Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T07:52:49.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Delphic Maxim ΓΝΩΘΙ ΣΑϒΤΟΝ in Hermetic Interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Hans Dieter Betz
Hans Dieter Betz
Affiliation:
School of Theology, Claremont, California 91711
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As early as 1906 R. Reitzenstein suggested in his study on “Poimandres” that the “holy word” spoken by the god in § 18 of that tractate comes from an older source. “Es sind Worte einer älteren heiligen Schrift; das zeigen die weiteren Zitate …” But Reitzenstein was unable to say anything more about this older source of “holy scripture” which he was suggesting. W. Scott firmly believed that the first line of the “holy word” came into the hands of the Hermetist from the Book of Genesis, but he was certain only about the first, and not about the second part of the quotation, where he thought the author “had in mind” God's covenant with man in Gen. 9:11ff. or the speech of God in Plato, Tim. 42a. Scott took the quotations in “Poimandres” § 21 also as insertions, but made no real effort to inquire about their origin.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 63 , Issue 4 , October 1970, pp. 465 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Reitzenstein, R., Poimandres (Leipzig, 1906), 51Google Scholar, note 1; cf. id., Die Hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen, 3rd ed. (Leipzig, 1927), 291Google Scholar.

2 SCOTT, W., Hermetica, II (Oxford, 1925), 52–54Google Scholar.

3 Kroll, J., Die Lehren des Hermes Trismegistos, 2nd ed. (Münster, 1928), 3728Google Scholar.

4 Ib., 112.

5 Ib.; already Reitzenstein, , Mysterienreligionen, 1st ed. (Leipzig, 1910), 118Google Scholar(= 3rd ed., 291) had noted this.

6 Ib., Poimandres, 373f.

7 Ib., 374, where he lists De somn. I, 53–60, De fuga 46, De migr. Abr. 13; 184ff.

8 Ib., 374f., where he mentions Exc. ex Theod. 78; Norden, cf. E., Agnostos Theos, 4th ed. (Darmstadt, 1956), 102ffGoogle Scholar.

9 Ib., 375; he suggests POSIDONIUS as the one who propagated the questions which ultimately go back to the Orphic mysteries.

10 Hermés Trismégiste, I (Paris, 1945)Google Scholar, ad loc., notes 47 and 54. Cf. Nock, A. D. in a postscript to Festugière'S edition of the fragments, IV (Paris, 1954), 148fGoogle Scholar. Quotations of Hermetica are according to this edition.

11 Scott, , Hermetica, II, 53Google Scholar; similarly Dodd, C. H., The Bible and the Greeks (London, 1935), 164fGoogle Scholar.

12 Cf. Rudolph's, K. recent survey of the present research, Gnosis und Gnostizismus, ein Forschungsbericht, ThR 34 (1969), 121ffGoogle Scholar.

13 Cf. Haenchen, E., Aufbau und Theologie des “Poimandres,” ZThK 53 (1956), 149–91Google Scholar, esp. 177.

14 Cf. the missionary sermon “Poimandres” 27–28, and Jonas, H., Gnosis und spätantiker Geist, I, 3rd ed. (Göttingen, 1964), 120–33Google Scholar; id., The Gnostic Religion, 2nd ed. (Boston, 1963), 74–86Google Scholar.

15 Cf. Reitzenstein, , Mysterienreligionen, 235, 328Google Scholar.

16 One should not, as Scott, does, attempt to harmonize them (Hermetica, II, 54f.Google Scholar).

17 Another version is found in C. H. XIII, 22: νοερὧ ἒγνως σεαυτòν καì τòν πατέρα τòν ἡμέτερον. Nock-Festugiere, II, 219, note 97, refer to the parallel in Plotinus, , Enn. VI, 9, 9, 56ff.Google Scholar, but a closer parallel is Hippolytus, , Rej. X, 34:Google Scholar τουτέστι τò Γνώθι σεαντόν έπιγνούς τòν πεποιηκóτα θεόν. I am indebted for those texts to Wilkins, E. G., “Know Thyself” in Greek and Latin Literature (Chicago, 1917), 77, 96Google Scholar. This dissertation is useful as a collection of material. Cf. Reitzenstein, , Mysterienreligionen, 291Google Scholar, note 1. J. M. Robinson calls my attention to the new gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi, where several references to self-knowledge are found: Codex II, tractate 7, p. 140; Codex XI, tractate 3 (cf. Robinson, J. M., The Coptic Gnostic Library Today [NTS 14 (1968), 356–401], 392, 401)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. also Gospel of Thomas, Log. 67, ed. A. al, Guillaumont et. (Leiden, 1959)Google Scholar; Epistula Jacobi Apocrypha, ed. al, R. Kasser et. (Zürich, 1968), p. 12Google Scholar, 11. 20–23.

