Shenoute and The Women of The WH PDF

Shenoute & the Women
of the White Monastery:

Egyptian Monasticism
in Late Antiquity
Rebecca Krawiec
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery
This page intentionally left blank
Shenoute & the Women of

the White Monastery
EGYPTIAN MONASTICISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY
Rebecca Krawiec
1
2002
Oxford New York

Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogot Buenos Aires Cape Town
Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi
Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi
Paris So Paulo Shanghai Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw
and associated companies in
Berlin Ibadan
Copyright 2002 by Rebecca Krawiec

Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.,
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Krawiec, Rebecca.
Shenoute and the women of the White Monastery: Egyptian monasticism
in late antiquity / Rebecca Krawiec.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-19-512943-1
1. Shenoute, ca. 348466. 2. Monastery of Apa Shenoute (Sahaj, Egypt)History
3. Monastic and religious life of womenEgyptSahajHistoryEarly church,
ca. 30600. I. Title
BR1720.S48
K73 2001
271.900623dc21
00-050131
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
For
JOHN
Acknowledgments
This book began as my dissertation, written under the direction of Bentley Layton at
Yale University. I must begin by thanking Bentley for his many ne qualities as an adviser, including his uncompromising standard of excellence, the work he contributed
to help me strive towards that standard, and the faith he had that I could achieve it.
To whatever degree I have succeeded both then and now, I owe him my gratitude.
Stephen Emmel suggested this project to me and has been extremely generous in
sharing his own work, including transcriptions and translations, with me. For that
and his supportive friendship I give him thanks. Rowan Greer and Wayne Meeks
both contributed helpful advice and warnings that kept me from going down treacherous paths.
Two institutions furnished me with nancial support at the dissertation stage. In
1995 Yale University awarded me an Enders travel fellowship which helped make
possible a trip to Paris to study some of the pertinent manuscripts in person. That
same year the Mellon Foundation provided generous support through a dissertation
fellowship. I would like also to thank the librarians at the Bibliothque Nationale in
Paris for their hospitality.
In the years since nishing the dissertation, when I was revising the manuscript
into a book, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to work at several places and give
papers to a variety of audiences. In 199798 I was a Research Associate and Visiting
Lecturer in the Women and Religion Program at Harvard Divinity School. I wish to
thank the interim director, Deborah Valenze; the other research associates, Katherine French, Carol Karlsen, Susan Shapiro, and Amina Wadud; the administrative assistant, Julia Starkey; Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza, Franois Bovon, and the New
Testament faculty and graduate students; and the members of my seminar. All con-
viii
Acknowledgments
tributed to a lively, friendly, and stimulating community that helped my ideas grow
and develop. Susan Shapiros scholarship and conversations were especially important for shaping my thesis on monasticism and gender. In the summer of 1999, I was
a participant in an NEH summer seminar on Roman Egypt, led by Roger Bagnall at
Columbia University. I would like to thank Roger and the participants of the seminar for their discussions.
Portions of chapters have been given as papers on the following occasions: the
1995, 1997, and 1998 national meetings of the AAR; a regional meeting of the AAR
in St. Paul, MN in 1997; the 1997 and 1998 meetings of the North American Patristics Society; lectures at the University of Minnesota (1997), Duke University (1997),
Bryn Mawr College (1998), Harvard Divinity School (1998), and Brandeis University (1998). I thank all audiences for their comments and questions on these occasions. In addition, thanks to Philip Sellew, Elizabeth Clark, Richard Hamilton, and
Bernadette Brooten for their invitations to speak at their institutions. Finally, a paper I gave at the 1997 annual meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt was
published in the Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrology; much of that article appears at varous points in this book. Thanks are due to the editor of BASP, Terry Wilfong, for his comments and encouragement. In addition, I presented a draft of that article to a faculty seminar on religion in antiquity at Brown University (1997). Thanks
to Stanley Stowers for his invitation on that occasion and to the participants for their
suggestions.
As I was nishing the nal revisions, David Brakke and Caroline Schroeder read
the entire manuscript, and Roger Bagnall read the Introduction and Chapters 1 and
7. For their comments and insights, as well as corrections, I am grateful. Bentley Layton, at an earlier stage, graciously checked my translations of the Coptic throughout.
Dwight W. Young generously corresponded about recent translations. I would also
like to thank the two anonymous readers, Cynthia Read, Robert Milks, and my copy
editor at Oxford University Press. All errors, needless to say, remain my own.
Finally, I would like to thank the following people who have provided support in
a variety of ways throughout this process: Dean Bchard, SJ; Regina Plunkett Dowling; Susan Harvey; Andrew Jacobs; Flora Keshgegian; Derek Krueger; James Ross
Smith; Stanley Stowers; Kristen Welsh; my colleagues in the Department of Classics
at the University at Buffalo, especially Martha Malamud who read the manuscript,
and Melissa Rothfus, who provided last-minute babysitting; my parents, brother, and
sister-in-law; and, of course, my husband, John Dugan, to whom I dedicate this work.
Our son, Joseph Joo Won Dugan, arrived to us from Korea just as the manuscript received nal copyediting. I can think of no happier ending to a long project.
Contents
Abbreviations, xi
Introduction, 3
1. Daily Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute, 13
2. Womens Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute, 31
3. Shenoutes Discourse of Monastic Power, 51
4. Acceptance and Resistance: The Womens Power, 73
5. They too are Our Brethren: Gender in the White Monastery, 92
6. Gender and Monasticism in Late Antiquity, 120
7. Womens Role in the Monastic Family: The Intersection of
Power and Gender, 133
8. According to the Flesh: Biological Kin in the
White Monastery, 161
Notes, 175
Bibliography, 237
Index, 245
Abbreviations
AHR
APF
BASURSS
CGC
CSCO
CSEL
HE
Let.
LH
HTR
JAAR
JAC
JECS
JFSR
JHS
JJP
JAOS
JRS
JThS
Leipoldt, Opera
Muson
New Test. Stud.
American Historical Review

Archiv fr Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebeite
Bulletin delAcademie des sciences de lURSS, classe des
sciences sociales
Catalogue gnral des antiquits gyptienne du muse du
Caire
Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
Corpus Scriptorum Eccleasiastiacorum Latinorum
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
Letter
Palladius, Historia Lausica
Harvard Theological Review
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Jahrbuch fr Antike und Christentum
Journal of Early Christian Studies
Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion
Journal of the History of Sexuality
Journal of Juristic Papyrology
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Journal of Roman Studies
Journal of Theological Studies
Leipoldt, Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia
Le Muson: Revue dtudes Orientales
New Testament Studies
xi
xii
OLP
Or
PG
VC
WZKM
YCS
Young, Manuscripts
Abbreviations
Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica

Orientalia
Patrologia Graeca, ed. J. P. Migne
Vigiliae Christianae
Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes
Yale Classical Studies
Young, Coptic Manuscripts from the White Monastery:
Works of Shenute
Introduction
Shenoute and the White Monastery

This book provides an account of a group of women who lived in a monastic community in Egypt in the fourth and fth centuries. I cannot begin my study with these
women, however, but must start with the man who provides us with their story. About
385, a monk named Shenoute became the third head of the White Monastery, located near modern Sohag in Upper Egypt.1 Shenoute, then in his mid-thirties, had
lived in the monastery for nearly thirty years, since the age of seven. He remained
head until his death, which is thought to have occurred in 464 when he was somewhere between 115 and 118 years old (the span of his life was roughly from 348 to
464).2 During his tenure as head, he was active both in his monastery, as his many letters to the 4,000 monks (2,200 men and 1,800 women) under his care attest, and in
the surrounding community, as the numerous extant public sermons show.3 Like
other Christian leaders of late antiquity, Shenoute was involved in civic affairs in his
vicinity.4 His role in the non-monastic community has interested scholars of Egypt in
late antiquity, but his place in the development and history of monasticism has been
largely ignored.5 He was an advocate for the poor, willing to speak on their behalf to
both Christian and pagan civic leaders.6 His monastery provided bread for the hungry7 and shelter for refugees during military raids by foreigners.8 He linked Upper
Egypt to the hierarchies of Alexandria, both civil and ecclesiastical.9 He was also a
violent opponent of native Egyptian religion in his area.10 In one sermon, for example, Shenoute gives an account of a raid he led on a local governors house during
which he deled the house by pouring urine out of vessels.11 Shenoute was not simply
a spiritual patron, as Athanasius portrayed Anthony, but a civic and economic one as
3
Introduction
well.12 In his leadership of the monastery also, Shenoute was a man of extremes,
which at times aggravated his followers and yet did not hinder the growth of his
monastic community.
Shenoute rose to prominence when Alexandria was one of the most important
cities in the Mediterranean world and its patriarch had become one of the most powerful church leaders. He was involved in the controversies of his day, even traveling
to the ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 to defend Alexandrian theology in the
christological controversy.13 His numerous writings appeared only a century after
Coptic emerged as a normalized language. As the rst great author in Coptic,
Shenoute was never surpassed for his literary contribution as a prolic author and for
applying the principles of Alexandrian theology and Greek rhetoric to Egyptian
monasticism.14 Why, then, is Shenoutes name virtually unknown, and why are his
life and writings largely ignored by studies of antiquity? Shenoutes absence from the
Greek and Latin sources that dominate the study of Egypt in late antiquity is one
reason for his obscurity. Also, after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Egyptian Christianity separated from Catholic Christianity, and so from the future of either Catholicism in the West or Orthodoxy in Byzantium. But even within the African Monophysite context, Shenoutes writings, which were copied by monks in the monastery
for centuries after his death, eventually ceased to be transmitted, even as the remaining manuscripts fell into disuse and decay.15 Coptic had ceased to be a living language by about 1000 CE, and Shenoutes works, which are rhetorically elaborate and
difcult to read, were understandably neglected as middle Arabic became the literary
vehicle of Christianity in Egypt. The recent publication of an English translation of
the hagiographic life of Shenoute has helped revive his name among historians of
Christianity. His own writings, however, remain in disarray and, for the most part, unknown and even inaccessible to historians of ancient Christianity and indeed even
to Coptic monks who continue to live in the White Monastery today.16
The study of ancient history is often intertwined with technical questions of documentation and nowhere is that more true than the current state of study on Shenoute. The historian encounters two enormous problems when studying Shenoutes
works. First, there is no critical edition of any of Shenoutes writings, of which many
remain unpublished. Shenoute collected his literary works to be transmitted in two
large units: (1) nine collections (Canons) of letters, which he wrote either to the
whole monastery, to the mens or womens communities, or to individuals; and (2)
public sermons (Discourses, or Logoi), which he preached throughout his tenure as
archimandrite of the White Monastery.17 These sermons and letters are preserved in
some ninety-two separate manuscripts, many of them badly damaged and nearly illegible.18 Only some of his works have been translated into Latin, French, or English.19 Even though a large number of manuscripts are extant, few individual works
survive in their entirety. Scholars have long noted the need for a critical edition of all
these manuscripts so that interpretation and translation can begin.20 Only when such
an edition appears will Shenoute be given his rightful place in the historical study of
late antique Egypt.
Shenoutes style poses a second obstacle. His Coptic, which is rhetorically complex, is notoriously difcult, with many stylistic oddities that hinder idiomatic English translations. In order to make my translations more immediately intelligible, I
Introduction
have taken the liberty of smoothing certain aspects of Shenoutes syntactical structures such as his references to himself as the one who speaks to you or other thirdperson phrases, his unexplained changes in pronouns, and his cryptic monastic language.
The Women of the White Monastery: A Methodology

But is this a study of Shenoute or is it a study of women in the White Monastery?21 It
is, and must be, both. While it is possible to study Shenoute, or the monasticism practiced in the White Monastery, without focusing exclusively on the womens lives, it
is not possible to examine the evidence for these womens lives apart from the author
of that evidence, Shenoute. Our knowledge of the womens monastic experiences,
therefore, results from Shenoutes narratives, since the letters the women wrote have
not survived. Women were involved in every type of monasticism in every part of the
Mediterranean world, and so it is not surprising that there were female monks in the
White Monastery.22 Unlike other forms of monasticism, women seem to have been
part of the White Monastery from its inception, rather than brought into an alreadyestablished male system later, when the need arose. The beginnings of the White
Monastery, however, are obscure, and so we have to limit ourselves to understanding
the state of affairs in the time of Shenoute. The nine Canons are our main source of
information about the functioning (and dysfunctioning) of Shenoutes monastery,
giving a detailed view of him as a monk, father of the monastery, prophet of doom
for the sinners in his community and prophet of salvation for those who repent.23
Throughout these canons are thirteen letters that Shenoute wrote either to the female community or to individual women. In this study, then, we must rst understand
Shenoute as the author of the letters and as head of the monastery, and then approach
the women who were under his care and control.
This problem of the relationship between the author and audience of the letters
immediately raises a serious methodological question, namely, How should one read
Shenoutes letters in order to reconstruct the womens experiences? Is such a reconstruction even possible, without entailing an uncritical acceptance of Shenoutes version of events? I will argue that we can understand some of the quality and experiences of some of the womens monastic lives under Shenoutes leadership, though
often only through Shenoutes representation of those experiences, shaped by his
own goals and agenda. Indeed, in some ways we can learn more about this form of female monasticism than contemporaneous movements elsewhere in Egypt, in Palestine, Asia Minor, and North Africa. For the most part, we have only monastic rules
and hagiographies as the sources for other monastic systems in the late antique
Mediterranean world. Such non-Egyptian letters about monastic women as happen
to survive are more like treatises and less like documentary sources about the womens
monasticism. So, unfortunately, the study of late antique womens monasticism is
hindered not only because our sources are all authored by men, a well-known problem, but also because, in the words of Elizabeth Clark, [they are] so propagandistic
and rhetorical that the attempt to extract historical information from [them] might
seem futile.24 Shenoutes letters are also written by a man and they are also highly
Introduction
rhetorical, yet they contrast starkly with other sources for female monasticism. Since
they were written in response to conicts in the monastery, they record the breakdown of the ideal presented by the monastic rules and, unlike hagiographies, we can
be reasonably sure the events they record actually happened. Rather than being compared to other fourth-century letters, they would be better compared to those of Paul,
as I explore later. While at times difcult and obscure, they nevertheless reveal a type
of evidence that has rarely survived for women in antiquity. They record both incidental details about the womens lives and occasionally their voices and actions, albeit as reportedoften spitefullyby a disapproving male leader. Not only does
Shenoute, as their monastic leader, deserve his rightful place in the history of the development of monasticism; so do the female monks themselves, even though we can
hear their words only on Shenoutes lips.
This project, therefore, has three methodological layers which need to be distinguished: textual, rhetorical, and historiographical. First, it was necessary to translate
the thirteen letter fragments, published and unpublished, themselves. For the most
part, my access to unpublished manuscripts has been through microlm copies. I was
also able to collate some manuscripts during a research visit to the Bibliothque nationale of Paris; these constitute a majority of the textual witnesses for Canon 2 (discussed in chapter 2). Wherever I cite unpublished sources, I have provided a transcription of the text at the rst citation.25 These letters suffer from the same problems
of fragmentation as does the rest of Shenoutes corpus: only one has survived more or
less complete, and even this manuscript has occasional tears. Consequently, some of
these letters, and their ensuing translations, consist of little more than a sentence
or even just part of a sentence. Many manuscript pages are isolated, missing several
folios both preceding and following them, and the pages that do survive are often torn
as well, so that as much as a half to two-thirds of the page might be missing. For example, four pages of one of the rst letters to the female community consist of two
manuscript folios (with a front and back). The pages preceding the rst folio (which
is numbered pages 63 and 64) are missing, as is the intervening page (65 and 66), and
anything following the second page (number 67 and 68).26 Thus we have four pages
of a letter of undetermined length, but even these four pages are interrupted by a lacuna. While some full sentences of this particular letter make sense on their own, often only comparison to fuller descriptions, from other, more complete letters, of the
womens monastic experience makes sense of an isolated comment or half-phrase.
Some phrases might reappear in another letter, or some issue might recur, expressed
in similar enough language to make sense of a half-sentence whose meaning was obscured by lack of context. Overall the various fragments provided clues that had to be
pieced together to create a picture of womens life in the White Monastery. It is a picture, sadly, with many missing parts. In the presentation that follows, I have not belabored what we do not know, but it is always helpful when studying antiquity to remain humble in the face of the vast amount of lost knowledge. I must add, as a nal
caveat about the state of these sources, that the picture I present might easily change
with future translation and interpretation of Shenoutes works that have survived.
Once translated, the letters had to be read, that is, their meaning had to be deciphered. Here two different levels of meaning emerge: Shenoutes language in the letters and the historical situation(s) underlying that language. These are rhetorically
Introduction
constructed documents which provide representations of events, rather than a documentary, factual account, but they also respond to historical events in the
monastery.27 Rather than functioning as propaganda, these letters were meant to provide a tting response to the historical situation of the White Monastery.28 Each of
the thirteen letters of Shenoutes that I analyze responds to an actual problem, sometimes describing it in concrete terms and at other times through metaphors whose
precise meaning is lost. It is possible, therefore, to analyze Shenoutes arguments to
reconstruct the situations that led to his response. Since, however, the facts of the situation were known to Shenoute and his audience, he does not often provide the details we would like to know. His concern is rather with the rhetorical construction of
his argument and the tropes therein. Our reconstruction is thus necessarily limited.29
Nevertheless, we must attempt to recover what we can of the womens voices through
the echoes of Shenoutes epistolary response. But even in locating these echoes,
Shenoutes rhetoric necessarily takes center stage. If ideology means the relationship
between language and the social structures that language supports, as Dale Martin has
argued, then this study examines Shenoutes ideology of monasticism and the effects
of that ideology on the women to whom he was writing.30
Three themes recur in Shenoutes language: power, gender, and family, and these
have become the increasing focus of recent scholarship on Christianity from Paul to
the fth century, especially those studies that examine asceticism and the body. One
might expect that this study would locate Shenoute and his monasticism in the context of other forms of late antique monasticism and the gender issues they raise; and,
indeed, I discuss these very issues in chapter 6. However, the references to Pauline
scholarship at various points in this study might be more surprising. There are, of
course, many competing methodologies for reading Pauls letters and for reconstructing these early Christian communities, as well as variety in the degree to which one
can use them to reconstruct accurately events in these communities. I am indebted
to some recent Pauline methodologies, not because I wish to argue that they are the
best methods to read Paul but because they provide the best methods for understanding these particular thirteen letters of Shenoutes.31 This scholarship on Paul is pertinent to Shenoutes letters since the two authors share literary strategies that respond
to similar situations. First, many of Shenoutes tropes for issues of authority, monastic
unity, family, and gender reect Pauls own language. That is, like other late antique
Christian writers, Shenoutes rhetoric is infused with references to, and interpretations of, Scripture.32 In addition, both men were physically distant from the communities they address; both sought to establish themselves as the proper moral and religious authority to that community, often against challenges to them; both shared a
similar understanding of their closeness to God and the knowledge that relationship
affords them; both can be frustratingly obscure about the details of the situation that
has led them to write;33 and both have complex rhetorical structures in the presentation of their authority. Finally, each man needed a discourse to create power in his
particular circumstances. Elizabeth Castelli has compared the power Paul created
through his discourse to Foucaults denition of pastoral power: a power that exists
to lead followers to salvation; in which the holder of the power is willing to sacrice
himself for the good of the community; that addresses individuals as well as the group;
and that requires full confession of those under his care.34 Shenoutes power, in its
Introduction
goals and its functions, shares many of these same qualities and so shapes his letters
much as pastoral power shapes Pauls.
Approaching the Women: Format of the Study

