PETOSIRIS, PSEUDO-
(fl. Egypt, second and first
centuries b.c.)
astrology.

During antiquity several texts relating to
divination and astrology circulated under the
names Petosiris and Nechepso. Nechepso is the
name of a king whom Manetho included in the
twenty-sixth Egyptian dynasty (ca. 600
B.C); and the most famous Petosiris was the high
priest of Thoth (ca. 300 B.C. [?]),1
although many others bore this name signifying
“Gift
of Osiris”.
Whether the author of the works circulating
under their names had these two individuals, or
some others, in mind we cannot know.
The fragments of these works, which were
collected by E. Riess,2
fall into four main groups: (1) those using
astral omens as developed by the Egyptians in
the Achemenid and Ptolemaic periods from
Mesopotamian prototypes to give general
indications; (2) those derived from a
revelation-text in which Nechepso the king,
guided by Petosiris, sees a vision that grants
him a knowledge of horoscopic truth; (3) a
treatise on astrological botany for medical
purposes and another on decanic medicine; and
(4) treatises on numerology
(1) The fragments of texts employing astral
omina are largely from authors of late
antiquity: Hephaestio of Thebes (fl. ca.
415), Proclus (410–485),
and John Lydus (fl. ca. 560). As
preserved to us, the fragments represent radical
reworkings of the original texts. It is those
fragments, and especially fragment 6 (Riess),
which C. Bezold and F. Boll3
saw to be related to Mesopotamian texts and that
allowed Kroll4
to date the original to the second century B.C.
The fragments belonging to this text5
use as omens eclipses, the heliacal rising of
Sirius, and comets. Fragments 66
uses as omens the color of the eclipsed the
heliacal rising of Sirius, and comets. Fragment
6 uses as omns the color of the esclipsed body;
the simultaneous occurrence of winds blowing
from th several directions and of shooting
stars, halos, lightning, and rainl and the
presence of the eclipsed body in each of the
signs of the zodiac (a substitution for Egyptian
months). Fragment 6 also divides the day or
night into four periods, each of which has three
seasonal hours. Most of these elements are found
in the demotic papyrus published by R. A.
Parker,7
and many of them in the relevant tablets of the
Sin and Shamash sections of the Babylonian
astral omen series Enũma
Anu Enlil.
Fragment 88
summarizes a similar treatment of eclipse omens
from Campestrius,
“who
follows the Petosirian traditions.”
Fragment 7,9
also on eclipse omens, seems to be from another
but still ancient source in which the scheme of
geographical references was rather strictly
limited to Egypt and its neighbors in contrast
to fragment 6, where the eclipses affect the
whole Eurasian continent.
Fragment 1210
gives annual predictions based on the situation
at the heliacal rising of Sirius, including the
positions of the planets and the color of the
star and direction of the winds; it is to be
compared to the demotic papyrus published by G.
R. Hughes11
and also with
“Eudoxius”12
and Pseudo-Zoroaster.13
In the middle of Hephaestio, I, 23, is a
description of the manner in which the effective
force of the planets is transmitted through the
spheres to the sublunar sphere. This passage
presupposes both Aristotelian physical theories
and a planetary system based on epicycles,
eccentrics, or both. If the passage is a genuine
quotation form a text written in the second
century B.C., it is of the greatest interest as
providing the earliest evidence known to us of a
theory of astral influence. The fragment
contains other elements of interest to a
historian of horoscopy—for
example, a categorization of the planets as
malefic or benefic and the use of aspects. But
these elements may have been added by Hephaestio
or some unknown predecessor, or the whole
chapter may have nothing to do with the work
published under the names of Nechepso and
Petosiris.
Very doubtful indeed is the attribution to
that work of fragments 914
1015
and 11.16
The ominous bodies are the comets, of which
there was originally one type associated with
each of the planets. Such comets of the planets
are found also in early Sanskrit astral omen
texts (for example, in the Gargasamhitã
), but we have as yet no cuneiform tablets that
would give us a common source. In any case,
there is little reason to assign these specific
fragments to Nechepso and Petosiris
Perhaps also forming a part of the astral
omen texts are two other sets of fragments
dealing with problems that interested the
earliest men who attempted to convert general
omens into ones significant for individuals and
who used Babylonian techniques. These two
problems are the date of a native’s
conception17
and the computation of the length of his life
based on the rising times between the ascendent
and the nonagesimal.18
(2) The horoscopic text includes all of the
passages from Valen’
Anthologies (I give the references to
the edition by W. Kroll [Berlin, 1908]) and some
from Firmicus Maternus. In it Nechepso saw a
vision,19
which included a perception of the motions of
the planets that is redolent of pre-Ptolemaic
astronomy. He described what he had learned from
this revelation in at least thirteen books of
very obscure iambic senarii. As we know the
ideas there expressed only through the dim
intellect of Vettius Valens, we are not
surprised to find the
“mysteries”
largely either self contradictory or too
fragmentary to be comprehended fully. Some
passages in Valens20
indicate that he knew of a separate work of
Petosiris (entitled Definitions ) in
addition to that of Nechepso, to whom he usually
refers as
“the
king,”
although in another place21
he speaks of
“the
king and Petosiris”
together. several passages22
contain quotations from
“the
king’s
“
thirteenth book.
Among the principal astrological doctrines
discussed by Nechepso and Petosiris in the
poetic work (or works) available to Valens are
the computation of the length of life of the
native;23
the calculation of the Lot of Fortune, which is
also used in computing the length of life;24
the determination of good and bad times during
the native’s
life, based on various methods of continuous
horoscopy (the planetary periods, the lord of
the year, and the revolution of the years of
nativities);
25 dangerous or climacteric
times;26
and various aspects of the native’s
life: travel,27
injury,28
children,29
and death.30
It is probable that Firmicus Maternus drew upon
this same collection for his references to
Petosiris’
and Nechepso’s
geniture of the universe,31
his statement that Petosiris only lightly
touched upon the doctrine of the decans,32
and his denial that Petosiris and Nechepso dealt
with the Sphaera barbarica. Add also
the discussion of initiatives in Julian,33
(3) Nechepso is known as an authority on
materia medica (plants and stones) under astral
influence.34
(4) The numerological treatises are of two
sorts, both explained in a letter of Petosiris
to King Nechepso, which is extant in numerous
recensions. The simpler form utilizes only the
numerical equivalent of the Greek letters in the
querist’s
name; the second form utilizes the day of the
lunar month and the
“Circle
of Petosiris.”35
Another numerological text, which is based on
the zodiacal signs, occurs in a letter addressed
to Nechepso.36
The significance of Pseudo-Petosiris’
works (esp. 1 and 2) is their illumination of—although
in a very fragmentary form—two
important processes of Ptolemaic science: the
development of the astral omens that the
Egyptians of the Achemenid period had derived
from Mesopotamia, and the invention of a new
science of astrology based on Greek astronomy
and physics in conjunction with Hellenistic
mysticism and Egypto-Babylonian divination from
astral omens. The effect of their teachings on
their successors was profound, although the
primitiveness of their methods meant that only
their heirs of a mystic (Valens) or antiquarian
(Hephaestio and Lydus) bent cite them in detail.
That influence is acknowledged not only in the
fragments mentioned above, but also at various
places in the important Epitome Parisina
37
NOTES
1. G. Lefebvre, Le
tombeau de Petosiris, 3 vols. (Cairo, 1923–1924).
2. E. Riess,
“Nechepsonis
et Petosiridis fragmenta magica,”
in Philologus, Supplementband 6
(1892), 327–394,
to which many more fragments could be added.
3. C. Bezold and F. Boll,
Reflexe astrologischer Keilinschriften bei
griechischen Schriftstellern (Heidelberg,
1911).
4. W. Kroll,
“Aus
der Geschichte der Astrologie,”
in Neue JahrbÜcher
fÜr
das Klassische Altertum, Geschichte und Deutsche
Literatur, 7 (1901), 559–577,
esp. 573–577.
5. Frs. 6–12
in Riess, some of which are very dubious.
6. Hephaestio, I, 21, who
attributes the material to the ancient
Egyptians; another version, using Roman months
rather than zodiacal signs, was published by F.
Boll, in Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum
Graecorum, VII (Brussels, 1908), 129–151.
7. R. A. Parker, A
Vienna Demotic Papyrus on Eclipse and
lunar-omina (Providence, 1959).
8. Lydus, De ostentis,
9.
9. Hephaestio, 1, 22.
10. Hephaestio, I, 23,
who attributes it to the ancient, wise
Egyptians; ef; Catalogus Codicum
Astrologorum Graecorum, V, pt. 1 (Brussels,
1904), 204
11. G. R. Hughes,
“A
Demotic Astrological Text,”
in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 10
(1951), 256–264.
12. Catalogus Codicum
Astrologorum Graecorum, VII, 181–187.
13. Geoponica,
I, 8 and I, 10 = fr. 0,40; and fr. 0,41 in J.
Bidez and F. Cumont, Les mages hellánisás,
II (Paris, 1938), 178–183.
14. John Lydus, De
ostentis, 11–15,
from Campestrius.
15. Hephaestio, I, 24.
16. Servius, In
Aeneidem, X, 272, who follows Avienus, but
also mentions Campestris (sic!) and Petosiris.
17. Fr. 14; cf.
Achinapolus in Vitruvius, De architectura,
IX, 6,2; Pseudo-Zoroaster, fr. 0,14
Bidez-Cumont, II, 161–162;
and A. Sachs, in Journal of Cuneiform
Studies, 6 (1952), 58–60.
18. Frs. 16 and 17 and
also fr. 5 (Valens, III, 16) and Valens, III, 3,
and VIII, 6; cf. Berosus, frs. 32 and 33 in P.
Schnabel, Berossos und die
babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur
(Leipzig—Berlin,
1923), 264. Also see Hephaestio, II, 18, 72
(this quotation does not include the important
fragment of the Salmeschoeniaca, II,
18, 74–75),
and Pliny’s
report of their computation of the distances of
the planetary spheres (fr. 2). This last may
belong to 2.
19. Fr. 1; Valens, VI,
preface.
20. Valens, II, 3; VIII,
5; IX, 1.
21. Ibid., VII,
5; cf. III, 10.
22. Ibid., II,
3; III, 14; IX, preface; IX, 1.
23. Ibid., III,
10 = fr. 18, which gives a computation based on
a point computed similarly to a Lot and entirely
different from the method employed in the
passages we have assigned to 1.
24. This is given in
Nechepso’s
thirteenth book and in Petosiris,
Definitions ; Valens, II, 3; III, 14 = fr.
19; IX, 1.
25. Valens, V, 6 = fr. 20
and VII, 5 = fr. 21; cf. III, 14; VI, 1.
26. Ibid., III,
11 = fr. 23.
27. ibid., II,
28.
28. Ibid., II,
36; cf. fr. 27 from Firmicus.
29. ibid., II,
39.
30. Ibid., II,
41 = fr. 24.
31. Fr. 25, where they
are correctly stated to be drawing on an
Hermetic source; cf. lest. 6.
32. Fr. 13, but cf. fr.
28.
33. Catalogus Codicum
Astrologorum Graecorum, I (Brussels, 1898),
138. (I doubt the authenticity of the brief
statement about quartile and trine aspect
published in Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum
Graecorum, VI [Brussels, 1903], 62.)
34. Frs. 28–32
and 35–36;
the latter two, drawn from the work of Thessalus,
should now be consulted in the edition of H.-V.
Friedrich (Meisenheim am Glan, 1968); cf, also
Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum,
I, 126.
35. Frs. 37–42;
see also Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum
Graecorum, I, 128; IV (Brussels, 1903), 120–121;
XI, pt. 2 (Brussels, 1934), 152–154,
163–164;
Pseudo-Bede in Patrologia Latina, XC,
cols. 963–966;
and cf. Psellus in a letter published in
Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum,
VIII, pt. 1 (Brussels, 1929), 131.
36. Catalogus Codicum
Astrologorum Graecorum, VII, 161–162.
37. Ibid., VIII,
pt. 3 (Brussels, 1912), 91–119.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aside from Riess’s
collection of fragments, the main study of
Pseudo-Petosiris is C. Darmstadt, De
Nechepsonis-Petosiridis Isagoge quaestiones
selectae (Leipzig, 1916); unfortunately, he
attributes to Nechepso-Petosiris far more than
the evidence of the fragments warrants. Rather
unsatisfactory arlicles are W. Kroll in
Pauly-Wissoa’s
Real-Encyclopadie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft, 16
(1935), cols. 2160–2167;
19 (1938), col. 1165; and W.
Gundel and H. G. Gundel, Astrologumena
(Wiesbaden, 1966), 27–36.
David Pingree
Petosiris
to Nechepso
From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia

figure similar to Petosiris's Circle
from Ole Worm's Computus Runicus.
Petosiris to Nechepso is a letter
describing an ancient
divination technique using
numerology and a diagram. It is likely to be
a
pseudepigraph.
[1]
Petosiris and
Nechepso are considered to be the founders
of
astrology in some traditions.[2]
One translation of this letter into Latin is
attributed to
Saint Bede
[3], and can be found in
Cotton Tiberius. The technique is known by
several names, including the Petosiris Circle[4],
the Sphere of
Apuleius, Columcille's Circle, and
Democritus's Sphere. The attribution of
ancient authors is a typical practice of
Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and the
technique may arise from this tradition.
Examples of the figure are known from
Anglo-Saxon manuscripts.[5]
The technique involves calculating the
numerical value of a patient's name, then
dividing by 30 or 29, a number derived from the
lunar month to find the remainder, which is
(mod 29) or (mod 30) in
modular arithmetic. The number is then found
on the diagram, to determine the
prognosis.
In summary we have as follows, leaving aside here
the complex and important cometary theories of the
pre-socratics, Aristotle, and the Stoics. First, ca.
145-35 B.C.E. Nechepso-Petosiris wrote a book of
astrology including a passage on cometary prognosis
based on heavenly region of appearance. He (they?)
assumed that comets were fiery (the standard theory
of the era) without further ado. His view of comets
seems to be that they appear in, move toward, or
pause in, any quadrant of the sky. Their
descriptions are irrelevant to their nature, serving
only to identify them. Within the next century five
further books were written. Epigenes refined the
standard theory with details about whirl-winds and
the like (Sen. QN 7.4-10), referred to the
Chaldaians (sc. Nechepso-Petosiris?), was also an
astrologer (cp. Pliny 7.160, 193), and has the
simplest view of the planets (when they seem close
together they are: Sen. QN 7.4.2)82).
Although fundamentally Epigenes' theory is simple,
it seems to have involved a detailed reworking of
Aristotle's theory (Sen. QN 7.4.2-4, cp. Pliny 2.82
anonymous)83), perhaps making use of
Hipparchos or of Hipparchos' Babylonian sources
(note Pliny 7.193: Epigenes apud Babylonios ...
obseruationes siderum coctilibus laterculis
inscriptas docet). First, the three outer planets by
their conjunctions generate thunder and lightning (fulgurationes
being watery, fulmina containing the dry
exhalation). Then the events called trabes and faces
are formed from
|
 Mummification |
PETOSIRIS, PSEUDO-
(fl. Egypt, second and first
centuries b.c.)
astrology.

During antiquity several texts relating to
divination and astrology circulated under the
names Petosiris and Nechepso. Nechepso is the
name of a king whom Manetho included in the
twenty-sixth Egyptian dynasty (ca. 600
B.C); and the most famous Petosiris was the high
priest of Thoth (ca. 300 B.C. [?]),1
although many others bore this name signifying
“Gift
of Osiris”.
Whether the author of the works circulating
under their names had these two individuals, or
some others, in mind we cannot know.
The fragments of these works, which were
collected by E. Riess,2
fall into four main groups: (1) those using
astral omens as developed by the Egyptians in
the Achemenid and Ptolemaic periods from
Mesopotamian prototypes to give general
indications; (2) those derived from a
revelation-text in which Nechepso the king,
guided by Petosiris, sees a vision that grants
him a knowledge of horoscopic truth; (3) a
treatise on astrological botany for medical
purposes and another on decanic medicine; and
(4) treatises on numerology
(1) The fragments of texts employing astral
omina are largely from authors of late
antiquity: Hephaestio of Thebes (fl. ca.
415), Proclus (410–485),
and John Lydus (fl. ca. 560). As
preserved to us, the fragments represent radical
reworkings of the original texts. It is those
fragments, and especially fragment 6 (Riess),
which C. Bezold and F. Boll3
saw to be related to Mesopotamian texts and that
allowed Kroll4
to date the original to the second century B.C.
The fragments belonging to this text5
use as omens eclipses, the heliacal rising of
Sirius, and comets. Fragments 66
uses as omens the color of the eclipsed the
heliacal rising of Sirius, and comets. Fragment
6 uses as omns the color of the esclipsed body;
the simultaneous occurrence of winds blowing
from th several directions and of shooting
stars, halos, lightning, and rainl and the
presence of the eclipsed body in each of the
signs of the zodiac (a substitution for Egyptian
months). Fragment 6 also divides the day or
night into four periods, each of which has three
seasonal hours. Most of these elements are found
in the demotic papyrus published by R. A.
Parker,7
and many of them in the relevant tablets of the
Sin and Shamash sections of the Babylonian
astral omen series Enũma
Anu Enlil.
Fragment 88
summarizes a similar treatment of eclipse omens
from Campestrius,
“who
follows the Petosirian traditions.”
Fragment 7,9
also on eclipse omens, seems to be from another
but still ancient source in which the scheme of
geographical references was rather strictly
limited to Egypt and its neighbors in contrast
to fragment 6, where the eclipses affect the
whole Eurasian continent.
Fragment 1210
gives annual predictions based on the situation
at the heliacal rising of Sirius, including the
positions of the planets and the color of the
star and direction of the winds; it is to be
compared to the demotic papyrus published by G.
R. Hughes11
and also with
“Eudoxius”12
and Pseudo-Zoroaster.13
In the middle of Hephaestio, I, 23, is a
description of the manner in which the effective
force of the planets is transmitted through the
spheres to the sublunar sphere. This passage
presupposes both Aristotelian physical theories
and a planetary system based on epicycles,
eccentrics, or both. If the passage is a genuine
quotation form a text written in the second
century B.C., it is of the greatest interest as
providing the earliest evidence known to us of a
theory of astral influence. The fragment
contains other elements of interest to a
historian of horoscopy—for
example, a categorization of the planets as
malefic or benefic and the use of aspects. But
these elements may have been added by Hephaestio
or some unknown predecessor, or the whole
chapter may have nothing to do with the work
published under the names of Nechepso and
Petosiris.
Very doubtful indeed is the attribution to
that work of fragments 914
1015
and 11.16
The ominous bodies are the comets, of which
there was originally one type associated with
each of the planets. Such comets of the planets
are found also in early Sanskrit astral omen
texts (for example, in the Gargasamhitã
), but we have as yet no cuneiform tablets that
would give us a common source. In any case,
there is little reason to assign these specific
fragments to Nechepso and Petosiris
Perhaps also forming a part of the astral
omen texts are two other sets of fragments
dealing with problems that interested the
earliest men who attempted to convert general
omens into ones significant for individuals and
who used Babylonian techniques. These two
problems are the date of a native’s
conception17
and the computation of the length of his life
based on the rising times between the ascendent
and the nonagesimal.18
(2) The horoscopic text includes all of the
passages from Valen’
Anthologies (I give the references to
the edition by W. Kroll [Berlin, 1908]) and some
from Firmicus Maternus. In it Nechepso saw a
vision,19
which included a perception of the motions of
the planets that is redolent of pre-Ptolemaic
astronomy. He described what he had learned from
this revelation in at least thirteen books of
very obscure iambic senarii. As we know the
ideas there expressed only through the dim
intellect of Vettius Valens, we are not
surprised to find the
“mysteries”
largely either self contradictory or too
fragmentary to be comprehended fully. Some
passages in Valens20
indicate that he knew of a separate work of
Petosiris (entitled Definitions ) in
addition to that of Nechepso, to whom he usually
refers as
“the
king,”
although in another place21
he speaks of
“the
king and Petosiris”
together. several passages22
contain quotations from
“the
king’s
“
thirteenth book.
Among the principal astrological doctrines
discussed by Nechepso and Petosiris in the
poetic work (or works) available to Valens are
the computation of the length of life of the
native;23
the calculation of the Lot of Fortune, which is
also used in computing the length of life;24
the determination of good and bad times during
the native’s
life, based on various methods of continuous
horoscopy (the planetary periods, the lord of
the year, and the revolution of the years of
nativities);
25 dangerous or climacteric
times;26
and various aspects of the native’s
life: travel,27
injury,28
children,29
and death.30
It is probable that Firmicus Maternus drew upon
this same collection for his references to
Petosiris’
and Nechepso’s
geniture of the universe,31
his statement that Petosiris only lightly
touched upon the doctrine of the decans,32
and his denial that Petosiris and Nechepso dealt
with the Sphaera barbarica. Add also
the discussion of initiatives in Julian,33
(3) Nechepso is known as an authority on
materia medica (plants and stones) under astral
influence.34
(4) The numerological treatises are of two
sorts, both explained in a letter of Petosiris
to King Nechepso, which is extant in numerous
recensions. The simpler form utilizes only the
numerical equivalent of the Greek letters in the
querist’s
name; the second form utilizes the day of the
lunar month and the
“Circle
of Petosiris.”35
Another numerological text, which is based on
the zodiacal signs, occurs in a letter addressed
to Nechepso.36
The significance of Pseudo-Petosiris’
works (esp. 1 and 2) is their illumination of—although
in a very fragmentary form—two
important processes of Ptolemaic science: the
development of the astral omens that the
Egyptians of the Achemenid period had derived
from Mesopotamia, and the invention of a new
science of astrology based on Greek astronomy
and physics in conjunction with Hellenistic
mysticism and Egypto-Babylonian divination from
astral omens. The effect of their teachings on
their successors was profound, although the
primitiveness of their methods meant that only
their heirs of a mystic (Valens) or antiquarian
(Hephaestio and Lydus) bent cite them in detail.
That influence is acknowledged not only in the
fragments mentioned above, but also at various
places in the important Epitome Parisina
37
NOTES
1. G. Lefebvre, Le
tombeau de Petosiris, 3 vols. (Cairo, 1923–1924).
2. E. Riess,
“Nechepsonis
et Petosiridis fragmenta magica,”
in Philologus, Supplementband 6
(1892), 327–394,
to which many more fragments could be added.
3. C. Bezold and F. Boll,
Reflexe astrologischer Keilinschriften bei
griechischen Schriftstellern (Heidelberg,
1911).
4. W. Kroll,
“Aus
der Geschichte der Astrologie,”
in Neue JahrbÜcher
fÜr
das Klassische Altertum, Geschichte und Deutsche
Literatur, 7 (1901), 559–577,
esp. 573–577.
5. Frs. 6–12
in Riess, some of which are very dubious.
6. Hephaestio, I, 21, who
attributes the material to the ancient
Egyptians; another version, using Roman months
rather than zodiacal signs, was published by F.
Boll, in Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum
Graecorum, VII (Brussels, 1908), 129–151.
7. R. A. Parker, A
Vienna Demotic Papyrus on Eclipse and
lunar-omina (Providence, 1959).
8. Lydus, De ostentis,
9.
9. Hephaestio, 1, 22.
10. Hephaestio, I, 23,
who attributes it to the ancient, wise
Egyptians; ef; Catalogus Codicum
Astrologorum Graecorum, V, pt. 1 (Brussels,
1904), 204
11. G. R. Hughes,
“A
Demotic Astrological Text,”
in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 10
(1951), 256–264.
12. Catalogus Codicum
Astrologorum Graecorum, VII, 181–187.
13. Geoponica,
I, 8 and I, 10 = fr. 0,40; and fr. 0,41 in J.
Bidez and F. Cumont, Les mages hellánisás,
II (Paris, 1938), 178–183.
14. John Lydus, De
ostentis, 11–15,
from Campestrius.
15. Hephaestio, I, 24.
16. Servius, In
Aeneidem, X, 272, who follows Avienus, but
also mentions Campestris (sic!) and Petosiris.
17. Fr. 14; cf.
Achinapolus in Vitruvius, De architectura,
IX, 6,2; Pseudo-Zoroaster, fr. 0,14 Bidez-Cumont,
II, 161–162;
and A. Sachs, in Journal of Cuneiform
Studies, 6 (1952), 58–60.
18. Frs. 16 and 17 and
also fr. 5 (Valens, III, 16) and Valens, III, 3,
and VIII, 6; cf. Berosus, frs. 32 and 33 in P.
Schnabel, Berossos und die
babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur
(Leipzig—Berlin,
1923), 264. Also see Hephaestio, II, 18, 72
(this quotation does not include the important
fragment of the Salmeschoeniaca, II,
18, 74–75),
and Pliny’s
report of their computation of the distances of
the planetary spheres (fr. 2). This last may
belong to 2.
19. Fr. 1; Valens, VI,
preface.
20. Valens, II, 3; VIII,
5; IX, 1.
21. Ibid., VII,
5; cf. III, 10.
22. Ibid., II,
3; III, 14; IX, preface; IX, 1.
23. Ibid., III,
10 = fr. 18, which gives a computation based on
a point computed similarly to a Lot and entirely
different from the method employed in the
passages we have assigned to 1.
24. This is given in
Nechepso’s
thirteenth book and in Petosiris,
Definitions ; Valens, II, 3; III, 14 = fr.
