the whole of the incidents in his life are unqualified fiction, [John Chrysostom,

Adversus Judæos, v 3 (p 631); De Laudibus Sancti Pauli Apost. Homil., iv (p 493 d; ed Montfauc]

Jerome, on the contrary, at the very same date, takes almost a favourable view, for, after perusing

Philostratus, he writes that Apollonius found everywhere something to learn and something whereby he

might become a better man. [Hieronymus, Ep ad Paullinum, 53 (text ap. Kayser, præf ix]. At the

beginning of the fifth century also Augustine, while ridiculing any attempt at comparison between

Apollonius and Jesus, says that the character of the Tyanean was “far superior” to that ascribed to Jove,

in respect of virtue. [August., Epp., cxxxvii . Text quoted by Legrand D’aussy, op,cit., p 294.]

About the same date also we find Isidorus of Pelusium, who died in 450, bluntly denying that there is any

truth in the claim made by “certain,” whom he does not further specify, that Apollonius of Tyana

“consecrated many spots in many parts of the world for the safety of the inhabitants.” [Isidorus Pelusiota,

Page 14

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

Epp., p 138; ed J Bil ius (Paris 1585)] It is instructive to compare the denial of Isidorus with the passage

we have already quoted from Pseudo-Justin. The writer of Questions and Answers to the Orthodox in the

second century could not dispose of the question by a blunt denial; he had to admit it and argue the case

of other grounds - - namely, the agency of the Devil. Nor can the argument of the Fathers, that Apol onius

used magic to bring about his results, while the untaught Christians could perform healing wonders by a

single word, [See Arnobius, loc cit.] be accepted as valid by the unprejudiced critic, for there is no

evidence to support the contention that Apollonius employed such methods for his wonder-workings; on

the contrary, both Apol onius himself and his biographer Philostratus strenuously repudiate the charge of

magic brought against him.

On the other hand, a few years later, Sidonius Apol inaris, Bishop of Claremont, speaks in the highest

terms of Apollonius. Sidonius translated the Life of Apol onius into Latin for Leon, the council or of King

Euric, and in writing to his friend he says:” Read the life of a man who (religion apart) resembles you in

many things; a man sought out by the rich, yet who never sought for riches; who loved wisdom and

despised gold; a man frugal in the midst of feastings, clad in linen in the midst of those clothed in purple,

austere in the midst of luxury . . . . In fine, to speak plainly, perchance no historian will find in ancient

times a philosopher whose life is equal to that of Apol onius.” [Sidonius Apol inaris, Epp., viii 3. Also

Fabricius, Bibliotheca Græca, pp 549, 565 (ed Harles). The work of Sidonius on Apollonius is

unfortunately lost.]

Thus we see that even among the Church Fathers opinions were divided; while among the philosophers

themselves the praise of Apol onius was unstinted.

For Ammianus Marcellinus, “the last subject of Rome who composed a profane history in the Latin

language,” and the friend of Julian the philosopher-emperor, refers to the Tyanean as “that most

renowned philosopher”; [ Amplissimus il e philosophus (xxiii 7). See also xxi 14; xxiii 19] while a few years

later Eunapius, the pupil of Chrysanthius, one of the teachers of Julian, writing in the last years of the

fourth century says that Apollonius was more than a philosopher; he was “a middle term, as it were,

between gods and men.” [ τι θεων τε κατ ανΦρωπου μεσο , meaning thereby presumably one who has

reached the grade of being superior to man, but not yet equal to the gods. This was called by the Greeks

the “dæmonian” order. But the word “dæmon,” owing to sectarian bitterness, has long been degraded

from its former high estate, and the original idea is now signified in popular language by the term “angel.”

Compare Plato, Symposium, xxiii.,παν τα δαιμσνιονμεταεν εστι θεου τε και ϑνητου, “al that is dæmonian

is between God and man.” Not only was Apol onius an adherent of the Pythagorean philosophy, but “he

ful y exemplified the more divine and practical side in it.” In fact Philostratus should have called his

biography “The Sojourning of a God among Men.” [Eunapius, Vitæ Philosophorum, Proœmium, vi ; ed

Boissonade (Amsterdam 1822) p 3.] This seemingly wildly exaggerated estimate may perhaps receive

explanation in the fact that Eunapius belonged to a school which knew the nature of the attainments

ascribed to Apol onius.

Indeed, “as late as the fifth century we find one Volusian, a proconsul of Africa, descended from an old

Roman family and still strongly attached to the religion of his ancestors, almost worshipping Apollonius of

Tyana as a supernatural being.” [Réville, Apollonius of Tyana (tr from the French) p 56 (London 1866). I

have, however, not been able to discover on what authority this statement is made.]

Even after the downfall of philosophy we find Cassiodorus, who spent the last years of his long life in a

Page 15

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

monastery, speaking of Apol onius as the “renowned philosopher.” [ Insignis philosophus; see his

Chronicon, written down to the year 519.] So also among Byzantine writers, the monk George Syncellus,

in the eighth century, refers several times to our philosopher, and not only without the slightest adverse

criticism, but he declares that he was the first and most remarkable of al the illustrious people who

appeared under the Empire. † [In his Chronographia. See Legrand d’Aussy, op.cit., p 313.] Tzetzes also,

the critic and grammarian, calls Apol onius “all-wise and a fore-knower of al things.” [Chiliades i 60]

And though the monk Xiphilinus, in the eleventh century, in a note to his abridgment of the history of Dion

Cassius, calls Apollonius a clever juggler and magician, § [Cited by Legrand d’Aussy, op cit., p 286]

nevertheless Cedrenus in the same century bestows on Apollonius the not uncomplimentary title of an

“adept Pythagorean philosopher,” [ φιλοσοφος ΙΙυφαγσρειος στοιχειωματικσς — Cedrenus, Compendium

Historiarium, i 346; ed Bekker. The word which I have rendered by “adept” signifies one “who has power

over the elements.” and relates several instances of the efficacy of his powers in Byzantium. In fact, if we

can believe Nicetas, as late as the thirteenth century there were at Byzantium certain bronze doors,

formerly consecrated by Apollonius, which had to be melted down because they had become an object of

superstition even for the Christians themselves. [Legrand d’Aussy, op cit., p 308.]

Had the work of Philostratus disappeared with the rest of the Lives, the above would be all that we

should have known about Apol onius. [If we except the disputed Letters and a few quotations from one of

Apollonius’ lost writings.] Little enough, it is true, concerning so distinguished a character, yet ample

enough to show that, with the exception of theological prejudice, the suffrages of antiquity were al on the

side of our philosopher.

Page 16

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION V - Texts, Translations, and Literature

WE will now turn to the texts, translations, and general literature of the subject in more recent times.

Apollonius returned to the memory of the world, after the oblivion of the dark ages, with evil auspices.

From the very beginning the old Hierocles-Eusebius controversy was revived, and the whole subject was

at once taken out of the calm region of philosophy and history and hurled once more into the stormy

arena of religious bitterness and prejudice. For long Aldus hesitated to print the text of Philostratus, and

only finally did so (in 1501) with the text of Eusebius as an appendix, so that, as he piously phrases it,

“the antidote might accompany the poison.” Together with it appeared a Latin translation by the

Florentine Rinucci. [Philostratus de Vita Apollonii Tyanei Libri Octo, tr by A Rinuccinus, and Eusebius

contra Hieroclem, tr by Z Acciolus (Venice 1501-04 fol.), Rinucci’s translation was improved by Beroaldus

and printed at Lyons (1504?) , and again at Cologne 1534.]

In addition to the Latin version the sixteenth century also produced an Italian [F Baldelli, Filostrato

Lemnio del a Vita di Apollonio Tianeo (Florence 1549, 8vo)] and French translation. [B de Vignère,

Philostrate de la Vie d’Apollonius (Paris 1596, 1599, 1611). Blaise de Vignère’s translation was

subsequently corrected by Frédéric Morel and later by Thomas Artus, Sieur d’Embry, with bombastic

notes in which he bitterly attacks the wonder-workings of Apol onius. A French translation was also made

by Th Sibilet about 1560, but never published; the MS was in the Bibliothèque Imperial. See Miller,

Journal des Savants 1849, p 625, quoted by Chassang, op infr cit., p iv.}

The editio princeps of Aldus was superseded a century later by the edition of Morel, [F Morellus,

Philostrati Lemni Opera, Gr. and Lat. (Paris 1608.)] which in its turn was fol owed a century stil later by

that of Olearius. [G. Olearius, Philostratorum quæ supersunt Omnia, Gr and Lat. (Leipzig 1709).] Nearly

a century and a half later again the text of Olearius was superseded by that of Kayser (the first critical

text), whose work in its last edition contains the latest critical apparatus. [C L. Kayser, Flavii Philostrati

quæ supersunt, etc. (Zurich 1844, 4 to). In 1849 A Westermann also edited a text, Philostratorum et

Callistrati Opera, in Didot’s “Scriptorum Græcorum Bibliotheca” (Paris 1849, 8vo). But Kayser brought out

a new edition in 1853 (?), and again a third, with additional information in the Preface, in the “Bibliotheca

Teubneriana” (Leipzig 1870).] All information with regard to the MSS, will be found in Kayser’s Latin

Prefaces.

We shall now attempt to give some idea of the general literature on the subject, so that the reader may

be able to note some of the varying fortunes of the war of opinion in the bibliographical indications. And if

the general reader should be impatient of the matter and eager to get to something of greater interest, he

can easily omit its perusal; while if he be a lover of the mystic way, and does not take delight in wrangling

controversy, he may at least sympathise with the writer, who has been compelled to look through the

works of the last century and a good round dozen of those of the previous centuries, before he could

venture on an opinion of his own with a clear conscience.

Sectarian prejudice against Apollonius characterises nearly every opinion prior to the nineteenth century.

[For a general summary of opinions prior to 1807, if writers who mention Apollonius incidentally, see

Legrand d’Aussy, op. cit., pp 313-327.] Of books distinctly dedicated to the subject the works of the Abbé

Dupin [ L’Histoire d’Apol one de Tyane convaincue de Fausseté et d’Imposture (Paris 1705).] and of de

Tillemont [ An Account of the Life of Apollonius Tyaneus (London 1702), tr out of the French, from vol i , of

Lenain de Tillemont’s Histoire des Empereurs (Second Edition, Paris 1720): to which is added Some

Page 17

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

Observations upon Apollonius. De Tillemont’s view is that Apol onius was sent by the Devil to destroy the

work of the Saviour.] are bitter attacks on the Philosopher of Tyana in defence of the monopoly of

Christian miracles; while those of the Abbé Houtteville [ A critical and Historical Discourse upon the

Method of the Principal Authors who wrote for and against Christianity from its Beginning (London 1739),

tr. from the French of M. l’Abbé Houttevil e; to which is added a “Dessertation on the Life of Apollonius

Tyanæus, with some Observations on the Platonists of the Latter School,” pp 213-254.] and Lüderwald

[Anti-Hierocles oder Jesus Christus und Apollonius von Tyana in ihrer grossen Ungleichheit, dargestellt v.

J.B. Lüderwald (Halle 1793).] are less violent, though on the same lines. A pseudonymous writer,

however, of the eighteenth century strikes out a somewhat different line by classing together the miracles

of the Jesuits and other Monastic Orders with those of Apollonius, and dubbing them all spurious, while

maintaining the sole authenticity of those of Jesus. [Phileleutherus Helvetius, De Miraculis quæ

Pythagoræ, Apolloni Tyanensi, Francisco Asisio, Dominico, et Ignatio Lojolæ tribuuntur Libellus (Draci

1734).]

Nevertheless, Bacon and Voltaire speak of Apollonius in the highest terms, [See Legrand d’Aussy, op.

cit., p 314, where the texts are given.] and even a century before the latter the English Deist, Charles

Blount, [The Two First Books of Philostratus concerning the Life of Apol onius Tyaneus (London ; 1680

fol.) Blount’s notes (general y ascribed to Lord Herbert) raised such an outcry that the book was

condemned in 1693, and few copies are in existence. Blount’s notes were, however, translated into

French a century later, in the days of Encyclopædism, and appended to a French version of the Vita,

under the title, Vie d’Apollonius de Tyane par Philostrate avec les Commentaires donnés en Anglois par

Charles Blount sur les deux Premiers Livres de cet Ouvrage (Amsterdam ; 1779, 4 vols., Svo), with an

ironical dedication to Pope Clement XIV., signed “Philalethes.”] raised his voice against the universal

obloquy poured upon the character of the Tyanean ; his work, however, was speedily suppressed.

In the midst of this war about miracles in the eighteenth century it is pleasant to remark the short treatise

of Herzog, who endeavours to give a sketch of the philosophy and religious life of Apollonius,

[Philosophiam Practicam Apol onii Tyanæ in Sciagraphia, exponit M. Io. Christianus Herzog (Leipzig

1709) ; an academical oration of 20 pp.] but, alas! there were no followers of so liberal an example in this

century of strife.

So far then for the earlier literature of the subject. Frankly none of it is worth reading; the problem could

not be calmly considered in such a period. It started on the false ground of the Hierocles-Eusebius

controversy, which was but an incident (for wonder-working is common to al great teachers and not

peculiar to Apollonius or Jesus), and was embittered by the rise of Encyclopædism and the rationalism of

the Revolution period. Not that the miracle-controversy ceased even in the last century; it does not,

however, any longer obscure the whole horizon, and the sun of a calmer judgment may be seen breaking

through the midst.

In order to make the rest of our summary clearer we append at the end of this essay the titles of the

works which have appeared since the beginning of the nineteenth century, in chronological order.

A glance over this list will show that the last century has produced an English (Berwick’s), an Italian

(Lancetti’s), a French (Chassang’s), and two German translations (Jacobs’ and Baltzer’s). [Philostratus is

a difficult author to translate, nevertheless Chassang and Baltzer have succeeded very well with him;

Berwick also is readable, but in most places gives us a paraphrase rather than a translation and

Page 18

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

frequently mistakes the meaning. Chassang’s and Baltzer’s are by far the best translations.] The Rev E.

Berwick’s translation is the only English version; in his Preface the author, while asserting the falsity of

the miraculous element in the Life, says that the rest of the work deserves careful attention. No harm will

accrue to the Christian religion by its perusal, for there are no allusions to the Life of Christ in it, and the

miracles are based on those ascribed to Pythagoras.

This is certainly a healthier standpoint than that of the traditional theological controversy, which,

unfortunately, however, was revived again by the great authority of Baur, who say in a number of the

early documents of the Christian era (notably the canonical Acts) tendency-writings of but slight historical

content, representing the changing fortunes of schools and parties and not the actual histories of

individuals. The Life of Apol onius was one of these tendency-writings; its object was to put forward a

view opposed to Christianity in favour of philosophy. Baur thus divorced the whole subject from its

historical standpoint and attributed to Philostratus an elaborate scheme of which he was entirely

innocent. Baur’s view was largely adopted by Zeller in his Philosophie der Griechen (v 140), and by

Révil e in Holland.

This “Christusbild” theory (carried by a few extremists to the point of denying that Apollonius ever existed)

has had a great vogue among writers on the subject, especially compilers of encyclopædia articles; it is

at any rate a wider issue than the traditional miracle-wrangle, which was again revived in all its ancient

narrowness by Newman, who only uses Apollonius as an excuse for a dissertation on orthodox miracles,

to which he devotes eighteen pages out of the twenty-five of his treatise. Noack also fol ows Baur, and to

some extent Pettersch, though he takes the subject onto the ground of philosophy; while Möckeberg,

pastor of St. Nicolai in Hamburg, though striving to be fair to Apollonius, ends his chatty dissertation with

an outburst of orthodox praises of Jesus, praises which we by no means grudge, but which are entirely

out of place in such a subject.

