Erik Iversen

Egyptian and Hermetic

Doctrine

MUSEUM TUSCULANUM PRESS

Egyptian and Hermetic
Doctrine
OPUSCULA GRAECOLATINA
(Supplementa Musei Tusculani)
Edenda curavit Ivan Boserup
vol. 27
 Erik Iversen

Egyptian and Hermetic

Doctrine

MUSEUM TUSCULANUM PRESS

COPENHAGEN 1984
 In grateful memory of
Jaroslav Cerny

© Erik Iversen & Museum Tusculanum Press 1984

Composerset by Suzanne Pelch
Printed in Denmark by Special-Trykkeriet Viborg a-s
ISBN 87-88073-78-5
ISSN 0170-8089

A contribution towards the publication

of this book has been granted by
The Danish Research Council for Humanities
 Preface

As an Egyptological contribution to the debate on the origin of Her-

metic doctrine, the present study has been strictly limited to the con-
sideration of certain fundamental concepts of Hermetic and Egyptian
cosmology in an attempt to show their basic accordance. Ever since the
beginning of the century when this debate was inaugurated by Reitzen-
stein, the discussion has been conducted almost exclusively by classical
scholars and on the premisses of classical philology, with Cumont,
Petrie, Stricker and Derchain as notable exceptions.
The fact that most Hermetic doctrines could be traced in the philo-
sophical and religious literature of Greece and other Mediterranean cul-
tures led to the generally accepted assumption that those were the natu-
ral sources of a compilation considered a typical product of Hellenistic
syncretism, on which the Egyptian influence was at most peripheral or
negligible.
The Egyptian setting of the singular treatises as well as the national
fervour often displayed in them were considered literary pastiche, and
the explicit statement of Jamblichus and other contemporary scholars
that they contained genuine Egyptian concepts translated into philo-
sophical terms was disregarded or disbelieved. The demonstration that
these statements were in fact basically correct, and that direct parallels
to the Hermetic doctrines couched in concrete mythical terms are regu-
larly found in Egyptian cosmological texts ages before there is evidence
of them elsewhere is, as already stated, the principal aim of the follow-
ing comparison.
How they found their way into the Greek texts we do not know, and
this crucial question must at present be left unanswered, the more so
since it can only be considered in direct connection with an even more
intricate and controversial problem never comprehensively considered:
the survival and diffusion of Egyptian lore in the later tradition, and its
influence on the later cultural development.
 Contents

Preface 5
The Egyptian Tradition 7
The Hermetic Tradition 26
Notes 55
References 67
 THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION

The stumbling block for any comparative study involving Egyptian relig-
ion has always been the heterogenous nature of the Egyptian material
which makes it difficult to establish common standards of comparison
with other systems of religious belief.
To overcome, as far as possible, this difficulty, the Egyptian material
considered in the following study has been limited to cosmological prob-
lems, that is, the cosmogonic and cosmological concepts developed and
formulated by Egyptian theologians in their synthesizing efforts to
establish, on a monarchical basis, a universal religion of state to counter-
balance the disintegrating tendencies of local cults posing constant
threats to the religious and political stability and unity of the country.
In spite of all chronological, mythological and geographical differ-
ences between the various systems of cosmology developed in political
and religious centres such as Heliopolis, Hermopolis, Memphis and
Thebes, their principal aim was everywhere the same: the elevation of
the principal local deity, whether Re, Atum, Ptah or Amon, to the posi-
tion of a universal, officially recognized, god of state, and irrespective
of all differences in the conception of the mythical nature and the cultic
functions of these deities, the arguments, principles and doctrines on
which their promotion was based and their position consolidated were
consequently remarkably alike in all systems.
Considered in their entirety, as general principles, the doctrines in-
volved represent the nearest approach to an official universally recog-
nized religion of state ever to be developed in Egypt, and in the pre-
served material they have found their highest and most sublime express-
ion in the cosmological section of the Shabaka inscription,’ showing in
prototypal form not merely the general approach of Egyptian theology
to cosmogonic and cosmological problems on the highest speculative
level, but at the same time mythical logic and reasoning carried to the
utmost limits of their inherent intellectual possibilities.
 In spite of its local, Memphite, stamp the text therefore forms the
natural basis for any comparative study of Egyptian cosmology, and the
following attempt to demonstrate the identity of some of its leading
doctrines with those of the Hermetic writings will be based, therefore,
on the following critical summary of its content.
In accordance with the principle mentioned above, the basic purpose
of the cosmological section of the text was to substantiate and proclaim
the doctrine that Memphite Ptah, the principle god of the first capital
of a united Egypt, was the original creator and the primeval deity of the
country.
As the first step in this direction the cosmogony of the text is intro-
duced with the categorical statement that an ogdoad of pre-existent
gods including among others the personifications of the primeval waters
Nun and Naunet,? the personification of the primeval hill, Tatenen, and
Nefertum,? the solar deity emerging in the primeval lotus, had their
but in either
existence only in or as Ptah,’ both translations are possible,
case the meaning remains the same: that these gods were consubstan-
tially united in Ptah.
Similar ogdoads occur in other Egyptian cosmologies, that of Memphis
representing merely the local equivalent of, for instance, the Hermo-
politan and the later Theban ogdoads, of which the former, besides Nun
and Naunet, includes Heh and Hehut, male and female infinity, Kek
and Kekut, darkness, and occasionally Niau and Niaut, probably repre-
senting emptiness in its male and female aspect,” while the latter substi-
tutes Amon and Amaunet, invisibility, for Niau and Niaut.
As theological concepts the gods of these ogdoads represented cos-
mic elements existing in embryonic form before creation,? such as inau-
gurated by the ‘coming into existence’’ of the original creator, in casu
Ptah.
In the Shabaka text the identification of Ptah with Nun and Naunet,?
Tatenen and Nefertum indicates his emergence from the primeval waters,
in most Egyptian cosmologies considered a pre-existent substance, con-
taining in dormant form? the genetic potentialities of subsequent cre-
ation.
In certain texts Nun was therefore considered the original creator,!°
but in Memphite tradition he is as a member of the ogdoad considered
consubstantial with Ptah as Ptah-Nun, and the deity whose ‘coming into
being’ inaugurated creation was Ptah himself, in strict accordance with
his name which like the corresponding Greek term demiurge means the
craftsman or the creator,’ with the difference in the usage of the term,
that in Hermetic contexts it often designates ‘the second god’ respon-
sible for sensible creation and not, as in Egyptian, the autogenous cre-
ator.
In connection with the identification of Ptah with Nun and Naunet it
is briefly stated that in his bisexual manifestation of these two deities
he was the father and mother of Atum,’* the second god of creation,
whose name means the All, the Universe,!* that is, the created cosmos,
called into existence on the divine word or command of Ptah, the cre-
ative power of which is constantly referred to in the texts.!*
That this perceptible cosmos was in fact considered the physical
body of the creator is confirmed from a variety of sources. In one text
Ptah is directly identified with ‘heaven, earth, water and the air between
them’,'> and the Shabaka text itself refers to ‘trees, stones, clays and all
other things growing on him”.** The late, acrophonic and enigmatical,
writing of the name of Ptah with the hieroglyphs for earth, heaven and
infinity (FAY) is also significant in this respect, and the entire concept
is confirmed by classical sources.
Plutarch, for instance, states that ‘when the Egyptians name the su-
preme god, whom they believe to be one with the universe they call
him Amun’,!” and the universe is here as in the Egyptian text called
The All. In another context the same author tells how the Egyptians
identified Horus with the perceptible cosmos (κόσμος αἰσθητός), while
adding that the elder Horus, explicitly said to have been born in the
darkness before the manifestation of the logos, which in Egyptian terms
means before sensible creation, was not identified with the universe,
but was a pre-conceived, phantasmal vision of 11.15 On the spiritual level
the identification of the demiurge with the body of the creator is ex-
pressed in the doctrine of the Shabaka text, that the heart and the
tongue of Ptah ‘came into existence in the form’ of Atum (1. 53),’? a
statement elaborated upon at great length in the following exegesis,
where the distinction between thought and heart is described in a man-
ner corresponding to our distinction between mind and brain.
We are first told (1. 54) how ‘the power of heart and tongue exists in
all limbs in accordance with the doctrine (hr 505) that it pervades (wn
m hnt) the entire body and mouth of all gods, men, animals and worms
alive, cogitating (as heart) and commanding (as tongue) everything it,
i.e. the power, desires”.%
For the understanding of this passus it is important that ‘the exalted
power’ (shm &pss) is one of the many epithets of Ptah,?! and that the
power (shm, δύναμις) behind the thought of the heart and the command
of the tongue is therefore Ptah himself, whose intelligible thought and
will is manifest not merely in the heart and tongue of the demiurge, but,
as explicitly stated in the following paragraph, also in the hearts and
tongues of all living things, where it becomes responsible for all mental
and bodily activity. We are told explicitly (1. 56) that all sense-percep-
tions such as ‘hearing, seeing and breathing are conveyed to the heart
(sir hr), and that this is the organ which registers them by turning them
into intellections (djdj pr ‘rkit nb), just as it is the tongue which pro-
claims the thought (k33t) of the heart’.
In what appears to be the final summing up, the all-pervading influ-
ence of divine thought and will is stressed once more in the categorical
statement: ‘Every divine word comes into existence in, or as, the thought
of the heart and the command of the tongue’ (1. 56); and in the follow-
ing it is described as the absolute condition of human existence in all its
aspects. It is said to create ‘the kau in the hemsut’ (1. 57) — an obscure
phrase possibly referring to the power of procreation, — as well as ‘all
nourishments'*% and all emotions and ethical values as combined in the
terms ‘love and hatred’.** It thereby determines reward and punishment,
since we are told that ‘life shall be given to the righteous (hr htp) and
death to the transgressor (hr hbnt), a statement probably, as we shall
see, referring to cosmic rather than mundane justice.?°
On a physical level it is said to be the activating force behind ‘all
crafts done by the arms, the walking of the legs and the movements of
all other limbs for the reason that it commands the thought of the heart
(in all individuals), and creates what is valued and profitable or appreci-
ated (imzht) in all things’ (1. 57).
In modern commentaries the last passage is often referred to as a
physiological theory: but when considered in their natural coherence all
individual statements of the entire section will be seen to have only one
basic purpose, to prove that in all its various forms of appearance the
‘power’ of the divine mind is the fundamental animating force in the
hearts of every living creature, and that it acts on the intelligible and
sensible as well as on the intellectual and the physical plane. The so-
called physiological passages should not, therefore, be considered differ-
ent from the other statements, since they do not contain any indepen-
dent statement or theory, but merely refer to the dependence of physi-
cal activity on divine influence.

10
 That this interpretation of this entire section actually does correspond
to the Egyptian conception of it, is corroborated by Jamblichus’ pol-
emics against scholars professing the widespread doctrine of the unin-
spired, purely materialistic nature of Egyptian religion and theology.?f
Jamblichus points out, that far from considering everything to be of a
physical nature?’ the Egyptians did in fact place true intelligence above
nature” and made a clear distinction between psychical and intellectual
life on the one hand and physical nature on the other,” and that this
distinction was made on a cosmic as well as on a mundane and human
level. When considered against the usual definitions of psyche as the
principle of motion and sense-perception and of noésis as intellectual
cognition,” Jamblichus’ translation of the concepts of the Shabaka
text into philosophical terms will be seen to be remarkably correct. His
thesis that the Egyptians did not consider everything to be of a physical
nature is clearly confirmed by the eminent importance attached to
divine intelligence in every passage of the Shabaka text, just as the doc-
trine that it exerts direct influence on all mental and physical activities
on the cosmic as well as on the mundane plane confirms his statement
that the Egyptians did in fact distinguish between them. The Egyptian
distinction between spiritual existence and nature is dramatically illus-
trated in the last passages of this section of the Shabaka text (line 59
seq.), describing how Ptah, when he had brought the gods into exist-
ence (msj), founded the districts, towns, temples and sanctuaries of
Egypt and provided for their upkeep and sustenance, ‘made their bodies
(dt) accord with their wishes’, whereupon they descended into inanimate
nature, ‘taking body (‘k m dt sn) in all trees, stones, clays and all other
things growing upon him’,”? that is, on the body of the creator as the
manifestation of the perceptible world. The passus ends with the signifi-
cant statement ‘thus they came into existence’.*?
The entire passage is of eminent importance not merely as a clear
demonstration of the distinction drawn between intelligible and sensible
existence and between spiritual and physical nature, but also because it
represents the mythical archetype of the Hermetic doctrine of the celes-
tial inspiration of matter, responsible for the distinctive qualities and
specific nature of individual substances.
It is evident that the statement of Jamblichus quoted above in an-
other context, that ‘the Egyptians placed pure intelligence above na-
ture'% refers to the same doctrine of the supra-natural, ‘metaphysical’
nature and origin of divine thought.

11
 Considered against this background, the important observation orig-
inally made by Breasted* about the connection between this teaching
of heart and tongue and the logos doctrine will be seen to have an even
wider scope than originally envisaged, because when Atum is identified
with the logos in his capacity of the cosmic heart of Ptah, that is as the
organ of his intelligible thought, then Ptah himself must necessarily rep-
resent the higher principle of cosmic intelligence or nous, as confirmed
by the passage quoted above, identifying the power of the heart with
the thought of the creator. That the Egyptians did in fact identify this
power of the heart with what we should call cosmic intelligence is once
more confirmed by Jamblichus, stating that when the nous revealed
itself as ‘the power which with care and skilfully brought all things to
perfect completion, then its Egyptian name was in fact Ptah’.”° Jambli-
chus’ statement is confirmed by Proclus, who on the authority of Por-
phyrius tells, that the Egyptian Hephaistos, i.e. Ptah, was considered
the manifestation of τεχνικὸς vod?” obviously a direct reference to his
Egyptian epithet ‘Lord of craftsmanship’.
Even closer to original Egyptian sources comes a Greek magical text
calling Thot ‘Nous, the mind, residing in the heart’, with obvious refer-
ence to his position as God of Wisdom, in which respect the texts regu-
larly identify him with the heart of Reé.*®
However, in the same passage Jamblichus also states that Ptah was
not the only deity identified with cosmic intelligence, which was called
Amon ‘when revealing the invisible power of the secret word’, Osiris ‘as
the origin of goodness’, and by other names when revealing itself in
other forms,?” a statement reflecting the well-established fact that theo-
logically seen all Egyptian gods of creation were considered manifesta-
tions of the same basic principles, irrespective of their origin and mythi-
cal form of appearance.*% In this respect it is curious to observe that if
we should try to translate into the abstract the Egyptian conception of
the Shabaka text’s description of the creator, it could hardly be done
more clearly than in Eusebius’ definition of the cosmic nature of Zeus,
whom elsewhere he identifies with Amon,*! as ‘the entire cosmos, liv-
ing being amongst the living and God amongst the Gods, and therefore
manifesting the intelligence (nous) from which he produces all things
and creates them from his thought”.*?
For the following comparison it is important that this identification
of Ptah with cosmic intelligence also puts Atum’s demiurgic qualities
and functions into relief. Not merely does it stress his identification

12
with the sensible body of Ptah and with his heart as the organ of his
mind, but also his hierarchical position as son of the creator the Second
god, brought into being ‘to act with the creator’? and therefore endowed
with creative powers of his own. We see him consequently taking over,
as it were, from Ptah, continuing the process of creation by ‘bringing
into existence’ either by masturbation or orally, the first pair of sexually
differentiated gods, Shu, space and what fills it, the air, and Tefnut, gen-
erally considered the goddess of moisture (1. 55).
Since the cosmic significance of Tefnut is not without importance
for our understanding of Egyptian cosmology it should be pointed out
that her identification with moisture rests on the slightest of evidence
as has already been pointed out by Bonnet* and Kees”, and that seri-
ous objections can in fact be raised against it.
First of all it seems incompatible with an important side of her mythi-
cal character and function. From the earliest times a common determi-
native of her name was a cobra erect on its tail, and she was regularly
identified with the Uraeus of various gods and goddesses, especially that
of Re, in which capacity she was explicitly stated to ‘breathe fire against
his ennemies’.*’ In later texts her common epithet is ‘Mistress of fire’
(~ = ~~ {}) and in the Onuris legend*? she is identified with the rebel-
lious eye of Re raging as the ferocious Ethiopian cat in the southern
regions until persuaded to return to her father to protect him against
his foes. In other texts she is in the same way constantly associated
with the scorching eye of Re and identified with Hathor and Sakhmet
as well as with other wild and bloodthirsty goddesses. It is also worth
noticing that her identification with moisture would imply that the
Egyptians had considered this rather vague and undefinable substance
one of the basic elements, a notion of which we have no other evidence.
It would also imply that the notion ‘fire’ would be lacking as a basic el-
ement in Egyptian cosmology. Considering the close association of air
and fire in Hermetic as well as in most other cosmologies and her direct
connection with air as the sister of Shu, it seems by far more natural to
associate her with fire than with moisture.
As the children of Atum, Shu and Tefnut were both considered un-
born,” while their offspring Geb, the earth, and Nut, heaven, were en-
gendered by normal sexual intercourse and therefore belonged to a dif-
ferent category.”’ Such was the case also with the following generation,
the children of Geb and Nut: Osiris, Seth, Isis and Nephtys, forming to-
gether with their progenitors as well as Shu, Tefnut and Atum, the

13
Memphite Ennead, generally known as the Ennead of Atum, but occa-
sionally also referred to as the children of Ptah as the ultimate source of
creation. Ptah himself was not included in the Ennead because, as pointed
out by Jamblichus, he was considered ‘above the world as the manifes-
tation of cosmic intelligence’.”'
In order to indicate their hierarchical position thrice removed from
the fount of creation, the gods of the Ennead were likened to or identi-
fied with the lips and the teeth of the mouth which had pronounced
the names of all things and spat out Shu and Tefnut, that is the mouth
of Atum.°?
We have already seen how any god of creation could be considered
the manifestation of divine intelligence, and the existence of an intelli-
gible creator, acting in conjunction with a sensible demiurge, was there-
fore a recurring feature in all local cults.
In the 17th chapter of the Book of the Dead this Egyptian concep-
tion of creator and demiurge and their several functions is expressed
with remarkable conciseness and clarity. In accordance with Heliopolitan
doctrine Atum acts as creator and defines his relations to Re, his demi-
urge, in the following authoritative statement: ‘I am Atum when alone
in the primeval waters, I am Re when he appears in glory (h‘j) and begins
ruling what he has created’.°?
In other local cults other deities fulfilled the functions of creators
and demiurges, Ptah and Atum — occasionally also Ptah and Re** — in
Memphis, Amon and Re in Thebes*°, where Re occasionally also func-
tioned as creator with Harakhte or Atum as his demiurge, in Esnah
Khnum and Re and in the Faijum Suchos and Re. It is therefore worth
considering if the original purpose of the never satisfactorily explained
double names of Egyptian deities was not to express this intimate con-
nection between the various creators and their demiurge.
Be this as it may, these various conceptions of the nature and appear-
ance of the creator are of particular importance for our present purpose,
because we shall find corresponding differences in the conception of
the supreme being in the Hermetic texts (cf. below p. 39).
In spite of the indissoluble connection between the intelligible cre-
ator and the sensible demiurge, precedence was always given to the for-
mer as the spiritual or mental cause of creation, and whenever it was
considered necessary to emphasize his superior position, he was distin-
guished with special epithets indicating his uniqueness, for instance;
The lord of All (nb tm) — which is a play on the name of Atum — , or,

