Vigiliae Chrisrianae 3 5 , 1 7 4 182 ; North-Holland Publishing Cornpan!

, 198 I

HESIOD AND PARMENIDES IN NAG HAMMADI

J. MANSFELD

J. Doressel and after him A. Bohlig2 have suggested that the author
of NHC 11, 5 knew Hesiod's Theogorzy, was influenced by it, and
argued against it. At the beginning of the treatise (11, 5, 97, 24f.) we
are promised a demonstration that the common view according to
which "nothing has existed prior to Chaos" [cf. Th. 1161 is mistaken.
Ib., 102, 27ff. we are told of an attack upon heaven and of the casting
down of the "troubler" [no further identification] "to Tartarus" [cf.
Th. 617-7331, The most interesting section, perhaps, is that on Eros,
11, 5, 109, 1-26 [cf. Th. 120-21. Bohlig argues that this section is an
interpolation in the original "Szene von der Seduction des A r ~ h o n t e s " . ~
"His [sc. Eros'] masculine nature is Himeros" (109, 3); Bohlig compares Th. 201, where both Eros and Himeros accompany A p h r ~ d i t e . ~
That what we have here reminds one of Hesiod cannot, of course,
be denied. Are we, however, to believe that the author of NHC 11, 5
, ~ that Hesiod constitutes his main
had read the whole T h e o g ~ n yand
source? The cosmological section of the poem (from Th. 104 onwards)
was widely quoted in antiquity by a variety of authors, beginning, for
us, with Plato (Symp. 178b; Th. 1 1 6 7 + 120).6 In Christian authors
such as Theophilus and Hippolytus substantial chunks of poetry are
quoted (Theoph., Ad Aut. I11 5-6, Hipp., Ref: I 26).' Quotations of
this size from Th. 617-733, however, are lacking, and even individual
lines are only sparsely quoted. Th. 201, which has no organic connection
either with the cosmogony or with the theomachy in the Th. - and
which, moreover, is only a partial parallel to the relevant lines in
NHC 11, 5 8 - is only quoted in the Et. Gen. Consequently, such
knowledge of Hesiodic items as the author of the present version may
have possessed is likely to be not direct, but tralaticious, although he
may have read the cosmogonical section in authors such as Theophilus
and Hippolytus (or in the sort of sources or anthologies from which
these had derived their quotations).
0042-6037/81/000-000/$02.50 O North-Holland Publishing Company

HESIOD A N D P A R M E N I D E S I N NAG H A M M A D I

175

The best approach to this problem is by way of two passages in

Plutarch, who provides us with much more pertinent parallels than the
original text of Hesiod.
At 11, 5, 109, 3ff., Eros is androgynous: "his masculine nature is
Himeros", "his feminine nature which is with him is a blood-soul,
(and) is derived from the substance of Pronoia". Plut., Fac. 926 E - 927 A,
says that originally the elements were in a chaotic condition, "until
desire came over nature from Providence [iS~pl06 so i p p~~ o v~ K E V
V
6~ x p o v o i a ~ ] for
, Love and Aphrodite and Eros are
Bxi T ~ cprjolv
among them as Empedocles says and Parmenides and Hesiod". The
androgynous nature of Eros cannot be paralleled from Plutarch (although he mentions two female forces besides male Eros), but the
conjoining of so i p ~ p s o vand npovola as brought about by Eros etc.
strikingly parallels Himeros-Pronoia as the constituent parts of Eros
in NHC 11, 5. In the related passage Amat. 756 D-F, Plutarch
mentions in succession Empedocles' Love (quoting Vorsokr. Fr. 3 1B17,
20-21 and B151) and Parmenides' Eros (quoting Vorsokr. Fr. 28B13),
and he refers to Hesiod as well. Significantly, he presents Emp. B17,
20-1, ~ a c ip t h o ~ qBv~ ~ o i o l vK . T . ~as. implying that Eros belongs, as
an-equal, to the company of the gods; this has been called "extreme
misrepresentation (or i r ~ n y ) " ,but
~ it can be paralleled from NHC 11,
5, 109, 8 f : "when all the gods and their angels saw Eros, they became
enamoured of him. But when he appeared anlong all of them, he
burned them". "Appeared among all of them" - this is not to be
found at Hes., Th. 120-2, but squares with Plutarch's interpretation
of Empedocles' lines. [Note that Empedocles' lines are about Philotes,
which Plutarch, loc. cit., interprets as Eros : sa6s'oi'~of3atxpfl h6-y~oeat x ~ p "Epozo<].
i
Furthermore, at Fac., 926 E, Plutarch accuses the Stoics, who
distribute the elements according to their natural locations, of destroying the world; if one follows them, one brings upon things the
Neikos10 of Empedocles and "arouses against nature the ancien; Titans
and Giants" and longs "to look upon that legendary and dreadful
disorder and discord (by separating) all that is heavy and (all) that
is light". Bignonel believed that the reference to the Titans and Giants
derives from Aristotle's lost work On Philosophy, where it would
have served to characterize the Presocratic philosophers who declare
the world to be perishable, for (1): in De phil. Fr. 18 Ross (Phil.,
Aet. mu. 10) Aristotle speaks of the G~tvljv... irf3dor~~sa
of those who

