Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros19VariaHeresiology and the History of Re...

Varia

Heresiology and the History of Religions. The Case of the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis

Eresiologia e storia delle religioni. Il caso del Panarion di Epifanio di Salamina
Gaetano Spampinato

Résumés

Since the publication of Alain Le Boulluec’s pivotal work on the birth of the concept of “heresy”, ancient heresiology has been the subject of numerous research. Among the authors of anti-heretical treatises touched by this “rediscovery” of the heresiological genre, Epiphanius of Salamis is certainly one of the most significant. His work, the Panarion (“medicine chest”), is a vast work rich in information on numerous “heretical” groups, which reflects the richness and heterogeneity of the religious panorama in Late Antiquity. In this article, I will explore three themes and lines of research on Epiphanius and his work that emerged in the last decade and that are becoming significant, more in general, in the research on ancient heresiology: the “construction” of the heresiologist’s life as an auctoritas in the field of heresy by the sources; the heresiological-genealogical model that Epiphanius proposes in the Panarion; the different literary forms that “compose” his work.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1. From heresies to heresiology

  • 1 See Cameron 2003, 471.

1In an article which appeared more than 20 years ago under the rather evocative title of How to Read Heresiology, Averil Cameron states:1

Baroque in its variations and its ornament, Christian heresiology did not of course begin in late antiquity with the extraordinarily inventive, even fictive, catalogues contained in the Panarion, or “Medicine Chest,” of Epiphanius of Salamis in the 370s, but from that moment on it never looked back.

  • 2 Cameron opens this article with a rather “effective” image to illustrate the uncertain success of h (...)
  • 3 In other words, scholars had been interested in heresiological works as sources (often not very rel (...)

2The scholar wrote this interesting and important contribution at a time when the study of ancient heresiology was in a great state of ferment. Indeed, in the 1980s, Alain Le Boulluec’s seminal study marked a turning point in the study of a literary genre that had hitherto caused some embarrassment in the academic community.2 Or rather, the heresiologists of the first centuries of Christianity had naturally been studied, and important works, critical editions, and translations had been devoted to their writings. Scholars, however, had to ask themselves how to approach the information contained in heresiological writings. In other words, these writings had often been considered only for the information which they provide about the heresies that they discuss, and not on a historical and literary level. Moreover, because of the heresiologists’ distorted views of heterodox movements, these same contents had often been judged critically.3

  • 4 See Le Boulluec 1985. This work has recently been translated into English, with a preface by Le Bou (...)
  • 5 I will mention later some studies on Epiphanius that represent significant examples of this approac (...)
  • 6 For a general overview on the discourse analysis, see Coulthard 1985; on its application to ancient (...)
  • 7 On this theme, see the recent contribution of Aragione 2023.

3Le Boulluec’s work was revolutionary in the study of heresies. In fact, it invites scholars to approach the heresiological genre from the perspective of the construction of the various heretical groups by the authors themselves, thus investigating the development of the notion of heresy in these sources.4 In short, we could say that the French scholar shifts the focus from heresies (and the analysis on heretical movements) to heresiology itself. In his perspective, anti-heretical works are explored not only as a mine of information about heterodox groups in the first centuries of Christianity, but also in their literary dimension and authors’ perspectives. Some previous studies had already admitted such an approach,5 but Le Boulluec marked a decisive step. Indeed, this very contribution played a major role in leading scholars from the last decades of the 20th century to approach anti-heretical texts from a new perspective, concentrating on the strategies of the heresiologist, through the approach of the discourse analysis.6 The scholar’s study further reinforces a concept already hinted at in earlier periods: the close connection and mutual existence of “heresy” and “orthodoxy”.7

  • 8 On the dynamic of the construction of the other and, simultaneously, the reflection on the self(...)
  • 9 I only mention the case of the anthropophagic ritual of the Gnostics reported by Epiphanius of Sala (...)

4This new perspective on heresiology has significantly advanced the study of religions during the imperial and late-ancient periods. Analysing heresiological treatises reveals how polemicists, in their depiction of heresies, refer not only to other heresies (attempting, as we will see later, to establish genealogical connections between groups) but also the religions of the “others”, Jews and pagans. This juxtaposition of heretics with other groups serves a polemical purpose: heresiologists aim to show that heretics are closer to these groups than to the true Christian faith8. In particular, in their portrayal of pagans, heresiologists draw from various traditions. Regarding, for example, ritual aspects, they sometimes describe civic rituals of their contemporaries or of earlier times; in other cases, they refer to a literary tradition about specific rituals or cults of a deity; occasionally, they seem to completely invent the practices and customs of their adversaries, drawing from a series of polemical motifs, such as anthropophagy9. In essence, the critical analysis of heresiological texts is valuable for the study of ancient religions not only for the information these works contain but also for how they create a certain imagery about pagans that is then used in the description of the heretics.

5Shifting the focus from heresies to heresiology has enabled scholars to approach these works differently, highlighting their significance in the history of religions. The new approaches and methodologies that have emerged in recent decades have allowed for deeper exploration of heresiology and the discovery of significant aspects. Building on this, this article explores recent innovations in the study of heresiology and those that, in my opinion, could significantly contribute to the analysis of heresiologists and anti-heretical works within the broader context of religious studies. To illustrate this, I will concentrate on the case of Epiphanius of Salamis, whose life and heresiological work, the Panarion, have garnered attention since the last century.

6After an overview on the history of studies on Epiphanius, my analysis will focus on three specific themes. First of all, I will examine Epiphanius’ life, as it is depicted by the author himself and later sources. These texts often connect his literary anti-heretical production with his political activity. I will then focus on Epiphanius’s heresiological model, specifically his methods of “creation” and classification of heresies. This theme has deeply interested scholars: Epiphanius, through the category of αρεσις, aims to clearly define a wide array of religious movements and groups. Finally, I will explore the influence of various literary forms in Epiphanius’ treatise, a topic that may shed light on some aspects that have been less analysed. Although the Panarion is a heresiological work, its form, content, and narrative strategies indicate that it extends “beyond heresiology”, drawing on contemporary literary works such as novels and mimes. This analysis will reveal how new approaches in the study of ancient religions influenced the study of Epiphanius and his work. At the same time, it will highlight how the study of this author can give new insight in the historical study of heresiology and, in general, of religions in Late Antiquity: the Cypriot bishop, along with the heresiologists influenced by his work, effectively “conceal” and categorize the multifaceted religious panorama of this period under the concept of αρεσις.

2. The study of Epiphanius and his heresiology

  • 10 I will return to the richness of the Panarion’s sources later in this paragraph. Here I will confin (...)
  • 11 Riggi’s scholarship on Epiphanius is very extensive, since, as already mentioned, he dealt with man (...)

7Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia, ancient Salamis in Cyprus, is one of the authors of anti-heretical works who attracted the attention of several scholars from the last century. There are many reasons for this interest. One of them is the fact that his treatise, the Panarion (“medicine chest, against the poison of heresy), is an enormous work, one of the longest heresiological treatises of Late Antiquity. It is extremely rich in information on a considerable number of groups, all of which Epiphanius includes under the definition of αρέσεις. Even before Le Boulluec, Epiphanius and his works had been investigated by different scholars: I can mention, for example, the philological and literary work on the Panarion and all the sources that are quoted in the treatise.10 In this regard, I recall one of the most important Epiphanius scholars of the second half of the last century, Calogero Riggi, who devoted numerous studies to the heresiology of Epiphanius.11 However, Riggi’s interest for the Cypriot bishop is quite rare throughout the 20th century, in a period when there was some “mistrust toward Epiphanius (see infra, par. 5).

  • 12 See, for example, Rapp 1990, 1993, and 2005; Jacobs 2016.
  • 13 The examples are numerous, since studies on the Panarion have also been carried out within works de (...)

8Thanks to the new approach inaugurated by Le Boulluec, numerous innovative studies have been carried out on Epiphanius since the end of the last century, shedding new light on various aspects of the Panarion and its author. These studies made it possible to insert this heresiological work in the context of the religious dynamics of Late Antiquity. I will limit myself to pointing out two macro-lines of research that emerged in the last decades. On the one hand, some scholars focused on Epiphanius as a figure of authority, in close relation to his ecclesiastical and literary activities. This line of research, historical in character but enriched with reflections on the society of the time, is perfectly represented in the contributions by Claudia Rapp and in the recent “biography” of the bishop by Andrew Jacobs.12 On the other hand, some studies have taken a specific interest in the Panarion, in the manner in which Epiphanius presents the αρέσεις and in his use of religious lexicon (for example, the term μυστήρια).13

  • 14 See Pourkier 2007.

