The plot of Iamblichos Babyloniaka: sources and influence

KEN DOWDENThe University of Birmingham

In this piece I look at Iamblichos on the large scale, at the level of plot, rather than in detail oflanguage and ambience. Thus my text is Photios summary more than the actual fragments of histext (and those which may be supposed to be fragments of his text). I adopt a theoretical modelof specific connections between the Babyloniaka and other works rather than a bland genericmodel, though many comparisons will inevitably seem, and be, speculative. Just as I haveargued elsewhere that Apuleius should be connected specifically with Sisennas Milesiae ratherthan with some sort of Milesian-tale generic manner (Dowden 2001), so in this case I will looknot for novel characteristics but for specific connections on the one hand with other novelists(who had Iamblichos been reading? who had been reading Iamblichos?) and on the other withPersian traditions visible to us through the Pahlavi scriptures and through Firdawss Shhnma(Book of Kings). It is perhaps a natural temptation to try to explain a classical author from aquarantined set of classical texts, but Bryan Reardon has always promoted the widestunderstanding of authors and contexts, right from the magisterial Courants littraires, where forinstance we read of the significance of Egyptian native material for the composition of theAlexander Romance1 and it is in that spirit that I re-open the question of Iamblichosdependence on authentic non-Greek material as well as his place in the novel tradition.

1. Iamblichos the man

First, Iamblichos himself. Like his contemporary Lucian, and like Heliodoros, possibly 150 yearslater, he comes from Syria. Lucian came from Samosata, Heliodoros from Emesa. We do notknow where Iamblichos came from. But his name is certainly Semitic and is found in its originalform , for instance on an Aramaic inscription of AD 150 from Palmyra, as Yamlik[u].2 This can bea prestigious name: the ruling house at Emesa in the first century had typically borne the namesSampsigeramos, Sohaimos, and Iamblichos.3 Nero granted the kingship of Sophene, anautonomous region of Armenia, to a Sohaemus, perhaps the ruler of Emesa, at the beginning ofhis reign in AD 54.4 Rather similarly, we learn from Iamblichos himself (through the medium ofPhotios 10) that another Sohaimos became a Senator at Rome, consul (in AD 164), and king ofArmenia Maior. Iamblichos stresses the credentials of this Sohaimos (son of Achaimenides son ofArsakides, who was a king born of fathers who had been kings) and it seems fairly obvious thatbearing the name he does and taking the attitude he does, he is in all likelihood close to theseroyal circles, and not at all unlikely that he too, like Heliodoros, came from Emesa.

His claim, if he made it, that he was a Babylonian himself and had studied magic (Photios 10)should perhaps not be taken too literally: to have studied magic is to become a Babylonian (likebeing a Chaldaean); if it were literally meant, then it could mean that he had spent timeteaching at Seleukeia on the Tigris, as is sometimes suggested for Agathokles ofCyzicus/Babylon.5

A somewhat different picture emerges from a marginal note at the beginning of ms Aspresentation of this section,6 which seems too detailed not to have come from the preface to

1 Eg, Reardon 1971, 329-333.2 PAT 0313.3 PIR: I 541-542, Gaius IVLIVS Sampsigeramus, particularly associated with Emesa; I 7 IAMBLICHUS,Iamblichi reguli.4 Tac. Ann. 13,17; Barrett 1977. Various Sohaemi: PIR S 761-765, but this one is C. IULIUS Sohaemus,PIR S 582, who succeded his brother Aziz to the throne of Emesa in AD 54.5 For meanings of Babylonian see J. Engels on BNJ 472 T1.6 Habrich 1960, 2; all translations of Greek in this contribution are my own.

Iamblichos own work. There we learn that Iamblichos was a Syrian on both sides and that hewas a native Syrian speaker, not a Greek living in Syria but a Syrian by culture. His tropheus,however, i.e. his carer and educator, was a slave who had been brought from Babylon whenTrajan invaded. This man knew his barbarian culture to the extent that he had been one ofthe kings scribes back in Babylon. So it was that Iamblichos was able to learn the Babylonianlanguage; after that, he learnt Greek and practised it so that he might become a good rhetor.

Iamblichos probably had as much difficulty learning Greek as his contemporary Apuleius didlearning Latin (Metamorphoses, preface) - this part of the story should not be taken literally.Apuleiuss Lucius learns Latin with painstaking work (aerumnabili labore) and his goal in lifetoo turns out to be to become a public speaker (in the lawcourts: 11,28. 30), one meaning of theGreek word rhetor. In fact the preface of Iamblichos that we glimpse here seems stronglyredolent of Apuleius.

