contents show, are not homogeneous, and cannot have been borrowed from one writing. The question as to whether Clemens' method of quotations, which mentions sometimes Theodotus, sometimes the Valentinians as his sources for these excerpts, is of any use as a guide to an estimate between these sources, must be left undecided. The most important sections are paragraphs 29–68, in which an attempt is made at a continuous exposition of the system (though here again from various sources), and section 69–86, which deals with the Gnostic doctrine of the sacraments and that of the liberation of the Heimarmene. The lost Syntagma of Hippolytus, which, as we know, is preserved in the works of Philastrius and the pseudo-Tertullian, seems to furnish us with valuable information as to the earlier doctrines of the sect, and in his second treatise against heretics, the so-called Philosophumena (6, 29 seq.). Hippolytus gives a homogeneous and continuous exposition of a later Valentinian system, possibly connected with the school of Ptolemaeus. Important, too, are Hippolytus' references to an Italic and an Anatolian branch of the Valentinian sect (6, 35). Tertullian gives at the beginning of his treatise against the Valentinians a few separate notices of the life and disciples of Valentinus, but his further argument is closely dependent upon Irenaeus' exposition of the Ptolemaean system, which he embellishes in his usual fashion with bitterly sarcastic comments. Epiphanius deals with Valentinus and his school in sections 31–36 of his work. In cap. 31, 1–8, he gives an account of the Valentinians, which seems to be based on his own observation. Thus in 31, 5–6, we find yet another verbal extract from a Valentinian doctrinal work. For the rest he copies the text of Irenaeus word for word, which has the advantage of preserving for us Irenaeus’ Greek phraseology, which we otherwise should only know in a Latin translation. In his section on Ptolemaeus, cap. 33, Epiphanius has preserved for us a valuable letter of Ptolemaeus to Flora, which is a document of the highest importance for the understanding of Gnosticism.
III. Valentinus is the only one of the Gnostics who had a whole series of disciples who are known by name—indeed, in the accounts of the Church Fathers his own system and views are almost entirely obscured by the accounts of those of his disciples. His fundamental ideas can be with difficulty reconstructed from Irenaeus i. 11, from the fragments contained in Clemens, and to a certain extent from the Syntagma of Hippolytus, with the aid of later systems connected with his. Two early disciples of Valentinus are enumerated in Irenacus ii. 2–3, one of whom is named Secundus; according to Irenacus we have to trace back to him the division of the Valentinian Sophia into the double form of an aeon abiding in heaven, and her daughter, Sophia Achamoth. The second disciple is not named by Irenacus; it is conjectured that he may have been Colorbases, the teacher of Marcus (i. 14, 1). The most important disciples of Valentinus, then, are the two dealt with at length by Irenacus, Ptolemaeus and Marcus, who both seem to have had a numerous following. Besides these we should also mention Herakleon, of whose commentary on the gospel of St John extensive fragments are preserved by Origen. Ptolemaeus and Herakleon are counted by Hippolytus (6, 35) among the Italic branch of Valentinianism. There was also the Anatolian branch, as representative of which Hippolytus mentions Axionicus, who is also referred to by Tertullian as having actually been taught in Antioch. The Excerpta ex Theodoto in Clemens are also, according to the superscription, fragments from the Anatolian Gnosticism. It is, however, an error when Hippolytus speaks of Bardesanes as representative of this branch, for he had an entirely distinct position.