The development of the Jesus-Apol onius miracle-controversy into the Jesus-against-Apollonius and

even Christ-against-Anti-Christ battle, fought out with relays of lusty champions on the one side against a

feeble protest at best on the other, is a painful spectacle to contemplate. How sadly must Jesus and

Apollonius have looked upon, and still look upon, this bitter and useless strife over their saintly persons.

Why should posterity set their memories one against the other? Did they oppose one another in life? Did

even their biographers do so after their deaths? Why then could not the controversy have ceased with

Eusebius? For Lactantius frankly admits the point brought forward by Hierocles (to exemplify which

Hierocles only referred to Apol onius as one instance out of many)—that “miracles” do not prove divinity.

We rest our claims, says Lactantius, not on miracles, but on the fulfilment of prophecy. [This would have

at least restored Apollonius to his natural environment, and confined the question of the divinity of Jesus

to its proper Judæo-Christian ground.] Had this more sensible position been revived instead of that of

Eusebius, the problem of Apollonius would have been considered in its natural historical environment

four hundred years ago, and much ink and paper would have been saved.

With the progress of the critical method, however, opinion has at length partly recovered its balance, and

it is pleasant to be able to turn to works which have rescued the subject from theological obscurantism

and placed it in the open field of historical and critical research. The two volumes of the independent

thinker, Legrand d’Aussy, which appeared at the very beginning of the last century, are, for the time,

remarkably free from prejudice, and are a praiseworthy attempt at historical impartiality, but criticism was

still young at this period. Kayser, though he does not go thoroughly into the matter, decides that the

account of Philostratus is purely a “fabularis narratio, ” but is well opposed by I. Müller, who contends for a

Page 19

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

strong element of history as a background. But by far the best sifting of the sources is that of Jessen. [I

am unable to offer any opinion on Nielsen’s book, from ignorance of Danish, but it has all the appearance

of a careful, scholarly treatise with abundance of references.] Priaulx’s study deals solely with the Indian

episode and is of no critical value for the estimation of the sources. Of all previous studies, however, the

works of Chassang and Baltzer are the most generally intelligent, for both writers are aware of the

possibilities of psychic science, though mostly from the insufficient standpoint of spiritistic phenomena.

As for Tredwel ’s somewhat pretentious volume which, being in English, is accessible to the general

reader, it is largely reactionary, and is used as a cover for adverse criticism of the Christian origins from a

Secularist standpoint which denies at the outset the possibility of “miracle” in any meaning of the word. A

mass of well-known numismatological and other matter, which is entirely irrelevant, but which seems to

be new and surprising to the author, is introduced, and a map is prefixed to the title page purporting to

give the itineraries of Apollonius, but having little reference to the text of Philostratus. Indeed, nowhere

does Tredwell show that he is working on the text itself, and the subject in his hands is but an excuse for

a rambling dissertation on the first century in general from his own standpoint.

This is all regrettable, for with the exception of Berwick’s translation, which is almost unprocurable, we

have nothing of value in English for the general reader, [Réville’s Pagan Christ is quite a

misrepresentation of the subject, and Newman’s treatment of the matter renders his treatise an

anachronism for the twentieth century.] except Sinnett’s short sketch, which is descriptive rather than

critical or explanatory.

So far then for the history of the Apol onius of opinion; we will now turn to the Apollonius of Philostratus,

and attempt if possible to discover some traces of the man as he was in history, and the nature of his life

and work.

Page 20

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION VI - The Biographer of Apollonius

FLAVIUS PHILOSTRATUS, the writer of the only Life of Apollonius which has come down to us,

Consisting of eight books written in Greek under the general title Τα ες τον Τυανεα Απολλωνιον ] was a

distinguished man of letters who lived in the last quarter of the second and the first half of the third

century ( cir. 175-245 A.D.). He formed one of the circle of famous writers and thinkers gathered round the

philosopher empress, [ η θιλοιφος, see art. “Philostratus” in Smith’s Dict of Gr and Rom. Biog. (London

1870) ii 327 b.] Julia Domna, who was the guiding spirit of the Empire during the reigns of her husband

Septimius Severus and her son Caracalla. Al three members of the imperial family were students of

occult science, and the age was pre-eminently one in which the occult arts, good and bad, were a

passion. Thus the sceptical Gibbon, in his sketch of Severus and his famous consort, writes:

“Like most of the Africans, Severus was passionately addicted to the vain studies of magic and

divination, deeply versed in the interpretation of dreams and omens, and perfectly acquainted with the

science of judicial astrology, which in almost every age except the present, has maintained its dominion

over the mind of man. He had lost his first wife whilst he was governor of the Lionnese Gaul. In the

choice of a second, he sought only to connect himself with some favourite of fortune; and as soon as he

had discovered that a young lady of Emesa in Syria had a royal nativity, [The italics are Gibbon’s.] he

solicited and obtained her hand. Julia Domna [More correctly Domna Julia; Domna being not a shortened

form of Domina, but the Syrian name of the empress.] (for that was her name) deserved all that the stars

could promise her. She possessed, even in an advanced age, [She died A.D. 217.] the attractions of

beauty, and united to a lively imagination, seldom bestowed on her sex. Her amiable qualities never

made any deep impression on the dark and jealous temper of her husband. [The contrary is held by other

historians.] but in her son’s reign, she administered the principal affairs of the Empire with a prudence

that supported his authority, and with a moderation that sometimes corrected his wild extravagances.

Julia applied herself to letters and philosophy with some success, and with the most splendid reputation.

She was the patroness of every art, and the friend of every man of genius.” [Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, I,

vi.]

We thus see, even from Gibbon’s somewhat grudging estimate, that Domna Julia was a woman of

remarkable character, whose outer acts give evidence of an inner purpose, and whose private life has

not been written. It was at her request that Philostratus wrote the Life of Apol onius, and it was she who

supplied him with certain MSS, that were in her possession, as a basis; for the beautiful daughter of

Bassianus, priest of the sun at Emesa, was an ardent col ector of books from every part of the world,

especially of the MSS of philosophers and of memoranda and biographical notes relating to the famous

students of the inner nature of things.

That Philostratus was the best man to whom to entrust so important a task, is doubtful. It is true that he

was a skilled stylist and a practised man of letters, an art critic and an ardent antiquarian, as we may see

from his other works; but he was a sophist rather than a philosopher, and though an enthusiastic admirer

of Pythagoras and his school, was so from a distance, regarding it rather through a wonder loving

atmosphere of curiosity and the embel ishments of a lively imagination than from a personal

acquaintance with its discipline, or a practical knowledge of those hidden forces of the soul with which its

adepts dealt. We have, therefore, to expect a sketch of the appearance of a thing by one outside, rather

than an exposition of the thing itself from one within.

The fol owing is Philostratus’ account of the sources from which he derived his information concerning

Page 21

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

Apollonius: [I use the 1846 and 1870 editions of Kayser’s text throughout.]

“I have collected my materials partly from the cities which loved him, partly from the temples whose rites

and regulations he restored from their former state of neglect, partly from his own letters. [A collection of

these letters (but not al of them) had been in the possession of the Emperor Hadrian (A.D. 117-138), and

had been left in his palace at Antium (vii 20). This proves the great fame that Apol onius enjoyed shortly

after his disappearance from history, and while he was still a living memory. It is to be noticed that

Hadrian was an enlightened ruler, a great travel er, a lover of religion, and an initiate of the Eleusinian

Mysteries.] More detailed information I procured as fol ows. Damis was a man of some education who

formerly used to live in the ancient city of Ninus. [Nineveh.] He became a disciple of Apollonius and

recorded his travels, in which he says he himself took part, and also the views, sayings, and predictions

of his master. A member of Damis’ family brought the Empress Julia the note-books [ τας δελτους writing

tablets. This suggests that the account of Damis could not have been very voluminous, although

Philostratus further on asserts its detailed nature (i 19)] containing these memoirs, which up to that time

had not been known of. As I was one of the circle of this princess, who was a lover and patroness of all

literary productions, she ordered me to rewrite these sketches and improve their form of expression, for

though the Ninevite expressed himself clearly, his style was far from correct. I also have had access to a

book by Maximus [One of the imperial secretaries of the time, who was famous for his eloquence, and

tutor to Apollonius.] of Ægæ which contained all Apollonius’ doings at Ægæ. [A town not far from Tarsus.]

There is also a will written by Apol onius, from which we can learn how he almost defied philosophy. [ ως

υποφεαζων την φσλοσφιαν εγενετο . The term υποφεαζων occurs only in this passage, and I am

therefore not quite certain of its meaning.] As to the four books of Mœragenes [This Life by Mœragenes

is casual y mentioned by Origenes, Contra Celsum, vi 41; ed Lommatzsch (Berlin 1841), ii 373.] on

Apollonius they do not deserve attention, for he knows nothing of most of the facts of his life” (i. 2. 3).

These are the sources to which Philostratus was indebted for his information, sources which are

unfortunately no longer accessible to us, except perhaps a few letters. Nor did Philostratus spare any

pains to gather information on the subject, for in his concluding words (viii 31), he tel s us that he has

himself traveled into most parts of the “world” and everywhere met with the “inspired sayings” [ λογοις

δαιμονιος ] of Apollonius, and that he was especially well acquainted with the temple dedicated to the

memory of our philosopher at Tyana and founded at the imperial expense (“for the emperors had judged

him not unworthy of like honours with themselves”), whose priests, it is to be presumed, had got together

as much information as they could concerning Apol onius.

A thoroughly critical analysis of the literary effort of Philostratus, therefore, would have to take into

account all of these factors, and endeavour to assign each statement to its original source. But even then

the task of the historian would be incomplete, for it is transparently evident that Philostratus has

considerably “embellished” the narrative with numerous notes and additions of his own and with the

composition of set speeches.

Now as the ancient writers did not separate their notes from the text, or indicate them in any distinct

fashion, we have to be constantly on our guard to detect the original sources from the glosses of the

writer. [Seldom is it that we have such a clear indication, for instance, as in i 25; “The following is what I

have been able to learn . . . about Babylon.”] In fact Philostratus is ever taking advantage of the mention

of a name or a subject to display his own knowledge, which is often of a most legendary and fantastic

nature. This is especially the case in his description of Apollonius’ Indian travels. India at that time and

long afterwards was considered the “end of the world,” and an infinity of the strangest “travellers’ tales”

Page 22

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

and mythological fables were in circulation concerning it. One has only to read the accounts of the writers

on India [See E A. Schwanbeck, Megasthenis Indica (Bonn 1846), and J W. M’Crindle, Ancient India as

described by Megasthenes and Arrian (Calcutta, Bombay, London 1877). The Commerce and Navigation

of the Erythræan Sea (1879), Ancient India as described by Ktesias (1882), Ancient India as described by

Ptolemy (London 1885) and The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great (London 1893, 1896.] from the

time of Alexander onwards to discover the source of most of the strange incidents that Philostratus

records as experiences of Apollonius. To take but one instance out of a hundred, Apol onius had to cross

the Caucasus, an indefinite name for the great system of mountain ranges that bound the northern limits

of Âryâvarta. Prometheus was chained to the Caucasus, so every child has been told for centuries.

Therefore, if Apol onius crossed the Caucasus, he must have seen those chains. And so it was,

Philostratus assures us (ii 3). Not only so, but he volunteers the additional information that you could not

tel of what they were made! A perusal of Megasthenes, however, will speedily reduce the long

Philostratian account of the Indian travels of Apollonius (i 41—ii 58) to a very narrow compass, for page

after page is simply padding, picked up from any one of the numerous Indica to which our widely read

author has access. [Another good example of this is seen in the disquisition on elephants which

Philostratus takes from Juba’s History of Libya (ii 13 and 16)] To judge from such writers, Porus [Perhaps

a title, or the king of the Purus.] (the Râjâh conquered by Alexander) was the immemorial king of India. In

fact, in speaking of India or any other little known country, a writer in these days had to drag in al that

popular legend associated with it or he stood little chance of being listened to. He had to give his

narrative a “local colour,” and this was especially the case in a technical rhetorical effort like that of

Philostratus.

Again, it was the fashion to insert set speeches and put them in the mouths of well-known characters on

historical occasions, good instances of which may be seen in Thucydides and the Acts of the Apostles.

Philostratus repeatedly does this.

But it would be too long to enter into a detailed investigation of the subject, although the writer has

prepared notes on all these points, for that would be to write a volume and not a sketch. Only a few

points are therefore set down, to warn the student to be ever on his guard to sift out Philostratus from his

sources. [Not that Philostratus makes any disguise of his embellishments; see, for instance, i 17, where

he says: “Let me, however, defer what I have to say on the subject of serpents, of the manner of hunting

which Damis gives a description.”]

But though we must be keenly alive to the importance of a thoroughly critical attitude where definite facts

of history are concerned, we should be as keenly on our guard against judging everything from the

standpoint of modern preconceptions. There is but one religious literature of antiquity that has ever been

treated with real sympathy in the West, and that is the Judæo-Christian; in that alone have men been

trained to feel at home, and al in antiquity that treats of religion in a different mode to the Jewish or

Christian way, is felt to be strange, and, if obscure or extraordinary, to be even repulsive. The sayings

and doings of the Jewish prophets, of Jesus, and of the Apostles, are related with reverence, embellished

with the greatest beauties of diction, and illumined with the best thought of the age; while the sayings and

doings of other prophets and teachers have been for the most part subjected to the most unsympathetic

criticism, in which no attempt is made to understand their standpoint. Had even-handed justice been

dealt out all round, the world today would have been richer in sympathy, in wide-mindedness, in

comprehension of nature, humanity, and God, in brief, in soul-experience.

Therefore, in reading the Life of Apollonius let us remember that we have to look at it through the eyes of

Page 23

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

a Greek, and not through those of a Jew or a Protestant. The Many in their proper sphere must be for us

as authentic a manifestation of the Divine as the One or the Al , for indeed the “Gods” exist in spite of

commandment and creed. The Saints and Martyrs and Angels have seemingly taken the place of the

Heroes and Dæmons and Gods, but the change of name and change of viewpoint among men affect but

little the unchangeable facts. To sense the facts of universal religion under the ever changing names

which men bestow upon them, and then to enter with full sympathy and comprehension into the hopes

and fears of every phase of the religious mind - to read, as it were, the past lives of our own souls is a

most difficult task. But until we can put ourselves understandingly in the places of others, we can never

see more than one side of the Infinite Life of God. A student of comparative religion must not be afraid of

terms; he must not shudder when he meets with “polytheism,” or draw back in horror when he

encounters “dualism,” or feel an increased satisfaction when he fal s in with “monotheism”; he must not

feel awe when he pronounces the name of Yahweh and contempt when he utters the name of Zeus; he

must not picture a satyr when he reads the word “dæmon,” and imagine a winged dream of beauty when

he pronounces the word “angel.” For him heresy and orthodoxy must not exist; he sees only his own soul

slowly working out its own experience, looking at life from every possible view-point, so that haply at last

he may see the whole, and having seen the whole, may become at one with God.

To Apollonius the mere fashion of a man’s faith was unessential; he was at home in all lands, among al

cults. He had a helpful word for all, an intimate knowledge of the particular way of each of them, which

enabled him to restore them to health. Such men are rare; the records of such men are precious, and

require the embellishments of no rhetorician.

Let us then, first of al , try to recover the outline of the early external life and of the travels of Apollonius

shorn of Philostratus’ embellishments, and then endeavour to consider the nature of his mission, the

manner of the philosophy which he so dearly loved and which was to him his religion, and last, if

possible, the way of his inner life.

