modern studies on manichaeism

Modern studies on Manichaeism. A surveyAuthor(s): Raoul ManselliReviewed work(s):Source: East and West, Vol. 10, No. 1/2 (MARCH-JUNE 1959), pp. 77-86Published by: Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (IsIAO)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29754079 .

Accessed: 07/02/2013 18:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (IsIAO) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to East and West.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 18:57:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=isiao

http://www.jstor.org/stable/29754079?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Modern studies on Manickeism

A survey

When on 26th February 277 (A.D.) Mani died in chains after being atrociously tortured, the Sovereign who had decreed his death might well have believed that he had killed with the

Prophet the doctrine that he proclaimed. How vain was this hope is shown by the

fact that less than thirty years after his death a bishop of Alexandria, perhaps Theonus, about the year 300 A.D., was speaking anxiou?

sly about Manichaeism and the Manichaeans, and a few years later a philosopher, Alexan?

der of Licopolis, was circulating the first of

his many writings against them, which were

to be followed by those of thinkers and theo?

logians of all creeds and races written to con?

fute the Manichaean doctrines.

Nothing could then arrest the victorious ex?

pansion of the followers of Mani. We find

them in Africa, in Spain, in Gaul, in Italy, and then in the East, first in Syria and then

in Persia, and then ever further. A whole

people, the Turkish Uighurs, adopted the re?

ligion of the Manichaeans; and even among the tribes of Central Asia, in highly civilised China, everywhere, in short, the Manichaean

missionaries arrived and spread their ideas.

Their work was not carried on undisturbed. If Mani expired amidst tortures, the rulers of

the earth of various kinds vied with one an?

other in persecuting and dispersing his fol?

lowers. Roman Emperors of the West and

of the East, sovereigns of Islam, the khans of

Central Asia, (the conversion of all the Uighur Turks with their King at their head was an

exception rather than a rule) were aware of

the Manichaeans as a stubbornly hostile force, to be fought by all possible means. The

Manichaeans succeeded in resisting these per

seditions for more than a thousand years.

Stamped out in one country, the heresy ap?

peared in another, apparently different, but

really one and the same, with its gnosis, its

doctrine which was to liberate from evil while at the same time, explaining its nature, causes

and meaning. This was indeed the core of the doctrine

that enabled Mani to touch the hearts of men

of the Greco-Roman West no less than of

China. His doctrine and his words raised hu? man suffering to the height of a cosmic drama, an eternal and perennial struggle between good and evil. The centre of this struggle, its pro?

tagonist indeed, is the human individual, man, who becomes for Mani the cooperator of what is good, who can liberate that part of him?

self imprisoned in his body, and restore it to

righteousness, or who can, instead, rivet his

chains, enslaving himself more than ever to

evil.

Human action is therefore a power that can

discriminate between good and evil. But en?

lightened by the revelation of Mani, guided

by his doctrine, man can, though with sacri?

fices and difficulty, succeed by severe penance, in assuring the victory of good.

The Manichaean conception therefore is pes? simistic and at the same time optimistic. If the

world of nature is now the prison-house of

light, of that portion of goodness which, at

the origin of the world, the God of goodness himself thought it necessary to sacrifice for the

end of time, Mani is sure that those portions of light imprisoned in matter will ultimately be set free and will return to the God of good? ness. Victory may thus be more or less far

off, depending as it does on the more or less

77



active cooperation of man: but it cannot fail.

This, in its main lines, freed from mythical disguises and fanciful representations, is the

message brought by Mani, the light of hope that he set before the dispossessed and suffer?

ing masses. St. Augustin bears witness to the

fascination this message exercised; for more

than nine years he was a Manichean, and he

frequently refers to the great attraction of the

teachings of Mani.

As it spread to countries differing widely one from the other and separated by great

distances, Manicheaism lost the sense of unity. While all were at one in extolling their common

master, no established hierarchy assured the

outward unity from West to East of the Ma

nichaean faith. It is not therefore surprising

if, when Manichaeism died out, the West only remembered it through the writings of St. Au?

gustin which were for centuries the only source of information on which to draw.

Therefore, throughout the Middle Ages, Ma?

nichaeism was held to be a horrible and exe?

crable heresy, and this impression was con?

firmed when from the 12th century onwards

the ferment of dualistic religious beliefs reap?

peared in Europe, giving rise later to the great? est and most powerful anti-Catholic current

of the West, Catharism ("). While differing in its origin and in its most characteristic expres? sions from the doctrine of Mani, Catharism

seemed to its contemporaries to descend from

Manichaeism and the ancient heresy and the

new were ever more hated and cursed (3). With the disappearance of Catharism in the

14th century (it survived however in the Bal?

kan peninsula until the Turkish invasion in

the second half of the 15th century), Mani?

chaeism continued to be a cause of grave an?

xiety and the symbol of the most typical ne?

gation of the Christian faith.

It was for this reason that when the histo?

rians of the Reformation attempted to rehabi?

litate the heretics of the Middle Ages, who

were looked upon as precursors, and testes

veritatis of the Apostolic character of Protes?

tantism, the Manichaeans were, however, ex?

cluded fromi this rehabilitation, as their here?

tical doctrines were deemed quite incompatible with Christianity. This made it impossible for Catholics as for Protestants to understand

Manichaeism as a historical reality; it was only referred to by repeating more or less apposi?

tely the judgments expressed by St. Augustin. The first who succeeded in breaking through

this traditional hostility was Isaak de Beauso

bre, a Huguenot of Niort in Poitou, where he

was born in 1659, who in his history of the forces opposed to the Catholic Church which

prepared the Reform, tracing back the Apos? tolic succession from the Apostles themselves

down to the Reformers, turned his attention

first of all to Manichaeism. After a thorough

preparation in which he used as his sources, in addition to the works of St. Augustin, all

that had come down to us on this subject from

the Latin and Greek writers of the patristic age, he published his Histoire critique des Ma

nichees et du Manicheisme (4). In this work,

though written in defence of Protestantism, mere deprecation makes room for history; evi?

dence is sifted with critical acumen, and today it is still one of the necessary starting points for those who wish to study Manichaeism, and one of the most valuable helps to be consulted

in reading the anti-Manichaean works of St.

