Excerpt XXVII: From the Sermon of Isis to Horus (Part 3)

The doctrine of Hermes, and of Hellenistic theology in general, however, is that matter comes from the One God. It is remarkable that Tertullian keeps his final taunt for that school which was evidently thought the foremost of all—that of the “famous Thrice-greatest Hermes.”

ii. De Anima, ii.; Œhler, ii. 558.

HERMES THE WRITER OF SCRIPTURE

(Inveighing against the wisdom of the philosophers, Tertullian says:)

She [philosophy] has also been under the impression that she too has drawn from what they [the philosophers] consider “sacred” scriptures; because antiquity thought that most authors were gods (deos), and not merely inspired by them (divos),—as, for instance, Egyptian Hermes, with whom especially Plato had intercourse, 1 . . . [and others] . . . .

Here again, as with Justin, Hermes heads the list; moreover, in Tertullian’s mind, Hermes belongs to antiquity, to a more ancient stratum than Pythagoras and Plato, as the context shows; Plato, of course, depends on Hermes, not Hermes on Plato; of this Tertullian has no doubt. There were also “sacred scriptures” of Hermes, and Hermes was regarded as a god.

iii. Ibid., xxviii.; Œhler, ii. 601.

HERMES THE FIRST TEACHER OF REINCARNATION

What then is the value nowadays of that ancient doctrine mentioned by Plato, 2 about the reciprocal migration of souls; how they remove hence and go thither, and then return hither and pass through life, and then again depart from this life, made quick again from the dead? Some will have it that this is a doctrine of Pythagoras; while Albinus 3 will have it to

be a divine pronouncement, perhaps of Egyptian Hermes.

iv. Ibid., xxxiii.; Œhler, ii. 610.

HERMES ON METEMPSYCHOSIS

(Arguing ironically against the belief in metempsychosis, Tertullian writes:)

Even if they [souls] should continue [unchanged] until judgment [is pronounced upon them] . . . a point which was known to Egyptian Hermes, when he says that the soul on leaving the body is not poured back into the soul of the universe, but remains individualized 1:

FRAGMENT I.

That it may give account unto the Father of those things which it hath done in body.

This exact quotation 2 is to be found nowhere in the existing remains of the Trismegistic literature, but it has every appearance of being genuine.

Œhler (note c) refers to C. H., x. (xi.) 7, but this passage of “The Key” is only a general statement of the main idea of metempsychosis.

A more appropriate parallel is to be found in P. S. A., xxviii. 1: “When, [then,] the soul’s departure from the body shall take place,—then shall the judgment and the weighing of its merit pass into its highest daimon’s power”—a passage, however, which retains far stronger traces of the Egyptian prototype of the idea than does that quoted by Tertullian.

Footnotes

226:1 Fl., c. 200-216 A.D.

227:1 Adsuevit.

227:2 Cf. Phædo, p. 70.

227:3 A Platonic philosopher, and contemporary of Galen (130-?200 A.D.).

228:1 Determinatam.

228:2 Tertullian marks it by an “inquit.”

Gnosticism and Hermetica

V.

CYPRIAN 1

i. De Idolorum Vanitate, vi.; Baluze, p. 220 (Paris, 1726).

GOD IS BEYOND ALL UNDERSTANDING

Thrice-Greatest Hermes speaks of the One God, and confesses Him beyond all understanding and all appraisement.

This is evidently a reference to the most quoted sentence of Hermes. See Justin Martyr i. below, and other references.

Chambers (p. 140), after this notice in Cyprian, inserts a passage from Eusebius (c. 325 A.D.), which he says is “a clear quotation from the ‘Pœmandres’ of Hermes, whom, however, he [Eusebius] probably confounds with the Shepherd of Hermas.”

Eusebius (Hist. Ecc., v. 8), however, quotes Irenæus (iv. 20, 2), who quotes literally The Shepherd of Hermas (Mand., i.). Indeed, it is the most famous sentence in that early document. See the list of its quotations by the Fathers in the note to Gebhardt and Harnack’s text (Leipzig, 1897), p. 70. Such verbal exactitude is not to be found in the remaining Trismegistic literature; the idea, however, is the basis of the whole Trismegistic theology.

Footnotes

229:1 About 200-258 A.D.

Gnosticism and Hermetica

VI.

ARNOBIUS 1

i. Adversus Nationes, ii. 13; Hildebrand (G. F.), p. 136 (Halle, 1844).

THE SCHOOL OF HERMES

(Arnobius complains that the followers of the philosophic schools laugh at the Christians, and selects especially the adherents of a certain tradition as follows:)

You, you I single out, who belong to the school of Hermes, or of Plato and Pythagoras, and the rest of you who are of one mind and walk in union in the same paths of doctrine. 2

Footnotes

230:1 He was a converted philosopher, and the teacher of Lactantius; flourished about 304 A.D.

230:2 Here again, as elsewhere, Hermes comes first; he was evidently regarded as the leader of philosophic theology as contrasted with popular Christian dogmatics. See R. 306.

Gnosticism and Hermetica

VII.

LACTANTIUS 1

i. Divinæ Institutiones, i. 6, 1; Brandt, p. 18; Fritzsche, i. 13. 2

THOYTH-HERMES AND HIS BOOKS ON THE GNOSIS

Let us now pass to divine testimonies; but, first of all, I will bring into court testimony which is like divine [witness], both on account of its exceeding great age, and because he whom I shall name was carried back again from men unto the gods.

In Cicero, 3 Caius Cotta, 4 the Pontifex, arguing against the Stoics about faiths and the diversity of opinions which obtain concerning the gods, in order that, as was the way of the Academics, 5 he might bring all things into doubt, declares that there were five Hermeses; and after enumerating four of them in succession, [he adds] that the fifth was he by whom

[paragraph continues] Argus was slain, 1 and for that cause he fled into Egypt, and initiated the Egyptians into laws and letters.

The Egyptians call him Thoyth, and from him the first month of their year (that is, September) has received its name. He also founded a city which even unto this day is called Hermopolis. The people of Phenëus, 2 indeed, worship him as a god; but, although

he was [really] a man, still he was of such high antiquity, and so deeply versed in every kind of science, that his knowledge of [so] many things and of the arts gained him the title of “Thrice-greatest.”

He wrote books, indeed many [of them], treating of the Gnosis 1 of things divine, in which he asserts the greatness of the Highest and One and Only God, and calls Him by the same names as we [do]—God and Father. 2 And [yet], so that no one should seek after His name, he has declared that He cannot be named, in that He doth not need to have a name, owing, indeed, unto the very [nature of His] unity. 3 His words are these 4:

FRAGMENT II.

But God [is] one; and He who’s one needs not a name, for He [as one] is The-beyond-all-names.

THE HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF THE HERMETIC TRADITION

For Lactantius, then, Hermes was very ancient; moreover, he was one who descended from heaven and had returned thither. When, however, Firmianus attempts the historical origins of the Hermetic tradition, as was invariably the case with the ancients, he can do nothing better than refer us to a complex though

interesting myth, and to a legend of it devised to flatter the self-esteem of its Hellenic creators: A Greek god, whose cult, moreover, was known to be intimately connected with an ancient mystery-tradition, was the originator of the wisdom of Egypt. Of course; and so with all nations who had any ancient learning—their special tradition was oldest and best and originator of all others!

For the rest, Lactantius knows nothing historically of the tradition which he esteemed so highly, and the mention of the Latinized name Thoyth 1 and of Hermopolis 2 does but throw the paucity of his knowledge into deeper relief. What Lactantius does know is a large literature in Greek and its general tendency.

The sentence he quotes is not found textually in any of the extant Trismegistic literature. 3

ii. Ibid., i. 11, 61; Brandt, p. 47; Fritzsche, i. 29, 30.

URANUS, CRONUS AND HERMES, ADEPTS OF THE PERFECT SCIENCE

And so it appears that he [Cronus] was not born from Heaven (which is impossible), but from that man who was called Uranus; and that this is so, Trismegistus bears witness, when, in stating that there have been very few in whom the perfect science has been found,

he mentioned in their number Uranus, Cronus and Hermes, his own kinsfolk. 1

iii. Ibid., ii. 8, 48; Brandt, p. 138; Fritzsche, i. 89.

DIVINE PROVIDENCE

For the World was made by Divine Providence, not to mention Thrice-greatest, who preaches this. 2

iv. Ibid., ii. 8, 68; Brandt, p. 141; Fritzsche, i. 91.

ON MORTAL AND IMMORTAL SIGHT

His [God’s] works are seen by the eyes; but how He made them, is not seen even by the mind, “in that,” as Hermes says:

FRAGMENT III.

Mortal cannot draw nigh 3 to the Immortal, nor temporal to the Eternal, nor the corruptible to That which knoweth no corruption. 4

And, therefore, hath the earthly animal not yet capacity to see celestial things, in that it is kept shut within the body as in a prison house, lest with freed sense, emancipate, it should see all.

The first part of this citation (which Lactantius gives in Latin) is identical in idea with a sentence in Frag. iv.—that favourite source of quotation, which Stobæus, Ex. ii. (Flor. lxxx. [lxxviii.] 9), excerpted from “The [Sermon] to Tat.” 1 It might, then, be thought that this was simply a paraphrase of Lactantius’, or that he was quoting from memory, and that the second sentence was not quotation but his own writing. But the second sentence is so thoroughly Trismegistic that it has every appearance of being genuine. 2

v. Ibid., ii. 10, 13; Brandt, p. 149; Fritzsche, i. 96.

MAN MADE AFTER THE IMAGE OF GOD

But the making of the truly living man out of clay 3 is of God. And Hermes also hands on the tradition of this fact,—for not only has he said that man was made by God after the Image of God, 4 but also he has attempted to explain with what skilfulness He has formed every single member in the body of man, since there is not one of them which is not admirably suited not only for what it has to do, but also adapted for beauty. 5

Man made after the Image of God is one of the fundamental doctrines of the Trismegistic tradition. For instance, P. S. A., vii. 2: “The [man] ‘essential,’ as say the Greeks, but which we call the ‘form of the

[paragraph continues] Divine Similitude’”; and x. 3: “Giving the greatest thanks to God, His Image reverencing,—not ignorant that he [man] is, too, God’s image, the second [one]; for that there are two images of God—Cosmos and man.” 1

vi. Ibid., ii. 12, 4; Brandt, p. 156; Fritzsche, i. 100.

HERMES THE FIRST NATURAL PHILOSOPHER

Empedocles 2 . . . [and others] . . . laid down four elements, fire, air, water, and earth,—[in this] perchance following Trismegistus, who said that our bodies were composed of these four elements by God.

“For that they have in them something of fire, something of air, something of water, and something of earth,—and yet they are not fire [in itself], nor air, nor water, nor earth.”

All this about the elements is, of course, a commonplace of ancient physics, and we may, therefore, dismiss the naïve speculation of Lactantius, who evidently thought he had the very words of the first inventor of the theory before him; for he renders into Latin word for word the same text which Stobæus has preserved to us in an excerpt from “The [Sermons] to Tat”—Ex. iii. I. 3

vii. Ibid., ii. 14, 5; Brandt, p. 163; Fritzsche, i. 105.

THE DAIMON-CHIEF

Thus there are two classes of daimons,—the one celestial, and the other terrestrial. The latter are impure spirits, the authors of the evils that are done, 4

of whom the same Diabolus is chief. Whence Trismegistus calls him the “Daimon-chief.” 1

viii. Ibid., ii. 15, 6; Brandt, p. 166; Fritzsche, i. 106.

DEVOTION IS GOD-GNOSIS

In fine, Hermes asserts that those who have known God, not only are safe from the attacks of evil daimons, but also that they are not held even by Fate. 2 He says:

FRAGMENT IV.

The one means of protection is piety. For neither doth an evil daimon nor doth Fate rule o’er the pious man. 3 For God doth save the pious [man] from every ill. The one and only good found in mankind is piety.

And what piety means, he witnesses in another place, saying:

“Devotion is God-Gnosis.” 4

Asclepius, his Hearer, has also explained the same idea at greater length in that “Perfect Sermon” which he wrote to the King.

Both, then, assert that the daimons are the enemies and harriers of men, and for this cause Trismegistus

calls them “evil ‘angels’,” 1—so far was he from being ignorant that from celestial beings they had become corrupted, and so earthly.

This passage is given in Greek, and is quoted, but with numerous glosses, also by Cyril (Contra Julianum, iv. 130); it is also practically the same as the sentence in P. S. A., xxix.: “The righteous man finds his defence in serving God and deepest piety. For God doth guard such men from every ill.”

Now we know that Lactantius had the Greek of this “Perfect Sermon” before him, and we know that our Latin translation is highly rhetorical and paraphrastic.

The only difficulty is that Lactantius’ quotation ends with the sentence: “The one and only good found in mankind is piety”; and this does not appear in the Latin translation of P. S. A. On the other hand, Firmianus immediately refers by name to a Perfect Sermon, which, however, he says was written by Asclepius, and addressed to the King. Our Fragment is, therefore, probably from the lost ending of C. H., xvi. (see Commentary on the title).

ix. Ibid., iv. 6, 4; Brandt, p. 286; Fritzsche, i. 178.

THE COSMIC SON OF GOD

Hermes, in that book which is entitled the “Perfect Sermon,” uses these words:

FRAGMENT V.

The Lord and Master of all things (whom ’tis our custom to call God), when He had made the

second God, the Visible and Sensible, 1—I call Him sensible, not that He hath sensation in Himself (for as to this, whether or no He hath Himself sensation, we will some other time enquire), but that He is object of senses and of mind,—when, then, He’d made Him First, and One and Only, 2 He seemed to Him most fair, and filled quite full of all things good. At Him he marvelled, and loved Him altogether as His Son. 3

Lactantius here quotes from the lost Greek original of “The Perfect Sermon,” viii. 1. We have thus a means of controlling the old Latin translation which has come down to us.

It is, by comparison, very free and often rhetorical; inserting phrases and even changing the original, as, for instance, when in the last clause it says: “He fell in love with him as being part of His Divinity.”

It is, however, possible that the translator may have had a different text before him, for there is reason to believe that there were several recensions of the P. S. A. 4

x. Ibid., iv. 6, 9; Brandt, p. 291; Fritzsche, i. 179.

THE DEMIURGE OF GOD

(Speaking of the Son of God and identifying Him with the pre-existent Wisdom spoken of in Proverbs viii. 22, Lactantius adds:)

Wherefore also Trismegistus has called Him the “Demiurge of God.” 1

xi. Ibid., iv. 7, 3; Brandt, p. 292; Fritzsche, i. 179.

THE NAME OF GOD

Even then [when the world shall be consummated], 2 it [God’s Name] will not be able to be uttered by the mouth of man, as Hermes teaches, saying:

FRAGMENT VI.

But the Cause of this Cause is the Divine and the Ingenerable Good’s Good-will, which 3 first brought forth the God whose Name cannot be spoken by the mouth of man. 4

xii. Ibid., iv. 7, 3; Brandt, p. 293; Fritzsche, i. 179, 180.

THE HOLY WORD ABOUT THE LORD OF ALL.

And a little after [he says] to his son:

FRAGMENT VII.

For that there is, [my] son, a Word [Logos] of wisdom, that no tongue can tell,—a Holy 5

[paragraph continues] [Word] about the only Lord of all, the God before all thought,—whom to declare transcends all human power. 1

xiii. Ibid., iv. 8, 5; Brandt, p. 296; Fritzsche, i. 181.

HIS OWN FATHER AND OWN MOTHER

But Hermes also was of the same opinion when he says:

“His own father and His own mother.” 2

xiv. Ibid., iv. 9, 3; Brandt, p. 300; Fritzsche, i. 182, 183.

THE POWER AND GREATNESS OF THE WORD

Trismegistus, who has tracked out, I know not how, almost all truth, has often described the power and greatness of the Word (Logos), as the above quotation 3 from him shows, in which he confesses the Word to be Ineffable and Holy, and in that its telling forth transcends the power of man.

xv. Ibid., iv. 13, 2; Brandt, p. 316; Fritzsche, i. 190.

THE FATHERLESS AND MOTHERLESS

For God, the Father, and the Source, and Principle of things, in that He hath no parents, is very truly called by Trismegistus “father-less” and “mother-less” 4 in that He is brought forth from none. 5

xvi. Ibid., v. 14, 11; Brandt, p. 446; Fritzsche, i. 256.

PIETY THE GNOSIS OF GOD

But “piety is nothing else than Gnosis of God,” 1 as Trismegistus has most truly laid down, as we have said in another place. 2

xvii. Ibid., vi. 25, 10; Brandt, p. 579; Fritzsche, ii. 60.

THE ONLY WAY TO WORSHIP GOD

Concerning justice, he [Trismegistus, who in this (namely concerning sacrifice) “agrees substantially and verbally with the prophets”] has thus spoken:

“Unto this Word (Logos), my son, thy adoration and thy homage pay. There is one way alone to worship God,—[it is] not to be bad.”

Here Lactantius translates literally from C. H., xii. (xiii.) 23, a sermon which now bears the title, “About the Common Mind to Tat.” Hermes, however, in the context of the quoted passage, is not writing “about justice,” and much less could the whole sermon be so entitled, if indeed Lactantius intended us so to understand it. But see the Commentary, C. H., xii. (xiii.) 6, and Ex. xi., “On Justice.”

xviii. Ibid., v. 25, 11; Brandt, p. 579; Fritzsche, ii. 60.

THE WORTHIEST SACRIFICE TO GOD

Also in that “Perfect Sermon,” when he heard Asclepius enquiring of his son, 3 whether it would be pleasing to his 4 father, that incense and other perfumes

should be offered in their holy rite to God, [Hermes] exclaimed:

FRAGMENT VIII.

Nay, nay; speak more propitiously, O [my] Asclepius! For very great impiety is it to let come in the mind any such thought about that One and Only Good.

