272 PREFACE TO THE 



spoken of the parents of Eros ; but that ftesiod in 

 the order of his theogony places Gaia and Eros next 

 after primeval Chaos. 1 It seems in truth probable 

 that the fables which make Eros the son of Zeus 

 and Aphrodite are of later origin. From the Sym 

 posium Bacon may also have derived the recognition 

 of an elder and a younger Eros, of whom the former 

 was allied to the heavenly Aphrodite, and the latter 

 to Aphrodite Pandemus. 2 But it is more probable 

 that his account of the distinction between them 

 comes from some later writer. 



Hesiod, to whom the first speaker in the Symposium 

 refers, though he places Eros and Gaia next to Chaos, 

 says nothing of Eros as the progenitor of the universe. 

 His existence is recognised, but nothing is said of his 

 offspring. In this the theogony of Hesiod differs es 

 sentially from that which is contained in the Orphic 

 poems, and shows I think signs of greater antiquity. 

 To recognise as a deity an abstract feeling of love or 

 desire, is in itself to recede in some measure from the 

 simplicity of the old world : we find no such recogni 

 tion in Homer ; and the transition from him to Hesiod 

 is doubtless a transition from an earlier way of think 

 ing to a later. But even in Hesiod Eros is not the 

 producing principle of the universe, nor is his share 

 in its ( production explained. On the other hand in 

 the Orphic poems, Phanes, whom we are entitled to 

 identify with Eros, is the progenitor of gods and men, 

 the light and life of the universe. He comes forth 

 from Chaos, uniting in his own essence the poles of 



1 Sympos. p. 178.; and see Valcknaer s Diatribe, to whom Stallbaum 

 refers. On the other hand Pausanias mentions as an early myth that Eroa 

 was the son of Ilithyia. See Pausan. Bceot. ix. 27. 



2 Sympos. p. 180., and see also p. 195. 