9Among the scholars who have made significant contributions to the scholarship on Epiphanius’ heresiology, Aline Pourkier is surely one of the most important. The French scholar devoted several studies to these topics: I will just recall two of them which provided a particularly original perspective. In an article published in 2007, Pourkier explored the question of heresiology as a “new Christian genre”.14 The scholar concerned with the contextualisation of heresiology within the literary landscape of the 2nd-3rd centuries, showing how heresiology is one “genre” among others, and how it borrows various elements from these other literary forms. At the same time, according to Pourkier, heresiology has its own specificity that gives it a peculiar literary aspect: in particular, the presentation and refutation of αρέσεις.

  • 15 See Pourkier 1992. A year earlier, the scholar had already addressed some of the themes of the book (...)
  • 16 More recently, in an analysis of the Simonian heresy in the Panarion, Pourkier has taken up some re (...)

10Fifteen years before the publication of this article, Pourkier had already been the author of an important volume on the Panarion.15 As the title of the book, L’hérésiologie chez Épiphane de Salamine, suggests, the scholar analyses the heresiological construction of heresies in the work of the Cypriot bishop, focusing on the sources used by Epiphanius and highlighting some relevant aspects on the way in which the author combines several texts. Furthermore, a central aspect of this book is precisely how this use of the sources is connected to the “construction of heresies – according to Le Boulluec’s critical perspective.16

  • 17 See Pourkier 2023.
  • 18 Until now, there have only been partial translations of Epiphanius’ work into French, such as that (...)
  • 19 The scholar also dedicated a large part of the introduction to summarizing the contents of each cha (...)

11It is precisely because of the scholar’s commitment to the study of heresiology that her recent edition of the Panarion, published in September 2023, is a much-awaited work.17 On a more practical level, this edition is the first systematic French translation of Epiphanius’s work, even if only the first part.18 Beside the useful translation, the strongest part of the volume is the long introduction. This section goes beyond merely presenting the chapters of the heresiological treatise: it addresses broader issues related to reconstructing Epiphanius’s life and the composition and structure of his work.19 Furthermore, Pourkier gives great importance to some very debated aspects of the Panarion, such as the concept of αἵρεσις which emerges from Epiphanius’ heresiological system (see infra). The scholar creates an effective synthesis of the decades of research on Epiphanius, covering different approaches and interests: philology, literature, history of the church, etc. Furthermore, the French scholar suggests several underexplored themes in the study of Epiphanius, particularly regarding his style. The Cypriot bishop has often been dismissed as an uneducated and “fanatical writer. This negative reputation rendered him of little interest for literary and historical studies; however, overcoming this misconception reveals the literary significance of Epiphanius’s heresiological work and its fundamental role in understanding the religious dynamics among various groups in Late Antiquity. The study of the Panarion, its author, and its cultural and literary context uncovers previously overlooked aspects, as I will demonstrate in the following paragraphs.

3. Bishop, monk, and heresiologist: the connection between Epiphanius’ life and his work

  • 20 See Pourkier 2023, 9-10.
  • 21 On the “holy man”, see Brown (1971) and Rapp (1991), who reflects on some of the aspects of Brown’s (...)

12In the chapter of her volume dedicated to Epiphanius’ life, Pourkier recalls the most relevant sources: the author himself in his works, especially the Panarion, where he gives us details about his early stay in Egypt and his life as a monk; Jerome, who was a friend of the bishop; the church historians of 4th-5th cent., who give us information about Epiphanius’ family, his origins and the events of his life.20 The scholar also mentions a later hagiographical writing, the Life of Epiphanius, which presents the bishop as a “holy man”, according to Peter Brown’s definition, adapting his biographical events to give a precise picture of him.21

  • 22 Epiphanius recounts the story of the clash with the ascetic Peter in the Panarion (40, 1, 2-9). The (...)
  • 23 On the struggles between Epiphanius and John of Jerusalem, see Pålsson (2021, 117-132). Epiphanius (...)
  • 24 The debate about the Long Brothers and the controversy against John Chrysostom would have led to th (...)
  • 25 Koester 1991 emphasises the role of writing as a means of control by community leaders. The connect (...)

13Pourkier analyses the various political and religious events in which Epiphanius was involved between the 4th and 5th centuries, both before and after the writing of his major work. This account highlights a very interesting aspect of the bishop’s life as recorded in the sources: his constant involvement in controversies, which brought him into conflict with those who, from his point of view, were schismatics or heretics. His life, from his return to Besanduche until, literally, his death, is marked by polemic debates: the refutation of the ascetic Peter;22 the schism of Antioch (see infra); the first Origenist crisis and the clash with John of Jerusalem;23 the controversy with the “Long Brothers” and the journey to Constantinople, where he came into conflict with John Chrysostom.24 In short, we might say that he lived “in the name of controversy”. The involvement of Epiphanius in all these controversies is linked, of course, to his interest in establishing his own authority as bishop of an important see of Cyprus – which was, however, dependent on the Patriarchate of Antioch –, at a time of turmoil for Eastern Christianity. Moreover, these events bring the bishop into contact (and often into conflict) with very important figures of the time: besides the already mentioned John of Jerusalem and Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea, Marcellus of Antioch, and others. In this context, Epiphanius sought to establish his authority through political and literary activity. This is the idea, already present in classical authors, that these two activities are complementary, two sides of the same coin.25

  • 26 On Epiphanius’ involvement in this controversy, see Aragione 2010, 15-16.

14Therefore, in my opinion, this discussion of Epiphanius’ biographical events and his attempt to establish his own episcopal authority acquires a very interesting nuance when correlated with the Panarion. This relationship between the biographical events of the Cypriot bishop and his work can be explored from two different but somehow related perspectives. From the point of view of the composition of the heresiological treatise, there is the fact that Epiphanius was actively dealing with the schism in Antioch at the time of the writing of his work. It was a particularly delicate moment, since Antioch was “in danger” of falling into the hands of an Arian bishop, but the Nicene front was also divided: Epiphanius had to find his voice in a chaotic situation.26 The Panarion was therefore a tool for the further consolidation of his authority.

  • 27 See Pourkier 2023, 343: “En comparant les hérésies à des serpents, Épiphanes ne fait que reprendre (...)

15There is another aspect that should be noted. The theme of poison is very present throughout the treatise: at the end of almost every chapter the heresiologist compares the heresy with a dangerous animal, often a snake. Even if other heresiologists, such as Irenaeus, had also used the images of the snake to talk about heresy, in Epiphanius this discourse becomes systematic and the most relevant characteristic of the Panarion.27

  • 28 The semantic ambiguity of φάρμακον, which means both “poison and “cure, should be noted – see Pen (...)
  • 29 It is enough to recall the attribute of “healer given to Jesus: on this topic, I will just mention (...)
  • 30 We can think of Epiphanius’ encounter with the Gnostics, during his stay in Egypt. He speaks of thi (...)

16Through this constant insistence on the dangers of heresy, Epiphanius presents himself as a connoisseur of its poisons. As such, he is able not only to handle them without “hurting himself” but also to warn those who have not yet been in contact with these poisons and to propose remedies for those who have been bitten by a heresy-snake.28 The image of the healer is quite common in Christian literature, but in the Panarion it has a central dimension29. At several points in the treatise, the heresiologist insists on having read the works of these heretics or even having come across them.30 According to Epiphanius, it was precisely his life, his experiences and his reading that made him a connoisseur of heresy and the best healer. Such a reading of the Panarion in the context of its composition is, in my opinion, interesting and allows us to observe how Epiphanius is ‘aware’ of the scopes of this work – the consolidation of his authority.

  • 31 In the preface to his treatise On Heresies (proem. 6), for instance, Augustine recalls that Epiphan (...)
  • 32 On the Confessor’s activity against the Monothelites, see Skliris 2021.
  • 33 On the construction of this episode and its use in hagiographical sources, see Rochow 2007.

