Corpus Hermeticum

Upon the other hand, the righteous man finds his defence in serving God and deepest piety. For God doth guard such men from every ill.1 2. Yea, He who is the Sire of all, [our] Lord, and who alone is all, doth love to show Himself to all. It is not by the place where he may be, nor by the quality which he may have, nor by the greatness which he may possess, but by the mind's intelligence alone, that He doth shed His light on man, — [on him] who shakes the clouds of Error from his soul, and sights the brilliancy of Truth,2 mingling himself with the All-sense of the Divine Intelligence ; through love3 of which he wins his freedom from that part of him o'er which Death rules, and has the 1 Compare the Fragment quoted in Greek by Lactantius, D. /., ii. 15, and by Cyril, (7. /., iv. 130. 2 Of. xiii. (xiv.) 7-9, Comment. 3 Cf. xii. 3 above. seed of the assurance of his future Deathlessness implanted in him. 3. This, then, is how the good will differ from the bad. Each several one will shine in piety, in sanctity, in prudence, in worship, and in service of [our] God, and see True Eeason, as though [he looked at it] with [corporal] eyes ; and each will by the confidence of his belief excel all other men, as by its light the Sun the other stars.1

For that it is not so much by the greatness of his light as by his holiness and his divinity, the Sun himself lights up the other stars.2 Yea, [my] Asclepius, thou should'st regard him as the second God,3 ruling all things, and giving light to all things living in the Cosmofc, whether ensouled or unensouled. For if the Cosmos is a living thing, and if it has been, and it is, and will be ever-living, — naught in the Cosmos is subject to death. For of an ever-living thing, it is [the same] of every part which is ; [that is,] that 'tis [as ever-living] as it is [itself] ; and in the World itself [which is] for everyone, and at the self-same time an ever-living thing of life, — in it there is no place for death.4 5. And so he5 should be the full store of 1 Astris. 2 Stellas. 3 Cf. C. H., xvi. 5. ff. 4 The text of this paragraph is very corrupt. 5 That is, the Sun. life and deathlessness ; if that it needs must be that he should live for ever. And so the Sun, just as the Cosmos, lasts for aye. So is he, too, for ever ruler of [all] vital powers, or of [our] whole vitality ; he is their ruler, or the one who gives them out.

God, then, is the eternal ruler of all living things, or vital functions, that are in the World. He is the everlasting giver-forth of Life itself.1 Once for all [time] He hath bestowed Life on all vital powers ; He further doth preserve them by a law that lasts for evermore, as I will [now] explain. 1. For in the very Life of the Eternity2 is Cosmos moved ; and in the very Everlastingness 3 of Life [itself] is Cosmic Space.4 On which account it5 shall not stop at any time, nor shall it be destroyed ; for that its very self is palisaded6 round about, and bound together as it were, by Living's Sempiternity. 1 See Comment on G. H., xvi. 17. 2 ^Eternitatis, doubtless ai&vos in the original Greek, — that is, the Mon ; cf. x. 2 above. For the general ^Eon-doctrine, see chap, xi. in the Prolegomena, and xxxii. 1 below. 3 dEternitate ; Mon again. 4 Lit. the Space of Cosmos ; cf. xv. 1 above. 6 Sc. Cosmos. 6 Circumvallatus et quasi constrictus. Compare with this the idea of the Horos or Boundary in the aeonology of "Them of Valentinus," as set forth by Hippolytus (Philosophumena, vi. 31) :

" Moreover that the formlessness of the Abortion should finally Cosmos is [thus] Life-giver unto all that are in it, and is the Space of all that are in governance beneath the Sun. The motion of the Cosmos in itself consisteth of a two-fold energy. 'Tis vivified itself from the without by the Eternity,1 and vivifies all things that are within, making all different, by numbers and by times, fixed and appointed [for them]. 2. Now Time's distinguished on the Earth by quality of air, by variation of its heat and cold ; in Heaven by the returnings of the stars to the same spots, the revolution of their course in Time. And while the Cosmos is the home 2 of Time,3 it is kept green [itself] by reason of Time's course and motion. Time, on the other hand, is kept by regulation. Order and Time effect renewal of all things which are in Cosmos by means of alternation. 3. [XL M.] All things, then, being thus, never again make itself visible to the perfect ^Eons, the Father Himself also sent forth the additional emanation of a single Mon, the Cross [or Stock, rbv a-Tavpfo], which being created great, as [the creature] of the great and perfect Father, and emanated to be the Guard and Wall of protection [lit. Paling or Stockade — xapa/co>,ua, the Roman vallum] of the jEons, constitutes the Boundary (8pos) of the Pleroma, holding the thirty JSons together within itself. For these [thirty] are they which form the divine creation." See F. F. F., p. 342.

1 That is, the Mon. 2 Receptaculum. 3 Of. 0. H., xi. (xii.) 2. there's nothing stable, nothing fixed, nothing immoveable, of things that are being born, in Heaven or on the Earth. Tmmoveable * [is] God alone, and rightly [He] alone ; for He Himself is in Himself, and by Himself, and round Himself, completely full and perfect. He is His own immoveable stability. Nor by the pressure of some other one can He be moved, nor in the space [of anyone]. 4. For in Him are all [spaces], and He Himself alone is in them all ; unless someone should venture to assert that God's own motion's in Eternity2; nay, rather, it is just Immoveable Eternity itself, back into which the motion of all times is funded, and out of which the motion of all times takes its beginning. 1. God, then, hath [ever] been unchanging,3 and ever, in like fashion, with Himself hath the Eternity consisted, — having within itself Cosmos ingenerate, which we correctly call [God] Sensible.4 Of that [transcendent] Deity this Image 5 hath been made, — Cosmos the imitator of Eternity. 1 That is, changeless. 2 That is, again, in the 3 Stabilis. 4 Of. viii. 1 above.

