At the end of the Parthian period, in the fourth year of King Ardawán (A.D. 215-216), as we learn from the Chronology Manes and his doctrine. of Ancient Nations (Sachau's translation, p. 121) of the learned al-Bírúní (early eleventh century), was born Manes, or Mání, the founder of the Manichæan religion—a religion which, notwithstanding the fierce persecutions to which it was exposed both in the East and the West, alike at the hands of Zoroastrians and Christians, from the very moment of its appearance until the extermina­tion of the unfortunate Albigenses in the thirteenth century, continued for centuries to count numerous adherents, and to exercise an immense influence on religious thought both in Asia and Europe.

In the system which he founded Manes was essentially eclectic; but though he drew materials both from the ancient Babylonian and from the Buddhist religions, his main endeavour was, as Gibbon has said, “to reconcile the doctrines of Zoroaster and Christ,” an attempt which resulted in his being “pursued by the two religions with equal and unrelenting hatred.” His system, however, is to be regarded rather as a Christianised Zoroastrianism than as a Zoroastrianised Christianity, since he was certainly a Persian subject, and probably at least half a Persian; wrote one of his books (the Sháburqán, or Sháh-puhrakán , characterised by the Muhammadan al-Bírúní as “of all Persian books one that may be relied upon,” since “Mání in his law has forbidden telling lies, and he had no need whatever for falsifying history”) in Persian for King Shápúr, whose conversion he hoped to effect, and was finally put to a cruel death by one of Shápúr's successors.

*

The sources of our information about the life, doctrines, and writings of Manes are both Eastern and Western, and since the former (notably the Fihrist, al-Bírúní, Ibn Wáḍiḥ al-Ya'qúbí and Shahristání)* have been made accessible, it has Sources of our knowledge of Manes and his system. been generally recognised that the information which they yield us is of a more reliable character than that contained in the writings of St. Augustine, the Acts of Archelaus, &c., on which the older European accounts of this remarkable man are entirely based. As considerations of space render it impossible to devote more than a few pages to this topic, which will be found fully discussed in the books cited at the end of the last note, we will first give a translation of al-Ya'qúbí's account of the life and doctrines of Manes (this being the only one of the four Arabic authorities above enumerated which is not at present accessible in a European translation), and then add such few remarks as may appear necessary for the further elucidation of the outlines of the subject.

Al-Ya'qúbí says:—

“And in the days of Shápúr the son of Ardashír appeared Mání the Zindíq, the son of Ḥammád, who invited Shápúr to Dualism Al-Ya'qúbí's account of Manes. and cast censure upon his religion (i.e., Zoroastrianism). And Shápúr inclined to him. And Mání said that the Controller of the Universe was twofold, and that there were two Eternal Principles, Light and Darkness, two Creators, the Creator of Good and the Creator of Evil. The Dark­ness and the Light, each one of them, connotes in itself five ideas, Colour, Taste, Smell, Touch, and Sound, whereby these two do hear, see, and know; and what is good and beneficial is from the Light, while what is hurtful and calamitous is from the Darkness.

“Now these two [principles] were [at first] unmixed, then they became mixed; and the proof of this is that there was [at first] no phenomenon, then afterwards phenomena were produced. And the Darkness anticipated the Light in this admixture, for they were [at first] in mutual contact like the shadow and the sun; and the proof of this is the impossibility of the production of anything save from something else. And the Darkness anticipated the Light in admix­ture, because, since the admixture of the Darkness with the Light was injurious to the latter, it is impossible that the Light should have made the first beginning [therein]; for the Light is by its nature the Good. And the proof that these two, Good and Evil, were eternal, is that if one substance be posited, two opposite actions will not proceed from it. Thus, for example, Fire [which is], hot and burning, cannot refrigerate, while that which refrigerates cannot heat; and that wherefrom good results cannot produce evil, while from that which produces evil good cannot result. And the proof that these two principles are living and active is that good results from the action of this, and evil from the action of that.

