Chapter X

, p. 146 _supra_.

Footnote 1049:

Yet the Fundamental Epistle speaks of the twelve “members” of God, which seem to convey the same idea See _Aug. c. Ep. Fund._ c. 13.

Footnote 1050:

Thus En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 388, 389; Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 87. But here the Christian tradition gives more details than the Mahommedan. Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VII., p. 10, Beeson, and Bar Khôni (Pognon, p. 185), are in accord that the God of Light produced from himself a new Power called the Μήτηρ τῆς Ζωῆς or Mother of Life, that this Mother of Life projected the First Man, and that the First Man produced the five elements called also his “sons,” to wit, wind, light, water, fire and air, with which he clothed himself as with armour. See Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 16, n. 4, for the harmonizing of the texts [N.B. the omission of πῦρ from his quotation from the _Acta_ is doubtless a clerical error]. The identification of the Mother of Life with the “Spirit of the Right [Hand]” is accepted by Bousset, _Hauptprobleme_, pp. 177, 178, and may be accounted for by the crude figure by which the Egyptians explained the coming-forth of the universe from a single male power. See Budge, _Hieratic Papyri in the Brit. Mus._ p. 17.

Footnote 1051:

These were also the “sons” of Darkness or Satan. See Bar Khôni (Pognon, p. 186). The reason that led the God of Light to send a champion into the lists was, according to Bar Khôni (Pognon, p. 185), that the five worlds of his creation were made for peace and tranquillity and could therefore not help him directly in the matter. Cf. St Augustine, _de Natura Boni_, c. XLII. But Manes doubtless found it necessary to work into his system the figure of the First Man which we have already seen prominent in the Ophite system. Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 16, says few conceptions were more widely spread throughout the East. It is fully examined by Bousset, _Hauptprobleme_, in his IVth chapter, “Der Urmensch.” The First Man is, in the Chinese treatise lately found at Tun-huang in circumstances to be presently mentioned, identified with the Persian Ormuzd and the five elements are there declared to be his sons. See Chavannes and Pelliot, _Un Traité Manichéen retrouvé en Chine_, pt 1, _Journal Asiatique_, série X., t. XVIII. (1911), pp. 512, 513. The 12 elements which helped in his formation seem to be mentioned by no other author than En Nadîm. St Augustine, however, _Contra Epistulam Fundamenti_, c. 13, speaks of the “12 members of light.” The Tun-huang treatise also mentions “the 12 great kings of victorious form” whom it seems to liken to the 12 hours of the day. As the _Pistis Sophia_ does the same with the “12 Aeons” who are apparently the signs of the Zodiac, it is possible that we here have a sort of super-celestial Zodiac belonging to the Paradise of Light, of which that in our sky is a copy. It should be remembered that in the Asiatic cosmogonies the fixed stars belong to the realm of good as the representatives of order, while the planets or “wanderers” are generally evil.

Footnote 1052:

En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 389; Flügel, _op. cit._ pp. 87, 88. According to the Christian tradition, the Powers of Darkness devoured only the soul of the First Man which was left below when his body, as will presently be seen, returned to the upper world. See Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VII., p. 10, Beeson.

Footnote 1053:

Both the Christian and the Mahommedan traditions agree as to this result of the fight, which is paralleled not only by the more or leas successful attempt of Jaldabaoth and his powers to _eat_ the light of Pistis Sophia, but also by a similar case in orthodox Zoroastrianism. For all these see Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 18, n. 4. Bar Khôni (Pognon, p. 186), goes further and describes the surrender of the First Man as a tactical effort on his part, “as a man who having an enemy puts poison in a cake and gives it to him.” Alexander of Lycopolis (_adv. Manich._ c. III.), on the other hand declares that God could not avenge himself upon matter (as he calls Darkness) as he wished, because he had no evil at hand to help him, “since evil does not exist in the house and abode of God”; that he therefore sent the soul into matter which will eventually permeate it and be the death of it; but that in the meantime the soul is changed for the worse and

## participates in the evil of matter, “as in a dirty vessel the contents

suffer change.” These, however, are more likely to be the ideas of the Christian accusers than the defences of the Manichaean teachers.

Footnote 1054:

En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 389, 390; Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 87. As Kessler points out, En Nadîm gives two accounts doubtless taken from different Manichaean sources. In one, he says simply that the King of the Paradise of Light followed with other gods and delivered the First Man, the actual victor over Darkness being called “the Friend” of the Lights (like Mithras). He then goes on to say that Joy (_i.e._ the Mother of Life) and the Spirit of Life went to the frontier, looked into the abyss of hell and saw the First Man and his powers were held enlaced by Satan, “the Presumptuous Oppressor and the Life of Darkness”; then she called him in a loud and clear voice, and he became a god, after which he returned and “cut the roots of the Dark Powers.” For Bar Khôni’s amplification of this story see p. 302, n. 1, and p. 324 _infra_. The whole of this, together with the cutting of the roots, is strongly reminiscent of the _Pistis Sophia_.