5 Cf. x. 3 above. Time, further, hath the strength and nature of its own stability, in spite of its being in perpetual motion, — from its necessity of [ever] from itself reverting to itself. 2. And so, although Eternity is stable, motionless, and fixed, still, seeing that the movement of [this] Time (which is subject to motion) is ever being recalled into Eternity, — and for that reason Time's mobility is circular, — it comes to pass that the Eternity itself, although in its own self, is motionless, [yet] on account of Time, in which it is — (and it is in it), — it seems to be in movement as all motion. So that it comes to pass, that both Eternity's stability becometh moved, and Time's mobility becometh stable. So may we ever hold that God Himself is moved into Himself by [ever-] same transcendency of motion.1 For that stability is in His vastness motion motionless ; for by His vastness is [His] law exempt from change.2 3. That, then, which so transcends, which is not subject unto sense, [which is] beyond all bounds, [and which] cannot be grasped, — That 1 Eadem immobilitate. The whole is an endeavour to at-one the "Platonic" root-opposites "same" (ravr6v) and "other" (edrepov}— the "Self" and the "not-Self," sat-asat, dtmdndtman, of the Upanishads.

transcends all appraisement ; That cannot be supported, nor borne up, nor can it be tracked out.1 / For where, and when, and whence, and how, \ and what, He is, — is known to none.2 For He's borne up by [His] supreme stability, and His stability is in Himself [alone], — whether [this mystery] be God, or the Eternity, or both, or one in other, or both in either. 4. And for this cause, just as Eternity transcends the bounds of Time ; so Time [itself], in that it cannot have bounds set to it by number, or by change, or by the period of the revolution of some second [kind of Time], — is of the nature of Eternity. Both, then, seem boundless, both eternal. And so stability, though naturally fixed, yet seeing that it can sustain the things that are in motion, — because of all the good it does by reason of its firmness, deservedly doth hold the chiefest place. 1. The principals of all that are, are, therefore, God and JEon.3 The Cosmos, on the other hand, in that 'tis moveable, is not a principal.4 1 Cf. C. H.j xiii. (xiv.) 6 ; also xxxiv. 3 below.

2 Compare the Hymn in C. H., v. (vi.) 10, 11. 3 Or Eternity. 4 Lit. does not hold the chief place. For its mobility exceeds its own stability by treating the immoveable fixation as the law of everlasting movement. The Whole Sense,1 then, of the Divinity, though like [to Him] in its own self immoveable, doth set itself in motion within its own stability. Tis holy, incorruptible, and everlasting, and if there can be any better attribute to give to it, ['tis its], — Eternity of God supreme, in Truth itself subsisting, the Fullness of all things, of Sense, and of the whole of Science, consisting, so to say, with God.2 2. The Cosmic Sense is the container3 of all sensibles, [all] species, and [all] sciences. The human [higher sense consists] in the retentiveness of memory, in that it can recall all things that it hath done. 1 Cf. § 3 below. 2 Consistens^ ut ita dixerim, cum deo. Is there possibly here underlying the Latin consistens cum deo the expanded form of the peculiar and elliptical irpbs rbv Oebv of the Proem to the Fourth Gospel (the apud deum of the Vulgate) ? This was explained by the Gnostic Ptolemy, somewhere about the middle of the second century, as " at-one-ment with God," in his exegesis of the opening words, which he glosses as : " The at-one-ment with each other, together with their at-one-ment with the Father" (f) -jrpbs a\\-f}\ovs a/j-a Kal T] Trpbs •r'bv iraTcpa eVoxm). So that the first verse of the Proem would run : " In the Beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was (one) with God ; yea, the Logos was God. He was in the Beginning (one) with God" — ? consistens cum deo. See Irenaeus, Ref. Om. Hwr., I. viii. 5 — Stieren (Leipzig ; 1853), i. 102 ; also F. F. F., p. 388.

For only just as far as the man- animal has the divinity of Sense l descended ; in that God hath not willed the highest Sense divine should be commingled with the rest of animals ; lest it should blush for shame 2 on being mingled with the other lives. For whatsoever be the quality, or the extent, of the intelligence of a man's Sense, the whole of it consists in power of recollecting what is past. It is through his retentiveness of memory, that man's been made the ruler of the earth. 3. Now the intelligence of Nature 3 can be won by quality of Cosmic Sense, — from all the things in Cosmos which sense can perceive. Concerning [this] Eternity, which is the second [one], — the Sense of this we get from out the senses' Cosmos, and we discern its quality [by the same means]. But the intelligence of Quality [itself], the "Whatness" of the Sense of God Supreme, is Truth alone, — of which [pure] Truth not even the most tenuous sketch, or [faintest] shade, in Cosmos is discerned. For where is aught [of it] discerned by measurement of times, — wherein are seen untruths, and births [-and-deaths], and errors ?

1 That is, the divine or higher sense, connected with memory in its beginnings and with the Platonic "reminiscence" (the Pythagorean mathesis) in its maturity. 2 Gf. C. H.t x. (xi.) 19. 3 That is, Cosmos. 4. Thou seest, then, Asclepius, on what we are [already] founded, with what we occupy ourselves, and after what we dare to strive. But unto Thee, 0 God most high, I give my thanks, in that Thou hast enlightened me with Light to see Divinity ! And ye, 0 Tat, Asclepius and Ammon, in silence hide the mysteries divine within the secret places of your hearts,1 and breathe no word of their concealment*! 5. Now in our case the intellect doth differ from the sense in this, — that by the mind's extension intellect can reach to the intelligence and the discernment of the quality of Cosmic Sense. The Intellect of Cosmos, on the other hand, extends to the Eternity and to the Gnosis of the Gods who are above itself.3 And thus it comes to pass for men, that we perceive the things in Heaven, as it were through a mist, as far as the condition of the human sense allows. 'Tis true that the extension [of the mind] which we possess for the survey of such transcendent things, is very narrow [still] ; but [it

1 Lit. breasts. 2 Of. C. H., xiii. (xiv.) 22. 3 The super-cosmic Gods, or beings of the Intelligible Cosmos ; the ^Eons of the Gnostics. will be] most ample when it shall perceive with the felicity of [true] self-consciousness. 1. [XII. M.] Now on the subject of a " Void," l —which seems to almost all a thing of vast importance, — I hold the following view. Naught is, naught could have been, naught ever will be void. For all the members of the Cosmos are completely full; so that Cosmos itself is full and [quite] complete with bodies, diverse in quality and form, possessing each its proper kind and size. And of these bodies — one's greater than another, or another's less than is another, by difference of strength and size. Of course, the stronger of them are more easily perceived, just as the larger [are]. The lesser ones, however, or the more minute, can scarcely be perceived, or not at all — those which we know are things [at all] by sense of touch alone. Whence many come to think they are not bodies, and that there are void spaces, — which is impossible. 2. So also [for the Space] which is called