Page 24

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION VII - Early Life

APOLLONIUS was born [Legends of the wonderful happenings at his birth were in circulation, and are of

the same nature as all such birth-legends of great people.] at Tyana, a city in the south of Cappadocia,

somewhere in the early years of the Christian era. His parents were of ancient family and considerable

fortune (i 4). At an early age he gave signs of a very powerful memory and studious disposition, and was

remarkable for his beauty. At the age of fourteen he was sent to Tarsus, a famous centre of learning of

the time, to complete his studies. But mere rhetoric and style and the life of the “schools” were little suited

to his serious disposition, and he speedily left for Ægæ, a town on the sea coast east of Tarsus. Here he

found surroundings more suitable to his needs, and plunged with ardor into the study of philosophy. He

became intimate with the priests of the temple of Æsculapius, when cures were still wrought, and

enjoyed the society and instruction of pupils and teachers of the Platonic, Stoic, Peripatetic, and

Epicurean schools of philosophy; but though he studied all these systems of thought with attention, it was

the lessons of the Pythagorean school upon which he seized with an extraordinary depth of

comprehension, [ αρρητω τινι σοφια ενελαβε ] and that, too, although his teacher, Euxenus, was but a

parrot of the doctrines and not a practiser of the discipline. But such parroting was not enough for the

eager spirit of Apollonius; his extraordinary “memory,” which infused life into the dull utterances of his

tutor, urged him on, and at the age of sixteen “he soared into the Pythagorean life, winged by some

greater one.” [Sci., than his tutor; namely, the “memory” within him, or his “dæmon.”] Nevertheless he

retained his affection for the man who had told him of the way, and rewarded him handsomely (i 7).

When Euxenus asked him how he would begin his new mode of life he replied: “As doctors purge their

patients.” Hence he refused to touch anything that had animal life in it, on the ground that it densified the

mind and rendered it impure. He considered that the only pure form of food was what the earth produced,

fruits and vegetables. He also abstained from wine, for though it was made from fruit, “it rendered turbid

the æther [This æther was presumably the mind-stuff.] in the soul” and “destroyed the composure of the

mind.” Moreover, he went barefoot, let his hair grow long, and wore nothing but linen. He now lived in the

temple, to the admiration of the priests and with the express approval of Æsculapius, [That is to say

presumably he was encouraged in his efforts by those unseen helpers of the temple by whom the cures

were wrought by means of dreams, and help was given psychically and mesmerically.] and he rapidly

became so famous for his asceticism and pious life, that a saying [“Where are you hurrying? Are you off

to see the youth?”] of the Cilicians about him became a proverb (i 8).

At the age of twenty his father died (his mother having died some years before) leaving a considerable

fortune, which Apol onius was to share with his elder brother, a wild and dissolute youth of twenty-three.

Being still a minor, Apol onius continued to reside at Ægae, where the temple of Æsculapius had now

become a busy centre of study, and echoed from one end to the other with the sound of lofty

philosophical discourses. On coming of age he returned to Tyana to endeavour to rescue his brother

from his vicious life. His brother had apparently exhausted his legal share of the property, and Apollonius

at once made over half of his own portion to him, and by his gentle admonitions restored him to

manhood. In fact he seems to have devoted his time to setting in order the affairs of the family, for he

distributed the rest of his patrimony among certain of his relatives, and kept for himself but a bare

pittance; he required but little, he said, and should never marry (i 13).

He now took the vow of silence for five years, for he was determined not to write on philosophy until he

had passed through this wholesome discipline. These five years were passed mostly in Pamphylia and

Cilicia, and though he spent much time in study, he did not immure himself in a community or monastery

Page 25

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

but kept moving about and travelling from city to city. The temptations to break his self-imposed vow were

enormous. His strange appearance drew everyone's attention, the laughter-loving populace made the

silent philosopher the butt of their unscrupulous wit, and al the protection he had against their scurrility

and misconceptions was the dignity of his mien and the glance of eyes that now could see both past and

future. Many a time he was on the verge of bursting out against some exceptional insult or lying gossip,

but ever He restrained himself with the words: “Heart, patient be, and thou, my tongue, be still.”

[Compare Odyssey, xx 18.] (i 14).

Yet even this stern repression of the common mode of speech did not prevent his good doing. Even at

this early age he had begun to correct abuses. With eyes and hands and motions of the head, he made

his meaning understood, and on one occasion, at Aspendus in Pamphylia, prevented a serious corn riot

by silencing the crowd with his commanding gestures and then writing what he had to say on his tablet (i

15).

So far, apparently, Philostratus has been dependent upon the account of Maximus of Ægæ, or perhaps

only up to the time of Apollonius’ quitting Ægæ. There is now a considerable gap in the narrative, and two

short chapters of vague generalities (i 16, 17) are al that Philostratus can produce as the record of some

fifteen or twenty [I am inclined to think, however, that Apollonius was still a youngish man when he set out

on his Indian travels, instead of being forty-six, as some suppose. But the difficulties of most of the

chronology are insurmountable.] years, until Damis’ notes begin.

After the five years of silence, we find Apollonius at Antioch, but this seems to be only an incident in a

long round of travel and work, and it is probable that Philostratus brings Antioch into prominence merely

because what little he had learnt of this period of Apollonius’ life, he picked up in this much-frequented

city. Even from Philostratus himself we learn incidentally later on (i 20; iv 38) that Apollonius had spent

some time among the Arabians, and had been instructed by them. And by Arabia we are to understand

the country south of Palestine, which was at this period a regular hot-bed of mystic communities. The

spots he visited were in out-of-the-way places, where the spirit of holiness lingered, and not the crowded

and disturbed cities, for the subject of his conversation, he said, required “men and not people.” [φησας

ουκ ανφρπν εαυτω δειν αλλ ανδρων ] He spent his time in travelling from one to another of these

temples, shrines, and communities; from which we may conclude that there was some kind of common

freemasonry as it were, among them, of the nature of initiation , which opened the door of hospitality to

him.

But whenever he went, he always held to a certain regular division of the day. At sun-rise he practised

certain religious exercises alone, the nature of which he communicated only to those who had passed

through the discipline of a “four years’ “ (? five years’) silence. He then conversed with the temple priests

or the heads of the community, according as he was staying in a Greek or non-Greek temple with public

rites, or in a community with a discipline peculiar to itself apart from the public cult. [ ιδιοτοπα ]

He thus endeavoured to bring back the public cults to the purity of their ancient traditions, and to suggest

improvements in the practices of the private brotherhoods. The most important part of his work was with

those who were fol owing the inner life, and who already looked upon Apollonius as a teacher of the

hidden way. To these his comrades (εταιρους) and pupils (ομιλητας), he devoted much attention, being

ever ready to answer their questions and give advice and instruction. Not however that he neglected the

people; it was his invariable custom to teach them, but always after midday; for those who lived the inner

Page 26

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

life, [ τους ουτω φιλοσοφουντας.] he said, should on day’s dawning enter the presence of the Gods, [That

is to say, presumably, spend the time in silent meditation.] then spend the time till midday in giving and

receiving instruction in holy things, and not till after noon devote themselves to human affairs. That is to

say, the morning was devoted by Apollonius to the divine science, and the afternoon to instruction in

ethics and practical life. After the day’s work he bathed in cold water, as did so many of the mystics of the

time in those lands, notably the Essenes and Therapeuts (i 16).

“After these things,” says Philostratus, as vaguely as the writer of a gospel narrative, Apollonius

determined to visit the Brachmanes and Sarmanes. [That is the Brâhmans and Buddhists. Sarman is the

Greet corruption of the Sanskrit Shramana and Pâli Samano, the technical term for a Buddhist ascetic or

monk. The ignorance of the copyists changed Sarmanes first into Germanes and then into Hyrcanians!]

What induced our philosopher to make so long and dangerous a journey nowhere appears from

Philostratus, who simply says that Apollonius thought it a good thing for a young man [This shows that

Apollonius was still young, and not between forty and fifty, as some have asserted. Tredwell (p 77) dates

the Indian travels as 41-54 A.D.] to travel. It is abundantly evident, however, that Apol onius never

traveled merely for the sake of travelling. What he does he does with a distinct purpose. And his guides

on this occasion, as he assures his disciples who tried to dissuade him from his endeavour and refused

to accompany him, were wisdom and his inner monitor (dæmon). “Since ye are faint-hearted,” says the

solitary pilgrim, “I bid you farewell. As for myself I must go whithersoever wisdom and my inner self may

lead me. The Gods are my advisers and I can but rely on their counsels” (i 18).

Page 27

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION VIII - The Travels of Apollonius

AND so Apollonius departs from Antioch and journeys on to Ninus, the relic of the once great Nina or

Nineveh. There he meets with Damis, who becomes his constant companion and faithful disciple. “Let us

go together,” says Damis in words reminding us somewhat of the words of Ruth. “Thou shalt fol ow God,

and I thee!” (i 19).

From this point Philostratus professes to base himself to a great extent on the narrative of Damis, and

before going further, it is necessary to try to form some estimate of the character of Damis, and discover

how far he was admitted to the real confidence of Apol onius.

Damis was an enthusiast who loved Apollonius with a passionate affection. He saw in his master almost

a divine being, possessed of marvellous powers at which he continually wondered, but which he could

never understand. Like Ânanda, the favourite disciple of the Buddha and his constant companion, Damis

advanced but slowly in comprehension of the real nature of spiritual science; he had ever to remain in the

outer courts of the temples and communities into whose shrines and inner confidence Apollonius had ful

access, while he frequently states his ignorance of his master’s plans and purposes. [See especial y i i,

15, 41; v 5, 10; vii 10, 13; viii 28.] The additional fact that he refers to his notes as the “crumbs”

[ εκφατνισματα ] from the “feasts of the Gods” (i 19), those feasts of which he could for the most part only

learn at secondhand what little Apollonius thought fit to tell him, and which he doubtless largely

misunderstood and clothed in his own imaginings, would further confirm this view, if any further

confirmation was necessary. But indeed it is very manifest everywhere that Damis was outside the circle

of initiation, and this accounts both for his wonder-loving point of view and his general superficiality.

Another fact that comes out prominently from the narrative is his timid nature.[ See especial y Vii. 13, 14,

15, 223 ]He is continually afraid for himself or for his master; and even towards the end, when Apollonius

is imprisoned by Domitian, it requires the phenomenal removal of the fetters before his eyes to assure

him that Apol onius is a willing victim.

Damis loves and wonders; seizes on unimportant detail and exaggerates it, while he can only report of

the really important things what he fancies to have taken place from a few hints of Apollonius. As his

story advances, it is true it takes on a soberer tint; but what Damis omits, Philostratus is ever ready to

supply from his own store of marvels, if chance offers.

Nevertheless, even were we with the scalpel of criticism to cut away every morsel of flesh from this body

of tradition and legend, there would stil remain a skeleton of fact that would stil represent Apol onius and

give us some idea of his stature.

Apollonius was one of the greatest travellers known to antiquity. Among the countries and places he

visited the following are the chief ones recorded by Philostratus. [The list is full of gaps, so that we cannot

suppose that Damis’ notes were anything like the complete records of the numerous itineraries; not only

so, but one is tempted to believe that whole journeys, in which Damis had no share, are omitted.]

From Ninus (i 19) Apollonius journeys to Babylon (i 21), where he stops one year and eight months (i 40)

and visits surrounding cities such as Ecbatana, the capital of Media (i 39); from Babylon to the Indian

Page 28

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

frontier no names are mentioned; India was entered in every probability by the Khaibar Pass (ii 6) [Here

at any rate they came in sight of the giant mountains, the Imaus (Himavat) or Himâlayan Range, where

was the great mountain Meros (Meru), The name of the Hindu Olympus being changed into Meros in

Greek had, ever since Alexander’s expedition, given rise to the myth that Bacchus was born from the

thigh ( meros) of Zeus - presumably one of the facts which led Professor Max Mül er to stigmatise the

whole of mythology as a “disease of language.”] for the first city mentioned is Taxila (Attock) (ii 20); and

so they make their way across the tributaries of the Indus (ii 43) to the val ey of the Ganges (iii 5), and

finally arrive at the “monastery of the wise men” (iii 10), where Apollonius spends four months (ii 50).

This monastery was presumably in Nepâl; it is in the mountains, and the “city” nearest it is cal ed Paraca.

The chaos that Philostratus has made of Damis’ account, and before him the wonderful transformations

Damis himself wrought in Indian names, are presumably shown in this word. Paraca is perchance all that

Damis could make of Bharata, the general name of the Ganges valley in which the dominant Âryas were

settled. It is also probable that these wise men were Buddhists, for they dwelt in a τυρσις, a place that

looked like a fort or fortress to Damis.

I have little doubt that Philostratus could make nothing out of the geography of India from the names in

Damis’ diary; they were all unfamiliar to him, so that as soon as he has exhausted the few Greek names

known to him from the accounts of the expedition of Alexander, he wanders in the “ends of the earth,”

and can make nothing of it til he picks up our travellers again on their return journey at the mouth of the

Indus. The salient fact that Apol onius was making for a certain community, which was his peculiar goal,

so impressed the imagination of Philostratus (and perhaps of Damis before him) that he has described it

as being the only centre of the kind in India. Apol onius went to India with a purpose and returned from it

with distinct mission; [Referring to his instructors he says, “I ever remember my masters and journey

through the world teaching what I have learned from them” (vi 18).] and perchance his constant inquiries

concerning the particular “wise men” whom he was seeking, led Damis to imagine that they alone were

the “Gymnosophists,” the “naked philosophers” (if we are to take the term in its literal sense) of popular

Greek legend, which ignorantly ascribed to al the Hindu ascetics the most striking peculiarity of a very

small number. But to return to our itinerary.

Philostratus embel ishes the account of the voyage from the Indus to the mouth of the Euphrates (ii

52-58) with the travellers’ tales and names of islands and cities he has gleaned from the Indica which

were accessible to him, and so we again return to Babylon and familiar geography with the following

itinerary:

Babylon, Ninus, Antioch, Seleucia, Cyprus; thence to Ionia (ii 58), where he spends some time in Asia

Minor, especially at Ephesus (iv 1), Smyrna (iv 5), Pergamus (iv 9), and Troy (iv II). Thence Apollonius

crosses over to Lesbos (iv 13), and subsequently sails for Athens, where he spends some years in

Greece (iv 17-33) visiting the temples of Hel as, reforming their rites and instructing the priests (iv 24).

We next find him in Crete (iv 34), and subsequently at Rome in the time of Nero (iv 36-46).

In A.D. 66 Nero issued a decree forbidding any philosopher to remain in Rome, and Apol onius set out for

Spain, and landed at Gades, the modern Cadiz; he seems to have stayed in Spain only a short time (iv

47); thence crossed to Africa, and so by sea once more to Sicily, where the principal cities and temples

were visited (v 11-14). Thence Apol onius returned to Greece (v 18), four years having elapsed since his

landing at Athens from Lesbos (v 19). [According to some, Apollonius would be now about sixty-eight

Page 29

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

years of age. But if he were still young (say thirty years old or so) when he left for India, he must either

have spent a very long period in that country, or we have a very imperfect record of his doings in Asia

Minor, Greece, Italy, and Spain, after his return.]

From Piræus our philosopher sails for Chios (v 21), thence to Rhodes, and so to Alexandria (v 24). At

Alexandria he spends some time, and has several interviews with the future Emperor Vespasian (v

27-41), and thence he sets out on a long journey up the Nile so far as Ethopia beyond the cataracts,

where he visits an interesting community of ascetics called loosely Gymnosophists (vi 1-27).

On his return to Alexandria (vi 28), he was summoned by Titus, who had just become emperor, to meet

him at Tarsus (vi 29-34). After this interview he appears to have returned to Egypt, for Philostratus

speaks vaguely of his spending some time in Lower Egypt, and of visits to the Phœnicians, Cilicians,

Ionians, Achæans, and also to Italy (vi 35).