Footnote 1055:

En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 391, 392; Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 98. The _Acta_ (Hegemonius, _op. cit._ c. VIII., p. 11, Beeson) say that the “Living Spirit” before mentioned “created the Cosmos, descended clothed with three other powers, drew forth the rulers (οἱ ἄρχοντες) and crucified them in the firmament which is their body the Sphere.” “Then he created the lights (φωστῆρες) which are the remnants of the soul, caused the firmament to encompass them, and again created the earth [not the Cosmos] with its eight aspects.” The Latin version after “earth” adds “they (_sic!_) are eight.” which if it refers to the aspects would agree with En Nadîm. Alexander of Lycopolis (_adv. Manich._ c. III.), who had been a follower of Manes and was a Christian bishop some 25 years after Manes’ death, says that “God sent forth another power which we call the Demiurge or creator of all things; that this Demiurge in creating the Cosmos separated from matter as much power as was unstained, and from it made the Sun and Moon; and that the slightly stained matter became the stars and the expanse of heaven.” “The matter from which the Sun and Moon were taken,” he goes on to say, “was cast out of the Cosmos and resembles night” [Qy the Outer Darkness?], while the rest of the “elements” consists of light and matter unequally mingled. Bar Khôni (Pognon, _op. cit._ p. 188), as will presently be seen, says that the Living Spirit with the Mother of Life and two other powers called the Appellant and Respondent [evidently the “three other powers” of the _Acta_] descended to earth, caused the Rulers or Princes to be killed and flayed, and that out of their skins the Mother of Life made 11 heavens, while their bodies were cast on to the earth of darkness and made 8 earths. The Living Spirit then made the Sun, the Moon, and “thousands of Lights” (_i.e._ Stars) out of the light he took from the Rulers. That this last story is an elaboration of the earlier ones seems likely, and the flaying of the Rulers seems to be reminiscent of the Babylonian legend of Bel and Tiamat, an echo of which is also to be found in the later Avestic literature. See West, _Pahlavi Texts_ (S.B.E.), pt iii. p. 243. Cf. Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 27, n. 2.

Footnote 1056:

En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 392; Flügel, _op. cit._ pp. 89-90. This would agree perfectly with the system of the _Pistis Sophia_, where it is said that the “receivers of the Sun and Moon” give the

## particles of the light as it is won from matter to Melchizedek, the

purifier, who purifies it before taking it into the Treasure-house (pp. 36, 37, Copt.). The idea that the Sun’s rays had a purifying effect shows shrewd observation of nature before his bactericidal power was discovered by science. So does the association of the Moon with water, which doubtless came from the phenomenon of the tides. Is the Column of Glory the Milky Way?

Footnote 1057:

The Ecpyrosis or final conflagration is always present in orthodox Mazdeism, where it inspires its Apocalypses, and is in effect the necessary conclusion to the drama which begins with the assault on the world of light by Ahriman. For references, see Söderblom, _op. cit._ chap. IV. From the Persians it probably passed to the Stoics and thus reached the Western world slightly in advance of Christianity. “The day when the Great Dragon shall be judged” is continually on the lips of the authors of the _Pistis Sophia_ and the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, and the conception may therefore have reached Manes from two sources at once. The angels maintaining the world as mentioned in the text are of course the Splenditenens and Omophorus about to be described.

Footnote 1058:

Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VIII. p. 12, Beeson. St Augustine (_contra Faustum_, Bk XX. c. 10) mentions the Wheel briefly and rather obscurely. It seems to have fallen out of the account of Bar Khôni. But see the Tun-huang treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} partie, pp. 515, n. 2, 516, 517, n. 3). There can be little doubt that it is to be referred to the Zodiac. The Aeons of the Light seem to be the five worlds who here play the part of the Parastatae in the _Pistis Sophia_.

