"I before E, except after C" is a mnemonicrule of thumb for English spelling. If one is not sure whether a word is spelled with the digraph ei or ie, the rhyme suggests that the correct order is ie unless the preceding letter is c, in which case it is ei. For example:
ie in believe, fierce, collie, die, friend
ei after c in receive, ceiling, receipt, ceilidh
The rule is very well known; Edward Carney calls it "this supreme, and for many people solitary, spelling rule".
The rule is sometimes taught without regard for the particular sound represented by the spelling, and sometimes taught as applying only to particular pronunciations. Two common restrictions are:
excluding cases where the spelling represents the "long a" sound (the lexical sets of FACE /eɪ/ and perhaps SQUARE /ɛər/). This is commonly expressed by continuing the rhyme "or when sounding like A, as in neighbor or weigh"
including only cases where the spelling represents the "long e" sound (the lexical sets of FLEECE /iː/ and perhaps NEAR /ɪər/ and happY /i/).
However, whichever version of the rule is used, there are exceptions, such as caffeine, policies, seize, species and weird. Some words are exceptions under some versions of the rule but not others, such as leisure and rottweiler. Other words, such either,
may or may not be exceptions depending on both which version of the
rule is used and how an individual pronounces them. Some authorities
deprecate the rule as having too many exceptions to be worth learning.
History
History of the spellings
The Middle English language evolved from Old English after the Norman conquest, adding many loanwords from Norman French,
whose sounds and spellings changed and were changed by the older
English customs. In French loanwords, the digraph generally
represented the sound [eː], while represented [ɛː]; was later extended to signify [eː] in non-French words. In the Great Vowel Shift, sounds [eː] and [ɛː] were raised to [iː] and [eː] respectively. Later, the meet–meat merger saw the vowel in many [eː] words change to [iː], so that meat became a homonym of meet, while conceive now rhymed with believe. Early Modern English
spelling was not fixed; many words were spelled with and
interchangeably, in printed works of the seventeenth century
and private correspondence of educated people into the nineteenth
century.
History of the mnemonic
The mnemonic (in its short form) is found as early as 1866, as a footnote in Manual of English Spelling, edited by schools inspector James Stuart Laurie from the work of a Tavistock schoolmaster named Marshall. Michael Quinion surmises the rhyme was already established before this date. An 1834 manual states a similar rule in prose; others in 1855 and 1862 use different rhymes. Many textbooks from the 1870s on use the same rhyme as Laurie's book.
The restriction to the "long e" sound is explicitly made in the
1855 and 1862 books, and applied to the "I before E except after C"
rhyme in an 1871 manual. Mark Wainwright's FAQ posting on the alt.usage.English newsgroup characterises this restricted version as British. The restriction may be implicit, or may be explicitly included as an extra line such as "when the sound is e" placed before or after the main part of the rhyme.
A longer form excluding the "long a" sound is found in Rule 37 of Ebenezer Cobham Brewer's 1880 Rules for English Spelling, along with a list of the "chief exceptions":
The following rhymes contain the substance of the last three rules : —
i before e,
Except after c,
Or when sounded as "a",
As in neighbour and weigh.
"Dr Brewer" is credited as the author by subsequent writers quoting this form of the rhyme, which became common in American schools.
A Dictionary of Modern English Usage discusses "i before e except after c". Henry Watson Fowler's
original 1926 edition called the rule "very useful", restricting it to
words with the "long e" sound, stating further that "words in which
that sound is not invariable, as either, neither, inveigle, do not come under it", and calling seize "an important exception". The entry was retained in Ernest Gowers's 1965 revision. Robert Burchfield rewrote it for the 1996 edition, stating 'the rule can helpfully be extended "except when the word is pronounced with /eɪ/"', and giving a longer list of exceptions, including words excluded from Fowler's interpretation. Robert Allen's 2008 pocket edition states, "The traditional spelling rule ' i before e except after c ' should be extended to include the statement 'when the combination is pronounced -ee- '". Jeremy Butterfield's 2015 edition suggests both "when ... pronounced -ee-" and "except when ... pronounced -ay-" as extensions to the rhyme, as well as listing various classes of exception.
In 1932 Leonard B. Wheat examined the rules and word lists found in various American elementary school spelling books. He calculated that, of the 3,876 words listed, 128 had ei or ie in the spelling; of these, 83 conformed to I-before-E, 6 to except-after-C, and 12 to sounded-like-A. He found 14 words with i-e in separate syllables, and 2 with e-i in separate syllables. This left 11 "irregular" words: 3 with cie (ancient, conscience, efficiency) and 8 with ei (either, foreign, foreigner, height, leisure, neither, seize, their).
Wheat concluded, "If it were not for the fact that the jingle of the
rule makes it easy to remember (although not necessarily easy to apply),
the writer would recommend that the rule be reduced to 'I usually comes before e,' or that it be discarded entirely".
Modern views
Sandra
Wilde in 1990 claimed the sounded-like-E version of the rule was one of
only two sound–letter correspondence rules worth teaching in elementary
schools. The rule was covered by five of nine software programs for spelling education studied by Barbara Mullock in 2012.
Edward Carney's 1994 Survey of English Spelling describes the ["long-e" version of the] rule as "peculiar":
Its practical use is ... simply deciding between two correspondences for /iː/ that are a visual metathesis of each other. It is not a general graphotactic rule applicable to other phonemes. So, although seize and heinous (if you pronounce it with /iː/ rather than /eɪ/) are exceptions, heifer, leisure with /e/≡ or rein, vein with /eɪ/≡ are not exceptions; is not a usual spelling of /e/ or /eɪ/.
As to the usefulness of the rule, he says:
Such rules are warnings against common pitfalls for the unwary.
Nevertheless, selection among competing correspondences has never been,
and could never be, covered by such aids to memory.
The converse of the "except after c" part is Carney's
spelling-to-sound rule E.16: in the sequence , the
is pronounced /iː/.
In Carney's test wordlist, all eight words with conform to
this rule, which he thus describes as being a "marginal" rule with an
"efficiency" of 100%. Rarer loanwords not in the wordlist may not conform; e.g. the Gaelic word ceilidh is pronounced /keɪliː/.
Mark Wainwright's FAQ posting interprets the rule as applying
only to the FLEECE vowel, not the NEAR vowel; he regards it as useful if
"a little common sense" is used for the exceptions.
The FAQ includes a 1996 response to Wainwright by an American, listing
variations on the rule and their exceptions, contending that even the
restricted version has too many exceptions, and concluding "Instead of
trying to defend the 'rule' or 'guideline', "'i' before 'e' except after
'c'", why don't we all just agree that it is dumb and useless, and be
content just to laugh at it?"
Kory Stamper of Merriam-Webster has said the neighbor-and-weigh version is "chocked with tons of exceptions", listing several types. On Language Log in 2006, Mark Liberman suggested that the alternative "i before e, no matter what" was more reliable than the basic rule. On the same blog in 2009, Geoff Pullum
wrote, 'The rule is always taught, by anyone who knows what they are
doing, as "i before e except after c when the sound is 'ee'."'
Teaching English Spelling (Cambridge University Press, 2000) provides a system of sound–spelling correspondences aimed at correcting common spelling errors among native and ESL
students. The chapter "The sound 'e' (/iː/)" has sections on spellings
"ee", "ea", "-y" and "ie and ei", the last of which uses "I before E
except after C" and lists five "common exceptions" (caffeine, codeine, protein, seize, weird).
The 2009 edition of Support for Spelling, by the English Department for Education, suggests an "Extension activity" for Year Five (10-year-olds):
Children investigate the rule i before e except after c. Does this always apply? What sound does ie make in these words?
In the Appendix, after a list of nine "useful spelling guidelines", there is a note:
The i before e except after c rule is not worth teaching. It applies only to words in which the ie or ei stands for a clear /ee/ sound and unless this is known, words such as sufficient, veil and their look like exceptions. There are so few words where the ei spelling for the /ee/ sound follows the letter c that it is easier to learn the specific words: receive, conceive, deceive (+ the related words receipt, conceit, deceit), perceive and ceiling.
There were widespread media reports of this recommendation, which generated some controversy.
The Oxford Dictionaries website of Oxford University Press states "The rule only applies when the sound represented is ‘ee’, though. It doesn’t apply to words like science or efficient, in which the –ie- combination does follow the letter c but isn’t pronounced ‘ee’."
David Crystal discusses the rule in his 2012 history of English spelling. He first restricts it to the /iː/
vowel, then accounts for several classes of exception. He states that,
while the exceptions are fewer and rarer than the words that follow the
rule, there are too many to learn by heart; the factors are "too great
to reduce to a simple rule", but "a basic knowledge of grammar and word-history" can handle them.
Exceptions
The following sections list exceptions to the basic form; many are not exceptions to the augmented forms.
Some large groups of words have cie in the spelling. Few common words have the cei spelling handled by the rule: verbs ending -ceive and their derivatives (perceive, deceit, transceiver, receipts, etc.), and ceiling. The BBC trivia show QI claimed there were 923 words spelled cie, 21 times the number of words which conform to the rule's stated exception by being written with cei. These figures were generated by a QI fan from a Scrabble wordlist. The statistic was repeated by UberFacts.
With the "long e" vowel
The vowel represented by ie in words spelled cie is rarely the "long e" vowel of FLEECE (/iː/), so few words are exceptions to the version of the rule restricted to that sound. Among them are specie, species.
For those with happy-tensing accents, the final y in words ending -cy has the FLEECE vowel, and therefore so do inflected forms ending -cies or -cied (fancied, policies, etc.).
If the vowel of NEAR (/ɪər/) is considered as "long e", then words ending -cier may also be exceptions. Possible examples include: fancier, if pronounced with two rather than three syllables; or financier, if stressed on the final syllable or pronounced with a happy-tensing accent.
With other sounds
These are exceptions to the basic and "long a" versions of the rhyme, but not to the "long e" version.
Types include:
Adding suffix -er to root in -cy, giving a two-syllable ending -cier; For example, fancier (adjective "more fancy", or noun "one who fancies")
Words of Latin origin with a root ending in c(i) followed by a suffix or inflexion starting in (i)e; such as
fac or fic "do; make" (efficient, stupefacient, etc.)
Many words have ei not preceded by c. In the sections which follow, most derived forms are omitted; for example, as well as seize, there exist disseize and seizure. Words are grouped by the phonemes (sounds) corresponding to ei or ie in the spelling; each phoneme is represented phonetically as at Help:IPA/English and, where applicable, by the keyword in John C. Wells' lexical sets.
An asterisk* after a word indicates the pronunciation implied is one of several found. Some have an /iː/ variant more common in America than Britain (e.g. sheikh, leisure, either have /eɪ/, /ɛ/, /aɪ/ respectively).
With the "long e" vowel
Words where ei, not preceded by c, represents the vowel of FLEECE (/iː/),
are the only exceptions to the strictest British interpretation of the
"long e" version of the rhyme. Less strict interpretations admit as
exceptions those words where eir, not preceded by c, represents the vowel of NEAR (/ɪər/).
