JOSEPH VERHEYDEN, Epiphanius of Salamis On Beasts and Heretics. Some Introductory Comments.

1783-08_JECS_08b_Verheyden 31-03-2009 13:46 Pagina 143
Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 60(1-4), 143-173. doi: 10.2143/JECS.60.1.2035279

© 2008 by Journal of Eastern Christian Studies. All rights reserved.
EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS

SOME INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
JOSEPH VERHEYDEN*
Heretics are like obnoxious and poisonous beasts. That is the embarrassingly
simple – or should one say, simplistic – thesis Epiphanius of Salamis wants
to argue in compiling his Panarion.1 The thesis is not just formulated once
and for all in some general statement at the beginning of the work; it is
repeated and illustrated time and again, like a refrain, in a concluding and
transitory comment at the end of almost every single chapter, from Pan. 21
down to the very last one in Pan. 80. In each case, Epiphanius informs the
reader, often in quite some detail, about the characteristics of that particular
animal, the way it produces its venom or is otherwise dangerous for man, and
how to protect oneself from it or be cured from its bite.
Quite surprisingly, this feature, which is so prominently present all through
this work, has received only very little attention in scholarly research on the
Panarion. Aline Pourkier in her learned and detailed monograph on Epipha-
nius’ heresiology hardly mentions it and does not draw any conclusions from
* Joseph Verheyden is professor of New Testament at the KU Leuven.

1
Epiphanius (Ancoratus und Panarion), ed. K. Holl, I. Ancoratus und Panarion haer. 1-33,
in GCS, 25 (Leipzig, 1915); II. Panarion haer. 34-64, in GCS, 31 (Berlin, 1922; 21980,
ed. J. Dummer); III. Panarion haer. 65-80. De fide, in GCS, 37 (Berlin, 1933, posthumously
edited by H. Lietzmann; 21985, ed. J. Dummer). The edition was recently completed
with a concordance: Epiphanius IV. Register zu den Bänden I-III (Ancoratus, Panarion haer.
1-80 und De Fide) nach den Materialien von Karl Holl (†) bearbeitet von Christian-
Friedrich Collatz und Arnd Rattmann unter Mitarbeit von Marietheres Döhler, Dorothea
Hollnagel und Christoph Markschies, in GCS, NF 13 (Berlin – New York, 2006). Unfor-
tunately, the Concordance cannot always be trusted. See, e.g., s.v. basilískov (Pan. 21.7.3)
or ∂xidna (28.8.3). An English translation of the Panarion was published by F. Williams,
The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Book I (Sects 1-46), in Nag Hammadi Studies, 35
(Leiden, 1987; repr. 1997); Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide), in Nag Hammadi and
Manichaean Studies, 36 (Leiden, 1994). The revised version of the first volume (2009)
appeared too late systematically to be checked against the earlier version. A quick check of
some of the passages that are cited below showed that the new translation is more fluent,
but that overall changes are minor. Citations below are from Williams’ translation (the
Greek is cited only when deemed necessary); passages are referred to by paragraph, not pag-
ination.
144 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN
it.2 Epiphanius is not missing from Robert M. Grant’s fine survey of the
many references to animals of all sorts in early Christian literature, but one
paragraph is very little indeed and it is not correct to say that ‘in his attack
on the heresies he tries to correlate each one with a kind of snake’.3 It is not
all about snakes; Epiphanius lists several other animals as well (see below).
In her recent monograph on animals in ancient literature, Inge Saelid Gilhus
refers several times to Epiphanius and has a section on the Panarion.4 How-
ever, she does not specifically focus on the closing sections but is rather more
interested in Epiphanius’ dealing with the archetypal serpent of Genesis.5
The repeated references to animals in the closing sections of the Panarion have
been the subject, though, of a little known article by Jürgen Dummer pub-
lished in 1973.6 In the following I will first briefly comment on the views of
Dummer and then look into these concluding remarks and the ways Epipha-
nius has been drawing his comparisons between heretic and beast.
I. ON HOW TO USE A HANDBOOK
Dummer is right in arguing that this kind of sustained comparison seems to

be a novum in ancient Christian heresiography: ‘das Bild (ist) vor Epipha-
nius in den christlichen Literatur kaum zu finden’.7 One can of course point
out an occasional reference of this kind,8 but no one before Epiphanius seems
to have used this argument in such a systematical way for discrediting heretics
or opponents. The main purpose of Dummer’s essay is to look for the source
or sources Epiphanius may have been using in informing his readers on snakes
2
A. Pourkier, L’hérésiologie chez Épiphane de Salamine, Christianisme antique, 4 (Paris,
1992).
3
Early Christians and Animals (London – New York, 1999), p. 76.
4
Animals, Gods and Humans. Changing Attitudes to Animals in Greek, Roman and Early
Christian Ideas (London – New York, 2006), pp. 238-242.
5
On this specific use and role of the serpent, see now also J.M. Charlesworth, The Good
and Evil Serpent. How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized, The Anchor Yale Bible Ref-
erence Library (New Haven, 2008).
6
J. Dummer, ‘Ein naturwissenschaftliches Handbuch als Quelle für Epiphanius von Con-
stantia’, Klio, 55 (1973), pp. 289-299; repr. in Id., Philologia sacra et profana. Ausgewählte
Beiträge zur Antike und zu ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte, ed. M. Vielberg, Altertumswis-
senschaftliches Kolloquium, 16 (Stuttgart, 2006), pp. 82-95.
7
Ibid., p. 292.
8
See the references on p. 292 n. 13. Cf. Grant, Animals, passim.
EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 145
and other reptiles and how to cure their bite. According to Dummer the
inspiration for developing this kind of argumentation stems foremost from
daily-life experience and not from any attempts polemically to exploit such
biblical stories or imagery that involves snakes and serpents as the one in
Gen 3 or the Baptist’s and Jesus’ insulting addresses to their respective adver-
saries in Mt 3,7; 12,34; and 23,33. The former of these assertions is certainly
true. People in antiquity were generally more exposed to, and hence aware
of, the dangers and harms some snakes and other animals could cause, in one’s
own house or when travelling the countryside. But Dummer may be a bit
too sceptic when concluding that biblical tradition in no way can also have
nurtured this inspiration, since some of the passages just mentioned are indeed
alluded to, or even cited, in the concluding sections of the Panarion.9 Obvi-
ously, biblical tradition does not account for the wealth of concrete infor-
mation that is found there about some of these creatures. Daily-life experi-
ence, popular knowledge and wisdom, and a sufficient dose of imagination
can account for a good deal at least of these comments. Dummer certainly
does not wish to exclude these possibilities, especially not the latter one:
‘Mann könnte sich natürlich denken, dass die vielfältigen Wendungen, in
denen die Parallelisierung der einzelnen Häretiker mit den verschiedenarti-
gen Reptilen und sonstigen giftigen Tieren immer wieder angespielt wird,
aus dem Stegreif geboren sind. Wer einmal auf einen solchen Gedanken
gekommen ist, hat in der Regel auch soviel Phantasie, ihn auszumalen’.10
But Dummer also points to another source, one that is referred to by
Epiphanius himself. In the second Prooemium the author tells the reader of
where he got his information on the many sects he is going to present. He
lists various alternatives. Some of it is the result of his ‘fondness for study’
(Pr. 2.2.4 tà mèn êk filomaqíav ÷smen). Elsewhere he relied on oral sources or
on personal experience (ibid. tà dè êz âko±v kateilßfamen, to⁄v dé tisin îdíoiv
Ösì kaì ôfqalmo⁄v paretúxomen). This is most probably a fairly correct state
of the affairs, and one that is not unexpected, even though Epiphanius does
not further indicate how the reader can possibly distinguish between these
various sources in those sections where he is not formally quoting from or
9
In this, Epiphanius would not differ much from other Christian authors “playing with
animals”. On the influence of biblical tradition in the section on vipers in the Physiolo-
gus, see U. Treu, ‘“Otterngezücht”. Ein patristischer Beitrag zur Quellenkunde des Phys-
iologus’, ZNW, 50 (1959), pp. 113-122.
10
‘Handbuch’, p. 293.
(silently) excerpting other authors. Epiphanius then goes on informing the