Footnote 1059:

Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VIII. pp. 11, 12, Beeson, mentions Omophorus, but not Splenditenens. Splenditenens is, however, well known to St Augustine, who describes him (_contra Faustum_, Bk XV. c. 7) as _Splenditenentem magnum, sex vultus et ora ferentem, micantemque lumine_, “Great Splenditenens, bearing six faces and mouths, and glittering with light.” So later (_op. cit._ Bk XX. c. 9) he says, _Splenditenentem, reliquias eorumdem membrorum Dei vestri in manu habentem, et cetera omnia capta, oppressa, inquinata plangentem, et Atlantem maximum subter humeris suis cum eo ferentem, ne totum ille fatigatus abjiciat_. “Splenditenens, who has in his hand the remains of these members of your God [_i.e._ the five elements or ‘sons’ of the First Man] and who mourns the capture and oppression and defilement of all the rest; and huge Atlas, who bears everything with him on his shoulders, lest he should be wearied and cast it away.” Bar Khôni (Pognon, pp. 188, 189) describes them both, and calls Splenditenens “the Ornament of Splendour,” while he makes the pair two of the five sons of the Living Spirit, as more clearly appears in the Tunhuang treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ p. 549, and notes 2 and 5). Where Manes found the figure of Splenditenens is not apparent, but the world-bearing angel is an old conception in Western Asia, as M. Cumont has shown in his before-quoted _Cosmogonie Manichéenne_, App. II. He appears prominently on the Mithraic monuments and was no doubt the original of the Greek Atlas.

Footnote 1060:

Alexander of Lycopolis, _op. cit._ c. III., says plainly that the Sun and Moon were formed out of that part of the light (here called δύναμις “power”), which, although it had been captured by the powers of matter, had not been contaminated, while that which had suffered some slight and moderate stain became the stars and sky. The _Acta_ (Hegemonius, _op. cit._ c. VIII. p. 11, Beeson), as we have seen, says that the Living Spirit created the lights (φωστῆρες, luminaria), which are the remnants of the soul (_i.e._ the armour of the First Man) and caused the firmament to surround them. The author here evidently refers to the Sun and Moon only.

Footnote 1061:

The whole of this story, which is the reverse of edifying, is studied by M. Cumont, with the fullest references to the authorities, in his _Cosmogonie Manichéenne_ before quoted, to which it forms Appendix I, under the heading “La Séduction des Archontes.” To this I must refer the reader, only remarking that, while I fully agree that the goddess in question is probably derived from the Mother of the Gods who under the name (_inter alia_) of Atargatis was worshipped throughout Asia Minor, I do not see that she had any connection with the “Virgin of Light” of the _Pistis Sophia_. This Virgin of Light did, indeed, pass into Manichaeism, but she had there a very different name and attributes from the Mother of the Gods. See p. 323, n. 4 _infra_.

Footnote 1062:

En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 393; Flügel, _op. cit._ pp. 90, 91.

Footnote 1063:

Kessler, _op. et pag. cit._ n. 1, says it has dropped out of the text, which seems likely.

Footnote 1064:

Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XII. pp. 19, 20, Beeson. The story is given _verbatim_ later, p. 306 _infra_.

Footnote 1065:

The Mandaeans or Disciples of St John described on p. 305 seem a likely source, as they have many traditions about the protoplasts, some of which clearly go back to before the Christian Era. None of those mentioned by Brandt, _Die Mandäische Religion_, Leipzig, 1889, pp. 34-39, however, seem to be exactly similar to the story in the text.

Footnote 1066:

This Mother of Life is one of the most prominent, though not one of the most active figures in the Manichaean pantheon. Her identification with the Spirit of the Right Hand or first Power created by the Supreme God of Light has been mentioned above (note 1, p. 293 _supra_). She doubtless has her immediate origin in the great mother goddess worshipped throughout Western Asia, whose most familiar name is Cybele, but whom we have seen (Chap. II _supra_) identified with Isis, Demeter, and all the goddesses of the Hellenistic pantheon. See as to this, Bousset, _Hauptprobleme_, pp. 58 _sqq._, although he, too, falls into the error of identifying with her the Virgin of Light of the _Pistis Sophia_. That the name “Mother of Life” at least passed to all these goddesses is certain; but it also found its way into Egyptian Christianity; for in the Coptic spell or amulet known as the _Prayer of the Virgin in Bartos_ (_i.e._ Parthia), studied by Mr W. E. Crum (_P.S.B.A._ vol. XIX. 1897, p. 216), the Virgin Mary is represented as saying “I am Mariham (Μαριάμ), I am Maria, I am the Mother of the Life of the whole World!”, and the popularity of the “Prayer” is shown by its frequent appearance in Ethiopic and Arabic versions (_op. cit._ p. 211). So, too, in the evidently Christian _Trattato Gnostico_ of F. Rossi (_Memorie della Reale Accademia di Torino_, ser. II. t. xliii. p. 16) the magician says “I entreat thee, O God, by the great revered Virgin (παρθένος) in whom the Father was concealed from the beginning before He had created anything.” Bar Khôni, again (Pognon, pp. 209-211), speaks of the Kukeans, who seem to have been a semi-Christian sect, and who taught that the coming of Jesus to earth had for its object the redemption of His bride, the Mother of Life, who was detained here below, like the Helena of Simon Magus. Mother of Life is mentioned in all the Mahommedan and Christian writers who have treated of Manichaeism (for the references, see Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} partie, p. 511, n. 1), in the Pahlavi MS. discovered by the Germans at Turfan (F. W. K. Muller, _Handschriften-Reste in Estrangelo-Schrift_, pp. 47, 55), and in the Chinese treatise from Tun-huang (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ p. 511 _et al._). In this last, she is called Chan-mou, which is translated “the Excellent Mother,” and En Nadîm in one passage (Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 399; Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 100) calls her Nahnaha, which Flügel would translate “The Aversion of the Evil Ones.” It should be noticed, however, that her part in the cosmogony is small, and that she acts upon the world, like all these supercelestial powers, only through her descendants or “sons.” These are treated of later (see p. 323 and n. 1, p. 302 _infra_). Titus of Bostra as quoted by Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 210, speaks of her as δύναμις τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ οὐκέτι φῶς αἰσθητὸν ἀλλ’ ὡς ἂν φαίη προβολὴ τοῦ θεοῦ. “[The] Power of the Good One, no longer a perceptible light, but as if one should say, an emanation of God.” Some years ago, we could hardly have looked for her prototype or first appearance in the history of religions in any other direction than Babylonia, where the worship of Ishtar, her Babylonian counterpart, goes back as far as we can trace Babylonian religion. Now, however, it is plain that other races than the Babylonians may have been concerned in the spread of the worship of the Great Mother throughout Western Asia. In the Zoroastrian faith, she seems to appear as Spenta Armaiti, the one certainly female power among the seven Amshaspands, who in the Pahlavi texts is set over the earth, as Vohu Mano is made protector of the beasts, Asha Vahishta of the fire, and Khshathra Vairya is set over metals. But besides this, she is identified in the Gâthâs with the Wisdom of God (for references see pp. 136-137 of M. Carnoy’s article in the _Muséon_ mentioned below), an identification which Plutarch (_de Is. et Os._ c. XLVII.) admits by translating her name as σοφία, and like the Sophia of the Gnostics is given as a spouse to her creator Ahura Mazda, to whom she bears the First Man Gayômort (Darmesteter, _Le Zend-Avesta_, t. I. pp. 128-129). Yet we now know that this figure may have come into the Zoroastrian pantheon neither from Semitic sources nor, as Darmesteter thought, from Plato. M. A. Carnoy in a study called _Armaiti-Ârmatay_ (_Muséon_, n.s. vol. XIII. (1912), pp. 127-146) shows the identity of the Persian Amshaspand with the Vedic goddess Aramati. We have already seen that the Vedic gods Varuna and Mitra were worshipped by Hittites in Asia Minor before the XIIth century B.C., and Prof. Garstang believes that the Earth-Mother was the great goddess of the Hittites, and was the one worshipped in Roman times at Hierapolis or Mabug as the _Dea Syria_ or Atargatis, a name that he equates with Derceto, the mother of Semiramis in classic legend, and declares to be compounded of Ishtar or Astarte and the Aramaic “Athar or Athe.” See Strong and Garstang, _The Syrian Goddess_, pp. 1-8, and notes 24, 25, and 30, on pp. 52, 53 and 30 _op. cit._ Zoroaster and Manes may therefore have taken their mother goddess from an Aryan rather than from a Semitic original.

Footnote 1067:

