Objects in Motion:

The Circulation of Religion

and Sacred Objects in the Late
Antique and Byzantine World

Edited by

Hallie G. Meredith

BAR International Series 2247

2011
Published by

Archaeopress
Publishers of British Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com

BAR S2247

Objects in Motion: The Circulation of Religion and Sacred Objects in the Late Antique and Byzantine
World

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2011

ISBN 978 1 4073 0811 1

Cover photo: Holy Man Reading, photograph taken by Carmen Taha Jarrah in April 2011 during a visit to India

Printed in England by Blenheim Colour

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd

122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available
free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
 The Art and Ritual of Manichaean
Magic: Text, Object and Image from the
Mediterranean to Central Asia
Matthew P. Canepa
THE REDISCOVERY OF MANICHAEAN ART AND MAGIC
The purpose of this study is to investigate the global
phenomenon of Manichaean magical practice. Studies of
magic in the Classical, Semitic, Iranian and South Asian
cultural spheres have, to a large extent, ignored the
parallel traditions of Manichaean magic that grew up
alongside these more dominant traditions. While an
impressive body of literature has accumulated around
pagan, Jewish, and Christian magic in the antique
Mediterranean and Mesopotamia, since 1947 only a
handful of articles have been published dealing with
Manichaean magic. This is in part because of the small
corpus of Manichaean magical texts that survive and
because of the formidable challenges that the material’s
array of languages and cultural influences presents. In
this study I look globally at the different manifestations
of magic in Manichaean communities from the earliest
traces of evidence in late antique Egypt and
Mesopotamia, to the last manifestations on the early
Medieval Silk Road. In doing so I hope to understand
what was a constant in Manichaean magic throughout this
expanse of time and cultural and linguistic alterations and
analyze how these cultural goods traveled and
transformed across Eurasia.1
A handful of recent articles generated by the Egyptian
finds have contributed to a significant recent reevaluation
of Manichaean magic in general. To my knowledge, since
W.B. Henning’s publication of the two Central Asian
texts in 1947 there has only been one short article which
has seriously dealt with (albeit limitedly) the Middle
Iranian texts directly, rather than as a footnote to the
Coptic or Mesopotamian material.2 The goal of this paper
is, therefore, to situate the evidence from the two
(perhaps three) fluorescences of Manichaean magic of
which we have evidence, in their own specific temporal
and cultural environments, and then put them into
1
On the problem of cross-cultural interaction see M.P. Canepa,
“Theorizing Cross-Cultural Interaction Among Ancient and Early
Medieval Visual Cultures”, in Theorizing Cross-Cultural Interaction
among the Late Antique and Early Medieval Mediterranean, Near East
and Asia, ed. M.P. Canepa, Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institution,
2010, 7-29.
2
D.A. Utz, “Powers, Watchers, and Archangels: the Paradox of
Manichaean Magic”, in Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origin 25,
1988, http://.ccat.sas.upenn.edu/psco/year25/8803c.shtml, 1-4.
dialogue with each other and with what one might see as
a larger interlocking world of Eurasian magical practice.
Manichaean magic presents an intriguing inversion of
Late Antique Judeo-Christian magic. Whereas the
canonical texts of Christianity or Judaism remained intact
and in use to the present and the concomitant magical
tradition had to be recovered archaeologically; in the case
of Manichaeaism all texts, canonical or otherwise, were
lost until their rediscovery in the early part of the last
century in the deserts of Egypt and Central Asia. Despite
the fact that Manicheaism once flourished from Rome to
China, the bulk of extant records of Manichaean magical
practice come from Central Asia and Egypt.3 The Central
Asian material came to light with the corpus of
Manichaean texts and art which early twentieth century
Prussian archaeological expeditions recovered from
ruined desert towns centered around the ancient oasis city
of Qočo (a.k.a. Kocho) on the northern rim of the Tarim
basin, the contemporary geographical site of
Manichaeism’s Medieval_flowering.4 Four expeditions
took place between 1902 and 1914 under the leadership
of Albert Grünwedel and Albert von Le Coq.5 They
recovered a large number of documents of a Manichaean,
as well as Christian and Buddhist, provenance.6 These
expeditions are called the “Turfan Expeditions” and the
3
This material along with a single Latin Manichaean Treatise on
Biblical exegesis and church order found in Algeria, “the Tebessa
Codex”, and a few hymn scrolls and a monastery typikon in Chinese,
make up the primary sources. This is supplemented by the original
sources of Manichaean scholarship, the Christian heresiological
tractates.
4
This corpus is augmented by a few finds from Dunhaung and has been
catalogued and defined by Zsuzsanna Gulácsi according to criteria
designed to provide for a secure Manichaean rather than Christian or
Buddhist origin. Z. Gulácsi, “Identifying the Corpus of Manichaean Art
among the Turfan Remains”, in eds, P. Mirkecki and J. BeDuhn,
Emerging from Darkness: Studies in the Recovery of Manichaean
Sources, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1997, 177-215; idem, Mediaeval
Manichaean Book Art: a codicological study of Iranian and Turkic
illuminated book fragments from 8th-11th century east Central Asia, Nag
Hammadi and Manichaean studies 54, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 2005.
5
A. von Le Coq, Türkische Manichaica aus Chotscho I, Berlin,
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Georg Reimer, 1912; idem, Turkische
Manichaica aus Chotscho II, Berlin, Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Georg Reimer, 1919; idem, Türkische Manichaica aus Chotscho III,
Berlin, Akademie der Wissenschaften in Kommission bei Georg
Reimer, 1922.
6
H.J. Klimkeit, Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Texts from Central
Asia, New York, Harper Collins, 1993, xvii.
OBJECTS IN MOTION: THE CIRCULATION OF RELIGION AND SACRED OBJECTS IN THE LATE ANTIQUE & BYZANTINE
WORLD
documents found there are the “Turfan Texts”, named
after the main find site. The documents recovered from
Turfan consist of manuscripts in three Middle Iranian
languages (Persian, Parthian, and Sogdian), Uighur (Old
Turkish), and Chinese. This fluorescence of Manichaean
texts and artwork is associated with Manichaeaism’s
fluorescence there under the protection of the Uighur
Qaghan, first during the period of the Uighur steppe
empire (762-840 CE) and, after its destruction, during the
smaller Uighur Kingdom of Qočo, which lasted until it
was subsumed by the Mongol Empire.
From this corpus of Central Asian material only two
fragments (M 781 and M 1202) have been both identified
and published as Manichaean magical material. Both
fragments are in a Middle Iranian language and no
magical material has been yet identified in Old Turkish or
Chinese. As a tantalizing but inaccessible supplement to
this, in her 1960 catalogue of the Iranian Turfan texts,
Mary Boyce listed five additional fragments that she
tentatively identified as magical.7 However these
fragments still remain unpublished and, unfortunately
inaccessible. The present small but strikingly brilliant
magical corpus has an equally abbreviated but
exceptional bibliography. In 1947 W.B. Henning
produced a detailed and remarkably learned article
length-study of the two fragments and since then, despite
serving in compilations of Manichaean literature as the
sole representatives of Manichaean magic, they have not
generated any further scholarly study nor has the subject
of Central Asian Manichaean magic in general.8
The story of the recovery of the Coptic and Greek texts is
somewhat similar to the Central Asian material but on a
smaller scale. Egypt has provided us with the remains of
a smaller community and literary corpus than Central
Asia and has not produced such elements liturgical
implements, art, and religious structures to the degree that
Turfan has. Nevertheless the Egyptian Manichaean
material, which includes the Medinet Madi Library, the
Cologne Mani Codex, and the Dakhleh Oasis material,
offers new evidence for Manichaen spiritual practice
including some evidence for magical practice. In 1929 a
group of workman digging for fertilizer discovered a
group of Coptic Manichaean, codices in a chest complete
with their covers, at the site of Medinet Madi in the
Fayyūm.9 These included a large collection of psalms,
and the Kephalaia, an apocryphal work purporting to be
Mani’s secret instruction to his inner circle of disciples.
Supplementing this core find was the 1969 discovery of
the Greek Codex Manichaeicus Coloniensis (Cologne
7
M 341 b, M 389, M 781, M 1202, M 1314, M 1315, M 5568, M 7917,
and M 8430. M. Boyce, A Catalogue of the Iranian Manuscripts in
Manichaean Script in the German Turfan Collection, Berlin, Akademie
Verlag, 1960, 148.
8 14
W.B. Henning, “Two Manichaean Magical Texts and an Excursus on
the Parthian Ending: -ēndeh”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies, 12, 1947: 39-66. The compilations: J.P. Asmussen,
Manichaean Literature, Delmar, N.Y., Scholars Facsimiles and
Reprints, 1975; Klimkeit 1993.
9
S.N.C. Lieu, Manichaeism in Mesopotamia and the Roman East,
Leiden, Brill, 1994, 64.
74
Mani Codex, CMC), a small codex that contains long
quotations from five Jewish Adamite apocalypses,
quotations from St. Paul, and, most importantly, the
beginning of Mani’s gospel – one of his five canonical
books.
How it came into the possession of the Papyrussammlung
of the Universität Köln as well as its archaeological
context is unknown. However its original editor, A.
Hendrichs related that the remains of the codex might
have come from the area around Luxor, and that “it is a
reasonable guess that they were found in the vicinity of
ancient Lycopolis, a stronghold of Manichaeism in Upper
Egypt”.10 The CMC is particularly intriguing for the study
Manichaean magic because its small size, only 38 x 45
mm (making it one of the smallest texts to survive from
antiquity), is approximately that of Christian amulets like
P. Ant. ii 54 (26 x 40 mm, Pater Noster) or P. Oxy. xvii
2065 (Ps. 90).11 The possible magical context of the
CMC, as opposed to its textual contents, has remained
largely unnoticed and unstudied.
The latest and still continuing development in the story of
Manichaean textual discovery comes from the
excavations at the Roman site of Kellis, the modern site
of Ismant el-Karab, which lies within the oasis district of
el-Dakhleh about 800 km south of Cairo.12 The modern
town of Asyut covers the site of the ancient Lycopolis,
long known from the Panarion of Epiphanius and other
anti-Manichaean writings as an important center of the
religion.13 From Kellis the literary remains of a fourth
century Manichaean community has taken form in
Coptic, Greek (totaling about 3000 papyrus fragments),
and Syriac (consisting of several inscribed wooden
boards).14 In addition to these scriptures, prayer books,
psalms, and personal letters, Kellis has produced three
texts, two Greek and one Coptic, which have been
identified as magical.15
Several Mesopotamian incantation bowls provide an
interesting but inconclusive supplement to the Egyptian
and Central Asian material. In contrast to the majority of
the apotropaic incantation bowls that were written in
Judeo-Aramaic, Mandaean, and Syriac, nineteen have
10
A. Henrichs, “The Cologne Mani Codex Reconsidered”, Harvard
Studies in Classical Philology 83, 1979: 349; Lieu 1994, 80.
11
Lieu 1994, 79.
12
Ibid., 87.
13
Ibid., 87 and for the spread of Egyptian Manichaeism, P. van Lindt,
The Name of Manichaean Mythological Figures: a Comparitive Study
on Terminolgy in the Coptic Sources, Weisbaden, Otto Harrassowitz,
1992, 225-231. For Kellis, C.A. Hope et. al., “Dakhleh Oasis Project:
Ismant el-Kharab 1991-92”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Egyptian
Antiquities, 19, 1989: 1-26; idem, “A Brief Report on the Excavations at
Ismant el-Kharab 1991-1992”, Bulletin of the Australian Centre for
Egyptology 4, 1993: 17-28. I.M.F. Gardner, “A Manichaean Liturgical
Codex Found at Kellis”, Orientalia 62, 1993: 30-59.
Lieu 1994, 88.
15
For the Greek: I.M.F. Gardner, Kellis Literary Texts Volume 1 Oxbow
Monograph 69, Oxford, Oxbow Books, 1996, 132-140; for the Coptic:
P. Mirecki, I. Gardner, and A. Alock, “Magical Spell, Manichaean
Letter”, in eds. P. Mirecki and J. BeDuhn, Emerging from Darkness:
Studies in the Recovery of Manichaean Sources, Leiden, Brill, 1997, 1-
32.
 MATTHEW P. CANEPA: THE ART AND RITUAL OF MANICHAEAN MAGIC
been discovered written in a script that Manichaeans
developed and used for the creation of their sacred
texts.16 However, the script itself does not implicitly
indicate that the consumer of the bowl was Manichaean,
nor even that the magician who created the bowl was
Manichaean. In all but one of the nineteen bowls, the
contents of the invocations contain nothing explicitly
Manichaean and seem to parallel the language,
cosmology, and cast of characters of the Judeo-Aramaic,
Mandaean and Syriac bowls.
MANICHAEAN MAGIC AND MANICHAEISM’S HISTORY
There are a number of possible reasons for such a small
number of Manichaean magical texts to survive relative
to the sizable corpus of the PGM and PDM in the
Egyptian context, and the ubiquity of Buddhist dhāranī
and rakΒa formulas in Central Asia. First of all Mani
himself made it very clear that a devout Manichaean
should have no dealings in the “magic arts and
enchantments of darkness,” and one should shun those
who do.17 According to Mani the soul of one who
practices magic will be bound into the damned mass of
matter along with the “King of the realms of Darkness”