destroy the world, and (2) : the Epicurean arguments concerned with
the perishability of the world found in Lucr. V and which, according
to Bignone, are directed against Aristotle's lost work, are introduced
with the remark that whoever destroys by his theory the nzoenia rnlrndi
is not, for that reason, the equal of the Giants and does not deserve to
be punished like them (V 114-9).
Bignone's arguments were accepted by Effe and others,12 who
pointed out, however, that the arguments in Lucretius are also directed
against the Stoics. ' This is correct ; Plutarch, too, argues also against
the Stoics,14 and he is especially concerned with their theory (taken
over from Aristotle) of the natural locations of the elements: below
for what is heavy, up for what is light.15 Although the possibility that
Aristotle in the De phil. already spoke of Titans and Giants is not to
be excluded, it is, I believe, more to the point to adduce a 'fragment'
of Zeno, embedded in Schol. Hes. Th. 134, p. 30, 6f. di Gregorio l 6 :
Z?jvwv 66 Ttr&vuq cpqot cipfla0at c p u a t ~ b ~ c p o 6tci
v , TO 6 t a ~ u ~ r c o 0 a t
6td n a v r o ~TOO ~ o a p o uzci a ~ o ~ ~ cAccording
ia.
to Zeno, the Titans are
to be interpreted as the elements which have been arranged in the
cosmos in an orderly way. The scholia ad loc. also preserve interpretations of the names of Titans (some of which, no doubt, are Stoic):
Iapetos represents what moves upwards because it is without weight,
Hyperion the revolving heavens, Kreios the sovereign principle or,
alternatively, separation. Zeno anyhow gave the Titans a place in
cosmogonical theory; presumably, because the construction of the
ordered universe is to be seen in terms of a disaggregation of an
original, pre-cosmic unity. If it was indeed Aristotle who compared
those who by their theories destroy (and generate!) the universe with
the Titans and Giants of old, Zeno retaliated" rather nicely by
attributing a constructive role to the Titans. Plutarch, again, stands
this Stoic theory upon its head by pointing out that in the world not
all things are in their 'natural' places : there is fire below the earth
and soul in the body (926 C-D). Such elemental combinations as quite
normally exist are there because Love and Aphrodite and Eros (as
Empedocles says and Parmenides and Hesiod) brought about affection
among the elements in a providential way; things are not "in the
state in which, according to Plato [Tinz. 53 b], everything is from
which god is absent".
Obviously, the negative function of the Titans and Giants as
opposed to the positive function of Eros etc. is, in Plutarch's exposition, part of a consistent cosmological argument. In Lucretius, the

