Concerning ἀγαθός and νοῦς in the Corpus Hermeticum
Three of the many Greek terms of interest in respect of
understanding the varied weltanschauungen outlined in the texts that
comprise the Corpus Hermeticum are ἀγαθός and νοῦς and θεός, with
conventional translations of these terms as 'good' and 'Mind' and
'god' (or God) imparting the sense of reading somewhat declamatory
sermons about god/God and 'the good' familiar from over a thousand
years of persons preaching about Christianity interspersed with
definitive philosophical statements about 'Mind', as if a
"transcendent intelligence, rationality," or a "Mental or psychic
faculty" or both, or something similar, is meant or implied.
Thus the beginning of tractate VI - τὸ ἀγαθόν, ὦ ᾿Ασκληπιέ, ἐν
οὐδενί ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ ἐν μόνῳ τῷ θεῷ, μᾶλλον δὲ τὸ ἀγαθὸν αὐτός ἐστιν
ὁ θεὸς ἀεί - and dealing as it does with both ἀγαθός and θεός, has
been translated, by Mead, as "Good, O Asclepius, is in none else
save God alone; nay, rather, Good is God Himself eternally," [1] and by Copenhaver as "The good, Asclepius, is
in nothing except in god alone, or rather god himself is always the
good." [2]
In respect of νοῦς, a typical example is from Poemandres 12 - ὁ δὲ
πάντων πατὴρ ὁ Νοῦς, ὢν ζωὴ καὶ φῶς, ἀπεκύησεν ῎Ανθρωπον αὐτῷ ἴσον,
οὗ ἠράσθη ὡς ἰδίου τόκου· περικαλλὴς γάρ, τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς εἰκόνα
ἔχων· ὄντως γὰρ καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἠράσθη τῆς ἰδίας μορφῆς, παρέδωκε τὰ
ἑαυτοῦ πάντα δημιουργήματα. The beginning of this is translated by
Mead as "But All-Father Mind, being Life and Light, did bring forth
Man co-equal to Himself, with whom He fell in love, as being His own
child for he was beautiful beyond compare," and by Copenhaver as
"Mind, the father of all, who is life and light, gave birth to a man
like himself whom he loved as his own child. The man was most fair:
he had the father's image."
Similarly, in respect of Poemandres 22 - παραγίνομαι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ὁ
Νοῦς τοῖς ὁσίοις καὶ ἀγαθοῖς καὶ καθαροῖς καὶ ἐλεήμοσι, τοῖς
εὐσεβοῦσι, καὶ ἡ παρουσία μου γίνεται βοήθεια, καὶ εὐθὺς τὰ πάντα
γνωρίζουσι καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἱλάσκονται ἀγαπητικῶς καὶ εὐχαριστοῦσιν
εὐλογοῦντες καὶ ὑμνοῦντες τεταγμένως πρὸς αὐτὸν τῇ στοργῇ - which is
translated by Mead as "I, Mind, myself am present with holy men and
good, the pure and merciful, men who live piously. [To such] my
presence doth become an aid, and straightway they gain gnosis of all
things, and win the Father’s love by their pure lives, and give Him
thanks, invoking on Him blessings, and chanting hymns, intent on Him
with ardent love," and by Copenhaver as "I myself, the mind, am
present to the blessed and good and pure and merciful - to the
reverent - and my presence becomes a help; they quickly recognize
everything, and they propitiate the father lovingly and give thanks,
praising and singing hymns affectionately and in the order
appropriate to him."
As explained in various places
in my commentary on tractates I, III, IV, VIII, and XI, and in two
appendices [3], I incline toward the view
that - given what such English terms as 'the good', Mind, and god
now impute, often as a result of two thousand years of Christianity
and post-Renaissance, and modern, philosophy - such translations
tend to impose particular and modern interpretations on the texts
and thus do not present to the reader the ancient ethos that forms
the basis of the varied weltanschauungen outlined in the texts of
the Corpus Hermeticum.
To avoid such impositions, and in an endeavour to express at least
something of that ancient (and in my view non-Christian) ethos, I
have - for reasons explained in the relevant sections of my
commentary - transliterated θεὸς as theos [4],
νοῦς as perceiveration, or according to context, perceiverance; and
ἀγαθός as, according to context, nobility, noble, or honourable [5]. Which is why my reading of the Greek of the
three examples above provides the reader with a somewhat different
impression of the texts:
° Asclepius, the noble exists in no-thing: only in
theos alone; indeed, theos is, of himself and always, what is
noble. [6]
° Perceiveration, as Life and phaos, father of all, brought forth
in his own likeness a most beautiful mortal who, being his child,
he loved.
° I, perceiveration, attend to those of respectful deeds, the
honourable, the refined, the compassionate, those aware of the
numinous; to whom my being is a help so that they soon acquire
knowledge of the whole and are affectionately gracious toward the
father, fondly celebrating in song his position.
But, as I noted in respect of ἀγαθός in the On Ethos And
Interpretation appendix, whether these particular insights of
mine are valid, others will have to decide. But they - and my
translations of the tractates in general - certainly, at least in my
fallible opinion, convey an impression about ancient Hermeticism
which is rather different from that conveyed by other translations.
David Myatt
March 2017
Extract from a letter in reply
to a correspondent who, in respect of the Corpus Hermeticum,
enquired about my translation of terms such as ἀγαθός and νοῦς.
I have, for publication here, added a footnote which references
my translations of and commentaries on five tractates of the
Corpus Hermeticum.
°°°
Notes
[1] G.R.S Mead. Thrice-Greatest Hermes. Theosophical Society (London). 1906.
[2] B. Copenhaver. Hermetica. Cambridge University Press.
1992
[3] My translation of and commentary on tractates I, III, IV, and XI
- and the two appendices - is available in pdf format at
https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2017/03/08/corpus-hermeticum-i-iii-iv-xi/
My translation of and commentary on tractate VIII is available in
pdf format at
https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/corpus-hermeticum-viii/
[4] To be pedantic, when θεὸς is mentioned in the texts it often
literally refers to 'the' theos so that at the beginning of tractate
VI, for example, the reference is to 'the theos' rather than to
'god'.
[5] In respect of 'the good' - τὸ ἀγαθόν - as 'honourable', qv.
Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, LXXI, 4, "summum bonum est quod honestum est. Et quod magis admireris: unum bonum est, quod honestum est, cetera falsa et adulterina bona sunt."
[6] The suggestion seems to be that 'the theos' is the origin, the
archetype, of what is noble, and that only through and because of
theos can what is noble be presenced and recognized for what it is,
and often recognized by those who are, or that which is, an eikon of
theos. Hence why in tractate IV it is said that "the eikon will
guide you,"; why in tractate XI that "Kosmos is the eikon of theos,
Kosmos [the eikon] of Aion, the Sun [the eikon] of Aion, and the Sun
[the eikon] of mortals," and why in the same tractate it is said
that "there is nothing that cannot be an eikon of theos," and why in
Poemandres 31 theos is said to "engender all physis as eikon."
As I noted in my commentary - qv. especially the mention of Maximus
of Constantinople in respect of Poemandres 31 - I have
transliterated εἰκὼν.
Related:
On Translating Ancient Greek
(pdf)
Greek Terms in The Philosophy of Pathei-Mathos
This essay is covered by the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) license
and can be copied and distributed under the terms of that license.