APOLLONIUS IN INDIA: THE VITA APOLLONII AND THE

INDOGRAPHIC TRADITION

Abstract: This article examines Philostratus’ engagement with the Indographic

tradition in books 2 and 3 of the Vita Apollonii. A number of interconnected
arguments are presented here. The main argument is that Philostratus carefully
adapted details from the Indographic and paradoxographical traditions, allowing
him to make witty allusions, both explicit and oblique, to them. This also allowed
him to parody the critical doxographic habit of later commentators. Similarly, he
sought to invert expectations when it came to the presentation of Alexander and
the mythic heroes Dionysus and Heracles, as well as India more broadly. In doing
so, Philostratus was able to present a utopian land of the Sophoi (within India)
grounded in time and space that could ironically act as source of true Hellenism
which Apollonius spread to the West (rather than Alexander spreading it to the
East).

Keywords: Philostratus, Indography, Paradoxography, Megasthenes, Ctesias

Sometime during the AD 220s or 230s Philostratus the Athenian wrote

an account of the life and deeds of the (in)famous Apollonius of Tyana in
eight books known as Τὰ ἐς τὸν Τυανέα Ἀπολλώνιον or the Vita Apollonii
(henceforth VA).1 The historical Apollonius, who lived during the first
century AD, had become connected with a series of positive and negative
traditions by the second and third centuries.2 The hostile tradition presented
him as a wizard (μάγος) and charlatan (γόης), but by the Severan period (if
not earlier) a more positive tradition had also developed painting
Apollonius in a (semi-)divine light.3 At Tyana a cult to Apollonius was set
up by Caracalla (co-emperor from AD 198–211, sole emperor from AD
211–217) and he was purportedly worshiped alongside Jesus Christ,
Abraham and Orpheus in Alexander Severus’ (r. AD 222–235) private cult

1 Billault (2000) 29–31; Bowie (2009) 29; Elsner (2009) 4; Jones (2002a) 759–67;
Kemezis (2014a) 78–6. On the letters attributed to Apollonius see Penella (1979);
Flinterman (1995) 70–4; Swain (1996) 395–6. On the title of the work see Boter (2015).
2 For a discussion of the historical Apollonius see Dzielska, trans. by Pieńkowski (1986);

Francis (1998) 419; Whittaker (1906) 2–10. Flinterman (1995) 86–7 has observed that it is
not completely impossible that the historical Apollonius actually visited India. On this latter
issue see also Festugière (1943) and (1971); Puskás (1991) 118.
3 Cassius Dio (78.18.4) referred to him as a wizard (μάγος) and fraudster (γόης), while

Lucian impugned the reputation of Apollonius in his attack on Alexander of Abonoteichus

(Alex. 5). For the view that Moeragenes presented a positive version of Apollonius, albeit
one emphasising him as a μάγος, see Raynor (1984) 222–6; Flinterman (1995) 69–70;
Swain (1996) 384. On his presentation by Christian authors, see Rohrbacher (2016) 98.
chamber, though this later claim may be largely fabricated.4 It was in the
context of these variant traditions that Philostratus wrote the VA with the
supposed aim of correcting the slanderous accusations made against
Apollonius. Instead of being viewed as a charlatan, the narrator suggests
that Apollonius should be understood as ‘advancing towards wisdom and
overcoming tyrannies in a more godlike manner than Pythagoras’.5
In Philostratus’ eight-book account, Apollonius engages in extensive
travels both within and beyond the Mediterranean world. His mission is to
seek true wisdom, restore Hellenic values and confront tyrannical Roman
officials and emperors (as well as advising tolerable ones).6 It is, however,
books 2 and 3 which are the primary focus of this article. In book 2
Apollonius and his constant companion Damis—whom he met at Old
Ninos in book 1—go to Taxila and meet the philosopher-king Phraotes.7
During their journey to Phraotes they encounter some minor wonders and
various allusions are made to the itinerary of Alexander. It is in book 3 that
the most fantastical anthropological, zoological and natural wonders are
encountered as Apollonius and Damis travel between the Hyphasis and
Ganges Rivers to meet the Indian Sophoi. After conversing with these
Sophoi for some time and learning great wisdom, they return west via the
Indian Ocean in a voyage paralleling that undertaken by Nearchus, admiral
of Alexander’s fleet.8
The purpose of this article is to examine the construction of Apollonius’
adventures in India by Philostratus. Earlier notions that Philostratus merely
collated an undifferentiated patchwork of fantastical details about India to
form a simple backdrop have since been abandoned in favour of the view

4 On the cult at Tyana see Cass. Dio 78.18.4; also, Philostr. VA 8.31.3. On his worship

by Alexander Severus, see Hist. Aug. Alex. 29.2. The notion of Apollonius as a θεῖος ἀνήρ
persisted after the Severan period as seen from the claim that Aurelian (r. AD 270–275)
was visited by his apparition and persuaded to spare the city of Tyana (Hist. Aug. Aur. 24.2–
9, 25.1). It should be noted, however, that the imperial biographies in the Historia Augusta
are of variable reliability. For example, Rohrbacher argues that the life of Alexander
Severus is panegyrical in tone and lacking in veracity. The claim about a private chapel
may have been adapted from the biography of Marius Maximus. Moreover, Aurelian’s
visitation by Apollonius, and the sources that the author cites for this, are likely reminiscent
of ‘the notebooks of Damis or the tablets of Dictys’, i.e. literary inventions to lend authority
to the account relayed. See, Rohrbacher (2016) 6–9, 96–8, 120.
5 ‘…καὶ θειότερον ἢ ὁ Πυθαγόρας τῇ σοφίᾳ προσελθόντα, τυραννίδων τε ὑπεράραντα…’

– VA 1.2.1. I leave aside the question of whether we should understand the narrator of the
VA as Philostratus himself.
6 Kemezis (2014b) 157, 190–5 argues that Philostratus deliberately stresses Apollonius’

connection to the late Julio–Claudian and Flavian periods in order to place his adventures
in a world of ‘tyranny and resistance’. The fundamental importance of travel as a means of
creating the image of an ideal philosopher is also pertinent: Meyer (1917) 371–424; and
Elsner (1997) 23–37.
7 On the view that Old Ninos is a reference to the Syrian Hierapolis, see Jones (2002b).
8 On parallels with Arrian’s Indika, see Robiano (1996) 501.
that he was careful and discriminating.9 Indeed, it will be argued that
Philostratus selected, adapted and omitted details from these works as a
means of both parodying earlier Indographic and paradoxographical texts,
while also going a step further and parodying those later authors who
engaged in critical doxography. Furthermore, Philostratus was able to
demonstrate his erudition through allusions to these texts (including
narratives by Ctesias and Megasthenes, authors not directly cited), while
also inverting expectations when it came to Alexander and the mythic
figures of Heracles and Dionysus. In the VA, indeed, Apollonius not only
surpasses their achievements but also locates an untainted form of
Hellenism in a utopian land occupied by Indian Sophoi which, as
Abraham’s recently argued, is vital to his mission in the Mediterranean.10
It is not within the scope of this article to give a full treatment of wider
debates on the veracity and genre of the VA. Suffice it to say, the arguments
circle around whether the work should be regarded as an attempt by
Philostratus to produce a biography/hagiography of Apollonius or
alternatively a fictitious piece of entertainment akin to the novel or pseudo–
documentarist literature.11 Particular focus has been given to whether
Damis was a real historical figure or merely a literary invention by
Philostratus.12 The position taken in this article is that the VA was intended
as a humorous and erudite piece of fiction by a leading author of the late
Second Sophistic. It has been credibly suggested that Philostratus’
reference to the memoirs (ὑπόμνημα) of Damis is analogous to Antonius
Diogenes’ use of “discovered” wooden tablets in his fictional work

9 Anderson (1986) 214–15 assumes that Philostratus used paradoxographical texts for
their ‘own sake’, ‘[snatching] at the flimsiest reasons for doing so’. He ((1996) 616) also
states that ‘we are looking at a very shakily constructed composition whose inequalities
seem to proclaim fumbling and characteristically incompatible material’. Contra Eshleman
(2017) 195, who questions whether Philostratus was ‘blindly recycling classical tradition.’.
See also Kemezis (2014a) 71 and (2014b) 164; and Elsner (1997) 35.
10 Abraham (2014).
11 On questions of genre, see Anderson (1996) 613–16 (hagiography); Rabiano (1996)

489 (a fusion of influences); Boter (2015) 1–7 (encomium); Billault (2009) 3–19 (use of
biographical style); Billault (2000) 105–38 (borrowing techniques from the novels);
Whitmarsh (2007) 413 (‘sloping from biography into encomium, even hymn’); Schirren
(2005) 69–211 (philosophical biography); Eshleman (2017) 184 (use of dialogue). On the
desire for plausibility, see Rommel (1923) 8–45. For a stronger emphasis on the fictional
nature of the text, see Bowie (1978) 1652–99; Dzielska, trans. by Pieńkowski (1986);
Francis (1998); Kemezis (2014a) 65–6; Kemezis (2014b) 156, 159; Reardon (1971).
12 Anderson (1986) 155–73, 191 suggested that the memoirs of Damis may be genuine

and even identified its transmission with a later Persian text the Marzuban–nameh. Grosso
(1954) 333–532 felt the VA should be regarded as a valid historical source. However, there
have been plenty who question the existence of Damis, notably Meyer (1917) 371–424; and
Bowie (1978) 1653–62. More generally on Damis, see Flinterman (1995) 79–88, who
thinks that it is unlikely that Philostratus wholesale invented this tradition.
Wonders Beyond Thule (and perhaps also to the Trojan pseudepigrapha).13
It is likely that most readers recognised Damis as an invention of
Philostratus. This is regardless of whether they viewed the work as fiction
or as hagiography.14 Thus, it is appropriate to see Philostratus’ use of the
Indographic tradition in books 2 and 3 in light of this interplay between
fiction and historical tradition.
Indeed, history and fiction were not treated as diametrically opposed
categories in Graeco–Roman literature and what was important in both
historical narrative and fiction was believability.15 As Kemezis notes, the
narrator needed to present the reader ‘with a set of credibility-building
devices that simultaneously add substance to fictional belief and emphasize
the self-conscious fictionality of that belief.’16 It may be that the claim in
the VA that the author was part of Julia Domna’s literary circle was one
such example of credibility-building.17 Ultimately, whether the work was
intended to be taken as a serious biography/hagiography or as fictional
entertainment, it is clear that believability was a vital element. The salient
point for the purposes of this article is that Philostratus’ description of India
played on an erudite audience’s familiarity with the Graeco–Roman
Indographic and paradoxographical tradition.18

Philostratus and his Sources

Any exploration of Philostratus’ engagement with this tradition is
complicated by the fact that many of the works that he drew upon now exist
only as fragments in the works of later authors. This difficulty is further
exacerbated by his practice of not always citing the authors that he drew
upon, including Ctesias, Onesicritus and quite probably Megasthenes.19
Disentangling these fragments or epitomes and connecting them to earlier

13 VA 1.2–3. See Elsner (1997). On pseudo–documentarism, see Ní Mheallaigh (2008).

14 Morgan (1993) 187; Bowersock (1994).
15 Morgan (1993); Francis (1998) 421, 425; Kemezis (2014a), 7; Schirren (2005) 15–68;

Reger (2009) 250–1; Gyselinck and Demoen (2009) 108–14.