Now Vespasian was emperor from 69 to 79, and Titus from 79 to 81. As Apollonius’ interviews with

Vespasian took place shortly before the beginning of that emperor’s reign, it is reasonable to conclude

that a number of years was spent by our philosopher in his Ethiopian journey, and that therefore Damis’

account is a most imperfect one. In 81 Domitian became emperor, and just as Apollonius opposed the

fol ies of Nero, so did he criticise the acts of Domitian. He accordingly became an object of suspicion to

the emperor; but instead of keeping away from Rome, he determined to brave the tyrant to his face.

Crossing from Egypt to Greece and taking ship at Corinth, he sailed by way of Sicily to Puteoli, and

thence to the Tiber mouth, and so to Rome (vii 10-16). Here Apol onius was tried and acquitted (vi 17—

viii 10). Sailing from Puteoli again Apollonius returned to Greece (viii 15), where he spent two years (vi i

24). Thence once more he crossed over to Ionia at the time of the death of Domitian (vi i 25), visiting

Smyrna and Ephesus and other of his favourite haunts. Hereupon he sends away Damis on some

pretext to Rome (vi i 28) and - disappears; that is to say, if it be allowed to speculate, he undertook yet

another journey to the place which he loved above all others, the “home of the wise men.”

Now Domitian was killed 96 A.D., and one of the last recorded acts of Apollonius is his vision of this event

at the time of its occurrence. Therefore the trial of Apollonius at Rome took place somewhere about 93,

and we have a gap of twelve years from his interview with Titus in 81, which Philostratus can only fil up

with a few vague stories and generalities.

As to his age at the time of his mysterious disappearance from the pages of history, Philostratus tells us

that Damis says nothing; but some, he adds, say he was eighty, some ninety, and some even a hundred.

The estimate of eighty years seems to fit in best with the rest of the chronological indications, but there is

no certainty in the matter with the present materials at our disposal.

Such then is the geographical outline, so to say, of the life of Apol onius, and even the most careless

reader of the bare skeleton of the journeys recorded by Philostratus must be struck by the indomitable

energy of the man, and his power of endurance.

Page 30

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

We will now turn our attention to one or two points of interest connected with the temples and

communities he visited.

Page 31

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION IX - In the Shrines of the Temples and the Retreats of Religion

SEEING that the nature of Apol onius’ business with the priests of the temples and the devotees of the

mystic life was necessarily of a most intimate and secret nature, for in those days it was the invariable

custom to draw a sharp line of demarcation between the inner and outer, the initiated and the profane, it

is not to be expected that we can learn anything but mere externalities from the Damis-Philostratus

narrative; nevertheless, even these outer indications are of interest.

The temple of Æsculapius at Ægæ, where Apollonius spent the most impressionable years of his life,

was one of innumerable hospitals of Greece, where the healing art was practised on lines totally different

to our present methods. We are at once introduced to an atmosphere laden with psychic influences, to a

centre whither for centuries patients had flocked to “consult the God.” In order to do so, it was necessary

for them to go through certain preliminary purifications and follow certain rules given by the priests; they

then passed the night in the shrine and in their sleep instructions were given them for their healing. This

method, no doubt, was only resorted to when the skill of the priest was exhausted; in any case, the

priests must have been deeply versed in the interpretation of these dreams and in their rationale. It is

also evident that as Apol onius loved to pass his time in the temple, he must have found there satisfaction

for his spiritual needs, and instruction in the inner science; though doubtless his own innate powers soon

carried him beyond his instructors and marked him out as the “favourite of the God.” The many cases on

record in our own day of patients in trance or some other psychic condition prescribing for themselves,

will help the student to understand the innumerable possibilities of healing which were in Greece

summed up in the personification Æsculapius.

Later on the chief of the Indian sages has a disquisition on Æsculapius and the healing art put into his

mouth (ii 44), where the whole of medicine is said to be dependent upon psychic diagnosis and

prescience ( μαντεια ).

Finally it may be noticed that it was the invariable custom of patients on their recovery to record the fact

on an ex-voto tablet in the temple, precisely as is done today in Roman Catholic countries. [For the most

recent study in English on the subject of Æsculapius see The Cult of Asclepios, by Alice Walton, Ph.D., in

No III of the Cornell Studies in Classical Philology (Ithaca N.Y; 1894]

On his way to India Apollonius saw a good deal of the Magi at Babylon. He used to visit them at midday

and midnight, but of what transpired Damis knew nothing, for Apol onius would not permit him to

accompany him, and in answer to his direct questions would only answer: “They are wise, but not in al

things” (i 26).

The description of a certain hall, however, to which Apollonius had access, seems to be a garbled version

of the interior of the temple. The roof was dome-shaped, and the ceiling was covered with “saphire”; in

this blue heaven were models of the heavenly bodies (“those whom they regard as Gods”) fashioned in

gold, as though moving in the ether. Moreover from the roof were suspended four golden “Iygges” which

the Magi call the “Tongues of the Gods.” These were winged-wheels or spheres connected with the idea

of Adrasteia (or Fate). Their prototypes are described imperfectly in the Vision of Ezekiel, and the so-

called Hecatine strophali or spherulæ used in magical practices. may have been degenerate

descendants of these “living wheels” or spheres of the vital elements. The subject is one of intense

Page 32

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

interest, but hopelessly incapable of treatment in our present age of scepticism and profound ignorance

of the past. The “Gods” who taught our infant humanity higher than that at present evolving on our earth.

They gave the impulse, and, when the earth-children were old enough to stand on their own feet, they

withdrew. But the memory of their deeds and a corrupt and degenerate form of the mysteries they

established has ever lingered in the memory of myth and legend. Seers have caught obscure glimpses of

what they taught and how they taught it, and the tradition of the Mysteries preserved some memory of it

in its symbols and instruments or engines. The Iygges of the Magi are said to be a relic of this memory.

With regard to the Indian sages it is impossible to make out any consistent story from the fantastic jumble

of the Damis-Philostratus romance. Damis seems to have confused together a mixture of memories and

scraps of gossip without any attempt to distinguish one community or sect from another, and so produced

a blurred daub which Philostratus would have us regard as a picture of the “hill” and a description of its

“sages.” Damis’ confused memories, [He evidently wrote the notes of the Indian travels long after the

time at which they were made.] however, have little to do with the actual monastery of its ascetic

inhabitants, who were the goal of Apollonius’ long journey. What Apollonius heard and saw there,

fol owing his invariable custom in such circumstances, he told no one, not even Damis, except what

could be derived from the fol owing enigmatical sentence: “I saw men dwelling on the earth and yet not

on it, defended on al sides, yet without any defence, and yet possessed of nothing but what all possess.”

These words occur in two passages (iii 15 and vi II), and in both Philostratus adds that Apollonius wrote

[This shows that Philostratus came across them in some work or letter of Apollonius, and is therefore

independent of Damis account for this particular.] and spoke them enigmatical y. The meaning of this

saying is not difficult to divine. They were on the earth, but not of the earth, for their minds were set on

things above. They were protected by their innate spiritual power, of which we have so many instances in

Indian literature; and yet they possessed nothing but what al men possess if they would but develop the

spiritual part of their being. But this explanation is not simple enough for Philostratus, and so he presses

into service al the memories of Damis, or rather travellers’ tales, about levitation, magical il usions and

the rest.

The head of the community is called Iarchas, a total y un-Indian name. The violence done to all foreign

names by the Greeks is notorious, and here we have to reckon with an army of ignorant copyists as well

as with Philostratus and Damis. I would suggest that the name may perhaps be a corruption of Arhat. [ I -

Âryas, arχa(t)s, arhat.]

The main burden of Damis’ narrative insists on the psychic and spiritual knowledge of the sages. They

know what takes place at a distance, they can tell the past and future, and read the past births of men.

The messenger sent to meet Apollonius carried what Damis cal s a golden anchor (iii II 17), and if this is

an authentic fact, it would suggest a forerunner of the Tibetan dorje, the present degenerate symbol of

the “rod of power,” something like the thunder-bolt wielded by Zeus. This would also point to a Buddhist

community, though it must be confessed that other indications point equal y strongly to Brâhmanical

customs, such as the caste-mark on the forehead of the messenger (iii 7, II), the carrying of (bamboo)

staves (danda), letting the hair grow long, and wearing of turbans (ii 13). But indeed the whole account is

too confused to permit any hope of extracting historical details.

Of the nature of Apol onius’ visit we may, however, judge from the following mysterious letter to his hosts

(iii 51):

Page 33

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

“I came to you by land and ye have given me the sea; nay, rather, by sharing with me your

wisdom ye have given me power to travel through heaven. These things will I bring back to the

mind of the Greeks, and I will hold converse with you as though ye were present, if it be that I

have not drunk of the cup of Tantalus in vain.”

It is evident from these cryptic sentences that the “sea” and the “cup of Tantalus” are identical with the

“wisdom” which had been imparted to Apollonius - the wisdom which he was to bring back once more to

the memory of the Greeks. He thus clearly states that he returned from India with a distinct mission and

with the means to accomplish it, for not only had he drunk of the ocean of wisdom in that he has learnt

the Brahma-vidyâ from their lips, but he has also learnt how to converse with them though his body be in

Greece and their bodies in India.

But such a plain meaning - plain at least to every student of occult nature - was beyond the

understanding of Damis or the comprehension of Philostratus. And it is doubtless the mention of the “cup

of Tantalus” [Tantalus is fabled to have stolen the cup of nectar from the gods; this was the amrita, the

ocean of immortality and wisdom, of the Indians.] in this letter which suggested the inexhaustible loving

cup episode in i i 32, and its connection with the mythical fountains of Bacchus. Damis presses it into

service to “explain” the last phrase in Apollonius’ saying about the sages, namely, that they were

“possessed of nothing but what all possess" - which, however, appears elsewhere in a changed form, as

“possessing nothing, they have the possessions of al men” (ii 15). [The words ουδεν κεκτημενος ν τα

παντων , which Philostratus quotes twice in this form, can certainly not be changed into μηδεν

κεκτημενος τα παντων εχειν without doing unwarrantable violence to their meaning.]

On returning to Greece, one of the first shrines Apollonius visited was that of Aphrodite at Paphos in

Cyprus (iii 58). The greatest external peculiarity of the Paphian worship of Venus was the representation

of the goddess by a mysterious stone symbol. It seems to have been of the size of a human being, but

shaped like a pine-cone, only of course with a smooth surface. Paphos was apparently the oldest shrine

dedicated to Venus in Greece. Its mysteries were very ancient, but not indigenous; they were brought

over from the mainland, from what was subsequently Cilicia, in times of remote antiquity. The worship or

consultation of the Goddess was by means of prayers and the “pure flame of fire,” and the temple was a

great centre of divination. [See Tacitus, Historia, ii 3.]

Apollonius spent some time here and instructed the priests at length with regard to their sacred rites.

In Asia Minor he was especial y pleased with the temple of Æsculapius at Pergamus; he healed many of

the patients there, and gave instruction in the proper method to adopt in order to procure reliable results

by means of the prescriptive dreams.

At Troy, we are told, Apollonius spent a night alone at the tomb of Achilles, in former days one of the

spots of greatest popular sanctity in Greece (iv II). Why he did so does not transpire, for the fantastic

conversation with the shade of the hero reported by Philostratus (iv 16) seems to be devoid of any

element of likelihood. As, however, Apol onius made it his business to visit Thessaly shortly afterwards

expressly to urge the Thessalians to renew the old accustomed rites to the hero (iv 13), we may suppose

that it formed part of his great effort to restore and purify the old institution of Hel as, so that, the

accustomed channels being freed, the life might flow more healthily in the national body.

Page 34

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

Rumour would also have it that Achilles had told Apollonius where he would find the statue of the hero

Palamedes on the coast of Æolia. Apollonius accordingly restored the statue, and Philostratus tel s us he

had seen it with his own eyes on the spot (iv 13).

Now this would be a matter of very little interest, were it not that a great deal is made of Palamedes

elsewhere in Philostratus’ narrative. What it all means is difficult to say with a Damis and Philostratus as

interpreters between ourselves and the silent and enigmatical Apollonius.

Palamedes was one of the heroes before Troy, who was fabled to have invented letters, or to have

completed the alphabet of Cadmus. [Berwick, Life of Apollonius, p 200 n. ]

Now from two obscure sayings (iv 13, 33), we glean that our philosopher looked upon Palamedes as the

philosopher-hero of the Trojan period, although Homer says hardly a word about him.

Was this, then, the reasons why Apollonius was so anxious to restore his statue? Not altogether so; there

appears to have been a more direct reason. Damis would have it that Apol onius had met Palamedes in

India; that he was at the monastery; that Iarchas had one day pointed out a young ascetic who could

“write without ever learning letters”; and that this youth had been no other than Palamedes in one of his

former births. Doubtless the sceptic will say: “Of course! Pythagoras was a reincarnation of the hero

Euphorbus who fought at Troy, according to popular superstition; therefore, naturally, the young Indian

was the reincarnation of the hero Palamedes! The one legend simply begat the other.” But on this

principle, to be consistent, we should expect to find that it was Apol onius himself and not an unknown

Hindu ascetic, who had been once Palamedes.

In any case Apollonius restored the rites to Achilles, and erected a chapel in which he set up the

neglected statue of Palamedes. [He also built a precinct round the tomb of Leonidas at Thermopylæ (iv

23). The heroes of the Trojan period, then, it would seem, had still some connection with Greece,

according to the science of the invisible world into which Apol onius was initiated. And if the Protestant

sceptic can make nothing of it, at least the Roman Catholic reader may be induced to suspend his

judgment by changing “hero” into “saint.”

Can it be possible that the attention which Apollonius bestowed upon the graves and funeral monuments

of the mighty dead of Greece may have been inspired by the circle of ideas which led to the erection of

the innumerable dâgobas and stûpas in Buddhist lands, originally over the relics of the Buddha, and the

subsequent preservation of relics of arhats and great teachers?

At Lesbos Apollonius visited the ancient temple of the Orphic mysteries, which in early years had been a

great centre of prophecy and divination. Here also he was privileged to enter the inner shrine or adytum

(iv 14).

The Tyanean arrived in Athens at the time of the Eleusinian Mysteries, and in spite of the festival and

rites not only the people but also the candidates flocked to meet him to the neglect of their religious

duties. Apollonius rebuked them, and himself joined in the necessary preliminary rites and presented

Page 35

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

himself for initiation.

It may, perhaps, surprise the reader to hear that Apollonius, who had already been initiated into higher

privileges than Eleusis could afford, should present himself for initiation. But the reason is not far to seek;

the Eleusinia constituted one of the intermediate organisations between the popular cults and the

genuine inner circles of instruction. They preserved one of the traditions of the inner way, even if their

officers for the time being had forgotten what their predecessors had once known. To restore these

ancient rites to their purity, or to utilise them for their original object, it was necessary to enter within the

precincts of the institution; nothing could be effected from outside. The thing itself was good, and

Apollonius desired to support the ancient institution by setting the public example of seeking initiation

therein; not that he had anything to gain personal y.

But whether it was that the hierophant of that time was only ignorant, or whether he was jealous of the

great influence of Apollonius, he refused to admit our philosopher, on the ground that he was a sorcerer

(γσης), and that no one could be initiated who was tainted by intercourse with evil entities (δαιμσνια). To

this charge Apol onius replied with veiled irony: “You have omitted the most serious charge that might

have been urged against me: to wit, that though I really know more about the mystic rite than its

hierophant, I have come here pretending to desire initiation from men knowing more than myself.” This

charge would have been true; he had made a pretence.

