Horky, Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

Offprint from
OXFORD STUDIES
I N A NC I E NT
PHI LOSOPHY
EDITOR: BRAD INWOOD
VOLUME XXXVII
winter 2009

2009
P ERS I AN COS MOS AND GREEK

P HILOS OP HY: P LATO S AS S OCI ATES
AND THE ZOROAS TRI AN MAGOI
PHILLIP SIDNEY HORKY
1. Introduction to the problem

ac c o rdi ng to ancient biographical accounts, when Plato was a
very old man and ill with fever, he received Persian magoi who had
travelled to Athens to meet the eminent sage; apparently, one of
these men entertained Plato and delighted him as he was nearing
death.1 In one version of the story, preserved by the Roman philosopher Seneca the Younger (rst century ce), upon his death (on
his birthday at the age of 81) the magoi sacriced to Plato because
he had completed the perfect number of nine times nine.2 While individual details vary in each retelling of the story, the originator of
Phillip Sidney Horky 2009
I would like to extend my gratitude to those scholars who have helped this essay
come into being: Kevin van Bladel, Jan Bremmer, John Dillon, Zina Giannopoulou,
Mark Grith, D. S. Hutchinson, Fred Porta, and Will Shearin. A great debt of
gratitude goes to Gabor Betegh, who saved me from a number of errors, and an
even greater debt to Brad Inwood, without whose guidance this piece never would
have left the cutting-room oor. No faults of this article can be referred to them
in their generosity.
1 Philod. Index Acad. Herc. 3. 3443 and col. 5 Gaiser. The corroborating evidence has been collected and analysed by P. Kingsley (Meetings with Magi: Iranian
Themes among the Greeks, from Xanthus of Lydia to Platos Academy [Magi],
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society3, 5 (1995), 173209), who has shown that the
Greek confusion of Chaldaean and Persian antedates the death of Plato by nearly
a century. Generally, I shall use the term Persian to refer to the religion, politics,
and cultural traditions of those peoples under the suzerainty of the Achaemenid
Empire from the advent of Cyrus the Great (mid-6th cent. bce) until the conquest
of Alexander the Great (late 330s bce). Of course, to Iranologists this represents
a generalization that obscures what are signicant distinctions between cultural
categories. For the sake of expounding a complex argument concerning Greek philosophy and its interactions with foreign cultural ideas, though, I prefer to err on
the side of oversimplication, at least on this occasion.
2 Sen. Ep. 58. 31.
48
Phillip Sidney Horky
the general account involving the magoi at Platos death is likely to

have been his own student and secretary Philip of Opus, who was
responsible for writing the appendix to Platos nal dialogue, the
Laws (around 347 bce).3 In this text, called the Epinomis, Philip orientalizes the philosophy of Plato: whereas the Athenian Stranger
in Platos Laws indirectly advocates worship of the sun, moon, and
planets in book 7,4 the same gure in the Epinomis systematizes the
worship of the heavenly bodies, which he considers to be either the
gods themselves, or images of the gods, like statues, which the gods
themselves made.5 Nowhere else in Platos uvre do we hear of
worship of images or statues of the godsmuch less the heavenly
bodies themselves as gurations of themas normative, and the
innovation here is signicant.6 This example is suggestive evidence
for the activities that were being undertaken in the early Academy
following the death of the sage; it may help to shed light on the
account of Favorinus, a philosopher of the generation following
Senecas, who claimed that a Persian named Mithridates dedicated
an image (%) of Plato, made by Silanion, to the Muses in the
Academy, presumably upon his death.7 It may also help to explain
why another anecdote, which appears in the Anonymous Prolego3 On the authorship of the Epinomis, see the authoritative study of L. Taran,
Academica: Plato, Philip of Opus, and the Pseudo-Platonic Epinomis [Academica]
(Philadelphia, 1975), 347. On Philip as secretary or amanuensis (') of
Plato, see J. Dillon, The Heirs of Plato: A Study of the Old Academy (347274 BC)
[Heirs] (Oxford, 2003), 1823 (with bibliography). Cf. Kingsley, Magi, 203.
4 Plato, Laws 821 c 6d 4, calling them the gods in the region of heaven ((
( ) ).
5 Phil. Op. Epin. 983 e 5984 b 1. Cf. Kingsley, Magi, 2035, who notes parallels in the wording and basic cosmologies represented here and in the traditional
Mesopotamian Enûma Anu Enlil and the Enûma Eli#s. I prefer to discuss the Greek
process of orientalizing its own philosophical theories rather than the origins
of Greek philosophical thought, although the latter have a remarkable tradition in
scholarship, most notably in the writings of Walter Burkert and M. L. West. Of
course, Burkert and West speak of successive waves of orientalization which lead
subsequently to proposals of Eastern origin of Greek philosophical thought; and
the disjunction between origins and orientalization is not exclusive.
6 Taran, Academica, 867 with nn. 4023, identies the shift that occurs from the
Timaeus (92 c 7), where the cosmos itself is called the * + + ,
in a general sense, with specic appeal to statues here. There is a variant reading
for + as + (on which see L. Brisson, Le Même et lAutre dans la structure
ontologique du Timee de Platon: un commentaire systematique du Timee de Platon
(Paris, 1974), 155 n. 3), but the sense is relatively clear either way.
7 Favorinus F 5 Mensching = D.L. 3. 25. For the links between these strands in
the biographical tradition, see Kingsley, Magi, 1978. Note that the name Mithridates signies given to Mithra in Old Persian (*Mira-data-) . Cf. R. Schmitt,
Iranische Personennamen bei Aristoteles, in S. Adhami (ed.), Paitimana: Essays
Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy
49
mena to the Philosophy of Plato (datable to the sixth century ce),8

implicitly compares the monument of Plato with the statues of
the gods.9 While we cannot determine that Philip of Opus was
uniquely responsible for publishing an original version from which
each of these narratives about the death of Plato is derived, we can
safely say that biographical accounts which establish links between
Persians and Plato can be traced to the early Academy.10
Here, then, at the mid-point of the fourth century bce and with
the handing over of the early Academy, we have the origins of a
biographical tradition in which is posited a substantial interaction
between the last words of Plato and Persian thought.11 Signicant
questions arise as a consequence of this formulation: why would
members of the early Academy wish to emphasize the encounter
between Plato on his deathbed and visiting barbaric practitioners of wisdom from the east?12 If it is the case that members of
the early Academy appealed to Persian wisdom traditions, to what
avail? How authentic is their portrayal of Persian thought, and what
were the sources of their information? Moreover, what role did this
transcultural translation and adaptation of Persian thought play in
the establishment and legitimation of philosophical positions in the
Greek world during the second half of the fourth century bce? For
that matter, if we can detect explicit and detailed appropriation of
in Iranian, Indo-European, and Indian Studies in Honor of Hanns-Peter Schmidt, 2
vols. (Costa Mesa, Calif., 2003), 27599 at 2878.
8 Cf. L. G. Westerink, and J. Trouillard, Prolegomenes a la philosophie de Platon
(Paris, 1990), lxxvilxxxix.
9 Anon. Prol. Phil. Plat. 6.
10 Cf. P. Vasunia, The Philosophers Zarathushtra [Philosophers], in C. Tuplin
(ed.), Persian Responses: Political and Cultural Interaction with(in) the Achaemenid
Empire (Swansea, 2007), 23764 at 24850. According to his entry in the Suda,
Philip wrote a work on Plato, which may have been a biography; certainly, Hermodorus of Syracuse (on whom see below) wrote a book that covered both his life
and his teachings. I shall return to the subject of the Chaldaean Stranger in Philips
writings in sect. 6 of this article.
11 The evidence in Greek and Roman traditions is collected by P. Vasunia, Zarathushtra and the Religion of Ancient Iran: The Greek and Latin Sources in Translation
[Zarathushtra] (Mumbai, 2007). I shall refer to sources in Vasunias book both by
standard author/title/page designation and by Vasunias numerical organization (in
bold): Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy, 4 (no. 24) and 6 (no. 147);
D.L. 3. 6 (no. 148); Paus. 4. 32. 4 (no. 149); Olymp. Vita Platonis 5 (no. 150);
ps.-Apul. Plat. 3 (no. 151).
12 The earliest explicit reference to the Greek adaptation of barbaric sciences is
Philip of Opus reference to the perfection of astrology that he supposes will occur
under the Greeks (Epin. 987 d 9988 b 1).
50
Persian thought among the successors of Plato, what can we say

about apparent references to Persian concepts in the writings of
Plato himself?
In the course of this introduction I have raised many questions
that I hope will provide not only the structure for investigation
into how Plato and other philosophers might have inherited a complicated and pluralistic discourse concerning the Persian magoi,
but also the parameters of this study.13 Any serious investigation
into the cross-cultural interactions between Persian and Greek wisdom traditions will be expansive and have the capacity to cover a
plethora of subjects as wide and various as ancient astronomy and
astrology, conceptualizations of space and time, metaphysics and
ontology, numerology, arithmetic and geometry, poetics and oral
transmission, ritual activity, religious order, ethics, law, political
theory and theories of rule, civic design, and doubtless others; as a
consequence, it is dicult to articulate the characteristics of these
interactions properly without synthesizing too abruptly and rushing to cause-and-eect assumptions that cannot be fully assessed
owing to a dearth of comparative evidence. Moreover, the histories
of these cross-cultural interactions threaten to be riddled with speculation and mirage, as they no doubt were in antiquity. We must
thus proceed cautiously and be on our guard against fabrication
in order to say something both substantial and legitimate about
Persian philosophical thought and the early Academy.
In this article I hope to demonstrate two main points: (1) that
the discourse about magism was fully developed by both Greek and
Persian sources as early as Herodotus (c.485c.425 bce), and that
this discourse came to be signicantly more advanced when it was
appropriated by philosophers in the early Academy and by the his13 In assessing the usefulness of magism, broadly construed, to philosophical
schools around 350 bce, I shall necessarily be forced to overlook certain aspects of
the representation of Persian culture in Greek popular theatre (in e.g. Sophocles,
Euripides, or Aristophanes) and in the traditions of medical texts (such as the
Hippocratic On the Sacred Disease), although the appearance or reference to magoi
in theatre and in the Hippocratic traditions certainly inuenced the discourse itself
of magism that Plato and other philosophers inherited. On this issue, I have little to
add to the analyses of J. Bremmer, The Birth of the Term Magic [Birth], in id.,
Greek Religion and Culture, the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Leiden, 2008), 235
48 at 2378; D. Collins, Magic in the Ancient Greek World [Magic] (Malden, Mass.,
2008), 546; M. Carastro, La Cite des mages: penser la magie en Grece ancienne [Cite]
(Grenoble, 2006), 3843; and M. Dickie, Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman
World [Magic] (London, 2001), 3540.
51
torian Theopompus of Chios after the death of Plato in 347 bce;14

(2) that the associates of Plato, especially Aristotle, Eudoxus of
Cnidus, Hermodorus of Syracuse, and Philip of Opus, appealed to
characteristics of Persian wisdom traditions in order to dierentiate
their own individualized philosophical systems from one another.
In the course of making these arguments, we shall see several new
propositions that will force us to reconsider the issue of Persian
thought and its place in the establishment of Greek philosophical
institutions in the mid-fourth century bce: (1a) concerning my rst
main point, I shall refute the oft-proposed assumption that authentic and nuanced knowledge about the Zoroastrian gods occurs only
after Alexander the Greats conquest of Persia (330 bce); (2a) concerning my second main point, I shall highlight the unique regard
for Zoroastrianism that the little-known Platonist Hermodorus of
Syracuse held by proposing that the Platonized description of Ahuramazda, Angra Mainyu, and Mithra preserved by Plutarch in a
famous passage in On Isis and Osiris (467 = 369 d 5370 c 4, no. 3)
may be attributed to Hermodorus. I shall conclude by returning to
the dialogue between the Chaldaean Stranger and Plato, written by
Philip of Opus and preserved on a papyrus from Herculaneum, and
suggest that the associates of Plato believed that Persian thought
anticipated and thereby justied the philosophy of their recently
deceased sage.
2. The constitution of a discourse: Heraclitus, and the

lie of the magu#s Gaumata in the Bisitun Inscription
The scholarly history of the signicance of Persian thought to Plato
and his successors begins in the mid-nineteenth century and has
been recently investigated in a pair of publications by Phiroze Vasunia: his Zarathushtra presents a signicant revision of Fox and
Pembertons 1929 collection and translation of the Greek and Latin
sources into English, and he provides an exegesis of this material
in Philosophers. In general, Vasunias approach is to contextualize the inuential arguments of Peter Kingsley regarding Persian
thought and Greek philosophy with theories of Orientalism (Edward Said) and Collective Memory (Maurice Halbwachs and Jan
14 See A. De Jong, Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin
Literature [Traditions] (Leiden, 1997), and Carastro, Cite, chs. 1 and 2.
52
Assmann) in order to understand how this gure [of Zarathu#stra]

was used and creatively appropriated by Greek elites.15 Vasunias
approach may be characterized as more balanced vis-a-vis the textual evidence and less explicitly concerned with assessing the truth
or authenticity of a particular representation of Zarathu#stra than
that of Kingsley, and in this sense Vasunias work improves upon
Kingsleys discoveries while remaining objective from ethical, historical, and political points of view.16 On the other hand, his conclusions, while valid, are too general with regard to the questions we
have posed at the outset of this investigation: an intellectual elite . . .
used a Persian wise man for its own domestic purposes in the complicated world of the fourth century and . . . remained in thrall
to him during a period of shifting allegiances.17 Indeed, the evidence regarding the appropriation of Zarathu#stra (or, Zoroastres, as
the Greeks called him)18 in Greek intellectual culture supports this
thesis, although the proposal does not clearly establish why Persian
wisdom traditions presented Greek philosophers and historians
with a unique point of reference around which to dispute specic
allegiances. Or, to put it another way: why did Zarathu#strianism
generate such interest among the associates of Plato (including
those who participated in the early Academy and Aristotle) and,
as we shall see, other gures involved in the intellectual culture of
Greece before the rise of Alexander the Great?
One of the problems with assessing this question is the challenging nature of the evidence itself. It is well established that the
various sources of evidence in Greek that date to the fth and fourth
15 Vasunia, Philosophers, 240. The two articles of Kingsley are Magi and The
Greek Origin of the Sixth-Century Dating of Zoroaster, Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies, 53 (1990), 24565.
16 Vasunia, Philosophers, 240. Even so, Vasunia notes that the use of Zarathushtra by Greek sources upsets conventional scholarly views about the implacable hostility of the Greeks and Persians in the fth and fourth centuries, which should be
localized in the rst quarter of the 5th cent. bce. Instead, as has been argued by
W. Burkert, Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture [Eastern] (Cambridge, Mass., 2004), and M. C. Miller, Athens and Persia in the Fifth
Century BC: A Study in Cultural Receptivity (Cambridge, 1997), disparate social
groups (which espoused various political ideologies) responded dierently to the
image of Persia following the end of the Persian Wars.
17 Vasunia, Philosophers, 254.
18 On the linguistic relationship between the various Greek and Persian formulations of this name, see R. Schmitt, Onomastica Iranica Platonica, in C. MuellerGoldingen and K. Sier (eds.), Lênaika: Festschrift fur Carl Werner Muller (Stuttgart
and Leipzig, 1996), 81102 at 938.
53
centuries bce oer fragmentary and sometimes conicting representations of the Persian magoi.19 If a single concept of magism is
to be posited, we must recognize that it functions for us heuristically
in order that we may speak more eciently about ancient Greek and
Persian cultures. In this sense, magism must remain a term that
refers to a complex of cultural positions informed by so-called exotopic narratives, and its semantic range must be exible enough to
account for the variety of positions that inform it.20 One approach
that can account for this variety is, broadly speaking, historical, and
it accounts for the development of concepts such as magism by
foreign observers. An eective recent advocate of this approach to
studying the Greek reception, interpretation, and appropriation of
the magoi has been Matthew Dickie, whose analysis of the formation
of the Greek concept of magic focuses especially on the earliest
representation of magoi in a fragment attributed to Heraclitus of
Ephesus (late sixth century bce). As Dickie demonstrates, Heraclitus attack on the magoi and other persons who practised initiations
into the mysteries of Dionysus is signicant evidence. Here, in the
earliest surviving Greek reference to magoi, they are associated
though, notably, not simply identiedwith peoples who practised
the mystic rites of Dionysus: speaking of night-wanderers (), Bacchants (, 1), and initiates ('), Heraclitus claims that the sacred rites practised among men are celebrated in an unholy manner (2 ) %
3 +).21 In the context of such censure, we should be
suspicious that Heraclitus association of magoi with initiates into
the cult of Dionysus may include elisions of type that cannot be
carefully assessed because of his critical bias. Still, the association
is telling, although this evidence in and of itself does not necessarily warrant Dickies claim that the magoi and followers of Dionysus
19 Jan Bremmer acutely notices that, among the Greek sources, we can divide the
responses into legitimate and dubious in accordance with genres: positive responses
paint a picture of legitimate hereditary technologists of the sacred (Birth, 239) in
history and philosophy, whereas negative appraisals are more frequent in tragedy,
comedy, and medical texts. I would add that these latter genres also tend to represent
philosophy and philosophers in a negative light.
20 Compare Vasunias discussion of Mikhail Bakhtins creative understanding
in cultural ideology (Zarathushtra, 1516).
21 22 B 14 DK = Clem. Protr. 22 (no. 543), trans. Kirk, Raven, and Schoeld.
Some scholars have expressed doubt about the authenticity and precise wording
of this fragment. For a recent listing of the positions taken, see Bremmer, Birth,
236 with n. 9.
54
were oering initiation into the mysteries to other people.22 Importantly, Dickie here assumes that initiation into the mysteries
that the magoi and followers of Dionysus practised was available
to political agentsparticularly people who sought private initiations in place of civic cultwhose ethnic or political aliation was
other than their own.23 In order for this claim to be substantiated,
however, we are required to contextualize its contents with later accounts of magoi that derive from the end of the fth century bce and
later, where it appears that some magoi, at any rate, were interested
in incorporating followers from other groups.24 Moreover, Heraclitus fragment raises further concerns: what distinguishes the magoi
to whom Heraclitus refers from (a) the followers of Dionysus and
(b) other kinds of people labelled magoi in the sixth and early fth
centuries bce? For that matter, does any evidence existespecially
evidence from both Greek and Persian sourcesthat could provide
for us a cross-section of information about Persian magoi not only
as they were represented by Greeks but also as they were portrayed
by Persians themselves?
As we have indicated, Heraclitus of Ephesus marks the oldest surviving occurrence of magoi in Greek traditions, around the time of
the Ionian Revolts (end of the sixth century bce). This association
of magoi with other followers of the god Dionysus represents the
earliest example of a correlation that would come to be inuential
over philosophers, especially Plato, in the mid-fourth century bce,
as I shall discuss below. For now, however, it is important to note
that the evidence illustrated by Heraclitus criticism derives from
his experiences in western Asia Minor at the end of the sixth century bce, and that, based on the fact that Ephesus had been under
Persian suzerainty for around forty years (after 547 bce), it is possible that Heraclitus is referring either to true magoi as priests of
22 Dickie, Magic, 29 (emphasis added).
23 Late evidence (Philostratus, VS 1. 10. 1, no. 144) exists for the idea that the
Persian magoi did not give instruction to anyone except Persians, unless the King
allowed it.
24 The earliest evidence that suggests that magoi attempted to initiate Greeks
comes from the Derveni Papyrus (text c.400 bce), on which see below. The only
other direct references to anything involving the public activities of magoi in Greece
during the 5th cent. bce, viz. Gorg. Hel. 10 (no. 173), Soph. OT 3958 (no. 174),
and Eur. Or. 14909 (no. 175), and perhaps the Hippocratic DMS 2 (no. 176), make
absolutely no mention of initiations. Instead, the focus is on charlatanism and the
acquisition of money by means of deception. For historical accounts of magism in
the 5th and 4th cents. bce (Herodotus, Ctesias, Xenophon, and Dinon), see below.
55
Zarathu#stra or to charlatans who called themselves magoi, or even to

