Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt: Akhmim and Sohag 977416122X

Citation preview

http://coptic-treasures.com

Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt Volume

1

Akhmim and Sohag

Edited by

Gawdat Cabra Hany N. Takla

A Saint Mark Foundation Book The American University in Cairo Press Cairo New York

http://coptic-treasures.com

Copyright •O 201 1~ by T he A111cric,111 Crwc~iry in Cain Press 11 3 haria Ka1rcl 1\1n i, air , Egyp t 420 hfrh A\•cnu~. cw York, NY 1001 8 \V\: \·V .clU C prc~~.1.0lll

Ali n ghts rc,erved. 1 o part ofth is publi ari n may be rcproduced , smrcd rctrK1·al ,y;tetll. or tr n ~ n1ittcd in any form or by any mcan~ . 111 3 d cctronic, 111ccha11iol. photocopy in g. rc o rdin g. or thcrwisc , w1thout the prior wri tte n pcrmis~ion of the publisher. l).ir cl Kutub N,1. 137 10/07

l ~ ll

978 977 ~16 122 3

l).ir cl Kutu b CJt,1logi n g-i n- Public:ino n 1 ata C.1bra. Ga\\'dJt ,hmtianicy and Mon:istic1!'m in Upper Egypt: Volume 1: Akhrnim and ~ohag I cditcVe can now learn something about Shenoute's life and thought. In this context, let me retum to the Lift of She1w11te tradition and say something about its daim that Shcnoute was only nine years old when he became J monk. 1 must confess that 1 am skeptical about this claim. ln fact, J am strongly inclined not to bclievc it, cven though I cannot disprove it. Consider this: Shenoute knew Greck, and apparently he kncw it pretty well, both to read it and to speak it, as well as to writc it. However, if he entered the monastery when he was only nine years old, then where, wben, and bow clid be learn Greek? The question must be posed, for, so far as we can tell, Shenoute's knowledge of Greek was at least partly secular, which is to say that probably he went to school in the big city of Panopolis (Coptic Smin, which is now Akhrnim). I think it unlikely that he would have received such an education in the monastery of Pcol. Therc is othcr evidencc in henoute's writings that be had experienccd the world outside the monastery a a young man and not just as a boy, thus making it unlikcly that he bccame a monk at the age of ni ne. If tint wcrc the case, surely bis cxpericncc of the world effectively cndcd th en and thcrc when he abandoned tbe kosmos in favor of the ccll. But l tbink

http://coptic-treasures.com

42

STEPHEN EMMEL

it likely that Shenoute was well edu cated in the no rmal way of anyone who was edu cated in a late antiqu e city like P anopoli , that is, in the H elle nistic-Greek school syst em, and so he must have had hi s education before h e ever b ecame a monk.37 Furthermore, [ uspect that hi s educa tion and training was significantly better than that of th e ot11er monks in Pcol's mona tery, su ch that soo n Sh eno ute's job there came to be to fun ction as the Father's notarios, that is, his secretary. I am beginning to think that he must have been Ebonh's secretary, and possibly he served in that capacity already under Pcol. 1 "yjsh I co uld prove this hypoth esis, beca use it helps to explain a number of things about hcnoute's caree r that are otherwisc vety puzzling, such as how he was ab le to 'pub lish' his fi rst t'vVO lengthy open letters, at a time w he n he wa -as J used to imagine-just an 'ordinary' m onk. 3ij Another thing that a good education and secretarial training help to explain in Shenoute is his remarkable literai:)' consciousness, b y which 1 mean his sense of himself as an author, as h e w ent about produ cing what was and remained an extraordinary corpus of Coptic literature, the like of which did not exist before (except, in som e ways, for the Coptic translation of the Bible). To the extent that Shenoute supernsed the compilation not only of his Ca11011s, but also of his sermons and othe r writings, which we have partly in an organized set of eight volumes of'Discourses' (or 'Logoi '), he must have been conscious of crea ting a corpus of works that one could set on a bookshelf alongside th e w o rks of great Christian authors from ail around the R oman Empire. Shenoute was undoubtec!Jy a charisma tic geni us of great persona] authority and powe r. Clca rly he had insight into pcop lc's h earts and min cis, such that he seemed to hi s contemporari es to be a prophet. And he was so fa miliar "vith the Bible, a nd so deeply influ enced by it (both in Coptic and in Greek), that he must have felt himself really to be a prophet, a latter-day lsaiah or J e re miah, ca lled by God to sho w His people the na rro\\' path to salvation . That is why Shenoute not only qu oted frequently from the Bible throug hout his lctters and sern1ons, but also so m etimes wrote in the sam e style as the Bible, 39 as if he was using his own voice to reiterate and rephrase he re and n ow (in la te antique Upper Egypt) the same message that "that proph etic voice a t that rime ba ck then" had proclaimed to ancient lsracl, in the time of the Old Testament prop hets. The time is not yet ripe to speak with very much a surance abo ut henoute' thought and teaching, because too much of what h e wrotc still remai n to be publish ed, translated, and studied. But 1 do think it is already

http://coptic-treasures.com

SHENOUTE'S PLACE If\. THE Hl TORY OF MONASTICISM

43

safc enough to say what the hard core of his message was, because he repeated it again and agai n: Repent your sins now, before you die, because tbere will be no mercy for sinners who die unrepentant! C learly, Shenoute bdieved in eternity, and he must bave had a very vivid imagination about what eternfry means: either eternal bliss, or clse etemal misery, the latter especially to be imagined as an amplific:ition of painful things experienced physically in this world here and n0\'11. Furthermore, Shenoute was very strict in his view of God's mercy, which he understood to be boundless even for the worst inn er, if he truly repents du ring this life, but \VOe upon woe unto ail eternity for the unrepentant. 4 ' 1 Despite hi s prominent le:idership rolc-not just within the White Monastery federation, but also in the surro unding districts, where he was famous already during his lifetime as a holy m.an and ch ampion of the poor, especially against wealthy and oppressive pagan landowners-Shenoute was nevertheless first and foremost a monk, who understood that in th e e nd there was just "o ne littl e plot of earth" for which he alone was responsiblc-by which he meant bis own body, with its virtues and its vices, its nceds and desires, and its ability to control them or tolet them con trol it. 41 The monastic life was. in henoute's view, no guarantee of succcss in achieving etemal sa]vation . Contrary to a view that might have been typical of the early Pachomian monastic commu niti es, a nd apparently also of henoutc's predecessor as Father of his monastery, namcly that the monasterics werc littlc bits of Paradise n carth, with the monks already lik e angcls sojourning only tcmporarily among mortals, hcnoute understood that no man or woman alivc is complcrcly impcrvi us to the wiles of the dcvi l, and even t he mo t innocent can be misled unwittingly into sin. There is an interesting pa sage in one of Shenoutc's carliest works in which he reports chat the Father of the monastery had tried to reassure him that his worries about the existence and spread of sin in the community "\Vere unneces ary, because the Father had provided the monastery with a perimeter wall to keep the devil out. To which Shenoute replied: "Did 1 say that the sins ca111e i11 fro 111 011tside?" 42 ln Shcnoute's view, atan and bis demons :ind unclean sp irits of every sort might be anywhere, constantly at the ready, anned with a wide array of weap ns for tempting people to commit evil and to sin .43 ln a sense, howcver, the dcvil i an agent ofGod, Who could destroy him if He wantcd to . I-luman beings have frce will, and the role of the devil is to provide people with opp rtunities to exercise thcir frce will and choose to do g d , or at

http://coptic-treasures.com

44

TLPHEN EMMEL

least not to sin. The monastcry provides an cnvironment in w hi ch certain temptations arc Jimitcd, in comparison to the frcquency of their occurrence in 'the world' outsidc the monastcry, and the strictly rcgulated lifc of the monastcry makes it relativcly casy for a monk to know what he or she is expected to do in order to avoid or resist temptation and sin. Furthermore, the community as such fonctions as a finely articulated support system in which cach individual helps ail the other individuals, each and every one, to tend properly his or her own "little plot of earth" in prcparation for the j udgmcnt of God that will follow upon death. Likc ail natural language, scholarly languagc too has an inherent tendency toward ambiguity, and the titlc of my presentation at the ohag monasticism symposium was an example of it. If I takc ' the history of monasticism' to refer to 'what rcally happened' across the ycars and centuries since the beginning of hristian monasticism, then it seems to me that henoute's lifctime marks out a kind of 'golden age' in the evolution of a monastic organization that was basically coenobitic, but incorporated clements of eremitic and semi-eremitic monasticisrn as well. Shenoute's fedcration of three physicaUy proximous monasteries was, apparently, 'succcssful' and widely influential in a variet)• of ways, both during Shenoute's lifetimc and for at lcast scveral gcnerations aftcr him. SadJy, our information about the history of Shenoute's monastic federation dwindlcs to almost nothing undcr his immcdiate successors. The papyrus documcntary cvidencc for Shcnoute's monastery cxtends from the sixth century into the cighth, while the surviving datcd manuscripts from the White Monastcry library bclong to the tcnth, clevcnth, and twelth centuries. Thcrc used to be somc inscriptions in the church from as la te as the early pan of the fourtccmh ccntury, after which the monastcry sccms to have declined and finally fallcn to ruin. The influence of St. hcnoutc himself, which began alrcady du ring his lifetimc and continues today, is a subjcct that deserves a study alJ its own. However, if on tl1c other hand 1 take 'the history of monasticism' in my title to refer rathcr to the scientific discipline that attempts to rcconstruct and intcrprct (what wc can know about) whatever it was that really happencd. thcn I must emphasize, first of all, the difficulc challenge that wc face at present in rccovering as much as wc can from what survives of henoutc's writings, and second, the great promise that Shcnoutc's writings hold for the future. For whatcver role henoute and his monastic fcdcration playcd in 'v.:hat rcally happcned' in Upper Egypt, the rolc that his written lcgacy is beginning to play and, I am sure , "vill continue ta play in the study

http://coptic-treasures.com

SHENOUTE'S PLACE IN Tl I[ HISTORY

or

45

MONASTICISM

of Christian monasti c ism as a whok~not only in Egypt!- is large, and it will grow, prcci cly b ecausc Shenoutc's litcrary legacy is so very rich. ln conclusion , [ w a nt to return briefly to the th eme with wruch 1 began, namely th e physical rcmains of Shcnoute's monastery. The ground-the earth-is also a kind of text, written by th e activities of human beings and nature. Whe n humans shape the ground to their needs, piling it up into buildings and molding from it the artifàcts of daily life, and especially when tbey tum it not into expressions of the most basic human needs, but into expressions of human spirituality and intellectuality, then they create 'texts' that approach the mea ningful hcights, or depths, to which language is so metimes capable of giving th e most arti culate expression. Th e White Monastcry is such a text. The rcm ains of that institution that li e partly now exposcd, but mostly still buri ed by centuri es o f driftin g sand , can speak tous across th e centuries go ing ail the 'vvay back to th e ycars when Shenoute himself composed his own tcxts for poste rity- including, whcthcr hc could imagin e it or not, p eople likc us. Just as it is our task-no, rather our duty!-to reconstruct the m anusc ripts ofShcnoutc's works so that w e may recover as much as possible of his words before an y more is lost irretrievably-as so much h as already been lost forever-so it is our duty to rcad th e tcxt written in th e ground of Shcnoutc's monastery before it crumblcs to dust. irretrievably, forever, as any littl e plot of carth cve ntually must. W c owe it to hcnoute to do so.

