Sunteți pe pagina 1din 22

How to Read Heresiology

A veril Cameron
Keble College
University of Oxford

If, as has bee::t suggesred, literature is the Cinderella of Byzantine studies,


rhen heresiology is still the Cinderella of late antique and Byzantine lirera­
rure.1 Whether writings aga1nst heresy can be considered literature at all is of
course a wider quesrion; this essay starts from a lower level of inquiry and
sets more basic questions. Our stc.rting point, it must be emphasized, is the
almost total l�ck of rhetorical or literary interest shown for this type of writ­
ing in late antiquiry and ByzanÜ.1m; indeed, one might even say that it is
usually ueated with a degree of repugnance and embarrassment. This may
be hard ro understand, given the huge interest in heresyin the later medieval
West and the sophistication of sorne recent discussion, and the recent grow­
ing inrerest in heresy in late antiquity. I v.rould like to demonstrate the cen­
trality of the m pie for Byzantiurn as well as the \Vest, and to raise the ques­
tion of how heresiological texts should be approached.
Baroque in Ír5 variatiom and its ornament, Christian heresiology
did not of course begin in late amiquity with the extraordinarily inventive,
even ficrive, catalogues contained in rhe Panarion, or "Medicine-Chest," of
Epiphanius of Salamis in rhe 370s, but from that moment on it never
looked back.2 Theodorer of Cyrrhus, another neglecred ,��.rriter, this time of
rhe fifth century,3 countered w·irh \vorl{s induding a Compendium of Hereti­
caL Fabtes and a "Remedy" for the Ajfectiones of the "Greeks," o r pagans; for
as I shall sugg�st, rhese writers operared with a capacio:.ts definirían of what
constituted error. Judaism was rega.rded as a heresy by Epiphanius, Islam by
no less a person than John of Damascus. A certain Timothy \Vrote on rhe
reception of repentant heretics into the Church in the seventh cenrury, and
rhe Patriarch Nicephorus in the ninth carried on the same enthusiastic list­
ing and (mis)naming of both historical and contemporary beliefs.4 They
were succeeded in larer centuries by a host of orhers. A.s part of the process,
and ar the same time to cash in on it, iconoclasm, nor a heresy in rnodern

]ournal of A1ed:eval and Early Modern Studies 33:3, Fall2003.


Copyright © by Duke Univer!ity Press 1 2003 1$2. OO.
eyes, w as presenred as such by its opponenrs, and the ending of the long
controversy over rhe status of religious images (or berter, over the represen­
tarían o f the divine) stimulated rhe production of the so-called Synodikon
of Orthodoxy. This crucial document could be progressively updated to meet
new condirions, offering to rhe imaginative flights of heresiology an official
and prominent place within the Len ten lirurgy.5
Tracing the existence and the nature of Byzantine heresy as an
objective entity is notoriously difficult. W'e rend to have only the version of
the orthodox or of the persecutors, and they rhemselves irritatingly call their
subjecrs by a variety of anachronisric or otherwise inappropriate names. In
contrast the study of medieval heresy in the West profits from a wholly dif­
ferent level of documenration.6 Those who work on the East, o r indeed on
heresy in late antiquiry, have much to learn from the huge amount of schol­
arship that now exisrs on medieval heresy, but in the absence of such docu­
mentary records for rhe East we shall probably never know whether ordinary
people in By zantine villages really harbored heretical ideas, or how rheir alle­
giances affected their lives and their families. Neverrheless, the heresiologies
have a poetics of their own that has y et to be studied. A reviewer commented
on my Christianity and the Rhetoric o f Empire that heresiology was not rhere
included, and that had it been, a different, and darker, Foucauldian analvsis '

might have emerged, the story of Byzancine power relations.7 Perhaps, but
that may take too literal a view of the literature. There may be other agendas
that heresiology also served, and I believe rhat ir is vvell worth looking at this
prolific, and ro us not very attractive, genre in order ro find out whar rhese
agendas might h ave been.
Ir seemed appropriate that an essay in a volume dedicared to Eliza­
beth A. Clark should continue her own exrremely welcome exploration of
the rherorical techniques and the disc.ourses adopted by early Christian writ­
ers. If I concentrare on a period somewhat later than the one Clark has
made her own, ir is with a lively consciousness both that the period covered
by what we often call '\he early Church" needs to be generously defined in
order ro understand it properly, and rhat rhe p atterns set in late antique and
By"Zanrine heresiological discourse form a coherent and easily uaceable tra­
jectory from the earliest centuries of Christianity through to the medieval
world. In addressing this topic, moreover, I am able to build on Clark's work
on Epipha nius and others in The Orígenist Controveny, a book which set rhe
doctrinal quarrels of the late fourth cenrury firmly in the contexr not only of
personal rivalries but also of polemical writings. 8
Heresiology is an embarrassment ro modern scholars. It began early

472 Joumal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies/33.3 /2003


and never lost irs appeal. But our rnodern liberal prejudices make us highly
resistant to rhe idea rhat there can be much imaginative content in such
writing, srill l ess that anyone can have found ir interesting. Is heresiology
therefore merely utilitarian, or worse, a kind of scholastic exercise? For whom
was it w-rinen, and did anyone bother to read it? Was it the equivalent of
publishing a note in a leamed journal, whose main claim to fame will be the
number of entries in a future ciration index? One suspects that this was
indeed the case with John of Damascus's De haeresibus, a hundred chapters
refuring wrong beliefs, \\'hich drew the first eighty from Epiphanius, but
with further additions inc l uding a controversia! and tantalizing final chapter
on Islam, the "heresy of the Saracens."9 \Xlhy bother, except as one more
addition to the encycl opedism already evident in theological writing in the
period?
This modero feeling is a major barrier to appreciation. Jean Gouil­
lard, the editor of such a classic heresiological text as the Byzantine Syn­
odikon of Orthodox;', is only one of many scholars in describing the por­
trayal of heretics in the Greek tens as somewhat "mechanical."10 Writing of
Epiphanius, he describes him as marlcing by common agreement the apogee
of heresiology. L 1 The tendency to encydopedism noted by Gouillard led, at
a later date, to anthologies or panoplia of heresies, like that commissioned
from Euthymius Zigabenus (R. ca. 11 00) by Alexios I, 12 or the Treasury of
Nicetas Choniates (d. 1217), L3 or to monographs on specific examples.14 In
Gouillard's view, the genre led to stylized, defensive, and limited ways of
describing heresy, and to a lack of originality and a superficiality which
impedes accurate description. The latter point is certainly true: nowhere is it
more apparem rhan in the sources relaring to rhe Paulicians and later the
Bogomils, dualisr heretics who appear in the rexts from rhe early medieval
period onward, if one is uying ro reconstruct the extent an d nature of thesc:
beliefs themselves_l5 Kor is this distaste for heresiology an uncommon gen­
eral reaction, if for example we judge from the scholarly consensus, dis·
cussed below, on Epiphanius of Salamis.
I suggesr rhat the very nature of these "vritings is the first problern
to be addressed . 16 Scholars frequently complain that writing about heresy i�
made rhe more diffi.cult because we have to depend so heavily on the ver·
s ion s of the "'vinning side, those who successfully appropriated for them­
selves rhe term orthodox. This is reinforced by the representations of heretio
in Byzantine an, which again naturally stem from the "orthodox" side, anc
tend equally to reduce their subjects to caricatures and srereotypes.17 Se
Byz.anrine heresy is doubly difficult for the historian. On the one hand, th<

Carne ron 1 How toRead Heresiology 47:


cataloguing of heresy itself is a subject with which most of us in rhe post­
Enlightenment �'est have litde sympathy and which we are ap[ ro dismiss
with disparaging remarks about superficial.ity and stereoty ping, while on rhe
other hand, the texts themselves v,:ith fe,v exceprions presenr heresy and
heretics from only one side, a s the realrn of the "other," or even the demonic.
All these reactions, let it be noted, stan from the premise that heresiologies
are there as sources of information, rarher rhan as performat.ive or func­
tional rexts.
Such reactions have of course fuelled the .idea of Byzantium as a

repressive and unenlightened sociery. Scholars have in the main read heresi­
ologies and other writings on heresy as indicative of real situat.ions. W ithin
the field of By zantine studies, orthodox rheology is generally regarded as a

special techn.ical area, and therefore when it comes to heresiology historians


have rarely been willing to take rhe theological content seriously. A well­
known anide by Roben Browning, for example, describes what he saw as
the "emasculat.ion" of Hellenism, in the form of educaion, in Bvzanrium ir:
J

the tvvelfth century.18 John !talos, the successor of Psellos as Consul of rhe
Philosophen, and others like him were in his view the ''ictims of a repressive
atmosphere in which genuine questioning was stifled. Many scholars have
refused ro rake the actual charges on their own terrns; rather, the victim�
were tried for "intellectual" heresy, to be distinguished from allegedly "pop­
ular" heresies such as Bogomilism is said to have been.19 Real religiom
motives are discounred, and on rh.is reductionist view ir is rhe state rhat lead�
the attack; úe fact that the charges againsr John form part of the catalogue
in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy is noted rather rhan discussed.20 Written
sorne n.venry-five years ago now� Browning's anide still illustrares how
extremely hard ir is for modern historians to approach either rhe topic of
heresy or heresiological material assuch. More recencl:y, Michael Angold has
adopred an essentially similar approach, seeing the aials as "political, and
the charges as at least pardy "trumped up.,21 Indeed, refusal ro rake them on
their own terms is rather the norm than the excepcion, and I think we musr
recognize that it is a response arising from the assumption, familiar enough,
that the appropriate explanation must be both rationalizing and reducrion­
ist.22 Perhaps, however, it is precisdy here where the inspection of heresio­
logical texts as texrs can help.
Attempring ro write the history of late amique and Byzantine
heresy does indeed involve one in treading a very slippery parh. In the first
place, evideJce is often scanty, and particularly for the Byzantine period,
surviving tex:rs may lack modern editions. In the second, contemporaries