19; IX, 1.
25. Valens, V, 6 = fr. 20
and VII, 5 = fr. 21; cf. III, 14; VI, 1.
26. Ibid., III,
11 = fr. 23.
27. ibid., II,
28.
28. Ibid., II,
36; cf. fr. 27 from Firmicus.
29. ibid., II,
39.
30. Ibid., II,
41 = fr. 24.
31. Fr. 25, where they
are correctly stated to be drawing on an
Hermetic source; cf. lest. 6.
32. Fr. 13, but cf. fr.
28.
33. Catalogus Codicum
Astrologorum Graecorum, I (Brussels, 1898),
138. (I doubt the authenticity of the brief
statement about quartile and trine aspect
published in Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum
Graecorum, VI [Brussels, 1903], 62.)
34. Frs. 28–32
and 35–36;
the latter two, drawn from the work of Thessalus,
should now be consulted in the edition of H.-V.
Friedrich (Meisenheim am Glan, 1968); cf, also
Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum,
I, 126.
35. Frs. 37–42;
see also Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum
Graecorum, I, 128; IV (Brussels, 1903), 120–121;
XI, pt. 2 (Brussels, 1934), 152–154,
163–164;
Pseudo-Bede in Patrologia Latina, XC,
cols. 963–966;
and cf. Psellus in a letter published in
Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum,
VIII, pt. 1 (Brussels, 1929), 131.
36. Catalogus Codicum
Astrologorum Graecorum, VII, 161–162.
37. Ibid., VIII,
pt. 3 (Brussels, 1912), 91–119.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aside from Riess’s
collection of fragments, the main study of
Pseudo-Petosiris is C. Darmstadt, De
Nechepsonis-Petosiridis Isagoge quaestiones
selectae (Leipzig, 1916); unfortunately, he
attributes to Nechepso-Petosiris far more than
the evidence of the fragments warrants. Rather
unsatisfactory arlicles are W. Kroll in
Pauly-Wissoa’s
Real-Encyclopadie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft, 16
(1935), cols. 2160–2167;
19 (1938), col. 1165; and W.
Gundel and H. G. Gundel, Astrologumena
(Wiesbaden, 1966), 27–36.
David Pingree
Petosiris
to Nechepso
From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia

figure similar to Petosiris's Circle
from Ole Worm's Computus Runicus.
Petosiris to Nechepso is a letter
describing an ancient
divination technique using
numerology and a diagram. It is likely to be
a
pseudepigraph.
[1]
Petosiris and
Nechepso are considered to be the founders
of
astrology in some traditions.[2]
One translation of this letter into Latin is
attributed to
Saint Bede
[3], and can be found in
Cotton Tiberius. The technique is known by
several names, including the Petosiris Circle[4],
the Sphere of
Apuleius, Columcille's Circle, and
Democritus's Sphere. The attribution of
ancient authors is a typical practice of
Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and the
technique may arise from this tradition.
Examples of the figure are known from
Anglo-Saxon manuscripts.[5]
The technique involves calculating the
numerical value of a patient's name, then
dividing by 30 or 29, a number derived from the
lunar month to find the remainder, which is
(mod 29) or (mod 30) in
modular arithmetic. The number is then found
on the diagram, to determine the
prognosis.
In summary we have as follows, leaving aside here
the complex and important cometary theories of the
pre-socratics, Aristotle, and the Stoics. First, ca.
145-35 B.C.E. Nechepso-Petosiris wrote a book of
astrology including a passage on cometary prognosis
based on heavenly region of appearance. He (they?)
assumed that comets were fiery (the standard theory
of the era) without further ado. His view of comets
seems to be that they appear in, move toward, or
pause in, any quadrant of the sky. Their
descriptions are irrelevant to their nature, serving
only to identify them. Within the next century five
further books were written. Epigenes refined the
standard theory with details about whirl-winds and
the like (Sen. QN 7.4-10), referred to the
Chaldaians (sc. Nechepso-Petosiris?), was also an
astrologer (cp. Pliny 7.160, 193), and has the
simplest view of the planets (when they seem close
together they are: Sen. QN 7.4.2)82).
Although fundamentally Epigenes' theory is simple,
it seems to have involved a detailed reworking of
Aristotle's theory (Sen. QN 7.4.2-4, cp. Pliny 2.82
anonymous)83), perhaps making use of
Hipparchos or of Hipparchos' Babylonian sources
(note Pliny 7.193: Epigenes apud Babylonios ...
obseruationes siderum coctilibus laterculis
inscriptas docet). First, the three outer planets by
their conjunctions generate thunder and lightning (fulgurationes
being watery, fulmina containing the dry
exhalation). Then the events called trabes and faces
are formed from |
III
THOTH THE MASTER OF WISDOM
THOTH (TEḤUTI)
The present
chapter will be devoted to a brief consideration of the
nature, powers, and attributes of the divine personification
Thoth (Teḥuti), the Master of Wisdom and Truth, on the
ground of pure Egyptian tradition. As I have unfortunately
no sufficient knowledge of Egyptian, I am not in a position
to control by the texts the information which will be set
before the reader; it will, however, be derived from the
works of specialists, and mainly from the most recent study
on the subject, the two sumptuous volumes of Dr E. A. Wallis
Budge, the keeper of the Egyptian and Assyrian antiquities
in the British Museum.
First of all, however, let us see what the German scholar
Pietschmann has had to say on Thoth in his monograph
specially devoted to Thrice-greatest Hermes according to
Egyptian, Greek, and Oriental traditions. 1
The first part of Pietschmann’s treatise, in which he
seems to be content, as far as his own taste and feeling are
concerned, to trace the original of the grandiose concept of
the Thrice-greatest to the naïve conception of an
“ibis-headed moon-god,” is devoted to the consideration of
what he calls the god Teχ-Ṭeḥuti among
the Egyptians. Why Pietschmann should have chosen this
double form of the name for his sub-title is not very clear.
The variants appear to be Teḥ, Teḥu, Teḥut, and Teḥuti—of
which it would seem that the Greek form Thoth is an attempt
to transliterate Teḥut. There are, however, it may be
remarked, no less than eighteen variants of the name found
in Greek and Latin. I should thus myself be inclined to use
the form Teḥut if it were permissible; but of this I am not
quite sure, as the weak-sounding though undoubtedly more
common form Teḥuti, is usually employed by scholars. As,
however, Teḥuti, to my ears at any rate, is not a very
dignified sounding cognomen, I shall use the Greek form
Thoth as being the more familiar to English readers.
THOTH ACCORDING TO PIETSCHMANN
Horapollo tells us that the ibis was the symbol of Thoth
as the “master of the heart and reason in all men,” 1
though why this was so must remain hidden in the mystery of
the “sacred animals,” which has not yet to my knowledge been
in any way explained.
And as Thoth, the Logos, was in the hearts of all, so was
he the heart of the world whose life directed and permeated
all things. 2
Thus the temple, as the dwelling of the God, was regarded
as a model of the world, and its building as a copy of the
world-building. And just as Thoth had ordained measure,
number, and order in the universe, so was he the
master-architect of temple-building and of all the mystic
monuments. Thus, as the ordering world-mind, a text
addresses Thoth as follows:
“Thou art the great, the only God, the Soul of the
Becoming.” 1
To aid him in the world Thoth has a spouse, or syzygy,
Nehe-māut. She is, among the Gnostics, the Sophia-aspect of
the Logos. She is presumably the Nature of our Trismegistic
treatises. Together Thoth and Nehe-māut are the initiators
of all order, rule, and law in the universe.
Thus Thoth is especially the representative of the
Spirit, the Inner Reason of all things; he is the Protector
of all earthly laws, and every regulation of human society. 2
Says a text:
“His law is firmly established, like that of Thoth.” 3
As representative of the Reason immanent in the world,
Thoth is the mediator through whom the world is brought into
manifestation. He is the Tongue of Rā, the Herald of the
Will of Rā, 4
and the Lord of Sacred Speech. 5
“What emanates from the opening of his mouth, that cometh
to pass; he speaks, and it is his command; he is the Source
of Speech, the Vehicle of Knowledge, the Revealer of the
Hidden.” 6
Thoth is thus the God of writing and all the arts and
sciences. On a monument of Seti I. he is called “Scribe of
the nine Gods.” He writes “the truth of the nine Gods,” and
is called “Scribe of the King of Gods and men.”
Hence he is naturally inventor of the hieroglyphics, and
patron and protector of all temple-archives and libraries,
and of all scribes. At the entrance of one of the halls of
the Memnonium at Thebes, the famous “Library of Osymandias,”
called “The great House of Life,” we find Thoth as “Lord in
the Hall of Books.” 1
In the Ebers papyrus we read: “His guide is Thoth, who
bestows on him the gifts of his speech, who makes the books,
and illumines those who are learned therein, and the
physicians who follow him, that they may work cures.”
We shall see that one of the classes of priests was
devoted to the healing of the body, just as another was
devoted to the healing of the soul.
These books are also called “The Great Gnoses of Thoth.” 2
Thoth was thus God of medicine, but not so much by drugs as
by means of mesmeric methods and certain “magic formulæ.”
Thus he is addressed as “Thoth, Lord of Heaven, who givest
all life, all health.” 3
THE THREE GRADES OF THE EGYPTIAN
MYSTERIES
Moreover, Thoth was also Lord of Rebirth: 4
“Thou hast given life in the Land of the Living; Thou hast
made them live in the Region of Flames; Thou hast given
respect of thy counsels in the breasts and in the hearts of
men—mortals, intelligences, creatures of light.”
The Land of the Living was the Invisible World, a
glorious Land of Light and Life for the seers of ancient
Egypt. Mortals, Intelligences, Creatures of Light, were,
says Pietschmann, the “three grades of the Egyptian
mysteries.” 1
These grades were, one may assume from our treatises: (1)
Mortals—probationary pupils who were instructed in the
doctrine, but who had not yet realised the inner vision; (2)
Intelligences—those who had done so and had become “men,”
that is to say who had received the “Mind”; (3) Beings (or
Sons) of Light—those who had become one with the Light, that
is to say those who had reached the nirvāṇic
consciousness.
So much for what Pietschmann can be made to tell us of
Thoth as Wisdom-God among the Egyptians.
THOTH ACCORDING TO REITZENSTEIN
To the information in Pietschmann may be added that which
is given by Reitzenstein in the second of his two important
studies, Zwei religionsgeschichtliche Fragen nach
ungedruckten Texten der Strassburger Bibliothek (Strassburg,
1901). This second study deals with “Creation-myths and the
Logos-doctrine,” the special Creation-myths treated of being
found in a hitherto unpublished Greek text, which hands on
purely Egyptian ideas in Greek dress and with Greek
god-names, and which is of great interest and importance for
the general subject of which our present studies form part.
The writer of this cosmogonical fragment was a priest or
prophet of Hermes, and Hermes plays the most important part
in the creation-story. Reitzenstein then proceeds to show
that in the oldest Egyptian cosmogony the cosmos is brought
into being through the Divine Word, which Thoth, who seems
to have originally been equated with the Sun-god, speaks
forth. This gives him the opportunity of setting down the
attributes ascribed to Thoth in Egypt in pre-Greek times. 1
As, however, the same ground is covered more fully by Budge,
we will now turn to his Gods of the Egyptians, or Studies
in Egyptian Mythology (London, 1904), vol. i. pp. 400
ff., and lay under contribution the chapter entitled “Thoth
(Teḥuti) and Maāt, and the other Goddesses who were
associated with him,” as the most recent work on the subject
by a specialist in Egyptological studies, whose opinions, it
is true, may doubtless on many points be called into
question by other specialists, but whose data must be
accepted by the layman as based on prolonged first-hand
study of the original texts. In using the material supplied
by Dr Budge, however, I shall venture on setting it forth as
it appears to me—that is to say, with the ideas awakened in
my own mind by the study of his facts.
THOTH ACCORDING TO BUDGE
In the Hymns to Rā in the Ritual or Book of the Dead,
and in works of a similar nature, we find that Thoth and
Maāt stand one on either side of the Great God in his Boat,
and that their existence was believed to be coeval with his
own. Maāt is thus seen to be the feminine counterpart,
syzygy or shakti, of Thoth, and her name is
associated with the idea of Truth and Righteousness—that
which is right, true, real, genuine, upright, righteous,
just, steadfast, unalterable.
HIS DEIFIC TITLES
From the inscriptions of the later dynastic period,
moreover, we learn that Thoth was called “Lord of Khemennu
(Hermopolis), Self-created, to whom none hath given birth,
God One.” He is the great Measurer, the Logos, “He who
reckons in Heaven, the Counter of the Stars, the Enumerator
of the Earth and of what is therein, and the Measurer of the
Earth.”
He is the “Heart of Rā which cometh forth in the form of
the God Thoth.”
As Lord of Hermopolis, where was his chief shrine, and of
his temples in other cities, he was called “Lord of Divine
Words,” “Lord of Maāt,” “Judge of the two Combatant
Gods”—that is, of Horus and Set. Among other titles we find
him called “Twice-great,” and “Thrice-great.” “From this
last,” says Budge, “were derived the epithets ‘Trismegistus’
and ‘Termaximus’ of the classical writers.” We, however,
doubt if this is so, and prefer the explanation of Griffith,
as we shall see later on.
In addition to these deific titles, which identify him
with the Logos in the highest meaning of the term, he was
also regarded as the Inventor and God of all arts and
sciences; he was “Lord of Books,” “Scribe of the Gods,” and
“Mighty in speech”—that is to say, “his words took effect,”
says Budge; his was the power of the “Spoken Word,” the Word
whose language is action and realisation. He was said to be
the author of many of the so-called “funeral works” by means
of which the “deceased” gained everlasting life. These books
were, however, rather in their origin sermons of
initiation for living men, setting forth the
“death unto sin and the new birth unto righteousness.” Thus
in the Book of the Dead he plays a part to which are
assigned powers greater than those of Osiris or even of Rā
himself.
HIS SYMBOLS AND NAME
He is usually depicted in human form with the head of an
ibis, or sometimes as an ibis; but why he is so symbolised
remains a mystery even unto this day. It is also of little
purpose to set down the emblems he carries, or the various
crowns he wears, without some notion of what these hidden
symbols of a lost wisdom may purport. The meanings of these
sacred signs were clear enough, we may believe, to those who
were initiated into the “Language of the Word”; to them they
revealed the mystery, while for the profane they veiled and
still veil their true significance.
Teḥuti, the Egyptian name of Thoth, it has been
suggested, is to be derived from teḥu, the supposed
oldest name of the ibis in Egypt; the termination ti
thus signifying that he who was thus called possessed the
powers and qualities of the ibis.
But if this is the true derivation, seeing that Teḥuti in
his highest aspect is a synonym for the Logos of our system
at the very least, I would suggest that we should rather
exalt the “ibis” to the heavens than drag down the sublime
concept of that Logos to considerations connected with a
degenerate fowl of earth, and believe that the Egyptians
chose it in wisdom rather than folly, as being some far-off
reflection of a certain Great Bird of the Cosmic Depths, a
member of that circle of Sacred Animals of which the now
conventional Signs of the Zodiac are but faint sky-glyphs.
But the derivation of the name Teḥuti which seems
to have been favoured by the Egyptians themselves
was from tekh, which usually means a “weight,” but is
also found as the name of Thoth himself. Now the
determinative for the word tekh is the sign for the
“heart”; moreover, Horapollo (i. 36) tells us that when the
Egyptians wish to write “heart” they draw an ibis, adding,
“for this bird was dedicated to Hermes (Thoth) as Lord of
all Knowledge and Understanding.” Is it possible, however,
that in this Horapollo was either mistaken or has said less
than he knew; and that the Egyptians once wrote simply
“heart” for Thoth, who presided over the “weighing of the
heart,” but subsequently, in their love of mystery, and
owing to the name-play, substituted the bird tekh or
teknu, which we know closely resembled the ibis, for
the more sacred symbol?
The now commonest name for Thoth, however, is Egy. hab,
Copt, hibōi, Gk. ibis; and it is the white
ibis (Abû Hannes) which is the Ibis religiosa,
so say Liddell and Scott. Another of the commonest symbolic
forms of Thoth is the dog-headed ape. Thus among birds he is
glyphed as the ibis, among animals as the cynocephalus. The
main apparent reason for this, as we shall see later on, is
because the ibis was regarded as the wisest of birds, and
the ape of animals. 1
In the Judgment Scene of the Book of the Dead the
dog-headed ape (Āān) is seated on the top of the beam of the
Balance in which the heart of the deceased is weighed; his
duty apparently is to watch the pointer and tell his master
Thoth when the beam is level. Brugsch has suggested that
this ape is a form of Thoth as God of “equilibrium,” and
that it elsewhere symbolises the equinoxes; but this does
not explain the ape. Thoth is indeed, as we have seen, the
Balancer—“Judge of the two Combatant Gods,” 1
Horus and Set; he it is who stands at the meeting of the Two
Ways, at the junction of Order and Chaos; but this by no
means explains the puzzling cynocephalus. It was in one
sense presumably connected with a certain state of
consciousness, a reflection of the true Mind, just as were
the lion and the eagle (or hawk); it “mimicked” that Mind
better than the rest of the “animals.”
Horapollo (i. 16), basing himself on some Hellenistic
sources, tells us that the Egyptians symbolised the
equinoxes by a sitting cynocephalus. One of the reasons
which he gives for this is delightfully “Physiologic”; he
tells us that at the equinoxes once every two hours, or
twelve times a day, the cynocephalus micturates. 2
From this as from so many of such tales we learn what the
“sacred animal” did in heaven, rather than what the physical
ape performed on earth. (Cf. R. 265, n. 3.)
THE SHRINE OF THOTH
“The principal seat of the Thoth-cult was Khemennu, or
Hermopolis, a city famous in Egyptian mythology as the place
containing the “high ground on which Rā rested when he rose
for the first time.”
Dare I here speculate that in this we have the mountain
of our “Secret Sermon on the Mountain,”
and that it was in the Thoth mystery-tradition of
Hermopolis that the candidates for initiation were taught to
ascend the mountain of their own inner natures, on the top
of which the Spiritual Sun would rise and rest upon their
heads “for the first time,” as Isis says in our “Virgin of
the World” treatise?
THOTH AND HIS COMPANY OF EIGHT
At Khemennu 1
Thoth was regarded as the head of a Company of Eight—four
pairs of divinities or divine powers, each a syzygy of male
and female powers, positive and negative, active and
passive, the oldest example of the Gnostic Ogdoad.
This was long ago the view of Brugsch, and it is now
strongly supported by Budge, on the evidence of the texts,
as against the opinion of Maspero, who would make the
Hermopolitan a copy of the Heliopolitan Paut, or Company,
which included Osiris and Isis. Budge, however, squarely
declares that “the four pairs of gods of Hermopolis belong
to a far older conception of the theogony than that of the
company of gods of Heliopolis.”
If this judgment is well founded, we have here a most
interesting parallel in the Osirian type of our Trismegistic
literature, in which Osiris and Isis look to Hermes (Thoth)
as their teacher, as being far older and wiser than
themselves.
The great struggle between Light and Darkness, of the God
of Light and the God of Darkness, goes back to the earliest
Egyptian tradition, and the fights of Rā and Āpep,
Ḥeru-Behuṭet and Set, and Horus, son of Isis, and Set, are
“in reality only different versions of one and the same
story, though belonging to different periods.” The Horus and
Set version is apparently the most recent. The names of the
Light God and Dark God thus change, but what does not change
is the name of the Arbiter, the Mediator, “whose duty it was
to prevent either God from gaining a decisive victory, and
from destroying one another.” This Balancer was Thoth, who
had to keep the opposites in equilibrium.
THE HOUSE OF THE NET
The name of the Temple of Thoth at Khemennu, or the City
of Eight, was Ḥet Ȧbtit, or “House of the Net”—a very
curious expression. From Ch. cliii. of the Ritual, however,
we learn that there was a mysterious Net which, as Budge
says, “was supposed to exist in the Under World and that the
deceased regarded it with horror and detestation. Every part
of it—its poles, and ropes, and weights, and small cords,
and hooks—had names which he was obliged to learn if he
wished to escape from it, and make use of it to catch food
for himself, instead of being caught by ‘those who laid
snares.’”
Interpreting this from the mystical standpoint of the
doctrine of Rebirth, or the rising from the dead—that is to
say, of the spiritual resurrection of those who had died to
the darkness of their lower natures and had become alive to
the light of the spiritual life, and this too while alive in
the body and not after the death of this physical frame—I
would venture to suggest that this Net was the symbol of a
certain condition of the inner nature which shut in the man
into the limitations of the conventional life of the world,
and shut him off from the memory of his true self. The
poles, ropes, weights, small cords, and hooks
were symbols of the anatomy and physiology, so to
say, of the invisible “body” or “carapace” or “egg” or
“envelope” of the soul. The normal man was emeshed in this
engine of Fate; the man who received the Mind inverted this
Net, so to speak, transmuted and transformed it, so that he
could catch food for himself. “Come ye after me and I will
make you fishers of men.” The food with which the “Christ”
nourishes his “body” is supplied by men.
Thus in a prayer in this chapter of the Ritual we read:
“Hail, thou ‘God who lookest behind thee,’ 1
thou ‘God who hast gained the mastery over thine heart,’ 2
I go a-fishing with the cordage [? net] of the ‘Uniter of
the earth,’ and of him that maketh a way through the earth. 3
Hail ye Fishers who have given birth to your own fathers, 4
who lay snares with your nets, and who go round about in the
chambers of the waters, take ye not me in the net wherewith
ye ensnare the helpless fiends, and rope me not in with the
rope wherewith ye roped in the abominable fiends of earth,
which had a frame which reached unto heaven, and weighted
parts that rested upon earth.” 5
And in another chapter (cxxxiii.) the little man says
to the Great Man within him: “Lift thyself up, O thou Rā,
who dwellest in this divine shrine; draw thou unto thyself
the winds, inhale the North wind, and swallow thou the
beqesu of thy net on the day wherein thou breathest Maāt.”
“On the day wherein thou breathest Maāt” suggests the
inbreathing or inspiration of Truth and Righteousness, the
Holy Ghost, or Holy Breath or Life, the Spouse of the
Ordering Mind or Logos. The winds are presumably the four
great cosmic currents of the Divine Breath, the North wind
being the “down-breath” of the Great Sphere.
The term beqesu has not yet been deciphered (can
it mean knots?); but the swallowing of the Net seems to
suggest the transformation of it, inwardly digesting of it,
in such a fashion that the lower is set free and becomes one
with the higher.
And that this idea of a net is very ancient, especially
in its macrocosmic significance, is evidenced by the
parallel of the Assyrian and Babylonian versions of the
great fight between the Sun-god Marduk and the Chaotic
Mother Tiamat and her titanic and daimonic powers of
disordered motion and instability—both Egyptian and
Babylonian traditions probably being derived from some
primitive common source.
“He (Marduk) set lightning in front of him, with burning
fire he filled his body. He made a net to enclose the inward
parts of Tiamat, the Four Winds he set so that nothing of
her might escape; the South wind and the North wind, and the
East wind and the West
wind, he brought near to the net which his father
Anu had given him.” 1
Now in the Hymns of the popular Hermes-cult found in the
Greek Magic Papyri, one of the most favourite forms of
address to Hermes is “O thou of the four winds.” Moreover,
we may compare with the rope with which the Fishers “rope
the abominable fiends of earth,” the passage of Athenagoras
to which we have already referred, and in which he tells us
concerning the Mysteries that the mythos ran that Zeus,
after dismembering his father, and taking the kingdom,
pursued his mother Rhea who refused his nuptials. “But she
having assumed a serpent form, he also assumed the same
form, and having bound her with what is called the ‘Noose of
Hercules’ (τῷ καλουμένῳ Ἡρακλειωτικῷ ἄμματι), was joined
with her. And the symbol of this transformation is the Rod
of Hermes.”
Here again it is the symbolic Caduceus that represents
the equilibrium between the opposed forces; it is the power
of Thoth that binds and loosens; he holds the keys of heaven
and hell, of life and death. It is further quite evident
that Athenagoras is referring to a Hellenistic form of the
Mysteries, in which the influence of Egypt is dominant. The
“Noose of Hercules” is thus presumably the “Noose of Ptah.”
Now Ptah is the creator and generator, and his “Noose” or
“Tie” is probably the Ankh-tie or symbol of life, the
familiar crux ansata, of which the older form is a
twisted rope, probably representing the binding together of
male and female life in generation. Ptah is also the God of
Fire, and we should not forget that it is Hephaistos in
Greek myth who catches Aphrodite and Ares in a Net which he
has cunningly contrived—at which the gods laughed in High
Olympus.
In the list of titles of the numerous works belonging to
the cycle of Orphic literature, one is called The Veil
(Πέπλος) and another The Net (Δίκτυον). 1
In the Panathenæa the famous Peplum, Veil, Web, or Robe
of Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom, was borne aloft like the
sail of a galley; but this was the symbol only of the
Mysteries. Mystically it signified the Veil of the Universe,
studded with stars, the many-coloured Veil of Nature, 2
the famous Veil or Robe of Isis, that no “mortal” or “dead
man” has raised, for that Veil was the spiritual nature of
the man himself, and to raise it he had to transcend the
limits of individuality, break the bonds of death, and so
become consciously immortal.
