Pleroma

← Encyclopedia

A single Greek noun carries the whole architecture. Plērōma — fullness, completion, the state of a thing filled to its measure — was an ordinary word before it became a map of the divine. A net is a plērōma of fish when it is full; a ship’s complement of sailors is its plērōma; the patch that fills a tear in a garment is, in the Gospel idiom, the plērōma of the cloth. In the hands of the second-century teachers who built the most elaborate cosmologies the early Christian world produced, the word stopped describing full things and named instead the only thing that is full without remainder: the entire population of the divine realm, every emanated being that stands between the unknowable source and the empty world below. The Fullness. Everything that the godhead is, spread out into persons.

A diagram of the Valentinian Pleroma from Jacques Matter’s “Histoire critique du Gnosticisme” (1826), reconstructing the aeons from the heresiological sources — Jacques Matter, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain).

Genealogy: from a full net to the full godhead

The technical sense did not arrive from nowhere. The New Testament had already pushed plērōma toward metaphysics. The letter to the Colossians, which the scholarly mainstream dates to the latter half of the first century and which the field continues to debate as to authorship, makes the charged claim that in Christ “all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily” — pan to plērōma tēs theotētos sōmatikōs (Colossians 2:9), echoing the earlier statement that it pleased God for “all the fullness” to dwell in him (Colossians 1:19). The Greek behind “fullness” in both verses is plērōma; theotēs, the abstract noun for deity, occurs nowhere else in the canon. Commentators across confessional lines read the passage as a deliberate intervention: a writer reclaiming a loaded term from speculators who had begun to treat the divine plērōma as a graded population of intermediary powers, and insisting instead that the whole of it resides, undivided, in one body. The polemic only makes sense if the speculative usage was already in the air.

The word also had a philosophical pedigree the Colossian writer would have known. Greek thought had long needed a name for the totality of being, the sum of what is, and plērōma lay ready for the work. What the second-century teachers did was to fuse the cosmological sense — the All, the complete inventory of the real — with the religious one, the indwelling presence of deity, and to people the result. The Fullness became neither an impersonal totality nor a single resident god, but a graded society of divine persons, each a portion of the whole, the godhead distributed.

By the time of Valentinus — an Alexandrian teacher active in Rome around the middle of the second century, by the consensus reconstruction roughly 100 to 160 or 180 — that speculative usage had hardened into a system. What survives of it comes mostly through hostile hands. The bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, writing his catalog of heresies around 180, devotes the opening book of Against Heresies to laying out the Valentinian myth in order to refute it, and his summary of the school of Ptolemy is the single richest source for the doctrine of the Fullness. The irony is structural: the most detailed account of the Pleroma comes from a man assembling it as evidence for the prosecution. The Coptic library unearthed at Nag Hammadi in 1945 supplied first-hand Valentinian texts — the Gospel of Truth, the Tripartite Tractate, the Gospel of Philip — that let the tradition speak in its own voice and largely vindicated the heresiologist’s outline even as they softened his mockery.

Page 70 of Nag Hammadi Codex VII, carrying the close of the Second Treatise of the Great Seth and the opening of the Apocalypse of Peter; the 1945 find returned first-hand Gnostic texts to scholarship — via Wikimedia Commons (public domain).

The teaching: thirty aeons in fifteen pairs

Begin where the Gnostic systems begin, which is before beginning. At the root of all things stands the Father, called Bythos — the Depth — the perfect pre-existent Aeon, unbegotten, uncontainable, invisible, dwelling through measureless ages in stillness and repose. The apophatic instinct here is total: of the Depth almost nothing can be predicated, since predication divides, and the source is before division. With the Depth dwells his consort, Silence — Sigē, also called Thought — and the first act of the divine is not a command but a pairing.

From this primal couple the Fullness unfolds by emanation, and it unfolds two by two. The Depth and Silence bring forth Mind (Nous, also named the Only-Begotten and the Father of all that follows) and Truth; Mind and Truth bring forth Word (Logos) and Life (Zoē); Word and Life bring forth Man (Anthropos) and Church (Ekklēsia). These eight are the foundational Ogdoad — the original octave of the divine. Word and Life then put forth ten further aeons, the Decad; Man and Church put forth twelve, the Dodecad. Eight, ten, and twelve: thirty aeons in all, ranked in fifteen male-female pairs. Each pair is a syzygy — a yoking, a conjugal coupling — and the syzygy is the load-bearing principle of the whole edifice. Nothing in the Fullness exists alone. To be is to be paired; to be paired is to be complete; and the sum of all the pairings, the assembled and harmonious totality of the aeons, is the Pleroma.