Notes 1. See Emmel 1998: 82-83. 2.

Cf. Emmel 1998: 83-84; Grmsman n

l'i

al. 2004: 372b ("a

wa~hi n g

area"), 379b ("a

washing place"), fig. A (near the "kitchen area'·): Brooks H edstrom 2005: 9-lO and 19 (= fig. 5). 3.

Pleyte and Boescr 1897: 320 col. 2 Enes 9-31; Emmcl 1998: 83 n. 13.

4. Sec Emmcl 1998, csp. 86-88; on the '"amazing fütle •.vell," sec Leipoldt 1906-1913, vol. 3: 70 Enes 14-17.

5.

So far as l am able to judge; sec Grossma nn et al. 2004: 379, figs. A and E.

6. Grossma nn et al. 2004: Brooks Hcdstrom 2005. 7.

Emmcl 2004b, wh ich includes an extc n ive bibliography in vol. 2: 95 1-85.

8. The editorial tcam Brakkc, An drew

comp ri ~es

at presc nt: H eike Behlmer, Anne Boud' ho rs, 1 avid

ris lip, tcphc n Emmcl (cditor- in-chief) , Jean-Louis Fort, Bcntley

Layton, Samuel Moawad, Z latko Plde, Tonio ToraJlas Tovar, and

cba~tian

Rich ter, Tito Orlandi, ofia

rcdcrik Wissc.

http://coptic-treasures.com

46 9.

STEPH EN EMMEL

Lcipoldt 1903: 39-47.

1O. ln addition to the bibliographical references givcn in the foUowing notes, sec also many relevant chaptcrs in the prescnt volume.

cc now also Emme] 2007: 87-92;

Schroeder 2007. 1 1. Emme! 2004a; chrocder 2006. 12. Krawicc 1998; Krawicc 2002. 13. Emme! 2002; Emme! (forthcom.ing). 14. Emme] 1998; Grossmann 2002b; Schroeder 2004. 15. Layton 2002; Layton 2007. 16. Emme] 2004b, vol. 2: 555, 576-79, 593-94. 17. Emme! 2004b, vol. 1: 8 with n. 9; Emmcl 2002: 96-98. 18. Emme] 2004b, vol. 2: 556, 570-7 1, 599. 19. Leipoldt 1906- 1913, vol. 1; English translation by 13cll 1983. 20. E.g., Bell 1983: 89. 21. Emmel 2002: 95-99. 22. Kuhn 1956, vol. 1: 41, English translation in vol. 2: -10. 23. Emme! 2004b, vo l. 1: 7-8. 24 . Emme] 2004b, vol. 2: 569. 25. Emme] 2004b , vol. 2: 558--64. 26. Emme! 2004a. 27. Emme] 2004b, vol. 2: 562-63. 28. Emmcl 2004b, vol. l: 13. 29. Emme! 2004b, vol. 1: 111-234. 30. Young 1969. 31. Emme! 2004b. vol. 2: 553-56. 32. Layton 2002; Layton 2007. 33. Emmcl 2004b, vol. 1: l 1 l -25. 34. Emme] 2004 b. vol. l : 114 (= pl. 3). 35. Vi vian 2005: 82-83. 36. Krawiec 2002; 13chlmcr 2004 . 37.

f. Timbic 2005: 65-66.

38.

f. Emme] 2004a: l 73.

39. Emmcl 2004a: 165-67. 40. Emme! 2006-2007. 4 1. Chassinat 19 11 : 99b-1OOa; French translation by

hcrix 1979: 27.

42. Emme! 2004a: 167--69. 43. Brakke 2006: 97-124.

http://coptic-treasures.com

5

Pachomius and the White Monastery James E. Goehring

IN TH.E FIRST volume of the Oxford History of the Christian Clmrch, entitled The Cl111rch in Ancient Society: From Galilee Io Gregory the Great and published in 2001, Henry Chadwick included the followü1g brief paragraph on Shenoute in his chapter on " Monks: The Ascetic Life ." ln the fifth ce ntury the Pachom.ian monasreries acquired a formidab le leader Shenoute; austere and authoritarian, he made discipline t ugher (more vehement beacing.; for lapses) but was admired for generous hosp itality and for bis onslaughts on pagan temples. 1

While we historian of optic Egypt may give thanks that Shenoute has finally made it into a classic western English language introdu ction to hristianity, we may also be forgiven for cringing at the historical inaccuracy of enrolling henoute himself into the Pachom.ian federation. And yet there i a way in which hi story did in fact effect that enrollment, albeit later in date in the corrununity's subsequent arti culation of its past. The history of the relationship betv.reen Shenoute's White Monastery and the PachonlÎan federation offers, in face, a fascinating glimpse into the historical dcvcloprnent and creative memory of the Upper Egyptian coenobiti movcmcnt. Whilc the evidence is nccc arily sparse, enough survives to permit a tentative rc onstruction of the vari us stage involved in the pro ess.

47 http://coptic-treasures.com

48

JAMES E. GOEHRING

By the middlc of the fourth century, when P ol decided to found his new monastery on the edge of the desert acro s the Nile from Smin (Panopolis), 2 the Pachomian Koino1ùa already administered a cluster of four monasterie in the area on the other side of the Nile. The local bishop of Snùn, an ascetic named Arios, had earlier invited Pachomiu to organize a monastery in his city. 3 lts success oon led the federation to expand its operation in the area. Before bis death in A.D. 346, the federation added cwo additional male monasteries, Tse and Tsnùne, and a monastery of virgins associated with Tsmine, in the immediate area. 4 The distance of this cluster from the original Pachonùan communitie centered around Pbow led to an arrangement whereby Petronius, the father ofTsmine, served to oversee the encire cluster. 5 Whilc one need not assume tliat the Pachomian communities were the only monastcries in the area, it seems probable that their onsiderable presence made them rcadily visible and inftuential in and around the city of Srnin in the middle of the fourth ccntury. The substantial Pachomian presence in the area lcads o ne to suspect some form of relationship between it and the White Monastery that emerged on the other sicle of the Nilc in the middle of the fourt h century. Johannes Leipoldt argued, in fact, tliat Pcol's su ccess in founding the White Monastery depended on the decline of the Pachomian federation. There is, however, no bard evidence to support this thesis. 1' While it is truc that the federation ca m e close to breaking apa rt upon Pachomiu s's dearh, a fact used by Leipoldt in support of his contention, the crisis was averted when Theodore replaced 1:-lorsiesius as the federation's general abbot. 7 ln order to avoid sirni lar problems in the future, Theodore instiruted a new administrative policy, rotating the individual abbots among the various monastcries rvvice each ycar. 8 Whilc the silence of the sources aUows one to speculate about the fate of the outlying monasteries, it offers no proof that they were cither in decline or left the federation. The implcmentation of the new administrative system suggests rathcr that they remained within the federatlon. Additional references indicare, in fact, that the fcderation continu ed to grow und er Theodore's leadership. Before his death in A.D. 368 he fou nded two new monasteries, Kaior and Nouoi, further down the Nile beyond min ncar Hermopolis, and added an additional monastery of virgins at Bechne near the federation' central monaste1y of Pbow. 9 While problcn1s reemerged when Horsicsius resumed the post of general abbot upon Theodorc's death, they did not last long. 10 There is again no indication that any of the fcderation's monastcries lcft during H orsiesius's

http://coptic-treasures.com

PACI IOMIUS AND Tl IE WI llTE MONASTERY

49

tenure, which la ted at lcast through A.D. 387. The fàct that the fcdcration constructcd a major basilica at its centra l monastcry of Pbow in the m.iddle of the fifth century and "va involved in the founding of the monastery of Metanoia in the AJexandrian suburb of Canopus argues for it.s continued strength into the foUowing period. 11 Given this evidence, there is no reason to assume that the success of the White Monaste1y near Smin occurred as a resuJr of the decline of the nearby Pachom.ian comrnunities. 12 Whilc they certain ly declined and disappeared at some point in history, any effort to pinpoint the date rests not on fact but speculation. If one accepts the continuing existence ofboth comrnunities for some period of cime, the more interesting question of thcir interaction arises . Rather than simply assuming that the White Monastery grew as the nearby Pacbom.ian co1nmunities failed, one is compelled to ask about the nature and impact of the relationship between the two. lt is to this task that I now turn. While one will never know why Pcol chose to establish bi s own community rather than join the Pachom.ian federation, the significant presence of the federation in the imrned.iate area appears to have influenced lus own unde rtaking. Later sources note that Pcol did not fash.ion a new way or diffcrent rules, but built on the foundation of others, presumably Pachomius and his successors. 13 The so-caUed Rule ef Pcol, reconstructed by Leipoldt, supports this daim. Severa] of its regulations, while fommlated differently, address bchaviors identical to those found in the Rule ef Pacho111i11s. 14 ompare, for examplc, rcgulations 8 and 9 of the Rule ef Pcol, as cited by henoure , with Praccepta 97 and 96 from the Rule of Pacliomi11s. 15

R11le ef Pcol 8 "Cursed is any novice who shaves another novice without being assigned to do so, or who does so out of the sight of othcrs." Rule of Pachomius, Preacepta 97 "No one shall shavc bis head without the housemaster, nor shall anyone shave someone else without having bccn assigned to do so, and nor shaU anyone shavc someone el e wh.ilc they arc bath sitting." R11le ef Pcol 9 " ursed i any novice who removcs a thorn from another novicc's foot witbout being a signed to do so, or who does so out of sight of othcrs." R11le ef Pacho111i11s, Prcaccpta 96 "No one shall removc a thorn from omcone cl e's foot, cxccpt the housemaster and his second, or someone who is ordcred to do so."