This Living Spirit is the most active agent of the Light in the Manichaean system, and seems to have held his place unaltered through all the changes of Manichaean teaching. Alexander of Lycopolis (_contra Manich._ c. III.) speaks of him as the Δημιουργός or Architect of the Universe. The earliest part of the _Acta_ (Hegemonius, c. VII. p. 10, Beeson) says that he was put forth from the Father (or Supreme God of Light) in consequence of the prayers of the First Man after his defeat, that he delivered this last, crucified or bound the Archons in the firmament (as Jeû is said to have done in the _Pistis Sophia_), made the Sun and Moon and appointed their courses, and further made the eight earths. St Augustine, _contra Faustum_, Bk XX. c. 1, makes the Manichaean Faustus call him the “Third Majesty whom we acknowledge to have his seat and his lodging-place in the whole circle of the atmosphere. From whose powers and spiritual inpouring also, the earth conceived and brought forth the suffering Jesus who is the life and salvation of men and is hanging on every tree.” St Augustine further speaks (_op. cit._ Bk XX. c. 9) of “your mighty (_potentem_ for _viventem_) Spirit, who constructs the world from the captive bodies of the race of darkness or rather from the members of your God held in subjection and bondage.” St Augustine (see _contra Faustum_, Bk XV. c. 6) also knows that the Living Spirit has, like the First Man, five sons, to whom we shall return later. The Mahommedan writers have much less to say on the subject. En Nadîm (Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 390; Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 88) says abruptly that “Joy [_i.e._ the Mother of Life] and the Spirit of Life went to the frontier, looked into the abyss of hell and saw there the First Man and his angels,” whereupon the Spirit of Life called the First Man with a voice of thunder and the latter “became a god.” This story is so without connection with the context that Kessler is probably right in attributing it to another source from that from which the _Fihrist_ has drawn up to this point. The source in question was probably a late one; for Bar Khôni (_op. cit._ pp. 186-188) supplies many more details which will be given in the text. Bar Khôni also amplifies the story in the _Fihrist_ into a description of how the Living Spirit, on seeing the First Man in the Darkness, spoke “a word which took the appearance of a pointed sword” (cf. Revelation i. 16), and how this word caused to appear the image of the First Man. A dialogue then ensues between apparently the sword and the image, which appear to be here identified with the Appellant and Respondent of later Manichaeism, and the pair are drawn up out of hell. See Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 24, and note 5. Al Bîrûnî, _Chronology_, p. 190, also knows of the Spirit of Life and says that Manes “preached” of him. In the Turfan texts there is occasional mention of the “Spirit” together with the Father and the Son (Müller, _Handschriften-Reste_, pp. 26, 28), and also of the “commands” of the Holy Spirit to the Hearers, which are plainly allusions to the Living Spirit or Ζῶν Πνεῦμα of the Christian Fathers. In the Tun-huang treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ pp. 510, 556) he is repeatedly mentioned, and although nothing is said of his demiurgic or world-creating powers, the part which he and the Mother of Life play in the rescue of the First Man after his defeat is recognized, and he is spoken of as forming the third person of a Trinity of which the two other members are the Father or highest God of Light and the “Son of the Light.” Finally (_op. cit._ p. 557), he is said to be “a white dove,” whereby his likeness to the Holy Spirit of the Christian Trinity already noted by Faustus is emphasized (see Augustine, _ubi cit. supra_ and Bk XX. c. 6).

Footnote 1068:

This conception of Jesus as a warrior has already been seen in the _Pistis Sophia_, see p. 156 _supra_. So we read of “Jesus the victorious” in the Tun-huang treatise, p. 566, n. 3.

Footnote 1069:

En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 393 _sqq._; Flügel, _op. cit._ pp. 90 _sqq._ Theodore bar Khôni (Pognon, _op. cit._ pp. 189 _sqq._), gives a much more elaborate account of the creation of man and the other animals, for which and for its explanation the reader must be referred to the elaborate analysis of M. Cumont (_Cosmog. Manich._ pp. 34-49, and App. II., “La Séduction des Archontes”). It should be noted, however, that some part of this story was known to St Augustine. See especially _contra Faustum_, Bk VI. c. 8.

Footnote 1070:

So Rochat, _op. cit._ pp. 157, 158.

Footnote 1071:

Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 72, 80; Brandt, _Mandäische Religion_, p. 178.

Footnote 1072:

Rochat, _op. cit._ pp. 156-178, has carefully examined the resemblances between the system of Manes and that of the Mandaites and declares that it is at present impossible to say which of them has borrowed from the other.

Footnote 1073:

Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XII., pp. 19, 20, Beeson.

Footnote 1074:

_Op. cit._ c. VIII., p. 12, Beeson.

Footnote 1075:

Chavannes et Pelliot (_op. cit._ p. 517, n. 3) make this the work of the Living Spirit, but they are clearly wrong. The text of the _Acta_ referred to in the last note leaves no doubt that it is that of the “Son.”

Footnote 1076:

Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XI., p. 18, Beeson.

Footnote 1077:

This is the tradition evidently known to the author of the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος when he makes Jesus say “When I spoke with Enoch out of the Tree of Knowledge in the Paradise of Adam.” (See Chap. X, p. 173 _supra_.)

Footnote 1078:

Al Bîrûnî, _Chronology_, p. 190.

Footnote 1079:

Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. IX., p. 14, Beeson. This idea of the macrocosm and microcosm according to which the body of man is a _replica_ of the universe is found in nearly all later mysticism—also in the Cabala and in the later Zoroastrian treatises. In the Tun-huang treatise it forms the chief theme of the homiletic part of the work.

Footnote 1080:

_Op. cit._ c. VIII., pp. 12, 13, Beeson. The Latin version has _vir_ “man” for _aer_ “air” in its description of the Column of Glory. Probably a clerical error.

