{"collection":"Gnosticism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/gno/th2/th224.htm","path":"gno/th2/th224.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/gno/th2/th224.htm","text":"Thrice-Greatest Hermes, Vol. 2, by G.R.S. Mead, [1906]\nThe title in the MSS. is simply \u201cMind to Hermes.\u201d When, therefore, Cyril, in quoting the first three paragraphs of \u00a7 22 of our treatise, says that Hermes wrote these words \u201cto his own mind,\u201d 1 he is evidently either a very careless reader, 2 or had not seen at first hand the treatise from which he quotes.\nFrom its contents, moreover, it is very evident that our treatise, as far as its form is concerned, looks back to the \u201cP\u0153mandres\u201d as the type of instruction to Hermes (or to a Hermes).\nThis highly authoritative form of enunciating doctrine was evidently chosen because it was desired to impart a more intimate instruction than that of the \u201cGeneral Sermons\u201d and the like,\u2014to wit, the inculcation of the \u00c6on-doctrine, in connection with the marvellous doctrine of At-one-ment with all things which constitutes the Path of the Good. The doctrine is no longer \u201cBecome (or make thyself like) Cosmos,\u201d but \u201cBecome \u00c6on\u201d (\u00a7 20).\nNow it is remarkable that the instruction given in our treatise by the Mind to Hermes is, almost point for point, the \u201cesoteric\u201d teaching of which the Sermon of Hermes to Tat, entitled the \u201cCup or Monad\u201d\u2014C. H., iv. (v.)\u2014is the \u201cexoteric\u201d form.\nThat the instruction in these Trismegistic schools of initiation was divided into grades is manifest on all sides; and, therefore, nothing is more natural than to find these two sermons standing in such intimate relations to one another as to doctrine, the one containing\nthe more intimate and advanced explanation of the more general instruction of the other.\nAnd that this inner instruction on the \u201cCup\u201d doctrine must have been thought to be of very great value, is evident when we reflect that \u201cThe Cup\u201d sermon was one of the most famous of all the treatises of Hermes, for, as we have seen, its title was worth being plagiarized, and the Baptism of the Cup, of which it treated, constituted the goal of the endeavour of the disciples of the School, as Zosimus tells us.\nMystically, then, the main interest of our treatise centres in the doctrine of the At-one-ment (as the inner consummation of the Baptism in the Cup or Monad), to which the \u00c6on-idea is but a formal introduction; historically, however, the introduction of the \u00c6on-idea presents itself as a critical problem, for the term is not found in the \u2018\u2018P\u0153mandres,\u201d and, therefore, presumably was not used in the earliest documents of the School.\nWhen, then, did this \u00c6on-idea impose itself upon the older form of tradition of the Trismegistic schools? This is a most important question; for if we can in any way answer it, we shall be in a position to assign a terminus ad quem for the earlier forms of Hermetic doctrine.\nThe answer to the question seems to me to be involved in the supposition that the \u00c6on-doctrine must have influenced \u201cHermeticism\u201d at more or less the same date as that at which it influenced \u201cGnosticism.\u201d\nNow \u201cGnosticism,\u201d in its Christianized forms, is practically never found without the \u00c6on-lore.\nThe earliest forms of Christian Gnosis referred to\nby the later Patristic h\u00e6resiologists are bound up with \u00c6onology. Not only so, but the very earliest reference to Gnosticism by any Christian writer presupposes the \u00c6on-doctrine, and uses it in illustration of the spiritual state of the writer. 1\nThe widespread influence of the \u00c6on-doctrine can thus be traced back to at least the origins of Christianity.\nNow as the Gnosis existed before any Christian form of it was developed, the question of the date when the \u00c6on-doctrine was introduced into it must be referred to pre-Christian times.\nAnd, indeed, the very simple character of the \u00c6on-lore in our treatise, 2 as compared with the mind-bewildering complexity and transcendency of first and second century Christian Gnosticism, is all in favour of an early date for its introduction into \u201cHermeticism,\u201d which is only another name for \u201cGnosticism\u201d of a preponderatingly Hellenic form.\nIf this line of reasoning holds good, we have in it a very strong presumption that the older forms of the Trismegistic treatises were pre-Christian.\nAnd that this is so may be seen by the absolute identity of the teaching of our treatise (\u00a7 2) with that of Philo, when he writes:\n\u201cBut God is the Artificer of Time as well. For He is Father of its Father; and Time\u2019s Father is the Cosmos, which manifests its motion in the genesis of Time. . . .