http://coptic-treasures.com

50

JAMES E. GOEHRING

lt seems clear from such evidence that Pcol drew frorn the Pachomian tradition in constructing his own community. One may further assume that his information came from the federation's rnonasteries in the immediate area. Each new monastery in the Pachomian fedcration was organized according to the same rule and likcly supplied with a copy of it. 16 Whethcr Pcol learned of the rulcs through conversation with Pachomian monks or from a copy of the rule acquired for his own community, kno"\vledge of it appears to have influenced the organization and running of his monasrery. The recognition of Pachomius's authority as the founder of the coenobitic lifc and author of the movcment's ancestral rule continucd under Shcnoute's leadership (385- 465) .17 While he guarded the White Monastery's indepcndencc, he would on occasion appeal to Pachomius in support of his cause. 1 ~ ln his treatise "So Listen," for example, henoute harshly condemns an errant monk, suggesting that his activities in the darkness mock the words of "our fa th ers," which he th en narrows down to "Pachomius the Great," citing from his rule "Do not speak with your neighbor in darknc s!" 9 By rcfercncing Pachomius and his rulc, Shcnoutc condemns the actions of the errant monk as crimes corrunitted not only against him and his rule, but against the coenobitic institution more gcneraUy. A second refcrcnce to Pachomjus, although this rime not identified as such, occurs in Shcnoute's discourse " I Have Hcard About Your Wisdom," prcached bcfore the governor Flavianus. In thi trcatisc, Shcnoutc rcAccts on how a persan is to confront the world \vithout beco1ning an cnemy of Christ. At one point, hc draws from the Letters ef Padw111i11s, decla1ing: "A good and wise and truly pious father said through his "vrirings in some lcttcrs, ' ing the omega. Do not let the omcga sing you'. " 2" The passage is a direct quotation from Pachomius's Letrer 1. 21 Whilc wc cannot know for certain why hc chose in this instance not to name his sourcc, 22 his use of it again underscores the respect and authority given to Pachomius within the White Monastery. Additional, more subtlc echocs of parallcl content and language bctwcen Shenoutc's writings and the Pachomian do sicr furthcr the impress ion of this conncction. 23 One may suspect as wcll that Shcnoute's effort to draw the ncarby female co1n111unity and the Red Monastcry into a monastic fcderation under his centralized contrai rcAects the inAuence of the Pachomian Koinonia. Shenoute's succcssor, Bcsa (A .D. 465 to aftcr 474), on the othcr hand, neithcr quotcs from the Pachomian corpm nor refcrs to the Pachomian

http://coptic-treasures.com

PACHOMIUS A\JD Tii[ WHITE MONASTERY

51

fcderation in his extant letters and semions. 24 1n the la ter L!fe of Sfie11011te, howcver, the Pachomian connection reemerges. It reports that Victor, archimandrite of the Pachomian federation, and Shcnoute travcled to the royal city with the Archbishop Cyril of Alexandria to confront the problems raised by N esto rius. 25 The refcrencc probably points to Shenoute's attendance at the Cou ncil of Ephesus in 431, and if bath his and Victor's participation is historically accurate, 26 it underscores the two coenobitic leaders' recognition within Egypt and establishes a conncction betwcen them. 1fit is not historically accu rate, it indicates the later assumption of such contact. Contact is also asmmcd for the mid-fifth century in the Pa11e,ftyric 011 lvfacari11s Bishop of Tkôw, which reports that the Pachomian archimandrite Paphnutiu stopped at the White Monastery as he journeyed northward with some brothers to reccive 3 blcssing from Shenoutc .27 lt is worth noting in this connection that both communities, the White Monastery in Sohag and the Pachomian ce ntral monastery of Pbow, constructed great ncw basilicas with remarkably similar dimensions in the middle of the fifth ce ntury.w They had become paraHel monastic powerhouses in Upper Egypt, and while not precluding some form of competition , the two federations continued to recognize and accept one another, as they always had . Matters changed dramatically, however, du ring the reign of the Byzantine Empcror Justinian 1 (527-565). ln the pcriod foUowing the Council of Chalcedon in 451, diversity emc rged within the Pachomian federation \>,1 ith respect to the deci ions embraced by the council. The differences, however, did not disrupt the federation unti l the reign ofJustinian 1, when, according to evidence contained in thrce fragmentary White Monastery codices, certain pro-Chalccdonian elcments within the fcderation brought accusations against Abraham of Farshut, the archimandrite of the federation' central monastcry of Pbow. Based on these charges, Justinian summoned Abraham to Constantinople, where he demanded bi s allegiance to C halcedon. When Abraham refused, Justinian stripped him of his position as archimandrite and appoi nted one of Abraham' pro-Chalcedonian accusers in his stead. Upon his return to Egypt, soldi crs accompanied the newly named proChalcedonian archimandrite to Pbow ta in.sure his installation. The sources report that the monk loyal ta Abraham, namely, the anti-ChaJccdonian clcment, fled to the de ert and other monasterics. As a result, the Pachomian federation, at least as represcnted by its central mana tery of Pbow, becamc a pro- halcedonian organization. Abraham, who managcd to return to Egypt wich the hclp of the Emprcss Theodora, procceded first to hcnoute's

http://coptic-treasures.com

52

JAM($ [. GOEHRING

White Monastery, where he copicd the rulc and put it in afe storagc for latcr use. He retrievcd the copy at a later date when he c tablished his own community ncar his native Farshut. 29 The fact that Abraham sought refuge in the Whüc Monastcry underscores the close relationship bctwecn it and the Pachomian community of Pbow. l have argued elsewhere that the cvcnts that befell the Pachomian fcderation wcrc unique to its own situation. While Justinian 1 supplied the muscle to cffcct the cnforcement of the Chalcedonian position at Pbow, the impetus for the action carne from elcments within the Pachornian fcdcration. The empcror's religious polici es creatcd an opportunity for the pro-Chalcedonian monks, who used it effectively to gain contrai of the fcderation. At the White Monastery, on the other band, Shenoute's emphasis on the purity of the corporatc rnonastic body and his strict enforccment of the ru les insurcd the community's optic orthodoxy. No place cxisted within the Shenoutcan federation vvhcre pro-Chalccdonian elemcnts m.ight gain a foothold. J" The White Monastery thus offered the cxiled anti-C halcedonian arc himandrite wclcome and farn.iliar refuge. JI He used his bricf stay there, for cxample, to make a copy of the rules.32 Whilc the Synaxarion identifies these as the rules of Shenoutc, one wondcrs whether the identification is anachronistic. It would make more sensc for Abraham to make a copy of the Pachomian rule, which. given Shenoute's citation of it in his "vritings, must have existed in the co mmunity 's library at that point. ln that case, Abraham, shorn of acccss to his own community, turned to its close Upper Egyptian relative for access to his own Pachomian traditions. The Joss of the Pachomian fcde ration to the pro-Chalcedonian party in the midcUe of the sixth century removed it as a playcr in the production of Coptic orthodoxy. The White Monastcry, wh.ich bad existcd as one of the two main coenobitic powcrhouses in Upper Egypt, became in the proccss the sole inheritor of the ortbodox coenobitic mantle. While insufficient cvidcnce survives to rcconstruct the decline of the Pachomian monastcries subscquent to thcsc cvcnts, dcclinc they did and ultimately disappeared. One has only to observe the c w-rcnt state of the Pachomian Monastery of Pbow in cornparison with that of the White Monastcry to rccogn ize this fact. The tran fer of pmver !cd as well to a more intimatc joining of the early orthodox Pachomian traditions with the continuing orthodox traditions of the White Monastery. As Abraham, when cxilcd from the newly pro- halcedonian and hcncc hcterodox Pachomian federation, had found refuge in Shenoutc' White Monastery, so the Coptic orth odox coenobitic

http://coptic-treasures.com

53

PACI IOMIUS AND Tl 1( Wt-llT[ MONAST[RY

tradition found refüge and continuity m the enduring orthodoxy of the White Monastery. The coenobitic famjly tree shifted to trace its heritagc from its earl y orthodox Pachomian founders to and through Shenoute, "vho became th e tradition's most visible representative in Egypt. This shift is traccable in the rcfcrences to Pachomius and Shenoute in the later sources. Prior to the demisc of the Pachomian federation, references to Pachomius recognized his authority as the founder of the coenobitic tradition without blurring the distinctive nature of bis and Shenoute's fcderations. henoute refers to bis coenobitic ancestors as "our fathers," but ncither be nor the later L!fe ef Sli e11011te use the phrase to Jocate the origin of the White Monastery in the Pachomian tradition or to suggest that it has in herited the cocnob ici c mande. The usage sirnply rccognizes a more gcne ral indebtedness to the earl ier Pachomian movement. 1n the Life of She11011te, for examp le, the auchor has Shenoute cal! out in the midst of a deathbed vision, "My facher Apa Pfoi, my father Apa Antony, my father Apa Pachomius, take my hand so that 1 may rise and worship him \vhom rny soul loves, for behold! He has corne with his angels. " 33 Noce that the use of the cerm 'fàther' does noc set Pachomius apart. He, like Pfoi and Antony, simply repre ents the origins of the Egypcian monastic movement. saints who preceded Shenoute to heaven and now return to welcome him into heaven at the moment of hi s death. Whcn one turns to the later Pancgyrics on Abraham of Farshuc, the pattern shifts so as to place Shcnoucc in the linc of early cocnobitic leaders. The First Pa11egyric 011 Abralia111 ef Fars/1111 tells the story of Abraham's vi5ion ofhis own impending dcath. He lookcd and saw our holy fàthcrs of the Koinonia, Apa Pachomius and Apa Petronius and Apa Shcnoutc of the monastcry of Atripe. They came to hirn, and when hc saw them, hc ran to them (and) grccted them \Vith his face downcast towards the carth . They embraccd him, raised him up, (and) greeted hirn. And they said to him , "Peace to you who has built upon the foundation chat we laid." 34 The author later praises Abraham a "a grcat one among the sajnts and an clect and pcrfcct one among the monks, like our ancicnt fathers and forcfathers, that is, Apa Pachomius and Apa henoutc and Apa Petronius and Apa Horsicsius, the fa chers of the world." 3; Shcnoute, in thesc pa sages, has become one of the founding fathcrs of the Upper Egyptian coenobitic

http://coptic-treasures.com

54

JAMES E. GOEHRING

movcment. Gone are the latcr Pachomian archimandrites, li kc Apa Vi tor, who accompanied hcnoutc and yril to the ouncil of Ephesus. The coenobitic family tree now moves from Pachomius to Petron.ius to Theodore to Horsiesius to Shenoute. Shenoutc, the archimandrite of the indepcndent White Monastcry federation, is here posthumously enrolled in the Pachonùan federation. In similar fashion, henoute takes his place alongside Pachomius as the author of the coenobitic rule. ln the same First Panegyn·c 011 Abraham of Farsh11t, Abraham warns his monks, "And even if the whole world were in prosperity, you would be in nccd because you abandoned the laws of the Lord that our holy fathers gave us, namcly Apa Pachomius and Apa Shenoutc."1' ' onsider in comparison the passage from Horsicsius's Fo1mh Letter. "Let us remcmbcr his jPachonuus's] commandments and laws, whic h hc established for us so that wc may observe them in truth. And let us also rcmembcr our father Petronius, who passed his short time with us according to the lcustom?J. And let us rcmember o ur father Theodore." 37 Horsicsius, writing before the events that took place in the reign of Ju stinian I, thinks historically within the Pachonùan tradition. The author of the First Panegy1ic Oil Abraham of Fars/rut, on the other hand, writing after those cvents, tbinks more "creatively." H e realigns the history of Upper Egyptian coenob itism so that it foUows 0t·tl1odox rather than historical lincs of dcsccnt. By tracing the cocnobitic tradition back through Shenoute to Horsicsius to Theodore to Petronius to Pachomius, the author, whom I take to rcprcsent the later tradition, fas hi ons a new line of desccnt that ignores and thercfore bypasses th e la ter heterodox"Y of the Pachomian federation. Let me rcturn in closing to Henry C hadwick's observatio ns that "in the fifth ccntury the Pachomian monasteries acquired ·a fornùdablc leader Shenoutc." The daim, as already noted, is historically inaccurate. While the foundcrs of the White Monastery willingly drew upon the Pachonùan exarnple and devcloped close relation.ships with the federation, thcy never became part of it. I would argue, h ovvever, tint what did not happen historicalJy, happencd in the la ter articulation of history. With the Joss of the Pachomian federation to Coptic orthodoxy in the sixth century, Shenoute gained in stature. As the heterodox Pachomian monasteries declined over time and eventually disappcared, Shcnoute's position rose within the hared men10ry of the pa t. He took bis place in a now common cocnobitic history that traccd it origins back through Shenoutc to Pachomius. ln this sen e thcn, whilc hadwick's assertion is hist rically inaccurate, it captures

http://coptic-treasures.com

55

PA t-IOMIUS AND Tl IE WHITE MONA TERY

the cvcntual outcome of history. ln th e aftermath of the events that took place in the reign ofjustinian J, the Pachomian tradition , to use Chadwick's words, "acquired a formidable leader, Shcnoutc."