Footnote 1081:

_Op. cit._ c. X., pp. 15, 16, Beeson. The word used is κέλεφος; but the Latin texts all read “elephant.”

Footnote 1082:

Ἐρῶ ... πῶς μεταγγίζεται ἡ ψυχὴ εἰς πέντε σώματα, _op. et cap. cit._ p. 15, Beeson.

Footnote 1083:

The soul of the rich man is in the same chapter said to pass into the body of a beggar and thereafter εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον “to everlasting punishment.” Is it from this source that the Calvinists took their doctrine of eternal damnation? The reprobation of the rich as such and without regard to the use they might make of their wealth perhaps accounts for the levelling and republican politics of the mediaeval sectaries.

Footnote 1084:

The Bowl of water reminds one of the cup of soberness and reflection administered to just souls by the little Sabaoth the Good in the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος. See Chap. X, p. 187 _supra_. The garment was probably the “heavenly nature” with which the soul had to be clothed before it could ascend to the upper spheres of light (cf. the _Pistis Sophia_). That the crown was designed as a protection against the spirits of evil, there are many indications in the last-mentioned document.

Footnote 1085:

Kessler would here read “gods” for “goddess.”

Footnote 1086:

That is to say, the particular world of light, whether Gentleness, Knowledge, Intelligence, Discretion, or Discernment, from which the soul descended. As the “armour” of the First Man, from which the souls of men are formed, was made with the aid of these five worlds, it is reasonable to suppose that one or other predominates in the soul of everyone. Hence probably the degree in the Manichaean hierarchy to which any hearer might attain was thought to be decided for him before his birth, and governed his destination after death. Thus it is said in the _Pistis Sophia_: “Those who have received exalted mysteries shall be in exalted places, and those who have received humble mysteries in humble places in the light of my kingdom.” Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} partie, p. 533, n. 1 and St Augustine as there quoted.

Footnote 1087:

The words given in the text are almost _verbatim_ from En Nadîm. See Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 398-399; Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 100.

Footnote 1088:

One of the 21 Nasks of the Sassanian Avesta.

Footnote 1089:

Söderblom, _op. cit._ p. 83.

Footnote 1090:

_Op. cit._ pp. 89 _sqq._

Footnote 1091:

See the Orphic belief about the uninitiated being plunged in mud, Vol. I. chap. IV. p. 131 _supra_.

Footnote 1092:

Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 399-400; Flügel, pp. 100-101.

Footnote 1093:

This is, I think, the only construction to be put on the words of the _Acta_: τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς ἐστι τὰ ὀνόματα ταῦτα, νοῦς, ἔννοια, φρόνησις, ἐνθύμησις, λογισμός. Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. X., p. 15, Beeson. For the Mahommedan tradition, see En Nadîm in Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 95. The whole question of the organization of the Manichaean Church is elaborately discussed by Flügel in n. 225 on this passage, _op. cit._ pp. 293-299.

Footnote 1094:

Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 398; Flügel, _op. cit._ pp. 94, 95.

Footnote 1095:

This is perhaps the first instance in antiquity of the Gospel of Work. That these virtues of the believer are made five in number, so as to accord with the five worlds of light, needs no demonstration.

Footnote 1096:

See passages from Kessler and Flügel quoted in n. 1, p. 313 _supra_.

Footnote 1097:

Rainerio Saccone, a Manichaean Perfect in Languedoc, who afterwards turned Inquisitor, said that he had often heard the Elect lamenting that they had not taken the opportunity of committing more sins before receiving the “Baptism of the Spirit” which was thought to wash them away. See H. C. Lea, _History of the Inquisition_, vol. I., p. 94.

Footnote 1098:

Flügel, _op. cit._ pp. 95-97. See, however, n. 4, p. 349 _infra_.

Footnote 1099:

Josephus, _Antiquities_, Bk XX. cc. 2-4, breaks off his history at the critical point. The Book of Esther is, perhaps, sufficient proof of the capacity of the Oriental Jews for provoking periodical _pogroms_ at least as freely as their co-religionists in modern Russia. Johnson (Oriental Religions), _Persia_, 1885, p. 410, quotes, apparently from Firdûsi, that the “old Persian nobles” were driven by Ardeshîr’s reforms into Seistan, where they were the ancestors of the present Afghan clans. As some of these clans call themselves the Beni Israel, it is possible that the Jews rather than the nobles were expelled on this occasion, as happened before under Cyrus.

Footnote 1100:

Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XII. pp. 20-21, Beeson; Ephraem Syrus in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 302. For Mahommedan confirmation, see Schahrastâni in _op. cit._ p. 339.