474 Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Stlldies/33.3/2003


continued ro use old names for new ideas: Arians, Manichaeans, Mon­
tanists, Messalians-all these labels are applied to "heretics " in later cen­
turies, whether iconoclasts, Paulicians, or Bogomils. Timothy of Constan­
tinople in rhe seventh century and John of Damascus in the eighth repeat
as rhough srill current lists of "tviessalians," which so rn e argue "vent back ro
the fifth-century councils.23 Heretics and Jews are mentioned in one breath,
as rhough rarred with the same brush e ven if not quite identical, and fur­
thermore me accusarion of being a ((Judaizer'' is standard.24 Like the here­
siologist Timothy, the canons o f rhe Quinisext Council in the late seventh
century distinguish berv..e
· en rypes of heresy in relarion ro the procedt:res for
admitting them into onhodox cornmunion, dividin g them into heresies of
ancient standing, whose adherents are ro be treated on a par with pagans
and baptized, and t\vo rypes of christological heresy, whose followers are ro
be required to produce Libelli or to anathematize Nestorians and Mono­
physites.25 But in gener al , ir is distressingly difficult to deduce from neresi­
ological texts what was really happening , as scholars of later medieval heresy
have also found. Ir is not surprising, then, if many scholars give up the
quest, leaving the field ro others keen ro trace a new Manichaean diaspora or
ro recover their own national and religious identity , a quest in which the
Bogomils become symbolic of national srruggle against an oppressive feudal­
ism, or of nostalgia for a pre - O ttoman past.26
We can at once blame and credit Epiphanius and his p rede c essors
for rhe (ro us) irritating trairs of their successors in the genre. Epiphanius's
Panarion, o r "Medicine Chesr," is one of the rnosr baroque , yet also the
most classical, of heresiologies , which wirh irs lisrs of rare and exotic groups
and practices continues to be searched by many scholars for evidence of
unknown sects or female cults.27 Yet writing as he did in the 370s, Epipha­
nius already carne at the end of a line of earli er writers, and he himself
depended heav ily on the mainly losr Syntagnra of heresies by Hippolytus
(ca. 170-236) and on rhe five books of lrenaeus's Adversus haereseis (late
second cenrury).28 The notion of heresies as serpents whose bites required
the remedy of truth was not original t o Epiphanius, and he may have derived
his awareness of dassical treatises on remedies from a handbook.29 Nor has
he received a sympathetic receprion among modern scholars. Frances Young
wrires of him that ''few vmuld claim thar Epiphanius was an original thinker
or an attractive personaliry," and orhers have described his sryle as difficult
and his language as clumsy and contorted.30 The use of the Panarion as a
reliable guide w rhe geography of heresy is at once undermined by the pride
with which Epiphanius reveals rhat he has modelled his list of heresies on

Cameron 1 How to Read Heresiol�agy 475


rhe number of concubines in the Song of Song s, reaching the number of
e ighty in all by lisring sevenry-five heresies and five "rnothers of heresies."3I
And there is more ro it even than rhis, for he illustrates rhe numerology of
rhe Song of Songs by counting rhe generations of the faithful before Chrisr,
and the line of philosophers from Thales ro Epicurus. Thus Epiphanius
poses an interprerarive challenge to rhe modern reader . For Young, this .is all
part of Epiphanius's deficiencies of íntellecr, ,,,hích included "fanarical ani­
mosities," and which are also revealed in the slighcly earlie r Ancoratus by rhe
formulaic sratements which she sees as replacing real argwnenr.32 To quore
anorher modern writer on Epiphanius, "Indignanr historians have formu­
Lared harsh judgements on his person and sryle; his unfairness has been pun­
ished by a lack of attenrive srudy of his heresiology."33 Quite.
A less hostile view m ight be willing to recognize a degree of literary
skill in the ways in which Epiphanius modell ed the Panarion both on the
Song of Songs and on scientific treatises on snake b i t es and poisons.34 lt is
an ambitious work, in o ther words, if also a prerenrious one. Ir is also inter­
esting, and important for understanding later writi ngs on heresy, rhat it
begins with classifications which in modern rerms \vould not be relevant to
Christian heresy at all, namely; the five "morhers of all the sects," barbarism,
Scythianism, Hellenism, Judaism, and Samari tanism. From rhis seemingly
odd and even incoherent group, according co Epiphanius, flowed every
other secr.35 With a logic that, on rhis point at leasr, cannot be challenged,
we are told that only after rhe coming of Chri st and rhe establishment of
orthodoxy did heresies in the common sense break away.36 In fact , if we
wonder where the first four of the "morhers of heresies" are ro be found, we
ha ve only ro look ro Colossians 3:11, "In Chrisr Jesus rhere is neither bar­
barían, Scyrhian, Hellene nor Jew, but a new crearion," cited explici tly later
in the Panarion (Anacephaleosis 1.4.2, 1.9, 8.2). Yet the work is predicated
on classical models, not rnerely Nicander. Ir also competes with rhern: for
while rhe Greek authors, the poets and chroniclers, invoke the 11use, says
Epiphanius, he will invoke the Lord of all (pref. II.1.3).
Epiphanius shares the Eusebian view of the evolution of mankind
through rhe centuries from barbarism ro Christianity;37 his treatise on here­
sies is part of a broader vision of the history and development of mankind
according ro the dispensation of God. Ir is, in other words, an apologeri c
visior., like that of Eusebius, \�.:hose work was well kn own to Epiphanius.
At the same time, while following on from rhe w ork of his predecessors,
Epiphanius ser a definitive parrern for the rhetorical trearment of heretics in
Byzantine literature. Aline Pourkier describes rhe technique as rwo-fold: first

476 JCJurnal of Medieval and Early Modero Studies /33.3/2003


exposition and then refutation.38 The first involved rhe notion of a geneal­
ogy or family tree of heresies, rheir naming and classification. rhe delin­
eation of a type of a rypical heresiarch, and the attribuúon of ideas not nec­
essarily acrually held, and the assimilarion of one heresy to groups of others,
so that all could be tarred with the same brush.39 At rhe same time, rhe notion
of a "genealogy" or family rree of heresies goes far toward explaining why
Epiphanius and the larer Byzantine heresiologists rhought ir imporrant ro
record historical as well as contemporary heresies; their aim was ro produce
a traditio haereticorum, rhe perfecr antithesis of the traditio Legis.40 The resuk
of this maneuver has unfortunately been confusion and puzzlement for gen­
erations of scholars trying ro undersrand the origins of larer heresies \1\'hich
are described in terms applicable ro earlier centuries, but the thinking
behind it is understandable enough. Once the heresy o r heresies had been
caricatured in this way, rhe heresiologist would move on to the formal refu­
ration, which might take one or more of severa! approaches: refutarían
by apparently rational argument, refutarion from Scripture, refutarían from
rradition, and finally straighrfonvard polemic, the resort to abuse, word­
play, rhetorical questions, exclamations, and so on, in fact in many ways the
direct anrithesis of the rhetorical style and techniques that might be employed
by the same writer in his homilies, but the clase relative of contemporar;
writing directed against J ews.
What then did Epiphanius's Panarion establish about the writing of
heresiology? Baroque though it may seem, this work enshrines certain fun­
damenrals about heresiological literarure. For example, ir names the man;
heresies it wishes ro condemn; in so doing it diffirentiates them from a.

stated norm, and rhereby define5 the nature of that norm; it classifies, that is,
ir imposes an ordering on things according ro the principies of rhe writer; ic
lays down a virtual hierarchy of heresie5 accord.ing ro their origins; and
finally it prescribes their nature, and thereby defines and lays down the struc­
ture of knowledge. As conceived in late antiquity, Christianity implied a

strucrured system of explanarían, covering everything from the natural


world and the narure of hisrory to anthropology and the narure of man. We
can also see from the work of Epiphanius rhat the point of heresiology was
nor simply ro record (and condemn) Christian sects. Ir was also intended to
demonsnare rhe superioriry of Chrisrianity over paganisrn and Judaism, and
ro express the truth of orthodoxy. As we have seen, it was nor enough ro

condemn; one had also ro state the correcr dogma. Thu s the rhird pan of
rhe Panarion consists of an Expositio of the orrhodox faith, and rhis is also
whar Theodoret of Cyrrhus did in his late Compena'ium, which illustrate.i