Mead’s 1906 survey reconstructs this scaffolding from the heresiologists at length, and is hosted here as a historical witness — valuable for its access to the sources, though its Theosophical framing of a single perennial “Gnosis” is a reading the academy has set aside.

The aeons are not abstractions stacked in a ledger. They are the contents of the godhead rendered as living persons, each one a name of an attribute the Depth contains — Mind, Truth, Word, Life, and on through the more recondite pairs (Profundity and Mingling, Ageless and Union, Self-produced and Pleasure, Immovable and Blending, Only-begotten and Blessedness, and the rest of the Decad and Dodecad). The Fullness is therefore not a place but a fabric of relations, a community whose members know the Depth only through Mind, the sole aeon able to comprehend the Father, who longs to communicate that vision and is restrained, lest the others be consumed by it.

The logic of the syzygy deserves a second look, because it is what makes the later catastrophe legible. A pair is stable in a way a single thing is not: the male member supplies form and the female receptivity, or, in another idiom, one is the act and one the fruit, and neither is complete without its yoke-fellow. The Fullness holds together because everything in it is held by something else. This is why the cardinal sin of the upper world will not be pride in the ordinary sense, nor disobedience to a command, but the attempt to act alone — to generate without a partner, to know without mediation, to break the binding by which the divine stays whole. The architecture, in other words, is built so that its one possible failure is already named in its first principle. To grasp the Pleroma is to see the fault line running through it from the start. The system is at once a vision of perfect completeness and an explanation of why completeness could be lost.

For the Neoplatonists working in the same Mediterranean world a few generations later, the comparison is instructive and the difference sharp. Plotinus too derived a graded reality from an unknowable source by procession, and he too placed Nous, the divine Intellect, just below the ineffable first principle, the One. But the Plotinian procession is serene, an overflow that loses nothing and suffers no rupture, and Plotinus wrote pointedly against the Gnostics for importing into the intelligible world a drama of fall, fear, and repair — for staining the calm of the higher reality with a myth of crisis. The Valentinian Fullness is precisely a divine world that can be wounded. That is its scandal to the philosophers and its power as a story.

A third-century marble head from Ostia, plausibly identified as the Neoplatonist Plotinus, who wrote against the Gnostics for importing a drama of fall and repair into the intelligible world — Unknown author, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0).

Sophia’s fall and the wounding of the Fullness

The youngest of the thirty aeons is Wisdom — Sophia, the last and lowest member of the Dodecad, born at the rim of the divine world farthest from the source. The Fullness was perfect, and then it was not, and the hinge of the whole myth is what she did. Seized by a passion she shared with no consort, Sophia reached beyond her station toward the Depth itself, desiring to comprehend the incomprehensible Father directly, without the mediation that holds the aeons in their order. The desire was love and the desire was transgression at once. Had it run its course it would have dissolved her into the sweetness of the source. Instead it tore the symmetry. Acting alone — without her syzygos, the partner who completes and steadies her — she conceived alone, and what she conceived was a formless thing, a defect, an abortion (ektrōma) with no proper share in the Fullness.

So the Pleroma takes a wound from within. The deficiency is not an invader from outside the godhead; it is the divine world’s own youngest wisdom, overreaching. Here the system makes its sharpest move. To heal the breach the Father puts forth a new power whose office is exactly to draw the line: Limit — Horos, also named the Cross (Stauros), the Boundary-maker, the Redeemer, the Establisher. Limit performs a double work, and the duplicity is the point. It separates the wandering Sophia from her stray passion and her misbegotten offspring, expelling the formless intention beyond the divine pale; and it then ringfences the Fullness, sealing the aeons within their proper measure so that the catastrophe cannot recur. Sophia, purified of her passion, is restored to her pair. The Fullness is made whole again — but now it is a wholeness that knows its own edge, a perfection ringed by a fence it did not need before.

What Limit casts out becomes the seed of everything below. The expelled passion, the offspring conceived without a partner, takes up an existence outside the Fullness in a region the Valentinians named with deliberate antithesis: the kenōma, the Emptiness — the Void, the place of deficiency, the exact negative of the Pleroma. If the Fullness is the godhead spread into persons, the Emptiness is the absence of godhead given a shadow-population of its own. There a lower wisdom (often distinguished as Achamoth, Sophia’s exiled lower self) shapes, in imitation of the Fullness she can no longer enter, a counterfeit cosmos and a counterfeit maker — the Demiurge, an artisan-god who builds the material world believing himself supreme, ignorant that a Fullness exists above him. He and his subordinate powers, the archons who rule the planetary spheres, govern the kenoma as jailers govern a prison whose walls they mistake for the whole of reality. The structure of the lower world is thus a parody of the upper: where the Pleroma has its triangle of spirit and its harmonies, the Emptiness has its chaos and its squared-off matter, a reflection cast downward and reversed.