Footnote 1101:

Al Bîrûnî, _Chronology_, p. 190.

Footnote 1102:

See Le Coq’s _Short Account_ in _J.R.A.S._ 1909, pp. 299-322. Another and more popularly written one by the same author appeared in the _Conférences au Musée Guimet_, Paris, 1910 (Bibl. de Vulgarisation, t. XXXV.).

Footnote 1103:

The Marcionites, another much hated sect, also used a secret script.

Footnote 1104:

St Augustine, _contra Faustum_, Bk V. c. 1.

Footnote 1105:

Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. V., pp. 5, 6.

Footnote 1106:

Augustine, _contra Faust._ Bk VII. c. 1.

Footnote 1107:

_Op. cit._ Bk XXIII. c. 2; _ibid._ Bk XXXII. c. 7.

Footnote 1108:

_Op. cit._ Bk XXVI. cc. 6, 8; _ibid._ Bk XXIX. c. 1.

Footnote 1109:

_Op. cit._ Bk XX. c. 2.

Footnote 1110:

Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 15, points out that the Manichaeans had already figured to themselves their King of the Paradise of Light as existing in the three Persons of Father, Mother, and Son in the shape of the Light, the Mother of Life and the First Man. This Trinity corresponds in every particular with that worshipped in Asia Minor under the names of Zeus (or Hadad), Cybele, and Atys, at Eleusis as Dionysos, Demeter, and Iacchos, in Greek Egypt as Osiris, Isis, and Horus, and in Persia, according to M. Cumont, as Ormuzd, Spenta Armaiti, and Gayômort. Cf. Bousset, _Hauptprobleme_, pp. 333-337. That its origin can be traced, as the last-named author seems to think, to the Babylonian Triad, Ea, Damkina, and Marduk, is more doubtful. The Manichaeans really acknowledged, as they were never tired of affirming, only two gods, Light and Darkness, and considered all the lesser powers of Light, including man’s soul, as formed from God’s “substance.” When, therefore, they spoke of trinities, tetrads, and so on, it was in all probability for the purpose of producing that show of outward conformity with other religions which was one of the most marked features of their system.

Footnote 1111:

This is a reversal of the position in the _Pistis Sophia_, where the female power or Virgin of Light is placed in the Sun and the male Iao in the Moon.

Footnote 1112:

Compare the statement of Herodotus (Bk I. c. 131) that Zeus (or Ormuzd) in the opinion of the ancient Persians was the name of “the whole circle of air.”

Footnote 1113:

Augustine, _contra Faust._ Bk XX. c. 2.

Footnote 1114:

This is to be found in Harduin’s _Acta Consilii_. The quotation in the text is taken from Matter, _Hist. de Gnost._ t. III. p. 89, and Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p. 187.

Footnote 1115:

Pognon, _op. cit._ p. 5; Assemani, _Bibl. Orient._ t. III. p. 198 _cit._

Footnote 1116:

Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 106. It seems probable that the Kashgar in question is the country in Chinese Turkestan still called by that name. M. Pelliot, however, will have none of this and insists that Bar Khôni’s Kashgar was Al Wasit near Bagdad. For the controversy, see _J.R.A.S._ 1913, pp. 434 _sqq._, 696 _sqq._ and 1914, pp. 421-427.

Footnote 1117:

Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 1, n. 2, and authorities there quoted.

Footnote 1118:

Ἀναθεματίζω πάντας οὓς ὁ Μάνης ἀνέπλασε θεοὺς, ἤτοι τὸν τετραπρόσωπον Πατέρα τοῦ Μεγέθους καὶ τὸν λεγόμενον Πρῶτον Ἄνθρωπον ... καὶ τὸν ὀνομαζόμενον Παρθένον τοῦ φωτὸς κ.τ.λ. “I anathematize all those whom Manes lyingly makes gods, to wit, the Father of Greatness in four Persons, and the so-called First Man ... and the famous Virgin of Light,” etc., Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 403. His quotation of the Formula is from the works of the Apostolic Fathers edited by Cotelerius in 1724 (Amsterdam). It seems to have been administered to converts from Manichaeism to Catholicism down to a very late date. See Beausobre, _Hist. du Manichéisme_, t. I. pp. 66-67.