18 On the literary form of the “maxim” cf. Kruse, M., Die Maxime in der französischen Literatur (Hamburger Romanistische Studien, 44; Hamburg, 1960)Google Scholar, chapter 1, where the history of the form is surveyed.

19 Cf. Plato, , Protag. 343a-bGoogle Scholar; Plutarch, , De E ap. Delph. 383dGoogle Scholar.

20 Cf. Snell, B., Leben und Meinungen der Sieben Weisen, 3rd ed. (München, 1952), 6ffGoogle Scholar.

21 Plutarch, , De garrul. 511bGoogle Scholar.

22 Cf. Depradas, J., Les Thémes de la Propagande Delphique (Paris, 1954), 268ffGoogle Scholar.

23 Wilamowm-Moeixendokff, U. Von, Erkenne dich selbst, Reden und Vorträge, II, 5th ed. (Berlin, 1967), 171–89Google Scholar. Cf. also Altmann, A., The Delphic Maxim i n Medieval Islam and Judaism, reprinted in his Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism (Ithaca, New York, 1969), 1–40Google Scholar.

24 This interpretation is summed up in Plutarch, , De E ap. Delph. 394cGoogle Scholar, ed. F. C. Babbitt (The Loeb Classical Library): … ύπóμνησίς έστι τῷ θνητῷ τής περìαύτòν Φύσεωs καίάσθενειας.

25 Wilkins distinguishes between the following interpretations: “Know your measure,” “Know what you can and cannot do,” “Know your place,” “Know the limits of your wisdom,” “Know your own faults,” “Know you are human and mortal,” “Know your soul.”

26 Theiler, W., Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus (Berlin, 1930), esp. 125ft.Google Scholar; cf. Reinhardt, K., PW, XXII/I, col. 819Google Scholar; and now Krämer, H. J., Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik (Amsterdam, 1964), esp. 223ftGoogle Scholar.

27 Cf. Haussleiter, J., Deus internus, RAC, III, 794–842Google Scholar; Festugière, A. J., La Révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste, IV (Paris, 1954), 200ffGoogle Scholar.

28 Cf. Jäger, G., “NUS” in Platons Dialogen (Hypomnemata, 17; Göttingen, 1967)Google Scholar. The term “ἒννους” in “Poimandres” 18 and 21 seems to come from Plato, , Tim. 71eGoogle Scholar, where it occurs in a remark about divine inspiration.

29 Cf. Phileb. 28c, and on this passage Jäger (see note 28), 115ff.

30 Alc. I, 130e; cf. Friedländer, P., Platon, II, 3rd ed. (Berlin, 1964), 21gfGoogle Scholar. See also Alc. I, 131a; 132c.

31 Cf. 130c: μηδέν ἂλλο τὸν ἂνθρωπον συμβαίνειν ἢ ψνχήν.

32 133b: Τῷ θεῷ ἂρα τούτ΄ ἔοικεν αὐτής, καί τις τούτα βλέπων καὶ πᾶν θείον γνούς, θεόν τε καὶ Φρόνησιν, οὕτω καὶ ἑαντὸν ἂν γνόη μάλιστα.

33 Seneca, ep. 31, 11, ed. R. M. Gummere (Loeb). On Posidonius' doctrine of the self cf. Heejemann, I., Poseidonios' metaphysische Schrijten, I (Breslau, 1921), 55ff., 66ffGoogle Scholar.