Augustin. The conclusions reached by Beau

sobre were at once accepted by contemporary ecclesiastical history (by Protestants more

than by Catholics); here let us mention among others Laurence Mosheim master of ecclesias?

tical history, in the modern meaning of the

word (5). Almost a hundred years had to elapse be?

fore another work carried the studies on Ma?

nichaeism a step forward. We refer to the

fundamental work by Ferdinand Christian

Baur, Das manich?ische Religionssystem nach

den Quellen neu untersucht und entwickelt (6). Baur studied once more the texts examined

by Beausobre, discussing them with the phi?

lological experience acquired at the end of

18th century and with the special skill of an historian trained in the school of the great romantic theologians; among them we must

mention Schleiermacher and Hegel, who had

then reached the most significant moment of

his teaching. The picture offered of Manichaeism is there?

fore free from all biased praise or blame; it

is seen as a great historical event, appearing in the third century of the Christian era, side

by side with Gnosticism, each opposing the

other, but each appropriating some of the fea?

tures of the other in elaborating their own de?

votes special attention in an attempt to seize

its inner consistency in which he sees one of

the forces of attraction exercised by Mani?

chaeism.

Lastly, it should be noted, and this will have its weight in the subsequent develop? ment of these studies, that Baur did not fail

78



to perceive the possible points of contact ?

though they could not then be proved, ?

be? tween Manichaeism and the great religious currents of Asia, more especially the Buddhist. In this connection it should not be forgotten that the Romantic era revealed Asia to the

West and spread the knowledge of the langua? ges, literature and religions of those distant

countries (7). The comprehensive, learned and systematic

work of Baur remained, and it still is, one of

the best historical reconstructions of Mani?

chaeism. Nothing of greater importance was

added to it by Fl?gel (8) and Kessler (9). The latter gave rise to lively controversy by his

attempt, not in all respects well documented, to seek the basis of the fundamental intuitions

of Mani in the religious movements of Meso?

potamia, thus assigning to Manichaeism, as

was then said, a Pan-Babylonian origin.

Harnack, in his History of Dogma (10), as?

cribed a different foundation to Manichaeism.

The interest of his views lay more especially in

the importance he assigns to the background contrast between the Hebrew spirit and the

Greek spirit, which just in that third century

helped to provide a precarious equilibrium to

the formation of Christian dogma. No less

than Gnosticism, Manichaeism was the expres? sion of Hellenism in the bosom of Christianity.

The group of three little volumes edited and

published under the direction of Franz Cu mont brought new features and a new point of view in the representation of the situation of

Manichaeism as set forth by Baur and his fol?

lowers In those books a study was made of

passages of the works of Theodore bar-Khoni, the Nestorian Bishop of Kashkar (end of the 6th, beginning of the 7th century), containing actual quotations from the authentic works of

Mani. They were of special interest for the

reconstruction of the imaginative and expres? sive account of the struggle between prin?

ciples of Light and of Darkness; the impri? sonment of the principles of light by the

powers of darkness, and lastly of the creation

of the world, followed by the liberation of Adam, and, as a consequence, of all other men.

These fragments, jointly with those edited and

translated by Cumont and Kugener from a

homily delivered by Severus of Antiochia,

brought a faint, even if hoarse, echo of the

powerful, fascinating eloquence of Mani him?

self. Nevertheless, the data thus added to the

wellknown facts given by St. Augustin, were

scanty and made no notable alteration in the

religious outline o? Manichaeism, which seem?

ed to be now fixed once and for all. Studies

stretching ever more than a century and a half seemed to cooperate in representing the Mani chaean religion as a system susceptible un?

doubtedly of various interpretations, ranging from the Neo-Platonic, philosophical one, of Alexander of Licopolis or of Titus of Bostra, to the more mythical-gnostic one of Theodo rus bar-Khoni or Severus of Antiochia; but the Western-Christian aspect of Manichaeism, as confirmed by the fullest and most reliable

source, St. Augustin, remained unaltered. Such was the status of the studies on Mani?

chaeism when news came from the deserts of Central Asia which suddenly enlarged the area over which the religion spread, brought new texts allowing a greater knowledge of its doc?

trines, and, most important of all, gave a first hand impression of what the Manichaean re?

ligion was, not only in its doctrines, but also and more especially in its actual religious life as stamped in the heart of its believers. In 1911 there appeared in the Abhandlungen of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, edited by Al? bert August Le Coq, the first series of his T?rkische Manichaica aus Chotscho, followed

by two others in 1919 and 1922 (12), while a full and lively account of the discoveries was

published in a volume of stories (13). The material thus collected was utilised

in a splendid work of collaboration which had for centre the Berlin Academy of Sciences, and appeared in the Abhandlungen and in the

Sitzungsberichte published by that Academy. The texts, in Chinese, Turkish, Medic-Persian, studied linguistically by the most qualified specialists, are all accompanied by the German translation published in parallel columns, with

important prefaces and accurate comments, thus giving full opportunity of study even to scholars unacquainted with those languages which are difficult to understand. In some cases

several scholars have collected the texts dealing with a given subject, as for instance has been done by Waldschmidt and Lentz, who have studied the position assigned to Jesus in the

Manichaean system (14). The publication, translation, and commen?

tary on these texts, are not yet finished (15), but they have allowed of constant work for a

better understanding of the religious value and

importance of Manichaeism.

This has brought some new aspects to light which should be stressed.

In primis, the general aspect of Manichaeism

79



has changed. What seemed to be a religion that had sprung from and grown up beside

Christianity, has revealed an unsuspected mi?

mic capacity, and possibility of adaptation to

its environment.