In her introduction to Women, Men, and Eunuchs: Gender in Byzantium, Liz James
provides a useful analysis of three stages in feminist scholarship: the rediscovery of
lost women, added to standard historical description; then the placing of these
women in their socio-economic context; and the movement from women to
gender.35 She, like others, remarks on the naivet of the rst stage, which simply
added women to standard history. Because my study examines women in a littleknown community, it must necessarily go through similar stages even while incorporating the scholarly developments that have occurred. First, I present the background
of life in the White Monastery for all monks, male and female, based on the rules
Shenoute set for that life (chapter 1). Since the letters are largely unknown, and to
some extent unavailable, I then have to present these lost women, as recovered
through the voice and description of Shenoute. Chapter 2 consists of a series of narratives of the ten periods of conict that the thirteen letter fragments record. These
narratives, which are my interpretations of the letters and not historical fact, are necessary to provide context for the analysis that follows. They are meant simply to familiarize the reader with Shenoute, the White Monastery, and the issues the women
faced.
Once I have introduced the historical context of the monastery and the literary context of the letter fragments, I analyze how constructions of power, gender, and
family inuence life in the monastery. One central thesis links these three separate
analytical lenses: that Shenoute advocated a universal monasticism he dened in
terms of purity of the body, both individual and communal, a purity that could result
from properly disciplining the esh by the spirit so that differences located in the esh
(gender, biological kinship, social status) would not affect monastic practices (labor,
fasting, prayer, corporal punishment, and seclusion for women).36 This type of monasticism, under Shenoutes leadership and guidance, would allow the monastery to
become a salvic community, one that created in this life what Shenoute expected
the afterlife to be, like God and his angels, who live in heaven.37 This trope of monastic life as an angelic life was common in early Christian monasticism, as Teresa
Shaw has pointed out.38 Just as the ideal ascetic body represented the future body
of paradise, so too the monastic community as a whole was meant to represent this
state. Just as Shenoute borrows from Pauls language to express the spirits superiority,
so also he characterizes error as carnality, as being rooted in the esh. Like other
monastic leaders, such as Evagrius, he does not regard esh as evil but as limiting.39
Shenoute saw his leadership as necessary to teach the monks the right way to live in
the esh, a way that is in accord with the relationship between body and asceticism
evident in other fourth-century Christian theologians. A valorization of the spirit
over the esh is a precondition for living like God and his angels since this
metaphor requires humans (embodied in the esh) to discipline that esh in order to
live like angels, who might also be corporeal creatures, but who did not suffer the
Introduction
weaknesses of the esh. These themes, which Shaw has examined in their specic relationship to fasting, characterize Shenoutes writings to the monks in his care.
Shenoute taught this form of monasticism, namely, monasticism as a representation of the next life, to all his monks, women and men. Despite Shenoutes universal
application of his teachings, the single biggest difference between the future eschatological state and its current earthly version lay in gender. Women in the monastery
provided a litmus test for the limitations placed on Shenoutes metaphor, in a way
that other cases of carnality (such as biological relatives living together in the
monastery) did not. His paradoxical intention seems to be to include the carnal
within the monastery while wanting to deny its continuing existence once it has been
included. Shenoute thus advocates an asceticism that transforms the carnal into
something else, something closer to the spiritual realm of Gods community. At the
same time, however, he insists that gender cannot be transformed in this life, as he requires the transformation of biological familial relationships into spiritual monastic
relationships. The sexes, male and female, would continue in the next life but genderthe social constructions of maleness and femaleness embodied most clearly in
sexual tensionwould not, and thus the sexes could be united. In this life, however,
separation of the sexes was essential to the structure of the community, even though
it was directed to resemble God and his angels in heaven. This need to separate the
sexes, for Shenoute, created an inherent tension between the theological reasoning
of the goals he established for monasticism, which denied difference, and his actual
leadership of the womens community, which relied on social constructions of masculinity and femininity to justify the structure of the monastery.
As noted previously, Shenoutes presentation of his authoritythe necessity of
his leadership for the women to achieve salvationgoverns his correspondence to
the women more than does the gender of his audience. Indeed, Shenoute eventually
collected these letters into the Canons for the monastery presumably because each
letter taught all the monks some aspect of proper monasticism (no matter whether
the original audience was male or female, or both). Despite our excitement at reading Shenoutes letters to women, gender is less important than power in Shenoutes
own discourse. It would not be surprising to nd in Shenoutes addresses to men in his
monastery, language similar to that in his addresses to women, since all, as monks,
shared the same need for Shenoutes leadership in light of their fragile human state.
In this respect, we can regard some parts of Shenoutes rhetoric as egalitarian in that
he situates both men and women in a position similarly subordinate to himself. We
need to make sense of that discourse before examining where Shenoutes egalitarian
ideal failed to come to fruition in the experience of the monks. Therefore, although
the gender of the letters recipients denes the corpus for the two chapters on power,
I will not explicitly engage in gender analysis of Shenoutes presentation of his authority in those chapters (3 and 4). Rather, they will focus on investigating the main
tropes of Shenoutes rhetoric which construct his power over the monks (chapter 3),
and a historical reconstruction of the womens response to Shenoutes power (chapter 4). Chapter 3 shows that Shenoute, like Paul, uses imitation to valorize sameness
over difference and that he uses two main rhetorical self-representations, of being a
prophet and of suffering, to create his power over the monks. Chapter 4 examines
how Shenoutes efforts to construct his power in the womens community reect the
10
Introduction
ways the women were able to protect their own power. Their spatial distance from
Shenoute gave them the freedom to be less than fully compliant to his dictates and
to hide transgressions in their community.
Gender is, nevertheless, the crux of many disputes between Shenoute and some of
the female monks in his monastery. On the one hand, Shenoute attempts to efface
gender, both in his language and in his standardization of monastic practices between
the male and female communities. On the other, he allows gender stereotypes to enter his rhetoric at crucial moments when he chastises the women, and he uses gender
as the basis of the very monastic structure of separation that created obstacles to his
leadership. Chapter 5 explores this dynamic by examining both Shenoutes rhetoric
of unity, in which he acknowledges gender but dismisses its importance, and his rhetoric of difference, in which he highlights sexual difference as the reason for womens
place in the monastery. Both uses of gender in rhetoric reect historical issues in the
monasticism Shenoute was shaping: his rhetoric of unity appears when he wants to
subsume gender, as a source of carnality, into spiritual monasticism, while his rhetoric of difference surfaces when he needs to explain or even justify the decisions he has
made for the female community. Chapter 6 analyzes gender in the White Monastery
in the context of other forms of female monasticism in the late antique Mediterranean world to show not just points of similarity but also what is uniquely Egyptian
about the forms of male and female authority in question. It also compares another
level of gender interactions in Shenoutes monastery and in the rest of early Christianity by focusing on a particular group of monks, eunuchs. Since eunuchs had posed
a conundrum for Christian ascetic theology from its early days, their treatment in the
White Monastery and Shenoutes ambivalence about them points to similarities between the historically isolated monastery and more well-known Christian authors
like Clement and Origen of Alexandria.
Shenoute is not the only early Christian author who engages is what seems to us
to be contradictions. It may well have been that Shenoute, like his contemporaries, did not see a problem in his ambivalent attitude toward women monks, according them the same discipline, monastic practice, and leadership as the men, and yet
isolating them in their own community and creating a restricted space for them, because they were women. One reason that Shenoute saw no discrepancy (at least that
he acknowledges) may be that he treated the monastery as a family. Such a trope supported Shenoutes egalitarian language, in that all monks were siblings or, in Shenoutes phrase, brethren, and simultaneously allowed Shenoute to map certain
hierarchiesparent over child, male over femaleonto the monastery. Chapter
7 explores both Shenoutes use of familial language to shape relationships in the
monastery and the ways the monastery functioned as a family, replacing areas of material, emotional, and social support traditionally supplied by the family in antiquity.
I particularly focus on the position of the women in the monastic family, to see how
Shenoute used certain familial ideals to validate the gendered monastic structures described in chapter 5.
Yet this familial imagery and function exists alongside a Christian suspicion, or
even hostility, toward the family. Typically, Christian leaders argued against the biological family, in favor of a spiritual relationship mimicking the family, and the same
is true in Shenoutes monastery where biological kin and those who renounced their
Introduction
11
families, parents, siblings, and children lived side by side. As we will see in chapter 8,
Shenoute strove to reconcile his pro-family rhetoric with the expectation that eshly
family ties were to be renounced. Both biological kin and those without kin in the
monastery tended to treat biological kin as a separate and special group. In the case
of women with biological male kin, moreover, Shenoute sought to exploit those relationships for his own purposes. The only contact allowed between the male and female communities was through the male envoys that Shenoute sent to the female
community, as proxies for his leadership. These envoys might well include male relatives of female monks, and, on two occasions, Shenoute deliberately chose such men
to gain an upper hand in his power struggle with certain female monks. For both spiritual and biological kin in the monastery, the experience of family in the monastery
combined issues of power and gender in monasticism.
Such is the organization of the chapters that follow. And yet a central fact obstructs true clarity in this scheme: the letters themselves, with one exception, cannot
be dated, either independently or in relationship to each other. The exception is a
group of letters that date within a few years of Shenoutes appointment. Thus it is impossible to trace the development of any of these issues, such as developing authority, changes in gender roles, or more or less positive responses to biological kin. My
thematic approach compensates to some extent for the lack of chronology but necessitates some repetition of the evidence, albeit with new insights on each occasion.
Despite these difculties and limitations, I attempt to avoid excessively cautious
conclusions. The pages that follow introduce both a little-known gure in Christianitya man who, like many of his contemporaries, can be harsh in his language
and controlling in his leadershipand also some women who lived under his leadership, at times happily and other times with serious conict and dispute. For those
readers who are conversant with the scholarship on this period, Shenoute and his
women followers will at times appear well known, since they face similar issues and
share similar responses with many of their contemporaries. Yet there is also much that
is different and exciting in the sources I introduce, and altogether the familiar and the
new help situate Shenoute and the women of the White Monastery in their rightful
place in the history of Christianity.
1
Daily Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute
The daily life of the monks in the White Monastery revolved around prayer and work,
which, for Shenoute, were equally important. The spirituality of monastic life was
thus linked to the daily habits of the monks. In outlining this daily life, it is not
enough simply to describe the dress, work, worship and eating habits of the monks.
Rather, we must also determine how those rules created a sense of identity for its inhabitantsparticularly, for the purposes of this study, the women. The specic requirements of life in the White Monastery created a culture that was separate and
distinct from its surroundings: the regulation of food, dress, shelter, and sexuality that
constituted daily life created a communal identity for the monks. It was a salvic
community that was meant to live human life in a new way, dwelling with our companions in peace without sin and deceit, like God and his angels who live in
heaven.1 Those who held positions of power were also important in shaping monastic culture, since the exercise of power contributed to the spiritual experience of those
in the White Monastery. As head of the monastery, Shenoute, most scholars argue,
had inherited a pattern of austere life from its founder, who was his uncle Pcol. By
means of such austerity, Shenoute attempted to instill a sense of salvation in the
monks. His emphasis on obedience to his regulations as the sole means to salvation
permeated daily life and fostered a communal sense of redemption that determined
the ethos of the community.
In order to recreate this picture of daily life, I have relied on portions of Shenoutes
monastic rules. There are two difculties with this approach: rst, because the rules
are not yet published in any systematic way, I have had to limit myself to those rules
which scholars have used in previous descriptions of the White Monastery.2 Second,
as will become evident in my discussion of the development of communal monasti13
14
cism in Egypt, the rules do not record what life was actually like in the monastery, but
rather what the author of the rules wished that life to be. That is, they present an
ideal. For the purposes of this study, however, this ideal provides a useful backdrop for
the picture that will emerge from Shenoutes letters to the women under his care.
These letters, although they contain Shenoutes construction of events, provide the
best access to the reality that did not always, if ever, match the rules ideal. Nevertheless, the problems Shenoute will address in those lettersthe conicts that arose
and the transgressions that resultedwill make the best sense within the context of
what he had expected, as expressed in the outline of the daily life of the monks.
The White Monastery and Late Antique Egypt

The White Monastery was founded during the rise of monasticism in Egypt. The
traditional division in Egyptian monasticism has been between eremitical, semieremitical, and cenobitic. Eremitical and semi-eremitical (also called desert)
monasticismthat is, people retreating to the desert to live alone, in pairs or small
groupsremained vital but was more prevalent in the north, which had as formative
inuences the urban culture of Alexandria, the growing power of the patriarch, and
the legend of Anthonys withdrawal. In terms of cenobitic, or communal, monasticism, it had only been half a century since Pachomius (ca. 292346) founded his rst
community in southern Egypt about the year 323.3 The White Monastery, however,
challenges these categories. It was a communal monastery, although the various communities that composed the monastery as a whole existed at some distance from one
another. At the same time, there were anchorites, or hermits, who lived in the area
and were associated with the monastery; Shenoute himself lived alone in the surrounding desert for much of the time, rather than in the community with other male
monks. The White Monastery, then, had both similarities and differences with both
forms of monasticism, communal and solitary. Since this study examines the life of
women within the monastery, the main emphasis is on studying these women within
the context of communal monasticism.
It is perhaps simplistic to say that obedience was central to monasticism. Nevertheless, locating the sources of authority monks were supposed to obey is important
in the history of the development of monasticism. For the White Monastery, we rst
have to place it in the context of the development of monasticism as an institution,
and then examine the role of Shenoute as its leader. Communal monasticism permitted a number of monks to follow one leader, thus replacing the master-disciple relationship of desert monasticism with a general master who administered a written
constitution, or Rule. The Rule, and the general program of institutionalization of
which it was a part, affected monasticism in a variety of ways: authoritative gures
other than the master came to power; a need developed for mutual accountability of
the monks; and obedience was more strongly emphasized.4 Although these new
sources of authority developed, it remains uncertain to what extent the monks felt
compelled to obey them, despite the encouragement to do so. Philip Rousseau points
out the problem in the Pachomian communities: To live under rule, then, was to
15
acknowledge that a variety of inuences governed your life, or rather, provided for
your weaknesses and fostered your spiritual growth: the scriptures, the elders of your
community, your immediate superiors. It is vital to interpret aright the quality of submission implied by that acknowledgment.5 Given the dispersion of power, the superiors in the Pachomian monasteries had to develop strategies for maintaining their
own authority.6 The desert monks had advised their disciples to confess their hidden
thoughts; in the communal monastery, confession became more urgent, along with
judgment and correction, as the leaders fear that some monks might lead others
astray became more acute.
Communal life carried with it accountability and responsibility for ones fellow
monks, aspects of the monastic life that had previously been restricted to the monk
and his disciple in the desert. The solitary monks obedience was necessary, not just
as a good in itself, but as the means to insure that his or her actions were correct. According to Graham Gould, the fundamental problem here is, obviously, that a
brother who relies on his own knowledge and judgment rather than on his abba may
be deceived about his own life and fall into error or sin, or even just achieve nothing.7 The monks in the Pachomian communities had a sense of responsibility to their
fellow monks but were aware of the danger of leading ones companions astray.8 The
ability of the communal monastery to function as an institution, therefore, rested on
the monks adherence to the Rule. The details of the monastic Rule do not record,
for the historian, everyday life within the monastery but rather the expectation of
that monastic life. The Rule describes the structures of authority in the community
but only in their ideal form; even in the Pachomian monasteries, which scholars generally have regarded as more stable than the White Monastery, the rules did not precisely correspond to the real lives of the monks.9 Given that the monks could not adhere precisely to the Rule without occasional lapses, the leaders of the monastery had
to decide how to manage transgressions of it or, in other words, what punishments
were appropriate for a monastic community. In the Pachomian communities, despite
the fact that the Rule allows for beatings for many transgressions, the only evidence
of actual corporal punishment for disobedience is confused and for the sentence of
expulsion, Rousseau adds that probably the most we can conclude is that expulsion
was a rare sanction.10 Even though the monastic leadership feared that sinners would
damage their companions and pollute the community, the communal monks, like
those in the desert, hesitated to judge their companions out of a fear of God.11
Both the leader and the exercise of the Rule were vital to the development of
the monastic institution. Rousseau has argued that a hardening of attitudes accompanied the stabilization of the monastic communities.12 He points to Pachomiuss
fear that, with authority residing in the institution, jealousy and conict are inevitable.13 Pachomius also feared that legislation, rather than the archimandrites
example, would govern the monks.14 Scholarly opinion is split as to whether or not
there was a shift from verbal instruction to exemplary behavior as the primary means
of teaching in the development of monasticism.15 Even so, Rousseau and Gould agree
that the example of the monastic leader was important in both desert and communal
monasticism. Gould argues that monks were concerned with the questions of what
(apart from direct divine assistance) makes teaching authoritative, and how an abba
16
can teach effectively while at the same time maintaining his own integrity, his own
practice of virtues like humility and endurance and, above all, the surrender of his
own will.16 Just as the purpose of the teaching relationship between master and disciple in desert monasticism was to instruct the monk in the basic practices of the
monastic life, so the Rule in communal monasticism was to help the monk live an ascetic, solitary life in the midst of a community.17 But the solitary desert monks were
reluctant to present their sayings as divinely inspired, another means of authority.18
Shenoute, however, based his power on his Rule, which he codied and developed
from the version handed down from his predecessors, but which he presented as divinely inspired. Despite this difference, however, Shenoutes leadership was, as I will
argue in Chapter 3, characteristic of his time period: he strove to establish the Rule
and to determine punishment for transgressors and used himself as an exemplar of
complete obedience to the Rule and so to God.
Late antique Egypt is characterized not only by a variety of types of monasticism,
but also by the occasional power struggle between bishops, representing ecclesiastical authority, and monks, representing spiritual authority independent of church
structures. Among the many controversies and struggles that occurred during
Athanasiuss career as bishop of Alexandria, his attempt to include the monastic
movement, both solitary and communal, within the church institution had important consequences for Christianity. As a result of this maneuver, Athanasius could
enlist the powerful monkswhose holiness granted them a say in theological and
church matters, and who were infamous for their willingness to riotto help him
pursue his own goal of a unied Church.19 Three different forms of monasticism, solitary monasticism (Anthony), communal monasticism (Pachomius), and that composed of female ascetics (in Alexandria), were all part of Athanasiuss strategy. The
rst was described in his Life of Anthony, which limited Anthonys authority to the
moral realm, in order to exclude him from exercising power in doctrinal decisions:
This ethical mode of authority could co-exist peacefully with the political, doctrinal
and sacramental authority of bishops and priests.20 Athanasiuss presentation of Anthony as a model for imitation both drew on the role of the saint as exemplar in late
antique thinking and reected Athanasiuss own belief that Christians should use
past gures as models for their own lives.21 Thus, Athanasiuss description of Anthony
as a paradigmatic gure in his hagiography had both a social and a theological function within Athanasiuss agenda. Likewise, Athanasius visited the Pachomian communities in the south in order to establish ecclesiastical control over them, an intrusion that Pachomius was at rst reluctant to accept.22 Athanasius and Pachomiuss
eventual cooperation unied ecclesiastical and communal monastic authority within
the institution of the orthodox Church. Finally, women ascetics, brides of Christ,
who lived in Alexandria played a signicant role in Athanasiuss program, since their
inclusion within ecclesiastical structures expressed the same concerns as are evident
in the Life and in Athanasiuss relationship with Pachomian monasticism: curtailing
the independent authority these holy gures had, which made them possible rivals to
the ecclesiastical gures Athanasius supported. In the next generation, the key gures
were Cyril as patriarch of Alexandria and Shenoute as head of the White Monastery,
two men who at times worked together to promote Egyptian Christianity.
17
Daily Routine in the White Monastery