other legitimate religious practitioners (i.e. non-Persians) who simply called themselves magoi.25 Any further discussion of this matter
that takes into account the evidence as extracted from Heraclitus
fragment alone would be speculative.
In fact, there remains a variety of dierent kinds of evidence collected from dierent media (surviving papyri, inscriptions, ritual
objects, and oral poetry) in various languages (Greek, Old Persian, Elamite, Babylonian, Aramaic, Old and Young Avestan) that
allows us to go beyond these safe, if unsatisfying, conclusions.26
The earliest evidence that provides us with comparanda for Heraclitus fragment actually pre-dates his oruit (5041 bce)27 by
fteen years: the Bisitun Inscription, a trilingual inscription (Old
Persian, Elamite, Babylonian) located in the Zagros Mountains on
the road from Babylon to the Median capital Egbatana in modern
Iran and inscribed between c.520 and 518 bce.28 This inscription,
which accompanies a relief sculpture that illustrates the conquering of the rebellious peoples who came to be under the control of
the Persian King Darius, represents the earliest in a series of inscriptions put up by Darius and his successors that reects a relatively stable ideological programme of the Persian King of Kings
(Old Persian x#sa yaiya x#sa yaiya na m) for a period of nearly two
centuries.29 This programme, which I shall for the sake of convenience call the Kingly ideology, was not simply relegated to
the inscribed stones that were found in various sacred or signicant spaces throughout the Persian Empire. It is an ideology and a
25 Cf. Dickie, Magic, 28. W. Burkert suggests that the hereditary family structure
of the esoteric community would have provoked negative valuations of craftsmen of
the sacred (The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Inuence on Greek Culture
in the Early Archaic Age, trans. M. E. Pinder and W. Burkert (Cambridge, Mass.,
1992), 415).
26 A useful collection of these textual materials from the Achaemenid period translated into French can be found in P. Lecoq, Les Inscriptions de la Perse achemenide:
traduit du vieux perse, de lelamite, du babylonien et de larameen [Inscriptions] (Paris,
1997).
27 22 A 1 DK.
28 The best description of the Bisitun Inscription is in R. Schmitt and H. Luschey,
Bsotun,
in Encyclopaedia Iranica <http://www.iranica.com/newsite/> [accessed 7
Mar. 2009]. Scholars of the history of magic (e.g. F. Graf, Magic in the Ancient
World [Magic] (Cambridge, Mass., 1997), 21) have glanced in passing at the Persian
source material but have not fully explored its signicance.
29 All citations and translations (with minor changes) of the Old Persian text of
the Bisitun Inscription are from R. Schmitt, The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the
Great: Old Persian Text (London, 1991).
56
programme in the fullest senses of these terms. For instance, fragmentary copies of the Bisitun Inscription were not only found in
Babylon (inscribed in basalt and translated into Babylonian), but
also in Elephantine/Jeb in Egypt (papyrus fragment in Aramaic and
datable to c.420 bce).30 This evidence suggests that the Bisitun Inscription was translated and copied (and recopied)31 until the latter
part of the fth century bce in areas of Persian inuence, in keeping
with Ahuramazdas express wish that the inscription, composed on
clay tablets and parchment, would be sent o everywhere in the
provinces.32 One of those provinces, of course, would have been
Ephesus.33
It would be impossible to summarize, in a few sentences (or in a
single article), the characteristics of the Kingly ideology, a project
that has required book-length treatments by both Bruce Lincoln
and, in a slightly dierent tenor, Margaret Cool Root.34 What these
studies have demonstrated is the recurrence of, as Root calls them,
conceptual patterns that demonstrate the ocial programmatic
eort on a grand and universal scale in Persian written documents
and artistic representation.35 I shall attempt to shed light on those
30 Texts of the fragments of the Aramaic copy of the Bisitun Inscription, originally
published in A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1923),
are also available in J. C. Greeneld and B. Porten, The Bisitun Inscription of Darius
the Great: Aramaic Version (London, 1982).
31 Cf. Schmitt and Luschey, Bsotun.
32 DB 4. 8892. I shall discuss the signicance of this passage below.

33 Ever since Cyrus, Persian rulers had wished to maintain a close relationship
between the centre and Ephesus, as evidenced by a sanctuary of Apollo in nearby
Clarus maintained by the King himself. Diogenes Laertius (9. 1314, no. 542)
preserves a spurious correspondence between Darius and Heraclitus in which the
King requests Heraclitus presence in Persia in order to learn from the . In
the context of the signicance of Truth/Cosmic Order (a#sa) to Darius ideological
programme (on which see below), Heraclitus response is worth quoting: All
men of the earth [] hold aloof from truth and justice [1 4 3
'], and, by reason of base folly, they devote themselves to greed and
thirst for popularity. But I, in my ignorance of all wickedness, and in shunning the
general insolence which is at home with envy, and on account of my abstinence from
splendour, would not come to the land of the Persians, when a little suces in my
judgement. The spurious response posits, rather obviously, Heraclitus slander
of the Persian King by disregarding the Kings elevated status and challenging the
appeal to truth and justice that recurs in the Achaemenid Kingly ideology. See
below.
34 B. Lincoln, Religion, Empire, and Torture: The Case of Achaemenian Persia
with a Postscript on Abu Gharib [Empire] (Chicago, 2007); M. C. Root, The King
and Kingship in Achaemenid Art: Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of Empire
[King and Kingship] (Leiden, 1979).
35 See Root, King and Kingship, 309. Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg sees coex-
57
characteristics of these recurring conceptual patterns in Persian

ideology that (a) engage in constructing meaning(s) for the term
magos (Old Persian magu#s, Elamite maku#s, Avestan *magavan-) and
(b) could have informed the Greek discourse about Zoroastrianism
that the schools of Greek philosophy inherited and consequently
appropriated.
The inscription at Bisitun is notable for its representation of
the magu#s Gaumâta, who is located on the losing side of the cosmic battle between Truth/Cosmic Order (Avestan a#sa) and the
Lie (Avestan drux#s),36 a duality cultivated in Zoroastrian traditions that had been attested in the Ya#sna of Zarathu#stra, composed
in Avestan some time between 1000 and 600 bce.37 Indeed, the
magu#s Gaumatas activity of lying, cognate with the activities of
rebelling and of disrupting and conscating the legitimate house
(Old Persian vi-, Avestan *vis-,38 Elamite ulhi, Greek 5)39 that
tension between Persian wisdom traditions and what she calls royal behaviour,
referring to 2 as mentioned at Plato, Alcibiades I 122 a (no. 282) (Political Concepts in Old-Persian Royal Inscriptions [Political], in K. Raaaub (ed.),
Anfange politischen Denkens in der Antike: Die nahostlichen Kulturen und die Griechen
(Munich, 1993), 14564 at 1501). I shall discuss this term in sect. 4 of this article.
On universality and its signicance in the Bisitun Inscription, see C. Herrenschmidt,
Aspects universalistes de la religion et de lideologie de Darius Ier, in G. Gnoli
and L. Lancioti (eds.), Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata (Rome, 1987),
61725.
36 For the meaning of a#sa as both Truth and Cosmic Order, see P. O. Skjrv,
s-e
Truth and Deception in Ancient Iran, in C. Cereti and F. Vajifdar (eds.), Ata#
Dorun: The Fire Within ([1st Book Publishing], 2003), 383434, who describes the
distinction thus: Most importantly, to the Indo-Iranians, as to us, truth and lie
is truth or lie about something, and as we have seen, in the Avesta, the Lie is lie
about what a#sa isit is not the algebraic opposite of truth, although it is its
cosmic opponent (414).
37 See two publications by P. O. Skjrv, Avestan Quotations in Old Persian?
Literary Sources of the Old Persian Inscriptions, in S. Shaked and A. Netzer
(eds.), Irano-Judaica, iv. Studies relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture
throughout the Ages (Jerusalem, 1999), 164 at 510, and The Avesta as Source for
the Early History of the Iranians, in G. Erdosy (ed.), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient
South Asia (Berlin and New York, 1995), 15576.
38 These words are not perfect semantic cognates, as Lecoq shows (Inscriptions,
170). Old Persian vi- appears to relate to the family lineage (Gk. 5), whereas the
term zana (Gk. !) marks the clan relationship; in Avestan, dman- refers to family,
while vis- refers to the clan. It may be, however, that these semantic relationships
are somewhat more porous and less delimited.
39 Generally, the term ulhi is coextensive with Greek 5 in the sense of estate,
although there are further semantic implications with the concept of a clan. Cf.
P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, trans. P. T.
Daniels [History] (Winona Lake, 2002), 1034 and 4456.
58
governs the Persian kingdom (Old Persian x#sac-, Avestan x#sar-),40

is represented as the false identication of himself as the rightful
heir Bardiya:41
Proclaims Darius, the King: Afterwards, there was one single man, a magu#s,
Gaumata by name, he rose up from Pai#siyauvada[there is] a mountain,
Arakadri by namefrom there; in the month Viyakhna fourteen days had
passed, when he rose up. He lied [adurujiya] to the people thus: I am
Bardiya, the son of Cyrus, the brother of Cambyses. Afterwards all the
people began to rebel against Cambyses [and] went [over] to him, Persia
as well as Media and the other countries, [and] he seized the kingship/
kingdom [x#sacam agarbayata]. In the month of Garmapada nine days had
passed, then he seized the kingship/kingdom [x#sacam agarbayata]. (DB
1. 3543)
What is apparent from this passage is that lying as it is practised

by the magu#s Gautama refers specically to the act of impersonating someone else, or, to be more specic, of assuming someone
elses name.42 Lying, then, is an activity correlative with false selfidentication, and it is expressly associated with a magu#s here and
elsewhere in the fth-century Greek accounts of Herodotus and
Ctesias.43 As Lincoln has recently shown, the magu#s Gaumatas
activities of lying and catalysing rebellions throughout the empire
are counterposedin the narrative structure of the inscription
by Darius rightful and solemn act of restoring cosmic order by
killing the impersonator and assuming control over the kingdom
(x#sac-) aided by the will of Ahuramazda, the Wise Lord (va#sna
Auramazda ha).44 What is more, the sacred act of publishing the
edict itself is represented as an attack on the Lie, its advocates, and
40 As Bruce Lincoln correctly points out (Empire, 45), this word can mean kingdom or kingship, an ambiguity whose economy is maximized in the Bisitun Inscription.
41 The accounts of Darius, Herodotus, Ctesias, and Justin vary on several points,
which have been discussed by Briant, History, 98106.
42 The economy of the Bisitun Inscription is evident: note that even the common
phrase by name (nama) emphasizes the crime of name-stealing. See also DB 4. 2
31, where, again in a description of Gaumata, nama recurs with the verb adurujiya.
This same formula recurs in the case of other people who make claims to be a
ina or the
legitimate king of areas under Persian control, such as the Elamite Ac
Mede Fravarti#s, who claimed to be Khshathrita, of the family of Cyaxares.
43 See Hdt. 1. 128. 667 (no. 128) and Ctesias FGrHist 688 F 13 (no. 130).
44 Lincoln, Empire, 469. Note, in the smaller inscriptions accompanying the
reliefs (DBaj), which mark the identity of each rebellious people, Darius restates
that each respective leader lied by taking a false name and declaring that he was
King.
59
its activity of concealing (apagaudaya ).45 Indeed, Darius goes so

far as to curse those who would conceal the record of his accomplishments.46 The general eect of these narrative foils produces a
juxtaposition in which the magu#s Gaumata, who functions in virtual
metonymy for the Lie, is the threat that has undermined (for a short
time) the cosmic order overseen by the triad of Ahuramazda, the
tool that carries forward Ahuramazdas will (a#sa), and his terrestrial representative, Darius.47 Of course, by defeating the imposter,
Darius helps to restore order to the cosmos.
Now whether Gaumata, as magu#s, was a priest of Ahuramazda
or simply a member of the tribe of the Magians from Media cannot be gleaned from this text alone;48 if the former, then the extent
of his profanation of the ethical codes and rites handed down by
Zarathu#stra, which emphasized good thoughts, good words, and
good deeds, could not be ignored by any adherent of the Mazdaean religion(s).49 Regardless, the logic of the inscriptions and relief sculptures compels us to consider Gaumata as a representative
45 Various terms for concealment (e.g. apagaudaya, apagaudayahi) appear at DB
4. 529.
46 DB 4. 579.
47 On Darius intermediary position in the relief sculpture at Naq#s-i-Rustam, see
M. L. West, Darius Ascent to Paradise, Indo-Iranian Journal, 45 (2002), 517. It
should be noted that in the Bisitun Inscription Darius is explicit about the reconstitution of order within the kingdom: Proclaims Darius, the King: The kingship/
kingdom [x#sac -], which had been taken away from our family, that I reinstated;
I put it in its proper place. Just as [they were] previously, so I made the places
of worship, which Gaumata the magu#s had destroyed; I restored to the people the
farmsteads, the livestock, the menials, and the houses, of which Gaumata the magu#s
had despoiled them. I put the people in its proper place, Persia and Media and the
other countries. Just as [it was] previously, so I restored what had been taken away.
By the favour of Ahuramazda this I did. I strove, until I had put our [royal] house in
its proper place, just as [it was] previously. So I strove by the favour of Ahuramazda
that Gaumata the magu#s did not dispossess our royal house (vi-). For the contrast
between Truth and the Lie in the Bisitun Inscription, see also DB 4. 3650.
48 As P. Briant notes (Gaumata, in Encyclopedia Iranica <http://www.iranica.com/
newsite/> [accessed 7 Mar. 2009]), the Old Persian and Elamite inscriptions refer to
him as a magu#s and maku#s, respectively. For Herodotus (1. 101, no. 121), the magoi
are considered a tribe of the Medes. Ammianus Marcellinus (23. 6. 356, no. 127)
gives us the fullest account of the development of the magoi, from small group of
priests employed in Persian governance, to become a real individual people (gens
solida).
49 Note, for instance, the contrast with Darius in the Bisitun Inscription (DB
4. 614): For that reason Ahuramazda, and the other gods who exist, bore me
aid: because I was not disloyal, I was not a follower of the Lie, I was no evildoer, neither I nor my family, [but] I acted in accordance with righteousness/justice
[r#stam upariyayam].
60
for other magoi: after all, each of the other defeated individual gures in the relief sculpture stands in as a representative for his own
unique rebellious tribe. It is thus clear that before Heraclitus declared his censure of magoi and other mystic practitionersnotably
those associated with the worship of Dionysusthe negative appraisal of a certain representative magu#s from the Persian Empire
was being distributed in imperial Persian propaganda that drew
centre and periphery into a relationship of unanimity against the
Lie and its advocates. Moreover, the publication and distribution of the account of the coercion, concealment, and deception of
the magu#s Gaumata were themselves gured as a sacred act, willed
by Ahuramazda himself, that provided stability and integration
to the region that comprised the peoples of the Persian Empire.
It is tempting to see Heraclitus criticism of the magoi and other
initiateswho, by denition, engaged in private rituals whose activities were practised in secretin the light of the censure of the
magu#s Gaumata and his tribe in the Bisitun Inscription. After all,
the story of the magu#s Gaumata inuenced the characterization of
the magoi in the accounts of other fth-century bce Greeks, including both Ctesias of Cnidus and Herodotus of Halicarnassus. Ctesias, whose historical information was probably obtained via oral
transmission, clearly knew the story of the deception of the magu#s
Gaumata (whom he calls Sphendadates) as well as the subsequent
slaughter of the magoi that took place following Darius ascension
to the throne.50 Moreover, the account of the magoi as preserved
by Herodotus features such remarkable similarities to the narrative
as recounted on the Bisitun Inscription that we can have little, if
any, doubt that Herodotus inherited the discourse about magism
that had been propagated nearly a century earlier by the King of
Kings himself, Darius the Great. It is to this account, and to other
accounts of magism that originate in areas inuenced by Persian
governance, that we now turn.
50 Cf. FGrHist 688 F 13 ( = Phot. Bibl. 72. 37 a40 a, nos. 130 and 261). Ctesias
account is interestingly dierent from those of Herodotus or Justin (who agrees
with Herodotus). This is signicant because it suggests that Ctesias account is not
derived from Herodotus, but is probably from another oral tradition. For Ctesias,
see Briant, History, 6 and 989.
61
3. A discourse inherited: magoi in the