Eschenbach 3
is thus quite correct when, in another of its aspects, he
refers this Veil to the famous Net of Vulcan. Moreover
Aristotle, quoting the Orphic writings, speaks of the
“living creature born in the webs of the Net”; 4
while Photius tells us that the book of Dionysius Ægeensis,
entitled Netting, or Concerning Nets (Δικτυακά),
treated of the generation of mortals. 5
And Plato himself likens the intertwining of the nerves,
veins, and arteries to the “network of a basket” or a
bird-cage. 6
All of which, I think, shows that Thoth’s Temple of the
Net must have had some more profound significance in its
name than that it was a building in which “the emblem of a
net, or perhaps a net itself, was venerated,” as Budge
lamely surmises.
THOTH THE LOGOS
But to resume. We have seen that Thoth was considered to
be the “heart” and “tongue” of Rā the Supreme—that is, not
only the reason and mental powers of the god Rā, and the
means whereby they were translated into speech, but rather
the Controller of the life and Instrument of the utterance
of the Supreme Will; He was the Logos in the fullest sense
of that mysterious name, the Creative Word. He it is who
utters the “words” whereby the Will of the Supreme is
carried into effect, and his utterance is that of Necessity
and Law; his “words” are not the words of feeble human
speech, but the compelling orders of the Creative Will.
“He spoke the words which resulted in the creation of the
heavens and the earth, and he taught Isis the words which
enabled her to revivify the dead body of Osiris, in suchwise
that Osiris could beget a child by her; and he gave her the
formulæ which brought back her son Horus to life after he
had been stung to death by a scorpion.”
All of which, I believe, refers microcosmically to the
mystery of the resurrection from the dead, by the power of
the Logos. “Osiris” must die before he can be raised, and
beget a son, who is himself, by immaculate conception within
his own spiritual nature. “Horus” must be poisoned to death
by the scorpion of “Typhon” before he can be raised by the
baptism of the pure waters of Life.
THE WORDS OF THOTH
Thoth’s “knowledge and powers of calculation measured out
the heavens and planned the earth, and
everything which is in them; his will and power
kept the forces in heaven and earth in equilibrium; it was
his skill in celestial mathematics which made proper use of
the laws (maāt) upon which the foundation and
maintenance of the universe rested; it was he who directed
the motions of the heavenly bodies and their times and
seasons; and without his words the gods, whose existence
depended upon them, could not have kept their place among
the followers of Rā”—but would presumably have disappeared
into another universe.
Thoth is the Judge of the dead, the Recorder and Balancer
of all “words,” the Recording Angel; for the testing of the
soul in the Balance of the Hall of Osiris is called the
“weighing of words” and not of “actions.” But these “words”
were not the words a man uttered, nor even the “reasons” he
thought he had for his deeds, but the innermost intentions
of his soul, the ways of the will of his being.
This doctrine of “words” as expressions of will, however,
had, in addition to its moral significance, a magical
application. “The whole efficacy of prayer appears to have
depended upon the manner and tone of voice in which the
words were spoken.”
It was Thoth who taught these words-of-power and how to
utter them; he was the Master of what the Hindus would call
mantra-vidyā, or the science of invocation or sacred
chanting. These mantrāḥ were held in ancient Egypt,
as they were and are to-day in India, and elsewhere among
knowers of such matters, of special efficacy in affecting
the “bodies” and conditions of that fluid nature which
exists midway between the comparative solidity of normal
physical nature and the fixed nature of the mind.
These “words” were connected with vital “breath” and the
knowing use of it; that is to say, they were
only really efficacious when the spoken words of
physical sound corresponded naturally in their vowels and
consonants, or their fluid and fixed elements, with the
permutations and combinations of the inner elements of
Nature; they then and only then were maā or true or
authentic or real—that is to say, they were “words-of
-power” in that they compelled matter to shape itself
according to true cosmic notions.
Thus in a book called The Book of Breathings, it
is said: “Thoth, the most mighty God, the Lord of Khemennu,
cometh to thee, and he writeth for thee The Book of
Breathings with his own fingers. 1
Thus thy soul shall breathe for ever and ever, and thy form
shall be endowed with life upon earth, and thou shalt be
made a God, along with the souls of the Gods, and they shall
be the heart of Rā [for thee], and thy members shall be the
members of the Great God.”
THOTH AND THE OSIRIFIED
In the Ritual we learn of the services which Thoth
performs for “Osiris,” that is for the Osirified, for he
repeats them for every man who has been acquitted in the
Judgment. Of three striking passages quoted by Budge, we
will give the following as the most comprehensible, and
therefore the seemingly most important for us. It is to be
found in Ch. clxxxiii. and runs as follows, in the words
placed in the mouth of the one who is being resurrected into
an Osiris.
“I have come unto thee, O son of Nut, Osiris, Prince of
everlastingness; I am in the following of God Thoth, and I
have rejoiced at everything which he hath done for thee. He
hath brought unto thee sweet air for thy nose, and life and
strength for thy beautiful face, and the North wind which
cometh forth from Tem for thy nostrils. . . . He hath made
God Shu to shine upon thy body; he hath illumined thy path
with rays of splendour; he hath destroyed for thee [all] the
evil defects which belong to thy members by the magical
power of the words of his utterance. He hath made the two
Horus brethren to be at peace for thee; 1
he hath destroyed the storm wind and the hurricane; he hath
made the Two Combatants to be gracious unto thee, and the
two lands 2
to be at peace before thee; he hath put away the wrath which
was in their hearts, and each hath become reconciled unto
his brother.”
THOTH THE MEASURER
Budge then proceeds to give the attributes of Thoth as
connected with time-periods and the instruments of time, the
sun and moon. As Ȧāh-Teḥuti, he is the Measurer and
Regulator of times and seasons, and is clearly not the
Moon-god simply—though Budge says that he clearly
is—for Thoth as Ȧāh is the “Great Lord, the Lord of Heaven,
the King of the Gods”; he is the “Maker of Eternity and
Creator of Everlastingness.” He is, therefore, not only the
Æon, but its creator; and that is something vastly different
from the Moon-god.
THE TITLE “THRICE-GREATEST”
On p. 401 our authority has already told us that one of
the titles of Thoth is “Thrice-great,” and that the Greeks
derived the honorific title Trismegistus from this; but on
p. 415 he adds: “The title given to him in some
inscriptions, ‘three times great, great’ [that is,
greatest], from which the Greeks derived their appellation
of the god ὁ τρισμέγιστος, or ‘ter maximus,’ has not yet
been satisfactorily explained, and at present the exact
meaning which the Egyptians assigned to it is unknown.”
If this title is found in the texts, it will settle a
point of long controversy, for it has been strenuously
denied that it ever occurs in the hieroglyphics;
unfortunately, however, Dr Budge gives us no references. To
the above sentence our distinguished Egyptologist appends a
note to the effect that a number of valuable facts on the
subject have been collected by Pietschmann in the book we
have already made known to our readers. We have, however,
not been able to find any valuable facts in Pietschmann
which are in any way an elucidation of the term
Thrice-greatest; but to this point we will return in another
chapter.
THE SUPREMACY OF THOTH
The peculiar supremacy ascribed to Thoth by the
Egyptians, however, has been amply demonstrated, and, as the
great authority to whom we are so deeply indebted, says in
his concluding words: “It is quite clear that Thoth held in
their minds a position which was quite different from that
of any other god, and that the attributes which they
ascribed to him were unlike the greater number of those of
any member of their companies of gods. The character of
Thoth is a lofty and a beautiful conception, and is,
perhaps, the highest idea of deity ever fashioned in the
Egyptian mind, which, as we have already seen, was somewhat
prone to dwell on the material side of divine matters.
Thoth, however, as the personification of the Mind of God,
and as the all-pervading, and governing, and directing power
of heaven and earth, forms a feature of the Egyptian
religion which is as sublime as the belief in the
resurrection of the dead in a spiritual body, and as the
doctrine of everlasting life.”
Thoth is then the Logos of God, who in his relation to
mankind becomes the Supreme Master of Wisdom, 1
the Mind of all masterhood.
We will now turn to one whose views are considered
heterodox by conservative and unimaginative critics, 2
who confine themselves solely to externals, and to the
lowest and most physical meanings of the hieroglyphics—to
one who has, I believe, come nearer to the truth than any of
his critics, and whose labours are most highly appreciated
by all lovers of Egyptian mystic lore.
THE VIEWS OF A SCHOLAR-MYSTIC
The last work of W. Marsham Adams 3
deserves the closest attention of every theosophical
student. Not, however, that we think the author’s views with
regard to a number of points of detail, and especially with
regard to the make-up of the Great Pyramid, are to be
accepted in any but the most provisional manner, for as yet
we in all probability do not know what the full contents of
that pyramid are, only a portion of them being known to us
according to some seers. The chief merit of the book before
us is the intuitional grasp of its author on the
general nature of the mystery-cultus, as derived from the
texts, and especially those of the Ritual or the so-called
Book of the Dead, as Lepsius named it, setting a bad
fashion which is not yet out of fashion. The Egyptian
priests themselves, according to our author, called it
The Book of the Master of the Secret House, the Secret
House being, according to Adams, the Great Pyramid,
otherwise called the “Light.”
THE SPIRITUAL NATURE OF THE INNER
TRADITION OF EGYPTIAN WISDOM
In his Preface the author gives us clearly to understand
that he regards the Wisdom of Egypt as forming the main
background of some of the principal teachings of Early
Christianity; and that this view is strongly confirmed by a
careful study of the Trismegistic literature and its
sources, will be made apparent in the course of our own
labours. But before we proceed to quote from the former
Fellow of New College, Oxford, whose recent death is
regretted by all lovers of Egypt’s Wisdom, we must enter a
protest.
Mr Adams has severely handicapped his work; indeed, he
has destroyed nine-tenths of its value for scholars, by
neglecting to append the necessary references to the texts
which he cites. Such an omission is suicidal, and, indeed,
it would be impossible for us to quote Mr Adams were it not
that our Trismegistic literature permits us—we might almost
say compels us—to take his view of the spiritual nature of
the inner tradition of Egyptian Wisdom. Not, however, by any
means that our author has traversed the same ground; he has
not even mentioned the name of the Thrice-greatest one, and
seems to have been ignorant of our treatises. Mr Adams
claims to have arrived at hconclusions solely from the
Egyptian texts themselves, and to have been confirmed in his
ideas by personal inspection of the monuments. In fact, he
considers it a waste of time to pay attention to anything
written in Greek about Egyptian ideas, and speaks of “the
distortion and misrepresentation wherein those ideas were
involved, when filtered through the highly imaginative but
singularly unobservant intellect of Greece.” 1
Thus we have a writer attacking the same problem from a
totally different standpoint—for we ourselves regard the
Greek tradition of the Egyptian Gnosis as a most valuable
adjunct to our means of knowledge of the Mind of Egypt—and
yet reaching very similar conclusions.
THE HOLY LAND OF EGYPT AND ITS INITIATES
The Holy Land of those who had gone out from the body,
watered by the Celestial Nile, the River of Heaven, of which
the earthly river was a symbol and parallel, was divided
into three regions, or states: (1) Rusta, the Territory of
Initiation; (2) Aahlu, the Territory of Illumination; and
(3) Amenti, the Place of Union with the Unseen Father. 2
“In the religion of Egypt, the deepest and most
fascinating mystery of antiquity, the visible creation, was
conceived as the counterpart of the unseen world. 3
And the substance consisted not of a mere vague belief in
the life beyond the grave, but in tracing out the Path
whereby the Just, when the portal of the tomb is lifted up, 4
passes through the successive stages of Initiation, of
Illumination, and of Perfection, necessary to fit him for an
endless union with Light, the Great Creator.” 1
Thus we are told that at a certain point in Aahlu, the
Territory of Illumination, the Osirified, the purified soul,
has achieved the “Passage of the Sun”—that is to say, has
passed beyond the mortal mind-plane; he opens the Gates of
the Celestial Nile and receives the Atf-crown of
Illumination, “fashioned after the form of the Zodiacal
light, the glory of the supreme heaven.” This is presumably
the “crown of lives” referred to in our sermons, which he
receives in the sphere called “Eight,” and with which he
goes to the Father.
The Guide and Conductor through all these grades was
Thoth the Eternal Wisdom; 2
and we are told that:
THOTH THE INITIATOR
“Thoth the Divine Wisdom, clothes the spirit of the
Justified 3
a million times in a garment of true linen, 4
othat substance, that is to say, which by its purity and its
brilliancy reminds us of the mantles, woven out of rays of
light, wherewith the sun enwraps the earth afresh each day
as she rotates before him; just as the soul of man is
invested with new radiance each time that he turns to the
presence of his Creator.” Again, “in the harmonious
proportion of the universe,” the Egyptians saw “the Eternal
Wisdom, Thoth, ‘the Mind and Will of God.’” 1
We have seen that Pietschmann considers the original of
Thoth, the God of Wisdom, to be nothing more than the
ibis-headed moon-god, thus intentionally deriving the origin
of the Great Initiator from what he considers to be the
crude beginnings of primitive ideas. But Thoth was the Great
Reckoner, the Recorder of the Balance of Justice, the Teller
of the Kārmic Scales. Now the mortal time-recorder for the
Egyptians was the moon, “for if we consider the motion of
the moon relatively to the sun, we shall find that the time
that it takes in covering a space equal to its own disc is
just an hour. . . . Now, that measure of the ‘Hour’ was
peculiarly sacred in Egypt; each of the twenty-four which
elapse during a single rotation of the earth being
consecrated to its own particular deity, twelve of light and
twelve of darkness. ‘Explain the God in the hour,’ is the
demand made of the adept in the Ritual when standing in the
Hall of Truth. And that God in the hour, we learn, was
Thoth, the ‘Lord of the Moon and the Reckoner of the
Universe.’” 2
Again, with regard to the moon-phases, the first day of
the lunar month was called “the conception of the moon,” the
second its “birth,” and so on step by step till it was full.
Now the time of all lower initiations was the full moon.
Thus “in the lunar representationson the walls of the temple
of Denderah we have fourteen steps leading up to the
fifteenth or highest, whereon was enthroned Thoth, the Lord
of the Moon.” 1
For some such reasons was Thoth called Lord of the Moon,
not that the moon gave birth to the idea of Thoth. We must
not seek for the origin of the Wisdom-tradition in its lower
symbols. For in the inscription on the coffin of
Ankhnes-Ra-Neferab—that is of her “whose life was the Sacred
Heart of Ra”—we read: “Thy name is the Moon, the Heart of
Silence, the Lord of the Unseen World” 2—of
the space “as far as the moon,” or the “sublunary region,”
as the old books say, the first after-death state, where
souls are purified from earthly stains.
SOME OF THE DOCTRINES OF INITIATION
The end set before the neophyte was illumination, and the
whole cult and discipline and doctrines insisted on this one
way to Wisdom. The religion of Egypt was essentially the
Religion of the Light.
But “most characteristic of all was the omnipotent and
all-dominating sense of the fatherhood of God, producing the
familiar and in some respects even joyous aspect which the
Egyptians imparted to the idea of death.” And “to the sense
which the priests at least possessed, both of the divine
personality and of their own ultimate union with the
personal deity [the Logos], far more probably than to any
artificial pretension to a supposed exclusiveness, may be
ascribed the mystery enshrouding their religion.” 3
And as Light was the Father of the Religion of
Illumination, so was Life, his consort or syzygy, the Mother
of the Religion of Joy. “Life was the centre, the
circumference, the totality of Good. Life was the sceptre in
the hand of Amen; life was the richest ‘gift of Osiris.’ ‘Be
not ungrateful to thy Creator,’ says the sage Ptah-Hotep, in
what is perhaps the oldest document in existence, ‘for he
has given thee life.’ ‘I am the Fount of Light,’ says the
Creator in the Ritual. ‘I pierce the Darkness. I make clear
the Path for all; the Lord of Joy.’” 1
Or again, as the postulant prays to the setting sun: “O
height of Love, thou openest the double gate of the
Horizon.” 2
Here we have the full doctrine of the Light and Life
which is the keynote of our treatises. Again, the doctrine
of the endless turning of the spheres, which “end where they
begin,” in the words of “The Shepherd,” is shown in the
great fourth year festival of Hep-Tep or
“Completion-Beginning,” when “the revolution and the
rotation of our planet were simultaneously completed and
begun afresh.” 3
THE TEMPLES OF INITIATION
That the ancient temples of initiation in Egypt were
models of the Sophia Above, or of the “Heavenly Jerusalem,”
to use a Jewish Gnostic term, or, in other words, of the
Type of the world-building, we may well believe. Thus it is
with interest that we read the remarks of Adams on the
temple of Denderah (or Annu), rebuilt several times
according to the ancient plans, and an important centre of
the mystery-cultus. The temple was dedicated to Hat-Hor,
whose ancient title was the Virgin-Mother.
“In the centre of the temple is the Hall of the Altar,
with entrances opening east and west; and beyond it lies the
great hall of the temple entitled the Hall of
the Child in his Cradle, from whence access is obtained
to the secret and sealed shrine entered once a year by the
high priest, on the night of mid-summer.” 1
There were also various other halls and chambers each
having a distinctive name, “bearing reference, for the most
part, to the Mysteries of the light and of a divine Birth.”
We have such names as: Hall of the Golden Rays, Chamber of
Gold, Chamber of Birth, Dwelling of the Golden One, Chamber
of Flames.
Now as the famous planisphere of Denderah—a wall-painting
transferred bodily from the temple to Paris, early in the
last century—“contains the northern and southern points, we
are enabled to correlate the parts of that picture with the
various parts of the temple, and thereby to discover a
striking correspondence between the different parts of the
inscription and the titles of the chambers and halls
occupying relative positions.” 2
Thus we have in the planisphere corresponding to the
halls and chambers such names as: Horus, the Entrance of the
Golden Heavens, the Golden Heaven of Isis, Horizon of Light,
Palace Chamber of Supreme Light, Heavenly Flame of Burning
Gold. “And as the chief hall of the temple was the Hall of
the Child in his Cradle, so the chief representation on the
planisphere is the holy Mother with the divine Child in her
arms.”
THE MYSTERY OF THE BIRTH OF HORUS.
Now the great mystery of Egypt was the second birth, the
“Birth of Horus.” In “The Virgin of the World,” a long
fragment of the lost Trismegistic treatise, “The Sacred
Book,” preserved by Stobæus, Isis says to Horus: I will not
tell of this birth; I must not, mighty Horus, reveal the
origin of thy race, lest men should in the future know the
generation of the Gods. Of the nature of this rebirth we are
familiar from our treatises. But in spite of such clear
indications the mystery of the Golden Horus has not yet been
revealed.
In another passage from the same book Isis declares that
the sovereignty or kingship of philosophy is in the hands of
Harnebeschenis. This transliterated Egyptian name is given
by Pietschmann 1
as originally either Hor neb en χennu (Horus the Lord
of Xennu), or as Hor nub en χennu (the Golden Horus
of Xennu). His hieroglyph was the golden hawk, who flies
nearest the sun, and gazes upon it with unwinking eyes, a
fit symbol for the new-born, the “man” illuminate.
Indeed, says Adams, “throughout the sacred writings of
Egypt, there is no doctrine of which more frequent mention
is made than that of a divine birth.” 2
In what circle of ideas to place the Birth of Horus the
theosophical student may perhaps glean by reversing the
stages given in the following interesting passage of our
author:
“In the Teaching of Egypt, around the radiant being,
which in its regenerate life could assimilate itself to the
glory of the Godhead, was formed the ‘khaibit,’ or luminous
atmosphere, consisting of a series of ethereal envelopes, at
once shading and diffusing its flaming lustre, as the
earth’s atmosphere shades and diffuses the solar rays. And
at each successive transformation (Ritual, lxxvii-lxxxvii.)
it descended nearer to the moral [? normal] conditions of
humanity. From the form of the golden hawk, the
semblance of the absolute divine substance of the one
eternal self-existent being, it passes to the ‘Lord of
Time,’ the image of the Creator, since with the creation
time began. Presently it assumes the form of a lily,
the vignette in the Ritual representing the head of Osiris
enshrined in that flower; the Godhead manifested in the
flesh coming forth from immaculate purity. ‘I am the pure
lily,’ we read, ‘coming forth from the lily of light. I am
the source of illumination and the channel of the breath of
immortal beauty. I bring the messages; Horus accomplishes
them.’ Later the soul passes into the form of the uræus,
‘the soul of the earth.’ . . . And finally it assumes the
semblance of a crocodile; becoming subject, that is, to
the passions of humanity. For the human passions, being part
of the nature wherein man was originally created, are not
intrinsically evil but only become evil when insubordinate
to the soul.” 1
“THE BOOK OF THE MASTER”
And not only was the Deity worshipped as the Source of
Light and Life, but also as the Fount of Love. “I am the
Fount of Joy,” says the Creator in the Ritual, and when the
Atf-crown of illumination is set upon the head of the
triumphant candidate after accomplishing the “Passage of the
Sun,” as referred to above, the hymn proclaims that “north
and south of that crown is Love.” 2
Into this Love the catechumen was initiated from the Secret
Scroll, whose name is thus given in one of the copies: “This
Book is the Greatest of Mysteries. Do not let the eye of
anyone look upon it—that were an abomination. ‘The Book of
the Master of the Secret House’ is its name.” 3
The whole conception of the doctrine exposed in its
chapters is instruction in Light and Life.
But are we to suppose that the majority were really
instructed in this wisdom?—for we find it customary to wrap
up some chapters of this Secret Scroll with almost every
mummy. By no means. It seems to me that there are at least
three phases in the use of this scripture, and in the
process of degeneration from knowledge to superstition which
can be so clearly traced in the history of Egypt. First
there was the real instruction, followed by initiation while
living; secondly, there was the recitation of the
instruction over the uninitiated dead to aid the soul of the
departed in the middle passage; and thirdly, there was the
burying a chapter or series of chapters of the Book of
the Master as a talisman to protect the defunct, when in
far later times the true meaning of the words written in the
sacred characters had been lost, though they were still
“superstitiously” regarded as magical “words of power.”
The recitation of some of the chapters over the dead body
of the uninitiated, however, is not to be set down as a
useless “superstition,” but was a very efficacious form of
“prayers for the dead.” After a man’s decease he was in
conscious contact with the unseen world, even though he may
have been sceptical of its existence, or at any rate unfit
to be taught its real nature, prior to his decease. But
after the soul was freed from the prison of the body, even
the uninitiated was in a condition to be instructed on the
nature of the path he then perforce must travel. But as he
could not even then properly pronounce the “words” of the
sacred tongue, the initiated priest recited or chanted the
passages.
THE STEPS OF THE PATH
“For the doctrine contained in those mystic writings was
nothing else than an account of the Path pursued by the Just
when, the bonds of the flesh being loosed, he passed through
stage after stage of spiritual growth—the Entrance on Light,
the Instruction in Wisdom, the Second Birth of the Soul, the
Instruction in the Well of Life, the Ordeal of Fire, and the
Justification in Judgment; until, illumined in the secret
Truth and adorned with the jewels of Immortality, he became
indissolubly united with Him whose name, says the Egyptian
Ritual, is Light, Great Creator.” 1
It should, however, be remembered that this must not be
taken in its absolute sense even for the initiate, much less
for the uninitiated. For even in the mystic schools
themselves, as we may see from our treatises, there were
three modes in which knowledge could be communicated—“By
simple instruction, by distant vision, or by personal
participation.” 2
For indeed there were many phases of being, many steps of
the great ladder, each in ever greater fullness embracing
the stages mentioned, each a reflection or copy of a higher
phase.
Thus, for example, “the solemn address, described in the
Sai-an-Sinsin, of the ‘Gods in the House of Osiris,’
followed by the response of the ‘Gods in the House of
Glory’—the joyous song of the holy departed who stand
victorious before the judgment-seat, echoed triumphantly by
the inner chorus of their beloved who have gone before them
into the fullness of life” 3—must
be taken as indicative of several stages. Such, for
instance, as the normal union of the man’s consciousness
with that of his higher ego, after exhausting his spiritual
aspirations in the intermediate heaven-world—this is the
joining the “those-that-are” of “The Shepherd” treatise, in
other words, the harvest of those past lives of his that are
worthy of immortality; or again the still higher union of
the initiated with the “pure mind”; or again the still
sublimer union of the Master with the nirvāṇic
consciousness; and so on perchance to still greater Glories.
Thus we are told that the new twice-born, on his
initiation, “clothed in power and crowned with light,
traverses the abodes or scenes of his former weakness, there
to discern, by his own enlightened perception, how it is
‘Osiris who satisfies the balance of Him who rules the
heavens’; to exert in its supernal freedom his creative
will, now the lord, not the slave of the senses; and to
rejoice in the just suffering which wrought his Illumination
and Mastery.” 1
But higher and still higher he has yet to soar beyond
earth and planets and even beyond the sun, “across the awful
chasms of the unfathomable depths to far-off Sothis, the
Land of Eternal Dawn, to the Ante-chamber of the Infinite
Morning.” 2
AN ILLUMINATIVE STUDY
Many other passages of great beauty and deep interest
could we quote from the pages of Marsham Adams’ illuminative
study, but enough has been said for our purpose. The Wisdom
of Egypt was the main source of our treatises without a
doubt. Even if only one-hundredth part of what our author
writes were the truth, our case would be established; and if
Egypt did not teach this Wisdom, then we must perforce bow
down before Mr Adams as the inventor of one of the most
grandiose religions of the universe. But the student of
inner nature knows that it is not an invention, and though,
if he be a scholar at the same time, he cannot but regret
that Mr Adams has omitted his references, he must leave the
critic one or other of the horns of the dilemma; they must
either declare that our author has invented it all and pay
homage to what in that case would be his sublime genius, or
admit that the ancient texts themselves have inspired Mr
Adams with these ideas. And if this be a foretaste of what
Egypt has preserved for us, what may not the future reveal
to continued study and sympathetic interpretation!