17Regarding the relationship between the heresiologist and his work, it is also possible to reflect on the other texts on the life of Epiphanius. These are mostly sources that tend to have a positive vision of the bishop, if not celebratory, as in the case of Jerome. In these texts, Epiphanius is almost always celebrated for his great authority and for his redaction of the Panarion, an indispensable tool to refute heresies.31 The sources portray the Cypriot bishop as an unyielding figure, always eager to expose heretics and a “guardian” of Orthodoxy in various fields. The insistence on these very aspects by these authors reflect an idea of a correspondence between the author’s biography and literary activity. In short, Epiphanius’ life would be closely linked to the recognition and refutation heresy and would be, thus, perfectly embodied by the Panarion. This mirroring of the literary activity of heresiologist in the depiction of his lives is evident in later authors. For example, Maximus the Confessor devoted many works to polemics against the Monothelites, who asserted that Christ had only one will32. Within this controversy, the monk earned the title “Confessor” (Ομολογητής): according to hagiographic sources, the Monothelites retaliated against his literary and political efforts by cutting his hand and tongue. Another interesting case is represented by John of Damascus, who lived under the Umayyad Caliphate. In several works, John engages in polemics against two prominent groups of his time: the Iconoclasts and the “Ishmaelites” (the Muslims). Hagiographic texts on John say that his hostility against these two “heresies” had severe consequences: the Iconoclast emperor and the caliph punished him by cutting off his hand, which was miraculously healed by the Virgin Mary.33 This example illustrates how the lives of heresiologists are often depicted ‘in reflection’ of their literary activities: heresiology, we could say, is “absorbed” in the representation of the life of these authors.

4. A new concept of αἵρεσις: the classification system of the Panarion

18The Panarion’s list of heresies does not begin with the groups who were born after the coming of Christ, but with the creation of the world: in fact, the first twenty heresies are “pre-messianic”, while the other sixty arose after the coming of the Saviour. Epiphanius is not the first heresiologist to refer to groups and movements that preceded the coming of Christ. For example, the first book of the Elenchos deals with an entire series of Greek philosophers. In the Panarion, however, this becomes a more pronounced discourse, since, as we shall see, it appears functional to the general strategy of classifying heresies.

  • 34 See Pourkier 2023, 26: “Le terme hairesis est chez lui un terme générique d’un emploi très souple, (...)
  • 35 Riggi 1967b, 5-6.

19It follows that, in Epiphanius’ work, the concept of αρεσις is much broader. Pourkier claims that the heresiologist uses this term referring to the idea of grouping.34 However, the definition proposed by Riggi is still the one that, in my opinion, best depicts the complexity of this term:35

l’accezione in Epifanio è sempre negativa, sia come deviazione dalla condotta cristiana che come deviazione dalla retta dottrina, sia come errore dottrinale implicito (nello scisma) che come errore dogmatico esplicito (nell’eresia comunemente intesa) […] un’entità non statica, ma dinamica, ed il suo allargarsi per le strade del mondo è come l’allargarsi di una macchia, cioè incerto e vago.

  • 36 See Aragione 2010. The same expression can already be found in Schott 2006.
  • 37 On the construction of the heretics in the Panarion, see also Gilhus 2015.
  • 38 The Samaritans, on which chapter 9 of the Panarion focuses, are described as characterised by a pec (...)

20This definition captures the idea of the evolution of the various heresies by spreading “like a stain” in the historical perspective of the phenomenon. For this reason, Gabriella Aragione, with a very effective formula, defined the Panarion as “una storia universale dell’eresia”.36 It is not only because of this element, if not introduced, at least ‘perfected’ by Epiphanius, that this way of classifying heresies ab origine is interesting. In the Panarion, the various heresies have continuous contacts with each other, especially the pre-Messianic ones with those appeared after the coming of Christ. I am referring to the ‘genealogies’ that Epiphanius traces between the various αρέσεις.37 The first four chapters of the Panarion are dedicated to the “mothers of all heresies” (αρέσεων μητέρες): Barbarism, Scythianism, Hellenism (that is, paganism) and Judaism.38 In fact, all the movements and groups that would follow (both the pre-Messianic and post-Messianic ones) derived from these heresies.

  • 39 It should be noted, however, that Epiphanius also attaches great importance to the ritual elements (...)
  • 40 Epiphanius attributes the invention of idolatry to a specific biblical figure, Tharra, who was the (...)
  • 41 Panarion 27, 6, 9-10.

21The groups that were born after the coming of Christ used to boast of being Christians in name, but through their doctrines and their rituals they demonstrated to be close to these mothers of heresies. In the first four chapters, Epiphanius clearly traces the characteristics of these μητέρες especially the most ‘dangerous’ ones, Hellenism and Judaism, on the doctrinal, ritual, and even behavioural level.39 The presence of these same characteristics in the following heresies becomes, in the heresiological system of Epiphanius, the sign of the derivation of these groups from a specific “mother of the heresies”. I give an effective example. Idolatry is for the Cypriot bishop the founding characteristics of Hellenism, as it is described in the third chapter of the Panarion.40 Later on, in the chapter on the post-Messianic Carpocratians, the heresiologist claims that they venerated images of Christ and some Greek philosophers.41 According to Epiphanius, this attitude clearly shows that these heretics are “pagans” (θνη) in all the practices that they accomplish. The derivation of the Carpocratians is therefore evident from a ritual element.

  • 42 For example, the Elenchos compares the “heretical” priest Noetus with the philosopher Heraclitus (M (...)
  • 43 Panarion 30, 1, 1-5.

22The association of Christian heresies with Greek philosophical schools is not an innovation by Epiphanius: the author of the Elenchos associates with each philosophical school a Christian heresy that adopted its doctrines.42 In the Panarion, however, this association becomes systematic and much more complex. Epiphanius plays on various associations in order to connect a specific group to several heresies – not only to the μητέρες. For example, the Ebionites, who pretend to be Christians, adopt the customs of the Jews, but also several elements of the Samaritans, the Ossaeans, the Nasaraeans (pre-messianic Jewish heresy), and even of the Nazoraeans, the Cerinthians, and the Carpocratians. For this reason, these heretics resemble the terrible Lernaean Hydra, with its many monstrous heads.43

  • 44 On this work, see the introduction of the volume by Carcione 1993.
  • 45 Already Epiphanius (Panarion 80, 1, 3-4) had suggested that the Messalians derived from the pagans: (...)
  • 46 See John of Damascus, On Heresies 100. On the representation of Islam in this work, see Monaca 2017 (...)

23In short, in classifying and connecting the various heresies, Epiphanius constructs a complex heresiological system in which every reference is taken up in the stigmatisation of the groups. It is true that this system is sometimes imperfect, as can be seen from the inconsistencies that often arise from the incredible amount of material used by the heresiologist. Nevertheless, this way of classifying heresies, of mixing different polemical elements, and of bringing together groups and movements would prove largely successful in later heresiology. Timothy of Constantinople (6th-7th cent.) expanded Epiphanius’s classification model in his treatise, On those who rejoin the Church, with a practical purpose. He divides the heresies on the basis of the measures to be taken by ecclesiastical authorities in order to (re)admit heretics in the Church.44 One of the criteria concerns the influence of other religions on the heretical group: if a heresy comes from paganism (for example, Messalianism), a new baptism will be necessary because the ritual received by the heretics should be considered useless imitation of the orthodox one.45 Furthermore, to classify new groups and movements, heresiologists use well established religious categories. It is precisely for this reason that John of Damascus classifies Islam as the αἵρεσις of the Ishmaelites, which exhibits traits of paganism (the worship of the black stone) and Judaism (circumcision).46

5. Heresiology beyond heresiology: the literary forms of the Panarion

  • 47 It is worth noting that Fraenkel 1962 had complained about the lack of a more systematic interest i (...)
  • 48 Aragione 2010, 5.

24At the beginning of this article, I recalled that Epiphanius and his work were for a long time, if not ignored, then at least not taken into due consideration by scholars.47 As Aragione states:48

Stimato, rispettato e venerato nell’antichità, Epifanio non è molto apprezzato dagli studiosi: accecato dal fanatismo antiereticale il vescovo non sarebbe una figura intellettuale di spessore […]. Il Panarion non è considerato un corposo trattato eresiologico, […] ma è un’opera fragile, quanto a stile e speculazione teologica, che rivela scarsa familiarità con la cultura greca ed è un’eccessiva faziosità che deforma il pensiero di grandi teologi come Origine.

  • 49 Riggi 1966, 104.
  • 50 For example, Diels 1879, 175 had already ironized on Epiphanius’ confusion between the various phil (...)
  • 51 Panarion, Letter to Acacius and Paul 2, 4.
  • 52 See Vallée 1981, 73. In this regard, Puech 1930, 652 had already highlighted the “chaleur communica (...)

