![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can someone with more knowledge in this subject please write something about Hermes Emerald Tablet (or "Table") and how it relates to the Hermetica? The two confuse me all the time, is the Emerald Tablet part of the Hermetica or not? Nixdorf 19:31, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel. I saw two problems with the phrase:
Nevertheless, this does bear discussion in the article. Your point about "non-Christian" is good, and right now is under-emphasized. In fact, there's very little about the original context of the texts. Any improvements would be welcome. Bacchiad 13:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In the recent major edits, was it deliberate to lose the remark about "a non- Christian lineage of Hellenistic Gnosticism"? If so, is this because it was considered false, or did someone just not like the remark? -- Jmabel 03:59, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not knowlegable enough to write too much here myself: what I know largely comes from reading Frances Yates on Giordano Bruno about 30 years ago, so I'm not going to be able to carry the ball. Nonetheless, I do think that it is important that part of the interest in the rediscovery of these works during the Renaissance came precisely from the fact that they were outside of Christian tradition. If someone is more solid on this, it would be good to get into the article. -- Jmabel 04:49, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
I've done some revisions that I think cover the Hermetica in antiquity better. If you want to pitch in some additional Yatesian stuff about the Hermetic/pagan revival in the Renaissance, that'd be great. Thanks for your comments. Bacchiad 07:14, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"renaissance of syncretic thought"
I substituted "flourishing" because I thought "renaissance" in the general sense might lead to a confusion with "Renaissance" qua historical period. At least it did to my sleep-deprived eyes as I read it over just now. No biggy though. Bacchiad 19:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Should we really have the recently added link Golden Dawn Research Center? Looks pretty crackpotty to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:16, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Golden Dawn most famous member was Aliester Crowley.... I agree - a little crackpotty but a valid organization for many years.-- Maa-Kheru 03:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This article says:
Among other things there are spells to magically protect objects, hence the origin of the term "Hermetically sealed".
The article "
Hermetically sealed" says:
Hermes purportedly authored several books containing secrets of alchemy and mystic philosophy. One such secret contained in his works was how to create an airtight vessel. His "hermetically sealed" container employed the use of a vacuum pump.
Now these are two totally different origins of the phrase "hermetically sealed".
What is correct? -- Abdull 09:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Recently added:
The mostly gnostic Nag Hammadi Library discovered in 1945 also contained one hermetic text previously not known to scholars. This treatise called "The Ogdoad and the Ennead" contains a very lively description of a hermetic initiation into gnosis, and has led to new perspectives on the nature of Hermetism as a whole, particularly due to the research of Jean-Pierre Mahé.
I'm confused, maybe because I'm far from expert, or maybe because this isn't quite right. I thought the "Ogdoad" and the "Ennead" were two separate texts, but this suggests they were a single text. Is this passage simply mistaken? Am I simply mistaken? Is there perhaps a modern text entitled "The Ogdoad and the Ennead" that miswording has suggested was ancient? or what? The lack of citation makes it impossible for me to follow up, myself. This must have come from somewhere. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
What does Yoshi's Cookie have to do with Hermetica??? I'll replace it with Hermética, if someone has a good motive to have it, pleace add it to 'other uses'. Mariano( t/ c) 07:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The line "description of a hermetic initiation into gnosis" needs editing. I join Bacchiad above.-- Connection 11:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Connection, what was with this massive deletion? The edit summary "Sorry, it needs more research beyong the Corpus" is not much of an explanation. I'm not expert on the topic at hand, so I'm just asking questions, but much of what was deleted here seemed at least congruent with what little on the Hermetica I learned in college 30-odd years ago. Was it wrong? Covered elsewhere? or what? - Jmabel | Talk 22:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hermetica is a set of texts, a literary genre. There was quite a lot of it. The Corpus Hermeticum is a specific subset of that genre established in the Renaissance. This is a whole/part distinction, not a one-thing/other-thing distinction. The text should remain. Bacchiad 00:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Why should there be two separate articles? Bacchiad 02:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You might be right about the two separate articles thing. I don't care to argue that one at length. What parts of the current article do you find confusing? Bacchiad 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
While they are difficult to date with precision, the texts of the Corpus were likely composed between the first and third centuries. During the Renaissance, these texts...
