Thrice-Greatest Hermes, Vol. I — G. R. S. Mead (1906)
The text is shown on its own: no facing layer is held for this issue.
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 encyclopaedism, 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 <re/3acrro? 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 Sais, who told him that all the records were preserved in the temple of Neith.
It is not here the place to discuss the Atlanticum of Plato and the long history of opinion connected with 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 Archaeology, 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.
1 See The Athenasum, 12th November 1904.
2 De Nat. Deorum, iii. 22.
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.