Thus, in Persia, it is in terms of the reli?

gion of Zoroaster that it expresses its faith, while in China it uses the terms of Buddhism or of the surrounding Chinese world.

Moreover, the ethics, religious practices and

forms of worship of the Manichaeans have

been fully revealed. Confessions of faith, ma?

nuals of casuistry, hymns, prayers, even le?

gends have been found in considerable num?

bers. Even the information given by St. Au

gustin about the typical beauty of the Mani?

chaean books has been confirmed by the ma?

gnificent illuminations discovered by Le Coq, and edited and studied by him in a masterly manner (16).

The mass of publications soon became such

that though still partial and not definitive the

first balance-sheets had to be drawn up. Of ca?

pital importance as a first general review of the

Manichean writings that have come down to us, is the work of Prosper Alfaric, the historiogra?

pher of early Christianity and of St. Augustin. In his two volumes Les ecritures manicheen

nes (17) he has examined the formation of

the Manichaean writings, studying first of all

the problem of their sources, which he thinks

should be sought for in the vast mass of gnostic

writings antecedent to Mani, then in the life

and writings of Mani himself, and lastly in the general characteristics of the Manichaean

belief and the literary forms in which that

belief found expression. Alfaric then goes on

to relate the vicissitudes through which the

Manichaean writings have passed; after spread?

ing in the Christian and non-Christian world

for centuries, they gradually disappeared as

the result of inexorable and methodical perse? cutions from which only a small part of that

immense body of writings escaped. Of that

small remainder, a part has come down to us

in the polemical writings, Christian or other, which in fighting the hated ideas of Mani were compelled to quote his works and ideas.

Another part has reached us directly: that

which has been recovered from the desert of

Central Asia. This lucid review, revealing a

rare knowledge of all the problems dealt with, is accompanied by a detailed analysis of the

writings used by the Manichaeans in their re?

ligious practices. A long series of works passes before us: they are those of Mani and his

disciples, statements of their beliefs, confes?

sions of sins, lists of precepts. All this leaves us with the impression of a vast chorus up? lifted to Mani for more than a thousand years in praise of a man who liberated other men

from slavery to sin, pointing out the way to

salvation. The examination of these writings also shows that the Manichaeans had endeav?

oured to appropriate books of other reli?

gions with which they had come In Contact

during their long history. These are more

especially the Hebrew and Christian apocry?

pha, Hellenistic works on religion (such as

Hermetes Trismegistus and the Sybilline Ora?

cles), and Mazdeistic and Buddhist writings. This great enquiry made by Alfaric confirms

the multifarious nature of the elements of

which Manichaeism is composed, showing its

singular capacity of assimilating whatever any

religion could offer it, while this very process of assimilation and appropriation enabled it to present itself as the religion which was to

replace and supersede all others.

In studying these two volumes of Alfaric, one cannot but note that the interpretation of

Manichaeism he gives in the course of his

work, shows it to be one of the many forms assumed by Gnosticism in the first centuries of the Christian era. But ? he remarks ?

Manichaeism more than Gnosticism displayed exceptional vitality; while the core remained

unchanged, it was always ready to accept many and often important modifications, Though not scientifically demonstrated, the position assigned to Manichaeism as one of the forms in which Gnosticism has found historical ex?

pression was taken up again and placed in a historical setting by the careful research made by the English historian, F. C. Burkitt.

Specialised in the cultural and religious envi? ronment of Syria, Burkitt has examined Ma? nichaeism which, be it remembered, arose in

Syria and in a world of Syrian culture, and has shown, in the light of the religious move?

ments, more especially the Gnostic, of that

country, that a the Christian element in the

religion of the Manicheans is larger and more

fundamental than the scholars of the last ge? neration were inclined to admit ?. (1B)

Bnrkitt's work is important, not only for the definite position he takes on this point, but also for the light he throws on the termi?

nology, and on the logical position taken by Manichaeism which, he declares, is funda?

mentally Syrian, a theory still generally

accepted by scholars. While Alfaric, Bur

80



kitt and Jackson were bringing out their

works, the great philologist and historian of

antiquity, R. Reitzenstein, availed himself of

all the resources of his prodigious erudition

and exceptional ability in bringing to light points of contact, resemblances between the

different world cultures, in order to draw a

picture embracing all the features of Helle? nistic religious thought and of the religions of

the Greco-Roman period. They are viewed as

variations and modifications of the Iranian

religious myth which was, in his opinion, a

myth of atonement, an idea which is reflected in all the mystagogic religions: Christianity,

Gnosticism, and therefore Manichaeism. As part of the background of Reizenstein's

work, and in line with the syntheses whose

importance and value we have noted, that of

Hans Heinrich Schaeder is deserving of special notice. In this work Schaeder examines, as

the title states, ? The Original Form and the

subsequent formations of the Manichaean Sys? tem )) (19). It is characterised by a clear per?

ception of the fact that Manichaeism must be

interpreted and placed within the historical

framework in which it arose and took shape. He therefore rejects all attempts to reconstruct

the faith of Mani by trying to arrange the

sources so as to place on the same level Latin,

Syrian, Turkish or Chinese texts, all consi?

dered of the same importance. On the contrary he insists on the need of differentiating from

all these texts the original aspect of Mani?

chaeism which should be studied in relation to

historical circumstances from which it arose,

and to the historical developments that led to

variations in keeping with the several coun?

tries and peoples amongst whom it was taught, and which accepted it as their faith.

In discussing the origins of Manichaeism, Schaeder rejects the idea that it was exclusi?

vely Oriental, and he takes, as the basis of

his view, that ? the doctrine of Mani rests on

a theoretical concept which follows the direc?

tion of Hellenistic science. This required, made possible, and stated the doctrine under?

lying the Manichaean construction in the form

of a general myth arising from ancient tradi?

tions on the origin of the world and of man, on redemption, and on the end of the world.