1 Of. a. H., xi. (xii.). Extra-cosmic, — if there be any (which I do not believe), — [then] is it filled by Him with things Intelligible, that is things of like nature with His own Divinity ; just as this Cosmos which is called the Sensible, is fully filled with bodies and with animals, consonant with its proper nature and its quality ; — [bodies] the proper shape of which we do not all behold, but [see] some large beyond their proper measure, some very small ; either because of the great space which lies between [them and ourselves], or else because our sight is dull ; so that they seem to us to be minute, or by the multitude are thought not to exist at all, because of their too great tenuity. I mean the daimones, who, I believe, have their abode with us, and heroes, who abide between the purest part of air above us and the earth, — where it is ever cloudless, and no [movement from the] motion of a single star [disturbs the peace]. 3. Because of this, Asclepius, thou shalt call nothing void ; unless thou wilt declare of what that's void, which thou dost say is void; — for instance, void of fire, of water, or things like to these.

For if it should fall out, that it should seem that anything is able to be void of things like these, — though that which seemeth void be little or be big, it still cannot be void of spirit and of air. 1. In like way must we also talk concerning "Space,"1 — a term which by itself is void of "sense."2 For Space seems what it is from that of which it is [the space]. For if the qualifying 3 word is cut away, the sense is maimed. Wherefore we shall [more] rightly say the space of water, space of fire, or [space] of things like these. For as it is impossible that aught be void ; so is Space also in itself not possible to be distinguished what it is. For if you postulate a space without that [thing] of which it is [the space], it will appear to be void space, — which I do not believe exists in Cosmos. 2. If nothing, then, is void, so also Space by its own self does not show what it is unless you add to it lengths, breadths [and depths], — just as you add the proper marks4 unto men's bodies.

These things, then, being thus, Asclepius, and ye who are with [him], — know the Intelligible 1 Cf. xv. 1 above. 2 Intelledu caret. 3 Principals, — lit. principal. 4 Signa ; characteristics, presumably. Cosmos (that is, [the one] which is discerned by contemplation of the mind alone) is bodiless ; nor can aught corporal be mingled with its nature, — [by corporal I mean] what can be known by quality, by quantity, and numbers. For there is nothing of this kind in that. 3. This Cosmos, then, which is called Sensible, is the receptacle of all things sensible, — of species, qualities, or bodies. But not a single one of these can quicken without God. For God is all, and by Him [are] all things, and all [are] of His Will. For that He is all Goodness, Fitness, Wisdom, unchangeable, — that can be sensed and understood by His own self alone. Without Him naught hath been, nor is, nor will be. 4. For all things are from Him, in Him, and through Him, — both multitudinous qualities, and mighty quantities, and magnitudes exceeding every means of measurement, and species of all forms ; — which things, if thou should'st understand, Asclepius, thou wilt give thanks to God.

And if thou should'st observe it 1 as a whole, thou wilt be taught, by means of the True Reason, that Cosmos in itself is knowable to sense,2 and that all things in it are wrapped 1 Sc. the Cosmos. 2 Sensibilem ; probably referring to the sensus par excellence ; that is, the higher or cosmic sense. as in a vesture by that Higher Cosmos l [spoken of above]. 1. Now every single class of living thing,2 Asclepius, of whatsoever kind, or it be mortal or be rational, whether it be endowed with soul, or be without one, just as each has its class,3 so does each several [class] have images of its own class. And though each separate class of animal has in it every form of its own class, still in the selfsame [kind of] form the units differ from each other. And so although the class of men is of one kind, so that a man can be distinguished by his [general] look, still individual men within the sameness of their [common] form do differ from each other. 2. For the idea 4 which is divine, is bodiless, and is whatever is grasped by the mind.

So that although these two,5 from which the general form and body are derived, are bodiless, it is impossible that any single form should be produced exactly like another, — because the 1 That is, the Intelligible Cosmos ; presumably the Mon. 2 Animalium. 3 Genus. 4 Species ; meaning here apparently the genus or class. 6 Apparently the idea and mind. moments of the hours and points of inclination [when they're born] are different. But they are changed as many times as there are moments in the hour of that revolving Circle in which abides that God whom we have called All-formed.1 3. The species,2 then, persists, as frequently producing from itself as many images, and as diverse, as there are moments in the Cosmic Revolution,3 — a Cosmos which doth [ever] change in revolution. But the idea * [itself] is neither changed nor turned. So are the forms of every single genus permanent, [and yet] dissimilar in the same [general] form. 1. Asc. And does the Cosmos have a species, 0 Thrice -greatest one ? Tris. Dost not thou see, Asclepius, that all has been explained to thee as though to one asleep ? For what is Cosmos, or of what doth it consist, if not of all things born ?

This,5 then, you may assert of heaven, and 1 Cf. C. H,, xi. (xii.) 16 ; and C. H., xvi. 15 ; also xix. 3 above, and xxxvi. 2 below. 2 That is, apparently, the " divine species," or idea, the genus. 3 Cf. xl. 3 below. 4 Species. 6 That is, that there are genera embracing many species. earth, and elements. For though the other things possess more frequent change of species, [still even] heaven, [by its] becoming moist, or dry, or cold, or hot, or clear, or dull, [all] in one kind1 of heaven, — these [too] are frequent changes into species.2 2. Earth hath, moreover, always many changes in its species; — both when she brings forth fruits, and when she also nourishes her bringingsforth with the return of all the fruits ; the diverse qualities and quantities of air, its stoppings and its flowings 8 ; and before all the qualities of trees, of flowers, and berries, of scents, of savours — species. Fire [also] brings about most numerous conversions, and divine. For these are all-formed images of Sun and Moon * ; they're, as it were, like our own mirrors, which with their emulous resplendence give us back the likenesses of our own images.