Derveni Papyrus and Herodotus Histories
The remarkable coupling of magoi with mystic followers of Dionysus to which Heraclitus referred is not unparalleled in areas where
Persian political inuence can be detected in the sixth and fth centuries bce. Evidence from late fth-century bce Macedonia, which
had had a complicated relationship with Persian politics and culture
that dates back at least a century and to Darius himself,51 suggests
that the activities of magoi could be gured in a more positive light
than has been preserved in the Bisitun Inscription (in Old Persian, Babylonian, Aramaic, and Elamite), in Ctesias Persica, and
in Heraclitus fragment (in Greek). The recent publication of a
complete text of the papyrus roll found at Derveni in Thessaloniki
(text c.400 bce)52 demonstrates connections between initiates of an
OrphicDionysiac53 ritual community (mystai) and magoi, whose
duty, we are told, is to deter the impeding daimones by singing an
incantation ([)54 and rendering gifts to the dead by pouring
libations of water and milk:
51 For a historical account of the establishment of the Persian protectorate in
Macedonia, see Briant, History, 1416. Recently, B. Barr-Sharrar has examined the
mystic iconography of the so-called Derveni Krater, which was placed in tomb B
(adjacent to tomb A, where the papyrus was found), and has hypothesized that the
members of tombs A and B were in the same family or thiasos (The Derveni Krater:
Masterpiece of Classical Greek Metalwork (Princeton, 2008), 1824). At any rate,
she claims, the eschatological hope for heroic immortality was particularly strong
among the late-5th- and 4th-b.c. Macedonians (181).
52 Of course, it is not necessarily the case that the Derveni Papyrus was written by
someone from Macedonia. What is signicant, however, is that certain Macedonians
of the warrior class thought it worth owning and burying such a scroll.
53 This term is an adaptation of W. Burkerts OrphicBacchic, which, he notes
(Eastern, 82, 867), is as old a correlation as Herodotus (2. 81). For a historical
analysis of the issue, see F. Graf and S. I. Johnston, Ritual Texts for the Afterlife:
Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets (New York, 2007), 1423.
54 This is the text as supplemented originally by Tsantsanoglou and accepted by
Betegh and Kouromenos, although Tsantsanoglou also proposed 7[ or sacricial victims, which would alter the meaning of the ceremony signicantly. On this
term see Collins, Magic, 578. The term incantation ([) is borrowed by the
editors from Herodotus (1. 132. 3, no. 1) and assumes a connection between the
magoi as gured by Herodotus and those of the Derveni Papyrus. Later evidence,
especially from Lucians Menippus (see n. 56), lends credence to the second reading,
as does independent 5th-cent. bce evidence from magical spells, on which see R.
Kotansky, Incantations and Prayers for Salvation on Inscribed Greek Amulets,
in C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds.), Magika hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and
Religion (New York, 1991), 10737 at 10810.
62
. . . prayers and sacrices appease the souls, while the incantation [[]
of the magoi is able to drive away the daimones who are hindering; hindering daimones are vengeful souls (or: hostile to souls). This is why the
magoi perform the sacrice, as if they are paying a retribution. And on
the oerings they pour water and milk, from which they also make the
libations to the dead. Innumerable and many-knobbed are the cakes they
sacrice, because the souls too are innumerable. Mystai make the preliminary sacrice to the Eumenides in the same way the magoi do; for the
Eumenides are souls. On their account anyone who is going to sacrice to
the gods must rst [sacrice] a bird . . . and the . . . and they are . . . this
and as many [fem.] as . . .55
This passage is important for our understanding of the relationship between magoi, as they are described here, and initiates within
an OrphicDionysiac tradition that was practised by the Derveni
commentator. Given the fragmentary state of the text, it is dicult
to assess clearly how the magoi and the OrphicDionysiac mystai
relate to one another,56 and scholars have taken various positions on
this relationship.57 The evidence from Heraclitus discussed above
would seem to suggest that these various ritual communities could
55 Derveni Papyrus col. vi (no. 531), trans. Tsantsanoglou and Parassoglou,
slightly modied.
56 The initiation of Menippus in Lucians Menippus 68 (no. 155) provides an
excellent point of comparison. In it, a magos named Mithrobarzanes initially bathes
Menippus in the Euphrates while addressing the sun in a long speech (81
2 !) that was mouthed in a voluble and unintelligible fashion (
3 4 !), which the speaker takes to be an invocation of daimones.
Subsequently, the magos and Menippus eat (fruit, milk, honey, water from the
Chaospes) together, and the speaker is taken to the Tigris and cleansed while the
magos mutters an incantation (9 #9 :'), a process which may be
similar to his later prayer (at Menippus 9) to Hecate and Persephone in which were
intermingled some barbaric and meaningless words of many syllables (;
< 3 = > 3 '). Once Menippus has been
made into a magos (') himself, the senior magos walks around him to
prevent harm from the phantoms (:, ( ) and they travel home. Finally,
the speaker receives the proper clothing and is told no longer to say that his name
was Menippus but that he was Heracles or Odysseus or Orpheus. In this case,
the adoption of a new name signies the advanced status as hero, but it still marks
the taking of a name that was not originally ones own.
57 A useful summary of scholars views on the problem can be found in The
Derveni Papyrus, ed. and comm. T. Kouremenos, G. M. Parassoglou, and K.
Tsantsanoglou [Derveni] (Florence, 2006), 1668. I disagree with their procedure
in determining that charlatans is the probable intended meaning here (cf. also
pp. 501) because I do not think that we ought to privilege either the Hippocratic
author of On the Sacred Disease or Plato with regard to the information preserved
in the Derveni Papyrus. Concerning the former, his understanding of magoi derives
from the Heraclitean negative tradition, and concerning the latter, Plato inherited
the discourse surrounding these issues and did not himself invent it. We should
63
be associated with one another, although, if the Derveni commentator himself were an initiate of the OrphicDionysiac mysteries, it
would not be surprising for him to distinguish his own caste from
other ritual communities (even though there is no direct or indirect
censure of the activities of the magoi). Regardless, the emphasis
here is on what dierentiates mystai and magoi from one another in
a ritual performance: as Walter Burkert has noted, the mystai, like
the magoi, participate in the preliminary sacrice, but their imitation of the magoi in the ceremony apparently ends there. There is no
mention, for instance, of the mystai joining the magoi in singing the
hymn.58 Later evidence, preserved in Lucians Menippus (second
century ce), gives us a sense of the roles that the magos and the
mystes could play in the OrphicDionysiac initiation: there, it is
clear that the magos sings, while the mystes does not, and, moreover,
that the mystes cannot understand the barbaric utterances of the
songs.59 Roles in the OrphicDionysiac initiatory performance are,
in this case, distinguished both by status and by ethnicity. Since
the songs of the magoi represent an element that establishes the
otherness that magism presents to Greek culture, we might want
to examine it also as a locus of cultural dierence.60 What are we to
make of the proposition that the mystai do not apparently sing the
song with the magoi in the Derveni Papyrus?
In order to contextualize the question, we might consider ways
in which the evidence presented in the Bisitun Inscription, the
fragments of Heraclitus, and the Derveni Papyrus could help to
construct a paradigm by which to understand cross-cultural relationships between OrphicDionysiac and Persian ritual performers. Tsantsanoglou and Burkert, for instance, have pointed to the
correlation between the magoi whom the Derveni Author is describing and the Persian magoi described by Herodotus, whose Histories
therefore be wary of according his opinionsmuch less those of non-authoritative
speakers such as Adeimantus in the Republictoo much weight.
58 Burkert, Eastern, 11721. Or perhaps, if we accept the supplement 7[,
the sacrice itself. If so, we would have to assume that the mystai produce the
sacricial oerings of cake (and perhaps poultry), but do not proceed to pour out
the wineless . See Derveni, 16870, and K. Tsantsanoglou, The First Columns
of the Derveni Papyrus and their Religious Signicance [Columns], in A. Laks
and G. W. Most (eds.), Studies on the Derveni Papyus (Oxford, 1997), 93128 at 111.
As De Jong notes (Traditions, 11112), Greek libations prepared and concluded the
sacrice, whereas, for the Persians, libation rituals and sacrice of animals could
be performed separately.
59 See n. 56.
60 Cf. Bremmer, Birth, 246 with n. 61.
64
display an awareness both of the Gaumata episode of the Bisitun

Inscription (albeit in a modied form) and of the sentiments expressed in the fragments of Heraclitus.61 If we follow these scholars
and assume that the process as it is being described in the Derveni Papyrus is comparable to the Persian ceremony mentioned by
Herodotus (1. 1312), then we can ll in some of the gaps that remain: there, Herodotus explains that a person who wishes to make a
sacrice among the Persians must wear a tiara that has been adorned
with a wreathoften of myrtleand lead an animal to a puried
location. The ritual paraphernalia are restricted to the sacricial
victim, the wreath,62 the knife or cudgel (we must assume),63 and
something within which to boil the victim, except the bar sman that
the magoi routinely carry (which appears to provide the bundle of
grass upon which the boiled meat is placed) and the Persian clothing, including the veil (which corresponds to the Avestan pa dam)
and the Magian tiara.64 The rite is performed out in the open, often
on top of a mountain. According to Herodotus, it is forbidden to
engage in this ritual in a temple.65 The initiate must pray for the
good of the Persian people and, signicantly, the Persian King,
for, as Herodotus tells us, [the initiate] himself is [or, more likely,
comes-to-be: ] one among all the Persians. Subsequently,
he is required to cut up the victim limb by limb (2 !) and
boil it, and nally lay out some tender grass upon which he places
the meat. Finally, the magos who stands nearby sings a theogony
(), which Herodotus claims is what the Persians call an
e
61 Tsantsanoglou, Columns, 11017. Cf. Burkert, Eastern, 1203, where he

points out that the sacrice of the magoi in the Derveni Papyrus has more in
common with Iranian religious concepts and practices than chthonic worship in
mainland Greece.
62 On which see De Jong, Traditions, 11012.
63 Cf. Strabo 15. 3. 15 (no. 2), where he distinguishes the activities of Persian and
Cappadocian magoi: the Persian magos is responsible for cutting the meat up with a
knife, while the Cappadocian magos beats the animal to death with a wooden cudgel.
Cf. M. Boyce with F. Grenet, A History of Zoroastrianism, iii. Zoroastrianism under
Macedonian and Roman Rule [Macedonian] (Leiden, 1991), 2723, where the verb
', employed in a 1st-cent. bce bilingual inscription from Fara#sa (south-east
Cappadocia), means sacrice.
64 De Jong, Traditions, 118, refers to the bar sman, which indicates both the small
bundle of twigs and grass mound in the Younger Avesta. See Hdt. 1. 132. 1 (no. 1).
The tiara appears to be worn by the priest and the sacricer, but the sacricer is
marked by the wreath of owers on the tiara. Cf. De Jong, Traditions, 114.
65 This detail recalls the destruction of the temple of the foreign daeva and replacement in that location with proper honours to Ahuramazda and Arta in Xerxes
Persepolis inscription (XPh 3541).
e
65
incantation (). The Persians, so claims Herodotus, do not

have the custom () of sacricing without a magos present.
In Herodotus account, the role that the magos plays is signicant, but it appears that the majority of the performative activities
(other than singing) are carried out by the layperson himself:66 the
magos is expected to preside over the ceremony and to sing an incantation, but there is no reference to his hand in the sacricial act.
In the light of Herodotus description, then, what can we say is the
function of the magos in the ritual? We can infer from the text that
he acts as representative of the Persian community (or, possibly, the
Persian King himself, although it is unclear whether there is any
dierence between these concepts) and regulates the participation
of the layperson in the religious customs () of the Persians:
note, for instance, that the initiate is not allowed to pray for himself
but must pray for the health of the entire Persian community.67
The focus on the preservation of the Persian nomos by appeal to
the Persian King echoes the express desire of Darius in the Bisitun
Inscription to preserve his own household (vi-) by countering the
Lie through publication, the result of which is the promotion of
stability within the entire kingdom (x#sac-) in accordance with the
will of Ahuramazda.68
In general, the characterization of magoi as presented by Herodotus and the Derveni Papyrus appears to preserve the sociological
function of magoi to help to maintain order within the cosmos that
Ahuramazda had created and Darius had restored, even if they
inherited the discourse of concealment that must have been a real
concern to Greeks, who probably could not understand the IndoIranian language, Avestan, in which the incantations were sung.69
66 De Jong, Traditions, 114, highlights the correlation between this ceremony and
the narmaniia ritual, which is also a lay sacrice, in the Younger Avesta.
67 Note the repetition of terms relating to nomos: , , , .
68 This is also the substance of the prayer, inscribed at Darius tomb in Naq#s-iRustam (DNb 526), that the truth about Darius accomplishments may not seem
false (duruxtam adaya). This last paragraph, as N. Sims-Williams has noted (The
Final Paragraph of the Tomb-Inscription of Darius I (DNb, 5060): The Old
Persian Text in Light of an Aramaic Version, Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies, 44 (1981), 17 at 1), is remarkable: it diers in subject-matter
and is separated from other text by uninscribed space. A version of this text is also
preserved in the Aramaic copy of DB, suggesting that later copyists incorporated
this ideologically charged section of DNb into the popularizing version of DB
disseminated throughout the empire.
69 Cf. Eur. IT 13378 (?1 ! ') ), not
included in Vasunias Zarathushtra; Paus. 5. 27. 56 (no. 275); Lucian, Menippus 9
66
But the fragmentary representation of the magoi in the Derveni Papyrus and the more comprehensive illustration in Herodotus Histories lack some of the fundamental characteristics that are present
in the surviving incantations that Persian magoi sang in Avestan: there is no mention of the standard duality between Truth/
Cosmic Order (a#sa) and the Lie (drux#s) that underlies the cosmic ideology of both the Bisitun Inscription and the Old Avestan
texts of the Ya#sna, or, for that matter, of the cosmological principle
of Good Mind (vohu manah) and its model representative Ahuramazda (either as Zeus or as the Intelligent Lord).70 Herodotus
understanding of the ritual practitioners he called magoi is supercial, but it is also unlikely that his Persian sources possessed a
knowledge more extensive than his. Regarding the Derveni commentator, the case is less clear-cut: he appears to have had some
experience in the ritual performance as presided over by magoi, but
the fragmentary nature of the text does not allow us to deduce whether those fundamental elements that characterized legitimate magism in Persian traditions were available to the OrphicDionysiac
exegete.71
4. Magism and the early Academy: appropriations of

Persian wisdom traditions in the dialogues of Plato
The representation of the magoi in the Derveni Papyrus is signicant to our purposes in no small part because Plato appears to have
had knowledge of the OrphicDionysiac mysteries, although we can
(cited above in n. 56). For overviews of the song culture of the magoi as described
in antiquity, see De Jong, Traditions, 3625, and, more recently, Bremmer, Birth,
2457.
70 Even if not explicitly correlative, the principle of Good Mind (vohu manah)
could be highly signicant for the interpretation of the cosmological portion of
the Derveni Papyrus (roughly cols. xiiixxi). A full analysis of this matter would
require another study, but, for now, the reader interested in Mind in the Derveni
Papyrus should consult G. Betegh, The Derveni Papyrus: Cosmology, Theology and
Interpretation [Derveni] (Cambridge, 2004).
71 J. R. Russell adduces later evidence and anthropological eldwork in India to
suggest that the magoi of the Derveni Papyrus are not only Persian, but indeed practitioners of the Zoroastrian Satum
^ service, in which Zoroastrian priests solemnize
a meal in honor of the dead and engage in a prayer called the satûm no kardo (The
Magi in the Derveni Papyrus, Name-ye Iran-e Bastan, 1/1 (Spring 2001), 4959
at 546). The parallels between ancient and modern descriptions are suggestive but
cannot be used as denitive proof of a historical import.
67
only speculate about the depth of this knowledge.72 What is more,

the Derveni Papyrus demonstration of Presocratic hermeneutics,
specically of an enigmatic sort, resonates with experiments in
onomatology found in the passages of Platos dialogues that deal
with Orphism, notably in the Cratylus.73 Plato, of course, worried
about the dangers that the implication of onomatology in ontology
presented to his metaphysics. These questions cannot be extricated
from a more general concern in the ancient world, as we saw with
Darius in the Bisitun Inscription, with the ontological status of
names and their referents: for Darius, the cosmos itself was under
threat when the magu#s Gaumata lied and took a name that was
not truly his. Such actions led to popular revolts that threatened
the stability of both the Persian aristocratic hierarchy and the kingship that it supported.74 For Plato, too, the issues of truth and
naming took on remarkable political resonances:75 in the Cratylus, Socrates claims that the lawgiver is expected to know how to
embody in sounds and syllables that name which is tted by nature to each thing,76 regardless of the language that is being used,
and regardless of whether or not the lawgiver is Greek or barbarian.77 Likewise, as Peter Struck has pointed out, Socrates claim
in the Phaedrus that truth () is at stake in language at both
the syntactic and the syllabic registers is a primary hypothesis of
72 On this topic see P. S. Horky, The Imprint of the Soul: Psychosomatic Affection in Plato, Gorgias, and the Orphic Gold Tablets [Imprint], Mouseion,
3/6 (2006), 38398 at 3908; M. McPherran, The Religion of Socrates (University
Park, Penn., 1996), 297300; and M. L. Morgan, Platonic Piety: Philosophy and
Ritual in Fourth-Century Athens (New Haven, 1990), 3547.
73 Cf. P. Struck, Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers and the Limits of their Texts
[Symbol] (Princeton, 2004), 2939, 539. For a useful analysis of the relationship
between the etymologizing of the Derveni Papyrus and that practised by Cratylus
in Platos Cratylus, see R. Barney, Names and Nature in Platos Cratylus [Names]
(New York, 2001), 527.
74 Such is the ocial viewpoint promoted by Darius, but the situation was
doubtlessly more complicated. See Briant, History, 1035. The Cratylus, to be
sure, does away with analysis of personal names in order to pursue the correctness of names. On this topic see D. Sedley, Platos Cratylus [Cratylus] (Cambridge,
2003), 869.
75 Also emphasized by Barney (Names, 1017), although she suggests, quite
rightly, that the implications of the defective and imitative nature of names in
the Cratylus are not positively manifested for Platos political thought until the
Statesman.
76 , "# ' , @ , ! A ; 3 2
2 A ! (Plato, Crat. 389 d 46, trans. Struck).
77 See Plato, Crat. 390 a 2 and 59, where he twice refers to the possibility of a
barbarian lawgiver.
68
Platos metaphysics as it was formulated in the middle and later

Platonic dialogues.78 As we shall see in Section 5, Zoroastrianism
would come to be considered the forerunner of Platonic metaphysical systems among the students of Plato in the early Academy.
Still, it is impossible to assess whether Plato himself knew about
the basic tenets of Zoroastrian cosmology; as we have them, his
writings make no explicit claims to Zoroastrian metaphysics, even
though there are interesting parallels yet to be discussed properly
by scholars.79 There is evidence that Platos friend and student
Heraclides of Pontus, to whom Plato apparently left the leadership of the Academy during his second (c.367 bce) or (more likely)
third voyage to Sicily (c.361 bce), wrote a fantastical dialogue called
Zoroaster that may have centred around a Persian magos at the court
of Gelon, which would place the dramatic date of the dialogue in the
rst quarter of the fth century bce.80 Regardless of the historical
validity of this information, it is clear that Plato and his associates
had access to Greek descriptions of magism in various modes and
from various sources.81
Now, if Plato inherited a pluralistic discourse concerning the
magoi that was passed down in literary and philosophical circles, e.g.
in the writings of Heraclitus, Herodotus, and the Derveni Author,
then we might expect to see at least two kinds of magoi being represented in Platos writings. This is precisely what happens, although
78 Struck, Symbol, 589, citing Plato, Crat. 385 c and 430 d. Sedley (Cratylus, 10
13) speculates that the remarkable passage at 385 b 2d 1 is from an earlier edition
of the Cratylus and was later excised by Plato, perhaps when he had revised the text,
around the time at which he composed the Sophist. This is an intriguing suggestion,
but unfortunately it cannot be proven.
79 Such a project might pursue an examination of the cosmological and metaphysical orders expressed in Timaeus and Laws vis-a-vis the Gathas of Zarathu#stra,
although it would be necessary to demonstrate the mode of transmission of such
concepts.
80 See Heraclides of Pontus F 139 Schutrumpf
( = Posidonius F 49 Edelstein
Kidd, no. 76) and F 79 Schutrumpf