34 The problem of Posidonius is still a matter of discussion. Cf. Reinhardt, K., Poseidonios, PW, XXII/i (1953), cols. 558–826Google Scholar; Pohlenz, M., Die Sloa, 2nd ed., I (Göttingen, 1959), 208ff.Google Scholar; II (Göttingen, 1955), 103ff.; Heinemann, , Sckrijten, I, 69ft., II (Breslau, 1928), 312ft.Google Scholar; Reinhardt, K., Kostnos und Sympathie (München, 1926), 276ftGoogle Scholar.

35 Cicero, , De fin. V, 44Google Scholar, ed. Madvig: “Quod praeceptum quia maius erat, quam ut ab homine videretur, idcirco assignatum est deo. Iubet igitur nos Pythius Apollo noscere nosmet ipsos; cognitio autem haec est una nostri, ut vim corporis animique norimus sequamurque earn vitam, quae [rebus] iis perfruatur.” On the attribution to Antiochus see Heinemann, , Schriften, I, 69Google Scholar; II, 313. Cf. also Cicero, , De fin. V, 34; 41Google Scholar; IV, 25.

36 Cicero, , Tusc. I, 52Google Scholar, ed. Pohlenz: “Cum igitur ‘nosce te’ dicit, hoc dicit: ‘nosce animum tuum.’ Nam corpus quidem quasi vas est aut aliquod animi receptaculum: ab animo tuo quidquid agitur, id agitur a te. Hunc igitur nosse nisi divinum esset, non esset hoc acrioris cuiusdam animi praeceptum tributum deo.” Cf. Heinemann, , Schrijten, I, 69f.Google Scholar; II, 316; Neuenschwander, H. R., Mark Aurels Beziehungen zu Seneca und Poseidonios (Nodes Romanae, 3; Bern, 1951), 49fGoogle Scholar.

37 Ed. O. Heine: “Haec tractanti animo et noctes et dies cogitanti exsistit ilia a deo Delphis praecepta cognitio, ut ipsa se mens agnoscat coniunctamque cum divina mente se sentiat, ex quo insatiabili gaudio conpleatur.” The translation is that of J. E. King in the Loeb Library edition.

38 One should note, at this point, the parallels that exist between Tusc. V, 70, and “Poimandres” 1.

39 Cf. Heinemann, , Schrijten, I, 70; II, 317Google Scholar.

40 I, 58, ed. C. W. Keyes: “… quod est difficillimum, docuit, ut nosmet ipsos nosceremus; cuius praecepti tanta vis et tanta sententia est, ut ea non homini cuipiam, sed Delphico deo tribueretur.”

41 59: “nam qui se ipse norit, primum aliquid se habere sentiet divinum in-geniumque in se suum sicut simulacrum …” Cf. “Poimandres” 12 (the “πατρòςеlκών” of the Anthropos); Heinemann, , Sckriften, II, 314fGoogle Scholar.

42 Ib.: “cum se ipse perspexerit totumque temptarit, intelleget, quem ad modum a natura subornatus in vitam venerit quantaque instrumenta habeat ad obtinen-dam adipiscendamque sapientiam …” The translation is that of C. W. Keyes in the Loeb edition.

43 Neuenschwander, 90ff., discusses the problem of the relationship between the “Somnium Scipionis” and Posidonius. Cf. also Heinemann, , Schriften, II, 303ftGoogle Scholar.

44 Cf. Poimandres 6 (and also 17): ΟṸτω γνῶθι τò ἐν σοὶ βλέπον καὶ ἀκούον λόγος κυρίου ὁ δὲ νούς πατὴρ θεós.

45 Cicero, , De re publ. VI, 26Google Scholar, ed. K. Ziegler: “et ille: tu vero enitere et sic habeto, non esse te mortalem, sed corpus hoc; nee enim tu is es quem forma ista declarat, sed mens cuiusque is est quisque, non ea figura, quae digito demonstrari potest. deum te igitur scito esse, siquidem est deus qui viget, qui sentit, qui meminit, qui providet, qui tarn regit et moderatur et movet id corpus cui praepositus est, quam hunc mundum ille princeps deus; et ut mundum et quadam parte mortalem ipse deus aetemus, sic fragile corpus animus sempiternus movet.” The translation makes use of that of Keyes.