These things, and things like these, are not appropriate to Him. For He is full of all things that exist and least of all stands He in need [of aught].

But let us worship pouring forth our thanks. The [worthiest] sacrifice to Him is blessing, [and blessing] only.

With this compare the passage in P. S. A., xli. 2 (p. 61, 16, Goldb.). Here again we have the means of controlling the old Latin translator, but not with such exactitude as before, for Lactantius has also turned the Greek text into Latin. But not only from the other specimens of Lactantius’ Hermes translations, but also from his present close reproduction of the ordinary wording of the Trismegistic treatises, we may be further confident that the Old Latin translation is free, paraphrastic, and rhetorical, as we have already remarked.

xix. Ibid., vii. 4, 3; Brandt, p. 593; Fritzsche, ii. 69.

MAN MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

But Hermes was not ignorant that man was made by God and in the Image of God. 1

xx. Ibid., vii. 9, 11; Brandt, p. 612; Fritzsche, ii. 82.

CONTEMPLATION

(Speaking of man being the only animal that has his body upright, and face raised to heaven, looking towards his Maker, Lactantius says:)

And this “looking” Hermes has most rightly named contemplation. 1

xxi. Ibid., vii. 13, 3; Brandt, p. 624 Fritzsche, ii. 90.

THE DUAL NATURE OF MAN

Hermes, in describing the nature of man, in order that he might teach how he was made by God, brings forward the following:

FRAGMENT IX.

From the two natures, the deathless and mortal, He made one nature,—that of man,—one and the self-same thing; and having made the self-same [man] both somehow deathless and somehow mortal, He brought him forth, and set him up betwixt 2 the godlike and immortal

nature and the mortal, that seeing all he might wonder at all.

WONDER THE BEGINNING OF PHILOSOPHY

This idea of “wondering” was, doubtless, a commonplace in Hellenistic philosophical circles and looked back to the Platonic saying: “There is no other beginning of Philosophy than wondering.” Compare also one of the newest found “Logoi of Jesus,” from the rubbish heaps of Oxyrhynchus, which runs: “Let not him that seeketh . . . cease until he find, and when he finds he shall wonder; wondering he shall reign, and reigning he shall rest.” 1

Wondering is the beginning of Gnosis; this makes a man king of himself, and thus master of gods and men, and so he has peace. The translation of βασιλεύσει by Grenfell and Hunt as “reach the kingdom” seems to me to have no justification.

Lactantius here quotes the Greek text of P. S. A., viii. 3, and so once again we can control the Old Latin version. The Church Father is plainly the more reliable, reproducing as he does familiar Hermetic phrasing and style; and we thus again have an insight into the methods of our rhetorical, truncated, and interpolated Latin Version.

xxii. Ibid., vii. 18, 3; Brandt, p. 640; Fritzsche, ii. 99.

THE COSMIC RESTORATION

And Hermes states this [the destruction of the world] 2 plainly. For in that book which bears the title

of “The Perfect Sermon,” after an enumeration of the evils of which we have spoken, he adds:

FRAGMENT X.

Now when these things shall be, as I have said, Asclepius, then will [our] Lord and Sire, the God and Maker of the First and the One God, 1 look down on what is done, and, making firm His Will,—that is the Good,—against disorder, recalling error, and purging out the bad, either by washing it away with water-flood, or burning it away with swiftest fire, or forcibly expelling it with war and famine,—He [then] will bring again His Cosmos to its former state, and so achieve its Restoration. 2

xxiii. Ibid., Epitome, 4, 4; Brandt, p. 679; Fritzsche, ii. 117.

OF HERMES AND HIS DOCTRINE CONCERNING GOD

Hermes,—who, on account of his virtue and knowledge of many arts, gained the title of Thrice-greatest, who also in the antiquity of his doctrine preceded the philosophers, and who is worshipped as god among the Egyptians,—declaring the greatness of the One and Only God with unending praises, calls Him God and Father, [and says] He has no name, for that He has no need for a distinctive name, 3 inasmuch as He alone is,

nor has He any parents, in that He is both from Himself and by Himself. 1

In writing to his son [Tat] he begins as follows:

“To comprehend God is difficult, to speak [of Him] impossible, even for one who can comprehend; for the Perfect cannot be comprehended by the imperfect, nor the Invisible by the visible.” 2

xxiv. Ibid., Ep., 14; Brandt, p. 685; Fritzsche, ii. 121.

A REPETITION

(Lactantius repeats in almost identical words what he has written in i. 11.)

xxv. Ibid., Ep., 37 (42), 2; Brandt, p. 712; Fritzsche, ii. 140.

PLATO AS PROPHET FOLLOWS TRISMEGISTUS

By means of him [the Logos] as Demiurge, 3 as Hermes says, He [God the Father] hath devised the beautiful and wondrous creation of the world. . . .

Finally Plato has spoken concerning the first and second God, not plainly as a philosopher, but as a prophet, perchance in this following Trismegistus, whose words I have added in translation from the Greek.

(Lactantius then translates verbally from the Greek text he has quoted in iv. 6, 4, omitting, however, the last clause and the parenthesis in the middle.)

Footnotes

231:1 A pupil of Arnobius; flourished at the beginning of the fourth century.

231:2 Brandt (S.), L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti Opera Omnia,—Pars I., Divinae Institutiones et Epitome (Vienna, 1890). Pars II., to be edited by G. Laubmann, has not yet appeared. Fritzsche (O. F.), Div. Institt. (Leipzig, 1842), 2 vols.

231:3 De Natura Deorum, iii. 22, 56.

231:4 C. Aurelius Cotta, 124-76 (?) B.C.

231:5 Cicero makes Cotta maintain the cause of this school both here and in the De Oratore.

232:1 Argos, according to the many ancient myths concerning him, was all-seeing (πανόπτης), possessed of innumerable eyes, or, in one variant, of an eye at the top of his head. Like Hercules, he was of superhuman strength, and many similar exploits of his powers are recorded. In the Io-legends, Hera made Argos guardian of the cow into which the favourite of Zeus had been metamorphosed. Zeus accordingly sent Hermes to carry off his beloved. Hermes is said to have lulled Argos to sleep by means of his syrinx, or pipe of seven reeds, or by his caduceus, and then to have stoned him or cut off his head. See Reseller’s Ausführ. Lex. d. griech. u. röm. Myth., s.v. “Argos.” It is to be noticed that instead of Argum, four MSS. read argentum, which is curious as showing a Medieval Alchemical influence. See n. 4 to Ciceronis Opera Philosophica (Delph. et Var. Clas.), vol. ii. (London, 1830).

232:2 Pheneatæ,—Phenëus was a town in Arcadia, that country of ancient mysteries. (It is remarkable that Hermas is taken by the “Shepherd” in spirit to a mountain in Arcadia. See Shepherd of Hermas, Sim. ix. 1.) Cicero begins his description of the fifth Hermes with this statement, and Lactantius has thus awkwardly misplaced it. Pausanias (viii. 14, 6) tells us that Phenëus itself was considered as a very ancient city, and that its chief cult was that of Hermes. This cult of Hermes, moreover, was blended with an ancient mystery-tradition, for Pausanias (ibid., 15, 1) tells us that:

“The Pheneatians have also a sanctuary of Demeter sumamed Eleusinian, and they celebrate mysteries in her honour, alleging that rites identical with those performed at Eleusis were instituted in their land. . . . Beside the sanctuary of the Eleusinian goddess is what is called the Petroma, two great stones fitted to each other. Every second year, when they are celebrating what they call the Greater Mysteries, they open these stones, and taking out of them certain writings which bear on the mysteries, they read them in the hearing of the initiated, and put them back in their place that same night. I know, too, that on the weightiest matters most of the Pheneatians swear by the Petroma.” Frazer’s Translation, i. 393 (London, 1898).

233:1 Cognitionem.

233:2 Cf. P. S. A., xx. (p. 42, 16, Goldb.) et pass.; C. H., v. (vi.) 2.

233:3 Compare with Epitome 4 below.

233:4 Lactantius here quotes in Greek. Cf. P. S. A., xx. (p. 42, 27-43, 3, Goldb.).

234:1 Was, however, this the spelling found in Cicero, for Firmianus takes it from the text of Tully? It is a pity we have no critical apparatus of the text of Lactantius, for the MSS. of Cicero present us with the following extraordinary list of variants: Then, Ten, Their, Thoyt, Theyt, Theyn, Thetum, Them, Thernum, Theutatem, Theut, Thoyth, Thoth. See n. 5 to the text of Cicero, cited above. Cf. R. 117, n. 2.

234:2 Which he probably took from P. S. A., xxxvii. 4: “Whose home is in a place called after him.”

234:3 Chambers (p. 41, n. 1), in referring it to C. H., v. (vi.) 10, is mistaken.

235:1 Cf. C. H., x. (xi.) 5; P. S. A., xxxvii. 1. Also Lact., Epit., 14. In my commentary on the first passage I have shown that Lactantius is probably here referring to a lost Hermetic treatise.

235:2 Cf. Fragg. ap. Stob., Ecl., i. 5, 16, 20. It is to be noticed from the context that Lactantius places Trismegistus in a class apart together with the Sibylline Oracles and Prophets, and then proceeds to speak of the philosophers, Pythagoreans, Platonists, etc. He also repeats the same triple combination in iv. 6.

235:3 Propinquare. L. glosses this as meaning “come close to and follow with the intelligence.”

235:4 Cf. Frag. ap. Cyril, C. I., i. (vol. vi., p. 31 C).

236:1 Compare also Lact., Epit., 4.

236:2 It is interesting to note, in the history of the text-tradition, that the received reading σημήναι (“be expressed”) in Stobæus stands in one MS. (A) συμβῆναι, which seems to be a transference from the original of L.’s propinquare.

236:3 Limo,—slime or mud.

236:4 Lact. repeats this in vii. 4. Cf. C. H., i. 12.

236:5 Cf. C. H., v. (vi.) 6.

237:1 Cf. also Hermes-Prayer, iii. 11. R. 21, n. 11.

237:2 Date c. 494-434 B.C.

237:3 See also Ex. vii. 3; C. H., ii. (iii.) 11.

237:4 Cf. C. H., ix. (x.) 3; C. H., xvi. 10.

238:1 δαιμονιάρχην. This term is not found in the extant texts; “Diabolus” is, of course, not to be referred to Hermes, but to the disquisition of Lactantius at the beginning of 14.

238:2 Cf. Cyril, C. J., iv. (vol. vi. 130 E, Aub.).

238:3 For the same idea, see C. H., xii. (xiii.) 9.

238:4 ἡ γὰρ εὐσέβεια γνῶσις ἐστι τοῦ θεοῦ,—which Lactantius in another passage (v. 14) renders into Latin as “Pietas autem nihil aliud est quam dei notio,—is given in C. H., ix. (x.) 4 as: εὐσέβεια δέ ἐστι θεοῦ γνῶσις (where Parthey notes no various readings in MSS.).

239:1 ἀγγέλους πονηροὺς,—these words do not occur in our extant Greek texts; but the Lat. trans, of P. S. A., xxv. 4, preserves “nocentes angeli.”

240:1 Sc. the Logos as Cosmos.

240:2 Cf. Frag. x.

240:3 For last clause, see C. H., i. 12. Cf. also Ps. Augustin., C. Quinque Hæreses, vol. viii., Append, p. 3 E, Maur.

240:4 Lactantius himself also gives a partial translation of this passage in his Epitome, 42 (Fritz., ii. 140).

241:1 δημιουργὸν τοῦ . The exact words do not occur in our extant texts, but the idea is a commonplace of the Trismegistic doctrine; see especially P. S. A., xxvi.: “The Demiurgus of the first and the one God,” and Lact., ibid., vii. 18, 4: “God of first might, and Guider of the one God.” See also C. H., i. 10, 11, xvi. 18; Cyril, C. Jul., i. 33 (Frag. xiii.), and vi. 6 (Frag. xxi.); and Exx. iii. 6, iv. 2. Cf. also Ep. 14 below.

241:2 Cf. vii. 18 below.

241:3 Sc. will (βούλησις). Cf. especially P. S. A., Commentary.

241:4 This is plainly from the same source as the following Fragment.

241:5 Cf. C. H., i. 5; and Lact. and Cyril, passim (e.g. Fragg. xxi., xxii.).

242:1 This passage and the preceding, then, are evidently taken from “The Sermons to Tat.” Lactantius quotes in Greek, and again refers to the passage in iv. 9.

242:2 αὐτοπάτορα καὶ αὐτομήτορα—not found in the extant texts; but for the idea see C. H., i. 9. See also iv. 13, and Ep. 4 below.

242:3 Ibid., iv. 7.

242:4 ἀπάτωρ et ἀμήτωρ. Cf. Lact., D. I., i. 7, 2 (Brandt).

242:5 Terms not found in our extant texts; probably taken from the same source as the terms in iv. 8 above.

243:1 Notio dei.

243:2 Namely ii. 15, 6; q.v. for comment.

243:3 That is, Hermes’ son Tat.

243:4 That is, Tat’s father, Hermes.

244:1 See above, ibid., ii. 10, 13, Comment.

245:1 θεοπτίαν = θεωρίαν. See, for instance, C. H., xiv. (xv.) 1, and K. K., 1, 38, 51; also Frag. ap. Stob., Flar., xi. 23; and also compare C. H., iv. (v.) 2: “For contemplator (θεατής) of God’s works did man become.” It is also of interest to note that Justin Martyr (Dial. c. Tryph., 218 c) enumerates the Theoretics or Contemplatives, among the most famous sects of Philosophers, naming them in the following order: Platonics, Stoics, Peripatetics, Theoretics, Pythagorics.

245:2 Compare the “setting up betwixt” (ἐν μέσῳ . . . ἵδρυσεν) with the “setting up” of the mind “in the midst” of C. H., iv. (v.) 3.

246:1 Grenfell (B. P.) and Hunt (A. S.), New Sayings of Jesus, p. 13 (London, 1904).

246:2 Cf. iv. 7 above.

247:1 Cf. Frag. v.

247:2 Lactantius quotes the original Greek of P. S. A., xxvi. 1 (p. 48, 24, Goldb.), so that we can thus once more remark the liberties which the Old Latin translation has taken with the text.

247:3 Cf. Frag. ii.

248:1 See i. 6 and iv. 8 above.

248:2 The first clause is a verbatim translation of the text of the Stobæan Extract ii., while the second is a paraphrase even of L.’s own version from the Greek (see ii. 8 above). We learn, however, the new scrap of information that the quotation is from the beginning of the sermon.

248:3 The reference to the “Demiurge” looks back to iv. 6, 9.

Gnosticism and Hermetica

VIII.

AUGUSTINE

i. De Civitate Dei, xxiii.; Hoffmann (E.), i. 392 (Vienna, 1899-1900). 1

THREE QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD LATIN VERSION OF THE “PERFECT SERMON”

Augustine is arguing against the views of Appuleius (first half of the second century) on the cult of the “daimones,” and in so doing introduces a long disquisition on the doctrine of “Egyptian Hermes, whom they call Thrice-greatest,” concerning image-worship, or the consecrated and “ensouled,” or “animated,” statues of the gods.

In the course of his remarks the Bishop of Hippo quotes at length from a current Latin version 2 of “The Perfect Sermon” or “Asclepius” (though without himself giving any title), which we see at once must have been the very same text that has come down to us in its entirety. It is precisely the same text, word for word, with ours; the variants being practically of the most minute character.

First of all Augustine quotes from P. S. A., xxiii. 3, xxiv. 2. This “prophecy” of the downfall of the Egyptian religion Augustine naturally takes as referring to the triumph of Christianity, and so he ridicules Hermes “[qui] tam impudenter dolebat, quam imprudentur sciebat.”

ii. Ibid., xxiv.; Hoffmann, i. 396.

The Bishop of Hippo begins his next chapter with a quotation from P. S. A., xxxvii. 1, 2, on the same subject, and proceeds scornfully to criticise the statements of the Trismegistic writer.

iii. Ibid., xxvi.; Hoffmann, i. 402.

After quoting the sentence, from P. S. A., xxiv. 3, in which Hermes says that the pure temples of Egypt will all be polluted with tombs and corpses, Augustine proceeds to contend that the gods of Egypt are all dead men, and in support of his contention he quotes P. S. A., xxxvii. 3, 4.

Footnotes

249:1 Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. xxx. (Imp. Acad. of Vienna). The date of the writing of the treatise, De Civitate Dei, is fixed as being about 413-426 A.D.

249:2 Hujus Ægyptii verba, sicut in nostram linguam interpretata sunt.

Gnosticism and Hermetica

IX.

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA 1

i. Contra Julianum, i. 30; Migne, col. 548 A. 2

CYRIL’S CORPUS OF XV. BOOKS

(Cyril, after claiming that Pythagoras and Plato obtained their wisdom in Egypt from what, he professes, they had heard of Moses there, proceeds:)

And I think the Egyptian Hermes also should be considered worthy of mention and recollection—he who, they say, bears the title of Thrice-greatest because of the honour paid him by his contemporaries, and, as some think, in comparison with Hermes the fabled son of Zeus and Maia.

This Hermes of Egypt, then, although an initiator into mysteries, 3 and though he never ceased to cleave to the shrines of idols, is [nevertheless] found to have grasped the doctrines of Moses, if not with entire correctness, and beyond all cavil, yet still in part.

For both [Hermes] himself has been benefitted [by Moses], and reminder of this [fact] has also been made in his own writings by [the editor] at Athens who put together the fifteen books entitled “Hermaïca.” [This editor] writes concerning him [Hermes] in the first book, putting the words into the mouth of one of the priests of the sacred rites:

“In order then that we may come to things of a like nature (?),—have you not heard that our Hermes divided the whole of Egypt into allotments and portions, measuring off the acres with the chain, 1 and cut canals for irrigation purposes, and made nomes, 2 and named the lands [comprised in them] after them, and established the interchange of contracts, and drew up a list of the risings of the stars, and [the proper times 3] to cut plants; and beyond all this he discovered and bequeathed to posterity numbers, and calculations, and geometry, and astronomy, and astrology, and music, and the whole of grammar?”

