Three
Manichaeans and Public Disputation in Late Antiquity

According to both its apologists and its detractors, as the inexorable tide of Manichaean religion swept out of its Mesopotamian home, its impact and diffusion met with local resistance, sometimes in the form of public debates.^[1] In the later Roman Empire, the Manichaeans were especially feared and loathed as formidable public debaters.^[2]

In this chapter,^[3] I focus on the verbal prowess of the Manichaeans as it elucidates their social interactions with other groups. For this purpose, I postulate two analytically distinct activities often subsumed under the rubric of public debate. First is the more familiar form of disputation, in which two or more protagonists engage in a formal verbal contest for the benefit of an audience. Second is the Manichaean practice of posing aporetic questions as a means of securing their listeners' attention and preparing the way for their preaching.

We have no basis for assuming that the Manichaeans engaged others

[1] On the spread of Manichaeism, see E. de Stoop, Essai sur la diffusion du manichéisme dans l'empire romain (Ghent, 1909); F. Cumont, "La propagation du manichéisme dans l'Empire romain," RHLR n.s. 1 (1910): 31-43; P. R. L. Brown, "The Diffusion of Manichaeism in the Roman Empire," JRS 59 (1969): 92-103; S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China: A Historical Survey (Manchester, 1985).

[2] See P. R. L. Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (Berkeley, 1969), 43, 48,141n. 5; idem, "St. Augustine's Attitude to Religious Coercion," JRS 65 (1964), 107-16, reprinted in idem, Religion and Society in the Age of St. Augustine (London, 1977), esp. 26,5n. 1.

[3] An earlier version of this chapter appears in RecAug 24 (1992), 233-72.

in public debate in the usual sense as a regular part of their missionary activity. They tended to employ more intimate forms of suasion, often posing questions to individuals or small circles. Prominent set-piece debates with Manichaeans were initiated by their opponents, who sought through such high-profile encounters to stop the success of the Manichaeans' proselytizing efforts.

The shape of the evidence at hand—formal public debates recorded in either shorthand transcription or descriptive narrative form—suggests a deliberate strategy in which written accounts were used to displace actual events. This much is certain: the increasing prominence of written documentation in the environment of public debate was neither a neutral nor a negligible factor. By tracing the developing role of writing in public debates, we can follow the rise and fall of the Manichaean public debater.

Disputation and the Manichaean Kerygma

Disputation was central to Manichaean religious identity from the inception of the movement. More by means of radical reinterpretation than direct negation, Mani's kerygma brought into question the very legitimacy of the religious self-understanding of Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists.^[4] Manichaeans could not convey the cogency and compelling nature of their message without undercutting the fundamental religious claims of others.^[5]

According to the so-called Cologne Mani-Codex ,^[6] which contains the Manichaean work "Concerning the Birth of His Own Body," an agonistic exchange of words marked the beginning of the rift between Mani and the other Jewish-Christian baptists in Babylonia. The narrative presents a dichotomy between speech (public disputing) and silence (lack of pub-

[4] See F. C. Andreas and W. B. Henning, "Mitteliranische Manichaica aus Chinesisch-Turkestan II," SPAW , Phil.-hist. Klasse 5 (1933): T.2.D126.IR, 295.

[5] H.J. Drijvers, "Conflict and Alliance in Manichaeism," in H. G. Kippenberg, ed., Struggles of the Gods (Berlin/New York/Amsterdam, 1984), 99-124; see esp. 105, on the imagery of war.

[6] Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis (hereafter CMC ), in A. Henrichs and L. Koenen, eds., "Der Kölner Mani-Codex (P. Colon. inv. nr. 4780) P EPI THSG ENNHS TOY SW -MATOS AYTOY, Edition der Seiten," ZPE 19 (1975): 1-85; 32 (1978): 87-199; 44 (1981): 201-318; 48 (1982): 1-59. Critical edition by L. Koenen and C. Römer, eds., Der Kölner Mani-Kodex: Über das Werden seines Leibes , Papyrologica Coloniensia 14 (Wiesbaden, 1989). The early dating of the text to the fourth and fifth centuries has recently been challenged on paleographical grounds; see B. L. Fonkic and F. B. Poljakov, "Paläographische Grundlagen der Datierung des Kölner Mani-Kodex," BZ 83 (1990): 22-29.

lic disputing) that is fraught with significance. The hagiographic text emphasizes that young Mani initially refrained from disputing with his fellow sectarians even while receiving revelations of errors in the baptists' religious practices and beliefs.^[7] At twenty-four or twenty-five years of age, he finally began to make public his doubts: he openly disputed the two central pillars of the sects self-understanding, the tradition of Elchasaius and the value of ablution, by putting forth questions in a public setting. This act understandably failed to endear Mani to the other members of the sect, who are described as becoming especially furious because they were incapable of responding to his questions, and thus were made to look foolish.

In the Mani-Codex , this lopsided debate very nearly ended in mob violence. The shamed and enraged baptists proceeded to threaten Mani with physical harm, an outcome averted thanks to the timely intervention of Patticius, Mani's father and spiritual patron. Afterward, an assembly was convoked to discuss the situation, and the baptists decided to expel Mani. Here we see that, in a sect with no graduated scheme of discipline, expulsion was the only means of dealing with a member who defied the group's central ethos.

After his expulsion, Mani commenced his missionary career by traveling as far east as India.^[8] In broken lines of Greek, the Mani-Codex discloses the only attested formal public debate involving the charismatic figure. Mani was already far advanced in his public career, having been favorably received at the royal court in Ctesiphon by Shapur shahanshah by the time he arrived at a local village to preach his customary message. His unsolicited attempt to proclaim his kerygma before an assembled religious congregation publicly challenged the authority of local leaders. Accordingly, the leader of the religious sect in question invited Mani to a public debate: "He [the leader of the religious sect] conducted a debate

[7] CMC 5:7-11. Such claims made ex post facto can of course constitute a veiled apologetical attempt to show that Mani's break with the baptists had long been prepared for and was no accident. See A. Henrichs, "Mani and the Babylonian Baptists: A Historical Confrontation," HSCP 77 (1973): 23-59, esp. 43-59; J. J. Buckley, "Mani's Opposition to the Elchasaites: A Question of Ritual," in P. Slater, D. Wiebe, M. Boutin, and H. Coward, eds., Traditions in Contact and Change (Waterloo, 1983), 323-36; idem, "Tools and Tasks: Elchasaite and Manichaean Purification Rituals," Journal of Religion 66 (1986): 399-411.

[8] The Middle Persian account of Mani's encounter with an Indian wise man named Gwndyš seems to describe a private discussion rather than a public debate. See text and German translation in W. Sundermann, ed., Mitteliranische manichäische Texte kirchenge-schichtlichen Inhalts , Berliner Turfantexte 11 (Berlin, 1981), 4b. 1 :M6040, 4b.2:M6041 (pp. 86-89). Mani eventually asked Gwndyš whether he could explain the origins of the world and the latter was not able to respond: "Er ko[nnte] ihm keine Antwort geben. Under handelte wie ein Unwissender, der nichts begreift" (4b.2:M6041, R18[1377]-V5[1395]; pp. 88-89).

() with me before men of his faith ().^[9] On all points he was worsted and incurred laughter with the result that he was filled with both envy and malice."^[10]

The vanquished leader tried to avenge his public disgrace and temporary exclusion from his social group by uttering incantations () against the stranger. The fragmentary nature of the Mani-Codex does not allow us to learn more about the nature of the incantations and their intended purpose, though they may be construed as a maledictory curse to inflict harm on Mani or as attempts to constrain his ability to speak in public. In either case, the efforts of the debater-turned-magus were in vain; Mani's guardian spirit or suzugos deflected the spells and he suffered no harm.^[11] Here we see, as we will elsewhere, that formal public debate was only one of several possible forms of social and religious conflict. The threat of physical violence and the use of illocutionary acts such as the casting of spells dearly retained their viability within the broader spectrum of such contests.^[12]

Mani proclaimed his kerygma openly, emulating his favorite apostle, Paul, but I know of no extant evidence that Mani resorted to public debate as a modus operandi . The noun dialogos and the verb dialegomai are used in the Mani-Codex mainly to describe the act of preaching, not the act of debating.^[13] Proclamation of the kerygma and the performance of miracles characterized Mani's missionary activities as well as those. of his disciples.^[14] In this respect, a document such as the Doctrina Addai , which may after all contain Christian anti-Manichaean polemic, can help

[9] This word reflects the standard terminology used to describe religious sectarian groups in the Codex; see, e.g., CMC 102.12.

[11] CMC 139.11-13.

[12] See P. L. Ravenhil, "Religious Utterances and the Theory of Speech Acts," in W. J. Samarin, ed., Languages in Religious Practice (Rowley, Mass., 1976), 26-39; see esp. 28-31 on spells and "magical" speech as illocutionary acts.

[14] On Manichaean missionary activities and the working of miracles, see the excellent comprehensive account in Lieu, History of Manichaeism , e.g., 54-90. On the Manichaeans and public preaching, see Middle Persian fragment M219, in Andreas and Henning, "Mitteliranische Manichaica aus Chinesisch-Turkestan II," 311-12.

us comprehend the historical milieu and expectations governing the interactions between charismatic missionaries and local communities in late antiquity.^[15]

For the advancement of his missionary career, Mani possessed the double gift of special revelation and the aid of a suzugos . His disciples and followers, however, required assistance to ensure the success of their own missionary efforts. The reputed success of the early Manichaeans in public debates may be attributed to the fact that they were equipped with writings specifically intended for use in situations of controversy. When Mani sent his disciples abroad to spread his kerygma, he instructed them to carry his own writings and to study them with care.^[16]

Addas, a disciple who ventured as far as Alexandria, is traditionally thought to have brought with him three of Mani's writings, including the Living Gospel . In a city in which various religious and philosophical groups competed with each other on a constant basis, Addas could expect to become involved in public debates,^[17] and he needed to be prepared to respond to criticisms.^[18] Many would wish to subject a novel message to public testing, the more so since its bearer was a stranger without recognized credentials.^[19]

A hagiographic Middle Persian source describes Addas as emerging triumphant from these early encounters, thanks to his use of Mani's writings.^[20] It further asserts that Addas' fundamental imperative was to

[15] See H. J. Drijvers, "Addai und Mani: Christentum und Manichäismus im dritten Jahrhundert in Syrien," OCA 221 (1983): 173-85.

[16] On Manichaean scriptures, see P. Alfaric, Les écritures manichéennes , vols. 1, 2 (Paris, 1918-19).

[17] See M2 RI 1-37 in Andreas and Henning, "Mitteliranische Manichaica aus Chinesisch-Turkestan II," 301. Addas is said to have "opposed the 'dogmas' with these [writings], [and] in everything he acquitted himself well. He subdued and enchained the 'dogmas,'" English translation from J. P. Asmussen, Manichaean Literature: Representative Texts Chiefly from Middle Persian and Parthian Writings , Persian Heritage Series 22 (Delmar, N.Y., 1975), 21. The text does not specify whether these events took place in Alexandria or while Addas was on his way there. See also L. J. R. Ort, Mani: A Religio-historical Description of His Personality (Leiden, 1967), 63.

[18] Thus the importance of Stoic dialectic to Christians like Clement of Alexandria, who invited pagans to embrace Christianity. See J. Pépin, "La vraie dialectique selon Clement d'Alexandrie," in Epektasis: Mélanges offerts à Jean Daniélou (Paris, 1972), 375-83.

[19] See J. Pitt-Rivers, "The Stranger, the Guest and the Hostile Host: Introduction to the Study of the Laws of Hospitality," in J.-G. Peristiany, ed., Contributions to Mediterranean Sociology: Mediterranean Rural Communities and Social Change (Paris, 1968), 13-30.

[20] See M1750, in Sundermann, ed., Mitteliranische manichäische Texte kirchengeschichtlichen Inhalts , 183-85:2.5, p. 26; Andreas and Henning, "Mitteliranische Manichaica aus Chinesisch-Turkestan II," M216c V9-11. See M. Tardieu, "Gnose et manichéisme," in Annuaire: École Pratique des Hautes Étdes , Section de Sciences Religieuses 96 (1987-88): 296-301, esp. 299.

establish communities of the faithful; there was no hint that he deliberately debated in public to gain adherents. Addas did debate with others, according to the source, but because he had to, not because he wanted to. We may surmise that debating in public was an unavoidable aspect of his missionary career rather than his means of carrying out his mandate.