HESIOD A N D P A R M E N I D E S I N N A G H A M M A D I

177

role of the Giants is related, but different : Giants there are said to be
(by the opponents!) those who by their theory destroy the tlzoeriia mundi.
At NHC 11, 5, 102, 25ff., again, there is an attack against the world
itself: "And the heaven and his earth were overturried [cf. Lucr. V 119
disturbent moenia mundi] by the troubler who was beneath them".
The passage in Plutarch's Fac. can be paralleled by a series of
fragments, forming one continuous whole, from Celsus' Alethes Logos,
ap. Orig., C. Cels. VI 42 (where the emphasis is not, as in Plutarch,
on Love, but on Battle), which help to elucidate the prehistory of the
anonymous troubler cast to Tartarus (NHC I1 5, 102, 27f.) somewhat
further. Celsus criticizes the Christians because they introduce an
adversary of God : Satan (ocpuhhov~at 66 c i o ~ f i & o r a a~~a r a ,cf.
Arist. De Phil. Fr. 1818). He argues that the Christians have misunderstood the real meaning of the ancient Greek authors when these
hint at a sort of divine war. He cites Heracl., Vorsokr. Fr. 21B80,
on universal war, and paraphrases Pherecydes' description of the war
between the armies of Cronus and those of Ophioneus (Vorsokr.
Fr. 7B4, where the part attributed to Pherecydes is too large). Then
he says that this is also the meaning behind r a xspi rocq Tt~Bvaq~ u i
~ V
and in those of the
riyuvraq puo~ljpta,~ E O ~ U X E2nayyshhop&vou~,
Egyptians concerned with Typhon, Horus, and Osiris. [Had he read
Plutarch's De Is.?]. He adds that Homer agrees with Heraclitus and
Pherecydes and "those who introduce the mysteries of the Titans and
Giants", as appears from two passages, which he quotes : Il. I 590-1,
where Hephaestus reminds Hera of what happened to him when he
tried to defend her, and If. XV 18-24, where Zeus, speaking to Hera,
reminds her how he punished her and how he threw down from heaven
to earth whatever god tried to help her. Celsus explains these lines
as follows: the words of Zeus to Hera are those of God to Matter,
and their hidden meaning is "that at the beginning it (sc. matter) was
chaotic and that God took it in hand and bound it in certain proportions
and ordered it" [ h a~p a 26 Crp~ijqa b ~ q v(sc. rfjv ijhqv) nhqppshQq
s v88653
E~ovoavG~ahapQvcivuhoyiutq Ttoi ouv86qos ~ a ~i~ o o p q o 6
and that "God cast out all demons round it who were arrogant". Next,
he argues that this is how Pherecydes understood Homer, and quotes
~
which is
Vorsokr. Fr. 7B5, which speaks of the r a p ~ a p i q 'poipa
underneath, and which is where "Zeus casts out any of the gods who
become arrogant". The same idea, in his view, is behind the decoration
on the Panathenaeic peplos of Athena (embroidered with scenes from
a battle with the Giants).

178

J MANSFELD

This fragment calls for some comment. Although Celsus may have
added some references on his own account, and although the polemical
point of his argument will have influenced his exposition to some
extent,20 the main line of his exposition must derive from an earlier
source (not Plutarch, but very much like Plutarch). Celsus' interpretation of Zeus as God and of Hera as Matter is originally Stoic, cf.
SVF I1 1071 (Diog. Laert. VII 187), 1073 (Theoph., Arl Aut. 111 8),
1074 (Orig., C. Cels. IV 48, not a quotation from Celsus) : Chrysippus'
~ o s m o l o g y . ~This
' Stoic cosmology, however, has been platonized : 2 2
Celsus' matter in its chaotic condition ( n h q p p & h Q <ii~ououv)is that
of Plato's Tim. 30 a, ~~voOpsvov
~ t h ~ ~ . ~ p &~ huG~i qT U K T WAlso
S.~~
.
orders
Plut., Fac. 926 E, speaks of h ~ o o p i u v~ u ni h q p p C h ~ u v God
this chaos by bonds (ouvC6q OF) and proportions ( h v u h o y i a ~ < ) ;
cf. Tim.30 c, 66opwv 6S ~ u h h ~ o r ooqq av a b ~ o v~ u r ia ouv606p~vu
o n p u h ~ o r u iiv 7~014. roOro 6S ~ ~ ( P U K E Vd v u h o y i a ~ i t h h t o ~ o v
hnor&h&iv(cf. 30 b, o u v i 6 ~ o s v ) :this is how God creates order
among the elements, and cpthiu. Likewise, Plut., Fac. 927 A, says that
after the intervention of God and Love, things were "bound"
( i v 6 i 0 ~ v ~ uThe
) . parallel between Plato, Plutarch and Celsus is unmistakable. Now God, in the context of Celsus' exposition as a whole,
brings about order by casting out the gods and Titans which were
"round" matter. Plutarch, as we have noticed,24 equates chaos with
the activities of Titans and Giants, Fac. 926 E : opu ... pq ... TO^<
~ U ~ U I OK L~V<~ J <TLTBVU<
h i T ~ 9V 6 0 1 K~ U ~ ~ ~ U V TK UU <T~ ~ pu01h-7)~
V
, ? K E ~ V ~KV U ~
(PoSEpdrv dKoCJpiUv KUi 7ThqpJ.IihEIUv 67Tt6Eiv 7ToefJq.
Hence Celsus' Titans and Giants belong with a cosmological
context, the same as that encountered in Plutarch. In Plutarch, their
role is minimal : he emphasizes that of love and order. In Celsus, on
the other hand, the role of the Titans and Giants is a major, that of
'order' on the whole a minor one. These divergencies can easily be
explained in terms of the respective and divergent aims of these authors.
It cannot be denied, however, that the passage in Fac, and the Celsus
fragment illuminate each other.
In this context, it is important to note that Alexander of Lycopolis,
p. 8 Brinkmann, says that the Manichaeans referred to the battle with
the Giants as described in Greek poetry, "which to their mind proves
that the poets were not ignorant of the insurrection of matter against
God".25 Alexander is a near contemporary of the author of NHC 11, 5.
It is possible that he turns an earlier anti-Christian argument against
the new Manichaean enemy,26 but it is equally feasible- that Greek