Notes 1.

Chadwick 2001: 402.

2. The precisc date of Pcol's founding ofhis monastery remains unk.nown. Judging from the date of Shenoute's cntry into the monastcry circa 356, the founding is usually placed ccntcr the m.iddlc of the ce ntury. Emmel 2004a: 156-57; Layton 2002: 25. 3.

Fifth Sahidic Life of Pad1onri11s (S5) S4 and the First Grcck Life

ef Padw111i11s

(GI) 81;

for English translations. sec Vcilleux 198()-1982, vol. 1: 73-7-1 and 3S2- 53. -1.

For Tsc: SS 52 (Vcilleux 198()-1982, vol. 1: 72-73) and G 1 83 (Veilleux 19801982, vol. 1: 354). ForSmin: SS 54 (Veilleux 1980-1982, vol. 1: 73-74) and

1 8.1

(Veilleux 198()-1982, vol. 1: 352-53). ForTsmine: SS 57 (Vcilleux 1980- 1982, vol. 1: 77-78) and Gl 83 (Veilleux 1980- 1982, vol.!: 354). For the associated monastery ofvirgins: Gl 134 (Veilleux 198()-1982, vol. 1: 393). See also Ladeuze 1898: 174-78; Lefon 1939: 403-404; Goehring 1996: 279(Goehring1999a: 101 - 102). S.

Chitty 1957: 382-8S.

6.

Leipoldt 1903: 36. His case rests o n ( 1) an assumed loss of power cvidenced by the sch ism that followcd Pachomius's dcath, (2) the fact that this loss of power makcs sense of the fact that the later Coptic tradition, while honoring Pachomius, Theoclore, and Horsies1us , prcscrved little more than the 11ames of the subsequcnt Pachom.ian abbots, and (3) the fact that the dccline of the Pachomian fcdcration explains the nse of the White Monastery. With respect co his second point, it is worth noting that the natural

r.

eus of such commuruties on their founders' sto-

ries cxplains this phenomcnon. One could say the samc thing w1th respect

the

to

sou rces on the White Monastcry. In addition, one might point to the Pachom.ian Archimandrite Victor, who, according to tl1e and the Ufe of Slieuo111e, accompan ied

optic Aces of the Council of Ephesus

yril to the

ouncil of Ephesus in 43 1

CE.

His fcast day was latcr cclcbratcd at the White Monastery ( oquin 1991d: 2308) . 7. Sixth Sahidic L!fe of Pachor11i11s (S6) 139-44 (supplcmcnted by the Bohai rie L!fe of Pacho111i11S [Bol); Gl 127-131; Vcillcux 1980-1982, vol. 1: 195-205, 387-91; Goehring l 986a: 242-44 (Gochring l 999a: 167- 70) . 8.

6 144; Yeillcux 1980-1982, vo l. 1: 204-205. This p licy is not mcntioned in the Greck Lift

9.

of Paclzo111i11s.

Gl 134; sec ais Bo 202 (= GI 137).

10. Gochring l 999b: 221-40.

http://coptic-treasures.com

56

JAMES L GOEHRING

l l. For the fifth-ccntury ba5ilica, sec

oqum 1991b: 1926-1927; Grossmann 1991e:

1927-1929; Goehring 1989: 11-12 (Goehring 1999a: 251 - 52); Leasc 1991. For the monastery of Metanoia, see Gascou 1991: 1608- 11. le may be, of course, that not ail of the federation's monasccries remained equalJy strong and/or affiliated with the Koinonia. 12. lt should be notcd that the existence of a powerful monastcry docs not necessarily prccludc the formation of other indcpendent monasteries in the same area. While various pre-exisiting monasteries did choose to join the Pachomian federation (so Seneset, Tmoufons, and Tbcwe; see Goehring 1992: 245 ( .oehring 1999a: 28), others. such as the community ncar

ne from which Theodore came (Bo 31 ; G 1 33)

did not. The later Pachomian monastcry of Phnoum at

ne is prcsented as a new

foundation (Bo 58; cf G 1 83) and th us d1st111ct from the 111dcpendcnt monasccry that Theodore had initially joined. One may point as well to the numerous later monasteries that arme in the victn1ty of the White Monastery on the east s1de of the Nile near Akhmim (Coquin 1991 a: 78). 13. Leipoldc l 903: 38 n. 2. 14. Emmcl 2004a: 164; Leipoldt (1903: 37-38) indicates that Pcol made the mie somewhat harsher. Emmcl notes that Leipoldt's reconstruction of the Rule of Pcol has yct to

be fully cested against the ncwly recomcrncted Canons ofShenoute.

15. Translations from Emmcl 2004: 164 (Rule

ef Pcol);

164-65 n. 39 (Padio111 ia11 R11le).

16. Bo 50 (Seneset); SS 51 (Tmoufons), 52 (Te); Am 54 (Smin); Bo 56 (Tbewe). 57 (Tsm inc), 58 (Phnoum); cf. Gl 54 and 83. The Life of Pacho111i11s reports that a copy of the rule was m.adc and deposited in the first assoc1ated women's monastcry (Bo 27; G 1 32). The more distant cluster of four monastenes in the Panololitc nome surely had at lcast one copy of the rulc. 17. The dates refcr to his period as the third fathcr or leader of the White Monastcry. For a thorough discussion ofShenoute's dates, sec Emmcl 2004: 155-57. 18. 1 am aware of only t\vo specific rcferences in the surviving corpus of his works. 19. Amélincau 1909: 461; Lcipoldt 1903: 99 n. 4. David Brakkc akrted me to this passage. The Coptic of the Pncho111ia11 Rule, Praeœpta 94, rcads: "No one shall speak to his ncighbors in the darkncss:' Whilc the Coptic differs, the citation of the Rule is clear. 20. White Monastery Ms. XH 277. 11.35-43;

hassinat 1911: 111; my translation. Sec

Quecke 1968: 155-71. 21. Queckc 1975: 99; cf. 13oon 1932: 77. Queckc ( 1968: 166) identified th.is passage as the one cxample in Shcnoute's cxtant writings whcrc hc

cite~

Pachonuus.

22. Lcipoldt (t 903: 86 n. 4) 5uggests that henoutc may have left Pachomius's name out on the assumption that his non-monastic audience would have becn unfamiliar with him. 23.

uch echoes are just bcginning to be recognizcd. Sec Timbie 2005: 70- 71.

http://coptic-treasures.com

57

PACHOMIUS AND Tl I[ WI UT[ MONASTERY

24. Sec the indices in Kuhn 1956. lt is interesting to note that Bcsa docs quotc from the lcttc rs of Antony, wh1ch one thus assumes werc in the monastcry's lib rary. 25. Lije o_(Sl1 ct10111e 17-21; English tra nslation in Bell 1983: 47-49. The royal city refcrs to Constantinople, though one suspect that the passage connects with Shenoute atte ndancc with Cyri l at the Council o f Ephcsis in 431 u.c. (Lifc

ef Slieno1m

128-30).

26. ln the Coptic Acts of th e Counci l ofEph esus, Victor's rolc at th e Co un ci l o fEph esus is cmp hasizcd and Shcnoutc 1s not mcntioncd . Sec Kraatz 1904: espccially 148-7 1. Jane t T im bic brought this rctèrcncc to my attention. Sec also Coqui n 1991 d: 2308. 27. Paiu:i:yrir 011 i\lamri11s 15.3; Johnson 1980: vol. 4 15, p. 1 17 (tcxt) and vol. 416 , p. 91 (ti-:imlation). 28. Sec abovc. n. 1 1; also. Coeh1;ng 2006: 3-5. 29. T he cvents arc bri cAy rcco rdcd in the Copto-Arabic Synaxarium. Sec Uassct 1916: 682-88; Forget 1906: 41 1- 13 (rcxt) ; 1921 : 401-405 (tra nslation). A bricf rcfcrcncc also occ urs in th e P11111:1!Yric

011

Ap1•lfo. See Kuhn 1978, vol. 394: l 7- l 8 (tcxt) and

vol. 395: 13 (tra nslation). Addi tional dctails arc presc rvcd in the fragmentary rcmains of White Monastcry Codi ccs GC and CC. The fom1cr contains two pancgyrics on Abraham of Farshur. and the latter an cxccrpt on Abraham in a pancgyric on M an,mc h. Sec Campagnan o 1978: 223-46; l 985b; l 985c. 1 am currently wo rking on a critical edition of thcse matcrial . For a more dctailed accou nt, sec Gochring 2006: 1- 17, and the olderdated article, Goehring 1989. 30. Cm:hring 2006: 17-20. 31. One a'>sumc' that mmc of the othcrs who followcd Abraham in leaving Pbow also fo un d refuge at the White Monastcry. 32. This 1nfornution occurs in the Copto-Arabic Synaxarium. 13asset 1916: 68+-85; Forget 1921 : 402. 33. Life

ef S/1e1w111e

185; 13cll 1983: 9 1.

34. White Monastcry Codex C

,

optic page 49A 14-B 13 (Cairo, 1FAO 8r); my trans-

lation . 35. White Monastcry Codex GC, Coptic page [84JB11-24 (Paris, BN 12913 15v); my translation. 36. White Monastery

odex GC, Coptic page 53A l 4-B2 (Vienna, BN K9527) ; my

transl ation. A similar conAation occurs in the Pauegyric 011 Apollo (Ku hn 1978, vo l. 394: 36. 14-22 (tcxt) and vo l. 395, 27 .25-32 (translation)). 37. H orsiesius, Ep. 4 (Vei lleux 1980-1982, vol. 1: 163); Vc1lleux's tran lation . A similar rcfercncc to Pa chomius, Petronius. and Thcodorc the brothers aftcr Thcodore's dcath prcservcd

111

ccurs in 1 lorsicsius's speech to

the Bohairic Life of f>ac/10111i11 s 208

(Veilleux 1980- 1982, vol. 1: 261-62); Goehring l 999b: 229.

http://coptic-treasures.com

6

The Role of the Female Eider in Shenoute's White Monastery1 Rebecca Krawiec

T1-1 W1 !ITE M ONASTERY in the fourth and fifth ce nturi es consisted of different communitics, or congrcga tions. Th ey wcre se parated physically but united under o ne set of monastic rulcs and one main monastic leader, at least du ring the tenure of its third head, Shenoute. One of thcse communiti es was fcmalc and was loca ted in a n eighborin g village; the others were male, and Shcnoute began his monastic career li ving in one of these until a crisis drovc him into the dcse rt.2 Even after taking control of the m o nastery, hcnoute co ntinucd to spe nd much of hi s cime in the nearby desert, exerc ising his autbority through lettcrs, sermon , and the codification of monastic nilcs. H e also constructed a system of command where various monks, male and female, were entru tcd to carry out hi s orders. henoutc had what ap pears to have bcen at times a contentious and tense relationship with at least some, if not most, of the women who lived in this monastic system. Although 11.is works survive only in fragments, it has been possible to reconstruct, or re-imagine, these women's monastic experie nces and to und ersta nd the basis of the disputes that occurred between henoutc and the women under his care. 3 Despite the recent fturry ofscholarly intercst in the White Monastery, the rolc of the fcmale clder is still poorly undcrsto d. Threc views fth e fcmalc clder in th e White Mona tery predomjnate in sch larship: (1) usanna lm prescnt a thwarted leader who was n t given full control ovcr hc r own ommunity but is in tead subordinate both

59 http://coptic-treasures.com

60

REBE

A KRAWIEC

to Shenoutc and a male eider who ac ted as ovcrscer fo r the female communiry;4 (2) Bcntley Layton claim she was the equivalc nt of the male eider, the head of the female congregation second only to Sbenoutc, just as the male eid er in the male congregatio n wa second only to Shcnoute; 5 (3) I have argued that shc was a figure whose role changed during Shenoute's takcover of the monastery, suc h that her former independence became subordination, at lcast during times w hcn she (and other femaJe monks) met with henoute, or his agent, the male elder. 6 ln order to invcstigatc the tensions among thcsc descriptions, this article examines somc of the du tics and obligation of the femalc eider as laid out in the rules that henoute both inherited from previous leaders of the monastery and adapts and cxpandcd during his own lcadcrsh ip. 7 T hose rules that rcgulatcd interactio n bct\vccn the fcma lc eider and the male community rcceivc particular attentio n in o rder to compare the rolc of the fcmale eider and the male eider, that is, the m an w ho served as a 'secon d in co mm and ' to Shenoutc in the male community of t h e monastery.8 1 co nclude by su ggesti ng that the tensions and co ntradictions in the female eldcr's position in the White M onastery's hicrarchy illu strate how ge nder paradoxically contributcd to b oth cgali tarianism and in cquaJity in Shenoute's monasticism. 9

Shenoutean Rule Material An y anaJysis of Shenoutc's Canons requi rcs a clarification of thcir contents, which include lctters, 10 se rmo ns, an d ru les of w·hich the last co ntains various instructions for behavior a nd the li sts of what behavior leads to a person bcing "cursed. " Thcsc ru les arc not lirnited to any one of the nine Ca11011S, but rathcr arc dispcrscd throughout, rnostly in Ca11011s 3, 5, 6, and 9, as Stephen E mm cl's codicological reconstruction sh ows. Moreovcr, as Carolin e Schrocdcr describcs, "T he rule al o contain lengthy narrative descri pti ons of the ways in w hi ch the monks should foUow and enforce the ru lc as w eU as substanti al intcrprctative, homilectic, and hortatory passages simi lar in style to Shenoutc's lcttcr and sennons. " 11 Thus, the rules arc not presented in a syste m atic way to the co mmuni ty but as part of a larger set of compli cated lite rature. M oreover, Shenoute instructs that th ese Ca11011s be read to the monastic community fo ur times a year. Sincc this instru ction follows specifi c rulc material in Ca11011 5 (and sin ce Shcnoutc uses the word Kb..NON, alo ng with ENTOXH, "commandmcnt," to refcr to the rulcs rhemsclves), it is un clcar w hcther simply rulc material was to be read, o r all the literaturc of the ninc Ca11011s. 1 ~ This study examines thosc passages that

http://coptic-treasures.com

THE ROLE OF THE FEMALE ELDER Jt-. SHENOun's WHITE MONASTERY

61

might most obviously be rcgarded as rnlcs, passages whjch are instrnctions and arc n1eant to set parameters which could then receive further explanation and intcrpretation in a variety of settings and situations. Information from such rule material, howcver, cannot be understood independently from the rest of the Canon litcrature. The rulcs do not mention the female elder very often. Her absence is especially notable, given the rcpcated assertions chat the female community was includcd under the rule. Shcnoute constantly reminds his audience that the rules arc mcam for all monks (see bclow), thus placing the female monks and community undcr the authority of the rulcs, yct hc does not mention the fcmalc eid er as often a the male within the application of the rulcs. The resulting impression, like reading through the rule themsclvcs, is lcss of a systcmatic crcation of a hierarchy of authority positions for the monastcry and more of a running conm1entary on those positions as they were evolving. The female eider is presented in three v.rays in the rulc material: (1) rules that establish the male and fcmale eiders as parallel authorities for their scparatc communities; (2) rulcs that depict the female eldcr as the authoritativc equivalent of the "father of thcse places," namely, Shcnoute; and (3) rulcs that su borrunatc the femalc eider to the male eider. An understanding of the context for these various prescntations wiU explain thcir inconsistcncics. Further, thcsc discrepancies may preservc a record of power negotiations that took place over time between the female community and hcnoutc. u The rulc matcrial thcrefore is lcss a synchronie monument of Shenoutean rcgulation and more a diachronie expression of the changing nature of the authority structures. The female elder appears in the rulc matcrial in much the same way as the fcmale communit:y itself appcars: as an addition, or even afterthought, to clarify that how things arc clone among the men is also how tlungs are to be clone among the women. The male and fcmale eiders tend to be mentioned in these descriptions when Shenoute needs to set up surveillance (to make sure monks werc adhering to the rulcs) and to allow dispensations. The reciprocity of the rulcs, alike for men and women, is th us echoed: permission to deviate from the rulcs comes from the male elder among the men and from the female eider among the women. For example: "Further, the one who wiU give anything to his companion secretly through fraud among us our clves or you yoursclves, eithcr anything to eat, or clothing, or linen, or a strap, or anything at all ecretly, and they did not inform the male eldcr first among u or they did not inforrn the female eider first among you,

http://coptic-treasures.com

62

REBE

A KRAWIEC

they hall be cursed, because thcy have transgrcssed our laws which om fachers have handed clown to us." 14 Herc henoute creates a clear cquivalency between the rwo communities. At rime , rules begin as if imply addrcssing a male community, only to have the fernale eider and/or female communfry appear abruptly: "He who \VÎll pluck hair which is growing &om his armpit or who shaves any place bclonging to him in the limbs of his body, unless their head alone, stea1thily without the male eider among us [knowing] or without the female eider among you yoursclves lknowing] is cursed. " 15 Once again, these rules position the male eider and fcmale eider in paraUe l rolcs: each is the main, or final, authority for the respective community. AdditionaUy, the absence of a requiremcnt for the male or femalc eider to c nsult with Shcnoute underscorc the control cach eider has over his or her immcdiate community. 11' The existence of these parallcl lcgislative constructions raises questions about the times tliat the rulc matcrial mention only the male clder, despite the inclusion of both m~ale and female morues in that very instruction. For example, both male and fcmale monks can make vows to increase their fasting but only the male eider is explicitly authorized to force a monk to cat, despite this vow, if be judges the hardship too grcat: "And whenevcr a pcrson among us, or a wornan among you, vows not to cat, or not to dri nk, two days, or threc, or four, or more than thesc, because of God-and others adju re them, misleading them vio lently to eat, thcy sin .... Whenever the fmale] eider sees omcone who su ffcred in asccticism [n0.>1. 1T 1~] or rather in anothcr thing because of God, and he compcls him to cat, he is responsible for his deeds. " 1; What arc we to make of the lack of an additional "and so also the female eider" or "and in this way also it is to donc among you"? It seems unreasonablc, and indeed impractical, to assume the male eider somehow wou ld have this authority in the fema le community; conversely, it seems rcasonablc to assume the fcmale eider would do so. Yet the rule is siJent on the ro le of the female eider even though it applies to the female conununity as a vvhole. Moreover, the relationship between Shenoutc, the male eider, and the fcmale clder is not set but can be Auid, evcn within one 'nùe.' One example, althougb depcndcnt on a reconstruction since the text breaks off at a crucial point, shows how the fcmaJe eider couJd be simultaneously equivalcnt and subordinatc to the male eider. This passage also questions whether hcr subordination is duc to gender or mcrcly to separation &0111 the 'main' community. Shcnoute is di cussing the monthly searchcs of the monks' cells

http://coptic-treasures.com

THE ROLE OF Tl IE FEMALE ELDER IN SI l[NOUTE'S WI llTE MONASTERY

63

for purloined food; the male eider "wiil go into ail the bouses of the community." This formulation cou ld uggest that the women's bouses are includcd as well as the men's. Howevcr, Shenoute also orders similar searches "in our other small community which is north ofthis, so that the father ofthat place acts also in the same way" along with "the ones who are appointed with him. " This "oth er small community" then has a leader who has the same authority over his conununity as the male eide r has; but he is a "fathe r" and hc acts in concert with orhers. henoute co ntinu es by instructing that any violations this "father" finds must be reported to the male eider ("he shall inform the male eider about th cm, and h e shall not hide any wicked deed at ail"). Finally, Shenoute says. "And the female eider, she shall also act ... ," 18 at which point the manuscript breaks off. The parallcl construction with the earlier orders to the father of small community, however, suggests that the femalc clder shall al o search the houscs in the women's conununity and that she also reports any transgressions to the male eider. This examplc illustrates the tension that exists throughout the rule material, in terms of the raie and authority of the female eider and of the ovcrail inclusion of women in the monastic rule. On the one hand, the fcmale eider has authority over ber community as a separate entity within the monastery since he is in charge of sea rching it. On th e other, ail matters are to be vetted through the male eider, who presumably then reports to Shenoute. ln addition, the femalc elder's ubordination to the male eider in this case is not duc to gender; the other father is just as subordinate. What remains uncertain is the relationship between the male eider and the overall head of the monastery, the "father of the ongregations." Other rules that dcscribc the female eider arc Jess clear on the question of equivalency with the male eider. Instead, they suggest that she is equal in authority to Shenoute. First, on at least one occasion, the wording of a mle equates her with the "father of these places." Bath male and female monks were cautioned that they would pay a penalty if they went to work without praying "it not yet luvin g been appointed to them through the father of these place , and without the femalc eider for h er part also wbo is in the village." 19 Herc the final authority for the fema le conununity "in the village" is still the femalc eider, but the comparative authority is not, apparently, the male eider (who is not mentioned) but henoute or his successors. econd, the fcmalc eider i at rimes defined as "the mot11cr" of the femalc community, a titlc parallel to the "father ofthese place ." 20 When henoute stipulatcd how thosc in the female community should communicatc with