25The words of Aragione are a good summary of the main points criticized by scholars. First of all, the question of the language and style of the Panarion, which are very disharmonic and at times confused. Even one of the most important student of Epiphanius, Riggi, is of the opinion that “la sua espressione è disarmonica, confusa, complicata, agli antipodi dei canoni della retorica”.49 The bishop’s absence of linguistic elegance would be connected to his lack of training in classical rhetoric: this would contrast with the fine rhetorical skills exhibited by some of his contemporaries, such as John Chrysostom. The lack of classical παιδεία would also characterise Epiphanius’ superficiality in dealing with Greek philosophy, which emerges from his imprecise descriptions of philosophical schools.50 The second point concerns Epiphanius’ excessive polemical inclination, which leads him not only to distort the contents of his opponents’ doctrines but also to indulge in offenses of all kinds. The Panarion is rich in invectives against the heretics: after all, Epiphanius himself, in the preface of his work, apologizes to his readers for his excessive impetuosity towards his enemies.51 Precisely because of this irreverence, Gérard Vallée defined the Cypriot bishop as a “master” of insults.52

  • 53 The explicit distancing from the ideals of traditional rhetoric is part of Epiphanius’ strategy (se (...)
  • 54 Riggi 1969, 203 had already warned against an overly simplistic vision of Epiphanius: “Nell’accosta (...)

26These two issues, the linguistic/stylistic one and that of Epiphanius’s “crassness”, appear to be unrelated, but scholarship has actually often brought them together while offering the portrait of an author far removed from classical παιδεία and more interested in virulent refutation than in discussing theological questions53. Even after the “rediscovery” of Epiphanius and the accumulation of studies on the work of the Cypriot bishop in the last decades, this negative reputation persists in a certain way.54

  • 55 Epiphanius specifically mentions Anatolius, who transcribed and revised the text, and Hypatius, who (...)

27In her introduction to the Panarion, Pourkier deserves credit for further problematising these issues, analysing the question of language and style and that of Epiphanius’ impetuosity independently – but with inescapable connections. Regarding the language, it is certainly true that, in terms of clarity of exposition, lightness of sentence, and often syntactic coherence, Epiphanius’ Greek cannot be compared to that of other Christian writers of his period. However, the heaviness and lack of elegance of the treatise could be related to the context in which it was written: Epiphanius dictated the work to his disciples, as can be seen from the final greetings.55 In addition, the heresiologist copied, transcribed, and modified both his writings and numerous other sources, as previously shown. The composition of such an imposing work would also have had a certain effect on the final quality of the work – a big book is a big evil, Callimachus would say! In other works, such as the short Ancoratus, Epiphanius’ writing appears clearer and more linear: of course, he is always far from the elegance of Basil or Gregory of Nyssa, but nevertheless he demonstrates a coherent use of the language. For this reason, the Cypriot bishop could be considered a “not-very-elegant” author, but surely not an illiterate.

  • 56 See Pourkier 2023, 38: “Les insultes sont courantes : la femme de Simon n’est qu’une ‘putain’, lui- (...)
  • 57 Pourkier 2023, 29.

28As for the crassness of the “master of insult”, drawing up a list of Epiphanius’ most aggressive offences,56 Pourkier also points out that his style does not consist only in insults. Or rather, she invites to contextualise these offences in the broader panorama of his dynamic style:57

Mais si le style est maladroit, il n’est pas exempt de couleurs et de spontanéité. Épiphane a une imagination concrète et précise, comme le prouve par exemple la longue comparaison qu’il fait entre la secte des adamiens et la taupe […]. Les apostrophes, le style direct, donnent à son écriture de la vivacité. Il sait mettre en scène les hérétiques et composer des petites dialogues très vifs entre eux et leurs opposants.

  • 58 In Panarion 35, 3, 1-8, Epiphanius compares the pure Church to a dove, using a metaphor from the So (...)

29In short, Epiphanius knows how to draw on a variety of registers. The most aggressive passages are perhaps an extreme form of his polemical style, but the Panarion is rich in many other registers and does not lack even more poetic rhetoric, especially when the author speaks of monastic life or the harmony of the Church. In these passages, Epiphanius’ language becomes plain: the heresiologist abandons the virulence of the heresiological attack and devotes himself to the exaltation of purity, quoting, for example, the Song of Songs.58

  • 59 See Berzon 2016.
  • 60 For example, at the end of his work, Epiphanius recalls that errors are widespread in the world amo (...)

30In the Panarion, therefore, the author shifts between several registers and styles: this seems natural in a work which, as already mentioned, is the result of a combination of different texts and in which Epiphanius deals with various themes. The continuous changes of registers and the use of a varied and dynamic lexicon reflect the influence of numerous literary forms in this treatise: in my opinion, this could be, in the next years, one of the most fruitful areas of research into Epiphanius’ work. As frequently underlined, the Panarion belongs entirely to heresiology and it marks a turning point in this genre. However, this work shows the influence of other literary genres, as we have already seen in the previous paragraph in the case of scientific literature. One of these genres is that of ethnography. Todd S. Berzon has examined how ancient heresiology takes up some of the characteristics of ancient ethnography: in particular, the classificatory intent, on a narrative level, the attention paid to the mirabilia of populations.59 This characteristic, which the scholar observes in the heresiology of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, took on particular importance in Late Antiquity thanks to Epiphanius. The Panarion contains numerous sections which focus on the rituals, the customs, the practices, and even the most curious habits of the heretics. According to Berzon, the heresiologist became the ethnographer of the heresies.60 This aspect is important in the study of the ancient religions. As mentioned, heresiological works are the richest sources of details not only about doctrines but also about the practices, rituals, and customs of heretical groups. However, just as in ethnographic works, we find in heresiological treatises a particular focus on those astonishing elements that reflect the characteristics of this genre and that should caution us when reconstructing the characteristics of these religious groups.

  • 61 See Kim 2010b.
  • 62 On the representation of “charlatans in both Christian and non-Christian authors (in particular, L (...)
  • 63 I mention, for example, the polemical and irreverent portrayal of Muhammad by John of Damascus (On (...)

31Another literary form which is present in the Panarion is biography, in particular the works dedicated to the life of philosophers, that were widespread from Hellenistic time. According to Young R. Kim, the Panarion is a collection of several biographies dedicated to the heresiarchs, where the Cypriot bishop inverts the model of the “holy man” (which was very diffused in this kind of works) in his presentation of the lives of the heretical masters, in order to present ridiculous and irreverent portraits of these figures.61 Epiphanius seems to adopt this polemical strategy of representing the enemy from previous polemicists, not only Christians: among all, one of the most important is certainly Lucian of Samosata.62 The heresiarchs, with their lives, their vices, and their misdeeds, contradict the virtues and honest ideas that they preach: this way of presenting the heretical master would become very successful in later periods.63

  • 64 The (very often polemic) approach of Christian writers towards theatre, and in particular mime, has (...)
  • 65 See Panarion 21, 3, 4 and 26, 1, 7. For other examples, see infra.

32The so-called “mime” is another literary form whose characteristics are used by Epiphanius. It is worth noting that this genre was very diffused in Late Antiquity64: the heresiologist refers very frequently to these spectacles and in some cases even mentions authors of mimes, such as Philistion.65 The mime is characterized by content that is often comic, ridiculous, ‘exaggerated’ and even vulgar, featuring an imitation (μίμησις) of both scenes from everyday life (portrayed with standardized and humorous characters) and episodes from “mythical” narratives, presented in a sarcastic manner.

  • 66 Panarion 66, 22, 1 (trad. Williams 2013).
  • 67 Panarion 33, 8, 2 (trad. Williams 2009).

33It is precisely this mimetic element, infused with a degree of irony, that Epiphanius exploits when mocking certain doctrinal or practical aspects of the heretics. For instance, after outlining the teachings and ideas of the master Mani, Epiphanius rhetorically asks: “But who could fail to laugh out loud to say the rest, since the tales of Philistion probably carry more conviction than Mani’s mimes?”.66 The “fables” of the Persian master are explicitly referred to as “mimes” (μίμοι), deemed even more implausible and ridiculous than those written by Philistion. Furthermore, in his critique of Ptolemy’s doctrines, which he recounts in the famous letter to Flora included in the Panarion, Epiphanius declares:67

None of the ancient tragic poets, nor the imitative ones after them – I mean Philistion, and Diogenes who composed incredible yarns, or all the others who wrote the myths down and recited them, could make up as much falsehood as these people have manufactured horrors for themselves […] and have smothered their converts’ minds with foolish questions and endless genealogies.