Footnote 1119:

Pognon, _op. cit._ p. 184. Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ pp. 9, 10, would substitute Reason for Knowledge and Will for Feeling. The Greek names as given in the _Acta_ (Hegemonius, _op. cit._ c. X. p. 15, Beeson) are νοῦς, ἔννοια, φρόνησις, ἐνθύμησις, λογισμός which the Latin translator makes into _mens_, _sensus_, _prudentia_, _intellectus_, _cogitatio_. The first of these may pass as correct, since Nous appears as the first emanation of the Highest God in all the systems which preceded that of Manes and from which he is likely to have copied. Of the rest, it can only be said that they are the translations by scribes of Syriac or Mandaite words which were ill calculated to express metaphysical abstractions, and that their copyists were seldom well acquainted with the etymology of any of the three languages. Hence they generally made use of what they thought were the corresponding expressions in the works of great heresiologists like Irenaeus and Hippolytus without troubling themselves much as to their appropriateness. In the passage from the _Acta_ above quoted, the five qualities named are said to be the “names of the soul,” which is explained by what is said later (_op. cit._ c. X. p. 17, Beeson) that “the air (ἀήρ) is the soul of men and beasts and birds and fish and creeping things.” En Nadîm (Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 387; Flügel, p. 86), as has been said on p. 291 _supra_, gives the “members of the air” as Gentleness, Knowledge, Intelligence, Discretion and Discernment, which are the same as those which he has just attributed to the King of the Paradise of Light. St Augustine (_c. Faust._ Bk XX. c. 15) says in like manner that the Manichaeans thought their souls “members of God,” which seems to refer to the same belief. Bar Khôni (Pognon, _op. cit._ p. 186), as has been said, not only assigns the five dwellings of Intelligence, Knowledge, Thought, Reflexion and Feeling to the Living Spirit, but makes him draw his five sons from them, and M. Cumont (_Cosmog. Manich._ p. 10, n. 3) quotes the _Acta Thomae_ as saying that the Third Legate or Srôsh is “the Legate of the five members, Nous, Ennoia, Phronesis, Enthymesis and Logismos.” From all which we may gather that the Supreme God of Light and his “Second” and “Third” creations were each alike thought to have the same five dwellings or hypostases consisting of abstract qualities, although the exact significance of the names given to them for the present escapes us.

Footnote 1120:

This is the usual Oriental and Semitic figure of speech which leads Arabs at the present day to nickname any European with a large beard “the Father of Hair,” and makes the Sphinx of Ghizeh the “Father of Terrors.” In the same way, the Mother of Life means doubtless the Very Great Life or Source of Life.

Footnote 1121:

Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 15.

Footnote 1122:

See the _Khuastuanift_, pp. 335, 342 _infra_, and the Tun-huang treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ p. 513, and n. 1). Cf. also Müller, _Handschriften-Reste_, p. 102.

Footnote 1123:

She cannot possibly be the Virgin of Light, as in the _Acta_ she is said to retire at the Ecpyrosis into the Moon-ship along with that personage. See Hegemonius, _op. cit._ c. XIII. p. 21, Beeson. The name “Virgin of Light” also appears in the Turfan texts as an epithet of Jesus, if the words are not wrongly translated. See Müller, _Handschriften-Reste_, pp. 75, 77. The name Nahnaha given her by En Nadîm has been referred to in n. 2, p. 300 _supra_.

Footnote 1124:

Probably Mithras, who is in the Vedas and elsewhere called “Mithra the Friend.” Mithras is invoked under his own name in the Turfan texts (Müller, _Handschriften-Reste_, p. 77), but the fragment is too mutilated to be able to deduce from it his place in the pantheon.

Footnote 1125:

This name, to be found nowhere but in Bar Khôni, cannot be explained. Pognon says it may be written the Great Laban, which gets us no nearer to its meaning.

Footnote 1126:

The image is probably his body or substance, which is of the substance of the Very Great Father. So Satan is in the Coptic _Trattato gnostico_ of Rossi quoted in n. 2, p. 300 _supra_ described as the ἀρχηπλάσμα, probably as being the very substance of darkness as the Very Great Father is of the Light.

Footnote 1127:

This is the conjecture of M. Cumont (_Cosmog. Manich._ pp. 24, 25). As he says in note 5 on the first-mentioned page, the passage as it stands is inconsistent. The Appellant and Respondent under the names of Kroshtag and Padwakhtag appear in the _Khuastuanift_ and also in the Tun-huang treatise (pp. 521 _sqq._) without the part they play in the world being immediately apparent. The former document, however (see p. 343 _infra_), speaks of them as being concerned in the purification of the Light. MM. Chavannes and Pelliot (_op. cit._ p. 521, n. 1) think it possible that they may represent the portions of the “armour” of the First Man which were not sullied by contact with matter, and compare them to the last two Amshaspands, Haurvetât and Ameretât. See also their _Traité Manicheen_, etc. 2^{me} ptie, in the _Journal Asiatique_, XI série, t. I. (1913), p. 101. One might liken them to the Cautes and Cautopates appearing in the Mithraic monuments, as to which see