( = Plut. Adv. Col. 14, not included in Vasunias
Zarathushtra). The evidence is insucient to tie these fragments securely together,

although Wehrli, in his earlier edition of the fragments of Heraclides of Pontus,
thought the magos was Zoroaster.
81 For the anecdotes concerning Platos visits to the Near East and Egypt, see A. S.
Riginos, Platonica: The Anecdotes concerning the Life and Writings of Plato (Leiden,
1976), 669. The inuence of Persian thought on Plato was a popular subject among
scholars of the mid-twentieth century, including A.-H. Chroust, The Inuence of
Zoroastrian Teachings on Plato, Aristotle, and Greek Philosophy in General, New
Scholasticism, 54 (1980), 34257; W. Spoerri, Encore Platon et lorient, Revue de
philologie, 31 (1957), 20933; J. Kerschensteiner, Platon und der Orient (Stuttgart,
1945); and J. Bidez, Eos ou Platon et lOrient (Brussels, 1945).
69
few critics have attempted to parse the dierences between the bad
and the good magoi in Platos dialogues within a larger context of
the discourse concerning magism, which, as we have seen, takes
on both political and cosmological valences. Indeed, the discourse
of magism as discussed by Plato nds a common ground between
politics and cosmology in the concept of universal justice, which is
promoted by the good magos and subverted by the bad magos.
Plato appears to refer twice to such bad magoi: rst, in the Republic Socrates speaks of the clever magoi and tyrant-makers (B 3
3 ) who, when a young man is in the process
of being reared, appear on the scene and attempt to inculcate an
insatiable desire in his soul and lead him to a tyrannical way of living.82 In this case, the clever magoi and tyrant-makers as itinerant
practitioners of wisdom resemble the mendicant priests and seers
(' 3 ) to whom Adeimantus had referred earlier in
the dialogue; the association of magos with agurtes and mantis was
known to Sophocles before, and there is no reason to assume that
Plato for his part did not countenance some interchangeability between the terms.83 These mendicant priests and seers appear at
a wealthy familys house and try to persuade the rich that they
have the power to eradicate past wrongs through the employment
of their sacrices and songs ( 3 #A) .84 Indeed, for
a price, these charlatans will produce Orphic texts as a means to
purify both individuals and entire cities from injustices:
They produce a hubbub of books of Musaeus and Orpheus, ospring of
Selena and the Muses, so they say, according to which they perform their
sacrices, persuading not only private citizens but even cities that there are
modes of deliverance and purications for injustices by means of silly sorts
of pleasures both for those who are still alive and even for those who are
defunct [], which they call functions []; they deliver us
from evils there [in the world of the dead], but terrible things await those
who do not sacrice. (Plato, Rep. 364 e 3365 a 3)85
While their activities are not precisely the same, these itinerant
practitioners of wisdom share in common the threat that they pose
82 Plato, Rep. 572 e 45. D. Scott documents the similarities and dierences between the eros of the future philosopher-king and that of the future tyrant (Eros,
Philosophy, and Tyranny, in id. (ed.), Maieusis: Essays on Ancient Philosophy in
Honour of Myles Burnyeat (Oxford, 2008), 13653 at 1416).
83 Soph. OT 38790 (no. 174): :3 , '
. . . . . . 3 !) !, + ; 5 ; Cf. Graf, Magic, 212.
84 Plato, Rep. 364 b 5c 5.
85 On this passage see Dickie, Magic, 62.
70
to order at the levels of individual and city-state.86 Platos bad

magoi, as itinerant priests who attach themselves to potential future
lawgivers, represent a parody of the true Persian priest, whose duty
of preserving the nomos of the Persian King has been supplanted by
his interest in promoting desire for wealth in future tyrants that will,
inevitably, lter down to the magos himself. The bad magos of the
Republic, a huckster, is dangerous because of his ability to persuade
powerful members of a community that moderate ethics should be
replaced with unfettered hedonism; if successful, this enterprise
leads inevitably to a corrupt system of justice at the domestic or
political level. Plato thus appropriates the negative image of the
magos in the Republic as liar and magician to illustrate the dangers
that a compromised educational system poses for the leaders of his
ideal city-state and, inevitably, to the system of justice designed to
preserve it.87
The rst reference to good magoi in Platos genuine writings
this time not explicitoccurs in Alcibiades I, where once again education and its function in sustaining justice and truth88 are attached
to the Persian priests.89 The representation of the Persian priests
86 In the Laws (909 a 8c 4) the Athenian Stranger, in the midst of a discussion
about impiety, refers to those who, in addition to not recognizing the gods or being
uncaring or deprecatory, become wild animals; they look down upon and spellbind
many people who are living. And when people have died, they claim that they can
conjure them up and promise to inuence the gods, compelling them with sacrices
and prayers and songs; by doing these things, they try to destroy completely entire
households and cities for the sake of money. Cf. Laws 934 e 2935 b 8. Do these
gures threaten the Platonic cosmos? As Gabor Betegh reminds me, the cosmic
order is suciently stable not to be endangered by the activities of individuals,
or even of groups. But, even if divine justice or retribution will manifest itself,
this does not mean that certain individuals do not try to undermine the order of
the cosmos (even if, inevitably, they will fail and receive a krisis). Indeed, Plato
still speaks about forces that are hostile to the cosmos and its higher orders. One
especially vivid and familiar example of this is the spherical beings which, in their
great ambition, make an attempt against Zeus and the other gods in Aristophanes
speech (Sym. 190 b 5c 1).
87 Justice is central to Xenophons portrayal of Persian pedagogy as well, on
which see Cyr. 1. 2. 67 (no. 278).
88 Plato, Alc. I 121 c 1122 b 1 (no. 282). For Xenophons view of these issues,
see De Jong, Transitions, 4468. On the possibility of Persian political philosophy,
see Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Political.
89 N. Denyer, in his edition of Alcibiades I (Plato: Alcibiades (Cambridge, 2001),
1426), has argued for the authenticity of the dialogue, a conclusion iterated by
J.-F. Pradeau and C. Marbuf in their French translation as well (Platon: Alcibiade
(Paris, 1999)). The scholarly consensus appears to be that the arguments against
authorship have been disproven by Denyer (cf. R. B. Todd, Review of Denyer,
Plato: Alcibiades, Phoenix, 53/34 (2004), 3401; D. Konstan, Review of Plato:
71
here is more positive than what Plato had illustrated in the Republic. Here, Socrates, in discussing many dierent methods of rearing,
tells Alcibiades about the royal tutors ( ) of the
son of the Persian King who undertake the future heirs education
at the age of fourteen. Four tutors are selected from among the
best men: the wisest, the most just, the most temperate, and the
most courageous.90 The wisest man (%) is expected to teach
the boy the Magian lore [] of Zoroaster, son of Horomazes,
which Socrates explains is comprised of two elements: the worship
of the gods (( ) and the royal things (2 ).91
Alcibiades by Nicholas Denyer, Ancient Philosophy, 24/2 (Fall, 2004), 4614 at 461;
and C. Rowe, Book Notes: Plato and Socrates, Phronesis, 48/3 (2002), 287308 at
301); contra M. Joyal, Review of Nicholas Denyer (ed.), Plato: Alcibiades, Bryn
Mawr Classical Review, 2003.01.28 <http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2003/2003-0128.html> [accessed 7 Mar. 2009], although some scholars (e.g. G. Betegh, Review of
J.-F. Pradeau (ed.) and C. Marbuf (tr.), Platon: Alcibiade (Paris, 1999) and Denyer,
Nicholas (ed.), Plato: Alcibiades (Cambridge, 2001), Classical World, 99/2 (Winter
2006), 1857) do not take a position on the authenticity of Alcibiades I. Interestingly,
Denyer prefers a dating nearer to the early 350s bce, following signicant changes
in Platos political theory and approval of Persian customs. This is not the place
to discuss the appearance of the magos Gobryes in the pseudo-Platonic Axiochus
(371 a 1372 a 4; no. 205), which would require a study all to itself. I shall oer
only a few comments: (a) even if the Axiochus were to be considered spurious, it
could still, at least theoretically, derive from the early Academy. But, as M. Joyal has
pointed out (Socrates as , in the Axiochus, in K. Doring, M. Erler, and S.
Schorn (eds.), Pseudoplatonica (Stuttgart, 2005), 97118 at 97 n. 3), the Axiochus is
an eclectic dialogue that features Platonic, Epicurean, Stoic, and Cynic elements; as
such, it is unlikely to have been composed before the 3rd cent. bce. Still, it is worth
mentioning (b) that the eschatological myth there preserves the theme of universal
justice (familiar from the judgement myths of the Republic and the Gorgias) in a
Persianized form: according to the bronze tablets that Gobryes father saw during
the reign of Xerxes, a person who has died travels through the underworld and
arrives at the plain of truth ( ; cf. Plato, Phdr. 248 b 6), where he will
be judged by Minos and Rhadymanthus; that person is not allowed to tell lies in
the presence of the judges.
90 The most temperate (!) Persian is expected to instruct the boy
how to rule over pleasure and to be truly free as a king should. This Persian instructor
is antithetical to the crafty magoi and tyrant-makers to whom Socrates referred in
the Republic; here, a good Persian educator teaches how to become a true king,
rather than a corrupt tyrant. Such an interest in preventing the corruption of a
future monarch into a tyrant appears in reference to the Spartans and Lycurgus
reforms in Platos Laws as well. The tutor () is referred to alongside the
Orphotelest () in Philodemus On Poems (P. Herc. 1074 F 30; 181.
1 . Janko = Bernabe 655).
91 Plato, Alc. I 121 e 4122 a 8 (no. 282). Cf. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Political,
1501. In their zeal to show the historical inaccuracy of Alcibiades I, scholars have
unfortunately overlooked the fact that while Zoroaster is not the literal son of
Horomazes, the term father () in Greek philosophical circles (especially those
72
Scholars have focused on the rst subject of instruction without

investigating its relationship to the second: what precisely does 2
mean? How is it related to the project of the magos in Persia
or, for that matter, of Platos philosophy of education?92
Generally speaking, the term ta basilika refers to the duties and
tasks of a basileus (broadly construed) in the ancient world. It could
have been applied to both Greeks and foreigners. The adjectival
root - appears eighty-four times in Platos uvre (including
potentially spurious works such as the Lovers, Minos, and Epistles);
forty-seven of those occurrences are in the Statesman, where the
political art (G 9 !) is declared to be analogous to the
kingly art (G 9 !).93 There, the Stranger from Elea,
a student of the Eleatic School, is concerned with distinguishing
the true king and statesman from the chief wizard among all the
sophists (H ( ( ! ), whose primary
talent is imitation.94 Sophistic interest in the magoi and in magical practices was not unheard of in the second half of the fth
century bce: the persuasive art of Gorgias himself could easily be
compared with the arts of wizadry and magic ( 3 )
to which the sophist refers in the Encomium of Helen.95 If Plato had
been in the business of criticizing magical practices, it is probably
on account of the identication, among certain sophists such as
that possess contacts with eastern religious and wisdom traditions) referred to a religious and philosophical mentor, and as such Alcibiades I presents a nuanced understanding of the lineage and inheritance of Persian wisdom. The Eleatic Stranger,
for instance, calls Parmenides his father (Plato, Soph. 241 d 56), and Aristoxenus
(F 18 Wehrli = Iambl. VP 250) claims that Epaminondas called the Pythagorean
Lysis father. On educational parenting and adoption among the Pythagoreans
and Eleatics, see P. Kingsley, In the Dark Places of Wisdom (Inverness, Calif., 1999),
3945 and 15062.
92 Sancisi-Weerdenburg (Political, 151) sees the magoi as the teachers of the skill
of being truthful, which is to say loyal to the King, in oral traditions.
93 Or, for that matter, the household art () at Plato, Polit. 259 c 34 (cf.
276 c 910). Plato assumes a relationship, though not a simple equivalence, between
the science () of the basileus and his art (!).
94 Plato, Polit. 291 c 37; cf. Soph. 235 a 8. On goeteia, see especially Graf, Magic,
246.
95 Gorg. Hel. 10 (no. 173). Gorgias refers to incantations (#), a type of
speech (), that can compel a listener to pleasure by means of persuasion.
H. Tell discusses the Medized clothing of the sophist Hippias along with other
practitioners of wisdom such as Empedocles and Pythagoras (Sages at the Games:
Intellectual Displays and Dissemination of Wisdom in Ancient Greece, Classical
Antiquity, 26/2 (2007), 24975 at 2547). On Orphism and Gorgias, see Horky,
Imprint.
73
Gorgias, of their own arts of persuasion as mageia. But Plato saw

the arts of the goes and the good magos not as coextensive, but as
antithetical to one another within the personal and political ethical matrices. For as dedicated a political philosopher as Plato was,
the greatest threat that the magical art of the sophists presented
was in politics: just as he distinguished between good Persian educational practice (that led to the cultivation of a true king and
statesman) and the bad (i.e. false) sophistic imitative art of magic
in the Sophist and Statesman, so Plato in Alcibiades I undertook to
oer a counterpoint to the sophists, charlatans, hucksters, wizards,
and tyrant-makers who threatened to corrupt future lawmakers,
politicians, and (especially) kings of ideal communities by subverting systems of ethics and justice. These good Persian priests were
also described (probably) by Aristotle, who follows Plato in Alcibiades I in claiming that the magoi spend their time concerning
themselves with the worship of the gods [ (]
both in sacrices and in prayers [3 3 ].96 What is
more, Aristotle is explicit when he identies one of the functions
of the magoi as making arguments about justice (3 '
A).97
It would not be controversial to say that Aristotles understanding
of the magoi was coloured by his teacher Platos views on Persian
education. After all, Aristotle himself also adopted the dichotomy
between the arts of the good magos and the deceptive goes in
one of the ve surviving fragments of the so-called Magikos, a
dialogue from early in his career.98 Like their teacher, the students
and associates of Plato appropriated the discourse of magism for
96 Arist. F 36 Rose = D.L. 1. 68 (no. 4).
97 Ibid. Elsewhere (F 90 Rose = Cic. Tusc. 5. 35; Fin. 2. 32. 106) Aristotle is
said to have composed a work On Justice, in which he describes a Syrian king
who was praised for his abstention from pleasures. Aristotles On Kingship (3
) also dealt specically with the project of proper political rule as advised to
Alexander the Great, on which see I. Ramelli, Il basileus come nomos empsychos tra
diritto naturale e diritto divino: spunti platonici del concetto e sviluppi di eta imperiale
e tardo-antica (Naples, 2006), 2730. Apollonius of Tyana (Ep. 16 = Bernabe 818,
not included in Vasunias Zarathushtra) was also concerned to dene true magoi:
he stakes his claim in the notion that magoi are not named as such because of their
descent from Pythagoras or Orpheus, but from Zeus himself, and it is their descent
from Zeus that will allow them to be divine and just (A 3 ).
98 Arist. F 36 Rose = D.L. 1. 68 (no. 4). On the Magikos generally, see the balanced
and considered discussion of J. B. Rives, Aristotle, Antisthenes of Rhodes, and the
Magikos [Aristotle], Rheinisches Museum, 147/1 (2004), 3554.
74
their own purposes quickly and aggressively, to particular ends. It

is to these thinkers that we now turn.
5. Platos circles: reactions to magism
among the associates of Plato
An important discussion of the magoi is preserved by Diogenes
Laertius ( . third century ce) at the beginning of his Lives and
Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers:
Some people say that the study of philosophy took its beginning from
the barbarians. For they say that the magoi arose among the Persians,
Chaldaeans among the Babylonians and Assyrians, Gymnosophists among
the Indians, and the so-called Druids and Holy Ones among the Celts and
Gauls; so claims Aristotle in his Magikos and Sotion in the twenty-third
book of his Succession of the Philosophers. (D.L. 1. 1, no. 58)99
Thus Diogenes begins a historical assessment of the origins of philosophy, in which he disputes the point of view that he attributes
to Aristotle and Sotion. For Diogenes, philosophy begins with the
Greeks and possesses a twofold origin, in the schools of Pythagoras
in Italy and Anaximander in Ionia. The others who hold that philosophy received its origins among barbarians are a remarkable collection of gures: in addition to Aristotle (38422 bce) and Sotion
of Alexandria ( . c.200170 bce), Diogenes refers to the Egyptians, the Platonist Hermodorus of Syracuse (fourth century bce),
and the historian Xanthus of Lydia ( . mid-fth century bce).100
As is well known and has been recently investigated by James Rives,
the fragments of Aristotles lost works Magikos (if indeed it was by
Aristotle) and On Philosophy contained information about the magoi
and about Zoroastrian thought as it related to Aristotles philosophical systems. Indeed, Diogenes interest in the origins () of
philosophy as a problem of historiography responds to Aristotles
documentation of rst principles () of the systems of thought
of other philosophers and practitioners of wisdom, demonstrated
most famously in Metaphysics , but also preserved in the fragmen99 The attribution to Sotions twenty-third book is surely a mistake, and it should
be corrected to the thirteenth book. Generally, for a useful discussion of the problems
involved in using this passage as evidence for Aristotle, see Rives, Aristotle, 458,
and J. Mejer, Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background (Wiesbaden, 1978),
41 with n. 84.
100 For the activities and project of Xanthus, see Kingsley, Magi, 17391.
75
tary works On Philosophy and Magikos.101 Of the seven references

to magoi in the genuine and possibly (but not certainly) spurious
works of Aristotle, four refer to origins or rst principles of
magism and its unique type of philosophy,102 most importantly an
undisputedly authentic reference in the Metaphysics:
The poets of old agree with this view in so far as they assert that it is not
the rst beings [%]e.g. Night and Heaven or Chaos or Ocean
who reign and rule [' 3 =], but Zeus. In fact, however, it
was due to the changing of rulers of the universe [2 , ;
= ( @] that the poets were led to say these things, since those
of them who are not compromised by saying everything mythicallye.g.
Pherecydes and some othersposit that which generates rst as the best
thing. So also for the magoi and some of the later sages such as Empedocles,
who made Love an element, and Anaxagoras, who made Mind a rst
principle. (Arist. Metaph. 1091b612, no. 533)
Aristotles interest here is in describing how the poets of old (here