reader that his work was written at the request of two of his ‘most esteemed
brothers and scholarly fellow presbyters’ (2.2.5). He concludes this section by
recalling that he will write, ‘not with elegance of language or polished phrases,
but with simplicity of dialect and speech, though with accuracy in the con-
tent of what I say’ (2.2.5).11 Such a phrase and motif is not uncommon in
a certain literature. In the case of Epiphanius the first half of the statement
is not just a literary motif, but the expression of a kind of anti-intellectual-
ism that characterises the author; the second half, as always, should keep us
on our guards. But then, in vintage Epiphanius style, he immediately goes
on citing, apparently with no link whatsoever with the preceding, a list of
fifteen names, all of them said to be authors of scientific treatises on ‘beasts
and reptiles’ and ‘roots and plants’.12 At first the reader is left puzzling what
this kind of information is doing here. Epiphanius then explains that, just as
these authors have produced descriptions of harmful beasts and of the med-
icinal potential of certain plants and herbs in order to instruct their readers
of how to cure themselves, he too wishes to inform his readers about the
dangers the sects he will be listing are posing to the faithful and what can be
done against them.13
Dummer has studied this list of authors in some detail. As far as we can
tell, Epiphanius did not really cite or otherwise make use of any of these
scholars’ works in particular. As a matter of fact, it has long been observed
11
A variant of this, with in addition a strong emphasis on ‘the truth’ of his words, is found
in Pan. 66.2.1, as already noted by Holl.
12
Kaì Níkandrov mèn ö suggrafeùv qjr¬n te kaì ërpet¬n êpoißsato t¬n fúsewn t®n
gn¬sin, ãlloi dè suggrafe⁄v Åih¬n te kaì botan¬n tàv Àlav *, Üv Dioskourídjv mèn ö ülotó-
mov, Pámfilóv te kaì Miqridátjv ö basileúv, Kallisqénjv te kaì Fílwn, Îolaóv te ö Biqunòv
kaì ¨Jrakleídav ö Tarant⁄nov, Krateúav ö Åihotómov, Ândréav te kaì Bássov ö Túliov,
Nikßfatov kaì PetrÉniov, Níger kaì Diódotov, kaì ãlloi tinév (2.3.1).
13
2.3.4-5: ‘Thus, dearest, my work too <has been compiled> as a defense against them
and for your <safety>, to expose the appearance of the dreadful serpents and beasts, and
their poisons and deadly bites (eîv tò âpokalúcai t¬n dein¬n ërpet¬n kaì qjríwn morfáv
te kaì îoùv kaì dßgmata ôletßria). (5) And to correspond with these I shall give us many
arguments, like antidotes (ântidótwn díkjn), as I can in short compass – one or two at most
– to counteract their poison and, after the Lord, to save anyone who cares <to be>, when
he has willingly or inadvertently fallen into these snake-like teachings of the sects (kaqˆ
ëkousían gnÉmjn kaì âkousían eîv tà aûtà ërpetÉdj t¬n aïrésewn didágmata para-
peptwkóta). In contrast to what he had just said about style and literary skills, this pas-
sage is not without any elegance. Note the play on dßgmata and didágmata.
that the last nine names in the list occur in exactly the same order in the pref-
ace of the Materia medica of Dioscurides, the second name on Epiphanius’
list.14 Dummer rightly observes that this does not necessarily have to mean
that Epiphanius took the list from Dioscurides, as Kuhn had suggested, for
the latter himself may well have been relying on the same source Epiphanius
had access to.15 But Kuhn’s conclusion is not absolutely impossible either. The
few differences in orthography between Epiphanius and Dioscurides in any
case do not argue against it,16 nor does the fact that Dioscurides most prob-
ably did not himself put this list together.17 The very first name on Epipha-
nius’ list is well known. Nicander of Colophon has authored a work (in verse)
on snakes and reptiles, entitled Qjriaká, which has come down to us.18
However, Epiphanius nowhere shows to have had direct access to this book.19
The remaining names on the list, for one or another reason, all pose a prob-
lem. A grammarian by the name of Pamphilus is known to have lived in
Alexandria in the late-first or early-second century, but it is disputed whether
he ever authored a book on plants and is the man Epiphanius is referring to.20
Mithridates is most probably the Armenian king Mithridates VI, a notori-
ous expert in poisons, but no writings on this subject have been preserved
14
See C.G. Kuhn, Opuscula academica medica et philologica (Leipzig, 1828), pp. 156-158.
On Pedanius Dioscurides, see M. Wellmann, ‘Dioskurides’ (12), in Realenzyclopädie, V/1
(1913), c. 1133.
15
Cf. ‘Handbuch’, p. 293 n. 17.
16
See the list in ‘Handbuch’, p. 293 n. 18.
17
See the arguments for the latter in M. Wellmann, ‘Sextius Niger, eine Quellenunter-
suchung zu Dioscorides’, Hermes, 24 (1889), p. 548.
18
Nicander also authored a work on medicinal cures called A ˆ lezifármaka and another
one entitled Ôfiaká, now lost, that probably dealt with mythological creatures. Edition
with English translation by A.S.F. Gow and A.F. Scholfield, Nicander. The Poems and Poet-
ical Fragments (Cambridge, 1953; repr. London, 1997). A recent edition with French trans-
lation in J.-M. Jacques, Nicander. Oeuvres, 2 vols. (Paris, 2002, 2007). On the author and
his subject, see also W. Kroll, ‘Nikandros’ (11), in Realencyclopädie, XVII/1 (1936), c. 256.
19
Dummer cites two passages (Pan. 34.22.3-6, on the dícav, and 36.6.7, on the sßc)
where Epiphanius offers information that is not found in Nicander (‘Handbuch’, pp. 297-
298). He also notes that Epiphanius hardly seems to have been aware of the form and genre
of Nicander’s work, for he calls the latter a suggrafeúv, which, Dummer notes, usually refers
to an author writing in prose (p. 297 n. 39). The latter of these arguments is perhaps not
very strong. On the literary talents of Nicander, see H. White, Studies in the Poetry of
Nicander, Classical and Byzantine Monographs, 12 (Amsterdam, 1987).
20
He is not, according to M. Wellmann, ‘Die Pflanzennamen des Dioskurides’, Hermes,
23 (1898), p. 369 n. 1.
under his name. A pharmacologist named Philo wrote a book on one spe-
cific drug, the filwne⁄on, named after him and widely used in antiquity as a
painstiller, though not specifically for treating snake bites. If the Callisthenes
in the list is to be identified with the historian and biographer of Alexander
the Great by the same name,21 the reference may be to such passages in his
Prázeiv A ˆ lezándrou that deal with botanics.
So one has to conclude that Epiphanius most probably did not have direct
access to any of the authors cited, and the list itself does not offer any solid
indication about which work he had been using as a source. Yet the very
presence of such a list in the Panarion may indeed be proof, as Dummer
argues, that some at least of the zoo- and pharmacological information Epipha-
nius is keen to pass on to his readers might have its source in some kind of
written document, such as a handbook. The fact that he not only mentions
snakes, but other animals as well could also point in this direction. Or to
quote Dummer:
‘das Werk, das Epiphanius vor sich hatte, ist nach allem, was wir aus seinen
Worten schliessen können, eines jener zahlreichen zoologisch-pharmakologischen
Handbücher gewesen, die für die Behandlung von Bissen giftiger Tiere gedacht
waren und von denen einige bis heute erhalten sind. In diesen Handbüchern
waren die Beschreibungen der Schlangen und die Angaben zur Therapie bzw.
der speziellen Medikamente bei Bissvergiftungen vereint, und es erübrigt sich
schon deshalb die Annahme, das Epiphanius seine Kenntnisse über die giftigen
Tiere und die Gegenmittel aus verschiedenen Schriften gewonnen hat. Die
Benutzung eines solchen Handbuches durch Epiphanius verrät sich aber unter
anderem auch dadurch, dass er wie jene Pharmazeuten über den Kreis der
Schlangen hinaus den tollwütigen Hund und noch einige andere Tiere aufführt’.22
Additional evidence for this conclusion is to be found in such other works

of Epiphanius as the one on weights and measures (De mensuris et pon-
deribus) and that on the stones on the breast-plate of the highpriest (De 12
gemmis).23 The Panarion surely offers one more fine illustration of the fact
21
So Dummer, ‘Handbuch’, p. 294.
22
Ibid., p. 295, with reference in n. 29 to such handbooks. With regard to the mad dog
one should note that this is not found in the conclusion to any of the Christian groups,
but in Pan. 19, on the Elkesaites.
23
See Dummer, ‘Handbuch’, p. 291 nn. 10-11. On the latter, see now J.M. Nieto Ibanez,
that even so-called ‘anti-intellectualists’ as Epiphanius did not shy away from
reading rather esoteric or quite technical ‘secular’ stuff, which is the final
conclusion Dummer is drawing.24 But, as is the case with the other possible
sources that have been mentioned before, there presently hardly remains a way
for us to find out how much, and where, he actually borrowed from this
handbook. Moreover, if the handbook thesis holds, the theologically and
polemically motivated use Epiphanius is making of this material definitely puts
him in a quite different tradition than that of the ‘scientific author’ and much
closer to the one that is reflected also in the Physiologus, as Dummer read-
ily admits at one point.25 It is to this (theologically biased) interpretation of
the material that I now will turn, offering some comments on Epiphanius’
way of presenting the various beasts he is listing.
II. SOME COMMENTS ON EPIPHANIUS’ COMMENTS
The first section of the book, which deals with Jewish and some other pre-
Christian groups (Pan. 1-20), contains an occasional reference to snakes and
poison,26 but in this part Epiphanius does not yet compare the group he is
presenting with a particular animal. The Herodians in Pan. 20 are not for-
mally compared to a snake, and the image Epiphanius uses to label them as
‘lapsi’ goes for each and every sect, as they all have, of course, ‘split off ’ from
‘El lapidario griego de san Epifanio de Chipre: Mineralogía clásica y tradición bíblica’, in
La cultura scientifico-naturalistica nei Padri della Chiesa (secc. I-V), Studia Ephemeridis
Augustinianum, 101 (Rome, 2007), pp. 99-107.
24
‘Darüber hinaus bestätigt sich hier wieder einmal mehr die Erkenntnis, für die auch sonst
Epiphanius ein gutes Beispiel liefert, dass die Begegnung von pagano-hellenistischer Kul-
tur und Christentum nicht in jedem Falle auf der Hauptstrasse stattfindet, sondern dass
es auch Seitenwege gibt, die zu verfolgen durchaus seine Reize hat’ (ibid., p. 299). Dum-
mer thus repeats the conclusion he had reached in his (unpublished) doctoral dissertation
which dealt precisely with this question: Epiphanius von Constantia (Salamis). Studien zu
den formalen Grundlagen seiner Bildung (Berlin, 1965).
25
‘Handbuch’, p. 298 n. 55. See also below.
26
See Pan. 13.2.2 (on the Dositheans): ‘But I shall return to the successive infiltrations
(into our ranks), connect the prey of imposture with each other, and give the argument
against them – by the exposure of their vile practices, and a brief refutation of the vicious,
deadly serpents’ emission of poison’; and 19.6.1 (Ossaeans): ‘Once he has observed their
vulgar teaching and chatter, all a sensible person need do is prepare his own remedy from
their lunacy itself, and the terms of the preaching of the deadly poison’.
orthodoxy.27 From Pan. 21 on, however, he will systematically conclude

almost each chapter in the same way by comparing the sect or heretic with
an animal (on the few exceptions, see below). It is not possible to offer here
a full comment of all these many passages, and there is probably no need to.
I will here merely give a overall survey of the list and limit myself to some
observations that I hope to take further up later.
The following is the list of the animals that are mentioned in the closing
sections of each chapter, with at times also a few elements from the imme-
diate context. Several other phrases from these same sections will be cited in
the comments below.
21.7.2 Simon Magus and the Simonians: Üv ™ t¬n êktrwmátwn

