Bulletin of Catholic University of Peking

MANICHAEISM IN CHINA

Rt. Hon. Mr.

Epitor’s Note:—The author of the article on Manichzism in the Catholic Encyclopedia (Dr. J. P. Arendzen) adverts to the penetration of Manicheism into China, but fails to substantiate this with other evidence than the testimony of the Arab historian AlBeruni (1,000 A.D.) and the doubtful testimony of the inscriptions of Kara Belgassum. He makes no allusion to the evidence contained in Chinese writings. A considerable portion of this evidence will be found in the following translation of two chapters (II and XV) selected from Mr. Ch’en Yiian’s monograph entitled Mo-ni Chiao ju Chung-kuo K’ao (“An Inquiry concerning the Penetration of Manichezism into China’). This study of Chinese Manichzism appeared in the Kuo-hsio Chik’an (‘‘Journal of Sinological Studies,”’ vol. 1. No. 2, pp. 203-240) of April, 1923. The evidence which it brought to light, particularly with reference to the prevalence of Manicheism in the province of Fu-kien, was of such importance that the celebrated French Sinologist Paul Pelliot made it the subject of a special article (‘‘Les Traditions Manichéennes au Fou-kien’’) published in the T’oung Pao (‘‘Archives concernant l’histoire les langues, la géographie et l’éthnographie de ]’Asie Orientale) of Leiden in 1923.

Mr. Ch’en Yiian, a former Vice-Minister of Education and present Vice-Rector of the Catholic University of Peking, is accounted (since the recent, sad death of Mr. Wang Kuo-wei, the historian of Tsing Hua University) China’s most outstanding figure in the field of historical research. As our readers may see by consulting page 46 of Bulletin No. 1 (September, 1926), this study of Chinese Manicheism is by no means the only valuable and original contribution which Mr. Ch’en has made to the history of religions in China. As an introduction to the text of Mr. Ch’en’s article, we shall here preface a few explanatory

59

Chen Vian

observations on Manichzism, which the general reader will probably appreciate. Regarding the origin of Manicheism, there

is a considerable divergence of views between Latin and Greek writers, on the one side, and Syrian and Persian writers, on the other. The occidental version of the matter is based on the Acta Archelai, said to have been originally written in Syriac by some cleric of the Church of Edessa about 320 A.D., and purporting tobe an account of two disputes between St. Archelaus, the Bishop of Charchar (CarrhaeHarran?) in Mesopotamia, and Mani (Mdvqs), the founder of the Manichean sect. Only a Latin version made from a Greek text is extant, and this bears the title: Acta disfutationis Archelai episcopi Mesopotamia et Manetis heresiarche. The author, according to Heraclian of Chalcedon, was a certain Hegemonivs. The dialogues are apperently fictitious and are used as a mere literary device for expounding

- and refuting Manichzan tenets.

According to this work, a certain learned and wealthy Arab named Scythianus retired to Egypt and there had a disciple named Terebinthus or Budda, to whcm he bequeathed at his death four books entitled ‘‘Mysteries”’, “‘Chapters,’”’ the ‘‘Gospel,’’ and the ‘‘Treasure.”’ After his Master’s death, Terebinthus went to Babylon where he dwelt with an aged widow. There he met with an accident which terminated his life. The widow kept his books and subsequently gave them to her freedman whose name was Cubricus (Shuravik?). The latter betook himself to Ecbatana (Hamadan), the capital of Media, where he changed his name to Manes and began to preach the new religious system which he had derived from the books of Terebinthus. Having failed in his attempt to cure the son of the King of that region, he was thrown into prison, but escaped into Mesopotamia. There he engaged in two disputations with Archelaus, the Bishop of