The White Monastery was located near the Western wall of the Nile Valley, 250 miles
south of Cairo and about 90 miles north of Luxor.23 The nearest modern village is Sohag, which lies across the river from Achmin (ancient Shmin). In the fourth and fth
centuries it was in the Panopolite nome, with a metropolis of Panopolis.24 The complex of monastery buildings does not survive intact and the site, which is located at
the edge of the desert, has not yet been fully excavated.25 The church building still
stands and its fortress-like structure suggested a militaristic interpretation to Johannes Leipoldt.26 Its white walls are the source of the modern name of the monastery.
The climate of Sohag is typical of much of Egypt: the average temperature ranges
from highs of 68 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit, and lows of 41 to 73. There is less than
an inch of rainfall a year. Until construction of the Aswan Dam in the middle of the
twentieth century, the Nile rose and fell annually, creating the harvest schedule. Today in modern Egypt, the region of Sohag is agricultural, and one presumes that much
the same was true in late antiquity, although the content of the crops has changed.27
Life in the monastery seems to have been focused on the work necessary to produce
food and clothing to support the community. Today crops, which are cash-oriented,
include tomatoes, cotton, watermelons, oranges, onions, and potatoes, while domestic food crops are corn, rice, wheat, millet, pumpkins, squashes, and especially dates.
In the late antique monastery, meals seem mostly to have consisted of bread and vegetables but it unclear which vegetables were meant. There is no indication in standard scholarly descriptions of the White Monastery that animals were raised, but today livestock is important to the region; water buffalo and dairy cows provide milk,
while chickens, sheep, goats, ducks, pigeons, and asses are all present.
Life in the White Monastery, then, was necessarily inuenced by its geographic location but the daily routine was equally important. A full account of a day in the life
of a monk in the White Monastery requires detail about the schedule of the day: the
time to rise, the order and range of activities after rising, the time of the daily meal,
how that meal was structured, and the services that took place following the meal.
Contributing to this daily routine were provisions for regulating food and clothing,
and forms of spiritual exercise, that also comprised the life of the monks.
It is generally thought that Pcol, when founding the monastery, followed the structure established by Pachomius.28 The many similarities between the two systems suggest this correspondence. The monks lived in houses, each with a house-master or
mistress; the monks themselves lived in cells, which may have been solitary or had
two to three monks in each cell. All monks shared work in the monastery, with different chores assigned to each house.29 In the case of the womens houses, at least
some, if not all, female monks were responsible for making clothing. There was a
common eating area, a common gathering place for worship, and an inrmary. Prayer
life was focused on services and psalm-recitation. However, there were also differences between the Pachomian and Shenoutean models, which have received much
attention in scholarship on Shenoute. Most important is the difference in severity of
life: Shenoute seems to have required more fasting (one meal a day rather than two)
and less food-centered worship (one Eucharist service a week rather than two) and
18
used corporal punishment and expulsion extensively in his leadership. The contrast
between Shenoute and Pachomiuss leadership could relate to differences in personality, but such determinations are difcult for the historian.30
Despite the importance of work in the White Monastery, it has been argued that
prayer, not labor, was the activity around which the day was structured.31 The monks
slept two to a cell in the monastery.32 They rose about an hour and a half before light
and immediately prayed; if they rose earlier, they were to pray longer.33 No monk was
to go to work without praying rst.34 They were also exhorted to pray ceaselessly, apparently throughout their workday. Praying was not just contemplative; it was a physical activity that required the monks to bend and rise several times in succession.35
Monks also recited Scripture during their work, and Shenoute was much like other
monastic leaders in his esteem for the Bible.36 Also at the beginning of the day, apparently before the monks went to work, a worship service was held with the reading
of Scripture and recitation of Psalms; the male monks read the Psalms without a break
between them.37 It is unclear whether the female monks attended the same service,
but it seems unlikely given Shenoutes concerns elsewhere that men and women in
the monastery did not attend funerals of their companions together.38 Prayer was thus
incorporated into nearly every aspect of a monks day. But neither the activity of praying nor its primary role means that life in the White Monastery was contemplative
and so inactive; rather, physical labor dened the monastic life, both in the act of
praying and in daily life.
A long workday accompanied the monks prayer life. Devotion to prayer was not
an excuse to avoid labor, even for the superiors of the monastery. Apparently the
monks did not eat before going to work, and the daily communal meal was held at
three in the afternoon.39 For the men, there were various forms of work, but the
women were apparently limited to the production of clothing.40 Female monks would
have learned to weave before joining the monastery, since women of every class in
antiquity acquired this skill.41 Likewise, many of the male monks had previous occupations; they were allowed to continue in the same line of work not by their own
choice but only if Shenoute appointed them to it.42 Doctors especially were among
those permitted to continue practicing their craft within the monastery; priests and
deacons who joined the monastery were also still authorized to perform the Eucharist,
though only at the request of someone called the father of these congregations,
most likely the head of the monastery.43 Other men performed more menial labor:
reaping rushes, plucking palm-leaves, lling up the vessel used for pounding soaked
reeds, gathering date-palm bers, grinding grain, and baking.44 Certainly one aspect
of the White Monastery was economic support for its members and the surrounding villages, leading Bell to call it, at least in Shenoutes successors day, the local industry.45 The monks labor contributed to the monasterys ability to provide economic assistance both to themselves and those seeking hospitality and charity from
them. Another form of work in the monastery was service to other monks.46 Monks
worked in the inrmary, the kitchen, or some other part of the monastery that performed the services necessary for a community of people. Thus the varied tasks necessary to furnish material support (especially clothing) and the jobs necessary to run
the monastery as an institution were all forms of work required of the monks, male
and female.
19
At the end of the workday (about 3 PM when the stiing heat begins to be unbearable), the monks gathered in their separate communities, men with men and
women with women, for the daily meal. The main food item was bread, baked by the
monks of the male community and distributed to all.47 The monks grew cabbage and
other vegetables to supplement their diet, but other foods that some monks from
poorer backgrounds tended to have as special treats were not allowed.48 The bread
could be mixed with vinegar, but wine was forbidden; the monks were permitted to
drink water, but only in small amounts.49 All eating was to take place during the main
meal of the day, at three oclock, in the main refectory.50 The amount of food distributed at mealtime was supposed to be meager, but we know from one crisis in the
womens community that the servers did not always follow this rule.51 Shenoute often spoke against clandestine eating, and the basic rule for daily eating was that no
one shall eat bread in these congregations except in the places appointed.52 He condemned the practice of monks who shared food from their own portion with fellowmonks; Shenoutes condemnation was especially strong if the monks were kin.53 In
addition to sharing, there was a prohibition against stealing the food of others.54
Shenoute also warned against claiming to be fasting within the refectory, but then
eating outside it.55
Shenoutes rules do not describe the process of the meal in much detail.56 The
monks were called to the refectory by the clanging of a metal gong.57 The door of the
refectory was not closed until the conclusion of the meal to allow for latecomers. All
monks had to attend the meal as a communal activity, even if they were in the midst
of a two-, three-, or seven-day fast.58 This last point makes clear the importance of the
meal for the community; even those members who might suffer hardship being near
food (since they were trying to fast beyond the daily requirement) had to attend the
daily meal in order to share the experience with their companions. Individual choices
about fasting did not allow for a monk to disrupt the communality of the monastery.
After the daily meal there was a worship service, although it is unclear how this
service differed from morning prayers. Leipoldt argues that Shenoute preached sermons during the weekend services, which laity attended as well as monks.59 The rules
for attending the worship service were typical of Shenoutes leadership of the White
Monastery: there was a stringent rule, accompanied by exceptions and allowances for
deviation.60 In addition to this post-meal service, there could also be night vigils.61
The ceaseless praying during the workday and the many worship services constituted
much of the structure of the monks daily spiritual life. Additional spiritual exercises
were performed by the monks, but not necessarily on a daily basis. One such exercise
was religious education, including Biblical instruction, but less is known about this
practice.62 The Eucharist was celebrated in the monastery, not daily but probably
every Sunday,63 an hour before the common meal, perhaps, argues Leipoldt, so that
Eucharistic materials were received on an empty stomach.64 Their only other religious services were funerals, which, like the Eucharist, required a priest or a deacon.65
Although not part of the daily routine, other rules governed the distribution of
clothing. The clothing that was distributed by the monastery was probably made
there; raising and harvesting ax was the mens work, while weaving and making the
clothing fell to the women.66 The womens control over the production of clothing
was at issue in several of their conicts with Shenoute. From these conicts we learn
20
that clothing was originally made in generic sizes but was eventually made to measure
for the men, or at least for Shenoute; and that it was more ornate than one might expect in an austere life, with fringes, varied colors, and other decorations. These details suggest that although the rules more often pertain to secret eating, conicts
about clothing were also a central problem in the functioning of the monastery, especially in relations between Shenoute and the womens community.
In their daily life, female monks prayed together, worked together, ate together,
and lived together, as did male monks, but in their separate community. All the
monks, male and female, lived within a system that was meant to foster mutual material support among all its members. Rules about the rest of the day are either missing or have not yet been explored; did the monks have free time? Were they allowed
to visit other monks during the day? The silence on these questions are due to both
the nature and state of the sources.67 A description of a day in the life of a monk necessarily focuses on schedules and the regulation of the monks access to fulllment of
physical needs, mainly food and clothing. Questions remain, however, concerning
the monasterys provisions for emotional, social, and spiritual support among its
monks. The analysis of these less tangible issues leads from a functional description
of daily life into an investigation of the culture that daily life represents, supports, and
maintains.
The Monastic Culture of the White Monastery

Spiritual Values
The main spiritual goal of the monksthe purpose of their work, prayers, worship,
obedience, and general ascetic lifewas to assure their salvation.68 While no one
could know for certain who was going to be among the saved, a monastic life correctly
lived offered a greater sense of the assurance of receiving that salvation. The belief
that one would receive salvation at Judgment Day, then, was the present reward for
living a monastic life. All aspects of monastic culture were transformed by the spiritual goal of the monastery: the control and limitation of both material goods and
emotional bonds dened the salvic monastic life, and the exercise of power functioned to help monks adhere to it. As head of the monastery, Shenoute presented
himself as one who was certain of his own salvation and certain that he could guide
his followers to salvation provided that they obey him (chapter 3).
The process of becoming a monk and thus a member of the community was
twofold: taking an oath and renouncing possessions.69 The oath provided a general
outline of the basic rules and the consequences of transgression, both of which received more detailed treatment in the rule material and in Shenoutes epistolary responses to conicts. The oath indicated how the boundary between the community
and the outside world was to be maintained (through particular actions) and the reward for obeying those boundaries (salvation), as well as the punishment for transgressing them (damnation):
Thus, each person shall speak as follows: In the presence of God, in his holy place, I conrm what I have spoken and witness by my mouth. I will not dele my body in any way;
21
I will not steal; I will not bear false witness; I will not lie; I will not do anything deceitful secretly. If I transgress what I have agreed to, I will see the kingdom of heaven, but
will not enter it since God, in whose presence I have established the oath, will destroy
my soul and my body in ery Gehenna because I transgressed the oath I established.70
The oath made purity of body the main symbol for purity of community; the body is
the thing that must not be deled and that (along with the soul) would be destroyed
as a result of transgression.71 Moreover, the oath made obedience central by mentioning two specic concerns that, according to the letters, plagued monastic life:
stealing and the hiding of secret sins. The oath thus implicitly emphasizes uniformity
of material possessions, which was not to be altered through stealing, and confession,
to ones elder and ultimately to Shenoute. Since the oath also describes salvation as
the goal of the monastic life, and even more vividly describes falling short of salvation, Shenoutes view of the importance of his rules is evident. Monks received salvation not merely by joining the monastery but by obeying him as the divinely chosen head of that monastery. When a person took this oath, then, she or he undertook
allegiance to a community that dened itself by purity in body and by obedience, both
of which were necessary to achieve salvation. The tenets of the oath contributed to
a sense of membership in a group that was privileged, that is, one separate in its way
of living and thus deserving better rewards than those obtained by people in the surrounding non-monastic culture.
Despite the religious nature of the community, not all people joined the monastery
to gain salvation; but even so their religious motivation should not be discounted. In
the Pachomian system, for example, hagiographic sources attribute two motivations
to Theodores mother for joining the female community: to see her son occasionally
from a distance and to gain her salvation.72 Even monks who had nonspiritual motivations, such as eeing arrest, taxes, and family conict, could also have been concerned about their salvation.73 Those who had mixed motivations, then, did not
necessarily challenge the spiritual values of the community. Any member of the
community could transgress the monastic rules and thus pose a threat to the assured
salvation by incurring Gods wrath. In his rules and letters, Shenoute usually describes transgressions as pollutions, which include but are not limited to bodily pollutions, such as illicit sexual activity.74 Stealing, lyingespecially when hiding
sinsand slander were common transgressions while blasphemy, drunkenness, perjury, and idol worship were apparently rare.75 Nevertheless, the limited scholarship
on the White Monastery usually describes life these as lled with disobedience. These
portrayals are based on the abundant documentation of acts of wrongdoing, a situation that scholars then contrast to the paucity of evidence of such behavior from the
Pachomian monasteries.76 What is ignored in this comparison is the difference between the nature of the sources from the two monastic systems: rules and hagiography are all that survive from the Pachomian. One suspects that a different picture of
that system might emerge were there letters like Shenoutes.
Nearly all the scholarly descriptions attribute the rampant vice practiced in the
White Monastery to the failure of Shenoutes leadership. Susanna Elm claims that
the monks engaged in so many violations that chaos reigned in the monastery, thus
suggesting that Shenoute was an ineffectual spiritual leader.77 Leipoldt suggests that
22
Shenoutes policy of strict self-denial of material things led to an increased valuation

of material goods, and thus to widespread theft; and likewise that his strict regimen
of fasting, combined with long hours of physical labor, explain the frequent stealing
of food, even the food for the Eucharist.78 Still another description, from Bagnall,
views the monks as typical Egyptian peasants, with sullen disobedience as their strong
characteristic.79 But Bell, in his introduction to his translation of Besas hagiography,
argues the opposite: that the rules emphasized obedience (the natural virtue of the
fellahin [peasants]).80 Veilleux further argues that in setting as many rules as he did
to regulate the many monks, Shenoute and his followers undermined true monasticism.81 None of these descriptions takes into account the evidence that Shenoutes
leadership attracted many people to join his monastery. Even more striking is the
length of Shenoutes leadership: despite evidence throughout the letters of numerous
periods of crisis during Shenoutes nearly eighty-year reign, on the whole the monks
remained loyal to Shenoute and committed to his leadership. Otherwise these conicts, severe as some of them were, would have fragmented the community. The precise historical question, then, is: At what points did the monks consider life in the
White Monastery unduly harsh, and what were their consequent reactions?82 Later
chapters attempt to answer this question, as it pertains to the female monks.
Material Aspects of Monastic Culture