46 Cf. Harder's, R. commentary Über Ciceros Somnium Scipionis, reprinted in: Kleine Schrijten (München, 1960), 354–95Google Scholar; furthermore, Festugière, A. J., La Révélation d'Hermés Trismégiste, II (Paris, 1949), 441ff.Google Scholar; Leeman, A. D., De Aristotelis Protreptico Somnii Scipionis exemplo, Mnemosyne 11 (1958), 139–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Schrijten, II, 3151. Heinemann, refers to Leg. I, 24; 60Google Scholar; 61 (where the Delphic maxim is mentioned); De re publ. III, 40.

48 Cicero, , De re publ. VI, 26Google Scholar.

49 Cf. Ep. 31, 11; 41, 1; 41, 5–7; 120, 14; 121, 14; 121, 23–24. Cf. Heinemann, , Schriften, II, 317ftGoogle Scholar.

50 See the famous passage Ep. 41, 1–2: “prope est a te deus, tecum est, intus est. Ita dico, Lucili: sacer intra nos spiritus sedet, malorum bonorumque nostrorum observator et custos.” What this means, Seneca explains in § 5: “sic animus magnus ac sacer et in hoc demissus, ut propius divina nossemus, conservatur quidem nobis-cum, sed haeret origini suae; illinc pendet, illuc spectat ac nititur, nostris tamquam interest.”

51 Ep. 41,8.

52 Cf. Ep. 20, 3; 41, 1–2; 73, 16; 83, 1–2; 87, 21.

53 Ep. 76, 32: “Atqui cum voles veram hominis aestimationem inire et scire, qualis sit, nudum inspice; ponat patrimonium, ponat honores et alia fortunae mendacia, corpus ipsum exuat. Animum intuere, qualis quantusque sit, alieno an suo magnus.”

54 Ep. 92, 30: “Et si utatur suis viribus ac se in spatium suum extendat, non aliena via ad summa nititur. Magnus erat labor ire in caelum; redit.” Cf. the description in § 31ff. On the divine mind and soul cf. Sevenster, J. N., Paul and Seneca (Suppl. to Novunt Testamentum, IV; Leiden, 1961), 71ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haussleiter, 805f.

55 Consol. ad Marc. 11, 2–3, ed. F. Haase: “Hoc videlicet ilia Pythicis oraculis adscripta: Nosce Te. Quid est homo? Quodlibet quassum vas et quolibet fragile iactatu… quid est homo? Inbecillum corpus et fragile, nudum, suapte natur a inerme, alienae opis indigens …” A long description of human frailty follows.

56 Epictetus, , Diss. I, 14Google Scholar, ed. W. A. Oldfather: δ θεòs Ĕνδον έστί καί δ ύμέτερος δαίμων έστίν. Cf. Heinemann, , Schriften, II, 115, 283Google Scholar; Theiler, , Vorbereitung, 99f.Google Scholar; Bonhöffer, A., Epictet und die Stoa (Stuttgart, 1890), 76ffGoogle Scholar. See also Diss. II, 8, ioff.; 14, 18–20; 14, 24–26; I, 3, 1ff.

57 Diss. III, 1, 18.

58 III, 1, 19–24; it is a god who speaks through Epictetus (III, 1, 36f.).

59 III, I, 25: γνώθι πρώτον τίς εl καὶ οὓτως κόσμει σεαυτòν.

60 ᾰνθρωπος εἶ τ'ούτο δ΄ἐστὶ θνητὸν ζῷον χρηστικὸν Φαντασίαις λογικώς. I take the rhetorical question in I Cor. 3: 4 (οὐκ ᾰνθρωποί ἐστε) to be an allusion of Paul to this interpretation of the Delphic maxim. As we can see from parallels, it has become a polemic against the deification and self-glorification of man. Cf. the collection of sayings in Stobaeus, eel. Ill, caput XXI, ed. Hense; Petronius, , Sat. 75Google Scholar; Seneca, , Apocol. 5, 4; 8, 1ff.Google Scholar; Philo, , leg. 69Google Scholar; Acts 10: 26; 14, 11. 15; cf. also 12: 22; Js. 5: 17. On the subject see Taeger, F., Charisma, I (Stuttgart, 1957), 176Google Scholar; Guthrie, W. K. C., The Greeks and Their Gods, 7th ed. (Boston, 1968), 113ffGoogle Scholar.

61 Diss. III, I, 26: τὸ λογικὸν ἒχεις ἐξαίρετον τοῦτο κόσμει καὶ καλλώπιζε…

62 III, 22 (περί κυνισμού), 39: ἐπιστρέψατε αὐτοὶ ἐΦ΄ ἐαυτύς… Cf. 38: εἶ γὰρ ἠθέλετε, εὓρετε ἂν αύτὸ ((Scil. Scil τò άγαθόν) έν ύμίν ðν… Cf. Fragm. I; 8.

63 Diss. III, 22, 53: Βούλεσαι, ἐπιμελέστερον, γνώθι σαυτóν, ἀνάκρινον τò δαιμόνιον, δίχα θεού μὴ ἐπιχειρήσης.

64 Cf. Schweingruber, F., Sokrates und Epiktet, Hermes 78 (1943), 52–79Google Scholar.

65 Cf. Diss. II, 14, 27: ἡμείς δὲ τίνες ὂντες ὑπ' αὑτού γεγóναμεν καὶ πρòς τί ἒργον; ἆρά γ'ἔχομέν τινα ἐπιπλοκήν πρòς αὐτὸν καὶ σχέσιν ῆ οὐδεμίαν.

66 Cf. Diss. I, 3, 2: ἂν δὲ γνῷς, ἃτι Διòς εἶ, οὐκ ἀπαρθήση; The question points t o the immediate context.

67 Diss. I, 18, 17–23. The command “Know yourself” (§ 17) is really asking the question: “Who, then, is the invincible man?” (Cf. § 21 and 23).

68 Marcus Aurel. XII, 26, ed. A. I. Trannoy; cf. II, 13, 1; 17, 4; III, 12, 1; 16, 1–3. See Bonhöffer, , Epictet und die Stoa, 77Google Scholar; 120f.; Neuenschwander, 48ff.

69 Cf. K. Reinhardt's, continuing skepticism, PW XXII/I, cols. 590, 818Google Scholar.

70 The allegorical meaning of Haran is apparently derived from the Hebr. “,” a derivation which HEINEMANN thinks PHILO himself was unable to arrive at, since he did not know Hebrew (Schriften, I, 133, note 1). Cf. De migr. Abr. 176f.; De somn. I, 41ff.; De Abrahamo 72. The term is rendered into Greek as “τρώγλαι,” that is (De Abr. 72, ed. Cohn-Wendland): αί τών ἡμετέρων αίσθἠσεων χώραι δι ΄ὦνῶσπερ ὀπών ἑκάστη διακύπτειν πἑΦυκε πρòς τὴν τών οίκείων ἀντίληψιν.

71 De fuga 45: οικει σκ τνν ξαþþαν, ν μεταλνøεειμα τþωλλαι, μνμβον των αιμøνοεων ο λαþ ετι σε τνν ξοþενων εν τω øνντω βιω των αντιλνσιν.

72 De fuga 46 (the English translation is that of F. H. Colson & G. H. Whit-Taker in the Loeb edition): …τνν των αιοøνονων ξωþαν καταν των αιοøνøεων ø λαþ ετι ξοþενων ετ τω øνþεισ των αιμøνμεν οπλνκε….

73 De fuga 46f. On “νοÛs” in Philo cf. Leisegang, H., Der heilige Geist, I/I (Leipzig, 1919), 76ff.Google Scholar; Festugiere, , La Révélation, II, 541ftGoogle Scholar.

74 De migr. Abr. 8.

75 lb.: βασιλεύς ών ᾰρχειν άλλά μή ᾰρχεσθαι πεπαίδευσο πάντα τòν αιώνα γίνωσκε σεαυτόν.

76 De migr. Abr. 7.

77 “Poimandres” 21ff.

78 De migr. Abr. 137: … γνωρίσατε έαυτούς καί οίτινές σαΦώς εĭπατε κατάτò σώμα κατά τήν ψυχήν κατά τήν αĭσθησιν κατά τόν λóγον καθ έν τι κάν τόβραχύτατον τών elδών. The translation given is tha t of Colson, & Heinemann, Whittaker I., Die Werke Phttos von Alexandria, Part V (Breslau, 1929)Google Scholar, ad loc., suggests POSIDONIUS as the source; cf. also his Schriften, I, 70.

