Page:A Collection of Esoteric Writings.djvu/243

229 P. S.—Allow me to state, in justice to my fellow-editor and myself, that the responsibility for the defective title-page and table of contents does not rest with as, these not having been submitted to us prior to publication.

,—Kindly permit me to say a few words with reference to the two letters seat by Dr. Kingsford and Mr. Maitland in connection with my review of the "Virgin of the World."

If my critics had borne in mind that the subject-matter of my review was the "Virgin of the World" and not their introductory essays or Hellenic mysteries, they would no doubt have refrained from making all the irrelevant statements which their letters contain. There were but two specific references to these introductory essays in my article. One of my objections remains altogether unanswered, and the explanation given with reference to the other throws no additional light on the real question at issue as the following remarks will show.

"The Virgin of the World" was published though not as a genuine work of Hermes himself, yet as a treatise on Egyptian mysteries. In reviewing it, therefore, I found it necessary to examine it by the light of the Hermetic science and not by that of Grecian philosophy. With reference to the title of the Hermetic Fragment under consideration, I made the following statement in my article—" ......it is necessary to point out that Persephone is not the Cosmic Virgin and cannot be represented as such from the stand-point of Hermetic philosophy." Dr. Kingsford objects to this statement on the authority of various writers on Grecian philosophy. If Grecian writers have bestowed this title on Persephone, it is no proof whatever that Egyptian writers did the same thing. Persephone might be the Kore Kosmou of the Hellenic mysteries, but she was not the cosmic Virgin of the Egyptians. It will even be difficult to find the corresponding goddess of the Egyptian Pantheon. It cannot even be contended that the "Virgin of the World" not being a genuine Egyptian book, but a work written by some Grecian author, to some extent according to Egyptian models, the title in question might have been used according to the conception of Grecian writers in general. For, under such a supposition, there would be no connection whatever between the contents of the book and the title is chosen for it. There is no special reference whatsoever to Persephone or any corresponding goddess in the treatise as we find it at present. The only female deity who figures prominently in it is Isis. Under these circumstances it would have been extremely absurd on my part if I had put on the title in question the construction now contended for by my critic and tried to force into the teachings of Isis by means of strained interpretations and far-fetched analogies any ideas relating to the