14
He who gave birth to that which is and that which is not (ms ntt iwtt),
The father of the gods, The only one (w‘), The sole and only one (w‘
w‘tj), The self-engendered (wtt sw) or self-created, The one who existed
before existence, and many similar names all referring to his pre-exist-
ence and primordial nature.
Nowhere did this mystic union of the intelligible and the sensible cre-
ators find a more sublime, and to our reasoning more incomprehensible,
expression than in the identification of the original creator with the Uni-
verse. In its sensible form of appearance we have first of all seen it identi-
fied with the demiurge and in a purely physical sense conceived as physi-
cal nature, composed of material elements such as stones, earth and
clay as well as the virgin soil from which vegetable life sprang up and in
which it grew.* However, at the same time it is described physiologi-
cally as a living organism, anthropomorphically conceived as a cosmic
projection of the human body after which its singular organs and parts
are named and their functions determined. But also thus conceived its
duality is clearly indicated by the stress laid upon its divinity, illustrated
by the identification of its various organs and parts with singular deities.
Its heart and tongue are Atum, its lips and teeth are the gods of the
Ennead, and in the hymn to Ptah it is explicitly stated, that none of his
limbs are without a god,°’ that the gods exist as or in his body,* and
that they are joined to or united with 11.
Hereto comes that the circulation, responsible for its very life and
existence is entirely dependent on the constant influx of divine essence
emanating from the creator himself and diffused through the mediation
of the demiurge.
Conceived as sensible counterparts of their cosmic prototypes, earthly
phenomena therefore become their microcosmic reflections, wherefore
the human body becomes an inverted reflexion of its own projection,
and like that of the demiurge, its heart becomes instrumental to the
transmission of divine thought and will, which, as we have seen, gov-
erned all mental and physical activities of man from perception to sense
impressions such as seeing, hearing and breathing as well as all bodily
movements and functions.
The Egyptian concept of the nature of man is therefore determined
by the same basic dualism, since his body obviously belongs to physical
nature, while his spiritual elements by origin and nature belong to the
intelligible sphere of cosmic intelligence. Thus considered he becomes
instrumental to the completion of cosmic circulation, when the centri-
fugal force of cosmic intelligence is counteracted by the retrograde

15
movement of spiritual elements, when, released from sensible existence
they return to their divine originator, primarily in the shape of his Ba
directly translated into Greek as psyche,°! and his Akh, conventionally
translated ‘spirit’ but etymologically related to a word meaning to emit
light or to shine, and as a psychic element associated with man’s intel-
lectual qualities (cf. below p. 33).
In the cosmic hierarchy man therefore occupies a special position. In
lists enumerating the various species of beings he most often, as in the
Shabaka text, ranged between gods and animals,°* but occasionally was
also placed before the gods.°°
In the preserved material his actual creation is rarely referred to, al-
though his existence is always taken for granted; but whenever mention
is made of it, he is generally considered created by the creator himself
and not by the demiurge. He is explicitly said to have been fashioned in
the image of the creator, and to have issued from his flesh,” and his
special relations to his originator is constantly emphasized, most clearly
probably in the ‘ode to man’ found in the teachings of Merikare:°°
‘Hail to man! — The flock of god, for whom he created heaven and earth
ΜΝ for whom he made the breath of life, that they may breathe........
They are his image, issued from his flesh .... He raises in heaven for their
sake, and made vegetables, cattle, birds and fish for them to feed upon.
He shines for them, transversing the sky, that they may see...... When
they cry, he hears them, watching over them day and night’.
The fundamental dualism responsible for the distinction made be-
tween intelligible and sensible, spiritual and physical existence is of emi-
nent importance, not merely for the understanding of the Egyptian ap-
proach to cosmological problems and phenomena, but also, historically
seen, 25 an anticipation of the philosophical theory of ideas.
From a purely theological point of view it was responsible for the
distinction made between the intelligible and the sensible nature of the
gods, considered hidden or invisible, of unknown names® and con-
cealed bodies, © as intelligible ‘deities of the sky’, but were visible and
differentiated in form and appearance ‘in their images which are on
earth’.?
In the following we shall briefly try to trace the influence of this
dualistic approach to some cosmological notions and tenets particularly
associated with Hermetic concepts and ideas.
First ot all it lies behind the widespread notion of various forms or

16
stages of existence, among which the concept of pre-existence is regu-
larly referred to in the texts.” In one of the magical spells of the Papy-
rus Bremmer-Rhind,” the creator — in this case Re — elaborates upon
his activities in the primaeval ocean ‘before the existence of heaven and
earth’ and ‘before he had found a fixed place to stand’ for the perform-
ance of the act of creation. He describes how ‘numerous beings issued
from his mouth’ probably on his word, and how ‘he joined with’ them
in the waters in a state of ‘inertia’
The Egyptian term for this imaginary, twilight form of existence be-
fore creation was (nnj, +} Mx), in this particular use very well trans-
lated by Faulkner as ‘inert’,’? but in medical texts used to signify lame-
ness or the dragging of the feet caused by 11.
The question therefore arises if this is not the very term to which
Plutarch refers when in the above mentioned passage describing the state
of the elder Horus languishing in the primaeval ocean before creation as
a phantasmal pre-conception of the uncreated world, he uses the term
avannpov,’” translated by Griffiths in its specific meaning ‘maimed’, but
frequently also used to signify lameness, physical weakness and bodily
debility, in which case the passage would not merely corroborate Faulk-
ner’s translation ‘inertia’, but also illustrate Plutarch’s dependence on
original Egyptian sources or at any rate on autochtonous Egyptian no-
tions.
However, it was not merely beings such as gods and men, that were
supposed to have gone through this pre-conceived stage of existence,
and in the Shabaka text we have already seen sensible nature exist in in-
animate material form before the descent of the gods,’° and many ref-
erences to the existence of the entire material world before creation
have been collected by Grapow.””
It should be pointed out, though, that this shadow form of pre-exist-
ence seems to have been considered of a completely different nature
from that of primaeval gods engendering themselves ‘before existence
existed”.?
Closely related to the problem of pre-existence is the distinction
made by Egyptian theologians between being and non-being, that 1s, be-
tween ‘That which is’ (ntt, , , ) and ‘That which is not’ (iwtt, , ‚x ) 7
The two terms are frequently used correlatively as a lofty expression
for ‘everything’; but in other contexts we are told that the creator
brought both concepts into being as separate entities. He 15 said to have
called (dd) that which exists into being”, to have ‘made it’ (trj)

17
to have produced it (msj),°* and in the same way ‘to have brought non-
being into existence (shpr)’, or to have produced it (π15})55 and it seems
evident, therefore, that the Egyptians considered them two distinct
forms of existence.
To express their omnipotence gods and kings are frequently called
‘Lords or Rulers of what is and what is not’; but how this antithesis was
conceived by the Egyptians is difficult to define. In a hymn to Khnum
from the temple of Esne, Sauneron and Yoyotte add to their transla-
tion of the phrase, ‘qui fit ce qui est et ce qui n’est pas encore’, indicat-
ing that they considered ‘ce qui n’est pas’ to mean that which had not
yet been created,™* and we shall see this conception of the phrase sup-
ported by Hermetic evidence (cf. p. 37 below); but in that case it is
strange that it should frequently be determined by the determinative =
which generally has pejorative or sinister implications.
Be this as it may, the very existence of the two terms and their cor-
relative and antithetic use demonstrates that the Egyptian theologians
had already raised and considered the ontological problem of being ver-
sus non-being, which was later given great prominence in the controver-
sial debate on being (on) and non-being (me onta) in the works of, for
instance, Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle, although the fact that the
Egyptians refer to the ‘making’ and ‘producing’ of non-being tends to
show, that, contrary to Parmenides and Plato, they considered it to
have real existence as an intelligible cosmic entity.
Another problem of great importance from our particular point of
view is the question of the Egyptian conception of time. As reflected in
the two terms for eternity nhh and dt, the problem has been considered
by various scholars,% and the results can be briefly resumed as follows:
personified into two divinities directly called Neheh and Djet in accord-
ance with the notions they incorporate,°® Neheh carries solar and Djet
Osirian attributes, identifying the first with solar, and the second with
what we, for want of a better term, have called existential time.?”
Closer defined, Neheh, represents time in its limitless cosmic expanse
without end and beginning,®® corresponding to aion in its philosophi-
cal definition, and by the Egyptians apparently conceived as infinite
space.®?
Djet on the other hand represents time in its association with life and
existence and other ‘created’, mundane or temporal phenomena. As
such it did not come into existence until creation and will always have a
beginning, but under certain circumstances no end. In certain respects it

18
can therefore be compared to chronos. It is significant in this respect
that the creator, Ptah, is said to be Lord of Neheh (cosmic time) but to
have created Djet (existential time). When used correlatively, the two
terms are therefore best translated ‘eternity and time’ a rendering indi-
cating certain characteristics of both.”!
Divine intelligence, however, was not the only power active in cosmic
dynamics, and apart from the innumerable dynameis to which we shall
revert, the universe, including the sensible world and all its creations,
was equally dependent on the constant influx of the life-giving force
called in Egyptian the breath of life (t3w or swh n ‘nh),?? correspond-
ing to Greek pneuma.
Theologically and cosmologically seen this breath of life was like di-
vine intelligence considered an all-pervading cosmic force emanating
from the creator, and in physiological and medical texts described as
entering the nose, proceeding to the lungs and the heart as the organs
through which sense impressions were perceived, and transmitted to the
entire body.”
The breath of life is explicitly stated to be ‘immanent in all things”,
and it 1s directly identified with the creator, especially with Amon, who
as the deus invisibilis par excellence had special relations to Shu, the
god of space, air and wind.” In certain texts the creator is therefore
called ‘the air which is immanent in all things, by which one always
lives’, and with reference to Amon other sources state that ‘one
breathes you in order to live’,”’ while in the Book of the Dead the de-
ceased ‘opens his mouth widely (hpt) to eat life, as one lives from the
air”.
As has already been pointed out by Sethe” and Spiegelberg,'% this
perfectly clear notion has been rendered faithfully and correctly as an
Egyptian concept by several Greek scholars.
Plutarch, for instance, states that the Egyptians called the pneuma
Zeus or Amon,!®! and Diodorus is no less explicit in the statement that
the Egyptians called the pneuma Zeus, or Amon, that he was considered
the source of the breath of life in all living beings and therefore called
the father of all things.*%
The passage is quoted by Eusebius,*% who in another context tells
that the Egyptians identified Horus,'% Osiris-Helios*% and Zeus-Amon
with the all-pervading pneuma.*%
In conclusion some brief remarks on the much debated problem of
the mono-, heno- or polytheistic origin and nature of Egyptian gods and

19
religion. The long history of the Egyptological debate has been critically
resumed with admirable objectivity and lucidity by Hornung in the
introductory chapter of Der Eine und die Vielen, where at the end of
the book he draws the rather pessimistic conclusions that: ‘Was ein
Gott ist, läßt sich nicht definieren’, and ‘Wesen und Erscheinung Ægyp-
tischer Götter, sind jeder abgeschlossenen und endgültigen Feststellung
feind’.1”
From the objective standpoint of a modern historian of religion these
statements are certainly correct; but it is no less indisputable, that in all
bygone ages and cultures, including Egypt, these very definitions were
the principal aim and the ultimate purpose of all theology and most
philosophy.
For our present purpose, primarily centered on the nature and the
cosmic functions of the creator, we shall therefore consider this entire
discussion irrelevant, and follow K.Beth*% in his refusal to accept that
any of these terms expresses essential characteristics of the complex na-
ture of Egyptian religion.
Instead we shall merely, as an introduction to the following compari-
son, attempt to deduce from the material already quoted above, some
of the general concepts governing the relations between the creator and
the other gods of the Egyptian pantheon.
In this respect it is necessary to point out from the very outset, that
the basic distinction between intelligible and sensible existence underly-
ing the entire theological conception of the Egyptian world-scheme pre-
supposes a corresponding distinction between the intelligible and the
sensible manifestation of divinity and the gods. On the intelligible level
we have seen the creator conceived as the ultimate and quintessential
manifestation of godhood, and as such comprising in his being the no-
tion of all gods. Thus conceived, as ultima ratio and prime mover, he
was indisputably, as constantly stated in the texts, The One, The Sole
and Only One, unborn and self-created.
On the sensible plane, however, we have seen his divinity divided up
into independent deities of individual character and different form of
appearance, all of which were nevertheless theologically seen considered
projections of his intelligible being, and reflexions of his essence, and as
such spiritually and physically connected with him in an indissoluble
union as organs and parts of his cosmic body; and in this aspect the cre-
ator was therefore still unique, but not the only one.
In accordance with a governing principle of mythical reasoning this

20
concept of the creator, of ‘Der Eine und die Vielen’, will be seen to
comprise in one notion various aspects, the speculative, theological
character of which as well as their direct connection with the official
state cult must be stressed again.
Although it has only an indirect bearing on the present study, it
should therefore be pointed out that in this as well as in several other
respects the gods of Osirianism occupy a position apart.
As the bodily son of Geb and Nut, of earth and heaven, Osiris be-
longed theologically as well as mythologically seen to the born and not
to the category of unborn gods.
At the same time we have seen how his chthonic position as King of
the Dead, and his connection with such mundane phenomena as death
and corruption originally associated him with existential rather than
with solar or cosmic time. In spite of the unparalleled dissemination
and popularity of his cult these circumstances created grave dogmatic
problems for his introduction into the predominantly solar theology of
state, which was a prior condition to his elevation to creator and primo-
genitor.
However, at a relatively early date subtle theological efforts were
made to overcome these difficulties, and by stressing the ‘solar’ aspects
of his nature, his return to life and resurrection, he was associated with
Re and solar theology in general.
This opened the way for a development which in the course of time
and by degrees transformed him from a predominantly chthonic into a
solar deity, who without loosing his cultic position as King of the Dead
and Lord of resurrection became at the same time the king of the living,
a process culminating in Ptolemaic time, when his identification with
Serapis elevated him to an officially recognized god of state.
To trace even in its vaguest outlines this complicated process of trans-
formation falls outside our competence and present scope; but for our
particular purpose it is important to observe the elementary difference
between the conception of the nature of the mythical material of the
state cults and that of Osirianism, reflecting a corresponding difference
in the conception of the character and the mutual relations of the deities
of the two doctrines.
We have seen how in their mythical impersonations cosmic and exis-
tential time were distinguished by different attributes, cosmic time by
solar, and existential time by Osirian attributes. As already indicated
above this distinction indicates that the predominantly solar myths of

21
the state cults were associated with cosmic time, while the mythical
drama centered around Osiris was enacted in existential time.
This basic difference in the conception of the spatio-temporal rela-
tions of the two systems was reflected not merely in the cosmogonic
nature of the mythical material of the state cults, and the ‘historizing’,
legendary character of the Osiris myth, but also in the conception of
the character, functions and mutual relations of the deities involved.
While the dynamics of the myths of the state cults depended on the
interaction of centrifugal and centripetal cosmic forces, those of Osirian-
ism were based on ‘worldly’ passions and emotions such as love and
hatred, loyalty and treason, ambition and envy, reflecting in a wider
ethical perspective conflicting moral values and the perennial strife of
good and evil.
At the same time this anthropomorphization of the driving forces be-
came reflected in the nature of the individual actors and actresses of the
drama, all of whom became personifications of corresponding human
virtues and vices.
In spite of all theological attempts to allegorize the legends into na-
ture myths, Osiris was always in popular belief considered the quintes-
sential manifestation of justice and goodness, Seth as evil incarnate, Isis
as the loving wife, Nephthys as the devoted sister, Horus as the dutiful
son and avenger of his father, and Thot and Anubis as loyal friends and
followers.
Their mutual relations were therefore either defined in genealogical
family terms or determined by the parts they played in the evolution of
the ‘historizing’ plot of the myths, as manifestation of the conflicting
passions and emotions actuating them.
Unlike the gods of the cosmogonies they did not therefore form an
organic unity as parts of the immaterial body of Osiris, but were rather
actors in a grandiose passion play of profound emotional and religious
Impact.
Thus considered, reflecting the eternal conflict of theological dogma-
tism and popular belief, the two doctrines represent two different trends
or traditions which were never entirely reconciled in spite of all efforts
to integrate Osirianism in official theology, which in the end succumbed
to its elementary vital force.
In conclusion merely some methodological remarks on the chronology
of the material collected above.
The Shabaka text was dated by Junker to the time of the fifth dyn-
2519 ,109 and this dating was generally accepted by most authorities until

22
contested by Jung who considered the entire text a literary forgery
made for political reasons during the 25th dynasty.**% Without entering
into any polemics in the present context the author is personally con-
vinced that Junkers dating is correct and that it is still possible to adduce
hitherto disregarded evidence in support of it; but for our present pur-
pose the entire problem is irrelevant in so far as even if the later dating
is accepted, the text certainly expresses concepts and notions which are
genuinely Egyptian, and that it therefore bears illuminating evidence to
the methods and ways of reasoning current in Egyptian speculative the-
ology throughout its history.
The same applies to the other sources, all of which certainly formed
integral parts of Egyptian religious literature at periods which make their
autochtonous origin and nature indisputable.
The mostly uncertain date of the first literary appearance of the indi-
vidual doctrines is consequently of secondary importance to the fact
that as integral elements of Egyptian religious lore they constituted the
material upon which the later ‘philosophical’ conception of Egyptian
religion was based.
As such they form the natural standard of comparison in any attempt
to sift out the Egyptian elements of the later tradition.