ërpetÉdjv êz oûríwn Öç¬n âspídwn kuiskoménj fqorà kaì ãllwn
êxidn¬n (‘like the snake-like filth hatched out of season from the
infertile eggs of asps and other vipers’)
22.2.4 Menander: âspidogorgóna (‘an “aspidogorgon”’)
23.7.3 Satornilus: díkjn êxídnjv (‘like a viper’)
24.10.6 Basilides: Üseì kerástou trópon ên ãmmwç kexwsménj (‘like a horned
asp lies buried in sand’)
25.7.3 Nicolaitans: díkjn Àdrwpov toÕ ërpetoÕ kalouménou (‘like the rep-
tile known as the hydrops’)
26.19.2 Gnostics or Borborites: ên t¬ç ërpet¬ç t¬ç deinotátwç, ˜ç êpéqento
tò ∫noma âpeirÉdinon ∂xidnan oï palaioí (in the particularly dread-
ful snake the ancients called the “viper with no pangs”’)
27.8.4 Carpocratians: ¿sper drákontov kefalßn (‘like a serpent’s head’)
28.8.4 Cerinthians or Merinthians: Üv âljq¬v dikefálwç tinì ∫fei dià tò
diÉnumon kaì t±Ç kalouménjÇ sjpedóni êxídnjÇ (‘just like a snake with
two heads – and the viper called the “rot viper”’)
29.9.5 Nazoreans: bljxròn kaì ôdúnjv êmpoijtikòn dià toÕ îoÕ sfjkíon
(‘an insect that is small, yet still causes pain with its poison’)
30.1.1 Ebionites: polúmorfon terástion kaì Üv eîpe⁄n t±v muqeuoménjv
polukefálou Àdrav ôfiÉdj morf®n ên ëaut¬ç ânatupwsámenov
27
20.3.3: ‘And so they have lapsed from Judaism – as though a snake’s tail or body had
been cut off and a snake with two heads and no tail (dikéfalon kaì ãfrihon ∫fin) sprout
from it, grown on a half of a body and attached to it’.
(‘a monstrosity with many shapes, who practically formed the

snake-like shape of the mythical many-headed hydra in himself ’)
30.34.7 : êk toÕ ânà méson t¬n îxqúwn tinà îobóla e¤nai, trugónav dé fjmi
kaì drakaínav kaì karxaríav kaì smuraínav (‘for some of the fish
are poisonous, I mean sting-rays, sea-snakes, sharks and sea-eels’)
31.36.4 Valentinians: polloùv Üv eîpe⁄n skorpíouv eîv mían °lusin sunéd-
jsen (‘Valentinus fastened a number of scorpions together in one
chain’)
32.7.9 Secundians: Üv múagron oŒn taútjn t®n ∂xidnan, t®n polla⁄v ëtéraiv
êxídnaiv êoiku⁄an (‘like the mousing viper, which resembles many
vipers’)
33.12.3 Ptolemaeans: t¬n ponjr¬n îxqúwn πna (‘one of the bad fish’)
34.22.3 Marcosians: dicáda gár tina ∂xidnán fasin oï ïstorßsantev (‘the
naturalists speak of a viper called the dipsas’)
35.3.9 Colorbasians: díkjn falaggíou tetragnáqou ërpetoÕ kalouménou
≠ Üv âpò âmfisbaínjv t±v dikefálou êxídnjv tmjqe⁄sa kefalß
(‘like the four-jawed snake called the malmignatte or … like a
head cut off from the two-headed viper, the amphisbaena’)
36.6.7 Heracleonites: s®c gàr oœtov ån légoito dikaíwv, Ω oûk ∫fiv, âllˆ
¿v fasi xalkéa pwv êsti, tetrápoun ërpetón, âskalabÉtjÇ êoikóv
(‘for Heracleon may justly be called a lizard. This is not a snake
but a hard-skinned beast as they say, something that crawls on
four feet, like a gecko’)
37.9.3 Ophites: ãpljktoi dè âpò smurainÉdouv îoÕ kaì trugónov kaì
drakaínjv kaì karxariou kaì skorpaínjv (‘untouched by the poi-
son of the sea-eel, sting-ray, dragon, shark and scorpaena’)
38.8.7 Cainites: êwçku⁄an t¬ç génei toÕ bouprßstou kanqárou (‘like expos-
ing poisonous dung-beetles’)
39.10.7 Sethians: tòn îòn t±v ërpetÉdouv aût¬n êk génouv âpídwn gon±v (the
poison of their snake-like brood which is descended from asps’)
40.8.8 Archontics: trópon gár tina êk poll¬n ërpet¬n ânamìz t±v aût¬n
plánjv sunjgménj êstìn ™ îobolía, ofion tò qrasù ∂xousa toÕ drákon-
tov, tò doleròn toÕ fusálou, t®n ânqélkusin t±v pno±v toÕ
baítwnov, tò gaÕron toÕ âkontíou, tò propetèv toÕ ôstrakítou (‘for
in a way the poisonous emission of their imposture has been taken
at random from many snakes. It has the dragon’s arrogance, for
example, the treachery of the toad that inflates itself, the pull in
the opposite direction of the gudgeon’s breath, the pride of the
quick-darting serpent, and calamine’s characteristic of being thrown
aside’)
41.3.5 Cerdonians: Üseì bémbikov kaì pemfrjdónov t¬n ôdunopoi¬n êk
petein¬n knwdálwn örmwménwn üpò mían q±zin êkpetasqéntwn (‘like
a bembix or wasp – flying insects with wings, that suddenly take
wing and dart at us’)
42.16.14 Marcionites: Üv megáljv âspídov katapatjqeísjv (‘trodden under-
foot like a big asp’)
43.2.8 Lucianists: êk suntómou skopoÕ ∫fin parakúcanta (‘a snake … as
it peeped from its hole’)
44.7.1 Apelleans: perì toútou toÕ hwpúrou sfjkíou kaì oûdenòv ∫ntov (‘on
this wasp whose sting smarts despite his insignificance’)
44.7.2 fasì gàr tò ôdunjròn sfjkíon, Ω hÉpurón tinev keklßkasin, ∂xein
mèn kéntron îobólon braxú, periwdunían poll®n oû kektjménon,
âllà katà t®n aûtoÕ dúnamin îobólon ∫n (‘for they say that the
wasp, which some have called a “smarting wasp”, has a short poi-
soned sting that cannot cause great pain but is as poisonous as it
is possible for it to be’)
45.4.10 Severians: ¿sper skorpíon deinòn katapatßsantev âqrówv (‘I have
crushed it at once like a horrid scorpion’)
46.4.1 Tatianists: kwnÉpwn díkjn dßgmata (‘like mosquito bites’)
46.5.11 âpokrousámenoi toÕ kÉnwpov toútou tà dßgmata (‘we have rid
ourselves of this mosquito’s bites’)
47.3.4 Encratites: Üv knÉdalon ôdunjròn ôdóntwn âfjÇrjménon (‘like a
stinging insect deprived of teeth’)
48.15.6 Phrygians or Montanists: t±Ç aïmorroíaç êxídnjÇ êoikuíav, ¯v ™ lúmj
t¬n dedjgménwn tò afima pantòv toÕ sÉmatov êkkrínei kaì oÀtwv
tòn qánaton êmbállei (‘for it is like a viper of hemorrhage, whose
mischief is to drain blood from its victims’ entire bodies and so
cause their deaths’)
49.3.4 Quintillianists or Pepuzians, also known as Priscillianists, with
whom the Artotyrites are associated: nwdón ti kaì âfrosúnjv
∂mpleon âskalabÉtou díkjn (‘a toothless, witless <serpent*> like
a gecko)
50.3.5 Quartodecimans: toÕto tò êmfúsjma toÕ bai¬nov e÷t ˆ oŒn fusálou

∫fewv (‘the swollenness of this gudgeon or toad’)
51.1.1 The sect that does not accept the Gospel of John and his Revela-
tion: ¿sper ërpetòn âsqenév (‘like a snake without much strength’)
51.35.4 Üv skolópendran Æ ÷oulon kaloúmenon ërpetòn polúpoda (‘like the
many-footed millipede or the serpent they call the wood-louse’)
52.1.1 Adamians: âspálaka kaloÕsí ti h¬çon ên t±Ç g±Ç kátw êmfwleÕon
tetrápoun Å±ttón te t®n g±n kaì ên to⁄v muxaitátoiv aût±v ∂xon
ëautoÕ t®n o÷kjsin (‘the four-footed animal with an underground
den which tunnels in the earth and has its burrow deep inside it,
is called the mole’)
53.2.2 Sampsaeans: Üv oŒn saúran ™liak®n pepaikótev (‘we have struck
him, like a solar lizard’)
54.6.5 Theodotians: ¿sper ti mérov ërpetoÕ ∂ti skaríhontov …
pepaikótev kaì ânelóntev (as though … I had struck and demol-
ished part of a still wriggling snake’)
55.9.16 Melchizedekians: ¿sper muogalídion líqwç pepaikótev (‘as though
we had hit a mousing viper’)
56.3.7 Bardesianists: Üv âpò tom±v ∫fewv oŒsa kefal® kaì ∂ti skarí-
housa (‘like a head [cut off ] from a piece of a snake and still wrig-
gling’)
57.10.8 Noetians: ¿sper ôstrakítjn tòn kaloúmenon drákonta, tòn m®
dunámenon kámptesqai ên t¬ç katadiÉkein ãnqrwpon, mßte dezià
mßte eûÉnuma (‘like the so-called agate dragon, which cannot turn
either right or left when it pursues someone’)
58.4.16 Valesians: ¿sper skorpíou dikéntrou to⁄v mèn kérasi kaì xjla⁄v
âpò t¬n ânékaqen t¬n patérwn bíoiv ênantiwqéntov (‘like a two-
stinged scorpion which is the opposite of its ancestors because it
has horns and claws’)
59.13.3 ‘Purists’ (Cathari): taútjn dè pararrícantev Üv basilískou prósw-
pon (‘let us toss this sect aside like the face of a basilisk’)
61.8.5 Apostolics: t®n gaÕron dè taútjn ∂xidnan, díkjn âkontíou toÕ
kalouménou Æ túflwpov Æ muágrou (‘this haughty viper, like the
quick-darting snake, as they call it, or the blind-snake or mouser’)
62.8.5 Sabellians: taútjn dè pálin t®n aÿresin Üspereì líbun Æ mólouron
Æ ∂lopa Æ ∏n ti t¬n ërpet¬n t¬n foberwtátwn, oû m®n dè
dunaménwn dià djgmátwn bláptein (‘this sect …, like a libys or

