Mithras the Syrian

Third Commentary on Metrodorus of Lampsacus

In the seven centuries during which the ancient Epicurean Gardens were active, the Epicureans seem to have had both an oral and written tradition of lovingly and cheerfully narrating the pastimes and activities of Epicurean friends (past and present). In the days of Philodemus of Gadara, these stories were told by the Scholarch of his day (Zeno of Sidon) in a manner that stirred the emotions among the disciples.

In this essay I will discuss one of the friends of Metrodorus, Mithras the Syrian, and the ethical and educational value derived from storytelling and from the repetition and celebration of the story of love, loyalty, and friendship between them. I will also speculate about the types of conversations that might have occurred between an Epicurean and a Hellenized, humanistic Zoroastrian during the Hellenistic Era, since Mithras was in all likelihood a Zoroastrian.

The Sources

In his diatribe against the Epicurean philosopher Colotes, Plutarch reproaches the Epicureans for their lack of involvement in politics. While doing so, he mentions this:

And yet, because Metrodorus went down one day from the city as far as the haven of Piraeus, taking a journey of forty stadia to assist Mithras a Syrian, one of the king of Persia's court who had been arrested and taken prisoner, he writ of it to everyone and in all his letters, Epicurus also highly magnifying and extolling this wonderful voyage. - Plutarch, Adversus Colotem, Column 33

Forty stadia equal almost four miles. The context here is that, while no one in Epicurus’ circle was known for their contributions to political life, they went out of their way to save their friends in times of trouble and (encouraged by Epicurus “in all his letters”) believed that this instead was a glorious deed. Loyalty to friends was one of the personal attributes of Metrodorus that made Epicurus love and praise him. An Attalus Fragment reports another mention of the event:

Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 22, p. 1097B (Theon Speaking): Thus a short while ago we heard our friend here {Plutarch} describe the expressions Epicurus gave vent to and the letters he sent to his friends as he extolled and magnified Metrodorus, telling how nobly and manfully he went from town to the coast {from Athens to Piraeus} to help Mithras the Syrian, although Metrodorus accomplished nothing on that occasion.

We see here that Metrodorus’ efforts to go out of his way to help his friend Mithras were “extolled and magnified” by Epicurus, who praised Metro while alive, in addition to revering him like an ancestor after death. Mithras later helped to support Metrodorus’ children after he died. There is a letter where Epicurus requests that he continue sending money for another 4-5 years, since they were not yet fully grown. This indicates that the loyalty and love of Mithras for his dear and loyal friend outlived Metrodorus.

Lord Mithras the Healer

Laertius reports that Epicurus also corresponded with Mithras with great affection and using divine epithets, and this appears to have inspired envy or antipathy among the enemies of the school:

(They allege) that he (Epicurus) basely flattered Mithras, the minister of Lysimachus, bestowing on him in his letters Apollo's titles of Healer and Lord. - Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Book 10, Portion 4

Notice that he used epithets related to the solar deity. Mithras bore the name of a Persian solar and judicial deity that was conflated and syncretized with the Hellenic Apollo, a fact which we will revisit later. Here we also learn a new biographical detail about Mithras: he was at one point minister of Lysimachus.

Why would Epicurus name Mithras Healer and Lord? Did Epicurus do this to recognize him as having gained some insight on his teaching and living like a god among mortals, as he did Colotes? Did Mithras heal someone or provide some healing insight to Epicurus? Portion 28 of Laertius’ Book 10 on Epicurus mentions that the book Theories about Diseases (and Death) was dedicated to Mithras or perhaps commissioned by him. The Perseus translation of Laertius has a footnote

The full title, Περὶ νόσων καὶ θανάτο υ, "Of Diseases and Death," is preserved in a Herculaneum papyrus, 1012, col. 38, thus correcting our mss. of D. L.

This leads me to think that Mithras must have been interested in natural theories of healing and disease (the theory of germs, etc.) rather than the superstitious healing methods that were common in antiquity, and he must have brought this interest into his conversations with Epicurus. We know that Metrodorus later applied the adage “philosophy that does not heal the soul is no better than medicine that does not heal the body” literally in his methodical approach to the care of the soul of his friends, where he applied similar methods as the physicians applied to the care of the body (diagnosing by signs, treatments, keeping records of results, etc.)

Perhaps Mithras’ contributions to these early conversations were outstanding enough that this would explain why Epicurus took to calling him “Healer”.