79 De migr. Abr. 13: έπειδάν γούν ό νούς ᾰρξηται γνωρίζειν έαυτόν καί τοίs νοητοίς ένομιλείν θεωρήμασιν ᾰπαν τò κλινόμενον τής ψυχήs πρòs αlσθητòν ειδοςάπώσεται….

80 Ib., 194: οŨτω κατά βραχύ μεταβαίνειν ό νούς τòν εύσεβείας δσιόrητros άΦίξεται πατέρα….

81 Ib., 194; 184f.

82 This has been shown by Heinemann, , Die Werke Philos, Part V, p. 202Google Scholar, note 2; id., Schriften, I, 133. Closely parallel is De somn. I, 53f.; cf. Xenophon, , mem. I, 1, 11Google Scholar, and Breitenbach, H. R., PW, 2nd series, IX/A, 2, cols. 1782fGoogle Scholar. In Jewish literature cf. Jub. 8: 3–4; 12: 15ft.; Orac. Sibyll. 3: 227–30; Eth. Enoch 8: 3; Apoc. Abr. 1–8; Josephus, , Ant. I, 155–57Google Scholar; Mishn. Chag. 2, 1.

83 De migr. Abr. 195 (cf. 185f.): επειτ' εισ τνν επιμκνμιν ελøων τμν αντοσεαντον, øιλομοøνοασ, ταπεπι λογομ….

84 Ib., 186: λογιείσθε γάρ ŏτι ώs έν ύμίν έστι νούς καί τῷ παντιέστι….

85 Ib., 187.

86 Ib., 195: … άνατεμών όδόν τήν άΦ αύτού καί… τòν… πατέρα τών ŏλων κτανοήσαι μαθών άκριβώς έαυτòν εĭσεrαι τάχα που καί θεόν….

87 Ib., 191.

88 Ib., 192f.

89 It is of course very difficult to isolate any concrete source material in PHILO. The polemic against the physicists is traditionally connected with Socrates; contrary to Philo's intention this tradition has no remark about Chaldean astrology. The “ούν” in the beginning of § 55 could indicate the end of a source; cf. the “ovv” in the beginning of De migr. Abr. 187.

90 De sown. I, 54: … σαυτòν άκολακεύrωs έρεύνησον.

91 Ib., 55f.

92 Ib., 56: τήν σαυτού ψυχήν ίδείν καί τòν νούν έΦ'ῷ μέγα Φρονείς.

92 Cf. II Cor. 12: 1–4, and my article Eine Christus-Aretalogie bei Paulus (II. Kor. 12, 7–10), ZThK 66 (1969), 288–305Google Scholar.

94 De somn. I, 58: πνν μαντον μαντον ξνξνμ ισειν και τøν, εøω μελα øþøνεισ.

95 Ib., 60: ινν τοα τον πþοσ αντοσ εισ ακþιβιν ελον.

96 Ib.: Kai ινν τοα τον πþοσ αντοσ εισ ακþιβιν ελον ινν τοα τον πþοσ αντοσ εισ ακþιβιν ελον The translations are that of Colson & Whittaker. Does the sentence come from a source? Very similar is De sacr. Abel. 55: ινν τοα τον πþοσ αντοσ εισ ακþιβιν ελονινν τοα τον πþοσ αντοσ εισ ακþιβιν ελον(cf. Heinemann, Sckriften, I, 70). Cf. also “Poimandres” 21: ινν τοα τον πþοσ αντοσ εισ ακþιβιν ελον. For the theme of “σνσενεια cf. De somn. I, 119; 165; De Abr. 70; De mut. nom. 54; 155.

97 De somn. I, 211: ινν τοα τον πþοσ αντοσ εισ ακþιβιν ελον.

98 Ib., 212:… ινν τοα τον πþοσ αντοσ εισ ακþιβιν ελονινν τοα τον πþοσ αντοσ εισ ακþιβιν ελον.

99 De spec. leg. I, 265 follows a sentence similar in structure to that in De somn. I, 60: ινν τοα τον πþοσ αντοσ εισ ακþιβιν ελονινν τοα τον πþοσ αντοσ εισ ακþιβιν ελον. Cf. “Poimandres” 21, where the saying is also given a future meaning.