molurus or elops, or one of those snakes which look very alarm-
ing but can do no harm with their bites’)
63.4.8 The first type of Origenists: ¿sper t®n dein®n skutáljn t®n ∂xid-
nan kalouménjn (‘like the horrid snake we call the viper’)
64.72.3 Origen: kaì tautjsì t±v t¬n ˆWrigeniast¬n, frúnou díkjn memor-
fwménjv (‘and for this sect of Origenists, which looks like a toad’)
65.9.3 Paul the Samosatian: druínav gár tiv ∂xiv oÀtw kalouménj toútwç
∂oike t¬ç aïresiárxjÇ (‘for there is a viper called the dryinas which
is like this heresiarch’)
66.88.2 Manichaeans: tautjsì t±v âmfisbaínjv kaì qjròv ôletjríou t±v
kegxrítidov (‘we … <have … crushed the head> of this amphis-
baena and venomous reptile, the cenchritis’)
67.8.1 Hieracites: ∫fiv gàr pterwtòv oœtov kaì skorpíov (‘for Hieracas is
a winged snake and scorpion’)
69.81.1 Arians: êpì tò ërpetòn toÕto tò polukéfalon Àdrav ãmorfon
katástjma (‘<and have been victorious*> over this serpent, the
many-headed ugliness of the hydra’)
71.6.2 Photinians: âpò g±v ânafúsantov knwdálou âtónou te kaì âduná-
mou <e¤dov>… Æ Üv ∏lmigga ≠toi g±v ênteriÉnjn (‘<some kind of>
feeble bug with no strength … or a worm or a maggot’)
73.38.5 Semi-Arians: ërpetòn deinón (‘a horrid serpent’)
74.14.3 Pneumatomachi: díkjn kerástou deinoÕ monokérwtov (‘like a dread-
ful horned asp with its single horn’)
75.8.4 Aerius: kánqaron Æ kanqarída Æ tò kaloúmenon boúprjstiv knÉdalon
(‘a dung or blister-beetle, or the bug we call a buprestis’)
76.54.38 Anomoeans: polúpoun skolópendran kaì ÷oulon tò kaloúmenon
ërpetón (‘the serpent called the many-footed millipede, or wood-
louse’)
78.24.7 Antidicomarians: Üv ërpetòn âpò ôp±v prokÕcan (‘as a snake peep-
ing out of its hole’)
79.7.5 Collyridians: kuklodrákwn (‘this coiled serpent’)
79.9.5 taútjn … t®n kanqarída (‘this blister-beetle’)
80.11.7 Massalians: xamailéonta polúpoun, âeid±, ãmorfon, dusodmían
pnéousan (‘a many-footed, ugly, misshapen and foul-smelling
chameleon’)
The list contains all kinds of everything, a few fishes, some insects, and
an occasional amphibian and mammal, but it mainly consists of snakes, ser-
pents and reptiles of all sorts and species. In all, some fifty animals are men-
tioned.28 Epiphanius does not seem to have followed any particular arrange-
ment. The various animals follow after one another randomly, though in the
opening chapters it looks as if he showed some concern for grouping together
or systematising the material. Thus the first eight sects are all compared to
snakes of a kind. But Epiphanius soon leaves this arrangement for a more
diversified one that may be more chaotic but is also less monotone.29 There
are a few smaller units of similar beasts later on, but never of the format of
these opening chapters (see Pan. 54-57). The overall impression is one of
great diversity, as Epiphanius probably wanted it to be.
As a rule, Epiphanius names a specific, more or less easily identifiable ani-
mal, and only one per sect, though there are also a few instances in which
he sticks to a more general reference (∫fiv, ërpetón) and there are some oth-
ers in which he has listed together various animals. Some are mentioned
more than once.
Almost all the animals are known also from the specialised zoographical
literature, or otherwise.30 Of course, there are some problems with one or
another of these animals. There are some instances in which the same word
can denote different animals. This is not always due to confusion or igno-
rance on the part of the author.31 Baítwn (40.8.8; 50.3.5) seems to be a less
common form of baiÉn. Twice Epiphanius creates a neologism. The word
28
References to animals are not limited to the sole closing sections; they are found all
through the Panarion, and not just for insulting heretics. Thus the drákwn in 25.4.9 refers
to a flute in the shape of a serpent. Cf. Gilhus, Animals, p. 241.
29
See Pan. 29-40: an insect – a hydra – all sorts of fish – scorpions – the mousing viper
– fish again – two sorts of vipers – a lizard – more fish – beetles – brood of asp – and a
whole zoo in ch. 40.
30
A first, already quite interesting, selection of references can be found in LSJ. For more
complete surveys one should of course consult TLG.
31
It is not only a matter of our lack of knowledge of ancient technical vocabulary, nor
merely one of the ancient authors being inaccurate; it is in a way inherent to the disci-
pline itself. To cite just a couple of examples: drákwn (27.8.4; 40.8.7) can mean a serpent
or a fish; ∂loc: a fish or a serpent; qßr (64.72.3; 66.88.2): a beast of prey, esp. a lion, but
also vermin, or gnat, or any sacred animal in Egypt, or even mythical monsters; kanqarív
(38.8.7; 75.8.4; 79.9.5): usually a kind of beetle, but exceptionally also a kind of fish; ∫fiv
(43.2.8) a serpent, the guinea worm, but also a kind of fish.
âspidogorgÉn (22.2.4; also 30.26) is not in LSJ, and neither is kuklodrákwn

(79.7.5), but in each case its meaning is quite clear.32 Aristotle refers to ‘a
shield with the Gorgon on it’ as ™ kúklov Gorgónwtov âspídov (Ach. 1124).
But Epiphanius may also have been thinking of the adjective gorgóv (‘spir-
ited’, ‘quick’) that is used in particular of animals. The second neologism is
most probably inspired by the fact that drákwn can also have the meaning
of ‘serpent-shaped bracelet’; according to Hesychius it is a synonym of
kjrúkeion (LSJ prob. ‘a wand with a serpent coiled round it’; S. Fr. 700-1).
LSJ does not cite evidence for Àdrwc (25.7.3) being an animal (‘dropsy’, ‘dia-
betes’). In 71.6.2 ênteriÉnj g±v is probably a mere mistake for ∂ntera g±v
(‘worm or earth-worm).33 A similar kind of confusion may explain the word
ôstrakítjv (40.8.8; 57.10.8), a synonym of ôstrákinov (‘made of earthen,
clay’), for what probably should have been ôstrákion (‘shell-fish’, Str. 17.2.4).
For sfjkíon (29.9.5; lit. ‘the comb in a wasp’s nest’, so Arist. HA 628a 17;
Williams: ‘an insect’, but in 44.7.1 he renders hÉpuron sfjkíon as ‘the smart-
ing wasp’), maybe a mere scribal mistake, one should probably read sfßkeion,
‘an insect that strips like a wasp’.34 LSJ does not list muogalídion (55.9.16),
which looks like a (self-invented?) diminutive of muogal± (v.l. for mugal± in
Dsc. 2.68; ‘shrew-mouse, field-mouse’).35 Overall, however, Epiphanius can
be said to be rather correct in his identification or description of the animals
he is referring to. It is not so that he has made ‘a mouse into an elephant’.
In a few instances Epiphanius does not mention a specific animal, but
speaks more generally of ërpetón (67.11.8; 68.81.1; 78.24.7), which can
refer to any kind of creeping beast, including insects, but more often all sorts
of reptiles and snakes, or of ∫fiv (43.2.8), though in addition to the general
meaning ‘serpent’ (Hes. Th. 322.825 makes it a synonym for drákwn) this
word can also denote a kind of fish (cf. ôfídion) or even (an animal like) the
much-feared guinea-worm (see above). More general still, is the word knÉ-
dalon, which can refer to any sort of creature living in the wild, be it birds,
32
Both are listed in Lampe, with Epiphanius as the sole witness.
33
Cf. the references in LSJ to Arist. IA 705b 28; 709a 28; Arat. 959; Numen. Ap. Ath.
7.305a; or worm-cast: Arist. HA 570a 16; Thphr. Sign. 42; Nic. Th. 388.
34
So LSJ, with reference to Nicander, Th. 738, who gives some more comments: ‘But
another kind is an aggressive foe, the one men call the wasp-spider, reddish and like the
ravenous wasp, which resembles the horse in its high spirit, for horses are the origin of wasps
and bulls of bees [which are engendered in their rotting carcases]’.
35
The word is listed in Lampe, again with Epiphanius as its sole witness.
or mammals, or reptiles, and is therefore often qualified by another word. It