“So Shápúr accepted this doctrine from him, and urged his subjects to do the same. And this thing was grievous unto them, and the wise men from amongst the people of his kingdom united in dissuading him from this, but he did not do [what they demanded]. And Mání composed books wherein he affirmed the Two Principles; and of his writings was the book which he entitled Kanzyu'l Iḥyá (‘the Treasure of Vivification,’)* wherein he describes what of salvation wrought by the Light and of corruption wrought by the Darkness exists in the soul, and refers reprehensible actions to the Darkness; and a book which he named Sháburqán, wherein he describes the delivered soul and that which is mingled with the devils and with defects, and makes out heaven to be a flat surface, and asserts that the world is on a sloping moun­tain on which the high heaven revolves; and a book which he named Kitábu'l-Hudá wa't-Tadbír (‘the Book of Guidance and Administration’), and the ‘Twelve Gospels,’ whereof he named each after one of the letters of the alphabet, and described Prayer, and what must be done for the deliverance of the soul; and the Sifru'l-Asrár (‘Book of Secrets’),* wherein he finds fault with the miracles of the prophets; and the Sifru'l-Jabábira (‘Book of the Giants’); besides which he has many other books and epistles.

“So Shápúr continued in this doctrine for some ten years. Then the Múbadh (Fire-priest) came to him and said, ‘This man hath corrupted thy religion; confront me with him, that I may dispute with him.’ So he confronted them, and the Múbadh bested him in argument, and Shápúr returned from Dualism to the Magian religion, and resolved to put Mání to death, but he fled away and came to the lands of India, where he abode until Shápúr died.

“Then Shápúr was succeeded by his son Hurmuz, a valiant man; and he it was who built the city of Rám-Hurmuz, but his days were not prolonged. He reigned one year.

“Then reigned Bahrám the son of Hurmuz, who concerned him­self [only] with his minions and amusements. And Mání's disciples wrote to him, saying, ‘There hath succeeded to the throne a King young in years, greatly preoccupied [with his amusements].’ So he returned to the land of Persia, and his doings became noised abroad, and his place [of abode] became known. Then Bahrám summoned him and questioned him concerning his doctrine, and he related to him his circumstances. Then [Bahrám] confronted him with the Múbadh, who disputed with him, and said, ‘Let molten lead be poured on my belly and on thine, and whichever of us shall be unhurt thereby, he will be in the right.’* But [Mání] replied, ‘This is a deed of the Darkness.’ So Bahrám ordered him to be imprisoned, and said to him, ‘When morning comes I will send for thee and will slay thee in such wise as none hath been slain before thee.’

“So all that night Mání was being flayed, until his spirit departed [from his body]. And when it was morning, Bahrám sent for him, and they found him [already] dead. So he ordered his head to be cut off, and his body to be stuffed with straw; and he persecuted his followers and slew of them a great multitude. And Bahrám the son of Hurmuzd reigned three years.”

The account of Mání given in the Fihrist is much fuller, but as it is accessible to all who read German in Flügel's translation, only a few important points will here be mentioned. His father's name is given as Futtaq (the arabicised form of a Persian name, probably Pátaka, represented by Western writers as <text in Greek script omitted>, Patecius, Phatecius, and Patricius), and he was a native of Hamadán, but migrated thence to Babylonia (Bádaráyá and Bákusáyá) and joined himself to the Mughtasila, a sect closely akin to the Mandæans, from whom Mání pro­bably derived his hatred both of the Jewish religion and also of idolatry. His mother's name is variously given as Már Maryam, Utákhím and Mays, and it is at least possible that she was of the race of the Ashghánís, or Parthian royal family, which, if true, would afford another ground for the mistrust entertained towards him by the Sásánian kings. He was born, according to his own statement in the book called Sháburqán, cited by al-Bírúní, in A.D. 215 or 216, and was deformed by a limp in one leg. Before his birth the Angel Tawm made known to his mother his high mission in dreams, but he only began to receive revelations at the age of twelve (or thirteen, A.D. 227-8, according to al-Bírúní), and not till he reached the age of twenty-four was he commissioned to make known his doctrine. His public announcement of his claims is said to have been solemnly made before King Shápúr on the day of his coronation, March 20, A.D. 242, and it was probably through the King's brother Pírúz, whom he had converted to his doctrines, that he succeeded in obtaining admission on so great an occasion of state. His long journeyings in India and the East probably followed his loss of the King's favour. That his ultimate return to Persia and barbarous execution took place during the short reign of Bahrám I (A.D. 273-6), is asserted by al-Bírúní, al-Ya'qúbí, and Ṭabarí.