The monastery served as a source of limited material support for the monks. The
monks enjoyed a guaranteed level of support but sacriced the possibility of periods
of plenty, or a life of variation. Every monk was to receive equal treatment and thus
equal amounts, in uniform quality, of food and clothing. The only valid exceptions to
this mandate were for those who sought greater asceticism than what was required by
the monastic rules or those who were ill. The distribution of food and clothing was
another means Shenoute used to cultivate a sense of community; that is, the regulations of material possessions had emotional consequences, fostering relationships
among the monks. Monks were also assured another need, shelter, so long as they remained members of the community. In this way monastic membership provided a
sense of safety.83 The material aspects of monastic culture were thus not merely mundane, but also a means to create a communal identity, which in turn would provide
social and emotional support for the monks.
Food was the most carefully regulated material commodity in the White Monastery, and its regulation had a dual purpose: rst, to insure that the biological need
for food was met adequately, which is to say, according to the ascetical values of the
community rather than the complete fulllment of the monks culinary desires; and
second, to create a communal identity through the uniformity of quantity and quality of meals. Shenoute argued for this uniformity as the basis of communal identity:
the monks knew that all were members of the same community because all ate the
same food as did their companions.84 At the same time, the monastic rules also allowed for occasional snacks.85 Thus it seems that eating outside the regular mealtime
was allowed but only if Shenoutes rules were followed. If a monk gave herself permission to have extra food, or ate without the knowledge of others, conicts could
arise not simply because of the food, but also because of the secrecy of the act.
23
According to Shenoutes denitions of what was necessary to live like God and
his angels who live in heaven, secrecy threatened the cohesion of the group, as did
any form of unexplained inequality. Accordingly, monastic superiors were not to exempt themselves from these same food regulations.86 The elders also had a responsibility to make sure that the monks did not work too long without eating nor fast excessively.87 The only monks who were allowed food that was different, in quantity or
type, from the norm were the sick; these monks were given, among other things, oil
in which to dip their bread, and also wine.88 Even with the allowances for additional
eating, there was thus a large discrepancy between the dietary rules for healthy monks
and for the ill. Shenoute had to include rules warning against feigning illness to get
more food, pointing out that truly sick people despise eating.89 The rules both for the
daily meal and for the many other forms of eating indicate that food was a complicated issue that could profoundly affect the communal identity and sense of mutual
support among the monks.
The regulation of food addressed not only circumstances in which more food could
be eaten, but also those involving less food. There were monks who waited to eat until after the main meal, later in the day, in order to perform a more severe fast. This
practice was allowed only if their asceticism did not lead to competition or jealousy
among the monks, thus disrupting the harmony that the equality of portions was
meant to achieve.90 There was a special fast during Lent for all except the older
monks, whether male or female, who were excused from it throughout.91 Once again,
it must be kept in mind that these descriptions of proper eating and fasting do not so
much represent the actual daily life of the monks as Shenoutes ideal of what that
daily life should be; if the rules were followed by every monk, the ideal would be
achieved. Of course, as we would expect, the monks often fell short of this ideal;
conicts about food are one of the most common kinds within the womens community of the monastery. In his letters, Shenoute upheld the ideal of the ruleswhat
was considered necessary for a monastic community dedicated to a path to salvationin the face of the reality of how the monks actually lived and fought; his ideology, the arguments he used to uphold the structure of the rules, and the monks
acceptance and resistance to that ideology, created the monastic culture of the community.
Transgression of these rules covered a wide range of possibilities. As mentioned
earlier, one crisis among the women took place when the food servers did not provide
equal portions but varied the amount of their servings according to recipient.92 In addition, some monks stole food to eat in secret, both for themselves and to help their
companions. Monks who were able to eat less were known to give food to others to
assuage their hunger.93 In one case, some female monks were so hungry that they stole
the bread for the Eucharist.94 While some of these actions were supportive of fellow
monks, they did not provide the type of support Shenoute advocated because they
were not uniform in application. Monks who stole or hoarded food to help other
monks were being selective about whom they helped, thus reecting an individual
choice. Shenoute objected to the introduction of such individuality into the community.
To foster further this environment, Shenoutes regulations about food also had to
control the emotional ties that the giving and receiving of food could create. The
24
monks were to regard the food they received at mealtimes as a gift from God, not as
a gift from the food server, and were to regard eating as an action done for God.95
Moreover, the monks were not to be ungrateful about the food they received, even if
it was not to their taste.96 Rather, there was to be a uniform response of thankfulness.
Shenoutes regulations about food, therefore, were not simply about providing necessary material support but functioned to create a communal feeling of mutual support.
The monks feelings in areas of life other than eating also were subject to
Shenoutes attempts at control. Leipoldt argues that for Shenoute work was not an
end in itself but the means to accomplish something else, namely control of the
monks activities and prevention of boredom.97 At the same time, Shenoute did not
want the monks to engage in work that they enjoyed, since satisfaction from work was
not its purpose.98 As with food, Shenoutes regulations of work entailed regulating
emotional responses to work, in order to create uniformity in every area of the monastic experience.
Clothing also provided a means of creating a sense of shared identity among the
members of the monastery. The tunic that a person received when joining the
monastery served to identify the monk as an inhabitant of the White Monastery.99 As
in the case of food regulations, clothing helped to develop a sense of partnership
among the monks, and its misuse could lead to division among them. Superiors were
not allowed to wear badges or any special material marking their authority.100 Of
prime importance, moreover, was that previous differences in economic class among
the monks not be noticeable in the clothing that they wore in the monastery; as with
food, Shenoute used clothing to control envy and promote peace among the monks
so that they would support one another.101 The arguments that arose over clothing,
at least among the women, were not based on the quality of the clothing but on quantity; as with food, some monks received extra clothing, while others did not.
Shelter was obviously provided in the monastic buildings. While the White
Monastery was one community under one Rule, it was not under one roof. There was
an inrmary, a refectory, the cells, and eventually a church building.102 It was a monastic compound, with several buildings in various locations; some of the buildings
were for men, some were for women. The mens community was at the edge of the
desert, contrary to the Pachomian style of location in a deserted village and more in
keeping with the literary conceit of desert withdrawal.103 The womens houses, however, were in a village, and thus at some distance from the mens.104 Monks were also
allowed to live as hermits in the desert, though still ofcially associated with the
monastery.105 Within each community, there were also individual houses; monks
lived in cells in these houses, possibly two to a cell, though the evidence is unclear
about exact numbers.106 It has been argued that Shenoute forbade living alone in an
attempt to hold monks accountable for their obedience to the Rule; ones cell-mate
was a potential informer about transgressions. However, the regulation may also have
been a consequence of limited space.107
The shelter provided by the monastery led to a sense of economic security and
physical safety, especially in times of foreign invasion. Given, however, the limited
resources (both in shelter and food) that the monastery provided, it is uncertain to
what extent this security was a compelling attraction of monastic life. There were
three economic groups in Egypt by late antiquity. The smallest group consisted of the
25
most wealthy urbanites, those who could live off the income from their property. The
second group, also property holders, lived in both the cities as part of the urban economy and the villages as landowners. The rest of the population survived through various economic relationshipsserf, servant, or slavewith the landowners.108 Recently, the common view that there was a severe economic crisis in fourth-century
Egypt has come under criticism, along with any consequent arguments that the population shifted into the monasteries because of economic deprivation.109 Landowners
were, however, facing heavy taxation, from which the lands of the White Monastery
may have been exempt.110 It is true that poverty, even if not widespread, was not
simply a difculty in antiquity but was life-threatening, especially for women; it may
be less true that the poor were the main source of Shenoutes converts to a monastic
way of life. Nevertheless, that several hundreds, and possible thousands, joined the
monastery was not an expression of naivet about monastic life, as Leipoldt suggests.111 Rather, it reects a religious movement that, whatever the economic conditions, in turn created a monastic culture. Partly through material means, this culture
formed a communal identity, encouraged a sense of mutual support, and fostered an
allegiance to the monastery.
Social and Emotional Aspects of Monastic Culture

The most often noted characteristic of Shenoutes rules are their great complexity
and great number: they covered every detail of the monks lives. The Rule not only
set down the expectations but also provided for exceptions, provisions, and possible
inconsistencies between various rules. The amount of regulation and length of the
monastic code is one reason that many scholars have described life within the
monastery as severe.112 It is certainly true that Shenoute was quite concerned about
the monks hiding deeds from him, a theme that recurs often in both the rules and the
letters to the women.113 However, to describe the number of rules merely as excessive
ignores their role for the formation of the community. By regulating the monks lives,
Shenoute provided certainty about receiving both material goods and emotional security.114 Emotional security is, of course, a rather vague and modern concept that
might prove difcult to assess in the monks lives. What I mean is the certainty of the
monks receiving salvation on the Judgment Day, if they followed the rules correctly.
These rules reinforced the boundary, also expressed in the oath, between the monastery and the surrounding society, between insiders, who were living for their salvation, and outsiders, who were in a less certain position.115 Regulation of the community encouraged protection of that boundary, to keep the group pure from polluting
activities that violated the integrity of the community.116 In addition to the pollution
with which transgressions infected the community, Shenoute was often anxious
about protecting his own purity and he would consequently chastise the monks for
their polluting actions. Symbolically, the rules regulating the boundaries for the human body reected the boundary that determined monastic (social) identity: rules
about eating, especially, but also rules regarding treatment of the body during corporal punishment and latent concerns about illicit sexual activity.117 By these means the
monastery molded the monks identity not simply as monks but as members of the
White Monastery in particular.
26
The division between the monastic community and the outside world created a
need among the monks to rely upon one another for emotional support. As head,
Shenoute encouraged love among them but also argued that it should be uniform
toward all monks. Thus, while it has been argued that one goal of the monastic rules
was to hinder bonds of affection between monks, especially between kin within the
monastery, it is more accurate to say that the goal was to maintain adequate emotional support, with no variance; in other words, Shenoutes approaches to emotional
support were similar to his views on material support.118
Whether sexual activity is a biological or an emotional aspect of culture, it is in
any case a part of human life that is expressly forbidden by Christian asceticism and
monasticism. There were, nevertheless, two means by which the sexual desires of the
monks were either met or, at least, acknowledged.119 The rst and more obvious of the
two was outright illicit sexual activity, most often homoerotic.120 Sexual actions by
the monks were illicit within the monastery as an institution and were punished accordingly. Second, there occurred within the monastic institution a discourse about
sexuality, most often in Shenoutes recurring entreaties for full confession by the
monks of any and all misconduct, including, but not limited to, sexual misdeeds.
While the number of known cases of illicit intercourse are relatively few, Shenoutes
use of sexual imagery to describe at least the female monks transgressions makes clear
that a discourse of sexuality responded to the sexual desires and tensions between the
archimandrite and monks. Shenoutes discourse about sexuality, then, reinforced his
power as head of the monastery because he was the speaker who was allowed to talk
about the forbidden, and he was the listener who forgave sinful monks and reconciled
them to the rest of the community.121 As with other material and emotional aspects
of monastic culture, Shenoutes control of the discourse of sexuality, like his control
over the distribution of goods and the monks emotional relationships, was the part
of the authority structures of the monastery, structures that existed to exercise power
as a means of guiding its members to salvation.
The Organization of Authority Structures

One of the boundaries negotiated by the monks within the monastery consisted of
positions of rank, by which Shenoute delegated authority to superiors under his care.
At the same time, the superiors allegiance to Shenoute, and the requirement that
they fully disclose all transgressions to him, reinforced his status as supreme head, or
archimandrite. The physical layout of buildings in the monastery determined much
of the hierarchical structure of the monastery. Given that the monks were spread out
over a considerable area, there had to be a way to hold them accountable to the Rule
and to identify, control, and punish sources of pollution, that is, transgressions of the
Rule. In addition to the geographical expanse of the community, there was also the
problem of the large numbers of monks. The solution for controlling thousands of
monks lay not only in the delegation of authority, but also in restricting the movements of the monks and thus their contact with the outside world. In addition, the
physical separation of the female community from the male led to special problems
in establishing Shenoutes authority among the women, as will be evident in later
chapters.
27
In both the mens and the womens communities, there was a position of authority known as the elder, who was an overseer of some sort. There were also monks who
served as the heads of the individual houses, who were known as house-people, or fathers and mothers.122 For each house, there was also a house second, an assistant to
the mother of the house.123 All other monks seem to have been divided according to
the amount of time they had lived in the monastery, creating two positions: senior
and junior. All the elders and house-people were expected to report activities, especially transgressions, to Shenoute; their reports were based on monthly inspections
of the monks in their cells for contraband food and for other transgressions of the
rules.124 This requirement was no less true for the men than for the women, an important point for understanding gender relations within the monastery. Thus,
Shenoute had a system in place whereby each monk reported to his or her houseperson, who reported to an elder, who in turn reported to Shenoute.125 This system
delegated not only authority but also the responsibility for the care of the souls of the
monks. Those issues that were left to the elder or the house-leader to judge became
her or his responsibility; she or he would be held accountable for the decision and its
consequences before God. In addition, Shenoute could demand information about
the transgressions of the monks under him with the justication that he needed to
protect his own salvation, which rested on his accountability for the sins of his
followers. Accountability, therefore, rose with increased authority within the
monastery.
In addition to the positions of authority, Shenoutes rules also required separation
from the outside world and between the sexes within the monastery.126 When male
monks went out from the monastery, they were to stay together so that they would
not have contact with those who were not monks.127 Even when they traveled in
groups, they were to talk little.128 There were two purposes for the monastic separation: one was to control situations in which illicit sexual activity could occur. This
goal is also evident in the rule that the doctors in the monastery were not for any reason to treat people, especially women, who were not members of the monastery or
treat men with sexual diseases even if monks.129 The second goal was to enforce the
boundary between the monastery and those outside. Finally, the rules for separation
also emphasized the barrier between those with and without power in the monastery.
The women, for example, had no one to complain to if they disagreed with the limits placed on their activities.
The Exercise of Power

