starts from the cosmological section of the Memphite Shabaka inscription, which
contains a highly speculative theology of creation. The distinction made in this
text between the creator, Ptah, identified with cosmic intelligence, and the lower
demiurge, Atum, as a second god, corresponds to that of the Poimandresbetween
Nous and Logos. The various and often contradictory definitions of the first
creator and the secondary demiurge in the Hermetic texts are explained from the
corresponding divergencies in Egyptian cosmology (39-40).
This short announcement does not allow a complete enumeration of the sug-
gested correspondences between Egyptian and Hermetic ideas, let alone a discus-
sion of some of the fundamental issues raised in this study. My impression, as a
non-Egyptologist, is that Iversen has made an important contribution to the vexed
question of the relationship between Old-Egyptian and Hermetic doctrines, int. al.
by adducing much material which never before had been discussed in this connex-
ion. Sometimes, however, things are less simple than the author seems to suggest,
e.g. when he repeatedly emphasizes that both in Egyptian and Hermetic
documents the first God reserves for himself the creation of man (16, 24, 32-
33,51). But in the Poimandres,12, the Anthropos created by Nous is not mortal ter-
restrial man but the ideal heavenly Man, more or less identified with the Logos.
As far as I know, the idea of the heavenly Anthropos is not Egyptian; it has its
origin in Judaism. Iversen has written a stimulating book, which certainly will
have a lasting influence on future Hermetic studies.
R. VANDENBROEK