Some categories of exception:
Many proper names, often because they are adopted from other languages. Fowler says the rule "is useless with proper names";
Carney says "As one might expect of any rule, there are likely to be
even more exceptions in names, many of which are Scottish":
forenames and surnames Keith, Neil, Sheila, Stein, etc.
Chemical names ending in -ein or -eine (caffeine, casein, codeine, phthalein, protein, etc.). Here -ein(e) was originally pronounced as two syllables /iː.ɪn/
Scottish English words (deil, deid, weill,
etc.) Mark Wainwright writes "There are many exceptions in Scots, so
speakers with a large Scots vocabulary may as well give up on this
rule."
madeira, weir, weird. (This sound may also be spelled ier, as in pierce.)
With the "long a" vowel
There are many words where ei, not preceded by c, represents the vowel of FACE (/eɪ/). There are a few where eir, not preceded by c, represents the vowel of SQUARE (/ɛər/).
These groups of words are exceptions only to the basic form of the
rhyme; they are excluded from both of the common restricted forms.
Others: abseil, beige, capoeira,
cleidoic, deign, dreidel, feign, feint, geisha, glei, greige, greisen,
heinous*, inveigle*, nonpareil*, obeisance*, peignoir*, reign, rein,
seiche, seidel, seine, sheikh*, skein, surveillance, veil, vein. (While Carney says this sound is never spelled ie, the last vowel in lingerie* is often the FACE vowel.).
/ɛər/ SQUARE
heir, their. (This sound is never spelled ier)
With other sounds
These are exceptions to the basic and "long a" versions of the rhyme, but not to the "long e" version.
I Before E (Except After C): Old-School Ways To Remember Stuff was a miscellany released in the UK for the Christmas 2007 "stocking filler" market, which sold well.
"I Before E Except After C" is a song on Yazoo's 1982 album Upstairs at Eric's. The Jackson 5's 1970 hit "ABC" has the lyric "I before E except after C". "I before E except after C" was a 1963 episode of the TV series East Side/West Side.
I Before E is the name of both a short-story collection by Sam Kieth and a music album by Carissa's Wierd, in each case alluding to the unusual spelling of the creator's name. Until the 1930s, Pierce City, Missouri was named "Peirce City", after Andrew Peirce. A 1982 attempt to revert to the original spelling was rejected by the United States Census Bureau.
Comedian Brian Regan employs the rule in a joke on his debut CD Live in the track Stupid in School.
In Christian tradition, the love of money is condemned as a sin primarily based on texts such as Ecclesiastes 5:10 and 1 Timothy 6:10. The Christian condemnation relates to avarice and greed rather than money
itself. The Christian texts (scriptures) are full of parables and use
easy to understand subjects, such as money, to convey the actual
message, there are further parallels in Solon and Aristotle, and Massinissa—who ascribed love of money to Hannibal and the Carthaginians.. Avarice is one of the Seven deadly sins in the Christian classifications of vices (sins).
Judaism
Berachya Hanakdan lists "love of money" as a secular love, while Israel Salanter considers love of money for its own sake a non-universal inner force. A tale about Rabbi Avraham Yehoshua Heshel
of Apt (1748–1825), rabbi in Iasi, recounts that he, who normally
scorned money, had the habit of looking kindly on money before giving it
to the poor at Purim, since only in valuing the gift could the gift express love of God.
Berachot 54a teaches businessmen to "elevate their love of money to the
same status as their love of God, which means that they should thereby
love God enough to follow his commandment."
Christianity
Source text
The original Koine Greek reads, ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία (Rhiza gar pantōn tōn kakōn estin hē philargyria) — "for the root of all evils is the love of money."
The Greek word αργυρία(argyria) may, like its cognates in many European languages be translates as silver or money.
A popular current text, the King James Version shows 1 Timothy 6:10 to be:
For the love of money is the root of all of evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Another popular text, the New International Version has "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil...."
During the reformation, Martin Luther (1483–1546) translated the then Latin Bible into German, and 1 Timothy 6:10 "For avarice is a root of all evil;..."
Soon after Martin Luthers' translation of the Bible to German, William Tyndale (1494–1536) did a similar translation into English as "For covetousness is the root of all evil;..."
The grammarian Daniel B. Wallace
lists six alternative possible translations of the primary Greek text, 1
Timothy 6:10. There are two reasons for this: first, it is difficult to
tell whether the noun "root" is intended to be indefinite, definite, or qualitative. Second, the Greek word for "all" may mean "all without exclusion" or "all without distinction".
But by reading more verses either side of 1 Timothy 6:10 a greater
surety and confidence that the message is the coveting and striving of
greed for something on earth is the sin the Jews and Christians define,
where money could be exchanged with anything else on the earth eg power.
The opposite of greed is charity, each of the Seven deadly sins has a counterpart in the Seven virtues.
Cultural history
Augustine defines love of money as a subcategory of avarice. Luther referred to the love of money in strong accusations against the Catholic Church in his initial work of the Ninety-five Theses or Disputation on the Power of Indulgences.
He saw the selling of an indulgence by the church, ie paying money to
the church to gain a reduction of penalty of sins in purgatory (a belief
unique to the Catholic church) as being more commercial greed of the
church than it was doing actual good for the Christian person. Later in
some sermons he shone the spotlight on commercial money lenders which
happened to be Jewish and one can argue have anti-semitic undertones.
However, more to the point is thesis 43 of the Ninety Five thesis "A
Christian who gives to the poor or lends to those in need is doing
better in God’s eyes than one who buys ‘forgiveness’ (buys an
indulgence)",
as in a Jew who changed from being a money lender with greed to a money
lender with charity would be doing better in God's eyes than simply
purchasing a piece of paper that said they will spend less time in
purgatory from Luther's point of view.
Map showing the approximate extent of the centum (blue) and satem (red) areals. The origin of satemization according to von Bradke's hypothesis is shown in darker red (marked as the range of the Sintashta/Abashevo/Srubna archaeological cultures), but that hypothesis is not accepted by the majority of linguists.
Languages of the Indo-European family are classified as either centum languages or satem languages according to how the dorsal consonants (sounds of "K" and "G" type) of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) developed. An example of the different developments is provided by the words for "hundred" found in the early attestedIndo-European languages. In centum languages, they typically began with a /k/ sound (Latincentum was pronounced with initial /k/), but in satem languages, they often began with /s/ (the example satem comes from the Avestan language of Zoroastrian scripture).
The table below shows the traditional reconstruction of the PIE dorsal consonants, with three series, but according to some more recent theories
there may actually have been only two series or three series with
different pronunciations from those traditionally ascribed. In centum
languages, the palatovelars, which included the initial consonant of the
"hundred" root, merged with the plain velars. In satem languages, they
remained distinct, and the labiovelars merged with the plain velars.
The centum–satem division forms an isogloss in synchronic
descriptions of Indo-European languages. It is no longer thought that
the Proto-Indo-European language split first into centum and satem
branches from which all the centum and all the satem languages,
respectively, would have derived. Such a division is made particularly
unlikely by the discovery that while the satem group lies generally to
the east and the centum group to the west, the most eastward of the
known IE language branches, Tocharian, is centum.
Centum languages
The canonical centum languages of the Indo-European family are the "western" branches: Hellenic, Celtic, Italic and Germanic.
They merged Proto-Indo-European palatovelars and plain velars, yielding
plain velars only ("centumisation") but retained the labiovelars as a
distinct set.
The Anatolian branch probably falls outside the centum–satem dichotomy; for instance, Luwian indicates that all three dorsal consonant rows survived separately in Proto-Anatolian.
The centumisation observed in Hittite is therefore assumed to have occurred only after the breakup of Proto-Anatolian. However, Craig Melchertproposes that proto-Anatolian is indeed a centum language.
While Tocharian is generally regarded as a centum language,
it is a special case, as it has merged all three of the PIE dorsal
series (originally nine separate consonants) into a single phoneme, *k. According to some scholars, that complicates the classification of Tocharian within the centum–satem model. However, as Tocharian has replaced some Proto-Indo-European labiovelars with the labiovelar-like, non-original sequence *ku; it has been proposed that labiovelars remained distinct in Proto-Tocharian,
which places Tocharian in the centum group (assuming that
Proto-Tocharian lost palatovelars while labiovelars were still
phonemically distinct).
In the centum languages, PIE roots reconstructed with palatovelars developed into forms with plain velars. For example, in the PIE root*ḱm̥tóm, "hundred", the initial palatovelar *ḱ became a plain velar /k/, as in Latin centum (which was originally pronounced with /k/ in spite of various contemporary pronunciations with /s/, for example), Greek(he)katon, Welshcant, Tocharian Bkante. In the Germanic languages, the /k/ developed regularly by Grimm's law to become /h/, as in the English hund(red).
Centum languages also retained the distinction between the PIE labiovelar row (*kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ)
and the plain velars. Historically, it was unclear whether the
labiovelar row represented an innovation by a process of labialisation,
or whether it was inherited from the parent language (but lost in the
satem branches); current mainstream opinion favours the latter
possibility. Labiovelars as single phonemes (for example, /kʷ/) as opposed to biphonemes (for example, /kw/) are attested in Greek (the Linear Bq- series), Italic (Latin qu), Germanic (Gothichwairƕ and qairþraq) and Celtic (OghamceirtQ) (in the so-called P-Celtic languages /kʷ/ developed into /p/; a similar development sometimes took place in Greek). The boukólos rule, however, states that a labiovelar reduces to a plain velar when it occurs next to *u or *w.
The centum–satem division refers to the development of the dorsal
series at the time of the earliest separation of Proto-Indo-European
into the proto-languages
of its individual daughter branches. It does not apply to any later
analogous developments within any individual branch. For example, the
conditional palatalization of Latin/k/ to /t͡ʃ/ or /t͡s/ (often later /s/) in some Romance languages (which means that modern Frenchcent is pronounced with initial /s/) is satem-like, as is the merger of *kʷ with *k in the Gaelic languages; such later changes do not affect the classification of the languages as centum.
Satem languages
The satem languages belong to the "eastern" sub-families, especially Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic (but not Tocharian).
It lost the labial element of Proto-Indo-European labiovelars and
merged them with plain velars, but the palatovelars remained distinct
and typically came to be realised as sibilants. That set of developments, particularly the assibilation of palatovelars, is referred to as satemisation.
In the satem languages, the reflexes of the presumed PIE palatovelars are typically fricative or affricate consonants, articulated further forward in the mouth. For example, the PIE root*ḱm̥tóm, "hundred", the initial palatovelar normally became a sibilant [s] or [ʃ], as in Avestansatem, Persiansad, Sanskritśatam, сто / sto in all modern Slavic languages, Old Church Slavonicsъto, Latviansimts, Lithuanianšimtas. Another example is the Slavic prefix sъ(n)- ("with"), which appears in Latin, a centum language, as co(n)-; conjoin is cognate with Russian soyuz ("union"). An [s] is found for PIE *ḱ in such languages as Latvian, Avestan, Russian and Armenian, but Lithuanian and Sanskrit have [ʃ] (š in Lithuanian, ś in Sanskrit transcriptions). For more reflexes, see the phonetic correspondences section below; note also the effect of the ruki sound law.