16 Kemezis (2014a) 65.
17 VA 1.3.1. Kemezis (2014b) 162, 167. Contra Swain (1996) 385–6. Morgan (2009)

276–8 argues that the Emesan Julia Domna is the presence behind the solar ‘agenda’ in the
VA. He suggests its aim was to rehabilitate solar worship through Apollonius and distance
it from the opprobrium connected to Elagabalus. Cordovana (2012) 71 describes
Philostratus as a ‘spokesman for a new idea of imperial power under the Severans’. See
also Hanus (1995) 82–3.
18 For the importance of earlier works like those of Herodotus, Ctesias, the Alexander

historians and Megasthenes on the development of Imperial era discourse about India
(histories, geographies, encyclopaedias, etc.) see Parker (2008); Romm (1992); and
Karttunen (1997a) and (1997b). In this regard Philostratus was no different: Bernard (1996);
Jones (2002b); Priaulx (1873).
19 Flinterman (1995) 83.
works is not a straightforward task.20 For example, there has been some
debate about whether sections 2.35–42 of the Bibliotheca Historica—
which have traditionally been regarded as an epitome of Megasthenes—in
fact solely derive from this author.21 Muntz has argued that Diodorus
Siculus did not mechanically abbreviate Megasthenes. Instead, it is
suggested that while borrowing from him, Diodorus, nevertheless, engaged
with other writers like Eratosthenes.22
Despite these challenges, we are fortunate that most Roman-era
Indographers tended to be very explicit in citing their sources. This allows
for some confidence in identifying the origins of different ideas about
India, including those deriving from Ctesias, Megasthenes, Nearchus and
Orthagoras.23 Thus, even when Philostratus is not explicit about his
sources, it is possible to examine other Indographic accounts to determine
from where he may be deriving his ideas. The Indika of Ctesias—surviving
through fragments and a summary by Photius—is one of the clearest
examples of a work utilised by Philostratus but not directly cited. At the
opening of book 3, when Apollonius crosses into the land of the Sophoi (in
the heart of India), the reader is immediately presented with fragrant trees,
peacock–fish, giant worms which produce a flammable liquid and the
horned-asses (i.e., unicorns whose horns were made into drinking vessels
that rendered the user immune from sickness).24 All of these elements
featured in Ctesias’ description of India.

Allusion and Inverting Expectations – Apollonius in India

Since it is possible to discern the Indographic and paradoxographical
works which Philostratus drew upon (if not always specific authors, then
at least a general class of literature), we can ask the following question:
how does Philostratus’ selection, omission and arrangement of material
from these traditions connect to his wider aims in the VA? It is argued in
this paper that one of the most important of these aims relates to the Second

20 On the fragments of Ctesias, see Lefant (2004). On those of Megasthenes, see

Stoneman (2022) 15–16.
21 On Megasthenes, his reliability and transmission, see Schwanbeck (1846); T. S. Brown

(1955); Karttunen (1997b) 69–94.

22 Muntz (2012) 21–37; also, Parker (2008) 43. However, Stoneman (2022) 12 argues

that Eratosthenes himself was heavily reliant on the work of Megasthenes. On the more
recent move away from the “lex Volquardsen” notion that Diodorus only ever relied on one
source at a time, see Baron (2013) 13–14.
23 On Ctesias, see Photius; Arr. Anab.; Ael. NA; Plin. HN. On Megasthenes, see Arr.

Indica; Strab.; Ael. NA; Plin. HN. On Nearchus, see Arr. Indica; Strab. On Orthagoras, see
Ael. NA.
24 VA 3.1–2. See Ctesias Frag. 45 §45 = Photius; Megasthenes Frag. 15b = Ael. NA 16.20.

Whitmarsh (2007) 419 notes that digressions on history, botany and ethnography often
feature at the start of books in the VA, which he suggests functioned as ‘pauses, waymarking
the narrative...’ and that they ‘underline the narrator’s intellectual authority’.
Sophistic practice of offering an opposing view to those traditionally given,
particularly through explanation or critique.25 This inversion connects to
the practice of alluding to great mythic and historical Greek figures whom
Apollonius can then surpass in his travels through India. This aim of
surpassing great figures is a wider feature of the VA, as we have already
noted with Pythagoras.26 It has also been observed that Apollonius’ travels
in the Mediterranean world and India frequently parallel narrative elements
from the Odyssey. In these parallels Apollonius is represented as superior
to Odysseus in both prudence (Aeolus and bag of winds) and bravery
(Charybdis).27
When it comes to Apollonius’ journey to India (book 2), comparisons
with Alexander the Great loom large. Apollonius visits or has the chance
to comment upon many key locations from Alexander’s itinerary. In these
contexts we see sustained engagement with the “Alexander tradition” (on
the different branches of the Indographic tradition, see appendix 1).28
Apollonius and Damis traverse the Caucuses (Hindu Kush), travel across
the Cophen River near the city of Nysa, and allude to Aornos, but because
it lay off their route they do not go there.29 With regards to Aornos,
Philostratus does not simply mention the mountain site in passing but
devotes additional space to providing an explanation for its name (meaning
“birdless”). He rejects the account that the reason there are no birds is that
they cannot fly as high as 9,000 feet (the height given for the summit),
instead explaining that a cleft sucks in passing birds, drawing a parallel
with the Athenian Acropolis.30 This presents a clear example of the Second
Sophistic practice of critiquing earlier theories, as well as pointing to
engagement with Arrian’s account, or at least the Hellenistic sources used
by Arrian.31

25 Bernard (1996) 489.

26 VA 1.2.
27 See van Dijk (2009) 176–202; Kemezis (2014) 174 also notes Apollonius’ favourable

comparison to Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, and Thales.

28 Robiano (1996) 499; Elsner (1997) 30–1; Parker (2008) 2; Kemezis (2014) 174;

Whitmarsh (2012) 464; Eshleman (2017) 193. On Apollonius surpassing Alexander in his
intellectual pursuits, see Downie (2016) 72.
29 VA 2.2–4, 2.7.3, 2.8, 2.10. On the Alexander Tradition and the Caucasus, see Arr.

Anab. 3.28–30; 4.22; 5.3–6. On the Cophen River, see Arr. Anab. 4.22. On Nysa, see Arr.
Anab. 5.1–2; Curt. 7.10; Plut. Vit. Alex. 58.5–9. On Aornos, see Arr. Anab. 4.28–30; Curt.
8.11. It had become commonplace to refer to the Hindu Kush as the Caucuses. Some ancient
authors noted the distinction (e.g. Arrian), but other sources point to confusion (notably the
Alexander Romance tradition); on this see Stoneman (2008) 77–8. On the role of the
“Caucuses” as a crossing point into the fabulous world of India, see Hanus (1995) 90. On
the tradition surrounding Nysa, Dionysus and Alexander’s visit to the site, see Arr. Anab.
5.1–3; Robiano (1996) 500.
30 For a discussion of Aornos, its meaning and its appearance in the Indographic tradition

(including by Philostratus), as well as issues with the Athenian parallel, see Bernard (1996).
31 Robiano (1996) 502.
 Continuing with the itinerary, Apollonius and Damis observe elephants
crossing the River Indus and recount seeing the elephant “Ajax”. It is
claimed that Alexander captured the creature from Porus and dedicated it
to Helios.32 Next, Philostratus has the pair cross the River Indus at a point
where it was 40 stades in width and reports that it acts like the Nile, in the
process challenging ideas about the Nile’s inundation.33 They were led to
the city of Taxila, which is a major focal point after the crossing of the
Hindu Kush in the Alexander tradition, both in terms of subsequent
political-military activity, but also cultural and philosophic engagement
with the Indian world.34 It is perhaps unsurprising that a significant portion
of book 2 is set in this city. In this context the Greek character of the
philosopher-king Phraotes can be emphasised, notably at a Greek–style
symposion.35 Additionally, the visit to a temple in Taxila allows for an
extended ekphrasis on art depicting the achievements of Alexander and
Porus, as well as a philosophic discussion about mimicry.36
Subsequent to these events, Apollonius and Damis visit the site of Porus’
battle with Alexander.37 After crossing the Hydraotes (Ravi River) and
passing several tribes, the pair reach the Hyphasis (Beas River) and 30
stades beyond that the altar marking the eastern extent of Alexander’s
campaign. It is at this point that they see a bronze tablet stating that
Alexander stopped here—a likely boast by the Indians beyond the
Hyphasis that he got no further.38 Philostratus’ primary audience would
probably have known the tradition about Alexander setting up twelve large
alters to the gods in order to demarcate the extent to which his army
travelled East.39 It is at this point that Apollonius surpasses Alexander by
travelling further into India and reaching a place where no Greek had ever

32 VA 2.12, 14–15. It is interesting to observe the discrepancy in the Alexander tradition

between Nearchus and Onesicritus regarding the habits of elephants, specifically whether
they are good swimmers. The former (correctly) claims they are, the latter says they are
not: Stoneman (2019) 124. Interestingly here Philostratus seems to follow Nearchus.
33 VA 2.18–19. On the Indus, see Arr. Anab. 5.3–8; Robiano (1996) 500.
34 VA 2.20. On Taxila, see Arr. Anab. 5.8; Curt. 8.12–14; Plut. Vit. Alex. 59.
35 VA 2.27.1. Eshleman (2017) 185–6 notes that while the symposion is clearly Hellenic

in character, references to whole lions and tiger loins remind the reader of its exotic Indian
setting. Moreover, some of the banquet’s “un-Greek” features (food, wine and
entertainment) can be contrasted with the subsequent more philosophical banquet hosted
by the Sophoi (VA 3.26–33).
36 VA 2.20–22. See Platt (2009); and Karttunen (1989).
37 VA 2.42.
38 VA 2.43. Eshleman (2017) 184.
39 Arr. Anab. 5.29. Whitmarsh (2012) 467 notes the parallel between the physical

boundary marker—the stêlai at the edge of Alexander’s Empire—and the segmented textual
space, where a boundary is crossed as one enters book 3.
gone to before, namely the citadel of the Indian Sophoi located halfway
between the Hyphasis and the Ganges.40
His “anabasis” into the interior of India exceeds that recounted about
Alexander by historians such as Arrian.41 Indeed, it is possible that not only
is Apollonius made to rival Alexander, but that Philostratus himself is
rivalling Arrian in his knowledge and his claim to fully glorify an
insufficiently acknowledged Greek “culture hero”.42 In the narrative it is
said that Alexander was not able to advance to this place due to contrary
signs from the gods.43 This is likely an allusion to the Mutiny at the
Hyphasis discussed by several of the historians and biographers on
Alexander.44 These omens were in fact a way for Alexander to save face,
since he could not convince his army to travel further east and had to
acquiesce with their desire to return westwards.45 Interestingly,
Philostratus presents the tradition about these omens at face value: no
allusion is made to a mutiny. This may have been to preserve his reputation
and potentially to magnify Apollonius’ special nature by being permitted
to cross over. There is no reason to think this omission was a result of
ignorance, given Philostratus’ evident familiarity with Arrian’s work or the
Hellenistic sources he drew upon.
At the same time as surpassing Alexander spatially by traveling further
into India, Apollonius is also represented as surpassing Alexander in terms
of wisdom since, unlike Alexander, he meets the true Indian Sophoi.46 It is
specifically stated by Phraotes that Alexander never met the true Sophoi
but only the Oxydrake, a warlike tribe who claim to be conversant with
Philosophy but know nothing of virtue.47 Apollonius’ journey to India for
wisdom could be understood by the reader as representing something
superior to Alexander’s travel for conquest. For example, Iarchos
admonishes the Greeks for glorifying the sackers of Troy. Instead, he
praises King Ganges, son of the River Ganges, for being far superior in
having founded 60 cities—the establishing of cities being much better than