1. [XIII. M.] But5 now let this suffice about such things ; and let us once again return 2 The construction is here confuted and elliptical. 3 This clause seems to be out of place. 4 Presumably of the ideal Sun and Moon ; for " all-formed," cf. xxxv. 2 above. 6 The first six paragraphs of this chapter are quoted in Latin, with two slight verbal variants, by Augustine, De Civitate Dei, xxiv., xx vi. to man and reason, — gift divine, from which man has the name of rational animal. Less to be wondered at are the things said of man, — though they are [still] to be admired. Nay, of all marvels that which wins our wonder [most] is that man has been able to find out the nature of the Gods and bring it into play. 2. Since, then, our earliest progenitors were in great error,1 — seeing they had no rational faith about the Gods, and that they paid no heed unto their cult and holy worship, — they chanced upon an art whereby they made Gods [for themselves].2 To this invention they conjoined a power that suited it, [derived] from cosmic nature ; and blending these together, since souls they could not make, [they set about] evoking daimons' souls or those of angels ; [and thus] attached them to their sacred images and holy mysteries, so that the statues should, by means of these, possess the powers of doing good and the reverse.

3. For thy forebear, Asclepius, the first discoverer of medicine, to whom there is a temple 1 Menard thinks he can distinguish the hand of a Christian scribe in this sentence, which he translates with great freedom, "qui s'egaraient dans I'incredulite'." A more careful translation, however, does not seem to favour this hypothesis. Hermes says simply that primitive mankind were ignorant of the Gods, and so in error. 2 That is, images. Of. xxx. above ; and 0. H.t xvii. hallowed on Libya's Mount,1 hard by the shore of crocodiles,2 in which his cosmic man 3 reposes, that is to say his body ; for that the rest [of him], or better still, the whole (if that a man when wholly [plunged] in consciousness of life,4 be better), hath gone back home to heaven, — still furnishing, [but] now by his divinity, the sick with all the remedies which he was wont in days gone by to give by art of medicine. 4. Hermes, which is the name of my forebear, whose home is in a place called after him,5 doth aid and guard all mortal [men] who come to him from every side.6 As for Osiris' [spouse] ; how many are the blessings that we know Isis bestows when she's propitious ; how many does she injure when she's wrath !

For that the terrene and the cosmic Gods are 1 Cf. xxvii. 3 above. 2 In monte Libya circa littus crocodilorum. Does this refer to a Crocodilopolis (KpoKo5ei\uv Tr6\is, Ptol., iv. 5, § 65) ? And if so, to which of these cities, for there were several ? The best known of these is Arsinoe in the Faiyyum ; but there was also another down south, in the Thebaid, on the W. bank of the Nile, lat. 25° 6', of which remains are still visible at Embeshanda, on the verge of the Libyan desert. See Smith's Diet, of Gk. and Rom. Geography (London, 1878), sub voc. 3 Presumably his mummy. 4 In sensu vitce. 6 Hermopolis therefore (compare Lact., D. Institt., i. 6) ; that is to say, Hermopolis Magna ('Ep/toD Tr6\is /j.eyd\ii), the modern Eshmun, on the left bank of the Nile, about lat. 27° 4'. 6 To get wisdom. Augustine's quotation ends here. easily enraged, in that they are created and composed of the two natures. 5. And for this cause it comes to pass that these are called the "sacred animals" by the Egyptians, and that each several state1 gives service to the souls of those whose souls have been made holy,2 while they were still alive ; so that [the several states] are governed by the laws [of their peculiar sacred animals], and called after their names.

It is because of this, Asclepius, those [animals] which are considered by some states deserving of their worship, in others are thought otherwise ; and on account of this the states of the Egyptians wage with each other frequent war. 1. Asc. And of what nature, 0 Thrice-greatest one, may be the quality of those who are considered terrene Gods ? Tris. It doth consist, Asclepius, of plants, and stones, and spices, which contain the nature of [their own] divinity. And for this cause they are delighted with repeated sacrifice, with hymns, and lauds, and 1 Or city. For the animal cult of the Egyptians, see Plutarch, De Is. et Os., Ixxii. ff. sweetest sounds, tuned to the key of Heaven's harmonious song.1 2. So that what is of heavenly nature,2 being drawn down into the images by means of heavenly use and practices, may be enabled to endure with joy the nature of mankind, and sojourn with it for long periods of time. Thus is it that man is the maker of the Gods. 3. But do not, 0 Asclepius, 1 pray thee, think the doings of the terrene Gods are the result of chance. The heavenly Gods dwell in the heights of Heaven, each filling up and watching o'er the rank he hath received ; whereas these Gods of ours,3 each in its way,— by looking after certain things, foretelling others by oracles and prophecy, foreseeing others, and duly helping them along, — act as allies of men, as though they were our relatives and friends.

1. [XIV. M.] Asc. What part of the economy,4 Thrice-greatest one, does the Heimarmene, or Fate, then occupy ? For do not the celestial Gods rule over generals 5 ; the terrene occupy particulars ? 1 Cf. "God's song" in xiii. 2 above. 2 Namely, the nature of the Gods. 3 The terrene Gods ; the daimones of (7. #., xvi. 14. 4 Rationis ; lit. reason. 5 Catholicorum. Tris. That which we call Heimarmene, Asclepius, is the necessity of all things that are born,1 bound ever to themselves with interlinked enchainments. This, then, is either the effector of all things, or it is highest God, or what is made the second God by God Himself, — or else the discipline 2 of all things both in heaven and on earth, established by the laws of the Divine. 2. And so these twain, Fate and Necessity, are bound to one another mutually by inseparable cohesion.3 The former of them, the Heimarmene, gives birth to the beginnings of all things ; Necessity compels the end of [all] depending from these principals. On these doth Order follow, that is their warp-and-woof, and Time's arrangement for the perfecting of [all] things. For there is naught without the interblend of Order.4