Resume

To sum up briefly the conception of the world-scheme of Egyptian theo-

logians outlined above, we have seen it based on a vision of a theocen-
tric universe, considered a living organism, the cosmic body of the intel-
ligible creator, who came into being by emerging from the primaeval
ocean imbued with all latent creative potentialities and cosmic energies
as the supreme manifestation of the divine word, defined as ‘the power
of the heart’ i.e. the mind, ‘cogitating (k33) and commanding every-
thing’.
As such he was also the ultimate fount of divinity, comprising on the
intelligible level all other gods which were consubstantial with him and
joined to him in an indissoluble organic union as organs and parts of his
immaterial body.
In the process of creation his first act, performed in his bisexual mani-
festation of the male and the female principles of the primaeval waters,

23
was to bring into being a second god ‘to act with him’ in turning intelli-
gible into sensible creation.
In most cosmologies this second god is directly referred to as his son;
but in Memphite theology his very name Atum, reveals him as The All,
that is the sensible cosmos reflecting the body of the creator, in which
at the same time he functioned as heart and tongue, that is the organs
responsible for the revelation of the thought and the articulation of the
word expressing the command or the will of the creator.
As such he acted as the cosmic prototype of the hearts and the
tongues of all living creatures, and became the mediator responsible for
the transmission of divine thought or cosmic intelligence, upon which
depended all intellectual and physical activity in the intelligible as well
as in the sensible universe.
Personifying respectively the intellectual and the physical phase of
creation, creator and demiurge were united in an indissoluble hieros
gamos, the intellectual impulse representing as it were the cause and the
sensible activity the effect, just as physical nature pre-existed as inani-
mate matter until inspired by divine essence at the descent of the gods
into its various elements.
In their sensible froms of appearance the individual deities were dif-
ferentiated in nature and form but reflected nevertheless, in the manner
of light passing through a prism, the primaeval divinity of the creator;
and although their individual forms were bestowed upon them by the
creator himself ‘in accordance with their wishes’, they were originally
brought into being as sensible phenomena by the demiurge as ‘his
Ennead’.
Since the first pair of sexually differentiated gods, Shu and Tefnut,
had sprung from the demiurge without gestation, they were like Ptah
and Atum, as well as all other original gods of creation, considered ‘un-
born’, while subsequent generations of gods, engendered by normal
sexual intercourse were said to have been ‘bom’.
The creation of man, the creator reserved for himself, fashioning him
‘in his own image and from his flesh’.
While all mental and intellectual activity depended on the incessant
influx of divine thought, life was dependent on a parallel cosmic force,
transmitted by means of the ‘breath of life’, which like divine intelli-
gence emanated from the creator and was identified with his being; and
in their association with man we have seen these two powers manifest
as psychical phenomena in his Ba, incorporating the vital and his Akh
the intellectual principle.

24
 We have also seen the distinction between an intelligible and a sensible
universe, between an intelligible form of being, located in the sky and
the netherworld, and a sensible terrestrial existence, reveal a fundamen-
tal dualism in Egyptian speculative thought, determining not merely the
distinction between creator and demiurge, between celestial and terres-
trial deities, spirit and matter, animate and inanimate nature, but also
the conception of cosmic dynamics based on a belief in the constant
emanation of spiritual forces and principles entering into and animating
all creatures and all matter, even stones and clays, and their eventual re-
turn to their divine originator, and we have seen the same dualism
underlying the distinction between cosmic and existential time.

25
 THE HERMETIC TRADITION

Since the results of the following comparison must be accepted or re-

jected on their own premisses and merits, a historical account of the
discussion of the Egyptian origin of the Hermetic corpus falls outside
the scope of the present paper.
The following brief survey of the debate is therefore merely intended
to give a historical background for the present position of the problem.
In its present form the corpus comprises 18 treatises, to which must
be added the Latin version of the Asclepius, still known in its original
Greek to Lactantius under the name of logos teleios, and various other
fragments most of which are the extracts quoted by Stobaeus.!!! A
Coptic version including among other texts parts of the Asclepius, has
in recent years been found among the papyri from Khenoboskion.!!?
The generally accepted date of the compilation and redaction of the
existing corpus is the period between the first and the third centuries
A.D.,!!° but many of the elements entering into its composition are ob-
viously much older.
Throughout classical and early Christian antiquity, the question of
the origin of the texts presented no problems, as it was generally taken
for granted that their author was the Egyptian Hermes,!!* known as
Trismegistus and considered the foremost Egyptian philosopher and
sage.
They were consequently universally agreed to contain authentical
versions of Egyptian theological lore, and to represent the legendary
wisdom of Egypt, in accordance with Jamblichus’ statement that ‘the
writings attributed to Hermes contain Hermetic doctrines, although ex-
pressed in philosophical terms, because they have been translated from
Egyptian by scholars versed in philosophy.”***
Hailed by Lactantius as premonitions of the Christian message and
in this respect compared to the doctrine of the Trinity, Genesis and the

26
Gospel of St. John, but anathematized by Augustine because of their
demonological practices, the texts gave rise to ardent discussions in the-
ological and philosophical circles, but their Egyptian origin was never
contested, and several copies dating from the 14th and 15th centuries
testify to the importance and long continuance of the tradition.!!®
As might be expected the Hermetic revival of the 15th century fol-
lowed in every respect the classical tradition, also with regard to the
Egyptian origin of the corpus.
It was inaugurated about 1463 when Marcilius Ficino made a Latin
translation of 14 treatises from a Greek manuscript brought to Florence
from Macedonia in 1460 by Lionardo da Pistoia. They were published
shortly afterwards together with a commentary, hailing Trismegistus as
priscus theologus, and reviving the tradition considering him a contem-
porary or maybe even a predecessor of Moses. He was supposed to have
obtained a knowledge of things divine surpassing that of the Hebrew
prophets and in certain respects comparable to that of the Evangelists,
and also to have been responsible for the Greek philosophical tradition,
because Pythagoras during his stay in Egypt was supposed to have be-
come acquainted with his teachings and to have transmitted them to
Plato, whose dialogues, especially the Timaeus, were therefore con-
sidered directly based on Hermetic doctrines. While this was the con-
ception of the texts generally entertained by the more sober pupils and
followers of Ficino, some of them went one dangerous step further and
developed, in direct opposition to the established church, a revolution-
ary and militant form of religious Hermetism, which as a new philo-
sophical creed they considered a revival of Egyptian religion, and of
which Giordano Bruno became at the same time the prophet and the
martyr.!!’
Having for more than a century exerted a commanding influence on
the philosophical debate, the Hermetic tradition entered into a new
phase after the publication of Casaubon’s brilliant text-critical revision
of the text.***
Although not denying the existence of an Egyptian sage called Mer-
curius Trismegistus sometime before Moses (p. 71), he went on to show
that this person could not possibly have been the author of the texts in
their present form. Firstly because they referred to persons and events
of a much later date, and secondly because their style and vocabulary
belonged to late periods of Greek using words and expressions unknown
to the classical language. He therefore dated them to a time about the

21
end of the first century A.D. and considered them to be Christian forg-
eries made for purposes of propaganda composed of extracts from Plato
and the Platonists as well as from Genesis, the Gospel of St. John and
other Christian sources, an origin which clearly excluded all possibility
of their being translations from the Egyptian (p. 71).
Although soon accepted by most philologists, Casaubon’s conception
of the texts did not immediately kill the older philosophical tradition,
which lived on in isolated enclaves all over Europe with Athanasius Kir-
cher and Richard Fludd!!? as typical standard-bearers.
Suppressed and often directly persecuted by the staunchly Aristotel-
ian supporters of the reactionary, old-testamental orthodoxy of Re-
formers as well as Counter-reformers, the old movement changed its
course, developing into a physical Hermetism concentrating on astro-
nomical, alchymistic and iatrochemical studies which should inaugurate
the birth of modern science.
During the 18th century the old tradition lived on merely as the spiri-
tual background of certain esoteric societies or as the pseudo-philo-
sophical setting of various more or less respectable forms of obscurant-
ism.
In enlightened circles the entire movement was therefore considered
to be either suspect or downright ridiculous, such as illustrated in War-
burton’s arrogant criticism of Kircher: ‘labouring thro’ half a dozen of
late Greek Platonists and forged books of Hermes, which contain Philo-
sophy not Egyptian to explain old monuments not Philosophical’10 .
Even the philological interest in the texts waned away, to be revived
a little more than a century later with Parthey’s edition of the Greek
text of the first 14 treatises.!?!
The modern debate was inaugurated half a century later, when, in
1904, Reitzenstein published in his Poimandres, a critical edition of the
entire corpus, in which he, as indicated in the subtitle of the book,
went in for an Egyptian origin of essential Hermetic doctrines based on
a comparison with the Shabaka text. 122
This attitude raised strong opposition from other classical scholars,
among whom Zielinski!?? as well as W.!2* and J. 61011125 discarded al-
most entirely the Egyptian influence and considered the Hermetic teach-
ings almost exclusively dependent on Greek sources, while Bousset!?®
stressed the oriental, though still essentiallly un-Egyptian, influence. In-
fluenced by this adverse criticism Reitzenstein changed his attitude in
later works and went in for a direct influence from Iranian religion.!?”

28
 Until very recently the entire discussion has therefore taken place ex-
clusively among classical philologists and on classical philological prem-
isses. Among the heterogenous elements in the composition, the indi-
vidual scholars would seem to have stressed.those of which he had an a
prioric knowledge and with which he was most familiar, and in the run-
ning debate the importance of Iranian, Platonic, Stoic, Gnostic, Mani-
chaean, Jewish and even Christian influences on the texts and their origin
have been differently assessed and judged by their various advocates,
while at the same time there has been a marked tendency to underesti-
mate and downgrade the possibilities of an influence from Egyptian
sources,'*® and to regard the Egyptological efforts to draw attention to
it with marked suspicion and scepsis.
Petrie’s attempt to adduce material in support of the Egyptian origin
of the texts was downright and rather arrogantly rejected, merely
because he was wrong in dating them to the time of the Persian con-
quest,!?? and Stricker’s strong advocacy in favour of their direct depend-
ence on Egyptian concepts and traditions has never received the atten-
tion 1t deserves, although his learned demonstration of a direct Egyptian
influence on other branches of Greek philosophy and religion should
have commanded respect for his authority.'°° The same applies to Der-
chain’s positive contributions to the debate, which have not been able
to change the conventional attitude to the problem to any noticeable
degree.!°!
In continuation of the contributions of these scholars we shall there-
fore in the following adopt an Egyptological approach, and on the basis
of the material presented above attempt to show the extent to which
essential principles and notions of the Hermetic world-scheme, are in
accordance with the concrete mythical concepts which from the earliest
periods of its history determined the approach of Egyptian theologians
to cosmogonic and cosmological phenomena.
Although the cosmogony of the first of the Hermetic treatises, the
Poimandres, in its visionary form and the inspired passion of its style
represents a literary and philosophic approach to the mystery of cre-
ation essentially different from the concretism of the Egyptian sources,
it operates nevertheless as we shall see, in its basic principles and its
conception of the dynamic forces involved, with general concepts and
notions closely related to those of the Egyptian mythographers. With-
out attaching undue importance to what may merely be a metaphor it
is by way of introduction worth mentioning that Festugière supports

29
the eminently plausible emendation ὄφις in Poimandres’ description of
the descent of darkness before creation as a snake,!?? with reference to
the passage in the Pistis Sophia in which Jesus defines the outer dark-
ness (NKAKE ET21BOA ) as ‘a great snake with its tail in its mouth’.'*9
As already pointed out by Festugiére’™ this is an obvious reference
to the Ouroboros, the snake devouring its tail, which as shown by Sethe
has an indisputable Egyptian prototype in the ‘Erdschopfungsschlange’
biting its tail, and frequently illustrated in religious and magic texts as
encircling the Universe as the primaeval darkness, which in that case
would appear in the Hermetic text as originally represented in Egyptian
mythology.
Less hypothetical is the Hermetic description of the following phase
in the process of creation (I, 4, p. 8, 1. 1), in which darkness changes
into ‘a watery substance’, clearly corresponding to the primaeval waters
of the Egyptian sources, and like those considered the very womb of
creation, pregnant with the entire potential energy of the still uncreated
cosmos, just as the primaeval waters in Egyptian texts reflecting Helio-
politan or Theban theology are said ‘to create light after darkness’ ( —
aw 20० =).
Emerging from the light, a holy word 15 then said to have descended
upon nature (I, 5, p. 8, 5-6) still resting in its chaotic state before the
separation of earth and water, the period described in Egyptian cosmog-
onies as the time ‘before the existence of heaven and earth, before the
creator had found a place to stand’ (See below note 71).
In the following chapter (chap. 6), this holy word — the verbatim
counterpart of the divine word, the mdw ntr, of the Egyptian texts,—
is defined in close connection with the light from which it issues forth.
This light is identified with the Nous, divine intelligence, constituting
the very essence of the godhead and as such explicitly stated to have
been in existence before the appearance of the primaeval waters,!*
exactly as the Egyptian creators, and the issuing word is like its mani-
festation in the Egyptian demiurge stated to be the son of God. 137
In philosophical terms these doctrines will be seen to express the
same notions as those of the Shabaka text (1. 54) concerning the rela-
tions of the intelligible ‘power’ of the creator, and its manifestation
through the heart and tongue of his son Atum, serving as vehicles or or-
gans of the sensible expression of the intelligible thought (k33t) and the
will (wd mdw) of the supreme deity (See pp. 10 and 11 above), whom the
Greek scholars therefore correctly identified with Nous (note 38 below).

30
 As the tongue, the vehicle of the expression of the cosmic thought or
intelligence manifest in the heart, the demiurge Atum is consequently
the Egyptian counterpart of the logos (see p. 12 above), and as such,
like the Hermetic demiurge considered the son of the creator (see p. 12-
13 above).
Expressed in philosophical terms the Egyptian conception of the
heart and tongue doctrine can therefore hardly be expressed with more
lucidity than in the Hermetic statement (traité IX, 2. p. 97, 5-6), that
‘when conceived by the intellect, intellection is pronounced by the
word’,'*® and in this case the Egyptian text may even be said to throw
some light on an obscure passage in the corpus.
Considered together the Hermetic doctrines that sense perception
(αἴσθησις) and intellection (νόησις) are intimately associated within
man (treatise IX, 2; p. 96, 16-17), and the related statements ‘What sees
and hears in you is the logos of the Lord’, while ‘The Nous is God, the
father’ (treatise I, 6; p. 8, 18-19) have direct parallels in the passage
from the Shabaka text quoted above on pp. 9-10 and explaining how
sense perceptions such as ‘seeing, hearing and breathing rise to the heart,
and that this is the organ which turns them into intellections’, describ-
ing at the same time in combrous mythical terms how the divine word
of the creator — corresponding as we have seen to the Nous —, governs
the spiritual and physical activities of all individuals through the inter-
mission of the demiurgical heart and tongue, ‘in as much as (hft) it
commands the thought of the heart, which goes forth on the tongue’.
Considering their identical conception of the demiurge as the sensible
manifestation of the creator’s creative potentiality, that is as his logos,
it is only natural that both traditions should consider his creation the
first act of the creator.
It is also highly significant that both accounts should consider him 01-
sexual on his performance of it, the Hermetist calling him appevodnrus
(I, 9; p. 9, 16), and the Shabaka text ‘the father and mother of Atum’
(ll. 50a-51 a).*% They consequently also agree in considering him the
son of the creator.
As such we have seen Atum identified with the heart and the tongue
of Ptah, and at the same time with his body, and that this also corre-
sponds to the Hermetic conception of him is constantly stated. In treat-
ise II, B, 2 (p. 32, 15-16) the question, ‘Is not the cosmos a body’ 15
answered in the affirmative; and the treatise VIII, 1 (p. 87, 10-11) we
are told that ‘The world is the second god’.

31
 Treatise IX, 8 (p. 99, 16) states that ‘God is the father of the cosmos’
which is a verbatim parallel to the statement in the Shabaka text, that
the creator Ptah-Nun is the father of the Universe (Atum), corroborat-
ing the Hermetic statement that the cosmos is the son of God (treatise
IX, 8; 99,17).
In the Asclepius the Lord of Eternity is called the first, and the world
the second God, and it is significant in this respect that the designation
of the creator as æternitatis dominus, is a verbatim rendering of Nb nhh,
Lord of Eternity, almost the most common epithet used for Egyptian
gods of creation.
Also the statement found in the same text (2, vol. II, 298, 1-2) that
the creator is called ‘the All’, because all things are his limbs (membra),
recalls the Egyptian doctrines that ‘no limb of the creator is without its
god’ and that ‘the gods are the limbs of the creator’ (cf. above p. 15).
On the sublunary level this statement has a clear parallel in the notion
expressed in treatise XVI, 13-14 (vol. I, 236) about the daemonic influ-
ence on the various parts of the human body.
It is also important, that in the Timaeos,'*® the most ‘Hermetic’ of
the dialogues, Plato calls the Kosmos ‘a visible living being’, and ‘a per-
ceptible god, an image of the intelligible creator’, where the use of elk wv
corresponds exactly to the use of the Egyptian term twt, ‘likeness’ in
the related statement that ‘the gods are in the sky, but their images
(twt) are on earth’.
As already pointed out by Reitzenstein!*! the subsequent account of
the following phases of the cosmogonic process in the Hermetic text 1s
essentially different from that of the Egyptian sources, in which no
mention is made of the creation of the spheres, the archons or planet-
ary influence,*? and where the Shabaka texts’ simple description of
the descent of the Gods into the elements of inanimate nature is replaced
by the more elaborate description of the descent of the androgynous
prototype of man through the spheres, and his union with nature.
Nevertheless, even behind these completely different accounts lies re-
lated principles, and we have seen, for instance, how in embryonic,
mythical form the Egyptian description of the descent of the gods ex-
presses similar notions of the divine inspiration of matter, and nature’s
dependence on celestial influence, as those on which the Hermetic “al-
chemic’ conception of the divine nature of the elements was based.
Also in their account of the creation of man the two traditions show
close affinities. We have seen how after his appearance the demiurge

32
took over, as it were, sensible creation, while the intelligible creator re-
mained the ultimate source of all cosmic energies. Such was the case in
Hermetic as well as in Egyptian cosmogony and it is important to ob-
serve that in both the creator reserved for himself the creation of man,
in the Poimandres explicitly stated to have been created by Nous, the
father, ‘in his own likeness’ (treatise I, 12; p. 10-15), and in the Egyptian
texts by Ptah or Khnum or one of the other gods of creation ‘from his
flesh’ (cf. below note 64).
Poimandres’ description of the preliminary creation of an andro-
gynous prototype of man, followed by the appearance of seven likewise
androgynous counterparts of him, generated by the combined energies
of the four elements earth, water, fire and air (chapt. 17; p. 12, 16), has
no known Egyptian parallel; but in the following account of the trans-
formation of prototypal man into his terrestrial form of appearance the
two tradition are once more connected.
The Poimandres describes (treatise I, 17; p. 12, 20 seq.) how at a
given moment, the original essence of prototypal man, which was life
and light (ζωὴ καὶ φῶς) was transmuted into soul and intellect (ψυχὴ
Kat vous), "life changing into soul and light into intellect’ (ib. 17; p. 12,
21). In spite of its abstract formulation, this definition of the immanent
nature of man has a direct parallel in the concrete Egyptian conception
of the manifestation of the immaterial or spiritual parts of man’s nature
in the Ba and the Akh (cf. above pp. 15-16).
Of these the Ba — directly translated into Greek as psyche — was,
like its Greek counterpart, essentially associated with the vital principle
or life itself, while the Akh was etymologically connected with the no-
tion of light, and directly associated with the intellectual faculties of
man.
Thus considered the Hermetic associations of life and psyche, light
and intellect have concrete parallels in the Egyptian conception of the
Ba as the incorporation of life and soul, and the Akh as the manifesta-
tion of light and intelligence, and will therefore be seen to illuminate
not merely the process by which mythical concepts were transformed
into Hermetic doctrines; but also to proffer revealing evidence on the
underground influence of Egyptian motives on the development of
Hermetic ideas.
The same process is illustrated even more clearly by the basic agree-
ment of the Egyptian and the Hermetic concept of time. We have al-
ready seen how the Egyptians made a clear distinction between cosmic

