creation to the
Patristic and Simonian controversies of later ages.

The Simon of Justin gives us the birthplace of Simon as at Gitta, and
the rest of the fathers follow suit with variation of the name. Gitta,
Gittha, Gittoi, Gitthoi, Gitto, Gitton, Gitteh, so run the variants.
This, however, is a matter of no great importance, and the little burg
is said to-day to be called Gitthoi.[78]

The statement of Justin as to the statue of Simon at Rome with the
inscription "SIMONI DEO SANCTO" has been called in question by every
scholar since the discovery in 1574 of a large marble fragment in the
island of the Tiber bearing the inscription "SEMONI SANCO DEO FIDIO," a
Sabine God. A few, however, think that Justin could not have made so
glaring a mistake in writing to the Romans, and that if it were a
mistake Irenaeus would not have copied it. The coincidence, however, is
too striking to bear any other interpretation than that perhaps some
ignorant controversialist had endeavoured to give the legend a
historical appearance, and that Justin had lent a too ready ear to him.
It is also to be noticed that Justin tells us that nearly all the
Samaritans were Simonians.

We next come to the Simon of Irenaeus which, owing to many similarities,
is supposed by scholars to have been taken from Justin's account, if not
from the _Apology_, at any rate from Justin's lost work on heresies
which he speaks of in the _Apology_. Or it may be that both borrowed
from some common source now lost to us.

The story of Helen is here for the first time given. Whether or not
there was a Helen we shall probably never know. The "lost sheep" was a
necessity of every Gnostic system, which taught the descent of the soul
into matter. By whatever name called, whether Sophia, Acamoth, Prunicus,
Barbelo, the glyph of the Magdalene, out of whom seven devils are cast,
has yet to be understood, and the mystery of the Christ and the seven
aeons, churches or assemblies (_ecclesiae_), in every man will not be
without significance to every student of Theosophy. These data are
common to all Gnostic aeonology.

If it is argued that Simon was the first inventor of this aeonology, it
is astonishing that his name and that of Helen should not have had some
recognition in the succeeding systems. If, on the contrary, it is
maintained that he used existing materials for his system, and explained
away his improper connection with Helen by an adaptation of the
Sophia-mythos