Arising from a biblical tradition, the Manichaeans cherished a specific body of authoritative writings, some of which were at least readily adaptable to, and perhaps specifically designed for, the task of addressing religious controversy. In geographical areas where Christian communities abounded, particularly on the Roman Empire's extensive eastern frontier, Manichaean missionaries quickly discovered that many whom they encountered were especially interested in the status of the Hebrew bible as divine revelation. By initially focusing on this issue, Manichaeans positioned themselves to preach their own distinctive message of the principles of light and darkness to their engrossed listeners.

To exploit this opening, the Manichaeans (like most other religious groups) were not averse to using texts from other traditions. In particular, the Antitheses of Marcion of Sinope (mid-second century), whose teachings were very popular in eastern Syria, were quickly seized upon because they refuted the claim that the Hebrew bible was the work of a benign deity.^[21] Such documents were sometimes reworked and incorporated into the Manichaean tradition, as was the case with Modios (meaning "small basket" or "dry-measure"), which adapted arguments from the Antitheses and was attributed to the disciple Addas. In an effort to make their writings widely available in local languages, the Manichaeans later translated the Modios into Latin. Considering the cost and labor involved in copying texts, let alone translating them, we may surmise that the arguments contained in the Modios were useful in disputing with Latin Christians.^[22]

Mesopotamia

The apparent ease with which the Manichaeans extended their influence in the Roman Empire caused general alarm among Christians and pagans (such as the philosopher Alexander of Lycopolis), who regarded

[21] See Lieu, History of Manichaeism , 38-40.

[22] It was for this reason that Augustine composed a refutation of this work of Adimantus, as Addas was known to Latin speakers; see Contra Adimantum in CSEL 25:115-90; Retractationes 1.21.1, CSEL 36:100; F. Châtillon, "Adimantus Manichaei discipulus," Revue de Moyen Age Latin 10 (1954): 191-203; Lieu, History of Manichaeism , 64-65.

with apprehension the new sects success in a zero-sum competition for the scarce commodity of popular allegiance. Christians also perceived the spread of Manichaean beliefs and practices as a series of acts of seduction in which loyal believers were infected by the contagious disease of heresy. Confused and helpless, local groups searched for an antidote, but at first there was no consensus as to the means of combating the disease. Even makeshift treatments were difficult to devise for so elusive an enemy. The virus of Manichaeism was all the more threatening in that it was disseminated within intimate circles in a manner easily overlooked.

When no scientific cure can be found, communal ritual must serve. A collective act of catharsis was needed, one similar to the apopompe or communal expulsion of scapegoats, in order to bring the crisis to the forefront of people's attention and to allay the fear of the unknown.^[23] Historically, such an act might showcase a dramatic public confrontation with a representative of the Other. If no such representative could be found to take the stand for this purpose, or if the catharsis was meant to extend to several locales, then a written account could be substituted, complete with crisis, confrontation, and resolution. In the case of Manichaeism, local heroes such as Christian bishops and prominent Christian notables were pitted against the heresiarch Mani himself in public debate.

Such was the strategy adopted by the author of the Acta Archelai , a work composed before circa 350 in either Greek or Syriac,^[24] and surviving only in a Latin translation from 392.^[25] Incidental details in the fictive account shed much light on Christian perceptions of Manichaean-Christian relations in a sensitive border region of the empire.

According to the Acta , Mani once attempted to extend his influence to a Mesopotamian city called Carchar.^[26] His plan was to convert one of

[23] See J. Bremmer, "Scapegoat Rituals in Ancient Greece," HSCP 87 (1983): 299-320.

[24] See the convincing arguments advanced to support the thesis of a Greek original of the Acta Archelai in S. N. C. Lieu, "Fact and Fiction in the Acta Archelai ," in Peter Bryder, ed., Manichaean Studies I (Lund, 1988), 74-76.

[25] Text in C. H. Beeson, ed., Hegemonius: Acta Archelai , GCS 16 (Leipzig, 1906). See Hoffmann, Dialog , 91. The terminus ante quem is provided by a reference in Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses 6:30-35. See Lieu, "Fact and Fiction in the Acta Archelai, " 69-89. Lieu argues (73), e silentio and not entirely convincingly, that the lack of mention of the Acta Archelai in Eusebius of Caesarea's account of Manichaeism in his Hist. eccl . (written, according to Lieu, in 326-30) provides a terminus post quem .

[26] On the identity of the place, see Lieu, "Fact and Fiction in the Acta Archelai ," 76-82. He presents a number of strong arguments against identifying Carchar with Carrhae but proposes (80) to locate the city "somewhere along the Syrian and Mesopotamian limes. " See M. Scopello, in Annuaire: École Pratique des Hautes Études , Section de Sciences Religieuses 96 (1987-88): 301.

the city's preeminent citizens, a man called Marcellus, whose influence would then convert the entire city and the surrounding region: "[Mani] praesumebat enim universam se posse occupare provinciam, si prius talem virum sibimet suadere potuisset."^[27]

Mani wrote personally to Marcellus, recalling the legendary correspondence that King Abgar of Edessa initiated directly with Jesus. The letter, delivered by Mani's disciple Turbo, urged Marcellus to follow his teachings, but instead the notable secured the aid of Archelaus, the local bishop. By directing the spotlight to the local bishop as the primary arbiter in such matters, the author of the Acta may well have been suggesting to his (Christian?) readers that they do likewise were they to come into contact with Manichaeans: rather than take the matter into their own hands, they were to seek the advice of the local ecclesiastical leader. After consultation with Archelaus, Marcellus resolved to entice Mani to Carchar so that he could be defeated by the bishop in a public debate. Marcellus set the trap by inviting Mani to explicate his teachings in person.

Mani crossed the border into the Roman Empire with a retinue of twenty-two electi described as young men and virgins.^[28] He is portrayed as an utter foreigner, exotically garbed in a manner befitting a doctor from the East. Significantly, he arrived carrying Babylonian books under his left arm. This orientalist image cast Mani as a subversive (non-Roman) barbaros from Persia, a power frequently at war with Rome.^[29]

The debate, although held at the private domus of Marcellus, was nonetheless a town event, as was indicated by the much-trumpeted prominence of the local notables in attendance.^[30] Four distinguished and learned men were selected to sit as the iudices of the forthcoming debate: Manippus, an expert in grammar and rhetoric; Aegialeus, an archiatros^[31] and a nobilissimus vir learned in letters; and Claudius and Cleobulus, both rhetors. That pagans presided in this public debate between two

[27] Acta Archelai 4.1-2 (Beeson, ed., 4-5).

[28] Acta Archelai 14.1-3 (Beeson, ed., 22).

[29] Christian teaching was considered paterna while Manichaean dogma was aliena . On the portrayals of the Manichaeans as unattractive foreigners and strangers, see L. J. Van der Lof, "Mani as the Danger from Persia in the Roman Empire," Augustiniana 24 (1974): 74-84, esp. 80-81. There was also an attempt to deflate Mani's social status from that of artifex morbi (physician) to that of artifex (craftsman); see Van der Lof, "Mani as the Danger," 84.

[30] Acta Archelai 14.5-6 (Beeson, ed., 23). These pagan iudices had to be advised to rely on the Torah and the Hebrew prophets for their judgment of the debate.

[31] On the Roman archiatrate in late antiquity, see Cod. Theod . 13.3.2; T. Meyer, Geschichte des römischen Ärztestandes (Kiel, 1907), 54-65; V. Nutton, "Archiatri and the Medical Profession in Antiquity," PBSR 32 (1977): 191-226.

who were emphatically not pagan, and that these iudices rendered their opinion in a communal voice throughout the dialogue, are particularly noteworthy aspects of this narrative.

The debate held significance for at least three parties: Christians, Manichaeans, and polytheists. In the account, Christians and Manichaeans were competing for the hearts and minds of the pagan elites of the city. This sensibility, expressed through the incidental though instructive detail of pagan participation, may reflect the concern of the Christian writer of the Acta ; it may also be a realistic appraisal of the balance of power in a border town in fourth-century Mesopotamia.

In the ensuing debate, according to the Acta Archelai , Mani was soundly defeated by Archelaus. Having lost the verbal contest, the foreigner was further disgraced by being driven out of town by the assembled turba , which "concitavit se ad effugandum Manen."^[32] Here we glimpse one possible role of a partisan audience, namely, to impose firm closure on a debate. Mani fled from Carchar but settled in a nearby city to resume his missionary activities. There his influence was soon felt and the local Christians sent for help from their brethren in Car-char, especially from the victorious Archelaus. Interestingly, Archelaus first dispatched the records of the Carchar debate as a means of opposing his rival, and only later went to confront Mani in person for a second time. Predictably, the Acta credits Archelaus with another Success.

The role of stenography was critical in helping to render the defeat of Mani by Archelaus more permanent and more widely known. In the Acta , Marcellus made sure that stenographers were present to record the event: "Quoniam vero placuit Marcello disputationem hanc excipi atque describi, contradicere non potui [Hegemonius]."^[33] Once the notations were transcribed into legible longhand, the records of the debate could be perused by others long after the original audience had dispersed: "Finita ergo disputatione ista, Archelaus turbas cum pace dimisit ad propria, ego Egemonius, scripsi disputationem istam exceptam ad describendum volentibus."^[34] The translocal and transtemporal character of written texts was especially important in view of Manichaean mobility: through networks similar to those facilitating the Manichaeans' peripatetic travels, Christians could disseminate writings to distant communities, thus shadowing their opponents' missionary efforts.

[32] Acta Archelai 43.1 (Beeson, ed., 63).

[33] Acta Archelai 43.3 (Beeson, ed., 63).

[34] Acta Archelai 68.5 (Beeson, ed., 98). See M. Tardieu, "Les manichéens en lÉgypte," Bulletin de la Société Française Égyptologie 94 (1982): 5-19.

Egypt

Located just beyond the Mesopotamian frontier, Egypt seems to have been the major destination of the first Manichaean efforts to penetrate the Roman Empire. The movement met with great success there, as the plentiful Coptic Manichaean texts attest.^[35] Manichaean influence extended beyond Alexandria and the Nile Delta to Upper Egypt far into the oasis towns of the western desert, as the recent find of a Coptic-Aramaic Manichaean book at Ismant El-Kharab illustrates.^[36]

The Christian bishops of the Hermopolite nome were important landowners in the fourth century, but their privileged socioeconomic status did not necessarily bring with it a facility for argumentation.^[37] In art area where the Manichaeans had been so successful, rosy optimism of the kind found in the Acta Archelai , with its hero's easy victories over Mani himself, may well have struck Christians contending with actual Manichaeans as unhelpfully simplistic, even incredible. One may even surmise that Manichaeans were not uncommonly favored to carry the day in such debates, as is dear from reports of an incident set in the city of Hermopolis Magna.

Copres, an Egyptian ascetic and leader of a small monastic community of fifty, arrived in Hermopolis one day to find that a Manichaean had been successful in persuading the local people to join his cause.^[38] From Copres' perspective, the unnamed Manichaean engaged in the deception of the inhabitants: "." The wording in the Greek text of Historia monachorum in Aegypto , our oldest source for this encounter, does not lend support to Lieu's assumption that Copres happened across the Manichaean while the latter engaged a large crowd in

[35] E.g., C. Schmidt and H. J. Polotsky, "Ein Mani-Fund in Ägypten: Originalschriften des Mani und seiner Schüler," SPAW , Phil.-hist. Klasse 1 (1933): 4-90. More generally, see W. Seston, "L'Égypte manichéene," Chronique d"Égypte 14 (1939): 362-72; G. Stroumsa, "Manichéisme et marranisme chez les manichéens d'Egypte," Numen 29 (1983): 184-201; idem, "The Manichaean Challenge to Egyptian Christianity," in B. A. Pearson and J. E. Goehring, eds., The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (Philadelphia, 1986), 307-19.

[36] On the site in general, see C. A. Hope, "Three Seasons of Excavations at Ismant el-Kharab in Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt," Mediterranean Archaeology 1 (1988): 160-78. Notices of the find appear in J. Leclaut and G. Clerc, "Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Soudan, 1987-1988," Orientalia 58 (1989): 404-5; eaedem, "Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Soudan, 1988-1989," Orientalia 59 (1990): 410-11.