Other details need to be handled with care. The Soudas allegation that Iamblichos was of slavestock (: , , ) looks like a confusion between the carerand Iamblichos himself, but actually it may well as Rohde brilliantly speculated -derive from aclaim, which need not be true, made by Hermippos of Beirut, who, being himself of servileorigin, wrote a book on those slaves who had achieved cultural distinction.7

2. Persian Mythology

With this we turn to Persian literature. Iamblichos himself claimed that the story was ofBabylonian origin (according to the marginal note) and, in this age when Parthians ruled inBabylon, it turns out to be Persian mythology that seems to underlie the pursuit of Rhodanes andSinonis by the king Garmos. This was first observed in 1773 by Anqutil du Perron and put moregenerally into circulation by Merkelbach in Roman und Mysterium.8 The hero Rhodanes goes backto the Avestan Thrataona; other forms include the Pahlavi Freton and modern Persian Fardn(or Feraydun, in any case written = frydwn), as well as an Armenian form Hruden, whichcauses Belardi to hypothesise an Iranian variant *rautaina and to recognise the associationwith Trit ptya, hero of the waters in the (Sanskrit) Rig Veda.9 The oldest feat of this mutatingfigure, at Indo-European level, is to slay a monster or dragon, and recover cattle and the water-supply.10 In Iranian tradition, his job is to slay the monstrous Ai Dahka, and he prays to thegoddess Anhta (known to the Greeks as Anaitis) as follows in the bn Yat (Yat of theWaters: Yat 5,34):

Grant me this, O good, most beneficent Ardvi Sra Anhita! that I may overcome Azi Dahka, thethree-mouthed, the three-headed, the six-eyed, who has a thousand senses, that most powerful,fiendish Drug, that demon, baleful to the world, the strongest Drug that Angra Mainyu createdagainst the material world, to destroy the world of the good principle; and that I may deliver histwo wives, Savanghavk and Erenavk, who are the fairest of body amongst women, and the mostwonderful creatures in the world.

(tr. J. Darmesteter, SBE 23)

7 Cf. Souda s.v. Istros ( 706) and see Rohde 1914, 361 n.1. Full discussion at di Gregorio 1964, 1-3,but I think that he and some of his predecessors try too hard to find a way of preserving the accuracy ofIamblichos alleged slave origin.8 Merkelbach 1962, 179 n.2, with reference to du Perron 1780a, reporting a lecture given on 11June 1773. More recently the name data has presented by Russell 2002, 4 n.16. He does howeveruncritically accept Merkelbachs Mithraic reading, which most novel scholars would reject.9 Belardi 2002. Schneider-Menzel 1948, 78 also mentions a Parthian version Wardan, including aking so named (AD 55-58) for which cf Vardanes () at Philostratos, Life of Apollonios 2,17.10 See, e.g., Bagheri 2001, 199-201; Lincoln 1976, 42-45, and (cited by Lincoln 45 n.12) V. Ivanov &V. Toporov, Le Mythe Indo-Europeen du dieu de l'orage poursuivant le serpent: Rconstruction duschma, in changes et communications: Mlanges offerts Claude Levi-Strauss, The Hague, 1968, 1180-1206; also, Merkelbach 1962, 179.

Ai simply means snake, like the Sanskrit hi (snake/dragon); the meaning of Dahka isunknown but it eventually becomes the monsters name, even if it was not his name before, andin Firdawss Shhnma, he is Zahhk (or Zohak there are various spellings), the usurper-king,who kills his own father to take the throne of Arabia, and then the Persian throne from Jamshid(the Avestan Yima, maybe distantly related to the Roman Remus11) and takes his two daughtersor sisters12, Shahrnavaz and her chaste sister Arnavaz (evidently the Savanghavk and theErenavk of the Yat). Their experience is perhaps best summed up by Arnanazs declaration toFeraydun in the Shhnma: My Lord, think what it has meant to be married to such a serpent!13

The sisters will now be married to Feraydun instead. Iamblichos Sinonis is of course threatenedwith marriage to Garmos, another evil king, but his name conceals a good Indo-European andIranian word for snake/dragon: PIE *Kwrmi-, English worm (previously meaning snake, cf theLambton Worm), modern Persian kirm (dragon).14 He is Azi (Dahak).

bn Yat Ai Dahka Thrataona Erenavk SavanghavkBabyloniaka Garmos Rhodanes SinonisShhnma Zahhk Feraydun Arnavaz Shahrnavaz

The dates of this material are of some consequence. The Yats, part of the younger Avesta, arethought generally to date from the time of the Achaeminids (559330 BC), and whatever thefluidities of the tradition and the uncertainties of dating overall,15 it is at least clear that theysignificantly antedate Iamblichos. Firdaws, on the other hand, was born in AD 940, three-quarters of a millenium afterwards.

The fate of Zahhk, according to the Shhnma,16 is to be brutally imprisoned in a cave of MtDamvand (50 km NE of Tehran), chained and nailed. The fates of Typhon and Prometheus seemcomparable and point to this episode having a genuine place in the early mythology. Thisepisode is picked up also by Moses of Cho(s)roene, in his History of Armenia, written inArmenian.17 He was writing in the mid-5th century AD.18 Appended to the end of the first book is

an extract from Persian mythology about Byurasp Azhdahak (Bwarasp a, Buraspes

Astyages in the Latin translation19), with which Moses finds severe moral fault. Azhdahk, as aresult of a kiss (from Ahriman doubtless), has snakes growing from his shoulders; then Hrudendefeats him and takes him to Mt Dmbavnd where he imprisons him in a cave and himselfbecame a statue before him (a 'talisman'?)20 by which he might be so terrified that he would not