1 Or borne, quce geruntur. 2 Disciplines = ?gnosis. 4 Of. J. Laurentius Lydus, De Mensibus, iv. 7 (Wiinsch, 70) ; the rest of the quotation following on what has been already quoted in the note to xix. 3. The Greek is either a very much shortened form or the Latin a very much expanded one, for the former may be translated as follows : " And Fate is also fated Activity (or Energy), or God Himself, or the Order that doth follow that Activity set over all things in the heaven and all things on the earth, together with Necessity. The former (Fate) gives birth to the very beginnings of things, the latter compels the ends also to come into existence. And on them there follow Order and Law, and there is naught that's orderless." Cf. Ex. i. 15, and Ex. xi. 1. That Cosmos l is made perfect in all things ; for Cosmos' self is vehicled 2 in Order, or totally consists of Order. 1. So, then, these three, Fate, [and] Necessity, [and] Order, are most immediately effected by God's Will, who rules the Cosmos by His Law and by His Holy Keason. From these, accordingly, all willing or notwilling is altogether foreign, according to God's Will.3

They are not moved by wrath nor swayed by favour, but are the instruments of the Eternal Reason's self-compulsion, which is [the Reason] of Eternity,4 that never can be turned aside, or changed, or be destroyed. 2. First, then, is Fate, which, as it were, by casting in the seed, supplies the embryo of all that are to be. Follows Necessity, whereby they all are forcibly compelled unto their end. Third, Order [comes], preserving warp-andwoof of [all] the things which Fate and [which] Necessity arrange.5 1 Mundus= cosmos, meaning also order in Greek. 2 Gestatur. 3 Divinitus. 4 That is, the ^Eon. 6 Fate thus seems to be regarded as the Creator, Order as the Preserver, and Necessity as the Destroyer or Regenerator. This, then, is the Eternity, which neither doth begin nor cease to be, which, fixed by law unchangeable, abides in the unceasing motion of its course. 3. It rises and it sets, by turns, throughout its limbs l ; so that by reason of Time's changes it often rises with the very limbs with which it [once] had set. For [its] sphericity, — its law of revolution,2— is of this nature, that all things are so straitly joined to their own selves, that no one knoweth what is the beginning of their revolution 3 ; since they appear for ever all to go before and follow after their own selves.

Good and bad issues,4 [therefore,] are commingled in all cosmic things. 4. [XV. M.] And now it hath been told you on each several point, — as man hath power [to tell], and God hath willed it and permitted it. This, then, alone remains that we should do, — bless God and give Him praise ; and so return to taking thought for body ['s comfort]. For now sufficiently have we been filled with feast of mind by our discourse on sacred things.5 1 Membra j that is, parts, presumably constellations. 2 Cf. xxxv. 3 below. 3 Volubilitatis ; that is, their turning into themselves ; the symbol of which was the serpent swallowing its tail. 5 Cf. the conclusion of C. H.t xvii. 1. Now when they came forth from the holy place,1 they turned their faces towards the south 2 when they began their prayers to God. For when the sun is setting, should anyone desire to pray to God, he ought to turn him thitherwards 3 ; so also at the rising of the same, unto that spot which lies beneath the sun.4 As they were just beginning to recite the prayer, Asclepius did whisper : [Asc.~\ Let us suggest to father, Tat, — what he did bid us do,5 — that we should say our prayer to God with added incense and with unguents.

Whom when Thrice-greatest heard, he grew distressed and said : 2. [Tris.~\ Nay, nay, Asclepius ; speak more propitious words ! For this is like to profanation of [our] sacred rites, — when thou dost pray to God, to offer incense and the rest. For naught is there of which He stands in need, in that He is all things, or all are in Him. 1 De adyto ; " down from," literally. 2 This is apparently an error for south-west or west. 3 That is, to the setting sun or the west. Cf. G.H., xiii. (xiv.) 16, Comment. 4 Subsolanus, lying beneath the sun ; that is to say, eastern. 6 Gf. xxxviii. 1 above. But let us worship, pouring forth our thanks. For this is the best incense in God's sight, — when thanks are given to Him by men.1 3. [We give] Thee grace, Thou highest [and] most excellent ! For by Thy Grace we have received the so great Light of Thy own Gnosis. 0 holy Name, fit [Name] to be adored, 0 Name unique, by which the Only God 2 is to be blest through worship of [our] Sire, — [of Thee] who deignest to afford to all a Father's piety, and care, and love, and whatsoever virtue is more sweet [than these], endowing [us] with sense, [and] reason, [and] intelligence; — with sense that we may feel Thee ; with reason that we may track Thee out from the appearances of things 3 ; with means of recognition that we may joy in knowing Thee.

4. Saved by Thy Power divine, let us rejoice that Thou hast shown Thyself to us in all Thy Fullness. Let us rejoice that Thou hast deigned to consecrate us, [still] entombed in bodies, to Eternity. For this is the sole festival of praise worthy of man, — to know Thy Majesty. We have known Thee ; yea, by the Single Sense of our intelligence, we have perceived 1 For the three preceding paragraphs, see Lact., D. /., vi. 25. 2 The Cosmos, presumably, as the One God. 3 Suspicionibus ; hints, perhaps, and so phenomena. Thy Light supreme, — 0 Thou true Life of life, 0 Fecuiid Womb that giveth birth to every nature ! 5. We have known Thee, 0 Thou completely filled with the Conception from Thyself of Universal Nature ! We have known Thee, 0 Thou Eternal Constancy ! For in the whole of this our prayer in worship of Thy Good, this favour only of Thy Goodness do we crave ; — that Thou wilt keep us constant in our Love of knowing Thee,1 and let us ne'er be cut off from this kind of Life. With this desire we [now] betake us to [our] pure and fleshless meal.2

The titles in the Latin MSS. vary. The heading preferred by Hildebrand is " Asclepius, or a Dialogue of Thrice-greatest Hermes " ; while in the Bipontine edition, the title stands : " Thrice-greatest Hermes Concerning the Nature of the Gods ; A Sermon addressed to Asclepius." Menard, the French translator, prefers : " A Sermon of Initiation, or Asclepius." The treatise begins with a transparent gloss, in all probability originally the marginal note of some scribe, 1 Or of Thy Gnosis. 2 Cosnam. or student, which has improperly crept into the text. It runs : " This Asclepius is my Sun-god " ; that is to say, apparently : " This Sermon ' Asclepius ' has illumined me " ; from which it is evident that the title lying before the scribe was " Asclepius " simply, as may be seen from § 2 : "It is, however, with thy name I will inscribe this treatise." Stobseus, moreover, in quoting from the original Greek (of xxvii. 4), heads his extract simply, " Of Hermes from the [Sermons] to Asclepius." On the other hand, the Church Father Lactantius, writing at the beginning of the fourth century, and quoting from the Greek original, says twice, categorically (D. /., iv. 6 and vii. 8) : " Hermes in illo libro qui Ao'yo? reAef09 VMcribtowr" \ that is, "Hermes in the Book entitled 'The Perfect Sermon,' or 'The Sermon of Initiation ' " ; while Johannes Laurentius Lydus on three occasions quotes from this " Perfect Sermon " of Hermes, and on each occasion so names it.