33
time (nhh), that is time in its static and limitless expanse without begin-
ning and end, and existential time (dt) associated with all ‘created’
worldly phenomena which had a beginning, but might, under certain
circumstances, be without an end (cf. above p. 18).
Nowhere in the Egyptian or the Hermetic material is this double con-
ception of time expressed in the concise and unambiguous terms of the
above definition; but its validity can nevertheless be inferred from the
parallel use of the notions nhh-dt and aion-chronos in the Egyptian and
the Hermetic texts.
In Egyptian, the King, for example, is said to be ‘Lord of cosmic
time’ (nhh) in his capacity of ‘King of the two lands’, obviously con-
sidered a timeless, cosmic position, but ‘Lord of existential time’ (dt) as
the temporal occupant of the ‘Throne of Horus’,'!™ just as Ptah as cre-
ator is said to be ‘Lord of cosmic time’, but to have made (irj) ‘existen-
tial time”.!% In the corpus identical doctrines are expressed in the state-
ments that ‘being ever living” (८८८६८००५) is different from ‘being eternal’
(ἀΐδιος, treatise VIII, 2; p. 87, 18-19), and that ‘God creates the aion,
the aion the world and the world time” (χρόνος, treatise XI, 2; p. 147,
10), clearly indicating the cosmic conception of aion and the existen-
tial nature of chronos, which is probably also implied in the doctrine
that ‘time (χρόνος), place (τόπος) and physical nature (ρύσις) are char-
acteristics of the body’ (σῶμα, excerptum XVI, 3; vol. III, p. 72), and in
the statement that ‘time is fulfilled in the world’ (treatise XI, 2; p. 148,
5).
In the Asclepius the entire problem of the relations between aeterni-
tas (aion) and tempus (chronos) is considered at great length (30, vol.
IT, p. 338, 2 seq.). We find here the following passus which 15 of particu-
lar interest from our particular point of view: Commotio mundi ipsius
ex duplici constat effectu, ipse extrinsecus vivificatur ab aeternitate
vivificatque ea, quae intra se sunt, omnia, differens numeris et tempori-
bus statutis atque infixis cuncta per solis effectum stellarumque discur-
sum, omni temporaria ratione divina lege conscripta: The dynamics of
the world has a double cause or reason: At the same time as it itself is
vivified from outside by eternity, it, the world, vivifies everything it
contains, distinguishing everything in accordance with the numbers and
times fixed and established by the sun and the movements of the stars,
all matters concerning time having been ordained by divine law.
Also here eternity (aeternitas = aion) is like nhh considered time’s
limitless cosmic expanse or influence, while tempus, dependent on the

34
preordained movements of the visible celestial bodies, governs all world-
ly phenomena.
Merely as an illustration of the dangers involved in a one-sided ‘classi-
cist’ attitude towards the problem of the origin of Hermetic doctrine
it may perhaps be pointed out how easily, with the generally accepted
methodical approach, the Aristotelian statement that ‘life and aion —
that is the span of existence — of God, the creator, are continuous
(συνεχές) and without end (ἀΐδιος; Metaphysics, XII, VII, 9) might
easily have been cited as a typical Aristotelian influence on the corpus,
although already in the Pyramid texts the same notion is clearly ex-
pressed in the passus: “Eternity (nhh) is the span of existence (‘h‘.w)!*
of king Unas, his limits (dr) is existential time’ (dt; Pyr. Spruch 274,
412 2).141
Apart from the important discussion by Sethe quoted below (note
72) no comprehensive study of the Egyptian pneuma doctrine has ever
been made; but what we know about it shows a remarkable accordance
with that of its Hermetic counterpart.
We have seen (p. 19 above) how in Egyptian ‘the breath of life’ was
considered an all pervading cosmic influence ‘immanent in all things’,
and consubstantial to the essence of the creator and as such constantly
emanating from him as a basic vital principle.
It was clearly considered distinct from life itself, and we shall see
below, that a comparison with Hermetism may indicate how this distinc-
tion should be explained.
Since the medical texts refer to its physiological functions by de-
scribing how it enters through the nose or in another context (Ebers,
100, 3-4), through the left ear, and from here is transmitted through
the veins to the heart and the lungs which distribute it to the rest of the
body, it may as we shall see have been considered a ‘heavier’ substance,
carrying or conveying the ‘lighter’ principle of life, and we have also
seen how by Greek scholars it was directly identified with the pneuma,
and with deities such as Amon, Osiris and Horus.
If against this background we consider the Hermetic references to the
pneuma doctrine, we find also here the pneuma considered an emanative
cosmic force ‘received from above through the intermission of the air’
(fragment XXVI, 12; vol. IV, p. 84, 16). It is said to have had pre-
existence, and to have hovered over the chaotic waters before creation
as a ‘subtle breath of intelligence’ (treatise III, 1; p. 44, 6-7). It is listed
among the imperishable elements together with ‘matter (ὕλη), life,

35
psyche and nous’ (treatise XII, 18; p. 181, 17-18), and was therefore
also as a Hermetic principle distinguished from life itself. In treatise X,
13 (p. 119, 8 seq.) we find a direct parallel to the Egyptian description
of its physiological function’*® in the statement that ‘it passes through
the veins, the arteries and the blood, setting the principle of life in mo-
tion (kwéw), and, as it were, ‘raising or lifting it up’ (Baord£w, line 10),
and in fragment XXVI, 12 (vol. IV, 84, 17-18) the lungs — here called
bellows (φῦσα) are, as in the Egyptian text, said to be the organs through
which it works.
The same conception of the ‘portative’ or ‘vehicular’ nature of the
pneuma is expressed in the introductory passage of treatise X, 13 (p.
119, 6 seq.) stating how the nous is carried (0xéw) in the logos, the
logos in the soul and the soul in the pneuma, which tends to show that
in Hermetic as well as in Egyptian conception it was the vehicle of the
distribution of life.
In conclusion attention should be drawn to the at first sight curious
fact that the Hermetists evidently distinguished various forms or appear-
ances of the pneuma. In treatise III, 1 (p. 44, 6-7) reference is made to
the pneuma of the intellect, and fragment XIX § 5 (vol. III, p. 83) not
merely mentions that of sense perception, but also a particular pneuma
for each of the different perceptions such as hearing, seeing, smelling,
tasting and touching.
The distinction is clearly based on the different principles or sensa-
tions the pneuma was supposed to convey or be instrumental of, and it
is therefore important to observe, that the corresponding Egyptian dis-
tinction between ‘the breath of life’ supposedly entering the body from
the right and the ‘breath of death’ entering from. the left (pap. Ebers,
100, 3-5) obviously is based on the same premisses, and consequently
indicate the same basic conception of the nature and functions of the
pneuma.
Turning to the Hermetic attitude towards the problem of being and
non-being, considered in its Egyptian aspect above on page 17, we find
in treatise V, 9 (p. 64, 1-3) a direct parallel to the epithet calling Egyp-
tian gods and kings ‘lords or rulers (hk3) of what is and what is not,’ in
the statement that ‘The Supreme Being is at the same time that which is
(τὰ ὄντα) and that which is not (μὴ ὄντα)". The doctrine is elaborated
upon in the following explanation, that he combines the two antitheses,
because ‘he brings all things which are or exist into being, while con-
taining within himself those which are not brought into being’, prob-
ably in view of future creation.

36
 If so, the passage will be seen to support the interpretation of Egyp-
tian non-being proposed by Sauneron and Yoyotte (cf. below note 84),
that it refers to what which has not yet been created, but exists mere-
ly as immanent possibilities in the mind of the creator.
Later in the same treatise (V 11; p. 65, 2-3) the same thought is ex-
pressed in slightly different terms in a prayer addressed to the deity:
‘You are everything that is ...... and you are also that which does not
exist, you are everything which has come into being and everything
which has not come into being’.
Owing to their magical and demonological implications the Hermetic
references to man’s ability ‘to create gods’, and to the magical powers
of cultic statuary were from the time of Augustine and throughout the
history of the tradition considered the most dangerous and controver-
sial of Hermetic doctrines, constantly cited by all adversaries and foes
as shocking examples of the basically impious and heretic nature of the
entire movement,*” and their direct reference to Egyptian notions
and beliefs has long ago been generally recognized also by modern
scholars.'°°
The crucial passage, found in the Asclepius (§ 37; vol. II, 347, 5 seq.)
runs as follows: ‘Of all the marvelous qualities of man, none surpasses
his ability to discover (invenire) the inherent character (natura) of the
gods, and to make representations of it (efficere), such as already dem-
onstrated by our forbears, who had succeeded in inventing methods
(ars) to create gods’.
For what had thus been invented they added appropriate (conveniens)
‘virtus’ derived from physical nature, and having blended it together
and invoked — as they were unable to make souls — the souls of demons
and angels, they infused these souls into their artistic representations
(imagines) by holy and sacred rites, so that the statues (idolon) could
have power to work good as well as evil?.?>*
Although similar notions were entertained elsewhere, 152¬~ the above
quoted account has always been recognized as one of the few generally
accepted examples of direct Egyptian influence on the corpus,’°? with
reference to the well established Egyptian custom of animating artistic
representations of gods and men by magical rites known as ‘the opening
of the mouth’.
As applied to the statues of kings, private persons and their mummies,
the practice is uncommonly well documented. The entire ritual 1s pre-
served,!** although its predominantly magic character provides only

37
scanty information concerning its cultic background, and it is fortunate
therefore, that we possess several artistic representations of the per-
formance of the rites,!°° clearly demonstrating that as in the Hermetic
account, their purpose was to give the statues full command of their
limbs and their sensory organs. No example of the animation of a divine
statue is known, but the description in the tales of Khamuas, how waxen
figures were brought to life by ‘giving them breath’ illustrates the prac-
{1८.156 It is evident that like their mundane counterparts the cult
statues had to undergo similar rites in order to become animated and
fulfil their cultic functions as vehicles of communication with their
intelligible prototypes, through oracles, dreams and all other magical
means, and it seems more than a coincidence that the description of
these activities found in the Asclepius (§ 24; vol. II, p. 326, 10; and ib.
§ 38, 349, 9) corresponds exactly to the functions of the Egyptian cult
images.
For the conception of the nature of the statues as such it is signifi-
cant that their Egyptian name, twt, ‘likeness’ is the same word used to
designate the king as the terrestrial counterpart of the deity, for instance
in names such as Twt-‘nh-imn, meaning ‘the living likeness of Amon’,
where “nb ‘living’, as in corresponding contexts, signifies sensible as op-
posed to intelligible existence.!”’
It is also illuminating in this respect, that as a causative of the verb
‘nh ‘to live’, to sculpt in Egyptian means ‘to enliven or to revive’, and
that the corresponding term for the sculptor is ‘the reviver’.
To the Hermetic definition of the statues as terrestrial gods corre-
sponds, as already mentioned, the Egyptian distinction between ‘the
god in heaven and his images on earth’ (cf. below note 69), and the Her-
metic conception of their double nature, divine with regard to the spirit
and mundane in so far as they were fashioned from earthly matter, has
its mythical parallel in the Shabaka text’s description of how the cre-
ator made the gods come into being, by making their material bodies
(dt) accord with their wishes, and letting them ‘take body’ in woods,
stones and clays (cf. above p. 11).
It is also worth noticing in this respect, that the Hermetic doctrine of
treatise V, 1 (p. 60, 12-13) that ‘coming into being’ (γένεσις) means
quite simply to appear to the senses!% (φαντασία), that is, to take sen-
sible form, is not merely an illuminating parallel, but a perfectly ad-
equate definition of the corresponding Egyptian term hpr in this as well
as in all other cosmological contexts.

38
 Turning to the problem of the different, and seemingly contradic-
tory, difinitions of creator and demiurge in some of the Hermetic treat-
1565 ἃ compariosn with the corresponding Egyptian material is particu-
larly interesting for the understanding of the mutual relations of the
two traditions.
In the Poimandres we have already seen the creator identified with
the nous as God, the father (treatise I, 6; p. 8, 19), whose sensible, demi-
urgic, instrument in the process of creation was the word, the λόγος
Kupvou (ib. line 19).
In treatise VIII, 1 (p. 87, 10-11), however, the Second God is the
cosmos, defined as an immortal being. Such is also the case in treatise
X, 14 (p. 120, 5-6) where the cosmos is said ‘to have come into being as
the son of God’, and in treatise IX, 8 (p. 99, 16 seq.) the same doctrine
is expressed in the identical statement that ‘The father of the cosmos is
God........ and the cosmos is the son of God’.
In direct opposition to these doctrines the creator is in treatise V, 3
(p. 61, 11) identified with the sun, here called ‘the greatest god of
heaven to whom all gods yield obeisance as their king and ruler’, and
such is probably also the case in treatise XVI, 5 (vol. II, p. 233, 17),
where the sun 15 called demiurge, which in this case would seem to indi-
cate the original creator, such as indicated in the following statement
pronouncing him ‘the deity who links together heaven and earth’.
In the Asclepius, on the other hand, the sun is directly identified
with the Second God (29, vol. II, 337, 2), and as such he is also de-
scribed in Fragment IIA, 14 (vol. III, 7, 15-16) where the Hermetist
states: ‘After the only and first one, it is the sun whom I consider the
demiurge’; and the passus in treatise XVI, 18 (vol. II, p. 237, 20) where
the creator is said to be ‘the father of All, the sun the demiurge and the
cosmos the instrument of creativity’ has a close Egyptian parallel in the
already quoted hymn to Ptah (Pap. Berl. 3048, ZAS, 64, 10, 3 seq.)
where the demiurgic sun calls the creator Ptah: ‘My father from whom I
issued, the father of All, who created me in the primeval waters’: (4
BRS ^ + (9. SANTI
A PAS).
The problem of these at first sight curiously ‘concrete’ mythical
reminiscences in the otherwise abstract-philosophical context of the
corpus finds its natural solution when considered against the background
of the corresponding differences in the conception of the demiurge and
the creator in Egyptian texts reflecting the local cosmogonies.
We have already seen how the nous-logos doctrine of the Poimandres

39
has its Egyptian counterpart in the Memphite conception of Ptah, the
creator manifesting himself as cosmic ‘thought’ or intelligence and the
‘power’ of the demiurgic heart and tongue acting as the organs for the
sensible relevation of the creator’s ‘divine word’ or will, as logos.
Also the Hermetic conception of the cosmos as the Second God and
son of the creator has a direct parallel in the likewise Memphite defini-
tion of the Universe, Atum, as the son and demiurge of Ptah, the su-
preme being and original creator.
In the same way the description of the sun as creator corresponds to
the Heliopolitan doctrine that the original creator was not Ptah, but Re,
the sun,!*? whose son and demiurge was variously identified with
Atum, the Universe, or with Harakhte, the Horus-falcon, while on the
other hand the Hermetic identification of the sun with the Second God
has a clear parallel in the Theban conception of Re as the son and demi-
urge of the local creator Amon, who as Nun-Amon was considered his
father.10
Thus considered, as reflections of corresponding divergencies in Egyp-
tian cosmology, the seeming inconsistencies in the Hermetic conception
of creator and demiurge find a natural explanation, which at the same
time will be seen to throw unexpected light on the problem of the
mutual relations of the two traditions, and the dependence of the cor-
pus on Egyptian sources.
A comprehensive account of this dependence would obviously imply
the consideration of more material than already adduced, but for a
variety of reasons this would involve special investigations which must
at present fall outside the limited scope of this preliminary study.
Nevertheless, attention must be drawn to two points of particular im-
portance for our present purpose, although they can here only be con-
sidered in their narrowest outlines, the question of the Egyptian and
the Hermetic attitude towards death, and the problem of the Egyptian
associations of the Hermetic dynameis.
In so far as the Hermetic conception of death is concerned, two con-
comitant aspects are clearly defined in the corpus. Of those the first is
expressed in the doctrine claiming the mortality of all mundane phe-
nomena: terrena quae sunt omnia sunt mortalia (Asclepius, 28; vol. II,
305, 11-13), and the second in the statement that ‘death is caused by
the dissolution of the body when it is exhausted by toil and after the
completion of the life span allotted to its parts as instrumental to its
vital functions; because the body dies when no longer able to sustain

40
man’s vital needs’: mors enim efficitur dissolutione corporis labore
defessi et numeri conpleti quo corporis membra in unam machinam ad
usus vitalis aptantur. moritur enim corpus quando hominis vitalia ferre
posse destiterit (ib. 27; vol. II, 333, 7 seq.).
It is evident that death here is considered a physiological phenom-
enon, the ultimate result of the gradual dissolution of the physical body
and the cessation of all vital processes and functions. This, however, is
only one aspect of the problem, and death is in other texts considered a
cosmic phenomenon based on the conception of man as a cosmic rather
than a terrestrial being.
As the sensible body of the intelligible creator the cosmos is eo ipso
immortal, and as cosmic elements the spiritual parts of man are there-
fore also immortal (cf. Asclepius 29; vol. II, 337, 6), inasmuch as ‘all
human souls are immortal’ (ib. 2; vol. II, 297, 17).
In this aspect ‘death is not the destruction of the composite elements,
but the dissolution of the unity’ (treatise XI, 14; 153, 4-5), and ‘the liv-
ing, therefore, do not die .... but are dissolved, not to be destroyed, but
to be born anew’ (treatise XII, 16; 180, 22 seq.).
However, when leaving the body the soul is submitted to a judge-
ment (Asclepius 28; vol. II, 334, 3 seq.) and in this respect it is highly
significant that in treatise X, 21 (p. 123, 18) a clear distinction is made
between the soul and the intellect of man, corresponding to the Egyp-
tian distinction between Akh and Ba.
If found ‘pious and just”, the soul is permitted to return to heaven to
unite with the chosen, but if not, it is condemned either to transmigrate
into another body (Asclepius, 12; vol. II, 311, 3-6) or to be cast down-
wards to suffer eternal punishment among the chaotic elements (Ascle-
pius, 28; vol. II, 334, 8 seq.).
In Egyptian texts a similar distinction is made between physical and
cosmic death, the former being clearly referred to in medical contexts,
when, for instance, the physician is told to look out for a crisis deter-
mining ‘if the patient will live or die’ (pap. Edwin Smith, ed. Breasted,
case IV, 11, ए. 155), or in the incantations of the same text stating, that
if the magical formulae are properly recited and the appropriate rites
correctly performed ‘the man cannot die by the pest’, and such is ob-
viously also the case when the texts refer to the killing of ennemies, or
when criminals are sentenced to death.
On the other hand the Egyptians do not seem to have considered
physical death merely the natural result of bodily decay, but always to