IV. In the important section of Irenaeus (i. 11) devoted to Valentinus, his teaching is definitely connected with the so-called “falsely reputed Gnostics.” It will be useful, in trying to ascertain the teaching and view of life of Valentinus, to keep closely before us that of the “Gnostics” in the narrower sense of the word, as preserved in the expositions of Irenaeus (i. 29, 30) and Epiphanius (passim). The Gnostics were par excellence worshippers of the supreme Mother-goddess, the Mὴτηρ, in whom we have no difficulty in recognizing the characteristics of the goddess of heaven of anterior Asia. This “Meter” is, in the system of these Gnostics, also at one time the stern, austere goddess, the Mother, who dwells in heaven, at other times the licentious goddess of love, the great courtesan (Prunikon), who, e.g. in the Simonian system, takes the form of the prostitute Helena, in whose worship all kinds of obscene rites were celebrated. She dwells in the eighth or highest heaven, whence her name Ogdoas. Next to her stands the supreme and shadowy form of the unknown and nameless Father; below her in the seven lower heavens reign the seven planetary, world-creating angelic powers, headed by Jaldabaoth, who was later to be identified with the God of the Old Testament. The Gnostics are children of the supreme Mother; from her the heavenly seed, the divine spark, descended in some way to this lower world, and thus the children of heaven still exist in this gross material world, subject to the Heimarmene and in the power of hostile spirits and powers; and all their sacraments and mysteries, their formulae and symbols, must be part of her worship, in order to find the way upwards, back to the highest heaven, “where the Mother dwells.” This idea that the Gnostics know themselves to be in a hostile and evil world reacted in the same direction upon the conception of the Mother of heaven. She became likewise a fallen goddess, who has sunk down into the material world and seeks to free herself from it, receiving her liberation at the hands of a heavenly Redeemer, exactly like the Gnostics. Various myths have contributed towards this; one of these is the widespread naive pagan myth of a goddess who disappears, carried off by the powers of evil, to be set free and taken back to her home by a divine liberator, a brother or betrothed. The moon-goddess with her disappearance may have been the prototype of this mythical figure (there are, indeed, certain analogies to be remarked between the Simonian Helena and Selene). With this myth are connected certain Jewish Theologumena; the goddess who sinks down into the material may readily be identified with Ruach (Rucha), the Spirit of God, who broods over Chaos, or even with the later Sophia (Chokma Achamoth), who was generally conceived of as a world-creating agent. Thirdly, the chief influence at work here seems to have been the oriental myth of the Primal Man sunk in the material world, which appears in its simple form in individual Gnostic systems, e.g. in Poimandres (in the Corpus henneticum) and in Manichaeism. In the Gnostic systems of Irenaeus i. 29, 30, the Anthropos (i.e. the Primal Man) no longer appears as the world-creative power sinking down into the material world, but as a celestial aeon of the upper world (or even as the supreme god), who stands in a clearly defined relationship to the fallen goddess; it is possible that the role of the Anthropos is here transferred to Sophia Achamoth. The fallen Sophia next becomes, in like manner, a world creative power. And now the highest of the world-creating angels, Jaldabaoth, appears as her son, and with this whole conception are then linked up the ideas of liberation and redemption. Next to the Sophia stands a male redeeming divinity. In all the Gnostic systems known to us Christ already appears as the Saviour, and so in this respect a Christianizing of Gnosticism has been carried out; but originally this Saviour-divinity had nothing in common with the figure of the Christian Redeemer. This is clear from Irenaeus's account of the Gnostics (i. 30). For here the redemption is actually and essentially effected through the uniting in marriage of the fallen goddess with her higher celestial brother, and they are expressly described as the bride and bridegroom. That is to say, we have here the purely mythical idea of the deliverance of a goddess by a god, and of the celestial marriage of a divine pair. This myth can only with difficulty be connected with the historic redemption through Jesus of Nazareth, by further relating that Christ, having been united to the Sophia, descends into the earthly Jesus.
V. This primitive “Gnosticism” was very closely followed by Valentinus, who may have come to know these doctrines in Egypt. This can be seen from the fact that in Valentinianism the Mother-goddess always stands absolutely at the centre of the system. Irenaeus (i. 6, 1) is very instructive on this point, characterizing the Gnostics as the pneumatici who have a perfect knowledge of God, and have been initiated into the mysteries of Achamoth . A mighty system is certainly erected here out of the modest elements of Gnosticism.
(1) More especially, the superstructure of the celestial system, the celestial world of aeons, which exists above the fallen goddess, is