34The comparison between Ptolemy’s writings and the works not only of tragic poets but also of their “imitators” is particularly intriguing. The fables of the heretical master not only resemble “myths”, in the sense of fantastical tales, but even surpass the works of mimographers (who reinterpret and subvert tragedies) in their ridiculous, absurd, and even “horrific” content – another hallmark of the mime.

  • 68 Panarion 76, 54, 34-35 (trad. Williams 2013, slight. modified).

35Epiphanius also exploits the mimetic dimensions of mimes when discussing the rituals of heretics, whom he accuses of ‘staging’ them in an eccentric manner. For instance, in recalling how the heresiarch Eunomius required those who wished to join his group to undergo a “second baptism”, the heresiologist states68:

And to make it clear that it is no longer faith which their whole workshop of jugglery, spectacle and stage performance proclaims, but practically a mime, some maintain that he baptizes his candidates for rebaptism upside down, with their feet on top and their heads below. And while they are in this position he obliges them to swear an oath that they will not abandon the sect he has cooked up.

  • 69 Epiphanius is not the only polemist to employ a lexicon inspired by comedy and mime to ridicule the (...)

36Epiphanius places particular emphasis on the manner in which this baptism is performed. During the ritual, catechumens are submerged headfirst and, in this position, they are forced by the heresiarch to swear allegiance to his doctrine. This second baptism takes place under conditions of coercion, where the catechumens are subjected to practices that verge on torture to compel their participation. The inverted posture not only underscores the element of compulsion but also highlights the ridiculous nature of the rite. For this reason, Epiphanius describes it as a veritable “spectale” (θυμέλη), a “stage performance” (σκηνή), and a “mime” (μῖμος), terms that expose the deceitful nature of the practice, linking it to the concept of κυβεία (“jugglery”, especially in dice game). In other words, Eunomius is mimicking authentic baptism, but the manner in which it is performed exposes its absurdity. Through the mimetic component of the μμος, Epiphanius succeeds in giving a ‘literary form’ to an idea already present in earlier heresiology: heretics always try to imitate the Orthodox. The rituals, because of their “performative” dimension, lend themselves perfectly to an association with mime.69

  • 70 It is worth noting that some of the aspects which I presented earlier, such as the portrayal of the (...)
  • 71 Panarion 30, 4, 1 – 12, 10.
  • 72 Pourkier 2023, 97.
  • 73 One can consider the case of the anthropophagous ritual of the Gnostics (see note 7), in which Epip (...)

37The list of the literary forms that appear to have had an influence in Epiphanius’ work could go on with the mention of other literary forms once wrongly considered “popular”, such as fables or proverbs, which are present in the Panarion. I will only mention the interesting case of the so called “ancient novel”. In various passages of his work, Epiphanius introduces long stories or episodes that present all the characteristics of this literary genre: adventures, creepy scenes, love affairs, etc.70 The most famous case is the story of Joseph of Tiberias, whom Epiphanius says to have known: this man, a Jew by birth, decided to convert to Christianity after various astonishing vicissitudes71. The heresiologist, who includes the story of Joseph in the chapter on the Ebionites, interrupts his refutation of heresy to tell this story in a very lively and animated way. This story, marked by loves affairs, dramatic twists, and thrilling adventures, is narrated by Epiphanius in an engaging and entertaining manner. On this “novel inside the treatise, Pourkier observes that “ce récite, très vivant et fort bien raconté, révèle chez notre auteur un réel talent de conteur”.72 Other sections of the Panarion also show the influence of ancient novels on Epiphanius’ heresiology. Notably, the accounts of the heresiarchs’ adventures and the descriptions of heretical rituals are prime examples. As mentioned, the Cypriot bishop aims to capture the attention of his readers, directly addressing them in these passages73. His aim is not only to provide guidance on recognizing and refuting heresies but also to entertain his public. This demonstrates that, despite Epiphanius’ alleged lack of literary relevance, the heresiologist is aware of the literary character of his work and that the Panarion is an heresiological work “beyond heresiology”.

6. Conclusions

38This paper explored some innovative lines of research on Epiphanius’s heresiology. The first focus is the study of sources on the Cypriot bishop’s life, which is closely tied to his role as a heresiologist. Epiphanius uses personal stories to bolster his authority as a defender of orthodoxy, a theme echoed by subsequent sources. In other words, it is possible to notice a connection between the heresiologist’s life, according to the sources, and his literary work. The second focus is the heresiological system of the Panarion and its concept of αρεσις. Recent discourse-analytical approaches offered insights into how Epiphanius constructs heresies using a model that will be adopted by subsequent heresiologist in the description of new religious movement – such John of Damascus’ description of Islam. The most relevant aspect of this model is surely the “heretical genealogies” that the author constructs in his work. The final point concerns the literary forms in the Panarion. This work includes in fact some themes and motifs that appear unrelated to heresiology stricto sensu, such as the attention to the vices of the heresiarchs and to the customs of the heretics. These themes demonstrate the influence on the Panarion of various literary genres, such as the novel, the biography, and the mime. This influence shows Epiphanius’ will to create an heresiological work that goes “beyond heresiology”, entertaining his readers while presenting them the characteristics of several religious groups. This interrelation between heresiology and other literary forms, “inaugurated” by Epiphanius, is a promising area for future study, both for the Panarion and, more in general, for late antique heresiology.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Albinius 1997: L. Albinius, «Discourse Analysis within the Study of Religion: Processes of Change in Ancient Greece», Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 9.3 (1997), 203-232.

Alviz Fernández, Hernández de la Fuente 2023: M. Alviz Fernández, D. Hernández de la Fuente (eds), Shaping the “Divine Man”. Holiness, Charisma and Leadership in the Graeco-Roman World, Stuttgart 2023.

Aragione 2010: G. Aragione, «Una “storia” universale dell’eresia. Il Panarion di Epifanio», in G. Pini (ed.), Epifanio di Salamina. Panarion. Libro Primo, Brescia 2010, 5-75.

Aragione 2012: G. Aragione, «L’hérésiologie comme genre littéraire: des traités de controverse aux catalogues d’hérésies», in F. Vinel (ed.), Écrire contre. Quête d’identité, quête de pouvoir dans la littérature des premiers siècles chrétiens, Strasbourg 2012, 95-117.

Aragione 2014: G. Aragione, «Hérésiologie, politique ecclésiastique et autorité des Écritures. À propos du Panarion d’Épiphane», in D. Frey, Chr. Grappe, M. Wieger (eds), Usages et mésusages de l’Écriture. Approches interdisciplinaires de la référence scripturaire, Strasbourg 2014, 97-110.

Aragione 2023: G. Aragione, «Hétérodoxie/Orthodoxie» (in collaboration with M.-H. Blanchet, D. Iogna-Prat and B. Sère), in F. Gabriel, D. Iogna-Prat, A. Rauwel (eds.), Dictionnaire critique de l’Église. Notions et débats de sciences sociales, Paris 2023, 503-520.

Bady 2023 : G. Bady, «Avant-propos», in A. Pourkier (ed.), Épiphane de Salamine. Panarion, tome I. Livre I (hérésies 1 à 25), Paris 2023, 7-8.

Berzon 2016: T.S. Berzon, Classifying Christians. Ethnography, Heresiology, and the Limits of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, Oakland 2016.

Bigham 2008: S. Bigham, Epiphanius of Salamis Doctor of Iconoclasm? Deconstruction of a Myth, Rollinsford 2008.

Brown 1971: P. Brown, «The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity», The Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971), 80-101.

Cameron 2003: A. Cameron, «How to Read Heresiology», Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 33.3 (2003), 471-492.

Camplani 2004: A. Camplani, «L’autorappresentazione dell’episcopato di Alessandria tra IV e V secolo. Questioni di metodo», Annali di Storia dell’esegesi 21 (2004), 147-185.

Carcione 1993: F. Carcione (ed.), Timoteo e Germano di Costantinopoli. Gli Scritti, Roma 1993.

Ciarlo 2014-2015: D. Ciarlo (ed.), Epifanio di Salamina. Panarion eresie 61-66, 67-73, 74-80, Compendio della fede, 3 voll., Roma 2014-2015.

Coulthard 1985: M. Coulthard, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, Harlow 1985.