This Corpus of XV. Books is evidently the source of Cyril’s information, and he takes the above quotation from the Introduction, which purported to be written by an Egyptian priest (as is also the case in the treatise De Mysteriis, traditionally ascribed to Jamblichus), but which Cyril says was written at Athens, by presumably some Greek editor. 4

ii. Ibid., i. 31; Migne col. 549 B.

THE INCORPOREAL EYE

Thrice-greatest Hermes says somewhat as follows:

(Cyril then quotes, with four slight verbal variants, the first four paragraphs of the passage excerpted by Stobæus, Ex. ii., and then proceeds without a break:)

FRAGMENT XI.

If, then, there be an incorporeal eye, 1 let it go forth from body unto the Vision of the Beautiful; let it fly up and soar aloft, seeking to see not form, nor body, nor [even] types 2 [of things], but rather That which is the Maker of [all] these,—the Quiet and Serene, the Stable and the Changeless One, the Self, the All, the One, the Self of self, the Self in self, the Like to Self [alone], That which is neither like to other, nor [yet] unlike to self, and [yet] again Himself. 3

Though Cyril runs this passage on to the four paragraphs which in the Stobæan Extract are continued by three other paragraphs, I am quite persuaded that the Archbishop of Alexandria took the above from the same “Sermon to Tat” 4 as the Anthologist. 5

iii. Ibid., i. 33; Migne, col. 552 D.

THE HEAVENLY WORD PROCEEDING FORTH

And Thrice-greatest Hermes thus delivers himself concerning God:

FRAGMENT XII.

For that His Word (Logos) proceeding forth, 1—all-perfect as he was, and fecund, and creative in fecund Nature, falling on fecund 2 Water, made Water pregnant. 3

THE PYRAMID

And the same again [declares]:

FRAGMENT XIII.

The Pyramid, then, is below [both] Nature and the Intellectual World. 4 For that it 5 hath above it ruling it the Creator-Word 6 of the Lord of all,—who, being the First Power after

[paragraph continues] Him, [both] increate [and] infinite, leaned forth 1 from Him, and has his seat above, and rule o’er all that have been made through him. He is the First-born of the All-perfection, His perfect, fecund and true Son. 2

THE NATURE OF GOD’S INTELLECTUAL WORD

And again the same [Hermes], when one of the Temple-folk 3 in Egypt questions him and says:

FRAGMENT XIV.

But why, O most mighty Good Daimon, was he 4 called by this name 5 by the Lord of all?—replies:

Yea, have I told thee in what has gone before, but thou hast not perceived it.

The nature of His Intellectual Word (Logos) is a productive and creative Nature. This is as though it were His Power-of-giving-birth, 6 or [His] Nature, or [His] Mode of being, or call it

what you will,—only remembering this: that He is Perfect in the Perfect, and from the Perfect makes, and creates, and makes to live, perfect good things.

Since, then, He hath this nature, rightly is He thus named. 1

THE WORD OF THE CREATOR

And the same [Hermes], in the First Sermon of the “Expository [Sermons] to Tat,” 2 speaks thus about God:

FRAGMENT XV.

The Word (Logos) of the Creator, O [my] son, transcends all sight; He [is] self-moved; He cannot be increased, nor [yet] diminished; Alone is He, and like unto Himself [Alone], equal, identical, perfect in His stability, perfect in order; for that He is the One, after the God alone beyond all knowing.

The first two Fragments (xi. and xii.) seem to be taken from the same sermon, the contents of which resembled the first part of the “Shepherd of Men” treatise; it has all the appearance of a discourse addressed to Tat, and probably came in “The Expository Sermons.”

The third Fragment (xiii.) belongs to the more frankly Egyptian type, the Agathodaimon literature, in which Hermes, as the Good Spirit, figures as the teacher of the Mystery-god Osiris. 1

The last Fragment (xv.) is so similar in its phrasing to Fragment xi., already given by Cyril (i. 31), that I am strongly inclined to think the Archbishop took both from the same source. If so, we can reconstruct part of “The First Sermon of the Expository [Sermons] to Tat,” the beginning of which (see Lact., Ep., 4) is also given by Stobæus, Ex. ii., with the heading from “The [Book] to Tat,” while he heads other extracts “From the [pl.] to Tat.” 2

v. Ibid., ii. 35; Migne, col. 556 A.

MIND OF MIND

And Hermes also says in the Third Sermon of those to Asclepius:

FRAGMENT XVI.

It is not possible such mysteries [as these] should be declared to those who are without initiation in the sacred rites. But ye, lend [me] your ears, [ears] of your mind!

There was One Intellectual Light alone,—nay, Light transcending Intellectual Light. He is for ever Mind of mind 3 who makes [that] Light to shine.

There was no other; [naught] save the Oneness of Himself [alone]. For ever in Himself [alone], for ever doth He compass all in His own Mind,—His Light and Spirit. 1

HE IS ALL

And after some other things he says:

FRAGMENT XVII.

Without Him 2 [is] neither god, nor angel, nor daimon, nor any other being. For He is Lord of all, [their] Father, and [their] God, and Source, and Life, and Power, and Light, and Mind, and Spirit. For all things are in Him and for His sake. 3

CONCERNING SPIRIT

And again, in the same Third Sermon of those to Asclepius, in reply to one who questions [him] concerning the Divine Spirit, the same [Hermes] says as follows:

FRAGMENT XVIII.

Had there not been some Purpose 4 of the Lord of all, so that I should disclose this word

[paragraph continues] (logos), ye would not have been filled with so great love 1 to question me about it. Now give ye ear unto the rest of the discourse (logos).

Of this same Spirit, of which I have already spoken many times, all things have need; for that it raises up all things, each in its own degree, and makes them live, and gives them nourishment, and [finally] removes them from its holy source, 2 aiding the spirit, 3 and for ever giving life to all, the [one] productive One.”

THE “TO ASCLEPIUS” OF CYRIL’S CORPUS

From the above statements of Cyril we learn that in addition to “The Expository Sermons to Tat,” he had also before him a collection of “Sermons to Asclepius”; of these there were at least three. Was “The Perfect Sermon” one of this collection? It may have been; for the style of it is cast in the same mould as that of these Fragments in Cyril.

Hermes, in the Third Sermon of Cyril’s collection, is addressing several hearers, for he uses the plural; so also in P. S. A., i. 2. Hermes addresses Asclepius, Tat, and Ammon.

In the Third Sermon, Hermes also says: “It is not possible such mysteries should be declared to those

who are without initiation in the sacred rites”; in P. S. A., i. 2, Hermes declares: “It is a mark of an impious mind to publish to the knowledge of the crowd 1 a tractate 2 brimming o’er with the full grandeur of divinity.” The numinis majestas (grandeur of divinity) is precisely the same idea as the Spirit, the “Divine supremacy and power,” as Cyril says referring to Hermes.

Finally, in the Third Sermon, Hermes makes the striking remark that the Love (ἔρως) of the Gnosis which urges on the disciples, is inspired by the Providence or Foresight of God—that is, by His Spirit; P. S. A., i. 28, ends with the words: “To them, sunk in fit silence reverently, their souls and minds pendent on Hermes’ lips, thus Love (ἔρως) Divine 3 began to speak.”

The setting of the mode of exposition is then identical in the two Sermons, and we may thus very well refer them to the same collection.

v. Ibid., ii. 52; Migne, col. 580 B.

FROM “THE MIND”

To this I will add what Thrice-greatest Hermes wrote “To his own Mind,”—for thus the Book is called.

(Cyril then quotes, with very slight verbal variants, the last question and answer in C. H., xi. (xii.) 22.)

In our Corpus the treatise is not written by Hermes to the Mind, but, on the contrary, it is cast in the mould of a revelation of “The Mind to Hermes,” and is so

entitled. Cyril thus seems to have been mistaken. 1 It may, then, have been that in the copy which lay before the Church Father, the title read simply: “The Mind.”

vi. Ibid., ii. 55; Migne, col. 586 D. 2

OSIRIS AND THRICE-GREATEST AGATHODAIMON

But I will call to mind the words of Hermes the Thrice-greatest; in “The Asclepius” 3 he says:

FRAGMENT XIX.

Osiris said: How, then, O thou Thrice-greatest, [thou] Good Spirit, 4 did Earth in its entirety appear?

The Great Good Spirit made reply:

By gradual drying up, as I have said; and when the many Waters got commandment . . . 5 to go into themselves again, the Earth in its entirety appeared, muddy and shaking.

Then, when the Sun shone forth, and without ceasing burned and dried it up, the Earth stood compact in the Waters, with Water all around. 6

“LET THERE BE EARTH”

Further, in yet another place [he writes]:

FRAGMENT XX.

The Maker and the Lord of all thus spake: Let there be Earth, and let the Firmament appear 1!

And forthwith the beginning of the [whole] creation, Earth, was brought into existence. 2

THE GENERATION OF THE SUN

So much about the Earth; as to the Sun, he again says as follows:

FRAGMENT XXI.

Then said Osiris: O thou Thrice-greatest, [thou] Good Spirit, whence came this mighty one?

Would’st thou, Osiris, that we tell to thee the generation of the Sun, whence he appeared?

He came from out the Foresight of the Lord of all; yea, the Sun’s birth proceedeth from

the Lord of all, through His Creative Holy Word. 1

“LET THE SUN BE!”

In like manner also in the “First Expository Sermon to Tat,” he says:

FRAGMENT XXII.

Straightway the Lord of all spake unto His own Holy and Intelligible—to His Creative Word (Logos): Let the Sun be!

And straightway with His word (logos), the Fire that hath its nature tending upward, 2—I mean pure [Fire], that which gives greatest light, has the most energy, and fecundates the most,—Nature embraced 3 with her own Spirit, and raised it up aloft out of the Water. 4

(After referring to Genesis i. 6: “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters,”—Cyril proceeds:)

vii. Ibid., ii. 57; Migne, col. 588 C.

THE FIRMAMENT

Moreover the Hermes who is with them 5 Thrice-

greatest mentions this [that is, the firmament] again. For he describes God as saying to His creations:

FRAGMENT XXIII.

I will encompass you with this Necessity, you who are disobedient to me, 1 which hath been laid on you as a Command through My own Word (Logos); for him ye have as Law.

This quotation also is probably taken from the same source as the previous passage—that is, from the “First Expository Sermon to Tat.” The idea and setting, however, should also be compared with the parallel in the K. K. Excerpt (Stob., Phys., xli. 44; Gaisf., p. 408): “O Souls, Love and Necessity shall be your lords, they who are lords and marshals after me of all,”—where the “after me” (μετ᾽ ἐμέ) might perhaps confirm the “up to me” in the preceding note as the more correct rendering.

viii. Ibid., ii. 64; Migne, col. 598 D.

FROM THE “TO ASCLEPIUS”

For Hermes, who is called Thrice-greatest, writes thus to Asclepius about the nature of the universe:

(Here follows with a few slight verbal variants the text of C. H., xiv. (xv.) 6, 7, beginning: “If, then, all things have been admitted to be two.”)

And some lines after he proceeds in warmer language, setting forth a striking argument, and says:

(Then follows §§ 8, 9 of the same sermon, except the third sentence, and § 10 omitting the last sentence.) 1

The same treatise must have lain before Cyril as that contained in our Corpus in the form of a letter with the heading, “Unto Asclepius good health of soul!”—for the Archbishop says that Hermes “writes thus to Asclepius.” 2

ix. Ibid., iv. 130; Migne, col. 702.

THE SOLE PROTECTION

(After quoting Porphyry as warning against participation in blood-rites for fear of contamination from evil daimons, Cyril proceeds:)

And their Thrice-greatest Hermes seems also to be of the same opinion; for he, too, writes as follows, in the [sermon] “To Asclepius,” concerning those unholy daimons against whom we ought to protect ourselves, and flee from them with all the speed we can:

“The sole protection—and this we must have—is piety. For neither evil daimon, yea nor Fate, can ever overcome or dominate a man who pious is, and pure, and holy. For God doth save the truly pious man from every ill.” 3

x. Ibid., viii. 274; Migne, col. 920 D.

THE SUPREME ARTIST

Moreover, their Thrice-greatest Hermes has said somewhere about God, the Supreme Artist 1 of all things:

FRAGMENT XXIV.

Moreover, as perfectly wise He established Order and its opposite 2; in order that things intellectual, as being older and better, might have the government of things and the chief place, and that things sensible, as being second, might be subject to these.

Accordingly that which tends downward, and is heavier than the intellectual, has in itself the wise Creative Word (Logos). 3

xi. Ibid. (?).

AN UNREFERENCED QUOTATION

(Chambers (p. 154) gives the following, “Cyrill. Contra Julian., citing Hermes” but without any reference, and I can find it nowhere in the text:)

FRAGMENT XXV.

If thou understandest that One and Sole God, thou wilt find nothing impossible; for It is all virtue.

Think not that It may be in some one; say not that it is out of some one.

It is without termination; it is the termination of all.

Nothing contains It; for It contains all in Itself.

What difference is there then between the body and the Incorporeal, the created and the Uncreated; that which is subject to necessity, and what is Free; between the things terrestrial and things Celestial, the things corruptible and things Eternal?

Is it not that the One exists freely and that the others are subject to necessity?

Footnotes

251:1 The date of Cyril’s patriarchate is 412-444 A.D.

251:2 Migne (J. P.), Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, Series Græca, tom. lxxvi. (Paris, 1859). S. P. N. Cyrilli . . . Pro Christiana Religione adversus Julianum Imperatorem Libri Decem. The text is also given R. 211, n. 1.

251:3 τελεστής.

252:1 “Acres,” lit. = areas 100 Egyptian cubits square; and “chain,” lit. = measuring cord.

252:2 Or provinces; Migne’s Latin translator gives this as “laws”!

252:3 Sc. of the moon.

252:4 ὑ συντεθεικὼς Ἀθήνησι,—a phrase which Chambers (p. 149) erroneously translates by “which he [Hermes] having composed for Athenians”! R. (p. 211, n. 1) thinks this redactor was some Neoplatonist.

253:1 Sc. the soul.

253:2 Sc. ideas.

253:3 Masc., not neut., as are all the preceding “self’s.” There is also throughout a play on “self” and “same” which is unreproducible in English.

253:4 That is, presumably, the “First Sermon of the Expository [Sermons] to Tat” (see Comment to the Stobæan Excerpt).

253:5 See also Fragg. xii., xiii., xv., xx., xxii., xxiii., xxiv. (?).

254:1 R. (p. 43) glosses this with “out of the month of God,” but I see no necessity for introducing this symbolism.

254:2 The adjective γόνιμος (“fecund”) is applied to both Logos and Physis (Nature); it might thus be varied as seedful and fruitful, or spermal and productive. Cf. Frag. xiii. Text reproduced R. 43.

254:3 Compare C. H., i. 8, 14, 15. This Fragment is also quoted, but plainly reproduced from Cyril, by Suidas (q.v.).

254:4 That is, the Logos.

254:5 Sc. the Pyramid, in physics the symbol of fire. See Frag. xxii.

254:6 δημιουργὸν λόγον. Compare Lact., D. I., iv. 6, 9.

255:1 προκύψασα—is, projected, presumably with the idea of emanation. Compare the hymn: “O Heavenly Word proceeding forth, Yet leaving not the Father’s side.” Compare the παρέκυψεν of C. H., i. 14, and note.

255:2 Compare C. H., i. 6, 9, 10; xiii. (xiv.) 3; xiv. (xv.) 3. For slightly revised text, see R. 243, n. 3. Reitzenstein thinks that the image which the writer had in his mind was the pyramid, or obelisk, with the sun-disk on the top.

255:3 τεμενιτῶν. The questioner was undoubtedly Osiris (see Frag. xix. below). Cyril then knows that “Osiris” was understood to stand for a grade of Egyptian priests. Cf. R. 131.

255:4 Presumably the Logos.

255:5 Presumably “Soul” (Psyche).

255:6 γένεσις.

256:1 This passage seems to refer to the identity of Soul and Logos. For revised text see R. 131, and the reference there to Plato, Cratylus, 400 B, where ψυχή, soul, is explained by the word-play φυσέχη, that is, that which has physis, or nature, or the power of production.

256:2 τῶν πρὸς τὸν Τὰτ διεξοδικῶν.

257:1 See Frag. xix. below, where Cyril (ii. 56) says that this type was found in the “Sermon to Asclepius,” that is, was put with the Asclepius-books in the collection which lay before him.

257:2 See also Fragg. xi., xii., xiii., xx., xxii., xxiii., xxiv. (?).

257:3 Cf. K. K., 16.

258:1 That is, Light and Life. See C. H., i. 9: “God, the Mind, . . . being Life and Light.”

258:2 Lit. outside of Him.

258:3 For a fuller statement of the idea in this paragraph, see C. H., ii. (iii.) 14. Cyril thinks that the above two Fragments refer to the Father, Son (Mind of mind and Light of light) and Holy Ghost (the Divine supremacy and power), and is thus the source of the statement in Suidas (s.v. “Hermes”) that Trismegistus spoke concerning the Trinity.

258:4 Or Providence, πρόνοια. R. (203, n. 2) refers this to a belief that only when some internal prompting gave permission to the master to expand the teaching, could he do so. Cf. Appul., Metam., xi. 21, 22; P. S. A., i.

259:1 ἔρως τοιοῦτος.

259:2 That is, presumably, causing their seeming death.

259:3 That is, the individual life-breath, unless the reading ἐπίκουρον πνεύματι is corrupt. The Latin translator in Migne goes hopelessly wrong, as, indeed, is frequently the case. Cf. C. H., x. (xi.) 13, Comment; P. S. A., vi. 4; Exx. iv. 2, xv. 2, xix. 3.