"Incomplete satemisation" may also be evidenced by remnants of
labial elements from labiovelars in Balto-Slavic, including Lithuanian ungurys "eel" < *angʷi- and dygus "pointy" < *dʰeigʷ-. A few examples are also claimed in Indo-Iranian, such as Sanskrit guru "heavy" < *gʷer-, kulam "herd" < *kʷel-, but they may instead be secondary developments, as in the case of kuru "make" < *kʷer- in which it is clear that the ku- group arose in post-Rigvedic
language. It is also asserted that in Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic, in
some environments, resonant consonants (denoted by /R/) become /iR/
after plain velars but /uR/ after labiovelars.
Some linguists argue that the Albanian and Armenian branches are also to be classified as satem,
but some linguists argue that they show evidence of separate treatment
of all three dorsal consonant rows and so may not have merged the
labiovelars with the plain velars, unlike the canonical satem branches.
Assibilation of velars in certain phonetic environments is a
common phenomenon in language development (compare, for example, the
initial sounds in Frenchcent and Spanishcien,
which are fricatives even though they derive from Latin /k/).
Consequently, it is sometimes hard to establish firmly the languages
that were part of the original satem diffusion and the ones affected by
secondary assibilation later. While extensive documentation of Latin and
Old Swedish, for example, shows that the assibilation found in French
and Swedish were later developments, there are not enough records of Dacian and Thracian to settle conclusively when their satem-like features originated. Extensive lexical borrowing, such as Armenian from Iranian, may also add to the difficulty.
In Armenian, some assert that /kʷ/ is distinguishable from /k/ before front vowels. Martin Macak (2018) asserts that the merger of *kʷ and *k occurred "within the history of Proto-Armenian itself".
In Albanian, the three original dorsal rows have remained distinguishable when before historic front vowels.
Labiovelars are for the most part differentiated from all other
Indo-European velar series before front vowels (where they developed
into s and z ultimately), but they merge with the "pure" (back) velars elsewhere. The palatal velar series, consisting of Proto-Indo-European *ḱ and the merged *ģ and ģʰ, usually developed into th and dh, but were depalatalized to merge with the back velars when in contact with sonorants.
Because the original Proto-Indo-European tripartite distinction between
dorsals is preserved in such reflexes, Demiraj argues Albanian is
therefore to be considered neither centum nor satem, like Luwian, but at
the same time it has a "satem-like" realization of the palatal dorsals
in most cases. Thus PIE *ḱ, *kʷ and *k become th (Alb. thom "I say" < PIE *ḱeHsmi), s (Alb. si "how" < PIE. kʷiH1, cf. Latin quī), and q (/c/: pleq "elderly" < *plak-i < PIE *plH2-ko-), respectively.
History of concept
Schleicher's single guttural row
August Schleicher, an early Indo-Europeanist, in Part I, "Phonology", of his major work, the 1871 Compendium of Comparative Grammar of the Indogermanic Language, published a table of original momentane Laute, or "stops", which has only a single velar row, *k, *g, *gʰ, under the name of Gutturalen.
He identifies four palatals (*ḱ, *ǵ, *ḱʰ, *ǵʰ) but hypothesises that
they came from the gutturals along with the nasal *ń and the spirant *ç.
Brugmann's labialized and unlabialized language groups
Karl Brugmann, in his 1886 work Outline of Comparative Grammar of the Indogermanic Language (Grundriss...), promotes the palatals to the original language, recognising two rows of Explosivae, or "stops", the palatal (*ḱ, *ǵ, *ḱʰ, *ǵʰ) and the velar (*k, *g, *kʰ, *gʰ), each of which was simplified to three articulations even in the same work. In the same work, Brugmann notices among die velaren Verschlusslaute, "the velar stops", a major contrast between reflexes of the same words in different daughter languages. In some, the velar is marked with a u-Sprache, "u-articulation", which he terms a Labialisierung, "labialization", in accordance with the prevailing theory that the labiovelars were velars labialised by combination with a u at some later time and were not among the original consonants. He thus divides languages into die Sprachgruppe mit Labialisierung and die Sprachgruppe ohne Labialisierung,
"the language group with (or without) labialization", which basically
correspond to what would later be termed the centum and satem groups:
For words and groups of words,
which do not appear in any language with labialized velar-sound [the
"pure velars"], it must for the present be left undecided whether they
ever had the u-afterclap.
The doubt introduced in that passage suggests he already suspected the "afterclap" u was not that but was part of an original sound.
Von Bradke's centum and satem groups
In 1890, Peter von Bradke published Concerning Method and Conclusions of Aryan (Indogermanic) Studies, in which he identified the same division (Trennung) as did Brugmann, but he defined it in a different way. He said that the original Indo-Europeans had two kinds of gutturaler Laute, "guttural sounds" the gutturale oder velare, und die palatale Reihe,
"guttural or velar, and palatal rows", each of which were aspirated and
unaspirated. The velars were to be viewed as gutturals in an engerer Sinn, "narrow sense". They were a reiner K-Laut, "pure K-sound". Palatals were häufig mit nachfolgender Labialisierung, "frequently with subsequent labialization". The latter distinction led him to divide the palatale Reihe into a Gruppe als Spirant and a reiner K-Laut, typified by the words satem and centum respectively. Later in the book he speaks of an original centum-Gruppe, from which on the north of the Black and Caspian Seas the satem-Stämme, "satem tribes", dissimilated among the Nomadenvölker or Steppenvölker, distinguished by further palatalization of the palatal gutturals.
Brugmann's identification of labialized and centum
By the 1897 edition of Grundriss, Brugmann (and Delbrück)
had adopted Von Bradke's view: "The Proto-Indo-European palatals...
appear in Greek, Italic, Celtic and Germanic as a rule as K-sounds, as
opposed to in Aryan, Armenian, Albanian, Balto-Slavic, Phrygian and Thracian... for the most part sibilants."
There was no more mention of labialized and non-labialized
language groups after Brugmann changed his mind regarding the labialized
velars. The labio-velars now appeared under that name as one of the
five rows of Verschlusslaute (Explosivae) (plosives/stops), comprising die labialen V., die dentalen V., die palatalen V., die reinvelaren V. and die labiovelaren V. It was Brugmann who pointed out that labiovelars had merged into the velars in the satem group, accounting for the coincidence of the discarded non-labialized group with the satem group.
Discovery of Anatolian and Tocharian
When
von Bradke first published his definition of the centum and satem sound
changes, he viewed his classification as "the oldest perceivable
division" in Indo-European, which he elucidated as "a division between
eastern and western cultural provinces (Kulturkreise)".
The proposed split was undermined by the decipherment of Hittite and Tocharian in the early 20th century. Both languages show no satem-like assibilation in spite of being located in the satem area.
The proposed phylogenetic
division of Indo-European into satem and centum "sub-families" was
further weakened by the identification of other Indo-European isoglosses
running across the centum–satem boundary, some of which seemed of equal
or greater importance in the development of daughter languages. Consequently, since the early 20th century at least, the centum–satem isogloss has been considered an early areal phenomenon rather than a true phylogenetic division of daughter languages.
Alternative interpretations
Different realisations
The
actual pronunciation of the velar series in PIE is not certain. One
current idea is that the "palatovelars" were in fact simple velars *[k], *[ɡ], *[ɡʰ], and the "plain velars" were pronounced farther back, perhaps as uvular consonants: *[q], *[ɢ], *[ɢʰ]. If labiovelars were just labialized forms of the "plain velars", they would have been pronounced *[qʷ], *[ɢʷ], *[ɢʷʰ] but the pronunciation of the labiovelars as *[kʷ], *[gʷ], *[gʷʰ]
would still be possible in uvular theory, if the satem languages first
shifted the "palatovelars" then later merged the "plain velars" and
"labiovelars".
The uvular theory is supported by the following evidence.
The "palatovelar" series was the most common, and the "plain
velar" was by far the least common and never occurred in any affixes. In
known languages with multiple velar series, the normal velar series is
usually the most common, which would imply that what have been
interpreted as "palatovelars" were more probably simply velars but the
labiovelars were most likely still just *[kʷ], *[gʷ], *[gʷʰ] due to them being the second most common.
There is no evidence of any palatalisation in the early history of
the velars in the centum branches, but see above for the case of
Anatolian. If the "palatovelars" were in fact palatalised in PIE, there
would have had to be a single, very early, uniform depalatalisation in
all (and only) the centum branches. Depalatalisation is
cross-linguistically far less common than is palatalisation and so is
unlikely to have occurred separately in each centum branch. In any case
it would almost certainly have left evidence of prior palatalization in
some of the branches. (As noted above, it is not thought that the centum
branches had a separate common ancestor in which the depalatalization
could have occurred just once and then have been inherited.)
Most instances of the rare to non-existent /a/ phoneme without the
/h₂/ laryngeal appear before or after *k, which could be the result of
that phoneme being a-coloring, particularly likely if it was uvular /q/,
similar to the /h₂/ laryngeal which may have been uvular /χ/. Uvulars
coloring and lowering vowels is common cross-linguistically as in
languages such as Quechuan or Greenlandic where /i/ and /u/ lower to /e/
and /o/ when next to uvulars meaning the lowering of /e/ and /o/ to [a]
or [ɑ] would be possible.
On the above interpretation, the split between the centum and satem
groups would not have been a straightforward loss of an articulatory
feature (palatalization or labialization). Instead, the uvulars *q, *ɢ, *ɢʰ
(the "plain velars" of the traditional reconstruction) would have been
fronted to velars across all branches. In the satem languages, it caused
a chain shift, and the existing velars (traditionally "palatovelars") were shifted further forward to avoid a merger, becoming palatal: /k/ > /c/; /q/ > /k/.
In the centum languages, no chain shift occurred, and the uvulars
merged into the velars. The delabialisation in the satem languages would
have occurred later, in a separate stage.
Only two velar series
The
presence of three dorsal rows in the proto-language has been the
mainstream hypothesis since at least the mid-20th century. There remain,
however, several alternative proposals with just two rows in the parent
language, which describe either "satemisation" or "centumisation", as
the emergence of a new phonematic category rather than the disappearance
of an inherited one.
Antoine Meillet (1937) proposed that the original rows were the labiovelars and palatovelars, with the plain velars being allophones of the palatovelars in some cases, such as depalatalisation before a resonant.
The etymologies establishing the presence of velars in the parent
language are explained as artefacts of either borrowing between daughter
languages or of false etymologies.
Other scholars who assume two dorsal rows in Proto-Indo-European include Kuryłowicz (1935) and Lehmann (1952), as well as Frederik Kortlandt and others.
The argument is that PIE had only two series, a simple velar and a
labiovelar. The satem languages palatalized the plain velar series in
most positions, but the plain velars remained in some environments:
typically reconstructed as before or after /u/, after /s/, and before
/r/ or /a/ and also before /m/ and /n/ in some Baltic dialects. The
original allophonic distinction was disturbed when the labiovelars were
merged with the plain velars. That produced a new phonemic distinction
between palatal and plain velars, with an unpredictable alternation
between palatal and plain in related forms of some roots (those from
original plain velars) but not others (those from original labiovelars).