11 Puhvel (1987), 287-289.12 Sisters, according to Davis 2007, 13 and du Perron 1780a, 465.13 Davis 2007, 23.14 Cf, e.g., Greenberg 2002, 188; Russell 2002, 4 n.16. 'Zohk, appel Kerem, cause des deuxserpens qui sortoient de ses paules', du Perron 1780a, 465 note s; Merkelbach 1962, 180. One doeswonder, after reading varying points made about Perseus in du Perron 1780a, 466 note u, whetherPerseus-Andromeda-Sea monster does not also reproduce the Persian myth (FeridunArnavaz-Zahhk). Anequivalence of Perseus with Feridun would go some way to justify the apprently trivial claim that Persesson of Perseus was the ancestor of the Persian kings (Herodotos 7,61,3. 150,2). Another equivalenceappears to be the Deiokes and Phraortes of Herodotos (1.96-101), arising from Zahhk/Dahk and Feridun(du Perron 1780b, 514-21). It is somewhat astonishing that Schneider-Menzel 1958, 77, opts for the viewthat Garmos ist wohl eine Personifikation des assyrischen Volkes der Garamer.15 Boyce 1975, 20.16 Davis 2007, 27.17 I rely on the Russian translation of Gagik Sarkisyan (1990). This is another area researched by duPerron, see du Perron 1780a, 467 note u, with a reference to an earlier piece (Histoire d l'Acadmie desInscriptions &c 35 (1775), 162-165), 516-519.18

This is wholly clear from 3,61:

... (for this reason the great Sahak and Mesrop sent us to Alexandria ...). The position of J. Rist, DNPs.v. Moses (2), that the work is maybe 8th century on grounds of style, seems impossible.19 G. & G. Whiston, Mosis Chorenensis Historiae Armeniacae Libri III (London: John Whiston, 1726),77-78.20 Talisman according to du Perron 1780b, 516.

attempt escape from his chains. There can be no mistaking Moses access to genuine Persiantradition in the light of the Shhnma.

Iamblichos deviates substantially from the Persian myth in its various forms, but it is interestingthat as early as the bn Yat, a fairly strong focus falls on the women who must be rescued byThrataona. Thus there is something of a hero and girl story from an early stage. Sinonis isthought to be some version of Arnavaz, though the phonology is rather distant21 and interest islost in Arnavaz after she has been rescued from Zahhk (Garmos), become Ferayduns wifeinstead, and borne a son, his third. It is particularly disappointing that in Iamblichos we do notlearn the end of Garmos: , (But Rhodanes is victorious and gets Sinonis back and becomes king of theBabylonians, 22).

This however does not exhaust the possible references to Persian myth. There is a moment in 8where a judge is called upon to decide the issue of who should marry Mesopotamia. The judge isgenerously described as Bokhoros or Borokhos ... the best of judges in those times. This mayindeed, as is generally thought, refer to a King of Lower Egypt (c. 715-710 BC), Bokkhoris, oflegendary wisdom and justice (Diodoros 1,94,5).22 But he may also represent the PahlaviBahrm/Behrm, a frequent name in the index of the Shhnma and, starting a century afterIamblichos, the name of several Sassanid kings (Bahrm I ruled 272-6). It may already have beena key name in Iamblichos political environment. Earlier forms of this word had a phonology thatmay correspond to the Borokhos version: older Pahlavi Varahran, Avestan Verethragna. Thiswas a god who ensured the just won in war and who punished evil men and demons, and has hisown Yat, the Bahrm Yat(Yat 14).

Likewise it might seem enough to say of the man who saves Rhodanes and Sinonis and becomestheir constant companion, that Soraikhos is a semitic name, found on a bilingual inscription atPalmyra, where in Aramaic it is Shuraiku and means something like associate or friend, whichhe in fact is.23 Indeed this may be all there is to it. But there is also a friendly advisor in theShhnma, called Sorush. This angel (Davis tr.) twice restrains Feraydun from killing Zahhk(pp. 26, 27). Sorush is in origin the god Sraoa (Yat 11 and Yasna 57) and is a sort ofpersonification of listening and obedience (cf. Sanskrit ru-; from the same root as Greek klyein,listen). But he is also a great support: The holy Sraosha, the best protector of the poor, isfiend-smiting; he is the best smiter of the Drug (Yat 11,3). And he is particularly efficacious atprotecting those undergoing persecution as faced by Rhodanes and Sinonis: Whether on the roador in the law he has to fear, not in that day nor in that night shall the tormenting fiend, whowants to torment him, prevail to throw upon him the look of his evil eye ... (Yat 11,5). Indeed,in later Zoroastrianism he takes over the function of vice-regent of Ahura Mazd on earth.24

Which brings us to a distinctive point in the world-view of the Babyloniaka. Apart from the evilpriest Paapis in Antonios Diogenes (who may indeed be a significant predecssor), enmity andpersecution are quite localised in the Greek novel. Indeed, the loving couple tend to sufferharrassment rather than persecution. Thus the consistent persecution by Garmos and his agents,particularly Damas, reflects a different mindset, one which is indeed much more attuned to adualist world of gods (ahuras) and spirits (davas).25 Thus the Persian content of Iamblichos is in