41
have attributed it to demoniac or pneumatic influence, to what the
medical papyrus Smith (case VIII, IV, 16-17, p. 212) calls ‘the breath
of a God or death from outside’.
At the same time the constant exhortations to the dead to ‘collect
and count their limbs’, generally accompanied by the solemn declar-
ation that they are not dead but alive, tends to indicate that also the
Egyptians considered physical death a dissolution of the composite
parts of the body, and the doctrines of the release of the spiritual parts
of man, the Akh and the Ba, from their bodily frame at death and the
subsequent judgement of the Ba, or soul, are too well attested to need
special reference.
As expressed in the so-called negative confession, the Egyptian cri-
teria for justification and condemnation were of a much less spiritual
character than those of the Hermetic texts, and to a great extent magi-
cal rites and practices seem to have been able to influence the cosmic
fate of the soul; but on the other hand, we have in the philosophical
distinction between ‘the man of knowledge’ (rhw) and the ignorant
(ihmw) on a higher ethical level an Egyptian parallel to the distinction
made in the corpus between ‘those who are in ignorance’ (ol ἄγνοοῦντες;
treatise I, 20; p. 13, 18) and intelligent man (ὃ ἔννους ἄνθρωπος; ib. 21,
p. 14, 10).
The cosmic death following the condemnation of the soul 15 in Egyp-
tian texts called ‘to repeat or renew death’ (whm mt) just as the justified
soul is said to renew life (whm ‘nh); but neither in Egyptian nor in Her-
metic conception does this second death involve annihilation, as also in
Egyptian belief the condemned soul is either handed over to avenging
demons for eternal punishment, or supposed to roam the lower regions
of space as malevolent elemental spirits; but of the metempsychosis
referred to by classical authors (Herodotus, 2, 123), we have no evi-
dence in original Egyptian sources.!!
Considered against this background it seems clear, that when in the
cosmogonic section of the Shabaka text (line 57 and page 10 above) the
creator is said to have ordained ‘life to the righteous and death to the
transgressor’, cosmic and not mundane justice is referred to, in strict
accordance with the Hermetic doctrine that after judgement ‘life shall
be given to the just and pious, and death to the impious’.
The examples adduced will be seen to illustrate accordance as well as
divergency in the Egyptian and the Hermetic approach to the various

42
problems concerning death and afterlife, but the entire problem is con-
siderably more involved than would appear from the above outline, and
a comprehensive comparison would imply a much more thorough con-
sideration of the Egyptian conception of death, than possible within
the strictly limited scope of the present study. Nevertheless, in spite
of their fragmentary character and all divergencies in the conception
of details, the examples adduced above illustrate the general concord
and agreement in the approach to the principles and doctrines in-
volved.
As an additional example of direct accordance between the Egyptian
and the Hermetic approach to philosophical problems, it is highly inter-
esting to observe their identical attitude towards the theodicean ques-
tion raised by the Asclepius (16; vol. II, 314, 24-25): Whether God
would not be able to abolish evil. By the Hermetist the question is
answered in the negative in the doctrine: ‘God is not responsible for our
evil deeds; but we ourselves are responsible for them because we prefer
evil to goodness’ (treatise IV, 8;p. 52, 7). In the Coffin texts exactly the
same solution of the problem is propounded by the creator himself in
the authoritative statement ‘I did not order them (i.e. mankind) to
commit evil, it is their hearts which have violated my commands’ ( 1 12
mn III SH Orff T7 Ῥ, Lacau, Sarcophages anterieurs au
Nouvel Empire, I, p. 220, p. 59, 1. 5, Coffin texts, 462 d-464 e).
The still unresolved question about the origin of the Hermetic dy-
nameis and the influence of divine or cosmic influence on the soul of
man cannot be considered conclusively within the scope of the present
paper, and it will as already mentioned be considered in a separate
study elsewhere. It is however, of considerable importance for the entire
question about the association of Egyptian and Hermetic notions and
ideas and a brief outline of the problems involved will therefore be at-
tempted below.
In the Poimandres the ten basic dynameis are in their original mani-
festation defined as the quintessence of the divine nous in its demiurgi-
cal form of appearance as ‘the luminous word of the Lord’ (treatise I, 6;
p. 8, 17). In the same treatise (1, 7; p. 9, 5) the light of the nous is de-
scribed as composed of ‘innumerable powers’ (dynameis); defined in
treatise XIII, 8-9 (vol. I, p. 203-204) as manifestations of the supreme
divine principle, constantly emanating from its intelligible originator,
and in the process of emanation split up into individual forces or influ-
ences, in a manner comparable to sunbeams passing through a prism.

43
 Descending upon man they are said to expell from his soul their nega-
tive counterparts, the evil and irrational influences of matter, and by
taking their place, to effect his spiritual purification and further his
eventual reunion with the divinity.
As immanent in man they become sensible reflexions of their intelli-
gible prototypes, and appear as such in the form of human qualities and
virtues, just as their negative opposites became sins and vices. The dif-
ference between their cosmic and earthly form of appearance 15 clearly
indicated in treatise II, 16 (p. 30, 1), where the nature of divine good-
ness is defined in the doctrine that as manifest in God, goodness is not a
separate quality, but integral of his nature: 0 δὲ θεὸς τὸ ἀγαθόν, où κατὰ
τιμὴν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ φύσιν.
In the Shabaka text we have seen this divine or cosmic power defined
as the quintessence of the deity’s creative and emanative powers and
expressed by the word shm (see below note 21), used with the same
meaning in other contexts when for instance the creator is called ‘the
divine or great power’ ( δ 61 or >), ‘the power of powers” (shm
shmw) or ‘the greatest power of the gods'*% (%&9 = _ 377) and from
our particular point of view it is highly significant that this power is
directly delegated to the king, when for instance, in Royal names he is
identified with ‘the power of Re’! or when Amon states that his ba,
his power (shm) and his glory (w33) belong to Hatshepsut. !*
Anticipating the special study of the dynamis-problem mentioned
above we shall here merely outline the general approach in so far as it
has bearings on the relations of Egyptian and Hermetic doctrine.
On an elementary lexicographical basis the first step in an attempt to
associate the Hermetic dynameis with Egyptian notions involves the
mechanical establishment of the Egyptian and Coptic equivalents of the
Greek terms used to designate the ten individual ‘powers’ or dynameis,
such as defined in treatise XIII, 8-9 (vol. II, 204).
1. γνῶσις θεοῦ. This first dynamis has no direct parallel in Egyptian,
but in the well-known statement addressed to the deity by the magician
in magical texts ‘I know you and know your names’, rh, ‘to know’ ex-
presses the same notion of γνῶσις, in Coptic generally translated by the
synonymous cooyN (Crum, 370 b).
II. ἀλήθεια These two dynameis are both translated by Coptic
III. δικαιοσύνη | Meexpressing the concepts truth as well as Justice.
IV. χαρὰ, gaudium, is by Hermapion directly used for the translation
of Egyptian 3wt-ib (^ _ ठ) joy, see Erman, Die Obeliskeniibersetzung
des Hermapion, p. 260.

44
 V. ἀγαθόν, bonum, is Egyptian nfr (1 =) expressing the notions of
goodness and beauty, and as MET-NO4pe used in the Coptic version of
Genesis for the translation of ἀγαθά (Crum, 240 a, Genesis 45, 20).
VI. ξωὴ is Egyptian ‘nh (4%), Coptic wwe in all contexts regularly
translating all aspects on the concept of life.
VI. φῶς, lumen, corresponds in this particular context to Egyptian
3b (A) light, personified as the Akh, the spiritual vehicle of intelli-
gence, surviving in Coptic only as \2with the meaning ‘demon’.
VIII. καρτερία, constantia. With the meaning of continuance or per-
serverance, KAPTEPNOLS is translated into Coptic as moyn, for instance in
OYMOYN WA ENE2, ‘continuance unto eternity’, directly corresponding to
Old Egyptian —_1o1. In Egyptian the term therefore seems to express
the state of continuance or continuity rather than the moral quality of
constancy.
IX. κοινωνία, castitas. In Coptic κοινωνία is translated into ΟΜΝ TOOT
=MN- , with the meaning ‘coming into agreement with’ (Crum, 338 a),
but ΟΜΝ is Old Egyptian smn (ff) ‘to make firm or fast’, which in the
expression smn tb has the meaning of strengthening or fortifying the
heart. Also in this case the Egyptian term therefore seems to have the
more concrete meaning of self-control rather than the specific meaning
of chastity.
X. The same applies to the closely related dynameis ἐγκράτεια, conti-
nentia, which as €yKpareveo 60 4८15 translated into Coptic as AMONI NTOT=,
with the meaning of showing self-restraint or being firm (Westendorf,
Handwörterbuch, p. 6). The Egyptian etymology of AMON? is doubtful,
but like the two preceding dynameis the term seems to define the in-
herent nature and the dynamics of the notion rather than its moral im-
plications.
By itself the mere fact that it is possible to associate the Greek desig-
nations of the individual dynameis with Egyptian notions is obviously
inconclusive in so far as our present purpose is concerned. It will be
seen, however, that the Egyptian as well as the Hermetic terms are used
on the divine as well as on the human level, and therefore signify
human qualities and virtues as well as various aspects on divine nature.
Since there must necessarily be a difference in the conception of them
on the two different levels it is a natural conclusion that in their latter
use they were conceived in accordance with the already mentioned (p.
43) Hermetic doctrine that when applied to the Deity goodness for in-
stance, was no attributive quality, but an integral element of divine na-
ture.

45
 That such is the fact the case is in the author’s opinion strongly cor-
roborated by their use in the names of the Royal protocol. Although
collected and published in Gauthier’s monumental catalogue! these
names have never been systematically analyzed and comprehensively
studied as semantic and grammatical entities in spite of the fact that
they obviously constitute a distinct group of Egyptian onomastics, al-
though with many subdivisions.
In current Egyptological literature we therefore find various, often
incompossible and contradictory translations of many of them, most of
which are based on the generally accepted assumption that as pious or
political confessions of faith issued by the king to serve as mottoes for
his reign, the names refer to the deities whose name enter into their
composition.
Names such as Menkauré (० = 11: ; ©. I, 95-100), Djeserkheperure (©
\ -11:; ©. II, 338-393) and ‘Aakheperuré ( Ὁ &-; G. II, 276-286) are
therefore generally translated: “Re is stable (mn) of kau, sacred (वड) or
great (‘3) of appearances’. हि
In the same way Userma‘ré (off.ऊ ; G. III, 51-60), Menkheperre (ot
th; G. IL, 253 seq.), ‘Ankhkare (0 $15; G. IV, 132 IV) and Userkare Gui
a li; G.IV, 232-239) are rendered either as: ‘Strong (wsr) is the truth of
Re’, or ‘Re is strong of truth’, “Reis stable (mn) of appearance’, or “Stable
is the appearance of Re’, ‘Alive of ka is Re’, or ‘Re’s ka lives’, and
‘Strong of ka is Re’ or ‘Strong is the ka of Re”. Names such as ©~1i Neb-
karé (6.1, 53-54) and Nebkheperuré (of):= ;!°° G. II, 365) are trans-
lated: ‘Re is lord of the ka’ or ‘of the appearances’ (hprw), and other
names belonging to these or structurally identical categories are trans-
lated accordingly.
In the opinion of the author these translations, based on the assump-
tion that the god is the subject rest on a fallacy, because in certain vari-
ant writings we find the name of the god separated from the preceeding
nomen by the genitival adjective nj (—)
Such for instance is the case with the names Djeserkheperre, occa-
sionally written Djeserkheper-n-ré (ot- ft ; G. II, 394, LXIII), ‘Aakhe-
peruré written ‘Aakheperu-n-ré (28 ; G. II, 286, L), ‘Ankhkaré writ-
ten ‘Ankhka-n-re (© ¶ 11. ; G. IV, 132, I-III), Userkaré written Userka-
n-re (21), ; G. IV, 232-239) and Nebkar& and Nebkheperré written
Nebka-n-re and Nebkheper-n-ré (9 i); G. IV, 132) and (<. ; G. I,
109, 52).
The occasional appearance of the genitival exponent in these names

46
tends to show that in all of them the god was in the genitive and can
consequently never be considered the subject, and it is important to ob-
serve that this substitution of the indirect for the direct genitive is no
isolated phenomenon, but is found in several categories of names,
which seems to vouch for the general validity of the observation.
The traditional translation of the names must therefore be rejected in
favour of one in which the name of the god appears in the genitive, in
which case Djeserkheperrure must mean: ‘The holy one of the appear-
ances of Re’, which is the regular Egyptian way of expressing the super-
lative: “The most holy of the appearances of Re’. ‘Aakheperruré must
be translated accordingly as: “The greatest of the appearances of Re”,
‘Ankhkare must mean: ‘The life of the ka of Re’ and Userkaré, where
ka seems to be in the singular:!*? ‘The strength of the ka of RE’, and it
is highly important to observe that in the free rendering of this name in
Greek and Demotic the king is in fact the logical subject (& ὃ Ἥλιος
ἔδωκεν τὴν νίκην: τὰ] n.f p3Re p3 413 , Daumas, op.cit. 191.) Nebkare
and Nebkheperre should consequently be translated “The lord of the ka
or the kheper of Re’.
Thus considered it seems evident that the names must refer to the
King, and with reference to Schäfer’s important observation of the intıi-
mate connection between the names and the titles of the protocol,!®®
to state that as the manifestation of either Horus, the golden Horus, the
lord of the diadems!®” or the son of Re, he is either the most holy or
the greatest appearance of the sun-god, incorporates the life or the
strength of his ka, or 15 the lord of his ka or his kheper.
As already mentioned an attempt to show that other categories of
protocol-names are based on identical principles will be made elsewhere
in a special, strictly Egyptological, study to be published independent-
ly. In the following we shall nevertheless briefly consider the translation
of a few of them in an attempt to show their importance for the ques-
tion of the dynameıs.
If translated at all in current Egyptological literature, names such as
Uahibré ( of 6 ; ©. II, 43), Menibré (oes © ; G. I, 104-105), Menma'ere
(oes7; G. III, 16-27), Neferkare (ou ; G. I, 181-185), Auibre (© MAD;
G. I, 317-318), as well as other names belonging to the same or related
categories, are generally translated, either with RE as subject as ‘Re is
enduring or stable (mn) of heart, stable (mn) of truth, beautiful of ka
and wide of heart’, or occasionally with RE as genitive, but still refer-
ring to the god, as ‘enduring or stable is the heart of Re, stable is the

47
truth of RE, beautiful is the ka of RE and wide is the heart of Re”. As-
suming by analogy with those considered above, that RE is in fact in the
genitive; but that the names refer to the king and not to the god, and
that their logical subject is therefore the preceding title their translation
would run: King NN is or incorporates the endurance or the stability or
constancy (mn) of the heart (i.e. the mind) of Ré, the constancy (mn) of
the truth of Re, the beauty of his ka and the joy (3wt-(b) of his heart.
As the originator of these characteristics attributed to the king 15 ex-
plicitly stated to be Re, it is evident that they do not represent qualities in
the ordinary meaning of the term, but, like the dynameis — defined by
Festugière as Puissances divines personnifiées' Ὁ. — emanative divine prin-
ciples reflecting various aspects on divine nature, in accordance with the
doctrine that god reveals himself to mankind through his ‘virtues”.!?1
Thus considered, the names acquire not merely a new significance; but
will be seen to form direct parallels to the dynameis in nature as well as in
function,by transferring divine essence from the intelligible to the sensible
plane, with the distinction already mentioned that the Egyptian powers
represent elementary cosmic forces without the strong moral implications
of the dynameis, and are consequently without negative counterparts.
If accepted, the conception of them outlined above will be seen to
provide additional evidence of the affinity of the two traditions, and
this is why it has been considered necessary to include it in the present
context, anticipating a more systematical and comprehensive study of
the problem.
Owing to the fundamental difference in the nature and form of the
texts involved, a phraseological comparison such as undertaken in Mül-
ler’s'’* and Bergman’s!’? studies of the Isis aretalogies cannot be based
on the Hermetic material.
Only the epithets and titles used to qualify and define the various
gods of creation permit a direct comparison, and in this respect the gen-
eral accordance is remarkable, as already pointed out by Reitzenstein.*”*
In both traditions the creator is regularly referred to as “the one or
sole god’ (ntr w‘;'” deus unus, Asclepius 3; II, 298, 19) or even “the
sole and only one” (w‘ w‘tj = εἷς Kai μόνος, treatise IV, 1; 1, 49, 4). He
is, as stated in the Asclepius (29; II, 336, 3), called father as well as lord
(pater vel dominus), and also in Egyptian texts he is regularly referred
to as the father and the lord of the gods.
He is ‘self-created’ (hpr ds.f or km3 sw ds.f, corresponding to aÿro-
76771706), ‘lord of that which is and that which is not’ (nb ntt iwtt,
which has a direct parallel in treatise V, 9; I, 64, 1-2: ἔστιν οὗτος Kai τὰ

48
ὄντα αὐτὸς Kal τὰ μὴ ὄντα), and as ‘unborn’ (iw.tj mst.f ἀγέννητος,
treatise V, 2; I, 60, 13) we have seen him distinguished from the born
gods.
He 15 the ‘creator of All or the lord of All’ (irw tm,km3 or nb tm)
just as he is δημιουργὸς τῶν ὅλων (treatise VIII, 2, 16), ‘of numerous
forms or appearances’ (‘83 irw, 3 hprw, corresponding to πολυσώματος
in treatise V, 10 (I, 64, 6) and ‘invisible’ (cf. the pun on the name of
Amon: You are invisible being Amon, QE NAS I , AZ, 42,
1905, p. 30, XII, III, 23-24) and the epithet imn, ‘the invisible one’,
Wb, I, 84, corresponding to ἀφανής, treatise V, 1; 1, 60, 9.
The list could easily be augumented; but in the discussion of the
Egyptian background of the corpus, this purely phraseological material
must necessarily carry less weight than the more solid evidence based
on doctrinal associations, the more so as many of the epithets adduced
had found universal distribution in Hellenistic syncretism and were
often indiscriminately applied.
More significant are the rare cases where an entire passus in the cor-
pus seems to have a direct Egyptian prototype, for instance the fre-
quently quoted statement from the Asclepius about the instant realis-
ation of God’s will and intentions (8; II, 305, 12-15): uoluntas etenim
dei ipsa est summa perfectio, utpote cum uoluisse et perfecisse uno
eodemque temporis puncto confleat, which has a direct parallel in the
notion frequently expressed in Egyptian texts: ‘What you — 1.e. the
deity — decree comes to pass immediately without delay’,'”° or in the
authentic words of the creator: ‘What is in my mind comes to pass
immediately”.177
Also the theodicean doctrine that god is guiltless but man guilty be-
cause he prefers evil to goodness (treatise IV, 8; I, 52, 7) ἐπεὶ 0 μὲν θεὸς
ἀναίτιος, ἡμεῖς δὲ αἴτωι τῶν κακῶν, ταῦτα προκρίνοντες τῶν ἀγαθῶνῚ
has, as pointed out on p. 43 above, a direct Egyptian parallel in the sol-
emn declaration of the creator: ‘I did not command them — 1.e. man-
kind — to commit evil, it is their hearts which violate my decrees’.
It is also worth noticing that in spite of all formal and stylistic differ-
ences, the ode to man quoted above on page 16 and stressing his unique
position as God’s chosen creation, has a direct counterpart in the no
less fervent paean in the Asclepius (6; II, 301 seq.) hailing man as
magnum miraculum, animal admirandum atque honorandum, of quasi
divine nature.