Shouldn't we move the Corpus Hermeticum material to the actual article, Corpus Hermeticum? It seems that the same content is on both pages. 24.18.35.120 04:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to reopen this discussion. Hermetica is a broader term than Corpus Hermeticum. CH is one distinct collection of 17 texts, whilst the category Hermetica also includes other texts as Asclepius, Emerald Tablet, The Eighth Reveals the Ninth, Kore Kosmou etc. Plus: there is also an interwikiproblem: some wp editions have an article on CH, some on Hermetica and (only?) nl:wp has to separate articles. Since en:wp is the wikipedia mother ship, it would be a great benefit for clarity in other language editions definitions of this matter (and for the iw) if these two terms to be separated and described separately. Bw Orland ( talk) 10:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
If someone wants to read an article about the book corpus hermeticum, I suggest the german wikipedia page. There one can also find a list of translations into other languages with authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8E0:2042:1C00:F478:7931:8898:6E40 ( talk) 10:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't the "Authorship and audience" section statement, "the pseudonymous authors considered themselves Egyptians rather than Alexandrian Greeks," seem to conflict with the rest of the article which repeatedly stresses portions are "Greek texts" with links to prior Greek movements. If it was written by Egyptians who considered themselves Egyptians, and it was written in Egypt, then would it not be Egyptian despite what was written in the Greek language? -- 151.201.147.150 ( talk) 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that there ought at least to be a mention of Ralph Cudworth, (True Intellectual System of the Universe 1678). That Casaubon could be mentioned at length with no consideration given to Cudworth's rebuttal seems inexplicable to me. As Egyptologist Jan Assmann has argued (Moses the Egyptian 1997), Cudworth successfully defended the Corpus Hermeticum against Casaubon's accusations of forgery. There is a great deal that can be said about the corpus that is not said in this article as it stands. StevenBTodd ( talk) 14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I could find a copy of the original Greek text of the Corpus Hermeticum? If there is a website that contains it the link could be added here also. - Tomispev ( talk) 11:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
"Some similarities between the Demotic texts and Platonic philosophy could be the result of Plato and his followers' having drawn on Egyptian sources.[13][14]" - Bernal (who makes up the two citations) is widely discredited and rejected by most, if not all academic historians. There is no conspiracy - Platonism was not created in Egypt. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.241.65.179 (
talk) 16:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hermetica/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==Start-class==
It's too big for stub, but too vague to be anything except a start article. There's a lot more to be done here, including adding more refs, fleshing out chapters, and doing more on the history of Hermetic texts in general. MSJapan 02:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC) The word pagan needs to be removed from the text. It inserts a bias with the aim toward diminishing the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CA6:A100:D92D:61D6:2921:40CF ( talk) 21:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC) |
Substituted at 17:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I have a problem with one thing this article says. According to it, "There are significant differences:[3] the Hermetica contain no explicit allusions to Biblical texts and are little concerned with Greek mythology or the technical minutiae of metaphysical Neoplatonism." It claims that there are no explicit allusions of the Hermetica to biblical texts, however, Everett Ferguson writes "Jewish influence is certain in the Hermetica, where Genesis 1:28 is cited. Christian contacts are more indirect. The Hermetic doctrine represented a small circle of students, and its redemption was individual. The new life in Hermeticism, as in some forms of Gnosticism, raised the person above the need for moral endeavor, whereas in Christianity it equipped the person for the moral struggle." [1] So it looks like the claim is inaccurate, since the Hermetica does allude to and quote a biblical text (namely, Genesis 1:28).
After a bit of time, I was able to trace this claim to Brian Copernhaver's Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius in a new English translation with notes and introduction, pg. 112. Anyone have a problem with me revising this part of the article? 70.27.185.214 ( talk) 18:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Very well done, Apaugasma! I have one question: are modern works attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, such as the Kybalion from 1908 or The Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean from the 1930s) ever counted as "Hemetica"? A. Parrot ( talk) 20:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@ GPinkerton and Srnec:
When I first rewrote this article, I consistently used boldface for the names of individual Hermetica, because I reckoned that some people might be looking for information on a specific Hermeticum, who could then quickly find it by scanning for bold text. This is also important because in some cases, redirects to individual Hermetica (e.g., Kore kosmou) point to a section which does not have that name in its title (in this case, 'Stobaean excerpts').
It appears that you did not like so much boldface. Perhaps now that I've explained the rationale for this, you think of it differently?
In any case, at least we should make sure that our use of boldface is consistent. As the article stands now, it is not:
So how should we go about this?
Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 21:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I've switched around the wording for Macedonia and removed the reference to "northern Greece", which, though in the citation, is a little misleading or anachronistic (i.e., it was northern "Greece" then but not now). Stobi was capital of Macedonia II Salutaris in Stobaeus's day, and that province is mostly where the Republic of North Macedonia is now, and not where Greek Macedonia is (in northern Greece). GPinkerton ( talk) 00:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Anglyn: as pointed out to you a year ago by Ian.thomson (courtesy ping, though Ian.thomson has not been very active lately), you can wait until Maxwell Lewis Latham does gain some scholarly credentials, for example by publishing papers, chapters, or monographs on the subject in what we do recognize here as reliable sources. Or –even better– you can wait until his translation gets cited and/or reviewed by subject specialists (as it certainly will if it has any scholarly value). Until then, however, we cannot include his translation here, since we have nothing indicating his reliability (having an MA is not a sufficient criterium). You can ask other editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about this if you wish.
On another note: if you have any personal connection with Maxwell Lewis Latham, it is very important that you declare this at your user page, and try to avoid editing articles related to him. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. (you can cite him though: see the section 'Citing yourself', which of course also applies to people you know)
Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 01:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Apaugasma: It's "criterion" (it comes from the Ancient Greek) - amateur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglyn ( talk • contribs) 06:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me that many of the notes in the lead section can and should be placed in the article body instead. The purpose of a lead section is to summarize the contents of the article body (which is why lead sections don't even need to have citations, because they're summarizing the cited text in the body), so having topics mentioned only in notes in the lead section is strange. E.g., the notes say Festugière shaped the mid-20th-century consensus that Egyptian influence on the Hermetica was minimal, and that Mahé was one of the first people to start moving the consensus in away from that position. Yet neither Festugière nor Mahé are mentioned in the section on the history of scholarship, where it's very reasonable to expect them to be. A. Parrot ( talk) 20:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
In response to your revert of my edit on the entry "Hermetica", Garth Fowden writes (p. 4 of reference): "...but the most spectacular papyrological addition to our knowledge and one which has affected every aspect of the study of Hermetism was made in 1945 with the discovery...near the hamlet of Hamra Duth." In reference to the Nag Hammadi library, Fowden mentions the other texts in the collection which have doctrinal parallels with "these three indisputably Hermetic tractates, but none claims to be Hermetic or makes use of the Hermetic dramatis personae". I guess the listing is a hallmark of original texts? Here he is talking about the other eight texts instead of the three so perhaps I was misreading him and the three include authorship claims and the listing. Fowden continues to muse on the compilation. My point is to follow Fowden in asserting the major contribution of Nag Hammadi discovery. Church of the Rain ( talk) 14:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Moved from User talk: Apaugasma by Church of the Rain ( talk) 01:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can someone with more knowledge in this subject please write something about Hermes Emerald Tablet (or "Table") and how it relates to the Hermetica? The two confuse me all the time, is the Emerald Tablet part of the Hermetica or not? Nixdorf 19:31, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel. I saw two problems with the phrase:
Nevertheless, this does bear discussion in the article. Your point about "non-Christian" is good, and right now is under-emphasized. In fact, there's very little about the original context of the texts. Any improvements would be welcome. Bacchiad 13:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In the recent major edits, was it deliberate to lose the remark about "a non- Christian lineage of Hellenistic Gnosticism"? If so, is this because it was considered false, or did someone just not like the remark? -- Jmabel 03:59, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not knowlegable enough to write too much here myself: what I know largely comes from reading Frances Yates on Giordano Bruno about 30 years ago, so I'm not going to be able to carry the ball. Nonetheless, I do think that it is important that part of the interest in the rediscovery of these works during the Renaissance came precisely from the fact that they were outside of Christian tradition. If someone is more solid on this, it would be good to get into the article. -- Jmabel 04:49, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
I've done some revisions that I think cover the Hermetica in antiquity better. If you want to pitch in some additional Yatesian stuff about the Hermetic/pagan revival in the Renaissance, that'd be great. Thanks for your comments. Bacchiad 07:14, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"renaissance of syncretic thought"
I substituted "flourishing" because I thought "renaissance" in the general sense might lead to a confusion with "Renaissance" qua historical period. At least it did to my sleep-deprived eyes as I read it over just now. No biggy though. Bacchiad 19:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Should we really have the recently added link Golden Dawn Research Center? Looks pretty crackpotty to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:16, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Golden Dawn most famous member was Aliester Crowley.... I agree - a little crackpotty but a valid organization for many years.-- Maa-Kheru 03:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This article says:
Among other things there are spells to magically protect objects, hence the origin of the term "Hermetically sealed".
The article "
Hermetically sealed" says:
Hermes purportedly authored several books containing secrets of alchemy and mystic philosophy. One such secret contained in his works was how to create an airtight vessel. His "hermetically sealed" container employed the use of a vacuum pump.
Now these are two totally different origins of the phrase "hermetically sealed".