Cameron / How to Read Heresiology 477


the easy step, nor quite yet raken by Epiphanius, from heresiology to pro­
duc ing what \vas effectively an encyclopedia of orrhodoxy. John of Damas­
cus's Fotült of Knowledge is perhaps the best known and mosr conspicuous
example of rhe genre, comprising both heresiology an d a conspectus of orrho­
doxy - the negarive and the positive, synthesis of vvhat is allowed going
hand in hand with condemnarion of rhe aberranr.
Theodorer, writing in the fifth century, illustrates these develop­
ments very well. The Compendium, strictly the «Co m pendiu m o f Heretical
Myths/ ' and still a\vaiting a critica! edition, comprises five books o n s e cts
and heresies.41 lt cites rhe names of earlier heresiologists-Justin, lrenaeus,
and so on-but takes its own line, and appropriately tO the period, it:.s empha­
sis is chrisrological. Funhermore, Theodoret turns from the genealogical
model to a synthetic one, classifying heresies by types.4� As Ian To m p kin s
has argued, the first book contains an a c coun t of .tvlarcionism (and this may
b e rypical) which is allusive at best but more likely extremely distorred.43
But the last book turns from heresiology to synthesis, from the listing of
heresy co rhe statement of orrhodox:y. Theodoret had his own Üne w pursue,
and as a bishop he \vas also an energetic seeker out of herecics himself.44 Bm
tha t does not in itself explain his ou tput in this field; by n ow, it is clear,
heresiology has becorne a major enterprise, and i t is no surprise \vhen we

find Theodoret sending a copy of Epiphanius's Panarion to Naukratios.45


He lisrs his own antihererical works as inc l u di n g \vritings againsr Arius,
Eun omius, Apollinarius, and tv1arcion, agai nst Je\vs and gentiles, a Curatio
in rwelve books against pagan beliefs, and rhe Eranistes, an extraordinary
'.Vork consisting of three dialogues berween an orrhodox and an opponent
expressing a variety of hererical positions, each dialogue wirh a florilegiurn
attached of passages adduced to suppon the orthodox posirion.46 Scholars
ha\'e na ru rally been interested in the natu re and source of the cirations in
the Horilegia, but chey ought ro be equally curious about rhe work's very
interesting form, a form which was to be taken u p by others in later cen­
turies and which has elose p arallels with the dialogues in the Adversus Iudaeos
tradition.
Scholars have noted a c hang e over time in heresiology to\vard a
more encyclopedic and less argumentative presentation, in which familiar
positions are rehearsed rather than ne\�' arguments produced.47 As I have
suggesred already, John of Damascus's treatise had many precedent:.s, indud­
ing the Sy nodícal Letter of Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem in the 630s,
with its arrached list of heresies to be anathemarized, or the Patriarch Ger­
manus's work on heresies and councils in the early eighrh cenrury, ro name

478 Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies /33.3/2003


only rwo survi,ring examples.48 It is facile, however, to see this tendency
merely to copy out an existing model as a symptorn of a genre -vvhich \vas
running out of steam.49 In the first place, writing against heresy rook many
forms� among \vhich heresiology in the narrow sense of liscings was only
one. Even the latter still had a long life ahead of it. Further, the perceived
need to combat error in whatever form, and indeed to label it asheresy, by
no means carne to an end in late antiquit:y ,�:ith the supposeci establishment
of orthodoxy; on rhe contrary; it was 1:0 remain a fundamental and urgent
aim in Christian writing throughour the Byzantine period. The notion that
the genre was somehmi\r becoming less necessary equally fails to take into
account the many complex issues surrounding the legal and conciliar
processes against heresy, which became so prominent a feature from late
antiquity on\vards, and which indicare a lively interest in the matter.50
Finally, like writing against Judaism, arguments against and condemnation
of heresy can be found asan integral pan of almost every type of Byzantine
religious literature.51 Our challenge is to understand why this v;,ras so, and
what form it took.
Other factors encouraged this rendency toward listing rather than
argument. Chief among them was the search for aumoritative proof texts
and tbeir collection in specialized lists (jlorilegia), a process which can be
seen from the fifth century onwards. By the early iconoclastic period, when
John of Damascus was \Vriting, these were a majar component in doctrinal
argumenr.52 lndeed one can hardly exaggerate the imponance attached in
the large Byzantine lirerature dealing with heresy to the citation of earlier
precedent. Substancial parts of rhe licerary attack on heresy always depended
on listing authorities and the repetition of orthodox definitions. We can see
the same process in 'vorks on the councils such as that by Germanus of
Constantinopie (that also draws on Epiphanius but is now significantly enri­
ded "On heresies and synods") and in their depiction in visual art.53 At rhe
conclusion of the Second Council of Nicaea, the vicrorious iconophiles had
a strong interest in. endorsing their council as rhe sevenrh and culminating
representacive of a series already formally recognized.S4 They wanted to have
it all ways: mus Tarasius termed the iconoclasrs "Jews and Saracens, Hel­
lenes and Sarnaritans, 1vlanichaeans and phantasiasts, equal to Theopas­
chires."55 Kaming was all imponam, for it was far from dear rhat the icon­
oclasrs were in fact hererics. The same drive to categorize had arisen in an
earlier period in relarion ro the Donatisrs in late Roman North Africa, and
Brent Shaw opens a recent srudy with the observarían rhar one of the
i.mportant texrs for understanding the progress and the procedures of

Cameron 1 How to Read Heresiology 479


Carholic dealings '-Vith Donarists is in fact Alíce m Wonderland56 "\Xfho are
yo u?'' asks the Caterpillar ·.vhen he sees Alice. And AJice replies, "I-I
ha rdly know, Sir, just at presenr." Like Alice, the Donatisrs, and others con­
sidered to be heterodox, would be rold by rhe dominant group jusr where
rh ey belonged in the pecking arder.
The repetirían of standard accusations and standard aurhoriries is
irself an importanr rhetorical rechnique. Polemical lisrs, of which there are
many from late amiquiry onwards, are an obvious candidare for exp l anation
in rerms of labelling theory, as a technique whereby deviance is identified
and embedded.57 But the dümissal of works like that of John of Damascus
as wholly academic and static fails ro rake inro ac count rhe fact rhat rhey roo
were constandy being adapted ro changed cond:rions. Thus the addirional
chapter on rhe " heresy " of Islam added ro rhe pan of rhe Fount of Knowl­
edge d.ealing with heresies makes sorne atternpt ro describe rhe actual beliefs
of Muslims, and is in fact the earliest arrempt from rhe Byzanrine side ro
do so. Overall, John's volurninous wrirings illusnate rhe actual fle x ibiliry of
heresiology, its connections with rhe Adversus Iuáaeos rexts and its tendency
ro inform other types of vvriring and ro spill over into orher genres.
The claim thar lcon.oclasm was a h eresr and thcrcfore felL within
the realm of the techniques of heresiology was something that needed ro be
argued. The justification may not indeed fir well with modern ideas of what
heresy is: rhus, according to rhe ninrh-cenrury Lije ofNiketas of JV!edi.kion,
lconoclasm i s undoubtedly a heresy of rhe worsr kind, both because ir
strikes at rhe very oikonomia of Christ and because it originared suddenly
and in rhe very bosorn of im perial power.58 f\either argument is very con­
vincing. Yet rhe assimilation was vital ro che iconophile case. A useful exam­
ple of official attitudes roward heretics had been given by rhe decrees of
capital punishment issued against Montanisrs and "l'vfanichaeans" by the
iconoclast emperors Leo III and Constantine V and rheir attempted
enforcement by 1\.1ichael l. 'i9 Guilr by association V\o'as implied in the use of
these and other classic labels. If iconoclasts could be consigned ro the sarne
category, the iconophile ca�e '\Vas made.60 Similarly if Peter of Sicily in the
ninth cenrury could make a plausible case for classifying the Paulicians as
Manichaeans, they too would fall wirhin the scope of rhe La'\vs just men­
ri oned.6 1 All rhar a heresiologisr had to do was rodraw on an established tra­
dition and on well-established existing arguments against Manichaeanism.62
Few heresiologists were as inventive in amassing a vocabulary of
denigrarían as the Patriarch Nicephorus (patriarch 806-15), vvhose Apolo­
getiats and Antirrhetici agajnsr the icon oclasts enabled their French transla-

480 Journal of Medieval and Early Modero Studies /33.3/2003


mr to compile a ·
v.. hole lexicon of rerms of abus e . 63 Again Nicephorus's ain
is two-fold-to s et out the correct (orthodox) doctrine of images and t<

attack and disparage that of úe ic onoclasts. In arder to achieve rhe latter, he


produced a three-pronged atcack: iconoc lasts are enemies of rhe holy, theJ

- are the antithesis of c ul ture and oikonomia. Th{


are irrational, and thev
Jews and Hellenes, like the familiar t riad of Arius , Apollinarius, and Eury-
ches, are cited for comp arison: the icon o dasts are like thern� or '"rorse. The
language of heresiology, like rhe language comrnonly ernployed about Jews,
easily turns into the language of scom and th e voc abulary o f abuse. 64 Si m i­
larly, in the ninth-century illuminated psalte rs , iconocl asts are direc cly
eq u ated v.rith heret ics. Thus John rhe Grammarian is likened ro Simon
�1agus, the head and leader of a1l heresies according to the Acts of Second
Nicaea and m a ny earlier rexts , in the Chlu dov and Pantokrator psalters .6>
Not surprisingly, heretics are also, and even more fre quen d y, equared wirh
J ews, in an elision of an ri-Jewish , antiheretical , and anti-iconoclast rhetor ic.66
As I have argued, heresiology has much in common with rhe
Adversus ludaeos literature, but ir has not shared in the interest which the
latter has recently aroused, nor has ir srimulated the s ame s p ec u larion as to
it s relation ro "reality" or irs implicarions for Byzan tine attirudes.67 Why so
many dialogues against J�vs continued ro be "vritten through the Byzantine
period, and the narure of th eir relarion to the ac tual siruation of Christians
and Jews, for instance in connecrion with th e decrees of forced baptism of
Jews issued by Heraclius, Leo III, and B as il t rema i ns a difficul t question .68

It tend5 ro be forgotten that heresiologies also continu ed, and at times over­
lapped wirh the anti-Jewish rexts. How and v¡.·hy rhe two rypes of vvTiting

interact is a story yer ro be fully told.