occurs several times in the Panarion, the first time in the ‘Summary’ in 1.5.2
(with reference to Pythagoras’s doctrine of the transmigration of the soul that
would apply even to ‘beasts and vermin’36), and then also again in Pan. 26.1.2,
in a general attack on all founders of sects,37 26.9.5 (the Gnostics teach that
the same soul is found in man and beast alike), 42.12.3 (Elenchus 7 and 15:
God has created all living beings), 48.5.5 (an insect crawling on our body),
66.35.2 (the Manichaeans claiming that one soul is in all), 76.20.7 (no crea-
ture is its own creator – in a refutation of the Anomoeans). In a closing sec-
tion it is said of the Cerdonians (41.3.5), the Encratites (47.3.4), the Pho-
tinians (71.6.2), and Aerius (75.8.4).
KnÉdalon is one of several terms that are used for labelling quite different
groups that do not appear to have anything in common. The asp and the viper
are also rather popular. They are mentioned together in the very first instance
where Epiphanius makes this kind of comparison, with Simon Magus, the
arch-heretic, his followers, and his teaching as the victims (21.7.2). Excep-
tionally, the comparison is not with a living but with a born-dead or aborted
animal or afterbirth (see also 39.10.7). No wonder that in the next chapter
Simon’s disciple, Menander, is being compared to asps, and in particular to
the half-mythical âspidogorgÉn (22.2.4; the same term also in 30.26.6 for
the Ebionites). Asp and viper figure together again in the next two chapters,
linking Satornilus and Basilides to each other (23.7.2), while the latter of
the two is then in turn also called a ‘horned asp’ (24.10.6). These four could
be said somehow to hold together as a kind of ‘first-generation’ heretics. Later
on one also finds Marcion being compared to ‘a big asp’ (42.16.14).
Probably much to the surprise of some of them, not only the ‘Gnostics’,
Cerinthians, Valentinus, Ptolemy, but also the Marcosians, the mysterious
Colorbasians, the Montanists, the ‘Origenists’, and even poor Paul of Samosata
and the Manichaeans are all united in the same big family of vipers – be it
of various sorts. It cannot possibly have been Epiphanius’ intention actually
to argue that these groups all really “belonged together”, and maybe the dif-
ferentiation between the various sorts of vipers, each with their own distinc-
36
See also Pan. 5.2.4: the same doctrine, but now as taught by the Stoics.
37
‘It is a great misfortune, and practically the worst of hardships, that these despicable,
erring founders of the sects come at us and assault us like a swarm of insects (¿sper
knwdálwn pl±qov), infecting us with diseases, smelly eruptions’ (26.1.2).
tive look and way of behaviour, may be an indication for this. The case may
perhaps seem to be slightly different with such words as ∫fiv or knÉdalon that
bear a more general connotation, but here as well Epiphanius introduces dif-
ferences and variation, and so again one should not conclude that all these
sects have much in common – apart from their being heretics of a kind.
Hence it is probably best to refrain from looking for a rationale in the pro-
cedure and merely to conclude that Epiphanius thought asps and vipers to
be an excellent choice for discrediting adversaries, and with some reason if
one goes on their “evil” character or horrible outlook.
In a few instances Epiphanius even repeats almost verbatim a qualification
he had used before. Thus the Ebionites are likened to all sorts of poisonous
fish – sting-rays, sea-snakes, sharks, and sea-eels –, and so are the Ophites,
whom one might rather have expected to be compared to the ∫fiv,38 but
instead are called poisonous sea-eel, sting-ray, dragon, shark and ‘scorpaena’
(37.9.3). Yet very little, if anything, links together these two sects. The same
is true for connecting Ebion and Ptolemy, who is dismissed, more vaguely,
as ‘one of the bad fish’ (33.12.3). The same phenomenon is seen in the case
of the old sect of the Alogi – contemporaries of the Montanists and the
Quartodecimans (51.1.1) – and the more recent one of the Anomoeans
(76.1.1), who nevertheless both are likened to a millipede and a wood-louse
(51.35.4 and 76.54.38). Here as well, then, one should not rush to conclu-
sions about possible connections or similarities in content and doctrine
between the sects and heretics that are labelled in this way.
A few sects have the dubious honour of being identified with a whole
series of animals, of the same species or even of different ones. The first one
to be treated like this is Ebion (again him) who in the opening lines39 is
likened to the hydra (30.1.1), because he borrowed from anyone and every-
where (30.1.2-3), but ends up among the poisonous fish (see above). One
could argue that the multiple comparison makes sense in view of the char-
acterisation of Ebion’s doctrine. The same reasoning clearly has played in the
case of the Archontics who are likened to no less than five animals at a time
(40.8.8: the dragon, the toad, the gudgeon, ‘the quick-darting serpent’, the
calamine) and ‘the tangled malignity of serpents’, because this sect cherishes
38
The word is used extensively in the long section on the snake in Paradise in 37.2.
39
Also in the case of the Alogi (51.1.1) and the Adamians (52.1.1) – for the latter only
here – the comparison occurs in the opening paragraph.
‘a great variety of its names for archons’ (40.8.7, cf. 40.5.8-11), and appar-
ently not so much because their leader Aetius had frequented many other
groups before founding his own (so 40.1.5), a feature that brings him close
to Ebion, borrowing from many others, with whom he otherwise also shared
the fact that they both lived in the same area of Cocabe (40.1.5 and 30.2.8).
It is more difficult to see why the Sabellians are treated in this same way, being
likened to ‘a libys or molurus or elops, or one of those snakes …’ (62.8.5),
and not just to the ôstrakítjv, as were the Noetians (57.10.8) whose teach-
ings were ‘very similar’ to those of Sabellius, ‘except for a few further doc-
trines of his own’ (62.1.2). Was this enough to burden the latter under the
whole series in 62.8.5, or has the comparison been modelled after that of the
previous chapter?40 In a few other instances the multiple comparison is prob-
ably not specifically motivated beyond the mere fact that the animals listed
are more or less of the same species. Thus the Cerdonians go under the name
of the bémbiz and the pemfrjdÉn, both of them ‘flying insects with wings,
that suddenly take wing and dart at us’ (41.3.5). Likewise, Aerius is compared
to insects of a kind (75.8.4). In the case of the Colorbasians (35.3.9), where
a snake or serpent (ërpetón) has the company of a viper (∂xidna), the com-
bination may also have been inspired by the similarity of the qualification that
is given to each of them (‘the four-jawed malmignatte’ and ‘the two-headed
amphisbaena’).
Turning from the mere names of animals to the immediate context one
will see that these concluding sections can differ quite considerably in length
and detail. The ‘Gnostics or Borborites’ are described as follows:
‘Now, beloved, after passing this sect by, I shall next tread the other rough tracks
… leaving the road which is broad and roomy, and yet thorny and full of stum-
bling-blocks – which is miry, and is choked with licentiousness and fornication.
(2) Something like this fornication and licentiousness may be seen in the par-
ticularly dreadful snake the ancients called the “viper with no pangs”.
(3) For the birth of this kind of viper resembles the Gnostics’ wickedness. Whether
they perform their filthy act with men or women, they still forbid insemination,
40
The first three animals are met together also in Nicander, Th. 490-492. They are all
‘harmless’ (ãblapta kinÉpeta), as are the múagrov, the âkóntion, and the túflwc. In the
Panarion these three in turn occur together just before in 61.8.5 (the first also in 32.7.9;
the second again in 40.8.8, as part of a whole series of five).
thus doing away with the procreation God has given his creatures – as the apos-
tle says, “receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was meet”
[Rom 1,27], and so on. (4) So, we are told, when the viper with no pangs grew
amorous, female for male and male for female, they would twine together, and
the male would thrust his head in the jaws of the gaping female. But she would
bite the male’s head of, in passion and so swallow the poison that dripped from
its mouth, and conceive a similar pair of snakes, a male and a female, within her.
(5) When this pair had come to maturity in her belly and had no way to be
born, they would lacerate their mother’s side to come to birth – so that both their
father and mother perished. This is why they called it the “viper with no pangs”;
it has no experience of the pangs of birth. (6) Now this is the most dreadful and
fearsome of snakes, since it achieves its own extermination within itself, and
receives its dirt by mouth; and this crack-brained sect is like it. And now that we
have beaten its head, its body and its offspring here with the wood of life, let us
go on to examine the others, calling, for aid, on God, to whom be honor and
might forever and ever. Amen’ (26.19.1-6).
By contrast, the Carpocratians in the next chapter will have to do with a

mere,
‘But since we have repelled this sect once more – like splitting a serpent’s head
when it is (already lying) on the ground, with a cudgel of faith and truth – let
us approach the other beast-like sects <that have appeared in the world> for its
ruin. And because of our promise, let us force ourselves to begin <their refuta-
tion>’ (27.8.4).
Typically, these sections contain some or all of the following elements: the
name of the beast, its – mostly poisonous or obnoxious – character or behav-
iour, the antidote or the way the animal can best be destroyed, and an invo-
cation of God’s help in doing so, and a clue or explanation for why the sect
has been likened to that particular animal.
a. Beasts of all sorts and kinds. More than once Epiphanius goes at great
length to describe and explain with quite some precision the poisonous or
obnoxious nature of the animal. It is in such sections, which go far beyond
the stock imagery on snakes and serpents, that one may suspect the influence
of handbook material. Occasionally one even finds an explicit reference of
that sort, as in the chapter on the Marcosians, where the long excursus on
the dícav is introduced with a reference to the ïstorßsantev (34.22.3 ‘the nat-
uralists’).41 The passage was studied in some detail by Dummer,42 who notes
that the information Epiphanius gives agrees with what can be found in
Nicander and other specialists with regard to the fever and heavy thirst the
bite of this animal can cause, but that he is the only ancient author also to
add that the dícav poisons its own drinking water.43 Epiphanius may have
been relying on authors that are no longer known to us, or more likely, he
is developing upon the motif of the poison-water-thirst in view of what he
had said in 34.1.7 about Marcus, in an attempt to parody the Eucharist,
preparing for his followers a poisonous drink,44 to which he may be allud-
ing in the final clause when closing the excursus with, ‘thus Marcus too causes
the death of his dupes with a drink’ (34.8.6). Interestingly, two chapters later
Epiphanius tells the same story about the sßc, which he says is not a snake,
but rather ‘like a gecko’.45 Yet its spittle is lethal, for ‘if a drop of its spittle
strikes food or drink, it causes the immediate death of those who have any’
(36.6.7). If Heracleon is not said to have prepared any food, his teaching at
least is “lethal”, and in any case he took his cue from Marcus and made the
same sort of claims as that heretic did (36.2.1.5). Hence, they must have
had the same effect on their followers. Who can beat this iron logic?
41
For other such references see 37.8.5 (below) and 64.72.6, where fusiológoi are men-
tioned for information on how a viper kills a dormouse.
42
‘Handbuch’, p. 297.
43
‘The naturalists speak of a viper called the dipsas, which does the following sort of
harm. In certain places where there are depressions in the rocks, or little basins hollowed
out of rocks for receptacles, the dipsas finds water and drinks, and after drinking puts its
poison into these pools of water. The any animal that approaches and drinks its fill will
feel refreshed because it drank, but it will fall right down and die beside the receptacle con-
taminated by the dipsas’ venom. (4) Moreover, if the dispas strikes someone, his pain from
its particularly hot poison will make him thirsty and want a drink, and will impel him to
keep coming up and drinking. (5) Each time the victim <feels> such a deadly pain and
<has some water> he will think that it does his injury some good, but he will vomit his
life out later along with the drink, because the very thing he drinks fills his stomach and
it cannot hold <any>more’ (34.22.3-5).
44
The ritual is described in detail, as if Epiphanius had been an eyewitness: ‘three chal-
ices of white vinegar mixed with white wine, and just as Marcus finishes the incantation,
which is supposed tob e a eucharistic prayer, these are transformed, with one <turning>
blood-red, another purple, and another dark-blue’.
45
Ancient authors are divided on the precise identification. See Dummer, ‘Handbuch’,
p. 298 n. 47.
In the next chapter Epiphanius once more refers to ‘the naturalists’ in what
looks like a paraphrase on the theme of the snake spitting in (and poison-
ing) its own drinking water. Now he points to the wisdom of the snake,
which ‘when it is thirsty and goes from its den to water to drink, it does not
bring its poison. It leaves it in its den, and then goes and takes its drink of
the water’ (37.8.5). The information is put to use as an exhortation and a
warning not to ‘bring evil … or anything else in our thoughts when we go
to God’s holy church’ (37.8.6). A close parallel to this passage on the snake’s
wisdom, with the same application, is found in the Physiologus (ch. 11).46
And this same work also offers a good parallel for that other illustration of
the same kind of wisdom that is cited immediately before in 37.8.3-4, where
it is explained how a snake protects its head from being crushed, just as we
should keep our heads “clear” when being persecuted. Whether or not the
traditions that have been collected in the Physiologus were in any way a
source of inspiration for Epiphanius, it looks almost as if he wanted to clear
himself from the suspicion of reading secular sciences, unless, of course, he
regarded such traditions as those found in the Physiologus to be “solid sci-
ence”.47
Poisonous snakes, bad fish (33.12.3), poisonous beetles (38.8.7), darting
wasps (41.3.5; 44.7.1-2) and mosquitoes (46.5.11), – one finds here listed
the whole range of harms and pains man is exposed to in the Mediterranean
and the Near East, then as now. A particularly scary beast is the viper called
the viper of hemorrhage, a sort of vampire it seems, ‘whose mischief is to drain
blood from its victims’ entire bodies and so cause their deaths’ (48.15.6).
The ‘Phrygians’ or Montanists are singled out for this epitheton. And the
choice is well-deserved, for is this not the sect that by way of initiation rite
sucks the blood of an innocent child (48.14.6 and 48.15.7), a ritual they are
said to share with other so hideous a sect as that of the Quintillians (also
known as the Pepuzians or Priscilianists, according to Epiphanius) – their twin
brothers in crime (48.14.5) – who nevertheless escape the fate of the Mon-
tanists and quite fortunately get away with the far more “polite” insult that
they are ‘a toothless, witless <serpent> like a gecko’ (49.3.4). Epiphanius’
46
See already the note in the edition of Holl.
47
The theme of glorifying in one’s lack of intellectual profile is played upon in 64.72.9,
where a viper’s venom and Origen blinded by Greek education make for a most pernicious
mix for all of us.
viper is probably to be identified as the aïmorroív, a most scary snake indeed,

as one can read from the bloody details in Nicander (Th. 282-319), who
does not need little babies to make one feel very uneasy just by the sight of
this beast and the damage it can do.
Tiny or big, ugly or not, it would seem that all animals listed in the
Panarion are created “equal”: they are all, in one way or another, venomous
or harmful, though it seems that in this respect some are more equal than
others, being scary at best, lethal at worst. A few, however, seem to stand out
for being absolutely harmless, to the degree even of being ridiculous. Was
Epiphanius growing tired of his own litany of warnings? Or was there some
concern for not worrying down the reader? Fact is that every now and then
one encounters an animal that causes no pain, but merely looks ‘ugly and mis-
shapen’ and at most is ‘foul-smelling’ (the chameleon in 80.11.7), is weak (the
feeble bug, or worm or maggot, to which the Photinians are likened in
71.6.2), or with no strength (the serpent in 51.1.1). What is the point of these
intermezzos? One very obvious reason may be that the information is well-
taken in a world that seems to be infested with dangerous animals, so much
so that no one really can be sure whether or not an animal is poisonous. So
maybe there is also an aspect of warning in these passages after all, because
many an animal is not what it looks like, and even very small ones can cause
much pain or trouble, as Epiphanius says on a few occasions (see, e.g., 44.7.2).
In addition, the mere outlook of some animals already serves the purpose of
insulting the groups that are likened to it merely by ridiculing them. Who
would like to be compared to a chameleon (80.11.7), or a lizard (53.2.2), or
a swollen toad (50.3.5). These are not God’s most nicest creatures. The two
motifs of ridicule and delusion are combined in the case of a creature that is
gloriously introduces as ‘the four-footed animal with an underground den
which tunnels in the earth and has its burrow deep inside it, is called the mole’
(52.1.1).48 The pompous introduction is itself already part of the ridiculing.
But then, we all know from our own garden or from the neighbour’s accounts
of his heroic battles with “the beast” what troubles this harmless-looking crea-
ture can cause, and Epiphanius, too, develops this topic in much detail.49
48
The intention of the whole phrase is well rendered by Williams putting the name of
the animal last, but it also works in Greek that begins with the name.
49
‘It is a destructive creature which roots out people’s crops from below, especially every
cucumber bed and the sharp-tasting plants – onions, garlic, purse-tassels and the like, and
b. Smashing and crushing … with a little help of my God. The closing

sections contain a rich variety of phrases for invoking God’s help and for
describing the way the pernicious animal can be killed or destroyed. It is all
about trashing (28.8.5; 33.12.4) and squashing (29.9.5; 35.3.9; 49.3.4;
71.6.2; 75.8.4; 79.9.5), trampling (331.36.7; 51.35.4; 53.2.4; 56.3.7;
58.4.17; 59.13.9; 65.9.7; 73.38.5) and treading (32.7.9; 42.16.14, with a
quote from Luke 10,19 following; 74.14.3; 80.11.7), maiming (57.10.8;
63.4.8; 73.38.5) and crushing (35.3.9; 38.8.6; 40.8.9; 45.4.10;48.15.6;
63.4.8; 66.88.2; 74.14.3; 76.54.38), stamping (76.54.38) and striking
(53.2.2; 55.9.16; 59.13.4; 61.8.5), beating (26.19.6) and breaking (67.8.1,
like children maiming an animal), and cutting off heads (35.3.9; 56.3.7), with
an exceptional case in which one is said merely to ‘avoid’ or ‘escape’ the dan-
ger (34.22.6; 45.4.10; 57.10.9).50 Some of these descriptions are quite vivid
indeed.51
But there are also a good number of, at times rather twisted, phrases and
images pointing at the aid and intervention of the divine in the whole process.
Phrases, such as ‘by Christ’s power we have struck Simon with the words of
the truth’ (21.7.3) or ‘trampled by the power of the Holy Trinity’ (62.8.5),
are still rather moderate expressions when compared to the combined force
of ‘the power of God, the cudgel of truth, the blood of Christ, his body truly
born of Mary, the resurrection of the dead, and the confession of the one
Divine Unity’ (66.88.4). And phrases calling upon the reader to rely on ‘the
Gospel’s exact words’ (38) or ‘the prayers of the saints’ (37) and to take heed
of the ‘teaching and true contemplation of the Lord’ (32.7.8; cf. 37.9.2) con-
trast rather starkly to such ones in which prayer and contemplation have
been replaced by expressions of sheer violence, in which the cudgel, be it ‘the
cudgel of the truth’ (28.8.5) or ‘of hope’ (53.2.2), is handled to kill the beast.
Metaphors of various kinds stand along each other, apparently with not much
lilies and the rest. (3) But if it actually gets onto the surface during its tunnelling, in the
open air, or if it is hunted and caught by men, it is a ridiculous sight to all who hunt this
creature’ (51.1.2-3).
50
One will note that in some instances several verbs are combined. In his translation
Williams ha snot rendered these on a one-to-one basis. Thus, ‘treading’ and ‘trampling’ can
both translate katapatéw; likewise, ‘squashing’ and ‘crushing’ can be translations of
kataqláw, but the former also renders suntríbw.
51
Cf. ‘the still wriggling snake’ in 54.6.5 and 56.3.7 (see also 27.8.4); or the snake peep-
ing out of its hole in 43.2.8 and 78.24.7.
problem, as when God is said to be ‘our guide and our defender against hor-
rors’ (47.3.4) and the One who enables the author to prepare a ‘medicinal
antidote … from many fragrant herbs’ (47.3.4; cf. similar medicinal treat-
ments in 23.7.3, 51.1.1, and 64.7.2-3). Full surgery is operated when the ini-
tial ‘trampling’ of the heretics’ doctrines is followed by ‘scratching the victims
of his bites with the healing scalpel’ (65.9.7). In 46.5.11 ‘the oil of God’s lov-
ing kindness’ (cf. already 46.4.2), ‘the Lord’s sojourn’, and ‘the light of the
Gospel of the truth’ combine for one of the more stranger phrases in the
whole of the Panarion, but apparently also for a most efficient cure against
Tatian’s ‘mosquito bites’.
Many of these phrases more or less directly allude to Christ and his pas-
sion. Shoe or sandal was a obvious means for the traveller trying to crush a
snake, but now it is also ‘the sandal of Christ’ (65.9.7, with a possible allu-
sion to Matt 3,4 par. Mark/Luke) that comes to our aid, which can also be
called the sandal or shoe ‘of the Gospel’ (32.7.9; 58.4.16; 80.11.7). In one
instance it is the reed of the suffering Christ (cf. Matt 27,29) that ‘strikes and
destroys’ wretched Nicolaus (25.7.3). And the lethal cudgel is twice identi-
fied as the cross itself (26.18.5 and 48.15.6). In fighting the Gnostics the
means and procedures turn into the magical when it is said, ‘But if you
should ever happen on any of this school of snake-like people, may you pick
the cudgel the Lord has readied for us right up, the one on which out Lord
Christ was nailed. <And> may you hurl it at the serpent’s head at once, and
say, “Christ has been crucified for us, leaving us an example” [1 Peter 2,21]
of salvation. (6) For he would not have been crucified if he had not had
flesh. But since he had flesh and was crucified, he crucified our sins. I am
held fast by faith in the truth, not carried off by the serpent’s false imposture
and the seductive whisper of his teaching’ (26.18.5-6).
c. Why this and not that? In itself, there is no need for explaining why a
particular sect is likened to a specific animal, for they are all evil and harm-
ful. Thus, Epiphanius has no problem jumping from the Gnostics’ ‘pernicious
teaching’ to ‘the poison of these serpents’ wickedness’ (26.18.4). Yet in not
a few instances, though certainly not systematically, Epiphanius offers an
explanation of some sort. One such type of explanation, the one most fre-
quently used, plays on the (alleged) connection Epiphanius sees between a
sect’s doctrine and a certain animal’s behaviour. A rather straightforward illus-
tration can be found in 25.7.3: Nicolaus ‘practiced continence for a short

while and then abandoned it’, which makes him a ready prey for being com-
pared to the hydrops, ‘which comes from water to land and returns to water
again’. A rather more complicated explanation occurs in Pan. 28.8.4-5. The
Cerinthians are compared to the ‘rot viper’ with its ambiguous outlook (a
snake that looks like a goat), because it perfectly represents this sect’s efforts
to nullify the teachings of the New Testament, while using this same book
to slander the apostles. This is quite an imaginative mind at work. And there
are other examples. When Epiphanius after the initial, more general com-
parison in 26.18.4 proceeds to identify the Gnostics with a particular snake,
‘the viper with no pangs’ is an obvious choice, for these hated heretics are said
to have all sorts of illicit intercourse, except that they forbid insemination
(26.19.3), which is not unlike this viper whose head is bitten off by the
female that swallows the male’s poison that drips from its mouth to conceive
its brood (26.19.4-5)! Speaking of a somewhat strained comparison … The
Marcosians and the ‘dipsas’ (34.22) have already been mentioned, as have Her-
acleon and the lizard (36.6) and the Quintillianists and the ‘hemorrhage
viper’ (48.15). Likewise, a particular item in their doctrine urns the Archon-
tics the honour of being compared to a whole series of animals. And simi-
larly, the silliness and ridicule of the Adamians’ teaching and behaviour makes
them fit for being compared to the mole (52.3.7).
At times it seems it is not so much doctrine but the overall behaviour of a
group or individual that raises Epiphanius’ anger and leads him to compare
it with that of an animal, as in the case of the Apostolics who are compared
to a blind-snake or mouser, ‘because of their … pride and stroke’ (61.8.5).52
The horned asp’s outlook is played upon, rather fancifully, in condemning
the Pneumatomachi, though it is not fully transparent whether the phrase ‘the
blasphemous mind is capable of destroying the entire body’ (74.14.3) is point-
ing at how this dreadful horn constitutes a danger for the animal itself, or what
is more likely, at the damage this kind of asp can do to others. A most crude
form of allegorisation turns Origen into a toad and a ‘baneful viper’, for
Epiphanius both symbols of “secular education” (64.72.3.5.8). Who could
possibly object to this without sharing Origen’s fate?
52
Similar but less explicit cases are those of the Noetians (57.10.8) and the Valesians
(58.4.17).
The long-term effect of indoctrination is a motif that could probably be

developed for more than one sect. Epiphanius does so with regard to the
Melchizedekians who are then aptly compared to the mousing viper, for just
as this animal’s bite ‘does no immediate harm’, this sect’s teaching needs time
‘to sink into people’s minds … and cause destruction’ (55.9.17). In addition
to showing Epiphanius having some talents for describing and understand-
ing both the functioning of human psychology and of a sect’s strategies, the
passage also shows him to be aware of the fact that this whole business of com-
paring sects and beasts s not just the joke of a sick mind, for he continues
to add that the comparison was not made ‘lightly, or as a slander; this beast
does this sort of injury’ (55.9.18). As if one might have had doubts about
that! A similar sort of deceitful ambiguity is what characterises the teaching
of Paul of Samosata, and that is why he can appropriately be called a ‘dryi-
nas’, camouflaging itself among the fallen leaves near a tree, much as Paul
falsely pretends to ‘bear Christ’s name while adopting Jewish doctrine’
(65.9.6). Deceit is also what singles out Mani’s teaching, and gets him com-
pared to the ‘cenchritis’, for this animal too ‘conceals its poison, and deceives
people with its tangled coils by hiding in deep woods and matching its back-
ground’ (66.88.3).
So far so good. There are cases, however, in which I am afraid even the
most adamant sympathisers of Epiphanius, if there are any, would give up;
but not so the master himself, who sees no harm in comparing Hieracas to
a winged snake and scorpion, ‘which has all sorts of wings, which flies, and
which mimics the church’s virginity but without a clear conscience’ (67.8.1).
The sole reason I can come up with to explain the imagery is that this would
be the third instance in a row that develops the same motif of mimicry that
is found in the chapters on Paul of Samosata and Mani.
Occasionally a sect’s name offers the opportunity for a comparison. Who
else but the Sampsaeans could be compared to ‘the solar lizard’, for ‘Samp-
saeans’ just means ‘solar’ (53.2.2). This is also the only instance in which
Epiphanius pushes things so far as to argue that this sect actually is ‘inferior
to the lizard, since it does not even have its momentary advantage’, to wit,
the lizard’s eyesight at least is improved by the light of the sun, but not so
that of the Sampsaeans who are and remain foolish in everything. The one
sect that could be said rightly to claim the name of the animal to which it
is compared has no right whatsoever to do so. This is polemics at its best.
In some other instances no direct explanation is given. At most one can

detect some kind of association, at the risk of reading too much in the text.
Thus the first and third member of the trio of dung-beetle, blister-beetle and
‘buprestis’ in 75.8.4 had been mentioned before in 38.8.7 (the second will
occur again in 79.9.5) to denote one and the same insect – the dung-beetle
(êwçku⁄an ti génei toÕ bouprßstou kanqárou). The ‘buprestis’ was known to
cause cattle to swell up and die when it was eaten by them. Is there a link in
75.8.4 with what is said at the beginning of the chapter in 75.1.1 about Aerius,
‘whose brains are cracked and whose pride is inflated’? The comparison would
of course be a bit strained indeed, for the heretic would have become his own
victim. But who cares? The Collyridians are not just blister-beetles (so in the
closing section), but had also already been likened to ‘a coiled serpent’, because
of their ‘crooked counsels’, for they urge the faithful to worship (as one wor-
ships God or the Trinity) instead of merely honouring Mary (79.9.5). This
same procedure of “explanation at-a-distance” may have been on Epiphanius’
mind in dealing with the last sect. In 80.11.7, the Massalians are likened (and
thereby ridiculed) to ‘a many-footed, ugly, misshapen and foul-swelling
chameleon’, after they had already been introduced in 80.1.2, in almost iden-
tical wording, as ‘a foolish, entirely stupid [sect], wholly ridiculous, inconsis-
tent in its doctrine, and composed of deluded men and women’. The hapless
chameleon was a ready prey for our Epiphanius hunting for animals.
In a couple of instances inspiration for the comparison may have come from
written sources or folktales, though it is difficult to decide in which direc-
tion the influence has worked and whether Epiphanius picked an animal for
another reason but then illustrated his case somewhat further by referring to
oral or written tradition, or rather found his inspiration in those same tra-
ditions. Thus in the very first chapter the comparison of Simon Magus to
‘snake-like filth … from the infertile eggs of asps and other vipers’ is imme-
diately followed by a citation from Isaiah (Isa 59,5). Does the citation offer
the explanation, or is it a mere illustration for a choice that was motivated
by the fact that Simon is called ‘an impostor but has assumed an appearance
of the name of Christ’ (21.7.2)? Anyway, in both cases things are not what
they look like or should be. Whatever the solution, calling in a citation from
Scripture is a bit a risky thing to do, and slightly over the edge, it would seem.
There are other citations from Scripture in these closing sections, but appar-
ently they are used rather to illustrate the way in which that animal has to
be killed. This is the case in 24.10.7, where the citation from Ps 74,11 does
not speak of a horned asp – the “emblem” of Basilides –, but of the horn of
sinners being broken. The reason why Basilides is called an asp is found in
the previous chapter on Satornilus, his ‘fellow-student and fellow-dupe’, which
reminds Epiphanius of ‘the familiar proverb of “an asp borrowing poison
from a viper”’. As Satornilus is mentioned first, the other must then logically
be the asp.53 Not Scripture or a proverb, but a folktale (Epiphanius calls it a
parabolß) is what he refers to when likening Valentinus to the man who
‘fastened a number of scorpions together in one chain, as in the old and well-
known parable. It says that scorpions, one after another, will form a sort of
chain to a length of ten or more, let themselves down from a roof or house-
top, and so inflict their damage on men by guile’ (31.36.4). Is this a mere
illustration of the fact that Valentinus is claimed to be the first in a series of
Gnostic groups (31.36.5: ‘Thus both he, and the so-called Gnostics who
derive from him …’), or did the tale itself inspire Epiphanius to the com-
parison? One should in any case note the complication and the shift in the
comparison, for Valentinus moves from the man who fastens the scorpions
to become the beast itself: ‘since we have trampled on them, and on the sect
of this Valentinus …’ (31.36.7). Epiphanius seems to have come close to get
lost in his own imagination.
d. Accounting for the exceptions. In a few instances, all of them towards

the end of the book (Pan. 60; 68; 70; 72; 77), there is no comparison with
an animal to conclude the chapter. A reason is not given. Was it fatigue on
the part of the author, or mere inadvertency? For the ‘Angelics’ the reason is
quite obvious. Epiphanius says he knows nothing of this sect but its name,
and where that comes from he does not know. There is no direct compari-
son with a beast, but they are nevertheless likened to ‘an untimely birth’
(60.2.4 ¿sper êktrÉmati), which is not really flattering. In the case of Meli-
tius, Epiphanius may have thought that this one too was ‘a winged snake and
scorpion’, as was Hieracas who had been mentioned just before (67.8.1) and
whose successor Melitius is said to have been (68.1.2). But such a consider-
ation did not play in other instances. In the case of Audius, the comparison
may have been left out because he is almost ‘completely orthodox’, except for
53
The proverb is cited also by Tertullian (adv. Marcionem, 3.8).
a certain small point’ (70.1.5), and his whole manner of life was admirable,
except for his temperament (70.2.3). Epiphanius must have thought that his
presence in the Panarion was already sufficient a punishment, and that there
was no need to add insult to accusation. The same is true or Marcellus of
Ancyra, who himself became a victim of the Arians because he had written
against them (72.1.2). Epiphanius tells the reader that when he asked pope
Athanasius about Marcellus, ‘he neither defended him not, on the other
hand, showed hostility towards him’, but minimized the whole issue about
Marcellus as a case of ‘a rascal’, who, moreover, ‘he felt had cleared himself ’
(72.4.4). Nevertheless, Marcellus has gone down in the long list of the
doomed that have assembled in the Panarion, as happened to the next one
as well. Sympathy for a respected scholar (77.2.1) and compassion for the way
he was deluded – by the devil himself, of course, who is always keen to put
‘his better poison into [man’s] choice foods’ (77.1.1) – probably explains why
Apolinaris of Laodicea is spared the insult of being compared to a beast. The
fact that Epiphanius was himself involved in the discussions on Apolinaris cer-
tainly accounts for the change in tone. This is not about some long-gone
heresy, but about a ‘real person’. The chapter shows us a different, more
human, side of the author, who quite emotionally emphasises that he has
continuously been praying and begging that the sects give up their views, ‘so
that they may not lose me, or I, them’ (77.14.2). But exceptions only prove
the rule: duty calls, and one cannot afford being weak or lenient in dealing
with this brood of vipers. So after all Apolinaris ends up in the list, like all
the others. It sounds quite frightening to a modern ear.
III. CONCLUSION
What are we to make of this long litany of comparisons and insults? Proba-
bly more than one might expect at first sight. I limit myself to a few general
comments by way of conclusion.
Epiphanius does not seem to have been the kind of person who liked ani-
mals a lot. At least, that is the impression on gets, not only from these clos-
ing sections, but also from his rather extravagant commentary on doves when
interpreting Matt 10,16 in the chapter on the Ophites in 37.8-9.54
54
‘In many ways doves are not admirable. They are incontinent and ceaselessly promis-
Epiphanius takes these things seriously. There may be a touch of irony

here and there (cf. 64.72.3 the great Origen, Epiphanius’ arch-enemy, has
become ‘a toad noisy from too much moisture which keeps croaking louoder
and louder’; 76.2.9 on ‘this fine heretic Aetius’, who ‘did not even think he
should regard the Son as worthy of likeness to the Father’), but the goal and
purpose of the whole enterprise is bloody serious. This may explain why his
animals are ‘real’. No talking kid or leopard, as in the Acts of Philip, no com-
passionate lions, no such nonsense for Epiphanius.55 There may be an occa-
sional and half-hearted reference to mythical monsters (see 30.1.1), but these
are not found in the closing sections or as part of the comparison. These
animals are real-life characters, not a product of the imagination. They act
naturally and follow their instincts. And so is the whole setting in which
they operate. They are met travelling the land and the sea,56 or in one’s house
and garden.57
The idea of making such comparisons was of course not novel, but the scale
on which Epiphanius has worked with the procedure was unheard of before.
Ever since, animals of all sorts had populated oral and written traditions,
both religious and secular, of story telling. They had made it onto the stage
in the comedy (to make fun of others) and into the arena in the Empire, not
to mention their presence in various religious cults and practices. They had
been the object of scientific research, often with a practical aspect to it, from
cuous, lecherous and devoted to the pleasures of the moment, and weak and small beside’.
After such a statement, one is surprised Epiphanius somehow still manages to have the Spirit
appear in the form of a dove (of course, the clue is the bird’s harmlessness).
55
For a recent analysis of the nowadays apparently rather popular topic of the presence
and function of animals in the Acts of Peter, Paul, Thomas, and John, including a few snakes
(Acts of John 63-86; Acts of Thomas 30-33, where it is told how a snake falls in love with
a human being, thus transgressing every limit of sound and decent behaviour) and bed-
bugs (Acts of John 60-61), see now J. E. Spittler, Animals in the Apocryphal Acts of the
Apostles. The Wild Kingdom of Early Christian Literature, WUNT, 2/247 (Tübingen, 2008).
56
There are plenty such motifs. Cf. ‘his crop of thistles and <going through it>, if I may
say this, with considerable trouble and hard field labor’ (32.1.1; the motif of thorns and
thistles occurs repeatedly, mostly as a metaphor); ‘look for a safe way and level path’
(32.7.8); ‘We give thanks for our safe passage across the sea of these evil doctrines’ (28.8.3);
‘But why should I spend any further time on tidal beaches by the sea’ (30.34.7); ‘I shall
ready my barque for its other ocean voyages’ (37.9.2); ‘we have barely managed to get past
this stormy place’ (69.81.1).
57
The chain of scorpions climbing down from a roof or housetop in 31.36.4. And of
course the mole of 52.1.2 eating away your cucumbers!
Xenophon’s tractate on breeding horses to Nicander’s and others’ poems and

books on how to protect oneself from snake bites. They had been studied from
a wholly different perspective by philosophers, from Aristotle on, who had
been dealing with their psyche, their “intelligence”, and the relation between
man and beast in general and for what distinguishes them.58 With the
Panarion, they had now also, and massively, invaded that specific field of
Christian theology that is heresiology. And by this latter move, they had in
a sense been transformed. For all the many and long (semi-)zoographical
descriptions notwithstanding, Epiphanius’ animals assume a new form and
take on a new role. Epiphanius most certainly had not read much, if any, of
the difficult psychological and philosophical production, and he probably
was not the man who sat in on Greek comedy and the arena spectacles. But
there was of course no need for all this to know that a human being is dif-
ferent from an animal, and to play out the potential of likening man to a
beast. Epiphanius is not into allegorising, let alone theological speculations
about why God made such creepy creatures in the first place. The animal is
the model of what the heretic is like. This can be explained in terms of the
powerful effect it may have had for speaking to ‘human emotions’.59 This is
no doubt true. But there is a specific (nasty) purpose to the way Epiphanius
uses the procedure. Likening the heretic to a creepy beast is the ultimate
insult. It is the kind of insult that makes superfluous any further discussion
of that group’s or person’s teachings. It gives up on man’s natural feeling, as
58
See the literature cited in Spittler. It can basically be divided into three genres: studies
on the various sorts of animals as these figure in ancient scientific works and other litera-
ture; those on the philosophical approaches; and those on the way animals were used in
daily-life activities. Of the first one, O. Keller, Die antike Tierenwelt, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1909;
repr. Hildesheim, 1980), esp. II, pp. 247-434 (reptiles, fish, insects) and 471-480 (scorpi-
ons) still stands out as a most complete catalogue. For the second group, see, e.g., U. Dier-
auer, Tier und Mensch im Denken der Antike, Studien zur antiken Philosophie, 6 (Amster-
dam, 1977) and J.L. Labarrière, Langage, vie politique et mouvements des animaux. Etudes
aristotéliciennes (Paris, 2004). For the third group, J.M.C. Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life
and Art, Aspects of Greek and Roman Life (London, 1973; repr. Baltimore, 1996) remains
worth reading.
59
So Gilhus, Animals, p. 266: ‘Although authors like Origen, Basil, Epiphanius and Augus-
tine were clearly knowledgeable about natural history, the text-producing Christian elite
was not particularly interested in live animals; their attention was directed at animals used
as models or in allegories. One important aspect of this imagery was its persuasive power
and capacity to speak of human emotions – as in Epiphanius’ image of heresy, where ser-
pents and other wild animals were seen as poisoning the pure body of the Church’.
well as the philosopher’s elaborated theories, of man’s superiority over beast,

whatever admiration one might have for the latter’s strength or abilities. In
this way, it makes for the perfect argument in polemics and apologetics. On
top of that, it would seem, the comparisons are also, and maybe even pri-
marily, a warning to the reader. One should take care, for the whole wide
world is full of these “horrible animals” that threaten to poison or damage
the soul. The Christian lives in a world in which ‘the gates of hell’ can be
met at every corner of the street, as Epiphanius writes in 74.14.4: ‘All the sects
are truly “gates of hell”, but “they will not prevail against the rock”, that
is, the truth’.60 The heresiograph’s is a dark world indeed. Fortunately, he
also provides the reader with the cures and the means to conquer death or
escape it.
60
Cf. Pan. 80.11.6. The same motif is applied to a particular sect in 30.24.4 and 56.3.6.

JOSEPH VERHEYDEN, Epiphanius of Salamis On Beasts and Heretics. Some Introductory Comments.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

JOSEPH VERHEYDEN, Epiphanius of Salamis On Beasts and Heretics. Some Introductory Comments.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOSEPH VERHEYDEN, Epiphanius of Salamis On Beasts and Heretics. Some Introductory Comments.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1783-08_JECS_08b_Verheyden 31-03-2009 13:46 Pagina 143

Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 60(1-4), 143-173. doi: 10.2143/JECS.60.1.2035279

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS

* Joseph Verheyden is professor of New Testament at the KU Leuven.

144 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN

I. ON HOW TO USE A HANDBOOK

Dummer is right in arguing that this kind of sustained comparison seems to

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 145

146 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN

(silently) excerpting other authors. Epiphanius then goes on informing the

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 147

148 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN

Additional evidence for this conclusion is to be found in such other works

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 149

II. SOME COMMENTS ON EPIPHANIUS’ COMMENTS

150 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN

orthodoxy.27 From Pan. 21 on, however, he will systematically conclude

21.7.2 Simon Magus and the Simonians: Üv ™ t¬n êktrwmátwn

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 151

(‘a monstrosity with many shapes, who practically formed the

152 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 153

50.3.5 Quartodecimans: toÕto tò êmfúsjma toÕ bai¬nov e÷t ˆ oŒn fusálou

154 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN

dunaménwn dià djgmátwn bláptein (‘this sect …, like a libys or

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 155

156 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN

âspidogorgÉn (22.2.4; also 30.26) is not in LSJ, and neither is kuklodrákwn

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 157

or mammals, or reptiles, and is therefore often qualified by another word. It

158 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 159

160 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN

By contrast, the Carpocratians in the next chapter will have to do with a

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 161

162 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 163

viper is probably to be identified as the aïmorroív, a most scary snake indeed,

164 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN

b. Smashing and crushing … with a little help of my God. The closing

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 165

166 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN

tration can be found in 25.7.3: Nicolaus ‘practiced continence for a short

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 167

The long-term effect of indoctrination is a motif that could probably be

168 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN

In some other instances no direct explanation is given. At most one can

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 169

d. Accounting for the exceptions. In a few instances, all of them towards

170 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 171

Epiphanius takes these things seriously. There may be a touch of irony

172 JOSEPH VERHEYDEN

Xenophon’s tractate on breeding horses to Nicander’s and others’ poems and

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS ON BEASTS AND HERETICS 173

well as the philosopher’s elaborated theories, of man’s superiority over beast,

You might also like