Orpheus, Homer, and Hesiod),103 who spoke, at least sometimes, in
scientic ways (as exemplied by Pherecydes of Syrus, Empedocles,
and Anaxagoras), were led to believe that whatever generates rst
is the best thing.104 The reason, namely that the changing of
rulers of the universe led them to posit a non-generated entity, is
remarkable for its potent complication of systems of philosophical
101 As suggested by De Jong, Traditions, 2234. L. Zhmud argues that the method
of biography practised by Diogenes Laertius does not diverge signicantly from that
of earlier biographers (The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity,
trans. A. Chernoglazov [Origin] (Berlin, 2006), 2956), and, moreover, that even
Aristotle intermingles historiography and systematic doxography in the Politics and
Metaphysics without contradiction (13642).
102 The seven fragments that refer explicitly to the magoi and are attributed to
Aristotle are those collected in Roses Aristotelis fragmenta under the titles On Philosophy (F 6 = D.L. 1. 8, no. 4) or Magikos (F 32 = D.L. 2. 45, no. 145; F 33 = Suda s.n.
Antisthenes, no. 63; F 34 = Plin. NH 30. 3, no. 60; F 35 = D.L. 1. 1, quoted above,
no. 58; and F 36 = D.L. 1. 68, no. 4) and Metaph. 1091b612 (no. 533). Of these
seven, the four that deal with rst principles or historical origins of philosophy are
F 6 (' ), F 33 (3 , : 9 ), F 35 (,
=), and Metaph. 1091b612. Concerning the tradition of the orientalized rst discoverer and its appearance in Platos works, see Zhmud, Origin, 2247.
103 Cf. Zhmud, Origin, 131 n. 53.
104 Apparently, Aristotle shares a common opinion about the poets of old with the
sophist Hippias of Elis (86 B 6 DK), who, when discussing the writings ()
of the Greeks and barbarians, lists Orpheus, Musaeus, Hesiod, and Homer. It is
notable, however, that Aristotle does not make any reference to ethnic distinctions,
as Hippias had done.
76
rst principles and of political rule.105 In this sense, Aristotle has

appropriated the historical certainty of changes in both divine and
human rule in order to make more general suggestions about the
metaphysical systems espoused by the poets of old and the magoi.
In no way does he share Diogenes Laertius concern with barbarian
vs. Greek in establishing his own genealogy for the development
of philosophical concepts: it simply does not occur to Aristotle to
comment on this. If this concern over the ethnic status of the magoi
arises in Hellenistic historiographies of the philosophers, there is no
indication that Aristotle is the culprit; but the priority that is given
to the place of the magoi in Aristotles archaeology of metaphysics
suggests that, for Aristotle at least, the magoi played a signicant
role not only in the development of Ionian wisdom traditions, but
also in the establishment of the conceptual apparatus by which the
Pythagoreans and, ultimately, Plato would derive their ontological
hypotheses.106
From Aristotle we can learn more about the melange of ideas
about magoi that were circulating in the mid-fourth century bce
among Greek philosophers. Another fragment, this time from his
protreptic dialogue On Philosophyprobably composed during the
350s bceand preserved by Diogenes Laertius (1. 8 = F 6 Rose,
no. 4), suggests that the magoi adhered to two rst principles ('
), the good daimon, whose name is Zeus and Horomazes, and
the evil daimon, whose name is Hades and Areimanius.107 Diogenes Laertius goes on to state that the same claim is made by the
biographer Hermippus of Smyrna ( . late third century bce), the
astronomer Eudoxus of Cnidus (c.390c.340 bce), and the historian
Theopompus of Chios (378/7after 320 bce), apparently quoted
from the eighth book of his Philippica.108 Similar descriptions of
105 The ambiguity is focused on the two verbs used to refer to the systems of rule
in the poets cosmologies: ' and =. Cf. Zhmud, Origins, 13640.
106 The sentence that follows upon the description of the poets of old refers to
those who say that the One itself is the Good itself, i.e. Plato. Alexander of Aphrodisias and Syrianus (ad loc.) refer to both Plato and Brontinus the Pythagorean,
although we cannot justify the reference to Brontinus here. Cf. W. Jaeger, Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of his Development, trans. R. Robinson, 2nd edn.
[Aristotle] (Oxford, 1948), 1334.
107 It is possible that Diogenes had a copy of Aristotles On Philosophy to hand,
since he cites this passage from the rst book of the dialogue. Apparently, this
book combined the theory of the origin of culture (as well as its fall as a result
of catastrophes) with the history of philosophy, which ends with Plato (Zhmud,
Origins, 113 n. 154, with bibliography).
108 The eighth book of the Philippica was also called, in antiquity, the Marvels.
77
Persian dualism occur in the History of Theology by Aristotles

student Eudemus of Rhodes ( . late fourth century bce);109 both
Eudemus and Hermippus were inheritors of Aristotles legacy, respectively in the late fourth and late third centuries bce, and thus
both could have adapted the position of Aristotle vis-a-vis Persian
dualism.110 But the association of the names Eudoxus of Cnidus
and Theopompus of Chios with this description of Persian dualism
requires further investigation, in part because Eudoxus was Aristotles predecessor and Theopompus his contemporary, and in part
because neither was demonstrably attached to Aristotles school.111
As with the descriptions of Aristotle, Theopompus account of
the magoi shows no hint of dening them specically as barbarian,
which is intriguing since Theopompus is so concerned, at other
points in the Philippica, to establish the codes of Greek and barbarian ethnic behaviours and then to demonstrate what happens when,
for instance, a barbarian is Hellenized, or vice versa. For the latter,
he had as a model Philip II of Macedon himself, who, as a son of
Heracles, was dignied in birth and ought to have cultivated virtue,
but instead sought a lifestyle marked by barbaric bestiality and incontinence.112 For the former, Theopompus adduced, interestingly,
a philosopher-politician: the Platonist Hermias of Atarnaeus, a remarkable character within the history of the early Academy who,
Its subject-matter may have comprised prophets, priests, and portents (cf. G. S.
Shrimpton, Theopompus the Historian [Theopompus] (Montreal, 1991), 1521).
109 F 150 Wehrli ( = Damasc. Princ. 124, no. 215). It is likely, though, contra Wehrli,
that the information preserved by Eudemus on the magoi did not come from Eudemus Physics, but rather from the History of Theology, and, moreover, that Eudemus
was following Aristotle in distinguishing between theologians and philosophers.
Cf. G. Betegh, On Eudemus Fr. 150 (Wehrli) [Eudemus], in I. Bodnar and W. W.
Fortenbaugh (eds.), Eudemus of Rhodes (New Brunswick and London, 2002), 337
57 at 34955.
110 Even so, it is important to note, with J. Bollansee (Hermippos of Smyrna and
his Biographical Writings: A Reappraisal (Leuven, 1999), 1617), that Hermippus
probably had access to works on Zoroastrianism that were not related to Aristotles
On Philosophy, but rather had come into the collection of the Alexandrian library. Evidence for this is Pliny the Elders comment (NH 30. 1. 2 = F 57 Wehrli,
no. 60) that Hermippus wrote a commentary on the two million lines composed by
Zoroastres and that he drew up a catalogue of his works.
111 For that matter, Theopompusas a student of Isocrates (although we should
not make too much of this)occupied a position in opposition to both Plato and
Aristotle. On this topic see Shrimpton, Theopompus, 67.
112 Cf. M. A. Flower, Theopompus of Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth
Century BC [Theopompus] (Oxford, 1994), 95104, and Shrimpton, Theopompus,
1624.
78
like the magoi in other biographical accounts, appears on the scene

immediately following the death of Plato.113 A politician, in the
words of Jaeger, full of unresolved contradictions, he is nevertheless known for having been friends with the Platonists Erastus,
Coriscus, and Aristotle himself, to whose name is attached a hymn to
Hermias and an inscription on Hermias statue in Delphi.114 Didymus in his commentaries on Demosthenes Philippica preserves a
letter from Theopompus (apparently) to Philip in which he claims
that Hermias changed his tyranny into a milder rule, a feat that
stands, we should note, in contrast to the abysmal failure of Plato
with Dionysius II in Syracuse.115 Appointed to carry out orders
by the Achaemenid court, Hermias had shifted allegiancesa shift
that is attributed to his interactions with Platonistsand attempted
to inuence local politics in Ionia through military aggression.116
Accordingly, he revolted from the Persian King Artaxerxes III,
who subsequently sent Mentor to subdue Hermias and the others
involved in the revolt. Theopompus account of him speaks of this
issue matter-of-factly, and it does little to atter, presenting him as
a money-grubber and violent opportunist whose impiety (1)
prompted torture and crucixion at the order of Artaxerxes III
himself.117 Again, the charges of impiety and revolution would have
113 In the account of Philochorus as preserved in the Index Academicorum philosophorum (p. 22 Mekler = col. 5 Gaiser).
114 F 674 Rose = D.L. 5. 6. Aristotle laments the death of Hermias by the treachery of the King of the Persians, who had him killed. This description contradicts
other historical accounts, whichwhether positive or negative in tonedo not narrate so interesting a plot. I disagree with Flowers attempts to demonstrate that
Hermias was not a barbarian based on, in great part, the argument that Aristotle believed that barbarians were slaves by nature and inferior to Greeks (Flower,
Theopompus, 2067, citing Pol. 1252B, 1255A, 1285A202, and 1327B279). Aristotles
descriptions in the Politics cannot be extricated from the more general polemic involving the description of other forms of political governance against which he is
developing his own best form of a constitution: the emphasis, in the Politics, is not on
ethnic dierence (as it is in Theopompus) but rather on mentalities and approaches
to life that can lead a human being to a state of enslavement. Tentatively, I follow instead Shrimpton (Theopompus, 1089, 1256), with the caveats expressed by
Jaeger (Aristotle, 11215). Of course, the probably spurious Platonic Epistle VI is
addressed to Hermias, Erastus, and Coriscus.
115 Did. In Dem. col. 5 Pearson and Stephens. In Philochorus account as preserved in the Index Academicorum philosophorum (p. 23 Mekler = col. 5 Gaiser),
Hermias is said to have changed the government to a monarchy, presumably from
a tyranny.
116 Did. In Dem. col. 5 Pearson and Stephens; D.S. 16. 52. 34; Callisth. FGrHist
124 F 2. Cf. Briant, History, 6889.
117 Did. In Dem. col. 5 Pearson and Stephens.
79
echoed both cosmically and politically for anyone involved in the

administration of the Persian court.
What becomes clear, then, is that Theopompus did not advocate
Persian or barbarian ways of living and mentioned them only in
the reductive characterization of a pre-civilized state of existence, a
rhetorical move reinforced by repeated descriptions of the bucolic
simplicity or mindless drunkenness of peoples identied as nonGreek. Even a barbarian who studied with the students of Plato
would inevitably succumb to lust for money, power, and pleasure
despite his attempt to acquire Greek temperance and virtue.118 In
the context of this dismissal of barbarian ethics, scholars have
rightly found Theopompus historically accurate and thorough description of the magoipreserved by Plutarch in On Isis and Osiris
(second century ce)perplexing:
[A]119 Some believe that there are two gods who are rivals, as it were, in
art, the one being the craftsman [] of good things, the other of
bad things; [B] others call the better of these a god and his rival a daimon,
as, for example, Zoroaster the magos, who lived, so they record, ve thousand years before the siege of Troy. He used to call the one Horomazes
and the other Areimanius, and showed also that the former was similar
especially among objects of perception [ ( (]to light,
and the latter, on the contrary, to darkness and ignorance, while the middle/
mean of both [! A] was Mithres. . . . He also taught that votive
and thank-oerings should be made to Horomazes, but gloomy oerings to
Areimanius, and those apotropaic. . . . And [B] they [sc. the others, A]
also relate many mythical details about the gods, and the following are instances: Horomazes is born from the purest light and Areimanius from
darkness, and they are at war with one another. The former (Horomazes)
created six gods, the rst being the god of good will ['], the second
the god of truth [], and the third the god of good order [],
and the others gods of wisdom [] and wealth [+], the sixth being
the craftsman of pleasures directed towards beautiful things [( 3 A
A G! ]. The other [Areimanius] created an equal number of rivals to these. Then Horomazes, having increased his dimensions
118 Although we should not be too surprised at this, especially in the light of
Theopompus accusation (FGrHist 115 F 259) that Platos dialogues were both
plagiarized and worthless and false ( 3 A).
119 Capital letters refer to a shift in the source being employed, in accordance
with Plutarchs practice of marking a new authority with B !/B ! constructions
or the use of a demonstrative adjective. Points of ellipsis indicate the omission of
portions of the text that are direct commentary either by Plutarch (marked by a shift
in discussion and an explanatory particle such as ) or by Persians apparently
contemporaneous with Plutarch.
80
threefold120 [3 ", ], removed himself as far from the sun as

the sun is distant from the earth, and adorned the heavens with stars; and
one star, Sirius, he established above all others as a guardian and watcher.
Twenty-four other gods were created by him and put into an egg. Those
who were created from Areimanius were of equal number, and they pierced
through the egg . . . and so it comes about that good and bad things are
mixed. There will come the destined time when Areimanius, the bringer
of plague and famine, must needs be utterly destroyed and obliterated by
these. The earth will be at and level and one way of life and one government will arise of all men, who will be happy and speak the same language.
[C] Theopompus says that, according to the magoi, for three thousand
years alternately [2 !] the one god will dominate the other and be
dominated, and that for another three thousand years they will ght and
make war, until one smashes up the domain of the other. In the end Hades
will perish and men will be happy; neither will they need sustenance nor
will they cast a shadow, while the god who will have brought this about
will have quiet and rest, not for a long while indeed for a god, but for
such time as would be reasonable for a man who falls asleep. Such is the
mythology of the magoi.121
This passage has been the subject of a great many examinations

over the past century, and the results have varied,122 but there is
a consensus that the material presented by Plutarch here is derived primarily from three sources: Theopompus, Hermodorus of
Syracuse, and Eudoxus of Cnidus, of whom the latter two were
associates of Plato. Concerning the information reported by source
[A], namely that the two Persian gods Horomazes (Old Persian and
Avestan Ahuramazda) and Areimanius (Avestan Angra Mainyu)123
were rivals in art, we cannot attribute it securely to any of these
fourth-century bce authorities; it probably derives from later
sources.
120 i.e. having moved from point to line to solid, a common problem among
Platonists in the mid-4th cent. bce. On this subject see W. Burkert, Lore and Science
in Ancient Pythagoreanism, trans. E. L. Minar, Jr. (Cambridge, Mass., 1972), 238.
121 Plut. Is. et Osir. 467 (369 d 5370 c 4, no. 3), ed. J. G. Griths (Plutarchs
De Iside et Osiride (Cambridge, 1970)), trans. Griths, modied.
122 For a very useful bibliography on this passage, see De Jong, Traditions, 163
n. 26.
123 It should be noted that Angra Mainyu (contra M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism, ii. Under the Achaemenians (Leiden, 1982), 123) does not appear in any of
the Old Persian inscriptions, where instead we nd evil embodied in the Lie (drug).
But Angra Mainyu does appear as a spirit contrary to the will of Ahuramazda in
the Old Avestan Gathas of Zarathu#stra (43. 15; 44. 12; 45. 2), which were probably
composed before 600 bce.
81
Regarding the information preserved by sources [B] and [C], to

be sure, we nd interesting points of comparison in the mid-fourth
century bce. First of all, Theopompus [C] clearly refers to a cycle
of rulers, which will apparently conclude in the immortalization of
human beings. This information is corroborated by another fragment of Theopompus, preserved by Diogenes Laertius, in which
the magoi are said to claim that humans will be immortal and that
things in existence will endure through their invocations.124 Aristotle (Metaph. 1091b612, no. 533), when discussing the poetry of
those who do not speak about all things mythically, does mention the change of rulers ( ; =) in the
cosmological systems of Pherecydes, the magoi, Empedocles, and
Anaxagoras. An important question arises as a consequence of the
ambiguity of this expression: is Aristotle in the Metaphysics referring to this change as a cycle of rulers, or is it simply a linear
succession?125 The evidence is not conclusive, as Aristotle himself
seems to be either unwilling or at a loss over how to describe this
type of change.126 As I mentioned previously, in On Philosophy
(D.L. 1. 8 = F 6 Rose, no. 4), Aristotle had described the two rst
principles of the magoi as good daimon and bad daimon, one called
Zeus and Horomazes, and the other Hades and Areimanius. While
the information preserved by Theopompus [C] follows Aristotle
by associating Zeus with Horomazes and Hades with Areimanius,
124 FGrHist 115 F 64 (a) (b) (nos. 4, 207).
125 As maintained by Betegh, Eudemus, 3512.
126 Aristotle, in this passage, is seeking to establish that the poets who speak
somewhat logically do so by positing a primary generator that is best. He does not
go into detail for Pherecydes or the magoi, but he does use Empedocles Love and
Anaxagoras Mind as examples. Now, since he never mentions Pherecydes or the
magoi anywhere else in the Metaphysics, we cannot establish intratextual comparanda
for these gures. But Aristotle often discusses the rst principles of Empedocles and
Anaxagoras in the Metaphysics: in the case of Anaxagoras, Aristotle claims that he
posited an innity of principles, of which, apparently, Mind was the primary generator (cf. Metaph. 984A12 ., 989A30 .); in the case of Empedocles, there is a strict
dualism between Love and Strife, with Love as the primary generator. Moreover,
Aristotle does propose how, in his opinion, these principles relate to each other.
He adduces Anaxagoras and Empedocles as witnesses to the fact that actuality is
prior to potentiality, Anaxagoras since Mind is actuality and Empedocles with
Love and Strife. But when describing what this means, i.e. actuality being prior
to potentiality, Aristotle is frustratingly ambivalent: therefore Chaos or Night did
not exist for an unlimited time, but the same things have always existed either in a
cycle or in some other way [M # M =], if actuality is prior to potentiality.
In the case of Anaxagoras, at any rate, Aristotle himself admits to being confused
(cf. Metaph. 1075B8 .).
82
it goes beyond Aristotles account in On Philosophy by clearly, and

markedly, positing a cycle of rulers. If Aristotle posited a cycle of
rulers in the cosmos of the magoi in On Philosophy, it unfortunately
has not survived, although it would not be impossible to imagine
that he had posited such a cycle in lost portions of the dialogue.127
But what about the information under the authority of source
[B]? If one were to suggest that Theopompus is the source here as
well, one would need to explain why Theopompus is named near
the end of this section and not earlier.128 Some have proposed that
the ultimate source for all the information in this passage from On
Isis and Osiris may have been Eudoxus of Cnidus.129 According to
this proposal, the explicit reference to Hades in the Theopompus
section [C] would indicate that he took Areimanius to be Hades,
following Eudoxus, who appears to have composed a work On Isis
from which both Theopompus and Plutarch could be copying.130
There is some value to this proposal. The possibility that Eudoxus
could be the authority behind sections [B] and [C] is supported
by the biographical traditions: in spite of the fact that Eudoxus
studied with both Plato and Archytas,131 he considered the magian division of wisdom to be the most honourable and most useful (clarissimam utilissimamque).132 What is more, concerning
the information given under authority [B] alone, we note several
interesting conceptual parallels with Eudoxus philosophy: the appeals to astronomical orders and to pleasures are both areas of in127 That is, if we are to trust Diogenes Laertius (1. 9 = Eudemus F 89 Wehrli, no. 4)
when he claims that the Peripatetic Eudemus followed Theopompus in asserting
that humans would inevitably become immortal. The claim would be that Eudemus
also posited a cycle of rulers for the cosmology of the magoi, one that he probably
adopted from Aristotle. It is in this light that Jaeger (Aristotle, 1379) adduced a
passage in Ciceros De natura deorum (1. 13 . = F 26 Rose) that preserves some
semblance of Aristotles early metaphysics from the third book of On Philosophy,
in which Aristotle claims that all divinity is mind, then god is the world itself,
then that god becomes aether, and then some other thing which rules and watches
over the movement of the world with a certain backwards-turning (replicatione
quadam mundi motum regat atque tueatur).
128 Griths, Plutarchs De Iside et Osiride, 4801.
129 Shrimpton suggests that the cosmic eschatology of the Persians is mostly, if
not totally, derived from Theopompus (Theopompus, 16), although he does not comment on Eudoxus. Jaeger (Aristotle, 134) hypothesizes that Eudoxus was Theopompus source.
130 Possibly book 2 of the 1 (F 286302 Lasserre).
131 T 7 Lasserre ( = D.L. 8. 86 .), citing Sotion as the source for Eudoxus as a
student of Plato.
132 F 342 Lasserre = Plin. NH 30. 3 (no. 60).
83
tense interest for Eudoxus ethical and metaphysical thought, and