which after the Apocalypse, would be forever consigned
to the darkness of the void after the apocalypse. The Old
Turkish version of the Xwastwanift, or Confession of
Sins, teaches the lay member of the Manichaean
community to ask forgiveness for any breach of the
Manichaean ŚikāΒpada, or ‘Ten Commandments,’ which
included, according to the tenth century Persian
geographer Ibn an-Nadim an injunction to refrain from
practicing magic, especially enchantments and illusions.18
It is possible that Mani’s original identification of and
hostility towards magic created an environment where
magical practice was not quite as prevalent or as easy to
ignore compared to other religious communities.
However despite this direct injunction and rather
terrifyingly explicit explanation of ignoring its
consequences, Manichaeans obviously did indeed
practice what fits both Mani’s and our modern definitions
of magic. Any awareness of the injunction and the
definitions of what actually counted as magic would
likely have eroded even further as the religion moved east
since these distinctions did not exist in Buddhism, a
religion whose practices (both magical and “religious”)
Manichaeism readily appropriated.
It is highly possible that the Manichaeans of Kellis or the
Tarim Basin, if they were aware of such prohibitions, did
not consider what they practiced to be magic of the sort
prohibited by Mani.19 According to Ibn an-Nadim, Mani
specifically proscribed ‘enchantments and illusions’.20 It
16
J.D. BeDuhn, “Magical Bowls and Manichaeans”, in eds. M. Meyer
and P. Mirecki, Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, Leiden, Brill, 1995,
419 and 427.
17
Mirecki et. al. 1997, 10-11.
18
Utz 1988. P.A. Mirecki, “Manichaean Allusions to Ritual and Magic:
Spells for Invisibility in the Coptic Kephalaia”, in The Light and the
Darkness Studies in Manichaeism and its World, eds. P.A. Mirecki and
J. Beduhn, 173-80, Leiden, Brill, 2001.
19
Mirecki et. al. 1997, 10-11.
20
Utz 1988.
75
is possible that Manichaeans did not consider protections
and medical magic to be in the same category. Late
antique Manichaeans could have understood Mani’s
polemic only as anti-Zoroastrian or anti-Magian, since
the Persians and the Zoroastrian high priest Kerdīr in
particular, were the ones who martyred Mani and were
the religion’s persecutors in its Mesopotamian
homeland.21 Mani’s own writings and saying indicate the
intimate relationship between medicine and what is now
considered magic. While at the Sasanian court, Mani
described himself simply as ‘a doctor from Babylon,’ and
made his final defense at court before his execution on
the virtue of his medical-magical services: “Many and
numerous were your servants whom I have [freed] of
demons (dyw) and witches (drwxs). Many were those
from whom I have averted the numerous kinds of fever.
Many were those who were at the point of death, and I
have revived them”.22 Like Jesus and the Buddha, whom
Mani considered his heralds and predecessors, Mani
performed many miracles, healings and exorcisms which
religious and political adherents and opponents each
defined differently as magical or religious according to
their polemical bent.
Barring any lasting impact of Mani’s original prohibition,
the small number of magical texts could be explained
partially by the fact that there might be other texts in the
Egyptian and Central Asian material that could have
belonged to a magical provenance but go unrecognized
because of misidentification. When one scrutinizes the
liturgical or hymnal texts one is reminded of the
somewhat arbitrary divisions between magic and
religious practice that govern these judgments, which, to
a large degree, a Judeo-Christian mindset informs. Finally
it could be that these texts do not survive because, as
protective and medical spells, they were in active use on
individual’s bodies.
Manichaean Magic in its Global, Historical Context
From its inception the Manichaean religion depended on
travelers for its propagation and demonstrated a
remarkable ingenuity for syncretism. Mani, its founder,
was born on the 14th of April 216 CE.23 He was of royal
Arsacid descent through his maternal line and raised in a
Jewish-Christian baptismal community in the Southern
region of Mesopotamia in the vicinity of Ctesiphon.24
Mani spent his life spreading his religious message
throughout the Sasanian empire (224-651CE), even
gaining royal patronage during the reigns of Šābuhr I (r.
241-272) and Hormizd I (reg. 272-273).25 He sent
missionaries as far west as Alexandria, and as far east as
the KuΒāna kingdom. In 241 Mani sailed to India. He
21
J.M. and S.N.C. Lieu, “Mani and the Magians (?)- CMC 137-140”, in
eds. A. van Tongerloo and S. Giversen, Manichaica Selecta I, Louvain,
International Association of Manichaean Studies, 1993, 210-13.
22
M3 V as quoted by J. BeDuhn 1995, 426; for his discussion of Mani
as physician, 425-7.
23
K. Rudolph, Gnosis. The Nature and History of an Ancient Religion,
Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1983, 328.
24
Ibid.
25
H.-J. Klimkeit, “Manichaean Kingship: Gnosis at Home in the
World”, Numen 29.1, 1982: 17-32.
OBJECTS IN MOTION: THE CIRCULATION OF RELIGION AND SACRED OBJECTS IN THE LATE ANTIQUE & BYZANTINE
WORLD
travelled to the southern Indus valley and there converted
a Buddhist king.26 Under Wahrām I (r. 273-276) Mani
fell out of royal favor due to intrigue on the part of the
Zoroastrian clergy and died in prison during the spring of
276.27 His missionary work, however, was continued in
both the east and west.
The Manichaean community at Kellis owed its origin to
missionaries from Manichaeism’s original Mesopotamian
communities and the material found there derives from
members of a community that flourished during the
religion’s period of growth and evangelical success in the
fourth century.28 Manichaean missionaries most likely
relied on the established trade routes between Rome and
the Persian Gulf and having secured the protection of the
Arab client rulers of Palmyra, the Lakhmids, made Syria
their base of operations for further missionary excursions
to the west.29 The languages of the Egyptian
communities, Syriac, Greek, and Coptic, reflect this
progression.
The first generation of Manichaean missionaries in Egypt
seems to have focused on translating their faith into a
native discourse.30 Bilingualism, even trilingualism, was
a common phenomenon in Upper Egypt and there seems
to have been no shortage of capable translators within the
clergy of Manichaean communities as professional
scribes traveled abroad to translate Manichaean Syriac
texts.31 The evidence at Kellis suggests that there was
both direct translation from Syriac into Coptic, and Greek
into Coptic, as well as composition of new literature in
the Coptic idiom; there is even evidence that some
members of the community were in the process of
learning Latin.32 Syriac seems to have been confined
mainly to the scriptorium.33 Whereas the Greek
documentary texts consist of prosaic formal letters or
economic legal texts, thus devoid of Manichaean terms
and sentiment, the Coptic documentary texts from Kellis
are mostly personal letters, and it is in these that Kellis’
Manichaeans more often express the terms and
sentiments of their religion.34 The magical texts present
26
Rudolph 1983, 330.
27
Ibid.
28
Gardner 1996, vi.
29
A fragment of a Sogdian missionary history describes how the
Manichaean missionary Addā successfully cured the sister of the wife of
a Caesar (Sogd. Kysr). This most likely refers to the Palmyrene client
rulers. Gallienus granted Odaenathus, the Emir of Palmyra the title of
Caesar following his victory over the invasion of Šābuhr I. A portion of
a Coptic missionary history describes how the Lahkmid ruler invited the
Manichaeans into his kingdom on the grounds that they were healers.
He later became a great protector of the sect and granted them help in
all parts of his kingdom. Lieu points out that Egypt, for a short time, fell
under Palmyrene influence (269 CE) and this could have facilitated
Manichaeism’s entrance. Lieu 1994, 28, 30 and 35.
30
Gardner 1996, vii.
31
Lieu 1994, 90 and Mirecki et. al., 7.
32
When translating the biblical quotations embedded in the Cologne
Codex from Syriac, the translator took care to consult the standard
Greek versions of the time and did not translate the Biblical quotations
directly from Syriac. Lieu 1994., 91-2 and Mirecki et. al. 1997, 7.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.
76
an unusual exception to this linguistic division of labor
and appear in both Greek and Coptic.
Manichaeans integrated themselves into Egyptian society.
There they participated in both Egypt’s spiritual
revolutions and on the more mundane level of rural
village life. Manichaeans distinguished themselves in the
Late Antique Egyptian phenomenon of ascetic desert
monasticism and patristic authors point the differences in
their rather impressive yet Godless austerities and those
of Christian holy men.35 Like Christians, Egypt’s
Manichaean communities suffered from the persecutions
of the emperor Diocletian (302 CE), and it is possible that
the community at Kellis might have been formed by
refugees from the original center at Lycopolis.36 Once
settled there their letters give the impression that the
community was well integrated into normal village life.37
The archaeological finds from Kellis include a sample of
everyday accoutrements and as is to be expected
Manichaean material culture is largely indistinguishable
from that of the rest of the village. Kellis’ inhabitants
appeared to have abandoned the site sometime around
400 CE after which time sand gradually covered the
remnants of the buildings.
Like the Egyptian Manichaeans the Sogdians, an eastern
Iranian people, were often converted by Manichaeism’s
early missionary efforts and themselves became
instrumental in spreading the Manichaean religion even
further east. Mani’s disciple, Mar Ammo, the missionary
to the east, was active in Abarshahr and Merv where a
fragment of a missionary history claims that he “ordained
numerous kings and rulers”.38 Although the triumph of
Christianity and the rise of Islam ultimately persecuted
the Manichaean religion out of existence in the
Mediterranean and Middle East, it continued to thrive in
the Far East, even China, for another thousand years.
During the time period in which the Middle Iranian spells
took shape, Central Asia became the religion’s new
center. In Central Asia the Religion of Light
overshadowed the Nestorian Christian Church and rivaled
Buddhism.39
The Sogdians were a merchant people acting as middle-
men on the Silk Route between the Persians, Romans,
Central Asian nomadic kingdoms, and Chinese.40 From
the third century through the peak of their expansion in
the seventh century, there were many Sogdian colonies
extending from their homeland near the Aral Sea into the
35
Lieu 1994, 94-6 and 99.
36
Ibid., 97.
37
Ibid., 98.
38
Klimkeit 1982b, 20.
39
Ibid., 214-15.
40
The Sogdians trading network has been the best studied of such
networks: É. de la Vaissière, Sogdian Merchants: A History, Leiden,
Brill, 2005, 35-37. J.K. Skaff, “The Sogdian Trade Diaspora in East
Turkestan during the Seventh and Eighth Centuries”, Journal of the
Economic and Social History of the Orient 46.4, 2003: 475-524. See
above for further bibliography on the Indian Ocean and Silk Road trade.
Semenov 1996, 4. R.N. Frye, The Heritage of Central Asia, Princeton,
Marcus Wiener Publishers, 1996, 187.
 MATTHEW P. CANEPA: THE ART AND RITUAL OF MANICHAEAN MAGIC
interior of China.41 The Christian, Buddhist, and
Manichaean texts found in Turfan and Dunhuang were
the products of these expatriate Sogdians’ missionary
activity who, far from home, devoted themselves to
foreign religions and combined their merchant activity
with missionary activity.42 Although Sogdians were also
the great middle-men of the Buddhist religion,
Manichaeism came to be regarded as a characteristically
Sogdian religion.43 The Sogdians, either as silk-road
merchant lay-people or Manichaean clergy, were thus
mediators of culture between east and west; portions of
the magical material were an aspect of their cultural
imports.44
Manicheaism owed its Medieval flowering and
propagation to a Turkish people: the Uighurs. After the
seventh century collapse of the second Turkish Steppe
empire the Uighurs assumed the mantle of Mongolian
and Central Asian power from the succeeding empires of
other altaic peoples: the Hephthalites and Turgesh (640
CE).45 The Chinese “recognized” the Uighur khan who
had propped up the foundering Tang Emperors when, on
several occasions, other bellicose barbarians assailed the
Middle Kingdom and internal insurrections threatened to
destabilize its social order.46 The result of one of these
campaigns was particularly fateful for a religious as well
as political outcome. The Tang government had requested
the Uighur army to help suppress a revolt by a half-
Sogdian usurper, An Lushan.47 In 762 the Sino-Uighur
forces took Louyang and it was here that the Uighur
khan, Bogu Qan (Mou-yu in the Chinese sources)
encountered Sogdian Manichaean Electi. Subsequently,
Bogu Qan embraced the Manichaean religion and made
the Religion of Light the official religion of his vast
steppe empire.48
Various Manichaean centers along the Silk Road, though
on the peripheries of the Uighur empire, were overcome
with a new zeal for the religion. A colophon written in
Middle Persian and preserved in a hymnbook lists such
Manichaean principalities and rulers. Written during the
reign of Bogu Qan’s tenth successor (lt. eighth, early
ninth centuries CE), the colophon mentions not only him
but also the rulers of various small kingdoms along the
northern Silk Road, including the rulers of the main cities
in the Turfan Oases at that time.49 As this colophon
attests, in the Oases of the Tarim Basin small cities
already existed before the destruction of the Uighur
41
Vaissière 35-37; Frye 1996, 185-7.
42
Frye 1996, 5 and 185-7
43
C. Mackerras, The Uighur Empire According to the T’ang Dynastic
Histories, Columbia, University of South Carolina Press, 1972, 10.