At least in irs ''i.rritten culture, Byzantium "\Vas a debating societ}.'
Richard Lim has dra wn anenrion to the imporrance of debate in late anriq­
uiry, whether in the form of p ub lic disputarí an or in writing. 69 Much of rhe
most strilcing late anrique evidence concerns lvfanichaeans, in whose case a
precedent had been set in 302 by Diodetian, himself a pagan emperor, who
ordered th eir condemnation a."1d rhe burnino-
b
of their books/O and it is clear
rhat dealings 'i\rith the l\.1anichaeans provided ample instrucrion for the
development of p ro cedures against heretics. In rhe well-known case of
Augustine, written ueatises and actual debate worked togeth er in the for­
mulation of Augustine's arguments against lvlani chaeans and Donarists.
Augusrine \vas caught by the " burning zeal for dis p utarions " rhrough his
experience when a ;\1anich ee h imsel f,71 and undoubtedly rh e treatment of
M an ichaeans ser many examples for the future: even repeated and ferocious

Cameron 1 How to Read Heresiology 481


imperial legislarion \Nas not enough i n itself. and had ro be ac co m p an ied by
an as ronishing amount of anti-Manich::.ean writi ng and argum ent . 72
Man ichaeis m also provided a l abel; how meful rhat could be can be seen
from the fac t that the l arer Augustíne collld srill be attacked a s "a new
Man ic haean."73 I n thts \vay, .Manic haeism p ro vided both rhe exem plar and
vocabulary for later anrihererical \vorks.
I n general, i nrernal Christian disputes, beginning in the earliest
cenruries, intensified in late anriquiry and continued throughout rhe Byzan­
cine period. This led in itself to a large literature of debate, ,�·hich could b e
both apologetic and polemical . Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to
say rhar this huge lir erature, of vvhich heresiology forrns a part, is on e o f r he
fearu res that charac rerizes late antique and Byzanrine Christian culture. I
!lave argued elsev�rhe re rhat it form ed an inportant element i n Christian
pedag ogy, that is , in rhe formation o f a Christian intellecrual system.74 Con ­
tronration, labelling , and the listing of aucl-.orities can all be seen as part of
rhis proces s. I n the Adversus ludaeos texts of late antiq uiry, we tend ro find
confrontations , real or fictive, b enveen Je\'\!S and Christians, or even , as in
the so -ca lled Trophies if Damascus, a text from the seventh century, be rn'een
� Hel lenes, Saracens, Samaritans, many Jews and Christians, i n a word, a
large number of specrators."75 The end o f this dialogue contains an obvi­
ously fictionalized "narrarive" o f the discomfiture o f the Jews after their
deba te and their recognition that the Christian had \VOn the argument . Sig­
n ificantl y, th e same author also composed a listing of all heresies fro m Arius
onwards as parr o f a refutarion of rhe Monophysites.76 Thus "vh ile there is
a co nnection apparen t from the earliest stages berween Christian heresiology
and an r i -Jevá sh VvTiting, which certainly needs more explorarían, both
belon g to this cultu re of debate and dispure rhat became so embedded in
�arly Christian and later in Byz an ti n e discourseJ7 Both : again, raise pro­
bund and di ffi culr issues about the l evel of i ntolerance within early Chris ­
cianity. 78
Ir has often been remarked th at rea persecution, and i n p articular
�xecution , fo r heresy was relatively rare in Byzantium, and this is cerrainly
:rue i n comparison \\'Í th procedures in the medieval West. This is worth
1oring , in v i ew o f the increased severiry of legal penalties in late antiquity,
m d the top ic certainly needs more study.79 Bur over th e centurie s, the
1enunciation of h eresy in Byzantium bec ame both shriller and more thor­
mghly ritualiz ed. It was also made visible. Th e removal of names fro m the
)atriarch al diptychs, on the pattern o f the Ro man damnatio mernoriae, is
me exa m ple that began at an early stage. It was a visible and public act,

82 Jou rnal of Medieval and Early Modern Stud ies / 33.3/2003


which at the same time underlined rhe degree to which rhe officiaJ denial of
o rthodoxy \Vas a matter of real power and competition. Jusri nian decreed
that his edicts should be posted in churches,so and rhe battles over h eresy, as
happened in the course o f the Monoilielete conrroversy of rhe seventh cen­
r ury, were often conducred by literally p i nning Tjpos and Antit;pos to the
doors of S. Sophia in Constantinople. Another manifestation o f this public
visibiliry lay in che records of councils, which i nvolved not only c om plex
matters of procedure and verificarion but also the control of attendance lists
and rhe carefully srructured control of the acta, or in essence, rhe minutes,
a procedure highly familiar to anyone \\.-ho is con cerned in o ur O\Vfi day with
getting decisions through committees and making sure rhey h ave any
chance of being carried out aften.vards .81 It h as even been shown that rhe
acta of later councils were commonly composed before the meeting acrually
took place, and rhar spaces were simply left for signatures to be appropri­
arely filled in. There were complex legal issues involved, and rhe proceedi ngs
o f councils have been l ikened ro senatorial p receden t, condemnarion of
heretics being like the Roman rrials for ueason . 82 The formal reading of the
Synodikon of Orthodoxy {the defeat of iconoclasm having been significantly,
if inaccurately, defined in terms of the establishment of orthodoxy) during
rhe Lenren lirurgy is another example of rhis ritualizarion, and no one
apparendy thought it odd that it should be revised as new heretics carne
along. This was done even as late as the Palamite controversy in the four­
teenth century, and was accompanied in rypically Byzantine manner by rhe
depiction of rhe reading of the anathemas i n visual art.
The liturgical character of rhe Synodikon is apparenr fro m many
derails in rhe textual rradirion, and it was read from the ambo like the
Gospel and the homily. 83 Like rhe epigraph i c recording of imperial edicts,
ir \Vas al so engraved on rablets in S. Sophia. 84 Above all, it became, even i f
i r did not originare as such, a public and a poli tical document. Even i ts ear­
l i esr form lis red a roll call of orrhodox, rhat is, iconophile, clerics, the pur­
pose of which was rhe exdusion of the opposite side from the approved
record. The list o f fou r orthodox {iconophi l e ) patriarchs is followed, pre­
dicrably, by anarhemas on hererics; thus we see again i n this document, as
in rhe l iterary heresiologies, onhodox exposition j uxraposed wirh condem­
nation of heresy.85 The Synodikon is onl y rhe most conspicuous example.86

There are many and deep questions ro b e asked about Byzantine attitudes to
heresy: �'as there a gap berween l anguage a n d pracrice, ar:d if so how did
this come about? Who in facr read all rhese rrearises? \'\That is the relation ol

Cameron 1 How to Rea d Heresiology �


Byz anti n e discourses about heresy to the condemnation of pagans and Jews?
\'{lhy was such a premiu m p l aced on the seemingly unachievable ideal of a
pure orrhodoxy? Whar does rhis rell us abour the nature of Byzanri ne cul­
rure and society? None of these can be answered without previously a n alyz­
ing rhe texts , especially in terms of their rhetorical techn iques, j ust
as Elizabeth Clark has argued for rhe vr,rriting of church history. This paper
cannot answer the questions above ; rather, ir seeks ro raise the issue of
h e resiological discourse as somethi ng whic h needs to be addressed rather
urgenrly.
How then, ro return ro m v ride, should one learn ro read heresiol-
,

ogy? 1 am avvare, fi rst of all , that we have nor yer even defined whar it is that
we are ((reading," fo r even allowing for derivariveness and reperition in sorne
cases, heres iological rreatises i n facr come in many different shapes and
fo rm s . Dis m i ssing heresiology as srerile or boring, as mere scholastic exer­
ci ses , therefore m isses several points ar the sam e ri m e. Insecurity and ascetic
closure, both explanations favored by me in the past, now seem too reduc­
tionísr in the .first case and too ready ro rake Byzantium on i ts own terms i n
rh e seco n d.87 We can of course read rhese contests as a power game bet\veen
individuals or groups, the poli rics o f the early Christian world. Iv1any mod­
ern critics, both of late antiquity and Byzantium, remain uncomfo n able
wirh the idea rhat theological argument needs ro be raken seriously as a his­
torical factor; in this they could learn much fro m the hisroriography of
other periods such as Reformation histo ry. \-xr hether we l ike ir or nor as his­
torians, vv·riting heresy, i n all i ts various forms, did occupy a major p lace i n
Byzantium-so much so i ndeed rhat a full rreatmenr would i n its 'vay con­
stirure a new his rory of Byzanrium. This is far fro m hav i n g been written as
yet.88 Bu t meanwhile, at the very leasr , 1 suggesr thar one o ught m read these
compos i ti ons , so strange ro o u r minds , as part of Byzant i ne pedagogy and
che Byzantine sociology of knowledge, self-perpetuating constructions that
nelped to fo rmul are thought and underpi n social norms. 89