Dismayed at these words, frightened at the indignation of the people aroused by the insult offered to their

distinguished guest, and overawed by the presence of a knowledge which he could no longer deny, the

hierophant begged our philosopher to accept the initiation. But Apollonius refused. “I will be initiated later

on, “ he replied; “he will initiate me.” This is said to have referred to the succeeding hierophant, who

presided when Apollonius was initiated four years later (iv 18; v 19).

While at Athens Apol onius spoke strongly against the effeminacy of the Bacchanalia and the barbarities

of the gladiatorial combats (iv 21, 22).

The temples, mentioned by Philostratus, which Apollonius visited in Greece, have al the peculiarity of

being very ancient; for instance, Dodona, Dephi, the ancient shrine of Apol o at Abæ in Phocis, the

“caves” of Amphiaraus [A great centre of divination by means of dreams (see ii 37).] and Trophonius, and

the temple of the Muses on Helicon.

When he entered the adyta of these temples for the purpose of “restoring” the rites, he was accompanied

only by the priests, and certain of his immediate disciples (γνωριμοι). This suggests an extension to the

meaning of the word “restoring” or “reforming,” and when we read elsewhere of the many spots

consecrated by Apol onius, we cannot but think that part of his work was the reconsecration, and hence

psychic purification, of many of these ancient centres. His main external work, however, was the giving of

instruction, and, as Philostratus rhetorically phrases it, “bowls of his words were set up everywhere for

the thirsty to drink from” (iv 24).

But not only did our philosopher restore the ancient rites of religion, he also paid much attention to the

ancient polities and instructions. Thus we find him urging with success the Spartans to return to their

Page 36

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

ancient mode of life, their athletic exercises, frugal living, and the discipline of the old Dorian tradition (iv

27, 31-34); he, moreover, special y praised the institution of the Olympic Games, the high standard of

which was still maintained (iv 29), while he recal ed the ancient Amphictionic Council to its duty (iv 23),

and corrected the abuses of the Panionian assembly (iv 5).

In the spring of 66 A.D. he left Greece for Crete, where he seems to have bestowed most of his time on

the sanctuaries of Mount Ida and the temple of Æsculapius at Lebene (“for as all Asia visits Pergamus so

does al Crete visit Lebene”); but curiously enough he refused to visit the famous Labyrinth at Gnossus,

the ruins of which have just been uncovered for a sceptical generation, most probably (if it is lawful to

speculate) because it has once been a centre of human sacrifice, and thus pertained to one of the

ancient cults of the left hand.

In Rome Apollonius continued his work of reforming the temples, and this with the ful sanction of the

Pontifex Maximus Telesinus, one of the consuls for the year 66 A.D., who was also a philosopher and a

deep student of religion (iv 40). But his stay in the imperial city was speedily cut short, for in October

Nero crowned his persecution of the philosophers by publishing a decree of banishment against them

from Rome, and both Telesinus (vi II) and Apollonius had to leave Italy.

We next find him in Spain, making his headquarters in the temple of Hercules at Cadiz.

On his return to Greece by way of Africa and Sicily (where he spent some time and visited Ætna), he

passed the winter (? of 67 A.D.) at Eleusis, living in the temple, and in the spring of the following year

sailed for Alexandria, spending some time on the way at Rhodes. The city of philosophy and eclecticism

par excellence received him with open arms as an old friend. But to reform the public cults of Egypt was

a far more difficult task than any he had previously attempted. His presence in the temple (? the temple

of Serapis) commanded universal respect, everything about him and every world he uttered seemed to

breathe an atmosphere of wisdom and of “something divine.” The high priest of the temple looked on in

proud disdain. “Who is wise enough,” he mockingly asked, “to reform the religion of the Egyptians?—only

to be met with the confident retort of Apollonius: “Any sage who comes from the Indians.” Here as

elsewhere Apol onius set his face against blood-sacrifice, and tried to substitute instead, as he had

attempted elsewhere, the offering of frankincense model ed in the form of the victim (v 25). Many abuses

he tried to reform in the manners of the Alexandrians, but upon none was he more severe than on their

wild excitement over horse-racing, which frequently led to bloodshed (v 26).

Apollonius seems to have spent most of the remaining twenty years of his life in Egypt, but of what he did

in the secret shrines of that land of mystery we can learn nothing from Philostratus, except that on the

protracted journey to Ethiopia up the Nile no city or temple or community was unvisited, and everywhere

there was an interchange of advice and instruction in sacred things (v 43).

Page 37

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION X - The Gymnosophists of Upper Egypt

WE now come to Apol onius’ visit to the “Gymnosophists” in “Ethopia,” which, though the artistic and

literary goal of Apollonius’ journey in Egypt as elaborated by Philostratus, is only a single incident in the

real history of the unrecorded life of our mysterious philosopher in that ancient land.

Had Philostratus devoted a chapter or two to the nature of the practices, discipline, and doctrines of the

innumerable ascetic and mystic communities that honeycombed Egypt and adjacent lands in those days,

he would have earned the boundless gratitude of students of the origins. But of al this he has no word;

and yet he would have us believe that Damis’ reminiscences were an orderly series of notes of what

actually happened. But in all things it is very apparent that Damis was rather a compagnon de voyage

than an initiated pupil.

Who then were these mysterious “Gymnosophists,” as they are usual y called, and whence their name?

Damis cal s them simply the “Naked” (γυμχοι), and it is very clear that the term is not to be understood as

merely physically naked; indeed, neither to the Indians nor to these ascetics of uppermost Egypt can the

term be applied with appropriateness in its purely physical meaning, as is apparent from the descriptions

of Damis and Philostratus. A chance sentence that falls from the lips of one of these ascetics, in giving

the story of his life, affords us a clue to the real meaning of the term. “At the age of fourteen,” he tells

Apollonius, “I resigned my patrimony to those who desired such things, and naked I sought the Naked”

(vi 16). [The word γυμνος (naked), however, usually means lightly clad, as, for instance, when a man is

said to plough “naked,” that is with only one garment, and this is evident from the comparison made

between the costume of the Gymnosophists and that of people in the hot weather at Athens (vi 6).

This is the very same diction that Philo uses about the Therapeut communities, which he declares were

very numerous in every province of Egypt and scattered in all lands. We are not, however, to suppose

that these communities were all of the same nature. It is true that Philo tries to make out that the most

pious and the chief of al of them was his particular community on the southern shore of Lake Mœris,

which was strongly Semitic if not orthodoxly Jewish; and for Philo any community with a Jewish

atmosphere must natural y have been the best. The peculiarity and main interest of our community, which

was at the other end of the land above the cataracts, was that it had had some remote connection with

India.

The community is called a φροντιστηριον , in the sense of a place for meditation, a term used by

ecclesiastical writers for a monastery, but best known to classical students from the humorous use made

of it by Aristophanes, who in The Clouds cal s the school of Socrates, a phrontistêrion or “thinking shop.”

The collection of monasteria (ιερα), presumably caves, shrines, or cells, [For they had neither huts nor

houses, but lived in the open air.] was situated on a hill or rising ground not far from the Nile. They were

all separated from one another, dotted about the hil , and ingeniously arranged. There was hardly a tree

in the place, with the exception of a single group of palms, under whose shade they held their general

meetings (vi 6).

It is difficult to gather from the set speeches, put into the mouths of the head of the community and

Apollonius (vi 10-13, 18-22), any precise details as to the mode of life of these ascetics, beyond the

general indications of an existence of great toil and physical hardship, which they considered the only

Page 38

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

means of gaining wisdom. What the nature of their cult was, if they had one, we are not told, except that

at midday the Naked retired to their monasteria (vi 14).

The whole tendency of Apollonius’ arguments, however, is to remind the community of its Eastern origin

and its former connection with India, which it seems to have forgotten. The communities of this particular

kind in southern Egypt and northern Ethiopia dated back presumably some centuries, and some of them

may have been remotely Buddhist, for one of the younger members of our community who left it to follow

Apollonius, says that he came to join it from the enthusiastic account of the wisdom of the Indians

brought back by his father, who has been certain of a vessel trading to the East. It was his father who told

him that these “Ethiopians” were from India, and so he had joined them instead of making the long and

perilous journey to the Indus itself (vi 16).

If there be any truth in this story it fol ows that the founders of this way of life had been Indian ascetics,

and if so they must have belonged to the only propagandising form of Indian religion, namely, the

Buddhist.

After the impulse had been given, the communities, which were presumably recruited from generations of

Egyptians, Arabs, and Ethiopians, were probably left entirely to themselves, and so in course of time

forgot their origin, and even perhaps their original rule. Such speculations are permissible, owing to the

repeated assertion of the original connection between these Gymnosophists and India. The whole

burden of the story is that they were Indians who had forgotten their origin and fallen away from the

wisdom.

The last incident that Philostratus records with regard to Apollonius among the shrines and temples is a

visit to the famous and very ancient oracle of Trophonius, near Lebadea, in Bœotia. Apol onius is said to

have spent seven days alone in this mysterious “cave,” and to have returned with a book full of questions

and answers on the subject of “philosophy” (vii 19). This book was still, in the time of Philostratus, in the

palace of Hadrian at Antium, together with a number of letters of Apollonius, and many people used to

visit Antium for the special purpose of seeing it (vii 19, 29).

In the hay-bundle of legendary rigmarole solemnly set down by Philostratus concerning the cave of

Trophonius, a small needle of truth may perhaps be discovered. The “cave” seems to have been a very

ancient temple or shrine, cut in the heart of a hill, to which a number of underground passages of

considerable length led. It had probably been in ancient times one of the most holy centres of the archaic

cult of Hellas, perhaps even a relic of that Greece of thousands of years B.C., the only tradition of which,

as Plato tell us, was obtained by Solon from the priests of Saïs. Or it may have been a subterranean

shrine of the same nature as the famous Dictæan cave in Crete which only last year (1901 or so) was

brought back to light by the indefatigable labours of Messrs, Evans and Hogarth.

As in the case of the travels of Apollonious, so with regard to the temples and communities which he

visited, Philostratus is a most disappointing cicerone. But perhaps he is not to be blamed on this account,

for the most important and most interesting part of Apollonius’ work was of so intimate a nature,

prosecuted as it was among associations of such jealously-guarded secrecy, that no one outside their

ranks could know anything of it, and those who shared in their initiation would say nothing.

Page 39

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

It is, therefore, only when Apollonius comes forward to do some public act that we can get any precise

historical trace of him; in every other case he passes into the sanctuary of a temple or enters the privacy

of a community and is lost to view.

It may perhaps surprise us that Apollonius after sacrificing his private fortune, could nevertheless

undertake such long and expensive travels, but it would seem that he was occasionally supplied with the

necessary monies from the treasuries of the temples ( cf viii 17), and that everywhere he was freely

offered the hospitality of the temple or community in the place where he happened to be staying.

In conclusion of the present part of our subject, we may mention the good service done by Apollonius in

driving away certain Chaldæan and Egyptian charlatans who were making capital out of the fears of the

cities on the left shores of the Hel espont. These cities had suffered severely from shocks of earthquake,

and in their panic placed large sums of money in the hands of these adventurers (who “trafficked in the

misfortune of others”), in order that they perform propitiatory rites (vi 41). This taking money for the giving

instruction in the sacred science or for the performance of sacred rites was the most detestable of crimes

to al the true philosophers.

Page 40

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION XI - Apollonius and the Rulers of the Empire

BUT not only did Apol onius vivify and reconsecrate the old centres of religion for some inscrutable

reason, and do what he could to help on the religious life of the time in its multiplex phases, but he took a

decided, though indirect, part in influencing the destinies of the Empire through the persons of its

supreme rulers.

This influence, however, was invariably of a moral and not of a political nature. It was brought to bear by

means of philosophical converse and instruction, by world of mouth or letter. Just as Apollonius on his

travels conversed on philosophy, and discoursed on the life of a wise man and the duties of a wise ruler,

with kings, [He spent, we are told, no less than a year and eight months with Vardan, King of Babylon,

and was the honoured guest of the Indian Râjâh “Phraotes.”] rulers, and magistrates, so he endeavoured

to advise for their good those of the emperors who would listen to him.

Vespasian, Titus, and Nerva were al , prior to their elevation to the purple, friends and admirers of

Apollonius, while Nero and Domitian regarded the philosopher with dismay.

During Apollonius’ short stay in Rome, in 66 A.D., although he never let the slightest word escape him

that could be construed by the numerous informers into a treasonable utterance, he was nevertheless

brought before Tigellinus, the infamous favourite of Nero, and subjected to a severe cross-examination.

Apparently up to this time Apollonius working for the future, had confined his attention entirely to the

reformation of religion and the restoration of the ancient institutions of the nations, but the tyrannical

conduct of Nero, which gave peace not even to the most blameless philosophers, at length opened his

eyes to a more immediate evil, which seemed no less than the abrogation of the liberty of conscience by

an irresponsible tyranny. From this time onwards, therefore, we find him keenly interested in the persons

of the successive emperors.

Indeed Damis, although he confesses his entire ignorance of the purpose of Apollonius’ journey to Spain

after his expulsion from Rome, would have it that it was to aid the forthcoming revolt against Nero. He

conjectures this from a three days’ secret interview that Apol onius had with the Governor of the Province

of Bætica, who came to Cadiz especial y to see him, and declares that the last words of Apol onius’ visitor

were: “Farewell, and remember Vindex” (v 10).

It is true that almost immediately afterwards the revolt of Vindex, the Governor of Gaul, broke out, but the

whole life and character of Apollonius is opposed to any idea of political intrigue; on the contrary, he

bravely withstood tyranny and injustice to the face. He was opposed to the idea of Euphrates, a

philosopher of quite a different stamp, who would have put an end to the monarchy and restored the

republic (v 33); he believed that government by a monarch was the best for the Empire, but he desired

above al other things to see the “flock of mankind” led by a “wise and faithful shepherd” (v 35).

So that though Apollonius supported Vespasian as long as he worthily tried to follow out this ideal, he

immediately rebuked him to his face when he deprived the Greek cities of their privileges. “You have

enslaved Greece,” he wrote. “You have reduced a free people to slavery” (v 41). Nevertheless, in spite of

this rebuke, Vespasian in his last letter to his son Titus, confesses that they are what they are solely

Page 41

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

owing to the good advice of Apol onius (v 30).

Equal y so he journeyed to Rome to meet Domitian face to face, and though he was put on trial and

every effort made to prove him guilty of treasonable plotting with Nerva, he could not be convicted of

anything of a political nature. Nerva was a good man, he told the emperor, and no traitor. Not that

Domitian had real y any suspicion that Apollonius was personally plotting against him; he cast him into

prison solely in the hope that he might induce the philosopher to disclose the confidences of Nerva and

other prominent men who were objects of suspicion to him, and who he imagined had consulted

Apollonius on their chances of success. Apollonius’ business was not with politics, but with the “princes

who asked him for his advice on the subject of virtue” (vi 43).

Page 42

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION XII - Apollonius The Prophet and Wonder-Worker

WE will now turn our attention for a brief space to that side of Apollonius’ life which has made him the

subject of invincible prejudice. Apollonius was not only a philosopher, in the sense of being a theoretical

speculator or of being the fol ower of an ordered mode of life schooled in the discipline of resignation; he

was also a philosopher in the original Pythagorean meaning of the term - a knower of Nature’s secrets,

who thus could speak as one having authority.

He knew the hidden things of Nature by sight and not by hearing; for him the path of philosophy was a

life whereby the man himself became an instrument of knowing. Religion, for Apol onius, was not a faith

only, it was a science. For him the shows of things were but ever-changing appearances; cults and rites,

religions and faiths, were all one to him, provided the right spirit were behind them. The Tyanean knew no

differences of race or creed; such narrow limitations were not for the philosopher.