Subsequent analogical processes generalised either the plain or palatal
consonant in all forms of a particular root. The roots in which the
plain consonant was generalized are those traditionally reconstructed as
having "plain velars" in the parent language in contrast to
"palatovelars".
Oswald Szemerényi
(1990) considers the palatovelars as an innovation, proposing that the
"preconsonantal palatals probably owe their origin, at least in part, to
a lost palatal vowel" and a velar was palatalised by a following vowel
subsequently lost.
The palatal row would therefore postdate the original velar and
labiovelar rows, but Szemerényi is not clear whether that would have
happened before or after the breakup of the parent-language (in a table
showing the system of stops "shortly before the break-up", he includes
palatovelars with a question mark after them).
Woodhouse (1998; 2005) introduced a "bitectal" notation, labelling the two rows of dorsals as k1, g1, g1h and k2, g2, g2h.
The first row represents "prevelars", which developed into either
palatovelars or plain velars in the satem group but just into plain
velars into the centum group; the second row represents "backvelars",
which developed into either labiovelars or plain velars in the centum
group but just plain velars in the satem group.
The following are arguments that have been listed in support of a two-series hypothesis:
The plain velar series is statistically rarer than the other
two, is almost entirely absent from affixes and appears most often in
certain phonological environments (described in the next point).
The reconstructed velars and palatovelars occur mostly in
complementary distribution (velars before *a, *r and after *s, *u;
palatovelars before *e, *i, *j, liquid/nasal/*w+*e/*i and before o in
o-grade forms by generalization from e-grade).
It is unusual in general for palatovelars to move backwards rather
than the reverse (but that problem might simply be addressed by assuming
three series with different realizations from the traditional ones, as
described above).
In most languages in which the "palatovelars" produced fricatives,
other palatalisation also occurred, implying that it was part of a
general trend;
The centum languages are not contiguous, and there is no evidence of
differences between dialects in the implementation of centumization
(but there are differences in the process of satemisation: there can be
pairs of satemized and non-satemized velars within the same language,
there is evidence of a former labiovelar series in some satem languages
and different branches have different numbers and timings of
satemization stages). This makes a "centumisation" process less likely,
implying that the position found in the centum languages was the
original one.
Alternations between plain velars and palatals are common in a
number of roots across different satem languages, but the same root
appears with a palatal in some languages but a plain velar in others
(most commonly Baltic or Slavic, occasionally Armenian but rarely or
never the Indo-Iranian languages). That is consistent with the
analogical generalisation of one or another consonant in an
originally-alternating paradigm but difficult to explain otherwise.
The claim that in late PIE times, the satem languages (unlike the
centum languages) were in close contact with each other is confirmed by
independent evidence: the geographical closeness of current satem
languages and certain other shared innovations (the ruki sound law and early palatalization of velars before front vowels).
Arguments in support of three series:
Many instances of plain velars occur in roots that have no
evidence of any of the putative environments that trigger plain velars
and no obvious mechanism for the plain velar to have come in contact
with any such environment; as a result, the comparative method requires three series to be reconstructed.
Albanian and Armenian are said to show evidence of different reflexes for the three different series. Evidence from the Anatolian language Luwian attests a three-way velar distinction *ḱ > z (probably [ts]); *k > k; *kʷ > ku (probably [kʷ]). There is no evidence of any connection between Luwian and any satem language (labiovelars are still preserved, the ruki sound law
is absent) and the Anatolian branch split off very early from PIE. The
three-way distinction must be reconstructed for the parent language.
(That is a strong argument in favor of the traditional three-way system;
in response, proponents of the two-way system have attacked the
underlying evidence by claiming that it "hinges upon especially
difficult or vague or otherwise dubious etymologies" (such as Sihler
1995).) Melchert originally claimed that the change *ḱ > z
was unconditional and subsequently revised the assertion to a
conditional change occurring only before front vowels, /j/, or /w/;
however, that does not fundamentally alter the situation, as plain-velar
*k
apparently remains as such in the same context. Melchert also asserts,
contrary to Sihler, the etymological distinction between *ḱ and *k in the relevant positions is well-established.
According to Ringe (2006), there are root constraints that prevent
the occurrence of a "palatovelar" and labiovelar or two "plain velars",
in the same root, but they do not apply to roots containing, for
example, a palatovelar and a plain velar.
The centum change could have occurred independently in multiple
centum subgroups (at the very least, Tocharian, Anatolian and Western
IE), as it was a phonologically natural change, given the possible
interpretation of the "palatovelar" series as plain-velar and the "plain
velar" series as back-velar or uvular (see above).
Given the minimal functional load of the plain-velar/palatovelar
distinction, if there was never any palatalisation in the IE dialects
leading to the centum languages, there is no reason to expect any
palatal residues. Furthermore, it is phonologically entirely natural for
a former plain-velar vs. back-velar/uvular distinction to have left no
distinctive residues on adjacent segments.
Manichaeism taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness.
Through an ongoing process that takes place in human history, light is
gradually removed from the world of matter and returned to the world of
light, whence it came. Its beliefs were based on local Mesopotamian
religious movements and Gnosticism. It revered Mani as the final prophet after Zoroaster, Gautama Buddha, and Jesus.
Manichaeism was quickly successful and spread far through the Aramaic-speaking regions.
It thrived between the third and seventh centuries, and at its height
was one of the most widespread religions in the world. Manichaean
churches and scriptures existed as far east as China and as far west as the Roman Empire. It was briefly the main rival to Christianity before the spread of Islam in the competition to replace classical paganism. Manichaeism survived longer in the east than in the west, and it appears to have finally faded away after the 14th century in south China, contemporary to the decline of the Church of the East in Ming China. While most of Manichaeism's original writings have been lost, numerous translations and fragmentary texts have survived.
An adherent of Manichaeism was called a Manichaean or Manichean, or Manichee, especially in older sources.
History
Life of Mani
Manichaean priests, writing at their desks. Eighth or ninth century manuscript from Gaochang, Tarim Basin, China.
Mani composed seven works, six of which were written in the Syriac language, a late variety of Aramaic. The seventh, the Shabuhragan, was written by Mani in Middle Persian and presented by him to the Sasanian emperor, Shapur I.
Although there is no proof Shapur I was a Manichaean, he tolerated the
spread of Manichaeism and refrained from persecuting it within his
empire's boundaries.
According to one tradition, it was Mani himself who invented the unique version of the Syriac script known as the Manichaean alphabet, which was used in all of the Manichaean works written within the Sasanian Empire, whether they were in Syriac or Middle Persian, and also for most of the works written within the Uyghur Khaganate. The primary language of Babylon (and the administrative and cultural language of the Sassanid Empire) at that time was Eastern Middle Aramaic, which included three main dialects: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (the language of the Babylonian Talmud), Mandaean (the language of Mandaeism), and Syriac, which was the language of Mani, as well as of the Syriac Christians.
While Manichaeism was spreading, existing religions such as Zoroastrianism were still popular and Christianity
was gaining social and political influence. Although having fewer
adherents, Manichaeism won the support of many high-ranking political
figures. With the assistance of the Sasanian Empire, Mani began
missionary expeditions. After failing to win the favour of the next
generation of Persian royalty, and incurring the disapproval of the
Zoroastrian clergy, Mani is reported to have died in prison awaiting
execution by the Persian Emperor Bahram I. The date of his death is estimated at 276–277.
Mani believed that the teachings of Gautama Buddha, Zoroaster, and Jesus were incomplete, and that his revelations were for the entire world, calling his teachings the "Religion of Light".
Manichaean writings indicate that Mani received revelations when he was
12 and again when he was 24, and over this time period he grew
dissatisfied with the Elcesaite sect he was born into. Mani began preaching at an early age and was possibly influenced by contemporary Babylonian-Aramaic movements such as Mandaeism, and Aramaic translations of Jewish apocalyptic writings similar to those found at Qumran (such as the book of Enoch literature), and by the Syriac dualist-gnostic writer Bardaisan
(who lived a generation before Mani). With the discovery of the
Mani-Codex, it also became clear that he was raised in a
Jewish-Christian baptism sect, the Elcesaites, and was influenced by
their writings, as well. According to biographies preserved by Ibn al-Nadim and the Persian polymathal-Biruni, he received a revelation as a youth from a spirit, whom he would later call his Twin (Aramaic: תאומא tɑʔwmɑ, from which is also derived the name of the Thomas the Apostle, the "twin"), his Syzygos (Koinē Greek: σύζυγος "spouse, partner", in the Cologne Mani-Codex),
his Double, his Protective Angel or Divine Self. It taught him truths
that he developed into a religion. His divine Twin or true Self brought
Mani to self-realization. He claimed to be the Paraclete of the Truth, as promised by Jesus in the New Testament.
Manichaean Painting of the Buddha Jesus
depicts Jesus Christ as a Manichaean prophet. The figure can be
identified as a representation of Jesus Christ by the small gold cross
that sits on the red lotus pedestal in His left hand.
Manichaeism's views on Jesus are described by historians:
Jesus in Manichaeism possessed
three separate identities: (1) Jesus the Luminous, (2) Jesus the Messiah
and (3) Jesus patibilis (the suffering Jesus). (1) As Jesus the
Luminous ... his primary role was as supreme revealer and guide and it
was he who woke Adam from his slumber and revealed to him the divine
origins of his soul and its painful captivity by the body and mixture
with matter. Jesus the Messiah was a historical being who was the
prophet of the Jews and the forerunner of Mani. However, the Manichaeans
believed he was wholly divine. He never experienced human birth as
notions of physical conception and birth filled the Manichaeans with
horror and the Christian doctrine of virgin birth was regarded as
equally obscene. Since he was the light of the world, where was this
light, they asked, when he was in the womb of the Virgin? (2) Jesus the
Messiah was truly born at his baptism as it was on that occasion that
the Father openly acknowledged his sonship. The suffering, death and
resurrection of this Jesus were in appearance only as they had no
salvific value but were an exemplum of the suffering and eventual
deliverance of the human soul and a prefiguration of Mani's own
martyrdom. (3) The pain suffered by the imprisoned Light-Particles in
the whole of the visible universe, on the other hand, was real and
immanent. This was symbolized by the mystic placing of the Cross whereby the wounds of the passion of our souls are set forth. On this mystical Cross of Light was suspended the Suffering Jesus (Jesus patibilis) who was the life and salvation of Man.
This mystica cruxificio was present in every tree, herb, fruit,
vegetable and even stones and the soil. This constant and universal
suffering of the captive soul is exquisitely expressed in one of the
Coptic Manichaean psalms.
Augustine also noted that Mani declared himself to be an "apostle of Jesus Christ".
Manichaean tradition is also noted to have claimed that Mani was the
reincarnation of different religious figures such as Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, and Jesus.
Academics also note that since much of what is known about
Manichaeism comes from later 10th- and 11th-century Muslim historians
like Al-Biruni and especially ibn al-Nadim (and his Fihrist), "Islamic authors ascribed to Mani the claim to be the Seal of the Prophets."
In reality, for Mani the expression "seal of prophecy" refers to his
disciples, who testify for the veracity of his message, as a seal does.