21 I think Asnavas in du Perron 1780a, 465, then Merkelbach 1962, 179 n.2, and from there in K.Dowden, CR 13 (1986), 61, may be a mistake; the phonology is so distant that her name could evenoriginate from the other sister. Schneider-Menzel 1948, 79-80, somewhat implausibly appeals to semiticroots meaning swallow (the bird).22 Also 1,45,2. 65,1 and esp. 79; Rohde 1914, 370 n.1; Schneider-Menzel 1948, 83; K. Jansen-Winkeln, DNP s.v. Bokchoris.23 PAT 055; see Cussini 2003, 129; G.P. Basellohttp://www.elamit.net/assiriologia/testi_semitistica2006-07c.pdf (August 2008); and cf. Schneider-Menzel 1948, 80.24 Boyce 1975, 271.25 Much the same view at Merkelbach 1962, 180.

a sense more than skin-deep. And the particular forms taken by the personal names of some ofhis characters seem to reflect a tradition outside the Persian mainstream that leads from theAvesta (Yat 5) to Firdaws. The name of Rhodanes is closest to the Armenian and the name ofGarmos reflects a different root altogether from Zahhk, but one that is in fact found in modernPersian. Taken together with Iamblichos possible connection with Sohaimos and his ancestralclaim to rule at least part of Armenia, this suggests a route for transmission of the story ratherseparate from a scribe arriving from Parthian Babylon, though that cannot be ruled out.

It is at least remarkable that the emergent set of novels is enriched with material from a non-Greek mythological source, particularly when the novel at first sight looks very like othersurviving novels for instance, Chariton or Heliodoros. This is quite different from anysupposition that the Alexander Romance is based partly on native Egyptian materials such asSesonchosis dream or that Barlaam and Joasaph began life as a Manichean text.26 Closer wouldbe Graham Andersons view (Anderson 1984) that the novels emerge from near-eastern (typicallyoral) narratives, though that view has gained little acceptance. Equally there have been, andare, views that the ideal novel is conditioned by other texts Merkelbachs theory in effect thatthey are intertextually driven by mystery moments and are mystery texts, James OSullivansthat Xenophon of Ephesos exhibits identifiable oral characteristics, and Jan Bremmers that theemergence of the novels in both pagan and Christian circles at similar times aand places is non-coincidental. But here we have some sort of dependence on a story that we can actually glimpsefrom other sources. It is Persian mythology transmuted into novel.

3. The Greek novel: predecessors

However, whatever the Persian wellsprings of the plot of the Babyloniaka, it is its character as aGreek novel that is predominant. In this respect its plot looks backwards to earlier novelists, andat the same time is evidently a source for the inspiration at least of Heliodoros.

Chariton

From the account of Photios (2) it appears that the Babyloniaka got going very fast and verydirectly, in the manner of Chariton and Xenophon. Hero and heroine, both wholly attractive,27

love each other, and are married from the outset. Immediately, Garmos loses his wife, andSinonis precipitates crisis by refusing to take her place. There is none of the slow, ekphrastic,build-up of Achilles or Longos, none of the structural deftness of Heliodoros.

Presently, the pursuers reach a tomb (6) where hero and heroine are sleeping off the effects offood and drink. Thwarted by the appearance that these are just dead bodies, the pursuers leave.The themes send us back to the scene in Chariton (1,9) in which Kallirhoe, supposed dead but infact alive, is actually abducted from her tomb. It is a similar case at 7, where Sinonis isapprehended and brought before a significant local figure (Soraikhos), and he thinks to send herto the King of Babylon. Here significant elements in the plot structure of Chariton arereplicated, namely the bringing of Kallirhoe to Dionysios and her eventual sending (though fordifferent reasons) to the Great King, who resides at Babylon (5,3,6), as Great Kings do.

The temple of Aphrodite in Babyloniaka 7-8 is a particular fixture in Chariton at 2.2 (onDionysios estate, near Miletos, also 3,6. 4,1), 7,5 (Paphos) and 8,8,15 (Syracuse, also 5,5);indeed, if Chariton really came from Aphrodisias, he would be familiar with its own temple ofAphrodite.

At 22, if Rhodanes becomes a general in the forces of Garmos and evidently overthrows him,that seems drawn from Chaereass experience as general of the Egyptian forces against the

26 Pervo 2003, 708.27 Observed as being in the manner of Chariton and Xenophon by Borgogno 1975, 103-104.

Great King (eg, 7,3, esp. 7,3,11).28 This parallel becomes close when one realises that theheroine is loosely following the role of Kallirhoe in Chariton: after a somewhat surprisingmarriage to the King of Syria (20), she is recovered by Rhodanes as a result of this militaryexploit (22) mirroring Kallirhoes marriage to Dionysios29 and her recovery by Chaereas (7,6.8,1).

There will doubtless be other details, such as where Soraikhos appears to have sworn by theroyal gods to help the young couple (F33) gods that only appear elsewhere in the novel atChariton 6,2,2.30 However, the picture is clear enough: Iamblichos had read, and was inspiredby, Chariton's pioneering novel.

Xenophon

The case for knowledge of Xenophon is not quite as strong as the case for knowledge ofChariton, but there are some indicators.