Beyond all others would he have laughed to hear the word “miracle” applied to his doings. “Miracle,” in its

Christian theological sense, was an unknown term in antiquity, and is a vestige of superstition today. For

though many believe that it is possible by means of the soul to effect a multitude of things beyond the

possibilities of a science which is confined entirely to the investigation of physical forces, none but the

unthinking believe that there can be any interference in the working of the laws which Deity has

impressed upon Nature - the credo of Miraculists.

Most of the recorded wonder-doings of Apollonius are cases of prophecy or foreseeing; of seeing at a

distance and seeing the past; of seeing or hearing in vision; of healing the sick or curing cases of

obsession or possession.

Already as a youth, in the temple of Ægæ, Apollonius gave signs of the possession of the rudiments of

this psychic insight; not only did he sense correctly the nature of the dark past of a rich but unworthy

suppliant who desired the restoration of his eyesight, but he foretold, though unclearly, the evil end of one

who made an attempt upon his innocence (i 12).

On meeting with Damis, his future faithful henchman volunteered his services for the long journey to

India on the ground that he knew the languages of several of the countries through which they had to

pass. “But I understand them al , though I have learned none of them,” answered Apollonius, in his usual

enigmatical fashion, and added: “Marvel not that I know al the tongues of men, for I know even what they

never say” (i 19). And by this he meant simply that he could read men's thoughts, not that he could speak

all languages. But Damis and Philostratus cannot understand so simple a fact of psychic experience;

they will have it that he knew not only the language of al men, but also of birds and beasts (i 20).

In his conversation with the Babylonian monarch Vardan, Apol onius distinctly claims foreknowledge. He

says that he is a physician of the soul and can free the king from the diseases of the mind, not only

because he knows what ought to be done, that is to say the proper discipline taught in the Pythagorean

and similar schools, but also because he foreknows the nature of the king (i 32). Indeed we are told that

the subject of foreknowledge (προγνωσεως ), of which science ( σοφια ) Apol onious was a deep student,

was one of the principal topics discussed by our philosopher and his Indian hosts (ii 42).

Page 43

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

In fact, as Apollonius tel s his philosophical and studious friend the Roman Consul Telesinus, for him

wisdom was a kind of divinizing or making divine of the whole of nature, a sort of perpetual state of

inspiration ( φειασμσς ), (iv 40). And so we are told that Apollonius was apprised of all things of this

nature by the energy of his dæmonial nature ( δαιμονιως ) (vii 10). Now for the student of the

Pythagorean and Platonic schools the “dæmon” of a man was what may be cal ed the higher self, the

spiritual side of the soul as distinguished from the purely human. It is the better part of the man, and

when his physical consciousness is at-oned with this “dweller in heaven,” he has (according to the

highest mystic philosophy of ancient Greece) while stil on earth the powers of those incorporeal

intermediate beings between Gods and men cal ed “dæmons”; a state higher still, the living man

becomes at-oned with the divine soul, he becomes a God on earth; and yet a stage higher he becomes

at one with the Good and so becomes God.

Hence we find Apollonius indignantly rejecting the accusation of magic ignorantly brought against him, an

art which achieved its results by means of compacts with those low entities with which the outermost

realm of inner Nature swarms. Our philosopher repudiated equally the idea of his being a soothsayer or

diviner. With such arts he would have nothing to do; if ever he uttered anything which savoured of

foreknowledge, let them know it was not by divination in the vulgar sense, but owing to “that wisdom

which God reveals to the wise” (iv 44).

The most numerous wonder-doings ascribed to Apollonius are instances precisely of such foreknowledge

or prophecy. 8 [See i 22 (cf 40), 34; iv 4, 6, 18 (cf v 19), 24, 43; v 7, 11, 13, 30, 37; vi 32; viii 26.] It must

be confessed that the utterances recorded are often obscure and enigmatical, but this is the usual case

with such prophecy; for future events are most frequently either seen in symbolic representations, the

meaning of which is not clear until after the event, or heard in equal y enigmatical sentences. At times,

however, we have instances of very precise foreknowledge, such as the refusal of Apollonius to go on

board a vessel which foundered on the voyage (v 18).

The instances of seeing present events at a distance, however - such as the burning of a temple at

Rome, which Apollonius saw while at Alexandria - are clear enough. Indeed, if people know nothing else

of the Tyanean, they have at last heard how he saw at Ephesus the assassination of Domitian at Rome

at the very moment of its occurrence.

It was midday, to quote from the graphic account of Philostratus, and Apollonius was in one of the small

parks or groves in the suburbs, engaged in delivering an address on some absorbing topic of philosophy.

“At first he sank his voice as though in some apprehension; he, however, continued his exposition, but

haltingly, and with far less force than usual, as a man who had some other subject in his mind than that

on which he is speaking; final y he ceased speaking altogether as though he could not find his words.

Then staring fixedly on the ground, he started forward three or four paces, crying out: ‘Strike the tyrant;

strike!’ And this, not like a man who sees an image in a mirror, but as one with the actual scene before

his eyes, as though he were himself taking part in it.”

Turning to his astonished audience he told them what he had seen. But though they hoped it were true,

they refused to believe it, and thought that Apol onius had taken leave of his senses. But the philosopher

gently answered: You, on your part, are right to suspend your rejoicings til the news is brought you in the

usual fashion; “as for me, I go to return thanks to the Gods for what I have myself seen” (vii 26).

Page 44

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

Little wonder, then, if we read, not only of a number of symbolic dreams, but of their proper interpretation,

one of the most important branches of the esoteric discipline of the school. (See especial y i 23 and iv

34). Nor are we surprised to hear that Apollonius, relying entirely on his inner knowledge, was

instrumental in obtaining the reprieve of an innocent man at Alexandria, who was on the point of being

executed with a batch of criminals (v 24). Indeed, he seems to have known the secret past of many with

whom he came in contact (vi 3, 5).

The possession of such powers can put but little strain on the belief of a generation like our own, to which

such facts of psychic science are becoming with every day more familiar. Nor should instances of curing

diseases by mesmeric processes astonish us, or even the so-called “casting out of evil spirits,” if we give

credence to the Gospel narrative and are familiar with the general history of the times in which such

healing of possession and obsession was a commonplace. This, however, does not condemn us to any

endorsement of the fantastic descriptions of such happenings in which Philostratus indulges. If it be

credible that Apol onius was successful in dealing with obscure mental cases - cases of obsession and

possession - with which our hospitals and asylums are filled today, and which are for the most part

beyond the skill of official science owing to its ignorance of the real agencies at work, it is equal y evident

that Damis and Philostratus had little understanding of the matter, and have given ful rein to their

imagination in their narratives (See ii 4; iv 20, 25; v 42; vi 27, 43) Perhaps, however, Philostratus in some

instances is only repeating popular legend, the best case of which is the curing of the plague at Ephesus

which the Tyanean had foretold on so many occasions. Popular legend would have it that the cause of

the plague was traced to an old beggar man, who was buried under a heap of stones by the infuriated

populace. On Apol onius ordering the stones to be removed, it was found that what had been a beggar

man was now a mad dog foaming at the mouth (iv 10)!

On the contrary, the account of Apol onius’ “restoring to life” a young girl of noble birth at Rome, is told

with great moderation. Our philosopher seems to have met the funeral procession by chance; whereupon

he suddenly went up to the bier, and, after making some passes over the maiden, and saying some

inaudible words, “waked her out of her seeming death.” But, says Damis, “whether Apollonius noticed

that the spark of the soul was still alive which her friends had failed to perceive - they say it was raining

lightly and a slight vapour showed on her face - or whether he made the life in her warm again and so

restored her,” neither himself nor any who were present could say (iv 45).

Of a distinctly more phenomenal nature are the stories of Apollonius causing the writing to disappear

from the tablets of one of his accusers before Tigellinus (iv 44); of his drawing his leg out of the fetters to

show Damis that he was not really a prisoner though chained in the dungeons of Domitian (vii 38); and of

his “disappearing”(ηφανσςη) from the tribunal (viii 5). [This expression is, however, perhaps only to be

taken as rhetorical, for in viii 8, the incident is referred to in the simple words “when he departed (απηλθε)

from the tribunal.”

We are not, however, to suppose that Apollonius despised or neglected the study of physical phenomena

in his devotion to the inner science of things. On the contrary, we have several instances of his rejection

of mythology in favour of a physical explanation of natural phenomena. Such, for instance, are his

explanations of the volcanic activity of Ætna (v 14, 17), and of a tidal wave in Crete, the latter being

accompanied with a correct indication of the more immediate result of the occurrence. In fact an island

had been thrown up far out to sea by a submarine disturbance as was subsequently ascertained (iv 34).

The explanation of the tides of Cadiz may also be placed in the same category (v 2).

Page 45

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION XIII -His Mode of Life

WE will now present the reader with some general indications of the mode of life of Apollonius, and the

manner of his teaching, of which already something has been said under the heading “Early Life.”

Our philosopher was an enthusiastic follower of the Pythagorean discipline; nay, Philostratus would have

us believe that he made more super-human efforts to reach wisdom than even the great Samian (i 2).

The outer forms of this discipline as exemplified in Pythagoras are thus summed up by our author.

“Naught would he wear that came from a dead beast, nor touch a morsel of a thing that once had life, nor

offer it in sacrifice; not for him to stain with blood the altars; but honey-cakes and incense, and the

service of his song went upward from the man unto the Gods, for well he knew that they would take such

gifts far rather than the oxen in their hundreds with the knife. For he, in sooth, held converse with the

Gods and learned from them how they were pleased with men and how displeased, and thence as well

he drew his nature-lore. As for the rest, he said, they guessed at the divine, and held opinions on the

Gods which proved each other false; but unto him Apollo’s self did come, confessed, without disguise,

[That is to say not in a “form,” but in his own nature.] and there did come as well, though unconfessed,

Athena and the Muses, and other Gods whose forms and names mankind did not yet know.

Hence his disciples regarded Pythagoras as an inspired teacher, and received his rules as laws. “In

particular did they keep the rule of silence regarding the divine science. For they heard within them many

divine and unspeakable things on which it would have been difficult for them to keep silence, had they

not first learned that it was just this silence which spoke to them” (i I).

Such was the general declaration of the nature of the Pythagorean discipline by its disciples. But, says

Apollonius in his address to the Gymnosphists, Pythagoras was not the inventor of it. It was the

immemorial wisdom, and Pythagoras himself had learnt it from the Indians. [See in this connection L. v.

Schroeder, Pythagoras und die Inder, eine Untersuchung über Herkunft und Abstammung der

pythagoreischen Lehren (Leipzig 1884).] This wisdom, he continued, had spoken to him in his youth; she

had said:

“For sense, young sir, I have no charms; my cup is filled with toils unto the brim. Would

anyone embrace my way of life, he must resolve to banish from his board all food that once

bore life, to lose the memory of wine, and thus no more to wisdom's cup befoul— the cup that

doth consist of wine-untainted souls. Nor shall wool warm him, nor aught that’s made from any

beast. I give my servants shoes of bast and as they can to sleep. And if I find them overcome

with love’s delights, I’ve ready pits down into which that justice which doth follow hard on

wisdom's foot, doth drag and thrust them; indeed, so stern am I to those who choose my way,

that e’en upon their tongues I bind a chain. Now hear from me what things thou’lt gain, if thou

endure. An innate sense of fitness and of right, and ne’er to feel that any’s lot is better than

they own; tyrants to strike with fear instead of being a fearsome slave to tyranny; to have the

Gods more greatly bless thy scanty gifts than those who pour before them blood of bul s. If

thou are pure, I’ll give thee how to know what things will be as well, and fill thy eyes so full of

light, that thou may’st recognise the Gods, the heroes know, and prove and try the shadowy

forms that feign the shapes of men “ (vi II).

Page 46

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

The whole life of Apollonius shows that he tried to carry out consistently this rule of life, and the repeated

statements that he would never join in the blood-sacrifices of the popular cults (see especial y i 24, 31; iv

11; v 25), but openly condemned them, show not only that the Pythagorean school had ever set the

example of the higher way of purer offerings, but that they were not only not condemned and persecuted

as heretics on this account, but were rather regarded as being of peculiar sanctity, and as following a life

superior to that of ordinary mortals.

The refraining from the flesh of animals, however, was not simply based upon ideas of purity, it found

additional sanction in the positive love of the lower kingdoms and the horror of inflicting pain on any living

creature. Thus Apollonius bluntly refused to take any part in the chase, when invited to do so by his royal

host at Babylon. “Sire,” he replied, “have you forgotten that even when you sacrifice I will not be present?

Much less then would I do these beasts to death, and all the more when their spirit is broken and they

are penned in contrary to their nature” (i 38). [This has reference to the preserved hunting parks, or

“paradises,” of the Babylonian monarchs.]

But though Apollonius was an unflinching task-master unto himself, he did not wish to impose his mode

of life on others, even on his personal friends and companions (provided of course they did not adopt it of

their own free will). Thus he tells Damis that he has no wish to prohibit him from eating flesh and drinking

wine, he simply demands the right of refraining himself and of defending his conduct if called on to do so

(ii 7). This is an additional indication that Damis was not a member of the inner circle of discipline, and

the latter fact explains why so faithful a follower of the person of Apollonius was nevertheless so much in

the dark.

Not only so, but Apol onius even dissuades the Râjâh Phraotes, his first host in India, who desired to

adopt his strict rule, from doing so, on the ground that it would estrange him too much from his subjects

(ii 37).

Three times a day Apollonius prayed and meditated; at daybreak (vi 10, 18; vii 31), at midday (vii 10),

and at sun-down (vii 13). This seems to have been his invariable custom; no matter where he was he

seems to have devoted at least a few moments to silent meditation at these times. The object of his

worship is always said to have been the “Sun,” that is to say the Lord of our world and its sister worlds,

whose glamorous symbol is the orb of day.

We have already seen in the short sketch devoted to his “Early Life” how he divided the day and

portioned out his time among his different classes of hearers and inquirers. His style of teaching and

speaking was the opposite of that of a rhetorician or professional orator. There was no art in his

sentences, no striving after effect, no affectation. But he spoke “as from a tripod,” with such words as “I

know,” “Methinks,” “Why do ye,” “Ye should know.” His sentences were short and compact, and his words

carried conviction with them and fitted the facts. His task, he declared, was no longer to seek and to

question as he had done in his youth, but to teach what he knew (i 17). He did not use the dialectic of the

Socratic school, but would have his hearers turn from all else and give ear to the inner voice of

philosophy alone (iv 2). He drew his illustrations from any chance occurrence or homely happening (iv 3;

vi 3, 38), and pressed al into service for the improvement of his listeners.

When put on his trial, he would make no preparation for his defence. He had lived his life as it came from

Page 47

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

day to day, prepared for death, and would continue to do so (vii 30). Moreover it was now his deliberate

choice to chal enge death in the cause of philosophy. And so to his old friend’s repeated solicitations to

prepare his defence, he replied:

“Damis, you seem to lose your wits in face of death, though you have been so long with me and I have

loved philosophy e’en from my youth; [Reading θιλοσοφω for θιλοσοφων ] I thought that you were both

yourself prepared for death and knew full well my generalship in this. For just as warriors in the field have

need not only of good courage but also of that generalship which tells them when to fight, so too must

they who wisdom love make careful study of good times to die, that they may choose the best and not be

done to death al unprepared. That I have chosen best and picked the moment which suits wisdom best

to give death battle—if so it be that any one should wish to slay me - I' ve proved to other friends when

you were by, nor ever ceased to teach you it alone” (vi 31).

The above are some few indications of how our philosopher lived, in fear of nothing but disloyalty to his

high ideal. We will now make mention of some of his more personal traits, and of some of the names of

his followers.

