In contemporary studies on 2nd century’s Valentinian Gnosticism, is widespread the thesis that the aeons of the Pleroma would not constitute real subsistent divine entities, but would represent mere virtualities of the one person of the Son. In the narrations about the formation of the Pleroma, the Valentinian theogonic myth would describe the same thing the great church professes: the generation of the second hypostasis of God, the Word. This article asks whether awareness of this interpretation can be found in the heresiologists of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, those on whom we mainly depend to know the archaic phase of Valentinian doctrines. By reviewing the testimonies of these authors (Irenaeus; Tertullian; Refutatio; Origen; Clement and also Plotinus) we question if it is so sure to sustain this thesis as the unique or privileged interpretation of the phenomenon. The article then proposes two other complementary hermeneutical keys.