IV
THE POPULAR THEURGIC HERMES-CULT IN THE
GREEK MAGIC PAPYRI
THE “RELIGION OF HERMES”
That at one
period the “Religion of Hermes” was not only widely spread,
but practically supreme, in popular Hellenistic circles, may
be seen from a study of the texts of the numerous magic
papyri which have been preserved, and made accessible to us
by the industry of such immensely laborious scholars as
Leemans, Dieterich, Wessely, and Kenyon.
The Greek Hermes prayers, as with many others of a
similar nature, are manifestly overworkings of more ancient
types, and, as we might expect, are of a strongly
syncretistic nature. In them we can distinguish in popular
forms, based on the ancient traditions of Egyptian magic,
most interesting shadows of the philosophic and theosophic
ideas which our Trismegistic literature has set forth for us
in the clear light of dignified simplicity.
But just as we now know that the once so-called
“Gnostic,” Abraxas and Abraxoid amulets, gems, and rings
pertained to the general popular magical religion and had
nothing to do with the Gnosis proper, so we may be sure that
the circles of high mysticism, who refused to offer to God
even so pure a sacrifice as
p. 83
the burnt offering of incense, and deemed naught worthy
of Him, short of the “prayers and praises of the mind,” had
nothing directly to do with the popular Hermes prayers,
least of all with the invocatory rites of popular theurgy,
and phylactery or amulet consecration.
Nevertheless, there is much of interest for us in these
invocations, and much that can throw side-lights on the
higher teaching and practice which transformed all external
rites into the discipline of inner spiritual experience.
The following prayers, which, as far as I know, have not
been previously translated, are rendered from the most
recently revised texts of Reitzenstein, who has omitted the
magic names, and emended the previous editions. I cannot but
think, however, that these texts might be submitted to a
more searching analysis than has yet been accorded them.
They seem to present somewhat similar phenomena to the
recensions of the Book of the Dead; that is to say,
fragments of material from the tradition of a greater past
have been adapted and overworked for the needs of a lesser
age. Indeed, the whole effort of the Trismegistic schools
seems to have been to restore the memory of that greater
past; it had been forgotten, and its dim record had become a
superstition instead of a living faith, a degenerate magic
instead of a potent theurgy. The theurgy of our prayers is
that of dwarfs; the theurgy of the past was believed to have
been that of giants.
p. 84
I. AN INVOCATION TO HERMES AS THE GOOD
MIND 1
[Revised text, R. 15-18;
Leemans (C.), Papyri Græc. Mus. Ant. Pub. Lug. Bat. (Leyden,
1885), II. 141, 14 ff., and V. 27, 27 ff.; Dieterich (A.),
Abraxas (Leipzig, 1891), 195, 4 ff.; and
Jahrbücher f. class. Phil., Suppl. XVI. 808 ff. (Papyrus
Mag. Mus. Lug. Bat.).]
1. Come unto me, O thou of the four winds, 2
almighty one, 3
who breathest spirit into men to give them life;
2. Whose name is hidden, and beyond the power of men to
speak; 4
no prophet [even] can pronounce it; yea, even daimons, when
they hear thy name, are fearful!
3. O thou, whose tireless eyes are sun and moon, 5—[eyes]
that shine in the pupils 6
of the eyes of men!
4. O thou, who hast the heaven for head, æther for body,
[and] earth for feet, and for the water round thee ocean’s
deep! 7
Thou the Good Daimon art, who art the sire of all things
good, and nurse of the whole world. 8
5. Thy everlasting revelling-place 9
is set above.
6. Thine the good emanations 10
of the stars,—those daimons, fortunes, and those fates by
whom are given
wealth, good blend [of nature], 1
and good children, good fortune, and good burial. For thou
art lord of life,—
7. Thou who art king of heavens and earth and all that
dwell in them;
8. Whose Righteousness is never put away; whose Muses
hymn thy glorious name; whom the eight Wardens guard,—thou
the possessor of the Truth 2
pure of all lie!
9. Thy Name and Spirit rest upon the good. 3
10. O mayst thou come into my mind and heart for all the
length of my life’s days, and bring unto accomplishment all
things my soul desires!
11. For thou art I, and I am thou. 4
Whate’er I speak, may it for ever be; for that I have thy
Name 5
to guard me in my heart. 6
12. And every serpent 1
roused shall have no power o’er me, nor shall I be opposed
by any spirit, or daimonial power, or any plague, or any of
the evils in the Unseen World; 2
for that I have thy Name within my soul.
13. Thee I invoke; come unto me, Good, altogether good,
[come] to the good, 3—thou
whom no magic can enchant, no magic can control, 4
who givest me good health, security, 5
good store, good fame, victory, [and] strength, and cheerful
countenance! 6
14. Cast down the eyes of all who are against me, and
give me grace on all my deeds! 7
II. AN INVOCATION TO LORD HERMES
[Revised and restored
text, stripped of later overworkings, R. 20, 21. Wessely
(C.), Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, “Neue griechische Zauberpapyri” (Vienna,
1893), vol. xlii. p. 55; Kenyon (F. G.), Greek Papyri in
the British Museum (London, 1893), i. 116.]
1. Come unto me, Lord Hermes, even as into women’s wombs
[come] babes! 8
2. Come unto me, Lord Hermes, who dost collect the food
of gods and men! 9
3. Lord Hermes, come to me, and give me grace, [and]
food, [and] victory, [and] health and happiness, and
cheerful countenance, 1
beauty and powers in sight of all!
4. I know thy Name that shineth forth in heaven; I know
thy forms 2
as well; I know thy tree; 3
I know thy wood 4
as well.
5. I know thee, Hermes, who thou art, and whence thou
art, and what thy city is.
6. I know thy names in the Egyptian tongue, 5
and thy true name as it is written on the holy tablet in the
holy place at Hermes’ city, where thou dost have thy birth.
7. I know thee, Hermes, and thou [knowest] me; [and] I am
thou, and thou art I. 6
8. Come unto me; fulfil all that I crave; be favourable
to me together with good fortune and the blessing of the
Good. 7
III. AN INVOCATION TO LORD HERMES
[Revised and restored
text, R. 21. It is worked in with the preceding, but is of
later date.]
1. Come unto me, Lord Hermes, O thou of many names, who
know’st the secrets hidden both beneath the poles [of
heaven] and underneath the earth!
2. Come unto me, Lord Hermes, thou benefactor, who doest
good to all the world!
3. Give ear to me, [and] give me grace with all that are
on earth; open for me the hands of all that give like thee; 1
[and] make them give me what their hands contain!
4. Even as Horus, 2
if e’er he called on thee, O greatest of all gods, in every
trial, in every space, ’gainst gods, and men, and daimones,
and things that live in water and on earth,—had grace and
riches with gods, and men, and every living thing beneath
the earth;—so let me, too, who call on thee! So give me
grace, form, beauty!
6. Hear me, O Hermes, doer of good deeds, thou the
inventor of [all] incantations, 3
speak me good words! 4
7. Hear me, O Hermes, for I have done all things [that I
should do] for thy black dog-ape, 5
lord of the nether ones!
8. O, soften all [towards me], and give me might
[and] form, 1
and let them give me gold, and silver [too], and food of
every kind continually.
9. Preserve me evermore for the eternity from spells,
deceits, and witchery of every kind, from evil tongues, from
every check and every enmity of gods and men!
10. Give unto me grace, victory, success, and
satisfaction!
11. For thou art I, and I am thou; thy Name is mine, and
mine is thine; for that I am thy likeness. 2
12. Whatever shall befall me in this year, or month, or
day, or hour,—it shall befall the Mighty God, whose symbol
is upon the holy vessel’s prow. 3
IV. AN INVOCATION TO THOTH AS LOGOS
[Revised text, R. 22.
Leemans, op. cit., II. 103, 7; Dieterich, op.
cit., 189.]
1. Thee I invoke alone, thou who alone in all the world
imposest order upon gods and men, 1
who dost transform thyself in holy forms, 2
making to be from things that are not, and from the things
that are making the not to be.
2. O holy Thoth, 3
the true sight of whose face none of the gods endures!
3. Make me to be in every creature’s name 4—wolf,
dog, [or] lion, fire, tree, [or] vulture, 5
wall, 6
[or] water, 7
or what thou will’st, for thou art able [so to do].
V. AN INVOCATION TO HERMES AS THE
SPIRITUAL LIGHT
[Revised text R. 22, 23.
Leemans, ibid., II. 87, 24; Dieterich, ibid.,
176, 1.]
1. Thee I invoke who hast created all, who dost transcend
the whole, the self-begotten God, who seest all and hearest
all, but who art seen by none.
2. For thou didst give the sun his glory and all might,
the moon her increase and her decrease, and [unto both]
their ordained course. Though thou didst not diminish aught
the [powers of] darkness, the still more ancient [than the
sun and moon], thou mad’st them equal [with it]. 1
3. For when thou didst shine forth, Cosmos came into
being, and light appeared, and all things were dispensed
through thee; wherefore they all are under thee.
4. O thou, whose actual form none of the gods can see,
who dost transform thyself into them all in visions [that
men see], O thou Eternity of the eternity. 2
5. Thee I invoke, O Lord, that thy true form may manifest
to me, for that I am in servitude below thy world, 3
slave to thy angel and unto thy fear. 4
6. Through thee the pole and earth are fixed.
7. Thee I invoke, O Lord, e’en as the gods whom thou hast
made to shine, that they may have their power.
The above prayers afford us some striking examples of the
popular Hellenistic form of the Hermes religion, 5
in its theurgic phase. In it Hermes is regarded
as the Mind 1
or Logos. The Mind is invoked to enter the mind and heart
(I. 10). 2
With the shining out of the Mind, the Spiritual or
Intelligible Light shines forth in the world and man (v. 3).
The Mind is thus the guide of souls. 3
He is also identified with the Good Daimon (of whom Chnuphis
or Horus are variants), with the Great Ocean, the
Heaven-Space or Celestial Nile, the Great Green, the Light,
the Æon.
In connection with the above invocations Reitzenstein
gives the text of a very interesting ritual of lower theurgy,
or rite of the sacred flame, which he characterises by the
term “mystery of lychnomancy or lamp-magic.” This is the
lower side of such high vision as is referred to in “The
Shepherd of Men” treatise and in the rite described in the
following passage of the Pistis Sophia, 272, 373:
“Jesus said unto his disciples: Come unto me! And they
came unto him. He turned to the four quarters of the world,
and spake the Great Name over their heads, and blessed them,
and breathed on their eyes.
“Jesus said unto them: Look, see what ye may see!
“And lifting up their eyes they saw a great Light,
exceeding vast, which no dweller on earth could describe.
“He said to them again: Gaze into the Light, and see what
ye may see!
“They said: We see fire and water, and wine and blood.”
VI. THE MYSTIC RITE OF THE FLAME
[Revised text, R. 25-27.
Wessely, op. cit., “Griechische zauberpapyrus von
Paris und London” (Vienna, 1888), 68, 930 ff.]
(a) Invocation to the Light 1
1. I invoke thee, O God, the living one, 2
who dost show forth thy splendour in the fire, thou unseen
Father of the Light! 3
Pour forth thy strength; awake thy daimon, and come down
into this fire; inspire it with [thy] holy spirit; show me
thy might, and let the house of the almighty God, which is
within this light, be opened for me! Let there be
light,—[thy] breadth-depth-length-height-ray; 1
and let the Lord, the [God] within, shine forth!
(b) A Stronger Form to be used
if the Flame dies down
2. I adjure thee, O Light, holy ray,
breadth-depth-length-height-ray, by the holy names which I
have uttered, 2
and am now about to speak . . . abide with me in this same
hour, until I have besought thy God, and learnt about the
things that I desire!
(c) The Theagogy or Invocation
of the God proper
3. Thee I invoke, thou mightiest God and Master . . .
thou who enlightenest all and pour’st thy rays by means of
thine own power on all the world, O God of gods!
4. O Word (Logos) that orderest night and day, who
guid’st the ship, 3
and hold’st the helm, thou dragon-slayer, 4
Good Holy Daimon . . . !
5. To whom the East and West give praise as thou dost
rise and set, thou who art blest by all the gods, angels,
and daimones!
6. Come, show thyself to me, O God of gods . . . !
7. Enter, make manifest thyself to me, O Lord; for I
invoke as the three apes invoke thee—who symbol-wise name
forth thy holy Name.
8. In thy ape-form 1
enter, appear to me, O Lord; for I name forth thy mightiest
names!
9. O thou who hast thy throne about the height of
cosmos, 2
and judgest all, encircled with the sphere of Surety and
Truth! 3
10. Enter, appear to me, O Lord, for that I was before
the fire and snow, and shall be after [them];
11. I am the one who has been born from heaven. 4
12. Enter, appear to me, O Lord of mighty names, whom all
have in their hearts, 5
who dost burst open rocks, 6
and mak’st the names of gods to move!
13. Enter, appear to me, O Lord, who hast thy power and
strength in tire, who hast thy throne within the seven
poles. 7
14. And on thy head a golden crown, and in thy hand a
staff . . . 1
by which thou sendest forth the gods!
15. Enter, O Lord, and give me answer with thy holy
voice, that I may clearly hear and truthfully about this
thing!
(d) A Stronger Form of
Adjuration if (c) fails
16. He doth enjoin thee, He the great living God, who is
for the eternities of the eternities, the shaker and the
thunderer, who doth create each soul and every birth. Enter,
appear to me, O Lord, joyous, benignant, gentle, glorious,
free from all wrath; for I adjure thee by the Lord [of all]!
(e) The Greeting when the
Presence of the God is manifested
17. Hail Lord, O God of gods, thou benefactor . . . !
Hail to thy glories 2
ever more, O Lord!
(f) The Farewell to the God
18. I give thee thanks, O Lord. Depart, O Lord, to thine
own heavens, thine own realms, and thine own course,
preserving me in health, free from all harm, free from all
fear of any ka, 1
free from all stripes, and all dismay, hearkening to me for
all the days of [all] my life!
(g) The Farewell to the Flame
19. Depart, O holy ray; depart, O fair and holy light of
highest God!
In connection with the above, we may also take the
following ritual-prayer used in the consecration of an
amulet ring.
VII. A PRAYER OF CONSECRATION
[Revised text, R. 28, 29.
Wessely, ibid., 84, 1598 ff.]
1. Thee I invoke, O greatest God, Lord everlasting, thou
world-ruler, above the world, beneath the world, mighty
sea-ruler;
2. Who shinest forth at dawn, out from the East rising
for all the world, and setting in the West!
3. Come unto me, thou who dost rise from the four winds,
joyous Good Daimon, for whom the heaven is thy
revelling-place! 2
4. I call upon thy holy, mighty, hidden names which thou
dost joy to hear.
5. When thou dost shine the earth doth sprout afresh, the
trees bear fruit when thou dost laugh, the animals bring
forth when thou dost turn to them.
6. Give glory, honour, grace, fortune and power . . . !
7. Thee I invoke, the great in heaven . . . , O dazzling
Sun, who shed’st thy beams on all the world!
8. Thou art the mighty serpent, the chief of all thgods, 1
O thou who dost possess Egypt’s beginning, 2
and the end of all the world!
9. Thou art the [God] who saileth o’er the ocean; thou
art the [God] who doth come into sight each day.
10. O thou who art above the world, and art beneath the
world, O mighty ruler of the sea, give ear unto my voice
this day, this night, these holy hours [of thine], and
through this amulet let that be done for which I consecrate
it!
THE MAIN SOURCE OF THE TRISMEGISTIC
LITERATURE ACCORDING TO MANETHO, HIGH PRIEST OF EGYPT
HERMES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
HELLENISTIC PERIOD
The more
intimate contact of Greek thought and philosophy with
Egyptian lore and mystic tradition began immediately with
the brilliant era of the Lagides, who gradually made
Alexandria the intellectual and religious, philosophic and
scientific, centre of the Hellenistic world.
Thoth-Hermes, as we have seen, had been for the Egyptians
from the earliest times the teacher of all ancient and
hidden wisdom; he was par excellence the writer of
all sacred scripture and the scribe of the gods. We should
then naturally expect that his dominating influence would
play a leading part in the new development; and this,
indeed, is amply demonstrated by the evidence of the
religious art of the time, which presents us with specimens
of statues of the Greek type of Hermes, bearing at the same
time either the feather of truth (the special symbol of Maāt)
on the head, or the papyrus-roll in the hand 1—both
symbols of Thoth in his dual character as revealer and
scribe. Of the complex nature of the mystic and apocalyptic
literature that thus came into existence we have very
distinct testimony. 1
In keeping with its Egyptian prototype it was all cast in a
theological and theosophical mould, whether it treated of
physics, or medicine, or astrology. Thus we learn that
Pamphilus, the grammarian, 2
was intimately acquainted with a Greek-Egyptian literature
dealing with “sacred plants” and their virtues as determined
by the influences of the thirty-six Decans; this lore, he
tells us, was derived from the “Books ascribed to the
Egyptian Hermes.” 3
PETOSIRIS AND NECHEPSO
Of still greater interest are the Greek fragments of
Petosiris and Nechepso which have come down to us. 4
These Greek fragments are to be dated at least before the
end of the second century B.C., 5
and afford us striking parallels with our extant
Trismegistic literature.
In them we find the Prophet Petosiris represented as the
teacher and counsellor of King Nechepso, as Asclepius of
Ammon in one type of our literature; while it is Hermes who
reveals the secret wisdom to two younger gods, Asclepius and
Anubis, as in our sermons he does to Asclepius and Tat.
As to Petosiris himself, Suidas (s.v.) tells us
that he was an Egyptian philosopher who wrote on comparative
Greek and Egyptian theology, making selections from the
“Holy Books,” and treating of astrology and the Egyptian
Mysteries. Moreover, Proclus 1
tells us that Petosiris had an intimate knowledge of every
order of the Gods and Angels, and refers to a hieratic
formula of theurgic invocation to the greatest of the
goddesses (Necessity), for inducing the vision of this
Power, and the ritual of the manner of addressing her when
she appeared, as handed on by the same Petosiris.
The mystical nature of this literature is still more
clearly shown in what Vettius Valens 2
tells us of Nechepso, who surpassed the Ammon of our
literature and attained to direct knowledge of the Inner
Way.
Vettius, in the first half of the first century A.D.,
laments that he did not live in those days of initiate kings
and rulers and sages who occupied themselves with the Sacred
Science, when the clear Æther spake face to face with them
without disguise, or holding back aught, in answer to their
deep scrutiny of holy things. In those days so great was
their love of the holy mysteries, so high their virtue, that
they left the earth below them, and in their deathless souls
became “heaven-walkers” 3
and knowers of things divine.
Vettius then quotes from a Greek apocalyptic treatise of
Nechepso, where the King tells us that he had remained in
contemplation all night gazing into the æther; and so in
ecstasy he had left his body, 4
and had then heard a heavenly Voice 5
addressing him. This Voice was not merely a sound, but
appeared as a
substantial presence, who guided Nechepso on his way
through the heaven-space.
It is, moreover, exceedingly probable that the
magnificent spectacle of the star-spheres 1
to which Vettius refers, speaking of it as “the most
transcendent and most blessed vision (θεωρία) of all,” was
taken directly from the same source.
With this we may compare the wish of Trismegistus that
Tat might get him the wings of the soul and enjoy that fair
sight, 2
and the seeing of it by Hermes himself through the Mind. 3
All of which proves the existence of books in Greek in
middle Ptolemaic times treating in the same manner of
identical subjects with those contained in our Trismegistic
literature.
MANETHO THE BELOVED OF THOTH
When, then, the sovereignty of Egypt passed into the
hands of the Diadochi of Alexander, and the Ptolemies made
Alexandria the centre of learning in the Greek world, by the
foundation of the ever-famous Museum and Library and Schools
in their capital, there arose an extraordinary enthusiasm
for translating, paraphrasing, and summarising into Greek of
the old scriptures and records of the nations. The most
famous name of such translators and compilers and
comparative theologians is that of Manetho, 4
who introduced the treasures of Egyptian mysticism,
theology, mythology, history, and chronology to the Grecian
world. Moreover, seeing that the veracity and reliability of
Manetho as a historian is with every day more and more
accepted as we become better acquainted with the monuments,
he seems to have done his work loyally enough.
Manetho was contemporary with the first two Ptolemies;
that is to say, he lived in the last years of the fourth and
the first half of the third century B.C. He was a priest of
Heliopolis (On), 1
and was thoroughly trained in all Greek culture 2
as well as being most learned in the ancient Wisdom of
Egypt. 3
Manetho not only wrote on historical subjects, but also on
the mystic philosophy and religion of his country, and it is
from his books in all probability that Plutarch and others
drew their information on things Egyptian. Manetho derived
his information from the hieroglyphic inscriptions in the
temples 4
and from the rest of the priestly records; but unfortunately
his books are almost entirely lost, and we only possess
fragments quoted by later writers.
THE LETTER OF MANETHO TO PTOLEMY
PHILADELPHUS
One of these quotations is of great importance for our
present enquiry. It is preserved by Georgius Syncellus, 1
and is stated to be taken from a work of Manetho called
Sothis 2
a work that has otherwise entirely disappeared. The passage
with the introductory sentence of the monk Syncellus runs as
follows:
“It is proposed then to make a few extracts concerning
the Egyptian dynasties from the Books of Manetho. [This
Manetho,] being high priest of the Heathen temples in Egypt,
based his replies [to King Ptolemy] on the monuments 3
which lay in the Seriadic country. [These monuments,] he
tells us, were engraved in the sacred language and in the
characters of the sacred writing by Thoth, the first Hermes;
after the flood they were translated from the sacred
language into the then common tongue, 4
but [still written] in hieroglyphic characters, and stored
away in books by the Good Daimon’s son and the second
Hermes, father of Tat—in the inner chambers of the temples
of Egypt.
‘“In the Book of Sothis Manetho addresses King
Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy, personally, writing as
follows word for word:
“‘The Letter of Manetho, the Sebennyte, to Ptolemy
Philadelphus.
“‘To the great King Ptolemy Philadelphus, the venerable:
I, Manetho, high priest and scribe of the holy fanes in
Egypt, citizen of Heliopolis but by birth a Sebennyte, 5
to my master Ptolemy send greeting.
“‘We 1
must make calculations concerning all the points which you
may wish us to examine into, to answer your questions 2
concerning what will happen to the world. According to your
commands, the sacred books, written by our forefather
Thrice-greatest Hermes, which I study, shall be shown to
you. My lord and king, farewell.’”
THE IMPORTANCE OF MANETHO’S STATEMENT IN
HIS “SOTHIS”
Here we have a verbal quotation from a document
purporting to be written prior to 250 B.C. It is evidently
one of a number of letters exchanged between Manetho and
Ptolemy II. Ptolemy has heard of the past according to the
records of Egypt; can the priests tell him anything of the
future? They can, replies Manetho; but it will be necessary
to make a number of calculations. Ptolemy has also expressed
a strong desire to see the documents from which Manetho
derived his information, and the high priest promises to let
him see them.
These books are ascribed to Hermes, the Thrice-greatest,
and this is the first time that the title is used in extant
Greek literature. This Hermes was the second, the father of
Tat, we are told elsewhere by Manetho, and son of the Good
Spirit (Agathodaimon), who was the first Hermes. Here we
have the precise grading of the degrees in our treatises:
(i.) The Shepherd of Men, or The Mind; (ii.)
Thrice-greatest; (iii.) Tat. This refers to the ever-present
distinction of pupil and master, and the Master of masters.
If, however, we seek for historical allusions, we may
perhaps be permitted to conclude that the first Hermes, that
is to say the first priesthood among the Egyptians, used a
sacred language, or in other words a language which in the
time of the second Hermes, or second priesthood, was no
longer spoken. It was presumably archaic Egyptian. The two
successions of priests and prophets were separated by a
“flood.” This “flood” was presumably connected with, if not
the origin of, the flood of which Solon heard from the
priest of Saïs, which happened some nine thousand years
before his time, and of which we have considerable
information given us in the Timæus and Critias
of Plato. 1
The Good Angel is the same as the Mind, as we learn from the
Trismegistic literature, and was regarded as the father of
Hermes Trismegistus. This seems to be a figurative way of
saying that the archaic civilisation of Egypt before the
flood, which presumably swept over the country when the
Atlantic Island went down, was regarded as one of great
excellence. It was the time of the Gods or Divine Kings or
Demi-Gods, whose wisdom was handed on in mystic tradition,
or revived into some semblance of its former greatness, by
the lesser descendants of that race who returned from exile,
or reincarnated on earth, to take charge of the new
populations who had gradually returned to the lower Nile
plains after the flood had subsided.