44
Whereas the Sogdians are famous for importing Manichaeaism,
Nestorian Christianity, and re-importing Buddhism to the east, silk,
spices, and chess were among their imports to the west. Semenov 1996.
45
D. Sinor, “The Uighur Empire in Mongolia”, in The Cambridge
History of Inner Asia, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992,
317.
46
Mackerras 1972, 14-24.
47
Klimkeit 1982b, 21.
48
Ibid., 217.
49
Klimkeit 1993, 272.
77
empire in 840 CE.50 This area was populated
predominantly by Indo-European peoples like Tocharians
and Scythians.51 The Sogdians, of course, were another
such group that dwelt here in trading colonies along this
northern section of the Silk Road.
In 840 CE, after their defeat by the Khirghiz and the
breakup of their once powerful steppe empire centered in
Mongolia, a portion of the Uighurs migrated to the
relative periphery of their former empire: the Tarim basin
oasis-states.52 They made Qočo the new capital of a
Uighur kingdom and the northern section of the Silk
Road took on a Turkic character. This kingdom gained
recognition from the Chinese in 856 and lasted for almost
four hundred years by paying tribute when necessary to
more powerful neighbors and minding their own business
politically. The kingdom survived until 1209 CE when it
was peacefully incorporated into the Mongol Empire.53
The Uighur overlords ruled an extremely diverse
population who maintained a variety of cultural and
religious traditions. These included, “West-Turken,
Sogder, Chinesen, Mongolen, und Tocharer, geringerer
Anzahl auch Tibeter, Si-Ha, ferner, Syrer und anderer,
westliche, nestorianische Christen und Kaufleüte”.54 The
proper names found in contracts excavated from Turfan
attest to the diversity both of Qočo’s residents and
temporary merchant population. These names are
preserved in Turkish, Chinese, Mongolian, Middle-
Iranian, Syriac, and Arabic, while Uighur is the language
of the contracts.55 Whereas Uighur eventually became the
language of politics and trade in Qočo, Middle Iranian
languages retained their dominance as liturgical
languages despite a growing use of Uighur for this
function too. In this regard, the magical material
resembles the religious material, and, as always, it is
debatable whether there should be a division between
them. All of the extant Manichaean spells are in western
Iranian languages, the ‘Latin’ of the eastern Manichaean
church, which would suggest that they were a reflection
of an older, or conservative, strain of Manichaean
religious life.
Manichaean Belief and Society
Manichaeism proclaimed two basic doctrines: the
doctrine of the Two Principles and the doctrine of the
Three Times.56 The first doctrine refers to Manichaeism’s
50
P. Zieme, Religion und Gesellschaft im Uighurischen Königreich von
Qoco: Kolophone un Stifter des alttürkischen buddhistischen
Schrifttums aus Zentralasien, Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag, 1992), 9.
51
Ibid.
52
Frye 1996, 236.
53
Due to their respectable steppe pedigree and considerable
bureaucratic skills, the Mongols made great use of the Uighurs in
running his empire. The Mongols took over the Uighur script for
Mongolian and put the Uighur’s chancery practice and scribal tradition
to use in the organization of their empire. A.V. Gabain, Das Leben im
uighurischen Königreich von Qoco, Weisbaden, Otto Harrossowitz,
1973, 15-16 and 19. D. Morgan, The Mongols, Cambridge, Blackwell,
1986, 45 and 67.
54
Gabain 1973, 31.
55
Ibid.
56
Klimkeit 1983, 5.
OBJECTS IN MOTION: THE CIRCULATION OF RELIGION AND SACRED OBJECTS IN THE LATE ANTIQUE & BYZANTINE
WORLD
belief in a strict universal dualism. The basic division was
between good and evil. From this followed other dualities
that structured Manichaean belief and articulated it
symbolically: light and dark, matter and spirit, saved and
damned. Humanity’s present condition is a mixture of the
two principles whereupon each human consists of
fragments of the primordial light trapped in matter. This
is the source of all suffering. Salvation from this fallen
state can only be achieved through a combination of
knowledge of the reality of this mixed condition and
correct behavior in one’s life. In Eastern Manichaeism
this was often characterized in the Buddhist terms
“wisdom and skillful means”.57
The doctrine of the Three Times refers to Manichaeism’s
sacred narrative.58 The first “time” refers to the
primordial state of universe where good and evil were
separate. The second time refers to the present where, due
to a cosmic accident they have mingled, and the third
refers to Manichaeism’s eschatological conviction that
eventually after a final battle, all light will be purified
from matter and the two will remain separate for eternity.
Mani set out and explained this fundamental doctrine in
an intricate mythological system that assimilated different
elements of various mythical traditions. The Kingdom of
Light is ruled by the Father of Greatness and is inhabited
by divine beings that have emanated from the Father.59
These emanations aid mankind in the struggle to separate
light from matter, included in which are several sacred
personages appropriated from other religions. Mani
considered himself to be the successor of earlier
“buddhas”, Śākyamuni, and Jesus, who were sent during
their respective eras to awaken mankind.60
Manichaean society was divided into two groups: the “the
elect” and “the auditors”.61 Each group conformed to a
different set of commandments and cultic practices. The
electus was the highest grade of Manichaean society, and
his or her duty was to live a pure life, pray, and
importantly for this study, copy books. The auditores
were pious lay-people who supported the Elect
economically in return for religious instruction and cultic
service, such as confessional absolution. This injunction
to provide for the elect is present in writings from the
Mediterranean to China.62 In a situation similar to Egypt,
there seems to have been a class of multilingual scribes,
drawn from the electi, who were responsible for the
religion’s propagation. The most direct evidence comes
from letters that the clergy-scribes wrote to one another
listing texts taken with missionaries:
57
H.-J. Klimkeit, “Buddhistische Übernahmen im iranischen und
turkischen Manichäismus”, in eds. W. Heissig and H.J. Klimkeit, H.-J.,
Synkretismus in den Religionen Zentralasiens, Wiesbaden, Otto
Harrassowitz, 1987, 60-1.
58
H.-C. Puech, “The Concept of Redemption in Manichaeism”, in The
Mystic Vision: Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks, ed. J. Campbell,
Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1983, 267.
59
Ibid., 267-8.
60
Ibid., 282.
61
Klimkeit 1993, 20-1.
62
For the Mediterranean: St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, 277.21. For
China: E. Chavannes and P. Pelliot, “Un traité manicheen retrouvé en
Chine”, Journal Asiatique 11.1, 1913: 573.
78
And to dear brother Zurvāndād I am very, very
grateful because he, in his goodness has watched
over all the brothers. And I have now dispatched
him to Zamb, and sent him to dear Mār Ammō,
and to (the province of) Chorasan. He has taken
(The Book of) the Giants and the Ardahang with
him. I have made another (copy of the Book of)
the Giants and the Ardahang in Merv.63
Such a scribe included our Middle Persian fever spell on
a page of a book which, judging from the few lines of
another spell or invocation preserved above it, he seems
to have intended as a sort of Central Asian Manichaean
version of the Egyptian PGM/PDM ‘cookbook’.64
Manichaeism in the Uighur kingdom of Qočo developed
amidst a diverse religious atmosphere. Despite
fragmentary sources, we know that a small Nestorian
Christian community existed in both the Uighur steppe
empire and kingdom of Qočo.65 Although the
Manichaean creed was the official state religion,
Buddhism was the faith most widely diffused in the
Tarim basin. Whereas Christianity’s Central Asian
presence was limited to small communities ever
peripheral to that religion’s development, the Buddhist
communities in the Tarim Basin enjoyed a long and
prominent position in the diffusion and evolution of
Mahayana thought, literature, and art. The multilingual
scholar-monk of these Central Asian Buddhist centers
translated the sutras from their original Sanskrit or Prakrit
into the Tarim vernaculars.66
On a local level, in the Kingdom of Qočo, the
Manichaean religion competed with Buddhism for
adherents and the favors of the Khan, who was greatly
revered by Qočo’s Buddhist community as well.67 This
environment engendered an atmosphere of simultaneous
syncretism and competition. In keeping with the general
spirit of the Manichaean religion, the Manichaeans of
Qočo adopted some of the same practices as Buddhism.
Like the literary appropriations, however, the use of
temple banners, cave sanctuaries, even Buddhist derived
iconography, expressed entirely Manichaean concepts
63
Translation in Klimkeit, 1993, 260.
64
See translation below.
65
The Syrian Katholikos, Timotheus, informed his Bishop Sergios that
he had sent a Metropolitan to the land of the Turks and had also
prepared to annoint one for the Land of the Tibetans. They built a
church in front of the walls of Qočo no later than 900, and decorated it
with frescos. G. Uray, “Zu den Spuren des Nestorianismus und des
Manichaismus im alten Tibet (8.-10. Jh.)”, in eds, W. Heissig and H.-J.
Klimkeit, Synkretismus in den Religionen Zentralasiens, Wiesbaden,
Otto Harrassowitz, 1987, 198. W. Hage, Wolfgang, “Das Christentum
in der Turfan-Oase”, in eds, W. Heissig and H.-J. Klimkeit,
Synkretismus in den Religionen Zentralasiens, Wiesbaden, Otto
Harrassowitz, 1987, 46. See also W. Hage, “Kulturelle Kontakts des
ostsyrischen Christentums in Zentralasien”, in ed. René Lavenant S.J.,
Symposium Syriacum 1980: Les Contacts du Monde Syriaque avec les
Autres Cultures Orientalia Christiana Analecta 221, Rome, Pontificia
Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1983, 143-59.
66
H.G. Franz, Kunst und Kultur entlang der Seidenstrasse, Graz,
Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1987, 80.
67
Klimkeit 1988, 273.
 MATTHEW P. CANEPA: THE ART AND RITUAL OF MANICHAEAN MAGIC
despite their superficial similarity to Buddhist material.68
The appropriation of Buddhist magical texts, such as that
of Mahāmāyūri or Candragarbhasūtra that we see in the
Turfan magical material, is entirely consonant with this
sort of selective appropriation and incorporation of ritual
paraphernalia.
Manichaean Ritual Practice
What is known of the Manichaean liturgical life is
incomplete and reconstructed largely from the Turfan
manuscript fragments. The cult’s most important forms of
expression were regular prayers, services, and fasts.
Unlike Christianity it was not normally centered around
sacraments: activities, like the Christian mass, effecting a
breach in the divide between heaven and earth which
would bestow transformitive divine grace on the
participant. Unlike Buddhism, its liturgies were not the
“skillful means” by which a transformation of an
individual’s consciousness might be achieved. Rather
Manichaeism’s daily cult activity consisted of fasting and
prayer accompanied by the singing of hymns. These
activities were essentially instructive and
commemorative.
According to the Arabic historical work, the Kitab al-
Fihirst, four to seven daily prayers were prescribed (for
elect and auditors respectively).69 Such prayers included
hymns of praise to the Father of Light and the saving
deities, especially Jesus and Mani. According to H.Ch.
Puech, the recitation or singing of hymns was the
principle manifestation of Manichaean piety. Certainly
prayers also played a role in weekly Monday services,
along with hymns, scripture readings, and sermons.
Although it is possible that there was a place for
spontaneous prayer, on the whole Manichaean spiritual
life depended on the traditional patterns of prayer that had
developed over the course of centuries.70 Periods of
fasting were superimposed on this weekly cultic routine.
There were seven two-day yimki fasts every year, which
had developed out of five two-day periods of
commemoration of specific “martyrs” of the Church.71 In
the seven yimki days, specific deities and Church leaders
were commemorated side by side. There was also a thirty
day fast in the Spring which led up to the religion’s high
holiday, the Bema.
In cult practice Manichaeism adopted many of the
outward rituals and conventions of its religious
competitors, such as hymn singing or even ritual meals.
“The Manichaean church recognized both public and
individual confessions: every Monday the congregation
confessed to the Elect: and all confessed publicly to
Mani- whose spirit was believed to attend the ceremony-
at the end of the thirty days preceding the festival of the
Bema”.72 Elements of the Manichaean body of scripture,
68
Klimkeit 1987, 60.
69
Ibid.
70
Ibid., 24.
71
Klimkeit 1993, 23.
72
Peuch 1983, 311. Note on the Bema: Although the Bema festival was
celebrated by Manichaeans from North Africa to Central Asia, from the
79
such as the Mani’s own writings and letters to the
community as well as certain hymns, were present in all
communities from the earliest days of the religion.
Likewise certain ritual traditions took place in every
Manichaean community from late antiquity to the Late
Middle Ages, and were attested to by such geographically
and temporally disparate writers as Augustine (354-430
CE) and Ahmad Ibn-Tayyib (d. 898).73 Magical practices
follow a slightly different pattern.
THE MULTIPLE CULTURAL CONTEXTS AND
INTERRELATIONS OF MANICHAEAN MAGIC
Manichaean Magic in Late Roman Egypt
I will analyze the Egyptian material first because of its
antiquity and the possibility that it participated in a
tradition that eventually informed the Central Asian
material. The Egyptian Manichaean magical corpus as I
am defining it here consists of 1) the Cologne
Manichaean Codex, 2) P. Kell. Copt. 35, 4) P. Kell. Gr.
91, 3) P. Kell. Gr. 92, and 4) P. Kell. Gr. 94. Within the
Egyptian material I will deal first with the Codex