49
 Another point of interest is Asclepius’ expounding of the term alimen-
tum (6; II, 303, 1-2), which he apparently considered equivocal in so
far as he states that there are two kinds of nourishment, that of the soul
and that of the body (alimenta sunt bina animi et corporis). The obser-
vation is important because it has a direct Egyptian parallel in the use
of the corresponding Egyptian term df3 (SX K...), clearly used to sig-
nify spiritual as well as corporal nourishment, truth stated to be the
nourishment of Ré and Osiris (Wb. V, 569, 13), and the creator said to
nourish heaven (51 , ASA, 29, 15; quoted from Sandman, no. 51).
That εἰκόνος ζώσης τοῦ Aude is a direct translation of Egyptian Royal
names and epithets following the pattern of Tutankhamun and shm ‘nh,
has already been mentioned in note 163.
Otherwise examples of direct translation are exceedingly rare, be-
cause the translation of almost any term in any mythical or speculative
Egyptian text would invariably become paraphrastic, and involve an
interpretation.
That this difficulty was strongly felt by the Egyptians themselves 15
evident from the almost fanatical warning against all translation from
Egyptian into Greek found in treatise XVI, 1-2 (II, 231-232). We are
here told that any such effort would not merely be futile but also fatal
as it could only lead to distortion (διατροφὴ) and uncertainty or mis-
understandings (८०५५८८८), because by their very nature the Greek
vocables were unable to transmit the hidden active force (Evepyeia) of
the Egyptian words, which had special, magic, qualities and functions
(ἔργων).
Expressed in other terms this means that only to adepts versed in
mythical lore and logic could the sacred Egyptian texts in the opinion
of venerable Egyptian sages reveal their true esoteric meaning, depend-
ent on their hidden associative and magic powers, which could never be
apprehended by uninitiated foreigners or expressed in the profane terms
of their foreign idioms.
With this sadly pessimistic and sceptical outlook on the propagation
of Egyptian wisdom and religious lore, not infrequently called to mind
by modern positivistic interpretations of Egyptian religious texts, the
present study has come to its end.
In conclusion we shall therefore, merely in order to facilitate a sur-
vey, resume the principal point of the preceding comparison.
First of all we have seen a remarkable accordance of the basic prin-
ciples underlying the Egyptian and the Hermetic descriptions of the in-
itial stages of the process of creation.

50
 In both accounts this process is inaugurated by the emergence from
the pre-existent primaeval waters of the intelligible creator, considered
bisexual, and as such immediately proceeding to the generation of a sec-
ond god or demiurge, considered his son and the sensible reflexion of
his own intelligible being. As such this second god is conceived as the
body of the creator and described as the All, the universe or the sen-
sible cosmos. Identified in the Shabaka text in accordance with Mem-
phite tradition with Ptah as the power which premeditates (k33) and
commands everything, the intelligible thought of the creator is the ulti-
ma ratio and prime mover of the universe, and as an elementary cosmic
force responsible for its dynamics not merely on the intellectual level,
but as the moving force behind all bodily activity, also on the physical
plane.
By nature and function it is consequently identical with the nous,
the creative cosmic intelligence of the Hermetist, an identification ex-
plicitly confirmed by Jamblichus, stating that the Egyptians identified
their Hephaistos, that is Ptah, with the nous (p. 11).
In the same text the sensible instruments of the creator’s divine
thought and will are identified with the heart, as the mind, and the
tongue, as the organ of speech, of the demiurge, who therefore clearly
forms the mythical counterpart of the Hermetic word or logos.
In this capacity the Egyptian as well as the Hermetic demiurge con-
tinue sensible creation on behalf of the intelligible creator, thus laying
the fundament of the basic distinction between intelligible and sensible
reality common to both creeds.
In either cosmogony only one important restriction is posed on this
creative activity of the demiurge, the creation of man, which either cre-
ator reserves for himself in order to form him in his own image and
from his flesh, a genealogy used in both traditions to justify the dogma
of man’s unique position as the paragon of creation.
In their accounts of the subsequent stages of the process the two ver-
sions vary fundamentally, as there are no indicationjin the cosmogonic
texts that the Egyptians had developed a ‘physical’ world-scheme com-
parable to the spheric planetary system described in the corpus.
The descriptions of the subsequent reconciliation of heaven and earth,
that is of intelligible and sensible reality, are therefore also different.
In the Poimandres the reconciliation is brought about by the descent of
prototypal man through the spheres to unite with nature in a hieros
gamos; but in the Shabaka text the same basic aim is achieved by the

51
descent of the gods into ‘the trees, plants, stones and clays’ of sensible
creation in order to animate them with divine essence, thereby antici-
pating, in mythical guise, the Hermetic doctrine of the celestial inspira-
tion of all earthly substance and the dependence on its individual na-
ture on celestial influence.
Irrespective of these discrepancies in description of the settings of
the singular events, we have still found general accordance of the under-
lying principles. Side by side with the cosmic intelligence as the primary
cosmic influence we have for instance found the concept of the breath
of life developed in Egyptian texts into a doctrine in all respects corre-
sponding to that of the Hermetic pneuma (p. 19).
Similarly we have seen that by defining the substance of psyche as
life and that of intelligence as light the Hermetist defines in abstract
terms the essential difference between the Egyptian psyche or Ba as the
instrument of life, and the ‘spirit of light” the Akh, as the vehicle of
intelligence (p. 33). Even the ontological problem of existence versus
non-existence was as we have seen anticipated by Egyptian theologians
(p. 17), while the theodicean question of the existence of evil was
answered in almost identical terms by Egyptians and Hermetists with
reference to the guiltlessness of the Supreme Being and the frailty of
human nature (p. 49), just as the doctrine of the immediate realization
of divine will was expressed in identical terms. In the same way the
Hermetic definition of the term genesis in its cosmogonic sense as
‘appearing to the senses’, covers the corresponding use of Egyptian
kheper (p. 38), while the Hermetic definition of death as not involving
annihilation, but merely the dissolution of the bodily elements and re-
lease of those of the spirit showing a remarkable affinity to the Egyp-
tian approach to the same problem.
Moreover we have seen the Egyptian and the Hermetic attitude to-
wards the problem of time agree in the distinction between its cosmic
and existential aspect (p. 34).
Furthermore we have attempted to show how when used to distin-
guish or characterize Egyptian gods and kings, epithets or attributive
adjectives such as beauty, strength, stableness and justice, cease to indi-
cate ordinary qualities in the conventional sense of the word; but like
the Hermetic dynameis acquire the function of emanative forces trans-
mitting singular manifestations of divine nature, in accordance with the
Hermetic doctrine, that when applied to the Divinity, goodness and re-
lated terms cease to denote qualities, but design inherent elements of
divine nature (p. 48 seq.).

52
 Hereto should be added the references to Egyptian phenomena of a
more tangible nature such as Ouroboros (cf. above p. 30), the ‘making
of gods’, the orientation of the earth-gods, such as pointed out by Der-
chain,'’® the phraseological material, and probably also the occasional,
and in a Hermetic text strange, reference to the creator as the sun,
corresponding to the Heliopolitan conception of him and therefore
pointing to a Heliopolitan influence on the otherwise predominantly
Memphite oriented Hermetic doctrine.*”? All this taken into consider-
ation, it is unfortunate that the establishment of Egyptian concepts in
Hermetic lore in no way contributes to the solution of the crucial and
controversial problem how they found their way there.
That corresponding notions were current in the later philosophical
and religious tradition is an acknowledged fact, long ago established on
irrefutable authority, and regularly used as the principle argument
against a direct Egyptian influence on the corpus as such.
However, without entering into polemics, it should be pointed out
that the question about the relations of Egypt and Hermetism is no
isolated phenomenon, but ought to be considered in a somewhat wider
aspect: the general dissemination of Egyptian doctrine and its influence
on the following cultural development as a whole.
Not until this basic problem has been comprehensively studied and
clarified will it be possible to consider the Hermetic problem in its
proper perspective.
At present it must therefore remain unresolved; but before rejecting
a priori the possibility of a direct connection between the Egyptian and
the Hermetic material, such as actually implied in the entire setting of
the text and the guise of its actors, as well as in the unanimous testi-
mony of all pertinent sources from classical antiquity, the importance
of the chronological priority of the Egyptian material should not be
overlooked or minimized.
Of the doctrines involved we have not merely seen the great majority
recorded in Egyptian texts ages before their appearance in other sources;
but we have also seen several of them quoted by classical authors, and
defined as typical of Egyptian philosophical reasoning. The general
agreement of these sources in their definition of identical concepts
tends to vouch for their relative correctness, and is of particular signifi-
cance from our particular point of view because it indicates that a direct
exchange of ideas did in fact take place between Egyptian and Greek
scholars. How this contact was established we do not know; but it can

53
hardly have been based on the original Egyptian texts which would
have been inaccessible to foreigners, but probably on oral communica-
tions or literary expounding.
It seems hardly just therefore to discard or mistrust outright the un-
animous statements of all Greek writers on Egypt, that although trans-
lated into philosophical terms their accounts of Egyptian philosophy
and religious doctrine were to the best of their conviction fair render-
ings of them.
Considered against this background the problem of the corpus as-
sumes a slightly different aspect, and while its origin and the sources
from which its singular doctrines were drawn remain debatable, its asso-
ciation with genuine and well-established Egyptian concepts and no-
tions can hardly be denied or disputed.

54
 Notes

. For the text, see Sethe, Dramatische Texte zu altagyptischen My-

sterienspiele, I, Das Denkmal Memphitischer Theologie, Unter-
suchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ægyptens, Bd. X,
1, 1928, quoted as Denkmal, and H. Junker, Die Gôtterlehre von
Memphis, Abh. d. Preussischen Akad., phil.-hist. Kl. no. 23, 1940,
quoted as Gótterlehre. Cf. also Cerny’s partial translation in
ancient Egyptian Religion, 1952, 9.44, and J.B. Pritchard, Ancient
Near Eastern Texts, 1955, p. 7. For the bibliography of the text
until 1940, see Junker, op.cit., p. 30.
. For Nun and Naunet, see Sethe, Denkmal, p. 48, € and €.
. For Nefertum, see S. Morentz und J. Schubert, Der Gott auf der
Blume, 1954.
. The text has ntrw hpr πὶ Pth (1. 48). For a discussion of the mean-
ing see Junker, Gotterlehre, p. 19.
. Sauneron et Yoyotte, La Naissance du Monde selon l'Égypte, in
La Naissance du Monde, I, 1959, 53.
. Grapow, Die Welt vor der Schópfung, see below note 77.
. The Egyptian term is hpr, come into being, become, or in other
forms to be or to exist. For the corresponding Hermetic term see
above p. 38.
.In the name of the two deities representing the male and the fe-
male aspect on the primeval waters, the determinative of the for-
mer is the sky == and that of the latter the ‘Gegenhimmel’ =.
This tends to show that the Egyptians distinguished between ‘the
waters above and those below’ like Genesis (I, 7).
. For the Egyptian term for this form of existence, see above pp.
16-17.
10. Sethe, Urgeschichte und älteste Religion der Ægypter, Leipzig,
1930 (quoted as Urgeschichte), § 167, p. 136.

55
 11. M. Stolk, Ptah, Berlin 1911 (dissertation), p. 5.
12. For the bisexual nature of the creator, see Sethe, Urgeschichte, §
81, p. 68, and above p. 31.
13. Worterbuch der ägyptischen Sprachen (Wb), V, 305: Das All;
Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p. 299: the Universe. For other
interpretations, see Hornung, Der Eine und die Vielen, p. 56, and
Cerny, Religion, p. 43.
14. Articulated into ‘the command’ (wd mdw), the divine word of the
creator (mdw ntr) corresponds to what we should call his will.
15. Pap. Berlin 3056, III, 45,3 2. ~ = WEN 41१...
16. Shabaka text, line 60.
17. Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, ed. J. Gwyn Griffiths, 1970, 9, 354
D, p. 130, 1. 17 seq., διὸ τὸν πρῶτον θεόν (ὅν) τῷ παντὶ τὸν αὑτὸν
νομίζουσιν -- ᾿Αμοῦν λέγουσν.
18 Plutarch, op. et ed. cit., 54, 373 C, p. 204, 1. 26 seq. See also the
commentary on p. 505.
19. The passage runs, fF ५ 4. ΟΝ 8.1.
fe d . On the auth-
ority of Sethe it has been generally accepted that the subject of
hpr is missing. Sethe therefore emends ‘ein Gedanke’, and Junker
merely ‘etwas’. The emendation becomes unnecessary when it 1s
realized that here as elsewhere in the text m-m is regularly used
with the meaning ‘both and’ or ‘as well as’. See f. inst. line 55: hpr
n ८5 psdt itm m mtwt.f m db‘.f: The Ennead of Atum comes into
existence from his seed as well as from his fingers. Line 52, pr n tht
nb im.f m htp di3w m htp ntr m (ht nb nfr: Everything issues from
him, hetep defau as well as hetep neter and all good things, cf. also
the passus quoted in the following note. The correct translation of
the above passage is therefore: ‘heart as well as tongue come into
existence in the shape of Atum
20 The text runs,# No १५९२५९11 eo 4}. . NEIN
iv . γι. ChE IT AN Thee =.“ ‘the power of
the heart and tongue exists in all limbs in accordance with the doc-
trine (505) that it pervades the entire living(?) body and the mouth
of all gods, all human beings, all cattle and every snake, by cogitat-
ing (hr k33.t) — as heart — and by commanding (wd mdw) — as
tongue — everything it, i.e. the power, desires’. That Breasted’s
original translation of shm as a substantive (ZAS, 39, p. 48) is cor-
rect is corroborated by the parallel passages later in the text (1. 55):
hpr ἢ is psdt itm m mtwt .f, ‘the Ennead of Atum comes into

56
 existence from his seed”, and hpr ἢ is mdw ntr nb m k33t h‘tj wdt
ns: ‘every divine word comes into existence by what the heart
thinks and the tongue commands’ (1. 57), where in either case the
subject of hpr is a substantive.
21. For 91} All see Wolf, ZAS, 64, 1929, 18, 7 (III, 4), where he
points out that shm corresponds to Greek dynamis. Cf. also |
as an epithet to Amon in the hymn from Leiden (ZAS, 42, 1905,
24-25, VIII, II, 26-27) and page 44 above. For the conception of
the King as the cosmic heart of Egypt see J. Baillet, Le Régime
Pharaonique dans ses Rapports avec Evolution de la Morale en
Egypte, Blois 1912. Cf. also G. Posener, De la Divinité du Pharaon,
Paris 1960, p. 56.
22. See line 56 in the Shabaka text.
23. For the distinction between physical and spiritual nourishment see
p. 50 above.
24. By analogy with the following passage from the Pyramid texts
(1463 a, Spruch 570): fff, , Sth Ξ, BT, Born before wrath
had come into existence and before strife had come into existence’
it seems likely that mrt and msdt in the Shabaka text are also sub-
stantives and should be translated accordingly.
25. For the concept of cosmic life and death as reward and punish-
ment for the soul see above p. 42.
26. For references to this ‘materialistic’ conception of Egyptian phil-
osophy and thought, see for instance, Firmicus Maternus, De erro-
re profanarum religionum, chapt. I-V, and Flavius Sallustius, Con-
cerning Gods and the Universe, ed. A.D. Nock (1926). Cf. also J.
Podemann Sorensen, Redundans og Abstraktion 1 det Ægyptiske
daglige Tempelritual, Chaos I, Copenhagen 1982.
27. De mysteriis, ed. E. des Places, 1966, VIII, 4 (266, 11), p. 198:
φυσικά TE ov λέγουσν εἶναι πάντα Αἰγύπτιοι.
28. Ib., 267, 4 (p. 198): καθαρόν τε νοῦν ὑπὲρ τὸν κόσμον προτιθέασι.
29. In continuation of the passage quoted in note 27 above (266, 11):
ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν τῆς ψυχὴς ζωὴν Kal τὴν νοερὰν ἀπὸ τῆς ρύσεως ÓLA-
κρίνουσιν.
30. In continuation of the passus quoted in the preceding note: οὐκ
ἐπὶ TOU παντὸς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν.
31. See F.E. Peters, Greek philosophical terms (1967) under the ar-
ticles psyché (166 seq.) and noésis (121 seq.).