the explicit description of Horomazes magnifying himself (",
) recalls Aristotles comment in the Nicomachean Ethics that,
for Eudoxus, the Good is magnied by itself (N 4 , ,
:#() in contrast to other goods.133
On the other hand, there are several reasons to doubt the attribution of the information given by authority [B] to Eudoxus. First
of all, there is no evidence that Eudoxus would have identied
Horomazes with the Good; on the contrary, for Eudoxus Pleasure was the Good, and it would be hard to conceive of any direct
analogy between Pleasure and Horomazes.134 What is more, the
cosmology as described here is far too mythical for Eudoxus, who
was a serious empirical scientist in his own right. Indeed, source
[B]s description of Horomazes adornment of the stars from the
periphery recalls the mythical Orphic commentary of the Derveni
Papyrus;135 the parallel birth of the twenty-four other gods from
the egg also resembles the cosmogony of the Orphic Rhapsodies,
although it is not clear how source [B] ts into fourth-century accounts of the so-called ornitho-theogony.136 Thus, source [B] tends
to amalgamate various kinds of cosmological and religious concepts with astronomy and metaphysics. Nothing of this sort appears in the fragments of Eudoxus. Finally, the reference to the
dating of Zoroaster in source [B] is challenged by another fragment
133 The text is problematic here, and I have adopted Lasserres interpretation
(D 4 = Arist. NE 1172B925), but the sense is clear in any case.
134 D 4 Lasserre = Arist. NE 1172b911: N 4 P 9 G9 , #Q)
5.
135 Derveni Papyrus col. xv: For when the sun is separated and conned in the
middle, [Mind] holds fast, having xed them, both those above the sun and those
below [ .!
3 = + G 3 2 ]. And the next line:
following him in turn was Cronus, and then Zeus the contriver. He means something like from that time is the beginning [], from which this magistracy rules
[' R ] (trans. Tsantsanoglou and Parassoglou, slightly modied). On
the position of the sun vis-a-vis the earth and periphery in the Derveni Papyrus,
see Betegh, Derveni, 23544.
136 As suggested by J. Bidez and F. Cumont, Les Mages hellenises: Zoroastre,
Ostanes et Hystaspe dapres la tradition grecque (1938; repr. New York, 1975), 767.
In the theogony of the Orphic Rhapsodies, preserved in large part by the Neoplatonist
commentators Damascius and Proclus, Chronos gives birth to Aither and places an
egg in it (OF 121 F Bernabe; cf. OF 96 T Bernabe = Damasc. Princ. 123, iii. 159. 17
Westerink). Thereafter, Phanes, also considered the rst king (OF 167 F Bernabe),
breaks out (!) of the egg and creates the heavenly bodies and earth (OF 149 F
Bernabe). He also establishes the sun as the guardian of the universe (OF 158 F
Bernabe). For a useful account of the problems involved in the various versions of
the Orphic cosmogony, see Betegh, Derveni, 14052 and 158.
84
of Eudoxus, where he claims that Zoroaster should be dated to six

thousand years before the death of Plato.137 Source [B], to be sure,
claims that Zoroaster is to be dated to ve thousand years before
the fall of Troy. Eudoxus accountwhich emphasizes the death
of Platohas modied the original chronology that was posited by
the fth-century historian Xanthus of Lydia, appropriating it to
instantiate a new world era.138 Now, if Eudoxus believed that the
fall of Troy and the death of Plato were separated by a thousand
years, the dates would correspond; but since we do not have any
evidence to support this, it must remain only a possibility.139 For
these reasons, we should be hesitant to consider Eudoxus as the
source for the information reported by [B], although we cannot
denitively count him out. Still, the only extant authority in antiquity other than source [B] who claims that Zoroaster lived ve
thousand years before the fall of Troy is the Platonist Hermodorus
of Syracuse, to whom we now turn.
Very little is known about the mysterious gure of Hermodorus:
the description in the Suda mentions only that he became a student [] of Plato and took the dialogues of Plato to Sicily
in order to sell them.140 If he travelled back to Athens with Plato
on his last trip from Sicily, in 361/0 bce, then he could have spent
at least fourteen years with Plato before his death.141 He appears to
have written on Platos life and doctrines, perhaps in the same treatise, which Simplicius calls On Plato (3 ). When citing
Hermodorus of Syracuse on the magoi, Diogenes Laertius names a
book On Sciences (3 ), and, in the light of the subjectmatter of the passages quoted by Simplicius regarding Hermodorus
(the more and the less, innity, equality, that which has been
137 F 342 Lasserre = Plin. NH 30. 3 (no. 60). That Eudoxus probably died after
Plato (and not before, as was claimed by Jaeger, a view adopted by subsequent
scholarship) has been demonstrated by Kingsley, Magi, 183 n. 64.
138 Cf. Kingsley, Magi, 196, although I disagree with his claim that Eudoxus
did not alter Xanthus dating of six thousand years before Xerxes crossing into
Europe to his own of six thousand before the death of Plato. Clearly, Eudoxus would
not have invented the number, since, as Kingsley argues, it was a Magian system of
dating, but that does not mean that Eudoxus would not have changed the end-point
of the millenarian cycle, especially if he was interacting with another astronomer
in the Academy who was also very interested in the life and death of Plato, namely
Philip of Opus.
139 I owe this point to Gabor Betegh.
140 The historian of Plato Dercylides (on whom see below), quoted by Simplicius
(In Phys. 256. 31 Diels), calls him an associate ("A) of Plato.
141 Cf. Dillon, Heirs, 1989.
85
harmonized),142 we can posit three scenarios regarding the title of

Hermodorus book(s): (1) the prima facie case, that these two titles
refer to two independent treatises by Hermodorus; (2) that a whole
work, entitled On Plato, dealt with the whole of Platos life and doctrine and that the section On Sciences was derived from that larger
work;143 (3) that the title was simply On Sciences and the book also
treated the life of Plato.144 In order to justify the third option, however, one would need to explain why Diogenes was quoting material
about magoieven material that gave an etymology of Zoroasters
name145in a treatise dedicated to the sciences.
The subject-matter of the passages quoted in Simplicius On
Aristotles Physics146 corroborates the hypothesis that the authority
behind [B] is more likely to have been Hermodorus of Syracuse than
Eudoxus. Concerning Hermodorus, we possess only ten fragments
(one, referring to a work on ethics, may be spurious).147 The two
most interesting fragments (F 78 Isnardi Parente), which describe
Hermodorus book on Plato, are ultimately on the authority of a
certain Dercylides (active rst century bce or ce) in book 11 of his
On the Philosophy of Plato.148 The second of these passages quoted
by Simplicius is a truncated version of the rst version, with very
minor changes,149 and thus it will suce to quote the rst and longer
version, which describes Hermodorus metaphysics:
142 See below.
143 As tentatively hypothesized by Dillon (Heirs, 199).
144 A similar problem is encountered in the transmission of Archytas F 3 Human, which deals with proportionate governance (e.g. , , , 5,
A) in metaphysical and mathematical terms (e.g. H 4 N ,
:). It was transmitted under various titles, which have been surveyed by C.
Human (Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, Philosopher, and Mathematician King
[Archytas] (Cambridge, 2005), 81718), although it most likely comes from a work
entitled On Sciences.
145 D.L. 1. 8 (no. 4).
146 Simpl. In Phys. 247. 30 . Diels, commenting on Arist. Phys. 192a3 .
147 The fragments are collected in M. Isnardi Parente, SenocrateErmodoro: frammenti [Ermodoro] (Naples, 1982), with the exception of D.L. 1. 8, which she overlooks
(as noted by Dillon, Heirs, 199 n. 54). Isnardi Parente, to be sure, later corrected this
oversight (Supplementum academicum, Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei:
Memorie della Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche, 9.6.2 (1995), 13552).
148 Through an intermediate source, viz. Porphyry, who quoted Dercylides often.
Dercylides appears to have been interested in the oriental parallels in Platos dialogues, as evidenced by his discussion of Hermodorus and, interestingly, a treatise
On the Spindle and the Whorl, as Treated in Platos Republic, which may have been
part of the larger work on Plato. Cf. Brills New Pauly, s.n. Dercylides.
149 Noted in the apparatus criticus in Dielss edition.
86
[Dercylides]150 says that: Of the things that are [( @], [Hermodorus]

says that some exist according to themselves [) :], for example,
man and horse, but some others exist with regard to others; and of
these, some exist according to their opposites [, ], such as good
to evil, but some others exist relatively [ ]; and of these, some are
denite, and others indenite. And [Dercylides] adds: and all the things
considered to be great in relation to the small possess [7] the more and
the less; for it is more possible (?)151 that the more and the less are brought to
the unlimited [ = ]. And likewise, both what is broader and
what is narrower, and what is heavier and lighter, and everything described
in this way will be brought to the unlimited. But, on the other hand, those
which are described as equal [
] and stable [!] and harmonized
[G!] do not possess the more and the less, whereas their opposites
do possess [the more and the less]. For it is possible152 for something to
be more unequal than another unequal thing, and for something to be
more activated than another activated thing, and for something to be more
unharmonized than another unharmonized thing, with the result thatof
each of these pairsall except the element One153 are susceptible154 to the
more and the less. The result is that such a thing may be said to be unstable
and shapeless and unlimited and non-existent, by virtue of the negation
of existence. To such a thing, neither origin [] nor existence [] is
betting, but it is brought into a certain indeterminacy [ ]. For
[Hermodorus] shows that in the same way that what creates [, +] is
the cause [
] in a strict and distinct sense, so too it is an origin [],
but matter [S] is not an origin [].155 Thus it used to be said also by
the followers of Plato that there is [only] one origin.
150 I disagree with both Isnardi Parente (Ermodoro, 2623) and Dillon (Heirs,
201 with n. 63) on the identity of the speaker. The grammar is inconclusive, and,
if anything, the participle that sets o the quotation (%) would most likely refer
to Porphyry. On the other hand, the fact that the direct quotation comes from
Porphyrys text of Dercylidesthe volume from which it is derived (book 11) is
expressly citedis strong evidence for the proposition that it is Dercylides who is
being quoted here. Note too (contra Dillon, Heirs, 201, who unnecessarily translates
A 3 as it is said by Plato and his followers) that in the passage which
is directly quoted Plato is never explicitly referred to as a speaker. It is possible
(however unlikely and unprovable) that Hermodorus is quoting Plato in the sense
that, if On Sciences were a dialogue, he could be citing Plato directly in a dramatic
representation.
151 The reading 7 T 5 here is problematic.
152 Adopting Dillons interpretation of this sentence.
153 Aristotle (Metaph. 1080b30 .) refers to all who hold that the One is an element
and the principle of existing things (U , V A 3 5 (
@) with reference to both the Platonists and the Pythagoreans.
154 Emending the text from ! to !, following Gaiser and Isnardi
Parente.
155 This phrase distinguishes the theories of Hermodorus from another Platonist
87
Dercylides, in quoting Hermodorus, appears to have preserved the

terminology of the Platonist by appealing to concepts that are familiar both from Plato himself and from other inuential Academics
of the fourth century bce. The terminology is relatively consistent,
but the details of the unique metaphysical systems advocated by,
for example, Xenocrates or Speusippus reveal variances that could
either be attributed to inter-Academic polemics or, as Dillon would
have it, to dierent emphases.156 Still, establishing the metaphysics
that underlie this passage is crucial as a point of comparison with
the passage attributed to source [B] on Horomazes and Areimanius
in Plutarchs On Isis and Osiris: as Cherniss noted, in the later Platonic dialogues and among the early Academics, the structures of
metaphysics were applied to both the gods and the mathematical
entities.157 This is explicit in the testimonia that refer to the Orphizer Xenocrates, who drew analogies between, on the one hand,
the Monad, Zeus, Odd, and Mind as rst god, and on the other
hand, Rhea, Justice, and the Soul of the Universe as mother of the
gods.158 For Hermodorus, those things in opposition that are not
the element One are said to be susceptible to the more and the
less, that is to say, to be unstable and, thus, not to exist in an absolute and unchanging sense. In this sense they are phenomena. As
scholars have noted, Hermodorus metaphysics holds something
in common with the scheme outlined in the Philebus (24 c 225 d
3).159 There, Socrates establishes that the greater and the lesser
(A 3 ) and all things that associate with one another comparatively as opposites (e.g. hotter and colder,
3 ) advance without stability (A 3 !) in
relation to one another.160 A correlation between the metaphysics
competitor, Speusippus, who believed that both the One and the Innite Dyad (as
matter) were (Iambl. Comm. math. 15. 5 . Festa = F 72 Isnardi Parente).
156 Dillon, Heirs, 203. I can see no way of understanding the emphatic point being
made by Hermodorus about matter not being an origin as anything other than interAcademic polemics. After all, part of the point of Hermodorus description is that a
passive principle cannot exist since it is acted upon and thus cannot be a principle.
157 H. Cherniss, Aristotles Criticism of Plato and the Academy [Criticism] (Baltimore, 1944), 287.
158 On which see Dillon, Heirs, 1027.
159 See Dillon, Heirs, 203; Isnardi Parente, Ermodoro, 443; and Cherniss, Criticism, 2867.
160 Note the correlation between the motion of these intermediary entities and
the advancements () of the visible gods (i.e. the stars/planets) in the
Timaeus (40 c 5). As Dillon notes (Heirs, 202), Socrates in the Philebus (26 e 68)
88
of the universe as preserved in Dercylides description of Hermodorus metaphysics and the gods in the writings of authority
[B] as employed by Plutarch could occur only if Horomazes and
Areimanius were considered to be among sensible objects; amazingly, they are: Horomazes and Areimanius are especially among
objects of perception ( ( (), a description that ts
adequately with Platos illustration of the astral gods in Timaeus,
who, among other things, are the craftsmen of good and bad things
(( 3 ( ) of a second ontological and causational stratum who work with Mind (2 +).161 As perceivable
beings, then, Horomazes and Areimanius as described by authority
[B] occupy a position in the cosmos that adapts and expands upon
Platos descriptions of the astral gods in Timaeus and the second
class of beings in the Philebus.
But there is a problem with the hypothesis that Hermodorus is
identical with authority [B] in Plutarchs On Isis and Osiris. On
the one hand, source [B] suggests that Horomazes and Areimanius assume two oppositional poles on the indenite spectrum, and
that Mithres occupies the middle as the mean (!) between
them.162 On the other hand, in the short fragment of Hermodorus
On Sciences, there is no explicit reference to a mediating gure
associates the creator (, +) with the cause (,
), although his suggestion
that despite Platos distinction in the Philebus between Limit itself and the cause
of the mixture, that the creative principle may reasonably be held to do its own
mixing cannot be demonstrated in this fragment of Hermodorus. In the passage
attributed to authority [B] and preserved by Plutarch, there is reference to the
mixing of good and bad things, but sadly a lacuna prevents us from knowing what
the subject of this sentence was.
161 Plato, Tim. 46 e 36 and 92 a 59, the end of the dialogue, where the cosmos
is called the image of the Intelligent, a perceptible god (* + + ,
). Note too that the astral gods, like other accessory causes (), eect
the universe by, among other things, cooling and heating (' 3 ).
Cf. Taran, Academica, 82 with n. 86.
162 This passage shares many features with the cosmology attributed by Eudemus
of Rhodes to Epimenides (F 150 Wehrli = Damasc. Princ. 124, no. 215), in which
Aer and Night, the two rst principles, give birth to Tartarus, the third principle,
which is in turn called the intelligent mean (G 9 ). Their mingling also
apparently produces the egg, from which other ospring come forward. As G. S.
Kirk, J. E. Raven, and M. Schoeld note, however (The Presocratic Philosophers,
2nd edn. (Cambridge, 1983), 27), it is dicult to distinguish the passages that
refer genuinely to Epimenides cosmology (pre-414 bce) from additions that could
have been made either by Eudemus or by later Neoplatonist commentators. On
the subject of what Damascius borrowed, however, Betegh (Eudemus, 3479) has
persuasively demonstrated that Damascius tends to let Eudemus account speak for
itself, even if it runs counter to his own purposes.
89
in the metaphysical stratication. Ontologically, what appears is

something closer to a dualism that occurs at the secondary stratum of sensible divinities. In order to investigate this apparent
inconsistency, we need to adduce a remarkable passage, attributed
to children of the Pythagoreans163 by Sextus Empiricus (M. 10.
26270), that demonstrates striking parallels with Dercylides description of Hermodorus metaphysics. There, Sextus describes
how the children of the Pythagoreans divide the things that exist
(( @) into three categories: those conceived of (a) absolutely
(2 ), e.g. man and horse; (b) according to their opposites () ), e.g. good and bad; and (c) relatively (
).164 Most interestingly, with regard to things that are conceived of
(b) according to their opposites, the children of the Pythagoreans
posit no mean (4 !), on the grounds that there is nothing
in the middle (') between opposites.165 But for the class of
(c) relatives, which includes the more and the less, there exists
a middle state ( !).166 While the specic schemata of the
passage preserved by Sextus deviate slightly from the description
of Hermodorus metaphysics by Dercylides, as Dillon and Thiel
have demonstrated, the description of the ontological groupings of
(a) absolutes, (b) things that exist according to their opposites, and
(c) relatives is both suciently similar and unique within fourthcentury bce philosophy to suggest that the metaphysics of the children of the Pythagoreans and of Hermodorus of Syracuse are related and refer to a doctrine in the early Academy distinguishable
from those of Xenocrates and Speusippus.167 It is also possible, although not certain, that Dercylides and Sextus Empiricus are both
describing a single metaphysical system, that of Hermodorus of
163 At the beginning of this passage (M. 10. 263) Sextus refers to the Pythagoreans (B ), but at the end he closes by calling them the children of the
Pythagoreans (( A) (10. 270). It is not clear whether Sextus would
wish to distinguish between them.
164 S.E. M. 10. 263.
165 Ibid. 268.
166 Ibid.
167 See Dillon, Heirs, 204, and D. Thiel, Die Philosophie des Xenokrates im Kontext
der Alten Akademie (Munich and Leipzig, 2006), 3456, who provides a useful
stratication of the various categorical terms for Hermodorus, the children of the
Pythagoreans, and Alexander of Aphrodisias (In Metaph. 56. 13 . Hayduck). He
concludes that the accounts of Hermodorus and Sextus both derive from a single
early Academic source, while that of Alexander is derived from Aristotle. Isnardi
Parente (Ermodoro, 147 n. 13) proposes that an earlier theory that we may ascribe
to Hermodorus was later modied and developed further by the source of Sextus
information.
90
Syracuse, which has undergone minimal categorical confusions in