The trend of this teaching, set forth by Mani

himself in several versions which should be

carefully distinguished one from the other, was

the total coordination (Universalzusammen

hang) of a doctrine of atonement which

should embrace all the traditional ideas of the

most ancient revealed religions, more espe?

cially the Christian and the Persian, in so far as they were available to Mani ? (20). With

this as a premise, Schaeder goes on to show

that it was precisely these characteristic aspects of Mani's religious teaching that made it pos? sible, in the course of time, to view it un?

der different aspects, one of which he calls the cc Greek version ? of the Manichaean

myth, attested by Alexander of Licopolis, and which in Schaeder's opinion was justified by Mani himself. Mani, indeed, deliberately pre? sented his myth, or rather his liberating doc?

trine, his Gnosis, in two successive and diffe? rent forms, the Persian one, in which he in?

troduced the names of Persian divinities in?

stead of the original names, and the Christian

one, characterised not only by the use of Chri? stian terminology, but also by the importance given to Jesus (21). And, we have to point out, Schaeder stresses the fact that these two suc?

cessive forms were not the work of Mani? chaean missionaries but of Mani himself (22).

This work of Schaeder's, of great impor? tance more especially for the method he fol? lows which is limited to the study of the teach?

ing of Mani himself and to the forms in which he presented it, was however hindered by the fact that he left aside, though using them

when need be, all the new texts from Central Asia. While he was able to show that their

importance was related to the regions to which

they refer, he neglected to place in their proper light those other Fortbildungen of Mani chaeism of such decisive historical importance for their place in the religious history of Asia.

On November 9th, 1932, in a report at the annual meeting of the Society for Ecclesiastical

History at Berlin, Prof. Karl Schmidt once more gave the audience a surprising piece of news (2T), which he afterwards confirmed with fuller and more detailed data at a meeting of the Berlin Academy (28). He then informed

scholars of the extraordinary discovery of a

large number of ancient Manichaean texts

which, if they did not date back to Mani him? self, certainly belonged to the early days of the Manichaean community.

The first of these works discovered by Schmidt, the Kephalaia, sets forth Mani's

teaching in the form of a dialogue between the Master and his disciples, a complete hand?

book of ihe Manichaean tenets expressed in warm and lively language, rich in images and

vibrating with an intense cosmic religious feel /29\

mg ( ).

81



A second papyrus contains a collection of

letters from Mani, a third gives historical in?

formation on Mani and the early spread of

his beliefs, while a fourth is a collection of

homilies by various persons and on several

subjects, and the last, as it would seem, is a

commentary on one of Mani's most famous

writings, The living Evangel. In addition to

this group of papyri purchased by the Berlin

Academy of Sciences, another group of Mani?

chaean works found in the same receptacle as the first, was purchased by the British bi?

bliophil, Chester Beatty. The most important of these is a large collection of psalms which

take their place beside those already known

that were discovered at Turf an. They cast

a vivid light on the piety and religious spirit of the Manichaeans in Egypt.

One of the most interesting features brought to light by the first studies of these documents

is the confirmation they bring of the universal

character of the Manichaean religion. Like

the texts previously discovered in Central Asia, these discovered in Egypt show that Mani was

aware he was addressing his words and his

mission both to Europe and to Asia. His reli?

gion recognised and included in one embrace

and in significant order, Jesus, Zoroaster and

Buddha; but the dream of Mani was that his

new faith might unite in a single community of bretheren both East and West.

(c At the time in which Jesus appeared in a

country of the West, he preached his hope... After His death His disciples wrote down his

parables and signs and miracles... they wrote

a book... The Apostle of light, the Splendid One... came to Persia to King Tstaspe, and

selected just and true disciples, but Zara

thuster wrote no books; however, his disciples after his death remembered and wrote down the books that they read. When in his turn

Buddha arrived they (said) of him that he also preached (his hope) and much wisdom.

He selected his churches and brought them to

completion, and revealed his hopes to them.

But it is a fact that he did not write down his wisdom in books. His disciples, who came

after him, remembered something of his wis?

dom, which they had heard from the Buddha, and set it down in writings ? (30).

All these (( fathers of justice ? did not think that in this way they were exposing their chur?

ches to the danger of schism and dissolution.

It was for this that Mani sent forth his mes?

sage to the East and to the West: (C There are some who have chosen the East

for their Church and their Church has not reached the West; some have chosen the West for their Church and its collection (of works) has not reached as far as the East, so that

there are some whose names are not known

in other cities. But my hope will go to the

West and also to the East, and the voice of its announcement will be heard in all languages and it will be proclaimed in all cities. My Church is superior in this first respect to all

previous Churches, because the previous Chur?

ches were chosen in individual localities and

in individual cities. My Church will go to all cities and its message will reach all countries ?.

A first result of these new discoveries was

given as far back as 1935 by Schmidt's closest

collaborator, Polotsky, in his valuable ar?

ticle on Manichaeism published in the well

known Real Encyclop?die of Pauly-Wissova

(31). After giving a clear statement of the fun?

damental features of the Manichaean religion,

Polotsky described it as an effort to interpret the origin and the forms of evil and the po? sition of man face to face with reality: wide

malum et quare? et unde homo et quomodo? as Tertullian said in his incisive statement of

the problems in Chapter 7 of his Be Praescrip tione haereticorum (32). It is not therefore a

philosophy but rather ^ gnosis, knowledge that sets free from evil, and the desire of sal?

vation, united in a reciprocal relation and by a mutual tie (33). Speaking of the cultural

trends which leaven the Manichaean teaching,

Polotsky does not accept Schaeder's view that

it was based on Greek culture; he rather thinks

that the Greek features which are met with in

Manichaeism did not reach Mani from a direct

source; they are no longer something specifi?

cally Greek but had first become an integral

part of Gnosticism.