\n\u201cThis [Cosmos] then, the Younger Son, the Sensible, being set a-moving, has caused Time\u2019s nature to appear\nand disappear; so that there nothing is which future is with God, who has the very Bounds of Time subject to Him. For \u2019tis not Time, but Time\u2019s Archetype and Paradigm, Eternity (or \u00c6on), which is His Life. 1 But in Eternity naught is past, and naught is future, but all is present only.\u201d 2\nThis passage of Philo is of the utmost importance for estimating the date of our treatises; for not only does it prove that the oldest forms of the Trismegistic literature were pre-Christian, but it further persuades us that our treatise, which belongs to a later type of this literature, may be dated as contemporary with Philo.\nChapter xi. in the Prolegomena, \u201cConcerning the \u00c6on-Doctrine,\u201d should be taken in close connection with this treatise, for it is not only introductory to it, but frequently refers directly to it.\nFor the rest, it is not necessary to attempt any detailed comments, since the instruction of the writer is clear enough for any careful reader to follow with ease after making himself acquainted with the general ideas in the preceding treatises. One or two notes on special points, however, may be attempted.\nThus in \u00a7 16, the sentence: \u201cThe Cosmos is all-formed (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2),\u2014not having forms external to itself, but changing them itself within itself,\u201d\u2014reminds us of P. S. A., xix. 3: \u201cThe \u2018Thirty-six\u2019 who have the name of Horoscopes are in the self-same space as the fixed stars; of these the essence-chief, or prince,\nis he whom they call Pantomorph, or Omniform (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, vel omniformis),who fashioneth the various forms for various species\u201d; and also of P. S. A., xxxv.: \u201cBut they are changed as many times as there are moments in the hour of that revolving circle in which abides that God whom we have called All-form.\u201d\nCompare also C. H., xiii. (xiv.) 12, where, speaking of the \u201cCircle of the types of life,\u201d Hermes says it is \u201ccomposed of elements, twelve in number, but of one nature, an omniform idea.\u201d\nWith this compare Hermes-Prayer iv., addressed to Thoth as the Logos:\n\u201cThee I invoke alone, thou who alone in all the Cosmos dost impose order on gods and men, who dost transform thyself in holy forms, making to be from things that are not, and from the things that are, making the not to be.\u201d\nBut the main interest of our treatise is not that the Intelligible Cosmos or Logos can create and destroy and transmute all forms at will, but that man as the microcosm has potential in him this great magic power.\nThe daring instruction given to Hermes in \u00a7\u00a7 19 and 20 is distinctly a discipline of the Egyptian Wisdom; for though it is here set forth plainly and without circumlocution, as a straightforward intimate instruction, stripped of all mysterious hints or hesitating subterfuges, 1 it is clearly in the same circle of ideas of which popular Egyptian theurgy had some inkling. But whereas the philosopher-mystic was bidden to do this for himself of his own volition and achievement, the theurgist had to beg some god to do it for him.\nThus in the same Prayer, to which we have already referred, we read (\u00a7\u00a7 2, 3):\n\u201cO holy Thoth, the true sight of whose face none of the gods endures! Make me to be in every creature\u2019s name [or \u2018true form\u2019],\u2014wolf, dog, or lion, fire, tree, or vulture, wall, or water, or what thou will\u2019st, for thou art able so to do.\u201d\nSo also in P. S. A., vii., we have the same idea, for certainly the phrasing of the sentences suggests something beyond the ordinary powers of the mind or imagination.\n\u201cHe mingles with the elements by reason of the swiftness of his mind. He plunges into the sea\u2019s depths by means of its profundity. He puts his values on all things.\n\u201cHeaven does not seem too high for him; for it is measured by the wisdom of his mind as though it were quite near.\n\u201cNo darkness of the air obstructs the penetration of his mind. No density of earth impedes his work. No depth of water blunts his sight.\n\u201cThough still the same, yet is he all, and everywhere is he the same.\u201d\nIt is indeed a marvellous \u201cyoga\u201d system that is sketched for us in our treatise. There is no question here of abstraction or negation, but a courageous identification or At-one-ment of oneself with all that lives and breathes. This is the Path of the Gnosis, the Way to Know God.\nIn other words, man is to copy his prototype, the Mind, and just as the Mind or Man, in the \u201cP\u0153mandres\u201d treatise, \u201chad a mind to break right through the Boundary of the spheres\u201d (\u00a7 13), so is our philosopher bidden to \u201csoar up to the Last Body of them all\u201d (\u00a7 19), that Last Body being the One Element of Cosmos itself.\n\u201cAnd shouldst thou will to break through this as well, and contemplate what is beyond\u2014if there be aught beyond the Cosmos; it is permitted thee.