The joint fruit and the gathering-in

The myth does not end at the fence. To stabilize the restored Fullness and to begin the long work of repair, all thirty aeons contribute their finest portion — each its most beautiful and proper power — to fashion a single new being who gathers the whole of the Pleroma into one form. This is Jesus, also called Savior (Sōtēr) and Christ, the “joint fruit” or “common fruit of the Fullness,” the flower in whom the entire divine world is concentrated and offered back to the Father. The Savior is the Pleroma made portable. He descends through the boundary toward the Emptiness, not to abandon the Fullness but to extend it, carrying its light into the place that has none.

For the spiritual element scattered below — the divine spark, the seed of the upper world sown into certain human beings when the lower wisdom fashioned them — the descent of the Savior is the possibility of return. Gnosis, the saving knowledge, is in the end knowledge of the Fullness: of one’s own origin in it, one’s exile from it, and the way back across the boundary. The aeons of the Pleroma are not only the furniture of heaven; they are the homeland the awakened soul recognizes as its own. The end toward which the whole drama runs is the apokatastasis, the restoration, when the gathered spiritual seed is led up past the Limit and the bridal-chamber union of each redeemed element with its angelic counterpart completes the pairing that the lower world had severed. The Fullness, having lost a portion of itself into deficiency, takes that portion back. The kenoma, drained of the light that was never properly its own, ceases. What remains is what there was at first: the Fullness, full.

Reception and afterlife: from heresy to the fullness that is nothing

The Pleroma had a long downward career in the centuries after Valentinus. To the heresiologists it was the chief exhibit in a case against the whole Gnostic enterprise — Irenaeus mocks the thirty aeons as an arbitrary mythological inflation, a pagan theogony in Christian dress, and the Church that formed around the canon of Colossians took the letter’s word at face value: the Fullness is not a graded population of intermediaries but the single undivided deity present in Christ. The Valentinian sense was, in effect, legislated out of orthodox usage, surviving as a term of art only in the polemics written to bury it. When the Coptic codices surfaced at Nag Hammadi in 1945, the first-hand texts let the doctrine of the Fullness be read at last from inside its own tradition rather than through the reports of its enemies, and the modern study of Gnosticism — the work of scholars such as Bentley Layton, Michael Williams, and Karen King — has spent decades sorting what the Valentinians actually taught from the polemical caricature and from the later perennialist reframings that treated every esoteric current as one.

The word’s strangest second life belongs to the twentieth century. In 1916 the Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, in the grip of the visionary crisis recorded in his private Red Book, wrote and printed for friends a short cycle of seven Gnostic-styled discourses, the Septem Sermones ad Mortuos — the Seven Sermons to the Dead — ascribing them to the second-century Alexandrian teacher Basilides. The cycle opens on the dead returning from Jerusalem, finding nothing they sought, and demanding teaching; the first word the teacher gives them is Pleroma. But Jung inverts the Valentinian sense almost exactly. His Fullness is not a populous heaven of paired aeons; it is the undifferentiated ground in which all opposites coincide and therefore cancel, so that fullness and emptiness become the same condition: “Nothingness is the same as fullness.” The Pleroma in the Sermons is the All that is indistinguishable from the Nothing, against which the creature defines itself only by distinctiveness — by stepping out of the fullness into difference. The ancient term for the populated divine world becomes, in Jung’s hands, the name for the abyss before all population, the plenum-void from which the psyche must differentiate itself or be dissolved.

A page of Carl Jung’s privately printed “Septem Sermones ad Mortuos” (1916), the Gnostic-styled cycle that opens with the word “Pleroma” and equates fullness with nothingness — C. G. Jung, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain).

That reversal is the measure of how far the word had traveled — from a net heavy with fish, to the populous godhead of the second-century schools, to a depth-psychologist’s name for the fullness that is also the void. The Valentinian Pleroma and the Jungian one are not the same teaching, and the New Testament Fullness is a third thing again; what they share is the conviction that completeness lies somewhere other than the visible world, and that the deficiency we inhabit is the shape left by something whole.

→ In the library: Mead — Fragments of a Faith Forgotten (1906) · Mead — Pistis Sophia (1921)

→ Related: Gnosticism · Valentinianism · Aeon · Sophia · Archon · Demiurge · Emanation · Gnosis · Nous · The One · Apophatic Theology · Nag Hammadi Library · Valentinus · Ptolemy The Gnostic · Irenaeus · Basilides · Yaldabaoth · Neoplatonism · Plotinus · Carl Jung · G R S Mead · Hermes Trismegistus · Corpus Hermeticum