At 07:17 AM 6/12/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>I think this is more than defusion of ideas - dielemann is arguing for a
>specific audience to whom the bilingual magical papyri are aimed - seems
>to me that the papyri do indeed imply the existence of a 'tradition' . The
>texts are not random collections but are various unified magical handbooks
>- the whole comprising one magician's library. All this seems to me to be
>in line with what other editors of these texts have said - notable H D
>Betz, who says that the magic of the papyri is tantamount to a new religion.
I also think the process of 'translating' a tradition from one
culture/context to another must be read in light of Kingsley's notion of
re-etymology (which he articulates precisely in the context of Hermeticsm
and the Egyptian background of the name Poimandres). I think the PGM is
undoubtedly a conscious reformulation of Egyptian temple practice for new
socio-political, linguistic (and perhaps even 'aionic') contexts. I think
it is very instructive for the dynamics of how changes in a tradition can
preserve the essence of a tradition while simultaneously assimilating 'new'
or foreign elements into its expression. It's not such a new thing,
obviously, but I do think that the process is much deeper and infinitely
more subtle in the contexts of the magical papyri and hermetica than in
modern laissez faire syncretism. The modern practitioner has much to learn
from the older process, I feel.
Haven't read the Dieleman book, but I have read a (co-authored) article of
his dealing with the continuance of the Egyptian mouth-opening ritual in
the PGM. My own research deals with this particular trajectory in some
detail, and I am quite interested in the priestly milieu which composed the
papyri, so I'm very pleased to hear about this new book.
~ A
|