10th century Manichaean Electae in Gaochang (Khocho), China.
Another source of Mani's scriptures was original Aramaic writings relating to the Book of Enoch literature (see the Book of Enoch and the Second Book of Enoch), as well as an otherwise unknown section of the Book of Enoch called The Book of Giants.
This book was quoted directly, and expanded on by Mani, becoming one of
the original six Syriac writings of the Manichaean Church. Besides
brief references by non-Manichaean authors through the centuries, no
original sources of The Book of Giants (which is actually part six of the Book of Enoch) were available until the 20th century.
Scattered fragments of both the original Aramaic "Book of Giants" (which were analyzed and published by Józef Milik in 1976) and of the Manichaean version of the same name (analyzed and published by Walter Bruno Henning in 1943) were found with the discovery in the twentieth century of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Judaean Desert and the Manichaean writings of the Uyghur Manichaean kingdom in Turpan. Henning wrote in his analysis of them:
It is noteworthy that Mani, who was
brought up and spent most of his life in a province of the Persian
empire, and whose mother belonged to a famous Parthian family, did not
make any use of the Iranian mythological tradition. There can no longer
be any doubt that the Iranian names of Sām, Narīmān,
etc., that appear in the Persian and Sogdian versions of the Book of
the Giants, did not figure in the original edition, written by Mani in
the Syriac language.
By comparing the cosmology in the Book of Enoch literature and the
Book of Giants, alongside the description of the Manichaean myth,
scholars have observed that the Manichaean cosmology can be described as
being based, in part, on the description of the cosmology developed in
detail in the Book of Enoch literature.
This literature describes the being that the prophets saw in their
ascent to heaven, as a king who sits on a throne at the highest of the
heavens. In the Manichaean description, this being, the "Great King of
Honor", becomes a deity who guards the entrance to the world of light,
placed at the seventh of ten heavens.
In the Aramaic Book of Enoch, in the Qumran writings in general, and in
the original Syriac section of Manichaean scriptures quoted by Theodore bar Konai, he is called "malka raba de-ikara" (the Great King of Honor).
Mani was also influenced by writings of the Assyrian gnostic Bardaisan
(154–222), who, like Mani, wrote in Syriac, and presented a dualistic
interpretation of the world in terms of light and darkness, in
combination with elements from Christianity.
Akshobhya in the Abhirati with the Cross of Light, a symbol of Manichaeism.
Noting Mani's travels to the Kushan Empire (several religious paintings in Bamyan are attributed to him) at the beginning of his proselytizing career, Richard Foltz postulates Buddhist influences in Manichaeism:
Buddhist influences were
significant in the formation of Mani's religious thought. The
transmigration of souls became a Manichaean belief, and the
quadripartite structure of the Manichaean community, divided between
male and female monks (the "elect") and lay followers (the "hearers")
who supported them, appears to be based on that of the Buddhist sangha.
The Kushan monk Lokakṣema began translating Pure Land Buddhist
texts into Chinese in the century prior to Mani arriving there, and the
Chinese texts of Manichaeism are full of uniquely Buddhist terms taken
directly from these Chinese Pure Land scriptures, including the term "pure land" (淨土 Jìngtǔ) itself. However, the central object of veneration in Pure Land Buddhism, Amitābha, the Buddha of Infinite Light, does not appear in Chinese Manichaeism, and seems to have been replaced by another deity.
Spread
The spread of Manichaeism (300–500). World History Atlas, Dorling Kindersly.
Manichaeism spread with extraordinary speed through both the East and
West. It reached Rome through the apostle Psattiq by 280, who was also
in Egypt in 244 and 251. It was flourishing in the Faiyum in 290.
Manichaean monasteries existed in Rome in 312 during the time of Pope Miltiades.
In 291, persecution arose in the Sasanian Empire with the murder of the apostle Sisin by Emperor Bahram II, and the slaughter of many Manichaeans. In 296, Roman Emperor Diocletian
decreed against the Manichaeans: "We order that their organizers and
leaders be subject to the final penalties and condemned to the fire with
their abominable scriptures." This resulted in martyrdom for many in
Egypt and North Africa. By 354, Hilary of Poitiers wrote that Manichaeism was a significant force in Roman Gaul. In 381, Christians requested Theodosius I
to strip Manichaeans of their civil rights. Starting in 382, the
emperor issued a series of edicts to suppress Manichaeism and punish its
followers.
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) converted to Christianity from Manichaeism in the year 387. This was shortly after the Roman emperor Theodosius I
had issued a decree of death for all Manichaean monks in 382 and
shortly before he declared Christianity to be the only legitimate
religion for the Roman Empire in 391. Due to the heavy persecution, the
religion almost disappeared from western Europe in the fifth century and
from the eastern portion of the empire in the sixth century. According to his Confessions,
after nine or ten years of adhering to the Manichaean faith as a member
of the group of "hearers", Augustine became a Christian and a potent
adversary of Manichaeism (which he expressed in writing against his
Manichaean opponent Faustus of Mileve), seeing their beliefs that knowledge was the key to salvation as too passive and not able to effect any change in one's life.
I still thought that it is not we
who sin but some other nature that sins within us. It flattered my pride
to think that I incurred no guilt and, when I did wrong, not to confess
it ... I preferred to excuse myself and blame this unknown thing which
was in me but was not part of me. The truth, of course, was that it was
all my own self, and my own impiety had divided me against myself. My
sin was all the more incurable because I did not think myself a sinner.
Some modern scholars have suggested that Manichaean ways of thinking
influenced the development of some of Augustine's ideas, such as the
nature of good and evil, the idea of hell, the separation of groups into
elect, hearers, and sinners, and the hostility to the flesh and sexual
activity, and his dualistic theology.
These influences of Manichaeism in Augustine's Christian thinking may
well have been part of the conflict between Augustine and Pelagius, a British monk whose theology, being less influenced by the Latin Church,
was non-dualistic, and one that saw the created order, and mankind in
particular, as having a Divine core, rather than a 'darkness' at its
core.
A 13th-century manuscript from Augustine's book VII of Confessions criticizing Manichaeism.
How Manichaeism might have influenced Christianity continues to be debated. Manichaeism could have influenced the Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars.
However, these groups left few records, and the link between them and
Manichaeans is tenuous. Regardless of its accuracy, the charge of
Manichaeism was leveled at them by contemporary orthodox opponents, who
often tried to make contemporary heresies conform to those combatted by
the church fathers. Whether the dualism of the Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars and their belief that the world was created by a Satanic demiurge
were due to influence from Manichaeism is impossible to determine. The
Cathars apparently adopted the Manichaean principles of church
organization. Priscillian and his followers may also have been influenced by Manichaeism. The Manichaeans preserved many apocryphal Christian works, such as the Acts of Thomas, that would otherwise have been lost.
Manichaeism maintained a sporadic and intermittent existence in the west (Mesopotamia, Africa, Spain, France, North Italy, the Balkans) for a thousand years, and flourished for a time in Persia and even further east in Northern India, Western China, and Tibet.
While it had long been thought that Manichaeism arrived in China only
at the end of the seventh century, a recent archaeological discovery
demonstrated that it was already known there in the second half of the
6th century.
Some Sogdians in Central Asia believed in the religion. Uyghur khagan Boku Tekin (759–780) converted to the religion in 763 after a three-day discussion with its preachers,
the Babylonian headquarters sent high rank clerics to Uyghur, and
Manichaeism remained the state religion for about a century before the
collapse of the Uyghur Khaganate in 840. In the east it spread along trade routes as far as Chang'an, the capital of Tang China. After the Tang Dynasty, some Manichaean groups participated in peasant movements. The religion was used by many rebel leaders to mobilise followers. In the Song and Yuan dynasties of China remnants of Manichaeism continued to leave a legacy contributing to sects such as the Red Turbans. During the Song Dynasty, the Manichaeans were derogatorily referred by the Chinese as chicai simo (meaning that they "abstain from meat and worship demons"). An account in Fozu Tongji,
an important historiography of Buddhism in China compiled by Buddhist
scholars during 1258–1269, says that the Manichaeans worshipped the
"white Buddha" and their leader wore a violet headgear, while the
followers wore white costumes. Many Manichaeans took part in rebellions
against the Song government and were eventually quelled. After that, all
governments were suppressive against Manichaeism and its followers and
the religion was banned by the Ming Dynasty in 1370.
Manichaeism spread to Tibet during the Tibetan Empire. There was likely a serious attempt to introduce the religion to the Tibetans as the text Criteria of the Authentic Scriptures (a text attributed to Tibetan Emperor Trisong Detsen)
makes a great effort to attack Manichaeism by stating that Mani was a
heretic who took ideas from all faiths and blended them together into a
deviating and inauthentic form.
Manichaeans in Iran tried to assimilate their religion along with Islam in the Muslim caliphates.
Relatively little is known about the religion during the first century
of Islamic rule. During the early caliphates, Manichaeism attracted many
followers. It had a significant appeal among the Muslim society,
especially among the elites. Due to the appeal of its teachings, many
Muslims adopted the ideas of its theology and some even became dualists.
An apologia for Manichaeism ascribed to ibn al-Muqaffa' defended its phantasmagorical cosmogony and attacked the fideism of Islam and other monotheistic religions. The Manichaeans had sufficient structure to have a head of their community.
Under the eighth-century Abbasid Caliphate, Arabic zindīq and the adjectival term zandaqa
could denote many different things, though it seems primarily (or at
least initially) to have signified a follower of Manichaeism however its
true meaning is not known. In the ninth century, it is reported that Caliph al-Ma'mun tolerated a community of Manichaeans.
During the early Abbasid period, the Manichaeans underwent persecution. The third Abbasid caliph, al-Mahdi,
persecuted the Manichaeans, establishing an inquisition against
dualists who if being found guilty of heresy refused to renounce their
beliefs, were executed. Their persecution was finally ended in 780s by Harun al-Rashid. During the reign of the Caliph al-Muqtadir, many Manichaeans fled from Mesopotamia to Khorasan from fear of persecution and the base of the religion was later shifted to Samarkand.
Manichaeism claimed to present the complete version of teachings that
were corrupted and misinterpreted by the followers of its predecessors
Adam, Zoroaster, Buddha and Jesus. Accordingly, as it spread, it adapted
new deities from other religions into forms it could use for its
scriptures. Its original Aramaic texts already contained stories of
Jesus. When they moved eastward and were translated into Iranian
languages, the names of the Manichaean deities (or angels) were often
transformed into the names of Zoroastrian yazatas. Thus Abbā dəRabbūṯā ("The Father of Greatness", the highest Manichaean deity of Light), in Middle Persian texts might either be translated literally as pīd ī wuzurgīh, or substituted with the name of the deity Zurwān. Similarly, the Manichaean primal figure Nāšā Qaḏmāyā "The Original Man" was rendered Ohrmazd Bay, after the Zoroastrian god Ohrmazd. This process continued in Manichaeism's meeting with Chinese Buddhism, where, for example, the original Aramaic קריאqaryā
(the "call" from the World of Light to those seeking rescue from the
World of Darkness), becomes identified in the Chinese scriptures with Guanyin (觀音 or Avalokiteśvara in Sanskrit, literally, "watching/perceiving sounds [of the world]", the bodhisattva of Compassion).
