Another equally interesting point is that in the Islamic tradition the Prophet Idris is identified both with Hermes and with Enoch; this double assimilation seems to indicate a continuity of tradition going back beyond the Egyptian priesthood which, as far as Enoch is concerned, could only have been heir to the heritage of what he represents, for he himself clearly belongs to an earlier age. (NA: Should it not be concluded from this same assimilation that the Book of Enoch, or at any rate what is known by this name, must be considered as an integral part of the whole corpus of the “HERMETIC books”? On the other hand, some say also that the Prophet Idris is the same as the Buddha. What has already been said shows well enough how we are to take this assertion which refers in fact to Budha, the Hindu equivalent of Hermes. It could not refer to the historic Buddha, whose death is known to have taken place, whereas Idris is expressly said to have been borne up to heaven alive, just as is Enoch in the Bible.) At the same time, the sciences attributed to Idris and placed under his special influence are not the purely spiritual sciences, which belong to Christ, but alchemy and astrology and other “intermediary” sciences; these are, in fact, the sciences that can, strictly speaking, be called HERMETIC. But this brings us to another consideration, which might seem, at any rate at first glance, to be a rather strange reversal of the usual correspondences. For each of the planetary spheres there is a major prophet who presides over it and is its “pole” (qutb). Now, it is not Idris who presides over the Heaven of Mercury, but Christ, whereas Idris presides over the Heaven of the Sun; and, naturally, this involves the same transposition in the astrological correspondences of the sciences that are attributed respectively to these two “poles.” This raises a very complex question, the full treatment of which would be quite beyond the scope of the present article; we may have occasion to come back to it, but for the moment the following few remarks will perhaps afford a glimpse of the solution and will in any case show that far from being a mere confusion, the reversal that might seem erratic in the eyes of a superficial and “outward” observer has in fact a deep-rooted cause. Essays: Hermes
First, it is not a single isolated case in traditional doctrine, for it has something like a counterpart in Hebrew angelology. Generally speaking, Michael is the angel of the Sun and Raphael is the angel of Mercury, but sometimes the relationship is reversed. On the other hand, if Michael, as the representative of the solar Metatron, is assimilated esoterically to Christ, Raphael, according to the meaning of his name, is the “divine healer,” and Christ appears also as “spiritual healer” and as “repairer”; one could find also other connections between Christ and the principle represented by Mercury among the planetary spheres. (NA: If Hindu doctrine considers the Buddha as being the ninth avatar of Vishnu, that is the Mliccha (foreign) avatar, this does not necessarily exclude other divine interventions that have taken place on behalf of “foreign” (non-Hindu) peoples during this same period. In particular, Christ might even be said to share with the Buddha the ninth avataric function, since his first coming was, for the West, what the advent of the Buddha was for the Far East (and what the Koranic “descent” was for the “middle” region). Now, as we have seen in connection with the Buddha, the ninth avatar is a “Mercurial” manifestation. It would seem then that the two comings of Christ may be related to his “Mercurial” and “Solar” aspects, the Solar Christ being Christ Glorious, that is, the tenth or Kalki avatar, who is to come at the end of the cycle, the “white horse” of this final descent being a solar symbol par excellence. As to the first coming of Christ, it may be mentioned that the month of May takes its name from Mercury’s mother, Maia, who is said to be one of the Pleiads and to whom that month was consecrated in ancient times; and in Christianity it has become “the month of Mary,” by an assimilation, which is doubtless not merely phonetic, between Maria and Maia. (This note has been somewhat modified by the translator in the light of conversations that he had with the author many years after the article had been written.)) It is true that, for the Greeks, medicine was attributed to Apollo, that is, to the solar principle, and to his son Asklepios (in Latin Aesculapius); but in the “HERMETIC books” Asklepios becomes the son of Hermes, and it is also to be noted that the staff that is his attribute is closely related, symbolically, to the Caduceus. (NA: Around the staff of Aesculapius is coiled a single serpent, which represents the benefic force, the malefic force being bound to disappear inasmuch as the attribute in question belongs to the genius of medicine. The relationship may also be noted between this same staff of Aesculapius, as an emblem of healing, and the biblical symbol of the “brazen serpent” (see Symboles Fondamentaux de la Science Sacrée, Chap. 20).) The example of medicine shows us how one and the same science can have aspects that relate to different orders and that therefore have different correspondences, even if the outward effects obtained seem to be alike, for there is purely spiritual or “theurgic” medicine, and there is also HERMETIC or “spagyric” medicine; this is directly related to the question we are considering and helps to explain why medicine, from the traditional point of view, was considered essentially as a sacerdotal science. Essays: Hermes