40 VA 2.33, see also 2.44 and 3.13.

41 Robiano (1996) 493.
42 Robiano (1996) 493–6.
43 VA 2.33.1; 3.10–14.
44 Arr. Anab. 5.24–28; Curt. 9.2.2–9; Diod. Sic. 17.93–95; Plut. Vit. Alex. 62.1–7. On

Arrian’s allusion to Alexander’s unlimited desire for conquest (reflected in his speech to
the mutineers) and to Dionysus and Heracles, see Romm (2008) 98–9.
45 Anson (2015) 65–74. He also critiques the argument that Alexander engineered the

mutiny after realising the extent of India and the distance to the “Eastern Ocean”.
46 For the wider aim of searching for wisdom in the VA, see Whitmarsh (2012) 463. He

suggests that the whole text can be thought of as a ‘philosophical voyage initiatique, a
rewriting on a global scale of Socrates’ quest for knowledge as described in Plato’s Apology
(and similarly culminating in a courtroom).’
47 VA 2.33.
sacking them.48 It may even be that Apollonius’ search for wisdom could
be understood in relation to Alexander’s purported search for wisdom (and
immortality). However, there are difficulties with pushing this suggestion
too far. The best evidence we have for the association of Alexander and
the pursuit of wisdom comes from the Romance tradition, as well as related
Arabic and medieval sources, but dating presents difficulties.49 Apollonius’
search for wisdom in India might be more confidently paralleled with
Pythagoras’ derivation of knowledge from the Brahmans, albeit via Egypt,
and other contemporary and slightly later claims that place figures such as
Democritus of Abdera and Socrates in encounters with Indians, whether in
India or in Greece.50
Apollonius’ ability to walk in the footsteps of Alexander and then
surpass him, both spatially and possibly in his search for wisdom, is
arguably an example of Philostratus’ manipulation of the Indographic
tradition to suit his purposes. Knowledge of the northwest Indian
subcontinent and Indus Valley greatly increased with Alexander’s
campaigns. Alexander and his associates are said to have encountered
various Indian wise men during his campaign in these regions.51 One of the
most important instances is the meeting of Onesicritus with Calanus and
Mandanis (near Taxila), which in some later traditions is transformed into
a meeting of Alexander with these figures.52 Other encounters include the
killing of those responsible for encouraging local rulers like Sabbas and
tribal groups like the Oxydrakae to resist, as well as the important
questioning of the Gymnosophists by Alexander (which is alluded to by

48 VA 3.19–21. Note that Iarchos claims to be a reincarnation of the former, i.e., the king,

not the river. On the tradition of criticising Homer, see Flinterman (1995) 104. On Iarchos’
claim that the Greeks are ‘too much in thrall to Homer’, see Downie (2016) 75.
49 The earliest version of the Alexander Romance that survives is from the third century

AD, but its origins can perhaps be traced back to the third century BC (see R. Stoneman,
Alexander Romance. Oxford Classical Dictionary). On Alexander’s “scientific goals” and
as an inventor and sage, see Stoneman (2008) 68–9, 107–27.
50 VA 8.7.4. Democritus of Abdera is said to have visited Ethiopia and India (Diog. Laert.

9.7.35), while Aristoxenus purportedly claimed that Socrates encountered an Indian in

Athens, the latter mocking his philosophical approach (Euseb. Praep. evang. 11.3). On the
transmission of Indian ideas to Pythagoras via Egypt, see VA 3.19.1; Eshleman (2017) 191;
and Puskás (1991) 118.
51 On the fascination with Indian sages in Alexander legends, see Karttunen (1997b) 55–

67. He also notes that the term Gymnosophist does not appear in any of the extant fragments
of the contemporary Alexander historians, but later became a more common name for them.
52 Notably in the Late Antique On the Life of the Brahmans by Palladius, This work post–

dates Philostratus’ VA by about two centuries, although it appears to share similarities with
a second-century AD papyrus forming part of a collection of cynic diatribes – Stoneman
(2008) 97–103. For a short summary on Onesicritus, see Stoneman (2022) 19–20.
Strabo, Plutarch and in the Romance tradition).53 Onesicritus’ account
undoubtedly influenced the way in which Philostratus presents Apollonius’
encounters with both the Sophoi of India in book 3 and the Gymnoi of
Ethiopia in book 6. However, as we shall see, Philostratus deliberately
avoids having “Gymnosophists” in India (the Gymnoi having been
expelled from India long ago).54
Apollonius, like Alexander, will find wise men in Taxila. In his case this
includes the philosopher-king Phraotes who had been brought up by the
Indian Sophoi.55 Phraotes is presented as living a philosophically simple
life in a non-extravagant palace (comparing favourably to that witnessed
in Babylon).56 Within the palace are images of Alexander and Porus,
including representations of their various exploits.57 Phraotes can converse
well in Greek, engages in athletics and dines in a modest way.58 His Greek
habits can be framed as taking place in a “Greek” environment for Taxila
is said to be laid out like a fortified Greek city, paralleling Athens in its
orderly rows of houses.59 The distinction between Apollonius and
Alexander is that the former surpasses the latter in his journey into India.
In doing so Apollonius will encounter the true wisdom.60 By contrast,
Alexander had to turn back (failing to find true wisdom) and subsequently
campaign down the Indus Valley against men whom Phraotes describes as
violent and unconcerned with justice—despite their pretentions otherwise.
Thus, Apollonius is excused from meeting them (and upsetting the
narrative by having Apollonius travel down the Indus rather than across
the Hyphasis), for among these people he will not learn true wisdom.61

53 Strab. 15.1.43, 1.63–5; Plut. Vit. Alex. 59, 64–5, 69. On the conflict with the Malli and

Oxydracae, see Bosworth (1996b) 133–65. The surrender of the Oxydracae involved
acknowledging Alexander as the heir to Dionysus and as the natural ruler of India (p. 165).
54 The parallel is most obvious when Apollonius asks Iarchos and the other Sophoi

various questions. However, this is far more reverential in tone (not a series of riddles or
paradoxes) and there is no obvious connection to Alexander’s riddle contest with the ten
Gymnosophists. Powers (1998) 82 notes that four separate versions of this riddle-session
survive, three nearly identical (P. Berol 13044; Latin epitome in the Metz collection; and
Plut. Alex. 64) and one different (beta–recession of the Alexander Romance 3.5–6).
55 VA 2.31.2.
56 VA 2.25–6. On Apollonius’ stay with Vardanes, see Jones (2002b) 192–3.
57 VA 2.20. This appears to parallel the Letter to Aristotle about India regarding the claim

that Porus accompanied Alexander after the latter’s victory, see Stoneman (2008) 76.
58 VA 2.27–8.
59 VA 2.20.2, 2.23. For this ethnocentrism, see Whitmarsh (2012) 468–9. On the

excavations at Taxila and attempts to connect these findings with Philostratus’ description,
see Bernard (1996) 505–18; Stoneman (2019) 461–70.
60 The Alexander Romance presents Alexander as having various adventures beyond the

Hyphasis before ultimately being compelled to return west, accept his mortality and face
his death – Romm (2008) 100–1.
61 VA 2.33.1.
 Philostratus terms the false philosophers met by Alexander as Oxydrakae
rather than true Sophoi.62 Stoneman has commented upon the confusion
among some later writers who conflate the Gymnosophists that urged local
rulers to resist Alexander with the Oxydrakae tribe (who also engaged in
violent resistance).63 Philostratus in some respects does emphasise
parallels and contrasts between India and Ethiopia (in terms of geography,
natural features, flora and fauna), especially at the beginning of book 6.64
However, the placing of Gymnoi (Naked-ones) in Ethiopia and the
omission of any reference to the Gymnosophists (Naked Philosophers) in
India seems like a deliberate choice rather than an error. In fact,
Philostratus is at pains to make a clear distinction between Ethiopia and
India.65 By omitting any reference to Gymnosophists in India, Iarchos can
recount to Apollonius how the Ethiopians were expelled from India due to
the religious pollution incurred by the murder of Ganges, son of the River
Ganges.66 In doing this, Apollonius can meet these Ethiopian Naked-ones
in book 6.67 Here he will prove to Thespesion that Indian philosophical
wisdom is superior to that of the Gymnoi of Ethiopia.68 He ceases to be a
disciple of the Sophoi of India, but now becomes a master and teacher of
Gymnoi in Ethiopia.69

62 He is possibly influenced by the Alexander tradition which distinguished the Indian

philosophers near Taxila from the fighting Brahmans of the lower Indus valley, although
later both are referred to as Gymnosophoi: Karttunen (1997b) 60.
63 Stoneman (1995) 100–3 suggested that Philostratus’ familiarity with the Alexander

Romance, in which the Brahmans/Gymnosophists and Oxydracae are conflated, implies he

made the same error. See also Stoneman (2008) 93; and Powers (1998) 81–2. More
generally on the issue of potential confusion in the ancient sources between Ethiopia and
India, see Karttunen (1989) 134–8; Schneider (2004) and (2016); Mayerson (1993).
64 See Hamus (1995) 93–4.
65 Romm (1992) 82 notes that the bizarre wonders (zoological, ethnographic and

geographical) of both lands are such that they sometimes get fused together in ancient
literature. However, here it seems that Philostratus is making a very deliberate distinction.
Indeed, this is clearly part of a rhetorical strategy regularly used by epideictic orators who
can take lessons learnt from elsewhere to educate a new audience: Elsner (1997) 24.
66 VA 3.20.1–2. It has been noted that Philostratus was not alone in referring to the Indian

sages as Sophoi since both Strabo and Arrian used this term at different points in their work:
Karttunen (1997b) 56. He also notes that the VA contains more contemporary information
about the Indian sages and is not solely reliant on Hellenistic material. Interestingly, Pliny
the Elder (HN 6.35.190) places the Gymnetes in Ethiopia.
67 Technically, Philostratus terms these Ethiopians as Gymnoi rather than Gymnosophoi,

which may be a deliberate choice to further emphasise the superiority of the Indian Sophoi
over the ascetics of Ethiopia. Also, it would help to avoid confusing his readers who would
normally have associated the Gymnosophists with India. It has been noted that Philostratus
and Heliodorus are the only Greek writers we know of to place a community of Naked
Sages in Ethiopia: Morgan (2009) 273. Strabo (15.1.70) does mention the term Gymnētes
as a subdivision of the Pramnae: Karttunen (1997b) 56.
68 VA 6.10–22.
69 Hamus (1995) 94.
 It is also in this context that Onesicritus’ encounter with the Indian
Gymnosophists forms something of a model for Apollonius’ encounter
with the Ethiopian Gymnoi. If we accept Flinterman’s suggestion that the
representation of the Ethiopians as Gymnoi was meant to demonstrate the
superiority of Pythagoreanism (Indian wisdom) to Cynicism (Ethiopian
wisdom), we may then see another clever choice on the part of
Philostratus.70 Indeed, it is worth noting that Onesicritus’ encounter with
the Gymnosophists on behalf of Alexander is often seen as a vehicle for
his own Cynic ideas.71 That said, more recently Stoneman has argued that
Onesicritus’ report reflects a genuine encounter with Indian intellectuals
rather than being purely a vehicle for his own Cynic ideas.72 Either way,
by adapting and inverting allusions to Alexander’s encounters with Indian
philosophers (which loom large in the Alexander tradition), Philostratus is
able to have Apollonius surpass him both spatially and in the search for
wisdom, in the process setting up later plot points in book 6.