57
 32. That the suffix 3.masc.sing. refers to Ptah is confirmed by the
hymn quoted above (ZAS, 64, p. 25, 1. 54, VL3.), which has: , ,
Feo ean τῆς: The tree of life grows on you
33. As it stands it is impossible to decide whether the passage refers to
the gods or to the elements of physical nature. In the first case it
implies that the gods did not assume sensible form of appearance
until they united with nature, and in the second, that the elements
did not come into sensible existence until inspired with divine es-
sence.
34. De mysteriis, ed, cit., 267, 4, p. 198: καθαρόν τε νοῦν ὑπέρ TOV
κόσμον προτιθέασι.
35. ZAS, 39, 1901, 54.
36. De mysteriis, ed. cit., 263, 7-264, 4, VIII, 3, pp. 196-197. The en-
tire passus runs: Ὁ yap δημιουργικὸς νοῦς Kal τῆς ἀληθείας προ-
στάτης καὶ σοφίας, ἐρχόμενος μὲν ἐπὶ γένεσιν, καὶ τὴν ἀρανή τῶν
κεκρυμμένων λόγων δύναμν εἰς ρῶς ἄγων, ᾿Αμοῦν κατὰ τὴν τῶν
Αἰγυπτίων γλῶσσαν λέγεται, συντελῶν δὲ ἀψευδῶς ÉKaoTa καὶ
τεχνικῶς μετ᾽ ἀληθείας POA (Ἕλληνες δὲ εἰς Ἥφαιστον μεταλαμ-
βάνουσι τὸν Φθὰ τῷ τεχνικῷ μόνον προσβάλλοντες); ἀγαθῶν δὲ
ποιητικὸς ὧν Ὄσιρις κέκληται, καὶ ἄλλας δι᾿ ἄλλας δυνάμεις TE
καὶ ἐνεργείας ἐπωνυμίας ἔχει.
37. Proclus, Commentarium in Platonis Timaeum, ed. Festugière,
1966, vol. I, p. 198, 147, 8.
38. A. Dieterich, Abraxas, 1891, p. 17, line 43: Νοῦς ἣ φρένες κατέ-
χων καρδίαν. For the commentary see ib. p. 62.
39. See the text quoted in note 36 above.
40. Hornung, Der Eine und die Vielen, p. 142: ‘Dieser gotterschaffen-
den Gott, dem der gesamte Kosmos sein Dasein verdankt, ist kein
bestimter Gott..... sondern der jeweilige Schópfergott?.
41. Praeparatio evangelica, ed. des Places, 1976, III, 3, 10, p. 158:
‘Zeus who 15 also called Ammon’.
42. Ib. III, 9,3 ८, p. 192.
43. Pap. Bremmer-Rhind (Brit. Mus. 10188) ed. Faulkner, Bibliotheca
Aegyptiaca, III,1932, 26, 24, where Re states: 1 BL ola LIL A,
‘before another existed to act with me
44. See f. inst. Sethe, Amun und die acht Urgótter von Hermopolis
(quoted as Urgótter), ए. 113, and Cerny, Ancient Egyptian Relig
ion, p. 43

98
45. Reallexikon, 771 a. Bonnet points out that the argument for Tef-
nut’s identification with moisture, that she was ‘spat out’ (tf) from
the mouth of Atum is irrelevant because the same is said of Shu.
46. For Tefnut as lioness, see Kees, Der Gôtterglaube im Alten Ægyp-
ten, p. 162 and 220, note 3
47. Lange, Der magische Papyrus Harris, 1927, p. 13, line 12 TT
AL ZA. ' , ‘she directs her flame against his ennemies
48. For Tefnut see Junker, Onurislegende, pp. 50, 60 and 82ff.; Sethe,
Die Sage vom Sonnenauge, pp. 19-25; Spiegelberg, Das Mythus
von Sonnenauge, 1917, and for a Greek version of the myth Reit-
zenstein’s edition, Sitzungsberichte d. Heidelberger Akademie,
phil.-hist. Kl., no. 2, 1923; and Stephanie West, The Greek version
of the Legend of Tefnut, JEA, 55, 1959, 161. Cf. also J. Gwyn
Griffiths, Allegory in Greece and Egypt, JEA, 53, 1967, 79.
49. Either iwtj ms.twf, (Wb. II, 137): ‘einer der nicht geboren wurde’,
or wtt sw, “who engendered himself’.
90. Attention should in this respect be drawn to Plato’s Timaeus (28,
Ρ. 48 in Bury’s edition), (Loeb), where he makes a distinction be-
tween beings which are unbom and therefore have true existence
and those who are created.
91. See above note 28.
92. For other interpretations of the identification of the Ennead with
teeth and lips, see Sethe, Dramatische Texte, p. 57 and 5. Schott,
Die beiden Neunheiten als Ausdruck fiir Zahne und Lippen, ZAS,
74, 1938, 94 5 à
53. Grapow, Religiöse Urkunden, I , 1915, p. 6: > D DIAÉy
APR TRATAN LA RL AWAD. PES
54. In the hymn to Ptah, ZAS, 64, p. 41, line 23 (K XII, 4) Re is called
his son. विः :
55. For Amon as the father of Re, cf. the late epithet = = οὐ 4 —
(Sethe, Urgôtter, § 139, p. 69): ‘Nun-Amon, the father of Re
which forms a direct parallel to { =-= 4. SON ? , Ptah-Nun, the
father of Atum’, in the Shabaka text (line 50 a)
56. Shabaka text, line 60.
57. Pap. Vaticanus XXXVI, ed. Erman, ZAS, 31, 1893, 121, B 1:
‘There is no limb in him without a god, from his head to the sole
of his feet’. Erman refers to parallels from the Book of the Dead
and the magical Papyrus from Turin.
58. The hymn to Ptah, ZAS, 64, 1929, 39, I, 6 (X.9): Praise to Ptah
and the gods GO Dhaos , ‘Who existed or came into being as

59
 your body’. For the translation, cf. the parallel passus in the Sha-
baka text, line 48, ntrw hprw m Ptah.
59. Hymn to Amon from Leiden, ZAS, 42, 1905, p. 31, XIII, IV.1:
‘The Gods are united (dmd) with or in your body’.
60. For the ba see L.W. Zabkar, A study of the Ba concept in Ancient
Egypt, Chicago 1968.
61. Horapollon, I, 7, p. 15 in Sbordone’s edition, Naples s.a.
62. The Shabaka text line 54.
63. Cf. the epithet of Ptah: ‘Who formed (kd) man and made the gods’,
Pap. Harris I, ed. Erichsen, Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca, 44, 4, p. 49, 1.
9-10. See also Pyr. 1466 d, Spruch 571: ‘Before man existed and
before the gods were born’.
64. Merikare. P. 132, c 55, in Voltens edition, Analecta Aegyptiaca,
IV, 1945, p.73 8)— २77
€ τ ^ Abas ‘He is his image issued
from his flesh’. Cf. also Coffin texts, ed. de Buck, vol. IV, Spell
312, 75 a-b: ‘NN is one of those Gods ..... created by Re-Atum
from his flesh’.
65. Merikare, ed. Volten, Analecta Aegyptiaca, IV, 73.
66. For Amon as deus invisibilis, see Sethe, Urgotter, chapt. 13, p. 178
seq., with many references.
~न 2 x . . 9
67. (+ — ‘Whose name is hidden’.
68 , So De hen + ‘Whose body is hidden or mysterious’.
69. Cf. AniTF LE KAP oF FPR0 44:70
, y - The God of this land is the light on the horizon, whose images
are on earth’, Volten, Studien zum Weisheitsbuch des Anii, VII,
16, p. 111.
70. Hornung, Der Eine und die Vielen, p. 143.
71. Pap. Bremmer-Rhind, ed. Faulkner, Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca, III,
1932, 26, 21 seq. For Faulkner’s translation see JEA, vols. 22, 23
and 24.
72. For Sethe’s discussion of the term see Urgôtter, ὃ 145, p. 74.
73. Concise Dictionary, p. 134.
74. The Edwin Smith Pap., case 8, IV, 14, p. 210 in Breasted’s edition:
eA. ,].ἂς |} 74: He walks, his foot being lame’ that is, ‘He
drags his foot when walking’.
75. Griffiths” edition, 54, 573 c, p. 204 and the note to page 204, 26,
on page 505.
76. Se above page 11.
77. प्रि. Grapow, Die Welt vor der Schöpfung, ZAS, 67, 1931, 34-38.

60
78. See the hymn to Ptah quoted above note 58, III, oa + १. 7
τὸ τὸ ~, ‘Who engendered himself before any existence existed’.
79. The exact difference between ntt-iwtt and wn-n wnt remains ob-
scure. For the form with wn see T.W. Thacker, JEA, 35, 1949, 31.
This form may express existential time and ntt-lwtt, being or non-
being as such. For the explanation of iwtt as that which has not yet
been created see below, note 84.
80. Pyr. 1146 c, Spruch 510, X, वि 44>. ‘Who ‘says’ what is and
creates what is not’. The substitution of irj ‘make’ for dd ‘say’ in
the parallel passage quoted in the following note, indicates that dd
has the meaning ‘to create by saying’, that is, by creative utterance.
81. Pap. Leiden, I, 347, 10, 2, PR ‘Who makes what is
and brings what is not into existence. Cf. the notes 79 and 80
above.
82. Hymn to Amon, V, 3, ZAS, 42, 1905, p. 36, fl... .. ‘Who pro-
duces what is and what is not’.
83. Cf. notes 80, 81 and 82 above.
84. La Naissance du Monde by Sauneron and Yoyotte, p. 73, sec. 71,
line 3.
85. See G. Thausing, Die Ausdrücke für Ewigkeit in Ægyptischen, Mé-
langes Maspéro, I, 35 seq.; Abd el Mohsen Bakir, JEA, 39, 1953,
110, with some supplementary remarks, ib. 60, 1974, 252; E. Hor-
nung, Zum Ægyptischen Ewigkeitsbegriff, Forschungen und Fort-
schritte, 39, 1965, 334; J. Assmann, Zeit und Ewigkeit im alten
Ægypten, Heidelberg 1975; E. Iversen, Horapollon and the Egyp-
tian conception of Eternity, Rivista degli Studi Orientali, vol. 38,
1963, 177.
86. Thausing, op.cit. in note 85.
87. Iversen, op.cit. in note 85.
88. Bakir, op.cit. in note 85.
89. Iversen, op.cit. in note 85.
90. For references see Stolk, Ptah, p. 21.
91. Assmann, op.cit. in note 85.
92. Passim T_ ९ and MIT_% . Cf. also Sethe’s discussion, Urgótter,
chapt. 14,8 187, ए. 90.
93. Pap. Ebers, 99, 12. | =>» >.
04. See the passage quoted in note 96 below. Cf. also 4 — 2. ἣν ˆ 2 ग
7 -- ZF ॐ^4 ~ = 15, = ‘Who gives air to the throat in his name of
Amon, immanent in all things’, Brugsch, Reise nach der großen
Oase, Taf. XV, 1, 5).

61
 95 See Sethe, Urgôtter $ 205, p. 97.
96 Cf. the text from Medinet Habu quoted by Sethe in Urgôtter, p.
78 ज LIT _ τὲ = -\ , ‘He is the breath immanent in all things
by which one lives’.
97 Cf. the hymn to Amon from Karnak quoted from Sethe’s copy in
Urgótter 191, p. 92: Pfr. 842$, One breathes by you in
order to live’.
98 Grapow, ZAS, 49, 1911, p. 47.
99 Sethe, Urgótter, $ 231-232, chapt. 16, p. 109.
100. Spiegelberg, ZAS, 49, 1911, 127-128.
101. De Iside, 36, 365 D, line 19-20, p. 174 in Griffiths’ edition.
102. Bibliotheca, I, 12, 2, vol. I, p. 40 in Oldfather’s edition (Loeb).
103. Praeparatio evangelica, ed. des Places, III, 12, 3, p. 233.
104. Ib., III, 3, line 14 seq., p. 154.
105. Ib., III, 2, line 8-9, p. 154.
106. Ib., II, 2, 6, line 3-4, p. 152.
107. Op.cit., p. 254.
108. K. Beth, El und Neter, Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissen-
schaft, Bd. 36, 1916, 129 seq.
109. Die Gotterlehre, p. 6 seq., in polemics against Sethe’s earlier dating
of the text.
110. Friedrich Junge, Zur Frühdatierung des sogenannten Denkmals
Memphitischer Theologie, Mitt. des Deutschen Archaeologischen
Instituts, Abt. Kairo, Bd. 29, 1973, 195. Cf. also Helck, ZAS, 79,
32; Morenz, Altagyptische Religion, p. 162 and id. Die Herauf-
kunft des transcendentalen Gottes, 1964, p. 20.
111. A.D. Nock and A.-J. Festugiére, Corpus Hermeticum, I-IV. Paris
1945-1954.
112 . Jean Doresse, Les Livres secrèts des Gnostiques d'Égypte, Paris
1958-1959.
115 . See the preface to the edition quoted above in note 111, vol. I, p.
V.
114. The discussion about the priority of Moses or Thot need not oc-
cupy us here.
115. De mysteriis, ed. des Places, Paris 1966, VIII, 4 (265, 13-17), p.
198.
116. For a list of the manuscripts, see Nock-Festugière, vol. I, pp. XI-
XII.
117. Frances A. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic tradition,
London 1964.

62
118. Issac Casaubon, De rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis exercitationes XVI,
1614, Exercit. I, 10, p. 70 seq.
119. For the Hermetism of Fludd, see Frances Yates, op.cit., 432 seq.
120. The divine Legation of Moses, 1741, p. 116.
121. Hermetis Trismegisti Poemander, 1854.
122. Poimandres, Studien zur Griechisch-Ægyptischen und früh-christ-
lichen Literatur, 1904, chapt. III, p. 59 seq. For the Egyptian in-
fluence see also Zwei religionsgeschichtliche Fragen, p. 70 seq.
123. Hermes und die Hermetik, Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft, VIII,
1905, 321 seq.; ΙΧ, 1906, 25 seq.
124. The article Hermes Trismegistus in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclo-
pedie, VIII 1, p. 791 seq.; Die religionswissenschaftliche Bedeu-
tung Poseidonios, Neues Jahbuch fiir Klass. Altertumskunde, 30,
145 seq.
125. Die Lehren des Hermes Trismegistos, 1905, sec. ed. 1928.
126. Gôttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1905, 692.
127. Reitzenstein und Schaeder, Studien zum antiken Synkretismus aus
Iran und Griechenland, 1926.
128. Cumont is a notable exception. Cf. L’Egypte des Astrologues, p.
151 seq. where he strongly advocates an Egyptian influence on
Hermetic ideas.
129. Petrie, Transactions of the third International Congress of the His-
tory of Religion, 1908, and Personal Religion in Egypt before
Christianity, 1909. This book has been unavailable to me.
130. Stricker, The corpus Hermeticum, Mnemosyne, ser. IV, vol. II,
1949, 79-90. See also the same author’s De Brief van Aristeas,
Verhandelingen d. Nederl. Akad., Afd. Letterkunde, N.S. 62, no.
4, 1956. For a resumé and review, see Claire Préaux, Chronique
d’Egypte, 33, 1958, 153 seq.
131. Derchain, L’Authenticité de l’Inspiration Egyptienne dans le Cor-
pus Hermeticum, Revue de l'Histoire des Réligions, Annales du
Musée Guimet, Tom. CLXI, no. 1, 1962.
132. Corpus Hermeticum, vol. I, traité 1; p. 7, 19. Here as in the follow-
ing the references are to the Greek text of the edition of Nock and
Festugiére. When no volume is indicated the references are to vol.
I. The second figure refers to the line.
133. C. Schmidt, Pistis Sophia, Copenhagen, 1925, cap. 126, p. 317,
14,
134. Treatise I, 4;p. 7, note 9.

63
135 Theb. I, 145 b; quoted from Sethe, Urgôtter, ὃ 123, p. 62.
136 Treatise I, 8, p. 9, line 10: εἶδες Ev τῷ νῷ 70 ἀρχέτυπον εἶδος, τὸ
προάρχον τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς ἀπεράντου.
137. Treatise I, 6, p. 8, lines 17-18: ὁ δὲ ἐκ Noos φωτεινὸς λόγος υἱὸς
θεοὺ.
138. For the translation see the commentary in the corpus, vol. I, p.
101 note 8.
139. See Festugiére’s note, vol. I, p. 20, note 24 and Sethe’s Urgeschichte
$ 221, p. 182.
140. Plato, Timaeus, 92 C, p. 252 in Bury’s edition (Loeb 1929).
141. Reitzenstein, Poimandres, p. 67 seq.
142. A study of the funerary texts from the Royal tombs as well as the
cosmological texts from Edfu with this particular problem in mind
would probably be of great interest.
143. Treatise X, 14 (p. 120, 5) calls man ‘the son of cosmos’, and 15
therefore at variance with the Poimandres where man is the son of
the creator.
144. Neheh says: I give you eternity (nhh) as king of the two lands.
Djet says: I give you existential time (dt) on the throne of Horus.
The text is from Abydos, here quoted from Kees, Rec. de Travaux,
36, 1914,
p. 9.
145. Stolk, Ptah, p. 21.
146. It is significant that the determinative of ‘h‘w is o , which charac-
terizes the term as a solar, that is in Egyptian a cosmic aspect.
147. That the suffix refers to the King is evident from the paralleltext,
where the name of the king substitutes the suffix.
148. For the physiological functions of the pneuma and its relation to
the pneumatic school of medicine, see the note on fragment XIX, 7
(vol. III, 83) in the introduction to vol. III of the corpus, p. CXIII,
7, 1-2.
149. Frances A. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic tradition,
1964, 9-11.
150. Nock, Journal of Egyptian archaeology, 11, 1925, 155 note 2.
Derchain, L’Authenticité de l’inspiration Egyptienne dans le Cor-
pus Hermeticum, p. 187, Revue de l'Histoire des Religions, CLXI,
no. l.
151. Omnium enim ‘mirabilium vincit admirationem, quod homo divi-
nam potuit inuenire naturam eamque efficere. quoniam ergo pro-
aul nostri ........ inuenerunt artem qua efficerent deos. cui inven-
tae adiunxerunt virtutem de mundi natura convenientem eamque

64
 miscentes, quoniam animas facere non poterant, euocantes animas
daemonum vel angelorum eas indiderunt imaginibus sanctis divinis-
que mysteriis, per quas idola et bene faciendi et male uires habere
potuissent.
152. Blackman, The rite of opening the mouth in ancient Egypt and
Babylonia, JEA, X, 1924, 47.
153. See above note 150.
154. E. Otto, Das Ægyptische Mundôffnungsritual, 1960, Ægyptolo-
gische Abhandlungen, Bd. 3.
155. For references and a complete collection of all material, see Otto’s
book quoted in note 154.
156. Griffith, Stories of the High-Priests of Memphis, Oxford 1900, p.
100, 28, and p. 186, 20.
157. See note 324, p. 395 in vol. II of Nock’s and Festugiere’s edition
of the corpus. The note stresses the conception of the cult-animals
as incorporations of the souls of the appropriate deities. The refer-
ence is to be found at the end of the long note on page 396. For
the parallel expression Shm ‘nh ἢ imn, see note 163.
158. οὐδὲν yap ἐστιν ἢ φαντασία ἣ γένεσις.
159. For the sun as creator of Heliopolitan cosmology, see Sethe, Ur-
gôtter, ὃ 124, p. 62-63.
160. For Nun-Amon as the father of Re, see above note 55.
161. For the return of the soul see W. Federn, Mitt. d. Deutschen Ar-
chaeol. Instituts, Kairo, XVI, 1958, 127, and for an account of the
Egyptian conception of its ascension, Jamblichus, de mysteriis, X,
6; p. 214 in des Places’ edition.
162. For references see Wb. IV, 244, 7.
163. In certain contexts the term is personified and used to signify the
‘power’ of the deity as manifest in his cult-statues, which account
for the translation of shm ‘nh ἢ Amon as εἰκόνος ζώσης Tov Διός or
as ἱερὸν ἄγαλμα, cf. Daumas, Les Moyens d’Expression du Grec et
de l’Egyptien, Le Caire 1952, 175 Ὁ and 191. It is often impossible
therefore to decide when shm should be translated ‘power’ or ‘visible
manifestation of power’, that is statue. For the identical meaning
of the name Tutankhamon see above p. 38.
164. Urkunden IV, 221, 10-12.
165. H. Gauthier, Le Livre des Rois d’Egypte, Institut Frangais au Caire,
Mémoires, tom. 17-21, 1907-1917.