I have accordingly preferred this as the main title, and added " The Asclepius " as an alternative. Of the Greek original we have quotations or references by Lactantius (see viii. 1 and 3; xxv. 4: xxvi. 1 ; xli. 2), Johannes Laurentius Lydus (see xix. 3 ; xxviii. 1 ; xxxix. 1, 2), and Stobaeus (see xxvii. 4). If we compare these Greek quotations with our Latin translation, we shall find, not only that the Latin is an exceedingly free rendering of the Greek, showing many expansions and contractions, and often missing the sense of the original, but also that even in Greek there were probably several recensions of the same text.1 1 See R. 195, 2. Indeed, the free rendering of our translation is of such a nature that it is impossible to base upon it any certain conclusions as to the date of the original or its precise worth in the history of religion.1 That, however, our Latin translation is an ancient one is proved by Augustine's verbal quotations from it (see xxiii. 1 ; xxiii. 3-xxiv. 2 ; xxiv. 3 ; xxvii. 1-4). It was thus in existence about 400 A.D. at least.2 Tradition, however, has assigned to it a far higher antiquity, attributing it to no less distinguished a writer than Appuleius, and so referring it to the first half of the second century.

This attribution has, of course, for long been questioned by modern criticism, and Keitzenstein, though he does not discuss the subject, accepts the adverse verdict and refers us to a " Pseudo- Appuleius." Hildebrand, whose minute acquaintance with Appuleius' peculiar style and neologisms is a guarantee of his competence, has thoroughly gone into the matter ; and though he sums up against tradition, it is in a half-hearted way. The translation, if not by Appuleius, is at any rate in old African Latin, and there is nothing in the style which absolutely forbids the possibility of its being by the author of The Golden Ass and the initiate of Isis. The strongest point, other than philological, against tradition is that Augustine does not say the translation was by Appuleius; but this seems to me to be unworthy of serious consideration. It is, of course, difficult to turn possibilities into probabilities, but I see no reason why the Greek original of our Sermon should not be assigned to the 1 The so-founded opinions of Bernays and Zeller are characterized by Reitzenstein (p. 195) as of as little value as the opinions which made the whole of our literature dependent on New Platonism.

2 Augustine's date is 354-430 A.D. earlier Hermes-Asclepian dialogues as well as to any others. That it was one of the most famous is evident by its wide quotation, and by the fact that several recensions of the Greek text were in circulation. OF THE WRITER AND THE PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE The Latin translator retains a number of the original Greek technical terms, and if we could only rely on his translation giving us the substance of the original in all cases, we should be presented in several passages with phenomena which would persuade us that the writer of the original intended his readers to think he was an Egyptian, and that his native nomenclature was other than Greek, as is also the case in C. E. (xvi.). For instance, in vii. 2, " the man ' essential,' l as say the Greeks," — but this may be a gloss of the Latin translator. Again, in x. 2 : " So that . . . * World ' seems most fitly called c Cosmos ' in Greek," — which seems to be the original. Yet again, the " multifarious reasoning " of xii. 3 reminds us strongly of "the philosophizing of the Greeks — the noise of words," in C. If., xvi. 2.

On the other hand, the phrase, " which we in Greek (grcece) believe to be the Cosmos," would seem to make the original author forget his Egyptian role. While " its bottom ... is called in Greek A-eides," coupled with " in Greek they are called Hades ... in Latin Inferi " (xvii. 3), may be assigned to a gloss of the translator. In xxiv. 1, however, the sentence, "Dost thou not know, Asclepius, that Egypt is the image of the Heaven ? . . . This land of ours is shrine of the whole world " —coupled with the rest of the chapter, and Ch. xxv. i Cf. C. H., xiii. (xiv.) 14 — could hardly have been written by a Greek. In xxviii. 1, moreover, the "weighing of the merit" of the soul is strongly Egyptian, and so with the image and animal-cult. As to the persons of the dialogue, I would suggest that originally the sermon was addressed to Asclepius alone, and that the slight narrative indications were added later to adapt it to wider circles. The chief disciple is evidently Asclepius; he it is who is already " well versed in Nature," according to G. H., xiv. (xv.) 1 ; that is to say, he has progressed beyond the stage of Hearer, for he questions Hermes, whereas Tat does not ask questions, but listens only, he is "the one who is to hear" (i. 1). To them is added Ammon on the proposal of Asclepius; and Ammon is admitted on the ground that he had already had much written to him, but apparently had not yet been admitted to oral teaching.

The teaching is delivered in solemn surroundings in the holy place or shrine (i. 2), and teacher and pupils constitute the " sacred four." Hermes teaches in a state of exaltation; the place is filled with "God's goodly presence," and "Love Divine" instructs them, through Hermes' lips, in answer to the Pure and Single Love of Philosophy in their hearts (cf. xii. 3 ; xiv. 1). The same hand that wrote the warning against revealing the sermon to others in i. 2 also probably wrote : " And ye, 0 Tat, Asclepius and Ammon, in silence hide the mysteries divine within the secret places of your hearts, and breathe no word of their concealment ! " (xxxii. 4) ; he also, presumably, glossed "Asclepius" (xxxiv. 2) with "and ye who are with him," and added the naive whisper of Asclepius to Tat (xli. 1). This redactor (if our analysis is correct), moreover, was a member of a select 1 ascetic community, judging at any rate by his last sentence (xli. 5) ; in which case Ammon can hardly be equated with any King Ammon, but must be taken as standing for some grade of the community. I would suggest that this grade was similar to that of the Exoterici of the Pythagoreans or the outer circles of the Essenes, of which the members still lived in the world, but received instruction. In this case, however, the " we " of the last sentence would have to be taken as referring to Asclepius and Tat, and not to Ammon.