[37] A. K. Bowman, "Landholding in the Hermopolite Nome in the Fourth Century, A.D.," JRS 75 (1985): 137-63.

[38] See Historia monachorum in Aegypto 10.30-35 [190-225] (A.-J. Festugière, ed., Historia monachorum in Aegypto , Subsidia Hagiographica 53 [Brussels, 1971], 87-89); and see Rufinus, Historia monachorum 9 (PL 21:426C-427B).

debate.^[39] The phrase "" should be interpreted simply to mean that the Manichaean had been finding support among the inhabitants of the town, probably through appeals to small groups and individuals. The aorist participle in the Greek text (though not the present participle in the Latin) certainly suggests that the deception took place prior to Copres' arrival. The references to actual crowds of people () appear some lines later, after the point where Copres engages the Manichaean in debate before the public (). Thus we may assume that these references are to the people, perhaps including both pagans and Christians, who would have gathered for a debate unfolding in an open area of the town.

In this contest, Copres did not enjoy the good fortune that attended Archelaus in his debate with Mani. Even Copres admitted that he utterly failed to convince his opponent, a euphemistic circumlocution implying that he lost the debate. Unperturbed, Copres resorted to a more unsavory means of demonstrating the truth of his faith:

Since () I was unable to persuade him in public, I turned and said to the crowds of listeners: "Light a great fire on the open road () and we are both going into the fire, and whichever one of us remains unhurt shall be the one who has the noble faith ()." When this had been done and the crowd zealously lit up the fire, I carried him with me into the flame.^[40]

At this point, the Manichaean blurted out what any clever youngster in a similar bind would say: "Let each of us go in by himself and you should go first since you suggested it." Undaunted, Copres crossed himself in the name of Christ,^[41] leapt into the fire, and remained there un-

[39] See Lieu, "Fact and Fiction in the Acta Archelai, " 83-84. See Tardieu, "Les manichéens en Égypte," 13-14.

[40] Historia monachorum 10.30-31 (Festugière, ed., 87-88). See also the version in Rufinus, Historia monachorum 9 ( PL 21:426C-427A):

Once I came down to the city and found there a man, a certain doctor of the Manichaeans, who was seducing the people. I had a debate with him, but because he was very cunning I was unable to shut him up with words. Fearing lest the crowds of listeners should be harmed if he were to depart with the appearance of being the victor in debate (veritus ne auditorum turbae laederentur, si ille quasi superior abscessisset in verbis) , I said before the crowds of listeners: 'Light a fire in the middle of the street and we will both go into the flame. You should believe that whichever one of us is not scorched by it, his is the true faith.' After I said this, the people were mightily pleased and a great fire was lit without delay.

Note the interesting expository expansion in Rufinus' version, italicized here.

[41] On the invocation of the name and titles of Christ as a form of protection against harm and sickness, see C. H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London, 1979), 82-84; R. W. Daniel and E Maltomini, Supplementum Magicum I , Papyrologica Coloniensia 16.1 (Wiesbaden, 1989), nos. 22, 23, and esp. 35, pp. 61-66, 102-3.

scathed for half an hour, after which the crowd shouted an acclamation () before the deed of wonder ().^[42] It was the Manichaean's turn to do the same, and the poor man was pushed against his will into the flames, where he suffered like any mortal lacking divine protection. After this clear demonstration of who had the upper hand, the assembled Hermopolite citizenry lifted up the victorious Copres and carried him in procession toward the church while praising God.^[43]

No doubt elaborated according to hagiographic conventions, this story nevertheless has a peculiar aspect of verisimilitude. If the story were invented out of whole cloth, the author would most likely not have wished to bring attention to the fact that the final victory was achieved only after an initial setback.^[44] In any case, the observation that the Manichaean could hold his own in a public debate with a Christian holy man is instructive about ancient expectations. The plots further development reminds us that Christians, failing to compete with Manichaeans in public debates for which the latter were normally well-prepared, sometimes altered the nature of the conflict or public demonstration to suit their own particular strengths. Needless to say, the ordeal, as a test of the extent of one's control over his own physical body, was a form of demonstration that dearly favored an ascetic who had made self-mortification his daily practice.^[45]

The easy shift from public debate to ordeal recounted above reminds us of the limitations of the cultural realm within which formal public disputations were appreciated. Illiterate and unlearned audiences found demonstrations of power by deeds more convincing than the ability to spin arguments.^[46] In encounters between religious rivals, deeds of wonder were commonly, though not necessarily, interpreted as signs of divine favor, whereas skill in argument was viewed as being of human, or even diabolical, origin.^[47] The report of a miracle of power possessed

[42] Historia monachorum 10.32 (Festugière, ed., 88); see J. Colin, Les villes libres de l'orient gréco-romain , 109-52.

[43] See Lieu, History of Manichaeism , 157, citing a later Syriac version of this story in the writings of Anan-Isho.

[44] I also accept Scott Bradbury's suggestion that this setback may reflect a hagiographical plot device to prepare the audience for a demonstration of power.

[45] This is not to say that Manichaeans were not respected ascetics in late antiquity; in fact, the opposite is true.

[46] For example, the success of the apostle Addai in Edessa was due to his deeds of wonder: "There was no one who stood against him, for the deeds which he did permitted no one to rise against him." See Doctrina Addai f.21b; English translation from G. Howard, ed., The Teaching of Addai (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1981), 67. On the low level of literacy in the ancient world, see W. V. Harris, "Literacy and Epigraphy I," ZPE 52 (1983): 87-111.

[47] On this issue see, for example, Julian the Apostate and Eusebius of Rome in the Julian legend, in H. Gollancz, Julian the Apostate (Oxford, 1928), 58-59.

wider and more direct appeal as a readily accessible icon for those who could not, or would not, embrace the bewildering complexities of verbal disputation. The ordeal can thus be read as the functional equivalent—a kind of sermo humilis —of the public debate.

Gaza

A story similar to that of Copres and the Manichaean can be found in Pseudo-Mark the Deacon's Vita Porphyrii .^[48] Porphyry, the bishop of Gaza, was a staunch promoter of Christianity in Palestine and a resolute destroyer of pagan temples.^[49] In 392, his friend John, bishop of Jerusalem (387-417), had designated him guardian of the relics of the true cross ().^[50] When he assumed the episcopal seat of Gaza in 395, Porphyry continued in his self-appointed task of sanctifying the holy land, a project he had shared with his associates in Jerusalem. Arriving in the city as an aristocrat from distant Thessalonica, the new bishop faced the daunting challenge of installing himself as a major player in the politics of Gaza, where the reigning pagan aristocracy resisted him as both foreigner and Christian. He painstakingly cultivated ties with the imperial court, competing with the native aristocrats for acceptance as Constantinople's man in Gaza.^[51]

Much of a Christian bishop's credibility as a local defender of imperial interests rested on his claim to a solid constituency in his city. Thus it was vital for Porphyry to maintain a sure grip on the allegiance of his own congregation, after which he could expand his power by attracting the support of the court at Constantinople. For this reason, Porphyry dealt swiftly and decisively with any perceived threat to Christian solidarity in Gaza, including the missionary efforts of a Manichaean named Julia circa 402:

At that time a certain Antiochene woman called Julia, who belonged to the abominable heresy of those called Manichaeans, arrived in the city. Upon realizing that there were certain neophytes who were not yet

[48] See Lieu, History of Manichaeism , 155-56; F. C. Burkitt, The Religion of the Manichees (Cambridge, 1925), 7-11.

[49] See Vita Porphyrii 85-91 (H. Grégoire and M.-A. Kugener, eds., Marc le diacre: Vie de Porphyre évêque de Gaza [Paris, 1930], 66-71). See also G. Fowden, "Bishops and Temples in the Eastern Roman Empire," JTS n.s. 29 (1978): 53-78.

[50] See M. Van Esbroeck, "Jean II de Jérusalem et les cultes de saint Étienne de la sainte-Sion et de la Croix," AB 102 (1984): 99-134.

[51] See discussion of these issues in R. Van Dam, "From Paganism to Christianity in Late Antique Gaza," Viator 16 (1985): 1-20.

confirmed in the holy faith, she, having gone among them, corrupted them through her fradulent teaching (), and even more through the gift of money. For he who founded the aforementioned godless heresy [i.e., Mani] could not ensnare so many people if not by the furnishing of money.^[52]

The charge of using monetary gifts to seduce the young is intriguing though not unattested in the history of polemical accusations.^[53] Here we see the charge extended back to Mani, the eponymous founder of the heresy. Such allegations allowed Christians to rationalize the appeal of Manichaean teachings, which Christian polemicists consistently characterized as filled with madness and utterly absurd to those possessing intellect ().

Julia's success soon drew the unwanted attention of wary local Christians, who promptly informed Porphyry of the stranger's actions. As a prominent member of the establishment in Gaza, Porphyry was able to have strangers brought before him for public interrogation: "Porphyry, counted among the holy, sent after her and asked her who she was, where did she belong and what manner of philosophical and/or religious view () did she bring."^[54] This line of questioning may suggest that the information Porphyry received from his congregation was vague, in which case it implies that, when Christians noticed a stranger becoming influential in their city, they expressed their diffused concern by rallying behind the local bishop and demanding to know more about the subversive individual.

Pseudo-Mark recounts that Julia readily professed that she was Antiochene and a Manichaean, which frank and unguarded declarations provoked barely restrained hostility from the audience. This detail suggests that those present were not generally aware of Julia's religious affiliation. Porphyry calmed down the locals and urged them to exhort Julia to revise her position rather than to attack her. He himself approached Julia and said,

"Sister, cut yourself off from this evil belief () for it is satanic." But she replied: "Speak and listen, and either persuade or be persuaded." The blessed one said: "Get ready till the dawn and appear here." And she, having been ordered, departed.^[55]

[52] Vita Porphyrii 85 (Grégoire and Kugener, eds., 66-67). English translation mine.

[53] Since Manichaean electi could not reproduce themselves, there was a need to recruit others, especially from among the young; see, for example, Mani in CMC 121.11 through 123.13 in ZPE 48 (1982): 13-15.

[54] Vita Porphyrii 87 (Grégoire and Kugener, eds., 68).

[55] Vita Porphyrii 87 (Grégoire and Kugener, eds., 68).

The historical Porphyry of Gaza was more a man of action than an intellectual powerhouse; even the literary Porphyry knew that Julia was likely to outperform him in a public debate. However, as the Vita informs us, the bishop felt he was entering the fray not so much with a human being as with the devil himself. He prepared for the next day by fasting and praying that he might confound the devil, the superhuman adversary behind Julia. Yet Porphyry also readied himself in a more practical manner: he summoned certain Christians, both laity and clergy, to attend the debate, mobilizing a sizeable retinue of partisan supporters. By contrast, Julia arrived the next morning with only four companions:

Two men and as many women. They were young and beautiful, but they were all pale, while Julia was well-advanced in age. All of them steeped in the of worldly , though Julia was more advanced than they were. Their countenance was humble and their manner meek. . . .^[56]

After Julia and Porphyry were seated, they began the debate (). Porphyry brought along the gospels and, as befitted a guardian of the relics of the true cross, "made the sign of the cross in his own mouth" before requiring Julia to explain her doxa .^[57] Like Copres, Porphyry crossed himself in preparation for a contest with an enemy of the faith, but whereas Copres made the gesture before jumping into flames, Porphyry did so to anoint his mouth before plunging into a verbal contest. The purpose of making the sign of the cross in such situations must have varied from person to person; Cyril of Jerusalem considered the act potent in rendering speechless one's opponents in debate.^[58]

The debate was a solemn occasion with the airs of an official judicial inquiry, and the words spoken by the seated protagonists were carefully recorded. Among the local Christians was a certain Cornelius, skilled in brachygraphy and capable of writing down with a few strokes ( ) the statements made by both sides.^[59] He was made a deacon

[56] Vita Porphyrii 88 (Grégoire and Kugener, eds., 68-69). The youths were no doubt ascetics. On the electi who allegedly accompanied Mani to his debate, see the discussion of Acta Archelai above.

[57] Vita Porphyrii 88 (Grégoire and Kugener, eds., 69).

of the church of Gaza forthwith so that he could serve as church notary, in which capacity he sat next to Porphyry during the debate.^[60] Supplementing the efforts of Cornelius, Baruch and Mark the deacon drew up the minutes of the meetings.^[61] According to the author, the records of this encounter were still extant when he composed the Vita .^[62]

After many hours of debate, Julia remained obdurately and embarrassingly undefeated. As he witnessed Julia, who was inspired by the devil,^[63] continuing in her utterance of blasphemous. statements, Porphyry was moved by divine zeal (like the biblical Phineas) to call upon the Christian god to shut Julia up, .^[64] The ira Dei manifested itself and

the punishment () followed the statement straightaway. For Julia began to tremble and to change her appearance, and remained outside her body for almost an hour. She did not speak (),

[60] It is not clear whether Cornelius was required to become a deacon before serving officially as the tachugraphus , but this combination of duties was not uncommon; see Epiphanius, Panarion 71.1.8, on Anysius, the tachugraphus and deacon present at the debate between Basil of Caesarea and Photinus. On the increasingly elaborate ranking of notarii in the Christian ecclesiastical hierarchy from the fourth century on, see the study by H. C. Teitler, Notarii and Exceptores: An Inquiry into Role and Significance of Shorthand Writers in the Imperial and Ecclesiastical Bureaucracy of the Roman Empire (from the Early Principate to c. 450 A.D.) (Amsterdam, 1985), esp. 89-92.

[62] Vita Porphyrii 88 (Grégoire and Kugener, eds., 69): "I did not include the dialogue in this book because it was long, wishing to include it in the present writing in brief. But I placed in another book the dialogue for those who wish to learn the wisdom given by God to the most holy Porphyry and the old wives' tales which Julia, the fraud and poisoner whom divine justice quickly went after, uttered."

[64] Vita Porphyrii 89 (Grégoire and Kugener, eds., 70).

but she was voiceless () and motionless (), having eyes which were open and fixated on the most holy bishop. Those who were with her, seeing what happened, were very afraid.^[65]

No amount of first aid from her companions could revive Julia, who had lost all speech and the ability to move. Still speechless () almost an hour later, she died.^[66] Reducing someone to a state of literal aphonia was a complete refutation and triumph in a public debate. To an undiscriminating audience, it did not much matter whether success came from one's own arguments or from divine intervention.

This reported miracle was a powerful demonstration that could be ignored by neither firsthand witnesses nor those who subsequently learned of it. Julia's four youthful companions, and "as many as were corrupted by her," threw themselves at Porphyry's feet crying, "We have erred, we seek repentance."^[67] Porphyry exploited this reaction by ordering the Manichaean sympathizers to anathematize Mani, which they promptly did. They received catechism, were later baptized, and thus were incorporated (or reincorporated) into the structure of the church of Gaza.

In this as in earlier episodes, the Manichaeans did not conduct public debates as part of their missionary activity. A historical Julia would probably have much preferred to go about her business peacefully and far from the attention of the local bishop. In general, Manichaean teachers stood to gain little from high-profile debates, because they fared splendidly in more intimate settings. However, though Manichaeans did not generally initiate public debates as part of a grand missionary strategy, they rarely avoided public contests with opponents less ready for such encounters. A Manichaean missionary-teacher could not afford to be seen backing down from a contest, however contrived and fraught with peril. Julia did not shrink from Porphyry's challenge even though he packed the audience with his clergy' and laity. The proceedings at Porphyry's church resembled a public trial, an image enhanced by the stenographer sitting at his side.^[68]

[65] Vita Porphyrii 90 (Grégoire and Kugener, eds., 70).

[67] Vita Porphyrii 91 (Grégoire and Kugener, eds., 70-71).

[68] See Prudentius, Peristephanon 9.23 (PL 60:435A); the famous fourth-century diptych of Rufius Probianus flanked by two exceptores , in A. Venturi, Storia dell'arte italiana (Milan, 1901), 2:356; Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie (Paris, 1935), 12:1625.

As in the Acta Archelai , the pagans in the Vita constituted the silent partner in this confrontation between a Christian and a Manichaean. Our author even claims that Manichaeans were in the habit of acknowledging many gods so as to find favor with pagans.^[69] This alleged alliance of Manichaeans with polytheists, or at least the ambiguous separation of the two, made it possible for Julia to be identified as a Manichaean in the Greek text of the Vita Porphyrii and a pagan philosopher in the Georgian recension.^[70] Regardless of whether Julia was a Manichaean missionary or a philosopher, her final experience had, according to the Vita , a broad impact: many polytheists allegedly converted to Christianity after this showing of the bishops might.^[71]

Alexandria

In the mid-fourth century, a certain Aphthonius, identified by our source Philostorgius as a leader () of the Manichaeans, arrived in Alexandria, where he soon acquired an impressive reputation "among many on account of his wisdom and his skill in words ()."^[72] Aphthonius' fame reached the ambitious Christian Aetius the Syrian (see ch. 4), who earlier had been defeated by a member of a gnostic sect, the Borboriani, in a debate in Cilicia. Wishing to restore his confidence in reaffirming his verbal powers,^[73] and drawn by Aphthonius' reputation, Aetius made the journey south to Alexandria.^[74] This connection between fame and ensuing challenges to debate harked back to an earlier time when Origen's fame "was noised abroad everywhere," and learned men as well as so-called heretics "came to him to make trial of the man's sufficiency in the sacred " (see ch. 1).^[75]

[69] Vita Porphyrii 87 (Grégoire and Kugener, eds., 68).

[70] See H. Peeters, "La vie géorgienne de saint Porphyre de Gaza," AB 59 (1941): 65-216, esp. 196 (§§85-86). References to Manichaeans are lacking in this recension.

[71] Though today Manichaeans are sometimes confused with pagans, philosophers of the day found Manichaeism particularly objectionable as an intellectual system. One of the most celebrated instances of anti-Manichaean polemic is found in the Neoplatonist Egyptian philosopher Alexander of Lycopolis' Dialogue against the Doctrines of Mani : see PG 18:411-48 (A. Brinkmann, ed., Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio [Leipzig, 1895]; A. Villey, ed., Alexandre de Lycopolis: contre la doctrine de Mani [Paris, 1985]).

[72] Philostorgius, Hist. eccl . 3.15 (J. Bidez and E Winkelmann, eds., Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte [Berlin, 1972], 46-47).

[74] Philostorgius, Hist. eccl . 3.15.

[75] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 6.18.2-4.

After Aetius located his intended victim in Alexandria, the two men went at each other "as if in a contest for supremacy ()." Soon Aetius, "having forced Aphthonius into a state of speechlessness (), brought the latter from great fame to great shame." Unused to such reverses, Aphthonius fell sick and died a week later. The difference between this account and earlier reports of public disputations between Christians and Manichaeans is significant: Aetius actually defeated a Manichaean by arguments without resorting to other means.^[76] There was no intervention of supranatural power; Aetius triumphed by emerging as the superior debater. The Manichaean was no stranger confronted by a local Christian leader; Aetius expressly sought Aphthonius out in Alexandria. In many ways, the two had more in common with each other than with a local Christian bishop: both were peripatetic, and neither had a firm constituency locally. Theirs was a world of fluid movement, chance encounters, and public debates with others who possessed reputations for wisdom. Such debates took place on terms of parity, for neither party had the actual power to impose inequality. Aetius could not bring to bear on Aphthonius the "psychological pressures" that Porphyry heaped on Julia in the Vita Porphyrii .^[77]

Roman North Africa

Manichaeism as "Dialectical" Christianity

West of Alexandria, in the cities of Roman North Africa, people gathered around scholae doctorum hominum and debating formed part of the institutional culture.^[78] It was within this context of intellectual curiosity and exchange that the most famous Manichaean convert took to the precepts of Mani. The searching Augustine discovered that the Manichaeans offered what he and many others regarded as a more rigorously rational form of Christianity.

Such an outlook had great appeal, particularly among young catholic Christians from the middling rungs of society. These ambitious and inquisitive youths, later to rise to positions of considerable authority within the catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy, were attracted by the Manichaeans' disavowal of that unquestioning acceptance of "superstitious" beliefs found in the Hebrew bible which exposed Christians to charges of

[76] See Philostorgius, Hist. eccl . 4.12.

[77] See Lieu, History of Manichaeism , 156.

[78] See Augustine, De utilitate credendi 2 (CSEL 25:4).

idol worship. Using such well-tried topoi as those contained in Marcion's Antitheses , Manichaeans led the way in attacking the common catholic Christians' uncritical acceptance of the Hebrew bible.^[79] Thus one Manichaean proudly proclaimed, "Non credo prophetis Hebraeis."^[80] In a manner arguably more critical than constructive (and hence existing in a dose dialectical relationship with that which they sought to criticize), the Manichaeans offered a religious alternative that many found more philosophically and logically cogent than what their catholic counterparts professed.

Given the centrality of disputation to the legitimacy and appeal of the Manichaeans, it is not surprising that they often invited discussion by posing challenging questions in public.^[81] One of their famous opening lines was "Whence evil (unde malum )?"^[82] This loaded question confronted catholic Christians with the difficult theological task of reconciling evil, free will, divine omnipotence, and providence.^[83] But the Manichaeans did not throw out such questions casually; they were trained to deal with the likely responses of their interlocutors.^[84] By anticipating probable responses and counter-responses, Manichaean debaters, like experienced chess players, could comfortably and predictably disarm the opposition. This aspect of the Manichaean movement in North Africa has been aptly described as a cult of "knockabout rationalism."^[85] It was in this cult that Augustine discovered his spiritual home during his youth in Carthage.

In antiquity, ambitious and educated youths warmed naturally to the dialectical art.^[86] It not only afforded one who was cupidus veri a straight path toward truth but also provided a set of intellectual weap-

[79] See De utilitate credendi 2 (CSEL 25:4). The treatise, composed in 391 just after Augustine became a priest, is addressed to Honorams, a Manichaean friend whom he hoped to convert to catholic Christianity; see Brown, Augustine of Hippo , 43; Decret, L'Afrique manichéenne (IV -V siècles): Étude historique et doctrinale (Paris, 1978), 1:72-78.

[80] C. Faustum 13.8 (CSEL 25:389).

[81] See C. Faustum 23.1 (CSEL 25: 707).

[82] See Augustine, Confessiones 3.7: "Nesciebam enim aliud, vere quod est, et quasi acutule movebar, ut suffragarer stultis deceptoribus, cum a me quaereretur, unde malum est?"

[83] See Augustine's recollection of a question he used to pose before catholic Christians while he was a Manichaean: "Et dicebam parvulis fidelibus tuis, civibus meis, a quibus nesciens exulabam, dicebam illis garrulus et ineptus: 'cur ergo errant anima, quam fecit deus?'" (Confessiones 7.15).

[84] See De duabus animabus 10 (CSEL 25:63): "Hic fortasse quis dicat: 'unde ipsa peccata et omnino unde malum? si ab homine, unde homo? si ab angelo, unde angelus?'"

[85] See W. H. C. Frend, "The Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition in Roman North Africa," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 4 (1953): 13-26, esp. 21.

[86] See De utilitate credendi 2 (CSEL 25:4): "adulescentis animus cupidus ueri."

ons with which to demonstrate his superiority over others, to be superbus et garrulus :^[87] as training in the asking and answering of questions, dialectic furnished both weapon and armor. It was especially suited to the young and impetuous because it was freely accessible to those who possessed talent and ambition but lacked institutional authority. Handbooks outlining the system could be acquired and read. Enterprising individuals could teach themselves the art in a relatively short time, as did Augustine when he mastered Aristotle's Categories with little or no help from preceptors.^[88] An autodidact could thus avoid a long, socializing apprenticeship to a master.

In late antiquity the practice of dialectic was closely associated with clever and hotheaded youth, among whom were Aetius, Eunomius, and Augustine. Augustine recalled that the two bonds tethering him to the Manichaeans were social familiarity and the dizzying success he experienced when debating others with Manichaean arguments:

I used to almost always enjoy a certain harmful victory (noxia victoria ) in debates while discoursing with inexperienced Christians who nevertheless eagerly endeavored to defend their own faith, each as he could. . . . Thus from their [Manichaeans'] arguments (sermones ) a burning zeal for disputations (certamina ) was daily renewed; from the outcome of the disputations (ex certaminum proventu ) love for them was daily renewed.^[89]

The association of dialectic with the arousal of an unsuitable "ardor of youth" was recognized as a difficulty in philosophical circles as early as Plato's time.^[90] Later, Diogenes Laertius related a relevant story about Zeno of Citium. When the Stoic philosopher heard a young boy posing a certain philosophical question () with rather more reckless

[87] De utilitate credendi 2 (CSEL 25:4). See Decret's discussion in Aspects du manichéisme dans l'Afrique romaine: Les controverses de Fortunatus, Faustus et Felix avec saint Augustin (Paris, 1970), 31.

[88] Confessiones 4.16. See L. Minio-Paluello, "The Text of the 'Categoriae': the Latin Tradition," CQ 39 (1945): 63-74. Aetius, too, was a self-taught person; see Socrates, Hist. eccl . 2.35. Augustine was called the African Aristotle by Julian of Eclanum, in Augustine, Opus imperfectum contra lulianum 3.199 (PL 45:1333); and dialecticus Augustinus by Sidonius Apollinaris (Ep . 9.2). See in general J. Pépin, Saint Augustin et la dialectique , The Saint Augustine Lecture 1972 (Villanova, 1976).

[89] De duabus animabus 11 (CSEL 25:65-66): "Quod quaedam noxia uictoria paene mihi semper in disputationibus proueniebat disserenti cum inperitis, sed tamen fidem suam certatim, ut quisque posset, defendere molientibus christianis . . . ita ex illorum sermonibus ardor in certamina, ex certaminum prouentu amor in illos cotidie nouabatur." On the selective bias of Augustine's retrospective summary, see Brown, Augustine of Hippo , 50; J. O'Donnell, Augustine: Confessions (Oxford, 1992), 2:184-85.

[90] See Plato, Republic 537-39; and also M. Meyer, "Dialectic and Questioning," 281-89.

zeal () than seemed proper, he was troubled. He stood the young boy before a mirror and asked, "Is it seemly for someone who looks like this to ask these sorts of questions ()?"^[91]

This intimate vignette captures the ambivalence surrounding the posing of questions in antiquity. Excessive ambition, as culturally defined, was frowned upon, especially when manifested by the young. Dialectic was not a tool for showing off one's superiority but rather a science for the mature, to be cultivated as a part of one's progress in a philosophical life of virtue. But the ideal of a soul freed from passion was not necessarily shared by all, especially the young and others who stood to gain from open competition.

Augustine's reconversion from "super-rational" Manichaeism to the catholic Christianity of his boyhood coincided with the shedding of his youth. Or so he said. In later years, the Manichaeans who previously had been so dear to him became "false and deceitful men."^[92] The mature Augustine decisively reconstructed and renounced his youth as a champion dialectician, commenting on the puerile nature of the Manichaean competitive ethos he had once loved:

They consider that they reign supreme (regnare se putant ) in this question, as if to ask were to know. Would that this were so! Then no one more knowledgeable than I would be found. But somehow the propounder of a great question in a controversial situation (in altercando ) always puts on the appearance (personam ostentat ) of a great teacher while for the most part he himself is more unlearned in the issue concerning which he would overawe another than the person whom he would overawe.^[93]

Philostratus' Apollonius of Tyana and the Syrian Bardaisan were among those who expressed the view that posing questions was a typical preoccupation of youth, whereas answering them was the duty of the mature who had acquired a measure of wisdom.^[94] Augustine likewise considered himself much more serious than in his heady days as

[91] Diogenes Laertius, VP 7.19.

[92] De duabus animabus 1 (CSEL 25:51).

[93] De duabus animabus 10 (CSEL 25:63-64): "hac in quaestione illi regnare se putant, quasi uero interrogare sit scire. utinam id esset; nemo me scientior reperiretur. sed nescio quomodo saepe in altercando magnae quaestionis propositor personam magni doctoris ostentat plerumque ipse ipso. quem terret, in eo, de quo terret, indoctior." See Frend, "The Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition," 17-20, on the common pursuit by Manichaeans and gnostics of the answer to the question, "Whence evil?"

a brash Manichaean auditor. He did not reject the gravity and relevance of the "great question" that the Manichaeans were in the habit of bandying about; instead, he insisted that this question was "one that needs much calm discussion among those who are the most learned (doctissimos )."^[95]

This emphasis on learning derived partly from the reflections of a more mature person.^[96] Still, there is an element of "credentialism" in Augustine's approach to Christian theological speculation. One's ability to speak persuasively depended, he argued, on the mastery of a large body of complicated knowledge, a vast and deep scientia requiring years of immersion in learned tomes. In contrast, the mastery of dialectic alone was a "short-cut" to knowledge. There is no doubt that Augustine's interests in a more philosophically sophisticated anthropology and epistemology reflected the changed interests of an inquiring intellect. Nevertheless, his insistence that Christians pay attention to what he conceded were "obscure and recondite things (rebus obscuris abditisque )" deflected questions from certain common topoi of theological discussion that Manichaeans were accustomed to exploiting.^[97] Most important, Augustine could argue a fortiori that since most Christians were unable to master even the knowledge of things terrestrial, they had no business trying their hands at the knowledge of things divine.^[98]

Yet Augustine's caveat about public debate applied only to what he characterized as recklessly critical dialectical disputations. It did not prevent him from engaging the Manichaeans in a series of staged disputations that have come down to us in versions recorded by the winners, the catholic Christians. These debates between Augustine and various Manichaeans provide valuable insights into the nature of religious contact and conflict in proconsular Africa.^[99] This body of well-known material includes the Contra Fortunatum (392), the Contra Felicem (404), and the long treatise Contra Faustum (397-98).

[95] De duabus animabus 2 (CSEL 25:52): "multum serenae disputationis inter doctissimos indigens."

[96] See Brown, Augustine of Hippo , 59.

[97] See De duabus animabus 13 (CSEL 25:68). Basil of Caesarea also used scientific knowledge about the physical world to combat Manichaeans, among others, though there were none in his immediate vicinity; see Hexaemeron 2.4 and bk. 4 (S. Giet, ed., 26 bis [Paris, 1968], 158-62, 358). On the absence of Manichaeans in Asia Minor, see F. Decret, "Basile le grand et la polémique antimanichéenne en Asie Mineure au IV siècle," SP 17 (1983): 1060-64.

[98] See Pseudo-Basil, Ep . 16 (Deferrari, ed., 1:114-17).

[99] See the important treatment of this corpus by Decret, Aspects du manicéisme .

Augustine and Fortunatus

Eodem tempore presbyteri mei, contra Fortunatum, quemdam Manichaeorum presbyterum disputavi.^[100]

On 28 and 29 August 392, a young presbyter of the catholic church of Hippo Regius debated in public with the presbyter of a different ecclesia , the Manichaean Fortunatus.^[101] Like Pseudo-Mark's Julia, Fortunatus was singled out for attention by the local catholic Christians because of his success in attracting support within the local Community.^[102] According to Possidius' Vita Augustini , a body of cives and peregrini of Hippo, comprising both catholics and Donatists, turned to the young Augustine for aid and comfort.^[103] Their choice was a natural one, for Augustine was trained in dialectic and familiar with Manichaean teachings. Troubled by the influence Fortunatus had gained among the cives and peregrini of Hippo and its environs,^[104] Augustine responded, like Pseudo-Mark's Porphyry, by challenging the Manichaean leader to a high-profile contest aimed at the edification of the community. The strategy was intended to ensure that Manichaeans, who relied for their success On the intimacy of teacher-disciple relationships,^[105] could no longer present their arguments unchallenged before Christians who, in Augustine's. view, were

[100] Retractationes 1.15 (CSEL 36:82). See A. Mandouze, ed., Prosopographie de l'Afrique chrétienne , vol. 1 of Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire (Paris, 1982), s.v. "Fortunatus 2," 490-93.

[101] See C.Fortunatum , preface (CSEL 25:83): "Sexto et quinto Kalendas Septembris Arcadio Augusto bis et Quinto Rufino uiris clarissmis consulibus actis habita disputatio aduersum Fortunatum Manichaeorum presbyterum in urbe Hipponensium regionum in balneis Sossii sub praesentia populi."

[102] Retractationes 1.15 (CSEL 36:82). Fortunatus had been successful as a teacher and community organizer in Hippo, a fact Augustine admits: "Qui [Fortunatus] plurimum temporis apud Hipponem uixerat, seduxeratque tam multos ut propter illos ibi eum delectaret habitare." Note here the recurrence of the language condemning seduction. This fear of seduction on the part of anti-Manichaean polemicists on the one hand reflects the Manichaean propensity to attract the young (see above discussion), who were seen as lacking in discrimination, and on the other hand reveals the paternal ideology at work: those in authority were seen as responsible for the imperiti under their care, and any threat to that relationship was construed as seduction. Agency and initiative were not granted to the imperiti under this scheme.

[103] Possidius, Vita Augustini 6 (PL 32:38).

[104] See Decret, Aspects du manichéisme , 40. Were the peregrini merchants, negotiatores like Firmus who were responsible for much of the spread of the Manichaean movement outside of the main towns, or were they displaced Roman aristocrats? In any case, they were an important group over which a local Christian leader had little direct social control; they therefore needed to be impressed by other means.

[105] See the importance of the teacher-disciple relationship in the Fragmenta Tebestina ; P. Alfaric, "Un manuscrit manichéen," RHLR n.s. 6 (1920): 62-94.

inexperienced and unable to judge for themselves ("diu multumque de inperitorum erroribus latissime ac uehementissime disputabant").^[106]

Though Augustine chose to view his response as protecting the imperiti , it can also be seen as a reaction against the seemingly uncheck-able movement of community members—particularly the intelligentsia—across sectarian boundaries. The influence of charismatic teachers like Fortunatus threatened the tolerable modus vivendi of mutual boycott.^[107] Yet lest we think that the Manichaeans were taking over the Christian community in great numbers, we should remember that Augustine later joked about Fortunatus' small base of support compared with his own much stronger catholic Christian community: "your very small number" ( tanta vestra paucitate ).^[108]

Augustine's staged disputatio with Fortunatus was held in the Baths of Sossius in Hippo Regius, sub praesentia populi.^[109] The audience of the debate, at least on the second day, was made up mostly of catholic Christians, according to Augustine himself in Contra Fortunatum.^[110] It was a solemn affair. Stenographers, most likely notarii affiliated with the catholic church, recorded the event. The contest itself was preceded by a series of preliminary negotiations concerning the topic of the debate and the mode of demonstration to be used.^[111]

It is almost certain that Augustine and the catholic Christians of Hippo applied tremendous pressure to force the Manichaeans to make an appearance at this debate by spreading rumors, perhaps even libelli famiosi , which echoed charges of immorality not infrequently brought against Manichaeans.^[112] The Manichaeans were put on the spot: if they forfeited the chance to dear their name, they tacitly confessed to the accusations leveled at them; otherwise, they had to descend for battle onto a field carefully selected and prepared by their opponents.

The proceedings resembled a trial by judge and jury rather than a fair debate.^[113] The Manichaean argued that both he and Augustine

[106] De utilitate credendi 2 (CSEL 25:5).

[107] See Augustine, Sermones 182.2, 302.19; Brown, "Religious Coercion in the Later Roman Empire: The Case of North Africa," History 48 (1963): 283-305.

[108] See Decret, Aspects du manichéisme , 40n. 1; idem, L'Afrique manichéenne , 1: 189-90.

[109] C. Fortunatum , prologue (CSEL 25:83).

[110] C. Fortunatum 37 (CSEL 25:112): "fideles sunt."

[111] See C. Fortunatum 1-3 (CSEL 25:83-86).

[112] On such traditional charges, see A. Henrichs, "Pagan Ritual and the Alleged Crimes of the Early Christians: A Reconsideration," in P. Granfield and J. A. Jungmann, eds., Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten (Munster, 1970), 1:18-35.

[113] See Decret, Aspects du manichéisme , 45: " Avec . . . la déférence d'un accusé devant un jury."

should confine themselves to discussing the morals of the Manichaeans, his primary concern:

The issue to be considered is our way of life, concerning the false criminal accusations by which we have been assaulted. Therefore let the respectable men present hear from you whether the charges upon which we are accused and sought out are true, or false.^[114]

Like earlier Christian apologists faced with charges of gruesome crimes and misdeeds, Fortunatus wanted to make his defense by appealing to the moral and ascetic virtues of the elect. Augustine quickly responded that faith and morals were separate matters and ought to be discussed independently of each other. For the moment, he wanted to limit the discussion to doctrine alone, and he justified this choice by shrewdly claiming that only the electi alone could know their mode of life.^[115]

Fortunatus complied with Augustine's restriction; he probably had no choice in the matter. He made a declaration of his professio by pronouncing the attributes of God: incorruptible, perspicuous, unapproachable, ungraspable, impassible, and so on. Augustine, trained in dialectical disputation and particularly versed in Aristotle's predicate logic, could now methodically dismantle the proposed theses using well-tried tools.

Augustine moved gingerly, reluctant to let Fortunatus raise counter-questions^[116] or to shift to different lines of argument that were probably part of Manichaean training. When Fortunatus tried to turn the debate back to scriptures, Augustine's reference to the "men of note" present (who presumably were able to follow rational arguments) was enough to bring the discussion back to the latter's proposed topic.

[114] C. Fortunatum 1 (CSEL 25:84). See, for example, the charges Augustine assembled circa 405 in his De natura boni contra Manichaeos 47 (CSEL 25:886-87).

[115] C. Fortunatum 3 (CSEL 25:84-85): "Ad aliud uocas, cure ego de fide proposuerim, de moribus autem uestris plene scire possunt, qui electi uestri sunt. nostis autem me non electum uestrum, sed auditorem fuisse . . . quaestionem de moribus, ut inter electos uestros discutiatis, si discuti potest. mihi fides data est a uobis, quam hodie inprobo. de ipse proposui. ad propositum meum mihi respondeatur."

[116] See Augustine's reply to Fortunatus' request for a dialectical premiss from him (whether the Word of God "anima dei est, an non?") in C. Fortunatum 10 (CSEL 25:89): "Si iustum est, ut non interrogatis meis respondeatur et ego interroger, respondeo." Though Augustine finally granted Fortunatus' request, he was careful to score a tactical point by noting that Fortunatus was not willing to respond to his questions in C. Fortunatum 11 (CSEL 25:89): "Tantum illud memineris te noluisse respondere interrogatis meis, me autem tui respondere." Later in C. Fortunatum 13 (CSEL 25:90), he stated for the record that though he was willing to entertain Fortunatus' questions, the latter was not willing to answer some of his. This kind of argument was only possible because the debate was being recorded by stenographers.

Later in the debate, Augustine again appealed to the nature of the audience when Fortunatus resorted to the proven Manichaean tactic of appealing to accepted scriptural texts for dialectical premisses.^[117] The audience itself responded:

At this point an uproar came from the audience who wished the debate to be held rather with rational arguments (rationibus ) because they saw that Fortunatus was not willing to accept the things written in the apostolic book. Then here and there a discussion began to be held by everyone. . . .^[118]

On the following day, Fortunatus, handicapped by many constraints, found himself in extremis after a series of exchanges. He helplessly exclaimed, "What then am I to say?"^[119] Augustine, sensing his opponent's despair, did not press on; he had reduced his adversary to silence and had therefore won the debate. He concluded the proceedings by expounding the catholic faith to all present.^[120] Though Fortunatus went away ignominiously to confer with his superiors (meis maioribus ),^[121] there was no actual capitulation, nor did Augustine try to bring one about. That the closure of this debate was not as dramatic or as firm as, for example, the end of the encounter between Augustine and Felix suggests that in 392 the goals of the young priest were limited. It sufficed to humble Fortunatus, a man of established reputation for whom Augustine no doubt had some regard. But this gentility of the early 390s would succumb to the requirements of maintaining episcopal authority once Augustine succeeded Valerius to the see of Hippo in 395.

Augustine and His Contra Faustum

The Numidian Faustus, referred to as an episcopus manichaeorum , was a much more formidable opponent for Augustine than Fortunatus.^[122] Of

[117] C. Fortunatum 19 (CSEL 25:96): "Rationibus ut discuteremus duarum naturarum fidem, interpositum est ab his, quis nos audiunt. sed quoniam ad scripturas iterum confugisti. . . ."

[118] C. Fortunatum 19 (CSEL 25:97). On an ancient speakers deliberate attempt to incite the audience to make an uproar against his rival in a verbal contest, see V. Bers, "Dikastic thorubos ," 1-15, esp. 9.

[119] C. Fortunatum 36 (CSEL 25:112): "Quid ergo dictums sum?"

[120] C. Fortunatum 37 (CSEL 25:112): "Sed si confiteris te non habere quod respondeas, omnibus audientibus et recognoscentibus quoniam fideles sunt, catholicam fidem, si permittunt ut uolunt exponam."

[121] The debate ended on an almost amicable note; see C. Fortunatum 37 (CSEL 25:112).

[122] C. Faustum 1.1 (CSEL 25:251). See Decret, Aspects du manichéisme , 51-70; Mandouze, ed., Prosopographie de l'Afrique chrétienne , 390-97, s.v. "Faustus 2."

humble origins, he achieved a widely known reputation for eloquence, and was already a distinguished figure when the young Augustine first met him.^[123] In those earlier years, Faustus had come to Carthage and there daily displayed his skill in words;^[124] he commanded immense presence and greatly impressed those around him with the panache of his discourse.^[125] It was to Faustus that Augustine presented his own doubts while a Manichaean auditor, probably in the manner of disciples who proposed aporiae for their teachers to solve. Only years later and after a serious change of heart did Augustine judge the man unlearned.^[126] Three Years after Augustine departed for Italy in 383, Faustus was brought before the proconsularis Africae by catholic Christians and sent into exile until 387.^[127]

Yet even while physically removed from Roman North Africa, Faustus was able to strike back at his persecutors by composing the Capitula de christiana fide et veritate , in which he set forth thirty-three disputationes debunking beliefs held by catholic Christians.^[128] The work began to have influence in catholic Christian circles and soon reached the attention of Augustine,^[129] who reacted to it in the same way that he was to react to the Donatist bishop Petilian's Ad presbyteros circa 400.^[130]

To rebut Faustus' arguments in the Capitula , Augustine composed a lengthy work which he called his grand opus.^[131] Augustine wrote his Contra Faustum as if he were refuting Faustus in person. Like Irenaeus^[132]

[123] SeeConfessiones 5.6.

[124] Confessiones 5.6.

[125] Confessiones 5.13.

[126] Confessiones 5.36. On the prejudice that the learned directed against the "semilearned," see R. Reitzenstein, "Alexander von Lykopolis," Philologus 86 (1930-31): 185-98. Reitzenstein argues (197) that the pagan philosopher Alexander's objections to Manichaeans stemmed from traditional educated elite prejudice against the pretensions to knowledge of "upstarts."

[127] See C. Faustum 5.8 (CSEL 25:280). See P. D. Garnsey, "The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors," JRS 58 (1968): 51-59.

[128] See P. Monceaux, Le manichéen Faustus de Milève: Restitution de ses Capitula , Mémoires de l'Institut National de France, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 43 (Paris, 1933), esp. 14-43; A. Bruckner, Faustus von Mileve: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des abendländischen Manichäismus (Basel, 1901). Decret views as speculation the supposition that this work was designed as a compendium for the Manichaean polemicist for use in local settings; see Aspects du manichéisme , 61.

[129] See Decret, Aspects du manichéisme , 62, 62n. 2.

[130] See Frend, "Manichaeism in the Struggle between Saint Augustine and Petilian of Constantine," Augustinus Magister (Paris, 1954): 859-66, esp. 861. Compare C. Faustum 1.1 in regard to how the religious rivals' controversial writings came into Augustine's hands.

[131] Retractationes 2.33 (CSEL 36:139).

[132] See Decret, Aspects du manichéisme , 15n. 2.

or Origen, Augustine began his tic five debate by stating, "I judge it convenient to put his words under his name and to place my response under mine."^[133] This dialogic convention enabled Augustine to render a detailed refutation of the favorite arguments of Faustus, and of the Manichaeans in general. He deliberately contrasted his own slow and lowly style with Faustus' sharpness and eloquence,^[134] but explained that "a sharp mind and a polished tongue are of no value unless the steps of the person are guided by his Master."^[135]

Augustine's work was aimed at a broad audience, though perhaps especially at those who harbored Manichaean sympathies. It provided counterarguments to Faustus' pointed questions and anticipated the situation of face-to-face debates: "Et hoc quidem nunc a nobis ita responsum sit, quia uobis placet argumentari et arma temptatis aliena dialectice disputare uolentes."^[136] Even so, Augustine was well aware that he did not furnish his readers with arguments that could pass as philosophical demonstrations. His goal was rhetorical persuasion and not demonstratio . In fact, Augustine cautioned his audience that it was not proper for them to expect philosophical proof in such contexts, for "you should consider first who you are (even as if you are moved by reason) and how very unfit you are for understanding the nature of your own soul, not to mention the soul of God."^[137]

Augustine was willing to provide others with ready-made arguments against Manichaeans, but these arguments were not invitations to further investigation, because this regressive curiosity led to such doubt as attracted Christians to Manichaean teachings in the first place. Augustine confounded Faustus' arguments by the sheer weight of the encyclopaedic learning that he mobilized against them. The same stratagem of underscoring the complexity of human anthropology and cognition was later used to discourage Christians from "undue curiosity" about supramundane issues.^[138]

[133] C. Faustum 1.1 (CSEL 25:251): "Commodum autem arbitror sub eius nomine uerba eius ponere et sub meo responsionem meam." Yet later traditions relished portraying Augustine engaged in a disputatio with Faustus; see J. and P. Courcelle, "Quelques illustrations du 'contra Faustum' de saint Augustin," in Oikoumene (Catinae, 1964), 1-21, esp. plates 1-4. The illuminated manuscripts date from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries.

[134] C. Faustum 1.1 (CSEL 25:251).

[135] C. Faustum 1.1 (CSEL 2.5:251): "Nihil sit acutum ingenium et lingua expolita, nisi a domino gressus hominis dirigantur."

[136] C. Faustum 26.2 (CSEL 25:730).

[137] C. Faustum 33.9 (CSEL 25:796-97): "Si autem quasi ratione mouemini, primum cogitetis, quinam sitis, quam minus idonei ad conprehendendam naturam, non dicam Dei, sed animae uestrae, conprehendendam sane."

[138] See, e.g., Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 27.9-10.

Augustine and Felix

By 404, the year of Augustine's debate with the Manichaean Felix, the hold of the catholic church on North Africa and elsewhere had already been considerably strengthened by the Theodosian settlement. Imperial support brought new confidence and a radical shift in the catholic bishops' strategies for coping with religious rivals. In particular, this affected their relationship with the Donatists, the other Christian church in North Africa.

Before 404, catholic Christians had approached the schism as a matter to be resolved in traditional ecclesiastical fashion, through collegial discussion, exhortation, and public debate. The Donatists had wisely turned down invitations to such debates. With no compromise in sight, the catholic bishops began in 404 to petition the imperial government for rescripts authorizing them to take repressive actions against the Donatists.^[139] Once these laws had been obtained, they were not enforced immediately but were used instead as psychological weapons to induce noncatholics to voluntarily abandon their "error." Force was eventually used and later rationalized. It was at this juncture, with the balance about to shift dramatically in the favor of the catholic bishops, that Augustine debated Felix in Hippo: "Contra Manichaeum quemdam nomine Felicem, praesente populo, in ecclesia biduo disputavi."^[140]

Since the last recorded disputation between a Christian and a Manichaean, the venue had moved from the public Baths of Sossius to the bishops' cathedral-purportedly to protect Felix from an angry Christian mob. Much else had changed. In these proceedings, the Manichaean debater was extremely respectful, addressing Augustine the catholic bishop as sanctitas tua.^[141] At one point, Felix referred to his handicaps in the debate:

Non tantum ego possum contra tuam uirtutem, quia mira uirtus est gradus episcopalis, deinde contra leges imperatoris. et superius petiui compendiue, ut doceas me, quid est ueritas; et si docueris me, quid est ueritas, parebit quod teneo mendacium esse.^[142]

The two negotiated the grounds for debate before proceeding. Felix wanted to use Manichaean texts that had already been confiscated, but Augustine agreed to discuss only one of them, the Epistula Fundamenti ,

[139] See Brown, "Religious Coercion," 283-306.