Immediately, at 2, the crucifixion of Rhodanes recalls the only other crucified hero in a novel,Habrokomes (Eph. 4,2)31 and pushes us towards the view that Iamblichos had that scene in mind.In this instance, however, the hero is rescued by the efforts of Sinonis ( )rather than by Xenophons idiosyncratic apparatus of miracles. It is this that then leads to theflight of the lovers, the familiar motif from the novel, which is however not present in Charitonbut only in Xenophon and Achilles, of novels that may be regarded as antedating Iamblichos,unless you count the siblings Derkyllis and Mantineas in Antonios Diogenes.

Then, in 3, we are by a meadow, where we encounter a fisherman. Iamblichos is entitled todeploy a fisherman on his own account, but a fisherman did gain a lot of attention in Xenophon 5(having mummified his wife).

It is not often that heroines kill their predators. Anthia does so at Ephesiaka 4,5, in self-defence.32 Sinonis killing is somewhat more premeditated in the case of Setapos (15) and shedoes lead him on.

The companion of the hero and heroine, once a threat, now a friend, is Soraikhos. This seems topick up the dynamics of the relationship between Xenophons Hippothos and the loving couple,as observed by Schneider-Menzel (1948, 81). Heliodoros will take this motif further in the case ofThyamis, but perhaps in this case directly from Xenophon, given his role as robber-chief, whichis in most respects different from being a taxman.

Thus there are some signs of knowledge of Xenophon, but not a great number. Chariton is themajor influence on Iamblichos of those earlier texts available to us. It remains nonetheless truethat if we look for a moment at taste rather than plot elements, as Bryan Reardon did (1971,368), one will see Iamblichos as extending the melodramatic take of Xenophon on theCharitonian novel and his production will seem to make a certain evolutionary sense. But itmakes this perception more specific and more compelling, if we can also see concrete instancesof Xenophons plot bearing on the Babyloniaka. Then Iamblichos has indeed addressed the issueof what it is to write novel in the wake of Xenophon.

Achilles

28 Tout comme Chras, Reardon 1971, 368.29 As observed by Schneider-Menzel 1948, 79.30 Schneider-Menzel 1948, 86-87.31 Borgogno 1975, 109, who, however, speaks of il .32 A point made by Schneider-Menzel 1948, 79, and Merkelbach 1962, 186.

Achilles is fainter again than Xenophon, assuming that he does antedate Iamblichos, as seemslikely.33 We have already seen that Iamblichos retains the simple narrative opening of Charitonand Xenophon. Iamblichos either does not know Achilles or rejects his updating of the opening.

Other connections are too frail: the elopement of hero and heroine in Achilles is perhaps theclosest to the flight of hero and heroine in Iamblichos, but it is not strkingly identical.Shepherds, a feature of the meadow narrative, are present in Achilles, but only in mythical tales(2,2 and 2,11). The meadow itself may recall the opening of Achilles Tatius where the play ofEuropa on the meadow leads to danger and dnouement. This meadow, though, like so much inIamblichos, is quirky, with its hoard of gold indicated by the inscription on the stele of the lionand, most oddly of all, a phantom goat that falls in love with Sinonis, perhaps in a dream.34

The other candidate for a connection with Achilles is F101 where a military victory is won byflooding the enemy, as at Achilles 4,14 (and of course Heliodoros 9,3-5) but the fragment isnowadays usually thought not to be from the Babyloniaka.35

Unless there is more than this, then this is a double-edged argument: either Iamblichos does notknow an earlier Achilles, or a later Achilles does not know Iamblichos.

Apuleius

Unexpectedly, however, there does seem to be some common ground between ApuleiusMetamorphoses and Iamblichos, starting with the preface, as we saw above.

The premeditated killing by Sinonis of Setapos (cf on Xenophon, above) is close in profile to theassault of Charite on Thrasyllus in Apuleius Metamorphoses (8,10-13). Moreover, this incident isnot present in the Onos where the equivalents of Charite and Tlepolemus are lost in what lookslike a tsunami (34).

The old woman who dies of fright (4) when being interrogated about the hero and heroine livesby a cave. So does the old woman of the robbers in the Metmorphoses who later commitssuicide through fear that the robbers will feel she has failed to discharge her duty in keepingguard over the ass and Charite. It is worth noting that there is a corresponding old woman in theOnos but no cave.36 It is also suggestive that the hero and heroine of Iamblichos find themselvestravelling on ass-back a little later (4 fin.) like Charite on Lucius.

Sleep like death, because of doing what you know you should not, comes to Psyche when sheopens the box. Likewise Iamblichos hero and heroine eat honey they know is not safe and thenfall down as though dead (3 fin.).37 Presently (5) they are fleeing from an inn, somethingotherwise only know from the tale of Aristomenes in Apuleius (Met. 1,14-15).

Escaping from the house of the cannibal robber, they claim to be ghosts of his victims (5). Asimilar collection of motifs, if differently agglutinated, is found at Metamorphoses 4,22, whereApuleius robbers masquerade as Lemures (ghosts).