260:1 That is, the uninitiated, the profanum vulgus.

260:2 Tractatus; presumably logos in the original Greek.

260:3 Cf. also P. S. A., xx. 2 and xxi. 1, 3.

261:1 Cf. R. 128, n. 1.

261:2 Texts of quotations reproduced in R. 127, n. 1.

261:3 From the quotations we can see that this could not have been the special heading of the treatise from which Cyril quotes, and which plainly belongs to the Agathodaimon type. Cyril probably means that the treatise, in his collection, came under the general title, “The Asclepius.”

261:4 Ἀγαθὸς δαίμων.

261:5 The reading is an untranslatable ἀπὸ τοῦ, where the lacuna is probably to be completed with “from the Lord of all.”

261:6 A distinction is evidently drawn between the (heavenly) Water and water (the companion element of earth). The text is immediately continued in Frag. xxi. below.

262:1 See C. H., i. 18, Commentary.

262:2 This seems to be taken not from a different place in the “To Asclepius,” but from another sermon, or group of sermons, most probably from the “First Expository Sermon to Tat”—as may be seen by comparing its phrasing with Frag. xxii. See also Fragg. xi., xii, xiii., xv., xxii., xxiii., xxiv. (?).

263:1 This is evidently an immediate continuation of Frag. xix. above. Cf. R. 126, n. 1, where the texts are reproduced.

263:2 See Frag. xiii. below, concerning the pyramid.

263:3 Embraced the Fire.

263:4 Sc. the Water-Earth, one element, not yet separated, according to C. H., i. 5. For other probable quotations from this “First Expository Sermon to Tat,” see Fragg. xi., xii., xiii., xv., xx., xxiii., xxiv. (?).

263:5 Sc. the philosophers.

264:1 τοῖς ἐπ᾽ ἐμε,—lit. “against me,” or it may perhaps be “up to me.” Migne’s Latin translator gives “qui in mea potestatis estis,” and Chambers (p. 153), “those from me”; neither of which can be correct.

265:1 Cyril also twice omits the words “ignorance and jealousy” after “arrogance and impotence” in 8, and also the words “and yet the other things” in 9.

265:2 Cf. Frag. iv., Comment.

265:3 Cf. P. S. A., xxix. 1. A comparison of this with Frag. iv., quoted by Lactantius (ii. 15), and the Commentary thereon, shows clearly that Cyril has strengthened the original text by interpolations. Cyril’s quotation (v. 176) from Julian, in which the Emperor refers to Hermes, is given under “Julian.”

266:1 ἀριστοτεχνοῦ,—an epithet applied by Pindar (Fr. 29) to Zeus.

266:2 ἀταξίαν.

266:3 This seems somewhat of a piece with the contents of the “First Expository Sermon to Tat.” See Fragg. xi., xii., xiii., xv , xx., xxii., xxiii.

Gnosticism and Hermetica

X.

SUIDAS 1

Lexicon, s.v. Ἑρμῆς ὁ τρισμέγιστος; Im. Bekker (Berlin 1854).

HERMES SPEAKS OF THE TRINITY

Hermes the Thrice-greatest.—He was an Egyptian sage, and flourished before Pharaoh. He was called Thrice-greatest because he spoke of the Trinity, declaring that in the Trinity there is One Godhead, as follows:

“Before Intellectual Light was Light Intellectual; Mind of mind, too, was there eternally, Light-giving. There was naught else except the Oneness of this [Mind] and Spirit all-embracing.

“Without this is nor god, nor angel, nor any other being. For He is Lord and Father, and the God of all; and all things are beneath Him, [all things are] in Him. 2

(The source of Suidas, or of his editor, is manifestly

[paragraph continues] Cyril, C. J., i. 35 (Fragg. xvi., xvii.), of which a very garbled edition is reproduced. The same statement and passage is also quoted by Cedrenus, John Malalas, and the author of the Chronicum Alexandrinum. See Bernhardy’s edition of Suidas (Halle, 1853), i. 527, notes.) Suidas then continues without a break:)

“His Word (Logos), all-perfect as he was, and fecund, and creative, falling in fecund Nature, yea in fecund Water, made Water pregnant.” 1

After saying this he has the following prayer:

AN ORPHIC HYMN

“Thee, Heaven, I adjure, wise work of mighty God; thee I adjure, Word 2 of the Father which He spake first, when He established all the world!

“Thee I adjure, [O Heaven], by the alone-begotten Word (Logos) himself, and by the Father of the Word alone-begotten, yea, by the Father who surroundeth all,—be gracious, be gracious!”

This is not a prayer from Hermes, but three verses (the last somewhat altered) of an Orphic hymn excerpted from Cyril, ibid., i. 33 (Migne, col. 552 C),—lines also attributed to “Orpheus” by Justin Martyr. The last half of the prayer seems to be a pure invention of Suidas, or of his editor, based partially on Cyril’s comments.

Footnotes

268:1 Date uncertain; some indications point to as late as the twelfth century; if these, however, are due to later redaction, others point to the tenth century.

268:2 He is above them as Lord and Father, as Mind and Light; and they are in Him as Lady and Mother, as Spirit and Life.

269:1 This is again, and this time almost verbally, taken from Cyril ibid., i. 33; Frag. xii.

269:2 φωνήν.

Gnosticism and Hermetica

XI.

ANONYMOUS

And here we may conveniently append a reference to the Dialogue of an ancient Christian writer on astrology—a blend of Platonism, Astrology, and Christianity—entitled Hermippus de Astrologia Dialogus, 1 from the name of the chief speaker.

This writer was undoubtedly acquainted with our Corpus, for he quotes (p. 9. 3) from C. H., i. 5; (p. 21, 5) from C. H., x. (xi.) 12; (p. 70, 17) from C. H., x. (xi.) 6; in a general fashion (p. 24, 25) from C. H., xvi.; and phrases (p. 12, 21 and p. 14, 13) from C. H., xviii.

Footnotes

270:1 Kroll (G.) and Viereck (P.), Anonymi Christiani de Astrologia Dialogus (Leipzig, 1895). Cf. R. p. 210.

Gnosticism and Hermetica

References and Fragments in the Philosophers

I.

ZOSIMUS

ON THE ANTHRŌPOS-DOCTRINE

(Zosimus flourished somewhere at the end of the third and beginning of the fourth century A.D. He was a member of what Reitzenstein (p. 9) calls the Poimandres-Gemeinde, and, in writing to a certain Theosebeia, a fellow-believer in the Wisdom-tradition, though not as yet initiated into its spiritual mysteries, he urges her to hasten to Poimandres and baptize herself in the Cup. 1 The following quotation is of first importance for the understanding of the Anthrōpos-Doctrine or Myth of Man in the Mysteries.

In one of the Books of his great work distinguished by the letter Omega, and dedicated to Oceanus as the “Genesis and Seed of all the Gods,”—speaking of the uninitiated, those still beneath the sway of the Heimarmenē or Fate, who cannot understand his revelations,—he writes 2:)

THE PROCESSIONS OF FATE.

1. Such men [our] Hermes, in his “Concerning Nature,” hath called mind-less,—naught but “processions” 3 of

[paragraph continues] Fate,—in that they have no notion 1 of aught of things incorporal, or even of Fate herself who justly leads them, but they blaspheme her corporal schoolings, and have no notion of aught else but of her favours.

“THE INNER DOOR”

2. But Hermes and Zoroaster have said the Race of Wisdom-lovers is superior to Fate, by their neither rejoicing in her favours,—for they have mastered pleasures,—not by their being struck down by her ills,—for ever living at the “Inner Door,” 2 and not receiving 3 from her her fair gift, in that they look unto the termination of [her] ills. 4

3. On which account, too, Hesiod doth introduce Prometheus counselling Epimetheus, and doth tell him 5 not to take the Gift 6 from Zeus who rules Olympus, but send it back again,—[thus] teaching his own brother through philosophy 7 to return the Gifts of Zeus,—that is, of Fate.

4. But Zoroaster, boasting in knowledge of all things Above, and in the magic of embodied speech, 8

professes that all ills of Fate,—both special [ills] and general [ones],—are [thus] averted.

AGAINST MAGIC

5. Hermes, however, in his “About the Inner Door,” doth deprecate [this] magic even, declaring that:

The spiritual man, [the man] who knows himself, 1 should not accomplish any thing by means of magic, e’en though he think it a good thing, nor should he force Necessity, but suffer [her to take her course], according to her nature and decree 2; [he should] progress by seeking only, through the knowledge of himself and God, to gain the Trinity 3 that none can name, and let Fate do whate’er she will to her own clay—that is, the body.

FRAGMENT XXVI.

6. And being so minded (he says), and so ordering his life, he shall behold the Son of God becoming all things for holy souls, that he may draw her 4 forth from out the region of the Fate into the Incorporeal [Man].

7. For having power in all, He becometh all things, whatsoever He will, 5 and, in obedience to the Father[’s nod], through the whole Body doth He penetrate, and, pouring forth His Light into the mind of every [soul], He starts it 6

back unto the Blessed Region, 1 where it was before it had become corporal,—following after Him, yearning and led by Him unto the Light.

THOTH THE FIRST MAN

8. And [there] shall it see the Picture 2 that both Bitos hath described, and thrice-great Plato, and ten-thousand-times-great Hermes, for Thōythos translated 3 it into the first sacred 4 tongue,—Thōth the First Man, the Interpreter of all things which exist, and the Name-maker 5 for all embodied things. 6

THE LIBRARIES OF THE PTOLEMIES

9. The Chaldæans and Parthians and Medes and Hebrews call Him 1 Adam, which is by interpretation virgin Earth, and blood-red 2 Earth, and fiery 3 Earth, and fleshly Earth.

10. And these indications were found in the book-collections 4 of the Ptolemies, which they stored away in every temple, and especially in the Serapeum, when they invited Asenas, the chief priest of Jerusalem, to send a “Hermes,” 5 who translated the whole of the Hebrew into Greek and Egyptian. 6

11. So the First Man is called by us Thōyth and by them Adam,—not giving His [true] name in the Language of the Angels, but naming Him symbolically according to His Body by the four elements [or letters] out of His whole Sphere, 7 whereas his Inner Man, the

spiritual, has [also] both an authentic name and one for common use. 1

NIKOTHEOS

12. His authentic [name], however, I know not, owing to the so long [lapse of time 2]; for Nikotheos 3 who-is-not-to-be-found alone doth know these things.

But that for common use is Man (Phōs), 1 from which it follows that men are called phōtas.

FROM THE BOOK OF THE CHALDÆANS

13. 2 “When Light-Man (Phōs) was in Paradise, exspiring 3 under the [presence of] Fate, they 4 persuaded Him to clothe himself in the Adam they had made, the [Adam] of Fate, him of the four elements,—as though [they said] being free from [her 5] ills and free from their 6 activities.

“And He, on account of this ‘freedom from ills’ did

not refuse; but they boasted as though He had been brought into servitude [to them].” 1

14. For Hesiod said that the outer man was the “bond” 2 by which Zeus bound Prometheus.

Subsequently, in addition to this bond, he sends him another, Pandōra, 3 whom the Hebrews call Eve.

For Prometheus and Epimetheus 4 are one Man, according to the system of allegory,—that is, Soul and Body.

MAN THE MIND

And at one time He 5 bears the likeness of soul, at another of mind, at another of flesh, owing to the imperfect attention which Epimetheus paid to the counsel of Prometheus, his own mind. 6

15. For our Mind 7 saith:

FRAGMENT XXVII.

For that the Son of God having power in all things, becoming all things that he willeth, appeareth as he willeth to each. 8

16. Yea, unto the consummation of the cosmos will He come secretly,—nay, openly associating with His own,—counselling them secretly, yea through their minds, to settle their account with their Adam, the blind accuser, 1 in rivalry with the spiritual man of light. 2

THE COUNTERFEIT DAIMON

17. And these things come to pass until the Counterfeit Daimon 3 come, in rivalry with themselves, and wishing to lead them into error, declaring that he is Son of God, being formless in both soul and body.

But they, becoming wiser from contemplation of

[paragraph continues] Him who is truly Son of God, give unto him 1 his own Adam for death, 2 rescuing their own light spirits for [return to] their own regions where they were even before the cosmos [existed]. 3 . . .

18. And [it is] the Hebrews alone and the Sacred Books of Hermes [which tell us] these things about the man of light and his Guide the Son of God, and about the earthy Adam and his Guide, the Counterfeit, who doth blasphemously call himself Son of God, for leading men astray. 4

19. But the Greeks call the earthy Adam Epimetheus, who is counselled by his own mind, that is, his brother, not to receive the gifts of Zeus. Nevertheless being both deceived 5 and repenting, 6 and seeking the Blessed Land. . . . 7

But Prometheus, that is the mind, interprets all things and gives good counsel in all things to them who have understanding and hearing. But they who have only fleshly hearing are “processions of Fate.”

HIS ADVICE TO THEOSEBEIA

To the foregoing we may append a version of Zosimus’ advice 1 to the lady Theosebeia, to which we have already referred, as offering an instructive counterpart to C. H., xiii. (xiv.). After a sally against the “false prophets,” through whom the daimones energize, not only requiring their offerings but also ruining their souls, Zosimus continues:

“But be not thou, O lady, [thus] distracted, as, too, I bade thee in the actualizing [rites], and do not turn thyself about this way and that in seeking after God; but in thy house be still, and God shall come to thee, He who is everywhere and not in some wee spot as are daimonian things.

“And having stilled thyself in body, still thou thyself in passions too—desire, [and] pleasure, rage [and] grief, and the twelve fates 2 of Death.

“And thus set straight and upright, call thou unto thyself Divinity; and truly shall He come, He who is everywhere and [yet] nowhere.

“And [then], without invoking them, perform the sacred rites unto the daimones,—not such as offer things to them and soothe and nourish them, but such as turn them from thee and destroy their power, which Mambres 3 taught to Solomon, King of Jerusalem, and all that Solomon himself wrote down from his own wisdom.

“And if thou shalt effectively perform these rites,

thou shalt obtain the physical conditions of pure birth. And so continue till thou perfect thy soul completely.

“And when thou knowest surely that thou art perfected in thyself, then spurn . . . from thee 1 the natural things of matter, and make for harbour in Pœmandres’ 2 arms, and having dowsed thyself within His Cup, 3 return again unto thy own [true] race.” 4

This was how Zosimus understood the teaching of the Trismegistic tradition, for he had experienced it.

Footnotes

273:1 Op. sub. cit., p. 245.

273:2 Berthelot, Les Alchimistes grecs, pp. 229 ff. For a revised text, see R. pp. 102-106.

273:3 πομπάς,—processions, shows, or pageants. Cf. C. H., iv. (v.) 7: “Just as processions pass by in the middle of the way without being able to do anything but take the road from others, so do such men move in procession through the world led by their bodies’ pleasures.”

274:1 Or “in that they display naught”—φανταζομένους.

274:2 Codd. ἐναυλία. R. reads ἐν ἐναυλίᾳ, which is supported by the title of the Trismegistic treatise mentioned in the next paragraph but one. I feel almost tempted to propose to read ἐν ἀϋλίᾳ—(fr. ἄϋλος—“immaterial,” the being in a state free from ὕλη or “matter”), and so to translate it “for ever living in the immaterial.”

274:3 Codd. καταδεχόμενοι. R. reads καταδέχεσθαι. I suggest καταδεχομένους.

274:4 Codd. κακῶν, which I prefer to R.’s κακόν.

274:5 Op. et. Dies, 86.

274:6 Sc. Pandōra; cf. §§ 14 and 19 below.

274:7 Or wisdom-loving.

274:8 Presumably what the Vaidic theurgist would call mantravidyā.

275:1 Cf. C. H., i. 21.

275:2 Or decision or judgment.

275:3 τριάδα.

275:4 Sc. the soul.

275:5 Cf. § 15 below. Zosimus is apparently condensing from the original.

275:6 Sc. the soul or mind.

276:1 Cf. S., § 9 in the Naassene Document.

276:2 πίνακα—or tablet.

276:3 Lit. translates.

276:4 Priestly or hieratic. With this compare Syncellus’ (Chron., xl.) quotation, from Manetho’s Sothis, which declares that the first monuments recording the wisdom-mystery of most ancient Egypt “were engraved in the sacred language by Thōth, the first Hermes; after the Flood they were translated from the sacred language into the common tongue.” Cf. vol. i., ch. v., on “Hermes according to Manetho.”

276:5 ὀνοματοποιός,—referring specially to the making of names or words corresponding to natural cries and sounds. Compare the Adam of Genesis.

276:6 Cf. Plato, Philebus, 18 B: “Some god, or rather some godlike man, who in Egypt their tradition says was Theuth, observing that sound was infinite, first distinguished in this infinity a certain number of pure sounds [or vowels], and then other letters [or sound elements] which have sound, but are not pure sounds [the semi-vowels]; these two exist [each] in a definite number; and lastly he distinguished a third class of letters, which we now call mutes; and divided these, and likewise the two other classes of vowels and semi-vowels, into their individual elements, and told the number of them, and gave to each and all of them the names of letters.” (Cf. Jowett’s Trans., 3rd ed., iv. 583, 584.)

According to the number-system of the Gnostic Marcus, there are: seven vowels, eight semi-vowels, and nine mutes (F. F. F., p. 368). It is also of interest to notice that these elements of sound are applied to what Marcus calls the “Configuration of the Element”—? Sound—(τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ στοιχείου); they constitute the Glyph (or Character, or Impression, or Expression) of the Figure (or Diagram) of the Man of Truth. In the phrase “Glyph of the Figure” (ὁ χαρακτὴρ τοῦ γράμματος), the word γράμμα means either (i) a letter of the alphabet, or (ii) a note of music, or (iii) a mathematical figure or diagram (ibid., p. 367). Is there then any connection between the Pinax of Bitos and the Diagram of the Ophites referred to by Celsus?