Manichaeichus Coloniensis then the Kellis fragments
whose magical context is more secure. It is uncertain and
unfortunately unprovable whether the patrons of the
CMC commissioned or used the miniature codex as an
amulet considering we know nothing of its context and its
text contains no solid clues of its use. There are other
possible functions that its small size would have made
possible (portability on missionary activity, to be easily
hidden during persecutions, a display of scribal virtuosity
for the religion’s competitors) any of which could
function concurrently with a magical use. In this section I
merely consider a magical function to supplement the
long-studied textual significance of its contents.
Several intriguing parallels between the codex and
contemporary Christian practices emerge upon
comparison. Amulets (phylaktēria) were common
throughout the fourth and fifth centuries especially in the
lower strata of society despite the fact that the Christian
Church Fathers and councils routinely condemned their
use.74 The CMC’s small size, only 38 x 45 mm (making it
earliest days of the religion the nature of the Bema liturgy is not entirely
clear, as its characteristics are known primarily from the manuscript
fragments from late antique Egypt and the Tarim Basin, and secondarily
through Christian apologetic material and Arabic historical works. For
the Coptic Bema hymns see G. Wurst, Der Bemafest der ägyptischen
Manichäer, Altenberge, Oros Verlag, 1995. For the Central Asian
material see Klimkeit 1993. For the Latin apologetic material see J.
Zycha, S. Aureli Augustini De utilitate credendi, De duabus animabus,
Contra Fortunatum, Contra Adimantum, Contra epistulam fundamenti,
Contra Faustum CSEL 25.1, 1891; S. Aureli Augustini Contra Felicem,
De Natura boni, Epistula Secundini, Contra Secundinum accedunt
Euodii De fide contra Manichaeos Vienna, CSEL 25.2, 1892. Greek
apologetic material see A. Adam, Texte zum Manichaismus (Kleine
Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 175), Berlin, 1969. For the Arabic
sources see G. Flugel, Mani, seine Lehren und seine Schriften, Leipzig,
1862; K. Kessler, Forschungen uber die manichäische Religion, Berlin,
1889.
73
Wurst 1995, 22 and 28.
74
Such as Severus of Antioch (PO 29.1:79 [583]f) and the council of
Laodikeia I, canon 36). G. Vikan, “Amulet (phylaktērion)”, in The
OBJECTS IN MOTION: THE CIRCULATION OF RELIGION AND SACRED OBJECTS IN THE LATE ANTIQUE & BYZANTINE
WORLD
one of the smallest texts to survive from antiquity),
approximates that of Christian amulets like P. Ant. ii 54
(26 x 40 mm, Pater Noster) or P. Oxy. xvii 2065 (Ps.
90).75 However the CMC differs from such Christian
amuletic use of scripture in the sheer volume of scripture
that it employs; it contains almost two hundred pages.
The only parallel that is available, Christian, Manichaean,
or otherwise, is unfortunately textual rather than
artifactual. John Chrysostomos (ca. 340/50-407 CE)
alludes to a similar Christian phenomenon in his seventy-
second homily on the Gospel of Matthew.76 In it John
describes the vain practices of the Scribes and Pharisees,
“proof of their wickedness (hē tēs kakias autōn tekmēria
ēn)”.77 John explains that the Scribes and the Pharisees
wore phylacteries on their hands on which they had
inscribed “God’s marvelous works”. He describes these
phylacteries as “little books” (bibloi mikroi) which were
worn, “as many women now wear the Gospels hung on
their necks (ōs pollai nun tōn gunaikōn Euaggelia tōn
trakhēlōn exartōsai ekhousi)”.78
Despite the fact that the practice met John’s disapproval
(who seems to be continuing the Classical literary trope
of women as especially susceptible to mageia) the
relative size of a miniature Gospel book would match that
of the Manichaean codex. The way contemporary
Christians employed miniature Gospel books as
phylaktēria could provide a possible context for the CMC
and seems to be consonant with the esteem that
Manichaeans held for books. Augustine remarked on the
immense resources that the Manichaeans put into the
creation of their books and the high standard of
Manichaean illuminated manuscripts was so well known
in the Medieval Muslim world that it became an
aphorism. The Islamic writer al-Jahiz (died 868) reports
that Ibrahim al-Sindhi once said to him: “I wish the
Zindiks (the Manichaeans) were not so intent upon
spending much money buying clean white paper and
using shining black ink, and that they would not lay such
great store on beautiful script, and in inciting their scribes
to zeal; for truly, no paper that I have seen is comparable
to the paper of their books and no beautiful script with
that which is used there”.79 Manichaean communities
often invested the entirety of their resources into the
creation of manuscripts and books took on an iconic
significance in the highest of their rituals: the Bema
Liturgy where the book provided Mani’s personal
presence for the congregation.80 In this context a book of
Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford, Oxford University Press,
1991, 1: 82.
75
Lieu 1994, 79.
76
Ibid., 80.
77
In. Mt. Hom. 83: 1-3, Patrologiae Graecae 58.669.
78
Ibid.
79
Quoted in Kessler 1889, 336.
80
One of Mani’s homilies uses books as an expression of hope and as
an investment for the future survival of the religion as well as alluding
to the great cost and value of book. “A thousand books will be
preserved…they will come into the hands of the just and the faithful:
[the] Gospel and the Treasury of Life, the Pragmateia and the Book of
Mysteries, the Book of Giants and the Epistles, the Psalms and [the]
Prayers of my lord, his Icon and his Revelations, his Parables and his
Mysteries…How many will be lost? How many will be destroyed? A
80
Mani’s words would provide his presence and a
corresponding prophylaxis, just as the Christian analogue
of the Gospels where the book that contained Christ’s
word provided his presence to the congregation.81
Although Manichaeans were inveterate appropriators of
other religion’s liturgical and artistic elements but it is
likely that the use of miniature books would have rested
in the more ecumenical common ground of ritual practice
than anything defined by orthodoxy.82 This is as far as I
am prepared to go in reconstructing a magical context for
the CMC with available evidence. However there is one
last point that needs to be made. Considering the
enormous cost of a book’s creation, the use of the CMC
as an amulet, like the use of the Gospels by Chrysostom’s
Christian women, would have been a practice reserved
only for those of the faithful who were extremely
wealthy. A multiplicity of uses would increase the value
of such a codex to the relatively modest means of the
Egyptian Manichaean communities.
Several Greek amulet texts (P. Gr. 91, 92, and 94) found
in the Manichaean community of Kellis parallel the CMC
in their assumption that there was power inherent in
wearing Holy Scripture. The texts seem to parallel
Manichaean hymns or scripture such as the Kephalia.83
For example P. Gr. 91 invokes several epithets of
thousand lost, another thousand recovered; for they will find them at the
end. They will kiss them and say: ‘O Wisdom of Greatness, O Armor of
the Apostle of Light! When you were lost…where did they find
you?’…And you shall find them reading them aloud, uttering the name
[of each book] among them: the name of its lord…and the name of
those who gave all [for it to be written], and the name of the scribe who
wrote it…and of the one who punctuated it…” (Homilies 24.13-25.19
quoted in P. Mirecki and J. BeDuhn, “Emerging from Darkness:
Manichaean Studies at the End of the 20th Century”, in Mirecki and
BeDuhn 1997, xii.
81
Whereas other books were used only in reference to what was inside
them the Gospel lectionary was used in rituals with reference to its
objecthood. Because the Gospel contained the Word of God, the
Byzantine and Armenian Christians treated the Gospel Lectionary as an
eikon of Christ, with all the significance that icons carried. When the
Lectionary was displayed, the faithful kissed it (aspasmos) and bowed
before it (proskynesis ) much like an icon. J. Anderson, The New York
Cruciform Lectionary, University Park, Penn State Press, 1992, 5-7. C.
Rapp, “Christians and their Manuscripts in the Greek East in the Fourth
Century”, in eds. G. Cavalo, G. de Gregorio, and M. Maniaci, Scritture,
libri e testi nelle aree provinciali di Bizanzio, vol I, Spoleto, 1991, 127-
60. Fr. K.H. Maksoudian, “The Gospel Book in Armenian Worship”,
eds. T.F. Mathews and R.S. Wieck, in Treasures in Heaven: Armenian
Illuminated Manuscripts, New York, 1994, 35.
82
There was a great deal of exchange between Manicheaism,
Christianity, and Buddhism on both an artistic and textual level. In most
cases Manichaeism was the assimilator. Manichaeism, as embodied in
its Parthian and Uighur writings, utilized Sanskrit-derived Buddhist
terms to express its ideas such as ‘buddha’, which could refer to Mani,
Jesus and Śākyamuni, or parinirvāna, used interchangeably with
crucifixion, to refer to Mani’s death. In keeping with the general spirit
of the Manichaean religion, the Manichaeans of Qočo adopted some of
the same practices as Buddhism. Like the literary appropriations,
however, the use of temple banners, cave sanctuaries, even Buddhist
derived iconography, expressed entirely Manichaean concepts despite
their superficial similarity to Buddhist material; H.-J. Klimkeit,
“Buddhistische Übernahmen im iranischen und türkischen
Manichaismus”, in Heissig and Klimkeit 1987, 60-1; Rudolph 1983,
330.
83
See Gardner’s commentaries on the texts for the parallels: I. Gardner,
Kellis Literary Texts, I, Oxford, Oxbow Books, 1996, 134-6 (P. Gr. 91),
130 (P. Gr. 92), and 144 (P. Gr. 94).
 MATTHEW P. CANEPA: THE ART AND RITUAL OF MANICHAEAN MAGIC
Manichaean divinities entreats them for deliverance
(Gardner’s translation):
“I glorify you:
the firstborn word;
the father of the intellectual man;
the mother of life;
the first apostleship;
the splendour of the enlighteners;
our holy spirit;
the salt of the church;
the pilot of goodness!
Make us worthy to be your faithful:
those who are justified in you;
those who are renewed in you;
those who are perfected in you;
those who are rejoicing in you;
those who are sanctified in you;
those who are sober in you;
those who hasten to you!
Deliver us. Amen”.84
The ‘firstborn word’ (here ton prōtotokon logon, in
Coptic Shamise) is an epithet for the first man and Jesus;
the ‘Mother of Life’ (tēn mētera tēs zōēs) is the female
partner the high god, and ‘the first apostleship’ (tēn
prōtēn apostolēn) could refer to either of the true apostles
- Jesus or Mani, etc.85 The texts themselves are thus
closer to Manichaean canonical texts than the mass of
‘mainstream’ late antique magical texts such as the PGM
or PDM. However, what the owner of the texts did with
them completely coheres with the expectations of other
strains of late antique Mediterranean magic. In terms of
ritual practice they certainly relate to the common activity
of taking advantage of such powerful texts (either
canonical scripture or spells) by wearing them on the
body either as rolled-up papyrus or on a wooden block.
Like the Greek Kellis texts, P. Kell. Copt. 35 was
possibly intended to function as an amulet.86 Unlike the
Greek amulets, P. Kell. Copt. 35’s textual contents seem
to be taken straight from a late antique magical
‘cookbook’ such as those of the PGM or the Christian
Coptic material. However it is unique among magical
material from any cultural context, in that it consists of a
personal letter written by a practitioner to his client/friend
on which the practitioner includes spell that his friend had
commissioned. The inclusion of the letter on the back of
the spell seems to have not compromised its efficacy.87
Dating to approximately 389 CE on prosopographical
grounds, the papyrus measures 24.0 by 8.0 cm and is
largely intact, having been restored from several
fragments.88 The side with vertical fibers carries the
beginning of the text (42 lines) while the side with
horizontal fibers contains the conclusion of the letter (8
lines), the correspondents’ names (Vales/Oualēs < Latin,
84
Ibid., 134.
85
Gardner provides several parallels to the Kephalia and the
Manichaean Psalms. Ibid., 135-6.
86
Mirecki et. al. 1997, 3.
87
Ibid.
88
Ibid., 8 and 2.
81
Valens, and Pshai/Psai) and the recipient’s address all
written parallel to the fibers.89 The writer, Vales, seems to
have to deliberately arranged the ritual text on the
papyrus in relation to the letter in such a way that upper
half of the papyrus sheet could be torn away to provide a
ready made-made amulet for Pshai.90 Mirecki et. al.
suggest that Vales might have copied the ritual text from
some sort of magical textual source, either another amulet
or a source-book and in the letter Vales mentions that he
has around his house another amulet text which he
promised to send to Pshai as soon as he would find where
he misplaced it.91 As Mirecki translated it:
1/01. To my lord brother Psais,
1/02. (from )Vales your brother.
2/01. I call upon You, the one who rules,
2/02. the one sitting above
2/03. the Cheroubin and Sarouphin, the one who stands
(in judgement)
2/04. over disputes and quarrels, the one who has stopped
2/05. the winds with his great power. Just
2/06. as you made the Land of Egypt lord, you cast
2/07. quarrels over the Chaldeans. You (pl.)
2/08. are the ones over whom I utter these names,
2/09. you (sg.) [are the one who makes (?)] what is
generated black (?), Let “so & so” the son
2/10. of “so & so”, let their heart be black for each
2/11. other. Oh timely (?) natron of Arabia! Just
2/12. as you will wash every thing, (so) you can
2/13. wash (away) the desire which is between them for
each
2/14. other. And you are the burning of the mustard,
2/15. as you can put burning and scorching into their
heart
2/16. for each other. The house in which I will place
2/17. you (sg.), do not come out of it without having
2/18. instigated a dispute and a
2/19. quarrel with thundering. And four times (speak)
