 |
Footnotes. Afterword. 364:1 the resinous gum of an Arabian tree; probably a kind of acacia. An anticipation
|
|
|
|
Footnotes
363: 1 Cf. lii. 5.
363: 2 Sc. the resin’s.
363: 3 That is, presumably, what was called the “bodily or animal spirits”—the ethers or prā ṇ a’s.
364: 1 The resinous gum of an Arabian tree; probably a kind of acacia.
364: 2 This was also used as a medicine.
364: 3 κ υ π ε ί ρ ο υ, —Cyperus comosus, an aromatic plant used in embalming, a sweet-smelling marsh plant. Cf. F. cypè re and E. cypres.
365: 1 ἀ σ π α λ ά θ ο υ, —a prickly shrub yielding a fragrant oil; mentioned in the Apocrypha and in some old herbalists. Cf. “I gave a sweet smell like cinnamon and aspalathus”—Ecclus. xxiv. 15. It was not the Genista acanthoclada.
365: 2 σ ε σ έ λ ε ω ς, —the Tordylium officinale; formerly called in English also “cicely. ”
365: 3 σ χ ί ν ο υ, —or may be “squill. ”
365: 4 ἀ σ φ ά λ τ ο υ.
365: 5 θ ρ ύ ο ν, —or may be “rush. ”
365: 6 Lit., juniper-berries.
365: 7 κ ά λ α μ ο υ, —probably Acorus calamus (cf. Ex. xxx. 23 et al. ). It is to be noticed that the ingredients are arranged in four sets of four each.
365: 8 That is to the sound of mantrā ḥ, as a Hindu would say.
365: 9 Cf. xlii. 2 and figure in note.
365: 10 The kuphi being used at sundown.
366: 1 A lacuna of 8 or 9 letters occurs here in E.
366: 2 Olymp., i. 6.
p. 367
AFTERWORD
So ends this exceedingly instructive treatise of Plutarch, which, in spite of the mass of texts and monuments concerning Ȧ sȧ r and Ȧ st which have already been deciphered by the industry of Egyptologists, remains the most complete account of the root mystery-myth of ancient Egypt. The myth of Osiris and Isis goes back to the earliest times of which we have record, and is always found in the same form. Indeed the “Ritual, ” the “Book of the Dead, ” which should rather be called the “Book of the Living, ” might very well be styled “The Gospel of Osiris. ”
It would be out of place here to seek for the historical origin of this Great Mystery; certainly Osiris was originally something greater than a “water sprite, ” as Budge supposes. Osiris and Isis were and are originally, as I believe, cosmic or super-cosmic beings; for the Elder and Younger Horus, regarded macrocosmically, were the Intelligible and Sensible Worlds, and, regarded microcosmically, pertained to the mystery of the Christ-stage of manhood.
It may, of course, be denied that the ancient Egyptians were capable of entertaining any such notions; we, however, prefer the tradition of our Trismegistic tractates to the “primitive-culture” theories of anthropological speculation. That, however, such views were entertained in the first centuries is incontrovertible, as may be seen from a careful study of Philo of Alexandria alone. Thus to quote one passage out of many with regard to the two Horoi:
|
|
|
“For that this cosmos is the Younger Son of God, in that it is perceptible to sense. The Son who’s older than this one, He hath declared to be no one [perceptible by sense], for that he is conceivable by mind alone.
p. 368
[paragraph continues] But having judged him worthy of the Elder’s rights, He hath determined that he should remain with Him alone. ” 1
When, moreover, we speak of the Christ-stage of manhood, we mean all that mystery that lies beyond the normal stage of man, including both the super-man stage and that of the Christ.
In any case, Plutarch is of the greatest service for understanding the atmosphere and environment in which the students of the Trismegistic tradition moved, and we have therefore bestowed more care upon him than perhaps the general reader may think necessary.