Megasthenes, the VA and the Utopian Realm of the Sophoi

As we have seen, numerous allusions to the Indographic tradition
surrounding Alexander the Great are present in the VA but drawing
connections with the Indika of Megasthenes has proved more
controversial. Certainly, Philostratus does not directly mention him.
However, it would be spurious to assume that naming a source is a
prerequisite for its use by Philostratus,73 a point that is abundantly clear in
the case of Ctesias’ Indika. Many of the weird and wonderful creatures
mentioned in book 3 of the VA derive, as already noted, from his work,
either directly or at least through transmission by later writers. Indeed, in
the case of Megasthenes’ work there are reasons to think that such links
exist, even if they are more oblique.
A few scholars have highlighted potential connections between
Megasthenes’ work and the VA. Belousov has observed that Iarchos’ claim
that the universe consists of basic elements—water, air, earth, fire and
aithēr—overseen by an all–encompassing deity can be connected to
Megasthenes’ Indika.74 However, he notes that in his account water is
referred to as the primordial element (i.e. it precedes, rather than being
coeval with, the other elements), suggesting this idea potentially derives
either from Hermeticism or Neopythagorean writings influenced by

70 Flinterman (1995) 87.

71 On Onesicritus and the Cynic tradition, see Powers (1988); and McEvilley (2002).
72 Stoneman (2019) 294.
73 For an example of the adoption of such a premise, see Panchenko (2002) 5.
74 VA 3.34. Belousov (2014) 788. Rabinovich (1985) proposes that this might reflect a

Greek conceptualisation of the Upanishadic concept of the Universal Brahmin.

Hermetic ideas.75 By contrast, Puskás argues that Philostratus’ exclusive
use of the term Brahmans—in relation to the Indian Sophoi—best suits an
association with Hindu Brahmanism.76 She further suggests that this is a
deliberate contrast to the tradition deriving from Megasthenes where the
Brachmanes and Samaneans are distinguished from each other (the latter,
Puskás argues, are deliberately omitted).77
For our purposes, it is first worth considering how Philostratus
potentially interacts with the geography of Megasthenes. In book 2 of the
VA Apollonius has followed the itinerary of Alexander and then travels
further by crossing beyond the Hyphasis. He does not, however, travel to
the kingdom centred on the Ganges, but instead goes to a vague region
between the Hyphasis and the Ganges. This is of interest as Megasthenes’
account, in contrast to the earlier Alexander tradition on India, shifts the
focus away from the Indus to the Ganges region where the Prasii reside
(the centre of the Mauryan Empire). It is also notable that Philostratus does
not mention Palimbothra (Pataliputra), which is the greatest city in India
according to Megasthenes.78 Instead, the “Greek-style” city of Taxila is
said to be the greatest (despite being situated in the weaker kingdom)—a
city ruled by Phraotes the philosopher-king.79
On the face of it, it is tempting to assume that this implies ignorance or
indifference to Megasthenes’ Indika. However, there are reasons to assume
this was a deliberate choice on the part of Philostratus. By placing the
citadel of the Sophoi in a vaguely defined region neither connected to the
Hyphasis nor the Ganges, Apollonius can be presented as travelling to a
region where no previous Greek hero or even (demi-)god has gone before
(or, indeed, ambassador in the case of the Ganges region).80 Philostratus
goes out of his way to justify Apollonius not going to this region, which
can be compared to the clever justification for not having Apollonius
follow Alexander’s itinerary down the Indus. No mention is made of any
philosopher caste in the kingdom of this region and, indeed, Apollonius
rejects this king’s offer to accompany him back to his realm since he will
not learn true wisdom there.81
Despite eschewing the geographic focus of Megasthenes’ account,
Philostratus, nevertheless, adapts and inverts aspects of his description of
Indian society to suit his purposes. In Megasthenes’ Indika, it is the

75 Belousov (2014) 788–91. See Strab. 15.1.59.

76 VA 1.2.
77 Puskás (1991) 119–20.
78 Megasthenes Frag. 33a = Arr. Indica 10.5–7; Frag. 33b = Strab. 15.1.36.
79 VA 2.12.2.
80 It is worth noting that there is also a confused tradition, as seen in Plutarch’s biography

(Alex. 62), about Alexander having reached the banks of the Ganges—his army only
reached the Hyphasis (Beas) River.
81 VA 3.26–9, 3.31–3.
philosophers who come to the gates of the king every year for a great
assembly (σύνοδος) and are either rewarded or compelled to keep silent
depending upon the accuracy of their prophesies.82 However, in the VA it
is the king who travels to the great citadel of the Indian Sophoi to seek
advice, being permitted to stay for only one day.83 Here the king is
subordinate to the philosophers. This emphasis on the superiority of
philosophical wisdom to political power in India seems to parallel the
wider narrative which represents Apollonius, the apogee of Greek religious
and philosophical culture, as superior to (Roman) political power.84 It
could be argued that this fits into a wider utopian tradition of placing pious
and wise council above the normal exercise of political power. One can
point to parallels such as Euhemeros’ The Sacred Inscription where the
Panchaean king cedes the administration of justice to a pious class of
priests.85 Or to Pliny’s description of the people of Taprobanē (Sri Lanka),
where the elected Sinhalese king is given 30 advisors, the majority of
which need to consent to any imposition of capital punishment, and who
themselves can be overruled by an appeal to a panel of 70 judges.86
There is no reference to the castes or classes in the VA. Nevertheless, it
has been plausibly suggested that the conditions required to become a
philosopher may ultimately be traced back to, and be a transmutation of,
ideas from Megasthenes.87 The fact that philosophers are few in number
and most highly esteemed appears in both accounts.88 Perhaps of greatest
significance, however, are the officials mentioned by Megasthenes (the
third out of six groups of city commissioners) who scrutinize births and
deaths. This is for taxation purposes and to record how they took place.89
In the VA Philostratus uses this idea for a loftier purpose. Only a few people
ever train to become philosophers in India as they must be pure. They are
subject to scrutiny to determine that they have not committed any

82 Megasthenes Frag. 33 S = Strab. 15.1.39–41.

83 VA 3.23, 3.26.
84 Kemezis (2014b) 190.
85 Here we have a fictional account, sometimes taken to represent a real place by later

authors. On this, see Diod. Sic. 5.41–46, 6.1. For the placement of these utopian locations
within real geographic contexts, see Sulimani (2017) 237, 240.
86 Here we have a real island, given a semi–utopian ethnography. On this, see Plin. HN

6.24.84–91. For parallels between Pliny’s description of a journey by a freedman of Annius

Plocamus to the island of Taprobanē and to Iambuolos’ journey to the Island of the Sun,
see Ehlers (1985) 78.
87 See Karttunen (1997b) 72. However, he criticises Breloer’s (1939) bizarre suggestion

that it was not Apollonius but Megasthenes who ‘sich vier Monate in dem Kloster des
Candragupta (!) in den Aravalli–Bergen aufgehalten hat’.
88 Megasthenes Frag. 33 S = Strab. 15.1.39–41 – compare Phil. VA 2.30.1.
89 Megasthenes Frag. 34 = Strab. 15.1.50–2. For a brief comment on the city officials

more broadly, see Stoneman (2022) 119. He suggests that a fair number of the details given
by Megasthenes correspond with elements of the Arthaśāstra.
disgraceful conduct nor their ancestors up to the third generation.
Information about their parents and their grandparents can be obtained
from witnesses and publicly available documents, for when any Indian dies
his conduct during life must be recorded by a special magistrate.90 The task
of recording deaths, births and conduct—associated with one of the groups
of city commissioners mentioned by Megasthenes—is similarly performed
by magistrates in Philostratus’ VA. However, in the latter case the intense
scrutiny also offers a means for the philosophers in India to check the
credentials of would-be disciples. This ultimately underscores the true
integrity of Indian philosophers in the VA.91 Eshleman suggests that
Philostratus may have been influenced by Plato’s stipulations in the
Republic, but this need not be mutually exclusive.92
If Philostratus’ construction of the wisdom and geography of the land of
the Sophoi parallels features seen in the discovery utopian tradition, his
treatment of the history of India also allows for an engagement with the
Golden Age utopian tradition—which depicts a time prior to societal
corruption.93 I would argue that Philostratus achieves this by challenging
the notion of the development of Indian civilisation which is particularly
attributed to Megasthenes, or at least his account is the clearest surviving
example of it. In fragments linked to Megasthenes, India is initially
presented as a land of scattered villages, making them easily conquerable
by Dionysus who came from the west. He founded cities, established
religious practices and taught the Indians viticulture—reigning over them
for 52 years and being deified after his death. Several generations later
Heracles comes and again conquers the Indians, subsequently founding
many cities including Palimbothra (Pataliputra), the greatest of them all.
Diodorus, in what is generally thought to be a fragment of Megasthenes,
notes that the inhabitants of the hill country of India claim Heracles to be
an indigenous figure who conquered swaths of India, while the fragments
of both Strabo and Arrian also allude to Dionysus and Heracles as

90 VA 2.30.1–2.
91 It is possible that (in addition to Megasthenes’ account) Philostratus’ creation of a
system of examining people’s conduct and ancestry in order to become a philosopher was
influenced by the Athenian practice of dokimasia—a system for vetting individuals about
to become citizens or hold public office. On the dokimasia, see MacDowall (2005) 79–87.
However, on the plausibility of the notion that the requirements needed to become a
philosopher derive from Megasthenes, see Breloer (1939); Karttunen (1997) 72.
92 Eshleman (2017) 186. Several ideas from Plato’s works influence Hellenistic era

Utopian literature: W. E. Brown (1955); Winston (1976); Dawson (1992). It is worth

considering that such Platonic influences on the VA could be both direct and indirect.
93 The utopian categories include the retrospective (Golden Age), discovery, foundation,

and inaccessible present utopia. On the “discovery” utopia, see Parker (2008) 193–4.
conquerors, though in these cases noting the varied potential origins for
these figures.94
Exactly when these myths developed is not clear. Dionysus is connected
to Nysa in some early literature, though this city is not necessarily placed
within India.95 In Euripides’ Bacchae, Dionysus is said to have wandered
around the East, including Bactria, but India is not mentioned.96 Indeed,
among the known pre-Alexander Indographers, such as Hecataeus,
Herodotus and Ctesias, India appears timeless and ungrounded in specific
history. It seems to be around and just after the conquests of Alexander the
Great that India is presented with a more detailed history, one that is
grounded in Greek myth.97 A number of cities are presented as foundations
of Dionysus and Heracles, while Alexander’s achievements are compared
to these gods, most notably his capture of the rock of Aornus, which
Heracles purportedly failed to capture.98 Strabo asserts that tales about
Dionysus’ and Heracles’ expeditions to India were created to spread the
glory of Alexander’s achievements.99 Hence, Megasthenes may not
necessarily have been the originator of these myths, but he does seem to be
the first to fully develop a chronological depth to Indian history within this
mythic framework. Strabo explicitly connect him with its propagation, and
it is detailed in more depth than in any of the Alexander historians.100
Consequently, Philostratus’ engagement with the stories connected to
Dionysus and Heracles could derive from the Alexander tradition or from
Megasthenes’ elaboration, but most probably from both. For Philostratus

94 Megasthenes Frag. 1b = Diod. Sic. 2.38.3–6, 39.1–4; Frag. 1c = Plin. HN 6.21.59;

Frag. 46 = Strab. 15.1.6–8; Arr. Indica 7–9. On the invasion tradition, and the variant
version that India was neither invaded nor invaded other lands, see Stoneman (2022) 96–9.
95 Hom. Il. 6.132–3; Hymn Hom. Bacch. 26.5–6. See, in particular, Hymn Hom. Bacch.