J4 Journal of Medieval and Early Modero Studies / 33.3 / 2003


Notes

1 Hence one is grateful for the welcome collection edited by S. Elm, E. Rébillard, and
A. Romano, Orthodoxie, christianisme, histoire, Collection de l'École fran�se de
Rome 270 :Rome: t.cole frans:aise de Rome, 2000). I take the reference to literarure as
a "Cinderella" from Margaret Mulletr, a notable pioneer in the eff.)rt ro change rhe
situation.
2 For Epiphanius, see further below: fo:- earlier heresiology, which was already ""ell estab­
lished by the late second century, see in the first place A. Le Boulluec, La notion
d'hérésie darzs la littérature grecque Ile-Ille siecles, 2 vols. (París: Études augusriniennes,
1 985). Forheresiology as a genre. and a lisr of exarnples in Greek md Latín up to ca.
430, see H. lngleberr, "'Lhistoire des hérésies chez les hérésiologue>," in B. Pouderon
and Y.-i\1. Duval, eds., L'histon·ogrophie de l'Église des premiers sieclts, Théologie his­
rorique 1 1 4 (Paris: Beauchesne, 2001), 1 05 - 25.
3 See, ho"\ovever, Helen Siller, "Culture of Comroversy: The Chrisrological Disputes of
rhe Early Fifrh Century" (Ph.D. diss.. Universiry of California ar Berkeley, 1 999); lan
Tompkins, ·The Relarions benveen Theodoret of Cyrrhus and His City and Irs Terri­
rory, with Particular Reference to the Letters and Historia Religiosa" (D.Phil. diss.,
University of Oxford, 1 993); Theresa Urbainczyk, Theodoret of C;n·hus: The Bishop
and the Ho� A1an (Ann Arbor: Universiry of ::viichigan Press, 2002): and see below.
4 Timothy of Constanrinople, De receptione haereticorum, Patrología Graeca ( PG)
86: 1 . 1 3 - 68; �icephorus, see further below. A work on "sects'' with sim ilar lisrings,
also beginn:ng with Hebrews and Samaritans (PG 86: 1 . 1 1 94- 1 2(5) , i s ascribed in
rhe manuscriprs to Leontius of Byzar.tium (sixth cenrury); see M. van Esbroek, "La
date er l'ameur du De Sectis amibué a Léo nce de Byzance," in C. laga, J. A. Munitiz,
and L. van Rompay, eds., Afier Chalcedon: Srudies in Theology and Church History
Ojfered to Professor Albert Van Roeyfor his Se1/entieth Birthday (LeuYen: Peerers, 1 985),
4 1 5 -24.
5 J . Gouillard, ed., "Le Synodikon d'orthodoxie.'' Titwaux et lvférnoires 2 ( 1 967): 1 -3 1 3 .
6 There is a vast literarure, consrancly increasing. A classic is R. l . 1'v1oore, The Fonnation
of a Persecuiing Society: Power and Deo.;iance in \"\'téstern Europe, 950-1250 (Oxford:
Oxford Universiry Press, 1 987). G. G. �v1erlo, ed., Eretici e emia n;ediet/ali nella stori­
ografia contemporanea, Atri del XA.
rxll Convegno di Srudi sulla refcrme e i movimenri
religiosi in lralia, Bolleuino delle Sociera di rudi Valdensi 1 74 (Torre PeUici, Italy:
n.p., 1 994), conrains substantial bibliograplUcal surveys; and see ]. Le GotT, ed., Héré­
fies et sociétfi dans l'liurope préindustrielle, 1 1 e-l Be siecles, Colloque du Royaumonr
27-30 Mai 1 962 (París: Mouton, 1 968). Bur rhere is almosr always a gap where
Byzamium should be.
7 G. \\7oolf, )oumal of Roman Studies 83 ( 1 993): 24 1 , reviewing Averil Cameron, Chris­
tianit;• and the Rhetoric of Empire. The Formarían f Christi.an Discmme (Berkeley: Cni­
o

versiry of Glifornia Press, 1 99 1 ).


8 Elizabeth A. Clark, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Constr11ction of on Early
Christia n Debate (Princewn, �.J . : Princeron University Press, 1 99�). The presenr
essay builds on lecrures and seminars delivered in a number of places, including rhe
Oxford Parrisric Conference 1 999, the conference of the Au:.rralian Association of
Byzamine Srudies held at Macquarie Universiry in July 1 999, at Reading and Lund

Cameron 1 How to Read Heresiology 485


Uni·.'ers iries and elsev�o•here i n S·.veden. I am grate fu l for all those invitarions and
opp1Jrtunities for discussion.
See R. Le Coz, Jean Damasúnt: Écrits su?· l 'Uarn, Sources chréciennes 383 (París: Cerf.
1 992 ) , '": i th discuss ion of au th � mi c i t} and nu mbering. ThL number of heresies grad u­
aJly accumulared between Epiphanius and John of Oamascus: o;ee J. 1v1. McClure,
''Handbooks againsr Heresy in rhe \'{fesr, from the Lat e Founh ro the Sixth Centu ry.''
joumal of Theological Studies n.s. 30 ( 1 979): 1 86 - 97. Anorher who dre\v o n Epipha­
nim V·iaS Augustine, in his unfi:üshed De haeresibus.
LO J . Gouillard, "L'hérésie dans l'ernpire byzanrine des origines au Xl le siecle." Tra1laux er
Afbtoires 1 ( 1 965): 299- 3 24, ar 30 1 - 2. It is perhaps indicative that, as Gouillard
poinrs out , there is as yet no book mat attemprs to ad d ress the place of h eresy in
Byza.ntine cul ture as a whole. But che very cicle he has chosen for his anide ( h erCS)',
notheresiology) is revealing of an atrirude looking for tl:·e real heresy behind rhe texrs.
Gouill ard's view of heresy is al so limired on the v,•hole ro rhe dogmaric. whereas even
conremporaries debated wherl::er heresy extended to rirual and behav ior, as well as

do crrine. For good discu.ssion, see T Kolbaba, The B)'ztmtúze Lists: Errors of the Latim
(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 8 8 - l O l .
ll Ibid., 30 1 .
12 Ewhymius Zigabenus, PG 1 30. This panoplion, too, began early \.V ith Epicureanism
anc. took che listing up to the Paulicians and Bogomils of Euthymí us's ovm day.
13 "Kicetas Choniates, 'beasur}'• JlG 1 39 - 40. Again v..·e find the notion of coUecüng all
heresies rogether.
14 PG 3 0 1 .
15 Paulician texts are edired by C. Asrruc, \Y./ \'V'olska-Conus, J. Go uil lard , P. Lemerle, D.
Pa pachryssamhou, and J. ParameUe in Trat/aux et 1\1émoires 4 ( 1 970): 2 - 227; see also
che rranslations of rexts on the Paulicians and Bogomils i n Janet and Bernard Hamil­
ton, Christian DuaList Heresies in the Byzantine W0rld, c. 650-c. 1405 (Manchesrer:
Manchester Universiry Press, l 998). Not uusting rhe rexts rhey present. che edirors
fre�uendy refer to "a ll eged" Pa.ulicians and the like. Following this line of argumem.
see also C. Ludvng, ''The Paulicians and Ninrh-Cemury Byzanríne Thought,'' in leslie
Bnba.ker, ed., B)zamium in tl'f! l'•lintb Cenru ry: Dead or Afive? (Alde:shot, Hampshire:
Ashgare, 1998), 23-35. Studes of dualisr beliefs include K. G. G a rsoia n, The Pauli­
ci.;n Heresy (The Hague: :\1oumn, 1 967); P. Lemerle, ''[hisroire des Pauliciens d'Asie
:tviineure d'apres les sources grecques," Tm vaux et Mémozres 5 ( 1973): 1 - 1 44; �1. Loas,
D;ta/ist Heresy in the Afiddle Ages (Prague: Akademia, 1 974); D. Obolensky. The
Bcgomils (Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry Press, 1948h Y. Sroya nm·, The Hidden
Tutdition in Europe: The Secrtt Hist01J' ofA1edievaL Christian H�res_., I London: Arkana,
1 5 94), rev. as The Other God DuaList Refigions from A n!iquity to the Ctthar Heres;'
(l'Íe\\' Haven, Conn. : Yale Ur.iversity Press, 2000). Againsr sociaJ, regional, and duaJisr
i nterpretarions of che Paulicians, see l'\. G. Garsoian, "Byzamine Heresy: A Reinrer­
pretation," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 2 5 ( 1 97 1 ) : 87 - 1 1 3.
16 Gouillard, ""L'hérésie,.... 324, righcly calls for more critical edirions: "r ausrere critique
des sou rces sans laquelle il n·est pas de synrhese qui vaille"; my poinr here is rather one
oi methodological approach.
17 See C. �1alrer. "Hererics in Byzamine An,'' Eastem Churches RetJte'.J.' 3 ( 1 9 70): 40 - 49.