Storytelling as a Means to Instill Human Values

About this Mithras, we know that he was Syrian, that at one point he had been arrested by his king (as reported by Plutarch), and Metrodorus had gone out of his way to the shores of Piraeus (in Attica) to save him. One gets the impression that these types of pastimes were used didactically in Epicurus’ epistles to promote values related to friendship, and as case studies for Principal Doctrine 28. Epicurus told this story in letters to all his friends, so that the tale was retold among the Epicureans for many generations. Epicureans imitated the founder in glorifying both Metrodorus and the blessings of holy friendship when retelling the tale. Mithras later reciprocated the loyalties of his departed friend Metrodorus after he died by sending money to Epicurus to help support Metrodorus’ children.

Let us appreciate the didactic and ethical value of these stories. Retelling these stories was one of the ways in which the Epicureans instilled wholesome human values among new generations of students. Even Plutarch, an enemy of Epicurus, recognizes that many stories were told about how Epicurus, Metrodorus, Polyaenus, and Aristobulus used to take care of each other when they were sick, and how they mourned each other after death.

Epicurus's life when compared to that of other men with respect to gentleness and self-sufficiency might be thought a mere legend. - Vatican Saying 36

VS 36 shows that this tradition of narrating the pastimes of Epicurus and his friends continued with Hermarchus (his successor as Scholarch) and became part of the school’s transmission, since it was up to Hermarchus and other surviving disciples to tell the story of Epicurus after he died. From all this, we conclude that this biographical storytelling tradition was part of the educational output of the school—and perhaps a major part of its oral tradition—, together with the cognitive assimilation of the doctrines.

Was Mithras Zoroastrian?

That Mithras was most likely Zoroastrian may be inferred from the two main facts given about his identity: his name, and that he was Syrian. Mithra was the name of a deity (or yazata, “revered one”) in Avestan (Zoroastrian) religion, had a Vedic counterpart named Mitra, was later assimilated into Buddhism as Maitreya (Boddhisatva of loving-kindness and future messianic Buddha), was syncretized with Apollo by the Greeks during the Hellenistic Era, and even made his way into the Roman mysteries of Mithraism, although these initiatory mysteries evolved quite late and had little resemblance to the original Persian deity.

The Zoroastrian Mithra that worshipers would have known in Syria was a solar god of oaths, of contracts, and of friendships. The fact that this deity crossed over to so many other cultures can be seen as a testament to the spirit of tolerance and friendliness of his Zoroastrian worshipers towards people of other faiths.

If Mithras the Syrian was consecrated to the god whose name he bore, what values may his parents have instilled in him? How did one worship a god of friendliness, and what practices and values did this entail?

We know that Mithras was originally from Hellenistic Syria. The essay Zoroastrians at Damascus states that between the 5th-4th Centuries BCE, Antixerxes had built a Zoroastrian temple there to Anahita (one of the seven archangels of Zoroastrianism) and says:

Its foundation there argues for the presence in this fertile and attractive region of a considerable body of Persian colonists, as does the fact that at the time of Alexander’s conquest this part of Syria was, exceptionally, under a Persian, not a native, governor (Jones, p. 234)

The essay also says that the Seleucid kings (of the later Hellenistic Era) had Persian and Zoroastrian ancestry and were well-acquainted with Zoroastrian festivals. Not only were there Zoroastrian religious festivals in Syria, but royalty participated in them, which would have had the effect of adding prestige to Zoroastrianism and propagating it among the Greek-speaking peoples. 

He accordingly ordered his army and the “whole countryside” to celebrate this “Persian” festival with the utmost lavishness. 

…  in general descendants of Persian colonists in western lands of the former Achaemenid empire are known to have retained their ethnic identity and locally their religion down to the 3rd-4th centuries and in some regions even the 6th century c.e. 

We do not know how mainstream Zoroastrianism was in Syria, as opposed to other cults, but we may infer from these sources that it was at least a modestly mainstream religion during the Hellenistic Era when Metrodorus and Mithras lived.

This means that there is a strong likelihood that someone from Syria who was named Mithras during this era had been raised Zoroastrian, that he had been raised chanting the Ashem Vohu mathra daily, and worshiping Mithras as his patron deity—to whom he was consecrated probably by his parents from birth, if we are to judge by his theophoric name.

The Blending of Zoroastrian-Epicurean Minds

For Metrodorus to have loved Mithras the Syrian so much, they must have had a long-standing and sincere friendship and must have spent many hours philosophizing together. Metrodorus’ closest associates were known to be the types of people who could keep up with his intellect. In addition to the wise Epicurus, we know that Leontion (his only known consort) had been highly educated and spoke in an elegant dialect of Greek. Metrodorus was a wise judge of character and must have admired both the virtue and intelligence of Mithras, to have come to love him so much. They must have shared a similarly friendly disposition, and I wonder to what extent Metrodorus also enjoyed the contagion of the laughing wisdom of the Zoroastrians in Mithras. It is said that Zoroaster had been born laughing and died laughing.

This opens up the question on the extent to which we can speculate about Zoroastrian influence in the early garden. Epicureanism initially emerged in western Anatolia, not far from where there were many Zoroastrians, and so it’s not unlikely that there were other early friends of Epicurus who carried the laughing wisdom of Zoroaster.

What conversations might Mithras, Epicurus, and Metrodorus have had together other than the ones on disease and death that we can infer from Epicurus’ book to Mithras? In what fruitful way might Mithras have contributed to these conversations? What about these conversations might have convinced Mithras to adopt Epicurean views and become a loyal friend? Was Mithras Zoroastrian, Epicurean, or a humanistic Zoroastrian in an ongoing process of adopting the views of natural philosophy who blended both wisdoms? Here are some points where I think the intersection between them might have been fruitful:

Rejection of False Piety

In his conversations with the Kathegemones and their companions, Mithras may have introduced them to a conception of a reformed ethical religiosity and philosophy that was critical of vulgar forms of devotion and insisted on correct piety. Zoroaster had been a moral reformer who strictly rejected the attribution of evil qualities to God. Could this have influenced Epicurus’ taboos against fear-based religion and his teachings related to purity of correct belief in divinity (as expressed in Principal Doctrine 1, and the second portion of his Epistle to Menoeceus)? Mithras (and possibly other Zoroastrians in their circle) may have helped Epicurus to conceive of this moral reform for his own inherited polytheistic tradition.

Focus on Choices and Rejections

While the vulgar, supernaturalist interpretation of Zoroaster’s philosophy degenerated into a Manichean cosmological and religious division between good and evil, the philosophical interpretation is that the so-called “Mages” (the brotherhood of the Magavan, who were the priests of Zoroaster) actually practice “magic” by co-creating reality through their persistent choice of good thoughts, good words, and good deeds.

In his Gathas (“Songs”, particularly Yasna 30 of the holy scriptures known as Avesta), Zoroaster initiates his Magavan disciples into this wisdom of the power of choice when he confronts them with their power of volition, with their power of choice and rejection, and warns them concerning the repercussions attached to the thoughts, words, and deeds chosen at every moment. Well-chosen thoughts, well-chosen words, and well-chosen deeds are the foundation of Zoroastrian ethics. Later, Nietzsche would attribute “Desire liberates” (some translations say “The Will redeems”) to his Zarathustra.

Epicurus very concisely speaks of morality and ethics in terms of choosing and rejecting and wants his disciples to take ownership of their causal responsibility and of their choices and rejections. Laertius’ Book 10 on Epicurus, Portion 27, mentions that Epicurus wrote a scroll titled “On Choice and Avoidance”, and Philodemus of Gadara later wrote a commentary on it where he discussed the kyriotatai—the doctrine of the principal things, which are natural and necessary goods needed for a complete life. He also gives advice concerning choices and rejections, teaches control of desires, gives a sermon on the error of choosing empty beliefs, enumerates the qualities of the prudent person, and stresses that there is no divine providence—a fact for which our power of choice must compensate. In a previous essay on Haereseos I discussed how this Promethean doctrine concerning the power of choice is a true heresy, a heresy in the true and original sense of the word.

This focus on choice—and the related ethics of individual freedom—is part of what makes both Epicurus and Zoroaster moral reformers. Might conversations with Mithras and other Zoroastrians have influenced this particular focus among the first Epicureans?

The Ashem Vohu Mathra

Mathras, in Zoroastrianism, are what Hindus know as mantras: charms used in liturgical chants. To the Magavan (Mages, or initiates of Zoroastrian wisdom), these mathras act as magical formulae to fight off evil influences. Just as Jews for thousands of years have performed daily recitations of the Shema, Muslims of the Shahada, and Vaishnava Hindus of the Hare Krishna Mahamantra, similarly Zoroastrians repeat the Ashem Vohu chant as part of their daily liturgy.

aṣ̌əm vohū vahištəm astī
uštā astī uštā ahmāi
hyat̰ aṣ̌āi vahištāi aṣ̌əm

This is what it sounds like. It’s a bit abstract and difficult to translate. These are two of the translations provided for it:

Holiness (Asha) is the best of all good:
it is also happiness.
Happy the man who is holy with perfect holiness!

or:

Righteousness is the best good and it is happiness.
Happiness is to her/him who is righteous
for the sake of the best righteousness.

In Zoroastrian ethical cosmology, Asha is one of the Seven Amesha Spentas, or holy beings that creatively cooperate with a cosmic entity known as Constructive Mentality—Spenta Mainyu, which later influenced the Christian conception of the Holy Spirit. Asha is represented in ritual by the sacred fire, towards which all worship and prayer to the supreme deity Ahura Mazda is directed. Ahura Mazda’s name means “Lord Wisdom”, and Zoroaster’s religion is about worship of and sacrifice to Divine Wisdom.