1 where Nysa is located near the streams of Egypt; likewise, Hdt. Hist. 3.97.2, where Nysa
is in Ethiopia.
96 Eur. Bacch. 15.
97 Stoneman (2022) 95 asserts that Cleitarchus was the first to describe Dionysus as a

conqueror of India; see also Parker (2008) 47. Kosmin (2014) 37–46 connects
Megasthenes’ elaboration of a foundation myth (Dionysus and then Heracles) for Indian
civilisation with an apparent need by Seleucus to ideologically justify his frontier agreement
with the Maurya and his failure to hold on to Alexander’s Indus territories. The purpose of
the mythic narrative was to establish a point in time whereby a now civilised and urbanised
India becomes unconquerable. More generally on the distortions caused by interpretatio
Graeca and Megasthenes’ drawing upon Greek conceptions of the ideal state, see Karttunen
(1989) 97–8. On the potential syncretic identification of Dionysus and Heracles with Shiva
and Krishna, see Flinterman (1995) 101. On a more cautious note, Karttunen (1989) 210–
19 observes the methodological problems with previous attempts at identifying these gods.
He also states that Dionysus’ and Heracles’ connection with India seems to derive from the
time of Alexander’s campaigns.
98 Arr. Anab. 4.28–30.
99 Strab. 11.5.5.
100 Strab. 15.1.7.
these stories need to be challenged and inverted. Civilisation is not
presented as being brought from outside but in fact originates in India.101
Dionysus and Heracles are not explicitly represented as city founders in
India. Instead, Ganges, son of the River Ganges, is said to have diverted
the flooding of his father into the Erythraean Sea, allowing the earth to
produce plenty for life;102 having done this, he subsequently founded 60
cities in India.103 When Dionysus and Heracles are presented in the VA it
is as failed conquerors: together, they attempt to capture the citadel of the
Indian Sophoi with siege engines and the aid of Pans, but the Sophoi,
beloved of the gods, were able to use whirlwinds and thunderbolts to drive
the invaders away.104 Moreover, the Heracles mentioned is said to be the
Egyptian one (rather than the Theban), while the origin of this Dionysus is
left open, since earlier in the VA differing traditions are given for his
derivation.105
By freeing Indian history of its subordination to that of the Greeks or
others, Philostratus achieves a number of important aims. First, Apollonius
surpasses Dionysus and Heracles upon entering the citadel of the Indian
Sophoi, the latter having failed to capture this place. This could be seen as
an even grander step for Apollonius than surpassing Alexander. Secondly,
by freeing Indian history from this Greek conquest myth, the territory of
the Indian Sophoi can become an independent source of wisdom and virtue
(although of a rather Hellenic character).106 A land that has maintained its

101 This freeing of Indian history from Greek myth is perhaps ironic, if one accepts

Kemezis’ (2014b) 172 claim that Philostratus is not interested in ‘rooting Apollonius’
Greek world in a history independent of the sage himself’, which he contrasts with
Apollonius’ engagement in Roman contexts.
102 On the meaning of Erythraean Sea (Red Sea) and its equation with the Indian Ocean,

see Cobb (2018) 5.

103 VA 3.20.1–3.
104 VA 2.33.2; 3.13. Images of Dionysus’ conquest of India appear more frequently in

second- and third-century Roman art, especially on sarcophagi: Cimino (1994) 128–30.
105 Phil. VA 2.9.1–2. It is said that the Greeks believe that the Theban Dionysus went to

India, while those Indians living near the Caucasus (Hindu Kush) say that it was the
Assyrian Dionysus, although he knew of the Theban Dionysus. Those who live in the region
between the Indus and the Hydraotes and the land extending as far as the Ganges say that
Dionysus was born a son of the River Indus. It is notable that Heracles/Hercules and Liber
Pater/Bacchus/Dionysus were significant gods associated with the Severan household. As
Cordovana (2012) 58, 72–3 notes, these rulers built monumental structures in Rome (Cass.
Dio 77.16.3) and Leptis Magna.
106 It is worth highlighting Megasthenes’ (Frag. 46 = Strab. 15.1.6–8) claim that the

Indians never sent an expedition to a foreign land nor were they conquered except by
Dionysus, Hercules and more recently by the Macedonians. With Philostratus’ emphasis on
the failure of Dionysus and Hercules to capture the citadel of the Sophoi, and the fact that
Alexander never came this far, these Sophoi can be regarded as completely independent
and untainted. On the need to Hellenize Indian wisdom, see Flinterman (1995) 102–3. On
the notion that speaking Greek is a sign of inward virtue, see Reger (2009) 254.
Golden Age virtues by not being subject to conquest and degradation. This
fits quite well with Abraham’s argument that Apollonius rediscovered a
vibrant Hellenism in India untainted by imperialism (note the importance
of the failure of Dionysus and Heracles). Thus, on his return Apollonius
becomes the rejuvenator of Greek culture in the Mediterranean world.107
Indeed, the Greek character of this wisdom has already been
demonstrated in connection with Phraotes the king of Taxila. More
importantly, the Indian Sophoi who dwell on the citadel near the city of
Paraca converse in Greek, show a detailed knowledge of Greek myths and,
indeed, offer a different way of interpreting the Trojan War, as well as the
figures of Minos and Tantalus.108 These features fit nicely into the Second
Sophistic practice of correcting or offering alternative explanations for
traditional tales.109 The Sophoi are also said to have set up ancient statues
to various Greek gods among others, their citadel is compared to the
acropolis of Athens and they present themselves as living on the
omphalos.110 Additionally, as Downie notes, the Sophoi see self-
knowledge—the quintessential Socratic goal—as merely the starting point
of their philosophy rather than its ultimate goal. Consequently, they are
‘more “Greek” than the best of them’.111
Peripheries at the edge of the oikoumenē can often be identified as
fabulous utopias, as noted in the case of the utopian discovery tradition, an
association that Romm has also observed with Golden Age utopias.112 By
giving India its own history, untainted by conquest and imperialism, the
Golden Age of Hellenism can be rooted in time and, through Apollonius’
travels, anchored in space. This ultimately allows it to become a centre for
Greek wisdom, with Rome as the “uncivilised periphery” and Greece
represented as corrupted, though not yet irreparably, by the latter.113
Ironically, Philostratus achieves this by perpetuating the idea of India as

107 Abraham (2014) 465–80; also, Kemezis (2014b) 168–70, 177–9; and Morgan (2009)

278–9. Whitmarsh (2012) 475 suggests that the critique of Rome’s imperial aspirations is
‘hinted at rather than explicit’. For the various incidences of restoration mentioned in the
VA, see Whitmarsh (2007) 416 n. 12; Swain (1996) 387. See also Downie (2016) who
discusses how Apollonius’ new Hellenism (derived from India) reforms the Greek world
(especially Asia Minor – book 4).
108 VA 3.19, 3.25.2–3.
109 Bernard (1996) 489. Probably the most provocative inversion of expectations would

be the claim by the Sophoi that Tantalus should be honoured, not condemned.
110 VA 3.13–14. The unique qualities of the wisdom of the Indian Sophoi are underlined

by the fact that it is usually Apollonius who confounds the expectations of others, but this
is reversed, here it is the Sophoi who are the ‘object of wonder’: Whitmarsh (2007) 428.
111 Downie (2016) 73. See also Eshleman (2017) 189.
112 Romm (1992); Parker (2008).
113 Abraham (2014) 469–78.
near the edge of the oikoumenē where the marvellous and freakish exist.114
This is evident in book 2 when Apollonius and Damis, following the
highlights of Alexander’s itinerary, encounter a number of zoological and
ethnographic anomalies such as men five cubits tall (7½ft), elephants
carrying their young on their tusks while fording rivers, and lionesses who
commit adultery with leopards.115 This latter example of inter-species
union is something usually associated with the more extreme natural and
climatic features found at the edge of the earth, since such unions are not
normally possible in the centre of the oikoumenē.116
The fabulousness of the land of the Sophoi in book 3 is made even more
emphatic than the previous itinerary followed in northwest India. Having
now passed the point reached by Alexander, Apollonius enters a rather
vague world somewhere between the Hyphasis and the Ganges.117 As we
already observed, book 3 opens with a litany of natural and zoological
wonder, many accrued from Ctesias’ Indika, as well as other descriptions
of women who are both black and white (being sacred to Aphrodite),
monkeys who collect pepper from trees and the drakontes which are hunted
by means of magical charms and axes in order to obtain the supernatural
stones in their heads.118 The wonders at the citadel of the Indian Sophoi
serve important social or spiritual purposes. These include a fiery crater
which offers a means by which Indians can purify themselves from
accidental crimes and Jars of Winds and Jars of Rains used by the Sophoi
to control the weather. Moreover, the Sophoi’s practice of levitation serves
ritual purposes in the worship of Helios.119 These wonderous features

114 Romm (1992) 91–8 notes that typical Indographies and paradoxographies feature
catalogues of wonders which often lack aetiological and teleological explanations. Such
lists present aggregated claims often in a matter of a fact tone, a simple assertion of their
existence which to leads the reader to ‘swallow whole’ that which would seem incredible
if presented piecemeal. Even post-Alexander, such features continued to dominate literary
accounts, with bodies of existing myths continuing to exist alongside new accounts that
resulted from direct exploration.
115 VA 2.4, 2.14.1–2.
116 For such ‘miscegenic freedom’, see Romm (1992) 88–91; also, Arist. Gen. an.

746a29, 746b7–13; cf. Diod. Sic. 2.51.2–4.

117 Eshleman (2017) 195 n. 67 argues that Abraham’s (2014) inversion of centre and

periphery is problematic, preferring instead Downie’s (2016) emphasis on the continued

centrality of the Greek world, but with India offering a corrective perspective.
118 VA 3.3–8. On Philostratus’ account of pepper collecting monkeys and parallels with

Indian folklore (the vānaras), as well as later Portuguese descriptions of the Maler (hill–
peoples), see De Romanis (2015) 144–50. No surviving fragment of Megasthenes indicates
a direct description of pepper collecting monkeys, but the large size of these animals in
India is commented upon (Frag. 13 S = Aelian Hist. Anim. 17.39).
119 VA 3.14.1–3, 3.15.1. Sherwin–White and Kuhrt (1993) 97 suggested that these

marvels would have been interpreted as threatening, serving as a justification for the
Seleucid’s failed conquest of the Mauryan Empire. Contra Parker (2008) 45–6 who notes
that marvellous notions, in fact, often sit comfortably alongside idealistic, semi–utopian
which relate to physical and spiritual wellbeing are arguably paralleled in
certain utopian accounts. Among these are Iamboulos’ Island of the Sun
and Euhemeros’ The Sacred Inscription—in these we find references to
purifying and therapeutic springs or rivers and animals whose blood has
healing properties.120
In outlining the catalogue of wonders associated with the edges of
oikoumenē, Philostratus alludes to various features that his contemporary
readers would recognise from earlier Indographic literature. Furthermore,
by adapting and inverting some of the geographic, historical and
ethnographic claims seen in the Alexander tradition and Megasthenes’
Indika, Philostratus is able to tie the land of the Sophoi into various utopian
(Golden Age and discovery) themes. As such, Apollonius will discover a
superior form of (Hellenic) wisdom which can them be used to rejuvenate
the Greek world. It is because the citadel is at the edges of the oikoumenē
in a land untouched by imperialism that Philostratus can find this untainted
wisdom.121 At a meta-level this could represent the ultimate inversion of
the theme of Alexander spreading supposedly “Greek” customs and values
to India and the East, notably exemplified in the writings of Plutarch.122 It
may have been deliberately unclear to what extent a contemporary was
meant to find this humorous or take it as a laudation of Apollonius.123