Then a Chaldaean (astrologer) appears at 6, and having observed that a girl ready for burial isstill alive, proceeds (unexpectedly?) to predict that Rhodanes will become king. The obviouscomparand is Apuleius 2,12, where a Chaldaean tells Lucius that he will become historiammagnam et incredundam fabulam et libros.38 But the tangential nature of the prophecy, to a

33 See Bowie 2002, 60; Dowden 2007, 143.34 Dream, Schneider-Menzel 1948, 57-58, on the basis of F9 & 10. More generally, on the drasticinventions of Iamblichos see Kuch 2003, 215.35 See Hercher 1866, 363; Rohde 1914, 482 n.2; Schneider-Menzel 1948, 68-69; Habrich on F101.36 Cave, Met. 4,6; old woman Met. 4,24, Onos 20; suicide Met. 6,30, Onos 24.37 This is more specific than the false deaths in other novels considered by Borgogno 1975, 122.38 Cf Schneider-Menzel 1948, 88.

surprised recipient, if that is what it is, suggests the surprise at Metamorphoses 2,30 when thecorpse draws Thelyphron into the plot.

The substitution of a sleeping potion for poison at 7 to prevent suicide has its nearestcomparand in the similar substitution by the worthy doctor at Metamorphoses 10,12 to preventmurder. And if the heroine inflicts a sword-wound on herself, that too is rather reminiscent ofthe Metamorphoses, where Charite uses a sword to commit suicide at 8,13-14.

There does seem to be quite a lot in common between the Babyloniaka and the Metamorphosesand it is difficult to know exactly how to account for it. In my view (Dowden 1994), theMetamorphoses dates from the mid 150s; but the commonest view is that it comes late inApuleius career (170s?). On this depends whether the Metamorphoses was written before orafter Iamblichos; it was clearly nearly contemporary. It does seem very unlikely that our Syrianapprentice in Greek would have been able to read the Latin of Apuleius. And it is perhapslikelier in any case that a common source is to be envisaged. That common source is not theOnos as most of the overlap is in stories which have been inserted into the frame story told bythe Onos. The original story of Lucius of Patrai in his Metmamorphoses, if it was much fullerthan the Onos, might have been a key pre-Iamblichan text. If it wasnt, then some Greek sourceor sources of Apuleius were. Given the volume of possible overlap, it looks as there is a singlesource at issue, perhaps the Milesiaka of Aristides, or perhaps another collection of shortstories. This would also explain why there is so little connection with the Onos.

Longus

Turning now to influence on later authors, I am not sure there is much influence on Longus,whatever his date (probably 190s or so).39 It is perhaps interesting that this is the only novelother than Longos in which shepherds really figure40, in the scene at the meadow, a rathercurious and haunting choice of setting. F90 refers to the entrusting of the children by theirfather to the shepherds and F91 apparently to an interrogation of the shepherds individually bysomeone who failed to discover who the children were. This has similarities with 3 where theshepherds are tortured to reveal the meadows location, though that is a different question andit would not be particularly easy to work F90 into the plot at this stage.41 If F90 and F91 do notbelong here, then there are two different scenes where children/hero and heroine are beingsafeguarded by shepherds. Scenes such as this/these could have sparked off Longos pastoraltake on the novel. But the evidence is not firm and Iamblichos novel could have been unknownto Longos.

Heliodoros

It is, however, much more compelling that Heliodoros had read Iamblichos and it is of interestthat they are both, on their own account, Syrians and (as we saw above) that both can beassociated with Emesa.42 It is a further curious fact that Emesa is not far from Arados, the islandgiven its moment of fame in Chariton (7,5-8,5 passim), thus uniting three authors who fit so welltogether.

39 Dowden 2007, 143; Morgan 2004, 1-2.40 Cf Morgan 2004, 7. The only real shepherds in the plot other than those in Iamblichos and Longosare briefly intervening local plunderers at Xenophon 3,12,2. Achilles 2,2 and 2,11 are two instances of ashepherd in myth (discovering wine and purple respectively); Chariton 5,2,8 refers to Paris in myth; theadjective poimenikon at Heliodoros 5,14,3 refers to an ekphrasis on the gem that Kalasiris gives Nausikles;at Chariton 2,3,2 Leonas envisages the enslaved Kallirhoe being given to some cowherd or shepherd,rather like Electra in the play of Euripides.41 The tradition of discussion of this issue, including Bruhn 1890, 280 (who states the difficultiesparticularly clearly), and Rohde (366 n.1) is resumed and added to by Habrich on F90-92. See furtherBorgogno 1975, 114-115.42 Heliodoros 10,41 fin.; Iamblichos is so reported, in effect, in the marginal note to Photios.

Almost at the start of the novel (Eth. 1,3), Charikleia oddly and melodramatically entertains theidea that the Egyptian brigands are the ghosts of the slain. This must surely derive from thepassage in Iamblichos (5) where, escaping from the blazing house, the hero and heroineactually claim to be the ghosts of those slain by the cannibal bandit.

Heliodoros must surely also have got his cave in Bks 1-2 from Iamblichos, with its dangers andyet its role as an escape-route.43 And it is just possible that the nexus of old woman, sword andher death, though quite differently played in Heliodoros 6, in some sense results from hisreading of Iamblichos 3. Likewise, it is curious that issues of death and failure to recognise,prominent in the confusion between Thisbe and Charikleia in Heliodoros cave emerge in theimmediate sequel to the cave incident in Iamblichos (4): the hero and heroine appear to bedead (because of eating the poison honey) and are not recognised by the agents of Garmos.Further, in 18, as Rohde observed (1914, 458 n.4), Rhodanes confusion of the dead Trophime(murdered by a slave) with Sinonis must in some way be the predecessor of the point in thecave-scene where Theagenes confuses Thisbe with Charikleia (Eth. 2,4).