Persecution and extinction
Manichaeism was repressed by the Sasanian Empire. In 291, persecution arose in the Persian empire with the murder of the apostle Sisin by Bahram II, and the slaughter of many Manichaeans. In 296, the Roman emperor Diocletian
decreed all the Manichaean leaders to be burnt alive along with the
Manichaean scriptures and many Manichaeans in Europe and North Africa
were killed. This policy of persecution was also followed by his
successors. Theodosius I issued a decree of death for all Manichaean monks in 382 AD. The religion was vigorously attacked and persecuted by both the Christian Church
and the Roman state, and the religion almost disappeared from western
Europe in the fifth century and from the eastern portion of the empire
in the sixth century.
In 732, Emperor Xuanzong of Tang
banned any Chinese from converting to the religion, saying it was a
heretic religion that was confusing people by claiming to be Buddhism.
However, the foreigners who followed the religion were allowed to
practice it without punishment.
After the fall of the Uyghur Khaganate in 840, which was the chief
patron of Manichaeism (which was also the state religion of the
Khaganate) in China, all Manichaean temples in China except in the two
capitals and Taiyuan were closed down and never reopened since these temples were viewed as a symbol of foreign arrogance by the Chinese (see Cao'an).
Even those that were allowed to remain open did not for long. The
Manichaean temples were attacked by Chinese people who burned the images
and idols of these temples. Manichaean priests were ordered to wear hanfu instead of their traditional clothing, which was viewed as un-Chinese. In 843, Emperor Wuzong of Tang gave the order to kill all Manichaean clerics as part of his Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution,
and over half died. They were made to look like Buddhists by the
authorities, their heads were shaved, they were made to dress like Buddhist monks and then killed.
Although the religion was mostly forbidden and its followers persecuted
thereafter in China, it survived till the 14th century in the country.
Under the Song dynasty, its followers were derogatorily referred to with the chengyu吃菜祀魔 (pinyin: chī cài sì mó) "vegetarian demon-worshippers".
Many Manichaeans took part in rebellions against the Song
dynasty. They were quelled by Song China and were suppressed and
persecuted by all successive governments before the Mongol Yuan dynasty. In 1370, the religion was banned through an edict of the Ming dynasty, whose Hongwu Emperor had a personal dislike for the religion. Its core teaching influences many religious sects in China, including the White Lotus movement.
Manicheans also suffered persecution for some time under the Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad. In 780, the third Abbasid Caliph, al-Mahdi, started a campaign of inquisition against those who were "dualist heretics" or "Manichaeans" called the zindīq. He appointed a "master of the heretics" (Arabic: الزنادقة صاحب ṣāhib al-zanādiqa),
an official whose task was to pursue and investigate suspected
dualists, who were then examined by the Caliph. Those found guilty who
refused to abjure their beliefs were executed. This persecution
continued under his successor, Caliph al-Hadi, and continued for some time during reign of Harun al-Rashid, who finally abolished it and ended it. During the reign of the 18th Abbassid Caliph al-Muqtadir, many Manichaeans fled from Mesopotamia to Khorasan from fear of persecution by him and about 500 of them assembled in Samarkand. The base of the religion was later shifted to this city, which became their new Patriarchate.
Manichaean pamphlets were still in circulation in Greek in 9th century Byzantine Constantinople, as the patriarch Photios summarizes and discusses one that he has read by Agapius in his Bibliotheca.
Later movements associated with Manichaeism
During
the Middle Ages, several movements emerged that were collectively
described as "Manichaean" by the Catholic Church, and persecuted as
Christian heresies through the establishment, in 1184, of the Inquisition. They included the Cathar churches of Western Europe. Other groups sometimes referred to as "neo-Manichaean" were the Paulician movement, which arose in Armenia, and the Bogomils in Bulgaria. An example of this usage can be found in the published edition of the Latin Cathar text, the Liber de duobus principiis (Book of the Two Principles), which was described as "Neo-Manichaean" by its publishers.
As there is no presence of Manichaean mythology or church terminology
in the writings of these groups, there has been some dispute among
historians as to whether these groups were descendants of Manichaeism.
Present day
Some sites are preserved in Xinjiang and Fujian in China. The Cao'an temple is the only fully intact Manichaean building, though it later became associated with Buddhism. Several small groups claim to continue to practice this faith.
Teachings and beliefs
General
Mani's teaching dealt with the origin of evil, by addressing a theoretical part of the problem of evil by denying the omnipotence of God and postulating two opposite powers. Manichaean theology taught a dualistic
view of good and evil. A key belief in Manichaeism is that the
powerful, though not omnipotent good power (God), was opposed by the
eternal evil power (devil). Humanity, the world and the soul are seen as
the by-product of the battle between God's proxy, Primal Man, and the
devil. The human person is seen as a battle-ground for these powers: the
soul defines the person, but it is under the influence of both light and dark.
This contention plays out over the world as well as the human
body—neither the Earth nor the flesh were seen as intrinsically evil,
but rather possessed portions of both light and dark.
Natural phenomena (such as rain) were seen as the physical
manifestation of this spiritual contention. Therefore, the Manichaean
view explained the existence of evil by positing a flawed creation in
the formation of which God took no part and which constituted rather the
product of a battle by the devil against God.
Uyghur
Manichaean clergymen, wall painting from the Khocho ruins, 10th/11th
century AD. Located in the Museum für Indische Kunst, Berlin-Dahlem.
Manichaeism presented an elaborate description of the conflict
between the spiritual world of light and the material world of darkness.
The beings of both the world of darkness and the world of light have
names. There are numerous sources for the details of the Manichaean
belief. There are two portions of Manichaean scriptures that are
probably the closest thing to the original Manichaean writings in their
original languages that will ever be available. These are the
Syriac-Aramaic quotation by the Nestorian ChristianTheodore bar Konai, in his Syriac "Book of Scholia" (Ketba de-Skolionz, 8th century), and the Middle Persian sections of Mani's Shabuhragan discovered at Turpan (a summary of Mani's teachings prepared for Shapur I).
From these and other sources, it is possible to derive an almost complete description of the detailed Manichaean vision
(a complete list of Manichaean deities is outlined below). According to
Mani, the unfolding of the universe takes place with three "creations":
The First Creation: Originally, good and evil existed in two completely separate realms, one the World of Light, ruled by the Father of Greatness together with his five Shekhinas (divine attributes of light), and the other the World of Darkness, ruled by the King of Darkness. At a certain point, the Kingdom of Darkness notices the World of Light, becomes greedy for it and attacks it. The Father of Greatness, in the first of three "creations" (or "calls"), calls to the Mother of Life, who sends her son Original Man (Nāšā Qaḏmāyā in Aramaic), to battle with the attacking powers of Darkness, which include the Demon of Greed. The Original Man is armed with five different shields of light (reflections of the five Shekhinas),
which he loses to the forces of darkness in the ensuing battle,
described as a kind of "bait" to trick the forces of darkness, as the
forces of darkness greedily consume as much light as they can. When the Original Man comes to, he is trapped among the forces of darkness.
The Second Creation: Then the Father of Greatness begins the Second Creation, calling to the Living Spirit, who calls to his five sons, and sends a call to the Original Man (Call then becomes a Manichaean deity). An answer (Answer becomes another Manichaean deity) then returns from the Original Man to the World of Light. The Mother of Life, the Living Spirit, and his five sons begin to create the universe from the bodies of the evil beings of the World of Darkness,
together with the light that they have swallowed. Ten heavens and eight
earths are created, all consisting of various mixtures of the evil
material beings from the World of Darkness and the swallowed light. The sun, moon, and stars are all created from light recovered from the World of Darkness. The waxing and waning of the moon is described as the moon filling with light, which passes to the sun, then through the Milky Way, and eventually back to the World of Light.
An analysis on Mani's cosmology.
The Third Creation: Great demons (called archons in bar-Khonai's account) are hung out over the heavens, and then the Father of Greatness begins the Third Creation.
Light is recovered from out of the material bodies of the male and
female evil beings and demons, by causing them to become sexually
aroused in greed, towards beautiful images of the beings of light, such
as the Third Messenger and the Virgins of Light. However,
as soon as the light is expelled from their bodies and falls to the
earth (some in the form of abortions – the source of fallen angels
in the Manichaean myth), the evil beings continue to swallow up as much
of it as they can to keep the light inside of them. This results
eventually in the evil beings swallowing huge quantities of light,
copulating, and producing Adam and Eve. The Father of Greatness then sends the Radiant Jesus
to awaken Adam, and to enlighten him to the true source of the light
that is trapped in his material body. Adam and Eve, however, eventually
copulate, and produce more human beings, trapping the light in bodies of
mankind throughout human history. The appearance of the Prophet Mani
was another attempt by the World of Light to reveal to mankind the true source of the spiritual light imprisoned within their material bodies.
Outline of the beings and events in the Manichaean mythology
Worship of the Tree of Life in the Realm of Light
Beginning with the time of its creation by Mani, the Manichaean
religion had a detailed description of deities and events that took
place within the Manichaean scheme of the universe. In every language
and region that Manichaeism spread to, these same deities reappear,
whether it is in the original Syriac quoted by Theodore bar Konai, or the Latin terminology given by Saint Augustine from Mani's Epistola Fundamenti,
or the Persian and Chinese translations found as Manichaeism spread
eastward. While the original Syriac retained the original description
that Mani created, the transformation of the deities through other
languages and cultures produced incarnations of the deities not implied
in the original Syriac writings.
The World of Light
The Father of Greatness (Syriac: ܐܒܐ ܕܪܒܘܬܐAbbā dəRabbūṯā; Middle Persian: pīd ī wuzurgīh, or the Zoroastrian deity Zurwān; Parthian: Pidar wuzurgift, Pidar roshn)
His Five Shekhinas (Syriac: ܚܡܫ ܫܟܝܢܬܗkhamesh shkhinatei; Chinese: 五种大wǔ zhǒng dà,"five great ones"):
The Great Spirit (Middle Persian: Waxsh zindag, Waxsh yozdahr; Latin: Spiritus Potens)
The first creation
The Mother of Life (Syriac: ܐܡܐ ܕܚܝܐimā dəḥayyē)
The First Man (Syriac: ܐܢܫܐ ܩܕܡܝܐNāšā Qaḏmāyā; Middle Persian: Ohrmazd Bay, the Zoroastrian god of light and goodness; Latin: Primus Homo)
His five Sons (the Five Light Elements; Middle Persian: Amahrāspandān; Parthian: panj rōšn)
Ether (Middle Persian: frâwahr, Parthian: ardāw)
Wind (Middle Persian and Parthian: wād)
Light (Middle Persian and Parthian: rōšn)
Water (Middle Persian and Parthian: āb)
Fire (Middle Persian and Parthian: ādur)
His sixth Son, the Answer-God (Syriac: ܥܢܝܐʻanyā; Middle Persian: xroshtag; Chinese: 勢至 Shì Zhì "The Power of Wisdom", a Chinese bodhisattva). The answer sent by the First Man to the Call from the World of Light.