Dechow 1988: J. Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity: Epiphanius of Cyprus and the Legacy of Origen, Macon 1988.

Diels 1879: H. Diels (ed.), Doxographi graeci, Berlin 1879.

Fraenkel 1962: P. Fraenkel, «Histoire sainte et hérésie chez saint Épiphane de Salamine, d’après le tome I du Panarion», Revue de théologie et de philosophie 12 (1962), 175-191.

Gilhus 2010: I. Gilhus, «Bischof Epiphanius von Salamis und der “Medizinschrank gegen Ketzer”», in T. Hägg (ed.), Kirche und Ketzer: Wege und Abwege des Christentums, Köln 2010, 41-56.

Gilhus 2015: I. Gilhus, «The Construction of Heresy and the Creation of Identity: Epiphanius of Salamis and His Medicine-Chest against Heretics», Numen 62.2-3 (2015), 152-168.

Greatrex 2015: G. Greatrex, «Introduction», in G Greatrex, H. Elton, L. McMahon (eds), Shifting Genres in Late Antiquity, Farnham 2015, 1-7.

Harnack 1904: A. von Harnack (ed.), Ptolomaeus. Brief an die Flora, Bonn 1904.

Holl 1915-1933: K. Holl (ed.), Epiphanius I, Ancoratus, Panarion, De Fide, Leipzig 1915-1933.

Iricinschi, Zellentin 2008: E. Iricinschi, H. Zellentin, «Making Selves and Making Others: Identity and Late Antique Heresiologies», in E. Iricinschi, H. Zellentin (eds), Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity, Tübingen 2008, 1-27.

Jacobs 2016: A.S. Jacobs, Epiphanius of Cyprus: A Cultural Biography of Late Antiquity, Oakland 2016.

Kim 2010a: Y.R. Kim, «Bad Bishops Corrupt Good Emperors: Ecclesiastical Authority and the Rhetoric of Heresy in the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis», Studia Patristica 47 (2010), 161-166.

Kim 2010b: Y.R. Kim, «Reading the “Panarion” as Collective Biography: The Heresiarch as Unholy Man», Vigiliae Christianae 64.4 (2010), 382-413.

Kim 2015: Y.R. Kim, Epiphanius of Cyprus: Imagining an Orthodox World, Ann Arbor 2015.

Koester 1991: H. Koester, «Writings and the Spirit. Authority and Politics in Ancient Christianity», Harvard Theological Review 84 (1991), 353-372.

Le Boulluec 1985: A. Le Boulluec, La notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque, II-III siècles, 2 vol., Paris 1985.

Le Boulluec 2022: A. Le Boulluec, The Notion of Heresy in Greek Literature in the Second and Third Centuries, Oxford 2022 (ed. or. Paris 1985).

Lyman 1997: J.R. Lyman, «The Making of a Heretic. The Life of Origen in Epiphanius Panarion 64», Studia Patristica 31 (1997) 445-451.

Lyman 2000: J.R. Lyman, «Ascetics and Bishops. Epiphanius on Orthodoxy », in S. Elm, É. Rebillard, A. Romano (eds), Orthodoxie, Christianisme, Histoire / Orthodoxy, Christianity, History, Roma 2000, 149-161.

Massa 2018: F. Massa, «Mystery Cults in Epiphanius’ Panarion: Tracing the Link between Heresy, Philosophy, and Ritual», Religion in the Roman Empire 4.2 (2018), 353-375.

Massa 2020: F. Massa, «Des dieux qui jouent: polémiques religieuses autour du fr. 52 D.-K. d’Héraclite dans l’Empire romain», in D. Bouvier, V. Dasen (eds), Héraclite: le temps est un enfant qui joue, Liège 2020, 27-45.

Mele, Mirto 2017: A. Mele, A. Mirto (eds), Epifanio di Salamina. Panarion, eresie 1-29, 30-41, 42-60, 3 voll. Roma 2017.

Nagy 2001 : A. Nagy, «La forme originale de l’accusation d’anthropophagie contre les chrétiens, son développement et les changements de sa représentation au 2e siècle», Revue d’Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques 47.2 (2001), 223-249.

Pålsson 2021: K. Pålsson, Negotiating Heresy. The Reception of Origen in Jerome’s Eschatological Thought, Münster 2021, 117-132.

Pennacchio 2014: C. Pennacchio, «Farmaco, un Giano bifronte: dei veleni e medicamenti, ovvero breve storia di un ossimoro», Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 80 (2014), 117-169.

Pini 2010: G. Pini (ed.), Epifanio di Salamina. Panarion (Libro primo), Brescia 2010.

Pini 2016: G. Pini (ed.), Epifanio di Salamina. Panarion (Libro secondo), Brescia 2016.

Pini 2017: G. Pini (ed.), Epifanio di Salamina. Panarion (Libro terzo), Brescia 2017.

Pourkier 1991: A. Pourkier, «Une méthode pour aborder scientifiquement l’hérésiologie d’Épiphane et un aperçu des résultats obtenus», in N. Fick, J.-C. Carrière (eds), Mélanges Étienne Bernard, Paris 1991, 351-361.

Pourkier 1992: A. Pourkier, L’hérésiologie chez Épiphane de Salamine, Paris 1992.

Pourkier 2007: A. Pourkier, «L’hérésiologie aux premiers siècles du christianisme, nouveau genre littéraire», Collection de l’Institut des Sciences et Techniques de l’Antiquité 1079 (2007), 389-398.

Pourkier 2011: A. Pourkier, «Simon le Mage et les Simoniens chez Épiphane de Salamine», Ktèma 36 (2011), 57-73.

Pourkier 2023: A. Pourkier (ed.), Épiphane de Salamine. Panarion, tome I. Livre I (hérésies 1 à 25), Paris 2023.

Puech 1930: A. Puech, Histoire de la littérature grecque chrétienne. Depuis les origines jusqu’à la fin du IVe siècle, vol. 3, Paris 1930.

Quiroga Puertas 2013: A.J. Quiroga Puertas, «Léxico y ortodoxia religiosa en el Panarion de Epifanio de Salamis», Ilu. Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones 24 (2013), 13-19.

Rapp 1990: C. Rapp, «Frühbyzantinische Dichtung und Hagiographie am Beispiel der Vita des Epiphanius von Zypern», Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 27 (1990), 3-31.

Rapp 1993: C. Rapp, «Epiphanius of Salamis: The Church Father as Saint», in A. Bryer, G.S. Georghallides (eds), The Sweet Land of Cyprus: Papers Given at the Twenty-Fifth Jubilee Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1991, Nicosia 1993, 169-187.

Rapp 1999: C. Rapp, «“For Next to God, You are My Salvation”: Reflections on the Rise of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity», in J. Howard-Johnston, P.A. Hayward (eds), The Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Essays on the Contribution of Peter Brown, Oxford-New York 1999, 63-81.

Rapp 2005: C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity. The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, Oakland 2005.

Reece 2019: S. Reece, «Jesus as healer: etymologizing of proper names in Luke-Acts», Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 110.2 (2019), 186-201.

Riggi 1966: C. Riggi, «La figura di Epifanio nel IV secolo», Studia patristica 8 (1966), 86-107.

Riggi 1967a: C. Riggi, Epifanio contro Mani, Roma 1967.

Riggi 1967b: C. Riggi, «Il termine hairesis nell’accezione di Epifanio di Salamina (Panarion t. 1; De fide)», Salesianum 29 (1967), 3-27.

Riggi 1969: C. Riggi, «Il linguaggio teologico in Epifanio di Salamina», in Il linguaggio teologico oggi, Milano 1969, 608-639.

Riggi 1972: C. Riggi, «Comprensione umana nella Bibbia secondo Epifanio (Panarion LIX)», in Studi Classici in onore di Quintino Cataudella, vol. 2, Catania 1972, 607-635.

Riggi 1979: C. Riggi, «Formule di fede in sant’Epifanio di Salamina», Salesianum 41 (1979), 309-321.

Riggi 1993: C. Riggi (ed.), Epifanio di Salamina. L’ancora della fede, Roma 1993.

Rochow 2007: I. Rochow, Die Legende von der abgehauenen Hand des Johannes Damaskenos, Frankfurt am Main 2007.

Schadler 2018: P. Schadler, John of Damascus and Islam, Leiden – Boston 2018.

Schmeling et al. 2015: G.L. Schmeling, M. Paschalis, S. Panayotakis (eds), Holy Men and Charlatans in the Ancient Novel, Eelde 2015.

