The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind

Review by Christopher I. Lehrich for The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind
Rating:
Fowden, as a writer, is admittedly no model of lucidity; at the same time, he is writing for academics, and is thus able to compress a huge amount into a small space. If you are not used to academic prose, you will find this book very difficult; it would also help if you know a certain amount about the reception of the Hermetica in 19th and 20th century historiography, and perhaps a bit about the late Classical era.At the same time, this book has been reprinted for a reason: it’s the single most important historical argument about the Hermetica. For a long time, the Hermetica were understood to be purely Greek, essentially Hellenic misappropriations of pseudo-Egyptian ideas, recast in Neoplatonic style. What Fowden does is to show that these texts do have an important base within the dying Egyptian traditions of their day.For non-specialists, this may seem like small potatoes. But it changes everything. If you have read Frances Yates, for example, she argued that these texts were grotesquely misread by Ficino and the Renaissance tradition, on three counts: (1) they thought the texts were really, really ancient, more or less contemporary with Moses; (2) they thought the texts were Egyptian, not Greek; and (3) they thought the texts were really about magic (and not philosophy). Now there’s no question that the Hermetica are from 1st-2d century Alexandria, but they are _not_ simply Greek; they are, in a sense, Egyptian formulations that draw on the then-influential Greek modes of philosophical thought. Furthermore, it means that the texts we usually think of as the Hermetic Corpus can and should be correlated with the PGM (the Greek Magical Papyri and their Demotic associates), changing the whole character of the texts by giving them a wildly different literary and ritual context. In other words, the Renaissance got the dating wrong, but in many respects got the rest more or less right; as a result, Fowden’s book not only changes the way we read the Hermetica in their Alexandrian context, but also how we make sense of the Renaissance magical revival (Ficino, Pico, Agrippa, Bruno, etc.).If, having read this review, you think, “Who cares?” then this book is certainly not for you. If you think, “Wow! That’s fascinating,” then this is essential. I have seen the odd quibble with small points in Fowden’s arguments, but I have not seen any serious attack on the main thrust of the book. Considering when it was first written, that’s extraordinary.But you do need to be comfortable with academic prose.