2/20. the other (man’s name), four-times (speak the
89
Ibid., 2-3.
90
“The names and titles of the sender and receiver were written on the
outside of the roll after the folding process. It might be coincidental that
the first fold divides the text on the side with vertical fibers into two
portions which correspond to the two texts on that side of the letter (the
ritual text [2/01-21] and the personal letter [3/01-4/08] However, one
can suppose that this first fold was made before the scribe wrote the
conclusion of the letter on the side with the horizontal fibers, since the
edge of the fold clearly functions as a right margin for the text of the
letter’s conclusion. Thus the text of the conclusion is deliberately
framed by four intact margins; the top, left and right margins are about
the same size (less than 0.5 cm, and similar to the framing of the text on
the side with vertical fibers), while the large bottom margin (3.5) results
from originally uninscribed papyrus surface after the conclusion. One
might suggest that the writer deliberately arranged the texts of the spell
and the letter in such a way that the upper-half of the papyrus sheet
(containing the text of the spell could be torn away from the lower half
of the sheet containing the text of the letter, so that the upper-half would
function as a ready-made amulet for Vales. This suggestion must
explain the apparent tolerance of the mundane text of the address on the
back of the supposed read-made amulet, a mundane text which could be
understood as problematic fro the efficacy of the spell”. Ibid., 3.
91
In a footnote Mirecki et. al. mention the PGM spells (IV.154-69A and
XIII.341-43A) which employ “epistolary frameworks” that suggest the
original and authoritative context for the transmission however this text
seems to be a “genuine ad hoc letter”. Ibid., 10, fn 40.
OBJECTS IN MOTION: THE CIRCULATION OF RELIGION AND SACRED OBJECTS IN THE LATE ANTIQUE & BYZANTINE
WORLD
phrase) “you will send
2/21. these words upon them”.
2/22. It is complete.
3/01. I greet you warmly. I pray for your
3/02. continuing health
3/03. until I embrace you once again in person
3/04. and my joy be complete. I swear to you
3/05. by our Lord Paraclete and the knowledge
3/06. of truth: This is what I have found near me,
3/07. and I have hastened to write it and send it
3/08. to you; for the other one is written on a small
fragment
3/09. of papyrus, and I did not find it. Should I find it
3/10. I will send it to you; I for my part knowing
3/11. that it will not be brought to brother Kallikletei.
3/12. I send it, for it is with my own hand that I wrote
this.
3/13. I have sent it, saying that
3/14. perhaps this what you need. I beg you,
3/15. my lord brother: If you can write the tetrads
3/16. for me, which I sent to you, I will cause
3/17. what is written to be brought to you too, so that you
may known where
3/18. they have reached, to look at. He did
3/19. not neglect to write them quickly.
3/20. You send them to me by a blessed one,
4/01. For they said “We want someone else to write the
other things.” Now, do
4/02. not neglect to send them quickly. By no means! I
did it for the great texts; (but it is) because
4/03. they say that the papyrus had run out. Still, it is a
useful text; and if you
4/04. write them, I for my part will ackowledge your
superiority no fool! Greet
4/05. warmly for me those who give you peace of mind in
word and deed,
4/06. Anything you want here, order me (and) I will do it
rejoicing.
4/07. Live and be healthy for a long
4/08. time; my lord, my brother.92
The text of the spell does not resemble spells commonly
meant for use in an apotropaic phylaktērion; rather, Kell.
35 resembles Greek and Coptic love magic.93 There is
nothing necessarily Manichaean about its text and only its
Manichaean epistolary and archaeological contexts signal
that it is in fact “Manichaean”. As such it is a prime piece
of evidence for the Manichaeans’ ready adaptation and
appropriation of ritual texts and their incorporation into
the Manichaean ritual arsenal. Considering Pshai and
Vales both seem to be scribes by profession, it implies
that magical texts entered and were propagated within the
Manichaean community through translation and
appropriation by one of these multilingual scribes.94
Since the multilingual cleric/scribe was an integral
element in Manichaean missionary activity and
92
Mirecki et. al. 1997, 15-17.
93
Ibid., 17.
94
Ibid., 4-8.
82
instrumental in disseminating the canonical texts from
Manichaean community to Manichaean community, it is
probable that scribes spread such extra-canonical, yet
ritually useful, texts as well.
Mirecki et. al. have commented extensively on this spell
and marked its similarities with other Trennungzauber
spells in the Christian, pagan and Jewish Mediterranean
milieu.95 I have nothing to add to their thorough
commentary of its relationship to other non-Manichaean
late antique magic but merely want focus on the two
Manicheans’, Vales’ and Pshai’s, relationship to the
extra-doctrinal magical material to understand the place
of the process of appropriation in their milieu and,
secondly, to draw attention to several elements which I
see as broadly paralleling the other Manichaean magical
sources: its angelic invocation, its use of similia similibus
with the mustard seed, and its use of historiola - here
2/05B-07A’s invocation of Jeremiah 37:5.96 I will return
to these elements after considering the Mesopotamian and
Central Asian material.
Manichaean Incantation Bowls from Mesopotamia
As mentioned in the introduction, several Mesopotamian
incantation bowls have emerged which provide an
interesting but inconclusive supplement to Egyptian and
Central Asian material. These bowls date to a period
roughly between the fifth and seventh centuries CE and
functioned, along with the mass of Aramic incantation
bowls, as a sort of ‘home security system,’ fusing
elements of binding spells and apotropaica to protect an
individual’s person, house, and guests from malevolent
powers.97 In contrast to the majority of the apotropaic
incantation bowls which were written in Judeo-Aramaic,
Mandaean, and Syriac script, nineteen have been
discovered written in a script that Manichaeans developed
and used for the creation of their sacred texts.98 However,
the script itself does not implicitly indicate that the
consumer of the bowl was Manichaean, nor even that the
magician who created the bowl was Manichaean. In all
but one of the nineteen bowls, the contents of the
invocations contain nothing explicitly Manichaean and
seem to parallel the language, cosmology, and cast of
characters presented in the Judeo-Aramaic, Mandaean
and Syriac bowls. The one exception invokes ‘Jesus the
Healer’ and the archangels ‘Michael the healer,’ ‘Rafael
the reliever’ and ‘Gabriel the servant of the Lord’.99
While Manichaeism did not lay sole claim to these divine
personages, they show up regularly in Manichaean
canonical texts, some, such as “Jesus the Healer,” with
95
Ibid., 17-32. On appropriation of other types of spells: Mirecki 2001.
96
For the Jeremiah historiola: Ibid., 21.
97
Date: J.A. Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur,
Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1913, 103-4. J. BeDuhn.
J. Naveh and S. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic
Incantations of Late Antiquity, Leiden, Brill, 1985, 15. References in: J.
BeDuhn, “Magical Bowls and Manichaeans”, in eds. M. Meyer & P.
Mirecki, Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, Leiden, Brill, 1995, 419.
98
Ibid., 419 and 427.
99
Ibid., 429-430. See 47-51 for a more in depth discussion of this
epithet.
 MATTHEW P. CANEPA: THE ART AND RITUAL OF MANICHAEAN MAGIC
the very same epithets.100 For example, several
fragments, probably composed during a time of
persecution invokes the archangels.101
As BeDuhn concluded, “nothing in the Manichaean script
bowls (other than the script itself) definitively identifies
them as Manichaean, and nothing in them precludes
Manichaean composition”.102 Taken in connection with
the bowls in Manichaean script, the bowl implies that
some sort of exchange definitely did occur. In the case of
the script bowls it was the use of the Manichaean script to
by a literate Manichaean in adopting what seem to be
communal spells. Possibly the Manichaean script bowls
could imply an exchange in writing technology from a
literate Manichaean to another magician. Perhaps the
bowl could demonstrate that someone with the
knowledge of, and motivation to include, Manichaean
cosmological material in an incantation bowl operated in
the Mesopotamian milieu. At the very least, the one bowl
with both Manichaean script and textual elements
demonstrates that literate Manichaeans were involved
somewhere in the process of magical creation.
When put in dialogue with other evidence of Manichaean
magical practice, the Mesopotamian incantation bowls
provide an interesting inversion of the practices implied
by the Coptic and Central Asian material. In the case of
the incantation bowls the Manichaean elements were just
one of many that multilingual, multiethnic and multi-
religious Mesopotamian communities employed. In
contrast to the Coptic and Persian material, the religious
identity of the pracitioner and creator and even the spell
itself is unimportant and almost silent- with the exception
of the one bowl. The bowls’ orthography is the only
decisive indicator. In Egypt and Central Asia the identity
of the practioners made more of an imprint on the
material. In contrast the multilingual scribe Vales and his
letter laden with Manichaean epistolary conventions
provides a Manichaean context for P. Kell. Copt. 35.
Although they appropriated the spells from a variety of
sources, the Egyptian Manichaean magicians impressed
the spells with an overarching Manichaean identity and
put them in rough accordance with a loose Manichaean
cosmology. This ‘rebaptism’ is even more pronounced
when we turn to the Central Asian material.
Although I am not arguing for a direct textual
transmission from the Egyptian to the Mesopotamian to
the Central Asian Manichaean material under study, the
phenomenon of a multilingual, culturally savvy scribe
seems to obtain in both the Egyptian and Mesopotamian
100
Fragment, M 90 Parthian: “Chief of the messengers, Lord, Healer,
Jesus, Savior, Ruler of the holy religion, - (you are) eternally (holy)!” In
accordance with BeDuhn’s argument that, “most scholars of
Manichaeism erroneously translate airyaman ‘friend’ as if it were a
common noun (and a Gnostic appellation), and not an identification
with the Iranian deity Airyaman, god exorcistic healing”, I have altered
the normal translation of this fragment. BeDuhn 1995, fn. 38, 429-30.
101
M 20 (line 1. “…Raphael, Gabriel, Michael, Sarael…” among others,
and M 46 (“line 12. I invoke the powerful angels, the mighty ones,
Raphael, Michael, Gabriel, Sarael…”) The text of both are published in
Boyce 1975, texts dt and du.
102
Ibid., 432.
83
context and implies a link across these two regions. The
multi-lingual context of the incantation bowls provides
clues about how Mesopotamian practitioners of any
cultural or religious background appropriated and
incorporated magical texts into their repertoires and the
broad similarities between them hints at the processes
behind the movement of magical texts across Eurasia.
One of the magic bowls themselves provides the best
characterization that the Mesopotamian practitioners’
understood that their tradition stood between east and
west. It prefigures the cosmopolitan and even more
multivalent nature of the Central Asian Manichaean
magical material:
And there will cease from this dwelling and
threshold of the Parrukdad the son of Zebinta
and of Qamoi the daughter of Zaraq, Aramean
black arts, Jewish black-arts, Arabic black-arts,
Persian black-arts, Indian black-arts, Greek
black-arts, black-arts of the Romans, black arts
which are practiced in the seventy languages,
either by woman or by man.103
The Persian Spell and Parthian Amulet from Turfan
The Persian Spell (M 781) and Parthian amulet (M 1202)
recovered from Turfan, have received only passing
attention since Henning’s publication in 1947. Although
Henning’s 1947 translation and commentary are
extremely thorough, I offer my own translation and
supplemental commentary to bring out elements which
relatively recent discoveries and scholarship concerning
Middle Persian magic and Manichaeaism have brought to
light. I have used the edition of the texts prepared by
Mary Boyce in her Reader in Manichaean Middle
Persian, and Parthian that contains several
interpretations of the texts that differ from Henning’s.104
The Persian fever spell and the Parthian amulet both
display a dizzying array of cultural influences. In the
fever spell we find religio-cultural influences from Near
Eastern and Central Asia Judeo-Christian, Manichaean,
Zoroastrian magic, as well as echoes of Mediterranean
magical texts. The Parthian zāwar or amulet shows even
a wider cultural breadth ranging from Mediterranean,
Judeo-Christian, Manichaean, Zoroastrian and South
Asian Buddhist traditions. Despite this impressive
cultural range, a Manichaean worldview seems to subject
and organize all these culturally disparate elements and
provides an overarching cosmology in which Jewish,
Christian, Zoroastrian, Manichaean, or Buddhist all
harmoniously function. Unfortunately, unlike P. Kell.
Copt. 35, the identities of the scribes are unknown. But
like the Manichaean-script incantation bowls, the
Manichaean script and languages provide a Manichaean
context, and like the Greek Kellis amulets, the invocation
of several discreetly Manichaean deities among a variety
103
C.D. Isbell, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls, Missoula,
Scholars Press, 1975, 113. BeDuhn 1995, 419.
104
M. Boyce, A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian, and Parthian:
texts with notes, Acta Iranica 9, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1975.
OBJECTS IN MOTION: THE CIRCULATION OF RELIGION AND SACRED OBJECTS IN THE LATE ANTIQUE & BYZANTINE
WORLD