the transmission.168 If we are willing to entertain this speculation,
then this signicantly claries why Plutarch would record that authority [B], who espouses a categorical order very similar to that of
Hermodorus, posited a mean between the phenomena Horomazes
and Areimanius, namely Mithres. As sensible divinities who occupied the secondary stratum, Horomazes and Areimanius would be
subject to relative measurement. Moreover, this ontological system
has parallels in the early Academy, especially in the demonology of
Xenocrates, although there are some important dierences between
the accounts of Xenocrates and source [B].169 Of course, Mithra was
168 G. Fine sees a categorical distinction between the systems of children of the
Pythagoreans and Hermodorus: Hermodorus classies equal as a determinate relative, whereas the Pythagoreans classify it as a genus of things thought of according to
their contrary (On Ideas: Aristotles Criticism of Platos Theory of Forms (Oxford,
1993), 181). Close examination of the text, however, reveals that the children of
the Pythagoreans see equal (,
) as being both under the class of relatives (as
the middle; cf. S.E. M. 10. 268) and under the class of opposites (cf. ibid. 271),
in which, according to Sextus, they take a ruling (=) position. What may be
apparently a contradiction can be explained in several ways: rst, as Dillon suggests
(Heirs, 204 with n. 70), the diculty comes when Sextus tries to make sense of this
system, and he reasonably conjectures that Sextus source is confused; second, this
could be an example of the ontological possibility that, for this particular strand of
Platonism, the ruling element of a category, called a genos, was the element that
linked it to another category. After all, middle has many possible meanings among
the associates of Plato and the Pythagoreans. In the case of equal, this would not
be far-fetched: as a middle it belongs to the class of relatives (i.e. it is relative to
greater and lesser), but it could also function as the opposite of inequality, as
the children of the Pythagoreans suggest it does.
169 Both Xenocrates and source [B] posit a tripartite stratication for the universe:
gods, daimones, and humans. Especially interesting and suggestive for how we can
understand early Academic descriptions of the intermediary ontological status is
how, for Xenocrates (F 225 Isnardi Parente = Plut. Is. et Osir. 360 d), the daimones
are joined into a unity with the nature of the soul and the perception of the body,
a perception that is susceptible to pleasure and pain and to whatever aections
are inherent in changes. Still, for Xenocrates, the perceptibility of the daimones is
linked inextricably with their potential for aection (on which see H. S. Schibli,
Xenocrates Daemons and the Irrational Soul [Daemons], CQ, ns 43/1 (1993),
14367 at 1479), something that is nowhere expressed in the account of source
[B]. Moreover, other comparisons reveal problems with integrating the account of
source [B] with Xenocrates ontology. Xenocrates (F 222 Isnardi Parente = Plut. Def.
orac. 12, 416 c; F 223 Isnardi Parente = Procl. In Remp. ii. 48. 4 Kroll) is interested
in how gods, daimones, and humans represent various types of two-dimensional
triangles: the gods are like equilateral triangles, humans like scalene triangles, and
daimones like isosceles triangles. For the author of account [B], on the other hand,
there is no mention of triangles, but rather the vague suggestion that Horomazes increased his dimensions (presumably from point to line to solid). Finally, Xenocrates,
unlike Hermodorus, demonstrates no knowledge of Zoroastrianism, but rather as-
91
already known publicly to the Persian world in the inscriptions at

Susa and Egbatana put up by Artaxerxes II (405359 bce) in the
rst half of the fourth century bce, where Mithra appears alongside Anahita and Ahuramazda as a protector of the Persian King.170
Inscriptional evidence from Persepolis demonstrates that the successor Artaxerxes III (r. 359338 bce) promoted the celebration of
Mithra and Ahuramazda together (without Anahita) in the period
that corresponded with the development of the early Academy.171
Given that Mithra was the god of oaths and contracts, it is not surprising that he would be considered to occupy a mediating position
between opposites.172 All the evidence points in the same direction:
the account of authority [B] should be dated to the mid-fourth
century bce, and to someone within the early Academy.
The results of this philological analysis are signicant: if this
speculative argument is right, then a certain strand of the early
Academy not only established analogues between the ontological
systems of Zoroastrianism and Platonism, but it also used Zoroastrianism as a means to justify that unique metaphysical scheme
at a specic moment when various associates of Plato competed
over how to dene Platonism itself. This unique metaphysical
scheme, which deviates from systems ascribed to Speusippus and
Xenocrates, may be associated with Hermodorus of Syracuse, a
minor Platonist whose proposition of a categorical structure for beings within the universe was later considered to be Pythagorean
by Sextus Empiricus. In his appeal to Zoroastrianism, Hermodorus
appears to have based at least some of his knowledge on a reliable
historical source from the fth century bce, namely Xanthus of Lydia. Unlike Eudoxus, Aristotle, and Philip of Opus, Hermodorus
resisted the impulse to posit the death of Plato as the end-point that
establishes a millenarian scheme for the universe. In this sense,
Hermodorus occupies a position between the associates of Plato
and the contemporary historian Theopompus of Chios, who was
sumes that the intermediary realm is occupied by the Olympian deities (cf. Schibli,
Daemons, 1446).
170 A2Sa 5, A2Sd 4, A2Ha 6, A2Hb. On Mithra during the reigns of Artaxerxes II
and Artaxerxes III, see Briant, History, 9989 with bibliography.
171 A3Pa 245. Plutarch, in his life of Artaxerxes II (which directly claims Ctesias
as a source: Artax. 1), has the Persian King invoke the name Mithra (Artax. 4,
no. 403).
172 On Mithra as god of contracts, see Briant, History, 2513, and I. Gershevitch,
The Avestan Hymn to Mithra (Cambridge, 1967), 2635.
92
more interested in the wonders that the magoi could provide as

entertainment to his audience than in establishing Platos position
within a cycle of leading practitioners of wisdom. Neither gure
has been associated with Plato in unequivocally positive terms.173
Perhaps both were outsiders who lacked an interest in legitimizing
other institutions of philosophy within the larger political context
of the 350s330s bce.
What is moreand this is very interesting indeedHermodorus
of Syracuse was no dilettante historian: he preserves Platonized
versions of Persian religious traditions that had an existence independent of the Greek sources, as Mary Boyce and Frantz Grenet
have noted in detail.174 Of particular import here is the surprising description of Horomazes and Areimanius as being especially
among objects of perception. What could this possibly mean? For
Plato and for Philip of Opus, as I have already noted, certain divinities appear as stars and are thus phenomena, so it is entirely possible
that Hermodorus would be referring to them as astral gods. But on
the other hand, as I have suggested, the Zoroastrian magism that
Hermodorus was engaged in Platonizing is veriably Persian, with
sources both contemporaneous and of independent traditional lineage that corroborate his evidence. Most notably, the reference to
Mithra as the intermediary force between Horomazes and Areimanius demonstrates Hermodorus knowledge of apparent changes
in royal Persian policy regarding the gods initially under Artaxerxes II, and then under his successor Artaxerxes III. We have some
tantalizing evidence for the shape that these changes took: an edict
published by Artaxerxes II and preserved by Berossus, a priest of
Babylon (. c.330320 bce), cited by Clement of Alexandria:
In the third book On the Chaldaeans, Berossus describes [the Persians and
Medes and magoi],175 [saying that] later on, after many turnings of the
years, they worshipped sculptures in human form [1 ],
and that Artaxerxes, son of Darius, son of Ochus, introduced this practice.
173 Theopompus, of course, in his Attack on the Teaching of Plato, wrote that Plato
plagiarized from the teachings of Aristippus, Antisthenes, and Bryson of Heraclea
(FGrHist 115 F 259). Hermodorus was said to have sold the volumes of Plato
in Sicily for money (F 3 Isnardi Parente, from the Suda), perhaps a slander that
originates with his competitors in the early Academy itself.
174 Boyce with Grenet, Macedonian, 45660. The authors assume that the information preserved by Plutarch refers to a 4th-cent. bce understanding of magism.
175 As the understood subjects from earlier on, but we cannot conclude that
Berossus actually mentioned these three groups together.
93
He was the rst to set up the statue of Aphrodite Anaitis in Babylon and
ordered such worship from the Susians, Egbatanians, Persians, Bactrians,
and those from Damascus and Sardis. (FGrHist 680 F 11 = Clem. Al.
Protr. 5. 65. 2, no. 217)
As Briant has noted, the text here is derived from an ocial source,
which is indicated by the patrimony and the list of peoples who are
ordered by Artaxerxes II to worship statues.176 What this edict of
Artaxerxes II tells us is that a new policy of worshiping statues for
the gods was in place in Persia since the rst or second quarter of the
fourth century bce in the Persian Empire, even as far away as Sardis.
Dinon of Colophon, another historian who apparently travelled
to Persia with Alexander the Great, conrms that the Persians
considered the statues of their gods to be water and re, although
this account raises more questions than it provides answers.177 Still,
it is clear from Greek and Babylonian eyewitness testimonies of the
third quarter of the fourth century bce that the Persians honoured
their gods in the form of statues, and if Hermodorus was privy
to this sort of knowledge about Zoroastrian customs, we might
wish to entertain the possibility that, by referring (in an abstracted
philosophical sense) to Horomazes and Areimanius as phenomena
that could be perceived by the senses, he was referring to the images
of the gods in statue form.
6. Conclusions: Plato and the Chaldaean Stranger

At the end of this study, we nd ourselves where we began, with
the astronomer Philip of Opus, who is the source for the story of
the visit of a Persian practitioner of wisdom to Plato in Athens. I
cite the papyrus fragment of column 3 from the Index Academicorum philosophorum preserved in Herculaneum, one of the most
important sources for information about the history of the early
Academy:
. . . [H ] []A ) ( * . .; + . 3
, U * W
. ![] : ![] [A] . [] . . . . . . . . . . . . '[ . . . . .
176 Cf. Briant, History, 67680.
177 FGrHist 690 F 28 = Clem. Al. Protr. 4. 65. 1 .
94
. . . the astronomer, who became his recorder178 and a student of Plato,

explains that, when Plato had already grown old, he received a Stranger
from Chaldaea . . . . . . some [songs?] . . . . . he had a fever . . . . . 179
What we should immediately note is the presence of storytelling

elements familiar from Platos own narrative models. When, in his
later writings, Plato wished to introduce new ideas into his systems
of metaphysics, dialectic, and politics, he would bring in a wise interlocutor who, while being a foreign visitor (!) to the location
of the dialogue (such as the Eleatic Stranger visiting Athens in the
Sophist and Statesman or the Athenian Stranger visiting Crete in
the Laws), would nevertheless gain the position of the authoritative
gure and, consequently, refute positions that had been put forward
in earlier Platonic dialogues.180 The context of the present passage
is dicult to reconstruct, but it is relatively clear that Philip of
Opus is being quoted in this section, which is probably preserved
by Neanthes.181 We hear rst that Plato, who had a fever, received
the Chaldaean Stranger. There is a break in the papyrus, and when
we pick up the story once again, in the unfortunately lacunose column 5, it is apparent that we are still working with Philips story of
178 In the context, recorder or secretary probably refers to Philip of Opus as
the amanuensis of Plato.
179 Index Acad. Herc. col. 3 (ed. Mekler, although I accept some emendations
and reconstructions made by Gaiser). The most recent attempt to render a text for
P. Herc. 1021 is E. Puglia, Platone e lospite caldeo nella Storia dellAcademia di
Filodimo [Caldeo], Studi di egitollogia e di papirologia, 2 (2005), 1237.
180 We might note that when Socrates introduces the concept of anamnesis and
mathematical proof in the Meno (81 a 56), he does so by appeal to women and
men wise concerning divine things and quotes an OrphicDionysiac section from
a poem by Pindar (F 127 Bowra). It is possible that a tradition of bringing oriental
practitioners of wisdom to Greece had originated with Platos associate Heraclides of
Pontus (F 55, 79, and 139 Schutrumpf),
who is known to have composed a dialogue
Zoroaster which may have involved the story of a magos who circumnavigated Africa
and arrived at Gelons court in Syracuse. Of course, this story provides an interesting
parallel to Platos journey to the court of Dionysius II in 361 bce, although further
investigation on these lines would be speculative. Cf. H. B. Gottschalk, Heraclides
of Pontus [Heraclides] (Oxford, 1980), 11012.
181 Cf. K. Gaiser, Philodems Academica: Die Berichte u ber Platon und die Alte
Akademie in zwei herkulanensischen Papyri [Berichte] (Stuttgart, 1988), 1089, a
position that is strengthened by the presence in the margins of a summary of what
Neanthes says. Neanthes appears to have been active during the last quarter of the
4th cent. bce, as recently demonstrated by S. Schorn, Periegetische Biographie
Historische Biographie: Neanthes von Kyzikos (FgrHist 84) als Biograph, in M.
Erler and S. Schorn (eds.), Die griechische Biographie in hellenistischer Zeit: Akten
des internationalen Kongresses vom 26.29. Juli 2006 in Wurzburg (Berlin and New
York, 2007), 11556.
95
the Chaldaean Stranger,182 who apparently harmonizes (R. <>) a

tune with the help of a slave-girl in order to demonstrate a dactylic
rhythm, to which Plato responds that the Chaldaean Stranger is
out of his mind; the Chaldaean Stranger retorts: you think that in
every way the barbarian nature is ignorant because the barbarian
land has an ear that is inclined against rhythm and it does not have
the power to learn the motions.183 A lacuna follows, and although
the text lacks an explicit subject, the sense is clear: Plato is pleased
and overjoyed with the response of the Chaldaean Stranger, who
must have said something witty or convincing, or perhaps appropriated a verse couplet.184 Then we hear that Platos fever returns,
and the text becomes lacunose once again.
The passage as it is preserved does not permit us to infer much
about the work of Philip of Opus on Platos discourse with the
Chaldaean Stranger, except to conjecture (as many scholars have)
that the Stranger has arrived in order to cure the ailing Plato with
music.185 We are forced to consider its contents in relation to what
182 Not included in the fragments collected by Taran, Academica, although the
clear reference to dramatic discourse (he said that Plato spoke and asked him,
saying . . .) and the mention of foreign kinds of music suggest that we are still
dealing with Philip of Opus account. Mekler, Gaiser, Dorandi, and Puglia all follow
this annotation.
183 I read the text as: ) A , .[]! <.
P[ ]1. ! [2 ].2 . . . A [A]. The article [2 is difcult to obtain and the correct reading may be .[], as suggested by Gaiser. Puglia
(Caldeo, 125) proposes [2 ]A, which would render the phrase she [i.e. the
Thracian slave-girl] is not able to learn the hands, but Puglias proposed emendation
is unconvincing on two counts: rst, he cites no comparable usage in ancient music
theory, much less in works about music circulating in the mid-4th cent.; second,
he conrms this reading only by an admittedly estremamente incerto (Caldeo,
125) reading of '[] eight lines earlier, which is unlikely given the manuscript
readings as aided by multispectral imaging. Without justication for precisely how
rhythm (i.e. by the nger or by the hand) is kept in 4th-cent. bce musical practice,
Puglias readings cannot be conrmed.
184 Gaisers attempt (Berichte, 4256) to render a couplet in iambic trimeters here
( P[ ].1 ! .[ ].2 A [A] ) is
ingenious but cannot be conclusive.
185 This approach has led to remarkable reconstructions of the lines between
the initial mention of Platos fever and the song of the Thracian slave-girl, especially Gaisers interesting (but ultimately speculative) . [] .. [ , U]
'[. One should note that Gaisers appeal to Plato, Rep. 608 a 34 ( . . .
9 #) is not an obvious example of the verb with the object # since
it is mediated, in the passage, by a , and the logical structure here proceeds
singinga logoswhich is a song. Puglia (Caldeo, 124) proposes a convincing
reading for the problematic . [] ., rendering it instead [5) G !] 2.
(i.e. Plato had a fever for a few days). Regardless of how we read the passage, it has
96
Platos interlocutors say about the subject at hand, namely music,

in the genuine dialogues. Speaking generally, in the Republic and
the Laws Socrates and the Athenian Stranger, respectively, consider
that the musical and ethical modes are coextensive;186 moreover, as
Taran notes, the Athenian Stranger operates on the assumption
that music can be substituted for philosophy or, in certain circumstances, wisdom (sophia) itself.187 It appears that the primary
inuence on this analogizing between musical mode and ethical
comport was Damon, and we have evidence of this type of analogizing elsewhere in the Academy: the association of musical modes
with ethnicity and types of virtue (both Greek and barbarian) can
be found in the fragments of Platos associate Heraclides of Pontus,
who, like Philip of Opus, wrote a dialogue about a travelling magos.188 Given the importance that the Athenian Stranger in Platos
Laws attaches to music in the educational system and to the inculcation of virtue in the second-best city-state, we should not treat
this discussion of music in Philips dialogue lightly.189
When Philip of Opus has Plato and the Chaldaean Stranger discussing poetic modes in the dactylic rhythm, to what are they
referring? For Plato in the Republic, the dactylic rhythm stood in
metonymy for heroic song, and it represented the quantitative equivalence of the up and down parts of the measure.190 In this sense,
musical rhythm could not be extricated from the physics and mabeen agreed by Wilamowitz, Mekler, Gaiser, Dorandi, and Puglia that the purpose
of the Chaldaean Strangers visit is (ostensibly) to charm Plato with music.
186 Cf. A. Barker, The Science of Harmonics in Classical Greece (Cambridge, 2007),
2501.
187 Taran, Academica, 27 n. 113, referring to, among other places, Laws 689 d
67: G 3 ( ( ) Z ! .
188 For the dialogue, possibly the one entitled Zoroaster, see F 139 Schutrumpf
( = Posidonius F 49 EdelsteinKidd, no. 76). For Heraclides belief that the music and
ethnic virtues were coextensive, see F 114 ( = Ath. 14. 1921, 624 c626 a), F 115a
( = Philod. Mus. 4 col. 49. 120 Delattre), and F 115b Schutrumpf
( = Philod. Mus.
cols. 137. 27138. 9 Delattre), on which see Gottschalk, Heraclides, 1349. Of course,
Aristotle too thought that the practice of music, as performed by peoples of dierent
ethnic backgrounds, disposes people to virtues (e.g. Arist. Pol. 1339a11b10).
189 The Athenian Stranger (Laws 669 d 25) warns that poets who make music improperly do so irrationally (2 + ! 3 ( ),
gesturing towards their inability to perform dialectics.
190 Plato, Rep. 400 b 1c 4, where Socrates cites the music theory of Damon.
Aristoxenus of Tarentum (El. rhythm. F 30 Pearson), the famous Peripatetic/
Pythagorean musicologist and biographer, also understood the dactylic to be the
foot with the equal ratio (
# #). See M. L. West, Ancient Greek Music (Oxford, 1992), 2434.
97
thematics of Platos philosophy. Specically, it is worth comparing

