Thrice-Greatest Hermes, Vol. II (the Corpus Hermeticum) — G. R. S. Mead (1906)

5 See Commentary to Frag. iv. (Lack, D. I., ii. 15).

COMMENTAKY

CONCEKNING THE TlTLE

Patrizzi has run (xvi.) and (xvii.) together, under the title "Definitions of Asclepius — Book I.," though he clearly saw that (xvii.) did not belong to (xvi.) by his remark, " videntur sequentia ex olio libro sumpta." He also heads (xvii.) 1-10 " Definitions of Asclepius — Book II.," and 11-16 "D. of A.— Book III.," though the contents have evidently nothing to do with such a title.

In the MSS. a later hand has added to the general title a catalogue of contents as follows :

" Of God ; Matter ; Evil ; Fate ; the Sun ; Intelligible Essence ; Divine Essence ; Man ; the Economy of the Pleroma; the Seven Stars; the Man after the Likeness"1 — for which largely irrelevant list Patrizzi substitutes the title : " Of the Sun and Daimons. "

Eeitzenstein (p. 192) is of opinion that this contentslist, and also the similar headings in (xviii.), are due to some Byzantine scribe, who also foolishly interpolated (xvii.).

But even to (xvi.) the title " Definitions of Asclepius " seems very inappropriate ; while, on the other hand, we find Lactantius (D. I., ii. 5), in referring to the " incursions of daimones," claiming that it was a doctrine also of Hermes, and adding:

" Asclepius, his hearer, has also explained the same idea at greater length in that ' Perfect Sermon ' which he wrote to the King."

This is quite definite, and the authority of Lactantius should perhaps be preferred to that of the MSS., but as the title would clash with "The Perfect Sermon" of Hermes to Asclepius, and as Lactantius may just

1 R. 348 n.

possibly mean " in that initiatory sermon," — the term perfectus being used in a general and not in an appellative sense, — I have kept the traditional title and placed that of Lactantius second.

A TRADITION CONCERNING THE TRISMEGISTIC
LITERATURE

1. Like " The Key"— 0. H., x. (xi.)— of Hermes, our treatise is an Epitome 1 ; Asclepius has previously written a number of Sermons to the King.

The reference to the "Conversations" between Hermes and Asclepius and Tat, sometimes when both the latter were present and sometimes with Asclepius alone, presupposes the existence of this class of Dialogue, and indicates that the Correspondence of Asclepius with the King is a later deposit of our literature.2

This literary activity of Asclepius is claimed in the introduction to be authorized by Hermes, and, moreover, purports to have been originally written in Demotic Egyptian. In other words, the writer would have us believe that the Greek is a translation from Egyptian. This it clearly is not ; and we can only conclude that the "prophecy" as to direct translation is a literary fiction of our author.

2. On the other hand, it is highly probable that our author was in contact with a living tradition, to the effect that the Hermes-teaching was originally Egyptian, and that this was "interpreted" into Greek — that is, into Greek modes of thought, rather than " translated " in the ordinary sense into Greek.

In any case, the contempt shown by our author for the Greek language and "philosophizing," and his

1 Cf. also Ex. i. 16, and Comment.

2 This deduction, however, has to be modified by the view we hold as to the authorship of the introduction. See Comment., § 5.

admiration for Hieroglyphic Egyptian as a "language of the Gods" — a magical tongue, that by its mdntric power compelled the understanding of the hearer, by putting him in sympathy with the ideas pictured by the ideograms, or sounded forth by the " names of power " l — show that he was not only not a Greek, but also no lover of Greek Philosophy.

This is exceedingly puzzling, seeing not only that the majority of the writers of our tractates are plainly deep students and lovers of Plato, but also that the author of our tractate himself also writes very much in the same style as they do.