277:1 Sc. the First Man.

277:2 Or of the nature of blood.

277:3 Codd. πυρὰ—? πυρία.

277:4 Or libraries.

277:5 That is, a learned priest or scribe.

277:6 Much translation of this kind was done at that period. Compare the Arabic translation of a “Book of Ostanes” (Berthelot, La Chimie au Moyen Age, iii. 121), in which an old inscription on an Egyptian stēlē is quoted: “Have you not heard the story that a certain philosopher [i.e. Egyptian priest] wrote to the Magi in Persia, saying: ‘I have found a copy of a book of the ancient sages; but as the book is written in Persian, I cannot read it. Send me then one of your wise men who can read for me the book I have found’?” R. 363.

277:7 Presumably referring to the whole Body of the Heavenly Man, to whose Limbs all the letters were assigned by Marcus.

278:1 προσηγορικόν,—this signifies generally the prœnomen as opposed to the nomen proper.

278:2 διὰ τὸ τέως,—lit. “because of the so long”; otherwise I cannot translate the phrase. This would, then, presumably refer to the length of time since the physical tradition of the ancient Thōyth initiates had disappeared; or the length of time the soul of Zosimus had been revolving in Genesis.

278:3 Lit. God-victor,—symbolizing the victory of the Inner God, or of a man who had raised himself to the status of a god. For Nikotheos, see the Gnostic “Untitled Apocalypse” of the Codex Brucianus (C. Schmidt, Gnos. Schrift. in kop. Sprach. aus d. C. B., p. 285), p. 12a: “Nikotheos hath spoken of Him [namely, the Alone-begotten,—see ibid., p. 601], and seen Him; for he is one [sc. of those who have seen Him face to face]. He [N.] said: ‘The Father exists exalted above all the perfect.’ He [N.] hath revealed the Invisible and the perfect Triple-power.”

In the Life of Plotinus, by Porphyry (c. xiv.), among the list of “Gnostics” against whose views on Matter the great coryphæus of Later Platonism wrote one of the books of his Enneads (II. ix.), there is mention of Nikotheos in close connection with Zoroaster and others (S. 603 ff.). If we now turn to Schmidt’s Plotins Stellung zum Gnosticismus und kirchlichen Christentum (Leipzig, 1900), in which he has examined at length the matter of the treatise of Plotinus and the passage of Porphyry, we find him returning to the consideration of Nikotheos (pp. 58 ff.). Schmidt (p. 61) takes the “hidden Nikotheos” for a “heavenly being,” indeed as identical with the Alone-begotten, and as, therefore, the revealer of Himself. This Alone-begotten is the “Light-Darkness” of p. 13a of the “Untitled Apocalypse” of C. B. In other words, Nikotheos seems to be a synonym of the Triumphant Christos. See R. Liechtenhan, Die Offenbarung in Gnosticismus (Gottingen, 1901), p. 31. So far for the inner meaning; but is there possibly an outer one? As there was an apocalypse, for the words of Nikotheos are quoted, there was a seer, a prophet, a Christos, who had seen and handed on. It is somewhat remarkable that one of the by-names given to Jesus (Jeschu) by Rabbinical theological controversy was Balaam (Bileam), meaning “Destroyer of the people.” Is there, then, any connection between Niko-theos on the one hand and Niko-laos (the Greek equivalent of Balaam) on the other? There are, at any rate, many other parallels in the Talmud Jeschu-Stories of names of dishonour on the Rabbinical side equating with names of exalted honour on the Gnostic and Christian side. If so—dare we ask the question?—have we in the logos of Nikotheos a fragment from an “Apocalypse of Jesus”?

Nay, may not Balaam-Niko-laos,—to take a lesson from the mystic word-play of the time,—“allegorically” have symbolized on the one hand the “victory of the many” (λαός), and on the other the “Victor of the many,” for “people” in Philo signifies the “many” as opposed to the “one’’ “race” (γένος) which sums up all His “limbs” in the Christ?

279:1 φὼς,—according to the accenting of R., but φῶς would mean “Light.”

279:2 This is evidently a quotation.

279:3 Reading διαπνεόμενος with the Codd., and not διαπνεομένῳ with R. This means “exhaling his light.” In the Egypto-Gnostic tradition underlying the Pistis Sophia, it is the function of the Rulers of the Fate to “squeeze out” the light from the souls and to devour it, or absorb it into themselves.

279:4 The Rulers of the Fate.

279:5 Sc. Fate’s.

279:6 Sc. the Seven Rulers or Energies of the Fate-sphere,—ἀνενέργητον.

280:1 This is evidently a quotation from a Greek translation of one of the Books of the Chaldæans (§§ 9, 10) in the Serapeum. It seems to me to be a “source” on which both the Hebrew and non-Hebrew Hellenists commentated in Alexandria. Thus both the commentator in S. and J. in the Naassene Document and the Pœmandrists of the period would use it in common.

280:2 Theog., 614.

280:3 Cf. §§ 3 and 19.

280:4 That is, Fore-thought and After-thought.

280:5 Sc. Man.

280:6 I am almost persuaded that § 14 is also a quotation or summary and not the simple exegesis of Zosimus; the original being from the pen of some non-Hebrew Hellenistic allegorizer.

280:7 That is, Pœmandrēs, the Shepherd of men.

280:8 Cf. § 7 above; evidently a quotation from the “Inner Door.” Compare also the logos quoted by S. (§ 8) in the Naassene Document from some Hellenistic scripture: “I become what I will, and am what I am.” Do Hermes and S. then both depend on the same scripture, in the form of an apocalypse; that is, does Hermes in his “expository sermon” depend on the direct teaching of the Mind to himself, which would be instruction in the first person?

281:1 τυφληγοροῦντος. The lexicons do not contain the word. It is probably a play on κατηγοροῦντος. Cf. note on “blind from birth” of C. in the Conclusion of Hippolytus in “Myth of Man” (vol. i. p. 189).

281:2 That is, presumably, though in one aspect only, the soul that sees in the Light as opposed to the blind body. This passage reflects the same thought-atmosphere as that which surrounds the saying underlying Matt. v. 25 (= Lk. xii. 57-59): “Agree with thine adversary quickly whiles thou art in the way with him, lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Amen, I say unto thee, thou shalt not come forth thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.” The third Evangelist, instead of the vague “agree,” preserves the technical terms ἀπηλλάχθαι, used of the discharge of a debt (cf. the technical καταλλαγὴν ἔχειν of our text), and πράκτωρ, an officer charged with the collection of taxes and debts. This Saying was interpreted by the Gnostics as having reference to the reincarnation of the soul into another body in order to discharge its kārmic debts.

281:3 ὁ ἀντίμιμος δαίμων. The term “counterfeit spirit” (ἀντίμιμον πνεῦμα) occurs frequently in the Pistis Sophia.

282:1 The Counterfeit Daimon.

282:2 Or execution.

282:3 The two last paragraphs are apparently also quoted or summarized from a Hellenistic commentary on a Book of the Hebrews, translated into Greek, and found in the libraries of the Ptolemies. It is remarkable that the contents of this book are precisely similar not only to the contents of the Books from which J. quotes in the Naassene Document, but also to the ideas about the Chaldæans which the commentator of S. sets forth.

282:4 If we can rely on this statement of Zosimus, this proves that there was a developed Anthrōpos-doctrine also in the Trismegistic Books, as apart from the Chaldæan Books,—that is, that the Pœmandrists did not take it from the Chaldæan Books, but had it from their own immediate line of tradition, namely, the Egyptian.

282:5 Cf. 13 above.

282:6 Lit. changing his mind.

282:7 A lacuna occurs in the text. We could almost persuade ourselves that Zosimus had the text of S. and even the source of J. before him. For “Blessed Land,” cf. § 7 above.

283:1 Berth., p. 244; for a revised text see R. 214, n. 1.

283:2 The twelve tormenting or avenging daimones of C. H., xiii. (xiv.).

283:3 The famous Egyptian Theurgist and Magician who is fabled to have contended with Moses; while others say he was the instructor of Moses.

284:1 The soul having now found itself wings and become the winged globe.

284:2 ἐπὶ τὸν Ποιμένανδρα (sic).

284:3 Cf. C. H., iv. (v.) 4.

284:4 Cf. C. H., i. 26, 29.

Gnosticism and Hermetica

II.

JAMBLICHUS

ABAMMON THE TEACHER

The evidence of Jamblichus 1 is of prime importance seeing that it was he who put the Later Platonic School, previously led by the purely philosophical Ammonius, Plotinus and Porphyry, into conscious touch with those centres of Gnosis into which he had been initiated, and instructed it especially in the Wisdom of Egypt in his remarkable treatise generally known by the title On the Mysteries. The authorship of this treatise is usually disputed; but as Proclus, who was in the direct tradition, attributes it to Jamblichus, the probabilities are in favour of its authenticity.

Jamblichus writes with the authority of an accredited exponent of the Egyptian Wisdom as taught in these mysteries, and under the name of “Abammon, the Teacher,” proceeds to resolve the doubts and difficulties of the School with regard to the principles of the

sacred science as formulated by Porphyry. Jamblichus begins his task with these significant words 1:

HERMES THE INSPIRER

“Hermes, the God who is our guide in [sacred] sermons, was rightly held of old as common to all priests. And seeing that it is he who has in charge the real science about the Gods, he is the same in all [our sacred sermons]. 2 And so it was to him that our ancestors attributed all the discoveries of their wisdom, attaching the name of Hermes to all the writings which had to do with such subjects. 3 And if we also enjoy that share of this God which has fallen to our lot, according to our ability [to receive him], thou dost well in submitting certain questions on theology to us priests, as thy friends, for their solution. And as I may fairly suppose that the letter sent to my disciple Anebo was written to myself, I will send thee the true answers to the questions thou hast asked. For it would not be proper that Pythagoras and Plato, and Democritus and Eudoxus, and many others of the ancient Greeks, 4 should have obtained fitting instruction

from the recorders of the sacred science of their times, and that thou, our contemporary, who art of a like mind with these ancients, should lack guidance from the now living bearers of the title ‘Common Teachers.’” 1

From the above important passage we learn that among the Egyptians the books which dealt technically with the science of sacred things, and especially with the science of the Gods, that is to say, with the nature of the hierarchy from man upwards to the Supreme Ruler of our system, were regarded as “inspired.” The Ray of the Spiritual Sun which illumined the sacred science was distinguished as a Person, and this Person, because of a partial similarity of attributes, the Greeks had long identified with their God Hermes. He was “common” to the priests of the sacred science, that is to say, it was this special Ray of the Spiritual Sun which illumined their studies. Not, however, that all were equally illumined, for there were many grades in the mysteries, many steps up the holy ascent to union

with Deity. Now the Rays of the Spiritual Sun are really One Light, “polarised” variously by the “spheres” of which we have heard so much in the Trismegistic treatises. These Rays come forth from the Logos, and each illuminates a certain division of the whole hierarchy of beings from the Logos to man, and characterises further the lower kingdoms, animals and plants, and minerals. Hence, for instance, among animals, we get the ibis, the ape and the dog as being especially sacred to Thoth or Hermes.

THOSE OF THE HERMAÏC NATURE

Among men generally, also, there are certain whose characteristics are of a “Hermaïc” 1 nature; the more evolved of these are adapted to certain lines of study and research, while again among those few of these who are beginning to be really conscious of the science of sacred things, that is to say, among the initiated students or priests, the direct influence of this Ray or Person begins to be consciously felt, by each, as Jamblichus says, according to his ability, for there are still many grades.

Now the peculiar unanimity that prevailed in these strictly hierarchical schools of initiation, and the grand doctrine of identification that ran throughout the whole economy—whereby the pupil became identified with the master when he received his next grade of initiation, and whereby his master was to him the living symbol of all that was above that master, that is to say, was Hermes for him, in that he was the messenger to him of the Word, and was the channel whereby the divine inspiration came to him—rendered the ascription to

[paragraph continues] Hermes of all the sacred scriptures, such as the sermons of initiation, a very natural proceeding. It was not the case of a modern novel-writer taking out a copyright for his own precious productions, but simply of the recorder, scribe or copyist of the sacred science handing on the tradition. As long as this was confined to the disciplined schools of the sacred science it was without danger, but when irresponsible people began to copy a method, to whose discipline they refused to submit, for purposes of edification, and so appended the names of great teachers to their own lucubrations, they paved the way for that chaos of confusion in which we are at present stumbling.

THE BOOKS OF HERMES

Towards the end of his treatise Jamblichus, in treating of the question of the innumerable hierarchies of being and their sub-hierarchies, says that these are so multiplex that they had to be treated by the ancient priests from various aspects, and even among those who were “wise in great things” in his own time the teaching was not one and the same.

“The main states of being were completely set forth by Hermes (in the twenty thousand books, as Seleucus 1 writes, or in the thirty-six thousand five hundred and twenty-five as Manetho relates), while the sub-states are interpreted in many other writings by the ancients, some of them sub-dividing 2 some of the sub-states and others others.” 3

At first sight it would seem that we are not to suppose

that it took 20,000 volumes to set forth the main outlines of the cosmic system. Jamblichus would seem to mean that in the library or libraries of the books treating of the sacred science, the general scheme of the cosmos was set forth, and that the details were filled in very variously by many writers, each according to the small portion of the whole he had studied or speculated on. As to the number of books again we should not be dismayed, when we reflect that a book did not mean a large roll or volume but a division or chapter of such a roll. Thus we read of a single man composing no less than 6000 “books”!

But on further reflection this view does not seem satisfactory. The ghost of the very precise number 36,525, which Jamblichus substitutes from Manetho for the vague total 20,000 of Seleucus, refuses to be laid by such a weak-kneed process.

We see at once that 365⋅25 days is a very close approximation to the length of the solar year. We know further that 36,525 years was the sum of 25 Sothiac cycles (1461 × 25 = 36,525), 1 that most sacred time-period of the Egyptian secret astronomy, which was assigned to the revolution of the zodiac or the Great Year. Now supposing after all that Jamblichus does mean that Hermes actually did write the scheme of the cosmos in 36,525 “books” or “chapters”; and supposing further that these “chapters” were not written on papyrus, but in the heavens; and supposing still further that these “chapters” were simply so many great aspects of the real sun, just as the 365⋅25 days were but aspects of the physical sun—in such case the above favourite passage, which every previous writer has referred to actual books superscribed with the

name of Hermes, and has dragged into every treatise on the Hermetic writings, will in future have to be removed from the list, and one of the functions of the real Hermes, the Initiator and Recorder, will become apparent to those who are “wise in greater things.”

THE MONAD FROM THE ONE

In the next chapter, after first speaking of the God over all, Jamblichus refers to the Logos, the God of our system, whom he calls “God of gods, the Monad from the One, prior to being and the source of being.” And then continues:

“For from Him cometh the essence of being and being; wherefore is He called Father of being. For He is prior to being, the source of spiritual existences; wherefore also is He called Source of spiritual things. These latter are the most ancient sources of all things, and Hermes places them before the æthereal and empyrean and celestial gods, bequeathing to us a hundred books on the history of the empyrean, and a like number on that of the æthereal, but a thousand of them concerning the celestial.” 1

I am inclined to think that there is a mistake in the numbers of these books, and that we should have 10 assigned to the first class, 100 to the second, and 1000 to the third. In any case we see that all are multiples of the perfect number 10; and that thus my theory is still supported by the further information that Jamblichus gives us.

THE TRADITION OF THE TRISMEGISTIC LITERATURE

We next come to a passage which deals directly with our Trismegistic literature. Jamblichus tells Porphyry that with the explanations he has already

given him, he will be able to find his way in the Hermetic writings which have come into his hands.

“For the books in circulation bearing the name of Hermes contain Hermaïc doctrines, although they often use the language of the philosophers, seeing that they were translated from the Egyptian by men well skilled in philosophy.” 1

The information given by Jamblichus is precise; they were translations, but instead of a literal rendering, the translators used the usual phraseology of the Greek philosophical writers.

Jamblichus then goes on to say that physical astronomy and physical research generally were but a very small part of the Hermaïc science, by no means the most important.

For “the Egyptians deny that physics are everything; on the contrary they distinguish both the life of the soul and the life of the mind from nature, 2 not only in the case of the cosmos but also in man. They first posit Mind and Reason (Logos) as having a being peculiar to themselves, and then they tell us that the world of becoming [or generation] is created. As Forefather of all beings in generation they place the Creator, and are acquainted with the Life-giving Power which is prior to the celestial spaces and permeates them. Above the universe they place Pure Mind; this for the universe as a whole is one and undivided, but it is variously manifested in the several spheres. 3 And they do not speculate about these things with the unassisted reason, but they announce that by the divine art of their priestly science 4 they reach higher and more

universal states [of consciousness] above the [Seven Spheres of] Destiny, ascending to God the Creator, 1 and that too without using any material means, or any other [material] assistance than the observation of a suitable opportunity.

“It was Hermes who first taught this Path. 2 And Bitys, the prophet, translated [his teachings concerning it] for King Ammon, 3 discovering them in the inner temple 4 in an inscription in the sacred characters at Saïs in Egypt. [From these writings it was that Bitys] handed on the tradition of the Name of God, as ‘That which pervadeth the whole universe.’” 5

“As to the Good Itself [the Egyptians] regard It in Its relation to the Divine as the God that transcends all thought, and in Its relation to man as the at-onement with Him—a doctrine which Bitys translated from the Hermaïc Books.” 6

From these two passages we learn that the ancient doctrine of Hermes concerning the Path, which is the keynote of our Trismegistic tracts, was to be found either in inscriptions in the sacred script in the secret chambers of the temples, into which no uninitiated person was ever permitted to enter, or in “books,” also in the sacred script; that these had never been translated until the reign of King Ammon. 7 But what are we to understand by translated? Into Greek? Not necessarily, but more probably interpreted from the

hieroglyphic symbols into the Egyptian vernacular and written in the demotic character. The term used (διερμηνεύειν) clearly bears this sense; whereas if translation from Egyptian into Greek had been intended, we should presumably have had the same word (μεταγράφειν) employed which Jamblichus uses when speaking of the Hermetic books that had been read by Porphyry. Reitzenstein (p. 108), however, has apparently no doubt that the writings of Bitys were in Greek, and that these writings lay before Jamblichus and were the only source of his information. But I cannot be certain that this is the meaning of the Greek.