It is also possible that the fisherman who reveals the whereabouts of the shepherds to Damasand Sakas underlies the deaf fisherman Tyrrhenos44 who is both the host of Kalasiris andCharikleia and (Eth. 5,20) is relaying information to the pirates.

In 9 the mother of Tigris thinks she has transformed her dead son into a hero by magic. Womenemploying magic is a motif known well enough from Apuleius Metamorphoses (esp. Bk. 2), butthe particular situation is closer to the necromancy scene in Heliodoros 6,14 where again amother practises magic on her son.45 And the surprise prophecy of the corpse to Kalasiris andCharikleia (6,15) may build on the surprise prophecy of the Chaldaean to Rhodanes if that iswhat it was (6, cf above on Apuleius).

If Charikleia and Theagenes are cast into golden chains on the order of Hydaspes at 9,1,5, thisimmediately draws on Herodotos (3,23), as a particularity of imprisonment in Ethiopian culture.But it is also true that Garmos casts Sinonis into golden chains at 2.46 And this leads to a largerissues for the reader of Heliodoros that is aware of the intertextuality with Iamblichos: to whatextent can Hydaspes be detached from, in effect, the Garmos model? There is a dialectic on thenature of absolute power, of kingship.

Iamblichos clearly had a penchant for learned digression (8, 10), a trait of sophistic novelists,particularly Achilles. But the insistence that mystery derives from mouse and the expertise inthe varieties of magic make one wonder whether Heliodoros Kalasiris, with his expertknowledge of Homer (3,14), the Nile (2,28) and of course magic and religion, is not a sort ofprojection of Iamblichos persona into his compatriots novel.

Heliodoros presents a rich intertextual tapestry, in which the plot of Iamblichos plays anoticeable part.

Concluding remarks

Iamblichus novel is indeed a Babyloniaka in the approximate sense that it represents anoffshoot of Persian mythology. Somewhere between the mythology of the Avesta and thelegendary mythology of Firdaws there must have lain a form of the story that was capable ofbeing adapted as the Greek novel of Rhodanes and Sinonis, much as the novel of Joseph and

43 Cf Borgogno 1975, 117, and, rather embedded in his Mithraic theory, Merkelbach 1962, 182.44 Fleetingly, Borgogno 1975, 114.45 Cf Schneider-Menzel 1948, 87-88.46 Merkelbach 1962, 181 (also citing Heliodoros 7,27,1); Borgogno 1975, 109.

Aseneth (a strikingly similar name to our heroine, incidentally) drew on and amplified theaccount of Genesis 41.

Within the different perspective of the canon of Greek literature as we perceive it, it can beseen that Iamblichos drew on Chariton and possibly Xenophon, and that he drew on a repertoireof stories no longer accessible to us except indirectly through the inserted stories of Apuleiusin his Metmarmorphoses. Surprisingly, given his date and style, the links to the sophistic novelsof Achilles and Longus are rather weak, if indeed they exist at all.

His work also displays a characteristically wild imagination, what with cannibal bandit andpoisonous honey and many other highly coloured inventions that serve to separate him from themainstream and have provoked Bryan Reardon to refer to a sense of Grand Guignol.47 Nor is heas as meticulous as other novelists to maintain a distance from current times. A clear instanceof this is his mention of the Alans (21).48 These Alans appear to be descendants of the Iraniantribes north of the Black Sea and do not appear in Greek literature until imperial times. They areunknown to Strabo, and first appear for certain in Josephus (eg, 7,244, where he knows they areScythians). The next striking cluster of references is rather later, in Lucian, Toxaris (51, 54). Sothe word would have a modern ring to a more sensitive ear or to one that cared more aboutconsistent classical chronology.

But with Heliodoros, another Syrian, he comes back into the fold and Heliodoros creativity owessomething to his Syrian predecessor. Did he perhaps find a copy of Iamblichos book in anEmesan library and, through the influence and companionship of his own work, bring it back intocirculation and allow it now to reach the Byzantine tradition and, through Photios, us?

47 Reardon 1989, 8.48 For further discussion of the significance of the mention by Iamblichos of the Alans, and theirattempt (with other tribes) to invade the Roman Empire across the Danube in AD 166, see Ramelli 2001,451-453.

ABBREVIATIONSBNJ = I. Worthington (ed.), Brills New Jacoby, 2007-, online: Brill (http://www.brilllonline.nl).PAT = D.R. Hillers & E. Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts [Publications of the Comprehensive

Aramaic Lexicon Project, 3], Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1996.SBE = F. Max Mller (ed.), Sacred Books of the East, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1879-1910.