HESIOD A N D P A R M E N I D E S I N N A G H A M M A D I

179

Manichaeans at Alexandria justified the doctrines of their sect by

referring to Greek parallels. However this may be, Manichaean matter
interpreted in terms of Giants certainly provides an excellent parallel
with what is found in NHC 11, 5. If a plurality of sources is involved
here, there was consistency in what they had to offer, and this agreement in its turn can be explained by a descent which, to a considerable
degree, is a common one. That Alexander mentions the Giants only
is no objection : Hipp., Ref. I 26, p. 31, 13f. Wendland (after his
quotation of Th. 108ff.) says Giants where he should have said
Titans."
We have noticed that, in Plutarch, Parmenides' c o s m ~ g o n i cEros
~~
plays an important part and that he also says that Parmenides spoke
of a cosmogonic Aphrodite. This is Plutarch's name for the anonymous
goddess who in Parmenides creates Eros (Vorsokr. Fr. 28B13, quoted
Amat. 756 FZ9).The activities of this goddess are described in some
detail in a fragment of Parmenides preserved by Simplicius only
(Vorsokr. Fr. 28B12), and in a non-verbal quotation by the same
Simplicius (In Phys., p. 39, 20-1, cf. Vorsokr. ad Fr. 28B13).
Surprisingly, a substantial portion of the hymnic description of Eros
in NHC 11, 5, is strikingly parallel to these Parmenidean passages :
NHC 11, 5, 109, 16ff.

Just as Eros appeared out oP

the mid-point between light and
darkness, (and) in the midst'
of the angels and men120
the intercourse of Eros was consummated, so tool the first sensual
pleasure sprouted upon the earth.1
(The man followed) the earth,
The woman followed (the man),
And marriage followed the woman
And1 reproduction followed marriage,
And death25followed reproduction.

Parmenides B12, 1-3; 4-5.

a i yap orstvorspat nhijvro xupoq
drlcpilroto,
a t 6'Bni rats V U K T Opsra
~ , 68
cp A o y 05 'israt a k a ,
8v 68 pCoq r o h r o v 6 a i p o v
fi n u v r a ~upspv@.
n u v ~ w vyap
~ ~ oruyspoio r o K O U ~ a pii t t o 2 a p ~ s t ,
n 8 p n o u o 3 a p o s v t 0ijhu ptyijv
50 r' Bvavriov a 6 r y
a p o ~ v0 qAurCpq.
(Simpl.) :
~ a raq
i y u ~ a qn8pnetv nor& p3v
8~ s o 6 Bpcpavo6q s t 5 r o & s t 685, nor&68 civunahtv.

The Parmenidean parallel explains why, at NHC 11, 5, 109, 16f., Eros
appears out of the mid-point of light and darkness : 3 1 in Parmenides,