Asha is possibly best left untranslated, but Holiness, Truth and Righteousness seem accurate partial meanings. Vahishta means highest good (vohu is good, ishta is the superlative suffix, so that it refers to the highest good). Ushta means happiness or pleasure, and I have seen it translated as “radiant happiness”, so this might be somewhat similar to Epicurus’ use of makarion (blissful, blessed)—a transcendental type of bliss. Notice that the mathra does not say that Asha is caused by or similar to Ushta; it says that it IS (asti) Ushta. The main sacred formula of the Zoroastrians establishes that Asha (Truth, Righteousness) shares its identity with pleasure and that it is the highest good (Vahishtem asti).

Through the sacred technology of the Ashem Vohu mathra, Zoroaster is training his disciples to think of righteousness and happiness as one and the same thing (“ushta asti”, or “it (Asha) IS happiness”) and also as the highest good (Vahishtem asti).

Now, compare this to Epicurus’ Principal Doctrine 5 (where Pleasure and Prudence / Nobility / Justice must always be found together) and Metrodorus’ Vatican Saying 41 (where laughter and philosophy must be practiced together with other virtuous activities) and you may observe, as I do, that the Epicurean Kathegemones seem to be employing a somewhat similar technique as Zoroaster—except that they are speaking more clearly and concisely, while the Persian prophet uses abstract religious language.

Metrodorus here is even more specific than Epicurus, but they are all training their disciples to think of pleasure and philosophical virtues as growing and abiding together. The way that I envision this is that Metrodorus was a first-generation disciple who received Kyriai Doxai from Epicurus, and in his body and context, the wisdom of PD 5 evolved into VS 41 when he attempted to connect theory and praxis. Metrodorus may have asked: “By what signs do I know that I’m living pleasantly?”, and answered with laughter. He then may have asked “By what signs do I know I’m living prudently and justly?”, and answered with management of his household and business and other affairs, since it is here that he carried hedonic calculus and had just dealings with others (Laertius reports that Metrodurus was a great economist and administrator).

One key difference between the Zoroastrian and Epicurean formulae is that the Ashem Vohu formula is tied to fire-worship and wisdom-worship liturgy, while the method of the Kathegemones is limited here to repetition, memorization, study and practice of the formulae without the ritual dimension of offering sacrifices to the sacred fire.

Connected with this idea of the identity and affinity between happiness and righteousness, is the understanding of philosophy as medicine for the soul. The Epicurean and Zoroastrian lineages both insist that to live correctly is to live happily and pleasantly.

If Mithras the Syrian didn’t influence the conversations that led to the establishment of KD 5 and VS 41 as Epicurean doctrines, we can at least acknowledge that Mithras must have, upon learning about these teachings, found them to be compatible enough doctrines to Ashem Vohu and other related doctrines he grew up with, and that this is perhaps part of what led him to either convert to Epicureanism or syncretize it with his own wisdom tradition, and that this helped him to insert himself more effortlessly into the circle of friends of Epicurus.

Conclusion

In this essay I wanted to note how the story of Metrodorus’ and Mithras’ mutual love, loyalty and friendship was retold for many generations so as to encourage the best human values among the Epicureans, and my investigations led me to imagine three of the main intersections between Zoroastrian and Epicurean philosophies:

1. Focus on correct piety and rejection of false piety

2. Focus on choices and rejections, since a philosophy of will and freedom must necessarily be a practice of choosing and creating

3. An ethical formula by which disciples are trained to consider pleasure and righteousness, truth, justice, and other virtues as not being mutually exclusive but as necessarily joined

There are many more parallels between the two lineages, the most obvious ones being the worship or celebration of salvific wisdom and the Opening of De rerum natura, where Venus (or Love) plays the role of the Zoroastrian Constructive Mentality (Spenta-Mainyu) and Mars (or Strife) plays the role of the Destructive Mentality (Aka-Mainyu). The indirect Zoroastrian influence on Hermarcus and Lucretius (via Empedocles) is outside the scope of this essay, but students who are interested in this should read my previous essay on Empedocles. Much more could be said of Nietzsche, his own Zarathustra, his own laughing wisdom and “honey sacrifice”, but that will require future essays.

Democritus is usually considered “the first laughing philosopher” and is the founder of the atomist lineage that gave rise to the Epicureans in the Greek world. However, the Persian prophet lived earlier than Democritus (approximately 3,100 years ago) and it must be said, in fairness, that—although his ethical wisdom was later distorted by the trappings of organized religion—Zoroaster seems to have been the first true laughing philosopher.