As to the dependence of our sermon on the rest of the literature, I find more points of contact between it and C. ff., x. (xi.), "The Key" sermon addressed to Tat ; none of the references, however, which I have given in the notes, show any literal dependence. In the general doctrine the stress laid on the concept of the Will of God2 is to be specially noticed. This Will seems to be almost personified, and is, of course, a fundamental doctrine of the Trismegistic religiophilosophy.3 In xxvi. 1 it is identified with the Goodness4 of God, and the Nature of God.5 But what it seems to correspond to most nearly is the ^Eon or Eternity-idea which is set forth very clearly in xxx.-xxxii. — in fact, more clearly than anywhere else in the Trismegistic 1 Cf. for references to the " few," xxii. 1 ; xxiii. 1 ; xxxiv. 3 ; xl. 1. 2 Cf. vii. 3 ; viii. 2 ; xi. 4 ; xiv. 1 ; xvi. 3 ; xix. 4 ; xx. 3 ; xxii. 4 ; xxv. 2 ; xxvi. 1, 2 and 3. 3 Cf. especially G. H.t iv. (v.) 1 ; x. (xi.) i.

4 In the Greek text of Lactantius this is " the Good." 6 Cf. vi. 1 ; xiv. 3. literature. God and Mon are the sources of all things ; and ^Eon is " the Eternity of God, in Truth itself subsisting, the Fullness of all things" (xxxii. 1). The Will of God is thus the ^Eon or Pleroma, the Wisdom, the Energy, the Spouse of the Supreme. This Will rules Cosmos with Law and Holy Eeason (xl.); Cosmos being the Order of things involved in Fate and Necessity the instruments of the Divine Will.1 Our sermon is also characterized by the frequent use it makes of the terms Spirit and Sense. The Spirit is evidently Cosmic Life (vi. 4 ; xxvii. 1) and individual life (x. 4).2 The exposition of it begins with xiv. 2 ; Spirit and Matter, or the Nature of the Cosmos (xiv. 3), are practically regarded as the Positive and Negative, or Masculine and Feminine Energies of the Divine. Spirit is the Kuler (xvii. 1) of all things in Cosmos or Nature ; it is the immediate Instrument of the Will of God (xvi. 3) ; and is, indeed, loosely identified with that Will (xix. 4) ; while in still looser fashion Spirit seems to be symbolized by " Heaven " and the Sensible Cosmos by " Earth " (xix. 2).

It is very probable that this doctrine of Spirit as Divine Breath is fundamentally Egyptian, and owes nothing to immediate Semitic influence. However this may be, the use of the term Sense, as apparently in some way superior to Reason (vi. 4; x. 4), is very striking, and, as in some cases opposed to the exaltation of the Eeason found elsewhere in our tractates, under the influence of this leading idea of Greek philosophy, discloses an Egyptian point of view. 1 Cf. also G. H., xiii. (xiv.) 19, 20, and R. 39, n. 1. 2 Cf. G. H.t x. (xi.) 13, and Commentary. We have already noticed this use of the term in some of our tractates, but in our present sermon it is brought into great prominence. This Sense is not the differentiated senses, but a Unit or Cosmic Sense. It is " the Divine Sense of intelligence," and is found only in God and in man's reason (vii. 1 ; xxxii. 2). It is the "Higher Sense (with which Celestial Gift mankind alone is blest) " — characterized as the " feeder of the mind " (xviii. 1) ; yet on the other hand this " Higher Sense " is that " which by good chance a man perceives by mind, when out of all his senses."

This Sense is in some fashion closely connected with Nature and Cosmos (xxi. 1) ; through it man "disciplines his soul," and "cures his intellect," thus gaining " intelligence of God-like Eeason " (xxii. 1), and finally " mingling himself with the All-sense of the Divine Intelligence " (xxix. 2). This All-sense is the same as the " Whole Sense of Divinity," and is the Likeness of God ; it is " in its own self immoveable," and yet " doth set itself in motion within its own stability " (xxxii. 1). Man must make himself like unto this Likeness. This Likeness is evidently the -#Con or Intelligible Cosmos ; for the " Cosmic Sense is the Container of all sensibles" (xxxii. 2). In man its chief normal characteristic is the retentiveness of memory, " through which man is made ruler of the Earth" (xxxii. 2). This Sense is then man's continuum, the germ of everlastingness in him, the root-ground of consciousness (xxxii. 3), the Single Sense of the intelligence (xli. 4), which is fully brought to birth only when a man " is wholly plunged in consciousness of life (in sensu vitce)" (xxxvii. 3), — the " spiritual life " of the Christian Gnostics.

The fact that we have only a translation to deal with prevents us laying too much stress on details, but the general idea is clear enough ; so too with the rest of this, the longest of our sermons, we must be content to refer only to general points, the chief of which are the " prophetic " utterances. These present us with problems of very great difficulty, and, so far, I have neither seen any solution nor has any occurred to me. So much work has been done on contemporary prophetic utterances of this nature, especially on the Sibylline Literature, that it may be said that the scholastic mind has reached certain general criteria with regard to such pronouncements — the chief of which is that the hypothesis of genuine prophecy is not to be entertained. In the Sibylline literature, indeed, this is clearly established; for much of it consists of traditional history written in the prophetical tense, so to say; when the history comes to an end the date of the " prophetical " writer is at once detected, for all that follows has no longer any relation to historical events. In the case of our " prophecies," however, we have nothing of this nature to guide us. All we can say is that they seem to have been written, most probably, at a time when the Trismegistic communities were being persecuted.

That this was in the course of the fourth century, however, as Eeitzenstein (p. 213) supposes, seems to me to be, so far, destitute of any sure objective confirmation ; it not only compels us to suppose that the prophecies are later interpolations (which they may possibly be), but that these interpolations are later than Lactantius; whereas there is every probability that the Church Father had the text of them before him,1 and his date is the beginning of the fourth century. On the other hand, Zosimus, writing somewhere about the end of the third and beginning of the fourth century, breathes no word of persecution, and leads us to suppose that the community was still flourishing. We are thus still in the gravest uncertainty. The first of our "prophecies" is in xii. 3: "For I will tell thee as though it were propheticly " — addressed to Asclepius, and, therefore, probably not due to the redactor who we have supposed added the narrative sentences. The lament of the writer is that " the Single Love, the Love of Pure Philosophy," is fast disappearing from the world ; he can hardly have had Christianity in mind when writing these words, for he contrasts the " Pure Philosophy " with " multifarious reasoning " and " divers sciences," and the latter can hardly be said to be characteristic of General Christianity.