What is correct? -- Abdull 09:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Recently added:
The mostly gnostic Nag Hammadi Library discovered in 1945 also contained one hermetic text previously not known to scholars. This treatise called "The Ogdoad and the Ennead" contains a very lively description of a hermetic initiation into gnosis, and has led to new perspectives on the nature of Hermetism as a whole, particularly due to the research of Jean-Pierre Mahé.
I'm confused, maybe because I'm far from expert, or maybe because this isn't quite right. I thought the "Ogdoad" and the "Ennead" were two separate texts, but this suggests they were a single text. Is this passage simply mistaken? Am I simply mistaken? Is there perhaps a modern text entitled "The Ogdoad and the Ennead" that miswording has suggested was ancient? or what? The lack of citation makes it impossible for me to follow up, myself. This must have come from somewhere. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
What does Yoshi's Cookie have to do with Hermetica??? I'll replace it with Hermética, if someone has a good motive to have it, pleace add it to 'other uses'. Mariano( t/ c) 07:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The line "description of a hermetic initiation into gnosis" needs editing. I join Bacchiad above.-- Connection 11:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Connection, what was with this massive deletion? The edit summary "Sorry, it needs more research beyong the Corpus" is not much of an explanation. I'm not expert on the topic at hand, so I'm just asking questions, but much of what was deleted here seemed at least congruent with what little on the Hermetica I learned in college 30-odd years ago. Was it wrong? Covered elsewhere? or what? - Jmabel | Talk 22:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hermetica is a set of texts, a literary genre. There was quite a lot of it. The Corpus Hermeticum is a specific subset of that genre established in the Renaissance. This is a whole/part distinction, not a one-thing/other-thing distinction. The text should remain. Bacchiad 00:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Why should there be two separate articles? Bacchiad 02:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You might be right about the two separate articles thing. I don't care to argue that one at length. What parts of the current article do you find confusing? Bacchiad 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
While they are difficult to date with precision, the texts of the Corpus were likely composed between the first and third centuries. During the Renaissance, these texts...
Shouldn't we move the Corpus Hermeticum material to the actual article, Corpus Hermeticum? It seems that the same content is on both pages. 24.18.35.120 04:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to reopen this discussion. Hermetica is a broader term than Corpus Hermeticum. CH is one distinct collection of 17 texts, whilst the category Hermetica also includes other texts as Asclepius, Emerald Tablet, The Eighth Reveals the Ninth, Kore Kosmou etc. Plus: there is also an interwikiproblem: some wp editions have an article on CH, some on Hermetica and (only?) nl:wp has to separate articles. Since en:wp is the wikipedia mother ship, it would be a great benefit for clarity in other language editions definitions of this matter (and for the iw) if these two terms to be separated and described separately. Bw Orland ( talk) 10:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
If someone wants to read an article about the book corpus hermeticum, I suggest the german wikipedia page. There one can also find a list of translations into other languages with authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8E0:2042:1C00:F478:7931:8898:6E40 ( talk) 10:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't the "Authorship and audience" section statement, "the pseudonymous authors considered themselves Egyptians rather than Alexandrian Greeks," seem to conflict with the rest of the article which repeatedly stresses portions are "Greek texts" with links to prior Greek movements. If it was written by Egyptians who considered themselves Egyptians, and it was written in Egypt, then would it not be Egyptian despite what was written in the Greek language? -- 151.201.147.150 ( talk) 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that there ought at least to be a mention of Ralph Cudworth, (True Intellectual System of the Universe 1678). That Casaubon could be mentioned at length with no consideration given to Cudworth's rebuttal seems inexplicable to me. As Egyptologist Jan Assmann has argued (Moses the Egyptian 1997), Cudworth successfully defended the Corpus Hermeticum against Casaubon's accusations of forgery. There is a great deal that can be said about the corpus that is not said in this article as it stands. StevenBTodd ( talk) 14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I could find a copy of the original Greek text of the Corpus Hermeticum? If there is a website that contains it the link could be added here also. - Tomispev ( talk) 11:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
"Some similarities between the Demotic texts and Platonic philosophy could be the result of Plato and his followers' having drawn on Egyptian sources.[13][14]" - Bernal (who makes up the two citations) is widely discredited and rejected by most, if not all academic historians. There is no conspiracy - Platonism was not created in Egypt. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.241.65.179 (
talk) 16:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hermetica/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==Start-class==
It's too big for stub, but too vague to be anything except a start article. There's a lot more to be done here, including adding more refs, fleshing out chapters, and doing more on the history of Hermetic texts in general. MSJapan 02:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC) The word pagan needs to be removed from the text. It inserts a bias with the aim toward diminishing the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CA6:A100:D92D:61D6:2921:40CF ( talk) 21:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC) |
Substituted at 17:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I have a problem with one thing this article says. According to it, "There are significant differences:[3] the Hermetica contain no explicit allusions to Biblical texts and are little concerned with Greek mythology or the technical minutiae of metaphysical Neoplatonism." It claims that there are no explicit allusions of the Hermetica to biblical texts, however, Everett Ferguson writes "Jewish influence is certain in the Hermetica, where Genesis 1:28 is cited. Christian contacts are more indirect. The Hermetic doctrine represented a small circle of students, and its redemption was individual. The new life in Hermeticism, as in some forms of Gnosticism, raised the person above the need for moral endeavor, whereas in Christianity it equipped the person for the moral struggle." [1] So it looks like the claim is inaccurate, since the Hermetica does allude to and quote a biblical text (namely, Genesis 1:28).