The Living Self (made up of the five Elements; Middle Persian: Griw zindag, Griw rōšn)
The second creation
The Friend of the Lights (Syriac: ܚܒܝܒ ܢܗܝܖܐḥaviv nehirē). Calls to:
The Great Builder (Syriac: ܒܢ ܖܒܐban rabbā). In charge of creating the new world that will separate the darkness from the light. He calls to:
The Living Spirit (Syriac: ܪܘܚܐ ܚܝܐruḥā ḥayyā; Middle Persian: Mihryazd; Chinese: 淨活風 Jìnghuófēng; Latin: Spiritus Vivens). Acts as a demiurge, creating the structure of the material world.
His five Sons (Syriac: ܚܡܫܐ ܒܢܘܗܝḥamšā benawhy)
The Keeper of the Splendour (Syriac: ܨܦܬ ܙܝܘܐṣfat ziwā; Latin: Splenditenens; Chinese: 催明). Holds up the ten heavens from above.
The King of Glory (Syriac: ܡܠܟ ܫܘܒܚܐmlex šuvḥā; Latin: Rex Gloriosus; Chinese: 地藏 Dìzàng "Earth Treasury", a Chinese bodhisattva).
The Adamas of Light (Syriac: ܐܕܡܘܣ ܢܘܗܪܐadamus nuhrā; Latin: Adamas; Chinese: 降魔使 Jiàngmó shǐ). Fights with and overcomes an evil being in the image of the King of Darkness.
The Great King of Honour (Syriac: ܡܠܟܐ ܪܒܐ ܕܐܝܩܪܐmalkā rabbā dikkārā; Dead Sea Scrolls Aramaic: מלכא רבא דאיקרא malka raba de-ikara; Latin: Rex Honoris; Chinese: 十天王 Shítiān Wáng "Ten-heaven King"). A being that plays a central role in The Book of Enoch (originally written in Aramaic), as well as Mani's Syriac version of it, the Book of Giants. Sits in the seventh heaven of the ten heavens (compare Buddhist division of the ten realms) and guards the entrance to the world of light.
Atlas (Syriac: ܣܒܠܐsebblā; Latin: Atlas; Chinese: 持世主 Chíshìzhǔ). Supports the eight worlds from below.
His sixth Son, the Call-God (Syriac: ܩܪܝܐqaryā; Middle Persian: Padvaxtag; Chinese: 觀音 Guanyin
"watching/perceiving sounds [of the world]", the Chinese Bodhisattva of
Compassion). Sent from the Living Spirit to awaken the First Man from
his battle with the forces of darkness.
The Third Messenger (Syriac: ܐܝܙܓܕܐizgaddā; Middle Persian narēsahyazad, Parthian: hridīg frēštag; Latin: tertius legatus)
Jesus the Splendour (Syriac: ܝܫܘܥ ܙܝܘܐIshoʻ Ziwā). Sent to awaken Adam and Eve to the source of the spiritual light trapped within their physical bodies.
The Maiden of Light
The Twelve Virgins of Light (Syriac: ܬܪܬܥܣܪܐ ܒܬܘܠܬܐtratʻesrā btultē; Middle Persian kanīgān rōšnān; Chinese: 日宮十二化女 Rìgōng shí'èr huànǚ). Reflected in the twelve constellations of the Zodiac.
The Column of Glory (Syriac: ܐܣܛܘܢ ܫܘܒܚܐesṭun šuvḥā; Middle Persian: srōš-ahrāy, from Sraosha; Chinese: 蘇露沙羅夷, Sūlù shāluóyí and 盧舍那, Lúshěnà, both phonetic from Middle Persian srōš-ahrāy). The path that souls take back to the World of Light; corresponds to the Milky Way.
The Prince of Darkness (Syriac: ܡܠܟ ܚܫܘܟܐmlex ḥešoxā; Middle Persian: Ahriman, the Zoroastrian supreme evil being)
His five evil kingdoms Evil counterparts of the five elements of light, the lowest being the kingdom of Darkness.
His son (Syriac: ܐܫܩܠܘܢAshaklun; Middle Persian: Az, from the Zoroastrian demon, Aži Dahāka)
His son's mate (Syriac: ܢܒܪܘܐܠNevro'el)
Their offspring – Adam and Eve (Middle Persian: Gehmurd and Murdiyanag)
Giants (Fallen Angels, also Abortions): (Syriac: ܝܚܛܐyaḥtē, "abortions" or "those that fell"; also: ܐܪܟܘܢܬܐ; ’ΕγρήγοροιEgrēgoroi, "Giants"). Related to the story of the fallen angels in the Book of Enoch (which Mani used extensively in The Book of Giants), and the נפיליםnephilim described in Genesis (6:1–4).
The Manichaean Church
Organization
The
Manichaean Church was divided into the Elect, who had taken upon
themselves the vows of Manicheaism, and the Hearers, those who had not,
but still participated in the Church. The Elect were forbidden to
consume alcohol and meat, as well as to harvest crops or prepare food,
due to Mani's claim that harvesting was a form of murder against plants.
The Hearers would therefore commit the sin of preparing food, and would
provide it to the Elect, who would in turn pray for the Hearers and
cleanse them of these sins. The terms for these divisions were already common since the days of early Christianity,
however, it had a different meaning in Christianity. In Chinese
writings, the Middle Persian and Parthian terms are transcribed
phonetically (instead of being translated into Chinese). These were recorded by Augustine of Hippo.
The Leader (Syriac: ܟܗܢܐ/kɑhnɑ/; Parthian: yamag; Chinese: 閻默; pinyin: yánmò), Mani's designated successor, seated as Patriarch at the head of the Church, originally in Ctesiphon, from the ninth century in Samarkand. Two notable leaders were Mār Sīsin (or Sisinnios), the first successor of Mani, and Abū Hilāl al-Dayhūri, an eighth-century leader.
12 Apostles (Latin: magistrī; Syriac: ܫܠܝܚܐ/ʃ(ə)liħe/; Middle Persian: možag; Chinese: 慕闍; pinyin: mùdū). Three of Mani's original apostles were Mār Pattī (Pattikios; Mani's father), Akouas and Mar Ammo.
72 Bishops (Latin: episcopī; Syriac: ܐܦܣܩܘܦܐ/ʔappisqoppe/; Middle Persian: aspasag, aftadan; Chinese: 薩波塞; pinyin: sàbōsāi or Chinese: 拂多誕; pinyin: fúduōdàn; see also: seventy disciples). One of Mani's original disciples who was specifically referred to as a bishop was Mār Addā.
The general body of the Elect (Latin: ēlēctī; Syriac: ܡܫܡܫܢܐ/m(ə)ʃamməʃɑne/; Middle Persian: ardawan or dēnāwar; Chinese: 阿羅緩; pinyin: āluóhuǎn or Chinese: 電那勿; pinyin: diànnàwù)
Evidently from Manichaean sources, Manichaeans observed daily prayers, either four for the hearers or seven for the elects. The sources differ about the exact time of prayer. The Fihrist by al-Nadim, points them after noon, mid-afternoon, just after sunset and at nightfall. Al-Biruni
places the prayers at noon, nightfall, dawn and sunrise. The elect
additionally pray at mid-afternoon, half an hour after nightfall and at
midnight. Al-Nadim's account of daily prayers is probably adjusted to
coincide with the public prayers for the Muslims, while Al-Birunis
report may reflect an older tradition unaffected by Islam.
When Al-Nadims account of daily prayers had been the only detailed
source available, there was a concern, that these practises had been
only adapted by Muslims during the Abbasid Caliphate.
However, it is clear that the Arabic text provided by Al-Nadim
corresponds with the descriptions of Egyptian texts from the fourth
Century.
Every prayer started with an ablution with water or, if water is not available, with other substances comparable to Ablution in Islam
and consisted of several blessings to the apostales and spirits. The
prayer consisted of prostrating oneself to the ground and rising again
twelve times during every prayer.
During day, Manichaeans turned towards the sun and during night towards
the moon. If the moon is not visible at night, when they turned towards
north. Evident from Faustus of Mileve, Celestial bodies are not the subject of worship themselves, but "ships" carrying the light particles of the world to the supreme god, who can not be seen, since he exists beyond time and space, and also the dwelling places for emanations of the supreme deity, such as Jesus the Splendour. According to the writings of Augustine of Hippo,
ten prayers were performed, the first devoted to the Father of
Greatness, and the following to lesser deities, spirits and angels and
finally towards the elect, in order to be freed from rebirth and pain
and to attain peace in the realm of light. Comparable, in the Uighur confession, four prayers are directed to the supreme God (Äzrua), the God of the Sun and the Moon, and fivefold God and the buddhas.
Primary sources
Image of the Buddha as one of the primary prophets on a Manichaean pictorial roll fragment from Chotscho, 10th century.
Mani wrote either seven or eight books, which contained the teachings
of the religion. Only scattered fragments and translations of the
originals remain.
The original six Syriac writings are not preserved, although
their Syriac names have been. There are also fragments and quotations
from them. A long quotation, preserved by the eighth-century Nestorian Christian author Theodore Bar Konai, shows that in the original Syriac Aramaic writings of Mani there was no influence of Iranian or Zoroastrian
terms. The terms for the Manichaean deities in the original Syriac
writings are in Aramaic. The adaptation of Manichaeism to the
Zoroastrian religion appears to have begun in Mani's lifetime however,
with his writing of the Middle Persian Shabuhragan, his book dedicated to the Sasanian emperor, Shapur I. In it, there are mentions of Zoroastrian divinities such as Ahura Mazda, Angra Mainyu, and Āz. Manichaeism is often presented as a Persian religion, mostly due to the vast number of Middle Persian, Parthian, and Sogdian (as well as Turkish) texts discovered by German researchers near Turpan in what is now Xinjiang,
China, during the early 1900s. However, from the vantage point of its
original Syriac descriptions (as quoted by Theodore Bar Khonai and
outlined above), Manichaeism may be better described as a unique
phenomenon of Aramaic Babylonia, occurring in proximity to two other new
Aramaic religious phenomena, Talmudic Judaism and Mandaeism, which also appeared in Babylonia in roughly the third century.
The original, but now lost, six sacred books of Manichaeism were composed in Syriac Aramaic,
and translated into other languages to help spread the religion. As
they spread to the east, the Manichaean writings passed through Middle Persian, Parthian, Sogdian, Tocharian, and ultimately Uyghur and Chinese translations. As they spread to the west, they were translated into Greek, Coptic, and Latin.
Statue of prophet Mani as the "Buddha of Light" in Cao'an Temple in Jinjiang, Fujian, "a Manichaean temple in Buddhist disguise", which is considered "the only extant Manichean temple in China"
Henning describes how this translation process evolved and influenced the Manichaeans of Central Asia:
Beyond doubt, Sogdian
was the national language of the Majority of clerics and propagandists
of the Manichaean faith in Central Asia. Middle Persian (Pārsīg), and to
a lesser degree, Parthian (Pahlavānīg), occupied the position held by Latin in the medieval church.