Parodying Doxography
So far, it has been suggested that the profusion of geographic,
ethnographic, zoological and paradoxographical material allowed
Philostratus to demonstrate how well versed he was with Indographic
literature. Moreover, it enabled him to invert expectations when it came to
the representation of Alexander, Dionysus and Heracles, ultimately with
the goal of presenting the land of the Sophoi (within India) as a utopia
grounded in time and space. One that could ironically act as source of true
Hellenism to be spread westwards (inverting the idea that Alexander
supposedly spread it eastwards). Finally, it is argued in this section that
Philostratus parodied the doxographic habits—the practice of naming and
often critiquing earlier authors—of later Indographers.

ideas about Indian society. Moreover, Guez (2009) 247–8 argues that ‘wonderland’ India
offers a useful backdrop: ‘a universe literally filled with wonders’ which can, nevertheless,
be regarded as less significant than the truer philosophical wonders interesting Apollonius.
120 Diod. Sic. 2.57.3, 2.58.2–4; 5.44.3.
121 Eshleman (2017) 195 suggests that the ‘extraordinary landscape’ Apollonius travels

through serves to underscore his exceptionality and the ‘universality of his message’.
122 See Plut. Mor. Also Plut. Alex.
123 On this point, it is interesting to note that a few generations later Sossianus Hierocles

and Eusebius took the work quite seriously; the former choosing to present Apollonius as a
superior competitor to Jesus Christ in his Philalethes (not surviving in its own right), the
latter attacking the Apollonius, as presented by Philostratus, in his Reply to Hierocles.
 As Guez has noted, the narrator in the VA frequently appears in the guise
of a serious historian.124 Similarly, various protagonists are presented as
taking a critical, as well as sometimes credulous, stance to what is reported
about India, including Apollonius, Damis and Iarchos. This is often in a
way that is meant to supposedly reinforce its validity. However, these
seemingly earnest efforts by the narrator and some of the characters in fact
appear designed to be ridiculed.125
One can see this most explicitly with claims deriving from Nearchus and
Orthagoras, writers associated with Alexander.126 The validity of
Nearchus’ and Orthagoras’ comments about the Acesines (modern
Chenab) River—that it joins with the Indus and that it is inhabited by 70-
cubit (107 feet) long snakes—are said to ‘correspond to the facts’,
presumably as relayed by Damis.127 Later in the VA, before setting out to
sail down the Indus and return to Mesopotamia in the manner of Nearchus’
historical voyage, both Nearchus and Orthagoras are cited again.128 This
time Damis’ account is used more explicitly to validate Orthagoras’ claim
that the pole star is not visible at this point in the Red Sea: ‘and Damis
agrees so we ought to trust its credibility…’.129 This is immediately
followed by a sequence of claims about the bronze land of the Oreitae, the
habits of the Fish-eaters and a fearful mermaid.130 The juxtaposition of
these claims is likely intended to underscore their absurdity. It also seems
likely that Philostratus’ intended readers are meant to scoff at the narrator’s
desire to report the claim that pearls are created from the petrified fat of

124 Guez (2009) 243–4. Whitmarsh (2012) 467 has noted that in rejecting ‘fanciful

stories’ the narrator aligns himself with ‘Thucydidean rationality’. Kemezis (2014b) 150–
2 also notes similarities to political historians (citing Cassius Dio and Herodian as parallels)
in terms of constructing narratives on a grand chronological and spatial scale.
125 On the Herodotean appeal to autopsy in the VA, see Elsner (1997) 29. Also, Rommel

(1923) 8–45; Bowie (2009b) 61.

126 Strabo (2.1.9) is dismissive of several earlier Indographers, at one point referring to

them all as liars. Nearchus is regarded as at least being able to stutter out some truth and is
presented in a somewhat less negative light, whereas Deimachus is represented as the worst
liar, followed by Megasthenes. However, in book 15 when Strabo (15.1.2) launches into
his own account on India he moderates his contempt, encouraging the reader to treat these
earlier accounts with indulgence. See Romm (1992) 96–9. Strabo’s earlier ‘obligatory
scepticism’ allows him the authority to selectively utilise these accounts at later points in
his work: Gyselinck and Demoen (2009) 110.
127 VA 2.17.1 – ‘…τοιαῦτα εἶναί φασιν, ὁποῖα εἴρηται…’. In this instance, the translation

is from Jones (2005), rather than my own. Additionally, Jones (2005) 169 n.10 notes that
the text has been emended from Πυθαγόρᾳ to Ὀρθαγόρᾳ.
128 For a discussion of the historical details of Nearchus’ voyage, as well as Alexander’s

crossing of the Gedrosian desert, see Bosworth (1996b) 166–85.

129 VA 3.53: ‘…δοκεῖ καὶ Δάμιδι, καὶ χρὴ πιστεύειν ὑγιῶς…’. Knoles (1981) 49–53

argues that the testing of Damis’ statements against external traditions offers a means of
reinforcing his authority; contra Kemezis (2014a) 74.
130 VA 3.54–6.
oysters, since ‘even Apollonius did not consider this story childish’ (ἐπεὶ
μηδὲ Ἀπολλωνίῳ μειρακιώδης ἔδοξεν).131
The arbitrariness of accepting some claims about India while rejecting
others is brought out quite cleverly at various points in book 3. It provides
a kind of parody of the standard scepticism presented by later
commentators.132 This, as we have noted, is a prominent feature of the
doxography of writers on India going back to at least the fourth century
BC.133 A good example of this is the last detailed conversation between
Apollonius and Iarchos presented in the VA. Here the topic turns to the
fabulous beasts, men and natural features of India. The narrator notes that
this conversation should not be left out for ‘one might benefit from neither
believing nor disbelieving all the details.’134 Apollonius asks if the stories
about the martichoras, the liquid gold spring, the magnetic stone, the
people who live under the ground, pygmies and shadow feet were true.
Iarchos responds that for all the animals, plants or fountains which
Apollonius has seen, he need say no more. It is now up to Apollonius to
describe them to others. This statement would no doubt bring to mind the
litany of wonders described at the beginning of book 3.135 However, the
martichora and the gold spring are denied, the magnate stone is confirmed,
the pygmies live underground and dwell across the Ganges, and it is also
at this point that Iarchos is made to denounce Scylax for propagating the
stories about the Shadow-feet, Long-headed ones and other creatures since
they live nowhere in the world and especially not in India.136 This critique

131 VA 3.57.1–2. On the use of verb plattein in this wider passage of the VA and the

possible implication of ambiguous functionality, see Gyselinck and Demoen (2009) 113–
14. Of additional relevance here is Whitmarsh’s (2012) 472–3 comment about the higher
wisdom of the narrator whose intellectual authority is often shared with that of Apollonius.
132 On the accepting or rejecting of stories and explanations as a means to gain authority

and add credibility, see Gyselinck and Demoen (2009) 109.

133 Megasthenes Frag. 20 = Strab. 15.1.6–7. Megasthenes urges the reader not to believe

old stories about India, especially regarding its purported invasion by Semiramis. Similarly,
Megasthenes rejects the Ctesian gold–guarding griffins, although he appears happy to
elaborate upon the Herodotean gold–digging ants (Frag. 39 = Strab. 15.1.44). See T. S.
Brown (1955) 29, 33.
134 VA 3.45–49: ‘...καὶ γὰρ κέρδος ῾ἂν᾽ εἴη μήτε πιστεύειν, μήτε ἀπιστεῖν πᾶσιν’.

Gyselinck and Demoen (2009) 110 regard the statement on neither believing nor
disbelieving all the details as a ‘programmatic motto’ for the entire VA. They also posit a
distinction between the author and the narrator, the latter being ignorant of the former’s
literary trickiness (p. 114). Guez (2009) 246–50 suggests that this passage sums up the right
attitude for the model reader, neither childish acceptance of everything nor the opposite
extreme of disbelieving all details like a ‘fanatically Thucydidean reader’.
135 It is worth noting here Strabo’s (2.1.9) critique of Deimachus, Megasthenes,

Onesicritus and Nearchus (amongst others) for talking about Pygmies, Reverse-feet and
other such creatures in India.
136 VA 3.47. What is known of Scylax is limited. The most significant reference to him

is made by Herodotus (Hist. 4.44.1–3), who reports that he was tasked by the Persian king
may of course seem all the more absurd when one notes that the Shadow-
feet appear in book 6 of the VA as one of the tribes living in Ethiopia, along
with other strange beings such as the Androphagoi (Man-eaters).137 A more
credulous reader might be willing to acknowledge that unicorns and
drakontes with magical stones existed in India,138 while also accepting the
dismissal of creatures like the martichora and peoples like the Shadow-
feet, but others will have seen the irony in such a spurious distinction.139

Conclusion
Philostratus clearly invested a lot of effort in his presentation of India in
the VA. Various allusions are made to earlier Indographic and
paradoxographical texts that an educated reader might discern. By adapting
this material, Philostratus was also able to invert his readers’ expectations
when it came to the land of India and the presentation of Alexander and
the mythic heroes Dionysus and Heracles. In doing so, Apollonius was able
to enter the utopian land of the Sophoi—albeit a land that has now been
grounded in space and in an alternative version of mythic history—to
uncover an untainted form of (Hellenic) wisdom. This wisdom could then
be spread back to the West in what would appear as an inversion, perhaps
meant as parody, of some narratives about Alexander’s spreading of
supposedly “Greek” customs and practices to the East. It is likely also that
the critical doxographic habits of later commentators are being parodied
by Philostratus, as seen in the seemingly naïve attempt by the narrator,
Apollonius, Damis and Iarchos to vouchsafe certain paradoxographical
ideas, while critiquing others.