We have rather, according to my view, probably two strata of “translation”—from hieroglyphic into demotic, from demotic into Greek. As to Bitys, we know nothing more definite than Jamblichus tells us. Perhaps he was the first to translate from the sacred hieroglyphs into the vulgar tongue and script; and by that we mean the first to break the ancient rule and write down in the vulgar characters those holy sermons and treatises which previously had never before been inscribed in any but the most sacred characters. We are not, however, to suppose that Bitys was the only one to do this.

Now in our Trismegistic literature we have a deposit addressed to a King Ammon. Is it then possible that this King, whoever he was, was the initiator of a change of policy in the immemorial practice of the priests? It may be so, but at present we have not sufficient data to decide the point.

BITYS

A further scrap of information concerning Bitys, however, may be gleaned from Zosimus (§ 8), when, speaking of the Logos, the Son of God, pouring His Light

into the soul and starting it on its Return Above, to the Blessed Region where it was before it had become corporeal (as described in the Trismegistic tractate, entitled “Concerning the Inner Door”)—he writes:

“And there shall it see the Picture (πίναξ) that both Bitos hath described, and thrice-greatest Plato, and ten-thousand-times-great Hermes,—for Thōythos translated it into the first sacred tongue,—Thōth the First Man.” 1

The identity of Bitys and Bitos is thus unquestionable. 2 Reitzenstein, however, asserts that neither of these name-forms is Egyptian, and therefore approves of the identification of our Bitys with “Pitys the Thessalian” of the Papyri, 3 as Dieterich has suggested. The headings of the fragments of the writings of Pitys in the Papyri run: “The Way [or Method] of Pitys”; “Pitys to King Ostanes Greeting”; “The Way of Pitys the King”; “Of Pitys the Thessalian.”

From this Reitzenstein (n. 2) concludes that already in the second and third centuries (? A.D.) Pitys is included among the prophetical theologi and Magians. What the precise date of these Papyri may be it is not easy to determine, but, whether or not they belong to the second and third centuries, it is evident that Pitys was regarded as ancient and a contemporary of the Magian Sage Ostanes.

King, 4 referring to a passage of the Elder Pliny (Nat. Hist., xxx. 4), which remarks on the similarity of the

[paragraph continues] Magian Gnosis with the Druidical Gnosis of Gaul and Britain, says: “Pliny by his ‘Magica’ understands the rites instituted by Zoroaster, and first promulgated by Osthanes to the outer world, this Osthanes having been ‘military chaplain’ to Xerxes during his expedition to Greece.”

This date, if we can rely upon it, would take us back to the Persian Conquest of Egypt, but what has a Thessalian Pitys to do with that?

Curiously enough also Pliny in his xxviiith Book makes use of the writings of a certain Bithus of Dyrrachium, a city on the coast of Illyricum in the Ionic Gulf, known in Grecian history as Epidamnus.

All of this is puzzling enough; but whatever conclusions may be drawn from the evidence, the clearest indication is that Bitys was ancient, and therefore that whatever translating or rather “interpreting” there may have been, it was probably from hieroglyphic into demotic, and the latter was subsequently further “interpreted” into Greek.

OSTANES-ASCLEPIUS

But is Ostanes the Magian Sage of tradition, or may we adopt the brilliant conclusion of Maspero, and equate Ostanes with Asclepius, and so place him in the same circle with Bitys, or rather see in Bitys an “Asclepius”?

At any rate the following interesting paragraph of Granger 1 deserves our closest attention in this connection, when he writes:

“Maspero, following Goodwin, has shown that Ostanes is the name of a deity who belongs to the cycle of

[paragraph continues] Thoth. 1 His name, Ysdnw, was derived by the Egyptians themselves from a verb meaning ‘to distinguish’ and he was a patron of intellectual perception. As time went on, he gained in importance. Under the Ptolemies he was often represented upon the Temple walls (l.c.). In Pliny he appears as an early writer upon medicine. 2 Some of the prescriptions quoted as from him are quite in the Egyptian style. 3 Philo Byblius, on whom, to be sure, not much reliance can be placed, 4 mentions a book of Ostanes—the Octateuch. 5 It is tempting to identify this with some such collection as the six medical books which occupy the last place in Clement’s list. 6 Now Pliny, as appears from his list of authorities, does not quote Ostanes directly. If we note that Democritus is mentioned by Pliny in the same context, and that Ostanes is the legendary teacher of Democritus upon his journey to Egypt, we shall consider it at least probable that Pliny depends upon Democritus for his mention of Ostanes. The Philosopher, whose visit to Egypt may be regarded as a historical fact, would in that case be dealing with a medical collection which passes under the name of Ostanes. Asclepius, who appears in the Pœmander, will be the Greek equivalent of Ostanes. Thus the collocation of Hermes and Asclepius is analogous to the kinship of the Egyptian deities, Thoth and Ysdnw.”

FROM THE HERMAÏC WRITINGS

That these Bitys-books contained the same doctrines as our Trismegistic writings is evident from the whole

treatise of Jamblichus. Jamblichus throughout bases himself upon the doctrines of Hermes, 1 and clearly suggests that he does not owe his information to translations only, as was the case with Porphyry, but to records in Egyptian; but whether to the demotic treatises of the Bitys-school or to the heiroglyphic records themselves he does not say. That these doctrines were identical with the teachings in our Trismegistic literature requires no proof to any one who has read our treatises and the exposition of Jamblichus; for the benefit, however, of those who have not read Jamblichus, 2 we append a passage to show the striking similarity of ideas. Treating of the question of freewill and necessity raised by Porphyry, and replying to the objection that the Egyptians taught an astrological fatalism, Jamblichus writes:

“We must explain to you how the question stands by some further conceptions drawn from the Hermaïc writings. Man has two souls, as these writings say. The one is from the First Mind, and partakes also of the Power of the Creator, 3 while the other, the soul under constraint, comes from the revolution of the celestial [Spheres] 4; into the latter the former, the soul that is the Seer of God, insinuates itself at a later period. This then being so, the soul that descends into us from the worlds 5 keeps time with the circuits of these worlds, while the soul from the Mind, existing in us in a spiritual fashion, is free from the whirl of

[paragraph continues] Generation; by this the bonds of Destiny are burst asunder; by this the Path up to the spiritual Gods is brought to birth; by such a life as this is that Great Art Divine, which leads us up to That beyond the Spheres of Genesis, 1 brought to its consummation.” 2

THE COSMIC SPHERES

With regard to the nature of these Spheres, Jamblichus shows very clearly that they are not the physical planets, as may be seen from the following passages of his De Mysteriis:

“With regard to partial existences, then, I mean in the case of the soul in partial manifestation, 3 we must admit something of the kind we have above. For just such a life as the [human] soul emanated before it entered into a human body, and just such a type as it made ready for itself, just such a body, to use as an instrument, does it have attached to it, and just such a corresponding nature accompanies [this body] and receives the more perfect life the soul pours into it. But with regard to superior existences and those that surround the Source of All as perfect existences, the inferior are set within the superior, bodies in bodiless existences, things made in their makers; and the former are kept in position by the latter enclosing them in a sphere.

“The revolutions of the heavenly Bodies, 4 therefore, being from the first set in the celestial revolutions of the æthereal Soul, 5 for ever continue in this relationship; while the Souls of the [invisible] Worlds, 6 extending to their [common] Mind, are completely

surrounded by it, and from the beginning have their birth in it. And Mind in like manner, both partially and as a whole, is also contained in superior states of existence.” 1

And again in another passage Jamblichus writes:

“We say that [the Spiritual Sun and Moon, and the rest] are so far from being contained within their Bodies, that on the contrary, it is they who contain these Bodies of theirs within the Spheres of their own vitality and energy. And so far are they from tending towards their Bodies, that the tendency of these very Bodies is towards their Divine Cause. Moreover, their Bodies do not impede the perfection of their Spiritual and Incorporeal Nature or disturb it by being situated in it.” 2

To this we may add what Proclus writes in his Commentary on the Timæus of Plato:

“Each of the [Seven] Planetary Spheres is a complete World containing a number of divine offspring, which are invisible to us, and over all of these Spheres the Star 3 we see is the Ruler. Now Fixed Stars differ from those 4 in the Planetary Spheres in that the former have but one Monad, namely, their system as a whole 5; while the latter, namely the invisible globes in each of the Planetary Spheres, which globes have an orbit of their own determined by the revolution of their respective Spheres, have a double Monad—namely, their system as a whole, 6 and that dominant characteristic which has been evolved by selection in the several spheres of the system. For since globes are secondary to Fixed Stars they require a double order of government,

first subordination to their system as a whole, and then subordination to their respective spheres. 1 And that in each of these spheres there is a host 2 on the same level 3 with each, you may infer from the extremes. 4 For if the Fixed Sphere 5 has a host on the same level as itself, and Earth has a host of earthy animals, 6 just as the former a host of heavenly animals, 7 it is necessary that every whole 8 should have a number of animals on the same level with itself; indeed it is because of the latter fact that they are called wholes. The intermediate levels, however, are outside the range of our senses, the extremes only being visible, the one through the transcendent brilliance of its nature, the other through its kinship with ourselves.” 9

It is evident that we are here dealing with what are known to Theosophical students as the “planetary chains” of our system, and that therefore these Spheres are not the physical planets; the visible planets are

but a very small portion of the globes of these chains, of some of which there are no globes at all visible. The ascription therefore of the “influence” of these Spheres to the sun, moon, and five of the visible planets is at best a makeshift, a “correspondence,” or a “symbolism.”

Footnotes

285:1 The exact date of Jamblichus is very conjectural. In my sketches of the “Lives of the Later Platonists” I have suggested about A.D. 255-330. See The Theosophical Review (Aug. 1896), xviii. 462, 463.

286:1 I translate from the text of Parthey (Berlin, 1857).

286:2 The term λόγος is, of course, used technically, as a sacred or inspired sermon or course of instruction.

286:3 πάντα τὰ οἰκεῖα συγγράμματα.

286:4 Parthey here adds the following interesting note: “The Egyptian teachers of Pythagoras were Œnuphis of On (Plut., De Is. et Os., 10) and Sonchis (Clem. Al., Strom., i. 15, 69); Plato was the pupil of Sechnuphis of On (Clem. l.c.) and of Chonuphis (Plut., De Gen. Socr., 578); Democritus was taught by Pammenes of Memphis (Georg. Sync., i. 471 Dind.); Eudoxus by Chonuphis of Memphis (Plut. and Clem. ll. cc.).” To this Parthey appends a list of some of the many other famous Greeks who owed their knowledge to Egyptian teachers, viz., Alcæus, Anaxagoras of Clazomenæ, Appuleius, Archimedes, Bias, Chrysippus of Cnidus, Cleobulus, Dædalus, Decæneus, Diodorus Siculus, Ellopion, Euripides, Hecatæus of Abdera, Hecatæus of Miletus, Hellanicus, Herodotus, Homerus, Lycurgus, Melampus, Musæus, Œnopides of Chios, Orpheus, Pausanias, Pherecydes, Polybius, Simmias, Solon, Sphærus, Strabo, Telecles, Thales, Theodorus, Xenophanes of Colophon, Zamolxis. I have quoted this note on purpose to show the overpowering weight of evidence which some modern theorists have to face, in order to maintain their thesis that the philosophy of Greece was solely a native product. The universal testimony of the Greeks themselves is that all their greatest philosophers, geometricians, mathematicians, historians, geographers, and especially their theosophists, were pupils of the Egyptian Wisdom; the modern theory of the unaided evolution of philosophy on the soil of Greece, which is so universally accepted, is, to my mind, entirely erroneous. The “form” or “manner” of “philosophizing” was of course solely due to Greek genius, but the “matter” of it was of hoary antiquity. Cf. Plutarch, De Is. et Os., x.

287:1 That is to say, presumably, teachers of all without distinction of race. Op. cit., i. 1.

288:1 It is from this region of ideas that the terms “mercurial temperament,” and so forth, have reached modern times over the bridge of astrological tradition.

289:1 Porphyry (De Abs., ii. c. 55) mentions a Seleucus whom he calls a “theologist”; Suidas says that Seleucus of Alexandria wrote a treatise On the Gods, in 100 books or chapters.

289:2 Reading διαλαβόντες instead of διαβάλλοντες.

289:3 Ibid., viii. 1.

290:1 See Georgius Syncellus, Chron., i. 97, ed. Dindorf. Also Eusebius, Chron., vi.

291:1 Op. cit., viii. 2.

292:1 Ibid., viii. 4.

292:2 That is, the life of the body.

292:3 Lit. distributed to all the spheres as different.

292:4 διὰ τῆς ἱερατικῆς θεουργίας,—lit. by the theurgy known to the priests.

293:1 The Mind in its creative aspect.

293:2 Sc. This Way up to God.

293:3 See Commentary on C. H. (xvi.).

293:4 Or secret shrine.

293:5 Op. cit., viii. 5.

293:6 Ibid., x. 7.

293:7 Identified by some writers with one of the last kings of the Saïtic dynasty (the xxvith), who reigned somewhere about 570 B.C. See Thomas Taylor, Iamblichus on the Mysteries, p. 306 n. (2nd ed., London, 1895). But as there is no objective evidence by which this identification can be controlled, we simply record it.

295:1 See notes appended to the extract from Zosimus.

295:2 As has already been supposed by Hoffmann and Riess in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyklopädie, i. 1347. R. 108.

295:3 Dieterich, Jahr. f. Phil, Suppl., xvi. 753; Wessely, Denkschr. d. K. K. Akad. (1888), pp. 92, 95, 98.

295:4 King (C. W.), The Gnostics and their Remains, 2nd ed. (London, 1887), p. 421, who, however, does not document his statement.

296:1 Granger (F.), “The Poemander of Hermes Trismegistus,” in The Journal of Theological Studies, vol. v., no. 19, ap. 1904 (London), p. 398.

297:1 Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., xx. 142.

297:2 Nat. Hist., xxviii. 6.

297:3 P. S. B. A., ibid., 256, 261.

297:4 He, however, was very well placed to have accurate knowledge on such a point.—[G. R. S. M.]

297:5 Eus., Præp. Ev., I. x. 52.

297:6 Strom., VI. iv. 37.

298:1 Especially in Book VIII., which is entirely devoted to an exposition of Hermaïc doctrine, and ought perhaps to be here translated in full. I have, however, preferred to select the passages definitely characterized by Jamblichus as Hermaïc.

298:2 Who must be read in the original and not in the inelegant and puzzling version of Taylor, the only English translation.

298:3 The Second Mind according to “The Shepherd.”

298:4 The Seven Spheres of the Harmony.

298:5 The Seven Spheres.

299:1 πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον.

299:2 Op. cit., viii. 6.

299:3 That is, as an individual soul and not as the world-soul.

299:4 Physical planets.

299:5 Of all of our visible system?

299:6 That is to say, the seven spheres.

300:1 Op. cit., i. 8.

300:2 Ibid., i. 17.

300:3 That is, visible planet.

300:4 That is, perhaps, the invisible globes.

300:5 Lit. their wholeness.

300:6 In our case the whole solar system.

301:1 Or, as one would say in modern Theosophical terms, to their planetary chains.

301:2 Hierarchy.

301:3 σύστοιχον.

301:4 That is to say, we may infer from the fixed stars (or suns) and from the globes which we can see (i.e. the visible planets), the manner of those we cannot see.

301:5 The sphere of fixed stars or suns.

301:6 That is to say, all the visible globes (vulgo planets) of our system as a whole. An “animal” means a “living thing”; so that here “earthy animals” mean the living vehicles of the heavenly beings which we so erroneously call “heavenly bodies.”

301:7 That is to say, suns or solar systems.

301:8 Here whole means plane.

301:9 That is to say, the brilliant light of the suns in space, and the reflected light of the physical globes of the planetary spheres of our system. See Proclus, Commentarius in Platonis Timæum, Bk. iv., p. 279 D, E, p. 676, ed. Schneider (Vratislaviæ, 1847). The passage is very difficult to translate because of its technical nature. Taylor, in his translation (London, 1820, ii. 281, 282), misses nearly every point.

Gnosticism and Hermetica

III.

JULIAN THE EMPEROR 1

Text: ap. Cyril, Contra Julianum, v. 176; Migne, col. 770 A. See also Neumann (C. I.), Juliani Imperatoris Librorum contra Christianos quæ supersunt (Leipzig, 1880), p. 193. 2

THE DISCIPLES OF WISDOM

That God, however, has not cared for the Hebrews only, [but rather] that in His love for all nations He hath bestowed on them [sc. the Hebrews] nothing worth very serious attention, whereas He has given us far greater and superior gifts, consider from what will follow. The Egyptians, counting up of their own race the names of not a few sages, can also say they have had many who have followed in the steps 3 of Hermes. I mean of the Third Hermes who used to come down 4 [to them] in Egypt. The Chaldæans [also can tell of] the [disciples] of Oannes and of Belus;

and the Greeks of tens of thousands [who have the Wisdom] from Cheiron. 1 For it is from him that they derived their initiation into the mysteries of nature, and their knowledge of divine things; so that indeed [in comparison] the Hebrews seem only to give themselves airs about their own [attainments].