If, however, his words may be said to include also Gnostic Christianity, then he was clearly not in sympathy with it ; but this can hardly be the case, seeing that the resemblances between the Trismegistic and Christian Gnosis are of a very intimate nature. Turning next to xxiv. 2, we meet with the clear statement that the worship of the Gods will be legally proscribed by the " barbarian " masters of Egypt (also xxv. 3). Such a general proscription in this emphatic sense took place in Egypt only with the destruction of the Serapeum by the Christians themselves in 389 A.D. 1 See xxv. 4, and note. Of persecutions of the Christians by the Eoman authorities in Egypt prior to this we get clear indications in the writings of the Christian Gnostic Basilides, who flourished at Alexandria at the beginning of the second century, and wrote specially of martyrdom. But this will little help us for the proscription of a cult that favoured the worship of the Gods and of their images. Can it, then, be possible that these prophetic utterances were written at a time when many of the same nature were being penned by Jew and Christian ? For our author, as for Jewish and Christian writers, the " End of the World " was at hand ; his expectation is in this precisely the same as that of the writers of the New Testament documents.

The cause of this dire event is that Egypt, the " shrine of the whole world," the " Holy Land " l par excellence, will be polluted with all iniquity and violence. The Cult of the Gods will cease, and the Gods will leave the Earth and mount to Heaven. The man's whole heart is bleeding for Egypt, even as the heart of a Jew for Jerusalem. If there is any immediate historical references in these heartfelt utterances, we must seek them in such phrases as : " This holiest land, seat of our shrines and temples, shall be choked with tombs and corpses " (xxiv. 3) ; " the tale of tombs shall far exceed the number of the quick " (ibid., § 4) 2 ; and " Egypt shall be made the home of Scyth or Indian, or someone like to them — that is, a foreign neighbour." It is true that the Christians were ever reproached 1 The " image of the Heaven" ; cf. K. K., 46-48. 2 This is very different language from the more moderate tone of G. H., ix. (x.) 4, where we are told about the Gnostics, "they are thought mad and laughed at ; they're hated and despised, and sometimes even put to death."

with worshipping the dead, and building churches over the bones of the dead — an act of utter pollution according to all Pagan notions ; but the words of our author, even allowing for all hyperbole, can hardly be construed in this sense. People like Scyths or Indians, again, if we are to suppose any historical reference, can hardly be imagined to refer to the Komans ; while the Goths under Alaric, who ravaged Greece in 395, 396 A.D., are too late even for Eeitzenstein. Moreover, we have already in our notes pointed to the strange conjunction of Scyth and Barbarian in our text as being also found in Colossians. On the other hand, nothing but the entire State suppression of the Pagan Keligion in all its forms can satisfy xxv. 3, and this just suits the end of the fourth century. If, however, we cannot entertain so late a date, and I do not think we can, there seems nothing for it but to give the writer some credit for his prognostication of the future ; for eventually things certainly turned out for him and all he held most dear very much as he imagined or feared they would.

THE LAST HOPE OF THE KELIGION OF THE MIND At any rate the last hope of the Pure Love, the Religion of the Mind, is in the Trismegistic Communities, if indeed it is so permitted to interpret xxvii. 3: " Yea, they who rule the earth shall be distributed [through all the lands], and finally be gathered in a state, — at top of Egypt's upper part, — which shall be founded towards the setting sun, and to which all the mortal race shall speed." We need not insist upon details, for our translator may have gone wide of the original ; for instance, the " race " may, instead of being " mortal " in the original, have been the " Kace " of which we have already heard so much in Philo and these tractates ; but the similarity of the idea cannot fail to remind us of Philo when, in writing of the Eedeemed of Spiritual Israel, he says : " Those who were but scattered in Hellas and nonGrecian (Barbarian) lands, over islands and over continents, shall rise up with one impulse, and from diverse regions flock together unto the one spot revealed to them." !

And with this further compare the famous passage on the Therapeuts: " Now this Eace of men is to be found in many parts of the inhabited world, both the Grecian and nonGrecian world, sharing in the Perfect Good. "In Egypt there are crowds of them in every province, or nome as they call it, and especially round Alexandria. For they who are in every way (or in every nome) the most highly advanced, come as colonists,2 as it were, to the Therapeutic fatherland." 3 Moreover, just as the Therapeuts in the immediately following lines of Philo are said to have their community on a hill, so too in our text we immediately find mention of the Trismegistic communities as having their chief centre on the Libyan Hill, — a community which is spoken of as " very large " in numbers, and so is somewhat of a contradiction to the numbers of the Pious given in xxii. 1, where we are told " they may be counted even in the world," unless the sentence is to be taken as rhetorical. 1 De Execrat., § 9 ; M. ii. 435, 436 ; P. 937 (Ri. v. 255). 2 Cf. in our Sermon, xxv. 1 : Egypt, " the sole colony of holiness."

3 D. V. a, C. 56 ff ; M. i. 474 ; P. 892. Cf. F. F. F., 69. This Hill is called the Libyan Mount, a vague enough title ; nor is this vagueness removed when we find it again referred to (in xxxvii. 3) as the place of burial of the body of the First Asclepius, and obtain the additional information that it is " hard by the shore of crocodiles," for this can hardly refer to Crocodilopolis in the Fayyum, the most northern of the towns so named, seeing that the Libyan Mount is " at the top of Egypt's upper part," and " towards the setting sun." This, however, corresponds admirably with the location of Philo's Therapeut community on the southern shore of Lake Mareotis, just south of Alexandria; but few indeed will be found to entertain the possibility even that Philo and our author may be speaking of the same people from different standpoints and under different names. As far as I can see, there is no certainty in the matter; and, therefore, I leave it as a problem of immense interest that has not as yet found a solution. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET