(v) An astronomical representation on the ceiling of the Rameseum (the work of Rameses II) has been supposed to yield the year B.C. 1322 as its date (bishop Tomlinson, Trans. R. S. Lit. 1839; Sir G. Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc., 2d ser. p. 377); while Mr. Cullimore, from the same, gets B.C. 1138. The truth is, these astronomical configurations, in the present state of our knowledge, are an unsolved riddle. Lepsius's inferences (Chron, der Aeg.) from the same representations in the reigns of Rameses IV and VI are little more than guesses, too vague and precarious to satisfy any man who knows what evidence means.

one of the years B.C. 1369-26. But if (which is certain-protests against this story as a mere figment, prompted ly more likely) the time chosen was some weeks earlier, by Egyptian malignity, and labors to prove it inconsistthe year indicated would be after B.C. 1300. So this ent with Manetho's own list: unsuccessfully enough, and the preceding indication may agree, and so far there for, in fact, Amenophis (Ammenephthes, Afr.) does apis some evidence for the supposition that the sothiac pear there just where the story places him, i. e. next to epochal year B.C. 1322 lies in the reign of Thothmes Sethos and Rameses II, with a reign of nineteen years III. (See Dr. Hincks, ut sup., and in the Dublin Univ. and six months. The monuments give the name MeMagazine, 1846, p. 187.) nephtha, and his son and successor Seti=Sethos II, just as in the story. The names are not fictitious, whatever may be the value of the story as regards the Israelites. This Menephtha, then, son and successor of Rameses the Great, is the Pharaoh of the Exode, according to Lepsius and Bunsen, and of late accepted as such by many writers, learned and unlearned. Those to whom the name of Manetho is not voucher enough, will demand independent evidence. In fact, it is alleged that the monuments of the time of Menephtha attest a period of depression: no great works of that king are known to exist; of his reign of twenty years the highest date hitherto found is the fourth; and two rival kings, AmenIt appears, then, that the supposed astronomical notes messu (the Ammenemses of the lists) and Si-phtha, are of time hitherto discovered lend but little aid, and bring reigning at the same time with him, i. e. holding precanothing like certainty into the inquiry. We cannot ac- rious sovereignty in Thebes during the time of alien cept the lists as they stand. How are they to be recti- occupation and the flight of Menephtha (Bunsen, Aeg. fied? Until we have the means of rectifying them, Stelle, iv, 208 sq.). That these two kings reigned in every attempt to put forth a definite scheme of Egyp- the time of Menephtha, and not with or after Sethos II, tian chronology is simply futile. The appeal to author- is assumed without proof; that the reign of Rameses II ity avails nothing here. Lepsius, Bunsen, Brugsch, and was followed by a period of decadence proves nothing many more, all claim to have settled the matter. Their as to its cause; and the entire silence of the monuments very discrepancies on the scale of which half a century as to an event so memorable as the final expulsion of is a mere trifle-sufficiently prove that to them, as to the hated "Shepherds" (Shas-u), who so often figure in us, the evidence is defective. The profoundest scholar- the monumental recitals of earlier kings (e. g. of Sethos ship, the keenest insight, cannot get more out of it than I, who calls them shas-u p'kanana-kar, "shepherds of is in it; "that which is crooked cannot be made straight, the land of Canaan"), tells as strongly against the story and that which is wanting cannot be numbered." Yet, as any merely negative evidence can do it. More imporfrom the easy confidence with which people assign dates tant is the argument derived from the mention (Exod. -their own, or taken on trust-to the Pharaohs after i, 11) of the "treasure- cities Pithom and Raamses," Amosis, and even of much earlier times, it might be built for the persecuting Pharaoh by the forced labor of thought that from Manetho and the monuments together the Hebrews; the Pharaoh (says Rosellini, Mon. Storici, a connected chronology has been elicited as certain as i, 294 sq.) was Rameses [II, son of Sethos I], who gave that of the Roman emperors. In particular, there ap- one of the cities his own name. (Comp. Ewald, Gesch. pears to be a growing belief-even finding its way into ii, 66, note.) Lepsius, art. Aegypten, in Herzog's Enpopular Bible histories and commentaries that the Pha-cyklop., calls this "the weightiest confirmation," and in raoh of the Exodus can be identified in Manetho, and so the time of that event determined.

Chronol. der Aeg. i, 337-357, enlarges upon this argument. Raamses, he says, was at the eastern, as Pithom (IIárovμoç) was certainly at the western end of the great canal known to be the work of Rameses II, and the site of the city bearing his name is further identified with him by the granite group disinterred at Abu Kei

the gods Ra and Tum. Certainly a king Rameses appears first in the 19th dynasty, but the place may have taken its name, if from a man at all, from some earlier person.

Early Christian writers usually assumed, with Josephus, that the Hyksos or “shepherd-kings," whose story he gives from Manetho (Apion, i, 14-16), were the Israelites, and their expulsion by Amosis or Tethmosis one or both, for the accounts are confused-the Egyp-sheib, in which the deified king sits enthroned between tian version of the story of the exode. This view has still its advocates (quite recently Mr. Nash, The Pharaoh of the Exodus, 1863), but not among those who have been long conversant with the subject. Indeed, there is a monument of Thothmes III which, if it has been That the exode cannot be placed before the 19th dytruly interpreted, is conclusive for a much earlier date nasty, Bunsen (ut sup. p. 234) holds to be conclusively of the exode than this reign, or perhaps any of the dy-shown by the fact that on the monuments which record nasty. A long inscription of his twenty-third year gives a list of the confederates defeated by him at Megiddo, in which De Rouge reads the names Jacob and Joseph, and Mr. Stuart Poole thinks he finds the names of some of the tribes, Reuben, Simeon, Issachar, Gad (Report of R. S. Lit. in Athenæum, March 21, 1863).

the conquests of Rameses the Great in Palestine, no mention occurs of the Israelites among the Kheti (Hittites) and other conquered nations; while, on the other hand, there is no hint in the book of Judges of an Egyptian invasion and servitude. On similar negative grounds he urges that the settlement in Palestine must have But the story of the Jews put forth by "Manetho" been subsequent to the conquests made in that country himself (Josephus, Apion, i, 26, 27), with the confession, by Rameses III, first king of the 20th dynasty. To this however, that he obtained it not from ancient records, it may be replied, (1.) that we have no clear informabut from popular tradition (adeonórwc μvodoyouμeva), tion as to the route of the invaders; if it was either represents them as a race of lepers, who, oppressed by along the coast or to the east of Jordan, the tribes, perthe reigning king, called to their aid the Hyksos from haps, were not directly affected by it. (2.) The expePalestine (where these, on their expulsion some centu-ditions so pompously described on the monuments (as ries earlier by Tethmosis, had settled and built Jerusa- in the Statistical Table of Karnak, Thothmes III, and lem), and with these allies overran all Egypt for thirteen similar recitals of the conquests of Rameses II and III; years, at the end of which Amenophis, who had taken see Mr. Birch, in Trans. of R. S. Lit. ii, 317 sq.; and vii, refuge in Ethiopia, returning thence with his son Se- 50 sq.) certainly did not result in the permanent subju thos, drove out the invaders. These, headed by Osar- gation of the countries invaded. This is sufficiently siph (=Moses), a priest of Heliopolis, retired into Pales- shown by the fact that the conquests repeat themselves tine, and there became the nation of the Jews. Josephus under different kings, and even in the same reign. Year

by year the king with his army sets out on a gigantic | Pliny's notice of the obelisks (H. N. xxxvi, 64), that razzia, to return with spoil of cattle, slaves, and prod- known to be of Thothmes III is said to belong to Mesuce of the countries overrun. (3.) If the lands of the phres, which, says Bunsen (iv, 130), “would be the poptribes were thus overrun, it may have been during one ular distinctive name given to this Thothmes." Jost of the periods of servitude, in which case they suffered so! And in the statement of Theon the king is preonly as the vassals of their Canaanitish, Moabitish, or sented by "his popular distinctive name," Menophres. other oppressors. That this may possibly have been (4.) "There was (says Dr. Hincks, Trans. R. Irish. Acad. the case is sufficient to deprive of all its force the argu- vol. xxi, pt. 1) a tradition, if it does not deserve another ment derived from the silence of the monuments, and name, current among the Egyptians in the time of Anof the book of Judges. toninus, to the effect that the Sothiac Cycle, then ending (A.D. 139), commenced in the reign of Thothmes III. The existence of such a tradition is evidenced by a number of scarabæi, evidently of Roman workmanship. referring to the Sothiac Cycle, and in which the royal legend of this monarch appears." These are sufficient grounds for believing that the Menophres of Theon is no other than Thothmes III, and that his reign was supposed (rightly or wrongly) to include the year BC. 1322. It may be, also, that when Herodotus was told that Moeris lived about 900 years before the time of his visit to Egypt-a date not very wide of B.C. 1322Thothmes was named to him by his popular distinctive appellation, Mai-Ré, only confused with Mares = Amenemha III, the Pharaoh of the Labyrinth and its Lake. (Other explanations of the name Menophres may be seen in Böckh, Manetho, p. 691 sq.; Biot, Recherches, interprets it as the name of Memphis, Men-nofru, importing that the normal date, 20th July, for the heliscal rising of Sirius and epoch of the cycle, is true only for the latitude of Memphis.) What has been said is sufficient to show that there is no necessity for altering a letter of the name; consequently that the time of Menephtha is not defined by the authority of Theon. De Rougé emphatically rejects Lepsius's notion of Menophres (Rérue Archeol. ix, 664; Journal Asiatique, Aug. 1858, p. 268). He thinks the year 1322 lies in the reign of Rameses III.

There remains to be noticed one piece of documentary evidence which has quite recently been brought to light. Dr. Brugsch (Zeitschrift, Sept. 1863) reports that "one set of the Leyden hieratic papyri, now publishing by Dr. Leemans, consists of letters and official reports. In several of these, examined by M. Chabas, repeated mention is made of certain foreigners, called Apuruju, i. e. Hebrews, compelled by Rameses II to drag stones for the building of the city Raamses." In his Melanges Egyptol. 1862, 4th dissertation, M. Chabas calls them Aperiu. It is certainly striking, as Mr. Birch remarks (in Révue Archéol. April, 1862, p. 291), that "in the three documents which speak of these foreigners, they appear engaged on works of the same kind as those to which the Hebrews were subjected by the Egyptians; it is also important that the papyri were found at Memphis. But the more inviting the proposed identification, the more cautious one needs to be." As the sounds R and L are not discriminated in Egyptian writing, it may be that the name is Apeliu; and as B and P have distinct characters, one does not see why the b of should be rendered by p. (The case of Epep=" is different; see below.) It seems, also, that the same name occurs as late as the time of Rameses IV, where it can hardly mean the Hebrews. Besides, the monument of Thothmes III above mentioned leads to quite a different conclusion. Where the evidence is so conflicting, the inquirer who seeks only truth, not the confirmation of a foregone conclusion, has no choice but to reserve his judgment.

The time of this Menephtha, so unhesitatingly proclaimed to be the Pharaoh of the Exode, is placed beyond all controversy-so Bunsen and Lepsius maintain -by an invaluable piece of evidence furnished by Theon, the Alexandrine mathematician of the 4th century. In a passage of his unpublished commentary on the Almagest, first given to the world by Larcher (Herodot. ii, 553), and since by Biot (Sur la période Sothiaque, p. 18, 129 sq.), it is stated that the Sothiac Cycle of Astronomy which, as it ended in A.D. 139, commenced in B.C. 1322 (20th July), was known in his time as "the æra of Menophres" (Ernη áñò Mevóppewc). There is no king of this name: read Mɛvówc-so we have Menephtha of the 19th dynasty, the king of the leper-story, the Exodus Pharaoh. Lepsius, making the reign begin in B.C. 1328, places the exode at B.C. 1314-15 Menephtha, in accordance with the alleged thirteen years' retirement into Ethiopia and the return in the fourteenth or fifteenth year. Certainly the precise name Menophres does not appear in the lists; but in later times that name may have been used for the purpose of distinguishing some particular king from others of the same name; and there is reason to think this was actually the case. (1.) The king Tethmosis or Thothmes III repeatedly appears on monuments with the addition to his royal legend Mai-Ré, " Beloved of Ré," with the article Mai-ph-Ré, and with the preposition Mai-n'-phRé, which last is precisely Theon's Mɛvóppng. (2.) The acknowledged confusion of names in that part of the 18th dynasty where this king occurs-Misaphris, Misphres, Memphres (Armen.), then Misphragmuthosis (the AAIZOP. of Josephus is evidently an error of copying for MI20P.: in the list ibid. the 5th and 6th names are Mnoons, MeppaμovIworç)—is perhaps best explained by supposing that the king was entered in the lists by his distinctive as well as his family name. (3.) In

In support of his date, B.C. 1314, for the exode, Lepsius (Chronol. p. 359 sq.) has an argument deduced from the modern Jewish chronology (Hillel's Mundane Era), in which he says that it is the precise year assigned to that event. Hillel, he is confident, was led to it by Manetho's Egyptian tradition, which gave him the name of the Pharaoh; and this being obtained would easily give him the time. Bunsen, though finally settling on the year B.C. 1320, had previously declared with Lepsius for B.C. 1314,"decided by the circumstance that a tradition not compatible with the usual chronological systems of the Jews, but which cannot be accidental, places the exode at that year. This fact seems, from Lepsius's account of the Seder Olam Rabba, to admit of no doubt” (iv, 336). It admits of more than doubt-of absolute refutation. Hillel's whole procedure, from first to last, was simply Biblical. Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks gave him B.C. 422 for 11 Zedekiah; thence up to 6 Hezekiah he found the sum=133 years; for the kings of Israel the actual numbers were 243, of which he made 240 years; then 37 years of Solomon; 480 years of 1 Kings vi, 1, added to these, made the total 890 years, whence the date for the exode was B.C. 422+890= 1312; for that this, not 1314, was Hillel's year of the exode is demonstrable (Review of Lepsius on Bible Chronology, by H. Browne, in Arnold's Theolog. Critic, i, 52–59, 1851). Yet, though the process by which Hillel got his date is so transparent, it is spoken of as "an important tradition" by those who take ready-made conclusions at second-hand, without inquiry into their grounds. So Duncker, Gesch, des Alterthums, i, 196, note; Dr. Williams, in Essays and Reviews, p. 58.

It is alleged that an indication confirmatory of the low date assigned by these writers is furnished by the month-date of the Exodus passover, 14 Abib, a name which occurs only in connection with that history (Exod. xii,2; xiii,4; xxiii, 15; xxxiv, 18; Deut. xvi, 1). This argument proceeds on the presumption that Abib is the Hebraized form of the Egyptian Epep, Coptic Epiphi. of which the Arabic rendering is also Abib. The EgyT

=

tian month takes its name from the goddess A pap: the change of p to b is intended to make the word pure Hebrew, denoting the time of year, the month when the barley is in the ear (abib) (Exod. ix, 31). "At the time assigned, the vague month Epep would pretty nearly coincide with the Hebrew Abib" (Lepsius, Chron. p. 141). Hardly so, for in the year named 1 Epiphi would fall on 14th May, and it is scarcely conceivable that the passover month (whose full moon is that next to the vernal equinox, which in that century fell cir. 5th April) should begin so late as the middle of May. Not till a hundred years later would the vague month Epiphi and the Hebrew passover month coincide. The argument proves too much, unless we are prepared to lower the exode to cir. B.C. 1200. (To some it may imply that the narrative of the exode was written about that time-Mr. Sharpe, History of Egypt, 1,63-but one can hardly suppose that the Hebrews retained the vague Egyptian months as well as their names so long after their settlement in Palestine.) If in any year from B.C. 1300 upwards, the full moon next the vernal equinox fell in the month Epiphi, it would follow that the Coptic month-names (which, it is well understood, never occur on the monuments) belonged then to a different form of the year.

"a made-up thing, systematically carved to shape, and therefore really fabulous." Whether or not the original "Manetho," whatever its authorship and date, was contrived upon a cyclical plan, we have but the lists as they come to us finally from the hands of Annianus and Pandorus through Syncellus. It may be observed, however, that the cardinal dates given by Dicœarchus, which we have from an independent source, imply that the cyclical treatment of Egyptian chronology is at least as old as the alleged time of Manetho ("Cycles," etc., u. s., sec. 4, 16, 34, 36).

For literature additional to the above, see under EGYPT; also Fruin, Dissertatio Historica de Manethone (Leyd. 1847, 8vo); Böckh, Manetho (Berlin, 1845, 8vo); A. H. von Sagaus, Manethos, die Origines unserer Gesch. (Gotha, 1865, 8vo); Am. Presb. Rev. Jan. 1866, p. 180.

Manger is the rendering found in Luke ii, 7, 12, 16, of the term párvn, used to designate the place in which the infant Redeemer was cradled; which seems to denote a crib or "stall" for feeding cattle, as it is rendered in Luke xiii, 15 (see Horrei Miscell. Crit. Leon. 1738, bk. ii, ch. xvi). It is employed in the Sept. in a similar sense for the Heb. O, Job xxxix, 9; Isa. i, 3; also by Josephus, Ant. viii, 2, 4; comp. Lucan, Tim. p. 14; Xenophon, Eg. iv, 1. Gersdorff (Beiträge zur SprachFor the first seventeen dynasties, numbering in Afr. charakterestik des N. T. p. 220) is in favor of translating more than 4000 years, a bare statement of their con- the word crib everywhere, and quotes Ælian (apud Suid. tents and of the monumental evidence would greatly s. v.), Philo (De somniis, p. 872, b. ed. Colon. 1613), and exceed the limits of this article. Perhaps the time is Sybile. Eryth. (ap. Lactantius, vii, 24, 12) to that effect. not far distant when the attempt to educe a connected Schleusner (Lex. s. v.) says it is any enclosure, but eschronology from Manetho (whether for or against the pecially the vestibule to the house, where the cattle Mosaic numbers) will be abandoned by all sensible men. were enclosed, not with walls, but wooden hurdles; but Full and unprejudiced inquiry can have but one result: in common Greek the word undoubtedly often refers to for times anterior to B.C. 700 Egypt has no fixed chro- a trough hollowed out to receive the food for horses, nology. De Rougé has in two words set the whole mat- etc. (see Homer, Il. v, 271; x, 568; xxiv, 280). The ter in its true light: "Les textes de Manéthon sont pro- Peshito Version evidently so understands it.. On the fondement alterés, et la série des dates monumentales other hand, it is doubtful if such a contrivance as a est très incomplete." The incompleteness of the record proper manger was known in the East, especially in the is palpable: the alteration of the texts is the result of khans or "inns" of the description alluded to in the their having passed through numerous hands, and been text. See CARAVANSERAI. "Stables and mangers, in refashioned according to various intentions, by which the sense in which we understand them, are of comparthe whole inquiry has been complicated to a degree atively late introduction into the East (see the quotathat baffles all attempts to determine what was their tions from Chardin and others in Harmer's Observations, original form. These intentions were mainly cyclical. ii, 205), and, although they have furnished material to A very brief statement of facts, not resting on critical modern painters and poets, did not enter into the circonjecture and questionable combinations, as in the cumstances attending the birth of Christ, and are hardelaborate treatise of Böckh, but lying on the surface, ly less inaccurate than the 'cradle' and the 'stable' will place the character and relations of the several which are named in some descriptions of that event" texts in a clear light. Menes stands, 1. In Africanus (Smith). We are therefore doubtless here to regard (according to Syncellus's running summation of the the term as designating the ledge or projection in the numbers in book i) just three complete sothiac cycles, 3 x end of the room used as a stable, on which the hay or 1460 Julian years, before B.C. 1322; 2. In Eusebius, ac- other food of the animals of travellers was placed. (See cording to the epigraphal sum of book i, three cycles be- Strong's Harmony and Expos, of the Gospels, p. 14.) fore the epoch of Sethosis, dyn. xix; 3. In Eusebius, ac- Several of the Christian fathers maintain that the stable cording to the actual sum of book i, three cycles before itself was in a cave, and the identical manger in which the year B.C. 978-77, meant as the goal of the Diospol- the infant Jesus is traditionally stated to have lain is itan monarchy or epoch of Shishak; 4. In Syncellus's still shown by the superstitious monks, being no other period of 3555 years (accepted by Lepsius and Bunsen than a marble sarcophagus; but the whole story is at as the true Manethonic measure from Menes to Nectane- variance with the narrative in the Gospels. (See Melbus), two cycles before the same goal; 5. In the Old don, De præsepi Christi, Jen. 1662.) See BETHLEHEM, Chronicle, according to its sothiac form, one cycle before Tavernier, speaking of Aleppo, states that "in the carathe same goal; 6. In the Sothis, one cycle before B.C. vanserais, on each side of the hall, for persons of the 1322; but here it is contrived that Osiropis, or the com- best quality, there are lodgings for every man by himmencement of Diospolitan monarchy, stands one cycle self. These lodgings are raised all along the court, two before Susakeim =Shishak. The inquirer may easily or three steps high, just behind which are the stables, verify these facts for himself. In the series of papers, "Cycles of Egyptian Chronology," published in Arnold's Theol. Critic, 1851-52, he will find them fully stated, with many other like facts, which prove that these chronographies, one and all, are intensely cyclical. But if Manetho, as we have him, is cyclical, then, Lepsius himself confesses (K. B. p. 6, 7), “the historical character of his work falls to the ground; for the very fact of Menes heading a sothiac circle could only be the result of after-contrivance;" and Bunsen (Aeg. St. iv, 13) sees that in place of "the genuine historical work of Manetho, the venerable priest and conscientious inquirer," we get

where many times it is as good lying as in the chambers. Right against the head of every horse there is a niche with a window into the lodging-chamber, out of which every man may see that his horse is looked after. These niches are usually so large that three men may lie in them, and here the servants dress their victuals." In modern Oriental farm-houses, however, something corresponding to a Western "manger" may be found. "It is common to find two sides of the one room where the native farmer resides with his cattle fitted up with these mangers, and the remainder elevated about two feet higher for the accommodation of the family. The

mangers are built of small stones and mortar, in the shape of a box, or, rather, of a kneading-trough, and when cleaned up and whitewashed, as they often are in summer, they do very well to lay little babes in" (Thomson, Land and Book, ii, 98). See STABLE.

Mangey, THOMAS, D.D., an English theologian, was born at Leeds in 1684; was educated at St. John's College, Cambridge; held successively the livings of St. Mildred, Bread Street, London; St. Nicholas, Guilford, and Ealing, in Middlesex; was chaplain to Dr. Robinson, bishop of London; in 1721 was presented to the fifth stall in the cathedral of Durham, and was advanced to the first stall in 1722; became D.D. in 1725, and died in 1755. Dr. Mangey published a number of Sermons and controversial tracts, and a most valuable edition of the works of Philo Judæus: Philonis Judæi Opera omnia quæ reperiri potuerunt (Lond. 1742, 2 vols. fol.).-Allibone, Dict. Brit. and Amer. Auth. s. v.; Hook, Eccles. Biog. vii, 222.

from the Indus to the Euphrates. Parsism was the
most powerful among them. Mani, with the aid of the
treasure left him in the writings of Scythianus, believed
it possible to accomplish the amalgamation of Parsism
and Christianity, and for this purpose he emigrated to
Persia, changed his name so as to obliterate all traces
of his origin and former state, and, to carry out his plans
more successfully, he proclaimed himself the Parachute
promised by Christ. It is said that the attempt was
looked upon with favor by king Sapor and by Hormistas,
but this appears doubtful. Followers soon gathered, ar-l
three of the new sect-Thomas, Buddas or Addas, and
Hermas-propagated the doctrines, the first in Egypt
Hermas only remained with
and the second in India.
Mani to assist him. While they were away the son
of Sapor fell ill, and Mani, who had been highly spoken
of as a physician, was called to attend him; but, not suc-
ceeding, he was thrown into prison. Mani bribed his
keepers, and succeeded in escaping, but was pursued and
captured, and publicly executed.

There are other accounts, however, which make Mani the scion of a noble magian family, and a man of extraordinary mental powers and artistic and scientific abilities an eminent painter, mathematician, etc. According to them Mani embraced Christianity in early manhood, and became presbyter at a church in Ehvaz or Ahvaj, in the Persian province of Hazitis. He parposed to purge Christianity of its alleged Jewish corruptions, to demonstrate its unity with Parsism, and thereby to present the perfect universal religion. He gave himself out to be the Paraclete, and styled him