[140] Retractationes 2.34 (CSEL 36:141). See Mandouze, ed., Prosopographie de l'Afrique chrétienne , 417-18, s.v. "Felix 20."

[141] C. Felicem 1.2, 1.6 (CSEL 25:802, 807).

[142] C. Felicem 1.12 (CSEL 25:813). MSS. P, R, S, and b have the plural imperatorum ; only T (twelfth century) has imperatoris . See below on the leges imperatoris .

which he had already refuted in 396.^[143] In this debate, Augustine was nothing if not well prepared and the outcome understandably did not favor the Manichaean.

Events at the end of this debate remain mysterious. Though earlier exchanges between Felix and Augustine had been noted with care, and presumably with accuracy, their final words were quickly glossed over: "After many words had been exchanged between them, Felix said" (Post haec cum multis uerbis inter se agerent, Felix dixit.)^[144] It would be interesting to know Whether these verba were exchanged in the hearing of all, or whether the words "inter se" refer to a private conversation. The surprising silence of the stenographic record, along with what transpired later, suggests a private exchange. Perhaps Felix was even negotiating with Augustine the terms of his surrender, for he then asked Augustine: "What do you want me to do?" (Quid uis faciam?)^[145]

Why did not Felix simply concede defeat and walk away, as did Fortunatus by pleading that he would seek advice from his maiores ? Why did he ask Augustine what the latter would have him do? For one thing, Felix was in a much weaker position than Fortunatus had been. His opponent was no longer a presbyter but a powerful episcopus to whom much respect was due. Tua uirtus and tua sanctitas were ever on Felix's lips, and his demeanor must also have expressed studious deference to Augustine and the gradus episcopalis.

Though Felix had vowed to bum with the confiscated Manichaean codices if Augustine succeeded in finding evil in them, this was not a commitment to unconditional surrender in the case of defeat. Instead, he dramatically anathematized Mani and his teachings. It is difficult to know whether Felix did so out of fear that the bishop would invoke the anti-Manichaean legislations against him. Augustine himself had reassured Felix that "no one will force you against your will" (nemo enim te cogit inuitum).^[146] In any case, the scenario surrounding the anathema seems contrived, and quite possibly prearranged.^[147]

[143] Contra Epistulam quam vocant Fundamenti (CSEL 15:193-248); fragments in A. Adam, Texte zum Manichäismus (Berlin, 1969), 27-30. See the recent attempt to reconstruct the letter from Augustine's corpus in E. Feldmann, Die "Epistula Fundamenti" der nordafrikanischen manichäer: Versuch einer Rekonstruktion (Altenberge, 1987).

[144] C. Felicem 2.22 (CSEL 25:851).

[145] C. Felicem 2.22 (CSEL 25:852).

[146] C. Felicem 2.22 (CSEL 25:852).

[147] The text of the anathema in C. Felicem 2.22 (CSEL 25:852): "Ego Felix, qui Manichaeo credideram, nunc anathemo eum et doctrinam ipsius et spiritum seductorem, qui in illo fuit, qui dixit deum partem suam genti tenebrarum miscuisse et eam tam turpiter liberare, ut uirtutes suas transfiguraret in feminas contra masculina et ipsas iterum in masculos contra feminea daemonia, ita ut postea reliquias ipsius suae partis configat in aeternum globo tenebrarum. has omnes et ceteras blasphemias Manichaei anathemo." For the attribution of another anathema, formerly believed to refer to Felix's conversion, to Cresconius, see S. N. C. and J. Lieu, "'Felix conversus ex Manichaeis': A Case of Mistaken Identity," JTS n.s. 32 (1981): 173-76. Their interesting suggestion is rejected by Decret in "Du bon usage du mensonge et du parjure: Manichéens et Priscillianistes face à la persécution dans l'empire chrétien (IV -V siècles)," in Mélanges P. Lévêque (Paris, 1990), 4:144n. 21.

For prominent figures like the African rhetor Marius Victorinus, a staged exhibition of a realignment in one's religious affiliation was an act preceded by serious, private negotiations with those in authority.^[148] The act of conversion itself was a highly stylized ritual. It is very likely that Augustine had pressured Felix to debate with him on very unequal terms and that the latter, sensing the hopelessness of his situation from the outset, had decided to appear conciliatory and deferential and had already privately negotiated the terms of his capitulation.^[149]

After anathematizing Mani, Felix urged Augustine to do the same: "Ut confirmes me?" We may suppose that Felix wanted a public affirmation that his Manichaean past would not mar his future career as a catholic Christian by reminding all present that Augustine, too, had once been a Manichaean.^[150] More puzzling is the question of why Augustine agreed to do so.

Perhaps Augustine invited Felix to make this request of him. Disturbing rumors that Augustine remained a crypto-Manichaean were rampant during this period, suspicions disseminated by Petilian and others such as Julian of Eclanum (in his reply to Augustine's response to his Ad presbyteros ).^[151] This debate, in addition to signaling the triumph of catholic Christianity over Manichaeism, also served as the most public of proofs that Augustine was no longer a Manichaean, a fact that the new bishop's Confessions , published circa 397, also aimed to demonstrate.^[152] Thus both debaters wrote and signed with their own hands, "in the church before the people" (in ecclesia coram populo), their re-

[148] See P. Hadot, Marius Victorinus: Recherches sur sa Vie et ses oeuvres (Paris, 1971); O'Donnell, Confessions , 3:12-13. On Marius' conversion, see Augustine, Confessiones 8.2.

[149] See D. Newman, "Pleading Guilty for Considerations: A Study of Bargain Justice," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 46 (1956): 780-90, at 780.

[150] On the practical need for public recognition of such a change in one's religious allegiance, see Brown, "Religious Coercion," 327, on the tesserae issued by catholic bishops to converted Manichaeans referred to in the Commonitorium Sancti Augustini (PL 42:1153-56).

[151] See Augustine, Contra Litteras Petiliani 3.6, 19 (CSEL 52:177); Contra Cresconium 3.80.92.

[152] See A. Vecchi, "L'antimanicheismo nelle 'confessioni' di sant' Agostino," Giornale di metafisica 20 (1965): 91-121.

spective renunciations of Manichaeism.^[153] The staging could not have been more effective.

Augustine had succeeded in his later dealings with Manichaeans because of his enviable advantage of having been an insider. He knew how to maneuver Fortunatus. At the end of their second day's debate, when Fortunatus confessed that he was at a loss, Augustine replied: "I know that you don't have anything to say. Even I could never find anything to say on this question when I was an auditor among you."^[154]

Few other Christians possessed Augustine's fortuitous mixture of gifts and his imposing authority as a catholic bishop, and were therefore not so well equipped to defeat Manichaeans in a debate. Yet Augustine could help these imperiti in two significant ways.

First of all, as we have seen, he could furnish written refutations of Manichaean arguments and beliefs for circulation among catholics. Even Christians unable to recall the details of Augustine's convoluted arguments could wield his books as an authority or a talisman. The contest between catholic Christians and Manichaeans could then be raised from the local level of face-to-face encounters to the realm of proxy debate through treatises.

Second, Augustine could defeat select Manichaean leaders in highly publicized debates. Narratives of these carefully choreographed events could then circulate as edifying exempla for other Christians. In either case, individual Christians did not need to argue afresh all the familiar points of contention, so common as to be topoi ; they needed to know only that it had already been done for them. Through this process, catholic Christians gained advantages originally held by the Manichaeans, namely, the possession of a body of useful controversial texts and a resulting tradition of success in debates.^[155]

[153] C. Felicem 2.22 (CSEL 25:852): "Augustinus ecclesiae catholicae episcopus iam anathemaui Manichaeum et doctrinam eius et spiritum, qui per eum tam execrabiles blasphemias locutus est, quia spiritus seductor erat non ueritatis, sed nefandi erroris ipsius."

[154] C. Fortunatum 37 (CSEL 25:112).

[155] The relationship between elenchie disputation and question chains has been noted by Ryle, "Dialectic in the Academy," 75: "Written minutes or abstracts of the argument-sequences deployed are kept and consulted. . . . Like chess-players' 'combinations,' lines of argumentation are public property, and a tactical improvement made by myself becomes henceforth a part of anyone else's stock of arguments for or against the same thesis." The only known fourth-century Latin anti-Manichaean treatise written for catholic Christians is an anonymous work attributed to Marius Victorinus; see Pseudo-Victorinus, Liber ad Justinum Manichaeum contra duo principia Manichaeorum et de vero carne Christi , in PL 8:999-1010. Augustine's anti-Manichaean writings therefore provided useful refutations of certain central Manichaean claims that Latin Christians had hitherto been unable to challenge successfully. By the fifth century, Latin catholic Christians would have access to a number of florilegia or prooftexts designed for arguing against positions deemed heretical; see the collected texts in Florilegia Biblica Africana saec. V CCSL 90 (Turnhout, 1961), especially Pseudo-Augustine, Solutiones diversarum quaestionum ab haereticis obiectarum (B. Swank, ed., 149-223).

The Narrowing of the Horizons

When the first Manichaean missionaries arrived in the Roman Empire, they brought with them written texts designed to aid them in sectarian religious controversy. Their ability to convince, as our sources inform us, depended on their grounding in these writings. Manichaeans developed a repertoire of topics certain to interest Christians, and from such opening gambits they moved on to the Manichaean gospel of the two principles.

The use of formal public disputation as part of the Manichaean missionary effort is almost unattested. Instead we find an emphasis on aporetic disputation using such questions as "Whence evil?" Their purpose was not to draw listeners into debate, though this sometimes happened, but to allow them to appreciate the Manichaean kerygma as the solution to real theological problems.^[156] In the fictive Acta Archelai , we recall, Mani singled out the local notable Marcellus for conversion through the private suasion of an exchange of letters. It appears that neither Mani nor his disciples wanted to come into town to engage in formal disputation. The debate in the Acta Archelai was thrust upon Mani by his opponents, just as most staged public debates involving Manichaeans were initiated by local catholic and other Christians as a means of countering the missionaries' local influence. Although Manichaeans were notoriously mobile, subsequent records of the debates followed the Manichaeans, shadowing them with the effects of one decisive loss.

The early history of Manichaeism and the stories about debates between Manichaeans and other religious figures depict a world of relative religious diversity and fluid frontiers. From the late fourth century onward this picture was turned on its head. "To study Manichaeism is to study the fate of a missionary religion in a world of shrinking horizons."^[157] With increasingly powerful local bishops acting as religious police to enforce their own interests, and a hostile imperial legislation to back the bishops up, Manichaeans, like many other religious groups,

[156] On the Manichaeans and their propensity for asking "Whence evil?" see Titus of Bostra, Adversus Manichaeos A.4 (Paul de Lagarde, ed., Titi Bostreni, quae ex opere contra Manichaeos edito in codice Hamburgensi servata sunt [1859; reprint, Wiesbaden, 1967], pp. 3 [Greek], 5 [Syriac]). In general, see P.-H. Poirier, "Le contra Manichaeos de Titus de Bostra," Annuaire: École Pratique des Hautes Études , Section de Sciences Religieuses 98 (1989-90): 366-68, esp. 368; H. Puech, Le manichéisme, son fondateur, sa doctrine (Paris, 1949), 152.

[157] Brown, "Diffusion of Manichaeism," 98.

could no longer compete as equals in the religious market of late antiquity. One stunning change was that Christians no longer had to debate Manichaeans on equal terms; they could demand a written abjuration from suspected sectarians.^[158]

Writing played a central role in this new world of rising religious authoritarianism. The career of Augustine attested to the developing use of stenography and its relationship to power.^[159] In November of 386, Augustine had engaged stenographers to take down his dictation at Cassiciacum when he was composing his Skeptical Contra Academicos as part of the stock exercise of late antique intellectuals to defend their views against competing models of truth.^[160] In 392, the young priest made good use of stenography in his debate with Fortunatus in Hippo, and in 404 he again used stenography, this time to secure the binding, written anathema of Felix. Finally, in 411, he used stenography to its best advantage at the celebrated anti-Donatist Council of Carthage, which he dominated. Augustine of Hippo had learned over the years that stenography, a friend to the Roman imperial government for centuries, could be an equally loyal and useful friend to a Christian bishop.