The reasons that account for the fascina?

tion Manichaeism exercised on the masses are

stressed with no less accuracy, recalling the

well known passage from St. Augustin, always valid and efficacious, giving the reasons for

which he accepted for nine years the Mani?

chaean teachings, hoping to find in them the

solution of all the problems of life and the world (34). Still more interesting seems to me

the rapid but reliable analysis of the Mani?

chaean religious spirit, compared, though not

so explicitly, to the Christian. That religion is characterised by awareness of the consub stantial relation existing between God and the human soul, an awareness attained through the gnosis, which must be accompanied by

82



human endeavor to realize that the human soul

is allied to God in the struggle against evil; Manichaean piety thus becomes, as Polotsky

remarks, a sort of feeling of cosmic responsi?

bility, linked up with the duty of this struggle against evil, a duty placed on man by the fact

that in this world he is a reality endowed with

nous, the faculty of gnosis. If Polotsky's work, thanks to a first reading

of the Coptic texts, was able better to define

the spiritual physiognomy of Manichaeism, this was made still clearer when the publica? tion of the Coptic texts, discovered by Schmidt, was begun, and for this purpose the publisher W. Kohlhammer of Stoccard prepared a whole

plan which was unfortunately interrupted by the second world war.

The three volumes so far published, truly

exemplary in their style, after a brief philo?

logical introduction have so arranged the

Coptic texts that each sheet of the papyrus is

accompanied by a printed page giving a Ger?

man or English translation. By this means

the system used when the Turkestan texts

were published has been continued, enabling

any scholar, even if he is not a professional Orientalist, to find his way directly and secu?

rely, all the more so as the slightest uncer?

tainty or doubt is at once noted and a solution

frequently suggested. This edition is there?

fore an exemplary piece of work and of such

importance that it is to be hoped it will at

last be taken up again (36). Even during the interruption of studies

caused by war, Manichaean scholars have con?

tinued their work. Special mention should be

made of the works of G. Widengren (37), and

T. S?ve-S?derbergh (39) who were able to make

a thorough examination of the new Mani?

chaean texts, considered more especially within

the framework of the history of religions. The most important for us is that of S?ve

S?derbergh who has made a careful philological

study of the relations between the so-called

Psalms of Thomas, contained in the Mani?

chaean psalm-book, and the Mandaean books

(38). He has been able to note remarkable

and striking points of contact between these

two. S?ve-S?derbergh concludes from this re?

semblance that although the Mandaean books

are chronologically posterior to the psalms,

they cannot be considered as independent one

from the other. It seems to him strange, al?

most impossible, that if the Mandaeans had

known the whole of the Book of psalms (writ? ten originally in Syrian, be it noted) they

would have drawn only on the so-called Tho? mas psalms and not on the whole work. It

would thus seem that Mandaeanism ?

or, ac?

cording to the views o? the Author, one of

the religious currents that ended by flowing into Mandaeanism

? was one of the elements

that influenced Manichaeism. More precisely

speaking, as Thomas was one of Mani's first

disciples, and the one who evangelised Syria, the psalms may be considered an adjustment of the teachings of Mani to the Syrian, pre

Mandaean environment in which Thomas

carried on his mission (39). Widengren's two

works deal substantially with a problem of the

history of religion, as their purpose is to trace

out the Oriental features that are at the basis of Manichaeism. On this matter the study on

the Mesopotamian Elements in Manicheism, is of special interest. After making a broad com?

parison, showing a striking number of points of contact and coincidence, it comes to the conclusion that cc undoubtedly the religion taught by Mani rests on a Mesopotamic foun?

dation ?, and that it acquired those elements

directly from the ancient religions of Mesopo? tamia whose latest developments were still ho?

vering in the air, and indirectly through the Gnostic movements of Mesopotamia and of

Syrian Christianity (40). The little volume that Puech has written

on Manichaeism is truly valuable in its conci? seness. It is so not only for the short, but

interesting account of the life, activities and

beliefs of Mani, but more especially for the

many scholarly notes, the fruit of long years of study and historical reflection. In this vo?

lume Puech has condensed all his experience

acquired in writing the history of religions and

more especially of those of a Gnostic and dua

listic type (42). The value of this work is only limited by the excessive recourse to the method

of synthesis when outlining the Manichaean

beliefs. Greek or Latin or Coptic or Chinese

and other texts are grouped together to bear

witness to this or that point of the Manichaean

concepts, while too little attention is paid to

their historical development. In other words, the author is too intent on finding the constant

and permanent features of Manichaeism, and

less interested in showing also the diversities

and the modifications, not only of outward

form, which have marked its development dur?

ing its age-long history and in widely different

countries and historical environments. It is

true that the original purpose of this work ?

that of giving two lectures on the subject

83



? hindered Puech from developing it on

these lines; nevertheless, if we now have in

the little book written by the French historian a reliable guide to an understanding of the

Manichaean religion, we are still in need of a work which would also enable us to realise

its gradual transformation and historical rea?

lity. There has certainly been no interruption in

these last few years in the traditional lines fol?

lowed by these studies. The publication of

the texts has continued. We would mention

as of particular importance that of the Mani?

chaean hymns in the Parthan language edited

by Mary Boyce (4S) with an important intro?

duction and an English translation and com?

ments on the Parthan texts; next comes the

collection of texts for the study of Manichaeism

made by Alfred Adam, which sets forth ac?

curately and clearly first the fragments of

Mani's writings, then the Manichaean evidence

nearest to the Master, then those of the Mani?

chaean communities of Africa and China.

These are followed by evidence from non-Ma

nichaean sources on Manichaeism, on the Im?

perial laws and ecclesiastical decisions that

condemned it, and finally the formulas of ab?

juration, with references to pictorial repre? sentations relating to it (44). We have thus a

complete picture of Manichaeism, dealing with

its articles of faith and with events reflecting the more important moments of its develop?

ment. So far as I have been able to see, the

only slip made is that of giving as the formula for abjuration of Manichaeism that which was

in reality used for the abjuration of the he?

resies of the Paulician Dualists (9th century), in which Manichaeism also was anathematised.