BIBLIOGRAPHYAnderson, G. 1984 Ancient Fiction. The Novel in the Graeco-Roman World, London & Sydney:

Croom Helm.Bagheri, M. 2001 Prince Mohammad, Fereydun, Thrataona, and Trita ptya: Themes and

Connections in Persian Narratives, Folklore 112, 199-201.Barrett, A.A. 1977 Sohaemus, King of Emesa and Sophene, AJP 98, 153-159.Belardi, W. 2002 Dalla fonologia di un nome armeno a un particolare di un mito indoiranico,

RAL 13, 317-321.Borgogno, A. 1975 Su i Babyloniaca di Giamblico, Hermes 103, 101-26.Bowie, E. 2002 The Chronology of the Earlier Greek Novels since B.E. Perry: revisions and

precisions, Ancient Narrative 2, 47- 63.Boyce, M. 1975 A History of Zoroastrianism 1, Leiden & Kln: Brill.Bruhn, E. 1890 'Suidea', RhM 45, 273-283.Cussini, E. 2003 Ebrei a Palmira: un riesame delle fonti epigrafiche, Materia giudaica, Rivista

dellassociazione italiana per lo studio del giudaismo, 8, 123-38.Davis, Dick (tr.) 2007 Shahnameh: The Persian Book of Kings, London: Penguin.Dowden, K. 1994 Apuleius Roman Audience, in: J.A. Tatum (ed.), The Search for the Ancient

Novel, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 419-434.Dowden, K. 2001 Prologic, Predecessors and Prohibitions, in: A. Kahane & A. Laird (eds), A

Companion to the Prologue to Apuleius' Metamorphoses, Oxford: Oxford University Press,123-136.

Dowden, K. 2007 A lengthy sentence: judging the prolixity of novels, in: M. Paschalis, S.Frangoulidis, S. Harrison, M. Zimmerman (eds), The Greek and the Roman Novel: ParallelReadings, Groningen: Barkhuis, 133-150.

di Gregorio, L. 1964 Sulla biografia de Giamblico e la fortuna del suo romanzo attraverso isecoli, Aevum 38, 1-13.

du Perron, Anquetil 1780a 'Mmoire dan lequel on essaie de concilier les auteurs grecs, &principalement Hrodote & Ctsias, sur le commencement & la dure de l'empire assyrien, &ces crivains avec les Perses, sur les rgnes qui forment ce que les orientaux appellent ladynastie des Peschadiens', Histoire de l'Acadmie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres,avec les mmoires &c 40, 356-476.

du Perron, Anquetil 1780b 'Mmoire sur l'Empire des Mdes & celui des Perses compars avec laDynastie connue dans les Ouvrages des Orientaux, sous le nom de Kaniens', ibid. 477-525.

Greenberg, J.H. 2002 Indo-European and its Closest Relatives: the Eurasiatic Language Family,2, Stanford: Stanford Unviersity Press.

Habrich, E. (ed.) 1960 Iamblichi Babyloniacorum Reliquiae, Leipzig: Teubner.Hercher, R. 1866 Zu Jamblichus Babyloniaca, Hermes 1, 360-366.Kuch, H. 2003 The margin of the ancient novel: barbarians and others, in Schmeling 2003,

209-220.Lincoln, B. 1976 The Indo-European Cattle-Raiding Myth, History of Religions, 16, 42-65.Merkelbach, R. 1962 Roman und Mysterium in der Antike, Munich: Beck.Morgan, J.R. 2004 Longus: Daphnis and Chloe, Oxford: Oxbow.Pervo, R. 2003 The Ancient Novel Becomes Christian, in Schmeling 2003, 685-709.Puhvel, J. 1987 Comparative Mythology, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

Ramelli, Ilaria 2001 I Babyloniak di Giamblico e la cultura plurietnica dell' impero fra II e IIIsecolo', Athenaeum ns 89, 447-58.

Reardon, B.P. 1971 Courants littraires grecs des IIeet IIIe sicles aprs J.-C., Paris: BellesLettres.

Reardon, B.P. 1989 Collected Ancient Greek Novels, Berkeley & Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia Press (22008).

Rohde, E. 1914 Der griechische Roman und seine Vorlufer3, Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hrtel, citedby the pagination of the first edition.

Russell, J. 2002 Zoroastrian Notes, Iran & the Caucasus 6, 1-10.Sarkisyan, G. 1990 M X , Erevan, available at

http://www.vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/khorenaci/index.html (Sep. 2008).Schmeling, G. 2003 The Novel in the Ancient World2, Leiden: Brill.Schneider-Menzel, U. 1948 Jamblichos Babylonische Geschichten, in: F. Altheim (ed.),

Literatur und Gesellschaft im ausgehenden Altertum 1, Halle/Saale: Max Niemeyer, 48-92.

Abstract

Where does the plot of Iamblichos Babyloniaka fit in literary tradition? It does indeed in someway represent Persian mythology, as can be seen from the Avesta and from FirdawssShhnma, maybe even including some minor characters. It draws quite heavily on Chariton, toa lesser extent on Xenophon, and possibly on Antonios Diogenes. There are a surprising numberof points of contact with Apuleius Metamorphoses rather than with the Onos. And presentlyHeliodoros was very much inspired by his earlier compatriots wayward novel.

Autobiographical Statement

Ken Dowden is Professor of Classics, and Director of the Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity,at the University of Birmingham. He writes on Greek mythology (Uses of Greek mythology,Routledge, 1992), religion (European Paganism, Routledge, 2000; Zeus, Routledge, 2006), onhistorians usually of Greek mythic times for the Brill New Jacoby, and on many aspects of theLatin and Greek novels, particularly Apuleius and Heliodoros, often in the pages of AncientNarrative.