Thus we have three epochs of tradition of the Egyptian
mystery-cultus: (i.) The first Thoth or Agathodaimon, the
original tradition preserved in the sacred language and
character in the stone monuments of the Seriadic land,
presumably the Egypt prior to the Atlantic flood; (ii.) the
second Thoth, the Thrice-greatest, the mystery-school after
the period of the great inundation, whose records and
doctrines were preserved not only in inscriptions but also
in MSS., still written in the sacred character, but in the
Egyptian tongue as it was spoken after the people reoccupied
the country; and (iii.) Tat, the priesthood of Manetho’s
day, and presumably of some centuries prior to his time, who
spoke a yet later form of Egyptian, and from whose demotic
translations further translations or paraphrases were made
in Greek.
IS “SOTHIS” A FORGERY?
This natural line of descent of the fundamental doctrines
in the tradition of the Trismegistic literature, however, is
scouted by encyclopædism, which would have our sermons to be
Neoplatonic forgeries, though on what slender grounds it
bases its view we have already seen. It will now be
interesting to see how the testimony of Manetho is disposed
of. Our encyclopædias tell us that the book Sothis is
obviously a late forgery; parrot-like they repeat this
statement; but nowhere in them do we find a single word of
proof brought forward. Let us then see whether any scholars
have dealt with the problem outside of encyclopædism. Very
little work has been done on the subject. The fullest
summary of the position is given by C. Müller. 1
Müller bases his assertion on Böckh, 2
and Böckh on Letronne. 3
The arguments are as follows: (i.) That the term
“venerable” (σεβαστός) is not used prior to the time of the
Roman emperors; (ii.) that Egypt knows no flood; (iii.) that
the ancient mythology of Egypt knows no first and second
Hermes; (iv.) that Egypt has no Seriadic land; (v.) that the
term “Trismegistus” is of late use.
THE ARGUMENTS OF ENCYCLOPÆDISM REFUTED
Let us take these arguments in order and examine them,
bearing in mind, however, that the whole question has been
prejudiced from the start, and that encyclopædism, in order
to maintain its hypothesis of the spuriousness of our
Trismegistic writings, is bound to argue the
spuriousness of Manetho’s Sothis. The categorical
statements of Manetho are exceedingly distressing to the
former hypothesis; in fact, they give it the lie direct. As
to the arguments, then:
(i.) The term σεβαστός is in later times equated with
“Augustus,” the honorific title of the Roman emperors.
Therefore, it is argued, it could not have been used prior
to their times. But why not? The king to an Egyptian was
divine—every inscription proves it—and the term
“venerable” was in early times always applied to the Gods.
Why not then apply it to the “Great King”? Indeed, what
could be more natural than to do so?
(ii.) We have already shown that, according to Plato,
Egypt knew most accurately of a Flood; Plato further tells
us that Solon got his information from the priests of Saïs,
who told him that all the records were preserved in the
temple of Neïth.
It is not here the place to discuss the Atlanticum
of Plato and the long history of opinion connected wit it,
for that would require a volume in itself. I have, however,
acquainted myself with all the arguments for and against the
authenticity of at least the germ of this tradition, and
with the problems of comparative mythology and folklore
involved in it, and also with the recent literature of the
subject which seeks to corroborate the main conceptions of
Plato by the researches of seership. All this, taken in
conjunction with the general subject of the “myths” of
Plato, and the latest views on this subject, has convinced
me that the greatest of Greek philosophers did not jest
when, his dialectic having gone as far as it could, he
sought refuge in the mystery-traditions for corroboration of
those intuitions which his unaided intellect could not
demonstrate.
It can of course be argued that every reference to a
flood in Egyptian Hellenistic literature is but a repetition
of what the incredulous must regard as Plato’s brilliant
romance; but in this connection, as in many others, it is
equally arguable that all such references—Plato’s
included—are derivable from one and the same source—namely,
Egypt herself.
And, indeed, on 9th November 1904, at a meeting of the
Society of Biblical Archæology, a paper by Professor Naville
was read by Mr F. Legge on “A Mention of a Flood in the Book
of the Dead.” The flood in question is that described in the
Leyden version as Ch. clxxv. 1
(iii.) Cicero (106-44 B.C.) speaks of five Mercurii, the
last two of whom were Egyptian. 2
One was the “son of Father Nile,” whose name the Egyptians
considered it impiety to pronounce—and for whom, presumably,
they substituted the term Agathodaimon; and the second was
the later Thoyth, the-founder of Hermopolis. 1
Cicero could hardly have invented this; it must have been a
commonplace of his day, most probably derived in the first
instance from the writings of Manetho, from which generally
the Greeks, and those imbued with Greek culture, derived all
their information about Egypt.
And, indeed, Reitzenstein (p. 139), though he refers the
information given by Syncellus to a Pseudo-Manetho (without
a word of explanation, however), admits that the genealogy
of Hermes there given is in its main features old. 2
THE SERIADIC LAND
(iv.) The statement that Egypt knew no Seriadic land or
country seems to be a confident assertion, but the following
considerations may perhaps throw a different light on the
matter.
In the astronomical science of the Egyptians the most
conspicuous solar system near our own, represented in the
heavens by the brilliant Sirius, was of supreme interest.
Cycles of immense importance were determined by it, and it
entered into the highest mysticism of Egyptian initiation.
Sirius was, as it were, the guardian star of Egypt. Now
ancient Egypt was a sacred land, laid out in its nomes or
provinces according to the heavens, having centres in its
body corresponding to the centres or ganglia of the heavens.
As the Hindus had a Heavenly Ganges (Ākāsha-Gangā) and an
earthly Ganges, so had the heavens a Celestial Nile, and
Egypt a physical Nile, the life-giver of the land. The
yearly inundation, which meant and means everything for
ancient and modern Khem, was observed with great minuteness,
and recorded with immense pains, the basis of its cycle
being the Sothiac or Siriadic; Sirius (Seirios) being called
in Greek transliteration Sothis and Seth (Eg. Sepṭ). What
more natural name, then, to give to the country than the
Seriadic Land?
The Nile records in ancient times were self-registered by
pyramids, obelisks, and temples, and in later times nearly
all monuments were built according to the type of the
masonic instruments of the Egyptian astrogeological science.
This science has been studied in our own times by an
Egyptian, and the results of his researches have been
printed “for private circulation,” and a copy of them is to
be found in the British Museum. In his Preface the author
writes as follows: 1
“The astrogeological science gave birth to a monumental
system, by means of which the fruits of the accumulated
observations and experience of the human race have been
preserved, outliving writings, inscriptions, traditions, and
nationalities. The principal monuments had imparted to them
the essential property of being autochronous landmarks of a
geochronological nature. Many of them recorded,
hydromathematically, the knowledge in astronomy, in
geography, and in the dimension and figure of the earth
obtained in their respective epochs. They were Siriadic
monuments, because their magistral lines were projected to
the scale
of the revolutions of the cycles of the star Surios (sic)
in terms of the standard astrogeological cubit.”
Doubtless our author flogs his theory too severely, as
all such writers do; but nilometry and the rest was
certainly one of the most important branches of the priestly
science.
THE STELÆ OF HERMES
But before we deal with the last objection urged against
the authenticity of Manetho’s Sothis, we will add a
few words more concerning these Seriadic monuments known in
antiquity as the Stelae of Hermes or of Seth, and
erroneously spoken of in Latin and English as the “Columns”
or “Pillars” of Hermes.
The general reader may perhaps be puzzled at the variety
of spelling of the name of the star, but he should recollect
that the difficulties of transliteration from one language
to another are always great, and especially so when the two
languages belong to different families. Thus we find the
variants of Teḥuti, the Egyptian name of Hermes,
transliterated in no less than nineteen various forms in
Greek and two in Latin—such as Thoyth, Thath, Tat, etc. 1
Similarly we find the name of the famous Indian lawgiver
transliterated into English as Manu, Menu, Menoo, etc.
With regard to these “Mercurii Columnæ,” it was the
common tradition, as we have already pointed out, that
Pythagoras, Plato, and others got their wisdom from these
columns, that is to say, monuments. 2
The historian Ammianus Marcellinus, 1
the friend of the Emperor Julian, has preserved for us a
peculiarity of the construction of some of these pyramids or
temples which is of interest. The passage to which we refer
runs as follows:
“There are certain underground galleries and passages
full of windings, which, it is said, the adepts in the
ancient rites (knowing that the flood was coming, and
fearing that the memory of the sacred ceremonies would be
obliterated) constructed in various places, distributed in
the interior [of the buildings], which were mined out with
great labour. And levelling the walls, 2
they engraved on them numerous kinds of birds and animals,
and countless varieties [of creatures] of another world,
which they called hieroglyphic characters.” 3
We are thus told of another peculiarity of some of the
Seriadic monuments, and of the “Books preserved from the
Flood” of which there were so many traditions. These are the
records to which Sanchuniathon and Manetho make reference.
THE SONS OF SETH-HERMES
The Egyptian account is straightforward enough; but when
Josephus, following the traditional practice of his race in
exploiting the myths of more ancient nations for the purpose
of building up Jewish history—for th Mosaic Books supply
innumerable examples of the working-up of elements which the
Jews found in the records of older nations—runs away with
the idea that Seth (the Egyptian Sirius) was the Biblical
patriarch Seth, the Jewish “antiquarian” enters on a path of
romance and not of history. ’Tis thus he uses the Egyptian
Seriadic tradition for his own purposes:
“All of these [the Sons of Seth] being of good
disposition, dwelt happily together in the same country free
from quarrels, without any misfortune happening to the end
of their lives. The [great] subject of their studies was
that wisdom which deals with the heavenly bodies and their
orderly arrangement. In order that their discoveries should
not be lost to mankind and perish before they became known
(for Adam had foretold that there would be an alternate
disappearance of all things 1
by the force of fire and owing to the strength and mass of
water)—they made two monuments, 2
one of brick and the other of stone, and on each of them
engraved their discoveries. In order that if it should
happen that the brick one should be done away with by the
heavy downpour, 3
the stone one might survive and let men know what was
inscribed upon it, at the same time informing them that a
brick one had also been made by them. And it remains even to
the present day in the Siriad land.” 4
This passage is of great interest not only as affording a
very good example of the method of inventing Jewish
“antiquities,” but also as permitting us to recover the
outlines of the original Egyptian account which Josephus
purloined and adapted. The Sons of Seth were the initiates
of the archaic priesthood of the First Hermes. Adam has been
substituted for the First Man, in the sense of our
“Shepherd” tradition; and the two kinds of monuments (which
Josephus seems to regard as two single structures and not as
relating to two classes of buildings) may refer to the brick
structures and temples of that age, and to specially
constructed and more lasting monuments of stone—perhaps
rock-cut temples, or the most ancient pyramids. I have also
asked myself the question as to whether there may not be
some clue concealed in this “brick monument” reference to
the puzzling statement in the Babylonian Talmud 1
that Jesus set up a “brick-bat” and worshipped it. Jesus is
said in the Talmud Jeschu Stories to have “learned magic in
Egypt,” and the magical wisdom of ancient Egypt is here said
to have been recorded on monuments of brick. 2
Reitzenstein (p. 183), after pointing to the similarity
of tradition as to the Seriadic Land contained in Josephus,
and in what he characterises as Pseudo-Manetho, 3
adds the interesting information that the Seriadic Land is
borne witness to by an inscription as being the home and
native land of Isis; indeed, the Goddess herself is given
the name of Neilotis or Seirias; she is the
fertile earth and is Egypt. 4
To continue, then, with the consideration of the
arguments urged against the authenticity of Manetho’s
Sothis. With regard to objection (iv.), we have given
very good reasons for concluding that so far from Egypt
“knowing no Seriadic land,” Egypt was the Seriadic
Land par excellence, and the Books of Hermes were the
direct descendants of the archaic stone monuments of that
land. And further, we have shown that our Trismegistic
writings are a step or two further down in the same line of
descent. The whole hangs together logically and naturally.
We have thus removed four of the five props which support
the hypothesis of forgery with regard to the Sothis
document. Let us now see whether the remaining prop will
bear the weight of the structure.
THE EPITHET “THRICE-GREATEST”
(v.) We are told that the term “Trismegistus” is of late
use. This assertion is based entirely on the hypothesis that
all our extant Trismegistic writings are Neoplatonic
forgeries of the third or at best the second century, before
which time the name Thrice-greatest was never heard of. The
term Trismegistus must go as far back as the earliest of
these writings, at any rate, and where we must place that we
shall see at the end of our investigations.
That the peculiar designation Trismegistus was known in
the first century even among the Romans, however, is evident
from the famous Latin epigrammatist Martial (v. 24), who in
singing the praise of one Hermes, a famous gladiator, brings
his pæan to a climax with the line:
Hermes omnia solus et
ter unus. 1
A verse which an anonymous translator in 1695 freely
renders as
Hermes engrosses all
men’s gifts in one,
And Trismegistus’ name deserves alone.
Such a popular reference shows that the name Trismegistus
was a household word, and argues for many years of use
before the days of Martial (A.D. 43-104?). But have we no
other evidence?
In the trilingual inscription (hieroglyphic, demotic, and
Greek) on the famous Rosetta Stone, which sings the praises
of Ptolemy Epiphanes (210-181 B.C.), Hermes is called the
“Great-and-Great.” 1
Letronne renders this deux fois grand; 2
and in his notes 3
says that the term “Trismegistus” was not known at this
date, thus contemptuously waving aside Manetho’s Sothis.
Had it been known, he says, it would undoubtedly have been
used instead of the feebler expression “great-and-great.” 4
But why undoubtedly? Let us enquire a little further into
the matter. The Egyptian reduplicated form of this attribute
of Hermes, ȧā ȧā, the “great-great,” is frequently
elsewhere found with a prefixed sign which may be
transliterated ur. 5
So that if the more simple form is translated by “great,
great,” the intensive form would naturally be rendered
“great, great, great,” or “three times great.” But we have
to deal with the form “thrice-greatest,” a superlative
intensive. We have many examples of adjectives intensified
with the particle τρίς in Greek, 6
but no early instances of their superlatives;
therefore, what? Apparently that the term “Trismegistus” is
a late invention.
But may we not legitimately suppose, in the absence of
further information, that when the Egyptian had intensified
his reduplicated form he had come to an end of his
resources—it was the highest term of greatness that he could
get out of his language? Not so when he used Greek. He could
go a step further in the more plastic Hellenic tongue. Why,
then, did he not use “thrice-greatest” instead of
“great-and-great” on the Rosetta Stone?
Because he was translating ȧā ȧā and not its
intensified form. But why did he not use the intensified
form in the demotic inscription? Well, “whys” are endless;
but may we not suppose that, as Ptolemy was being praised
for his justice, which he is said to have exercised
“as Hermes the great-and-great,” the reduplicated form was
sufficient for this attribute of the idealised priesthood,
while the still more honorific title was reserved for Hermes
as the personified Wisdom? Or, again, may it not have been
politic to refrain from adjectives which would have dimmed
the greatness of Ptolemy?
THE CLUE OF GRIFFITHS
So I wrote in November 1899, when the major part of this
chapter was first published in The Theosophical Review.
Shortly afterwards, however, I came across an entirely new
clue. In his Stories of the High Priests of Memphis: the
Sethon of Herodotus and the Demotic Tales of Khamuas
(Oxford, 1900), F. Ll. Griffiths presents us with the
translation of an exceedingly interesting demotic text,
found on the verso of two Greek documents, the
contents of which prove them to be official land-registers
of the seventh year of Claudius (A.D. 46-47). There is also
“strong evidence for attributing the demotic text to some
time within thirty years from that date” (p. 41). So much
for the copy of the original; but what of its contents? As
they belong to the most important cycle of folk-tates of
Egypt, it is to be assumed that their form and substance is
old.
In this papyrus we are told that on an occasion of great
need when the Pharaoh of Egypt was being overcome at a
distance by the sorceries of the Ethiopian enchanters, he
was saved, and the magic of the Black Ones sent back upon
them, by a certain Hor, son of Pa-neshe, most learned in the
Books. Before his great trial of strength with the Ethiopian
spells, we read of this Hor that:
“He entered the temple of Khmûn; he made his offerings
and his libations before Thoth, the Eight-times-great, the
Lord of Khmûn, the Great God” (p. 58).
To this Griffiths appends the following note:
“‘Thoth, eight times great’; the remains of the signs
indicate this reading. The title, which here appears for the
first time in Egyptian literature, is the equivalent of
τρισμέγιστος [thrice-greatest], a late epithet first used
about the date of this MS. 1
ὁ is μέγας [great], which we may represent algebraically by
a; ὁ ὁ (2a), a common title of Thoth in late
hieroglyphic, is μέγας καὶ μέγας [great and great] on the
Rosetta Stone, but probably represents μέγιστος [greatest],
and 8ὁ is therefore τρισμέγιστος [thrice-greatest], i.e.
(2a)³. The famous epithet of Hermes which has puzzled
commentators thus displays its mathematical formation. 6ὁ =
3(2a) would not fill thelacuna on the papyrus, nor
would it give the obviously intended reference to the name
of Thoth’s city, ‘the Eighth,’ and the mythological
interpretation of that name.”
The mythological interpretation of that name, namely
Khmun (Khemen-nw), which Budge transliterates
Khemennu, Griffiths says is “the eighth city,” i.e.
“the eighth in Upper Egypt going up the river.” 1
We are loth to deprive any one of a so fair adaptation to
environment in the evolution of purely physical
interpretation; but we are afraid that our readers will have
already learned for themselves that Khemennu was the City of
the Eight, the City of the Ogdoad, and will expect some less
mundane explanation of the name; not that we altogether
object to Khemennu being the “Eighth City up the River,” if
that river is interpreted as the Celestial Nile on which the
soul of the initiated sailed in the solar boat.
Reitzenstein then is wrong in supposing (p. 117, n. 6)
that Griffiths connects the honorific title Trismegistus
with the eight cynocephali who form the paut of
Thoth; but we may do so.
The nature of this symbolic Ogdoad is most clearly seen
in the inscription of Dêr-el-Bahari, of the time of the
Twenty-second Dynasty which Maspero has lately published. 2
In it the Osirified says to the Supreme:
“I am One who becomes Two; I am Two who becomes Four; I
am Four who becomes Eight; I am the One after that.”
So also in the first Hermes Prayer, quoted in a preceding
chapter, addressed to Hermes as Agathodaimon,
Thoth is he “whom the Eight Wardens guard.”
These Eight, we may perhaps be permitted to speculate,
were generated Two from One, ȧā ȧā, Greatest; Four
from Two, Twice-greatest; Eight from Four, Thrice-greatest.
Such a combination would specially commend itself to men
trained in Pythagorean mathematical symbols, as were
doubtless many who took part in compiling the Egyptian
Hellenistic theosophical literature.
I, therefore, conclude that the honorific title
Thrice-greatest can very well go back to early Ptolemaic
times; and therefore, as far as I can see, the authenticity
of Manetho’s Sothis stands unimpugned as far as any
arguments so far brought against it are concerned. I
therefore regard the quotation of Syncellus as a most
valuable piece of information in tracing the genesis of the
Trismegistic literature. Whether or not any of our extant
sermons can be placed among these earlier forms of this
literature will be discussed later on.
THE EARLIEST TRISMEGISTIC LITERATURE
That, however, literature of a similar nature existed in
early and middle Ptolemaic times we have already seen from
the material adduced at the beginning of this chapter; we
may therefore fitly conclude it by pointing out that in
later Ptolemaic times, and down to the first century A.D.,
we find in the same literature specimens of cosmogenesis
closely resembling the main elements of the world-formation
given in our “Shepherd” treatise.
An excellent example is that of the fragmentary
cosmogonical poem, the text of which Reitzenstein has
printed in his Zwei religionsgesch. Fragen, to which
we have already referred. This poem Reitzenstein (p. 92)
dates as belonging to the first century B.C., though it may
probably be earlier; it declares itself to be of the Hermes
tradition, both in its statement about itself and also in
the fact that it is Hermes, the Beloved Son of Zeus, who is
the Logos-Creator of the cosmos, and also the progenitor or
“father” of the prophet-poet who writes the vision.
PHILO BYBLIUS
But not only did the tradition of Egyptian Hermes
dominate the Greek forms of cosmogony which emanated from
Alexandria and spread through the Hellenic world, but it
also imposed itself upon the forms of cosmogony and the
history-writing of other nations; the most striking example
of this is to be found in the Phœnician Histories of
Philo Byblius, who lived in the second half of the first
century A.D.
The fragments of this work are of great interest to our
present enquiry, as they tend to show that both Egypt and
Phœnicia, the two most sacred nations, derived their
cosmogonical knowledge and mystery-traditions from the same
source; that source being traced to the most archaic Books
of Thoth.
This is all, no doubt, an overwriting of Phœnician
records in the light of Egyptian tradition; Philo, however,
would have us regard his work as a Greek translation or
paraphrase of a compilation made by an ancient and learned
Phœnician priest, Sanchuniathon, based immediately upon
archaic Phœnician records by one who was also learned in the
oral tradition of his own mysteries.
The initial question as to whether Philo had a genuine
Phœnician document before him or not, need
not occupy us here, save in the most superficial fashion,
as we are at present interested in the Egyptian elements of
his account solely, and not in disentangling the native
Phœnician substratum.
It must, however, in fairness be said that though the
Byblian prefaces his account with an introduction and
intersperses it with occasional remarks, all this is
transparently his own, and is clearly distinguishable from
what have every appearance of being translated passages.
ARE HIS “PHŒNICIAN HISTORIES” A FORGERY?
The general theory, however, since the time of Orelli 1
has been that Philo forged the whole of this cosmogony and
history. On the contrary, it was made considerable use of by
Porphyry in his criticism of Christianity, and Eusebius 2
quotes the passages used by Porphyry. 3
The whole work of Philo, moreover, is claimed to be
recovered by Wagenfeld, who has elaborately defended its
genuineness. 4
There indeed seems no reason to accept the
forgery-hypothesis, which apparently rests on an even
flimsier basis than the forgery-theory of the Trismegistic
writings. The work, on the contrary, considered as a
specimen of Phœnician story strongly influenced by Egyptian
tradition, is a most interesting document for understanding
the ancient Semitic mystery-tradition as distinguished from
Jewish adaptations of general Semitic legend—in other words,
the distinction of Semitismus and Israëlitismus.
Porphyry was not only a Semite himself but also a good
critic, and not likely to base his arguments on a forgery;
nor would Philo have ventured to put forward a forgery when
there were thousands of learned and fanatical Jews who would
have been only too glad to expose it.
Philo tells us that the Phœnician public traditions being
chaotic, “Sanchuniathon, a man of great learning and a busy
searcher [after knowledge], who especially desired to know
the first principles from which all things are derived, most
carefully examined the Books of Taaut, for he knew that
Taaut was the first of all under the sun who discovered the
use of letters and the writing of records. So he started
from him, making him as it were his foundation—from him the
Logos whom the Egyptians called Thōuth, the Alexandrians
Thōth, 1
but whom the Greeks have turned into Hermes.” 2
SANCHUNIATHON AND THE BOOKS OF HERMES
This evidently means that the source of Sanchuniathon’s
information as to the mystic beginning of things was derived
from the Books of Thoth, and
that this was so may be seen from the following passage:
“He supposes the beginning of all things to consist of a
Dark Mist of a spiritual nature, or as it were a Breath of
dark mist, and of a turbid Chaos black as Erebus; 1
that these were boundless, and for many an age 2
remained without a bound. ‘But when,’ he 3
says, ‘the Spirit fell in love with his own principles, 4
and they were interblended, that interweaving was called
Love; 5
and this Love was the origin of the creation of all things.
But [Chaos] did not know its own creation. 6
From its embrace with Spirit Mōt was born. 7
From her [Mōt, the Great Mother] it was that every seed of
the creation came, the birth of all the cosmic bodies.
“‘[First of all] there were [Great] Lives 8
devoid of sensation, and out of these came subsequently
[Great]
Lives possessed of intelligence. 1
The latter were called Zophasemin (that is to say,
“Overseers of the Heavens”). The latter were fashioned in
the form of eggs, and shone forth as Mōt, the Sun and Moon,
the Stars and the great Planetary Spheres.
“‘Now as the [original] nebula began to lighten, through
its heat mists and clouds of sea and earth 2
were produced, and gigantic downpours and torrents of the
waters in the firmaments. Even after they were separated, 3
they were still carried from their proper places by the heat
of the sun, and all the [watery and earthy elements] met
together again in the nebula one with the other, and dashed
together, amid thunder and lightning; and over the crash of
the thunderings the [Great] Rational Lives before-mentioned
watched, 4
while on the land and sea male and female cowered at their
echo and were dismayed.’
“After this our author proceeds to say: ‘These things we
found written in the Cosmogony of Taaut, and in his
commentaries, based on his researches and the evidences
which his intelligence saw and discovered, and so
enlightened us.’” 5
There are many other points of interest in Philo’s
translation, but we need not elaborate them here. One point,
however, must not be omitted, because of its importance with
regard to the Hermes-Æsculapius tradition, an important
factor in the Trismegistic writings.
“And Cronus [Ammon] going to the land of the South gave
the whole of Egypt to the God Taaut to be his kingdom. All
these things were first recorded by the Seven Sons of Sydyk,
the Cabiri, and their eighth brother, Asclepius, as it was
commanded them by the God Taaut.” 1
Æsculapius is here at once identified with the cult of
the “Great Gods” (כבר, KBR, Kabirim), who were,
according to the old Semitic tradition, the Sons of King
Sydyk (? Melchizedec). The whole subject of the very ancient
mysteries of these Great Gods is one of immense interest,
but we must not be tempted to follow this alluring
bye-path. 2
Enough has been said to show that both Sanchuniathon and the
writer of “The Shepherd” drew their accounts of cosmogony
from the same sources, namely, the “Books of Thoth,” or, in
other words, the Egyptian mystery-tradition.
