HESIOD AND PARMENIDES IN NAG HAMMADI BY J. MANSFELD J. Doressel and after him A. Bohlig2 have suggested that the author of NHC II, 5 knew Hesiod's Theogony, was influenced by it, and argued against it. At the beginning of the treatise (II, 5, 97, 24f.) we are promised a demonstration that the common view according to which "nothing has existed prior to Chaos" [cf. Th. 116] is mistaken. Ib., 102, 27 ff. we are told of an attack upon heaven and of the casting down of the "troubler" [no further identification] "to Tartarus" [cf. Th. 617-733]. The most interesting section, perhaps, is that on Eros, II, 5, 109, 1-26 [cf. Th. 120-2]. Bohlig argues that this section is an 3 interpolation in the original "Szene von der Seduction des Archontes".3 "His [sc. Eros'] masculine nature is Himeros" (109, 3); Bohlig com- pares Th. 201, where both Eros and Himeros accompany Aphrodite.' That what we have here reminds one of Hesiod cannot, of course, be denied. Are we, however, to believe that the author of NHC II, 5 had read the whole Theogony,5 and that Hesiod constitutes his main 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. l l6-7 + 120).6 In Christian authors such as Theophilus and Hippolytus substantial chunks of poetry are quoted (Theoph., Ad Aut. III 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 II, 5$ - 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). 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 II, 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 [axpi ou 16 {?E P 't 0 V HKEV ¿1ti 't1lv (pucnv 1tpovoíaç], for Love and Aphrodite and Eros are among them as Empedocles says and Parmenides and Hesiod". The androgynous nature of Eros cannot be paralleled from Plutarch (al- though he mentions two female forces besides male Eros), but the conjoining of 16 ipFpiov and 1tpÓVOla as brought about by Eros etc. strikingly parallels Himeros-Pronoia as the constituent parts of Eros in NHC II, 5. In the related passage Amat. 756 D-F, Plutarch mentions in succession Empedocles' Love (quoting Vor.sokr. Fr. 3 1 B 1 7, 20-21 and B151) and Parmenides' Eros (quoting Vorsokr. Fr. 28B 13), and he refers to Hesiod as well. Significantly, he presents Emp. B17, 20-1, Kai <PtÀÓ'tllÇ roicnv K.'t.À. as implying that Eros belongs, as an equal, to the company of the gods; this has been called "extreme misrepresentation (or irony)",' but it can be paralleled from NHC II, 5, 109, 8f: "when all the gods and their angels saw Eros, they became enamoured of him. But when he appeared among 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: Taui' ois60av XP1l ÀÉYE- a9av 1tEpt Furthermore, at Fac., 926 E, Plutarch accuses the Stoics, who distribute the elements according to their natural locations, of de- stroying the world; if one follows them, one brings upon things the Neikos of Empedocles and "arouses against nature the ancient 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 (I) : in De phil. Fr. 18 Ross (Phil., Aet. mu. 10) Aristotle speaks of the 6E;tv?v ... 60£olqla of those who .