Schott 2006: J. Schott, «Heresiology as Universal History in Epiphanius’s Panarion», Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 10 (2006), 546-563.

Skliris 2021: D. Skliris, «The notions of the person and the individual in light of the question of the individuality of Christ in Saint Maximus the Confessor (ca. 580-662)», in S. Mitralexis, M. Vinzent (eds), Individuality, knowledge, virtue and existence in Maximus the Confessor, Leuven – Paris 2021, 29-42.

Spampinato 2023: G. Spampinato, «The Representation of False Prophets in Polemical Discourses. A Comparative Analysis», ARYS (2023), 429-454.

Tardieu 1918: M. Tardieu, «Épiphane contre les Gnostiques», Tel Quel 88 (1918), 64-91.

Vallée 1981: G. Vallée, A Study in Anti-gnostic Polemics. Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Epiphanius, Waterloo 1981.

Verheyden 2011: J. Verheyden, «Epiphanius of Salamis on Beasts and Heretics. Some Introductory Comments», in J. Verheyden, H. Teule (eds), Heretics and Heresies in the Ancient Church and in Eastern Christianity. Studies in Honour of Adelbert Davids, Leuven 2011, 143-173.

Webb 2008: R. Webb, Demons and Dancers. Performance in Late Antiquity, Cambridge-London 2008.

Wickham 1968: L.R. Wickham, «The Syntagmation of Aetius the Anomean», Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968), 532-569.

Williams 2009: F. Williams (ed.), The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Book I (Sects 1-46), Leiden – Boston 2009.

Williams 2013: F. Williams (ed.), The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Book II and III. De Fide, Leiden – Boston, 2013.

Young 1982: F.M. Young, «Did Epiphanius Know What he Meant by “Heresy”?», Studia Patristica 17 (1982), 199-205.

Haut de page

Notes

1 See Cameron 2003, 471.

2 Cameron opens this article with a rather “effective” image to illustrate the uncertain success of heresiology in academic context: “If, as has been suggested, literature is the Cinderella of Byzantine studies, then heresiology is still the Cinderella of late antique and Byzantine literature. Whether writings against heresy can be considered literature at all is of course a wider question…” (Cameron 2003, 471).

3 In other words, scholars had been interested in heresiological works as sources (often not very reliable) on the heresies of ancient Christianity. This is especially true of monumental works such as the Panarion of Epiphanius. They are very rich in information on a large number of groups. For this reason, G. Aragione spoke of an “encyclopaedia of heresies”, but warned against its use as such: “Per questo motivo il lettore sa di dover utilizzare con prudenza e spirito critico le informazioni, pur sempre preziose, contenute in questa “enciclopedia” delle eresie” (Aragione 2010, 49).

4 See Le Boulluec 1985. This work has recently been translated into English, with a preface by Le Boulluec himself in which the scholar takes stock of almost forty years of scholarship following his original publication: see Le Boulluec 2022. A brief terminological premise: in this article, I adopt the term “literary genre”, but I am naturally aware of the debates surrounding its uses: see, for example, Greatrex 2015. This choice is due not only to practical convenience but also to the fact that several secondary sources do use this term. For example, with regard to heresiology as a “Christian literary genre”, I refer to the excellent analyses by Pourkier 2007, and Aragione 2012.

5 I will mention later some studies on Epiphanius that represent significant examples of this approach (see note 10).

6 For a general overview on the discourse analysis, see Coulthard 1985; on its application to ancient religions, see Albinius 1997.

7 On this theme, see the recent contribution of Aragione 2023.

8 On the dynamic of the construction of the other and, simultaneously, the reflection on the self, see the introductory reflections by Iricinschi and Zellentin 2008 in their co-edited volume on the construction of identity and alterity in Late Antiquity, with a particular focus on heresiology.

9 I only mention the case of the anthropophagic ritual of the Gnostics reported by Epiphanius of Salamis (Panarion 26, 5, 5-6; infra). According to the heresiologist, in fact, these heretics would actually be, on a doctrinal and ritual level, more similar to pagans than to Christians. The accusation of anthropophagy had already been levelled by the pagans against the Christians (see Nagy 2001).

10 I will return to the richness of the Panarion’s sources later in this paragraph. Here I will confine myself to recalling one important aspect. Not only does Epiphanius make use of earlier polemical and heresiological sources, but he also quotes extensively from texts attributed to the same heretical groups about which he speaks. For this very reason, various parts of the treatise have been the subject of philological study: for example, the critical edition of the letter to Flora (Harnack 1904) or of the syntax of Aetius (Wickham 1968).

11 Riggi’s scholarship on Epiphanius is very extensive, since, as already mentioned, he dealt with many aspects related to the Cypriot bishop and his work: theological (Riggi 1979) and linguistic (Riggi 1969) aspects, exegetical elements (Riggi 1972), and so on. Riggi is also the author of the editions of two texts of the Bishop of Cyprus, the chapter on the Manichaeans of the Panarion (Riggi 1967a) and the Ancoratus (Riggi 1993).

12 See, for example, Rapp 1990, 1993, and 2005; Jacobs 2016.

13 The examples are numerous, since studies on the Panarion have also been carried out within works devoted more generally to other subjects (for example, a specific group). I will confine myself to mentioning some recent studies: Gilhus 2010; Quiroga Puertas 2013; Massa 2018.

14 See Pourkier 2007.

15 See Pourkier 1992. A year earlier, the scholar had already addressed some of the themes of the book, in particular the need to know the mechanisms of heresiology in the study of Epiphanius – see Pourkier 1991.

16 More recently, in an analysis of the Simonian heresy in the Panarion, Pourkier has taken up some reflections on the construction of heresy (Pourkier 2011).

17 See Pourkier 2023.

18 Until now, there have only been partial translations of Epiphanius’ work into French, such as that of Michel Tardieu, who translated the passages of the Panarion against the “Gnostics”: see Tardieu 1918. Moreover, this edition is the fourth translation of the Panarion into a modern language, after the English translation by Williams (2009 and 2013), the Italian translation by Ciarlo (2014-2015), Mele and Mirto (2017) and Pini (2010, 2016 and 2017), who also revised the Greek text of Holl’s reference edition of the Panarion (Holl 1915-1933).

19 The scholar also dedicated a large part of the introduction to summarizing the contents of each chapter of Epiphanius’ work. It is, as she herself states, a useful tool for scholars interested in the Panarion, in a part of it or in a specific heresy.

20 See Pourkier 2023, 9-10.

21 On the “holy man”, see Brown (1971) and Rapp (1991), who reflects on some of the aspects of Brown’s contribution, and the recent volume by Alviz Fernández, Hernández de la Fuente (2023)

22 Epiphanius recounts the story of the clash with the ascetic Peter in the Panarion (40, 1, 2-9). The heresiologist’s attention to ascetic movements and monastic life, as well as his ongoing effort to identify and define a correct way of pursuing such practices, continues even after his consecration as bishop of Constantia. Notably, the final chapter of the Panarion is dedicated to the Messalians, an ascetic movement that, during those years, began to spread among Syrian monasteries. For Epiphanius, the bishop must also oversee what takes place within ascetic and monastic contexts. On this topic, see Lyman 2000.

23 On the struggles between Epiphanius and John of Jerusalem, see Pålsson (2021, 117-132). Epiphanius had already begun to argue with the Origenian ideas in the Panarion: chapter 64 of the treatise is devoted to presenting the theologian and his doctrines as heretical (Dechow 1988).

24 The debate about the Long Brothers and the controversy against John Chrysostom would have led to the Synod of the Oak (403) and the deposition of the bishop of Constantinople. On this episode, see Camplani 2004, 176-179.

25 Koester 1991 emphasises the role of writing as a means of control by community leaders. The connection between Epiphanius’ political activity and literary production is also explored by Kim 2010a, and Aragione 2014, who specifically analyse the relationship between his heresiological works and issues related to political authority.

26 On Epiphanius’ involvement in this controversy, see Aragione 2010, 15-16.

27 See Pourkier 2023, 343: “En comparant les hérésies à des serpents, Épiphanes ne fait que reprendre une tradition ancienne des écrivains chrétiens chez lesquels le thème du serpent est bien représenté […]. C’est ce que nous trouvons déjà chez Irène […] et chez Eusèbe […]. Mais ce thème prend un relief tout particulier chez Épiphane qui compare majoritairement à la fin de chacune de ses notices l’hérésie exposée à un serpent précis qu’il décrit à la manière d’un zoologue”. Epiphanius (Panarion proem. 3, 1) recalls many authors who spoke about poisonous animals and plants, such as Nicander of Colophon. On the association heretics-beasts in the Panarion, see also Verheyden 2011.