AN EGYPTIAN PROTOTYPE OF THE MAIN
FEATURES OF THE PŒMANDRES’ COSMOGONY
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE “PŒMANDRES”
One has
only to read through the remains of the Trismegistic
literature preserved to us to assure himself that the whole
of it looked back to the Pœmandres instruction as the most
primitive form of the tradition in the language of Greece.
The extant form of our “Pœmandres” sermon is clearly not the
most primitive form; but whatever that form was, it must
have contained the cosmological part.
Now, if we regard this cosmogenesis as a purely literary
compilation, the task of the higher criticism will be to try
to sift out the various elements in it, and if possible to
trace them to their sources.
But before making any attempt of this nature, it will be
as well to consider the nature of the literary art of our
document. It purports itself to be an apocalypse, or rather
the record of an apocalyptic vision, and not a purely
literary compilation from already existing literary sources.
It declares itself to be the work of a seer and prophet and
not of a scribe or commentator; it claims to be an inspired
document, a scripture, and not the work of a schoolman.
Of this class of writing we have very many examples in
other scriptures, and it will be as well to consider
p. 129
briefly the nature of such documents. In the original
form of apocalypses we do not as a rule find that prior
formal literary material is used—that is to say, we do not
find that previously existing written sources are
incorporated; what we do find is that in almost every case
the seer uses the forms and terms of previously existing
ideas to express what he sees. These forms and terms are
found in already existing written and oral traditions, and
the prophetical writer is compelled to use the
thought-language of his own mind and of that of his age to
express himself. This, however, does not negate the
possibility of his having seen a true vision, of his having
been inspired.
It is evident that whoever wrote the “Pœmandres” must
have been saturated with the religious, mystical,
philosophic, and scientific thought of his age, clothed in
the forms of the thought-language of his day; and it is also
clear that whatever “newness” there may have been in him,
was owing to the nature of the “touch” of inspiration he had
received. This striking of a new keynote, as it were, in his
inner nature, enabled him to regroup and reconstruct the
previous ideas he had imbibed from his studies.
A PROTOTYPE OF ITS COSMOGENESIS
Now as far as our cosmogenesis is concerned, it has not
yet been found possible to trace the exact verbal forms of
its elements to any precise literary sources, but it has
been found possible to point to written sources which
contain similar ideas; and not only so, but with regard to
the main features of it, a distinct prototype has been found
in Egypt itself. This discovery is due to Reitzenstein (pp.
59 ff.),and the prototype is to be found in an Egyptian
inscription in the British
p. 130
[paragraph continues] Museum, which was first
read correctly and interpreted by Dr J. H. Breasted. 1
Before using it, however, Reitzenstein got his colleague
Professor Spiegelberg to go through it; and again when
Maspero, in reviewing 2
Breasted’s work, had further confirmed the view of it which
Reitzenstein had in his mind, Spiegelberg again revised
certain points in the translation owing to Maspero’s
suggestions.
The inscription itself is dated about the eighth century
B.C., but it states that it is the reproduction of a then
old written text from the temple of Ptah at Memphis.
The chief content has to do with the Osiris-myth, but
into this is inserted the distinctive Ptah-doctrine. Ptah is
supposed by some to have originally been simply the god of
handicraft, seeing that he is equated by the Greek
interpreters of god-names with Hephaistos. He was, however,
rather the Demiurgus, for in very early times he is found in
the closest connection with the Gods of Heaven and Gods of
Light, and is conceived as the Dispenser of all life.
In our text Ptah is brought into the closest relations
with the Supreme Deity (Atum). This “God the Father”
emanates from himself eight deities (the Ogdoad). Each one
of these is Ptah with a distinctive epithet. To the fourth 3
of them, “Ptah the Great,” a theological system is attached,
which, though not entirely ignoring the former presentation,
is but loosely interwoven with it.
Before, however, Reitzenstein proceeds to deal with this,
he gives Professor Spiegelberg’s translation of a Prayer to
Ptah, of the time of Ramses III. (c. 1233 B.C.), from
the Papyrus Harris (I. 44, 3 ff.), in order to make clearer
the circle of ideas into which we shall be introduced. This
Prayer is as follows:
A PRAISE-GIVING TO PTAH
“Hail to thee! Thou art great, thou art old, Tatenen, 1
Father of the gods,
God ancient from the beginning;
Who fashioned men,
Who made the gods,
Who began with the creation as the first creator,
Who created for all who came after him,
Who made the heaven; as his heart 2
he created it;
Who hanged it up,
As God Shu raised himself; 3
Who founded the earth of thy own power,
Who circled in the primal water of the Great Green, 4
Who created the invisible world, which brings the dead
bodies to rest;
Who let Rā come to make them glad,
As Prince of Eternity,
Lord of Eternity,
Lord of Life;
Who fills the lungs with air,
Who gives breath to every nostril,
Who vivifies all beings with his gifts.
Length of life, fortune, and fate are subject unto him
They live by that which goeth forth out of his mouth. 1
Who made contentment for all the gods,
In his form of ancient primal water; 2
Lord of Eternity, to whom Eternity is subject,
Breath of Life for all beings.”
There are other hymns of an exactly similar nature in
which other gods are praised, especially Thoth and Horus.
And now to turn to our inscription, and to that part of the
text assigned to the fourth of the Forms of Manifestation,
or Aspects or Persons, of Ptah.
PTAH-THOTH THE WISE ONE
l. 52. Ptah the Great is the heart and tongue of
the god-circle. 3
§ 1, l. 53. (Two gods) 4
are they, the one as heart, the other as tongue, emanations
of Atum. Exceeding great is Ptah; if he . . . then are their
ka’s in this heart and tongue [of his].
l. 54. When Horus arose in him (Atum) as Ptah, and
when Thoth arose in him as Ptah, the power of heart and
tongue came into being through him. (It is Atum) who brings
forth his being out of every body and out of every mouth of
all the gods. All men, all quadrupeds, all creeping things
live through his thinking and uttering whatsoever he will.
§ 2, l. 55. His god-circle is before him; he is
teeth [and] lips, vessels [and] hands. Atum (is in his)
god-circle; Atum is in his vessels, in his hands; the
god-circle is also teeth and lips in that mouth which hath
uttered the name of everything, and out of which Shu and
Tefnut have proceeded. 1
l. 56. Then the god-circle organised the seeing of
the eye, the hearing of the ear, the smelling of the nose,
wherewith they made the desire of the heart to arise. And
this [heart] it is which accomplishes every desire, but it
is the tongue which repeats 2
what the heart desires.
§ 3. He (Ptah) gives existence 3
unto all gods, to Atum and his god-circle, for every
god-word 4
comes into existence through the desire of the heart and the
command of the tongue.
l. 57. He makes the ka . . . ; he makes all
nourishment and all offerings 5
with this word; he makes what is loved and what is
hated. He gives life to the pious, death to the impious. He
makes every fabric, and every fabrication.
l. 58. The doing of the arms, the going of the
feet, the movement of all limbs, is accomplished by the
utterance of the word, because of the desire of the heart,
[the word] which comes from the tongue and effects the whole
of all things. So arises the teaching: Atum has made the
gods to become Ptah Tatenen 1
so soon as the gods come into existence. All things proceed
from him: sacrifice and food as well as oblation and all
fair things.
§ 4, l. 59. He is Thoth the Wise, whose power is
greater than that of the other gods. He (Thoth) at-oned
himself with Ptah, after he had brought forth all things and
all god-words; 2
after that he had fashioned the gods, had made the cities,
settled the nomes, established the gods in their shrines,
l. 60. When he had ordained their sacrifices,
founded their shrines, and had made statues of [? for] their
bodies for their contentment.
§ 5. If the gods enter into their body, so is he (Ptah)
in every wood, in every jewel, in every metal. 3
All things thrive after him if they [the gods] are there. To
him all gods and their ka’s make oblation, uniting
and binding themselves together [for him who is] Lord of the
Two Lands. 4
With these words the special theological system attached
to the fourth person of Ptah is concluded, and the text
returns to the Osiris-myth.
EGYPTIAN SYNCRETISM 1000 B.C.
From this most interesting inscription copied from an
ancient written document, we learn in the first place that
in Egypt already, a good thousand years before the date of
our “Pœmandres,” we have what the critical mind would call a
distinct specimen of syncretism; namely, an attempt to
combine three God-myths, or traditions, into a single
system. These, if we persist in taking a purely traditional
view, are: (i.) The Hermopolitan myth of Thoth as the
Logos-Demiurge, who also in it frequently appears as an
aspect of the Supreme; (ii.) The doctrine of the
Ptah-priests of Memphis, according to which Ptah as the
Primal Deity creates himself and all gods and men, and
fashions the world; and (iii.) The Heliopolitan theology, in
which Atum as the first of an ennead of gods unites his
eight fellow-gods in himself and is the Primal God and
Primal Basis of all things.
In all this the scribe or prophet has employed very early
conceptions: on the one hand, that the plurality of gods are
but “members” of a One and Only God; and on the other, that
a sharply-defined and in some respect special God is similar
to another more-general God in some particular attribute of
his. Thus Atum is really the Primal God; but the God-circle,
his “Body” (or Pleroma), consists of Eight different Forms
of Ptah. Atum has emanated them; he is therefore “he who
himself creates himself”; but equally so has Ptah created
Atum and himself. The most important Member of this
universal Ptah-Being or Cosmic God is Ptah the Great, who is
Heart and Tongue—the former as Horus, the latter as Thoth.
Thoth proceeds into manifestation as Tongue or Word to
accomplish the cosmic purpose; but the Word is only the
thought which has proceeded, or in a certain fashion
emanated, out of the Person. Thoth and Horus are inseparably
united with Ptah.
Reitzenstein thinks that the occasion for introducing the
whole of this system into an exposition which otherwise
deals with the Osiris-myth, was afforded by the parts played
by Horus and Thoth in that myth. But it is evidently in
itself a special system in which Thoth was the One God, the
Word by whom all things were made.
All of this must be quite manifest to any careful reader,
and therefore there is no reason for its further
elaboration. But though we have recovered one specimen of
this kind of syncretism only, it is not to be supposed that
it was unusual; indeed, it was a necessity in Egypt, where,
beyond all other lands, the idea of a number of divinities
united in one, each showing forth in separation some
attribute dominantly, but in union possessing simultaneously
the attributes of all the others, was the only key possible
to a state of affairs where a plurality of gods existed side
by side with the doctrines of the One and the All.
THE DOCTRINE OF “PŒMANDRES” COMPARED WITH
THAT OF ITS PROTOTYPE
Nevertheless, our inscription is not only of general use,
but of special use for an elucidation of the main elements
in the “Pœmandres” cosmogony. Any attempt to translate the
ideas of the Atum-Ptah-Thoth combination into Greek could
have resulted in no other nomenclature than θέος (God)—δημιουργὸς
or δημιουργὸς νοῦς (Demiurge or Demiurgic Mind)—νοῦς\ and
λόγος (Mind and Word), as is the case in our treatise.
This argument is all the stronger if we reflect that if
Thoth, after the ordering of the cosmos, at-oned himself
again with Ptah, then he must have completed this ordering
which was emanated from Ptah. It is thus that the writer has
brought to clear expression the conception that the Word is
the Proceeding Thought of Ptah, and that both are
inseparably united with one another.
So, too, we find in the “Pœmandres” that the Logos, after
the completion of the cosmic ordering, returns to the
Demiurgic Mind and is at-oned with him.
This similarity of fundamental conception cannot be due
to chance, and we must therefore conclude that a doctrine
essentially corresponding with the theology of our
inscription is the main source of the “Pœmandres” cosmogony.
This fairly establishes the main content of our cosmogony on
an Egyptian ground.
If to this we add the general Egyptian belief that a
man’s soul, after being “purified” in the after-death state,
goes back to God, to live for the eternity as a god with the
gods, 1
then we have established the chief part of the “Pœmandres”
treatise as the Hellenised doctrine of the Egyptian
priests—the mystery-tradition.
With all of this agrees the thought that the God as Mind
dwells in the pious, as we learn from the Hermes Prayers. So
also it is Ptah in our inscription who gives life to the
pious and death to the impious. In very early accounts we
find Ptah, the Mind, is the imparter of the gnosis for the
gods—that is, as a Greek would say, he was the inventor of
philosophy, as indeed Diogenes Laërtius tells us (Proœm. 1):
“The Egyptians declare that Hephaistos was the source of
philosophy, the presidents of which are priests and
prophets.” Ptah, the Mind, reveals himself to his own and
gives them good counsel; “Ptah hath spoken to thee,” Suidas
tells us (s.v.), was a Greek-Egyptian saying, which
is best elucidated by the Stele of Intef, which tells us
that the people say of the heart of Intef: “It is an oracle
of the god which is in every body.” 1
All of this and much more of a like nature make it
indubitably clear that the fundamental conceptions of the
“Pœmandres” are Egyptian, and that the theory of Neoplatonic
forgery must be for ever abandoned; so that even the dreams
of Dévéria are nearer the truth than the confident
assertions of many a great name in scholarship.
THE MAN-DOCTRINE
But what, says Reitzenstein (p. 69), is not Egyptian, is
the doctrine of the Man, the Heavenly Man, the Son of God,
who descends and becomes a slave of the Fate-Sphere; the Man
who, though originally endowed with all power, descends into
weakness and bondage, and has to win his own freedom and
regain his original state.
This doctrine seems to have been in its origin part and
parcel of the Chaldæan mystery-tradition; but it was widely
spread in Hellenistic circles, and had analogies in all the
great mystery-traditions, as we shall now proceed to see,
and chiefly by the analysis of what has hitherto been
regarded as one of the most chaotic and puzzling documents
of Gnosticism
VII
THE MYTH OF MAN IN THE MYSTERIES
THE GNOSTIC TRADITION
“But
All-Father Mind, being Life and Light, did bring forth Man (Ἄνθρωπον)
co-equal to Himself.” 1
So runs the opening paragraph of what we may call the
soteriological part of the “Pœmandres” treatise of our
Trismegistic literature. This Man or Anthrōpos is the
Spiritual Prototype of humanity and of every individual man,
and is a technical term found in a number of the early
Christianised Gnostic systems.
For instance, in a system some outlines of which are
preserved in the polemical Refutation of Irenæus, 2
and which the Bishop of Lyons seems to associate with an
Ophite tradition, while Theodoret 3
ascribes it to the Sethians, we are told that in the
Unutterable Depth were two Great Lights,—the First Man, or
Father, and His Son, the Second Man; and also the Holy
Spirit, the First Woman, or Mother of all living.
In this tradition, moreover, the Son of the Mother—the
chief Formative Power of the seven Demiurgic Potencies of
the sensible cosmos—is called Ialdabaōth (? the Child of the
Egg), who boasts himself to be
supreme. But his mother, Wisdom, reproves his pride,
saying unto him: “Lie not, Ialdabaōth, for above thee is the
Father of All, First Man, and Man Son of Man.” 1
THE “PHILOSOPHUMENA” OF HIPPOLYTUS
But the main source of our information on this Anthrōpos
tradition, in its Christianised Gnostic form, is to be found
in Hippolytus’ Philosophumena; or, Refutation of all
Heresies.
In 1842, Minoïdes Mynas, a learned Greek, sent on a
literary mission by the French Government, discovered in one
of the monasteries on Mount Athos the only MS. (generally
ascribed to the fourteenth century) which we possess of this
extremely valuable work. It was originally in ten books,
but, unfortunately, the first three and the beginning of the
fourth are missing from our MS. The first book, however, was
already known, though previously erroneously ascribed to
Origen, and was accordingly prefixed to the text of the
editio princeps of our work by Emmanuel Miller (Oxford,
1851).
The missing Books II. and III. dealt respectively with
the doctrines and mysteries of the Egyptians and with those
of the Chaldæans. Hippolytus (Proœm.) boasts that he has
divulged all their mysteries, as well as the secrets of
those Christian mystics whom he stigmatises as heretics, and
to whom he devotes Books V.-IX.
It is a curious fact that it is precisely those Books
wherein this divulging of the Mysteries was attempted, which
should be missing; not only have they disappeared, but in
the Epitome at the beginning of Book X. the summary of their
contents is also omitted. This seems almost to point to a
deliberate removal of just that information which would be
of priceless value to us to-day, not only for the general
history of the evolution of religious ideas, but also for
filling in an important part of the background of the
environment of infant Christianity.
Why, then, were these books cut out? Were the subsequent
Christian Orthodox deterred by religious scruples, or were
they afraid to circulate this information? Hippolytus
himself seems to have had no such hesitation; he is ever
delightedly boasting that he is giving away to the multitude
the most sacred secrets of others; it seems to have been his
special métier to cry aloud on the house-tops what
had been whispered in their secret chambers. It was for him
a delicious triumph over “error” to boast, “I have your
secret documents, and I am going to publish them!”
Why, then, should those who came after him hesitate?
Surely they were like-minded with Hippolytus, and would have
been as delighted as himself in humbling the pride of the
hated Mystery-institutions in the dust? Can it possibly be
that they saw far more clearly than he did that quite other
deductions might be drawn from his “startling revelations”?
THE NAASSENES
That far other deductions could be drawn from the
Mystery-rites and Mystery-myths was at anyrate the view of a
tradition of early Jewish and Christian mystics whom
Hippolytus calls Naassenes. The claim of these Gnostics was
practically that Christianity, or rather the Good News of
the Christ, was precisely the consummation of the inner
doctrine of the Mystery-institutions of all the nations; the
end of them all was the revelation of the Mystery of Man.
It is further to be noticed that these Naassenes, “who
call themselves Gnostics” (v. 2), are the very first school
of Christian “heresy” with which Hippolytus deals; he puts
them in the forefront of his Refutation, as being,
presumably, in his opinion, the oldest, or, at anyrate, as
representing the most ancient form of Christian “heresy.”
Although the name Naassene (Ναασσηνοί) is derived from
the Hebrew Naḥash (Serpent), Hippolytus does not call
them Ophites; indeed, he reserves the latter name to a body
to which he also gives (viii. 20) the name Caïnites and
Nochaïtæ (Νοχαϊταί)—? Nachaïtæ, again, from Nachash 1—and
considers them of not sufficient importance for further
mention.
These Naassenes possessed many secret books or
apocrypha—that is, books kept back from general
circulation—and also regarded as authoritative the following
scriptures: The Gospel of Perfection, The Gospel of Eve,
The Questions of Mary, 2
Concerning the Offspring of Mary, The Gospel of Philip,
The Gospel according to Thomas, and The Gospel
according to the Egyptians. All of which points somewhat
to an Alexandrian or Egyptian circle.
ANALYSIS OF HIPPOLYTUS’ ACCOUNT OF THE
NAASSENE DOCUMENT
One of their secret MSS. had fallen into the hands of
Hippolytus. It is in the Bishop of Portus’ quotations from
this document that Reitzenstein (pp. 81 ff.) seeks to
discover what he calls the “Hellenistic Myth of the God
Anthrōpos.” His theory is that, by eliminating the Christian
citations and thoughts of the Naassene writer, we are face
to face with a purely Heathen document.
The reproduction of their views, as given by Hippolytus, 1
falls according to Reitzenstein into three divisions.
(i.) The first begins with the explanation of the name
“Naassene” (S. 131, 1; C. 139, 1 2),
and, after giving a few brief headings, ends (S. 134, 8; C.
141, 2) with the statement that the writer of the MS. said
they had their tradition from James, the Brother of the
Lord, who had delivered it to Mariamnē.
(iii.) The third begins (S. 170, 64; C. 178, 1) with
another explanation of the name. In both of these parts are
found remains of hymns from some liturgical collection.
(ii.) Between i. and ii. lies a longer exposition in
which Hippolytus tries to show that the Naassene doctrines
are taken from the Mysteries, culminating in the assertion
that the Naassenes, as a matter of fact, were nothing else
than sectaries of the Mysteries of the Mother of the Gods,
in proof of which he quotes at length from a secret document
of their school.
Our interest in these quotations, however, is very
different from that of Hippolytus, for, as Reitzenstein has
now shown, it is manifest on inspection that the Christian
quotations and thoughts in this document violently disrupt
its underlying continuity, and that they are for the most
part easily removable without damage to the sense.
With regard to the Old Testament quotations it is not
always so easy to disentangle them from the Hellenistic
source, much less from the New Testament quotations; the
phenomena, however, presented by them are of such a nature
that, in my opinion, there is ample evidence before us that
there was a Jewish working-over of the matter before it came
into the hands of the Christian overwriter. Reitzenstein,
however, does not venture so far.
Even, then, if we were content with Reitzenstein’s
analysis only, it is quite clear that the quotations from
the Old Testament formed no part of the original; and that
we have, therefore, before us what was once a purely Heathen
text, with Gnostic Christian scholia, or rather
overworked by a Christian Gnostic. The original Pagan text
had, accordingly, been cut up by the Naassene overwriter
before ever it came into the hands of Hippolytus.
Now, as the Christianised text must have been for some
time in private circulation before it reached the library of
the Bishop of Portus 1—even
if we make no allowance for a Jewish Hellenistic stratum of
overwriting, still seeing that Hippolytus’ own view was
that, in the Naassene MS., he had before him a basic
document of those whom he regarded as the earliest Christian
“heretics”—it is quite evident that if we were to place the
date of the original Hellenistic source in the first
century, we should not be doing violence even to the
ecclesiastical traditional absurdity that Gnosticism first
sullied the orthodox purity of the Church only in the reign
of Trajan (96-117 A.D.). But we will return to the question
of date later on.
As the whole matter is not only one of considerable
interest for the student of our treatises, but also of the
greatest importance for the student of the history of
Gnosticism, I shall give a translation of Hippolytus’
introductory and concluding sections, as well as of the
intermediate section which specially concerns us, so that
the reader may have a view of the whole medley as it comes
to us from the hands of the heresy-hunting bishop.
I shall, moreover, proceed a stage further in the
analysis of the material of Hippolytus than Reitzenstein has
done, and hope, when the evidence has been laid before the
reader, to win his assent to what appears to me to be the
natural sifting out of the various elements, with resultant
phenomena which are of the greatest importance for the
history of Gnosticism, and, therefore, of the evolution of
Christian dogmatics, and which lead to conclusions that are
far too serious to be treated in the short space of a single
chapter of our present essay.
In the following analysis H. stands for Hippolytus; C.
for the Christian Gnostic final overwriter, the “Naassene”
whose MS. lay before H.; J. for the Naassene Jewish mystic
who preceded C. and overworked the original; S. for the
original Heathen Hellenistic Source.
As H. and C. are of secondary importance for our
immediate enquiry, though of themselves of the greatest
value and interest, I shall print them in smaller type. J. I
shall print in the same type as S., as nearer in contact
with S. than C., and as being sometimes more difficult to
detach from S. than from C.
The reader, to have the text of Hippolytus before him,
must neglect all the critical indications and read straight
on.
With these brief preliminary indications we will,
then, present the reader with a translation of the first
section, or introductory part, 1
of Hippolytus’ exposure or exposition of the Naassene
doctrines, begging him to remember throughout that it is a
portrait painted by the hand of one of their bitterest foes.
HIPPOLYTUS’ INTRODUCTION
H. The priests and chiefs
of [this] doctrine 2
were first of all those who were called Naasseni—so named in
Hebrew, [in which] “serpent” is called naas. 3
But subsequently they called themselves Gnostics, pretending
that they alone knew the Depths.
From these many separated
themselves and [so] turned the school, which was originally
a single one, into numerous sects, setting forth the same
ideas in various doctrinal forms, as our argument will show
as it advances.
These [Naassenes] honour
as the Logos (Reason) of all universals 4
Man, and Son of Man. This Man is male-female, and is called
by them Adamas. 5
And they have many intricate 6
hymns in his honour. These hymns—to dispose of them
briefly—run somewhat as follows:
J. ‘“From Thee’ [is] Father, and ‘Through Thee’ 7
Mother—the two Immortal Names, 8
Parents of Æons, O Thou who hast the Heaven for Thy City, O
Man of Mighty Names.” 9
H. And they divide him
into three, like Gēryōnēs; 1
for, they say, he has a mental, psychic, and choïc
[aspect]; 2
and they think that the Gnosis of 3
this [Man] is the beginning of the possibility of knowing
God, saying:
J. The beginning of Perfection [is] the Gnosis of Man,
but the Gnosis of God is perfected Perfection. 4
H. All these, he says 5—mental,
psychic, and earthy—descended together into one man—Jesus,
born of Mary.
And these three Men, he
says, spake each from their own special essences to their
own special folk.
For of the universal
principles there are three kinds [or races]—the angelic,
psychic, and earthy; and three churches—angelic, psychic,
and earthy named the Elect, Called, and Bound.
These are the chief heads
from a very large number of doctrines, 6
which, he says, James, the Brother of the Lord, handed on to
Mariamnē. 7
But in order that we may
put an end to the lying accounts of these impious [heretics]
concerning Mariamnē, and James, and the Saviour Himself, 1
let us come to the Initiations from which they get this
myth—if you like [to call it so]—to the non-Grecian and
Grecian [Initiations]; and let us see how, by combining
together the secret Mysteries of all the Gentiles which must
not be spoken of, and by telling lies about the Christ, they
take in those who do not know that these things are the
Orgies of the Gentiles.