The authority structures allowed a few of the monks to exercise power over most of
the others, but for the most part Shenoute made nal decisions. The system of cells
and houses set up surveillance of monks by their companions (even if they did not
share a cell) through constant reporting of transgressions for the purpose of instilling
guilt and maintaining obedience. Once a monk was reported for a transgression, there
were various punishments, escalating in severity: demotion in rank, corporal punishment, and nally expulsion. Neither the oath that the monks took upon entering the
monastery nor many of the rules themselves allow for forgiveness or penance in lieu
of punishment, both of which formed, however, part of the power structure of the
28
monastery. Punishments were not necessarily xed for particular transgressions but
seem to have been based in part on whether the monk had previous transgressions.
Repeat offenders were dealt with more harshly. Altogether, the exercise of power was
meant to achieve a unied community living without sin or conict; that is, the exercise of power was the means to creating a salvic community like God and his angels in heaven.
The main purpose of the initial phase of punishment was to correct the monk, so
that she or he did not lose her or his salvation. Two methods were possible: for the
rst level of punishment, a monk could be demoted back to the level of novice;130 the
second level was corporal punishment. Both these means were intended to teach
the monk about her error, and return her to the correct path to salvation. Corporal
punishment was common in the White Monastery. Leipoldt has argued that, given
the large number of monks and thus the lack of any personal bond between them and
the archimandrite, Shenoute would have felt free to administer frequent and severe
corporal punishment without emotional pain and hesitation.131 By postmodern
Western standards, the severity of the beatings may seem extreme, but it is less certain what judgment the ancients would have levied. I discuss both acceptance of, and
resistance to, corporal punishment by the monks more fully in later chapters; what is
important for my present purpose is the role of corporal punishment in the power
structure, enforced by the assumption that it would ensure that the errant monks
cease their illicit activities and return to a life that led to salvation.132 Furthermore,
only through all the monks acceptance and obedience could a communal sense of
the assurance of salvation survive.
Scholars have noted the supposedly greater severity and frequency of beatings in
the White Monastery than in the Pachomian monasteries, but here especially the
lack of attention to the varying reliability of the different kinds of evidence for each
community is problematic.133 In the case of Pachomian monasticism, the mainly hagiographic genre of the evidence does not permit us to form a view of Pachomius selfproclaimed position on controversial topics, whereas for life in the White Monastery
under Shenoute, rst-person evidence, in which he defends and explains his positions, as well as hagiography survives. If we had this range of evidence for the Pachomian monasteries, it is unclear whether the picture of Pachomian culture would be as
dissimilar to Shenoutes as scholars have claimed.
We know from a letter to the womens community, that at least to women, the
male elder administered beatings with a reed applied to the soles of the feet.134
Shenoute administered beatings to the men, which were more severe than those
given to the women, as can be seen in the case of a monk who incidentally died during a beating.135 If there was a list of punishable offenses correlating to severity of
beating, it has been lost; what can be known is gathered from various references to
beatings throughout Shenoutes letters. Not all beatings were inicted in public;
some were carried out in the monks private cell and others at the gatehouse of the
community.136 The severity of the beating depended in part upon the transgression;
again the best evidence comes from the womens community. Ten women received
beatings that ranged from ten to forty blows for sins that included: disobedience or
insubordination; homoerotic activity; stealing; lack of spiritual development; illicit
teaching; and lying.137 While some of thesestealing, lying, disobedience and sex-
29
ual activitywere clear violations of both the oath and the set monastic rules, otherslack of spiritual development and illicit teachingwere more ambiguous and
suggest that the rules served as an outline of the monastic life, while the reality lay in
the details of everyday experiences.138
Since the beatings were meant as a corrective, if a monk were caught in the same
transgression repeatedly, presumably they would become more numerous. At some
point, however, the beatings would cease and the monk would be expelled from the
monastery. Expulsion was the most serious punishment available in the White Monastery. D. Bell has asserted that expulsion was the equivalent of a death sentence, assuming that an exiled monk would have no means of economic support.139 This explanation, however, does not consider the fact that there were monks who voluntarily
deserted the monastery.140 Presumably these monks are not opting for death over life
in the White Monastery. Furthermore, as opposed to the tenure of Shenoutes successor, Besa, under Shenoute entering monks could renounce their belongings to a
secular person and were not obliged to hand them over to the monastery. Thus expelled monks had at least the possibility of returning to their biological families and
reclaiming their former property.141
While not a death sentence, expulsion was still a harsh punishment that caused
much conict. Shenoute used expulsion in order to cleanse his community of pollutions.142 Given the strong boundaries of the community, transgressions violated its integrity and repeated transgressions were too much of a violation to prevent purication. Expulsion occurred because a monk had, by her actions, become too polluted to
be able to live in the pure community without endangering the salvation of everyone
within that community. Expulsion also had social and emotional ramications for the
monks who continued to live in the monastery, because they suffered both a social
disruption in their communal identity and grief over the loss of monks with whom
they had established relationships.143 Expulsion suggested that a monk had become
incapable of salvation, a tenet that was in conict with the communal identity of a
privileged status and Shenoutes advocacy that the monks always show support and
forgiveness to one another. However, another of Shenoutes rules for his monks was
not simply to avoid sin, but also not to associate with sinners, both within and outside of the monastery.144 Such a command, while seemingly harsh and strict, was held
to be a necessary part of maintaining the purity of the community upon which salvation was premised.145
Conclusion
In the ethos of the monastery, salvation was assured if all accepted Shenoutes leadership, and it was endangered by any immorality, including disobedience, within the
community. The fact that only extreme possibilities existed in Shenoutes representations and the tension between these two possibilities, obedience and resistance, morality and immorality, both fueled monastic conicts over the exercise of power; in
the case of the women, these arguments regularly focused on Shenoutes role in their
community. On occasions when the monks objected to the harshness of Shenoutes
leadership, his response persistently drew upon his status as the man who was able to
30
lead them to their salvation. Such a defense was not merely rhetorical but based on
the spiritual values of both Shenoute and his followers. Moreover, Shenoutes rhetoric created and underscored those values. When Shenoute demanded detailed accounts of the transgressions of all his monks, this request arose from his belief that secret transgressions would, in addition to their inherent evil, destroy the communal
spirit that so much of his leadership promoted. In addition, the compliance of the
monks made Shenoute a confessor to the monastery, thus reinforcing his power as the
one man capable of reconciling errant monks to God. As head of the monastery,
Shenoute could try to control the monks activities, their emotional attachments and
their obedience, but his effectiveness was proportional to his ability to convince his
followers that he could enable them to fulll their purpose in joining the monastery:
that he could lead them to salvation. Shenoute was an effective leader of this community, for he challenged his monks to attain the ideal life, even while allowing for
failure and forgiveness (through punishment) within the community.
The doubts that historians have expressed about Shenoutes effectiveness and
their low evaluation of his style of leadership arise in large part from the fact that the
surviving sources, especially those for womens life in the White Monastery, are controversial. These present mainly an embattled picture of the women, of Shenoute,
and of their relationship, since every letter addresses some type of conicteither an
internal conict among the women which Shenoute was trying to quell, or a conict
between the women and Shenoute. Chapter 2 narrates these conicts to broaden our
picture of womens life, in particular, in the White Monastery. However, our only access is through Shenoutes own words including the types of images he used, the words
he chose, and the way he expressed themthat is, his rhetoric. It is essential, therefore, to understand how Shenoute verbally established and maintained his authority
in the womens community (chapter 3) before we can then examine the impact of his
leadership on the womens lives (chapter 4).
2
Womens Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute
We can now turn our attention to the thirteen letter fragments themselves, the subjects they cover, and the reconstruction of the events to which Shenoute was responding. Although in the wider array of all the letters of the Canons, Shenoute covers any number of issues, in the case of these thirteen, it is safe to say that happy
occasions never led Shenoute to write. Of the thirteen, the four letters in Canon 2
merit special attention for both literary and historical reasons. This canon is the only
one of the nine that contains a preponderance of letters to women, and so provides a
window into one period that shaped the lives of the women in the White Monastery
under Shenoute. Moreover, these letters date from the beginning of Shenoutes
tenure as archimandrite of the monastery and so document the period in which
Shenoute needed to establish his authority as the newly appointed head of the
monastery.1
The other nine letters each record a conict that varies in its level of severity. Although other letters were written about these various problems, only these nine were
collected in the Canons.2 They are spread throughout Canons 39, with Canon 6 containing four of the nine. These other letters share points of similarity with the rst
four, especially when Shenoute presents arguments for his authority. There are also
new sources of conict, such as Shenoutes use of corporal punishment and expulsion
to punish errant monks. These nine letters, like the four in Canon 2, all survive in
varying states of fragmentation, leading to similar interpretative difculties (see Introduction). In addition, Shenoute rarely gives many details about the conicts that
occasioned his epistolary response. Rather, he assumes the women knew the details
and spends much of his letter presenting instructions about some aspect of monastic
life that he thought was relevant to the conict. Thus, as noted in the Introduction,
31
32
the historical situation must be reconstructed through Shenoutes rhetorical response, peppered with some straightforward statements but largely lled with metaphors, biblical exegesis, and the like. What follows is my interpretation of these letters for the purpose of creating a narrative of the historical events, and a summary of
the arguments Shenoute used.3 I have assumed that Shenoutes rhetoric provided the
most tting response to the situation but at the same time have to recognize that
his response was shaped by his belief that his view of the situation was correct, and
that the transgressors were in error.4
Although the four letters of Canon 2 date from early in Shenoutes tenure as head,
the chronology of the letters in the remaining Canons (3 to 9) is uncertain. Thus, for
example, events that are mentioned in Canon 4 may have happened before or after
those mentioned in Canon 6. It also is not certain that these letters span the entire
seventy remaining years of Shenoutes tenure as archimandrite. I will present the
crises in the order which they are mentioned in the Canons. My numbering thus is
arbitrary, based on Shenoutes collections of the Canons, and not an indication of historical order.5 I have also assigned shorthand names to each crisis, usually referring to
the major crisis in the letter but not encompassing all the topics of a letter, which I
will use to refer to these crises in the analyses in the following chapters.
The Initial Crisis (Canon 2)

Although the four letters in Canon 2 provide a record of the events following
Shenoutes appointment, it is an incomplete record since none of these four survives
in its entirety. Most important, none of the beginnings or endings of the letters survives, with the exception of the ending of the last letter.6 Thus, the boundaries of the
four distinct letters are no longer evident in the surviving fragments. The Canon
therefore must be used as one body of documentation that addresses a variety of issues, all of which pertain to one underlying crisis.7 The crisis began shortly after
Shenoute became archimandrite following the death of his predecessor, Ebonh, who
was the second head of the monastery, succeeding the monasterys founder, Pcol.8 It
stemmed from the institutional change as power shifted to Shenoute, and as he
sought to establish his authority over the womens community. The crisis manifested
itself in a number of separate conicts, some of which arose from Shenoutes objections to behavior in the womens community and some of which were internal to the
womens community but now had Shenoute as an arbitrator.
The crisis is rst apparent in the surviving record when Shenoute, as often happens with a transfer of power, became aware of current situations in the womens community which he wished to change. In this case, he somehow learned about behavior
among the women which he believed was in need of correction. The women were arguing about the distribution of material goods in their community, namely, two different types of clothing, sheep-hides, food, or any material possession at all.9
Shenoute, in accordance with the rules for the community, dictated that these materials should be distributed equally, without regard to monastic rank, gender, or any biological relationship among the monks: Whether a male elder or a senior female
monk, whether a junior male monk or a junior female monk, whether blood relatives,
33
or strangers, or orphans who do not have kin among us.10 The latter distinction,
whether or not a monk had kin within the monastery, seems to have been the most
important source of disagreement among the monks. The women who did not have
kin have complained that the monks with kin were better taken care of than they.
When Shenoute described the women lying in the presence of the Lord, whispering
off to one side, in secret from your companions, the whispers were that it is the one
who has kin in this place who is taken care of, or who will be taken care of.11 In reminding the women of the communal requirement of equal treatment, Shenoute also
made it clear that the women were not to change these rules and award more material support to some monks over others, without consulting him rst: Therefore do
not do any deed on our behalf beyond what is appointed for us, as a result of which
you give things more to certain people among you (pl.) apart from what was appointed for us.12 In Shenoutes view, his instructions were meant to still the conict,
which in turn was necessary for God to be pleased with the monks, and the community might prosper: But rather take care of your companions with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12) so that the Lord might bless you and strengthen you in every good
thing.13 Shenoute chose to intervene in the womens internal disagreement about favoritism among the monks toward their kin to make certain that nothing sinful existed in the monastery, either in our community or in your community.14
His intervention consisted of visits to the womens community, three of which had
occurred prior to his writing this letter. These visits did not go well, so much so that
Shenoute described the afiction which came upon me as I was speaking with you.15
Later he mentioned three visits (most likely the same three, although this is not entirely certain) with a great rhetorical ourish about how he made the visits despite
the fact that they exacerbated his illness and caused him great suffering.16 For two of
these three visits, Shenoute arrived in the evening and ended up spending the night
in the womens community.17 He appears to have been accompanied by senior male
monks, one named Papnoute and one sharing his name of Shenoute.18 Ironically,
Shenoutes visits themselves were controversial, a problem in part because Shenoute
and the women seem to have argued throughout them, with no resolution being
reached, and in part because the women objected to the visits themselves. Shenoute
began this unprecedented practice, another suggestion that this crisis dates from the
beginning of his appointment; Pcol never came to visit the women and Ebonh only
came to consecrate the Eucharist for them.19 The reasons for the womens objections
to Shenoutes visits are not explicit, save one. In the course of his arguments with the
women, Shenoute had torn his cloak, a common biblical and cultural gesture of grief
and frustration.20 Shenoute explains that he tore his cloak in front of the women because we were not able to tear our heart in place of our cloak.21 For whatever reason,
at least one female monk did not respond to Shenoutes action as a biblically inspired
performance, or as culturally explicable, but accused him of sexual misconduct.
Whether the woman perceived his action as a sexual threat or a sexual overture is unclear since her accusation is vaguely worded: Whats wrong with you [Shenoute],
that you tear your garments?22 But the allegation must have been sexual in nature
because Shenoute, while discussing the accusation, also defended his virginity to the
women: But we did not ever do that which the world does, either in illicit sex, or in
honored marriage, or in a bed undeled.23 Shenoute turned the accusation back
34
toward the woman who made it and issued a physical threat against her: And I was
very angry in my heart, most wrathfully, not only that she said this thing but that it
would be best if she herself would rend her heart and not her garments. And the Lord
knows that, except that I refrained because of the mercy of the Lord, I would tear her
garments in half on her body.24
Shenoute countered the problems created by his innovations by ceasing from his
new practice. He decided to stop visiting the women, not altogether, but for the purpose of chastising and correcting them. His change in purpose alleviated the crisis
caused by his behavior during the visits, because his behavior was no longer confrontational. Several comments made later in the crisis make it clear that Shenoute
was not visiting the womens community as a judge, as he had earlier. As soon as he
had defended himself against the womans accusation, he also warned a larger group
of women that on judgment day he would be close enough to judge them, rather than
being a distant judge as he is now: And I will reproach you, not separated from you
as I am in this world, and not distant, but only a footstep away.25 On another occasion later in this same crisis, Shenoute viewed the womens behavior as so disruptive
that he threatened to visit the women, even though it was not proper for him to do
so: If I come to you angrily, I will not spare you as before . . . But it is not [proper] for
me to come to you boldly, in person, on account of this precept to speak with you in
person and to see you face to face except in a great matter of difculty which gains importance from God.26
Instead of these visits, Shenoute argued that rather there needed to be new monastic authority structures that would still allow for his control over the women, even
though his visits had been rejected. He rst required accountability and responsibility among the women themselves, and that they report all transgressions to him.
Shenoute used blood imagery to express the notion of mutual accountability: I will
seek your blood from the hands of her who is called mother among you and the one
who comes after her. And I will seek your blood from the hands of everyone to whom
a person is entrusted among you. And I will seek your blood from those of your companions. And I will seek the blood of each one of you from her own hand, from the
greatest to the least of you.27 Shenoute insisted, however, that despite this relationship among the women, he was still to be informed of all events so that the women
could be assured of his leading them to salvation: Is it your hearts desire to see us [in
the afterlife] just as we wish to see you? Then why do you not pay attention to my instruction which I told you with my own mouth, Do not hide anything among yourselves from us, but communicate it to us that we may judge it either by means of your
elders appointed for you or through all your relatives who are about to come to you.
Why do you refrain from telling us what goes on among you?28 What is most uncertain in Shenoutes emerging monastic authority structure is whether the elders in
the female community were women, or men who either resided with the women or
visited them regularly.29
The initial visits by Shenoute also led to another crisis over whether the women
should be allowed to go to the mens community.30 Some of the women, as it turns out,
had children (or sons), brethren, menfolk, and relatives in the mens community.31 Although Shenoutes predecessors had not allowed the women to see their
male relatives, the women were now doing so. This changed behavior seems to have
35
arisen from the similar fact that Shenoute himself had changed his predecessors practice of not visiting the women. However Shenoute, his own conduct notwithstanding, objected strenuously to the womens visits.32 His vigorous arguments that the
women were endangering their salvation suggests that this conict addressed the actual practice of the women visiting the men, and not simply a request to do so.33 In
his objections, Shenoute focused on the womens motivations in visiting the men:
Altogether, indeed, I see you now, whenever you spend a single month without seeing them, you then are upset about them and you wonder because you have not seen
them.34 He acknowledged that, when he was separated from the men of the community, he missed them as well: But if I, this wretched one, pass a single week without having seen your children and your brethren and your menfolk and all those who
are with us together, I am expecting to see them like a brother who has not seen his
brethren for a year.35 In addition, the men also missed the women from whom they
were separated: You are upset about them and are wondering because you have not
seen them, just as they too wish to see you. 36 In acting on these motivations, the
women were endangering their salvation by violating the segregation of the sexes in
his monastery: And I had thought that you would make the feast of life together, you,
your sons, brothers, and menfolk, but now instead I tell you that many of us shall be
estranged from their own and their fathers, and their brothers.37 It was at the end of
this specic conict in the overall crisis that Shenoute set up the power structure of
accountability and confession described earlier.
Despite his decision not to visit the womens community as a judge, Shenoute continued to have visits that included the sharing of meals and, even though judging
was not supposed to be a part of these visits, conicts still arose. These shared meals
became an issue on one occasion when Shenoute was not allowed to sit with the
women, apparently during a visit. The conict arose when Shenoute was accusing the
women, again, of not being repentant enough for some behavior: I think that [Papnoute, the male elder and the brothers] are greater than you in repentance and compassion and that wretched person, who is I, is not worthy to be counted among humans.38 Shenoutes pain aficts [him] greatly. Whenever he sits down at a table to
eat or to drink . . . when I eat bread and drink water, I know to sit in that place.39
Shenoutes alienation in this meal was somehow connected to his disapproval of the
women and the sins of the monastery as a whole.40
Conicts about food continued, though for the next period they were primarily internal to the womens community, as at the beginning of the crisis. Now, however, it
was not biological relationships that served as the basis for inequality in the distribution of material goods, but rather the food servers favoritism was central to the conict. In the refectory a woman served the portions, choosing both quality and amount
of food, which she then handed to the recipient: And in the case of one woman, she
came to be served and to reach out for you to hand her the very choicest piece and
give her the very largest and most abundant serving. Whereas, in the case of another
woman, she came to be served and to reach out for you to give her the humblest and
smallest portion, like a pauper.41 At least one woman who performed these tasks was
conspiring to give better quality and a greater quantity of food to certain of the female
monks who came to receive it. Indeed, even if the favored recipients were served by
someone else, this woman sought her favorites to give them extra portions.42 These
36
recipients, in Shenoutes description, probably refer to both individual women and,