the cosmogonic goddess who created Eros [cf. Vorsokr. Fr. 28B13]
and who is called Aphrodite by Plutarch, resides in the midst of rings
partly filled with night, partly with bright flame. She holds sway
everywhere and reigns over all beings ( ~ u v s ain line 3 and nuvsov in
line 4), i.e. both in heaven and upon earth; this parallels the "just as''
- "so too" at NHC 11, 5 , 109. "Marriage" and "reproduction" are
paralleled by "coupling" and "birth". If the additions to the text of
11, 5 , 109, 22f. are accepted [I cannot pretend to be a judge], the
parallel with Parmenides is striking : the goddess sends the female to
couple with the male and the male with the female, and at NHC 11, 5 ,
109 the woman follows the man because, of course, Eros is omnipotent. Finally, the words "and death followed reproduction" sit somewhat awkwardly in their context, a hymn upon the productive powers
of Eros. One can understand their being where they are, however, if
in a source originally followed the life-giving power also was in charge
of death.
Both individually and as a body, these parallels are impressive. The
same order is roughly followed in both texts, and points which remain
difficult in the Gnostic text can be illuminated from the Greek.
Yet I am not going to argue that the author of NHC 11, 5 had read
Parmenides, any more than he had read Hesiod. Above, I have
suggested that the person responsible for the Gnostic treatise in the form
in which it has come down to us was influenced by Greek literature
comparable as to its contents to passages in Plutarch. I can now add
the complementary suggestion that this source not only, just as
Plutarch, quoted Parm., Vorsokr. Fr. 28B13 ["first of all the gods she
created Eros" this, too, is paralleled in NHC 11, 5, 109. If. : "Out
of the first blood, Eros appeared ..."I, but also Vorsokr. Fr. 28B12
and something corresponding to what we know in the form preserved
by Simpl., In Pliys., 39, 20f. The background of NHC 11, 5 , as far as
the 'Greek' sections are concerned, is not to be sought in Hesiod, but
in the context of late Hellenistic cosmological discussion (and its
aftermath), where not only Hesiod, but also other literature was
quoted.
-

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE
The above had been sent to the editor when the first fasc. of
Vig. Chr. 34 (1980) arrived in the library of the Theological Institute,
containing the paper On the Origin of the World JCG 11,5) :A Gnostic

HESIOD A N D PARMENIDES I N N A G H A M M A D I

181

Physics, by Ph. Perkins (p. 37ff.). I was delighted to see that Professor
Perkins' argument concerned with Eros in this treatise (p. 38 f.) partly
coincides with my own : we both cite Plut., Fac. 926 Ef. Moreover,
her remarks on Stoic cosmological theory as a background to that of
the Gnostic treatise supplement and are supplemented by what I have
said at p. 178.

Les livres secrets des gnostiques d ' ~ ~ y (Paris

~ t e 1958) 196. For Eros, he also refers
to Aesch. Fr. 44 Nauck.
* A. Bohlig-P. Labib, Die Koptisch-gnostische Schrift ohne Titel (Berlin 1962) 47f.
(Titans), 61 f. (Eros); A. Bohlig, Die griech. Schule (in: A. Bohlig-F. Wisse, Zum
Hellenismus in den Scltr~ftenvon NH, Wiesbaden 1975, 9ff.) 20-1.
1975, 20.

Ib., 21. For the text of 11, 5, I have used the translation in The N H Lihrarj, in

E ~ g l i s h(Leiden 1977).
Bohlig, ib. 20, suggests that he had read Hesiod at school; I think this presupposes
an anthology.
Presumably, Plato already used a learned anthology. viz. that of Hippias, cf. Vorsokr.
Fr. 86B6. See B. Snell, Die Nachrichten uber die Lehren des Thales, Phil. 1944, 170ff., repr.
in : C. J . Classen (ed.), Sophistik (WdF 187, Darmstadt 1975) 478ff., and W , von Kienle,
Die Berichte uher die Sukzessiorten der Philosophen (Diss. Berlin 1962) 40ff.
' See further the apparatus in M. L. West. Hesiod. Theogony (Oxford 21971). - It is
of some importance to note that all except one of Zeno's allegorical interpretations of
the Th. refer to lines 1 1 6 3 5 (D. E. Hahm, The Origins of Stoic Cosmology, Ohio St.
Univ. Pr. 1977, 235 n. 26). See also N. Zeegers-Vander Vorst, Les citations des poites
grecs che: Ies apologistes chritiois du II' sigcle, Louvain 1972, 38 f.: I1 1 f. (on Ad Aut.
11 5-7).
In Hesiod Himeros is not, moreover, an aspect of Eros.
Mor., Loeb ed. vol. IX, 349 n. c.
lo
At 926 E, Emp., Vorsokr. Fr. 31B27 is quoted from memory (weak variant at end
of first line) and mistakenly applied to the dominion of Neikos instead of to Sphairos.
I have dealt with this question in a paper to appear in the Festschrft Quispel (EPRO
series, 1981).
E. Bignone, L'Aristotele perduto e la ,formazione filosofica di Epicuro, 11 (Firenze
21973) 77ff. See also B. Effe, Stud. z. Kosmologie u. Theologie d. Arist. Schr. " i f h , d.
Phil." (Miinchen 1970) 14f.
l2
E.g. P. Boyanci., Lucr6ce et 1 ' ~ ~ i c u r i s m(Paris
e
1963) 214f.
l3
The hominum causa-argument (Lucr. V 156f., cf. Aet. I 7, 7-10) pertains to the
Stoics.
l4
Cf. H. Gorgemanns, Unters. z. Plutarchs Dialog De facie (Heidelberg 1970) 98f.
l5
See P. W. van der Horst-J. Mansfeld, An Alexandrian Platonist against Dualism
(Leiden 1974), 24f. A few passages: S V F 1 99; I1 527 and 580; Aet. I 12, 4.
l6
Von Arnim, S V F I 100, prints the wrong text, viz. a scholium (T) which sum-

