Ἀκίνητος = Unmovable (Valentinian aeon)Philosophumena: Βύθιος καὶ Μῖξις, Ἀγήρατος καὶ Ἕνωσις, καὶ Ἡδονή, Ακίνητος καὶ Σύγκρασις, Μονογενὴς καὶ Μακαρία.
Panarion (copying out Irenaeus): Βύθιος καὶ Μῖξις, Ἀγήρατος καὶ Ἕνωσις, Αὐτοφυὴς καὶ Ἡδονή, Ἀκίνητος καὶ Σύγκρασις, Μονογενὴς καὶ Μακαρία
Against the Valentinians: Bythios et Mixis, Ageratos et Henosis, Autophyes et Hedone, Acinetos et Syncrasis, Monogenes et Macaria
Panarion 31.2 (before the citation of Irenaeus) Βύθιος καὶ Μῖξις, Ἀγήρατοςκαὶ Ἕνωσις, Αὐτοφυὴς καὶ Σύγκρασις, Μονογενὴς καὶ Ἑνότης, Ἀκίνητος καὶ Ἡδονή.
Ἀνίκητος = Unconquered (name of alleged bishop of Rome at the time of Hegesippus).
These terms are conjectured to have been exchanged by scribal error in a number of examples - Sophocles https://books.google.com/books?id=ENvzC ... 82&f=false Proclus https://www.google.com/books/edition/Pr ... frontcover
If you look at all the 'females' in the list they all implying mixture - Μῖξις Ἕνωσις, Σύγκρασις and then Irenaeus gives the very positive Μακαρία and Epiphanius's independent source Ἑνότης 'unity.' But Ἡδονή is necessarily negative in this tradition. Philo spends a lot of time understanding the Genesis myth in terms of Ἡδονή:
So not only in Philo but in the Valentinian schema Ἡδονή is now a queen - married to either Ἀκίνητος or Αὐτοφυὴς. But what a curious 'aeon' to have in the Valentinian heavens with little in the way of commentary! Of all the aeons the presence of Ἡδονή among the 30 is most curious. One would expect Ἡδονή to be the fallen aeon but instead Irenaeus (in the various forms of the surviving polemic) concentrates on the story of the fall of Sophia.Philo is here in complete accord with Plato . In the mood of high moral enthusiasm he denounces pleasure as utterly evil , but in other moods , he recognizes its place in human life . It is described as the cause of activity among men , a princess and a queen.' Many pleasures are necessary ... In this shrinking from the word Ἡδονή, Philo is at one with Plato.
There are some curious references in Tertullian's preservation of what we have already determined was the oldest version of the lost Greek original of the treatise. He makes reference to 'Lucifer' (Φωσφόρος) declaring:
Theletus is the 'husband' of Sophia in the traditional narrative. Notice of course that Ἀκίνητος καὶ Ἡδονή are side by side here. Also there is a reference to Gaius as some sort of 'Pope' like figure (if one and the same with Gaius of Rome 'the bishop to the nations'):"I have returned to you noble citizens from battle accompanied by my Lady Victory, by your Lady Joy, along with Nobility, Glory, Luck, Heroism, and Triumph." Immediately the students shouted Hooray! to Phosphorus' family. You have heard about Fortunatus, Hedone, Acinetus, Theletus. Yell Hooray! to Ptolomaeus' family. This family is that secret pleroma, the fullness of its thirty-fold divinity."
Am I reading too much in here that Ἀκίνητος or Ἀνίκητος may have had a similar role to Marcus or Gaius insofar as he was a bishop seated alongside a spiritual 'wife' - Ἡδονή? 'Anicetus' only comes to us from the Hegesippus/Irenaeus reporting. Polycarp and Hegesippus himself seem to have met the bishop. But what if Polycarp was Hegesippus (Joseph is after all 'the fruitful' = many-fruit bough or son). Then the reporting about Valentinus might also come from this source too. The name is ascribed to a bishop of Rome who was understood to be a heavenly aeon.we will be happy to be counted with our god [the Demiurge] from whom we received our soul-like origin. Nothing is admitted into the palace of the Pleroma except the spirit-like swarm of Valentinus. These men then, men destined to enter the Pleroma, are unclothed first; to be unclothed means to put aside the souls with which they are only apparently endowed. They return to the Demiurge these souls which they received from him. They become spirits entirely metaphysical, immune to restraint or detection; in this fashion they are received invisibly into the Pleroma-- secretly, if this is the way it is! What then? They are handed out to the angels who accompany Saviour. As sons, do you suppose? No. As valets perhaps? Not even this. As ghosts? I wish even this were the case! What, then, if you are not ashamed to say? As wives! For marriages they will play "Rape the Sabines" among themselves. This is the reward for being "spirit-like"; this is the prize for believing.
These are proper little stories; for example, you, Marcus, or you, Gaius, at present bearded in this body and in this soul a stern husband (severus maritus), father, grandfather, or great-grandfather-- certainly masculine enough--then, in this harem of a Pleroma, by some angel you might be (in nyphone Pleromatis ab angelo). . . ; by my silence I have already said it. Anyway perhaps you might give birth to some new aeon (et forsitan parias
aliquem novissimum Aeonem). In place of the usual torch and veil I imagine that famous mysterious fire will blaze out to solemnize the ceremony, and will devastate the entire universe, then be reduced to nothing, after it has incinerated everything. That will be the end of their myth. But I am certainly the rash one for betraying, even in jest, such a great mystery. I should be afraid that Achamoth (i.e. Sophia), who wanted to be unrecognized even by her own son, may rage; that Theletus may become angry; that Fortunata may be irritated. But why worry? I am the Demiurge's man. It will be my fate to return after death to a place where there is no giving in marriage, where we are to be further clothed rather than unclothed (II Cor. 5); where even if I were unclothed of my sex, I would be classified as an angel, neither male nor female. No one will do anything to me since he will not find me as male then.