486 Joumal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies / 33.3 / 2003


18 R. Brovm ing, E n l igh ren me m and Repression in Byzantium in rhe Eleventh and
"

Twe l frh Cen ruries," Past arul Present 69 ( 1 9 75 ) : 3 - 23; e[ Dion Smythe, "Alexios [
and rhe He retics . in M. :V1ullen aod D. Smythe, eds ., Alexios 1 Kom11enos: 1 Papers
"

(Belfasr: Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations, 1 996 ), 232 - 59 ; also Smyrhe, "Om
s ide rs br Ta:�r.:is : Perceptions of 0lon-conformity i n Eleventh and T...velfth-Cemury Lir­
e ra r ure " in L. Garland, ed., Conformity and Non-confonniry in Byza11tium (Amster­
,

dam: Hakken, 1 99 7 ) . 229-49.


19 Ibid., 1 4 - 1 9. Adm i ttedly, Alexios h imself made this inro a srate affair.
20 For the d ossi er of documents surro und i ng rhe rrial, see, however, J. Gouil­
Ibid .. 1 4 .
lard. "Le prod:s officiel de Jean I' Iralien, les Acres er 1eurs sous-enrendus,'' Travaux et
Mlmoires 9 ( 1 98 5 ) : 1 33 - 73 . The dossier does not indude the Synodal semeiosis, but
ir was rhese anarhemas which "'vere i n cl u ded in rhe S)'nodikon. The matter is admit­
tedly more co mplex rhan I suggest here, and Gouillard underlines rhe exrem ro which
rhe empe ror did seek ro control and direcr the sy nod, rhough he concludes that "la
n a r ure réel l e de l e nj e u nous échappe'' ( 1 69 ) .
'

21 Michael Angold, Church rmd Societ;• in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1 081- 1261
(Cambridge: C<. mbr idge Universiry Press. 1 995). According ro Angold. the Emperor
Alexios's synchronizarion of John ltalos·s rrial vvirh che celebration of rhe Feast of Ortho­
doxy was rhe emperor's "mosr briU ia m stroke" ( 5 1 ) . Of course a rhec ori cal analysis of
rhe te>.'"tS in no way predudes recognirion of political manipulaóon. See also P. Agapiros,
"Teachers, Pupi.s, and I mperial Power in Elevenrh-Cenrury Byzantium,� i n Y. Lee Too
and ="J. Livingstone, eds., Pedagogy and Ptnver: Rhetorics of Classical Leaming (Cam­
bri dge: Cambridge Universiry Press. 1 998), 1 70-9 1 , at 1 84- 87. To adapt Kolbaba,
Byzantine Lists, 1 7 1 , ''religion is not all rheology"; but equally neither is ir all poli ríes.
,

22 For disc ussio n see Ko lbaba Byzamine Lim, imroduction.


,

23 See C. Stewart Working the Earth of the Heart: The Messalian ContrOilfrS)· in His tory
, ,

Texts and La ngz.age to A . D. 431 ( Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1 99 1 ), 33.


24 SeeAveril Cameron, ·'Jews and He ret i cs A Careoon'
-
o '
Error?" in An nette Yoshiko
d d
Reed an A am Becke r, eds., The Wáys That /'1/ever Pm·ted, Texts and Srudies i n Ancient
judaism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming); and on rhe accusario n of being a
"Judaizer'' in the seventh cemury, G . Dag ro n, ''Juda·iser," Travaux et lvfémoires 1 1
( 1 99 1): 3 5 9 - 80, bur th e accusarion is ubiquimus.
25 Abj u raóo n formulae were p resc ri bed fo r re p en re nr heretics and sorne survive, both
from rhe anti-lvlanichaean comexr and from larer periods. Cf. Timothy of Constan-
tinople, De receptione baereticorurn; also canons 7 1 a nd 95 of rhe Quinisext Council of
69 1 , follov•:ing <. p re ced enr ser already in the canons of 1\'"icaea i n 325 (cf. canon 8).
For a larer period. see the important anide by E. Patlagean, 'Aveux er désave ux d'héré­
tiques a Byzance ( Xle-XIIe siecle);' in L'rweu: Antiquité et A1oyen Age. Collection de
1'Éco1e frans:aise de Rome 88 ( Ro me : École franyÜse de Rome, 1 986). 243-60, who
poin rs w the imensification of rhe evi dence fo r rrials an d abjuration proced u res from
t he eleventh century on, and Jikewise ro rhe production of yer more encyclopedic
heresiological works.
26 See Sroyanov. fiidden Tmdition in Europe. l 29, 1 3 L 209.
27 Epiphanius's Pmzanon is edi ted by K. Holl, in Ancoratus mul Panarion, Griech ische
Chriscl id1 e �chr i h:ssreller, 3 vols. (Leipzig: J. C. Hi urichs, 1 9 1 5-33), and rev. J. Dum-

Cameron 1 How to Read Heresiology 487


mer ( 1 9 8 0 - ) , hereafter cired paremhetically i n rhe tex t ; E ngl is h rranslarion by F.
\Xr lliams, The Pa na rio n, 2 vals. (Leiden: Brill, l 987j � pa rr ial translation also by P.
A.midon, The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Sal.am:.s (Ne'"'' York: Oxford Un i­
ver�ity Press, 1 9 90). See A. Pourlcier, L 1Jérésiologie cbez Epiphane de Safamine (París:
Beauchesne, 1 992); R. Lyman, "The Maki ng of a Hereric: The Life of Origen in
Ep¡ phanius, Panarion 64," Studia Patnstica 3 1 ( 1 997): 445 - 5 1 ; Lyman, "' O rigen as

Asceti c Theologian: Onhodoxy and Heresy in me Founh-Cenrury C h u rch," in W. B.


Bimen and U. Küh ne'"veg, eds .. Origmia rut. Septima: Origen� in den Aureinanderset­
zur¡gen des 4. jahrhunderrs (Leuven: Peeters, 1 998) , 1 89 - 84; Lyman , "Ascerics and
Bi;hops: Epiphanius and Orthodoxy.- i n Elm, Rébill ard. and Romano. eds., Ortho­
do:áe, christianisme, histoire. 149-6 1 . See also Cameron, ''Jews and Heretics."
28 S ee Pourkier, L'hérésiologte chez Epiphane, 8 1 f. , 9 3 - 1 14: G . Vallée, A Study in Anri­
Owstic Polernics: lrenaeus, Hippolytus, and Ep iphan it¿s, Srudies in J u da.i s rn and Chris­
tic.niry 1 (\'V'arerloo, Onr.: �-'ilfrid Laurier Cn iversiry Press. 198 1 ), 63-69 .
29 See J . Dummer, "Ein naru rwissenschaftl iches Handbuch als Quelle für Epiph ani us
ven Consramia,"' Klio 55 ( 1 973): 289-99.
30 F. Young , From Nicaea to Chtzfadon (London: SC!vl Press, 1 983), 1 33: cf. Young.
''Did Epiphanius Know \�'hat He �:1eam by ' Heresy' ?" Srudia Patrística 1 7 . 1 ( 1 982):
1 99 - 205.
31 See, however, Pourkier, L'hértsiologi� chez Epip hane. for derailed discussion of Epipha-
. '
n 1us s so urces.
32 Y<JUn g , From l'vzcaea co Cha iculon, 1 34. 1 38.
33 Vill ée, A Stud;1 in Anti- Gnosric Polermó., 74.
34 Pmarion, pref. 11.3. 1 , ed. Holi; cf. Dummer, ''Ein naturv--issenschafrliches Han dbuch ."
35 s�maritanism being a Jewish heresy. not a Ch risti an one. However, Epiphanius was
n·n the first i n this: see Ca meron, "Jews and Hererics.�
36 l\luch has been written on rhe developmem of rhe term berery in rhe C h ristian sense.
f?iphanius uses ir in rhe pejorarive sense, to include 5chism (a disagreemem abour
n:atters other than doctrine ).
37 The inverse, as it ha p pens , of the vie\v h eld by Tarian and Clement of l\lexandria of
,
Ch ristianity as the "barbarían philosophy . in co mrast ro G ree k paideza. See G. G.
S:roumsa, Bm·barian Philosophy: The &ligious Reuoizuion of Enr&· ChriscianÍl)' (Tübin­
gen: Mohr S iebeck , 1 999).
38 Pou rkie r, LIJeresiologie chez Epiphane., 486-95: Vallée. A Study in Anti- Gnostic Polem­
ó, 68-69, 73: " E. has no equal in the hisrory of heresiology fo r the art of i nsu hing."
39 On the genealogical approach i n heresiology, see Le Eoulluec, La n otion d 'hérésie; Vir­
gmia Burrus, The Afaking of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, tmd the Prisct!lianist Contro­
zmy (Berkeley: Universiry of California Press, 1 995): Susan na Elm, ''The Polemical
Use of Genealogies: Jerorne's Classification o f Pel agi us and Evagri u s Ponticus," Srudia
}atristica 33 ( 1 997): 3 1 1 - 1 8; D. Kimber Buell, lvlaking Chrútians: Clemmt ofAlex­
¡¡ndria and the Rhetoric of Ltgitirnac;• {Princeron. N.J.: Princeron University Press.
999) .
40 '.'allée, A Study ofAnti-Gnostic Polemzá, 70.
41 Theodoret's Compendium may be found in PG 83:335 - 556.
42 See Helen Siller, "Onhodoxy and Heresy in Theodoret of Cyru s's Compen diu m of

488 Journal of Medieval and Early Modero Studies / 33.3 / 2003


Heresies," in Elm Rébillard. Romano. eds ., Orthodo:de, christianisme, histoire, 2 6 1 - 73,
.

esp. 263- 67.