Page 48

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION XIV - Himself and His Circle

APOLLONIUS is said to have been very beautiful to look upon (i 7, 12; iv 1); [Rathgeber (G) in his

Grossgriechenland und Pythagoras (Gotha 1866), a work of marvellous bibliographical industry, refers to

three supposed portraits of Apollonius (p 621). (i) In the Campidoglio Museum of the Vatican, Indicazione

delle Sculture (Roma 1840) p 68, nos 75, 76, 77; (ii) in the Musée Royal Bourbon, described by Michel B.

(Naples 1837), p 79, no 363; (ii ) a contorniate reproduced by Visconti. I cannot trace his first reference,

but in a Guide pour le Musée Royal Bourbon, traduit par C.J.J. (Naples 1831), I find on p 152 that no 363

is a bust of Apollonius, 2¾ feet high, careful y executed, with a Zeus-like head, having a beard and long

hair descending onto his shoulders, bound with a deep fil et. The bust seems to be ancient. I have,

however, not been able to find a reproduction of it. Visconti (E.Q) in the atlas of his Iconographic Grecque

(Paris 1808), vol i plate 17, facing p 68, gives the reproduction of a contorniate, or medal with a circular

border, on one side of which is a head of Apol onius and the Latin legend APOLLONIVS TEANEVS. This

also represents our philosopher with a beard and long hair; the head is crowned, and the upper part of

the body covered with a tunic and the philosopher’s cloak. The medal, however, is of very inferior

workmanship, and the portrait is by no means pleasing. Visconti in his letterpress devotes an angry and

contemptuous paragraph to Apol onius, “ce trop célèbre imposteur,” as he cal s him, based on De

Tillemont.] but beyond this we have no very definite description of his person. His manner was ever mild

and gentle (i 36; i 22) and modest (iv 31; viii 15), and in this, says Damis, he was more like an Indian

than a Greek (iii 36); yet occasionally he burst out indignantly against some special enormity (iv 30). His

mood was often pensive (i 34), and when not speaking he would remain for long plunged in deep

thought, during which his eyes were steadfastly fixed on the ground (i 10 et al.).

Though, as we have seen, he was inflexibly stern with himself, he was ever ready to make excuses for

others; if, on the one hand, he praised the courage of those few who remained with him at Rome, on the

other he refused to blame for their cowardice the many who had fled (iv 38). Nor was his gentleness

shown simply by abstention from blame, he was ever active in positive deeds of compassion (cf vi 39).

One of his little peculiarities was a liking to be addressed as “Tyanean” (vii 38), but why this was so we

are not told. It can hardly have been that Apollonius was particularly proud of his birth-place, for even

though he was a great lover of Greece, so that at times you would call him an enthusiastic patriot, his

love for other countries was quite as pronounced. Apol onius was a citizen of the world, if there has ever

been one, into whose speech the word native-land did not enter, and a priest of universal religion in

whose vocabulary the word sect did not exist.

In spite of his extremely ascetic life he was a man of strong physique, so that even when he has reached

the ripe age of four-score years, we are told, he was sound and healthy in every limb and organ, upright

and perfectly formed. There was also a certain indefinite charm about him that made him more pleasant

to look upon than even the freshness of youth, and this even though his face was furrowed with wrinkles,

just as the statues in the temple of Tyana represented him in the time of Philostratus. In fact, says his

rhetorical biographer, report sang higher praises over the charm of Apollonius in his old age than over the

beauty of Alcibiades in his youth (vi i 29).

In brief, our philosopher seems to have been of a most charming presence and lovable disposition; nor

was his absolute devotion to philosophy of the nature of the hermit ideal, for he passed his life among

men. What wonder then that he attracted to himself many fol owers and disciples! It would have been

Page 49

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

interesting if Philostratus had told us more about these “Apol onians,” as they were cal ed (vii 21), and

whether they constituted a distinct school, or whether they were grouped together in communities on the

Pythagorean model, or whether they were simply independent students attracted to the most

commanding personality of the times in the domain of philosophy. It is, however, certain that many of

them wore the same dress as himself and followed his mode of life (iv 39). Repeated mention is also

made of their accompanying Apol onius on his travels (iv 47; v 21; viii 19, 21, 24), sometimes as many as

ten of them at the same time, but none of them were al owed to address others until they had fulfilled the

vow of silence (v 43).

The most distinguished of his fol owers were Musonius, who was considered the greatest philosopher of

the time after the Tyanean, and who was the special victim of Nero’s tyranny (iv 44; v 19; vii 16), and

Demetrius, “who loved Apol onius” (iv 25, 42; v 19; vi 31; vii 10; vii 10). These names are well known to

history; of names otherwise unknown are the Egyptian Dioscorides, who was left behind owing to weak

health on the long journey to Ethiopia (iv 11, 38; v 43), Menippus, whom he had freed from an obsession

(iv 25, 38; v 43), Phædimus (iv 11), and Nilus, who joined him from Gymnosophists (v 10 sqq., 28), and

of course Damis, who would have us think that he was always with him from the time of their meeting at

Ninus.

On the whole we are inclined to think that Apollonius did not establish any fresh organization; he made

use of those already existing, and his disciples were those who were attracted to him personally by an

overmastering affection which could only be satisfied by being continual y near him. This much seems

certain, that he trained no one to carry on his task; he came and went, helping and illuminating, but he

handed on no tradition of a definite line, and founded no school to be continued by successors. Even to

his ever faithful companion, when bidding him farewell for what he knew would be the last time for Damis

on earth, he had no word to say about the work to which he had devoted his life, but which Damis had

never understood. His last words were for Damis alone, for the man who had loved him, but who had

never known him. It was a promise to come to him if he needed help. “Damis, whenever you think on

high matters in solitary meditation, you shall see me” (vii 28).

We will next turn our attention to a consideration of some of the sayings ascribed to Appolonius and the

speeches put into his mouth by Philostratus. The shorter sayings are in al probability authentically

traditional, but the speeches are for the most part manifestly the artistic working-up of the rough notes of

Damis. In fact, they are definitely declared to be so; but they are none the less interesting on this

account, and for two reasons.

In the first place, they honestly avow their nature, and make no claim of inspiration; they are confessedly

human documents which endeavour to give a literary dress to the traditional body of thought and

endeavour which the life of the philosopher built into the minds of his hearers. The method was common

to antiquity, and the ancient compilers of certain other series of famous documents would have been

struck with amazement had they been able to see how posterity would divinise their efforts and regard

them as immediately inspired by the source of all wisdom.

In the second place, although we are not to suppose that we are reading the actual words of Apollonius,

we are nevertheless conscious of being in immediate contact with the inner atmosphere of the best

religious thought of the Greek mind, and have before our eyes the picture of a mystic and spiritual

fermentation which leavened all strata of society in the first century of our era.

Page 50

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION XV - From His Sayings and Sermons

APOLLONIUS believed in prayer, but how differently from the vulgar. For him the idea that the Gods

could be swayed from the path of rigid justice by the entreaties of men, was a blasphemy; that the Gods

could be made parties to our selfish hopes and fears was to our philosopher unthinkable. One thing

alone he knew, that the Gods were the ministers of right and the rigid dispensers of just desert. The

common belief, which has persisted to our own day, that God can be swayed from His purpose, that

compacts could be made with Him or with His ministers, was entirely abhorrent to Apollonius. Beings with

whom such pacts could be made, who could be swayed and turned, were not Gods but less than men.

And so we find Apol onius as a youth conversing with one of the priests of Æsculapius as follows:

“Since then the Gods know all things, I think that one who enters the temple with a right

conscience within him should pray thus: ‘Give me, ye Gods, what is my due!’ “ (i II).

And thus again on his long journey to India he prayed at Babylon: “God of the sun, send thou me o’er the

earth so far as e’er ‘tis good for Thee and me; and may I come to know the good, and never know the

bad nor they know me” (i 31).

One of his most general prayers, Damis tel s us, was to this effect: “Grant me, ye Gods, to have little and

need naught” (i 34).

“When you enter the temples, for what do you pray?” asked the Pontifex Maximus Telesinus of

our philosopher. “I pray,” said Apollonius, “that righteousness may rule, the laws remain

unbroken, the wise be poor and others rich, but honestly” (iv 40).

The belief of the philosopher in the grand ideal of having nothing and yet possessing all things, is

exemplified by his reply to the officer who asked him how he dared enter the dominions of Babylon

without permission. “The whole earth,” said Apol onius, “is mine; and it is given me to journey through it”

(i 21).

There are many instances of sums of money being offered to Apol onius for his services, but he

invariably refused them; not only so but his fol owers also refused all presents. On the occasion when

King Vardan, with true Oriental generosity, offered them gifts, they turned away; whereupon Apollonius

said: “You see, my hands, though many, are al like each other.” And when the king asked Apollonius

what present he would bring him back from India, our philosopher replied: “A gift that will please you, sire.

For if my stay there should make me wiser, I shall come back to you better than I am” (i 41).

When they were crossing the great mountains into India a conversation is said to have taken place

between Apollonius and Damis, which presents us with a good instance of how our philosopher ever

used the incidents of the day to inculcate the higher lessons of life. The question was concerning the

“below” and “above.” Yesterday, said Damis, we were below in the valley; today we are above, high on

the mountains, not far distant from heaven. So this is what you mean by “below” and “above,” said

Apollonius gently. Why, of course, impatiently retorted Damis, if I am in my right mind; what need of such

Page 51

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

useless questions? And have you acquired a greater knowledge of the divine nature by being nearer

heaven on the tops of the mountains? continued his master. Do you think that those who observe the

heaven from the mountain heights are any nearer the understanding of things? Truth to tell, replied

Damis, somewhat crestfal en, I did think I should come down wiser, for I’ve been up a higher mountain

than any of them, but I fear I know no more than before I ascended it. Nor do other men, replied

Apollonius; “such observations make them see the heavens more blue, the stars more large, and the sun

rise from the night, things known to those who tend the sheep and goats; but how God doth take thought

for human kind, and how He doth find pleasure in their service, and what is virtue, righteousness and

commonsense, that neither Athos will reveal to those who scale his summit nor yet Olympus who stirs

the poet’s wonder, unless it be the soul perceive them; for should the soul when pure and unalloyed

essay such heights, I swear to thee, she wings her flight far far beyond this lofty Caucasus” (ii 6).

So again, when at Thermopylæ his followers were disputing as to which was the highest ground in

Greece, Mt Œta being then in view. They happened to be just at the foot of the hil on which the Spartans

fel overwhelmed with arrows. Climbing to the top of it Apol onius cried out: “And I think this the highest

ground, for those who fel here for freedom’s sake have made it high as Œta and raised it far above a

thousand of Olympuses” (iv 23).

Another instance of how Apollonius turned chance happenings to good account is the following. Once at

Ephesus, in one of the covered walks near the city, he was speaking of sharing our goods with others,

and how we ought mutually to help one another. It chanced that a number of sparrows were sitting on a

tree hard by in perfect silence. Suddenly another sparrow flew up and began chirping, as though it

wanted to tell the others something. Whereupon the little fellow all set to a-chirping also, and flew away

after the newcomer. Apol onius’ superstitious audience were greatly struck by this conduct of the

sparrows, and thought it was an augury of some important matter. But the philosopher continued with his

sermon. The sparrow, he said, has invited his friends to a banquet. A boy slipped down in a lane hard by

and spilt some corn he was carrying in a bowl; he picked up most of it and went away. The little sparrow,

chancing on the scattered grains, immediately flew off to invite his friends to the feast.

Thereon most of the crowd went off at a run to see if it were true, and when they came back shouting and

all agog with wonderment, the philosopher continued: “Ye see what care the sparrows take of one

another, and how happy they are to share their goods. And yet we men do not approve; nay, if we see a

man sharing his goods with other men, we cal it wastefulness, extravagance, and by such names, and

dub the men to whom he gives a share, fawners and parasites. What then is left to us except to shut us

up at home like fattening birds, and gorge our bel ies in the dark until we burst with fat?” (iv 3).

On another occasion, at Smyrna, Apol onius, seeing a ship getting under weigh, used the occasion for

teaching the people the lesson of cooperation. “Behold the vessel’s crew!” he said. “How some have

manned the boats, some raise the anchors up and make them fast, some set the sails to catch the wind,

how others yet again look out at bow and stern. But if a single man should fail to do a single one of these

his duties, or bungle in his seamanship, their sailing will be bad, and they will have the storm among

them. But if they strive in rivalry each with the other, their only strife being that no man shal seem worse

than his mates, fair havens shall there be for such a ship, and all good weather and fair voyage crowd in

upon it” (iv 9).

Again, on another occasion, at Rhodes, Damis asked him if he thought anything greater than the famous

Page 52

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

Colossus. “I do,” replied Apollonius; “the man who walks in wisdom's guileless paths that give us health”

(v 21).

There is also a number of instances of witty or sarcastic answers reported of our philosopher, and

indeed, in spite of his generally grave mood, he not unfrequently rallied his hearers, and sometimes, if we

may say so, chaffed the foolishness out of them (see especially iv 30).

Even in times of great danger this characteristic shows itself. A good instance is his answer to the

dangerous question of Tigellinus, “What think you of Nero?” “I think better of him than you do,” retorted

Apollonius, “for you think he ought to sing, and I think he ought to keep silence” (iv 44).

So again his reproof to a young Crœsus of the period is as witty as it is wise. “Young sir,” he said,

“methinks it is not you who own your house, but your house you” (v 22).

Of the same style also is his answer to a glutton who boasted of his gluttony. He copied Hercules, he

said, who was as famous for the food he ate as for his labours.

“Yes,” said Apollonius, “for he was Hercules. But you, what virtue have you, midden-heap?

Your only claim to notice is your chance of being burst” (iv 23).

But to turn to more serious occasions. In answer to Vespasian’s earnest prayer, “Teach me what should a

good king do,” Apollonius is said to have replied somewhat in the following words:

“You ask me what can not be taught. For kingship is the greatest thing within a mortal’s reach;

it is not taught. Yet will I tel you what if you will do, you will do well. Count not that wealth

which is stored up - in what is this superior to the sand haphazard heaped? nor that which

comes from men to groan beneath taxation's heavy weight - for gold that comes from tears is

base and black. You’ll use wealth best of any king, if you supply the needs of those in want

and make their wealth secure for those with many goods. Be fearful of the power to do

whate’er you please, so will you use it with more prudence. Do not lop off the ears of corn that

show beyond the rest and raise their heads - for Aristotle is not just in this [See Chassang, op.

cit., p 458, for a criticism on this statement.]—but rather weed their disaffection out like tares

from corn, and show yourself a fear to stirrers up of strife not in ‘I punish you’ but in ‘ I will do

so.’ Submit yourself to law, O prince, for you will make the laws with greater wisdom if you do

not despise the law yourself. Pay reverence more than ever to the Gods; great are the gifts

you have received from them, and for great things you pray. [This was before Vespasian

became emperor.] In what concerns the state act as a king; in what concerns yourself, act as a

private

man”

(v 36).

And so on much in the same strain, all good advice and showing a deep knowledge of human affairs.

And if we are to suppose that this is merely a rhetorical exercise of Philostratus and not based on the

substance of what Apollonius said, then we must have a higher opinion of the rhetorician than the rest of

his writings warrant.

Page 53

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

There is an exceedingly interesting Socratic dialogue between Thespesion, the abbot of the

Gymnosophist community, and Apol onius on the comparative merits of the Greek and Egyptian ways of

representing the Gods. It runs somewhat as follows;

“What! Are we to think,” said Thespesion, “that the Pheidiases and Praxiteleses went up to

heaven and took impressions of the forms of the Gods, and so made an art of them, or was it

something else that set them a-modeling?”