Though ante-dating it by several centuries, this formula was believed to have given rise

to Paulicianism (45). These editions of the texts (46) have not

perhaps been matched by critical studies of

like importance and scope; we must however

pay attention to two articles by L. H. Gron

dijs. In the first, the Manichaeism of Numidia

in the time of St. Augustin is analysed and

examined, and the problem of the several Ma?

nichaean (( sects ? is at last dealt with. This

question is discussed explicitly in the second

article published in the miscellany of studies

printed in honor of the Dean of Italian By? zantine Scholars, Silvio Giuseppe Mercati (47).

The position taken by Grondijs is as resolute as it is radical. He criticises severely and firmly all the studies so far made on Manichaeism,

and would admit the existence of Manichaean sects differing completely one from the other, rather than that of a unified Manichaean reli?

gion. He says textually: cc The method fol?

lowed by many scholars in reconstructing the

original doctrine of Mani, which consists in

adding to the mutilated texts of certain ma?

nuscripts, subjects and phrases taken from some other manuscript belonging to another

period or coming from another region, is not

always a very reliable one. Indeed, the Ma?

nichaean documents with which we are familiar

show such notable divergencies, even as to es?

sential doctrines and on characteristic subjects, that it would be preferable to ascribe them to

quite different sects ? (48). To prove this

theory Grondijs has made a careful ana?

lysis of the Manichaeism of Numidia, and an

examination of Manichaean theories on aspects

relating to Christ and to various moments of

the struggle between Light and Darkness. Un?

doubtedly the divergencies that Grondijs un?

derlines are obvious and give pause for

thought. I would rather say that they show

the need of directing the study of Manichaeism

along new lines, which might clarify, at least

in several cases, diversities and modifications

that are certainly undeniable. This means

that it would be necessary to follow the exam?

ple set by Schaeder in the case of early Mani?

chaeism and for the works of Mani himself;

studying more thoroughly the successive chan?

ges that the belief has undergone in different

times and in different lands, while remaining faithful to its central theme. These changes it had to accept in order to survive. It seems

to me that it is in this that it has shown how

great has been its endeavour to win over souls,

remaining stead fast on all fundamental mat?

ters while changing where it was possible to

change.

In this way, Manichaeism did certainly suc?

ceed in realising the dream of its Founder, that of speaking to West and East. The faith

that arose in that cross-roads of races, reli?

gions, cultures, which was the Syria of the

Roman age, reached the Atlantic, and for cen?

turies permeated Europe and Africa; then

fearlessly it crossed the deserts of Central Asia, and nothing daunted reached China. It was

manifold and yet one, and it gave comfort

and hope to the peoples of the ancient world on the eve of its downfall, leavening the

young Turkish tribes prior to their decisive entrance on the stage of history, and to the

Chinese, proud of their age-old civilisation. All

84



greeted in Mani the Father who had freed them from evil and from death. In him, East

and West, transcending the limits of time and

space and of their traditional past, extolled a

Divine Messenger. In this, they all agreed, in this there was unison of words and feelings expressed in the most varied languages and

styles, and even today we, believing that

European and Asian civilisation are but diffe? rent expressions of the loftiest and truest va?

lues of mankind, cannot but be moved.

Raoul Manselli

NOTES

(*) We do not certainly propose to give in this general survey of the development of the studies on Manichaeism a complete bibliography, but only to offer a view of the more important trends of these studies in their relation to the ever new and surprising scientific discoveries that have been made, and pointing out a direction in which research

might be continued. Without referring here to the general works on Manichaeism, of which I shall speak further on, I will only mention a review of Manichaen studies containing much information and detailed references: H. S. Nyberg, Forschungen ?ber den Manich?ismus, in ?Zeitschrift f?r neutestamentliche Wissenschaft ? 34, (1935) pp. 30-91. On the Dualism as historical-ethnological movement see also U. Bianchi, 11 dualismo religioso, Roma 1958.

Lastly, I wish to express my sincere thanks to Prof. A. Pincherle for the talks I have had with him on Mani?

chaeism, always valuable and instructive for me.

(2) This is not the right place for discussing to what extent Catharism may be described as Manichaeism, as there is no possibility of documenting the historic continuity between the two. On this question I would mention R.

Morghen, Medio Evo cristiano, Bari, 1958 (II ed.), which on pp. 204-281 dealing with the heresies of the Middle

Ages, discusses the question, definitely excluding the direct influence of Manichaeism and limiting that influence of the Balkan dualistic religious movements (the so-called

bogomolismo) in the West to the period following the middle of the Xllth century.

(3) After Eckbert of Sch?nau who about 1163 made a

comparison between the heresy of the West and Mani?

chaeism, it became a regular commonplace to identify Cathars and Manichaeans.

(4) Beausobre's book was published in 2 volumes at Amsterdam in 1734.

(5) Among the many works in which Mosheim speaks of Manichaeism we shall only mention J. L. Mosheim, Insti tutiones Historiae christianae antiquioris, Helmstadii, 1737, in which, on pp. 244-248, he speaks of Manichaeism, basing himself on Beausobre, but without disguising his fierce

hostility to that heresy. (6) Published at T?bingen in 1831 (Reprinted at

G?ttingen, 1928). (7) On this point see Baur, op. cit. p. 433 et seq. (8) G. Fl?gel, Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schriften,

Leipzig, 1862, important more especially for the information taken from the Fihrist on En-Nadim.

(9) K. Kessler, Mani, Forschungen ?ber die mani chaeische Religion, I, Voruntersuchungen und Quellen, Ber?

lin, 1889. The second volume was never published. Kessler

published also the article on Mani, Manichaer, for the

Realencyklop?die f?r protestantische Religion und Kirche,

(III edition), Vol. XII, pp. 193-228.

(10) A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte II,

T?bingen, 1909, (4th ed.), pp. 513-27.