Here we learn from Julian that the Third Hermes, the Hermes presumably of our Sermons, was known, by those initiated into the Gnosis, to be no physical historical Teacher, but a Teaching Power or Person, who taught from within spiritually.

Footnotes

303:1 Julian the Emperor reigned 360-363 A.D. It was during the last year of his reign that he wrote Contra Christianos.

303:2 Also Taylor (Thomas), The Arguments of the Emperor Julian against the Christians (London, 1809), p. 36.

303:3 Lit. “from the succession” (διαδοχῆς).

303:4 ἐπιφοιτήσαντος,—“to come habitually to”; ἐπιφοίτησις is used of the “coming upon one,” or inspiration of a God.

304:1 Partially quoted by Reitzenstein (p. 175, n. 1).

Gnosticism and Hermetica

IV.

FULGENTIUS THE MYTHOGRAPHER 1

An intermediate of the parent copy of our Corpus in every probability lay before Fulgentius. Thus we find him (p. 26, 18 H 2) referring to the first sermon, though barbarously enough, in the phrase: “Hermes in Opinandre libro,” and quoting from the introductory words; he also quotes (p. 88, 3) some words from C. H., xii. (xiii.), stupidly referring them to Plato, adding in Greek:

FRAGMENT XXVIII.

The human mind is god; if it be good, God [then] doth shower His benefits [upon us].

And twice (p. 85, 21, and p. 74, 11) Fulgentius refers in all probability to the lost ending of “The Definitions of Asclepius,” in the latter passage telling us, “as Hermes Trismegistus says,” that there were three kinds of music,—namely “adomenon, psallomenon, aulumenon,”—that is, singing, harping, and piping.

Footnotes

305:1 The date of this Afro-Latin writer cannot be later than the sixth century.

305:2 Helm (R.), Fabii Planciadis Fulgentii V. C. Opera (Leipzig, 1898).

Gnosticism and Hermetica

Conclusion

AN ATTEMPT AT CLASSIFYING THE EXTANT LITERATURE

Before we proceed to append our concluding remarks, it will be as well to set down some attempt at classifying our extant sermons and fragments. Unfortunately, however, this cannot be done in any scientific manner, owing to the fact that the literature, even were it fully before us, would be found to be too chaotic. Indeed, even with our fragmentary information concerning it, we are acquainted with no less than four unrelated Corpora—those that lay before Lactantius, Cyril, and Stobæus, and our own imperfect Corpus of Byzantine tradition. There must also have been other Corpora or collections, as, for instance, the books that Jamblichus used, not to mention the ancient body of MSS. which lay before Petosiris and Nechepso.

OF HERMES

First and foremost, standing in a class by itself, must be placed:

C. H. i.—“The Pœmandres.”

This is the fundamental Gospel of the School, the Self-instruction of the Hermes-or Master-grade.

With it, as based upon it in general type, though not in form, must be taken:

C. H. xi. (xii.).—“Mind unto Hermes.”

This is of later date, but still it must have been comparatively early, for it introduces the Æon-doctrine, which must be early, and is the esoteric instruction on the doctrines laid down in C. H. iv. (v.)—“The Cup”—which was perhaps regarded as the most important sermon after “The Pœmandres.”

Of the lost early literature we can get no clear indication; it may, however, be mentioned that the “Sayings of Agathodaimon” referred to in the Tat Sermon, C. H. xii. (xiii.), probably belonged to the most archaic deposit of the Trismegistic literature, and may be compared with the “Sayings of Ammon” mentioned by Justin Martyr. These belonged, presumably, originally solely to the Hermes-grade.

With the same type as the conclusion of the “Pœmandres” in its present form, that is to say with a later development, we must classify:

C. H. iii. (iv.).—“The Sacred Sermon”; and C. H. vii. (viii).—“Whither stumble ye.”

Here also, for lack of a more satisfactory heading, we must place:

Ex. xxii.—“An Apophthegm of Hermes.” Ex. xxiv.—“A Hymn of the Gods.” Frag. xxvi.—From “The Inner Door.” Frag. xxvii—“For Our Mind saith.”

The last being probably from one of the oldest deposits of the literature.

The next most convenient heading for classification is that under which we can place the greatest number of pieces, namely:

TO TAT

We know that the Tat-instruction was divided into

[paragraph continues] (a) “The General Sermons,” of which C. H. x. (xi.)—“The Key”—is said to be the epitome or rather summation; and (b) “The Expository Sermons,” of which C. H. xiii. (xiv.)—“The Secret Sermon on the Mountain”—was the consummation.

It is, of course, not certain whether the Tat Sermons were divided simply into these two classes, for though we are certain in a number of instances that we are dealing with an extract from an Expository Sermon, we are often in doubt when the heading is only “From the Sermon,” or “Sermons to Tat,” how to classify it. We do not know how many General Sermons there may have been, or whether they were divided into Books as were the Expository Sermons and the “To Asclepius,” at anyrate in the Corpus of Cyril. For convenience of classification, however, we may consider, though perfectly arbitrarily, that all the sermons and fragments which cannot fall under the heading of “Expository” may be treated as “General.”

The General Sermons

C. H. (ii.).—“The General Sermon.” 1 C. H. viii (ix.).—“That No One of Existing Things do Perish.” Ex. x.—“Concerning the Rule of Providence.” 2 Ex. xi.—“Of Justice.” 3 Ex. xx.—“The Power of Choice.” Fragg. vi and vii. C. H. x. (xi.).—“The Key.”

This last is stated to be the epitome or summation of “The General Sermons.” It is addressed to both Asclepius and Tat, and is to be taken in connection with “The Perfect Sermon.”

The Expository Sermons

Of these there were in the Corpus of Cyril three Books—to the First of which are assigned:

Fragg. xx. (?), xxii., xxiii., xxiv. Ex. ii. and Fragg. iii., xi., xii., xv. 1

To be assigned to “The Expository Sermons” in general without any clearer indications:

Exx. iii. (?).—“Of Truth.” 2 Ex. iv. 3 Exx. v., vi., vii., viii., ix. 4 Ex. i.—“Of Piety and True Philosophy.” 5

From the Corpus Hermeticum we may conjecturally assign the following to this class:

C. H. iv. (v.).—“The Cup.” 6 C. H. v. (vi.).—“Though Manifest.” C. H. vii. (viii.).—“About the Common Mind.” 7

Finally, the whole course of these “Expository Sermons” is consummated by what we may call “The Initiation of Tat”:

C. H. xiii. (xiv.).—“The Secret Sermon on the Mountain.”

We next pass on to what Cyril calls the “To Asclepius,” of which, as of “The Expository Sermons, there were in his Corpus at least Three Books.

TO ASCLEPIUS

In our Corpus Hermeticum the following are assigned to Asclepius:

C. H. ii. (iii.). “An Introduction to the Gnosis of the Nature of All Things.” C. H. vi. (vii.).—“In God Alone is Good.” C. H. ix. (x.).—“About Sense.” 1 C. H. xiv. (xv.).—“A Letter to Asclepius.” 2

From the “To Asclepius” in Cyril’s collection we have:

Frag. xxv. (?).

And definitely from the Third “To Asclepius”:

Fragg. xvi.-xviii.

In this Third Book it is probable that “The Perfect Sermon” was included in Cyril’s Corpus. This sermon, which is the longest we possess, was evidently originally addressed to Asclepius alone, for its alternative title is par excellence “The Asclepius,” and my conjecture that the introduction of the “holy three”—Asclepius, Tat and Ammon—is due to a later editor, is amply borne out by all the evidence. We may thus well conclude our list with:

“The Perfect Sermon.”

For the fragments of the lost Greek original of this important tractate, see Lactantius:

Fragg. v., viii., ix., x.

This Sermon is to be taken in close connection with “The Key” which sums up “The General Sermons” to Tat.

TO AMMON

Stobæus ascribes eight of his extracts to a Book or Books of his collection entitled “To Ammon.” These excerpts, however, would seem to be more appropriately classified under “Sermons to Tat.” As, however, Johannes distinctly so describes them, we will append them here.

Exx. xii, xiii. Exx. xiv.-xix.—“Of Soul,” i.-vi.

Exx. xvi.-xix. follow one another in the text of the Excerpts by Stobæus; as Ex. xviii., however, refers to “The General Sermons,” it therefore would make us suppose that either we are here dealing with “The Expository Sermons” to Tat, or that the Ammon-grade had already had communicated to them “The General Sermons.”

The above are the four types of Trismegistic Sermons

proper, and we next turn to the writings of the Disciples of Hermes.

OF ASCLEPIUS

It is remarkable that Asclepius, the most learned of the Three, writes his treatises and letters, not to philosophers or priests, or students, nor yet to his younger brother Tat—but invariably to the King or to Kings. He invariably writes to “Ammon”; and the once existing literature of this class was a very rich one, if we can believe the writer or redactor of C. H. (xvi.). The fragments that remain, however, are by no means numerous, and include:

C. H. (xvi.).—“The Definitions of Asclepius.” 1 Frag. iv.—Probably from the lost ending of above. C. H. (xvii.).—“Of Asclepius to the King.” 2 Ex. xxi. (?)—which may, perhaps, be more correctly headed “Of Asclepius to the King” instead of with Stobæus “Of Isis to Horus.”

To neither Tat nor Ammon are tractates assigned; for when Tat is perfected he becomes in his turn Hermes, and so writes as Hermes, while Ammon is the man of action and affairs who does not teach. May we further from these phenomena conclude that “Asclepius” was the man who was skilled in theory and intellectual grasp, but was not capable of direct illumination as was Tat?

The next class of literature falls under the heading:

OF ISIS

Whether or not the forms of this literature which we possess are contemporaneous with or later than

the Tat and Asclepius Sermons, we cannot say; but in any case they are based on ancient types—the “Books of Isis to Horus.” To this type we assign:

Ex. xxi.—“Of Isis to Horus.”

Though, as we have suggested above, this is an error of Johannes, and should be rather “Of Asclepius to the King.”

Ex. xxiii.—“From Aphrodite.”

Where Aphrodite probably equates with Isis.

Exx. xxv., xxvi.—“The Virgin of the World.” Ex. xxvii.—“From the Sermon of Isis to Horus.”

The remaining class of literature is connected with the name of Osiris as the Disciple of Agathodaimon, the Thrice-greatest, and may be headed as:

FROM THE AGATHODAIMON LITERATURE

Our fragments are all taken from Cyril’s Corpus, and are referred to by him under the heading “To Asclepius.” We have, however, not included them under this heading in our tentative classification, because they are plainly not addressed to Asclepius, but belong to a quite different form of literature, most probably throwing back to an ancient type of the same nature as the “Books of Isis.” To this class are to be assigned:

Fragg. xiii., xiv., xix., xxi.

This form may be perhaps more appropriately taken with the “Sayings of Agathodaimon” and the “Sayings of Ammon” as Agathodaimon; both of which pertain to the oldest types of the Trismegistic literature.

Finally, we add the appendix to our Corpus written by a Pœmandrist rhetor and apologist:

C. H. (xviii.).—“The Encomium of Kings.”

[paragraph continues] This may be taken with the quotation from the editor of Cyril’s Corpus of XV. Books.

And so we come to the end of our tentative classification; with the full conviction, however, that as no one at the time when the literature was extant in a number of Corpora and collections of all sorts attempted to classify it, so now that we have only the flotsam and jetsam of this once abundantly rich cargo before us, no inventory can be made that is of the slightest scientific value, and we can at best offer the reader a few sorted heaps of disjecta membra of varying dates.

OF JUDGMENTS OF VALUE

We now approach the conclusion of our task, but with the feeling that the whole matter should be put aside for years before any attempt be made to set down any judgments of value. We are as yet too much involved in a maze of details to be able to extricate ourselves into the clear space in which we can walk at ease round the labyrinth and view it from a general and detached point of view.

Nevertheless, we will endeavour to set down some general impressions of our experiences in the labyrinth—of the many windings we have had to traverse, and the many places with no way out into which we have been led by following the paths of history and criticism; out of which there has been time and again no egress, even when holding fast to the thread of light woven out of the illuminating rays of the doctrines of the tradition.

It is indeed a difficult task to stand with the feet of the mind set firm on the surface of objectivity, and with the head and heart of it in the heights and depths of the subjective and unmanifest. And yet this almost superhuman task is the Great Work set before every scholar of the Gnosis—the man who would think truly

and judge justly, viewing the matter from all standpoints, and appraising it from without and within, from above and below, endeavouring to unite centre and circumference in a blended intuitional sense that transcends our divided senses and intellect.

The Trismegistic literature is scripture, and to its understanding we must bring all and every faculty that the best minds of to-day are bringing to bear upon the special scripture which each one may believe to be the most precious legacy from the Past to the Present.

Now the application of what is called “criticism” to scripture is the wielding of a two-edged sword; this sword is not only two-edged, but it is fiery. If it is rightly used, it will disperse the hosts of error and hew a path into the Paradise of Truth; but if it is wrongly used, it will react on the daring soul that attempts to grasp it, and he will find in it the flaming brand in the hands of the Angel-Warden that keeps him from the Gate of Heaven.

Criticism, which is regarded with such fear and trembling by some, and is sneered at and despised by others, is the sword that the Christ has brought on earth in these latter days. There is now war in the members of the faithful, war within them, such war as they cannot escape, if God has given them a mind with which to reason. Every man of intelligence who loves his own special scripture, is keenly aware of the war within his members—head against heart and heart against head, form against substance and substance against form. This is keenly felt by those who love their own special Bible; but how few can enter into the feelings of another who loves with equal fervour some other Bible? Who can be really fair to any other man’s religion? And by this we do not mean an absolutely lifeless indifference, in which the head

alone is concerned—for there are not a few men of this type who deal with the comparative science of religion—but a lively sympathy that knows that the other man’s religion is the highest thing on earth for him, and the light-giving revelation of God’s Wisdom.

THE SONS OF GOD

In treating of the “Religion of the Mind,” of the Gnosis of Thrice-greatest Hermes, I have endeavoured to enter into it as I conceive the Disciples of that Way entered into it, with love and reverence. I would do the same with any other of the Great Religions of Humanity (and have done so in some cases), if I desired fervently, all prejudices and predilections apart, I will not say, to understand it—for what mortal mind can grasp the Divine Revelation in any of its Great Forms?—but to share, however imperfectly, in its illumination. Now, this attitude of mind and love of God and man is strongly deprecated by those who fear to stand accused of lack of loyalty to their own particular form of that Great Form of Faith which God has given for their guidance. The one object of their enquiries into other Great Forms of Faith is to “prove” that their own small form of the Great Form to which they give allegiance, is the end of all ends, and the highest of all heights, and that the other countless forms are of the Enemy of their God. My God, or rather God, for He is the Father of all, has no enemies; He has many sons, all brethren, and loves them equally even though they refuse to believe Him. There is but one Religion, its Great Forms are many, the forms of these Forms are innumerable, as many as are the individual minds and hearts of men, and the many hearts and minds of individual man.

And here I would set forth my present all-insufficient notion of the Great Form of Religion known as Christianity, for there will doubtless be some who read these volumes who will accuse me of I know not what attitude other than that of their own to that Faith.

My faith in the Master of Christendom is unbounded; I dare not limit it or qualify it—for that Master is for me the Mind of all master-hood, Pœmandres Himself. For how can any small mind of man dare to limit the Illimitable, the Mystery of all mysteries, that enfolded Jesus the Christ, and Gautama the Buddha, and Zoroaster the Mage, and Lao-tze the Sage, and Orpheus the Bard, and Pythagoras the Philosopher, and Hermes the Gnostic, and all and every Master and Master of masters? Do I detract from the transcendency of Jesus the Christ, when I mention His Brethren, all Sons of God? I do not, for the Sons of God are not separate and apart, set over one against the other; they are all one Sonship of the Father, and these apparent differences must be left to those who think themselves wise enough to judge between them—instructed enough to know the within of the matter as well as the without, which in no case has come down to us in any but the most fragmentary and erroneous tradition. I do not know; I dare not judge those who are Judges of the quick and dead. And so I leave this audacity to those who would forget the logos of their Saviour: “Judge not.”

If, nevertheless, I am still judged as a “calumniator” by some, it is but natural injustice and quite understandable. There is, however, no real Injustice in the universe, and he who would be Justified and rise again with Osiris, must balance mortal seeming justice and injustice to reach the true equilibrium, and so be free of mortal opinion, and stand in the Hall of Truth. It is to the bar of this Judgment Hall that all men in

the last resort appeal, whether they be born Christian or Mahommedan, Brāhman or Jew, Buddhist or Taoist, Zoroastrian or Pagan—or whether they be born to a manner of faith that is none of these, or to an ideal of faith that includes them all.

Christianity is the Faith of the Western World—the Faith most suited to it in nature and in form. He who gave that Faith, gave in fullest abundance through many sources; and the greatest sign of His authority, of His authentia, was the throwing open of some part of the age-long secret mystery-teaching to the many without distinction of age, sex, class, caste, colour, or nation, or of instruction. The inner doors of the Temple were thrown wide open to the Amme-ha-aretz; but the innermost door still remained closed, for it is a door that is not man-made—it opens into the within of things, and not into some inner court of formal instruction. That door still remained naturally closed to the unworthy and unknowing; but no Scribe or Pharisee of the established order of things could any longer keep the key thereof in his selfish hands. The key was given to all, but given still mystically, for it is hidden in the inner nature of each son of man, and if he seek not in himself, searching into the depths of his own nature, he will never find it. That key is the opener of the Gate of the Gnosis, the complement and syzygy and spouse of Faith; the virile husband of the woman-side of the Christ-Religion.