182

J MANSFELD

marizes and paraphrases the various pieces of information contained in R2WLZ; cf.
Scholia vetera in Hes. Theog. rec. L , di Gregorio (Milano 1975) 30. The T scholium
attributes e~erythingit gives to Zeno, who however is only cited in R2WLZ for the
information I have printed. In R2WLZ. alternati~e(Stoic, I would say) interpretations
of the indi~idualTitans are also listed, and apart from the nominatim reference to
Zeno also one to Acusilaus ( F G r H 2 F 7. h r s o k r . Fr. 9B4) is g i ~ e n .
' - For Zeno against Aristotle see my paper Provtd(~nc,catrd the Dc~.\tr~rc.tionqf tlrc
in E a r h Stoic Thought, i n : M . J . Vermaseren (ed.). Studir.c in Hc,Nc~ni\tic.
Ci~i~,c,r.rc,
Religiot7.r (EPRO 78. Leiden 1979, 129ff.) 144ff.
l R See above, p. 175f.
IY
Pherecydes, of course, echoes Hesiod. On the other hand, the term Tartarus may
have become known to our author through a source quoting Pherecydes. not Hesiod.
20
Strictly speaking, Homer's Zeus does not throw Hephaestus and others into Tartarus, but to the earth : the parallel with Hesiod has been forced.
" Cf. EPRO 78, 180f.
" Such platonizing cosmologies have been splendidly studied by W. Spoerri, Spatl ~ r l l ~ ~ n i r t i s cBerichte
hr
iihrr welt, Kultur und Gottrr (Basel 1959) 1-13 1 : for the passage
in Fac, see p. 75 (and my comments in the paper mentioned above n. 10, viz. n. 104);
he has not, however, noticed that the Celsus fragment provides us with a parallel
account.
23
Cf. At7 Alr.rut7dr. Plur., 21 and n. 66. H. Chadwick, 0rigc.t~: C'ot~tra Crlsutn
(Cambridge 1953), 359 n. 2 and M. Borret, Orighle. Contrc, Crlre, t. I11 (Paris 1969)
283 n. 3 wrongly refer to Titn. 37 a.
'4
Above, p. 175.
"
Cf. At1 Alerandr. Plat., 57 and n. 209.
'6
Ib., 58 n. 212.
2^
Cf. H. Diels, Do.~ographiGraeci (Berlin 41976) 575, ad loc.
"
Cf. Arist., .Met. A 984 b 25, before Fr. B 13: ~ u r u o ~ ~ b u ; orqv
v rot K U V T O ~
y ~ v s o t v ;Plut., Atnal. 756 F i v rij ~ o o p o y o v i aypucpov (Fr. B 13 follows). Both
passages quoted in Vorsokr. ad Fr. 28813.
"' The identification is understandable, but not acceptable for Parnlct~idrs.See further
H. Martin Jr., P1utarck:r Citution of Etnpedoc,lrs at Amat. 756 D, GRBS 1969, 57ff..
and the paper mentioned above, n. 10.
30
For the correct reading see D. Sider. Phoenix 1979, 67f. ( h r s o k r . has nuvru yup
<ii>).
" Bohlig, 1975, 21, refers to Acusilaus (b'orsokr. Fr. 983 = F G r H 2F6c): "it is not
clear whose son he [sc. Theocritus] says Eros is; Hesiod [sc, says that he is the son] of
Chaos and Earth. Acusilaus of Night and Aether [ N v ~ r o ;~ a Ai0Cpo;l".
i
But there is
no reference to a "mid-point" here. Note that Plat., Sjnlp. 178 b, cites Hesiod,
Ac,usilaus and Parmenides on Eros; for this passage see above, n. 6.
" iNH Libr. in Engl.. 161.

Utrecht, Filosofisch Instituut, Heidelberglaan 2