Footnotes
368: 1 Quod Deus Im., § 6; M. 1, 277, P. 298 (Ri. ii. 72, 73).
p. 369
X
“HERMAS” AND “HERMES”
AN ANTICIPATION
When, in a recent book, 1 I was treating of the Early Church document The Shepherd of Hermas, in connection with the ancient and mysterious Book of Elxai, which, according to Epiphanius, circulated among the Essenes, Nazorenes, Ebionites, and Sampsæ ans, I wrote as follows:
“It is also of very great interest to notice the many intimate points of contact between the contents of the Apocalyptic Hermas and the teaching of the Early ‘Shepherd of Men’ tractate of the mystic school who looked to Hermes the Thrice-Greatest as their inspirer, that is to say, the earliest deposit of the Trismegistic literature. But that is another story which has not yet been told. ”
At the same time, all unknown to me, Reitzenstein must have written, or have been writing, his learned pages on “Hermas and Poimandres, ” coming to practically the same conclusion as I had in cruder form expressed several years earlier, when commenting on Hilgers’ theory 2 that the “Shepherd of Men” was
p. 370
written in opposition to the “Shepherd of Hermas, ” and suggesting that if there were any dependence of one on the other, it was in exactly the reverse sense to that of Hilger’s assumption. 1
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF “THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS”
Like all the other extant extra-canonical documents of the Early Church, and especially the Antilegomena, as Eusebius calls them, that is to say books disputed in his day but earlier admitted by wide circles into the canon, The Shepherd of Hermas has been submitted to the most searching analysis by modern criticism. Though its unity is still strenuously defended by some scholars, the majority are convinced of its composite nature; and I follow Hilgenfeld, 2 who detects in the present form of this document three elements, or, so to say, three deposits: (i. ) The Apocalyptic—Viss. i. -iv.; (ii. ) The Pastoral—Vis. v. -Sim. vii.; (iii. ) The Secondary, or appendix of the latest redactor—Simm. viii. -x. “Hermas i. ” and “Hermas ii. ” cite nothing from any of the canonical books of the New Testament, and this should be, for most scholars, a striking indication of their early date.
|
|
|
THE INTRODUCTION OF THE “PASTORAL HERMAS”
“Hermas ii., ” the “Pastoral Hermas, ” begins as follows: 3
1. “Now when I had prayed in my house, and sat me
p. 371
down upon my couch, there entered a man of glorious appearance, in the guise of a Shepherd, clad in a white skin, 1 with a wallet on his shoulders, and a staff in his hand. And he embraced me, and I embraced him. 2
2. “And straightway he sat down by my side. He saith to me: I am sent by the most Sovereign Angel, that I may dwell with thee for the rest of the days of thy life.
3. “I thought that he had come to tempt me; 3 and I say unto him: Who art thou? For I do know (say I) into whose charge I have been given. He saith to me: Dost thou not know? Nay—answer I. I am (saith he) the Shepherd 4 into whose charge thou hast been given.
4. “E’en as he spoke, his aspect changed, and I knew him, that it was he to whom I had been given in charge. ”
COMPARISON WITH OUR “PŒ MANDRES”
If we now compare the Greek text of this interesting passage with that of the introductory paragraphs of the “Pœ mandres, ” it will be found impossible to refer their striking similarities merely to a common type of expression; the verbal agreements are too precise, and
p. 372
stand out convincingly at the first glance, without needing the assistance of the large type in which Reitzenstein (pp. 11, 12) has had them printed in his reproduction of the texts.
Most remarkable of all, however, is the similarity of ideas; for “Hermas” as for “Hermes” the Shepherd is not only a shepherd but a “shepherd of men, ” even as in a different connection but in the same circle of ideas Peter and others were to become “fishers of men. ” 1
Now, not only on general grounds is it difficult for any one who has carefully studied the two documents, to believe that the writer of the philosophic-mystical treatise not only had the Christian apocalyptic writing before him but took it as his point of departure; but, even if we are still strongly dominated by what has hitherto been the traditional view in all such questions, and cling to the theory that when there is similarity the Christian scripture must necessarily have been first in the field, it is very difficult to believe that a copier of “Hermas” should have left no traces of an acquaintance with the very distinctive feature of the robe and staff and wallet of the shepherd, and of the conversation which follows in what, on this theory, would be the presupposed original.
|
|
|