43 See n. 3. There is room for argument as ro why th is should be so, i e. , what sources
.

Theodoret was using.


44 For Theodoret the bishop and h is agenda in the Historia Religiosa, see Urbain cz rk : ,

Theodoret of Cyrrhus.
45 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Epistula 4.2 2 -25, in Yvan Azéma, ed. , Correspondance: Théo­
doret de Cyr, 3 vok, Sour:es chrétiennes 40, 98, 1 1 1 (Paris: Cerf, 1 964 -82).
46 Theodoret lisrs antihereti:al works in Epistula 146. Th eodoret Curatio, ed. P Can iv e t ,
,

Sources chrétiennes 52 (Faris: Cerf, 1 9 58) ; see P. Canivet, Histoire d'une entrepr.se
apologétique au \ti siecle (París: Bloud and Gay, 1 9 5 7 ) . Theodoret, Eranistes, ed. G .
Ettlinger (Oxford: Clarendon Press , 1 975). The date of the \Vork is probably 447, and
Euryches v,ras co ndemned in 448 ( 3 - 4) .
47 See Siller, "Orthodoxy and Heresy ," 262 -63. Kolbi:>a. Byzantine Lists, emphasires
that rhe rexrs she discusses rake a simil ar or even more srereoryped form, bur also rh at
rhey were by no means the only heresiol ogical works di rected against the Larins in
� iddle Byzami um.
48 For the anat hemas, see Scph ronius PG 87:3.3 1 89-92, 3 1 93, also incl uded in the
,

documents of the Sixth Ecumenical Co uncil: German us, De haeresibu.s et synodis, PG


98:40 -88, again withou r critica! edirio ns. Gouillard. "Le Synodikon , 306-7, com­ "

menrs that Germanus wa.; not original, bur again rhat is because Gouillard is loolci ng
for historical evidence about actual heresy. For other examples, see J . Muniriz, "Synop­
tic Greek Accoums of the Seventh Council," Revue des études byzantines 32 ( 1 974 ) :
1 47-86. Munitiz commmts rhar ..the :tarer] synoptic accoums of rhe Councils o ffe r
little atrracrion at fi rst sig:u " ( 1 77). But they make rheir own conrriburi o n ro the pe r­

suasive power of me shee repetition o f onhodox doctrine. Moreover, rhe anarh�mas


of rhe councils themselves provided the subject matter fo r heresiology and constiruted
the official and legal record.
49 Vallée, A Study ofAmi-Gnostic Polemics, 5 - 6.
50 For the incorporarion of legal argum enrs in the lirerature, see Caroline Humfws,
" Roman Law, Forensic Argument, and r he Formarion of Ch ri stian Orthodoxy
(lli-VI Cemuries)," in Elm, Rébillard , and Romane. eds., Christianisme, orthod?xie,
htstoire, 1 2 5 - 47. L is ts of anarhemas were also artached ro conc i liar documenrs. For
rhe larer standing court. which acred in suc h matten . see J. Hajjar, Le Jpzode per•na­
nmte (_rynodos endemou.saj dans l 'église kvzantine des origines au Xle siecle, Orienrali a
Chrisciana Analecta 1 64 iRome: Pontifical Insrirute. 1 962).
51 Fo r this tendency i n relation ro Judaism, see Averil Cameron, "Blaming the Jews: The
Sevenrh-Cenrury lnvasior:s of Palescine in Comexr;· Travau.x et A1émoires 1 4 (tv1danges
G ilberr Dagron) (2002) : 57-78.
52 See AveriJ Cameron, 'Te:xrs
' as \veapons : Polemic in the Byz.amine Dark Ages.'' in AJ an
K. Bowman and Greg \"X'oolf, eds . Literacy and Power in the A ncient \V
. orld (Cam­
bridge: Cam b r idge University P ress 1 994 ), 1 98 - 2 1 5 . For this development
. as shown

i n rhe evidence of rh e sixth- ro eighrh-cenrury councils. see A. Alexakis, Codes Rz risi­


mts Graecus 1 1 15 .md lb /trchetype (�'as hi ngro n D.C.: Dumba rton Oaks, 1 996).
.

53 C. Waher, L'iconographie des conciles dam l 'a rt b;rzantin, Archives d e l'orient chrerien

Cameron 1 How to Read Heresiol ogy 489


1 3 (París: Institut frans:a_is d'erudes by-z.a.Juines, 1 970). \X'alrer ma.kes a suiking connec­
tion between rhe iconography of councils and rhe emphasis i n early Ch ristian art on
scenes of reachi ng and instrucnon ( 1 8 7 - 98).
4 1Vluniriz, " Synopric Greek Accounrs of rhe Sevenrh CounciJ:' 1 75 .
5 Mansi 1 57 E. cited by P. Speck, !eh bin'r nicht: Kaiser Komtanún ist es gezoesen ; die Leg­
enden vom Einjluss d�s Teuftls, des juden und deJ ,�fosfem auf den Jkonoklasm11S (Bonn:
Habelt, 1 990), 25. Speck's book memorably traces rhe blackening of rhe name of the
iconodast Consramine V in the "onhodox" sources. In the rhirreenth-century Trea­
SW)' of Theognosros. fo r example, we fi nd rhe anarhemas of Il l\'icaea agairur rhe
leaders of che " irnpious'' Council of 754 (ed. J. Muniriz., Corpus Chrisrianorum series
graeca 5 [Turnhour-Leuven: Peerers, 1 979], 203-22).
i6 Brenr Sha\v, ''African Chrisrianiry: Disputes, Definirions, and ' Donarisrs," " in ;\'l. R.
Gree nshields and T. A. Robinson, eds . Orthodoxy' atzd Heresy in Refigious lvfovements:
.

Discipline and Dissent (Lewisron, N . Y. : Edwin Mellen Press, 1 992), 5 - 34 .


)7 For rhis and orher rheories o f deviance. see Jack T Sanders, Schirmatics, Sectarians,
Dissidents, Droiants: The First Oru Hundred Years ofjewish-Christian Relario,Is (Lon­
don: SCM Press, 1 993), 1 29 - 5 1 ; Margarer :\1ullerr, "The ·orher' in Byzantium," i n
Dion C . Smyrhe, ed., Strm1gers to Thmuelt:es: The Byzantin e Outsider (AJdershor, Hamp­
shire: Ashgare, 2000}, 1 -22. Byz.antines were also famously snobbish abour rhe supe­
riority of their own culture and sociery when compared to those of any orhers; see also
Kolbaba, Byzantine Lists, 1 33 -36.
58 Acta Sanctorum, April 1.23.
59 GouiUard, "Le Synodi kon,'· 308 - 1 0 . O n Michael l , see Theophanes Confessor, Chro­
nographia, ed. Carl de Boor, 2 vols. ( 1 883; repr. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1 963-65 ),
1 :494 - 9 5 ; wirh P. Alexander, ''Religious Persecution and Resisrance i n the Byzamine
Empire of the Eighth and Ninrh Cemuries: Merhods and Jusrificarions," Speculum 52
( 1 977): 238-64, ar 239. The exrent of the actual persecurion under iconodasm is
open to question, bur is beyond rhe scope of this srudy.
60 fvl arie-France Auz.épy has recendy underlined the sricky ground on which rhe Seve nrh
Council found irself in condemning a particular fo rm of worship rather rhan devia­
rion from dogma: "Manifesrarions de la propagande en faveur de l'onhodoxie;' in
Brubaker, ed., Byzmuium in the Ninth Century. 8 5 - 99, esp. 8 7. 93.
61 See ludw·ig, " Paulicians and N i mh-Cemury Byzanrine Thought," 2 9 ff
62 For rhe argumenr thar rhere \Vas a revival of concern abour Manichaeanism in rhe
early Islamic period, in response ro a real encounrer on rhe Islarnic side, see G. G.
Stroumsa, "Aspects de la polémique anrimanichéenne dans l'anciquiré tardive er dans
I'Islam primitif," in G. G. Srroumsa, Stwoir et Safut (París: Cerf, 1 992), 3 5 5 -77, esp.
376 f.; cf. C. Riggi, Epifonio contro }.1ani (Ro me: Pomificium instirurum altioris Latini­
ratis, 1 967). Manichaeanism cominued co provide a model fo r many cenruries; for
example, Augusrine's anti-\1anichaean arguments were kno\Vn ro 'Xrestern wrirers on
rhe Carhars.
63 See M.-J. Mondzain-Baudinet, Nicephore: Discours contre les iconoclastes (París: Klinck­
sieck, 1989). 327 -50; cf. Speck, Ich bin's nicht.
64 Cameron, "Texrs as Weapons.''