Now, since the foundation
of their system is Man Adamas, and they say it has been
written of him, “Who shall declare his generation?” 2—learn
how they have taken the undiscoverable and contradictory
generation of Man and plastered it on the Christ.
THE MATERIAL FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE
ORIGINAL HELLENISTIC DOCUMENT
(1) S. “Earth (say the Greeks 3)
first brought forth Man—bearing a fair gift, desiring to be
mother not of plants without feeling, nor of brutes without
reason, but of a tamed God-loving life.
“Difficult is it (H. he
says 4)
to discover whether it was among the Bœotians that
Alalkomeneus rose from the Kephisian Lake as first of men;
or whether it was the Idæan Kurētes, race divine, or the
Phrygian Korybantes, whom Helios saw first sprouting forth
tree-like; or whether Arkadia brought forth Pelasgos
[first], older than the Moon; or Eleusis Diaulos, dweller in
Raria; or Lēmnos Kabeiros, fair child of ineffable orgies; 1
or whether Pallēnē Phlegræan Alkyoneus, eldest of Giants.
“The Libyans say that Garamas, 2
rising from parched plains, first picked sweet date of Zeus;
while Neilos, making fat the mud of Egypt to this day
(H. he says), breeds
living things, and renders from damp heat things clothed in
flesh.” 3
The Assyrians say it was with them Ōannēs, the
Fish-eater; while the Chaldæans [say that it was] Adam.
(2) J. And this Adam they [the Chaldæans] say was the man
that Earth produced—a body only, and that he lay breathless,
motionless, immovable, like a statue, being an image of that
Man Above—
H. —of whom they sing, and
brought into existence by the many Powers, 1
concerning which there is much detailed teaching.
J. In order, then, that the Great Man from Above—
C. From whom, as is said,
every fatherhood has its name on earth or in the heavens. 2
J. —might be completely brought low, there was given unto
him 3
Soul also, in order that through the Soul the enclosed plasm
of the Great, Most-fair, and Perfect Man might suffer and be
chastened.
H. For thus they call Him.
They seek to discover then further what is the Soul, and
whence, and of what nature, that by entering into man and
moving him, it should enslave and chasten the plasm of the
Perfect Man; but they seek this also not from the
Scriptures, but from the Mysteries.
(3) S. And they 4
say that Soul is very difficult to discover, and hard to
understand; for it never remains of the same appearance, or
form, or in the same state, so that one can describe it by a
general type, 5
or comprehend it by an essential quality.
H. These variegated
metamorphoses they 6
have laid down in the Gospel, superscribed “According to the
Egyptians.” 7
S. They are accordingly in doubt—
H. —like all the rest of
the Gentiles—
J. —whether it [sc. the Soul] is from the
Pre-existing [One], or from the Self-begotten, or from the
Streaming Chaos. 8
H. And first of all, in
considering the triple division of Man, they fly for help to
the Initiations of the Assyrians; for the Assyrians were the
first to consider the Soul triple and [yet] one.
(4) S. Now every nature
(H. he says) yearns after Soul—one in one way and
another in another.
For Soul is cause of all in Genesis. All things that are
sustained and grow (H. he
says) need Soul. Indeed, no sustenance
(H. he says) or growth
is possible without the presence of Soul.
Nay, even stones (H. he
says) are ensouled; 1
for they have the power of increase [or growth]; and growth
could not take place without sustenance; for it is by
addition that things which increase grow; and addition is
the sustenance of that which is sustained. 2
(5) Now the Assyrians call this [Mystery] Adōnis (or
Endymiōn). And whenever it is called Adōnis
(H. he says), it is
Aphroditē who is in love with and desires Soul so-called.
H. And Aphroditē is
Genesis according to them. 3
But when Persephonē (that is, Korē) is in love with
Adōnis, Soul becomes subject to Death, separated from
Aphrodite (that is, from Genesis).
But if Selēnē is impassioned of Endymiōn, and is in love
with [formal] beauty, 1
it is the Nature of the higher [spaces 2]
(H. he says) which
desires Soul.
(6 3)
But if (H. he says)
the Mother of the Gods emasculate Attis—she, too, regarding
him as the object of her love—it is the Blessed Nature Above
of the supercosmic and æonian [spaces] which calls back the
masculine power of Soul to herself. 4
H. For Man, he says, is
male-female. According, then, to this theory of theirs, the
intercourse between man and woman is exhibited as most
mischievous, and is forbidden according to their teaching.
J. For Attis (H. he says)
is emasculated—that is, [Soul is separated] from the earthy
parts of the creation [tending] downwards, and ascends in
quest of the Æonian Essence Above—
C. —where (H. he says) is
“neither male nor female,” 1
but a new creature, a new man, who is male-female.
H. What they call “Above”
I will explain when I come to the proper place. And they say
that this theory is supported not simply by [the myth] of
Rhea, but also, to put it briefly, by universal creation.
Nay, they make out that
this is [even] what was said by the Word (Logos): 2
C. “For the invisible 3
things of Him [God]—namely, His Eternal 4
Power and Godhead—are clearly seen from the creation of the
world, being understood by His things that are made; so that
they [men] are without excuse. Because that, though knowing
God, they glorified Him not as God, nor did they give [Him]
thanks, but their non-understanding heart was made foolish. 5
“Professing themselves to
be wise, they convicted themselves of folly, and changed the
Glory of the Incorruptible God into the likeness of an image
of corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts,
and creeping things. 1 . . . 2
“Wherefore also God gave
them up to passions of dishonour; for both their females did
change their natural use to that which is against nature—
H. And what the natural
use is, according to them, we will say later on.
C. —“and likewise also
their males, leaving the natural use of the female, burned
in their lust for one another, males with males working
unseemliness 3—
H. And “unseemliness,”
according to them, is the First and Blessed Formless
Essence, the Cause of all forms for things enformed. 4
C. —“and receiving in
themselves the recompense of their Error which was meet.”
H. For in these words
which Paul spake is contained, they say, the whole of their
hidden and ineffable Mystery of the Blessed Bliss.
For what is promised by
the [rite of the] bath 5
is nothing else, according to them, than the introduction
into Unfading Bliss of him who, according to them, is washed
with Living Water, and anointed with the Chrism that no
tongue can declare. 6
(7) And they say that not
only the Mysteries of the Assyrians and Phrygians
substantiate this teaching (logos) concerning the
Blessed Nature, which is at once hidden and manifest [but
also those of the Egyptians 1].
C. 2
[The Nature] which (H. he says) is the Kingdom of the
Heavens sought for within man—
H. —concerning which
[Nature] they hand on a distinct tradition in the Gospel
entitled According to Thomas, saying as follows:
C. “He who seeketh shall
find me in children from the age of seven years 3;
for in them at the fourteenth year 4
[lit. æon] I hidden am made manifest.”
H. But this is not
Christ’s Saying but that of Hippocrates:
“A boy of seven years [is]
half a father.” 5
Hence as they place the
Original Nature of the universals in the Original Seed,
having learned the Hippocratian dictum that a child
of seven is half a father, they say at fourteen years,
according to Thomas, it is manifested. This 6
is their ineffable and mysterious Logos. 7
(8 8)
S. (H.—At anyrate they say
that) the Egyptians—who are the most ancient of men
after the Phrygians, who at the same time were confessedly
the first to communicate to mankind the Mystery-rites and
Orgies of all the Gods, and to declare their Forms and
Energies—have the mysteries of Isis, holy, venerable, and
not to be disclosed to the uninitiated.
H. And these are nothing
else than the robbing of the member of Osiris, and its being
sought for by the seven-robed and black-mantled 1
[Goddess].
And (they [the Egyptians] say) Osiris is Water. 2
And Seven-robed Nature—
H. —having round her, nay,
robing herself in seven ætheric vestures—for thus
they 3
allegorically designate the planet-stars, calling [their
spheres] ætheric vestures—
S. —being metamorphosed, as ever-changing Genesis, by the
Ineffable and Uncopiable and Incomprehensible and Formless,
is shown forth as creation.
J. And this is what (H. he
says) is said in the Scripture:
“Seven times the Just shall fall and rise again.” 4
For these “fallings” (H.
he says) are the changes of the stars, 5
set in motion by the Mover of all things.
(9) S. Accordingly they 6
declare concerning the Essence of the Seed which is the
cause of all things in Genesis, that it is none of these
things, but that it begets and makes all generated things,
saying:
“I become what I will, and am what I am.” 1
Therefore (H. he says)
That which moves all is unmoved; for It remains what It is,
making all things, and becomes no one of the things
produced.
(H. He says that)
This is the Only Good—
C. And concerning this was
spoken what was said by the Saviour:
“Why callest thou me Good?
One is Good 2—my
Father in the Heavens, who maketh His sun to rise on
righteous and unrighteous, and sendeth rain on saints and
sinners.” 3
H. And who are the saints
on whom He sendeth rain and the sinners on whom He also
sendeth rain—this also he tells subsequently with the rest.
S. —and (H. that)
This is the Great, Hidden, and Unknown Mystery of the
Egyptians, Hidden and [yet] Revealed.
For there is no temple (H.
he says) before the entrance of which the Hidden
[Mystery] does not stand naked, pointing from below above,
and crowned with all its fruits of generation.
(10) And (H. they say)
it stands so symbolised not only in the most sacred temples
before the statues, but also set up for general knowledge—
C. —as it were “a light
not under the bushel, but” set “on the candlestick” 1—a
preaching “heralded forth on the house-tops.” 2
S. —on all the roads and in all the streets, and
alongside the very houses as a boundary and limit of the
dwelling; (H. that)
This is the God spoken of by all, for they call Him
Bringer-of-good, not knowing what they say.
H. And this mystery
[-symbol] the Greeks got from the Egyptians, and have it
[even] to this day.
At anyrate, he says, we
see the “Hermes” 3
honoured by them in this form.
(11) S. And the Cyllenians, treating [this symbol] with
special honour, [regard it as the] Logos. 4
For (H. he says)
Hermes is [the] Logos, who, as being the Interpreter and
Fabricator of all things that have been and are and shall
be, was honoured by them under the symbolism of this figure,
namely an ithyphallus.
And that he (H. that is
Hermes, so symbolised) is Conductor and
Reconductor of souls, 1
and Cause of souls, has not escaped the notice of the poets
(H. of the Gentiles),
when saying:
“But Cyllenian Hermes summoned forth the souls
Of men mindful” 2—
\
—not the “suitors” of Penelope
(H. he says), hapless
wights! but of those who are roused from sleep, and have
their memory restored to them—
“From what honour and [how great] degree of
blessedness.” 3
J. That is, from the Blessed Man Above—
H. —or Original Man, or
Adamas, as they 4
think—
J. —they 5
have been thus brought down into the plasm of clay, in order
that they may be enslaved to the Demiurge of this creation,
Esaldaios 6—
H. —a fiery God, fourth in
number, for thus they call the Demiurge and Father of this
special cosmos. 7
(13) S. “And he 1
holds a rod in his hands,
Beautiful, golden; and with it he spell-binds the eyes
of men,
Whomsoever he would, and wakes them again too from
sleep.” 2
This (H. he says)
is He who alone hath the power of life and death. 3
J. Concerning Him it is written: “Thou shalt shepherd
them with a rod of iron.” 4
But the poet (H. he says),
wishing to embellish the incomprehensibility of the Blessed
Nature of the Logos, bestowed upon Him a golden instead of
an iron rod.
S. “He spell-binds the eyes” of the dead
(H. he says), and
“wakes them again too from sleep”—those who are waked from
sleep and become “mindful.” 5
C. Concerning them the
Scripture saith: “Awake thou that sleepest, and rise, and
Christ will give thee light.” 6
This is the Christ, the
Son of Man (H. he says), expressed in all who are born from
the Logos, whom no expression can express.
S. This (H. he says)
is the Great Ineffable Mystery of the Eleusinia: “Hye Kye.” 7
J. And that (H. he says)
all things have been put under Him, this too has been said:
“Into all the earth hath gone forth their sound.” 1
(14) S. And “Hermes leads them, moving his rod, and they
follow, squeaking” 2—the
souls in a cluster, as the poet hath shown in the following
image:
“But as when bats into some awesome cave’s recess
Fly squeaking—should one from out the cluster fall
Down from the rock, they cling to one another.” 3
J. The “rock” (H. he says)
means Adamas. This (H. he
says) is the “corner-stone”—
C. —“that hath become the
head of the corner.” 4
For in the “Head”
is the expressive Brain 1
of the Essence, from which [Brain] “every fatherhood” 2
has its expression—
J. —which “I insert in the foundation of Zion.” 3
[By this] (H. he says)
he 4
means, allegorically, the plasm of man. For the Adamas who
is “inserted” is [the inner man, and the “foundations of
Zion” are 5]
the “teeth”—the “fence of the teeth,” as Homer says—the Wall
and Palisade 6
in which is the inner man, fallen into it from the Primal
Man, the Adamas Above—[the Stone] “cut without hands” 7
cutting it, and brought down into the plasm of
forgetfulness, the earthy, clayey [plasm].
(15) S. And (H. he says
that) they followed Him squeaking 8—the
souls, the Logos.
“Thus they went squeaking together; and he led them on,
Hermes, the guileless, down the dark ways.” 9
That is, (H. he says)
[He led them] into the eternal lands free from all guile.
For where (H. he says)
went they?
(16) “They passed by the streams of Ocean, and by the
White Rock,
By the Gates of the Sun, and the People of Dreams.” 10
For He (H. he says)
is Ocean—“birth-causing of gods and birth-causing of men” 1—flowing
and ebbing for ever, now up and now down.
J. When Ocean flows down
(H. he says), it is the birth-causing of men; and
when [it flows] up, towards the Wall and Palisade, and the
“White Rock,” it is the birth-causing of gods.
This (H. he says)
is what is written:
“‘I have said ye are Gods and all Sons of the Highest’ 2—if
ye hasten to flee from Egypt and get you beyond the Red Sea
into the Desert”; that is, from the intercourse below to the
Jerusalem Above, who is the Mother of the Living. 3
“But if ye turn back again into Egypt”—that is, to the
intercourse below—“‘ye shall die like men.’” 4
For (H. he says)
all the generation below is subject to death, but the
[birth] begotten above is superior to death.
C. For from water
alone—that is, spirit—is begotten the spiritual [man], not
the fleshly; the lower [man] is fleshly. That is (H. he
says) what is written: “That which is born of the flesh is
flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.” 5
H. This is their 6
spiritual birth.
J. This (H. he says)
is the Great Jordan, which, flowing downwards and preventing
the sons of Israel from going forth out of Egypt, or from
the intercourse below—
H. —for Egypt is the body,
according to them—
J. —was turned back by Jesus 1
and made to flow upwards.
H. Following after these
and such like [follies], these most wonderful “Gnostics,”
discoverers of a new grammatical art, imagine that their
prophet Homer showed forth these things arcanely; and,
introducing those who are not initiated into the Sacred
Scriptures into such notions, they make a mock of them.
And they say that he who
says that all things are from One, is in error, [but] he who
says they are from Three is right, and will furnish proof of
the first principles [of things]. 2
J. For one (H. he says)
is the Blessed Nature of the Blessed Man Above, Adamas; and
one is the [Nature] Below, which is subject to Death; and
one is the Race without a king 3
which is born Above—where (H.
he says) is Mariam the sought-for, and Jothōr the
great sage, and Sepphōra the seeing, and Moses whose
begetting is not in Egypt—for sons were born to him in
Madiam. 4
S. And this (H. he says)
also did not escape the notice of the poets:
“All things were threefold divided, and each received his
share of honour.” 1
C. For the Greatnesses (H.
he says) needs must be spoken, but so spoken by all
everywhere, “that hearing they may not hear, and seeing they
may not see.” 2
J. For unless (H. he says)
the Greatnesses 3
were spoken, the cosmos would not be able to hold together.
These are the Three More-than-mighty Words (Logoi):
Kaulakau, Saulasau, Zeēsar;—Kaulakau, the [Logos] Above,
Adamas; Saulasau, the [Logos] Below; Zeēsar, the Jordan
flowing upwards. 4
(17 5)
S. He (H. he says) is
the male-female Man in all, whom the ignorant call
three-bodied Gēryonēs—Earth-flow-er, as though flowing from
the earth; 1
while the Greek [theologi] generally call Him the
“Heavenly Horn of Mēn,” 2
because He has mixed and mingled 3
all things with all.
C. For “all things (H. he
says) were made through Him, and without Him no one thing
was made that was made. In Him is Life.” 4
This (H. he says) is
“Life,” the ineffable Race of perfect men, which was unknown
to former generations.
And the “nothing” 5
which hath been made “without Him,” is the special cosmos; 6
for the latter hath been made without Him by the third and
fourth [? Ruler]. 7
J. This 1
(H. he says) is the
drinking-vessel—the Cup in which “the King drinketh and
divineth.” 2
This (H. he says)
was found hidden in the “fair seed” of Benjamin.
(18) S. The Greeks also speak of it
(H. he says) with
inspired tongue, as follows:
“Bring water, bring [me] wine, boy!
Give me to drink, and sink me in slumber! 3
My Cup tells me of what race I must be born,
[Speaking with silence unspeaking].” 4
C. This (H. he says) would
be sufficient alone if men would understand—the Cup of
Anacreon speaking forth speechlessly the Ineffable Mystery.
J. For (H. he says)
Anacreon’s Cup is speechless—in as much as it tells him
(says Anacreon) with speechless sound of what Race he must
be born—
C. —that is, spiritual,
not carnal—
J. —if he hear the Hidden Mystery in Silence.
C. And this is the Water
at those Fair Nuptials which Jesus turned and made Wine.
“This (H. he says) is the
great and true beginning of the signs which Jesus wrought in
Cana of Galilee, and made manifest His Kingship [or Kingdom]
of the Heavens.” 5
This (H. he says) is the
Kingship [or Kingdom] of the Heavens within us, 6
stored up as a Treasure, 7
as “Leaven hid in three measures of Flour.” 8
(19 1)
S. This is (H. he says)
the Great Ineffable Mystery of the Samothracians,—
C. —which it is lawful for
the perfect alone to know—[that is] (H. he says) for us.
J. For the Samothracians, in the Mysteries which are
solemnised among them, explicitly hand on the tradition that
this Adam is the Man Original.
S. Moreover, 2
in the initiation temple of the Samothracians stand two
statues of naked men, with both hands raised to heaven and
ithyphallic, like the statue of Hermes in Cyllene. 3
J. The statues aforesaid are images of the Man Original. 4
C. And [also] of the
regenerated 5
spiritual [man], in all things of like substance with that
Man.
This (H. he says) is what
was spoken by the Saviour:
“If ye do not drink My
Blood and eat My Flesh, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom
of the Heavens. 6
“But even if ye drink (H.
he says) the Cup which I drink, 7
where I go, there ye cannot come.” 8
For He knew (H. he says)
of which nature each of His disciples is, and that it needs
must be that each of them should go to his own nature.
For from the twelve tribes
(H. he says) He chose twelve disciples, and through them He
spake to every tribe. 1
On this account (H. he
says) all have not heard the preachings of the twelve
disciples; and even if they hear, they cannot receive them.
For the [preachings] which are not according to their nature
are contrary to it.
(20) S. This [Man] (H. he
says) the Thracians who dwell round Haimos call
Korybas, 2
and the Phrygians in like manner with the Thracians; for
taking the source of His descent from the Head Above 3—
J. —and from the expressive Brain 4—
S. —and passing through all the sources of all things
beneath—how and in what manner He descends we do not
understand.
J. This is (H. he says)
what was spoken:
“His Voice we heard, but His Form we have not seen.” 5
For (H. he says)
the Voice of Him, when He hath been delegated and expressed,
is heard, but the Form that descended from Above, from the
Inexpressible [Man]—what it is, no one knows. It is in the
earthy plasm, but no one has knowledge of it.
This [Man] (H. he says)
is He who “inhabiteth the Flood,” 1
according to the Psalter, who cries and calls from “many
waters.” 2
The “many waters” (H. he
says) are the manifold genesis of men subject to
death, from which He shouts and calls to the Inexpressible
Man, saying:
“Save my [? Thy] alone-begotten from the lions.” 3
To this [Man] (H. he says)
it hath been spoken:
“Thou art my Son, O Israel, 4
fear not; should’st thou pass through rivers, they shall not
engulph thee; should’st thou pass through fire, it shall not
consume thee.” 5
By “rivers” (H. he says)
he 6
means the Moist Essence of Genesis, and by “fire” the
impulse and desire towards Genesis.
And: “Thou art mine; fear not.” 7
And again he 8
says:
“If a mother forget her children so as not to take pity
on them or give them suck, [then] I too will forget you” 9—saith
Adamas (H. he says) to
his own men.
“Nay, even if a woman shall forget them, I will not
forget you. Upon my hands have I graven you.” 10
And concerning His Ascent—
C. —that is, his
regeneration in order that he may be born spiritual, not
fleshly.
J. —the Scripture saith
(H. he says):
“Lift up the gates, ye who are rulers of you, and be
ye lift up ye everlasting gates, and the King of Glory
shall come in.” 1
This is a wonder of wonders.
“For who (H. he says)
is this King of Glory? 2
A worm 3
and no man, the scorn of men, and the contempt of the
people. 4
He is the King of Glory, the Mighty in War.” 5
By “War” he 6
means the “[war] in the body,” for the plasm is compounded
of warring elements, as it is written
(H. he says):
“Remember the war that is [warred] in the body.” 7
This (H. he says)
is the Entrance, and this is the Gate, which Jacob saw, when
he journeyed into Mesopotamia. 8
C. Which is the passing
from childhood to puberty and manhood; that is, it was made
known to him who journeyed into Mesopotamia.
J. And Meso-potamia (H. he
says) is the Stream of Great Ocean flowing from the
middle of the Perfect Man.
And he 9
marvelled at the Heavenly Gate, saying:
“How terrible [is] this place! This is naught else than
the House of God; yea, this [is] the Gate of Heaven.” 10
C. On this account (H. he
says) Jesus saith:
“I am the True Door.” 11
J. And he 12
who says these things is (H.
he says)
the [one] from the Inexpressible Man, expressed from
Above—
C. —as the perfect man.
The not-perfect man, therefore, cannot be saved unless he be
regenerated passing through this Gate.
(21) S. This same [Man]
(H. he says) the Phrygians call also Papa; 1
for He calmed 2
all things which, prior to His own manifestation, were in
disorderly and inharmonious movement.
For the name Papa (H. he
says) is [the] Sound-of-all-things-together in
Heaven, and on Earth, and beneath the Earth, saying: “Calm,
calm” 3
the discord of the cosmos.
C. And: Make “peace for
them that are far”—that is, the material and earthy—“and
peace for them that are near” 4—that
is, the spiritual and knowing and perfect men.
(22) S. The Phrygians call Him also Dead—when buried in
the body as though in a tomb or sepulchre.
C. This (H. he says) is
what is said:
“Ye are whited sepulchres,
filled (H. he says) within with bones of the dead, 5
for Man, the Living [One] 6
is not in you.”
And again He says:
“The dead shall leap forth
from their graves” 7—
—that is, from their
earthy bodies, regenerated spiritual, not fleshly.
This (H. he says) is the
Resurrection which takes place
through the Gate of the
Heavens, through which all those who do not pass (H. he
says) remain Dead.
S. The same Phrygians again call this very same [Man],
after the transformation, God [or a God]. 1
C. For he becomes (H. he
says) God when, rising from the Dead, through such a Gate,
he shall pass into Heaven.
This is the Gate (H. he
says) which Paul, the Apostle, knew, setting it ajar in a
mystery, and saying that he was caught up by an angel and
came to the second, nay the third heaven, into Paradise
itself, and saw what he saw, and heard ineffable words,
which it is not lawful for man to utter. 2
These (H. he says) are the
Mysteries, ineffable [yet] spoken of by all,—
“—which [also we speak,
yet] not in words taught of human wisdom, but in [words]
taught of Spirit, comparing things spiritual with spiritual
things. But the psychic man receiveth not the things of
God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness unto him.” 3
And these (H. he says) are
the Ineffable Mysteries of the Spirit which we alone know.
Concerning these (H. he
says) the Saviour said:
“No one is able to come to
Me, unless my Heavenly Father draw him.” 4
For it is exceedingly
difficult (H. he says) to receive and accept this Great
Ineffable Mystery.
And again (H. he says) the
Saviour said:
“Not every one that saith
unto Me, Lord, Lord! shall enter into the Kingdom of the
Heavens, but he who doeth the Will of My Father who is in
the Heavens” 5—
—which [Will] they must
do, and not hear only, to enter into the Kingdom of the
Heavens.
And again He said (H. he
says):
“The tax-gatherers and
harlots go before you into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” 1
For by “tax-gatherers” (τελῶναι)
are meant (H. he says) those who receive the consummations 2
(τέλη) of the universal [principles]; and we (H. he says)
are the “tax-gatherers” 3
[upon whom the consummations of the æons have come” 4].
For the “consummations”
(H. he says) are the Seeds disseminated into the cosmos from
the Inexpressible [Man], by means of which the whole cosmos
is consummated; for by means of these also it began to be.