100 De somn. I, 214 (cf. Exod. 29:4); cf. De spec. leg. I, 44.

101 Cf. “Poimandres” 6.

102 Cf. ib., 18–20.

103 Cf. ib., 22.

104 Cf. ib, 24–26.

105 ὁ μὲν γὰþ ἡμετέτερος νούς οὐ δεδημιούργηκε τὸ σώμα, ἀλλ΄ ἔστιν ἔργον ἑτέρον διὸ καὶ περιέχεται ὡς ἐν ἀγγείῳ τῷ σώματι The translation is that of COLSON. Cf. De fuga 71.

106 Cf. “Poimandres” 12ff. It is the tendency of the Hermetist to remove the creation of the human body as far away as possible from the work of the god “Nous.”

108 Cf. Merlan, P., Monopsychism Mysticism Metaconsdousness (The Hague, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beierwaltes, W., Plotin. Über Ewigkeit und Zeit (Enneade III 7) (Frankfurt, 1967), 75ftGoogle Scholar. For the references I am indebted to the collection made by E. G. WILKINS, 70ff.

109 παντα (Enn. III, 8, 6, 40, ed. R. Harder; cf. VI, 9, 7, I7f.). Plotinus' concept of the “inner man” (ø ειμω ανøπωποσ) is not different from that of the Hermetist (ινν τοα τον πþοσ αντοσ); cf. Enn. V, 1, 10, 10, and Beierwaltes, 76, note 3, who refers to Plato, Rap. 589a as the source; Dodds, E. R., Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (Cambridge, 1965), 20ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 6gff.; Theiler, W., Antike und christliche Ruckkehr zu Gott, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus (Berlin, 1966), 313–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

109 Esp. important is Enn. V, 3 in its entirety; cf. VI, 7, 41.

110 Enn. VI, 9, 7, 35: ινν τοα τον πþοσ αντοσ εισ ακþιβιν ελον.

111 Cf. Beierwaltes, 78, note 16.

112 ὡς τὸν γινώσκντα ἑαυτὸν διττὸν είναι, τὸν μὲν γινώσκντα τῆς διανοίας τῆς ψυχικῆς Φύσιν, τὸν δὲ ὑπεράνω τούτου, τὸν γινώσκοντα ἑαυτὸν κατὰ τὸν νοῦν ἐκεῖνον γινόμενον.κἀκείνῳ ἑαυτὸν νοεῖν αύ ούχ ὡς ἄνθρωτον ἔτι, άλλὰ παντελῶς ἄλλον γενόμενον καὶ συναρπάσαντα έαυτὸν ∊ἰς τὸ āνω μόνον ἐɸέλκοντα τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἄμ∊ινον, δ καὶ δύναται μόνον πτεροῦσθαι πρὸς νόησιν, ἴνα τις ἐκκεῖ παρρακαταθεῖτο ἂεδεὶ

113 Enn. V, 3, 6, 3–5; cf. 3, 9, Iff.

114 Oral. VI, 183aff., ed. W. C. Wright, whose translation is also given.

115 Ib., 183b:… ὁγινώσκων αὑτὸν εἴσεται μὲν περί ψυχής, εἴσεται δὲ καὶ περί σώματος.

116 184a; cf. Aristoteles, De anima III, 9, 432a 29ff.

117 “Poimandres” 15.

118 In a fragment from his “Περί τού γνώθι σαυτόν,” preserved by Stobaeus, ed. III, cap. XXI, § 27, ed. Hense.

119 Ib., § 28. W. Theiler, Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus, 104 traces a saying in Gauenus (πρὸς Γαύρον 50, 21) back to Posidonius: ὁ γνοὑς τὸν θεὸν ἔχει τὸν θεὸν παρόντα καί ὁ ἀγνοών τώι πανταχού παρόντι ἂπεστι.

120 The edition quoted is that of Dodds, E. R., Proclus: The Elements of Theology, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1963)Google Scholar.

121 Prop. 168.

122 Prop. 170, cf. Theiler, , Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus, 58Google Scholar, who refers to Maximus of Tyre.