(X1) Recherches sur le Manicheisme, I La cosmogonie manicheenne d'apres Theodore Bar Khoni, par Franz Cu

mont, Bruxelles, 1908; II, Extrait de la CXlll homelie de

Severe d'Antioche; III L'inscription de Salone par M. A.

Kugener et Franz Cumont, Bruxelles 1912. Other enquiries that Cumont had announced have never been published.

(12) A. A. Von Le Coq, T?rkische Manichaica aus

Chotscho, in ? Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften? (1911); (1919); (1922).

(13) A. A. Von Le Coq, Chotscho, Ergebnisse der KgL Preuss. Turfan-Expeditionen, Berlin, 1913.

(14) E. Waldschmidt und W. Lentz, Die Stellung Jesu im Manich?ismus, in ? Abhandlungen der preussischen Aka? demie der Wissenschaften ? (1926, n. 4).

(15) We mention here for the use of scholars the more

important texts published in chronological order. W. Bang, Manichaeische Laien-Beichts pie gel, in ? Le Museon ? 36

(1923) pp. E. Waldschmidt- W. Lentz, Manichaeische

Dogmatika aus chinesischen und iranischen Texten in ? Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissen?

schaften, Philos. Hist. Klasse ?, 1933, n. 13; F. C. Andreas, Mitteliranische Manichaica aus Chinesisch-Turkestan, I in ? Sitzugsberichte ? cit. 1932, nn. 9-10; II, ibid., 1933, n. 5;

III, ibid. 1934: n. 27.

(16) A. A. Von Le Coq, Die buddistische Sp?tantike in Mittelasien (or Mittleasiens). II Die Manichaeischen Minia?

turen, Berlin, 1923.

(17) P. Alfaric, Les ecritures manicheennes: I Vue

generale, Paris, 1918, II Etude analytique, Paris, 1918. Alfaric has also studied Manichaeism as a passage in the inner evolution of St. Augustin in L'evolution intellectuelle de Saint Augustin, Paris, 1918. On this matter see also note 47.

(18) P. Alfaric, op. cit. II. p. 227, has some penetrating notes on the motives for this broad eclecticism ? II (Ma? nichaeism) ne s'est si liberalement ouvert aux produits de

religions rivales que parce qu'il ne devait laisser aucun element lumineux au pouvoir des Demons ?.

(19) F. C. Burkitt, The Religion of the Manichees,

Cambridge, 1925.

(20) Op. cit. p. V. He also stresses this conviction in

speaking of the works of A. V. Williams Jackson afterwards collected in the volume Research on Manichaeism, New

York, 1931, in which he stressed the importance of the Iranian elements in Manichaeism. He then remarked ? I feel that though single details in Manichaeism can be illustrated or explained from Zoroastrian sources, the fundamental construction of Mani's religion remains (heretical) Chris? tian )>. Burkitt when examining the whole Gnostic pheno?

menon in his work ? The Church and Gnosis ?, Cambridge, 1932, always insists on the Gnostic character of Manichaeism. Cfr. on p. 6 ? At a later period Mani, the Founder of the Manichaean Religion, taught in the same way and he is

rightly to be considered as a Gnostic ?.

(21) Here I will only mention the more important works for the purposes of this review, i.e. R. Reitzenstein, Das iranische Erl?sungsmysterium, Bonn, 1921, Die hellen? istischen Mysterienreligionen, Leipzig-Berlin, 1927 (it is the 3rd edition which reflects the ideas above referred to), and

lastly Studien zum antiken Synkretismus aus Iran und

Griechenland, Leipzig-Berlin, 1926 (Studien der Bibliotek

Warburg n. 7). These studies were made in collaboration with Schaeder for which cfr. note 22.

(22) H. H. Schaeder, Urform und Fortbildungen des manichaeischen Systems in Vortr?ge der Bibliothek Warburg, Vortr?ge, 1924-25, Berlin, 1927, pp. 65-157. The other

study by the same Author is important: F?r manichaeische Urmenschlehre in Studien des Bibliothek Warburg op. cit.

pp. 240-305, published in collaboration with Reitzenstein.

(2S) H. H. Schaeder, Urform, op. cit. p. 97.

(24) H. H. Schaeder, Urform, op. cit. pp. 106-110.

(25) See more especially H. H. Schaeder, Urform, cit. p. 153.

(26) Op. et loc. cit.

(27) Karl Schmidt, Neue Originalquellen des Mani chaeismus aus Aegypten, Stuttgart, 1933, reprints this lecture which also appeared as an article in the ? Zeitschrift f?r

Kirchengeschichte ? in the first No. of 1933. K. Schmidt und H. J. Polotsky, Ein Mani-Fund in Aegypten. Original? schriften des Mani und seines Schulern, mit einem Beitrag von H. Hocher in ? Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Aka? demie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse ?,

Berlin, 1933, pp. 4-40.

(38) See on this matter K. Schmidt, Neue Originalquel? len, pp. 7-10, Schmidt-Polotsky, Ein Mani-Fund, pp. 18-24.

85



(29) Kephalaia, in Schmidt, Neue Original quellen, cit.

pp. 7-8.

(30) Schmidt-Polotsky, Ein Mani-Fund, op. cit. p. 45.

(31) Paulys Real-Encyclop?die der classischen Alter?

tumswissenschaft, Supplementband, VI, Stuttgart, 1935, coll. 240-271.

(32) Tertulli?ni, De Praescriptione haereticorum, ch. 7.

(33) Polotsky, op. cit., col. 270.

(34) S. Augustini, De utilitate credenti, 2 p. 4 10 15.

(35) Polotsky, op. cit., col. 271.

(36) Of the three volumes two publish manuscripts from the A. Chester Beatty collection, and one those of the Prussian Academy i.e. the Manichaeische Handschriften der

Sammlung A. Chester Beatty, I Manichaeische Homilien

herausgegebn von H. J. Polotsky, mit einem Beitrag von

H. Ibscher, Stuttgart, 1934; II, A Manichaeam Psalm-book,

part II, edited by C. R. C. Allberry, with a contribution by H. Ibscher; Manichaeischer Handschriften der Staatlichen

Museem, Berlin, I. Kephalaia, l H?lfte, mit einem Beitrag von Hugo Ibscher, Stuttgart, 1940.