http://coptic-treasures.com

64

REBE CA KRAWIEC

the men, hc designared who should delivcr mes ages: "whcnever a need exists, the fcmale eider herself of the gathering, the rnother of the ones in that place, wilJ go with two other senior women with her. " 2 The term, " mother," however, is itsclf complicated because soon aftenvard Shenoute uses its singular and plural fonns in reference to tho e who should co111111unicate their needs to the male comm.unity: "We already have said many times and we have written it, that the mother or mothers of the ones in the village will write to us here (about) everything which they necd in thcir place." Here it appears tliat Shenoute is rcfcrring to the female eider as "the mother" and then including the rnothers, who serve as the hcad of various houses. 22 Yet the lack of any mention of "eiders" (or "senior women") scc m s odd. These aberration thwart any attempt. to make a spec ific reconstruction of the monastery's authority structures. ln addition, because the total numbcr of reference to the fcmale eider is rclatively fcw, any variations in Shenoute's rcferences to the woman (o r womcn) in charge are not easily dismissed. Despite this confusion, rhese different descriptions do not alter the main impression created by the material prescnred thus far: that of a relarively autonomous female community with an autho1;tative (and largcly indcpenden t) leader. Therc is also the question of who appoints the female leaders. Once again, Shenoute's description of this process uses Au id tcrminology but conveys a clear overall message: God has choscn who shou ld serve as leaders (presumab ly including Shcno utc). 23 Shenoute writes, "For aftcr the father of these congrcgations is his seco nd .... Just as Cod wilJ scnd this seco ndpcrson ... so also hc \vill scnd evcry housc-person and their seconds on behalf of the ones who dwell with them. And just as Cod wilJ send these two people and the ones in agreement with thcm. so also he will send the mothcr of the congrcgation and the one who cornes after ber, hcr second, and ail the others who arc in agreement with them." 24 That Shenoute uses "mother of the congregation" indicates a parallcl authority system where each community bas a head (father/mother), a second, and their supporters. Sincc the male comm unity most likely chose Shenoutc as its head, one cou ld expect the female community sclected its " mothcr," although this process could have changed during the course of hcnoute's leadcrship. 25 The rule material thus depicts the femalc community, and its leadership, as a separate yet linkcd community. This dual status, however, also exposes a tension in the monastic rules: at times, the fcmalc eider is hcr own authority. Y et at other times henoutc requires the oversight of the male eider,

http://coptic-treasures.com

THE ROLE or Tl IE FEMALE ELDER IN SI IENOUTE's WI llT[ MONASTERY

65

a decision diat subordin ates the femaJe clder. The clearest example of this su bordination is the req uircmcnt that fcmale monks need the pennission of the mal e eider to !cave their comn1unity: " Nor shall any woman among you escape the gate of the conrn1 unity, or go for any reason, v..'ithout b eing ordercd by the m ale eide r to go ." 2r' B esicles this ruJ e, most examples of such subordination seem to stem fro m the lctters, which de crib e actual m eetings, more so than from rulc matcrial, which remains inconsistent in its depiction of a uthority positions. For exampl e, the rulcs for funerals of female monks indicate tliat the male cl d er had contro l over thcir burial: m ale monks are sent to the fcmalc co mmunity to rcce ive the body, sing in g Psal ms cho en by th e mal e eider. N o womcn arc all o wed to attend the funeral, except for the fcmalc eider and "a noth er vvh o is an o ld woman of many years." 27 Given that monks were most probably buri cd in th e desert, at some distance from th e femal e co mmunity in the village , this description is not un expected. What stands out is less th e absence of wom en , and more She nouce's carefu1 regulation of the n eccssa ry conta ct be tween the r-vo corn.munities. Sh enoute then segues from funera ls ro general rel igious gatherings, saying that "none amon g us" can skip ga th erings for prayer and non e ca n skip "th e hour wh en we lift up the offering ... unl ess they are ordered by th e m ale eider among us o r the fema lc eider among you." This co ntrast- betwee n the subordinatc fcma le eide r of the funcral and the fcmale eider in charge of the gathcring in her own commu ni ty-emp hasizes the distinction in place. The male eider lcad rc ligio us gath crings of both communities, ma le and fcmaJc. ln thosc ~itu atio n s whcn the two com111unitics can rcmain eparate, the femaJc eide r has the authority to act indcpendcntly. Thus, the t\vo communj tics cxist in tcn ion: whcn sep aratc, thcy arc cqual ; when togcther, a male/fcmaJe rucrarchy cmcrgcs. M o reover, h c noute's ideaJ is fo r the communitics to rcrnain separate since he prcfer communica tion through letters rather than meetings. 28 It is contact between male and femaJe monks that crea tes anxiety for Shenoute and conseq ue ntl y tension in the rules. These au thority structu res are cve n more complicated by the presence of gatekcepers Qiterally, ' p eople app ointcd to the pla ce of th e door') for the female co mmunity. The pluraJ in the Coptic is gender ne utraJ and the word p©ME ('people') is not gende r speci fi c. 1-lowever, Shenoutc consistcntly uses this word P©ME to rcfer tom nk in the maJe communi ty as oppo cd to womcn in the fc malc (sec bclow) . Thus it scems like ly that thesc gatckeepcrs arc m cn, 29 a su ppositio n that takes on grcatc r weight because of hcnoutc's anxiety abo ut contact betwcen the gatckecpcrs and the fcmalc

http://coptic-treasures.com

66

REBECCA KRAWIEC

congrcgation, cspecially the fcmalc leaders who would need to have rcgular communication vvith these men . Shcnoutc writes that thcse gatckeepers arc not allowed "to pcak alone with the (woman) at the gate, nor will she hcrself speak with them , not cvcn regarding the smallcst thing, cvcn if she is the daughter ofsomeonc from those (men), or his ister or his mother or finally anyone at all eithcr joined to them or not joined to them." 31 ' One presumes that the woman is not hersclf a gatekecper since she is merely at the gatehouse ("in the place of the door") and not "appointed" to it (a gatekcepcr). More anxiety appcars in another rule, which insi t that no material goods should be givcn to the gatckecpcrs from the (physically proximate) fcma le community. Rather, thesc goods arc sent from the male gathering, at some distance :" These gatekeepcrs can also not lcavc the village community, even to visit the sick, unless permission is granted from the male eider. The presencc in the femalc community of maJc gatekcepers, themsclves part of the male authority system and subo rdinatc to the male el der, supports Elrn's contentio n that the entire female cornmunity, altbough treated as an cqual part of the monastcry in the rules, was in fact subject to constant male supervision. Yet Layton's contention of equivalcncy has also been clearly confirmcd . lt is preciscly the fact that the cvidence supports two scemingly incongruous portraits that lcads me to suggcst that the rulcs prcserve a proccss of power negotiations. For example, the descriptions abovc suggest various lcvcls of communicatio n betwcen the fcmalc and male co mmuniti es. henoute 's prcferred mcthod allovvs a woman, who docs not a bold a spccific titl c, to corne to the gatcbouse but not to converse with the men thcrc. If nccessary, "whenevcr the necd exists, the femalc eider herself of the gathcring, the mother of the ones in that place, will go with t\vo other grcat women" to meet with the gatekecpers. 32 Apparently, in thesc scenarios, only writtcn communication passes from the male gatekeepcrs to the male community. Finally, however, "whenever the need exists" this saine fcmale leadership-the fcmalc eider, identified as "mother," and two senior womcn-can go to the male community, either to delivcr the letter thcmsclves or possibly to mcet with the male lcadership. 3J These complica ted descriptions show henoute's prefcrence fo r gcndcr scparation, which is made possible by the gatckeepcrs and which secludes the womcn, especially th e fcmale e ldcr. 3~ uch a system, howevcr, cannot have bcen ufficicnt, thus forcing henoutc to allow physical contact betvvccn the communities cven as hc in sists that written communication is better. 35

http://coptic-treasures.com

Tl I[ ROU OF THE FEMALE ELDER IN

67

l IENOUH'S WI llTE M ONASTERY

The Two Communities: Male and Female , Us and You, People and Women Reading these few passages abo ut the female eider in the context of the overall role of wornen in the White Monastery suggc tS that the rule mate rial does not necessa rily provide more clarity about the monasti c system and its authoritative structures than the letters. R ath e r, Likc the le tters that acco mpany thern in th e Ca11011s, th ey record a tension in th e White Monastery in tcrm.s of th e place and fonctio n of the fem ale com munity. Moreo ver, the tension appears also in the overaU application of the rul e material to th e worn en . E lm contends that women lived as part of the monastery from its start and so ' henoute 's rule and ' m1011s' were not originally co nceived for a mal e co mmunity only and then simp ly passed on to a later fcmale addition. They were from the begi nning conce ived for and addressed to 111e11and1vo111en alike'' (emphasis hers). 36 I \.vould argue that both the position of th e fema le commun ity as part of a larger fede ration and the authorship and audience of the 'original' rules remains uncertain Y Shenoute u ses several phrases to signal an explicit inclusion of wom en in the mon astic rules::li! (1) "Among us or amo ng you [pLI;" (2) "Among us, eith e r male or female;" (3) "a PIDME [pc rson/manJ among u , or a woman;" (4) " An1ong you" wherc "yo u'' is a fcminine singular and so refc rs to the who le fcdcration, including the femalc comm unity; (5) " Among yo u [fs.], eithcr m ale o r fcmalc;" (6) " H e is ursed , namcly a m an rnot PIDME 1, or a woman among you [pl.];" (7) " H e is cursed, namc ly a brother or a sister. " T\ o of these phrases, "either male or fcma le" and "among us and amo ng you" appear frequently in the lctters. The first phrase, "either male or fem ale," serves to crcate an expcctation of monasticism that transcends gender, evcn as it continues to in ist on gcnd c r idcntity; whilc th e sec nd phrase, "amo n g us or amo ng you," insists on two corrununities, an "ours" and a "yours," that are recipro al but separatc. 39 A similar cffect is crcatcd in th e rule material, cspccia.lly with some of the other five variants. To in i t on a ru le for ail, e ithcr male or fe mal e, prc cnts a diffcrent view of the monastic co ng regations from a rule for "a m an among us , or a woman." l n the former case, the rule is prescnted as egalitarian in its inception; both men and w m en are submissivc to a hi ghcr a uthority (not Shenoute, but rathe r God, the author of the rulcs) and this ubmis ion marks thcir m na tic identity. In the latter case, women arc being askcd to ad hcrc to a rulc eemingly written for men, v hich makes the womcn 'equal' but only a an cxtensi n f the male commun ity. A an appendage, the female comm unity acccpts n t http://coptic-treasures.com

68

REBE

A KRAWIEC

just Shenoute's authoriry, but an entire system created for a male monastcry. In short, thcy accept a malc-dominatcd urvciUance system necessary for Shenoute to exe rt bis control. This latter view of the female communiry creates subordination for women cven as they are accepted as monks in the fedcration like the men. As Elm notes: "the mother was forced to subject herself completely to the authoriry not only of Shenoute but also of another father, again in the name of equality." 4'1 This point calls into question the term 'equa lity' whcn examining the role of gcnder in Shcnoute's monastery. Here modern theoretical investigations about gender equality prove illustrative. These studies have differentiated bct\>Jeen a fonnal scnsc of cquality, "trcating lik c alike," and a more substantive sense, "addres ing disadvantagc."~ 1 Bccause Shenoute is equal onJy in the forma] se nse, he creatcs incquality. Truc eguality would have to be equa] in the substantive sense wherc the 'disadvantage' is not simply separation from henoute (sincc he also lives apart from the male community) but rathcr the disadvantage of Shenoute himself not visiting their community and the disadvantage of being a later addition to a monastic system authorized by a distant, and often harsh, male leader. Because of their gender, these women werc less and less able to represen t themselv es to the person in charge of continuaUy shaping and sctting thcir monastic cxperience; rather, they had to corrununicatc through intermcdiaries who may or may not have understood or bccn sy1npathetic to thcir arguments. Shenoute's Jack of substantive equality in his monastery, cven as he strove for rcciprocity. hclpcd fuel the tension 1 have illustrated. He created a system that at timcs alJowed for cquality but at other c rucial moments revealed the disadvantages the women had as mcmbcrs of the rnonastic fcderation.