28 The semantic ambiguity of φάρμακον, which means both “poison and “cure, should be noted – see Pennacchio 2014.

29 It is enough to recall the attribute of “healer given to Jesus: on this topic, I will just mention the recent contribution of Reece 2019.

30 We can think of Epiphanius’ encounter with the Gnostics, during his stay in Egypt. He speaks of this encounter in Panarion 26, 17, 1-9.

31 In the preface to his treatise On Heresies (proem. 6), for instance, Augustine recalls that Epiphanius wrote books to refute heresies. The bishop of Hippo complained about the excessive brevity of the treatise: he was actually reading the abbreviated version of the Panarion, the Anacephalaeoses, which began to circulate a few years after the publication of Epiphanius’ work (see Williams 2009, xxii). The importance of these epitomes in the heresiology of later periods remains a little studied subject in the context of Epiphanius’ legacy among heresiologists.

32 On the Confessor’s activity against the Monothelites, see Skliris 2021.

33 On the construction of this episode and its use in hagiographical sources, see Rochow 2007.

34 See Pourkier 2023, 26: “Le terme hairesis est chez lui un terme générique d’un emploi très souple, recouvrant simplement l’idée de « sectes » et pouvant s’appliquer à toute groupe chrétien ou préchrétien ne répondant pas aux critères d’orthodoxie de la grande église du IVe siècle”. A similar opinion can also be found in Fraenkel 1962. On the contrary, according to Young 1982, in the Panarion αἵρεσις designates everything outside the “Orthodox Church”.

35 Riggi 1967b, 5-6.

36 See Aragione 2010. The same expression can already be found in Schott 2006.

37 On the construction of the heretics in the Panarion, see also Gilhus 2015.

38 The Samaritans, on which chapter 9 of the Panarion focuses, are described as characterised by a peculiar status: they would be a Jewish heresy but would also exhibit some idolatrous features proper to Hellenism. At the same time, they would have given origin to other pre-Messianic heresies (Gorothenes, Sebuaeans, etc.) and would have influenced other post-Messianic heresies, such as Ebionism.

39 It should be noted, however, that Epiphanius also attaches great importance to the ritual elements of heretics. The Panarion is very rich in details about heretical practices: the ritual element often gives heretics a certain connotation and allows the heresiologist to associate a post-Messianic heresy with one of the mothers of heresies – as in the case of the Carpocratians (see infra).

40 Epiphanius attributes the invention of idolatry to a specific biblical figure, Tharra, who was the first to make idols. For the heresiologist, therefore, idolatry was not the work of demons, but precisely the fault of a man (Panarion 3, 1, 4-9).

41 Panarion 27, 6, 9-10.

42 For example, the Elenchos compares the “heretical” priest Noetus with the philosopher Heraclitus (Massa 2020, 31-35).

43 Panarion 30, 1, 1-5.

44 On this work, see the introduction of the volume by Carcione 1993.

45 Already Epiphanius (Panarion 80, 1, 3-4) had suggested that the Messalians derived from the pagans: “For there were others a while ago in their own turn – from about the time of Constantius – who were called Euphemites and Massalians, and I suppose this [present] group has acquired its fervor in imitation of that one. But those were pagan, and neither adherents of Judaism, Christians, nor Samaritans” (trad. Williams 2009).

46 See John of Damascus, On Heresies 100. On the representation of Islam in this work, see Monaca 2017, and Schadler 2018, 142-181.

47 It is worth noting that Fraenkel 1962 had complained about the lack of a more systematic interest in this author, his way of understanding heresiology, and his concept of heresy.

48 Aragione 2010, 5.

49 Riggi 1966, 104.

50 For example, Diels 1879, 175 had already ironized on Epiphanius’ confusion between the various philosophical schools. In his commentary on the chapters of the Panarion devoted to the Greek philosophical schools, Pini (2010, 159-165) points out all the errors in the presentation of the philosophers: for example, speaking of Platonism, Epiphanius “affastella vari dettati platonici” (Pini 2010, 163).

51 Panarion, Letter to Acacius and Paul 2, 4.

52 See Vallée 1981, 73. In this regard, Puech 1930, 652 had already highlighted the “chaleur communicative” of the bishop of Constantia.

53 The explicit distancing from the ideals of traditional rhetoric is part of Epiphanius’ strategy (see, for example, Panarion proem. 2, 6). This approach fits, more broadly, within Epiphanius’s distrust of Greek philosophy and those authors who draw on its ideas, such as Origen (see Lyman 1997).

54 Riggi 1969, 203 had already warned against an overly simplistic vision of Epiphanius: “Nell’accostarci, comunque, al linguaggio teologico di Epifanio, dobbiamo guardarci dal cadere nel facile mito, divenuto luogo comune della critica post rinascimentale, che faceva di Epifanio un vescovo pazzamente fanatico e un ingegno estremamente limitato”.

55 Epiphanius specifically mentions Anatolius, who transcribed and revised the text, and Hypatius, who instead wrote down the notes on quires – see Panarion, On faith 25, 3-4.

56 See Pourkier 2023, 38: “Les insultes sont courantes : la femme de Simon n’est qu’une ‘putain’, lui-même est un ‘charlatan’ qui radote, Satornil est traité d’‘abruti’, Basilide de ‘pauvre type’ et les archontiques d’‘imbéciles’. On pourrait allonger indéfiniment cette liste”.

57 Pourkier 2023, 29.

58 In Panarion 35, 3, 1-8, Epiphanius compares the pure Church to a dove, using a metaphor from the Song of Songs (2, 10 et passim).

59 See Berzon 2016.

60 For example, at the end of his work, Epiphanius recalls that errors are widespread in the world among many peoples. The heresiologist thus begins a long list of populations, from Egypt to India, recording their customs and habits (Panarion, On faith 10,1 – 13, 9).

61 See Kim 2010b.

62 On the representation of “charlatans in both Christian and non-Christian authors (in particular, Lucian) from Imperial period, see Spampinato 2023.

63 I mention, for example, the polemical and irreverent portrayal of Muhammad by John of Damascus (On Heresies 100; see supra): this author portrays the Prophet as a heresiarch full of vices and intent on deceiving his victims.

64 The (very often polemic) approach of Christian writers towards theatre, and in particular mime, has been extensively discussed in a monograph by Webb 2008.

65 See Panarion 21, 3, 4 and 26, 1, 7. For other examples, see infra.

66 Panarion 66, 22, 1 (trad. Williams 2013).

67 Panarion 33, 8, 2 (trad. Williams 2009).

68 Panarion 76, 54, 34-35 (trad. Williams 2013, slight. modified).

69 Epiphanius is not the only polemist to employ a lexicon inspired by comedy and mime to ridicule the rituals of heretics. In one of his homilies, John Chrysostom (Homilies on I Corinthians 40, 1) mocks the Marcionites, who perform a baptism of the dead in a ludicrous manner: a heretic hides under the bed of the deceased and answers on his behalf. To emphasize the comic nature of this ritual, the author uses several terms drawn from the world of theatre and mime: for example, the heretics “play on stage” (ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς παίζοντες) this baptism, just like actors.

70 It is worth noting that some of the aspects which I presented earlier, such as the portrayal of the heresiarch as a charlatan, can also be found in ancient novels, as the recent volume by Schmeling et al. 2015 has shown. It is a transversal genre that had great success beyond religious groups and that also had Christian counterparts, for example in martyrdom and hagiographic texts.

71 Panarion 30, 4, 1 – 12, 10.

72 Pourkier 2023, 97.

73 One can consider the case of the anthropophagous ritual of the Gnostics (see note 7), in which Epiphanius continually appeals to his readers to announce the terrible nature of Gnostic liturgies.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Gaetano Spampinato, « Heresiology and the History of Religions. The Case of the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis »Mythos [En ligne], 19 | 2025, mis en ligne le 01 novembre 2025, consulté le 15 décembre 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/mythos/8303 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/152u3

Haut de page

Auteur

Gaetano Spampinato

University of Bern
Länggassstrasse 51
3012 Bern (Switzerland)
gaetano.spampinato(at)unibe.ch

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search