490 Joumal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies / 33.3/2003


65 See K. Corrigan, Vii'ua l Polemics in the Názth-Cmtury Byz.an tine Psaliers (Cambridge:
Cambridge Cniversity Press, 1 9 92), 27 f.
66 I bid .. 30-37 and chap. 3.
67 For the anri-Jewish lirerature, see recenc ly G. G. Stroumsa and O. limor, eds., Contra
Iudaeos: Anciem tmd }vfedieua/ Pofemics between Christians and]ews (Tübingen: J. C. B .
Mohr, 1 996 ); Ca.neron, " Blaming tbe Je\';•s," váth further bibl iography.
68 See pa rtic ula rl y dte conuibutions by G. Dagron and V. Déroche, Travaux et lvfémoires
1 1 ( 1 99 1 ) .
69 Richard lim, Public Dispu.tation, Power, an d Social Order in Late Antiquit;' (Berkeley:
Universiry of California Press, 1 995); Lim, " Chris ti an Triu mph and Conrroversy;' in
G. w: Bowersock, Brown, and Grabar, eds., Late Antiquity: A Guide EO the Postcfassical
Worfd !Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard Cniversity Press, 1 999) , 1 96-21 8 .
70 See lieu, l'rfarzichaeism, 97, 1 57.
71 Augusrine, De duabus animabus 1 1 , cired b�, lim, Pu blic Disputation. 90 .
72 See S. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and J\l!edievai China, rev. ed.
(Tübingen: ]. C. B. �v1ohr, 1 992); lieu, 1\fanicbaeism in }vfesopotamill arz d the Roman
East (Leiden: Brill, 1 994 ) : Lim, Pub!ic Disputation, ch ap. 3. On lawsagainsr !v1ani­
chaeans, see Lim, Public Disputation, 1 04; an d on ami-Man ichaean \vrirings, see the
lisr in Lieu, i\1anichaeism in .Afesopotamitt, 1 97-202.
73 Lieu, lvfanichaeism irz the Later Roman Empire, chap. 6. Technically, l\tanichaeism
remained on the books umil an amazinohr b ,
late date' as even did Donarism. Lieu
believes thar Juscinian's persecution of :v1anichaeans resulred i n rhe eHermination of
the sect, and sees rhe conrinued use of rhe term b�· here s iologis rs as a useful rherorical
fearure adop red by rhem ( 2 1 5). lim acceprs thar :\1anichaeism ceasec. to be a force i n
rhe Hrzantine
. Empire afrer rhe siX[h cenrurv,
and aroues
D
for a general dosure o n reli-
gious debate ( Public Dúputation, chap. 7); bur rhis is not borne out by rhe later
Byzamine evidence.
74 , Culture'" in Averil Cameron and Peter Garn-
Averil Came ro n, '"'Education and Lirera rv
eds., Ca.mhritige Ancient History 111: The Late Empire, A. D. 337-425 (Cambridge:
sey,
Cambridge University Press, 1 99 8 ), 665-707, esp. 702-4. For borh heretical and
amihererical wricings as pedagogy in rhe medieval \.Vesr, see, e.g., RiraCopeland, Petia­
gogy, lnte!lectuals, a11d Dissem in tlu Later :Viddle Ages: Loflardy and ideas of Leaming
(Cambridge: Ca mbr id ge University Press, �00 1 ) .
75 Les trophées de Damas: controursejudéo-cln·étienne du VJ[e siecle, ed. G . Bardy, Patrolo­
gía Orienralis 1 5 (Pa ris : Firmin-Didor. 1 927) , 233-3 4.
76 Ibid., 277 fE
77 SeeCarneron, "'Jews and Hererics"; and 1\veril Cameron, ''Ap o logeria in rhe Roman
Empíre-A Genre of Intolerance?" in Jean-�'Íichel Carrié and Rüa Lizzi Testa, eds.,
"Humana sapit ':· Études d'An tiquité tardú•t ofertes a Leltia Cracco Rug¡ini, Biblio­
f
rheque de l'A.miquiré Tardive 3 (Turnhour: Brepols, 2002), 2 1 9-27.
78 See Ca meron, ''Apologerics.''
79 For rhe summa supplicia in relacion to here ri cs (only once in rhe Theodosian Code,
when rhere is an a�sociation ...vith }v1anichaeans), see D. Grodz.ynski "Torture mor­
teUes er catégories sociales: les w mma supplicia dans le droit romain aux Ille er IVe

Cameron 1 How to Rea• H e resiology 491


siecles," i n Du ch!ltiment dtms la citl: supplices cnrprm:Ls ct pcim· du. mort dans la monde
antique, Colkction de I' Écolc franc;aise de Rome 79 (Ro rne : Éwle franl(ai::.t: Jc Rume,
"
1 984), 36 1 - 4 03, ::� r 3 R O ; J . Callu, "Le jardin des suppl ices :.m Bas-Empin.•, i h i d . ,

3 1 3 - 5 9 , at 344 - 1 5 .
HO Jusri n i a n , Novellae 6. l .
81 See Alexal< is, (.'fJilex Pttrisim1s Graecus 1 1 1 5, chap . l . For :1 vivid c xp osi tio n of che
lt>ngths ro wh i ch this p ro c css could go, see Wol fr;¡m Rr;¡nJcs, "Ord wJuxy and H�.:rcsy
i n che Sevenrh Century: Prusopographical Ohservations u n Muuuthdc:-lism," i n A veril
Cameron, ed. , Fifiy 1'éarr of l'rn.rnpography: Rorne, Byzrmtimn, and Rrynnd (Oxford:
Oxford U n iversi ry Press fur thc Brirish A c a cl e my, 2003), 1 05 20; and cC E . o, ,y.c;os,
He ellkfesitlstikc politikc · trm lou..1tini.annu (Thcssaluniki: Patriardükon l l idrytna Patcri ­
kon Meleron, 1 969 ) ; Ch r ysos , "Kom:ilsa krcn und Kom.ilsprutukolle vom 4 . Ris 7.
J a h rhunde rc," Anrtt((/rium 1 listnrittl' Contiliorwn 1 S ( 1 9R3): 3 0 - 4 0 .
t$ 2 Scc W.1 l rer, L'i,·onogmphie dt.·s umá/e:;, 1 2 5 - 26, 1 5 1 - 5 5 .
83 G o uil l a rJ , "Le Sy n oJ i ko n ," 1 2- 1 3.
84 Wal ter, T:icnnoK'aphie des concilcs, 1 6 1 .
85 On the origins of t h c Synodikon, see Guuilbrd, "Le Synodikon," 1 4 1 ff.
R6 Cf., for· insnmce, rhc Synaxarirm or rhc Menologion uf Bas i l 1 1 ; 1it:e Wt� ltcr, " Hererics in
Ry�uuinc Art." 1 59- 60.
87 Cf. Av e ri l Camcrun, "J\!;cetic Closurc.� and rh l· End of A n riquity," in Vincent 1 .. W i m -
bush a n d Richard Val an w s i s , eds., Asceticism (New Yo rk: Oxfnrd Univcrsity Press,

1 995), 1 47 - 6 1 .
�8 l3ur G. Dagron, htnperrur et prem·: Htu.de mr le ''cbtt rop,zpisme'' byum tin (Paris: Galli-
mard, 1 996), pr�:¡cnrs a p owc rful case for rhc compc:: t icion and uncerrai nty which

(contrary ro pu p u l:H i mpn.:ssi ons) wcrc charéiCt cristil' or nyzantÍlll' pol i tical l i fc. Like­
wisc Kulbaba, Ry:umtine Lists, 1 02- 23, a rg ucs for dll' complc:-xlty of By:t.anri n e rdi
gion, wltid1 ldr room for "gray are:�s bctwet"n rl o c t r i n c and ri tual."
R9 Scc Mary O ou gl as, Hnw lnstittttions Thinlt ( Lu ndo n : RourkJ ge and Kegan Pau l ,

1 987); Mary D ouglas and David l l ull, eds . , How CLassijimrion Workr: Nelson (;ood­
man arnong thc Social Scicnces (Ed i nburgh: Ed i nb urg h U11 i vcrsity Prcss, 1 992); Nelson
Goodman, Ways of W0rldmaking (lndia.napolis: 1 lackert, 1 978).

S-ar putea să vă placă și