second century by Lucian: “Both groups were charged with atheism, sep-
arateness and secrecy, misanthropy, social irresponsibility, the disruption of
families, sexual immorality and general moral depravity” (Clay 1986, 9n. 16).
Timocrates’ departure is thus a notable example of defection. What we do
not know is whether Timocrates joined up elsewhere or simply became an
independent, obsessive critic of the Epicureans.
Other philosophical dissidents, such as Metrodorus of Stratonicus
(Diog. Laert.10.9–11), transferred their allegiance, or, like Stilpo of Megara,
founded their own school (Diog. Laert.2.113–114). Together, all these cases
add an interesting refinement to our notion of rivalry: conflicts between sub-
groups within the larger categories that we more typically use. A similar sit-
uation, but a quite different context, is suggested by a fascinating inscription
from Sardis, dated to the first or early second century CE(see G.H.R. Hors-
ley 1981, 21–23). The inscription instructs the temple-warden devotees in
a cult of Zeus the Legislator to desist from participation in the mysteries of
Sabazios, Agdistis, and Ma (CCCA1.456; trans. G.H.R. Horsley 1981, no.
3:21–23):
In the thirty-ninth year of Artaxerxes’ reign, Droaphernes son of Barakis,
governor of Lydia, dedicated a statue to Zeus the Legislator. He [Droa-
phernes] instructs his [Zeus’] temple-warden devotees who enter the
innermost sanctum and who serve and crown the god, not to participate
in the mysteries of Sabazios with those who bring the burnt offerings
and [the mysteries] of Agdistis and Ma. They instruct Dorates the tem-
ple-warden to keep away from these mysteries.
This text is apparently a Greek rewriting of an earlier (Aramaic?) edict
(ca. 365 BCE) relating to the cult of Zeus Baradates (Legislator)—a Greek
translation of the name of a Persian deity (Ahura Mazda)—suggesting an
originally Iranian association that had taken on a Greek form. The prohi-
bition is here updated to bring into line one Dorates, who had transgressed
it, though precisely who was laying down the law remains obscure. While
the edict seems to apply only to the functionaries of the cult and not to the
general membership, it nevertheless provides a fascinating glimpse of a
religious exclusivity and conservatism, which flies in the face of the gen-
eralized notion of relaxed and casual religious syncretism in the pagan
world. The inscription is, at most, an example of temporary defection
(unless Dorates defied the edict), but it does alert us again to the issue of
rivalry between groups within one of the larger categories (in this case,
paganism) with which we tend to operate. Rivalry, that is, occurred not
only between but also within the “big three.”
Rivalry and Defection 69