Appendix 1: The Indographic Tradition

To understand the influence of the Indographic tradition on Philostratus’
VA it is first necessary to consider its development. It is possible to
categorise Graeco-Roman knowledge and conceptions of India into four
loose chronological or thematic groups. The first of these stretches from
the late Archaic to the late Classical period and reflects a time of relatively
limited knowledge about India that was heavily mediated by the Persian

Darius with sailing down the Indus and exploring the coast until he reached the upper end
of the Red Sea. Despite the practical nature of the task assigned to him what is reported of
his work is often connected to freakish races of people (Ektrapeloi or Freaks,
Makrokephaloi or Big-heads, Monophthalmoi or Single-eyes, Otoliknoi or Winnowing
Fan-ears, and Skyapods or Shadow-feet (F7a and F7b)). Indeed, it has been suggested that
Scylax was more known about than known, even in antiquity: Karttunen (1989) 68–9;
Parker (2008) 16. This made him the perfect target for later writers to attack so as to display
their critical judgement towards their sources and ability to present credible information.
137 VA 6.25. On this, see Anderson (1986) 199; and Stoneman (2022) 109.
138 VA 3.1–2.
139 Gyselinck and Demoen (2009) 111–12.
Empire. The most significant figures for this period are Scylax, Hecataeus,
Herodotus and Ctesias.140 Scylax is the only one of them who is reported
to have gone to India as part of a voyage from the Indus to the Suez on
behalf of Darius the Great.141 He wrote an account about his activities but
all that survive are fragmentary allusions in later works, including the VA
where he is criticised for his stories about monstrous creatures.142 The most
significant of these writers is Ctesias who was at the court of Artaxerxes II
for purportedly seventeen years.143 He never visited India himself but
claims to have seen ‘Indian things’ and a good number of fragments have
survived in later works and an epitome by Photius. The surviving
fragments cover topics ranging from geography to human, animal and plant
life. Many of the fantastical creatures described by Ctesias appear in the
VA.144 Philostratus does not directly name Ctesias in the VA, but there is
little doubt that he is drawing upon his account numerous times.145
It is also clear that Philostratus drew upon several writers that belong to
the Alexander tradition on India.146 These were accounts ultimately derived
from individuals connected to Alexander’s campaigns in the northwest
Indian subcontinent or who happened to write around this period.
Philostratus directly mentions Nearchus, the admiral of Alexander’s fleet,
who sailed from the Indus to the Persian Gulf. He also mentions the poorly
known, but likely contemporary, Orthagoras.147 Another source that is
clearly important but not directly cited, especially for book 6 (in which
Apollonius is in Ethiopia), is Onesicritus’ account of the Gymnosophoi.148
It is unsurprising that Philostratus should borrow from this tradition, given

140 On these figures see Parker (2008) 14–33; also, Lefant (2004) CXLIII.
141 Hdt. 4.44.1–3.
142 VA 3.47. If Aristotle (Pol. 1332b21–27) is to be believed, then Scylax also claimed

that the Indian ruler was all-powerful. On this see Parker (2008) 16. For the transmission
and later reception of Scylax, see Karttunen (1997a); also, Stoneman (2022) 17–18. For a
discussion of the histories and their (fragmentary) survival, see Baron (2013) 1–16.
143 Diod. Sic. 2.32.4; Stronk (2010) 3–11; Llewellyn–Jones and Robson (2010) 11–18.
144 Flammable liquid: VA 3.1.2; see Ctesias Frag. 45 §46 = Photius; wild asses with

horns/unicorns: VA 3.2.1, see Ctesias Frag. 45 §45 = Phot. Bibl.; see also Megasthenes Frag.
15b = Ael. NA 16.20; gold digging griffins: VA 3.48, see Ctesias Frag. 45h = Ael. NA 4.27.
On these, see Lefant (2004), 172–211; also, Nichols (2011); Stronk (2010).
145 For a collation of parallels to other works appearing in the VA, specifically those

linked to Apollonius travels in India, see Priaulx (1873); Rommel (1923). For quotations of
earlier texts that are alluded to throughout the VA, see Bowie (2009b).
146 Unfortunately, most works in this tradition do not survive in their own right, but we

have many fragments due to their forming major sources of information for later (Roman
Imperial era) writers: Baron (2013) 12.
147 VA 2.17, 3.53.
148 On Onesicritus and his meeting with the Gymnosophoi near Taxila, see Powers (1998)

70–85; Stoneman (2008) 93; Stoneman (2019) 290–300. Onesicritus was not the only
contemporary of Alexander to write about the Gymnosophoi, others include Aristobulus
and Nearchus (although the latter are more interested in living habits): Powers (1998) 73.
that much of book 2 alludes to parts of Alexander’s itinerary in India. It is
also unsurprising given that Alexander’s campaigns in India would inform
so much of later Indography, even for authors like Strabo and Pliny writing
hundreds of years later.149
The third tradition on India is associated with Megasthenes, an
ambassador sent to the Mauryan court by one of the Hellenistic dynasts.
Megasthenes and other ambassadors appear to have operated largely
around the late-fourth or early-third century BC. There is no doubt that
Megasthenes was sent to Sandrocottus’ court (that is the Indian king
Chandragupta), but there is some ambiguity about who sent him. Most
probably it was Seleucus I, although some have argued for the Satrap
Sibyrtius.150 Other known ambassadors include Deimachus who was sent
to the court of Amitrochates (Bindusara), the son of Sandrocottus. There is
also a figure called Dionysius, who was sent by Ptolemy II Philadelphus to
India, presumably to the court of the Maurya since he is mentioned by Pliny
in the same breath as Megasthenes.151 All three of these ambassadors are
reported as having written about India. Very little is known of Dionysius
or Deimachus, though Strabo comments unfavourably on the latter’s
credibility.152 Unfortunately, neither of these writers have many substantial
fragments attributed to them.153 By contrast, a great number of fragments
of Megasthenes’ Indika have been identified and many later writers drew
upon his account (even if he was sometimes disparaged).154
Finally, the Indian Ocean tradition represents knowledge deriving from
Imperial-era Mediterranean trading activity with India. This appears to
have had some bearing on books 2 and 3 of the VA. To be sure, Philostratus
favours information derived from literary sources written hundreds of
years before his time over contemporary accounts from merchants,
something not uncommon in Roman era Indography.155 Nevertheless, the

149 On this see, Romm (1992) and Parker (2008).

150 For an argument in favour of Megasthenes being the ambassador of Seleucus I, see
Kosmin (2014) 38, 261–71; Stoneman (2022) 2–4; contra Bosworth (1996a) 113–27, who
makes the case for Sibyrtius. For an overview of this issue, see Karttunen (1997b) 71–2.
151 Plin. HN 6.21.58.
152 Strab. 2.1.9.
153 Karttunen (1997b) 69, 93–4.
154 Stoneman (2022) 1, 5, 8–11 notes that, despite Strabo’s dismissiveness, Megasthenes’

authority ‘held sway until late antiquity’, with his work frequently acting as a major source
in Roman-era Indographies.
155 While there are instances in which new information derived from merchants is

incorporated into accounts on India, most notably in parts of Pliny’s Natural History and
in Claudius Ptolemy’s Geography, the literary accounts on India from the Classical and
Hellenistic period predominate. Indeed, there tends to be a prejudice against the supposedly
untrustworthy accounts of merchants (cf. Strab. 15.1.4). Moreover, at least as far as can be
judged from the surviving material, very few literary works relating to Graeco-Roman
participation in the Indian Ocean trade survive from antiquity, the notable exception being
 existence of a seaborne trade between Egypt and India features a number
of times.156 In one discussion between Apollonius and Iarchos a
mythological explanation is given for the building of substantial vessels by
the Egyptians who conduct trade with India.157 This is likely an allusion to
the large vessels that were in fact operating from Berenike (on the Red Sea
coast of Egypt) and sailing to southern India. A few of these vessels may
have been around 500-600 metric tonnes, potentially two or three times the
size of the average vessel operating in the Mediterranean.158 In another
instance, Apollonius is confronted by the rude and ignorant king (the
father-in-law of Phraotes) whose initial hostility is said to be based on false
reports given by the Egyptians who come to India for trade.159
It is fairly apparent that traditions one to three—the literary tradition
stretching from the Classical to the Hellenistic (and continued into the
Roman Imperial era)—are the most relevant for Philostratus’ construction
of India. However, the fourth tradition is not wholly absent from his work.
MATTHEW ADAM COBB
University of Wales Trinity Saint David, [email protected]
WORKS CITED
Abraham, Roshan J. 2014. “The Geography of Culture in Philostratus’ Life of
Apollonius of Tyana.” CJ 109.4: 465–80.
Anderson, Graham. 1986. Philostratus: Biography and Belles Lettres in the Third
Century A.D. London.
——. 1996. “Philostratus on Apollonius of Tyana: The Unpredictable on the
Unfathomable.” In The Novel in the Ancient World, edited by G. Schmeling, pp.
613–18. Leiden.

the Periplus Maris Erythraei (mid-first century AD); more of a technical guide relating to
the availability and demand for goods at specific ports and sailing schedules, with minor
asides on politics and history. For a translation and commentary on this text, see Casson
(1989). For an overview of the types of evidence available for the study of Roman
involvement in the Indian Ocean trade, see Cobb (2018) 18–25.
156 On Apollonius availing himself of the advantages trade networks offered, see Reger

(2009) 253, 259. He also notes that reference to these networks would have added to the
sense of believability for the reader.
157 VA 3.35.1–2.
158 Sidebotham (2011), 195–6; De Romanis (2015) 133–9. De Romanis (2020) 202

points to early modern parallels suggesting that at most eight or nine of such ships would
have been operating during the first century AD and by Philostratus’ time perhaps only one
or two.
159 VA 3.32.1–2. The ethno-cultural identities of those from the Mediterranean world

