Μ. τ. σ. p. 388, Copt., where it is said that the soul of the righteous but uninitiated man is after death taken into Amenti and afterwards into the Middle Way, being shown the tortures in each place, “but the breath of the flame of the punishments shall only afflict him a little.” Afterwards he is taken to the Virgin of Light, who sets him before the Little Sabaoth the Good until the Sphere be turned round so that Zeus (♃) and Aphrodite (♀) come into aspect with the Virgin of Light and Kronos (♄) and Ares (♂) come after them. She then puts the soul into a righteous body, which she plainly could not do unless under the favourable influence of the “benefics” ♃ and ♀. This seems also to be the dominant idea of the _Excerpta Theodoti_, _q.v._ Compare this, however, with the words of the _Pistis Sophia_ proper (pp. 27, 28, Copt.) where Mary Magdalene explains that the alteration made by Jesus in the course of the stars was effected in order to baffle those skilled in the mysteries taught by the angels “who came down” (as in the Book of Enoch), from predicting the future by astrology and magic arts learned from the sinning angels. Footnote 636: p. 361, Copt. Footnote 637: That is the Sphere of Destiny acting through its emissary the Moira or Fate described above, p. 184 _supra_. Footnote 638: It is a curious example of the fossilizing, so to speak, of ancient names in magic that Shakespeare should preserve for us in the _Tempest_ and _Macbeth_ the names of Ariel and Hecate which we find in the Μ. τ. σ. No doubt both were taken by him from mediaeval grimoires which themselves copied directly from the Graeco-Egyptian Magic Papyri mentioned in Chap. III _supra_. Cf. the use of Greek “names of God” like _ischiros_ (sic!) _athanatos_, etc. in Reginald Scot’s _Discovery of Witchcraft_, _passim_. Footnote 639: So that it could not profit by the knowledge of the awful punishments prepared for sinners. I do not know that this idea occurs elsewhere. Footnote 640: p. 380, Copt. Footnote 641: The Marcosian authorship of the whole MS. is asserted by Bunsen, _Hippolytus and his Age_, vol. I. p. 47. Köstlin, _Über das gnostische System des Buch Pistis Sophia_ in the Theologische Jahrbücher of Baur and Zeller, Tübingen, 1854, will have none of it, and declares the _Pistis Sophia_ to be an Ophite work. In this, the first commentator on the book is followed by Grüber, _Der Ophiten_, Würzburg, 1864, p. 5, §§ 3, 4. Footnote 642: Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk I. c. 19. Footnote 643: