Hairesis and Heresy

ST RON , MA \Qas | Hairesis and Heresy: The Cause of the haireseis iatrikai sectis). Galen himself had recommended De sectis as a suitable 5 introduction to his works,! and hence, of course, toall of medicine, and his medievai Arabic translator, Hunain ibn Ishaq, confirms that De sectis continued to be the first of four Galenic works used Huiresis and Heresy: The Case of the haireseis iatrikai to instruct novices.” In De sectis, as in several late Alexandrian commentaries on this treatise,* three major haireseis or sectae are identified: the Empiricist (empeiriké) hairesis, Methodist (methodike), and Rationalist (logiké) or Dogmatic (dogmatike).* Several other Galenic treatises, notably HEINRICH VON STADEN it is the fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions. T. H. Huxley The use of ‘heresy’ to refer to an opinion or a doctrine at variance with orthodox beliefs seems to have its proximate roots in early 'hristian uses of the Greek word hairesis (plural, haireseis). In most phases of post-classical antiquity, however, hairesis had a considerably broader semantic spectrum than ‘heresy’ mightsuggest. its classical meanings — ‘taking’, ‘choice’, ‘course of action’, ‘election’. ‘decision’ — all continued to survive throughout the Hellenistic and later ancient periods of Greek culture. But hairesis also served to refer — positively, negatively, or neutrally - to any group of people perceived to have a clear doctrinal identity. The primary purpose of the present contribution is to trace the development of this use of hairesis as a group referent in Greek medical literature, and to explore what ‘group definition’ or group self-definition’ might mean when the definiendum is thought of as a hairesis. The fact that this analysis takes hairesis as its starting point does not mean that other generic Greek terms ‘or ‘school’ or ‘sect’ are irrelevant to the question of definition and self-definition in the ancient world. Much could be learned from a careful scrutiny of scholé, didaskaleton, agöge, hoi ap’ vikias tinos, oi peri. hoi amphi, mathétés, and similar expressions. But in view De optima secta, and two pseudo-Galenic treatises which might predate Galen contributed to the popularization of this division of physicians into three major liireseis.” By the time Galen wrote his De libris propriis he could observe with both confidence and accuracy: ‘Almost everybody already knows the names of the three haireseis.'° This ternary division became virtually canonical for centuries, and it has influenced medical historiography up to our own age.’ The firmness, apparent clarity, and longevity of this influential hairesis tradition has tended to obscure problems that are pertinent to the subject of this volume, e.g., (1) what does hairesis or, more specifically, hatresis iatrikë mean, and does it always refer to the same kind of group? (2) are there significant discrepancies between external perceptions and internal definition of these haireseis? (3) how stable or dynamic is a /wiresis doctrinally and institutionally? (4) when and how does hairesis acquire the raeaning ‘heresy’ or ‘heretical faction’? This paper attempts a fleeting, preliminary exploration of these and related questions under the following rubrics: I. ‘heiress literature’ in pre-Galenic medicine; II. three brief examples of the application of the hairesis label to a group: (a) ‘Ralionalists’ vs. Empiricists, (b) Methodists, and (c) Herophileans; III. a few remarks on hairesis and institutionalization, with particular r=ference to the Herophileans; IV. à brief epilogue on the use of hairesis in early Christian literature, with specific reference to the question of hairesis as ‘heresy’. ofits prominence and its range, hairesis provides a useful starting I point. Pre-Galenic ‘haivesis literature’ from the late second century CE to at least the eighth century CE the first book read in the medical curriculum of Alexandria — at that time probably the most significant centre of medical learning While medical doxography owes much of ils initial impetus to the in the Mediterranean — was Galen's On Haireseis for Beginners (De systematic application of hairesis both to an opposing school of 76 Peripatos,* as has long been recognized, Alexandrian medicine ot the pre-Christian era seems to offer the first examples of the

thought and to one’s own. In doxographic treatises of polemical as well as apologetic character, early Alexandrian medical authors frequently employ hairesis for the purpose of partisan group In subsequent generations both the Empiricists and the Herophileans contributed a number of doxographic works that made central use of the concept hairesis. characterizalions. in the first century sce the Empiricist Heraclides of Tarentum The historical development of what J shall call - awkwardly, al for lack of inspiration — ‘Alexandrian hairesis literature”, might have derived, however obliquely, from the apostasy of Herophilus’s famous pupil, Philinus of Cos, in the third century BCE. Herophilus, a revolutionary and highly scientific Alexandrian physician who is renowned especially for his anatomical discovcries and for his pioneering use of human dissection (but equally notoriuus for his use of human vivisection), attracted a circle of sifted followers to Alexandria, among them Philinus.? But Philiwrote an entire treatise On the Empiricist hairesis," and the Heronus turned renegade and foundeda rival Alexandrian school with the fact that all three Herophileans’ treatises dealt with their own ‘school’: On the hairesis of Heraplilus. By the end of the pre-Christian era the Alexandrian Empiricists and Herophileans therefore had identified themselves or their i vadically different methodological and epistemological orientalione the Empiricist hairesis.'° Philinus not only rejected several A few examples might suffice: phileans Heraclides of Erythrae, Apollonius Mys, and Aristoxenus each followed with a treatise entitled On the hairesis of Herophilus. These treatises were substantial: that of Apollonius consisted of at least twenty-nine books, that of Aristoxenus of al least thirteen, and that of the Herophilean Heraclides of at least seven books; Galen’s synopsis of the Empiricisl’s treatise consisted of eight books. L And these treatises seem to have contained not only polemical but also apologetic material, as suggested by theoretical cornerstones of Herophilus’s system; he also set an example far generations of Empiricists by devoting a treatise in sii books to an attack on one of Herophilus’s more substantial beliefs - and each other - as distinct haireseis and had produced a sizeable corpus of ‘hairesis literature’, the main impetus for which lollowers, Pacchius of Tanagra."' In the late third century BCE continued to be derived from the sharp conflict between the two Philinus was succeeded as leader of the Empiricist ‘School’ by Serapion of Alexandria,? who wrote a treatise in two books schools. The dialectic of scientific growth often is marked by scientists’ Avuinst the haireseis (Ad sectas)."" attempts to emancipate themselves from the theories of their Little is known about the content of Serapion’s Ad sectas, but it seems likely that it offered not only criticism of rival - i.e., non- Empiricist - views but also his own therapeutic prescriptions." More significantly, at least for present purposes, the plural, haireseis, probably refers to what later was lumped together as the ‘rationalist’ or ‘dogmatic hairesis’ (see 1.1 below). Later Empiricists, perhaps taking their cue from the philosophical Sceptics, tabelled all non-Empiricists ‘Rationalists’ or Dogmatists”; but here he plural perhaps still concedes considerable diversity within precursors and contemporaries; scientific patricide and fratricide are part of the story of the development of science, and ancient medicine is no exception. But it is striking that the polemics of the Alexandrian hairesis treatises are no longer directed primarily at individuals, in contrast, for example, to early Peripatetic doxography (cf. e.g. Anonymus Londinensis or the famous passage in Aristotle's Historia animalium 3.2-3, 511B11-513A15: Syennesis, Diogenes, and Polybius — not their ‘followers’ or ‘schools’ -- are taken to task for their erroneous views of the human vascular 'non-Empiricism' - a diversity which later becomes at least parsystem). Rather, the agön with outsiders now is often, though by tially obscured by the popular but distorting and misleading no means always, depersonalized at least superficially to the notion of a single ‘Rattonalist’ hairesis. While one cannot exclude extent that polemics are ad sectam. not ad hominem, and the the possibility that Serapion used hairesis to refer to something other than the distinctive collections of beliefs that characterize certain groups, subsequent uses of the term within the Empiricist ‘choo! - and, for that matter, in other medical haireseis - render apologetics likewise pro secta sua. Certain individuals, to be sure, thsuulikely. There were enough such groups to provide Serapion andrian hairesis literature unfortunately leaves us only vaguely Wywith é plural target: Herophileans, Erasistrateans, Praxagoras na his pupils, andsoon. qualifies an individual for membership in a huiresis. Bui the 78 79 remain villains or heroes, but they now are presented — or present themselves — as members of a larger group. The paucity of testimonia concerning the content of the Ale informed about what qualifies a group for the label Imiresis or what

evidence suggests that a group with fairly coherent and distinctive Halicarnassus. The latter refers to ‘the leaders of the Stoic /airesis’ theories, with an acknowledged founder (hairesi-arches), and with and reports that Aristotle spent his time with Plato until he was publicly identifiable leaders who articulate (a) their rejection of vival theories through theoretically founded polemics, as well as ib) their own systematic alternatives, would qualify as a hairesis. i imanimity on all doctrinal questions is not a requirement (more on this below), and neither a single geographical centre nor any institutional organization is necessarily implied by this use of imiresis, although both the Herophileans and the Empiricists originally made Alexandria their only centre, and the members of each hairesis presumably had close and frequent association. lt might be noted in passing that the distinctiveness implied by hairesis does not seem to be compromised by the fact thal several vival haireseis claim the sanction of the same patriarch. Almost every ancient medical hairesis claims Hippocrates as its hairesiniches (much as the various ‘Socratics’ claimed Socrates), some making him the founding father of medical ‘rationalism’, others of empiricism, still others of scepticism, etc. À. further complication arises from the expansion and redefinition of the agön between Empiricists and Herophileans as a sate between Empiricists and ‘Rationalists’ or ‘Dogmiatists’. By ‘he reign of Tiberius this putatively comprehensive, bipartite division of all physicians had become firmly established, possibly under Empiricist pressure, and it is reflected in Celsus's De sntedicina!9 thirty-seven years old, ‘neither becoming the leader of [Platu’s] school (scholé) nor having established his own hairesis’. Diodorus complains that the Greeks, unlike the Orientals, try to make a profit from higher studies by always introducing doctrinal innovations in important matters and by ‘founding new haireseis” Pla a letter of January 45 sce, Cicero twits Cassius for having switched allegiance from one hairesis (Stoic? Platonic?) to another, viz. the Epicurean.? In some of these non-medical texts ‘doctrine’, ‘school’, and ‘sect’ all might be defensible translations of hairesis, but in each case it refers to a group phenomenon, not to individual choice. Furthermore, here too, as in the Alexandrian medical hairrsis literature, hairesis does not have any intrinsically pejorative overtones. Unlike the medical hairesis tradition, however, the early philosophical usage is not associated with a substantial body of treatises called ‘On hairesis x’ or ‘Against hairesis y.” This reinforces the impression that Greek medicine is the more significant early nurturing ground for hairesis as a doctrinal group designation. No later than the second century ce, however, Imiresis also lud become a standard term for philosophical ‘school’ — and for religious ‘sect',* as will be shown in IV below. This development represents a serious complication of the “eletively straightforward though never satisfactorily explicated Il Examples of medical ‘haireseis’ use of hairesis to refer to the Empiricist and Herophilean groups in Alexandria (who, along with the Erasistrateans, dominated Greek 1. “Rationalists' vs Empiricists scientific medicine until the first century sce). Despite all the From Celsus to Galen a fundamental use of hairesis is to contrast internal debates, disagreements, and acts of revisionism within the ‘Rationalist’ or ‘Dogmatic’ hairesis with the Empiricist. The me great Alexandrian schools (see 11.3 below), each school or Imiresis constituted a relatively cohesive group with only one or wo geographical centres. Not so the ‘rationalist’ or ‘dogmatic’ ‘turesis, as shown below in IT. 1. It is worth noting that, no later than the second century scr,” satrests begins to occur in non-medical literature, too, as a desigvation for a group that is thought to be doctrinally distinctive, especially for a philosophical school.” The historian Polybius, for “ample, refers to Prytanisasa member of the Peripatetichairesis.?! “urhors of the first century BCE who seem to have used hniresis in his sense include Diodorus of Sicily, Cicero, and Dionysius of 80 Empiricists, as was suggested above, remained a relatively small, cohesive Alexandrian group with a clear, reasonably consistent core doctrine: even the Ptolemaic court seems to have recognized them as a significant, distinctive school.” Under the label ‘rationalist’, by contrast, one finds assembled a motley group of individuals and of fiercely independent haireseis, some of whom held sharply conflicting views on key issues: ‘Hippocrates’, Diocles of Carystus, Praxagoras, Herophilus and his /wiresis, Erasistroius and his hairesis, Asclepiades of Bithynia, the /wiresis of the Pneumatists, etc. It seems clear that hairesis, as applied to ‘Rationalists’ or ‘Dog31

matists’, cannot be used in the same sense as it had earlier been For purposes of Empiricist propaganda it might have been useful to set up Empiricism as one of only two alternatives between which every physician had to choose, and for some used of Herophileans and Empiricists. There never was a single ‘rationalist’ school which wrote treatises pro secta sua, which envolled apprentices, and which attacked rival schools in the name of the ‘rationalist’ hairesis - let alone a cohesive group which called itself ‘the rationalist (legike) hairests’. Herophileans, to be doxographers it might have provided a welcome schematic simsure, did battle with Empiricists - but also with ‘Hippocrates’, helped to animate a doxographic fiction of convenience, viz. that with Praxagoras, with Erasistratus, and so on. The diverse group there was a ‘Rationalist’ or ‘Dogmatic’ hairesis of medicine that of so-called ‘rationalists’ admittedly are set apart from the Empiwas somehow comparable to the Empiricist hairesis in Alexandria. rivists by their commitment to various forms of more speculative This fiction does, however, establish an important point: while hairesis could be used of a socially cohesive, geographically cenamd theoretical medicine and, in particular, by their interest in aetiology and speculative systematization. But these interests were given such radically divergent, mutually incompatible pression by various ‘Rationalists’ and ‘Rationalist’ haireseis, that it is seriously misleading to imply that they represented a hairesis in the same sense as the Empiricists. The Empiricists, by contrast, are united on central issues.” Taus they all believed that the search for hidden causes (as unposed to ‘evident causes’, such as heat, cold, and hunger) is weless, and hence that anatomy and physiology, along with dissection, should be banished from ars medica. Furthermore, they plification of complex traditions. But, by swallowing the Empiricist bait, some medical historians — ancient and modern — have tralized, and doctrinally relatively united group with its own, distinctive, publicly articulated system (e.g., Empiricist), it could also be given more expansive and even licentious application (e.g., the ‘rationalist’ or ‘dogmatic’ hairesis). At the ouset I suggested that Galen’s ternary division of hairesis into Empiricists, ‘Rationalists’, and Methodists - rather than the bipartite division with which we have been dealing — became canonical. I turn now to the entry of the Methodists (who, pace John Wesley, displayed little individual responsibility) into the hairesis doxography. claimed that experience (peira) alone could form the foundation of the art of medicine, and that experience is assimilated in three basic forms: (a) transmitted experience (Historia, understood as a 2. Methodists and confirmed by previous observers); (b) ‘transition by way of By the beginning of the first century CE, the duel between the Empiricist hairesis and its collective ‘rationalist’ opponents had the similar’, a relatively simple mental operation by analogy from become bogged down in what Galen later aptly described as ‘an passive reception of experiential traditions, of evident data seen one drug or disease or bodily part to another on the basis of as undecided disagreement.’” Some educated members of Roman many observed similarities as possibile; (c) empetria, which in turn has three species: (i) involuntary, (ii) voluntary or improvising, society nevertheless became fascinated with this struggle, perhaps not least because of the growing number of medical laymen and (iii) imitative or repetitive peira.”” Hypothesis formation and (philiatroi) in Rome. When a self-proclaimed ‘new (nea) hairesis’ verification by experimentation - of which Erasistratus and Herwith a promising name, ‘Method-ists’ (methodikoi), stepped onto vphilus made use — are ruled out firmly. Finally, the Empiricists the stage,” professionals and dilettantes alike applauded. chose their own label: empeirikoi or empeirike hairesis.° The ‘new hairesis’ proclaimed its independence from both Empiricists (quod parum artis esse in observatione experimenterum Among the so-called Rationalists there is no such agreement on aither principle or detail. Divergent, even contradictory views credunt [sc. Methodici])TM and Rationalists' (quod in coniectura rerum prevail on the nature and knowability of causes, on the value and latentium nolunt [sc. Methodici] esse medicinam).” Particularly welpermissibility of dissection, on the place of experience in medical knowledge, on the value of experimentatian, etc. - not to mention come to laymen and, one might assume, to aspiring young physicians, was the Methodists’ claim that medical science is ihe irreconcilably divergent physiological and pathological theosimpler and more accessible than had commonly been assumed,” ries (humoral, anti-humoral, atomistic, etc.) advocated by various and that anatomy and physiology might - or rather, must - be dispensed with. The Methodist Thessalus, a contemporary of ‘Kr tionalists’,

Nero, is, forexample, said to have claimed that anyone can master criteria that emerged above for a narrower use of hairesis: a selflabelling, geographically centralized, doctrinally cohesive group, about whose core doctrine there seems to be general agreement. Yet closer scrutiny raises serious doubts about the extent ef a normative doctrinal consensus among the Methodists. Galen reports, for example, that the Methodists in fact agreed only on the names of the three communia, not on their referents: some Methodists determine ‘costive’, ‘fluid’, and ‘mixed’ according to ¿he art of medicine within six months.” Alihough Celsus, probably writing toward the end of ige, SU starts his De medicina with the Tiberius’s comprehensive «mpiricist-Rationalist' dichotomy,** he subsequently sensed the n226 to add the Methodists as a third, distinct group (whom he ‘ines not show much respect),” and by the time of Galen the FRET y division of haireseis was quite firmly in place. itis perhaps not surprising that Thessalus and other Methodists became the most pi »pular physicians of the first and early second cuturies in Rome," eclipsing Empiricists, Herophileans, Erasis‘refeans, and other haireseis. Thessalus unabashedly ‘crowned natural secrelions from the body, whereas others — ‘not a small chorus’ — look upon ‘costive’ and ‘fluid’ as pathogenic conditions that are found in the very dispositions (diatheseis) of the body.” iv a broad lay audience seem to have stimulated further interest Furthermore, while the anti-Methodist polemics of other Jeireseis and of some non-aligned authors often are based on an assumption of dogmatic consensus and uniformity within the Methodist hairesis, Galen reports that the Methodists in fact all disagreed among themselves on almost all important doctrinal questions.‘ That Galen's references to Methodist discord or diaphönia cannot be dismissed as a topos derived from scepti:al polemics, is clear from the few instances of internal Methodist : accessible doxographic works that focus on the three major disagreement that are documented. ‘aaresets, and Galen’s De sectis is one of many attempts to satisfy Precise details concerning internal dissension often are lacking in our extant sources, but external unity and internal disunity often co-exist in the Greek medical haireseis. A brief examination of dissent and revisionism within the Herophilean hairesis might shed further light on this aspect of the medical haireseis and on umuelf victor on the world-stage’,*! and he attracted numerous pprentices who were as eager as they were unqualified. About ess alus's pupils Galen caustically remarks: ‘Cobblers and carcenters and dyers and smiths now are rushing to the tasks of the ortof medicine, having abandoned their own ancient crafts. Y The partisan flamboyance of some Methodists and their appeal ive needs of this general audience. (I hasten to emphasize that «tile Thessalus’s theatricality might have gone over wellin the :lercnian period, Galen, as a good, archaizing representative of ¡he Antonine period, had nothing but contempt for Thessalus.*) lo return to some of the questions posed at the outset: despite lieir more popular appeal, the Methodists constitute a hairesis in some of the other complex forces that militated against normative self-definition within ancient medical haireseis. roughly the same sense as the Empiricists and the Herophileans, rather thanin the sense of the ‘Rationalists’. In their epistemologialstatements the Methodists seem to show consistency: they 3. The hairesis of Herophilus® pre “perhaps nore sceptical than any other medical hairesis. Sextus i inpiricus interprets the basic Methodist principle, ‘indication (cideixis) derived from affections (pathé) which are apparent (ohaimomenay, as fully consistent with scepticism, and he remarks ‘tel a physician-sceptic could belong only to the Methodist ‘h001.* Yet all Methodists also seem to share the belief that icedical practice must be based on the observation of three pouversal communia or koinotétes: costiveness, fluidity, and the tiere of these two.” Furthermore, like the Empiricists and the Herophilcans, the Methodists chose their own /iairesis label“ and «ortidently proclaimed themselves as the only hairesis with access The relation of Herophilus’s followers to the founding father of their hairesis is complicated, first, by the dynamic nature of the Herophilean school -- which, unlike Galenism and perhapsEpicureanism, always remained open to changesin emphasis and to doctrinal shifts - and, secondly, by the long history of the Herophilean hairesis, roughly from 300 sce to 50 ce through periodsin which varying demandsand needs exercised fr equenily changing pressures upon scientists and physicians. Throughout! these three and a half centuries the sanction provided by the common label ‘follower of Herophilus’ was sought and proudly i> the truth. "7 In these respects, then, the Methodists satisfy the shared by numerous distinguished physicians, but this nominal

uniformity cannot conceal the diversity and the fierce, often homogenous surface suggested prima facie by the label “Herophicontentious individualism accommodated within the hairesis. leans’ or ‘Herophilus’s lairesis'. Perhaps the single most striking developmentin this context is the general retreat from anatomy and from dissection, which had constituted Herophilus's most significant contribution to scienfic medicine.*' Few, if any, activities played a more powerful vole in the rise of scientific medicine in Alexandria than the ‘lissection -- and possibly vivisection - of humans by Herophilus, and few were apparently as widely abandoned by Herophilus's wiccessors. About the reasons for this surrender of a major tool of scientific medicine, one can only speculate. Among the possible causes are the reassertion of Greek and native Egyptian taboos, ‘be fundamental insecurity of science within the social order uncer almost all but the first two Ptolemies, and the rising vopularity of the Alexandrian Empiricists’ theory of scientific nethod (which denied the scientific value and clinical relevance n" disscction). But whatever the reasons might be, with one or ‘vo notable exceptions (e.g. Hegetor), the followers of Herophilus, from the third century sce to the first century CE, seem to nave turned their backs onanatomy —at least if one may generalize un the basis of the roughly three hundred extant testimonia and fragments. All was, however, not retreat, rebellion, and revision with the Terophilean hairesis. There are some clear strands of continuity between the founding master and his followers. Perhaps the most striking of theseis the sustained interest Herophilus’s followers showed in pulse theory, a branch of pathophysiology which sssumed immense diagnostic significance in antiquity (and which wives its first thorough investigation to Herophilus).* From Bacchius (c. 275-200 sce) to Demosthenes Philalethes (first cen- Herophilus: the pulse is a perceptible motion of the arteries received from the heart; it is born and dies with a living being; it exists naturally and attends us involuntarily at all times, occurring both when the arteries are filled and when they are emptied, i.e., when they dilate and contract.” Bacchius: (a) The pulse is a dilation (diastolé) and contraction (systule) occurring simultaneously in all the arteries;* or (b) the pulse is a distention (diastasis) of the artery or of the arterial part of the heart.” Zeno (c. 200-150 nck): The pulseis an activity of the arterial parts - an activity whichis a mixture of contraction and distention.” Chrysermus (mid-first century sce): The pulse is a distention and contraction of arteries, when the arterial coat, through the agency ofa psychic and vital faculty, rises on all sides and then again shrinks together; it is a constant concomitant in both healthy and diseased conditions, and it can be apprehended by sense-perception.* Alexander Philalethes (c. 50 »ce-25 ce): Objectively, the pulse is an involuntary contraction of the heart and the arteries, such as can become apparent; subjectively, it is the beat of the continuous, involuntary motion of the arteries against one’s touch, and the interval occurring after the beat.” Heraclides of Erythrae (last half of the first century BCE): The pulse is a contraction and dilation of the arteries and the heart, accomplished through the agency of a vital and psychic facully which is dominant. Aristoxenus (first half of the first century ck): The pulse is an activity of the heart and the arteries - an activity peculiar to them." Demosthenes Philalethes (c. 20 sce — 50 ce): Objectively, the pulse is a dilation of the heart and the arteries, or their natural contraction, capable of becoming apparent; subjectively, it is a natural beat of the heart or of the arteries against one’s touch and the interval which occurs after the beat.” incessant shuffling and dissent that lurk not too far beneath the This selective enumeration of Herophilean pulse definitions provides only one example of that diversity — within a common thematic concern - which became characteristic of the Herophilean hairesis. Acutely aware of one another's views, in part through doxographic treatises concerning their own school, each Herophilean strove for a fresh and more viable definition of the essential nature of the pulse, attempting at the same time to meet objections raised to his precursors’ formulations. What might, from a modern perspective, look like sophistic quibbling over minor differences concerning a definition, to most of the participants in this revisionary process was any thing but a mere exercise in patricidal and fraticidal eristic. Rather, it was a search for a 86 87 ‘try CE), the followers of Herophilus kept alive the sphygmological tradition initiated by the founding master of their school. Yet, sven within this broad continuity, one is confronted with the independence and innovative ambitions of individual members of the hairesis. Herophilus's analysis of the pulse was not simply transmitted with piety and reverence from one generation to the next, like an erthodoxy that had become obligalory. Instead, almost every Ferophilean tried to improve not only on Herophilus's definition ut 0dso on those of his immediate predecessors and contemporaries within the school. The resultis a striking example of the

correct understanding of the essential nature ofa major diagnostic and Bacchius displayed an active interest in pharmacology, and in the second century sce the Herophilean physicians Zeno, toa) and, simultaneously, a reaffirmation of the value and rel«vance of theoretical investigations for the clinician. Whatunites almost all followers of Herophilusis in fact precisely (reir interestnot only in clinical but also in scientific or ‘theoretical’ medicine, and this is, of course, also what distinguishes them most sharply trom their chief rivals in the early period, the lexandrian Empiricists, who radically rejected anatomy and Demetrius, and Mantias again kept this tradition alive.” Mantias, in particular, more than once is recognized by Galen as the true father of the compound drug tradition.* Mantias apparently was the first to arrange his comprehensive compilations of drup, prescriptions not only by kind or per genera (e.g., purgatives, clysters, emollients, etc.) but also by place or secundum locos (e.g., rhysiology as irrelevant for clinical purposes.“ Even those Herprescriptions for headaches, ear-aches, skin conditions, eye ail- «phileans for whom no pulse-lore is attested (for example, Anclreas) dealt with physiological questions that were taboo to the fimpiricists - taboo, exactly because these questions required ments, upset stomach, etc.) - a useful taxonomic principle which was also adopted by Galen in his massive and influential pharmacological treatises, and which hence became entrenched for iarming hypotheses concerning what nature has concealed. centuries.” With the exception of pulse-lore, the physiological questions which interested Herophilus do not, however, seem to have i coccupied subsequent members of his hairesis more than sporadically. The four faculties or humours,“ the nervous system,” ‘he problem of respiration,“ dream theory” — none of these is tackled by any of his followers. llere and there we do get glimpses ci continuity: Herophilus made a major contribution to the evatomy and physiology of the male and female reproductive vrpans; Alexander Philalethes speculates on the origin and mature of sperm (and Andreas on conditions conducive Lo pro- In the first century BCE, too, Herophileans did not abandon their pharmacological legacy. Chrysermus, for example, became known both for his views on simple drugs, such as asphodel, and for his compound drug prescriptions,” and Chrysermus's pupil Apollonius Mys composed one of the more famous pharmacological treatises of antiquity, Euporista or Readily Accessible Drugs (also known as On Common Drugs), from which Galen quotes liberally, especially in his treatise On the Composition of Drugs according to Place.” Judging by Galen's accounts, Apollonius adopted one of Mantias’s taxonomic principles, namely arranging creation)” Herophilus developed a theory of digestion and his common remedies topically (i.e., by place of application), and aisorption; Alexander Philalethes returns to the same question.” the practicality of this arrangement, along with the fact that all the Put these strands of continuity tend to be the exception and they ingredients used by Apollonius were readily accessible, may account for its popularity in the first two centuries ce. About the wre relatively fragile. A similar pattern of spasmodically emerging citinities between the founding father of the haircsis and his ‘lowers is found in pathology.” To find a part of medicine - other than sphygmology — both state of pharmacology in the last visible generation of the Herophilean school we are less well informed, but itis possible that the drug prescriptions attributed to a ‘Demosthenes’ were authored vherished by Herophilus and actively pursued by a majority of by nie followers, one has to turn to pharmacology. Herophilus had Philalethes.% called drugs ‘the hands of the gods”? and had made active This rapid survey of the pharmacological tradition within the Herophilean /wiresis suggests, then, that pharmacology, like ¡herapeutic use of them. Not only is his expertise in simple drugs attested, but some of his compound drug prescriptions also are tant. From the carliest generation of Herophileans to the last, ‘his pharmacological part of Herophilus’s legacy was honoured and cultivated. Andreas, the court physician who probably was » direct pupil of Herophilus, made a monumental contribution especially to the study of simple drugs, compound drugs, and the :cric effects of certain plants and animals.” the great Herophilean ophthalmologist, Demosthenes pulse-lore, represents a strong strand of continuity in the history of the ‘school’. But whereas no spectacular advances over Hero: philus’s theory of the pulse were made by his successors, pharmacology is an area to which the Herophileans seem to have become more committed after Herophilus’s death. There is a further significant difference between these two instances of continuity. Whereas Herophilus's pulse theory was 5irailady, in the first generation of Herophileans, Callimachus firmly rejected by the Herophileans’ chief rivals- the Alexandrian

Emplricists — as a part of theoretical or speculative medicine and at least eighteen® - was unprecedented in the history of Alexanhence irrelevant to medical practice, the Empiricists warmly drian philology. But Bacchius was not only a lexicographer; he embraced pharmacology as an empirical discipline of unquestionable clinical import. From the lime of Herophilus’s ‘heretical’ also edited the Hippocratic treatise Epidemics 3 (and possibly other Hippocratic works), and wrote commentaries on the Hippocratic pupil, the Empiricist Philinus of Cos (third century BCE), until the first century ce, the Empiricist hairesis repeatedly engaged in pharmacological activity: Philinus, Glaucias, Mantias’s renegade pupil Heraclides of Tarentum, Diodorus, Lycus, and Zopyrus of Alexandria are examples of Empiricists who actively affirmed the significance of pharmacology.* Aphorisms, on Epidemics 6, and on In the Surgcry.* Not much later the Herophilean Zeno provided further glosses on Hippocratic words” and apparently triggered the protracted Alexandrian debate about the authenticity and meaning of obscure lettersymbols found in an Alexandrian copy of Epidemics 3.% In the first century scE two Herophileans continued this tradition: Having abandoned research in the area which brought Hero- Dioscurides Phacas -- apparently a prominent counsellor and philus his greatest fame, i.e., anatomy, the Herophileans now ambassador of Cleopatra, of her father, and of her brother - therefore seem to have stressed a branch of learning found composed a Hippocratic lexicon in seven books, unobjectionable by their rivals. The same is true of two further areas in which Herophileans took a more active interest after Horophilus’s death: surgery and Hippocratic exegesis."? This of Erythrae not only wrote a commentary on Epidemics 2, 3, and 6 but also resumed, and perhaps terminated, the controversy particular constellation~pharmacology, surgery, and Hippocratic oxagesis — renders them virtually indistinguishable from their and Heraclides concerning the provenance and significance of the letter-symbols in Epidemics 3.” Cydias, too, seems to have engaged in Hippocratic exegesis.”! “impiricist rivals, and it is conceivable that the Empiricists” sus- This Herophilean trend can, therefore, be documented richly. tained polemics against theoretical medicine in general, and Also significant is the fact that Hippocratic philology gained a igainst the Herophilean school in particular, exercised pressure prominent position in the school of the Alexandrian Empiricists, pon the Herophileans to concentrate on clinical medicine and too. From the founder of the school, Philinus of Cos, who wrote ne Hippocratic Corpus at the expense of anatomical exploration a polemical work against Bacchius's Hippocratic lexicon, to Apolind physiological speculation. The growing interest among Herophileans in Hippocratic phillonius of Citium and Heraclides of Tarentum in the first century dog y is worth a brief comment. Whereas Herophilus's relation to ‘Hippocrates’ had been marked by ambivalence, polemics, and and lexicography.” This similar but not identical movement of BCE, Empiricists engaged as actively as Herophileans in exegesis two arch-rivals, Empiricists and Herophileans, from scientific th: need to establish himself as the emancipated founder of anew research into philology, cannot be attributed to a diminution of tradition, the later Herophileans, perhaps less burdened by the need to emancipate themselves from the Hippocratic shadow and royal patronage. On the contrary, there are indications that this ‘n establish themselves as the vanguard of the new, scientific some of the Ptolemies. Thus Apollonius of Citium, author of the only work of Hellenistic medicine to have survived intact, states in the introduction of his commentary on the Hippocratic work On Joints that he undertook the exegetical task on the king's orders and now offers the finished product to him for approval.” The ‘medicine, could approach Hippocratic textsin a relatively dispassionate, critical manner. Neither polemic noraneffort to legitimate ‘heir own views through an appeal to the sanction of the father of medicine marks their treatment of the Hippocratic texts. Alreadyin the first generation of Herophilcans the new philodevelopment was encouraged, directly or indirectly, by at least Ptolemy in question is probably Cleopatra’s father Auletes (+. ‘ogical approach to Hippocratic texts becomes clear. The Hero- 112-51 BCE), ° and hence thisis relatively late evidence, but it does shilean paysic: in Callimachus provided glosses on Hippocratic reveal, as P. M. Fraser has argued, ‘the direct’ - but, 1 would add, words,”and the Lexeis of his contemporary Bacchius became the not always scientifically fruitful — ‘stimulus that writers received most influential Hippocratic lexicon of the Hellenistic period. from a royal patron’.” It also vividly suggests the power of the More than sixty testimonia and fragments from Bacchius’s lexicon iro still extant,TM and the range of Hippocratic works it covered — patron to coax a physician into exegetical tasks. Perhaps closely related to the burgeoning critical interest in

precursor texts is another movement away from anatomical and increasingly fratricidal in nature — Herophilean pitted against physiological research, namely the growing importance of dox- Herophilean - and the self-centred doxography referred lo earlier ography within the Herophilean school, which brings us back full circle to explicit uses of the hairesis concept. As in the case of became its vehicle. Hippocratic exegesis, the Herophileans could appeal to the ex- Herophilus displayed some of the ambiguity and tenacity that sople of Herophilus - who had also written a treatise with a had characterized much of its history: while one of the last representatives of the school, Aristoxenus, was engaging in internecine, sophistic censure of his fellow-Herophileans, an- Jdoxographic thrust - to legitimate their own doxographic efforts. Mui here, too, there is a significant difference, namely the increas- Yet even at the moment of its last visible gasps the Juiresis ot joing on the offensive in their doxographic efforts -- Herophilus other, Demosthenes Philalethes, made enduring, if not always original, contributions to the pathology and therapy of eye ailments, contributions whose general impact upon ancient and vite Against Common Opinions, * Andreas On False Beliefs and On ihe Genealogy of Physicians” — Bacchius set in motion a long except Herophilus himself. !® opinions or doxai held by various members of one’s own school. Internal dogmatic scrutiny and heuristic triumph, looking over one’s shoulder and looking ahead, preoccupation with the words ingly self-centred nature of Herophilean doxography. While Herophilus and Andreas were still primarily concerned with Herophilean tradition of writing about, or in defence of, the medieval medicine was matched by those of no other Herophilean authored by no less than three different Herophileans, as pointed of predecessors and aggressive discovery - these are some of (he ambivalent dimensions of the history of Herophilus’s hairesis, andl they persist from its inception to its apparent death in the first cut above: Apollonius Mys, Heraclides of Erythrae, and Aristoxcentury CE. This trend reaches its culmination in the last years of the school’s visible existence with treatises entitled On the hairesis of Herophilus snus." This burst of works with an apologetic and protreptic curpose in the final stages of the history of the school might well “aflect the growing insecurity of the followers ot Herophilus in ine midst of new challenges. Whereas they were reasonably successfulinsurviving the Empiricist challenge,in part, as sugzested above, by distinguishing themselves in branches of medine highly valued by the Empiricists themselves (pharmacology, surgery, semiotics or symptomotology,” Hippocratic philology), II Institutionalization and hairesis The institutional history of the school of Herophilus will serve as a single but fairly representative example of what huiresis does and does not imply about institutionalization, at least in the medical tradition. There is no clear evidence that Herophilus or his followers were organized institutionally in the first two ine lastgenerations of Herophileans faced the challenge not only hundred or two hundred and fifty years of the existence of this ot the Empiricists but also of new. eclectic ‘Dogmatists’ or ‘Rationgroup of physicians. There is not even firm evidence that Herophilus, or any representative of scientific medicine, ever was associated with the Alexandrian Museum. Rather, the general lists’ and Sceptics who were rapidly gaining in popularity: the ‘Pneumatic’ and ‘Methodist’ schools of medicine. Herophileans "o longer had the appeal of novelty or the strength of anatomical nd physiological excellence; with the exception of their sphyg“ological and gynecological persistence, the concerns of most i leruphileans had become virtually indistinguishable from those Greek system of medical apprenticeship probably also prevailed in Alexandria, and Bacchius’s use of the phrase ‘those from th house (oikia) of Herophilus’ to refer to early HerophileansTM might well be an indication of the informal and non-institulional — but Y their Empiricist rivals. Furthermore, the rebellious and indivinot necessarily unrigorous - nature of medical apprenticeships in iuelistie strain that marked the long, rich history of the Herophi- Alexandria. ‘nan hairesis, from the time when Herophilus was abandoned by Despite this apparent absence of formalization and institution alization of the huiresis, despite the individualism and dissent thai marked relations between ‘members’ of the school. and despite ne pupil and ridiculed by another!" down to Aristoxenus’s sharp censure of almost all his Herophilean predecessors and contemsotaries in the first century cu," did not enhance its chances of surviving the fresh challenges. Herophilean polemics became the political and social vicissitudes which buffeted science and scholarship in Ptolemaic Alexandria (such as the expulsion of 2

‘arze number of intellectuals, including physicians, from Alexadria in 145 8cr),! Herophilean medicine survived without Museum and similar institutions, its association with a cult is scheeable interruption as a prominent force in Alexandrian life at ‘east until the late first century BCE; there is no century in the mistory of Ptolemaic Alexandria in which Herophileans failed to issert their presence in the royal capital. Thus we find the “erophilean physicians Andreas, Callimachus, and Bacchius in Furthermore, by the Imperial period the Lex Julia de collegiis seems to have stipulated, as the first of several conditions for establishing medical schools or formal medical associations, that Alexandria in the third century sce; Zeno, Demetrius, Hegetor, was constituted as just such a collegium. ond Mantias in the second century scr; Dioscurides Phacas, \hrysermuc, Apollonius Mys, and Heraclides of Erythrae in the nundred years. Founded by Zeuxis ‘Philalethes’ or “Truth-Lover’ ta mverential title traditionally reserved for Hippocrates) at the "amous temple of the moon god Men Karou, in the vicinity of the The history of the Herophilean school in Asia Minor extends roughly one century or three generations, from about 40 BCE to 50 CE. The successive leaders of the school were Zeuxis Philalethes, Alexander Philalethes, and Demosthenes Philalethes. Another influential member of the school was a student of Alexander Philalethes, Aristoxenus, whose sharp criticism of a number of Alexandrian Herophileans might be indicative of rivalry, oratany rate of disharmonious relations, between the Alexandrian mother school and her Asian offspring. But among the Asian Herophileans, too, disagreements soon arose; institutionalization was 1:0 Phrygian city of Laodicea on the great Eastern trade route, this guarantee of unity or doctrinal homogeneity. est century BCE. A novel phase in the institutional development of the school seems to have been reached, however, with the expansion of the school into Asia Minor in the mid- or late first-century BCE, after it had been associated exclusively with Alexandria for at least two suggestive. cult worship must be fostered by such an association or institution.' It is conceivable that the Herophilean school at Men Karou branch of the school apparently had a more institutional character It has been suggested that a notorious earthquake which struck ‘han the ‘school’ in Alexandria. Several factors seem to support the area around Laodicea during the reign of Nero, in 60 cx, this conclusion. coincided with the end of the Herophilean school. "Other faciors Kirst, Strabo calls it a ‘large place of instruction’ or ‘great school’ ididuskaleion mega). Didaskaleion is an expression rarely used of cataclysmic hypothesis. The Herophileans' disputes with the ¿he Alexandrian ‘school’ of Herophileans - or, for that matter, of Empiricists and with each other became internecine; the partial mentioned above should, however, not be ignored in favour of a ¡ny other medical ‘school’. The word usually is reserved for the usurpation of Herophilus’s emphasis on anatomy and physiology kind of formal institution attended by school children and run by by Hippocratic philology and doxography lell many Herophileans “hetoricians and grammarians; it is almost never applied to the avorenticeship arrangements that were characteristic of medical vulnerable ata theoretical level (as did the restriction of physiology education in classical and Hellenistic Greece. '° rising popularity and influence of new schools of medicine with vecoridly, the association of the school with a cult centre also suggest: an institutionalization of the kind well known from the to pulse-lore, at least by a majority of Herophileans); and the vociferous claims to sweeping theoretical innovation exercised strong pressures upon Herophileans. Alexandrian Museum (but nowhere attested for the Herophilean This brief survey of doctrinal (11.3) and institutional (111) change "uiresis in Alexandria): in the Museum a group of scientists and and continuity in the Herophilean hairesis has yielded results scholars were joined together not only as researchers sharing which are fairly representative of the medical haireseis. ‘The sec patronage and meals, but also as members of a cult association tarian cohesion suggested by the common label ‘Herophilus's presided over by a priest.'” A similar arrangement probably hairesis’ masks complex forces that generated constant internal prevailed at the Museion in Ephesus, which was famous for its :ysedrion of physicians and its annual ‘medical Olympics’. debate, doctrinal disagreements, and shifts in emphasis. These shifts and disagreements often render even the minimal ‘distine- While the Herophilean school at the temple of Men Karou might tive’ core doctrine of the hairesis no more than a shell. The no have shared all these characteristics with the Alexandıian proclamation of haireseis, and the extensive hairesis literature, do

ot seem to have advanced the cause of normative self-definition without pejorative overtones to ‘sects’ or ‘schools of thought", significantly. including one’s own. This usage survives into laler antiquity, i.e., IV Hairesis and Heresy even after hairesis also has come to mean ‘heresy’ or ‘heretical faction’. Thus Eusebius quotes Constantine as saying, '. . . some ln the Acts of the Apostles the orator Tertullus charges Paul with people wickedly and perversely began to separate themselves from the universal [katholiké, i.e., orthodox and true Christian] =cing a ringleader of the hairesis of the Nazarenes.'” Paul's reply hairesis. . .",18 to his accusers acknowledges that ‘I serve the God of my fathers The authoritative claim that ‘within Christianity hatresis always according to the way which they |sc. my accusers| call huiresis "These two passages belong to the earliest text in which denotes hostile societies. . .’ and that when luiresis is used in the early church, ‘what the church usually has in view is Gnostiitaftesis seems consistently used to designate a ‘sect’, ‘faitl’ or cism' 7 therefore does not hold, at least not without serious ‘school’ thal opposes one’s own. Its author also refers to the sadducees and Pharisees as haireseis, and he reports that the ‘eading RemanJews remarked to Paul, ‘We consider it worthwhile modification. ‚waring [rom you what you think; you see, as far as this hairesis luc, of the Christians] is concerned, it is known to us that it is spoken against everywhere. ‘' tn each of these cases an opponent is identified by a Christian or a Jew as belonging to a group called a hairesis. In and ofitself such a reference to a doctrinally adversary „voup as a hairesis is not novel; as shown above, it represents one but only one — strand in standard Hellenistic usage. Hairesis, however, not only refers to an opposing sect or school of thought in early Christian and Jewish contexts. The neutral and positive Hellenistic uses of hutresis as a group referent also aceur both in Christian and Jewish texts. In his Life Josephus, for example, reports: When I became about sixteen, I wished to gel experience of the huireseis among us. There are three of these; first, the hairesis of the Pharisees, second that of the Sadducees, and third [the hairesis] of the Essenes .. «Ininy nineteenth year! began to follow the hairesis of the Pharisees, which resembles the hairesis called ‘Stoic’ among the Greeks." in Ris Jewish Wars, Josephus reaffirms this as the standard division af Jewish ‘schools of thought’, this time using a derivative of uiresis to refer to the members of cach ‘school’: There are three forms of practising philosophy among the Jews: the hetretistai of one of these are the Pharisees, of another the Sadducees, and the third is called the Essenes,!!5 Clement of Alexandria provides a representative illustration of the wide range of uses to which patristic authors tend to put hairesis: One must investigate and learn conclusively how some haireseis have become fallible, while the most accurate grosis and the truly best hairesis is in the only true, ancient church.'” ... Both among the Jews and among those philosophers most esteemed by the Greeks there have been very many haireseis; 1 presume you're not saying that one should hesitate to practise philosophy er Judaism just because of the disagreements that these haireseis have with one another?!” Like most patristic authors Clement, however, does not restrict hairesis to the Christian church, to Jewish ‘sects’, and to Greek philosophical ‘schools’; he also gives it a meaning not characteristic of the texts and contexts discussed in HIT above, viz. ‘heresy’ or ‘false, apostate doctrine’: A person who has fallen away into hairesis goes through a waterless desert, having left behind the truly real God; deserted by God, he seeks waterless water, traversing uninhabitable, parched land, collecting unfruitfulness with his hands. '% Falling away, breaking away, separation, estrangement, alienation — these are new elements in the definition of hniresis: it now becomes defined primarily by reference to that from which it is separated or different." Thus Ignatius tells his readers that ‘the love of Jesus Christ enjoins you to use only Christian nutriment, and to abstain from alien [ellotria] plants, which are hairesis’ °° n none of these uses are hairesis and its derivatives defined by reference to orthodoxy. Asin the Hellenistic texts discussed above Origen, Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Basilareamong in ‘heresy’ or to ‘heretical faction’.'? and Il, hairesis here does not necessarily imply heresy, sectarian defection, heterodoxy, or apostasy; rather, il refers 96 the numerous other patristic authors who use hatresis to refer to It is important to recognize that there is a significant difference

between (a) the use of hairesis by Jews and Christians in the Acts of the Apostles to refer to an adversary ‘school’ and (b) this patristic use ofhairesis to refer to ‘heresy’. It lies in the fact that the Pharisaic and Sadducean or ‘Nazarene’ haireseis did not stand accused by their Christian and Jewish opponents, respectively, of breaking away from the true doctrine they once had possessed — —ne Hairesis and Heresy: The Case of the haireseis iatrikai Montanists), from their practices (the Encratiles or ‘continent ones’, a sect that abstained from marriage, meat and wine). from distinctive doctrines (the Docetists, who maintained the illusory character of the incarnation), from their hypotheses and from whom they honoured (the Gnostic ‘Kainistai’, who honoured as little as did the Herophilean Imiresis'”' — whereas the haireseis in Cain, and the ‘Ophianoi’ or serpent-worshippers), and from their acts of nefarious audacity (the Entychitae”, an offshoot of the the new Simonian sect, probably so-called because of the belief that they patristic sense— ‘heretical factions’ - are accused precisely practised promiscuous sexual intercourse at their meetings). '? o! separating themselves from the true church, and hence are defined by reference to Christian orthodoxy.” A Hellenistic I have traced various aspects of the development of hairesis from medical or religious or philosophical hairesis could exist alone and ‘taking’ and ‘individual moral or intellectual choice’ to ‘doctrinal without necessarily being regarded as errant, whereas a Christian hairesis now becomes a hairesis (qua ‘heresy’, ‘heretical sect’) only group choice’ and ‘school’, and finally to the Christian sense of ‘heretical sect’ or ‘heresy’. It has become clear that some of th: when condemned as such by the authors or bearers of ecclesiastic pre-Christian uses of hairesis continue to survive in Christian orthodoxy. This new, early Christian use of hairesis to refer to a body of false beliefs or believers did not entirely usurp the standard Hellenistic uses, as the passages from Clement quoted above confirm. But it soon gave rise to elaborate new taxonomies of doctrinal and institutional error (in which hairesis played a central role), and to a substantial body of canon law. An examination of hairesis in these new contexts, and of its relation to heterodoxia and schisima, lies beyond the scope of this contribution, but a brief _+n—ae: allusion to two texts that signal the increasingly technical uses of literature, alongside ‘heretical sect’, and that patristic authors even use hairesis to refer to their own orthodoxy. What remains unresolved, however, is how the use of hairesis to refer to one’s own ‘school’ or to an external ‘school’, whether adversary or not, gave rise to the use of hairesis to refer to internal breaking away, to doctrinal dissent or deviation within Christianity. A key text in this murky transition seems to be the New Testament. The consistent application of hairesis to a doctrinally adversary group in Acts was pointed out above. More explicitly in malam partem are statements by other New Testament authors deploring the existence of hairesvis, ‘factions’ or ‘factious beliefs’, the word might be of use. among the Christians themselves. Thus Paul expresses his disap- First, in a discussion of Montanist baptismal practices, Basil proval of contentiousness and divisions (schismata) among the Corinthian Christians, while conceding that ‘there must be haireseis among you in order that the approved persons may become ‚emarks: ... To some, they [sc. the ancients] gave the name haireseis, to others schismata, and to others again para-synagögai: haireseis [they call] the ones who have completely broken away and who have become eslranged with regard to their faith itself; schismata those who are in disagreement with each other for reasons having to do with the church and with remediable issues; and para-synagögai [they call] those assemblies which arise through the agency of insubordinate elders or bishops or lay people. . . Laireseis are, for example, the hairesis of the Manichaeans, of the Valentinians, of the followers of Marcion, and of these very epuzans . . .'* Somewhat different, but again a harbinger of technicalities to come, is an earlier effort by Clement of Alexandria to classify hetresets according to the derivation of their names from personal names (Valentinians, Marcionists), from places (the Gnostic ‘Per- Mikes’), from ethnic origin (the ‘Phrygian hairesis”, a name for the 98 clearly distinct among you’. Similarly, he warns the Galatians against ‘factious intrigues, seditious dissensions, and haireseis’. all of which are among ‘the works of the flesh’, not ‘the fruit of the spirit.” In the letter to Titus, ‘Paul’ says: ‘Aftera first and second —il(>@&<«+|1-o@P6 warning, reject the person who is hairetikos, knowing that such a person has turned astray and sins, being self-condemned.’TM In Peter’s second letter, too, a warning is sounded against false teachers, pseudo-didaskaloi, ‘who will surreptitiously introduce haireseis that cause destruction’. The church could not accept any schools or new societies within or alongside itself, since the ckklésia is the assembly of the whole people of God and accommodates this people both exclusively and comprehensively; ‘the concept of party necessarily excludes that of the people orstate’.

From the ‘factiousness’ and ‘factions’ deplored in the New Testament it is neither an impossibly long nor a very tortuous vad to the ‘heretical sects’ and ‘heresies’ so elaborately defined, classified, and condemned in Christian orthodoxy. But old habits dic hard, and for several centuries the tenacity of the secular Hellenistic uses traced in Land Il above continued to muddy the semantic waters in which hairesis drifted. As Cicero wrote to (Cassius, ‘in ista ipsa hairesei metuo, ne plus nervorum sit, quam ego putarim. . 7.58 aewIDA AND ARAS Bel