In addition, the Christian bishop increasingly resembled an imperial official in terms of the coercive power lie possessed. The gist of the ominous anti-Manichaean leges referred to by Felix in 404 can be discerned by reading the Theodosian Code .^[161] Knowing that the local catholic bishop

[158] For abjuration formulae for deconversion from Manichaeism in general, see PG 1:1461-74; M. Richard, ed., Ioannes Caesariensis Presbyteri et Grammatici Opera CCSG 1 (Turnhout, 1977), xxxiii-xxxix (long formula); PG 100:1217-25 (short formula). See text, translation, and commentary in S. N. C. Lieu, "An Early Byzantine Formula for the Renunciation of Manichaeism: the capita VII contra Manichaeos of <Zacharias of Mytilene>," JAC 26 (1983): 152-218; this is reviewed by M. Tardieu in Studia Iranica 7:139. See H. Garfinkel, "Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies," American Journal of Sociology 61 (1956): 420-24.

[159] In general, see D. Ohlmann, "Die Stenographie im Leben des heiligen Augustin," Archiv für Stenographie 56 (1905): 273-79, 312-19.

[160] See Hoffmann, Dialog , 135-43. See now the discussion by T. Fuhrer, "Das Kriterium der Wahrheit in Augustins contra Academicos," VChr 46 (1992): 257-75, esp. 258.

[161] See Cod. Theod . 16.5.35 (Krueger and Mommsen, eds., 866), issued by Arcadius and Honorius from Milan and addressed to the vicar of Africa:

Noxios Manichaeos execrabilesque eorum conventus, dudum iusta animadversione damnatos, etiam speciali praeceptione cohiberi decernimus. Quapropter quaesiti adducantur in publicum ac detestati criminosi congrua et severissima emendatione resecentur. In eos etiam auctoritatis aculei dirigantur, qui eos domibus suis damnanda provisione defendent.

See also E. H. Kaden, "Die Edikte gegen die Manichäer von Diokletian bis Justinian," in Festchrift für Hans Lewald (Basel, 1953), 55-68; P. Beskow, "The Theodosian Laws against Manichaeism," in P. Bryder, ed., Manichaean Studies , 1, 1-11. On imperial persecutions against the Manichaeans in general, see Lieu, History of Manichaeism , 154-77.

could invoke such laws made the Manichaeans more timid, at least in public.^[162] Yet Felix's plight was not quite the unhappiest predicament in which a Manichaean would find himself in the Christian empire. That distinction must be reserved for the Manichaeans involved in two incidents during the reign of the emperor Justinian.

John of Ephesus related one of the incidents, the date of which is unknown, though the account precedes a story dated to the nineteenth year of Justinian's reign, or 546.^[163] According to John, Justinian called before him the Manichaeans that had been arrested in pogroms initiated by the emperor himself, and then proceeded to personally attempt their conversion by means of debate.^[164] His prisoners, many of them noble women and senators, refused "with satanic obstinacy" to alter their religious allegiance, even at the cost of martyrdom. The emperor obliged them, taking the unusual (though perhaps prudent) step of burning their corpses at sea so that the waves might take their remains.

The other incident concerns a disputation sponsored by the emperors Justin and Justinian. Not long after the enactment of the anti-Manichaean law of 527, which saw the public execution of prominent individuals known to be Manichaeans, a staged disputation ( ) was held by imperial command.^[165] The principals were a champion of the Manichaean faith (), a teacher () called Photinus, and Paul the Persian, a Christian.^[166]

The debate lasted four days, The arguments relied heavily on Aristotelian dialectic; the Manichaean also attempted the familiar attacks on the Hebrew bible. Finally, after Paul successfully answered a baiting question from Photinus about whether Christ upheld or destroyed the Mosaic commandments, the Manichaean grew silent: "."

Throughout this disputation, Photinus was hardly on an equal foot-

[162] See Brown, "St. Augustine's Attitude to Religious Coercion."

[163] See F. Nau, "Analyse de la seconde partie inédite de l'Histoire Ecclésiastique de Jean d'Asie, patriarche jacobite de Constantinople (d. 585)," Revue de l'Orient Chrétien 2 (1897): 455-93, esp. 478-79 (Syriac) and 481 (French).

[164] On the moral duty felt by judges in witchcraft trials in early modem Europe and their sermonizing exhortations, see E. Delcambre, "Les procès de sorcellerie en Lorraine: psychologie des juges," Revue d'Histoire du Droit 21 (1953): 408-15.

[165] Disputationes Photini Manichaei cum Paulo Christiano , in PG 88:529A-551C. See discussion in Lieu, History of Manichaeism , 172-73. See the valuable study of this episode and discussion of the Vatican and Sinai MSS by G. Mercati, "Per la vita e gli scritti di 'Paolo il Persiano': Appunti de una disputa. di religione sotto Giustino e Giustiniano," in Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica , Studi e Testi 5 (Rome, 1901): 180-206.

[166] Disputationes Photini cum Paulo (PG 88:529A).

ing with Paul: he was in chains and probably under guard. Lieu is justified in characterizing Paul as less a partner in debate than an "inquisitor."^[167] Photinus was relegated to the role of a disciple posing questions to his teacher.^[168] Furthermore, in accordance with standard procedure, the emperors chose Theodore Teganistes, "the Frier," as the secular dignitary assigned to supervise the religious debate. Theodore had already been prefect of Constantinople four times by 527.^[169] Bearing the court title of ho endoxotatos , he was one whose presence at the debate guaranteed the carrying out of imperial wishes.^[170]

The ideological shift brought about by the outlawing of Manichaeism was derisive. With the rise of catholic and orthodox Christianities to a central position in the Roman Empire, increased social closure was needed to reflect the new imperial identity. In Max Weber's view, such social closure was achieved by increasing rigidity in group boundaries, curbing freewheeling competition, and preventing individual movement across boundaries. Public debates became no more than showcases exhibiting, for the edification of all Christian subjects as well as the marginalized Other, the wide gulf between sanctioned and illegitimate religious self-identifications.

Gradually, the division between. things Manichaean and things Christian became less murky, and the polemical literature contributed to this process of differentiation. In John of Damascus' Dialogus contra Manichaeos , we find what might be called a template debate.^[171] The genre was that of Leontius of Neapolis' Apologia contra Judaeos (surviving in quotations by John of Damascus), which was assembled out of adaptable florilegia of prooftexts.^[172] The two interlocutors in this dialogue were referred to as "the Orthodox" and "the Manichaean." This dear-cut juxtaposition of their differences was reassuring to those ideologically committed to maintaining a definition of the Christian church based on

[167] Disputationes Photini cum Paulo (PG 88:533D-535B); Lieu, History of Manichaeism , 173.

[168] See Mercati, "Per la vita e gli scritti di 'Paolo il Persiano,'" 196-98.

[169] See PLRE 2:1006, s.v. "Theodorus qui et Teganistes 57." His nickname suggests either that he rose from the humble origins of "a frier" to an exalted status, or that he possessed a stem reputation as a magistrate who meted out exceedingly harsh punishments. His theological views, if any, were unknown.

[170] See PG 88:529. This important dignitary sponsored Christian buildings in the capital when he was the praefectus urbis of Constantinople for the third time in 520; see PLRE 2:1006.

[171] Text in PG 94:1505-84. This text is different from the dialogue between a certain "John the Orthodox" and a Manichaean; text in PG 96:1320-36, and Iohannis Caesariensis Presbyteri et Grammatici Opera (Richard, ed., 109-28).

[172] See V. Déroche, "L'authenticité de l' 'apologie contre les juifs,'" BCH 110 (1986): 655-69. On the adversus Judaeos genre as a whole, see Williams, Adversus Judaeos .

doctrinal purity and communal solidarity. After definitions of truth and falsehood had been established using dialectical arguments, the discussion opened with a variation of a Manichaean classic: "Do you say that there is one first principle (), or two?" the Manichaean asked John.^[173] Like Paul the Persian, John was trained in philosophical dialectic and would have been a formidable foe to any historical opponent, let alone the imaginary Manichaean of the dialogue.^[174] The Manichaean was not always able to respond and consequently the dialogic principle in this writing gradually deteriorated. Soon John began to lecture in a mono-logic style, using kai palin and other rather artless devices to connect disparate arguments presented sequentially.

The conflict between orthodox Christianity and Manichaeism was now conducted more and more through anonymous pamphleteering.^[175] The Manichaean debater had by the sixth century become a shadowy figure in the Roman Empire, with no life of his own.^[176] Yet this process was only the flip side of the crystallization of an orthodox tradition, for the Christian refutations of Manichaeism also assumed a nameless and timeless quality: the short anonymous pamphlet Syllogismi sanctorum patrum lists thirteen useful anti-Manichaean arguments in the form of pithy syllogisms culled from the works of Didymus the Blind and Gregory of Nyssa.^[177]

Further afield, in the less structured and more welcoming environment of Central Asia, Manichaeans retained their traditional skill in arguing from set texts. In the Chinese Manichaean Compendium from Tunhuang, being "well versed in the seven scriptures and eminently skilled in debate" normally entitled one to respect within the Manichaean monastic community.^[178] Yet even here, new social pressures had overtaken the glamorous Manichaean debater. The Compendium makes dear that the monastic virtue of obeying Manichaean precepts was considered

[173] Dialogus contra Manichaeos 2 (PG 94:1508B).

[174] See G. Richter, Die Dialektik des Johannes von Damaskos: Eine Untersuchung des Textes nach seinen Quellen und seiner Bedeutung (Ettal, 1964), esp. 262-80.

[175] See Zacharias of Mytilene, Disputatio (PG 85:1143-44), on the refutation of a writing advancing the two Manichaean principles during the reign of Justinian. The writing was simply left on the streets, perhaps as a challenge.

[176] See I. Rochow, "Zum Fortleben des Manichäismus im byzantinischen Reich nach Justinian I," Byzantinoslavica 40 (1979): 13-21.

[177] See Richard, ed., 131-33. On the use of dialectic as an "anti-heretical" weapon, see, e.g., Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 29.

[178] Taisho shinshu daizokyo 2141A, LIV 1280c8; English translation from G. Haloun and W. B. Henning, "The Compendium of the Doctrines and Styles of the Teaching of Mani, The Buddha of Light," Asia Major n.s. 3 (1952): 196. See new edition in N. Tajadod, Mani: Le Bouddha de Lurmière: catéchisme manichéen chinois , Sources gnostiques et manichéenes 3 (Paris, 1990).

much more important than charismatic authority stemming from eloquence and learning:

If a mu-she [one of the twelve teachers] be violating the commandments, no one shall accept his instructions. Even though he is well-versed in the seven scriptures and eminently skilled in debate, if he has faults and vices, the five grades will not respect him.^[179]

The routinization of charisma took place among the Manichaeans wherever their communities assumed the form of hierarchical monastic institutions. A similar process was at work in the later Roman Empire within Christian communities, which increasingly gravitated toward their local bishops. As a result of this growing monopoly over authority, groups such as the Anomoeans and the Manichaeans, once existing in symbiotic dialectical relationship with orthodox and catholic Christians, were dramatically and forcibly redefined as the alien Other. Within this new context, in which unsupervised debate between individual Manichaeans and Christians manifested an undesirable lack of closure, emphasis was placed instead on the authority of written documents—many of which were closely connected with controversy, such as the acta and catenae of prooftexts—and on carefully controlled public disputations conducted by Christian authorities.

Like the classical Greeks, Christians in the later empire discovered that the written word lettered the dynamic logos and the dialectical element of speech.^[180] Yet while the Greeks viewed such a constraint negatively, Christians, with their belief in revealed truth and their need to achieve social closure, found in the written word a god-sent gift.

[179] Taisho shinshu daizokyo , 2141A, LIV 1280c7-9. English translation from Haloun and Henning, "Compendium," 195-96.

[180] Even in law courts, Athenians preferred spoken testimony to written documentation; see T. M. Lentz, "Spoken versus Written Inartistic Proof in Athenian Courts," Philosophy and Rhetoric 16 (1983): 242-61, esp. 247-48.