Manhartists or Haagleitnerians the name of a party in the Romish Church, especially in the archbishoprie of Salzburg, from 1814 to 1826, whose founder and chief was a young priest named Caspar Haagleitner, of Hopfgarten; and its most distinguished and active member was Sebastian Manzl, of Westendorf (known also by the name of Manhart, from one of his estates). In 1809 Napoleon I had appointed the prince-bishop of Chiem-see and the coadjutor of Salzburg as ecclesiastical authorities in the diocese. The clergy submitted with the exception of Haagleitner, who refused to recognise them, and showed symptoms of heresy. He left Hopfself in ecclesiastical documents "Mani, called to be an garten and went to Tyrol, where he created some religious and political troubles, and gained a number of fol- apostle of Jesus Christ through the election of God the lowers. At the peace of Schönbrunn the Tyrol fell Father. These are the words of salvation from the again into the hands of the French, and Haagleitner I, he sought refuge in foreign countries, went to India, eternal and living Source." Persecuted by king Saper was taken a prisoner to Kusstein and Salzburg. He China, and Turkistan, and there lived in a cave for finally succeeded in making good his escape; and when, twelve months, during which he claimed to have been in in 1814, Austria recovered the Bavarian Tyrol, he was heaven. He reappeared with a wonderful book of drawappointed vicar at Wörgel. Here he continued his intrigue, and succeeded so well that the people came to No doubt during his residence in these countries he had ings and pictures, called Erdshenk or Ertenki-Mani. consider him as the only true priest in the country, the become acquainted with Buddhism, and had decided to others having failed to do their duty by submitting to incorporate some of its best points in his syncretistic rethe dictates of Napoleon. Manhart assisted Haag-ligion (comp. Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, i. 28

leitner greatly in propagating his doctrines in Westendorf, Hopfgarten, and Kirchbichel, and their effect was felt even long after Haagleitner had been removed from Wörgel. Manhart held meetings in his own house, preaching himself, or allowing his wife to preach, as well as another woman from Hopfgarten. The administrator of the diocese of Salzburg, and afterwards the archbishop Augustin Gruber, sought in vain to reconcile them with the Church; they asked to be instructed by the pope himself in case they were in the wrong, and for this purpose went to Rome in 1825. The difficulty ended soon after.-Herzog, Real-Encyklopädie, viii, 781. Ma'ni (Mavi, Vulg. Banni), given (1 Esdr. ix, 30) by error for BANI (q. v.) of the Heb. list (Ezra x, 29). Mani, Manès, or Manichæus (entitled Zendik, Sadducee), the founder of the heretical sect of the Manichæans, is said to have flourished in the second half of the 3d century. Little is known with regard to his early history, and the accounts transmitted through two distinct sources-the Western or Greek, and the Eastern-are legendary and contradictory on almost every important point. According to the most probable supposition, he was a native of Persia, and was born about 214. His real name appears to have been Curbicus, and he was the slave of a rich woman of Ctesiphon, who bought him when he was but seven years of age, had him carefully educated, and at her decease left him all her wealth. Among the books she left him he is said to have found the writings of Scythianus, which had been given to her by one of the latter's disciples named Terebinthus, or Budda. The East was at this time in great ferment. The progress of Christianity had awakened the opposition of all the heathen religions

sq.). After the death of Sapor (A.D. 272) he returned inclined towards him, received him with great honors, to Persia, where Hormas, the new king, who was wel and, in order to protect him more effectually against the persecutions of the magi, gave him the stronghold of Deshereh, in Susiana, as a residence. After the death Mani into a public disputation with the magi, for which of this king, however, Bahram, his successor, entrapped purpose he had to leave his castle; and he was seized hung up for a terror at the gates of the city Jondishapur. and flayed alive, A.D. 277. His skin was stuffed and

Among the works of Mani may be reckoned four books, sometimes ascribed to Terebinthus and some times to Scythianus, entitled the Mysteries, the Clapters or Heads, the Gospel, and the Treasure. In the Mysteries Mani endeavored to demonstrate the doctrine of two principles from the mixture of good and evil which is found in the world. He grounded his reasons on the argument that if there were one sole cause, simple, perfect, and good in the highest degree, the whole, corresponding with the nature and will of that cause, would show simplicity, perfection, and goodness, and everything would be immortal, holy, and happy like himself. The Chapters contained a summary of the chief articles of the Manichæan scheme. Of the Gospels nothing certain can be asserted. Beansobre, apparently without sufficient grounds, considers it as a collection of the meditations and pretended revelations of Mani. The Treasure, or Treasure of Life, may, per haps, have derived its name from the words of Christ, wherein he compares his doctrine to a treasure hid in a field. Mani also wrote other works and letters, and among them the Epistle of the Foundation, of which we

have fragments still extant in St. Augustine, who under-person of Mani, who was sent by the God of light to detook to refute it. His works appear to have been orig- clare to all men the doctrine of salvation, without coninally written, some in Syriac, some in Persic. For his cealing any of its truths under the veil of metaphor, or doctrine, etc., see MANICHEISM. (J. H. W.) under any other covering.