Notes 1. ln addition to the participants of the Sohag Symposium, l would likc to thank Caroline T. Schrocder for hcr comments on the publishcd version of this article. 2.

For t\vo accounts of this period of Shenoute's career, sec Emme! 2004a and ch. 2 of chroedcr 2002.

3. This is the genera l subject of Krawiec 2002. 4.

Elm 1994: 296-3 l O. Elm uses Johannes

Lcipoldt '~

publication of ~ome of the works

of benoute that includcs both ru les and fragments of two

lcttcr~

conccrning fcmale

monks as the basis for her interpretation.

http://coptic-treasures.com

69

THE ROLE OF THE FEMALE ELDER IN SI IENOun's WHITE MONASTERY

5.

Layt0n 2002 : 28- 30. csp. Table 1 on 29. For his study, Layton has "read through

6.

Krawicc 2002: 52-55 and 77-79. For my study, I focused on thirteen lette r frag-

more or Jess ail the extant remains of the Ca11011s" (26) . ments pertaining to the female community and examined orne, but by no means all, of the rulc material to se t some context for tbosc letters.

7.

For previous leaders of the monastery, sec Emme! 2004b: 9-10. Tbat th e eiders. male and female. became crucial to Shenoute's monastic system has been notcd by Layton in bis suggestion that their rolc reccive further attention (Layton 2002: 51 ).

8.

The

optic for male and fema lc leadership is ambiguous, although Layton suggests

future work must be illurninating: "lt will probably be necessary to distinguish two mcanings of nv.>.O/TZ>.>.ID as fo!Jows: (1) 'd1c ni.ale Eldestlfemale eldcst'-the two Eiders par excellence (h eads of the m ale and female hierarchi es); (2) 'one of the Eiders' generically speaking," (Layton 2002: 51 n. 110). Although I understand Laywn's use of the superlative 'Eldcst' to rcfer to the head of the group--that s/he is the eldest, not th e eider oftwo-1 will co ncinu c to use 'eider' in my papcr as it rema ins the usual tcm1 in scholarship on monasticism in general, especially throughout the M.iddle Ages. 9.

T he tensions, therefore, are not simply in sc holarship on the fem.ale eider but in the rule material itself. For example, the main passage Layton uses for bis description of the monastic hierarchy (see n. 5) does present both eiders as in charge o f each separatc community. Yet, a gender inequality of the sore Elm describes also appears. The particular section (Lei poldt 1906-1913, vo l. 3: 156-57) explains the procedures fo r making reporcs to Shenoute. Eac h eider, male and female, creates an account of transgressions ('evil things ') based on conversations with heads of bouses and semor monks, but the fcmalc eider then givcs her report cvcrything vcrbally

tO

to

the male eider, who reports

henoutc .

1O. The lcttcrs recordcd in the nme Ca11011s rnclude those written to specific individual monks, those written to just the female or male community, and those written to the monastery as a wholc. Yet, since Shenoute chose

tO

include these particular lettcrs

within this collection, wc can infcr that whatever the specific original audience, the letter includcd a more general monastic instruction that Shenoute deemed applicable to ail monks, male and fi:male, that was consistent with the rule material with which it was integrated. 1 1.

chroeder 2002: 88. Also as Layton notes: "ln arrangemen t and style Sheno ute's works called Ca11011S is not a monastic

re._~rda , "

though he also notes Emmel's point

that "mme materials in C1111011s books 3, 5, and 9 come closest to the literary form of a regula" (Layton 2002: 29 and n. 22). 12. 13endey Layton,

in

bis papcr for this symposium ("Ancien t Rulcs of henoutc's

White Monastcry Fcdcration"), argued for the existence of two rulc b oks which

http://coptic-treasures.com

70

REBEC A KRAWIEC

would have scrved as the basis of the rules

henoute records. Under th.is chcory,

thcsc rule books werc read to the monks on a regular basis.

13. This argument is 11oc meant

co11tradict Layton's prcscntation of the fcmale eider as

to

a scacic position, si nce he noces: "For prcsenc purposcs, 1 wiU noc take inco accou nt the possible evolution of institutional rules and structures over the long span of Shenoutc's caree r" (Layton 2002: 30) .

14. Leipoldt, 1906-1913, vol. 4: 122-23. This rule also touches on the issue ofS h enouce's codifical:Îon of rules already in place, and the extent to which he adapts and adds to them. ln this case, givin g thü1gs secretl y seems

to

be tl1e "law" which was ha11ded

clown from "our fathers." However, that Shenoute also con1J11cnt 011 the roles of the male and fcmale eider, as well as how dul:ies were assigned to each, su ggests an amalgamation of previous rules and new circumstances: '·such thac any person, male or femalc, sh all noc give anythi11g to lus companion through &aud secre tl y, unless it was appointed to him through the male eider among us or through the fcmale eider \vho has been set fo r you amo ng yo u yourselves."

15. The rule conti nu es, in part, "he vvho will shave hair in any places belonging to him \v:ithout th e male eider among us or the female eider among you yourse lves, they (') shall be c urscd, whether he is a male, whetber she is a fema le. And if the necd exists, such that tbey sbave sick parts (of the body), they shall inform the male eider first among us or th ey shall infom1 the fcmale eider among you yourselves" (Leipoldt

1906-1913, vol. 4: 171). 16. Since Shenoute lived outside the monascery, the male co mrn.unity needed a person to provide daily oversight as much as the sepa rate femalc comnrnnity did .

17. Lei poldt 1906-1913, vol. 4: 59-60. 18. Ibid.: 58. 19. Ibid. : 106. A parallel for this passage appears in Young 1993: 48-59. 20. Though Layton also points to Shenoute's use of the phrase "congregal:ional parents among us whether ma le or female" (Layton 2002: 29, Table 1, n.s 2 and 3).

21. Here Shenoute uses the phrase, "Sen.ior Wome n, " with

NOS NC 2 I ME,

which Layton

argues is the terni for fernale eider monks and which functions as th e eq uivalent for " th e eiders" (N2,\!1.0), implied male. Youn g translates th e Coptic phrase as "older women" but hc also translates

0,\,\(J)

as "mother superior" (Young 1993: 56).

22. Thesc heads of monastic bouses are also ac times caUed

E 1OTE,

a ge nder neutral

'parents.' ee Layton 2002: 29.

23. This view is in keeping \'llith Shenoute's overall understanding of hi leadership, as 1 argue (Krawicc 2002: 51-72), and with the gcncral prcsentation ofGod as the au tl1 or oftl1e rules for the rnonastcry, as Schrocder argues ( ch rocdcr 2002: 103-107).

24. Lcipoldc 1906- 1913, vol. 4: 44.

http://coptic-treasures.com

71

THE ROLE OF THE fEMALE ELDER IN SI IENOUTE'S WI ll TE MONASTERY

25. On the process of henoutc's having bccome hcad of the monastery aftcr his complaints about the prcvious leader, sec Schrocd er 2002: 76-85 whcrc shc lays out the "political" implications ofhis rh etoric. For appointments o ffcm ale lead ers, compare th e problem in Abraha111, 01ir Fatlier from Ca11011 3, wherc a female monk scems to have been rclu ctant to receivc an incrcasc in hcr rank (K.rawiec 2002: 38-40). 26. Leipoldt 1906-1913, vol. 4: 61. 27. Ibid.: 61--62. 28. "For the lcttcr is for

u~

and for you yoursclvcs the fimmcss and the grcarer bcncfit

of our gathering" (Ibid: 108). Sec Young 1993: 56: "Corrcsponding (by lettcrs) 1s indeed the assurcd enh anccmcnt o f o ur asscmbling.'" 29. As Layton argues (2002: 34-35). 30. " At any rime within thesc congrcga ti ons, whcnevcr the neccssity ari ses, suc h that the people who have bcen appointed to the place of the door of the congrcgatio n which is in the village must speak with the ones in tliat place, or such that the ones in that place themselves say a word tous o r a m essage" (Lci poldt 1906-1913 , vo l. 4: 107). 31. Ibid.: 106. 32. Ibid. : 107. 33. Sec n. 2 1 abovc. 34. Indced, th e passage rn question e nds with the spccific adm onition tliat th e gatekceper system allows th e fcmale eider and seni or women to "rcmain therc with thcir companions toget her" (Lcipoldt 1906- I 9 13, vo l. 4: 107). 35. Sec noce 28 abovc. 36. Elm 1994: 300. 37. I here fo Uow

chrocder's arguments about the authorship and origins of the rulc

marcrial (sec Schroedcr 2002: 100-103). 38. ln some cases, rulcs do not mention women at aU. Furtl1er exploration is necessary to detcrmine whcthe r their absence mcans the rule docs not apply to them or whether their inclusion is implied. 39. Krawiec 2002: 95-100, esp. 99. 40. E lm 1994: 308-309. 41. Kapur 1999: 144.

http://coptic-treasures.com

7

The Ancient Rules of Shenoute's Monastic Federation Bentley Layton

wcll un der way to produce a c ritica l cdirion of Shenou te 's 'ast work entitl ed Ca11011s. My own editorial task is volum es 4 and 5 of the =a11ons. Now, thi titlc-Canons-is a bit odd. In Christian usage of th e _,reek language, 'ca nons'-k1111011es-mcant ' n1les' or 'laws,' and so it is no urprise to find th at volumes 4 and 5 do co ntain a large numbcr of monasti c ·ulcs. 1 H owevc r, as you rca d thcse volumes, and indeed ail nine volumes of he Ca110 11s, two vcry pcculiar problcms imm ediatcly catch the cye. First, fo r the most part, the c ninc books do not consisc of mona tic ·ules or laws. lnstcad , th ey co nsist mainly of monastic diatribe, fill ed with ·eproach and warning, directed to fellow monks and nuns. Wh y, then, were hese diatribes entitled Ca11011s? Second, inter persed throughout the Canom we do find a certain number )f monastic rules ftoating here and there. However, Shenoute usually quotes hese rulcs without making any o bvious conn ection to the theme or argun ent of the work in which they occur. What is the fonction of the mie hat occur haphazardly in the midst of diatribe? Why arc they there, and n t :ollected together in one book? How do they belong to the text? r, to put :he question more broad ly, what is the Ca 11011s, why docs it exist, wh gave t this nam e, what was it intended fun ctio n , and in what cnvi ronment was tu cd? o far, we have no answer to these que rions , and 1 am not g ing t 1nswcr them all in this papcr. ;)V ORK JS NOW