simultaneously, entire groups: those who receive more, and better, food and those
who receive less, both in quality and quantity. In Shenoutes view, the food servers
motivations for such favoritism were twofoldlove and admiration. For the motivation of love, Shenoute claimed, And whenever the one you feel desire for comes to
be served, you serve her the larger portion.43 Shenoute also claims that the food
server thinks about the recipient: She is someone important.44 Finally Shenoute
notes that this food server gave smaller portions of lesser quality to women whom she
did not love and did not admire.45 Once again, Shenoutes concerns were both specic to the conict and more general. His specic problem was about the food but his
general reaction was to the disruption caused by these conicts: Each one insults her
neighbor, as you boastfully claim to match one anothers accomplishments.46 He also
objected to the motivations of both love and admiration and countered that one
monk was not more special than another. Furthermore, he viewed the womens love
as hate, since it was causing conict among the community: This particular woman
is not the one whom you love in your eshly desire but you hate because love is not
perfected in your heart and in your charity.47 The woman who received less and
lower quality food enters her house weeping and sighing because of you [the
women], whereas the one who received better food enters her house, rejoicing and
blessing you vainly.48
In addition to favoritism in the distribution of food, stealing food was also a problem in the womens community. The female monks were stealing both from other
monks portions of food and from the storehouses where food was kept.49 These thefts,
however, did not cause conict among the women, or at least Shenoute does not refer to a conict.50 Rather it was mainly Shenoute who objected to this practice, because it proved that a monk did not have the self-control necessary to adhere to the
ascetic standard of fasting between meals: Those who are not satised by their portion, reveal that their god is their bellies and that their glory is in their shame . . .
Those who steal from the portion of their brethren reveal that they are uncontrollable, as they prepare for themselves scourges, as it is written. Indeed truly, are you not
ashamed as I say these things to you?51 There were rules that allowed for eating between meals in the monastery (chapter 1, p. 23). These monks, however, were not
taking advantage of that option but were acting on their own to take food when they
wanted it. As a result, Shenoute threatened the thieves, along with those who were
causing disruptions, with expulsion from the monastery.52
By the end of period of crisis, signaled by the end of the Canon, Shenoute again
became concerned about conicts among the women and so he sought to strengthen
the monastic authority structures between the mens and womens communities. At
this point, the relationship between Shenoute and the female leaders of the womens
community becomes more adversarial, including threats of expulsion. The fragments
begin with several threats that he would again visit the womens community, even
though such visits had been deemed inappropriate; but he added that these visits
would not be like the earlier ones. In referring to these earlier visits, Shenoute also
referred to the expulsions that had taken place as a result, most likely to remind the
women that he could expel monks again.53 Moreover, Shenoute warned the women
37
that God will have to judge which leadership is better.54 The women had authority in
their own community in that Shenoute looked to them for information about the
problems they faced. In addition, they either had autonomy in setting the rules for
their own community, or were requesting that it be granted: Indeed, did we do something wholly without your judgment? Indeed, was it not you (pl.) who sent [us] a letter so that you could establish yourselves according to your (pl.) ordinances?55 In
either case, Shenoute denied the women the right to determine their own rules;
instead, he established elders to set ordinances for you.56 Again, however, it is unclear what the gender of these elders was, though the implication seems to be that
they were male. If so, it is also unclear whether the elders lived among the women or
were sent to them.57 At least one elder was male and was an envoy, since Shenoute
ends the letter by saying that he is going to send the male elder to the women; the
man of this rank, who appears throughout the rest of the letters, seems to have taken
on the role that Shenoute shed after the controversy caused by his initial visits. For
the most part, Shenoute no longer chastises and corrects the women in person, but
rather through letters and in the person of the male elder.
Shenoute believed that the womens leadership failed because, under their guidance, the womens community contained a variety of factions.58 He claimed that
some female monks were giving valuables to other monks so that they would be their
servants: What thing of value did you give to them so that they would be your servants?59 As a result, the monks were not looking after one another in the way
Shenoute thought appropriate to a monastery: Indeed, if you will not take care of
these people, who is it who will take care of you?60 The resulting fragmentation contradicted Shenoutes goal of one unied monastery of monks living in equality, an
ideal that Shenoute found completely reasonable: Moreover, if it were not possible
for you, I would not have found fault with you.61 In addition, a monk named Tachom
was at odds with the female elder of the community.62 Besides appointing elders for
the women, Shenoute concluded the crisis in two other ways. First, he admonished
the women to live in peace with one another and to give up the enmity that had divided the community.63 Second, he submitted the women to his instructions, which
he planned to send to them, and to the lesser instructions, which they apparently
already had.64 The record of the crisis ends abruptly at this point and we must look to
later accounts to determine Shenoutes success in maintaining the new authority
structures for the womens community.
Crisis Two: Female Homoeroticism (Canon 3)

Only a small amount of evidence from this crisis survives: the end of a letter indicating that Shenoute has learned about a few specic transgressions among the women.
In this letter, he is requesting more information and therefore, I have sent the male
elder to you once again.65 The fragment begins with Shenoutes request that with
regard to the junior female monks about whom we have heard that they run after their
companions in a eshly desire, tell me more about them.66 This request for more information is meant as the foundation for determining future punishments for the
38
transgressors. When Shenoute continues, it is unclear whether he is speaking about

another transgressor. This seems to be the case since he begins, And concerning this
one [fem. sing.] also, you (pl.) have said concerning her that she departs from the position to which you appointed her for her to do her work in it, as she speaks to you,
saying, If you will bring me from this position to that, I will not work on the labors
which I am doing.67 He adds that if she is not willing, then again tell me and I will
teach you what you should do to her.68 That is, Shenoute now is asking for more information about another female monknot one who is running after her companions in a eshly desire but one who has apparently objected to a transfer from one
position, or possibly rank, to another. This womans situation, and Shenoutes language concerning it, is similar to that which appears at the end of the next letter,
Abraham, Our Father. Shenoute ends with a warning about the need for the women
to give him the information he is requesting, again with language that is important
to keep in mind for the rest of the letter fragments: And whenever all of you hide
from us a guileful deed amongst yourselves, so that you do not tell us about it, you
wake Satan within yourselves and you alone turn yourselves from the help of God.69
The notion that by not reporting deeds to Shenoute, the women alienate themselves
from God and make themselves vulnerable to Satan, provided the explicit justication for Shenoutes position as head of the authority structures of the monastery and
overseer of all punishments, a position that becomes more evident in a letter in
Canon 4 (discussed later in this chapter).
Crisis Three: A Monk Refused Promotion

(Abraham, Our Father from Canon 3)
A crisis arose when a monk refused a promotion to higher status in the female community.70 There was general confusion as to whether the woman refused because she
was not capable of bearing up under the task appointed to her, in which case she
can stay peacefully in the rank where she was before, or whether she refused argumentatively and ignorantly and she lied in the presence of the Lord.71 The woman
herself pleaded her lack of ability but there is uncertainty about the reliability of that
claim. The uncertainty, however, belongs more to Shenoute than the womans female
companions. The female leaders had reported her refusal but in neutral terms: And
now, since you wrote to me that the sister whom you appointed to the place of the
one who died has refused the task that you assigned to her.72 The wording makes it
uncertain whether there were complaints about the monks refusal, or if the women
were simply informing Shenoute, though why remains unclear since the women had
made the appointment (and not Shenoute). The monks refusal would therefore seem
a conict limited to the womens community. Perhaps some women are upset, and
have asked Shenoute to intervene. In any case, Shenoute seems now to believe he
should arbitrate the situation, since he then requests more information to evaluate
the situation. In this process, he speculates about a variety of reasons why the monk
might have refused her appointment, including the possibility that she may have
been lying about her inability to perform the (legitimate) monastic duties appointed
to her:
39
After some time should we nd out that she refused dishonestly, then you all know what
it is we shall do to her because she did not inform us that she had been abused violently
or any way in which she had been humiliated. Finally, if we nd out that she did not tell
the truth because others prevented her, we shall punish the others. They shall not be
hidden from you for both she and they have taken an oath with falsehood on the advice
of Satan. After all this, behold, I will send the male elder to you so that you can remember God, and pity yourselves, female monks in your community and male monks in
ours, and you tell us all the disturbances that happen in your community so that we can
be free from pain, we and you.73
This possibilitythat the monk lied to refuse monastic serviceleads to his larger
teachings of the letter: the necessity of labor for the monastic life, the importance of
suffering, the proper denition of service, and the role of truthfulness.
Shenoute dened the proper monastic life as one based not on contemplation
but on redemptive suffering rooted in labor. The womens monastic duties were, in
Shenoutes description, a new type of suffering that replaced the non-monastic alternative, the suffering of bearing and rearing children. He began the letter with many
examples of biblical women who prayed for relief from their barrenness; these exemplars provided him an opportunity to teach the women that they had a responsibility
to replace their role of mother with that of monastic servant.74 Yet some monastic
women were not replacing the labors of childbearing with monastic labors, as they
were supposed to: But you are stupid and wickedly stubborn when monks in your
community choose to give up childbearing with Gods help, yet still argumentatively
and disobediently insist on renouncing certain labors that they are capable of doing,
namely, taking care of people, assigned monastic duties or any other kind of good
work that you do for one another in fear of the Lord.75 Shenoute did not limit his description of infertility to the biblical women but also included their husbands. So too
he warned male monks to discharge their duties as required in the monastery but
omitted any mention of renunciation of begetting children: So we are foolish, or
blind, when male monks in our community refuse argumentatively and disobediently
to do certain labors that they are capable of doing, namely, taking care of people who
live with them, assigned monastic duties or any other kind of good work that we can
do for one another through Gods agency for the salvation of our souls.76 The purpose
of the suffering that was inherent in monastic labors was to receive salvation, just as
humanity had previously sought salvation through procreation. In Shenoutes denition of the monastic life, suffering was the essential component of its spirituality.
Shenoutes use of these barren couples is noteworthy, as I will discuss in chapter 7,
because his audience of monks included those with family in the monastery and those
who had left their families behind to join. While it is unclear whether the division
between these two groups inuenced the monks refusal to promote her, it is clear that
the issues of proper monastic duties and the status of the monk having or not having
kin in the monastery were intertwined. Shenoutes description of the monks with kin
linked their family, their economic status, and their monastic membership:
A father or a mother, who have children and grandchildren and numerous possessions
but whom affairs of the world make incapable of caring for their children and all the
other things of life, must therefore care for their children with the help of God and all
40
kinds of righteous works. And we should note that people like these are incapable of being subordinate to their relatives, so instead they are subordinate to strangers with Gods
help.77
Monks without kin, however, were claiming a higher spiritual rank due to the purity of their status as eunuchs and virgins; Shenoute describes these monks as those
who have not had children, or who renounced those they did have, along with their
numerous material possessions because they wished to follow the worthy path that
they were called to, who are indeed eunuchs and virginsand this means you,
brethren.78 Shenoute countered the differences between the two groups by redening them as monks, who must all undergo similar suffering despite variation in family background or in motivation for joining the monastery.
Suffering in the White Monastery comprised certain monastic duties, especially
taking care of one another as members of the same community. For Shenoute, this
meant both that the monks were not allowed to refuse any duty appointed to them,
and that they were not allowed to rule over one another as master and servant, for all
were servants.79 Rather, the monks were to take care of one another
in everything, whether with instruction about the Scriptures, or with food and clothing,
care while sick, and everything by which their caretakers act like their servants. Therefore let us not say blasphemously, Those who rule us are our masters and we are beneath
them like servants. Those who rule us are not over us, but we are over them and they
are beneath us; indeed they are our servants because they take care of us, with Gods
help, in everything.80
Shenoutes meaning is clear: the women were saying that monastic superiors were allowed to act like masters over their inferiors. Rather than a stage in spiritual development, monastic rank had come to reect the realities of economic status in the outside world. Moreover, it was not simply the rulers who accepted this structure, but the
ruled as well. Shenoute countered this erroneous development with long examples of
proper models of service provided by Jesus and the prophets and apostles, especially
Paul. This crisis, then, expanded beyond one monks refusal to accept promotion to
include the proper role of the biological family, monastic rank, and monastic duties
in life in the White Monastery.
Crisis Four: The Beatings of Women (Canon 4)

This crisis suggests that the monastic authority structures Shenoute had begun in the
rst crisis were not working as he had intended.81, 82 The male elder was supposed to
visit the women, learn of their transgressions, and report back to Shenoute not because he is our slave or our ignorant inexperienced servant but because Shenoute
was the ultimate authority in the monastery: [the male elder] did not do anything to
you without [our knowledge].83 Shenoute did at times allow the male elder to act
without consulting Shenoute because he knows more. Thus the male elder was able
to make decisions about the punishment and forgiveness of the women and he is responsible.84 However, Shenoute never transferred responsibility to the women, even
the female elders.85 Even when he called on the women to be responsible for each
41
other in the Initial Crisis, he still claimed that their community was ultimately under
his care. This authority relationship depended on the womens cooperation, which
was not always forthcoming. The male elder had made at least one visit to the female
community to try to discipline the women and learn about events in their community. He returned frustrated and complained to Shenoute that the women were successfully concealing events from him: What was wrong with [the elder] that he was
not happy with you when he visited you during the days of summer? . . . You yourselves ought to have told him everything [going on] in your community when he visited you in those days [of summer]. But you did not tell him.86 Shenoute then sent
the elder again, bearing a warning of a possible visit from Shenoute himself.87 The
womens secrecy led Shenoute to distrust their reports to him: To this day you still
have not written to us a truthful report after [the elder] departed from you.88
Since the women were not complying with his requests for information or cooperating with the male elder, Shenoute denied his responsibility for them and their
eventual salvation: Moreover, if you hide any evil deed from [the elder], or if there
are other people with you whom you know about who deserve blows, either people
about whom you have written to me, whom I have forgotten, or rather other people
whom you have not written about to me, and no matter who they are, if you do not
tell [the elder] about them all . . . you are responsible for yourselves on your own.89
The result was a division between the two communities in the monastery; the male
and female monks were no longer monastic companions but strangers to one another:
You are now alone your own masters. Do not allow yourselves to have any concern
for us.90 The women were no longer led by Shenoute, but by demons: But take care,
wretches, lestsince you have rejected submission to your brethren, so that they do
not rule you by their instruction and by their teaching in your community, [which
would be proper] according to the eternal rules of divinityyou rather submit in your
community to many masters which are the demons and every evil thing.91 Shenoute
sarcastically granted the women their own authority, to show that they were not prepared for the accompanying responsibility: You are responsible; do anything that
pleases you.92
Shenoute made it clear that he wanted the women to report transgressors so that
he could assign proper punishment, specically corporal punishment. Corporal punishment was, in his view, a method of monastic instruction, and the women will
have to receive their instruction by blows, for they too are our brethren, just like our
brothers are over here in our community.93 Moreover, Shenoute argued instead that
the women were not exempt from this instruction simply because they were women:
And if you report to us regarding those who contradict you disobediently, or regarding any other evil, we shall be responsible for them, to chastise them and have them
be instructed in all knowledge, just as you have been hearing about what we have
been doing over here in the our community.94 Shenoute got to decide the punishments because he was archimandrite; he said of himself, I know the punishment you
deserve to get.95
The women did report some transgressions to Shenoute. Several of the ten women
whose beatings were listed in Canon 4 had committed transgressions that Shenoute
said were reported to him by members of the female community: You have written
to us earlier.96 However, the women wanted to be able to determine their own pun-
42
ishments, rather than have Shenoute or the male elder decide them: And you say
that we, in our community, are the ones who prevent you from governing your own
affairs as you will.97 Shenoutes statement opposed to womens setting their own punishments makes clear that the women were acting on their own, against his wishes.
His sarcasm shows his reluctance to give the women authority over corporal punishment: With regard to the instruction that we gave with a fear of God, that you shall
not punish anyone in your community with blows without informing us in our community rst: in the presence of the Lord, we release you from this obligation and we
release you from being judged by us.98
Shenoute gave explicit instructions for how the beatings were to be administered
to the women as well.99 The male elder was in charge of delivering the actual blows
but the female elder, the monk Tachom, and several monks senior in rank were all
involved as well. Ten women were being beaten for sins that included disobedience
or insubordination to female leaders, stealing, lack of spiritual development, illicit
teaching, and lying.100 At the same time, Shenoute absolved a monk named Tapolle
from being beaten.101 The description of the disagreements among the women shows
the level of violence of monastic life, with monks slapping and hitting each other.
Noteworthy also is further unambiguous evidence for homoerotic activity among the
women, which was the transgression of two of the ten women. More intriguing, there
is a coincidence in the names of the women who were making sexual advances and
those who were the object of their desires: Taese . . . about whom you wrote to us,
She is running after Tsansno in friendship and carnal desire . . . and Tsansno . . . because she ran after her neighbor in friendship.102 It is not certain that Tsansnos
neighbor was Taese, nor that the two Tsansnos were the same woman. Nevertheless, it seems highly likely that these two monks were having a mutually agreeable
affair, which had been found out (and not, as the phrase run after might suggest,
harassing a monastic companion with unwanted advances). This possibility takes on
greater weight when these transgressions are compared to the fragment for Crisis 2:
there only eshly desire was at stake, whereas here friendship is the shared description, with only one woman having eshly desire. Since we do not know the relationship between these two fragments, it is impossible to know if Taese and Tsansno
were the two women about whom Shenoute was requesting further information, but
the possibility does exist.103
Crisis Five: Gossip (Canon 6)

A female monk had been caught spreading gossip in her community. Since it was not
her rst offense, Shenoute now labeled her as having an eagerness for slander.104 He
claimed that it was proper for this monk to receive punishment at this point: It was
necessary for her to sit among the angels so that they might pour their anger down
upon her because of the great extent of her perversion.105 Moreover, Shenoute
threatened her with possible expulsion but then claimed she was to receive forgiveness one last time: Therefore I say to you, ignorant woman, Neither on account of
people or God, whose desire I know is not to tolerate this sort of person, but on account of fear . . . I will have [the male envoys] spare you yet once more.106 Shenoute
43
warned her that if she were caught in any transgression or caught talking back to the
male elder, she would be sent to the gatehouse to receive her punishment.107 Since
the gatehouse was the place where initiates in the monastery lived and also where
beatings were inicted, it is unclear whether she was being threatened with a demotion or a beating. After dealing with this individual monk, Shenoute then addressed
the larger female community, all of you in your community, in order to instruct
them to be wary of demonic forces who work against their monastic life: Just as you
are not in the habit of showing your faces to men with a devilish boldness, so also do
not open your heart to a hostile demonic devil.108 The women were to guard against
those things that could cause them to turn away from the monastic community.
Crisis Six: The Death of a Male Monk (Canon 6)