“Yes, something else,” said Apollonius, “something pregnant with wisdom.”

“What was that? Surely you cannot say it was anything else but imitation?”

“Imagination wrought them - a workman wiser far than imitation; for imitation only makes what

it has seen, whereas imagination makes what it has never seen, conceiving it with reference to

the thing it real y is.”

Imagination, says Apol onius, is one of the most potent faculties, for it enables us to reach nearer to

realities. It is generally supposed that Greek sculpture was merely a glorification of physical beauty, in

itself quite unspiritual. It was an idealisation of form and features, limbs and muscles, an empty

glorification of the physical with nothing of course real y corresponding to it in the nature of things. But

Apollonius declared it brings us nearer to the real, as Pythagoras and Plato declared before him, and as

all the wiser teach. He meant this literal y, not vaguely and fantastically. He asserted that the types and

ideas of things are the only realities. He meant that between the imperfection of the earth and the highest

divine type of all things, were grades of increasing perfection. He meant that within each man was a form

of perfection, though of course not yet absolutely perfect. That the angel in man, his dæmon, was of

God-like beauty, the summation of al the finest features he had ever worn in his many lives on earth. The

Gods, too, belonged to the world of types, of models, of perfections , the heaven-world. The Greek

sculptors had succeeded in getting in contact with this world, and the faculty they used was imagination.

This idealisation of form was a worthy way to represent the Gods; but, says Apollonius, if you set up a

hawk or owl or dog in your temples, to represent Hermes or Athena or Apollo, you may dignify the

animals, but you make the Gods lose dignity.

To this Thespesion replies that the Egyptians dare not give any precise form to the Gods; they give them

merely symbols to which an occult meaning is attached.

Yes, answers Apollonius, but the danger is that the common people worship these symbols and get

unbeautiful ideas of the Gods. The best thing would be to have no representations at all. For the mind of

the worshipper can form and fashion for himself an image of the object of his worship better than any art.

Quite so, retorted Thespesion, and then added mischievously: There was an old Athenian, by-the-by - no

fool - called Socrates, who swore by the dog and goose as though they were Gods.

Page 54

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

Yes, replied Apollonius, he was no fool. He swore by them not as being Gods, but in order that he might

not swear by the Gods (iv 19).

This is a pleasant passage of wit, of Egyptian against Greek, but all such set arguments must be set

down to the rhetorical exercises of Philostratus rather than to Apollonius, who taught as “one having

authority,” as “from a tripod.” Apollonius, a priest of universal religion, might have pointed out the good

side and the bad side of both Greek and Egyptian religious art, and certainly taught the higher way of

symbol-less worship, but he would not champion one popular cult against another. In the above speech

there is a distinct prejudice against Egypt and a glorification of Greece, and this occurs in a very marked

fashion in several other speeches. Philostratus was a champion of Greece against al comers; but

Apollonius, we believe, was wiser than his biographer.

In spite of the artificial literary dress that is given to the longer discourses of Apollonius, they contain

many noble thoughts, as we may see from the following quotations from the conversations of our

philosopher with his friend Demetrius, who was endeavouring to dissuade him from braving Domitian at

Rome.

The law, said Apol onius, obliges us to die for liberty, and nature ordains that we should die for our

parents, our friends, or our children. Al men are bound by these duties. But a higher duty is laid upon the

sage; he must die for his principles and the truth he holds dearer than life. It is not the law that lays this

choice upon him, it is not nature; it is the strength and courage of his own soul. Though fire or sword

threaten him, it will not overcome his resolution or force him from the slightest falsehood; but he will

guard the secrets of others’ lives and al that has been entrusted to his honour as religiously as the

secrets of initiation. And I know more than other men, for I know that of al that I know, I know some

things for the good, some for the wise, some for myself, some for the Gods, but naught for tyrants.

Again, I think that a wise man does nothing alone or by himself; no thought of his so secret but that he

has himself as witness to it. And whether the famous saying “know thyself” be from Apol o or from some

sage who learnt to know himself and proclaimed it as a good for all, I think the wise man who knows

himself and has his own spirit in constant comradeship, to fight at his right hand, will neither cringe at

what the vulgar fear, nor dare to do what most men do without the slightest shame (vii 15).

In the above we have the true philosopher’s contempt for death, and also the calm knowledge of the

initiate, of the comforter and adviser of others to whom the secrets of their lives have been confessed,

that no tortures can ever unseal his lips. Here, too, we have the full knowledge of what consciousness is,

of the impossibility of hiding the smallest trace of evil in the inner world; and also the dazzling brilliancy of

a higher ethic which makes the habitual conduct of the crowd appear surprising - the“that which they do -

not with shame.”

Page 55

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION XVI - From His Letters

APOLLONIUS seems to have written many letters to emperors, kings, philosophers, communities and

states, although he was by no means a “voluminous correspondent”; in fact, the style of his short notes is

exceedingly concise, and they were composed, as Philostratus says, “after the manner of the

Lacedæmonian scytale” [This was a staff, or baton, used as a cypher for writing dispatches. “A strip of

leather was rolled slantwise round it, on which the dispatches were written lengthwise, so that when

unrol ed they were unintelligible; commanders abroad had a staff of like thickness, round which they

rolled their papers, and so were able to read the dispatches.” (Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon sub voc.)

Hence scytale came to mean general y a Spartan dispatch, which was characteristically laconin in its

brevity.] (iv 27 and vii 35).

It is evident that Philostratus had access to letters attributed to Apollonius, for he quotes a number of

them, [See i 7, 15, 24, 32; i i 51; iv 5, 22, 26, 27, 46; v 2, 10, 39, 40, 41; vi 18, 27, 29, 31, 33; viii 7, 20,

27, 28.], and there seems no reason to doubt their authenticity. Whence he obtained them does not

inform us, unless it be that they were the collection made by Hadrian at Antium (viii 20).

That the reader may be able to judge of the style of Apollonius we append one or two specimens of these

letters, or rather notes, for they are too short to deserve the title of epistles. Here is one to the

magistrates of Sparta:

“Apollonius to the Ephors, greeting!

“It is possible for men not to make mistakes, but it requires noble men to acknowledge they

have made them.”

All of which Apollonius gets into just half as many words in Greek. Here, again, is an interchange of notes

between the two greatest philosophers of the time, both of whom suffered imprisonment and were in

constant danger of death.

“Apollonius to Musonius, the philosopher, greeting!

“I want to go to you, to share speech and roof with you, to be of some service to you. If you

still believe that Hercules once rescued Theseus from Hades, write what you would have.

Farewell!”

“Musonius to Apollonius, the philosopher, greeting!

“Good merit shal be stored for you for your good thoughts; what is in store for me

is one who waits his trial and proves his innocence. Farewell.”

Page 56

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

“Apollonius to Musonius, greeting!

“Socrates refused to be got out of prison by his friends and went before the judges. He was

put to death. Farewel .”

“Musonius to Apollonius, the philosopher, greeting!

“Socrates was put to death because he made no preparation for his defence. I shall

do so. Farewell!”

However, Musonius, the Stoic, was sent to penal servitude by Nero.

Here is a note to the Cynic Demetrius, another of our philosopher’s most devoted friends.

“Apollonius, the philosopher, to Demetrius, the Dog, [I.e., Cynic.] greeting!

“I give thee to Titus, the emperor, to teach him the way of kingship, and do you in turn give me

to speak him true; and be to him al things but anger. Farewell!”

In addition to the notes quoted in the text of Philostratus, there is a collection of ninety-five letters, mostly

brief notes, the text of which is printed in most editions. [Chassang (op cit., pp 395 sqq) gives a French

translation of them.] Nearly al the critics are of opinion that they are not genuine, but Jowett [Art.

“Apollonius,” Smith’s Dict of Class Biog.] and others think that some of them may very well be genuine.

Here is a specimen or two of these letters. Writing to Euphrates, his great enemy, that is to say

Champion of pure rationalistic ethic against the science of sacred things, he says:

17. “The Persians cal those who have the divine faculty (or are god-like) Magi. A Magus, then,

is one who is a minister of the Gods, or one who has by nature the god-like faculty. You are no

Magus but reject the Gods (i.e., are an atheist).”

Again, in a letter addressed to Criton, we read:

23. “Pythagoras said that the most divine art was that of healing. And if the healing art is most

divine, it must occupy itself with the soul as well as with the body; for no creature can be

sound so long as the higher part in it is sickly.”

Writing to the priests of Delphi against the practice of blood-sacrifice, he says:

Page 57

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

27. “Heraclitus was a sage, but even he [That is to say, a philosopher of 600 years ago.] never

advised the people of Ephesus to wash out mud with mud.” [That is to expiate blood-guiltiness

with blood-sacrifice.]

Again, to some who claimed to be his followers, those “who think themselves wise,” he writes the reproof:

43. “If any say he is my disciple, then let him add he keeps himself apart out of the Baths, he

slays no living thing, eats of no flesh, is free from envy, malice, hatred, calumny, and hostile

feelings, but has his name inscribed among the race of those who’ve won their freedom.”

Among these letters is found one of some length addressed to Valerius, probably P. Valerius Asiaticus,

consul in A.D. 70. It is a wise letter of philosophic consolation to enable Valerius to bear the loss of his

son, and runs as follows: [Chaignet (A. É), in his Pythagore et la Philosophie pythagoricienne (Paris

1873, 2nd ed 1874), cites this as a genuine example of Apollonius philosophy.]

“There is no death of anyone, but only in appearance, even as there is no birth of any, save

only in seeming. The change from being to becoming seems to be birth, and the change from

becoming to being seems to be death, but in reality no one is ever born, nor does one ever

die. It is simply a being visible and then invisible; the former through the density of matter, and

the latter because of the subtlety of being - being which is ever the same, its only change

being motion and rest. For being has this necessary peculiarity, that its change is brought

about by nothing external to itself; but whole becomes parts and parts become whole in the

oneness of the all. And if it be asked: What is this which sometimes is seen and sometimes

not seen, now in the same, now in the different?—it might be answered: It is the way of

everything here in the world below that when it is filled out with matter it is visible, owing to the

resistance of its density, but is invisible, owing to its subtlety, when it is rid of matter, though

matter still surround it and flow through it in that immensity of space which hems it in but

knows no birth or death.

“But why has this false notion [of birth and death] remained so long without a refutation?

Some think that what has happened through them, they have themselves brought about. They

are ignorant that the individual is brought to birth through parents, not by parents, just as a

thing produced through the earth is not produced from it. The change which comes to the

individual is nothing that is caused by his visible surroundings, but rather a change in the one

thing which is in every individual.

“And what other name can we give to it but primal being? ‘Tis it alone that acts and suffers

becoming al for all through all, eternal deity, deprived and wronged of its own self by names

and forms. But this is a less serious thing than that a man should be bewailed, when he has

passed from man to God by change of state and not by the destruction of his nature. The fact

is that so far from mourning death you ought to honour it and reverence it. The best and the

fittest way for you to honour death is now to leave the one who’s gone to God, and set to work

to play the ruler over those left in your charge as you were wont to do. It would be a disgrace

for such a man as you to owe your cure to time and not to reason, for time makes even

common people cease from grief. The greatest things is a strong rule, and of the greatest

Page 58

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

rulers he is best who first can rule himself. And how is it permissible to wish to change what

has been brought to pass by will of God? If there’s a law in things, and there is one, and it is

God who has appointed it, the righteous man will have no wish to try to change good things,

for such a wish is selfishness, and counter to the law, but he will think that all that comes to

pass is a good thing. On! heal yourself, give justice to the wretched and console them; so shall

you dry your tears. You should not set your private woes above your public cares, but rather

set your public cares before your private woes. And see as well what consolation you already

have! The nation sorrows with you for your son. Make some return to those who weep with

you; and this you will more quickly do if you will cease from tears than if you still persist. Have

you not friends? Why! you have yet another son. Have you not even stil the one that’s gone?

You have!—will answer anyone who real y thinks. For ‘that which is’ doth cease not - nay is just

for the very fact that it will be for aye; or else the ‘is not’ is, and how could that be when the ‘is’

doth never cease to be?

“Again it will be said you fail in piety to God and are unjust. ‘Tis true. You fail in piety to God,

you fail in justice to your boy; nay more, you fail in piety to him as well. Would’st know what

death is? Then make me dead and send me off to company with death, and if you will not

change the dress you’ve put on it, [That is his idea of death.] you will have straightway made

me better than yourself.” [The text of the last sentence is very obscure].

Page 59

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

SECTION XVII - The Writings of Apollonius

BUT besides these letters Apol onius also wrote a number of treatises, of which, however, only one or

two fragments have been preserved. These treatises are as follows:

a. The Mystic Rites or Concerning Sacrifices. [The full title is given by Eudocia, Ionia; ed. Villoison (Venet

1781) p 57] This treatise is mentioned by Philostratus (ii 41; iv 19), who tells us that it set down the

proper method of sacrifice to every God, the proper hours of prayer and offering. It was in wide

circulation, and Philostratus had come across copies of it in many temples and cities, and in the libraries

of philosophers. Several fragments of it have been preserved, [See Zel er, Phil d Griech, v 127] the most

important of which is to be found in Eusebius, [Præparat. Evangel., iv 12-13; ed Dindorf (Leipzig 1867), i

176, 177] and is to this effect: “ ‘Tis best to make no sacrifice to God at all, no lighting of a fire, no cal ing

Him by any name that men employ for things to sense. For God is over all, the first; and only after Him do

come the other Gods. For He doth stand in need of naught e’en from the Gods, much less from us small

men - naught that the earth brings forth, nor any life she nurseth, or even any thing the stainless air

contains. The only fitting sacrifice to God is man’s best reason, and not the word [A play on the meanings

of λσγος, which signifies both reason and word.] that comes from out his mouth.

“We men should ask the best of beings through the best thing in us, for what is good - mean

by means of mind, for mind needs no material things to make its prayer. So then, to God, the

mighty One, who’s over all, no sacrifice should ever be lit up.”

Noack [Psyche, I ii.5.] tel s us that scholarship is convinced of the genuineness of this fragment. This

book, as we have seen, was widely circulated and held in the highest respect, and it said that its rules

were engraved on brazen pillars at Byzantium. [Noack, ibid.]

b. The Oracles or Concerning Divination, 4 books. Philostratus (ii 41) seems to think that the full title was

Divination of the Stars, and says that it was based on what Apollonius had learned in India; but the kind

of divination Apollonius wrote about was not the ordinary astrology, but something which Philostratus

considers superior to ordinary human art in such matters. He had, however, never heard of anyone

possessing a copy of this rare work.

c. The Life of Pythagoras. Porphyry refers to this work, 8 [See Noack, Porphr. Vit. Pythag., p 15] and

Iamblichus quotes a long passage from it. [Ed. Amstelod., 1707, cc 254-264]

d. The Wil of Apollonius, to which reference has already been made, in treating of the sources of

Philostratus (i 3). This was written in the Ionic dialect, and contained a summary of his doctrines.

A Hymn to Memory is also ascribed to him, and Eudocia speaks of many other( και αλλαπολλα) works.

We have now indicated for the reader al the information which exists concerning our philosopher. Was

Apollonius, then, a rogue, a trickster, a charlatan, a fanatic, a misguided enthusiast, or a philosopher, a

Page 60

Apol onius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead

reformer, a conscious worker, a true initiate, one of the earth’s great ones? This each must decide for

himself, according to his knowledge or his ignorance.

I for my part bless his memory, and would gladly learn from him, as now he is.

Page 61

Table of Contents

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

XI

XII

XIII

XIV Himself and His Circle

XV

XVI From His Letters

XVII The Writings of Apol onius