of others, secures this cultural context. I would like to case by the time this spell was composed and used, it was
analyze these elements first beginning with their general a regular part of Manichaean liturgical life. Out of several
structure, then their relationship with the various cultural examples, a Persian prayer (fragment M 46) calls on
traditions. many of the same divine figures:

The Persian spell controls the “spirit” (wād) of the fever 1. Come you shall live together with the
through naming it and describing its nature and what mighty angels.
physical substances weaken it. The concept of controlling Guard and protect the holy Church,
by describing parallels some migraine spells in the PGM, And cut off the heads of the adversaries,
yet the description itself is entirely unique. Although it is The foes of peace.
tempting to translate the fever spirit’s name (‘dr’ = Idra) 2. May Raphael, Michael, Gabriel (and)
as Greek Hydra, the patchy description of its form does Sarael,
not seem to match the sort of creature that Herakles Together with all the most powerfull angels,
overcame, and, as Henning’s philological reconstruction Increase peace and faith
shows, the term does seem to have connections with a For the whole Church of the Eastern
large, winged polymorphous bird-lion composite beast Province.
seen in several Iranian cultures. The Parthian amulet 3. Blessings upon the mighty angels!107
performs a similar operation by naming all classes of
demons to be controlled. However its two sections do so Another invocation (M 20) is exemplary of the favorite
in two very different ways. While the second section (16- angel-lists of the Central Asian Manichaeans- note
30) adopts a South Asian technique for naming and especially that the invocation calls on the distinctively
controlling deities, the yakΒa list (to which I will return), Manichaean angels Bar Sīmūs and Qaftinus just as the
the first section (1-15) does it in a way that is Parthian Amulet:
recognizable from a Mediterranean and Mesopotamian
point of view: it calls on (perhaps even adjures) deities 1…..Jacob the angel, the Lord Bar Sīmūs,
and exorcises evil spirits in the name of deities and angels Kaftinus the mighty one, Raphael, Gabriel,
that parallel the PGM and Sefir ha Razim. Similarly the Michael, Sarael, Narses, Nastikus…
Persian spell exorcises the fever from the body of the 2….you (divine powers) shall not forget (our)
sufferer in the name of what could be discretely Christian invocation, nor the voice of our grief, for
deities, if we ignore the Manichaean names and epithets. we are of the righteous and not of the
[evildoers].108
The invocation of Jesus, the Father, Saboath, El and the
archangels finds many parallels in the PGM, Coptic Similar to the manner by which the Central Asian
Christian material and especially Mesopotamian Jewish magical material call out the angels, the Persian spell and
material. The wording of the spells do not seem to Parthian amulet calls on a heavenly host of Manichaean
translate a Jewish adjuration/exorcism formula deities in an almost liturgical manner.109 Interestingly, the
(orkizō/exorkizō) exactly, but the fact that the spell calls tone, structure and even portions of the text of the fourth
on the holy names of the deities and archangels to effect century Greek amulet from the Manichaean community
the evil spirit’s removal again parallels Judeo-Christian in Kellis (P Kel. 91) parallels the seventh to ninth century
tradition.105 This and the fact that Saboath, El and the Central Asian texts, be they magical or liturgical:
Archangels figure prominently suggest that a strain of
Semitic (perhaps medical) magic might have informed “I glorify you:
the traditions that, in turn, informed the composition of the firstborn word;
this spell.106 the father of the intellectual man;
On the other hand the invocation of divine beings and the mother of life;
angels for aid in vanquishing evil is a regular the first apostleship;
characteristic of the Central Asian Manichaean liturgical the splendour of the enlighteners;
material. This might have been an inheritance from our holy spirit;
Manichaeism’s semi-Judeo-Christian roots, but in any the salt of the church;
the pilot of goodness!
105
The Sepher ha-Razim (for example 70-75) for the adjuration formula Make us worthy to be your faithful:
calling the angels to destroy someone or something. The PGM contains those who are justified in you;
many examples of Jewish exorcism formulas- in both Greek and Coptic- those who are renewed in you;
which call on the malevolent spirit to leave an individual’s body and
date from about the time of the Manichaean Coptic material (fourth
those who are perfected in you;
century). (PGM IV.1227-1264, IV.3007-3086, VII.260-271). There those who are rejoicing in you;
seems to be a contrast to calling on the unclean spirit itself to leave the those who are sanctified in you;
person, and calling on the angels to effect it, but like many PGM spells
and Mesopotamian incantation bowls, the Persian spell uses both.
106 107
Sabaoth being another name for the Judeo-Christian God. Again the Translated by H.J. Klimkeit 1993, 159.
108
angels are as ubiquitous in such texts as the PGM to the Sepher ha Ibid., 160.
109
Razim, to the incantation bowls as they are in canonical works like the M 46, line 4: “I bless the God Mani, the Lord, I venrate your great,
Bible and the Manichaean Book of Giants. For the name El in magic bright glory (farrah), I pray to the holy Spirit, together with the glories
texts, compare Naveh and Shaked 1985, 36. and strong angels”.

84
 MATTHEW P. CANEPA: THE ART AND RITUAL OF MANICHAEAN MAGIC
those who are sober in you;
those who hasten to you!
Deliver us. Amen.”110
After calling on the angelic host, the invocation in
fragment M 46 then calls out and blesses several high
Manichaean deities including, not surprisingly, Mani.
However the invocation calls on several less prominent
deities or epithets of Mani, such as his ‘Glory’ or
‘Splendor’ and the Mother of the Living - figures whom
we have encountered in both the Egyptian and Central
Asian material. For example the Persian spell calls on
“the Father, the Highest,” and “the Holy Spirit” as the
does the Egyptian amulet. Similarly, the Parthian amulet
calls on Mani as “the Apostle of the Gods,” and “praised
and blessed spirit” and the invocation of M 46 calls on
the “Holy Spirit,” and Mani’s “Splendor (farrah)”.111
Rather than providing evidence for a direct textual
transmission these similarities suggest a continuation in
the way Manichaean’s created and composed their
magical texts- by borrowing heavily from the same large
stock of liturgical texts which were directly and faithfully
transmitted to all Manichaean communities
everywhere.112 This accounts for the liturgical nature of
the spells and underscores the fact that the line between
religion, medicine and magic was not as clearly drawn for
the Manichaeans as it was for Christians.
Just as the Persian spell and the Parthian amulet contain
elements that parallel the Mediterranean and
Mesopotamian Judeo-Christian magical/mythical
traditions, the Central Asian magical material also draws
heavily from Zoroastrian medical magic and Iranian
mythical tradition. Like the angels lists, Manichaean
liturgical texts seem to be constant source for the magical
texts for the Iranian mythological material that the
Manichaean religion itself appropriated and made its own
centuries before during its formative years under the
Sasanians. Despite spotty sources on all sides, a number
of parallels with Zoroastrian medical magic might
suggest that specific application of these Iranian elements
to medical magic might have been influenced by or an
appropriation of Zoroastrian medical magic.
First of all, in the Persian fever spell, I believe that Jesus’
epithet aryāmān, is an appropriation of the attributes of a
Zoroastrian deity of healing. Aryāmān is the Manichaean
Middle Persian translation of the Avestan term
airiiaman- (paralleled in Indo-Aryan times by Vedic
aryaman-, and in late antiquity by Pahlavi ērmān) which
means “friend, companion”.113 Airyaman was an ancient
110
Gardner 1996, 134.
111
M 46, line 4, Klimkeit 1993, 149.
112
The Bema hymns are found both in Egypt in Coptic and in Central
Asia in Persian and Parthian; Wurst 1995; Klimkeit 1993, 133-43.
Again, as evidence for the transmission, I would point to the letters
written by the electi themselves: “And to dear brother Zurvāndād I am
very, very grateful because he in his goodness has watched over all the
brothers. And I have now dispatched him to Zamb, and sent him to dear
Mār Ammō, and to (the province of) Chorasan. He has taken (The Book
of) the Giants and the Ardahang with him. I have made another (copy of
the Book of) the Giants and the Ardahang in Merv”. Klimkeit 1993,
260.
113
M. Boyce, “Airyaman”, Encyclopædia Iranica, 1, 1983: 694.
85
Iranian divinity and a yazata of the Zoroastrian pantheon
who, along with Mithra, upheld the bond of friendship.114
Airyaman became a yazata of healing for the
Zoroastrians who was able to heal physical evil in the
future and cure any of the 99, 999 present illnesses sent
by Aŋra Mainyu, the ‘Malificient Spirit’ to plague
mankind.115 In the third century, Manichaean
missionaries deliberately associated Mani’s gods with
Zorastrian yazatas for proselytizing purposes and linked
the Manichaean figure of Jesus (who, as in the Christian
Gospels, was a great healer) with ariiyaman, calling him
Yishō Aryāmān, as our fever spell reflects.116 In light of
the specifically medical context of the fever I have
followed BeDuhn in translating as Yishō Aryāmān as
“Jesus the Healer” in order to capture this connection
with the Zoroastrian healing divinity.117
Later among Zoroastrians, the cult of Airyaman became
fused to the popular cult of Frēdōn (Manichaean Middle
Persian and Pahlavi for Avestan Thraētaona). In this co-
occurance of Airyaman and Ferīdūn, I see a reflection of
Zoroastrian medical-magical practice in the fever spell.
However this connection, in both Zoroastrain practice
and the Manichaean spell, requires some further
explanation. In the Avesta, Θraētaona was a hero famous
for slaying the three-headed, six-eyed dragon Aži Dahāka
with his bull-headed mace (Yašt 5.33, 15.23-24; Y. 9.7-
8; Vendidād 1.18).118 According to the Avesta (Yašt
13.131) and the Pahlavi literature, Frēdōn was also a
physician able to repel the plague and other diseases.119 A
number of amulets and charms inscribed in Pahlavi,
Pazand and Persian invoke Frēdōn to heal diseases (a
practice that Zoroastrians in Persian and India continue to
this day).120
The most striking piece of evidence of Frēdōn’s function
in ancient Iranian medical magic is an engraved
gem/amulet now in the British Museum.121 On it, a figure
with the hair and costume of a Parthian noble, prepares to
strike a naked, horned monster with a mace. This practice
seems to have continued into the Sasanian era, as a
Chalcedony gem in the British Museum with a figure,
identifiable as Frēdōn by his characteristic bull headed
mace, in Sasanian royal clothing suggests.122 In the
Pahlavi Rivāyat, an Islamic era text that seeks to teach
proper Zoroastrian ritual and social practice, contains an
incantation for fever.123 Parallel to our Manichaean
Middle Persian spell, after invoking the Creator,
114
Ibid.
115
Boyce cites the Vendidād 22.7-24.
116
Boyce 1983.
117
In an occurrence perhaps unrelated to the Manichaean Jesus
Aryāmān, a Pahlavi amulet, in the New York Metropolitan Museum
asks that a certain Pērōzduxt, be healed “(in the) name of Jesus”. P.O.
Harper, P.O. Skjærvø, L. Gorelick, and A.J. Gwinnett, “A Seal-Amulet
of the Sasanian Era: Imagery and Typology, the Inscription, and
Technical Comments”, Bulletin of the Asia Institute 7, 1993: 43-58.
118
A. Tafazzolī, “Ferēdūn”, Encyclopædia Iranica, 9, 1999: 531.
119
Ibid.
120
Ibid.
121
A.D.H. Bivar, “A Parthian Amulet”, BSOAS 30, 1967: 512-25.
122
Ibid., 523.
123
Chapter 63. A.V. Williams ed., The Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying
the Dādestān i Dēnīg, Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 1990, 110.
OBJECTS IN MOTION: THE CIRCULATION OF RELIGION AND SACRED OBJECTS IN THE LATE ANTIQUE & BYZANTINE
WORLD
Ohrmazd, giving the incantation and instructions on what
practices to fulfill to eject the fever, the Rivāyat (63.6)
calls on Frēdōn using historiola: “Water from the spring
which was dry [lit. ‘closed’] came from the mountain at
the order of the valiant Frēdōn. He covered the bodily
wound [?] of a horse [?], and he dressed the bodily
wound [?] of a horse [?] and he held nine battle axes in
his hand. Aniiāi”.124
Several elements match the Manichaean fever spell
enough to conclude that there was some general
relationship between the Zoroastrian and Manichaean
medical/magical use of Frēdōn. The way that it calls on
the hero is noteworthy. The Pahlavi and Manichaean
spells both draws parallels between the present situation
of the illness and the hero’s mythological deeds. They
seem to identify the sufferer with Frēdōn, although the
Manichaean spell does this more explicitly. Both take
care to describe an arsenal of weapons - especially the
multitude of weapons. In the case of the Zoroastrian spell
these are specifically Frēdōn’s while in the Manichaean
spells these are the unified figure of the practioner whom
the spell has assimilated to Frēdōn.125
In orthodox Zoroastrian practice, Frēdōn, though a hero
and a physician, was still a man and not a divine being,
and, though the faithful sought his intercession, the
yazata Airyaman retained his place in the Zoroastrian
liturgy.126 In Manichaean cosmology he seems to have
been more readily assimilated into the divine realm.
Several Manichaean hymn cycles and invocations call on
Frēdōn as the call on the Mani, Jesus, Sabaoth, and the
archangels. Again, to show continuity, one can cite line 6
of M 46, “The angel full of wisdom, the loving deity,
Beautiful (?) in appearance, the strong God, He of noble
name, King Frēdōn, and the valiant Jacob…” (an angel in
Manichaean comology) or the middle of line 9, “Mihr
Yazd, (our) Father, Redeemer and Benefactor, together
with the valiant Frēdōn and all the angels. May they
protect and care for the holy Church and its blessed head,
the Lord of good name”.127 The name of Frēdōn does not
show up in the Coptic material and is a manifestation of
Manichaeism’s development in the Iranian cultural realm.
However, the parallel occurrence of Frēdōn in the extra-
canonical magical texts and the liturgical texts suggests in
much the same way as the parallels between drawn by the
angels, Jesus and Mani, that the Manichaean’s created
and composed their magical texts by borrowing heavily
from their stock of liturgical texts.
The Persian spell sticks to formulas that most likely
entered Manichaean magical practice early on, as the
Greek and Coptic spells show, as do the parallels between
124
Ibid., 110.
125
“Fredon subjugates... all. (28) And I have a three(-fold) form (29)
and a belly? of fire (30) And (I hold) an ax that is (31) sharp and a
destroyer, in my hand (32) and with a sword and (33) dagger of (hasod)
of steel (andamant) (34) that is pure all around, I defend myself. 35, and
(I have) with me a horsewhip that is speech and the (36) hearing of the
angels. (37) And (I held) seven daggers 38. of hard steel in my hand...”
126
Boyce 1983, 694.
127
Klimkeit 1993, 159.
86
the PGM, the Mesopotamian incantation bowls, the
Persian fever spell and the first part of the Parthian spell.
However, the second half of the Parthian spell evidences
a reaction to Manichaeism’s new cultural environment in
Central Asia, where the religion lived among and
competed with strong Buddhist communities for
adherents and the favors of local rulers. Though the
amulet invokes a protective pantheon recognizable from
Manichaean canonical works, it asks that they protect the
wearer against demons who come from outside the
Manichaean tradition: South Asian/Buddhist rākΒasas
and yakΒas, as well as from demonic entities recognizable
from the Persian cultural and linguistic realm: dēw, druǰ
and peri.128 In order to counter these South Asian
demons, the Manichaean composer of this amulet
appropriated a magical text from the South
Asian/Sanskritic cultural and linguistic realm.129 It seems
that, just as the Central Asian Manichaeans appropriated
such Buddhist ritual elements as prayer flags, banners,
devotional caves and stūpas in their outward displays of
religiousity, and theological terms as parinirvāna,
‘buddha’, and ‘bodhisattva’, they also readily
appropriated the structure and terminology of Buddhist
magical texts. Lines 16-30 contain a rendition of a
Buddhist yakΒa list.130 The text draws on a type of
Buddhist literature written between the fourth and the
sixth century which belongs to the category of the “five
rakΒās,” a group of magical texts used for defensive
purposes.131 Such lists were extremely prevalent and well
disseminated in Central Asia and the most popular
versions were the Mahāyāmūrī (the “Great Peacock
formula”) and the Candragarbhasūtra.132
Originally containing 24 yakΒas (one for every hour of
the day) the spell attempts to bind the demonic powers
through description and is broadly similar to trends in
Mediterranean and Mesopotamian magic. The version of
the yakΒa catalogue that we find in the Parthian amulet
provides more information than the Buddhist catalogues.
The Buddhist formulas name the hour of day and region
that the yakΒas govern, and sometimes enumerate their
sons. Take for example this selection from the
Mahāmāyūri formula:
77. Prabhamkaraśca Kāśmīre CanΡakaśca
JaΓapure
78. Pāñcika iti nāmnā tu vasate
KāśmīrasamdhiΒu
79. pañca putraśatā yasya mahāsainyā
mahābalāΉ
128
See line 10 verso.
129
I am hesitant to call it unequivocally ‘Buddhist’ since Buddhism
itself appropriated and shared many cultural elements from other
religions that used Sanskrit as the literary and cultic language. This is
paralleled in the visual realm in a Manichaean illuminated manuscript
fragment which contains Hindu deities probably first appropriated by
Buddhist visual culture, then subsequently appropriated by Manichaean
visual culture.
130
A yakΒa is a demonic in this Central Asian context.
131
Utz, 2.
132
Mahāmāyūri: S. Lévi, “Le Catalogue des YakΒa dans la
Mahâmâyūri”, Journal Asiatique 11.5, 1915: 19-138.
 MATTHEW P. CANEPA: THE ART AND RITUAL OF MANICHAEAN MAGIC
80. jyeΒΓhaputraΉ Pañcikasya vasate
Cīnabhūmisu
77. Prabhamkara (lives) in Kashmir,
and Candaka in JaΓapur
78. But the one named “Pāñcika” dwells in the
areas around Kashmir
79. with five hundred sons of whom there
great power by means of a great army
80. The eldest son of Pāñcika dwells in the
lands around China133
Only the version preserved in the Parthian amulet informs
us of the food that they eat be it salt, fruit, flowers or milk
and perhaps suggests an ‘arms race’ of sorts to establish
the Manichaean version as superior to the Buddhist
version. David Utz argued that the Manichaeans adopted
this formula to adapt a Mesopotamian wide belief in
“Watchers” or “Gaurdian Angels” who hold sway over
certain nation, best represented by the Book of Enoch.134
Utz understood this belief was latent in Manichaen
cosmology and the yakΒa catalogue reflected this.135 I
would offer that several other Manichaean appropriations
of South Asian cultural material parallel this, though the
yakΒas might ‘translate’ to Manichaean cosmological
figures. We find similar occurrences in Manichaean
visual culture where deities portrayed with an
iconography traceable to South Asia, Ganeśa, or ViΒnu’s
Boar-headed avatar, Varāha.
These formulas were popular and seen as a very effective
means to control threatening phenomenon or were simply
a necessary element in any good magical arsenal
especially if one’s Buddhist neighbors and competitors
had access to them. Again such multilingualism that the
knowledge and translation of these, originally Sanskrit,
spells suggests implies, again, the presence of a multi-
lingual missionary scribe whose work in cultural
transmission I have traced in various ways in Egypt,
Mesopotamia and in Central Asia. Corroborating this is
the fact that some sort of ‘cookbook’ originally contained
the Persian fever spell as evidenced from the remaining
lines above the start of the magical text. Those who
reproduced the sacred texts also copied and provided the
magical texts to the Manichaean communities in the
Tarim Basin.
CONCLUSION
From this broad overview it appears that the Manichaean
electus-scribe was the main engine of textual and ritual
transmission, responsible for transmitting
Mediterranean/Near Eastern magical traditions into
Central Asia. The scribe was a constant, integral part of
Manichaean society from the time of St. Augustine to the
last glimmers of the Manichaean religion in China. As we
see from Manichaean missionary histories and the letters
of the elect themselves, the electi were responsible for
recopying and physically transporting texts from the
133
My translation from the selection in Henning 1947, 47.
134
Ibid.
135
Ibid.
87
religion’s early centers in Iran and Mesopotamia
westward into the Mediterranean and eastward into China
as a central duty of their avid missionary activity. Vales’
letter to his ‘brother’ Pshai gives a first person account of
how such a Manichaean scribe employed and transmitted
local non-Manichaean magical traditions within one of
the earliest Mediterranean Manichaean communities for
which there is evidence, that of Kellis. Though the textual
correspondences between the Egyptian, Mesopotamian
and Central Asian members of the Manichaean magical
corpus are broad, even as such they suggest that scribes
like Vales’ appropriations permanently impacted
Manichaeism’s later textual and magical practice.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Manichaean script
bowls and the yakΒa-catalogue preserved in the second
half of the Parthian amulet prove that wherever the
Manichaean electi-scribes settled, they came in contact
with new magical texts and techniques (along with other
intellectual goods) and integrated them into
Manichaeaism’s changing and expanding cultic and
textual repertoire. It demonstrates that this process of
textual and magical appropriation continued alongside
Manichaeism’s appropriations of its competitor’s cultic
trappings such as the prayer flags and caves.136 Thus this
process was ongoing from fourth century Egypt to sixth
century Mesopotamia to ninth century Central Asia.
The Persian fever spell from Turfan hints at the process
by which such a spell came to be part of Manichaean
textual traditions: by continued collecting and recopying.
The few lines at the top, which seem to be the last lines of
a text, reveal vestiges of the spell’s original context in
what could have been a ‘cookbook’ of sorts. However
these lines (“(1) Bountious immortals, (2) the light ones,
may they live forever…”) are ambiguous. They could be
a magic spell but seem to match the wording and tone of
a canonical invocation more closely.137 The textual and
cosmological parallels between such texts as P. Kel. Gr.
96 and both Central Asian spells with ‘canonical’
Manichaean invocational and hymnal material suggest
that, as well as appropriating material from their
136
Henning hypothesized that the Parthian spell with the yakΒa-
catalogue was composed around the fourth to sixth in the area that is
now Afghanistan, the original center of Eastern Manichaeism’s
missionary base as a result of the missionary activity of Mani’s apostle
to East, Mār Ammō. Mār Ammō made Parthian the official language of
the Eastern Church and, as such monuments as the Bamiyan Buddhas
show, this area was an important center for late antique Buddhism as
well. However, like many things in Manichaean studies, this is
unprovable beyond a reasoned conjecture and, since Parthian continued
as a (albeit fossilized) liturgical language, and considering the rather
stiff and impoverished nature of the language of the amulet it could
have been composed in the seventh to ninth century Tarim Basin
communities as well where their grasp on this (at that time) extinct
learned language had eroded but not entirely disappeared. Henning
1947, 49-50.
137
Compare this ending from a Persian prayer for a Uighur ruler:
(middle of section 3) “…May the gods, deities and angels become you
protectors and guardians. May they ever grant you peace. May your
throne be established. Dwell in unceasing joy for many years, ever
happy…” or this Persian prayer for a church leader and invocation of
god: (end of section 2) “May you finally receive the gift of the blessed
and the joy of immortal [Paradise], together with the gods and deities
and all [wise ones]…” Trans. Klimkeit 1993, 158 and 162.
OBJECTS IN MOTION: THE CIRCULATION OF RELIGION AND SACRED OBJECTS IN THE LATE ANTIQUE & BYZANTINE
WORLD