And this (H. he says) is
what is said:
“The Sower went forth to
sow. And some [Seeds] fell by the way-side, and were trodden
under foot; and others on stony places, and they sprang up
(H. he says), but because they had no depth, they withered
and died.
“Others (H. he says) fell
on the fair and good ground, and brought forth fruit—one a
hundred, another sixty, and another thirty.
“He who hath (H. he says)
ears to hear, let him hear!” 5
That is (H. he says), no
one has been a hearer of these Mysteries, save only the
gnostic, perfect [man].
This (H. he says) is the
“fair and good ground” of which Moses saith:
“I will bring you into a
fair and good land, into a land flowing with milk and
honey.” 6
This (H. he says) is the
“honey and milk” by tasting which the perfect [men] become
free from all rule, 7
and share in the Fullness.
This (H. he says) is the
Fullness whereby all things that are generated both are and
are full-filled from the Ingenerable [Man].
(23) S. This same [Man] is called by the Phrygians
Unfruitful.
C. For He is unfruitful as
long as He is fleshly and works the work of the flesh.
This (H. he says) is what
is said:
“Every tree that beareth
not good fruit, is cut down and cast into the fire.” 1
For these “fruits” (H. he
says) are the logic, 2
living men only who pass through the third Gate. 3
J. At anyrate they 4
say:
“If ye have eaten dead things and made living ones, what
will ye make if ye eat living things?” 5
And by “living things” they mean logoi and minds
and men—the “pearls” of that Inexpressible [Man] cast into
the plasm below. 6
C. This is what He saith
(H. he says):
“Cast not the holy thing
to the dogs nor the pearls to the swine.” 7
H. For they say that the
work of swine is the intercourse of man with woman.
(24 8)
S. This same [Man] (H. he
says) the Phrygians also call Ai-polos; 9
not because (H. he says)
He feeds she-goats and he-goats, as the
(C.—psychics 1)
interpret the name, but because
(H. he says) He is
Aei-polos—that is, “Always-turning” (Aei-polōn), 2
revolving and driving round the whole cosmos in [its]
revolution; for polein is to “turn” and change
things.
Hence (H. he says)
all call the two centres 3
of heaven poles. And the poet also
(H. he says) when he
says: “Hither there comes and there goes (pōleitai)
Old Man of the Sea, whose words are e’er true—Egypt’s
undying Prōteus.” 4
[By pōleitai] he does not mean “he is put on
sale,” 1
but “he turns about” [or comes and goes] there,—as though it
were, [he spins] and goes round.
And the cities in which we live, in that we turn about
and circulate in them, are called poleis.
Thus (H. he says)
the Phrygians call Aipolos this [Man] who turns all things
at all times all ways, and changes them into things kin.
(25) The Phrygians, moreover
(H. he says), call Him
Fruitful.
J. For (H. he says):
“Many more are the children of the desolate [woman] than
of her who hath her husband.” 2
C. That is, the
regenerated, deathless, and ever-continuing [children] are
many, although few are they [thus] generated; but the
fleshly (H. he says) all perish, though many are they [thus]
generated.
C. For this cause (H. he
says):
“Rachel bewailed her
children, and would not (H. he says) be comforted weeping
over them; for she knew (H. he says) that they are not.” 1
J. And Jeremiah also laments the Jerusalem Below—not the
city in Phœnicia, 2
but the generation below—which is subject to destruction.
C. For Jeremiah also (H.
he says) knew the perfect man, regenerated from water and
spirit, not fleshly.
J. At anyrate the same Jeremiah said:
“He is man, and who shall know him?” 3
C. Thus (H. he says) the
knowledge of the perfect man is deep and hard to comprehend.
J. For “The beginning of Perfection
(H. he says) is Gnosis
of man, but Gnosis of God is perfect Perfection.” 4
(26) S. And the Phrygians
(H. he says) call Him also “Plucked Green Wheat-ear”;
and after the Phrygians the Athenians [so designate Him],
when, in the secret rites at Eleusis, they show those who
receive in silence the final initiation there into the
Great—
C. —and marvellous and
most perfect—
S. —Epoptic Mystery, a plucked wheat-ear. 5
And this Wheat-ear is also with the Athenians the
Light-giver 1—
C. —perfect [and] mighty—
J. —from the Inexpressible—
S. —as the hierophant himself—not emasculated like the “Attis,” 2
but made eunuch with hemlock juice—
C. —and divorced from all
fleshly generation—
S. —in the night, at Eleusis, solemnising the Great
Ineffable Mysteries, when the bright light streams forth, 3
shouts and cries aloud, saying:
“[Our] Lady hath brought forth a Holy Son: Brimō [hath
given birth] to Brimos”—
—that is, the Strong to the Strong.
(27) J. And “[Our] Lady”
(H. he says) is the Genesis—
C. —the Spiritual,
Heavenly [Genesis]—
J. —Above. And the Strong is he who is thus generated.
For it is the Mystery called “Eleusis” and “Anaktoreion”;—“Eleusis,”
because we—
C. —the spiritual—
J. —come 2
from Above, streaming down from Adamas, for eleus-esthai
(H. he says) is “to
come”; and “Anaktoreion” [from anag-esthai, “leading
back,” that is 3]
from “returning” 4
Above. 5
This [Return] (H. he says)
is that of which those who are initiated into the great
Mysteries of the Eleusinia speak.
(28) S. And the law is that after they have been
initiated into the Little Mysteries, they should be further
initiated into the Great.
“For greater deaths do greater lots obtain.” 6
The Little (H. he says)
are the Mysteries of
Persephonē Below; concerning which Mysteries and the way
leading there and—
C. —being broad and wide,—
—taking [men] to Persephonē, the poet also speaks:
“Beneath this there is another path death-cold,
Hollow and clayey. But this 1
is best to lead
To grove delightsome of far-honoured Aphroditē.” 2
These 3
are (H. he says) the
Little Mysteries—
C. —those of the fleshly
generation—
S. —and after men have been initiated into them, they
should cease for a little, and become initiated in the
Great—
C. —heavenly [Mysteries].
S. For they to whom the “deaths” in them 4
are appointed, “receive greater lots.”
J. For this [Mystery] (H.
he says) is the Gate of Heaven, and this is the House
of God, where the Good God dwells alone; into which [House]
(H. he says) no impure
[man] shall come—
C. —no psychic, no fleshly
[man]—
J. —but it is kept under watch for the spiritual alone;
where when they come, they must cast away their garments,
and all become bridegrooms, obtaining their true manhood 5
through the Virginal Spirit.
For this (H. he says)
is the Virgin big with child, conceiving and bearing a Son 1—
C. —not psychic, not
fleshly, but a blessed Æon of Æons. 2
Concerning these
[Mysteries] (H. he says) the Saviour hath explicitly said
that:
“Narrow and strait is the
Way that leadeth to Life, and few are they who enter it; but
broad and wide [is] the Way that leadeth to Destruction, and
many are they who journey thereby.” 3
S. 4
Moreover, also, the Phrygians say that the Father of wholes 5
is Amygdalos 6—
J. —no [ordinary] tree 7
(H. he says); but that
He is that Amygdalos the Pre-existing, who having in Himself
the Perfect Fruit, as it were, throbbing 8
and moving in [His] Depth, He tore asunder 9
His Womb, and gave birth to His own Son 10—
C. —the Invisible,
Unnameable, and Ineffable [One] of whom we tell. 1
S. For “amyxai” 2
is, as it were, “to break” and “cut open”; just as
(H. he says) in the
case of inflamed bodies and those which have some internal
tumour, when physicians lance them, they speak of “amychas.” 3
Thus (H. he says)
the Phrygians call him Amygdalos.
C. From whom proceeded and
was born the Invisible—
“Through whom all things
were made, and without whom nothing was made.” 4
(30) S. The Phrygians also say that that which is
generated from Him is Syriktēs. 5
J. For that which is generated is Spirit in harmony. 6
C. For “God (H. he says)
is Spirit.” 7
Wherefore He says:
“Neither in this mountain
do the true worshippers worship, nor in Jerusalem, but in
Spirit.” 8
For the worship of the
perfect [men] (H. he says) is spiritual, not fleshly.
J. And “Spirit” (H. he
says) is there where both Father and Son are named,
generated there from Him 1
and the Father.
S. He 2
(H. he says) is the
Many-named, Myriad-eyed, Incomprehensible, whom every nature
desires, some one way, some another.
J. This (H. he says)
is the Word 3
of God, which is:
“The Word of Announcement of the Great Power. Wherefore
It shall be sealed, and hidden, and concealed, stored in the
Habitation, where the Root of the Universals has its
foundation—
“Of Æons, Powers, Intelligences, Gods, Angels, Spirits
Delegate, Existing Non-existences, Generated Ingenerables,
Comprehensible Incomprehensibles,—Years, Months, Days,
Hours,—of [the] Boundless Point, from which the most minute
begins to increase by parts. 4
“For (H. he says)
the Point which is nothing and is composed of nothing,
though partless, will become by means of its own Thought a
Greatness 1
beyond our own comprehension.”
C. This [Point] (H. he
says) is the Kingdom of the Heavens, the “grain of mustard
seed,” 2
the partless point, the first existing for the body; which
no one (H. he says) knows save the spiritual [men] alone.
J. This (H. he says)
is what is said:
“They are neither words nor languages whereby their 3
sounds are heard.” 4
H. These things, [then,]
which are said and done by all men, they thus interpret
off-hand to their peculiar theory (νοῦν), pretending that
they are all done with a spiritual meaning.
For which cause also they 5
say that the performers in the theatres—they, too, neither
say nor do anything without Design. 6
S. For example (H. he
says), when the people assemble in the theatres, and
a man comes on the stage, clad in a robe different from all
others, with lute 7
in hand on which he plays, and thus chants the Great
Mysteries, not knowing what he says: 8
“Whether blest Child of Kronos,
or of Zeus, or of Great Rhea,—
Hail, Attis, thou mournful song 9
of Rhea!
Assyrians call thee thrice-longed-for Adōnis;
all Egypt [calls thee] Osiris;
the Wisdom of Hellas [names thee] Mēn’s Heavenly Horn;
the Samothracians [call thee] august Adama;
the Hæmonians, Korybas;
the Phrygians [name thee] Papa sometimes,
at times again Dead, or God, 1
or Unfruitful,
or Aipolos, or Green Reaped 2
Wheat-ear,
or the Fruitful that Amygdalos brought forth,
Man, Piper . . . Attis!”
H. He [S.] says that this
is the Attis of many forms of whom they [NN., in H.’s
opinion] sing as follows:
S. “Of Attis will I sing, of Rhea’s [Belovèd];—
not with the boomings 3
of bells,
nor with the deep-toned 4
pipe of Idæan Kurētes;
but I will blend my song with Phoebus’ music of the
lyre.
Evoï! Evan!—for [thou art] Pan, [thou] Bacchus [art],
and Shepherd of bright stars!”
HIPPOLYTUS’ CONCLUSION
H. For these and suchlike
reasons these [Naassenes] frequent what are called the
Mysteries of the Great Mother, believing that they obtain
the clearest view of the Universal Mystery from the things
done in them.
For they have nothing
beyond the [mysteries] therein enacted except that they are
not emasculated. Their sole “accomplishment,” [however,] is
the business of the Eunuch, for they most severely and
vigilantly enjoin to abstain, as though emasculated, from
intercourse with women. And the rest of their business, as
we have stated at length, they carry out just like the
Eunuchs.And they honour nothing else but “Naas,” 1
being called Naasseni. And Naas is the Serpent—
J. 2—from
whom (H. he says) are
all those [things] called naous 3
under heaven, from naas.
To that Naas alone every shrine and every rite of
initiation and every mystery
(H. he says) is dedicated; and, in general, no
initiation can be found under heaven in which a naos
does not play a part, and [also] the Naas in it, from
which it has got the name of naos.
(H. Moreover, they say
that) the Serpent is the Moist Essence—
H. —just as [did] also
Thales the Milesian 4—
J. —and (H. that)
naught at all of existing things, immortal or mortal,
animate or inanimate, can hold together without Him.
[And they say] (H. that)
all things are subject to Him, and
(H. that) He is Good,
and has all things in Him as in “the horn of the one-horned
bull”; 5
so that He distributes beauty and bloom to all that exist
according to each one’s nature and peculiarity, as though
permeating all, just as [the River] “proceeding forth out of
Eden and dividing itself into four sources.” 6
H. And they say that Eden
is His Brain, as though it were bound and constricted in its
surrounding vestures like heavens; while Paradise they
consider to be the Man as far as His Head only.
This River, then, coming forth out of Eden
(H. that is, from His Brain),
is divided into four streams.
And the name of the first river is called Pheisōn. “This
is that which encircles all the land of Evilat, there where
is the gold, and the gold of that land is fair; there too is
the ruby and the green stone.” 1
This (H. he says)
is His Eye—by its dignity and colours bearing witness to
what is said.
The name of the second river is Geōn. “This is that which
encircles all the land of Æthiopia.” 2
This (H. he says)
is [His organ of] Hearing; for it is labyrinth-like.
And the name of the third is Tigris. “This is that which
flows the opposite way to the Assyrians.” 3
This (H. he says)
is [His organ of] Smell, for the current of it is very
rapid; and it “flows the opposite way to the Assyrians,”
because after the breath is breathed out, on breathing in
again, the breath that is drawn in from without, from the
air, comes in more rapidly, and with greater force. For this
(H. he says) is the
nature of respiration.
“And the fourth river [is] Euphratēs.” 4
This (H. they say)
[is] the mouth, through which by the utterance of prayer and
entrance of food, the (?
C.—spiritual, perfect) man is rejoiced, and nourished
and expressed. 5
This [River] (H. he says)
is the Water above the Firmament. 6
C. Concerning which (H. he
says) the Saviour hath said:
“If thou hadst known Who
it is Who asketh, thou wouldst have asked from Him [in
return], and He would have given thee to drink of Living
Water bubbling [forth].” 7
J. To this Water (H. he
says) every nature comes, each selecting its own
essence, and from this Water there comes to each nature what
is proper [to it] (H. he
says), more surely than iron to magnet, 1
and gold to the bone 2
of the sea-hawk, and chaff to amber.
C. And if any man (H. he
says) is “blind from birth,” 3
and hath not seen “the True Light, which lighteth every man
that cometh into the world,” 4—let
him see again through us, and let him see as it were
through—
J. 5
—Paradise, planted with Trees and all kinds of seeds, the
Water flowing amid all the Trees and Seeds, and [then] shall
he see that from one and the same Water the Olive selects
and draws Oil, and the Vine Wine, and each of the rest of
the Trees according to its kind.
But (H. he says)
that Man is of no honour in the World, though of great
honour [in Heaven, betrayed] 1
by those who know not to those who know Him not, being
accounted “as a drop from a cask.” 2
But we (H. he says)—
C. —are the spiritual
[men] who—
J. —choose for ourselves from—
C. —the Living Water—
J. —the Euphrates, that flows through the midst of
Babylon, what is proper [to each of us]—journeying through
the True Gate—
C. —which is Jesus the
Blessed.
And of all men we alone
are Christians, 3
accomplishing the Mystery at the third Gate—
J. —and being anointed with the Ineffable Chrism from the
Horn, 4
like David [was], not from the flask 5
of clay, like Saul—
C. —who was fellow-citizen
with an evil dæmon of fleshly desire.
H. These things, then, we
have set down as a few out of many. For innumerable are the
attempts of their folly, silly and crazy. But since we have,
to the best of our ability, exposed their unknowable Gnosis,
it seems best to set down the following also.
This is a Psalm which they
have improvised; by means of which they fancy they thus sing
the praises of all the mysteries of their Error. 6
J. 1
“First [was there] Mind the Generative 2
Law of All; 3
Second to the Firstborn was Liquid Chaos;
Third Soul through toil received the Law.
Wherefore, with a deer’s 4
form surrounding her,
She labours at her task beneath Death’s rule.
Now, holding sway, 5
she sees the Light;
And now, cast into piteous plight, she weeps;
Now she weeps, and now rejoices;
Now she weeps, and now is judged;
Now is judged, and now she dieth;
Now is born, with no way out for her; in misery
She enters in her wandering the labyrinth of ills.
(? C.—And Jesus 6
said): O Father, see!
[Behold] the struggle still of ills on earth!
Far from Thy Breath 1
away she 2
wanders!
She seeks to flee the bitter Chaos, 3
And knows not how she shall pass through.
Wherefore, send me, O Father!
Seals in my hands, I will descend;
Through Æons universal will I make a Path;
Through Mysteries all I’ll open up a Way!
And Forms of Gods will I display; 4
The secrets of the Holy Path I will hand on,
And call them Gnosis.” 5
CONCLUSION OF ANALYSIS
All this may have seemed, quite naturally, contemptible
foolishness to the theological prejudices of our worthy
Church Father; but it is difficult for me, even in the
twentieth century, not to recognise the beauty of this fine
Mystic Hymn, and I hope it may be equally difficult for at
least some of my readers.
But to return to the consideration of our much
overwritten Source.
This Source is plainly a commentary, or elaborate
paraphrase, of the Recitation Ode, “Whether, blest Child of
Kronos,” which comes at the end (§ 30) and not, as we should
expect, at the beginning, and has probably been displaced by
Hippolytus. It is an exegetical
commentary written from the standpoint of the Anthrōpos-theory
of the Mysteries (? originally Chaldæan), the Man-doctrine.
This commentary seems for the most part to run on so
connectedly, that we can almost persuade ourselves that we
have most of it before us, the lacunæ being
practically insignificant. Paragraphs 6 and 7 S., however,
are plainly misplaced, and §§ 17 and 18 S. also as evidently
break the connection. 1
THE HELLENIST COMMENTATOR
The writer is transparently a man learned in the various
Mystery-rites, and his information is of the greatest
possible importance for a study of this exceedingly obscure
subject from an historical standpoint.
With § 8 S., and the Egyptian Mystery-doctrine, we come
to what is of peculiar interest for our present Trismegistic
studies. Osiris is the Heavenly Man, the Logos; not only so,
but in straitest connection with this tradition we have an
exposition of the Hermes-doctrine, set forth by a system of
allegorical interpretations of the Bible of Hellas—the Poems
of the Homeric cycle. Here we have the evident syncrasia
Thoth = Osiris = Hermes, a Hermes of the “Greek Wisdom,” as
the Recitation Ode phrases it, and a doctrine which H.,
basing himself on the commentator (§ 10), squarely asserts
the Greeks got from Egypt.
Nor is it without importance for us that in closest
connection with Hermes there follow the apparently misplaced
sections 17 and 18, dealing with the “Heavenly Horn,” or
drinking-horn, of the Greek Wisdom, and the “Cup” of
Anacreon; with which we may compare the Crater,
Mixing-bowl or Cup, in which,
p. 194
according to Plato’s Timæus, the Creator mingled
and mixed the elements and souls, and also the spiritual Cup
of the Mind in our Trismegistic treatise, “The Crater or
Monas,” C. H., iv. (v.).
But above all things is it astonishing that we should
find the commentator in S. quoting (§ 9) a logos from
a document which, as we have shown in the note appended to
the passage, is in every probability a Trismegistic treatise
of the Pœmandres type.
THE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN OVERWRITERS
This commentary S. was worked over by a Jewish
Hellenistic mystic J., whose general ideas and method of
exegesis are exactly paralleled by those of Philo. In my
opinion, he was a contemporary of that period and a member
of one of those communities whom Philo classes generally as
Therapeut. He was, moreover, not a worshipper of the
serpent, but a worshipper of that Glorious Reality
symbolised as the Serpent of Wisdom, and this connects him
with initiation into Egypto-Chaldæan or Chaldæo-Egyptian
Mysteries. These he finds set forth allegorically in the
prophetical scriptures of his race. His quotations from the
LXX. show him to be, like Philo, an Alexandrian Hellenistic
Jew; the LXX. was his Targum.
J. again was overwritten by C., a Christian Gnostic, no
enemy of either J. or S., but one who claimed that he and
his were the true realisers of all that had gone before; he
is somewhat boastful, but yet recognises that the
Christ-doctrine is not an innovation but a consummation. The
phenomena presented by the New Testament quotations of C.
are, in my opinion, of extraordinary interest, especially
his quotations from or parallels with the Fourth Gospel. His
quotations from or parallels with the Synoptics are almost
of the same nature as those of Justin; he is rather dealing
with “Memoirs of the Apostles” than with verbatim quotations
from our stereotyped Gospels. His parallels with the Fourth
Gospel also seem to me to open up the question as to whether
or no he is in touch with “Sources” of that “Johannine”
document.
On top of all our strata and deposits, we have—to
continue the metaphor of excavation, and if it be not
thought somewhat uncharitable—the refutatory rubbish of
Hippolytus, which need no longer detain us here.
I would, therefore, suggest that C. is to be placed
somewhere about the middle of the second century A.D.; J. is
contemporary with Philo—say the first quarter of the first
century A.D.; the Pagan commentator of S. is prior to J.—say
somewhere in the last half of the first century B.C.; while
the Recitation Ode is still earlier, and can therefore be
placed anywhere in the early Hellenistic period, the
termini being thus 300-50 B.C. 1
And if the redactor or commentator in S. is to be placed
somewhere in the last half of the first century B.C. (and
this is, of course, taking only the minimum of
liberty), then the Pœmandres type of our literature, which
J. quotes as scripture, must, in its original Greek form, be
placed back of that—say at least in the first half of the
first century B.C., as a moderate estimate. 2
If those dates are not proved,
I am at anyrate fairly confident they cannot be
disproved.
ZOSIMUS AND THE ANTHROPOS-DOCTRINE
That, moreover, the Anthrōpos-doctrine, to the spirit of
which the whole commentary of our S. exegete is
accommodated, was also fundamental with the adherents of the
Trismegistic tradition, may be clearly seen from the
interesting passage (which we give in the Fragments at the
end of the third Volume) of Zosimus, a member of what
Reitzenstein calls the Pœmandres Community, who flourished
somewhere at the end of the third and beginning of the
fourth century A.D. 1
The sources of Zosimus for the Anthrōpos-doctrine, he
tells us, are, in addition to the Books of Hermes, certain
translations into Greek and Egyptian of books containing
traditions (mystery-traditions, presumably) of the Chaldæans,
Parthians, Medes, and Hebrews on the subject. This statement
is of the very first importance for the history of
Gnosticism as well as for appreciating certain elements in
Trismegisticism. Though the indication of this literature is
vague, it nevertheless mentions four factors as involved in
the Hebrew tradition; the Gnostic Hebrews, as we should
expect, were handing on elements from Chaldæan, Parthian,
and Median traditions. Translations of these books were to
be found scattered throughout Egypt, and especially in the
great library at Alexandria.
There is, in my opinion, no necessity precisely, with
Reitzenstein (p. 106, n. 6), to designate these books the
“Ptolemaic Books,” and so to associate them with a notice
found in the apocryphal “Eighth Book of Moses,” where,
together with that of the Archangelic Book of Moses,
there is mention of the Fifth Book of the “Ptolemaic Books,”
described as a book of multifarious wisdom under the title
“One and All,” and containing the account of the “Genesis of
Fire and Darkness.” 1
Another source of Zosimus was the Pinax of Bitos
or Bitys, of whom we shall treat in considering the
information of Jamblichus.
From all of these indications we are assured that there
was already in the first centuries B.C. a well-developed
Hellenistic doctrine of the descent of man from the Man
Above, and of his return to that heavenly state by his
mastery of the powers of the cosmos.
PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA ON THE MAN-DOCTRINE
This date is further confirmed by the testimony of Philo
(c. 30 B.C.-45 A.D.).
For, quoting the verse: “We are all sons of One Man,” 2
he addresses those who are “companions of wisdom and
knowledge” as those who are “Sons of one and the same
Father—no mortal father, but an immortal Sire, the Man of
God, who being the Reason (Logos) of the Eternal, is
of necessity himself eternal.” 3
And again, a little further on:
“And if a man should not as yet have the good fortune to
be worthy to be called Son of God, let him strive manfully
to set himself in order 1
according to His First-born Reason (Logos), the
Oldest Angel, who is as though it were the Angel-chief of
many names; for he is called Dominion, and Name of God, and
Reason, and Man-after-His-Likeness, and Seeing Israel.
“And for this reason I was induced a little before to
praise the principles of those who say: ‘We are all sons of
One Man.’ For even if we have not yet become fit to be
judged Sons of God, we may at any rate be Sons of His
Eternal Likeness, His Most Holy Reason (Logos); for
Reason, the Eldest of all Angels, is God’s Likeness [or
Image].” 2
Thus Philo gives us additional proof, if more were
needed, for the full Anthrōpos-doctrine was evidently
fundamental in his circle—that is to say, in the
thought-atmosphere of the Hellenistic theology, or the
religio-philosophy, or theosophy, of his day, the beginning
of the first century A.D.
This date alone is sufficient for our purpose; but it is
not too bold a statement even to say that the Man-Mystery
was a fundamental concept of the brilliant period of the
Hellenistic syncretism which succeeded to the founding of
Alexandria—the period of the expansion of Hellas beyond her
national borders; in other words, her birth into the greater
world.
It is enough to know that the Mystery was hidden and yet
revealed in the shadow-garments of Chaldæan, Babylonian,
Magian, Phœnician, Hebrew, Egyptian, Phrygian, Thracian, and
Greek mystery-traditions. It was, in brief, fundamental in
all such wisdom-shows, and necessarily so, for it was the
Christ-Mystery.
|