\u201d\nThat the hard and fast distinctions which modern commentators would draw between words, in considering these mystical treatises, would have been laughed at by the writers of them, is amply manifested when the writer with enthusiastic fervour bursts forth:\n\u201cThen in this way know God, as having in Himself as thoughts the whole Cosmos itself.\n\u201cIf, then, thou dost not make thyself like unto God, 1 thou canst not know Him. 2 For like is knowable to like [alone]. Make, then, thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all time; become Eternity; and thus shalt thou know God.\u201d\nEvery body or space must be transcended, even the Body of Cosmos itself; for the man must grow into the \u201cstature of the Greatness that transcends all measure,\u201d that is, the intelligible superspatial Pl\u0113r\u014dma, the \u00c6on as the Logos and Paradigm of Cosmos. And every time and all Time must also be transcended; for the man must become Eternity\u2014that is, the \u00c6on as the Paradigm of Time.\nIn no scripture that I know is this Path more admirably set forth\u2014the Good\u2019s own Path. All things, all spaces, and all times have to be realized as being within oneself simultaneously; if this is realized or known, not only imagined, then a man becomes a true Knower of God, a Gnostic.\nNor has ever a truer sentence been written than the wonderful words concerning this Path to the Supreme:\n\u201cIf thou but sett\u2019st thy foot thereon, \u2019twill meet thee everywhere, \u2019twill everywhere be seen, both where and when thou dost expect it not\u2014waking, sleeping, sailing, journeying, by night, by day, speaking, and saying naught. For there is naught that is not image of the Good.\u201d\nIn conclusion, I would only point out that if for the hopeless reading in the first sentence of \u00a7 19 we were to take Patrizzi\u2019s emendation, which has been adopted by Parthey, we should have the interesting sentence:\n\u201cAnd, thus, think from thyself, and bid thy soul go unto India.\u201d\nIf this should be the original reading, it is remarkable that India should have been selected of all places. We know, however, from a study of what is known of the life of Apollonius of Tyana, that this \u201cGnostic\u201d philosopher made an enormous propaganda of Indian ideas among the philosophic and mystic communities and schools of the first century. Apollonius must have known something, perhaps a great deal, concerning the siddhis acquired by yoga-practices. At any rate, we find his biographer Philostratus making him write the following letter to his Eastern hosts on his return from India:\n\u201cI came to you by land and ye have given me the sea; nay, rather, by sharing with me your wisdom ye have given me power to travel through heaven. These things will I bring back to the mind of the Greeks, and I will hold converse with you as though ye were\npresent, if it be that I have not drunk of the Cup of Tantalus in vain.\u201d 1\nThat an intensely great interest was taken in Indian ideas at Alexandria is shown by the fact that we find Plotinus himself in 242 starting off with the expedition of Gordian to the East in the hope of coming in contact with the Indian Wisdom.\nBut all these considerations, though interesting in themselves, do not immediately concern us, unless we are subjectively persuaded that the emendation of Patrizzi is firmly established. Should, however, this reading in any way be confirmed by objective evidence, we should have to reconsider the question of date by the light of it, though, I fear, with little chance of any definite result. For though the propaganda of Indian ideas by Apollonius could not have begun prior to the middle of the first century, we have in this fact no very sure criterion, for \u201cIndia\u201d must have been in the air, and strongly in the air, even prior to Apollonius\u2019 visit to India, or why should he have been induced to make so long and dangerous a journey? Indeed, \u201cIndia\u201d had been in the air ever since the expedition of Alexander\u2014that is, from the beginning of the Alexandrian period\u2014the second quarter of the fourth century B.C. onwards.\n190:1 C. Jul., ii. 52; ed. Migne, col. 580 B.\n190:2 Cf. R. 128, i.; 196, 3.\n192:1 Namely, Paul in his Letters, which are the earliest of all Christian documents. See my article, \u201cSome Notes on the Gnostics,\u201d in The Nineteenth Century and After (Nov. 1902), pp. 822-835; and D. J. L., pp. 353 ff.\n192:2 Perhaps the clearest exposition is to be found in P. S. A., xxx. and xxxi.\n193:1 Cf. C. H., i. 6; the Union of the Logos and Mind\u2014or First-Born Son and Father\u2014is Life; they are united in \u00c6on.\n193:2 Quod Deus Im., \u00a7 6; M. i. 277; P. 298 (Ri. ii. 72, 73).\n194:1 Or, as the writer of the Pistis Sophia would say, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3, \u201cface to face without a parable.\u201d\n196:1 Sc. as Cosmos.\n196:2 Sc. as Father of this Only Son.\n198:1 Philos., Vit. Ap., iii. 51. Cf. my Apollonius of Tyana, the Philosopher Reformer of the First Century A.D. (London, 1901), p. 88.","title":"Thrice-Greatest Hermes, Vol. 2: I. Corpus Hermeticum: Com...","type":"page"}