The next crisis addresses three different long-standing and troubling conicts: the
stealing and hoarding of food, Shenoutes use of corporal punishment, and an argument between the female elder and Tapolle, who was a senior monk, which had been
taking place for over two months.109 As usual, conicts over food were causing divisions in the community. The monks who were stealing and hoarding food were not
doing so for themselves but for others who were unable to maintain the ascetic level
of fasting Shenoute required. The monks they were helping were both monastic companions and biological kin. Their motivation, they claimed, was similar to that which
we saw in the Initial Crisis: love for their companions.110 As in his earlier conict over
unequal distribution of food (Canon 2), Shenoute questioned the monks understanding of their motivation: O, you who have not understood the wish of those who
love you and love us, this one and them! You have not understood that they wish to
act justly! It is you who hate your neighbors and your relatives, since you are deceiving them by your outward behavior.111 Moreover, the monks were concerned that
their companions and relatives not be forced to leave the monastery and hence endanger their salvation. Shenoute answered that the monks were losing the benet of
their vocation in the monastery, the attainment of salvation, through their transgression: But God gets no benet from those to whom you give stolen things in the
community. . . . [T]hese deceivers say, We have given stealthily to those who, with
their insatiability, deceive so that they might not leave the community and lose their
suffering. Listen to this nonsense! They destroy the suffering of these people along
with their own!112
The full implication of Shenoutes statement lies in understanding what he means
by suffering. This word Hise is a technical term in Shenoutes vocabulary for the entire range of emotions and experiences of monastic life, all of which were intended to
attain salvation. Thus, the errant monks have destroyed their companions and relatives hopes for salvation by following their own desires rather than Shenoutes instructions. It is unclear from Shenoutes description whether monks other than
Shenoute opposed either the actions of their companions or the secrecy that accompanied the actions, but at the very least Shenoute suggests that other monks would
want the same treatment if they knew: You order them, saying, Be careful! Do not
let yourselves get caught, do not let anyone know, that we have given you these things
44
lest such-and-such a person or persons hear about it and we not be able to satisfy
them. But you did not say, God will repay the evil of everyone on his head because
you were a scandal to others.113 The last aspect of the conict over food involved
some monks who feigned illness in order to be allowed greater amounts of food. Their
alleged illness led to excessive eating, stealing of food, and, nally, an insatiable
appetite. Shenoute warned that God would bring a real illness on these monks, which
would make it impossible for them to eat, and he used his own illness as an example
of Gods retribution: It is good if God brings a sickness on these sorts of people and
then they are not even able to eat the things they have, and their soul is saved more
than if he had given them over to insatiability and folly of the belly until he made
them strangers to the truth and they made truth a stranger to themselves. Did you not
see what happened to me, how because of my sins God caused me to vomit up what I
had eaten?114
Part of the conict over food seems to have included a willingness on the part of
the monks to question an aspect of Shenoutes leadership: his decisions about ascetic
standards for the monastery. Another conict called into question another aspect of
Shenoutes leadership: his decisions about corporal punishment. A male monk had
died while being beaten in corporal punishment by Shenoute. At least some of the
monks thought that Shenoute killed the man, an accusation of which Shenoute was
aware: I know that many among you will say, He has killed him violently before the
end of his life.115 In the ensuing crisis, Shenoute had to provide a defense of his decisions about beatings. Shenoute argued rst that he did not kill the man, but rather
the mans natural life-span had come to an end: As if Shenoute had killed people,
when in fact it was that their limit of life was fullled, or that it was the day when God
was pleased to bring death upon them.116 This excuse implied that it was mere coincidence that the monks life had ended in the midst of a beating. Shenoute then took
this excuse a step further. He attributed the beating itself to God; thus any accusation
of killing was an accusation against God. Shenoute pointed out that if God were
to kill every monk with whom God was angry, there would be many dead monks.
Rather, Shenoute offered the same excuse for God that he had claimed for himself.
He argued that God had not killed the monk but that it was time for the monk to die:
God was not angry with him, nor did he kill him, because he had done wrong or
sinned more than the rest of us, or lied more than any among you, but because the
days of his life were complete. If God killed him in anger, then why did he not kill us
who have sinned more than [he]?117 Finally, Shenoute pointed out the advantages of
dying while in the process of repenting of ones sins: Gods anger, which was justied
by the monks transgressions, was appeased through corporal punishment; and given
the possibility of dying suddenly, without time to repent, it was better to die suddenly
while undergoing penance: Or is the judgment of God not sufcient for each one of
us on the day of anger when we have not distanced ourselves from our impieties forthwith, even though we have not yet died like our brothers, or like others who, as we
saw, died suddenly.118 These, then, were Shenoutes defenses: the monk had not been
killed, either by Shenoute or by the real actor, God, and, in any event, the timing of
the monks death was benecial for the monks salvation.
The last portion of the record of this crisis focuses on an argument between the female elder and Tapolle, and on both Shenoute and the male elders inability to re-
45
solve that conict. Shenoute had already written the women at other points over the
past two months: We wrote to you for more than two months wishing you to be of
a single heart and to perfect your work.119 In the letters, he had advised the elder
to forgive Tapolle and to seek mutual reconciliation.120 Tapolle was under the female
elders authority, her daughter, and was supposed to be obedient to her. The elder,
in turn, had reported their conict to Shenoute: I revealed my heart to you.121
Shenoute was reluctant to take sides in the argument, which involved accusations of
gossip and name-calling: Indeed, do we love you while we hate Tapolle? Or do we
love her while we hate you? Indeed, do we love anyone of all of you in your community, while we hate another? Or do we hate one man in our community while we
love another? Is it not evil that we hate?122 Nevertheless, he thought Tapolle was in
the wrong at rst, spreading slander behind the elders back: Are there other sins
which she committed against you beyond the ones which we heard about? Have you
caught her transgressing against any one of the commandments about which we
worry day and night? Come now, do I honor her because she spoke gossip against
you?123 Now, however, he absolved Tapolle of blame for starting the conict, as the
female elder apparently contended, and held the female elder responsible for the continuation of the conict: And you were not able to tolerate what you were told with
Gods help, namely, Try again with your daughter; if she is disobedient to you, write
to us. Being even more disobedient than she, you were not able to endure for three
or four days without sending me news of your distress and of your collective distress.124 Besides his opinion of the excessive complaints by the female elder, Shenoute took this stand because Tapolle was more willing to confess her wrongdoing in
order to heal the rift: And why did you [the elder] change so that you no longer stood
with her [Tapolle] nor she with you, after she had spoken in the presence of God and
the male elder and those who accompanied him and all the brethren who are in your
community while you were gathered together?125 Tapolle agreed to efforts at reconciliation, taking an oath before the male authorities whom Shenoute sent.126 The female elder, however, refused to take such an oath as many as four times. The elder was
still annoyed about the gossip Tapolle had spread, the origin of the conict two
months earlier. That the elder was still annoyed is apparent in the words Shenoute
ascribes to her, Indeed, did you not write to us, saying, I will not stand with her?127
As a result, she was refusing to cooperate with the male leaders efforts at reconciliation: We examined you [the elder] many times, saying, Tell us what your problem
with her [Tapolle] is, and you did not say.128 Tapolles obedience to the female elder
during the past two months suggested to Shenoute that the elder was now holding a
grudge and he chastised her accordingly. In addition, Tapolle was now attacking the
elder for refusing to forgive her, though Shenoute did not support Tapolle in her accusations.129
In the long account of the conict, Shenoute presents more information than
usual about the actions and personalities of both the elder and Tapolle. The elder
seems hurt and yet stubborn: We entreat you to forgive your sister.130 She also questioned the usefulness of Shenoutes advice, as he reported sarcastically: You are
greatly justied in saying, I was not able to join my heart to hers. I know why your
heart is not completely joined to her heart. Her saying is not useful to you, nor is yours
useful to her. So accordingly, how is your saying useful to us? Our saying is not useful
46
to you.131 The portrait of Tapolle is less coherent, perhaps because Shenoute himself
was not sure of her role in the conict. For both women, however, Shenoute argued
that they needed to heed the male elders advice in stilling this conict, as well as any
others. He was aware both that the monks rejected his solution and that they remained hostile to one another. He reiterated his advice and explained why it was benecial for the situation.132 He concluded the letter, Do not let me hear that you made
many statements to the male elder, saying, Yes, yes, no, no.133
Crisis Seven: Jealousy among the Women (Canon 6)

The fragmentary state of the next letter is one of the most troubling for piecing together the narrative of the conict.134 Some women were jealous of another group
of women for unidentied reasons.135 Apparently this conict had consumed the
womens community for awhile, but there was a mixed reaction to it. Some monks
were indifferent to the conict, and indeed seem not to have paid much attention,
whereas others studied it in order to learn from it.136 The male envoys had already
judged which side in the conict was correct, and Shenoute had already told the
women about the mens decision in a letter.137 Nevertheless, not all the female monks
who had been found to be at fault had reconciled themselves to the community. They
continued to be in conict, which Shenoute mentioned through what he considered
an unattering description: they were laughing and mocking the letter as it was read
to them.138
As with other letters, Shenoute shifts subject abruptly. In a brief paragraph,
Shenoute made an appeal to God for relief from an illness he has suffered.139 He also
began to warn the women that they needed to be obedient to him in order not to be
expelled from the community because of their pollutions and their thefts and their
disobedience and all their other evils.140 As much as Shenoute was displeased with
those who disobeyed him, he was that pleased with those who were obedient.141
Shenoute made this contrast between obedience and disobedience apparently so he
could then address another problem in the female community. This problem, however, was one he himself had with the women, not one they had with each other.
Shenoute had received a cloak from the women which had not t correctly. He
had asked for alterations, but these had not solved the problem.142 Shenoute sidestepped his role in the confusion about clothing size and now asked for yet another
alteration.143 He also held the women accountable for the problems since they did not
take any measurements to begin with.144 Not only was Shenoutes garment ill tting,
but so were many others so that many of the male monks wore the cloaks only when
they had to do so.145 They were often embarrassed by the cloaks, and wore them as
little as possible. The women, however, refused to allow Shenoute, or the male
monks, to come to the womens community to have their measurements taken.146
Shenoute now sought to change the womens position by arguing that the material
interdependence between the two communities, food and clothing, were meant to
unite them, not separate them.147 The fragment ends with Shenoute ready to act on
his wishes: But I am visiting you, the elder, and Tapolle, and the mothers who are
with you and all those who are in agreement both with you and with us.148
47
Crisis Eight: A Request for a Transfer (Canon 6)

A monk wrote to Shenoute to request a transfer from her current house, under a
mother named Maria, to Theodoras house: You sent word to us . . . Help me and
transfer me to the house of Theodora so that I might not lose my sufferings.149 She
was worried that her unhappiness in her current house would cause her to leave the
monastery and so lose her salvation. Shenoute denied the monks request, arguing
that personality conicts should not affect the monastic experience. He pointed out
that the monk had not given proof of any wrongdoing on the part of her mother that
warranted a transfer. Moreover, if she had trouble with her current mother, why
should he expect that her relationship with another would be any different? The fragment ends with the suggestion that this conict has also affected the rest of the
monastic community.150
Crisis Nine: Excessive Leadership

(My Heart Is Crushed, from Canon 8)
The second to last record of conicts in the womens community is the longest and
best preserved of the letters.151 Again, the crisis covers more than one topic. Shenoute
begins with a long discussion of a conict he was having with the women over a special cloak of his. That discussion, however, serves as the introduction for the more serious conict over the increase in expulsions in the monastery. The arguments over
the proper use of expulsion led to an evaluation of Shenoutes leadership and the rise
of opponents against Shenoute.
The female elder and Tapolle visited Shenoute after hearing of his neglect of a
cloak they had made for him. This cloak was not a simple garment but one custommade for Shenoute, according to the measurements and specications about color
and decoration he had sent.152 The reason Shenoute needed a new cloak seems to
have been disputed. He claimed that a moth had eaten his cloak, making it unwearable because of all the holes in it.153 Rather than make the cloaks condition public,
however, Shenoute had hidden it until some other monks came across it.154 Shenoutes action led to speculation that a moth had not eaten it, but that the cloak had
been ruined by misuse, a conjecture Shenoute rejected.155 At any rate, Shenoute had
needed, and received from the women, a new cloak, but he was dissatised with its
production.156 It was too heavy, and its tassels were set on it in such a way that it was
not the right type of garment.157 Shenoute now faced criticism that his complaints
were excessive, and that he should accept the cloaks the women gave him.158 The
monks characterization of Shenoutes actions in this specic conict had broader application to the rest of his leadership.
Shenoute faced charges that his entire leadership of the monastery was as excessive as his actions in the conict over the cloak. Part of the problem again arose from
secrecy among the monks. Shenoute calls the transgressors deceitful because they
were hiding their sins, rather then reporting them to Shenoute for correction.159 In
addition, not only had Shenoute been expelling people from the monastery for two
months, but he had also refused to meet with the monks for the past seven:
48
This is the point at which a stumbling block was put at my feet so that I could not come
to you: on the days when I told you which one it is, and said that until now there was a
stumbling block on the road and accordingly said, Just as I did not gather together with
you straight-away (or in fact, for more than seven months) or contentedly, to pray or, indeed, to examine a saying of God, so I will not gather now. Why indeed? Is it not because of this number of people whom God has alienated from us for over two months on
account of their wicked deeds? And also now it will happen that others will be alienated
from his congregations on account of each and every one of these pestilent deeds, which
we, whether male or female, have not distanced ourselves from as of now.160
Some of those expelled were biological kin of monks still within the monastery, who
had a general resentment of losing their relatives as monastic companions and who
also seem to have worried about their relatives fate in both this world and the next:
Also, do not let people among us in these congregations at any time be timid in their endurance because of sons or daughters or a brother or sisters or mothers or any other blood
relatives of theirs being thrown out of the holy places of God because of pestilent deeds.
Let your love display to God that you love him more than sons or daughters or brothers
or sisters or fathers or mothers and more than the world and all those who are in it. Is
this not sufcient on the subject of the things we, whether male or female, have done
among these congregations until now?161
Finally, as part of his self-imposed exile from the rest of the monks, Shenoute also refused to celebrate Easter with them.162 It was all these actions that led to debate over
Shenoutes leadership, which survives, as in other conicts, in his defense of it. Unlike other conicts, however, this one also led to the rise of opponents against him.
Shenoute acknowledged that his leadership was excessive but, as in other conicts, he placed the responsibility for his actions on the monks: his actions were
merely reactions to them. At the same time, Shenoute defended some of his statements to the women, that although they might seem greatly excessive, they were inspired by God: Indeed, is it not a greatly excessive saying that I spoke to you, that as
long as I am in this sinful body (or this body by which I sin), people shall not even
think about receiving approval when they sin secretly in these communities. Or is it
God speaking with me, so that I might say to you, I am against you who destroy their
hope altogether.163 Shenoute also defended the appropriateness of being excessive,
if strong words and actions were necessary for proper leadership.164 The debate over
the evaluation of Shenoutes leadership was also a struggle over the nature of the
monastic life. What degree of purity, what amount of forgiveness, what virtues were
necessary for salvation, and what deeds were unforgivable?
This particular conict arose not simply from disobedience but from rebellion,
since it included monks who sought to replace Shenoutes answers to these questions
with their own. These opponents had made such statements as, There are hidden
deeds, that is, that not all sins had to be confessed within the community.165 They
had also questioned the truth of Shenoutes commands, saying, The words which he
speaks are not true.166 One opponent claimed, I am against those who do evil within
us. In making this statement, this opponent also acted like a leader, raising his
hands to the sky, speaking to the ones who are not pleased, so you are thinking that
he prays to this one, or he is anxious about him, so that God instructs him.167 The
49
monks actions suggest that she or he was arguing for Shenoute to be replaced as head.
Unlike other letters, this one does not end with a call for reconciliation but a warning that the monks need to return to Shenoutes leadership, and not others.168
Crisis Ten: Tachom (Shenoute Writes to Tachom from Canon 9)