operating in the Indian Ocean trade is far more complex than is presented by Philostratus.
See for example, the “Berenike customs receipts”: Bagnall, Helms, and Verhoogt (2000b).
Additionally, the “Nicanor Achieve”: Tait (1930); Kruse (2018). Nevertheless, since these
“Mediterranean” merchants who traded with India operated from the Egyptian Red Sea
ports, Philostratus’ simplified description of them as “Egyptian” is not surprising.
Anson, Edward M. 2015. “Alexander at the Beas.” In East and West in the world
empire of Alexander: Essays in honour of Brian Bosworth, edited by P. Wheatley,
E. Baynham, and A. B. Bosworth, pp. 65–74. Oxford.
Bagnall, Roger S., Helms, Christina., and Verhoogt, Arthur M. F. W. 2000. Documents
from Berenike Volume I: Greek Ostraka from the 1996–1998 Seasons. Brussels.
Baron, Christopher A. 2013. Timaeus of Tauromenium and Hellenistic Historiography.
Cambridge.
Belousov, Alexey V. 2014. “On Some Possible Sources for Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii
3.34.” CQ 64.2: 787–92.
Bernard, Paul. 1996. “L'Aornos bactrien et l'Aornos indien. Philostrate et Taxila :
géographie, mythe et réalité.” Topoi: Orient–Occident 6: 475–530.
Billault, Alain. 2000. L’Univers de Philostrate. Brussels.
——. 2009. “Les choix narratifs de Philostrate dans la vie d’Apollonios de Tyana.” In
Theios Sophistes: Essays on Flavius Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii, edited by K.
Demoen and D. Praet, pp. 3–19. Leiden.
Bosworth, Albert. B. 1996a. “The Historical Setting of Megasthenes’ Indica.” CP 91:
113–27.
——. 1996b. Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph. Oxford.
Boter, Gerard. 2015. “The Title of Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana.” JHS 135:
1–7.
Bowersock, Glen W. 1994. Fiction as History: Nero to Julian. Berkeley.
Bowie, Ewen L. 1978. “Apollonius of Tyana: Tradition and Reality.” ANRW 11.16.2:
1652–99.
——. 2009a. “Philostratus: The Life of a Sophist.” In Philostratus, edited by E. L.
Bowie and J. Elsner, pp. 19–32. Cambridge.
——. 2009b. “Quotation on Earlier Texts in ΤΑ ΕΣ ΤΟΝ ΤΥΑΝΕΑ ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΙΟΝ.”
In Theios Sophistes: Essays on Flavius Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii, edited by K.
Demoen and D. Praet, pp, 57–74. Leiden.
Breloer, Bernhard. 1939. “Drei unbekannte Megasthenesfragmente über die
pravrajyā.” ZDMG 93: 254–93.
Brown, Truesdell S. 1955. “The Reliability of Megasthenes.” AJP 76.1: 18–33.
Brown, William E. 1955. “Some Hellenistic Utopias.” The Classical Weekly 48: 57–
62.
Casson, Lionel. 1989. [Introduction, Translation, and Commentary of] Periplus Maris
Erythraei. Princeton, NJ.
Cimino, Rosa M. 1994. “Indian Traces in Italy: Reality and Legend.” In Ancient Rome
and India: Commercial and Cultural Contacts between the Roman World and
India, edited by R. M. Cimino, pp. 125–30. New Delhi.
Cobb, Matthew A. 2018. Rome and the Indian Ocean Trade from Augustus to the Early
Third Century CE. Leiden.
Cordovana, Orietta D. 2012. “Between History and Myth: Septimius Severus and
Leptis Magna.” G&R 59.1: 56–75.
Dawson, Doyne. 1992. Cities of the Gods: Communist Utopias in Greek Thought.
Oxford.
De Romanis, Federico. 2015. “Comparative Perspectives on the Pepper Trade.” In
Across the Ocean: Nine Essays on Indo–Mediterranean Trade, edited by F. De
Romanis and M. Maiuro, pp. 127–50. Leiden.
——. 2020. The Indo–Roman Pepper Trade and the Muziris Papyrus. Oxford.
Downie, Janet. 2016. “Palamedes and the Wisdom of India in Philostratus’ Life of
Apollonius of Tyana.” Mouseion III.13: 65–83.
Dzielska, Maria. trans. by P. Pieńkowski 1989. Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and
History. Rome.
Ehlers, Widu–Wolfgang. 1985. “Mit dem Südwestmonsun nach Ceylon. Eine
Interpretation der Iambul–Exzerpte Diodors,” WJA 11: 73–84.
Elsner, Jas. 1997. “Hagiographic Geography: Travel and Allegory in the Life of
Apollonius of Tyana.” JHS 117: 23–37.
——. 2009. “A Protean corpus.” In Philostratus, edited by E. L. Bowie and J. Elsner,
pp. 3–18. Cambridge.
Eshleman, Kendra. 2017. “Indian Travel and Cultural Self–Location in the Life of
Apollonius and the Acts of Thomas.” In Journeys in the Roman East: Imagined
and Real, edited by M. Niehoff, pp. 183–201. Tübingen.
Flinterman, Jaap–Jan. 1995. Power, Paideia & Pythagoreanism. Amsterdam.
Francis, James A. 1998. “Truthful Fiction: New Questions to Old Answers on
Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius.” AJP 119.3: 419–41.
Festugière, André–Jean. 1943. “Trois rencontres entre la Grèce et l'Inde.” Revue de
l'Histoire des Religions 125: 32–57.
——. 1971. “Grecs et sages orientaux.” In Études de philosophie grecque, edited by
A.–J. Festugière (reprint of RHR CXXX 1945), pp. 183–96.
Grosso, Fulvio 1954. “La Vita di Apollonio di Tiana come Fonte storica.” Acme 7:
333–532.
Guez, Jean–Philippe. 2009. “To Reason and to Marvel: Images of the Reader in the
Life of Apollonius.” In Readers and Writers in the Ancient Novel, edited by M.
Paschalis, S. Panayotakis and G. Schmeling, pp. 241–53.
Gyselinck, Wannes and Demoen, Kristoffel. 2009. “Author and Narrator: Fiction and
Metafiction in Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii.” In Theios Sophistes: Essays on
Flavius Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii, edited by K. Demoen and D. Praet, pp. 95–
127. Leiden.
Hanus, Philippe. 1995. “La vie d'Apollonios de Tyane : d'une géographie réelle à une
géographie mythique.” In Inde, Grèce ancienne. Regards croisés en anthropologie
de l'espace, edited by J.–C. Carrière, E. Geny, M.–M. Mactoux and F. Paul–Lévy,
pp. 81–97. Paris.
Jones, Christopher P. 2002a. “Philostratus and the Gordiani.” MediterrAnt 5: 759–67.
——. 2002b. “Apollonius of Tyana’s Passage to India.” GRBS 42: 185–99.
——. 2005. Philostratus Life of Apollonius of Tyana [Introd. and Trans.]. London.
Karttunen, Klaus. 1989. India in Early Greek Literature. Helsinki.
——. 1997a. “Ctesias in Transmission and Tradition.” Topoi 7: 635–46.
——. 1997b. India and the Hellenistic World. Helsinki.
Kemezis, Adam M. 2014a. “Roman Politics and the Fictional Narrator in Philostratus’
Apollonius.” ClAnt 33.1: 61–101.
——. 2014b. Greek Narratives of the Roman Empire under the Severans: Cassius Dio,
Philostratus and Herodian. Cambridge.
Knoles, Thomas G. 1981. Literary Technique and Theme in Philostratus’ Life of
Apollonius of Tyana. PhD Diss., Rutgers University.
Kosmin, Paul J. 2014. The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology
in the Seleucid Empire. Harvard, MA.
Kruse, Thomas. 2018. “The transport of goods through the Eastern Desert of Egypt.
The archive of the ‘Camel Driver’ Nikanor”. In Infrastructure and Distribution in
Ancient Economies. Proceedings of a Conference Held at the Austrian Academy
of Sciences, 28-31 October 2014, edited by B. Woytek (ed.), pp. 369–80. Vienna.
Lefant, Dominique. 2004. Ctésias de Cnide. La Perse. L’Inde. Autres fragments [Text,
Trans., Comm.] Paris.
Llewellyn–Jones, Lloyd and Robson, James. 2010. Ctesias’ History of Persia: Tales
of the Orient. London.
MacDowell, Douglas M. 2005. “The Athenian procedure of Dokimasia of Orators.” In
Symposion 2001, edited by R. W. Wallace and M. Gagarin, pp. 79–87. Vienna.
Mayerson, Philip. 1993. “A Confusion of Indias: Asian India and African India in the
Byzantine Sources.” JAOS 113.2: 169–74.
McEvilley, Thomas. 2002. The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in
Greek and Indian Philosophies. New York, NY.
Meyer, Eduard. 1917. “Apollonius von Tyana und die Biographie des Philostratos.”
Hermes 52: 371–424.
Morgan John R. 1993. “Make–believe and Make Believe: The Functionality of the
Greek Novels.” In Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World, edited by C. Gill and T.
P. Wiseman, pp.175–229. Exeter.
——. 2009. “The Emesan Connection: Philostratus and Heliodorus.” In Theios
Sophistes: Essays on Flavius Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii, edited by K. Demoen
and D. Praet, pp. 263–82. Leiden.
Muntz, Charles E. 2012. “Diodorus Siculus and Megasthenes: A Reappraisal.” CP
107.1: 21–37.
Nichols, Andrew. 2011. Ctesias On India [Text, Trans., and Comm.]. Bristol.
Ní Mheallaigh, Karen. 2008. “Pseudo–Documentarism and the Limits of Ancient
Fiction.” AJP 129: 403–31.
Panchenko, Dmitri. 2002. “Scylax in Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana.”
Hyperboreus 8.1: 5–12.
Parker, Grant. 2008. The Making of Roman India. Cambridge.
Penella, Robert, J. 1979. The Letters of Apollonius of Tyana: A Critical Text with
translation and Commentary.
Platt, Verity. 2009. “Virtual visions: Phantasia and the Perception of the Divine in
Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana.” In Philostratus, edited by E. L. Bowie
and J. Elsner, pp. 131–54. Cambridge.
Powers, Nathan. 1988. “Onesicritus, Naked Wise Men, and the Cynics’ Alexander.”
Syllecta Classica 9: 70–85.
Priaulx, Osmund B. 1873. The Indian Travels of Apollonius of Tyana and the Indian
Embassies to Rome. London.
Puskás, Ildikó. 1991. “Myth or Reality: Apollonius of Tyana in India.” Acta classica
Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 27: 115–23.
Rabinovich, E. G. 1985. Filostrat Flaviy: Zhizn’ Appoloniya Tianskogo. Moscow.
Raynor, D. H. 1984. “Moeragenes and Philostratus: Two Views of Apollonius of
Tyana.” CQ 34.1: 222–26.
Reardon, Bryan. 1971. Courants littéraires grecs des IIe et IIIe siècles après J.–C.
Paris.
Reger, Gary. 2009. “On the Road to India with Apollonios of Tyana and Thomas the
Apostle.” In Greek and Roman Networks in the Mediterranean, edited by I.
Malkin, C. Constantakopoulou and K. Panagopoulou, pp. 249–63. London.
Robiano, Patrick. 1996. “Philostrate émule d'Arrien? Le cas de la Vie d'Apollonios de
Tyane.” Revue des Études Grecques 109: 489–505.
Romm, James S. 1992. The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought. Princeton.
——. 2008. “Geography as Eschatology: Greek Alexander Lore and the Eastern Limits
of India.” In Ancient India in Its Wider World, edited by G. Parker and C. M.
Sinopoli, pp. 93–105. Ann Arbor, MICH.
Rommel, Hans. 1923. Die naturwissenschaftlich–paradoxographischen Exkurse bei
Philostratos, Heliodoros und Achilleus Tatios. Stuttgart.
Schirren, Thomas. 2005. Philosophos Bios. Die antike Philosophenbiographie als
symbolische Form: Studien zur Vita Apollonii des Philostrat. Heidelberg.
Schneider, Pierre. 2004. L’Éthiopie et L’Inde: Interférences et Confusions Aux
Extrémités du Monde Antique (VIIIe Siécle Avant J.–C. – VIe Siécle Aprés J.–C.).
Rome.
——. 2016. “The So–Called Confusion between India and Ethiopia: The Eastern and
Southern Edges of the Inhabited World from the Greco–Roman Perspective.” In
Brill’s Companion to Ancient Geography: The Inhabited World in Greek and
Roman Tradition, edited by S. Bianchetti, M. Cataudella and H.–J. Gehrke, pp.
184–202. Leiden.
Schwanbeck, E. A. 1846. Megasthenis Indica. Bonn.
Sherwin–White, Susan and Kuhrt, Amélie. 1993. From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New
Approach to the Seleucid Empire. London.
Sidebotham, Steven E. 2011. Berenike and the Ancient Maritime Spice Route.
Berkeley, CA.
Stoneman, Richard. 1995. “Naked Philosophers: The Brahmans in the Alexander
Historians and the Alexander Romance.” JHS 115: 99–114.
——. 2008. Alexander the Great: A Life in Legend. New Haven, CT.
——. 2019. The Greek Experience of India: From Alexander to the Indo–Greeks.
Princeton, NJ.
——. 2022. Megasthenes' Indica: A New Translation of the Fragments with
Commentary. Oxon.
Stronk, Jan P. 2010. Ctesias’ Persian History: Part 1 Introduction, Text and
Translation. Düsseldorf.
Swain, Simon. 1996. Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism and Power in the
Greek World AD 50–250. Oxford.
Sulimani, Iris. 2017. “Imaginary Islands in the Hellenistic Era.” In Myths on the Map:
The Storied Landscapes of Ancient Greece, edited by G. Hawes, pp. 221–42.
Oxford.
Tait, John G. 1930. Greek Ostraca in the Bodleian Library at Oxford and Various
Other Collections (Volume I). London.
Van Dijk, Gert–Jan. 2009. “The Odyssey of Apollonius: An Intertextual Paradigm.” In
Philostratus, edited by E. L. Bowie and J. Elsner, pp. 176–202. Cambridge.
Whitmarsh, Tim J. G. 2007. “Philostratus.” In Time in Ancient Greek Literature:
Studies in Ancient Narrative, Volume Two, edited by I. J. F. de Jong and R. Nünlist,
pp. 413–30. Leiden.
——. 2012. “Philostratus.” In Space in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient
Greek Narrative, Volume Three, edited by I. J. F. de Jong, pp. 463–79. Leiden.
Whittaker, Thomas. 1906. Apollonius of Tyana and Other Essays. London.