73 http://coptic-treasures.com

74

BENTLEY LAYTON

ln ordcr to edit and translate Volum es 4 and 5 as accurately as possible, I dccidcd to collect and study all the rules and policy statements that occur in ail books of Sh enoute's Ca1w11s. My corpus now amounts to more than five hundrcd rulcs, that is , short passages that scem to be, or to cite, or ro reftect, a monastic rule. Since many, n1any parts of the Ca11011s have not survived clown to the twenty-firsr ce ntury, the original, co mplcte text of the Canons must have co ntained even many more rul es than 1 have collec ted-le t us imagine, a thousand or more. The guantity of the survi ving rulcs is nothing short of scnsational. Now, th e genre of Christian monastic ru le had alrcady bcen inven tcd by Pachomius two generatio ns before heno utc. H owcvcr, only one hundred o r so Pachomian rulc now survive, and mostly in a Latin versio n , whereas, in the Shenoute co rpus, wc have ovcr fivc hundred items, a rcally extensive set of cornma nds and policies in the original Copti c. This cnables us to undcrstand the administration of an carly coe nobitic monastic fcderation , both in detail and in its overall structure . As rcaders may know, mu ch of my rece nt research has bcen devoted to analyzing the structure of Shcnoutc's monastic world on the basis ofthesc rules. 2 Le t us rctum to the rules. What is the source of authority for th ese rules? Who was their rcputed author; ln sceking to ans\ver th ese questions, it is very important to remcmbcr that Shenoure was not the foundcr of the White Monastery fcderation : this was apparcntly Apa Pcol. As Professer Emme) has dcmonstrated .3 Shcnoute was the third lea der of th e federation , th e succcsso r of a certain Apa Ebonh. Thus: Pcol, Ebonh, henoute. Du ring Shcnoute's leadership as third abbor of the fedcrarion, the time of experimentation and surp1;se had passed. Patterns of daily life had become w e ll cstablishcd, taken for granted, and typificd .4 Now, in guoting rnonasti c rules, Shenoute spcaks of "us," th us including himself, as havi ng inherited the rules from prcdecessors. He refcrs to the "canons" or "traditions" or "co n11nands" or "con1mandments" or "lav,;s" that a group called "our fathers" eirher "establishcd" or "laid clown" or "wrote" or "con1111anded to us" or " tlut we have," or something similar. 5 Iris clear that Shenoutc is not the author of th e five hundrcd or so monastic rulcs in my corpus- at lcast, cc rtainly not ail of thern. Furthern1ore, Shenoute's fcderation posscsscd and used distinct books of ancient rnJc , whi c h Shcnoutc mentions in scvc ral places. Th esc books do not survive . But wc know how thcy wcrc uscd. ln fact, m any of the rulcs guoted by Shcnoutc probably came from thcsc boo ks. According to

http://coptic-treasures.com

75

THE ANCIENT RU LES OF SHENOUTE'S MONASTIC FEDERATION

statements made by henoute, these ancient books were uscd in sevcral different institutional contexts by the leaders of the fcderation .6 ln order to describe the uses of these lost rulc books, I must first describe the organizational structure of the Wlute Monasœry fcderation. 7

SUPREME LEADER (Shenoute)

(Gebel)

(Red Monastery)

(White Monastery )

(At ripe)

(Gebel)

Hermits

Men's Monastery

Men's Monastery

Nunnery

Hermits (fema les)

(males)

ELDEST

ELDEST

ELDEST

Council

Council

Council

(Housemasters)

(Housemasters)

(Housemistresses)

Fig. 7 .1. The Organizational Structure of the Federation.

As Fig. 7.1 indicates, Shenoute's monastic fcderation consisted of three congrega tions, co mprising t\'IO monasteries for men (located at the White Monastery and the R ed Monastery); a nunnery for women, located in the v:illage ofTriphiou (probably the archaeological site of Atripe); as weU as a lustcr of male and fcmale hcrmits living along the base of the Ge bel or va lley wall. A suprcmc leader (S he noute, for example) headed the fcdcrati n

http://coptic-treasures.com

76

B[NTLEY LAYTON

as a whole. Under him, cach of the three congregations was headed by an officer callcd the Eldest; and each congregation had its council of eiders who served a advisors. The monastic population of each congregation was enclosed by a wall and was divided into units called houses. Each house was headed by a housemaster or housemistress. The daily schedule 8 of the monks or nuns consisted of six events, which were obligatory for ail healthy monks or nuns. As Fig. 7.2 indicates, just bcfore dawn a great asscmbly was held in each of the three individual congregations for prayer, instruction, and communal handiwork. At 6 a.m., a smallcr meeting for prayer and handi'vvork was held in each of the houses of each congregation; and the samc repeated at (probably) 9 a.m. At 12 noon there was a communaJ mea1 in each individual congregation. At 3 p.111. was anothcr meeting in each of the houses for prayer and handiwork, and in the evening, another great assembly for each entire congregation.

1. Just before dawn, a great assembly, that is. a collective meeting for prayer and hand iwork in each entire congregation (i n the church bui lding?) 2. 1st hou r (6 a.m.), prayer and hand iwork in the houses 3. 1... ] hour (9 a. m .?), prayer a nd hand iwork in the houses 4. 6th hour (12 noon), the dai ly meal 5. 9th hour (3 p.m), p rayer and handiwork in the houses 6. Evening, a great assembly

Fig. 7.2. The Daily Schedule of Monastic Life.

Twice a weck, we are told, on Wednesdays and Fridays, one of the smaller meetings included a catechesis-an instruction. And thrce times a week, on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturday nights, one of the great assemblies also included an instruction. 9 1 will now rcrum to the ancient rulc books that Shenoute mentions. How were thcse books used in the fcderation? The answer to this question cornes from Shenoute's own statemcnts, 10 which tell us the following. At the most intimatc organizational lcvel, passages from thcsc rule books were sometime read aloud or interprctcd in catecheses or instructions that were given t'vvice a weck in each house by

http://coptic-treasures.com

1

THE ANCIENT RULES OF SHENOUTE S MONASTI

FEDERATION

77

the housemaster or mist:ress. This would have taken place at a smaller meeting held, at either 6 a.m., 9 a.m., or 3 p.m . . in each House. Here, personal spiritual intimacy was the ton e. The housemaster or mistress was the most significant spiritual advisor to the individual monk and nun, and indeed, these officcrs were also called "Congregational Parents. " 11 These officers monitored the spiritual state of eac h monk and mm, and their twice-a-\.veek catecheses werc an occasion for leam.ing, participation, group response, and bonc:Lng-rnoments of grcat emotional significance. Here the rules were translated into patterns of daily life at the most personal level, under something like parenta l guidance. Second , highcr leaders also occasionally used or interpreted the ancient rulc books to insrru ct a large audience. Such plenary instructions \Vere given in one of the great assemblics consisting of ail the rnonks or nuns in a given congregation. Third, the rulc books were required to be publicly read out in their entirety during each of the four weeks of annual plenary meeting, 12 in 1 \ \ hich all the members of a given congregation were told to scrurinize their vvords and deeds in the Light of the written ruJes. Possibly these weeks were the first week of Lent, Easter week, and tv-.1 0 other weeks of the year. Fourth, and finally, when any newcomcr came to the gate of the monastery and anno unced his dcsire to become a monk, 13 he was first scrutin.ized by the gatekeepcr and thcn cxam in cd by the suprerne leader ( hcnoutc, in this case). Finally, hc was lcd into the church, and beforc the altar he had to swcar a solcmn oath that hc would agrce to the way that the monks live and comply with any and all n1les on pain of expulsion. This was a vague and insubstantial promise to kcep all cxisting rulcs, evcn though he did not know what they were. For, thcre would have becn fàr too many rules to leam at once-a thousand or more, probably--and anyway, most of them. would make absolutely no sense without a prior knowledge of the term:inology, roles, and organization of the monastery, which the newcomer had not yet internalized. Yet, in making h:is monastic vow, he leamed that formal rules ex:istcd and tliat they would omehow be used in the future. Herc wc sec the use of rulc book as an id ca or mental icon without yet, as it were, opening their covers. In su1nmary, thcre wcrc at least four ways that rulc books were uscd in the White Monastcry fedcration . First, in orne of the small-scale instru tional meetings in the individual hou es. Second, in somc of the largc-scalc great assembly meetings of the individual congrcgations. Third, to be ritually

http://coptic-treasures.com

78

BENTLEY LAYTON

rcad aloud in thcir cntirct)' bcfore cach individuaJ congregation, du ring each of the four weeks of annual scrutiny. And fourth, as an object of unkno-wing obedicnce, to which refcrcnce was made whenever a new monk or nun took their oath of submission . There is no indication that low-lcvel, ordinary monks ever posscssed, borrowed, or even touchcd a rulc book, and it is most unlikely that they wou ld have donc so. Such books were instrucrional, disciplinary, and ritual tools, meant to be used, interpreted, or altercd by authorized leaders of the fcderation. They were matcriaJ for the use of teachcrs and supervisors. o, what did thcse rule books look like? Exactly what did they conta.in? Unfortunatcly, 1 cannot find any way to rcconstruct their exact contents. Nor do l know how they were arranged. Ho·wcvcr, it is possible to make a fcw observations bascd on the forms of the surviving ru les that arc quoced by Shenoutc in the Canons. 1 have studied the formaJ sryle of the White Monastery rulcs co llected in my database 1" and discovercd that about 40 perccnt-ncarly half-have the sa me form as the Coptic rules of Pachomius, as published by Lefort. These rules are practical and casuisric. They are both affirmative and ncgative. Affirmatives usually express th e main comnund by Coptic efirn- (somctimes efe-), and negatives by 11mf-. Casuistic conditions are exprcsscd by formai conditional sentences (if . .. then .. .) or by adve rbial elements such as at a11y ,~ive11 ti111e, a11yo11e in this co11,{Zre,gatio11, m1yo11e i11 tliis co11p,regation f///iether 111afe or femafe, exœpt with permission of s11ch-a11d-s11ch a11 offiœr, except i11 case of e111ergc11cy or of sick11ess, ctc.-in other words, practical administrative mies gearcd to dai ly appli cation. ln my current research on the White Monastery rulcs, 1 am in the process of comparing the e rulcs with the somewhat earli er rules of Pachomius. Shenoute, of co urse, kncw about Pachomius, who had dicd 15 one year before Shenoute was barn. henoute mentions Pachomius by name in the Ca 11011s and knows about the story that Pachomù1s received bis rules from an angel. 1