In the early days that Gnosis was given in greatest fullness; Faith there was, Faith in mighty abundance, but there was also Gnosis; and it was because of this Gnosis of not a few that the Faith of the many was so intense. But over these mysterious days, and the inner in-working of the Mystery, a veil has been drawn to hide the holy operations from profane eyes

[paragraph continues] So that to-day, these many centuries after, the foolish of the Faith deny there was ever a Gnosis; just as their still more foolish predecessors persecuted the Gnostics of Christ and howled them down as Antichrists and First-born Sons of Satan. The natural veil was thus drawn over the too bright light of the Sacred Marriage when Heaven had kissed the Earth once more.

So great, then, is my faith in the authentia of the Master, so great my assurance of the wisdom of His Gnosis. If this be thought “calumny” of His transcendency, then we are judged “calumniators” with Hermes, a Knower of the Mystery, and so complimented immeasurably beyond our deserts.

CONCERNING DATES

And now let us turn to the Religion of the Mind, which is also the Religion of the Heart—for is not Thoth Lord of the heart of man?

In the first place we have endeavoured faithfully to investigate every statement or suggestion that can be thought to be indicative of date, and we have not succeeded in any single instance in fixing a precise date for any sermon or fragment. What, however, we have been able to do, is to clear the ground of many false opinions, and to show the insecurity, if not the absurdity, of any attempt at precision. Every hypothesis of precision of date, when that hypothesis has favoured a late date for any sermon, has broken down. Whenever there has been a clearer indication, as, for instance, in the case of the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Pœmandres of Hermes, it has thrown the time-period backwards and not forwards.

What has been proved, and amply proved, however, is that our literature goes back in an unbroken tradition of type and form and content to the earliest Ptolemaic

times. The earliest forms of this literature are lost, but clear records of its nature remain. Of the extant literature there are specimens of varying date, though how they should be ordered is by no means clear; what, however, is clear is that some of our documents are at least contemporaneous with the earliest writings of Christianity.

In the “Prolegomena” we have established an unbroken line of tradition in which Gnosis and Mystery-teaching have been handed down through pre-Christian, Pagan and Jewish, and through Christian hands. We have further shown that the Gnosis of our Trismegistic documents is a simpler form than that of the great doctors of the Christianised Gnosis, Basilides and Valentinus, who flourished in the first quarter of the second century. The earlier of our sermons, therefore, represent one of the main streams, perhaps the main stream, of the Unchristianised Gnosis. We have further shown that, together with many other schools, both our Pœmandrists and the writers of the New Testament documents use a common theological or theosophical nomenclature, and have a common body of ideas.

What is clear from all this is that there is no plagiarism, no deliberate copying, no logoklopia of other men’s secrets, though there was the freest drawing on a common fund. The condition of affairs and the nature of the problems involved are such, that any theory of plagiarism at once becomes a two-edged sword; he who says that Trismegisticism copied from Christianity, can at once have his argument reversed into the form that Christianity copied from Trismegisticism.

As to date, then, we are dealing with a period when there was as yet no divorcement between Gnosis and Faith even in Christianity itself, and therefore the

canons of judgment erected in later times by ecclesiastical self-limitation cannot be made to apply.

THE BLEND OF TRADITIONS

The view of General Christianity, gradually narrowed down by the Church Fathers into dogmatic Nicene Christianity, looked to one tradition only as the schoolmaster of the Faith—the tradition of Israel as the God-favoured Folk. Nevertheless it was the fair Greek tongue and the Greek method of thought that were used in evolving this special dispensation into a world-cult for the many.

The Trismegistic tradition laboured under no such limitation; its sympathies were more catholic. It is true that its main source was in Egypt, but it embraced with whole-hearted affection the wisdom of Hellas and the genius of Greece which were developed under Divine Providence to teach the Western Nations the glory and beauty of the mind. At the same time its sympathies were not divorced from the tradition of the Hebrews, though it refused to set them apart from the rest of humanity, and looked rather to the great river of wisdom in the Books of the Chaldæans, Persians, Medes, and Parthians, than to the single stream shut off in the Books of Israel. The spirit of our Trismegistic writings is the same as that which inspired the Pagan and Jewish and Christian Gnostic scribes of the Naassene Document, all of whom believed that there was but one Mystery which all the mystery-institutions of the world attempted to adumbrate.

If, then, we were to say for the sake of convenience that our Trismegistic writings enshrine the Wisdom of Egypt in Greek tradition, we should not divorce that Wisdom from the Wisdom of the Chaldæans and the rest. The Wisdom was one, the forms were many; and both

[paragraph continues] Egypt and Chaldæa looked back to an Archaic Gnosis that was the common mother of their most ancient forms of Mystery-teaching.

And if we say that this Wisdom. has come down to us in Greek tradition, we should ever remember that this Græcising or philosophising has to do with the form and not with the substance. For whence did Thales and Pythagoras and Plato draw the inspiration for their philosophy or love of wisdom; was it not from Egypt? At anyrate so say the Greeks themselves without a single dissentient voice. And can we think that the Greeks, who were always so proud of their own achievements and boasted their own genius so loudly, would have given the palm of wisdom to Egypt had they not been compelled by overwhelming evidence to do so? But this does not mean that we are to deprive Hellas of her just laurels. Hellas was the mother of philosophy in the sense of systematic thinking and the development of the analytic reason. This is her great virtue and honour; independent research, and the piercing analysis of the intellect and the beauty of clear thinking in excellent expression, were her gifts to the Western world. It was she beyond the other nations that created for herself a subtler vehicle of thought for the manifestation of the powers of mental analysis. That, however, is not necessarily in itself wisdom, but the perfecting of an instrument whereby wisdom, if it be attained by other means, may be the more clearly expressed for those in whom the analytic faculties are being developed.

Wisdom transcends this mode of mind; for ratiocination is not ecstasis, the practical intelligence is not the contemplative mind. Nor is mind, using it as contrasted with the other faculties and energies and

powers in man, the only or even the highest thing in man. This Secret of the Sphinx Egypt had possessed for millennia; so that her priests could say to Solon: “You Greeks are all children”—for the intellect in Greece was young, though destined to grow into a giant; whereas the hoary Gnosis of the heart of man was prior to the æons, and will continue when the æons shall cease.

That Gnosis of Man still awaits decipherment in Egypt; it is hidden in her glyphs and symbols and holy signs. But that Gnosis will never yield its secret to those who persist in interpreting these symbols of the Language of the Gods into their lower forms, forms intended for children and not for men. And indeed our Trismegistic sermons, if they should teach us nothing else, can at least assure us of this, for their writers were still ear to mouth with the Living Voice of that once Great Church of Wisdom. Our Pœmandrists knew what the mystery-tradition inculcated; they knew, for they had been within the holy shrines.

At anyrate for my part I prefer to believe their view of the matter, than to listen to the contemptuous patronage of modern conceit bred of complete ignorance of the manifold natures and powers and energies in man.

OF INITIATION

Indeed the whole of this theosophy of Egypt, as indeed of the theosophy of all climes and times, was intended to lead a man up the stairway of perfectioning, to the portals of the first true natural initiation, whereby he becomes superman, or, as Hermes would say, at last and in truth “man” and not a “procession of Fate.” Beyond that stage are many others too sublime for us in any way to understand; and it is just because

of their sublimity that we do not understand and so we “interpret” things of the height into the lowest notions and opinions of the most limited things of sense. For beyond the superman stage comes the Christ, and then—but who shall speak of that which transcends even perfected master-hood?

And by initiation, in this sense, we do not mean probationary forms of drama and of instruction, “of things said and done,” but a natural thing and process, all that which the Christ of Christendom has laboured to inculcate with so much wisdom even in the blurred record that has come down to us. To this initiation a man may come without a physical guide or the help of any tradition of formal ceremony. Nevertheless, he would indeed be foolish who should say that the greater mystery-institutions which have been established by wise teachers and the Providence of God, have been or are of no effect.

On the contrary, the disciple of wisdom will study every record of such institutions accessible to him, and ponder on their marvellous multiplicity, and marvel at the infinite modes devised to play the pedagogue, that so man may be brought unto his God. Nevertheless, if he has not the love and wit to study such things, he should not despair, for is he not already in the Outer Court of the Temple, if he would but lift up his eyes to see the mysteries of the universe that surround him on every side?

We all are babes in the Womb of the Great Mother; how long we continue as babes, as embryos, remains for each of us to decide. For in this Birth the Mother alone cannot bear all the pains of labour; we too must help and strive and struggle and dare to breathe within her holy Womb, so as to accustom our dead lungs to expand, before the Great Birth can be accomplished, and we can at length walk forth into the Inner

[paragraph continues] World erect upon our feet and draw in at every pore and in every atom its pure air without fear. But this Inner World is no thin shadow of the outer world, as it may appear to us in the dark night of our present ignorance; it is the Inner Cosmos, not the inner earth. Rapts and visions may let us see some mysteries of the inner earth, but not the mysteries of Earth, much less the Divine Mysteries of Cosmos.

Nor is there any need to label these things with precise terms, for now even the most experienced in such vision can know but in part; whereas then we shall know the Fullness, face to face, without a parable. But knowing this, who shall tell the Mystery, who can tell the Mystery—for is not the whole of Nature telling us this Mystery now at every moment with infinite voices from infinite mouths, and yet we hear nothing? For is not the whole creation designed with this one purpose to tell every son of man that he is of Light and Life and only happens to be out of them, as Hermes says?

A LAST WORD

But it is very possible that some who have done me the honour of reading to the end, will say: “This man is a dreamer, an ecstatic; we have no use for such in the hard world of rigid facts that confront us in our everyday life!”

But indeed I have little time for dreams and ecstasies in the sense in which my supposed critics would use the words, as any one may see who can realise the labour that has been expended on these volumes, nine-tenths of which are filled with translations and commentaries, criticisms and notes, in which dreams and ecstasies have no part, but only strenuous co-labour of mind and soul and body. And that is just the carrying out of what I hold to be the true doctrine of practical

mysticism, or if objection be taken by the reader to that much ill-used word, of the Great Work of life. It is true that it is almost impossible to talk of these high or deep things except in language that in every expression and in every word is liable to misconstruction. For even when we call them high things, they are not high in space or place, but rather in the sense that they are of greater intensity than the shows and appearances of opinion that form the surfaces or superficialities of our world of normal conditioning.

Spirit in itself is not superior to mind, or mind to soul, or soul to body; each and all must work together according to their proper dignity, nature, and energy, in perfect equilibrium in the perfect man. They are not descending degrees of some one thing, but are mutually in some mysterious way all aspects of one another.

For should we regard them as quantitatively distinguished solely, then we should be looking at them from the point of view of divided body alone; or should we regard them as qualitatively distinguished, then we should be looking at them from the point of view of separated soul alone; or should we regard them as logically distinguished, then we should be regarding them from the standpoint of the formal reason solely; while if we should look at them as wholes monadically and synthetically, we should be regarding them from an abstract and not a vital view-point.

Nevertheless they are all each of other, the same in difference and different in the same. Their source and middle and their end is Man, and Man alone can reach unto the Gnosis of God.

And therefore we may conclude with the daring counsel given unto Hermes by the Mind—a doctrine fit for Men.

“If, then, thou dost not make thyself like unto God, thou canst not know Him. For like is knowable to like alone.

“Make thou thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every Body; transcend all Time; become Eternity; and then shalt thou know God.

“Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all—all arts, all sciences, the way of every life.

“Become more lofty than all height, and lower than all depth. Collect into thyself all senses of all creatures—of fire and water, dry and moist. Think that thou art at the same time in every place—in earth, in sea, in sky; not yet begotten, in the womb, young, old, and dead, in after-death conditions.

“And if thou knowest all these things at once—times, places, doings, qualities, and quantities; thou canst know God.”

This is the Straight Way, the Good’s Own Path, the Ancient Road.

“If thou but sett’st thy foot thereon, ’twill meet thee everywhere, ’twill anywhere be seen, both where and when thou dost expect it not—waking, sleeping, sailing, journeying, by night, by day, speaking, and saying naught. For there is naught that is not image of the Good.”

And so for the present writing we bid farewell to Thrice-greatest Hermes and the teachings of his Mind, the Shepherd of all men—with heart-felt thanks that by the Mercy of God the echo of his voice has come to us across the ages and bidden us once more remember.

Footnotes

311:1 The text has bodily fallen out of our Corpus with one of the quires.

311:2 This seems to be a complete sermon, and to be presupposed in C. H. xii. (xiii.); as also Ex. xi.

311:3 Exx. x.-xiii. probably go here as being part of the “Sermons on Fate to Tat”; but they are assigned otherwise by Stobæus.

312:1 These all seem to go together from the same Sermon or Book, which in the case of Frag. xv. is definitely assigned by Cyril to the “First of the Expository Sermons.” The beginning of the Sermon is given in Lact. xxiv., and a reference in Lact. xiii.

312:2 Seems to be a complete tractate.

312:3 By comparison with Ex. vii.

312:4 Ex. ix. is characterised as “the most authoritative and chiefest of them all,” and therefore came, presumably, at the end of one of the Books of these Sermons.

312:5 A complete tractate, containing heads or summaries of previous sermons, and probably one towards the end of this collection.

312:6 The esoteric counterpart of which is C. H. xi. (xii.).

312:7 These three sermons are too advanced to be classed among “The General Sermons,” and in the case of the last, Tat is a questioner and not a hearer as he indubitably was in the introductory instruction.

313:1 This is said to follow on “The Perfect Sermon,” which was not included in our Corpus among the selections of the Pœmandrist apologist who redacted it.

313:2 This is said by the editor to be an expansion of an instruction already given to Tat, in Asclepius’ absence, and the doctrine is very similar to that contained in C. H. xi. (xii.)—“Mind unto Hermes.” It also stood in Cyril’s (viii.) “To Asclepius.”

315:1 The end is lost.

315:2 A fragment only from the end of the sermon is preserved.

Gnosticism and Hermetica

Āāh-Tehuti, i. 66.

Aahlu, Territory of Illumination, i. 70.

Aall, i. 33.

Āān, i. 55.

Ab, i. 89.

Abammon, the Teacher, iii. 285.

Abbot Olympius, Story of, i. 384.

Abercius, ii. 55.

Abortion, i. 335, ii. 366.

Abraham, i. 253.

Abraxas, i. 82, 402.

Abraxoid, i. 82.

Abydos, i. 292.

Abyss, i. 408, ii. 27, 80, 81, 269.

Accuser, blind, iii. 281.

Achaab, the Husbandman, ii. 265.

Achæa, i. 350.

Acharantus, the Husbandman, ii. 265.

Achemides, i. 400.

Active Principle, the, i. 225.

Acts of John, i. 236, ii. 55, 238, iii. 157; mystery ritual in, i. 182, 183, ii. 243, iii. 156.

Acts of Philip, i. 147.

Adam, i. 115, 149, iii. 277, 281; body of, i. 281; celestial, i. 146.

Adam (J.), i. 336.

Adam Kadmon, i. 146.

Adamant, i. 392.

Adamas, i. 146, 159, 161.

Adams (see Marsham).

Adomenon, iii. 305.

Adonis, i. 151, 156, 294.

Adoration of images, ii. 286.

Adrasteia, i. 430, iii. 116.

Advent, ii. 171.

Adversary, Agree with thine, iii. 281.

Æacus, i. 303.

Ælian, i. 103.

Æon, i. 66, 92, ii. 128, 175, 232, 370, iii. 117, 161; become, ii. 190; birth of the, iii. 160; circle of infinitude, i. 399; communities of the, in Phœnicia, i. 403; demiurgic, i. 410; eternity or, iii. 91; feast of the, i. 403; in Theurgic literature, i. 410; Logos, i. 406; Mithriac, i. 399; in Plato, i. 404; song of praise to the, i. 408; is not time, i. 405; boundary of all universes, i. 392; wealth-giving, i. 402.

Æon or Æons, i. 182, ii. 240.

Æon-doctrine, the, i. 387, ii. 190.

Æonian Essence Above, i. 152.

Æonic Consciousness, ii. 244; Immensities of Egypt, i. 407.

Æonology, ii. 32, 192, 248; Hellenistic origin of, i. 401, 405.

Æons, ii. 373; father of the, i. 411; hymn of the, ii. 43; Great Silence, Mother of, ii. 241; of Pleroma, i. 408, ii. 245; “rootage” of, ii. 317; type of the, ii. 282.

Aerolites, iii. 53.

Æsculapius, cult of, i. 468.

Æther, i. 84, 101, iii. 50, 98, 101, 125; the height of the, i. 233; quintessence or, ii. 92; Mighty Whirlpool, i. 451.

Æthiopia (see Ethiopia), i. 188, 281.

Æthiopian queen, i. 316.

Again-becoming, ii. 76, 83.

Agamemnon, i. 446.

Agathodaimon, i. 85, 98, 105, 109, 479, ii. 213, iii. 156, 157, 163;

[paragraph continues] Osiris disciple of, i. 478, iii. 261; literature, iii. 257, 316; sayings of, iii. 310, 316; type, iii. 261.

Age, Golden, iii. 135; of seven years, iii. 37.

Agree with thine adversary, iii. 281.

Agrippa (Cornelius), i. 13.

Ahriman, i. 325, 326, 400.

Ahura Mazda (see Ormuzd), i, 326.

Aion, Reitzenstein's monograph on, i. 387.

Aipolos, i. 175, 177.

Air, ii. 342, iii. 66, 129, 210.

Air very air, iii. 17.

Air-spaces, iii. 205.

Ākashā-Ganga, i. 110.

Akhmim, i. 282.

Akron, i. 364.

Ajax, i. 446.

Alalkomeneus, i. 148, 286.

Alaric, ii. 401.

Albinus, iii. 227.

Alchemist, the true, ii. 139.

Alethophilus, i. 13.

Alexander, brother of Philo, i. 204; Cornelius (Polyhistor), i. 164.

Alexandria, i. 99, 301; Jewish colony of, i. 204; Library of, i. 197.

Alexandrian religio-philosophy, i. 200.

Alexandrine Gnostics and fourth gospel, i. 38.

Alexarchus, i. 314.

Alkyoneus, i. 149.