65
166 The lack of consistency in the use of the plural strokes in the lapi-
dary orthography of terms such as ba, akh, bpr and ἢ often makes
it difficult to decide when the singular or the plural is intended in
the individual names.
167. Cf. note 166.
168. H. Schafer, Zum Geschichte der Kônigstitulatur, ZAS, 41, 1904,
87.
169. The title is translated κύριος βασιλειων.
170. A.-J. Festugiére, La Révélation d’Hermes Trismégiste, I-IV, 2 ed.
1949-54, III, 153.
171. Mattingly, The Roman virtues, Harward Theological review, XXX,
1937, 103, where with reference to Cicero (de legibus, II, 11, 28)
he points out how ‘the worship of virtues teaches men to venerate
as it were the gods in their own souls’.
172. Dieter Müller: Ægypten und die Griechischen Isis-Aretalogien, Abh.
d. Sächischen Akad., phil.-hist. Kl., Bd. 53, Heft 1, 1961.
173. Jan Bergman, Ich bin Isis, Acta Universitat. Upsaliensis, Historia
Religionum, 3, 1968. The strong influence from Memphite theol-
ogy on the Hermetic tradition is corroborated by Bergman’s obser-
vation of a corresponding influence on the aretalogies.
174. Reitzenstein, Zwei religionshistorische Fragen, p. 76.
175. The epithets quoted here and in the following are all of general
use, and will be found in any dictionary. Special references have
therefore been considered unnecessary.
176. Pap. Turin 1892, recto, p. 2, ed. Gardiner, JEA, 41, 1955, pl. VIII,
and ib. 42, 1956,p.10:% D [8 τ Ξ MOT tet Ke

177. Cf. Wb., III, 262, 5... mis Bo? ,.

178. Op. cit., p. 182. For the decans and their Egyptian origins, see
Festugiere, Révélation I, p. 115ff., and O. Neugebauer, The Exact
Sciences of Antiquity (1952).
179. Cf. page 39 above.

66
 Books and articles
to which reference has been made in the text

Assmann, J., Zeit und Ewigkeit im Altagyptischen, Abh. d. Heidelberg.

Akademie, 1975, Abhdl. 1.
Baillet, J., La Régime Pharaonique dans ses Rapports avec l’Evolution
de la Morale en Egypte, Blois, 1912.
Abd el Mohsen Bakir, Neheh and Djet reconsidered, JEA, 39, 1953,
110.
Bergman, Jan, Ich bin Isis, Acta Universit. Upsaliensis, Hist. Religionum,
3. 1968.
Beth, K., Ell und Neter, Zeitschrift f. Alttestamentl. Wissenschaft, 136,
1916, 129.
Blackman, A., The rite of opening the mouth in Ancient Egypt and
Babylonia, JEA, X, 1924, 47.
Bonnet, Reallexikon der Ægyptischen Religionsgeschichte, Berlin 1952.
Breasted, J.H., The philosophy of a Memphite Priest, ZAS, 39, 1901,
39.
—, The Edwin Smith surgical Papyrus, Chicago 1935,
Brugsch, H., Reise nach der großen Oase El Khargeh, Leipzig 1878.
de Buck, A., The Egyptian Coffin texts, I-VII, Chicago, 1935.
Casaubon, I., De rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis exercitationes XVI, Lon-
don 1614.
Cerny, J., Ancient Egyptian Religion, London 1952.
Cicero, De legibus, II, 11, 28; p. 404 in Keynes ed. (Loeb) 1928.
Cumont, F., L’Egypte des Astrologues, Bruxelles 1937.
Daumas, Les Moyens d’Expression du Grec et de l’Egyptiens, Le Caire
1952.
Derchain, L’Authenticite de l'Inspiration Egyptienne dans le Corpus
Hermeticum, Rev. de l’Hist. des Religions, Annales du Musée du Gui-
met, tom. 161,no. 1, 1962, 175.

67
Dieterich, A., Abraxas, 1891.
Diodorus, Bibliotheca, ed. Oldfather (Loeb), 1933.
Doresse, J., Les Livres secréts des Gnostiques d’Egypte, Paris 1958.
Erichsen, W., Papyrus Harris I, Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca, V, 1933.
Eusebius, La Préparation évangelique, I-III, ed. E. des Places, Sources
Chrétiennes, no. 228, Paris 1976.
Faulkner, R., Papyrus Bremmer-Rhind, Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca III, 1932.
— , Translation of Pap. Bremmer-Rhind,JEA, 22, 23, 24, 1936-1938.
— , Aconcise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford 1964.
Federn, W., Mitt. d. Deutschen Archaeol. Instituts, Kairo, XVI, 1958.
Festugiere, A.-J., see Nock and Festugiere.
— , La Révélation d’Hermes Trismégiste, I-IV, 2 ed., Paris 1950-54.
Firmicus Maternus, De errore profanarum religionum, ed. G. Heuten,
Bruxelles 1938. Trav. de la Fac. de phil. et lett. de l’Université de
Bruxelles, tom. 8.
Gardiner, A., Hymns to Amon from a Leiden Papyrus, ZAS, 42, 1905,
12.
— , A unique funerary liturgy, JEA, 41, 1955; ib. 42, 1956, 10.
Gauthier, Le Livre des Rois d’Egypte, 1907-1917.
Griffith, F. Ll., Stories of the High Priest of Memphis, Oxford 1900.
Griffiths, J. Gwyn, Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, University of Wales
Press, 1970.
— , Allegory in Greece and Egypt, JEA, 53, 1967, 79.
Grapow, H., Religiöse Urkunden I, Urkunden V, 1915.
— , Die Welt vor der Schópfung, ZAS, 67, 1931, 34.
— , Beitrage zur Erklarung des Todtenbuches.
Horapollon, Hieroglyphica, ed. Sbordone, Naples s.a.
Hornung, E., Zum Ægyptischen Ewigkeitsbegriff, Forschungen und
Fortschritte, 39, 1965.
— , Der Eine und die Vielen, 1971.
Iversen, E., Horapollon and the Egyptian Conception of Eternity, Rivista
degli Studi Orientali, vol. 38, fasc. III. 1963.
Jamblichus, De mysteriis Aegyptiorum, ed. des Places, Paris 1966.
JEA, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. ab 1914.
Junge, F., Zur Frühdatierung des sogenannten Denkmal Memphitischer
Theologie, Mitt. d. Deutschen Instituts, Kairo, Bd. 29, 1973.
Junker, H., Die Onurislegende, Akad. in Wien, Denkschriften, Bd. 49,
Abhl. 1-2, Wien 1917.
— , Die Gotterlehre von Memphis, Abh. d. Preussischen Akad. phil.-
hist. Kl., no. 23, 1940.

68
Kees, K., Der Götterglaube im alten Ægypten, Mitt. d. Vorderasiatisch-
Ægyptischen Gesellschaft, Bd. 45, 1941.
Kroll, J., Die religionswissenschaftliche Bedeutung Poseidonis, Neues
Jahrb. fiir Klass. Altertumskunde, 30, 145.
— , Die Lehre des Hermes Trismegistos, 1905, sec. ed. 1928.
Kroll, W., Artkl. Hermes Trismegistus in Pauli-Wissowa, Realencyclo-
paedie, VIII, 1, p. 791 seq.
Lange, H.O., Der magische Papyrus Harris, Copenhagen 1927.
Mattingly, The Roman virtues, Harward Theological Review, XXX,
1937, 103.
Morenz, 9. — Schubert, J., Der Gott auf der Blume, 1954.
Morenz, S., Altagyptische Religion, Die Religionen der Menschheit, Bd.
8, Stuttgart, 1960.
— , Die Heraufkunft des transcendenten Gottes in Ægypten, Berlin
1964. Sitzungsber. d. Sachsichen Akad. Bd. 109, Heft 2.
Nilsson, M.P., Geschichte der Griechischen Religion, II, IV, Der Synkre-
tismus, A. Hermetik und Gnosis. Handb. d. Altertumswissenschaft,
Abt. V, 2, 2 ed. Miinchen 1961, 581 seq.
Nock, A.D. — A.-J. Festugière, Corpus Hermeticum, I-IV, Paris 1945-54.
Otto, E., Das Ægyptische Mundöffnungsritual, Agyptologische Abhand-
lung, Bd. 3, 1960.
Parthey, Hermetis Trismegisti Poemander, 1854.
Peters, F.E., Greek philosophical terms, N.Y. 1967.
Petrie, F., Transactions of the third International congress of the his-
tory of religion, 1908.
— , Personal Religion in Egypt before Chnistianity, 1909.
Plato, Timaeus, ed. Bury (Loeb), 1929.
Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, ed. J. Gwyn Griffiths, University of Wales
Press, 1970.
Posener, G., De la Divinité de Pharaon, Cahiers de la Société Asiatique,
XV, Paris 1960.
Préaux, Cl., Chronique d’Egypte, 33, no. 65, 1958, 153. Review of
Stricker’s Brief an Aristeas.
Pritchard, J.B., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 2 ed., Princeton, 1955.
Proclus, Commentarium in Platonis Timaeum, ed. Festugiére, 1966.
Reitzenstein, R., Zwei religionsgeschichtliche Fragen, Straßburg 1901.
— , Poimandres, Leipzig 1904.
— , Die Griechische Tefnutlegende, Sitzungsber. der Heidelberger
Akad. phil.-hist. Kl., Abh. 2, 1923.

69
Reitzenstein, R. und H.H. Schaeder, Studien zum Antiken Synkretismus
aus Iran und Griechenland, 1926.
Flavius Sallustius, Concerning God and the Universe, ed. A.D. Nock,
Cambridge 1926. |
Sauneron — Yoyotte, La Naissance du Monde selon Egypte, La Naissance
du Monde, I, Paris 1959.
Schaeder, H.H., see Reitzenstein.
Schafer, H., Zum Geschichte der Kóningstitulatur, ZAS, 41, 1904, 87.
Schmidt, C., Pistis Sophia, Copenhagen 1925.
Schott, S., Die beiden Neunheiten als Ausdruck fiir Zahne und Lippen,
ZAS, 74, 1938.
Schubert, J., see Morenz und Schubert.
Scott, W., Hermetica, I-IV, Oxford 1924-1936.
Sethe, K., Urkunden der 18 Dynastie, Urkunden IV.
— , Die Altägyptischen Pyramidetexte, I-II, 1908.
— , Dramatische Texte zu Altagyptische Mysterienspielen, I. Das Denk-
mal Memphitischer Theologie, Untersuchungen, X, 1928.
— , Amun und die acht Urgôtter aus Hermonthis, Abh. d. Preussi-
chen Akad. phil.-hist. Kl., no. 4, 1929.
— , Urgeschichte und älteste Religion der Ægypter, Abh. für die
Kunde des Morgenlandes, XVIII, no. 4, Leipzig 1930.
Sorensen, J. Podemann, Redundans og Abstraktion 1 det ægyptiske dag-
lige Tempelritual, Chaos I, Copenhagen 1982.
Spiegelberg, Amon als Gott der Luft, ZAS, 49, 1911, 127.
— , Der Ægyptische Mythus von Sonnenauge, Straßburg 1917.
Stolk, M., Ptah, Berlin 1911 (Dissertation).
Stricker, The corpus Hermeticum, Mnemosyne, ser. IV, II, 79-80, 1949.
— , De Brief van Aristeas, Verhd. d. Nederlandse Akad., Afd. Letter-
kunde, N.S., 62, no. 4, 1956.
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Ægyptens.
Thacker, T.W., On the Structure of Expressions denoting Existence and
Non-existence,JEA, 35, 1949, 31.
Thausing, G., Die Ausdrücke für Ewigkeit in Ægypten, Mélanges Mas-
pero, I, 35, Le Caire, 1934, 31.
Volten, A., Zwei Altagyptische politische Schriften, Analecta Aegyp-
tiaca, IV, 1945.
Warburton, W., The divine legation of Moses, London 1738.
West, Stephanie, The Greek version of the Legend of Tefnut, JEA, 55,
1959, 161.

70
Wolff, W., Der Berliner Ptahhymnus, ZAS, 64, 1929, 17.
Wreszinski, W., Der Papyrus Ebers, Leipzig 1913.
Yates, A., Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic tradition, London 1964.
Yoyotte, see Sauneron and Yoyotte.
Zabkar, L.W., A study of the Ba concept in Ancient Egypt, Chicago
1968.
ZAS, Zeitschrift für ágyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, 1863.
Zielinski, Horus und die Hermetik, Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft,
VII, 1905, 321; ib. IX, 1906, 25.

71
 OPUSCULA GRAECOLATINA

Bidrag til kritikken af den klassiske filologi. G. Orsted, Peter: Vespasian og Spanien. Mal og
Torresin og Ole L. Smith. OGL 0, 1975. 32 p. midler i romersk provinsadministration.
DKR 20,70 OGL 14, 1977. 120 p. DKR 48,80.
Friis-Jesen, Karsten: Saxo og Vergil. En analyse Hansen, Mogens Herman: Det athenske demokra-
af 1931-udgavens Vergil-paralleller. Avec tii 4. árh. £Kr. 1. Staten, folket, forlatnin-
une resumé en francais. OGL 1, 1975. 104 p. gen. 2. Folkeforsamlingen. 3. Nomotheterne.
(out of print). 4. Folkedomstolen. 5. Embedsmendene. 6.
Saxostudier. Saxokollokvierne ved Koben- Politikerne og guldalderdemokratiet. OGL
i itet. Redaktion: /van Boserup. 15, 1977-81. vol 1-6, 500 p. DKR 122,00.
OGL 2, 1975. 200 p. DKR 48,80. Menander: Pigen fra Samos (Samia) Komedie 1
Hansen, Peter Allan: A List of Greek Verse In- 5 akter. Udgivet og oversat af Johannes Thom-
scriptions Down to 400 B.C. An Analytical sen. Græsk tekst med dansk parallelover-
Survey. OGL 3, 197& 2nd printing 1978. sattelse. OGL 16, 1977. 80 p. (out of print).
53 p. DKR 36,00. Due, Bodil: Antiphon. A Study in Argumenta-
Resus. En euripidæisk trivialtragedie. Indled- tion. OGL 17, 1980. 76 p. DKR 36,60.
ning og oversættelse ved P.O. Brendsted. Kjeldsen, Borge: Ciceros politiske testamente.
Græsk tekst med dansk paralleloversættelse. En analyse af forfatningsudkastet i De legi-
OGL 4, 1976. 96 p. (out of print). bus III. OGL 18, 1979. 146 p. DKR 48,80.
A Byzantine Iliad. The Text of Par. Suppl. Gr. Xeno fon: Indtegtskilder (Poroi). Græsk tekst
926. Edited with critical apparatus, intro- med dansk oversættelse ved Signe Isager.
duction, and indices by Lars Nergaard and Ole OGL 19, 1979. 2nd printing 1980. 56 p. (out
L. Smith. OGL 5, 1975. 72 p. DKR 36,60. of print).
Dahl, Katrin: Thesmophoria. En græsk kvinde- Jensen, Minna Skafte: The Homeric Question
fest. Tillæg: De vigtigste kilder i original og i and the Oral-Formulaic Theory. OGL 20,
dansk oversættelse. With a summary in 1980. 224 p. DKR 73,20.
English. OGL 6, 1976. 148 p. (out of print). Christensen, Arne Soby: Lactantius the Historian.
Kragelund, Patrick: Dream and Prediction in the An Analysis of the De Mortibus Persecuto-
Aeneid. A semiotic interpretation of the rum. OGL 21, 1980. 119 p. DKR 48,80.
dreams of Aeneas and Turnus. OGL 7, Svendsen, Paulus: Enhet og Mangfold i europe-
1976. 92 p. DKR 36,60. ~ isk Kultur. Idehistoriske studier i renessan-
McGuire, Brian Patrick: Conflict and Continuity ce-humanismen og dens forutsetninger.
at Om Abbey. A Cistercian Experience in OGL 22, 1980. 290 p. DKR 61,00.
Medieval Denmark. OGL 8, 1976. 152 p. + Aloni, Antonio: Le Muse di Archilocho. Recher-
7 plates. DKR 48,80. che sullo stile archilocheo. Med dansk resu-
The Logic of John Buridan. Acts of the 3rd mé. OGL 23, 1981. 174 p. DKR 122,00.
European Symposium on Logic and Seman- Taisbak, C.M.: Coloured Quadrangles. A
tics. Copenhagen, November 1975. Edited Guide to the Tenth Book of Euclid’s Ele-
by Jan Pinborg. OGL 9, 1976. 165 p. DKR ments. OGL 24, 1982. 76 p. DKR 48,80.
48,80. : Kragelund, Patrick: Prophecy, Populism, and
Scholia metrica anonyma in Euripidis Hecu- Propaganda in the ‘Octavia’. OGL 25, 1982.
bam, Orestem, Phoenissas. Edited with pro- 88 p. DKR 73,20.
legomena, critical apparatus, appendix, and Hansen, Mogens Herman: The Athenian Eccle-
index by Ole L. Smith. OGL 10, 1977. xxiv + sia. A Collection of Articles 1976-83. OGL
69 p. DKR 36,60. 26, 1983. 245 p. DKR 146,40; handcover
Latinen i Norden 1500-1700. Indlæg ved nyla- DKR 195,20.
tinkurset pá Biskops-Arnö 1975. Redigeret Iversen, Erik: Egyptian and Hermetic Doctrine.
af Karsten Friis- Jensen. OGL 11, 1977. 64 p. OGL 27, 1984. 72 p. DKR 185,40.
DKR 36,60. Hansen, Peter Allan: A List of Greek Verse In-
Andersen, Lene: Introduktion til Hesiod. OGL scriptions. C. 400-300 B.C. With Addenda
12, 1977. 140 p. DKR 48,80. et Corrigenda to CEG. (LGVI 2). OGL 27,
En kvindes chancer i oldtiden. Redigeret af 1984. 52 p. DKR 73,20.
Helle Salskov Roberts. OGL 13, 1977. 2nd
printing 1978. 160 p. (out of print).

Subscriptions and orders for single volumes

should be sent to Museum Tusculanum Press, 94 Njalsgade,
DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark.

ISBN 87-88073-78-5
ISSN 0170-8090