neighbors, Manichaeans often times drew from their

extensive liturgical stock to provide texts suitable for use
in a medical amulet or phylactery. This suggests that in
the normal daily manner that as the Manichaean elite
actually practiced their religion (despite any ‘official’
dogmatic anathemas in the religion some might try to
extrapolate from prohibitions against magic in early texts)
there was no clear dividing line between magic and
religion. They seem to have kept their magical texts side
by side, in the same codex and on the same page, as
canonical invocations.

One final piece of evidence for both the phenomenon of

electus/scribal transmission and liturgical influence on
the magical texts is the fact that the Central Asian
magical texts were composed 1) in a Western Iranian
liturgical languages (Persian and Parthian) as opposed to
one of the vernaculars (Sogdian or Uighur) and 2) were
written using the calligraphic Manichaean script as
opposed to one of the cursive and informal vernacular
scripts which were available for writing Middle Iranian
languages.138 This was the same script with which
Manichaean scribes recopied the Manichaean canonical
works and the same script that such Islamic observers as
Ibrahim al-Sindhi admired and over which they lamented
that its beauty was applied to such heresy. The use of the
cursive script and the liturgical languages suggests, in a
way analogue to Vales’ signature, that the Central Asian
magical texts were also the productions of the
Manichaean scribal elite too. It is possible that the
Manichaean script incantation bowls could point to a
similar conclusion, but without further evidence, either in
the form of archaeological evidence of a Manichaean
community like Kellis, or more securely Manichaean
incantation texts, such a conclusion must remain
tentative, ironic considering that the region was once
Manichaeism’s birthplace and heartland.

138
Utz 1988.

88