The founder of Manichaeism had employed Syriac (his own language) as
his medium, but conveniently he had written at least one book in Middle
Persian, and it is likely that he himself had arranged for the
translation of some or all of his numerous writings from Syriac into
Middle Persian. Thus the Eastern Manichaeans found themselves entitled
to dispense with the study of Mani’s original writings, and to continue
themselves to reading the Middle Persian edition; it presented small
difficulty to them to acquire a good knowledge of the Middle Persian
language, owing to its affinity with Sogdian.
Originally written in Syriac
the Gospel of Mani (Syriac: ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ/ʔɛwwanɡallijon/; Koinē Greek: εὐαγγέλιον "good news, gospel"). Quotations from the first chapter were brought in Arabic by ibn al-Nadim, who lived in Baghdad at a time when there were still Manichaeans living there, in his 938 book, the Fihrist, a catalog of all written books known to him.
The Shabuhragan, dedicated to Shapur I: Original Middle Persian fragments were discovered at Turpan, quotations were brought in Arabic by al-Biruni.
Other books
The Ardahang,
the "Picture Book". In Iranian tradition, this was one of Mani's holy
books that became remembered in later Persian history, and was also
called Aržang, a Parthian word meaning "Worthy", and was beautified with paintings. Therefore, Iranians gave him the title of "The Painter".
Literature relating to the apostle Thomas (who by tradition went to India, and was also venerated in Syria), such as portions of the Syriac The Acts of Thomas, and the Psalms of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas was also attributed to Manichaeans by Cyril of Jerusalem, a fourth-century Church Father.
The legend of Barlaam and Josaphat
passed from an Indian story about the Buddha, through a Manichaean
version, before it transformed into the story of a Christian Saint in
the west.
Later works
摩尼教文獻 The Chinese Manichaean "Compendium"
In later centuries, as Manichaeism passed through eastern Persian-speaking lands and arrived at the Uyghur Khaganate (回鶻帝國), and eventually the Uyghur kingdom of Turpan (destroyed around 1335), Middle Persian and Parthian prayers (āfrīwan or āfurišn) and the Parthian hymn-cycles (the Huwīdagmān and Angad Rōšnan created by Mar Ammo) were added to the Manichaean writings. A translation of a collection of these produced the Manichaean Chinese Hymnscroll (Chinese: 摩尼教下部讚; pinyin: Móní-jiào Xiàbù Zàn, which Lieu translates as "Hymns for the Lower Section [i.e. the Hearers] of the Manichaean Religion").
In addition to containing hymns attributed to Mani, it contains prayers
attributed to Mani's earliest disciples, including Mār Zaku, Mār Ammo
and Mār Sīsin. Another Chinese work is a complete translation of the Sermon of the Light Nous, presented as a discussion between Mani and his disciple Adda.
Critical and polemic sources
Until
discoveries in the 1900s of original sources, the only sources for
Manichaeism were descriptions and quotations from non-Manichaean
authors, either Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Zoroastrian. While often
criticizing Manichaeism, they also quoted directly from Manichaean
scriptures. This enabled Isaac de Beausobre, writing in the 18th century, to create a comprehensive work on Manichaeism, relying solely on anti-Manichaean sources.
Thus quotations and descriptions in Greek and Arabic have long been
known to scholars, as have the long quotations in Latin by Saint
Augustine, and the extremely important quotation in Syriac by Theodore Bar Konai.
The error of the Manichees, which commenced at this time.
— In
the mean time, also, that madman Manes, (Mani is of Persian or Semitic
origin) as he was called, well agreeing with his name, for his
demoniacal heresy, armed himself by the perversion of his reason, and at
the instruction of Satan, to the destruction of many. He was a
barbarian in his life, both in speech and conduct, but in his nature as
one possessed and insane. Accordingly, he attempted to form himself into
a Christ, and then also proclaimed himself to be the very paraclete and
the Holy Spirit, and with all this was greatly puffed up with his
madness. Then, as if he were Christ, he selected twelve disciples, the
partners of his new religion, and after patching together false and
ungodly doctrines, collected from a thousand heresies long since
extinct, he swept them off like a deadly poison, from Persia, upon this
part of the world. Hence the impious name of the Manichaeans spreading
among many, even to the present day. Such then was the occasion of this
knowledge, as it was falsely called, that sprouted up in these times.
Acta Archelai
An
example of how inaccurate some of these accounts could be is seen in
the account of the origins of Manichaeism contained in the Acta Archelai.
This was a Greek anti-manichaean work written before 348, most well
known in its Latin version, which was regarded as an accurate account of
Manichaeism until refuted by Isaac de Beausobre in the 18th century:
In the time of the Apostles there lived a man named Scythianus,
who is described as coming "from Scythia", and also as being "a Saracen
by race" ("ex genere Saracenorum"). He settled in Egypt, where he
became acquainted with "the wisdom of the Egyptians", and invented the
religious system that was afterwards known as Manichaeism. Finally he
emigrated to Palestine, and, when he died, his writings passed into the
hands of his sole disciple, a certain Terebinthus.
The latter betook himself to Babylonia, assumed the name of Budda, and
endeavoured to propagate his master's teaching. But he, like Scythianus,
gained only one disciple, who was an old woman. After a while he died,
in consequence of a fall from the roof of a house, and the books that he
had inherited from Scythianus became the property of the old woman,
who, on her death, bequeathed them to a young man named Corbicius, who
had been her slave. Corbicius thereupon changed his name to Manes,
studied the writings of Scythianus, and began to teach the doctrines
that they contained, with many additions of his own. He gained three
disciples, named Thomas, Addas, and Hermas. About this time the son of
the Persian king fell ill, and Manes undertook to cure him; the prince,
however, died, whereupon Manes was thrown into prison. He succeeded in
escaping, but eventually fell into the hands of the king, by whose order
he was flayed, and his corpse was hung up at the city gate.
A. A. Bevan, who quoted this story, commented that it "has no claim to be considered historical".
View of Judaism in the Acta Archelai
According to Hegemonius' portrayal of Mani, the evil demiurge who created the world was the Jewish Jehovah. Hegemonius reports that Mani said,
"It is the Prince of Darkness who spoke with Moses, the Jews and their priests. Thus the Christians,
the Jews, and the Pagans are involved in the same error when they
worship this God. For he leads them astray in the lusts he taught them."
He goes on to state: "Now, he who spoke with Moses, the Jews, and the
priests he says is the archont
of Darkness, and the Christians, Jews, and pagans (ethnic) are one and
the same, as they revere the same god. For in his aspirations he seduces
them, as he is not the god of truth. And so therefore all those who put
their hope in the god who spoke with Moses and the prophets have (this
in store for themselves, namely) to be bound with him, because they did
not put their hope in the god of truth. For that one spoke with them
(only) according to their own aspirations.
Central Asian and Iranian primary sources
In the early 1900s, original Manichaean writings started to come to light when German scholars led by Albert Grünwedel, and then by Albert von Le Coq, began excavating at Gaochang,
the ancient site of the Manichaean Uyghur Kingdom near Turpan, in
Chinese Turkestan (destroyed around AD 1300). While most of the writings
they uncovered were in very poor condition, there were still hundreds
of pages of Manichaean scriptures, written in three Iranian languages
(Middle Persian, Parthian, and Sogdian) and old Uyghur. These writings
were taken back to Germany, and were analyzed and published at the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin, by Le Coq and others, such as Friedrich W. K. Müller and Walter Bruno Henning. While the vast majority of these writings were written in a version of the Syriac script known as Manichaean script, the German researchers, perhaps for lack of suitable fonts, published most of them using the Hebrew alphabet (which could easily be substituted for the 22 Syriac letters).
Perhaps the most comprehensive of these publications was Manichaeische Dogmatik aus chinesischen und iranischen Texten (Manichaean Dogma from Chinese and Iranian texts), by Ernst Waldschmidt and Wolfgang Lentz, published in Berlin in 1933.
More than any other research work published before or since, this work
printed, and then discussed, the original key Manichaean texts in the
original scripts, and consists chiefly of sections from Chinese texts,
and Middle Persian and Parthian texts transcribed with the Hebrew
alphabet. After the Nazi Party
gained power in Germany, the Manichaean writings continued to be
published during the 1930s, but the publishers no longer used Hebrew
letters, instead transliterating the texts into Latin letters.
Coptic primary sources
Additionally,
in 1930, German researchers in Egypt found a large body of Manichaean
works in Coptic. Though these were also damaged, hundreds of complete
pages survived and, beginning in 1933, were analyzed and published in
Berlin before World War II, by German scholars such as Hans Jakob Polotsky. Some of these Coptic Manichaean writings were lost during the war.
Chinese primary sources
After
the success of the German researchers, French scholars visited China
and discovered what is perhaps the most complete set of Manichaean
writings, written in Chinese. These three Chinese writings, all found at
the Mogao Caves among the Dunhuang manuscripts,
and all written before the 9th century, are today kept in London,
Paris, and Beijing. Some of the scholars involved with their initial
discovery and publication were Édouard Chavannes, Paul Pelliot, and Aurel Stein.
The original studies and analyses of these writings, along with their
translations, first appeared in French, English, and German, before and
after World War II. The complete Chinese texts themselves were first
published in Tokyo, Japan in 1927, in the Taishō Tripiṭaka,
volume 54. While in the last thirty years or so they have been
republished in both Germany (with a complete translation into German,
alongside the 1927 Japanese edition), and China, the Japanese publication remains the standard reference for the Chinese texts.
Greek life of Mani, Cologne codex
Cologne Mani-Codex
In Egypt, a small codex was found and became known through antique dealers in Cairo. It was purchased by the University of Cologne in 1969. Two of its scientists, Henrichs and Koenen, produced the first edition known since as the Cologne Mani-Codex, which was published in four articles in the Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. The ancient papyrus manuscript contained a Greek
text describing the life of Mani. Thanks to this discovery, much more
is known about the man who founded one of the most influential world
religions of the past.
Figurative use
The terms "Manichaean" and "Manichaeism" are sometimes used figuratively as a synonym of the more general term "dualist" with respect to a philosophy, outlook or worldview.
The terms are often used to suggest that the world view in question
simplistically reduces the world to a struggle between good and evil.
For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski used the phrase "Manichaean paranoia" in reference to U.S. PresidentGeorge W. Bush's world view (in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, 14 March 2007); Brzezinski elaborated that he meant "the notion that he [Bush] is leading the forces of good against the empire of evil". Author and journalist Glenn Greenwald followed up on the theme in describing Bush in his book A Tragic Legacy (2007).
The term is frequently used by critics to describe the attitudes and foreign policies of the United States and its leaders.
Philosopher Frantz Fanon frequently invoked the concept of Manicheanism in his discussions of violence between colonizers and the colonized.
In "My Secret History", author Paul Theroux's
protagonist defines the word Manichaean for the protagonist's son as
'seeing that good and evil are mingled'. Prior to explaining the word to
his son, the protagonist mentions Joseph Conrad's short story "The Secret Sharer" at least twice in the book, the plot of which also examines the idea of the duality of good and evil.
.jpg)
.jpg)