(37) G. Widengren, The great Vohu Manah and the

Apostle of God, Studies in Iranian and Manichaean religion in Uppsala Universitats Arsskrift, 1945, n. 5, and Mesopo tamian Elements in Manichaeism (King and Saviour 11) Studies in Manichaean, Mandeaan, and Syro-Gnostic Re?

ligion, in Uppsala, Universitets Arsskrift, 1946, n. 3.

(38) T. S?ve-S?derbergh, Studies in the Coptic Manichaen

Psalm-Book. Prosody and Mandaean parallels in ? Arbeten

utgivna med underst?d av Vilhelm Eckmans Universi?

t?tsfond ?, Uppsala, n. 55, (1949).

(39) Of course, I cannot here take into account the first

four chapters of his work which deal with linguistic

problems and questions of Coptic prosody.

(4?) I also leave aside the A's other conclusions about the Mandaean problem.

(41) G. Widengren, Mesopotamian Elements in Mani?

chaeism, op. cit., p. 176.

(42) There is no opportunity to quote the previous works of Puech, all mentioned in the note to his little

book on Manichaeism. Cfr. H.-Ch. Puech, Le Manicheisme.

Sa fondateur - Sa doctrine, Paris 1949.

(43) Mary Boyce, The Manichaean Hymn Cycles in

Parthian, London-New York-Toronto, 1954 (London Oriental

Series, Vol. 3).

(44) A. Adam, Texte zum Manichaeismus, Berlin, 1954

(Kleine Texte f?r Vorlesungen und ?bungen, n. 175).

(45) A. Adam, op. cit., pp. 97-103.

(46) In this connection I would mention, although I have not yet seen it, a translation of a hymn to Mani, belonging to the group of the Turfan texts published in the Procedings of the Berlin Academy.

(47) L. H. Grondijs, Analyse du manicheisme numidien au IVeme siede, in Augustinus Magister, Vol. III, Actes, Paris, (year not stated but of 1955) pp. 394-411; id. La diversit? delle Sette manichee, in Silloge bizantina in onore

di S. G. Mercati (Studi bizantini e neoellenici, 9, 1957) pp. 176-187. I take this opportunity to mention that the International Augustinian Congress held in Paris in 1954, barely made mention of Manichaeism and St. Augustin in the paper presented by Grandijs, op. cit., and in that of

W. Freud : Manichaeism in the Struggle between St. Augustin and Petilian of Costantine, in Augustinus magister II, Paris,

(year not stated by 1955), pp. 839-866. The problem is indeed one that is left rather on one side. It therefore seems to me all the more advisable to refer to the more recent

works that have dealt with it. Besides the ample account

given by E. Buonaiuti in his // Cristianesimo deWAfrica romana, Bari, 1928, which on pp. 360-368 speaks of St.

Augustin and his relations with Manichaeism, we would mention A. Pincherle, S. Agostino, Bari, 1930, in which the matter is treated in pp. 24-40 with the special qualifi? cations which characterise his article (which is almost a

monograph) on Manichaeism published in the ? Encyclope? dia Italiana ?, sub voce: Manicheismo and the more recent studies by P. Courcelle, Recherches sur les Confessions de Saint Augustin, Paris, 1950, in which a whole chapter is devoted to La conversion manicheenne de St. Augustin, Paris, 1950, pp. 60-78 and by A. Adam, Das Fortwirken des Mani ch?ismus bei Augustin in ?Zeitschrift f?r Kirchengeschichte? 69 (1958) pp. 1-25.

(48) L. H. Grondijs, La diversit? delle sette manichee, op. cit., p. 176.

STATEMENT

It happened only a few weeks ago (middle of February) that my attention was called to

Franz Altheim's article in cc East and West ?, N. Ser., Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, March-June 1958, pp. 7-28, on ? Inscriptions of the Synagogue of Dura-Europos ?. About ten pages of this

article (pp. 8-18) are dedicated to the criticism

of my publication on the Middle Iranian inscriptions in the Synagogue of Dura-Europos (Final Report VIII, Part. 1, pp. 283-317.

Yale University Press, 1956). Altheim had criticized my publication already once before in two different places

? in the appendixes to his books Finanzgeschichte der Sp?tantike and Supplementum Aramaicum ?, and that

in two verbatim and literatim completely identical presentations. These extremely de? tractive criticisms were the reaction against my

devastating, but welldeserved criticism of Altheim's book Asien und Rom. Although he dealt in this book only with a small number

of parts of inscriptions, I could easily show that his interpretations were throughout

utterly wrong, fantastic, far-fetched and amateurish and that they betrayed lack of method, lack of knowledge of the language and even lack of indispensable acquaintance with the forms of the inscriptional alphabet.

The criticism which Altheim has published recently in <c East and West ?, is of the same

caliber as the first one. However, I dont wish to elaborate here on details. A full account

of Altheim's misreadings and misinterpreta? tions, including also examples from the

parchments and ostraca of Dura, will be given in an article to be published in the near future.

There I shall also demonstrate the cases in

which Altheim failed to distinguish letters of the P?rsik alphabet from those of the Pahlavik

alphabet. As far as my work on the Synagogue inscrip?

tions is concerned, I wish to stress most

emphatically that I am unswervingly uphold?

ing all my readings and interpretations. It is,

indeed, my firm belief, which is shared by all competent Iranian scholars, that my work has

placed the understanding of these inscriptions on a very solid foundation. There are only a few cases left in which the bad state of pres? ervation of a letter or of a word or of a pas?

sage made the decision about the reading uncertain or, for the time being, impossible.

However, Altheim arrogates to himself the

authority of an infallible expert in Middle

86



modern studies on manichaeism

Documents