the appeal to the motions of musical rhythm as described by the
astronomer Philip with the motions of music and astronomy in
Republic 7. There, Socrates attempts to link the sciences of astronomy and harmonics together by using a generalizing concept that
functions analogously for both sciences, namely motion ():
Indeed, I said, motion [G ] admits of not one but two forms [
],
in my opinion. Some wise person [], I suppose, will be able to say
what all of them are; but even I can propose two.
What are they?
The one we were discussing, I said, and its correlative [].
Whats that?
Its possible, I said, that just as our eyes are outtted for astronomy, so
our ears are outtted for enharmonic motion [ ], and that
these two sciences are sisters to one another, just as the Pythagoreans
say. (Plato, Rep. 530 c 8d 8)191
In referring to the Pythagoreans here, Socrates is most likely recalling the theories of musical motion of the mathematical Pythagorean
Archytas of Tarentum.192 What is interesting about the account of
the Chaldaean Stranger in the Index, then, is that Philip of Opus
follows his teacher and the Pythagoreans by understanding motion to be a central element in his discussion of music, but, even
more interesting, he puts these words in the mouth of a Stranger
from barbarian land.193 Was the Chaldaean Stranger proposing
to emend the Platonic theory of motiona point of contention between Plato and the mathematical Pythagoreans in the Republicin
the larger scheme of Platonic physics? And what are we to do with
the apparent interrelationship between Pythagorean and barbarian, a topic that has been problematic for scholars of the history
of ancient philosophy? While it has been in fashion for some time
to take seriously the inuence of the Pythagoreansespecially the
mathematical group which involved itself in empirical studies of
the universeon the more famous associates of Plato (Speusippus,
Xenocrates, Hermodorus, Heraclides, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Philip
191 Cf. Tim. 47 d 2e 2 (G 4 [, A 7 2 A GA 1 1
. . .), 80 a 3b 8.
192 Cf. Human, Archytas, 3989.
193 Contrast Socrates position when speaking to the Pythagorean students of
Philolaus in the Phaedo (78 a 19), where Socrates half-seriously suggests that one
can nd people who understand how to sing charms in order to dispel fears among
both Greeks and barbarians.
98
of Opus), scholars of the past half-century have been less keen to

embrace the importance of Persian thought for Platos philosophy.
Yet it is clear that those associates of Plato who inherited the
Academy considered the thought of practitioners of wisdom from
the east, especially Zoroastrian magoi, to reect something of the
truth of Platos thought after his death. Placing Plato within a history of oriental practitioners of wisdom not only justied the philosophical concepts that Plato himself had taught in the Academy,
but it also legitimized the history of philosophy as it was being
formulated for the rst time in a schematically diachronic manner after the death of Plato. The associates of Plato responded in
various ways to the signicance of Persian magoi to the project of
philosophy, and it should no longer be controversial to say that,
immediately after the death of Plato, they undertook the activity
of synthesizing the metaphysical systems proposed by their teacher
with the cosmological systems of the Persians in order to formulate
their own unique positions in their individual bids to captureand,
in the case of Aristotle, to render completed and thus outdated
the doctrine of the great sage Plato. When ancient biography and
the history of philosophy came to attain the stability of a focused
genre in the writings of Aristoxenus of Tarentum and Eudemus of
Rhodes, it would include a discourse concerning magism that was a
complicated mixture of royal Persian political propaganda, Greek
concerns with identity and otherness as well as exoterism and esoterism, historical fact and ction, scientic truth and illusion. But
it would be a mistake to attribute our own scepticism about the
signicance of Persian wisdom traditions (generally) and Zoroastrian magism (specically) for Platos philosophy to the students
of Plato themselves: if we were to adhere to an excessively severe
scepticism about the inuences of Eastern wisdom traditions on
the West, we would share a common mind instead with Diogenes
Laertius, who severely criticized Aristotle, Sotion, Hermodorus,
and Xanthus for believing that philosophy had had its origins with
barbarians. And, as we all know, Diogenes Laertius is not always
an authority to be trusted.
Stanford University
99
B I B L I O GR A P HY
Barker, A., The Science of Harmonics in Classical Greece (Cambridge, 2007).
Barney, R., Names and Nature in Platos Cratylus [Names] (New York,
2001).
Barr-Sharrar, B., The Derveni Krater: Masterpiece of Classical Greek Metalwork (Princeton, 2008).
Betegh, G., The Derveni Papyrus: Cosmology, Theology and Interpretation
[Derveni] (Cambridge, 2004).
On Eudemus Fr. 150 (Wehrli) [Eudemus], in I. Bodnar and W. W.
Fortenbaugh (eds.), Eudemus of Rhodes (New Brunswick and London,
2002), 33757.
Review of J.-F. Pradeau (ed.) and C. Marbuf (tr.), Platon: Alcibiade
(Paris, 1999) and Denyer, Nicholas (ed.), Plato: Alcibiades (Cambridge,
2001), Classical World, 99/2 (Winter 2006), 1857.
Bidez, J., Eos ou Platon et lOrient (Brussels, 1945).
and Cumont, F., Les Mages hellenises: Zoroastre, Ostanes et Hystaspe
dapres la tradition grecque (1938; repr. New York, 1975).
Bollansee, J., Hermippos of Smyrna and his Biographical Writings: A Reappraisal (Leuven, 1999).
Boyce, M., A History of Zoroastrianism, ii. Under the Achaemenians (Leiden, 1982).
with F. Grenet, A History of Zoroastrianism, iii. Zoroastrianism under
Macedonian and Roman Rule [Macedonian] (Leiden, 1991).
Bremmer, J., The Birth of the Term Magic [Birth], in id., Greek
Religion and Culture, the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Leiden, 2008),
23548.
Briant, P., From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, trans.
P. T. Daniels [History] (Winona Lake, 2002).
Gaumata, in Encyclopedia Iranica <http://www.iranica.com/newsite/>
[accessed 7 Mar. 2009].
Brisson, L., Le Même et lAutre dans la structure ontologique du Timee de
Platon: un commentaire systematique du Timee de Platon (Paris, 1974).
Burkert, W., Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture [Eastern] (Cambridge, Mass., 2004).
Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, trans. E. L. Minar, Jr.
(Cambridge, Mass., 1972).
The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Inuence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age, trans. M. E. Pinder and W. Burkert (Cambridge, Mass., 1992).
Carastro, M., La Cite des mages: penser la magie en Grece ancienne [Cite]
(Grenoble, 2006).
100
Cherniss, H., Aristotles Criticism of Plato and the Academy [Criticism]

(Baltimore, 1944).
Chroust, A.-H., The Inuence of Zoroastrian Teachings on Plato, Aristotle, and Greek Philosophy in General, New Scholasticism, 54 (1980),
34257.
Collins, D., Magic in the Ancient Greek World [Magic] (Malden, Mass.,
2008).
Cowley, A., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1923).
De Jong, A., Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin
Literature [Traditions] (Leiden, 1997).
Denyer, N., Plato: Alcibiades (Cambridge, 2001).
The Derveni Papyrus, ed. and comm. T. Kouremenos, G. M. Parassoglou,
and K. Tsantsanoglou (Florence, 2006).
Dickie, M., Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World [Magic] (London, 2001).
Dillon, J., The Heirs of Plato: A Study of the Old Academy (347274 BC)
[Heirs] (Oxford, 2003).
Fine, G., On Ideas: Aristotles Criticism of Platos Theory of Forms (Oxford,
1993).
Flower, M. A., Theopompus of Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth
Century BC [Theopompus] (Oxford, 1994).
Gaiser, K., Philodems Academica: Die Berichte uber
Platon und die Alte

Akademie in zwei herkulanensischen Papyri [Berichte] (Stuttgart, 1988).
Gershevitch, I., The Avestan Hymn to Mithra (Cambridge, 1967).
Gottschalk, H. B., Heraclides of Pontus [Heraclides] (Oxford, 1980).
Graf, F., Magic in the Ancient World [Magic] (Cambridge, Mass., 1997).
and Johnston, S. I., Ritual Texts for the Afterlife: Orpheus and the
Bacchic Gold Tablets (New York, 2007).
Greeneld, J. C., and Porten, B., The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the
Great: Aramaic Version (London, 1982).
Griths, J. G., Plutarchs De Iside et Osiride (Cambridge, 1970).
Herrenschmidt, C., Aspects universalistes de la religion et de lideologie
de Darius Ier, in G. Gnoli and L. Lancioti (eds.), Orientalia Iosephi
Tucci memoriae dicata (Rome, 1987), 61725.
Horky, P. S., The Imprint of the Soul: Psychosomatic Aection in Plato,
Gorgias, and the Orphic Gold Tablets [Imprint], Mouseion, 3/6
(2006), 38398.
Human, C., Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, Philosopher, and Mathematician King [Archytas] (Cambridge, 2005).
Isnardi Parente, M., SenocrateErmodoro: frammenti [Ermodoro] (Naples,
1982).
Supplementum academicum, Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei
101
Lincei: Memorie della Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche,

9.6.2 (1995), 13552.
Jaeger, W., Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of his Development, trans.
R. Robinson, 2nd edn. [Aristotle] (Oxford, 1948).
Joyal, M., Review of Nicholas Denyer (ed.), Plato: Alcibiades, Bryn
Mawr Classical Review, 2003.01.28 <http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/
2003/2003-01-28.html> [accessed 7 Mar. 2009].
Socrates as , in the Axiochus, in K. Doring, M. Erler, and
S. Schorn (eds.), Pseudoplatonica (Stuttgart, 2005), 97118.
Kent, R. G., Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon (New Haven, 1953).
Kerschensteiner, J., Platon und der Orient (Stuttgart, 1945).
Kingsley, P., The Greek Origin of the Sixth-Century Dating of Zoroaster,
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 53 (1990), 24565.
In the Dark Places of Wisdom (Inverness, Calif., 1999).
Meetings with Magi: Iranian Themes among the Greeks, from Xanthus of Lydia to Platos Academy [Magi], Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society3, 5 (1995), 173209.
Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E., and Schoeld, M., The Presocratic Philosophers,
2nd edn. (Cambridge, 1983).
Konstan, D., Review of Plato: Alcibiades by Nicholas Denyer, Ancient
Philosophy, 24/2 (Fall 2004), 4614.
Kotansky, R., Incantations and Prayers for Salvation on Inscribed Greek
Amulets, in C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds.), Magika hiera: Ancient
Greek Magic and Religion (New York, 1991), 10737.
Lecoq, P., Les Inscriptions de la Perse achemenide: traduit du vieux perse, de
lelamite, du babylonien et de larameen (Paris, 1997).
Lincoln, B., Religion, Empire, and Torture: The Case of Achaemenian Persia
with a Postscript on Abu Gharib [Empire] (Chicago, 2007).
McPherran, M., The Religion of Socrates (University Park, Penn., 1996).
Mejer, J., Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background (Wiesbaden,
1978).
Miller, M. C., Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in
Cultural Receptivity (Cambridge, 1997).
Morgan, M. L., Platonic Piety: Philosophy and Ritual in Fourth-Century
Athens (New Haven, 1990).
Pradeau, J.-F., and Marbuf, C., Platon: Alcibiade (Paris, 1999).
Puglia, E., Platone e lospite caldeo nella Storia dellAcademia di Filodimo
[Caldeo], Studi di egitollogia e di papirologia, 2 (2005), 1237.
Ramelli, I., Il basileus come nomos empsychos tra diritto naturale e diritto
divino: spunti platonici del concetto e sviluppi di eta imperiale e tardoantica (Naples, 2006).
Riginos, A. S., Platonica: The Anecdotes concerning the Life and Writings
of Plato (Leiden, 1976).
102
Rives, J. B., Aristotle, Antisthenes of Rhodes, and the Magikos [Aristotle], Rheinisches Museum, 147/1 (2004), 3554.
Root, M. C., The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art: Essays on the
Creation of an Iconography of Empire [King and Kingship] (Leiden, 1979).
Rowe, C., Book Notes: Plato and Socrates, Phronesis, 48/3 (2002), 287
308.
Russell, J. R., The Magi in the Derveni Papyrus, Name-ye Iran-e Bastan,
1/1 (Spring 2001), 4959.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H., Political Concepts in Old-Persian Royal Inscriptions [Political], in K. Raaaub (ed.), Anfange politischen Denkens
in der Antike: Die nahostlichen Kulturen und die Griechen (Munich, 1993),
14564.
Schibli, H. S., Xenocrates Daemons and the Irrational Soul [Daemons],
CQ, ns 43/1 (1993), 14367.
Schmitt, R., The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great: Old Persian Text
(London, 1991).
Iranische Personennamen bei Aristoteles, in S. Adhami (ed.), Paitimana: Essays in Iranian, Indo-European, and Indian Studies in Honor of
Hanns-Peter Schmidt, 2 vols. (Costa Mesa, Calif., 2003), 27599.
Onomastica Iranica Platonica, in C. Mueller-Goldingen and K. Sier
(eds.), Lênaika: Festschrift fur Carl Werner Muller (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1996), 81102.
and Luschey, H., Bsotun,
in Encyclopaedia Iranica <http://www.
iranica.com/newsite/> [accessed 7 Mar. 2009].

Schorn, S., Periegetische Biographie Historische Biographie: Neanthes von Kyzikos (FgrHist 84) als Biograph, in M. Erler and S. Schorn
(eds.), Die griechische Biographie in hellenistischer Zeit: Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom 26.29. Juli 2006 in Wurzburg (Berlin and
New York, 2007), 11556.
Scott, D., Eros,
Philosophy, and Tyranny, in id. (ed.), Maieusis: Essays on
Ancient Philosophy in Honour of Myles Burnyeat (Oxford, 2008), 13653.
Sedley, D., Platos Cratylus [Cratylus] (Cambridge, 2003).
Shrimpton, G. S., Theopompus the Historian [Theopompus] (Montreal,
1991).
Sims-Williams, N., The Final Paragraph of the Tomb-Inscription of Darius I (DNb, 5060): The Old Persian Text in Light of an Aramaic
Version, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 44 (1981),
17.
Skjrv, P. O., The Avesta as Source for the Early History of the Iranians,
in G. Erdosy (ed.), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia (Berlin and
New York, 1995), 15576.
Avestan Quotations in Old Persian? Literary Sources of the Old Persian Inscriptions, in S. Shaked and A. Netzer (eds.), Irano-Judaica, iv.
103
Studies relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture throughout the

Ages (Jerusalem, 1999), 164.
Truth and Deception in Ancient Iran, in C. Cereti and F. Vajifdar
s-e Dorun: The Fire Within ([1st Book Publishing], 2003),
(eds.), Ata#
383434.
Spoerri, W., Encore Platon et lorient, Revue de philologie, 31 (1957),
20933.
Struck, P., Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers and the Limits of their
Texts [Symbol] (Princeton, 2004).
Taran, L., Academica: Plato, Philip of Opus, and the Pseudo-Platonic
Epinomis [Academica] (Philadelphia, 1975).
Tell, H., Sages at the Games: Intellectual Displays and Dissemination of
Wisdom in Ancient Greece, Classical Antiquity, 26/2 (2007), 24975.
Thiel, D., Die Philosophie des Xenokrates im Kontext der Alten Akademie
(Munich and Leipzig, 2006).
Todd, R. B., Review of Denyer, Plato: Alcibiades, Phoenix 53/34 (2004),
3401.
Tsantsanoglou, K., The First Columns of the Derveni Papyrus and their
Religious Signicance [Columns], in A. Laks and G. W. Most (eds.),
Studies on the Derveni Papyus (Oxford, 1997), 93128.
Vasunia, P., The Philosophers Zarathushtra [Philosophers], in C. Tuplin (ed.), Persian Responses: Political and Cultural Interaction with(in)
the Achaemenid Empire (Swansea, 2007), 23764.
Zarathushtra and the Religion of Ancient Iran: The Greek and Latin
Sources in Translation [Zarathushtra] (Mumbai, 2007).
West, M. L., Darius Ascent to Paradise, Indo-Iranian Journal, 45 (2002),
517.
Ancient Greek Music (Oxford, 1992).
Westerink, L. G., and Trouillard, J., Prolegomenes a la philosophie de Platon
(Paris, 1990).
Zhmud, L., The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity,
trans. A. Chernoglazov [Origin] (Berlin, 2006).

Horky, Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Horky, Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Horky, Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Offprint from

P ERS I AN COS MOS AND GREEK

1. Introduction to the problem

Phillip Sidney Horky

the general account involving the magoi at Platos death is likely to

Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

mena to the Philosophy of Plato (datable to the sixth century ce),8

Phillip Sidney Horky

Persian thought among the successors of Plato, what can we say

Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

torian Theopompus of Chios after the death of Plato in 347 bce;14

2. The constitution of a discourse: Heraclitus, and the

Phillip Sidney Horky

Assmann) in order to understand how this gure [of Zarathu#stra]

Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

Phillip Sidney Horky

Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

Zarathu#stra or to charlatans who called themselves magoi, or even to

Phillip Sidney Horky

32 DB 4. 8892. I shall discuss the signicance of this passage below.

Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

characteristics of these recurring conceptual patterns in Persian

Phillip Sidney Horky

governs the Persian kingdom (Old Persian x#sac-, Avestan x#sar-),40

What is apparent from this passage is that lying as it is practised

Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

its activity of concealing (apagaudaya ).45 Indeed, Darius goes so

Phillip Sidney Horky

Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

3. A discourse inherited: magoi in the

Phillip Sidney Horky

Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

Phillip Sidney Horky

display an awareness both of the Gaumata episode of the Bisitun

61 Tsantsanoglou, Columns, 11017. Cf. Burkert, Eastern, 1203, where he

Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

incantation (). The Persians, so claims Herodotus, do not

Phillip Sidney Horky

4. Magism and the early Academy: appropriations of

Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

only speculate about the depth of this knowledge.72 What is more,

Phillip Sidney Horky

Platos metaphysics as it was formulated in the middle and later

Kidd, no. 76) and F 79 Schutrumpf

Zarathushtra). The evidence is insucient to tie these fragments securely together,

Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

Phillip Sidney Horky

to order at the levels of individual and city-state.86 Platos bad

Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

Phillip Sidney Horky

Scholars have focused on the rst subject of instruction without

Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

Gorgias, of their own arts of persuasion as mageia. But Plato saw

Phillip Sidney Horky

their own purposes quickly and aggressively, to particular ends. It

Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy

tary works On Philosophy and Magikos.101 Of the seven references

Aristotles interest here is in describing how the poets of old (here

Phillip Sidney Horky

incantation (). The Persians, so claims Herodotus, do not

threefold120 [3 ", ], removed himself as far from the sun as