After a bit of time, I was able to trace this claim to Brian Copernhaver's Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius in a new English translation with notes and introduction, pg. 112. Anyone have a problem with me revising this part of the article? 70.27.185.214 ( talk) 18:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Very well done, Apaugasma! I have one question: are modern works attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, such as the Kybalion from 1908 or The Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean from the 1930s) ever counted as "Hemetica"? A. Parrot ( talk) 20:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@ GPinkerton and Srnec:
When I first rewrote this article, I consistently used boldface for the names of individual Hermetica, because I reckoned that some people might be looking for information on a specific Hermeticum, who could then quickly find it by scanning for bold text. This is also important because in some cases, redirects to individual Hermetica (e.g., Kore kosmou) point to a section which does not have that name in its title (in this case, 'Stobaean excerpts').
It appears that you did not like so much boldface. Perhaps now that I've explained the rationale for this, you think of it differently?
In any case, at least we should make sure that our use of boldface is consistent. As the article stands now, it is not:
So how should we go about this?
Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 21:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I've switched around the wording for Macedonia and removed the reference to "northern Greece", which, though in the citation, is a little misleading or anachronistic (i.e., it was northern "Greece" then but not now). Stobi was capital of Macedonia II Salutaris in Stobaeus's day, and that province is mostly where the Republic of North Macedonia is now, and not where Greek Macedonia is (in northern Greece). GPinkerton ( talk) 00:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Anglyn: as pointed out to you a year ago by Ian.thomson (courtesy ping, though Ian.thomson has not been very active lately), you can wait until Maxwell Lewis Latham does gain some scholarly credentials, for example by publishing papers, chapters, or monographs on the subject in what we do recognize here as reliable sources. Or –even better– you can wait until his translation gets cited and/or reviewed by subject specialists (as it certainly will if it has any scholarly value). Until then, however, we cannot include his translation here, since we have nothing indicating his reliability (having an MA is not a sufficient criterium). You can ask other editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about this if you wish.
On another note: if you have any personal connection with Maxwell Lewis Latham, it is very important that you declare this at your user page, and try to avoid editing articles related to him. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. (you can cite him though: see the section 'Citing yourself', which of course also applies to people you know)
Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 01:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Apaugasma: It's "criterion" (it comes from the Ancient Greek) - amateur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglyn ( talk • contribs) 06:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me that many of the notes in the lead section can and should be placed in the article body instead. The purpose of a lead section is to summarize the contents of the article body (which is why lead sections don't even need to have citations, because they're summarizing the cited text in the body), so having topics mentioned only in notes in the lead section is strange. E.g., the notes say Festugière shaped the mid-20th-century consensus that Egyptian influence on the Hermetica was minimal, and that Mahé was one of the first people to start moving the consensus in away from that position. Yet neither Festugière nor Mahé are mentioned in the section on the history of scholarship, where it's very reasonable to expect them to be. A. Parrot ( talk) 20:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
In response to your revert of my edit on the entry "Hermetica", Garth Fowden writes (p. 4 of reference): "...but the most spectacular papyrological addition to our knowledge and one which has affected every aspect of the study of Hermetism was made in 1945 with the discovery...near the hamlet of Hamra Duth." In reference to the Nag Hammadi library, Fowden mentions the other texts in the collection which have doctrinal parallels with "these three indisputably Hermetic tractates, but none claims to be Hermetic or makes use of the Hermetic dramatis personae". I guess the listing is a hallmark of original texts? Here he is talking about the other eight texts instead of the three so perhaps I was misreading him and the three include authorship claims and the listing. Fowden continues to muse on the compilation. My point is to follow Fowden in asserting the major contribution of Nag Hammadi discovery. Church of the Rain ( talk) 14:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Moved from User talk: Apaugasma by Church of the Rain ( talk) 01:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)