Shenoute had sent a male envoy to the female community, but the female leader,
Tachom, had refused to meet with him. She refused for reasons that remain unknown.169 Shenoute now wrote to Tachom, in a letter that mixes conciliatory language with commands for obedience. He began his salutation, It is Shenoute who
writes to Tachom, like a barbarian to a barbarian, and not like a father to a mother
nor like a brother in the presence of a sister.170 Shenoute suggested that their conict is the result of miscommunication: I am amazed that a great many times God has
hindered your communication in your community and in our community.171 However, he also reminded her that she had a subordinate position by claiming that even
if they had both erred, she had to request forgiveness from him: As for me, I said, If
you do not realize that you should write to us saying, Forgive me, then you do not
know anything at alleven though we did sin against you during all these days when
we did not bother to send to you the person whom you did not deem worthy to come
out to meet.172 Shenoute advised Tachom to receive his envoy for two reasons: he
was her monastic superior and also her biological brother:
And if the man whom we sent is not your father according to rank (and he is [your father] according to divine ordination), then you are not a mother; if you do not admit
that the man whom I sent you has the same authority as myself (especially since he is
physically your brother), then you have separated yourself from us.173
The fragment breaks off with Shenoute warning Tachom that her position of leadership is in jeopardy because of her actions.
Conclusion
These, then, are the ten incidents that constitute our entire knowledge of womens
life in the White Monastery. The narratives provide the basis for the analyses that occur in the following chapters. When using events from, or descriptions of, a particular conict, I will not repeat all the details but refer to the crisis by number and title,
allowing the reader to return to the longer descriptions here as necessary. Having established this narrative background, we can now move to analysis, rst of issues of authority and power. This analysis is twofold. Since the letters were Shenoutes, there
is a focus on his perception of his relationship with the women; moreover, since they
often address times of conict, his arguments for his authority are primarily defensive.
Even so, his statements provide evidence needed to understand his perception of his
own authority. An account of that perception provides the rst step to understanding the womens lives under his leadership. Although these descriptions are Shenoutes, they also grant us the ability to reconstruct aspects of the womens resistance
50
to his leadership: how they managed to create their own power within the monastic
structures that were meant to limit their authority. In the context of these power
struggles, two further aspects of the womens lives greatly affected their monastic experience: their gender and family background. Discussion of these two issues will reexamine the same material, provided in the narratives above, which will provide a
more complete picture of the complicated lives led by the women of the White
Monastery.
3
Shenoutes Discourse of Monastic Power
In the survey of evidence for womens life in Shenoutes White Monastery (chapter
2), the nature of the letters creates a focus on the womens relationship with
Shenoute as head of the monastery. These letters were meant to resolve periods of
conict and crisis, not to present eulogies of the women of the monastery, such as exists, for example, in some of Jeromes letters. One major theme that emerges is the
struggle for control over the female community. My analysis of this struggle is at the
center of much of the rest of this study, although I approach it from the various angles
of power, gender, and kinship. In this chapter I examine how Shenoute presented his
claims to authority and how he created his power. It is thus necessary to differentiate
between these two termsauthority and powersince the two are intertwined in his
relationship with the women yet present different interpretive concepts. Shenoutes
authority was located in his position as head of the monastery. Yet Shenoute could
not maintain that position, or be an effective leader, without power, that is, without
the ability to persuade his monks that he was the best person to have the position of
authority as archimandrite. It would seem, based on these denitions, that Shenoutes
authority is easily determined. Yet the evidence suggests that some of the duties of
the head of the monastery, especially with regard to the womens community, were
not yet settled at the time of Shenoute took this position. In the course of these letters, therefore, he needed to justify additions to his authority, including the extension
of his authority over the female community. In order to expand his authority,
Shenoute needed to prove that he had the power to do so; to understand how he presented this power, we must examine Shenoutes rhetoric, that is, his characteristic
means or ways of expression.1 His description of his own power presents his selfunderstanding as head of the monastery, a self-understanding that must also make
51
52
sense to his followers. The two religious paradigms that shape Shenoutes selfpresentation are that of prophetrelating wisdom received from Godand that of
suffering.
Monastic leadership in late antique Egypt, both anchoritic and cenobitic, followed a pattern, of which Shenoute is a typical example. The monastic movement
attracted those for whom the assurance of salvation was a pressing need. For Christians to be sure that the actions they took and the sort of life they led would lead to
eventual salvation, it was necessary to follow a leader whose decisions and guidance
were certain to be correct. In order to convince their followers that they were capable
of leading them to salvation, monastic leaders cultivated several characteristics, all of
which are evident in Shenoutes writings to the women. The rst two categories gure into what I call Shenoutes self-presentation as a prophet. While Shenoute never
referred to himself as a prophet, his description of his relationship with God and his
right to lead the monastery are consistent with this status: (1) Shenoute had to present his leadership as commensurate with the total power that ordinary Christians associated with secular powers and, more important, the spiritual authority of biblical
gures;2 (2) he had to convince his followers that he was inspired by God, and that
all his decisions were based on Gods guidance and direction.3 The third category
shapes Shenoutes rhetoric of suffering: he had to persuade the monks that his own
pattern of life could be used as a successful model for them to arrive at a similar state
of perfection.4 This pattern had as its overriding characteristic the suffering Shenoute endured as a monk and as head of the monastery. At the same time, the boundaries between these categories are not xed, either in Shenoutes self-presentation or
in my analysis. Shenoute asserted his authority using reasons that make him out to be
a prophet; he described his leadership in such a way that he becomes a suffering servant, like the prophets of the Old Testament.
Shenoutes discourse of monastic power was consistent with many of the elements
of power and authority in Christianity and monasticism in fourth-century Egypt.5 His
emphasis on harmony and his suspicious attitude toward dissenting opinions conformed with contemporary trends toward uniformity in Christianity. These characteristics are also evident in other charismatic leaders, Anthony, the desert fathers,
and Pachomius among themand thus, not surprisingly, also shaped Shenoutes
leadership. The difference in scholarly understanding between these leaders and
Shenoute is attributable to the difference in the sources. Anthony and Pachomius
may have thought themselves to be prophets, but no written record of their selfunderstanding survives.6 Shenoutes letters provide rare evidence of an Egyptian
monastic leaders understanding of his own authority, his efforts to convince his female followers to adopt his perception as their own, and hints of the womens responses.7
Authority and Power in the Female Community

At the beginning of his tenure as archimandrite, Shenoute had authority over the
men, but the amount of authority he had over the womens community is less clear.
The only evidence for the relationship between the female community and
53
Shenoutes predecessors comes from Shenoutes own explanation for his changes. In
the years before Shenoute became head, there seems to have been two different models for male leadership of the womens community: one of distance and one of proximity. We can recall from chapter 2 that of Shenoutes two predecessors as head of the
White Monastery, Pcol, the founder of the community, never came to see the women;
the second head came only to deliver the materials for the Eucharist, and he then
left and went away without having seen you.8 Neither of these men, according to
Shenoute, came to you (pl.), commanding to you an oath by the Lord. From the
leaders of the White Monastery, Shenoute inherited a model of leadership that used
the space between the two communities to distance the men from the women. At the
same time, a man named Apa Pshoi, who was the anchorite associated with the Red
Monastery and a contemporary of Pcols, came to see the women many times in order to speak the truth to them.9 So the female community had relationships with
both monasteries: liturgically, at least, with the White Monastery, and in terms of
spiritual leadership with the Red. Shenoute, however, altered the tradition of the
White Monastery leaders by beginning to visit the women; he made a series of three
visits early in his tenure. We do not know what happened during the visits of Apa
Pshoi: what many truths he was speaking, or how the women responded to his
speaking them. But, as described in chapter 2, we do know that Shenoutes visits were
fraught with controversy.10
Shenoutes relationship to the female community has points of similarity and difference with his relationship with the male community of the monastery at this time.
During the tenure of Shenoutes immediate predecessor, Ebonh, there was, according
to Stephen Emmels description, a crisis of sin in the male community.11 Shenoute
knew about the sin but was appalled that neither the sinful monks immediate supervisor, nor Ebonh, as head of the monastery, took steps to correct it. As a result,
Shenoute left the community to live in the desert as an anchorite so that, as member
of the same monastic body, he would not be polluted by the monks sin. His departure
did not end Shenoutes association with the male monks; indeed, his actions during
this crisis led him to prominence and eventually to his appointment as head. Moreover, after he became head, Shenoute continued to live in the desert for much of the
time. His separation created a boundary between his own purity, which he protected,
and the danger of pollution from a sinful community. The contrast between purity
and pollution underscores much of his rhetoric in his leadership of the monastery.
At the time of his visits to the female monks, then, Shenoute lived apart from both
the female and male communities of the monastery and led both groups from a distance through the use of letters and visits. However, as I have noted, in the case of the
womens community, the visits, at least, were a departure from the custom of his predecessors. In addition, in the course of his initial visits, Shenoute explicitly states that,
after a period of intense argument and a few expulsions, during his third visit, he and
the women established an oath as we spoke together through Gods agency.12 The
content of the oath was both negative, cursing those who broke the rules after establishing the oath, and positive, blessing those who stand strong.13 This was apparently the type of oath that had been missing in the relationship between his two predecessors and the female community. Moreover, this oath seems to be the basis for
Shenoutes claims to extending his authority over the female community, as a visitor,
54
as a spiritual guide, as someone who could correct erroneous monastic practices, and
as someone who could preach to the women.14 As we saw in the narratives in chapter 2, however, these visits themselves became a source of controversy and so were not
effective in establishing Shenoutes authority. Thus, through the rest of the Initial Crisis and in his later defenses of his expanded authority at various times of challenge,
Shenoute for the most part constructed his power through narrative representations
of his leadership in his epistolary correspondence with the women. It was necessary
to convince the women of his power to be able to validate the new denitions of his
authority in the womens community.
In both chronological periods of his leadershipthe initial crisis and the rest of
his leadershipShenoute had to construct two different types of power: a powerover, or dominion, and a power-to, which lay in identication.15 Despite the presence of both in his rhetoric throughout his leadership, Shenoute emphasized alternate types of power at different points. Since during the initial crisis of his leadership
Shenoute established power-over, or dominion, in the monastery, his rhetoric focuses largely on the legitimacy of his status. What develops is a self-presentation as a
prophet, that is, an agent of God who has access, not just to Gods power, but to
knowledge. Shenoutes knowledge is manifold: he knows what God requires as necessary to achieve salvation and so knows Gods desires for the monastery, Gods will,
and Gods standards for the monastic life. Shenoutes claim to this knowledge, and its
link to salvation, created his power to be head of the monastery.16 A monastic leaders
power lay in the belief among his followers that he had the knowledge necessary to
lead them to salvation; hence much of Shenoutes discourse of monastic power was
meant to persuade his audience that he had the knowledge that justied his appointment as archimandrite. In addition, Shenoute used a rhetoric of suffering that enhanced his claims to authority: his suffering underscored his commitment to the
salvic life.
Once the Initial Crisis had passedand since Shenoute remained head of the
monastery, we can safely assume that the crisis did passthere were still moments of
conict and crisis during which Shenoute had to reiterate his claims to authority,
through his descriptions of his power, to maintain his status. During these periods,
however, it becomes clear that not only was Shenoutes power-over in jeopardy, but
so was his power-to, that is, his ability to be the leader who could guide the monks
to salvation.17 This ability lay in the perception of the monkswhether or not
Shenoute as leader embodied the monastic values he proclaimed and they accepted
as the basis of salvation. Shenoute continued to present his authority through the
same image of a prophet, which was dominant in the Initial Crisis, but his other rhetoric, that of suffering, took on added importance. Shenoutes description of his own
sufferings was necessary in order to present the effectiveness of material practices.18
His aim was to present his own monastic performance, here the practice of suffering,
in order to prove his status not just as monk, but as the model monk.19 Since Shenoute
suffered in a variety of ways, so too his descriptions of his suffering had different functions. If necessary (and, as we shall see, at times it was) he could appeal to his suffering as a means of connection and identication with the rest of the monks; they suffered in the monastic life, and so did he. At other times, however, Shenoute described
55
his sufferings to prove his superiority over the rest of the monks. His rhetoric of suffering was structured around a renunciation of the status of archimandrite as a means
to legitimate his claim to that status. His entire language uses the rhetoric of Christianity as it had developed in its rise throughout the previous centuries.20 Using this
rhetoric, Shenoute was able to create a discourse of monastic power: a series of narratives, self-presentations, and images that supported his claim to be the ultimate authority for the entire monastery, including the female community.
Shenoute as Prophet
As the third head of the monastery, Shenoute was sufciently removed from the
charismatic authority of the founder of the institution, Pcol, to allow his followers
more latitude in questioning the transfer of authority from one leader to the next. A
similar situation prevailed in the Pachomian monasteries in the years following the
death of their founder. Pachomius and his monks had prepared for Theodore to take
over after Pachomiuss death. However, when Pachomius, at deaths door during a
plague, felt betrayed by Theodore, he chose another monk to succeed him. That
monk died soon after his succession and was replaced by another monk who had no
link to the founder of the movement; this disruption in the transfer of authority led
to revolt by many of the monks until Theodore, the originally designated successor,
eventually took control.21 The need for the founder of a movement to transfer the authority that his charisma established, to assure the continuity of the movement, has
long been recognized in studies of authority, power, and community.22 Often this
transfer is hereditary or through direct appointment.23 Shenoute, even though the
nephew of Pcol, nevertheless was not his direct successor. Moreover, his predecessor,
Ebonh, had the disgrace of having failed to lead the community during the crisis of
sin that drove Shenoute into the desert.24 Shenoutes rise to a position of authority,
then, occurred at a point in the institutional development when his followers had
more opportunities to question the basis of authority: he was two steps removed from
the founder and there had already been a crisis of leadership. Following Shenoutes
appointment, his authority and charisma had to be established to maintain the structure of the institution. In addition, as noted earlier, his need was especially acute with
the women, who had even more reasons to questions his (new) authority in their
community since it contained a number of innovations for them and their community.
Shenoutes most important self-presentation of his power in his letters to the
women was as a prophet, a gure who could lead any who obeyed him to salvation.25
Since Shenoute wanted to be the sole head of the monastery, there is little evidence
in his correspondence with the women of compromise between them, while there are
frequent examples of his claim to absolute authority. The power to claim this institutional authority came, in his descriptions of it, from his avowal of a special relationship with God, a relationship that served as the basis of his belief that he had knowledge of Gods expectations on judgment day, and thus the terms of salvation. In the
Initial Crisis, Shenoute based his authority on divine guidance and approval by em-
56
phasizing the aspects of his leadership that were most like a prophet is. There were
three points in his arguments: that he shared an alliance with God; that he knew and
could carry out Gods will; and as a result, that he was the leader most capable of guiding the monks to salvation. During later crises, Shenoute often repeated these three
points as new challenges to his authority arose. In addition, he presented his controversial use of corporal punishment and expulsion as the result of divine guidance, and
indeed divine action. Shenoute used his proclaimed knowledge of the punishments
necessary to cleanse the community of transgression as the basis for his power over
the monks, especially over their bodies, which served as symbols of the larger monastic community.
The Initial Crisis

One piece of evidence from the Initial Crisis is unlike any of the evidence from later
periods: Shenoutes prophet-like performance. We can recall that in one of his rst
visits to the women, he tore his cloak in the midst of a debate to show his torment
over their conict, in imitation of the actions of grieved biblical leaders.26 We can recall also, however, the failure of that gesture, which led to accusations of Shenoutes
sexual impropriety rather than to the womens obedience to Shenoute as a prophet of
God. This response suggests that early in his leadership Shenoutes status was not a
given, but that he had to create a self-presentation as a prophet. Throughout the rest
of this crisis, his language in chastising the women evoked the themes listed earlier:
he had divinely granted knowledge of proper monastic practice, and any disobedience to him would result in alienation from God. This differentiation between his
own relationship with God and the monks relationship with God was the basis of
Shenoutes leadership and shaped his presentation of it.
Shenoutes self-proclaimed relationship with God gave him knowledge of what
God required for salvation and the power to judge the women accordingly. In his description of what Jesus required of the perfect monastery, Shenoute listed not only the
monastic deeds that were required so that your body and soul might be saved but
also the corresponding interior state of being: to be full of justice, peace, love, mercy,
faith, and patience.27 These were the actions and feelings necessary for the monks, as
children of God, to receive their inheritance; that is, to receive salvation.28 Besides
these positive statements, Shenoute also claimed knowledge of how God would act
toward errant monks, both now and at the day of judgment. At one point, Shenoute
warned the monks against doing wrongful deeds, by threatening that God would inict upon them whatever harm they might cause to others.29 When the female monks
were not responsive, or at least not properly responsive (in his opinion), to his admonishments, Shenoute claimed the ability to judge their spirituality, their relationship with God, and to predict their eventual judgment:
If you are not ashamed when I say these things to you, then the spirit of God is not in
you. If you do not repent of your deeds, then no one will have compassion on you. But
if, on the other hand, you were ashamed when I, a wretched man, said these things to
you and if your heart grieved as you listened to these things, because the sins of each one
of you are hidden from her neighbor, then how much will I not be ashamed on the day
when God will judge our hidden things?30
57
Shenoute was, in his description, not only able to know Gods eventual judgment, but
he also implied that before God rendered his judgment, no deeds should be kept hidden from Shenoute, just as they cannot be kept hidden from God. He draws on the
notion of shame to force the women to display their hidden deeds: if not ashamed,
they will suffer at Judgment Day and if ashamed, then their shame releases Shenoute
from his shame before God. This rhetoric was meant to give Shenoute dominion,
rather than serve as a source of identication with the monks as followers of the same
vocation. As the divine agent, Shenoute acted in proxy for God in this life, as Gods
prophet. Only through Shenoutes approval could one hope also to receive approval
from God. In a similar vein, Shenoute foresaw himself as one of the womens judges,
alongside God: Thus, behold, I will stand and reproach you in the presence of the
throne of Gods glory. And I will reproach you, not separated from you as I am in this
world, and not distant, but only a footstep away.31 Such a use of references to a future time of judgment to remind followers to maintain an acceptable level of behavior was not unknown in ancient epistles, and Shenoute may have been emulating
Pauls rhetoric in this respect.32 On the other hand, Shenoutes representation of his
power differed signicantly from that of the desert monastics, who left judgment up
to God rather than judge each other.33 Rather than receiving punishment alongside
the monks, Shenoute made himself their judge, in alliance with God.
Based on this relationship with God, Shenoute could claim Gods favor, both at
the eventual day of judgment and as already in place in current disputes in the
monastery. At times in the Initial Crisis, Shenoute placed his leadership under the
judgment of God; he measured the success of his leadership not by its effects upon the
monks but by his suppositions about Gods reaction to him.34 He addressed a conict
between himself and the women by making God the judge: if God listened to his
prayers rather than theirs (and Shenoute seems condent God would), then he knew
the correct path to salvation, while the women were on the wrong path. He notes sarcastically, If it is you who are most straight in the presence of the Lord, and I who am
crooked before him, then let God listen to your prayers in your community.35 One of
Shenoutes responses to the accusation of sexual impropriety was self-imposed separation from the womens community, which he described in terms of their alienation
from God, here in the person of Jesus: If, then, your least brother [Shenoute] will prevent his spirit from remaining with you, O miserable ones, then how much shall the
Lord of all, Jesus, prevent his holy spirit from remaining with you?36 Since Shenoute
aligned himself with God, he presented to the women the choice whether to be with
Shenoute and God, or without them.
Yet besides power, this relationship and this knowledge also gave Shenoute responsibility, namely for the salvation of the monks entrusted to his care. His salvation, therefore, was linked to that of his followers: Therefore I tell you that I will reproach you face to face in the presence of the Lord Jesus, who will look to my hands
for your blood [i.e., accountability].37 At one point in the Initial Crisis, Shenoute
wrote to the women about some aspect of their conict that needed to be resolved
for our salvation together.38 Yet, in cases where he had sought to correct the monks
error and had failed to do so, he described himself as no longer accountable for the
womens transgressions. When he threatened the women with the loss of salvation,
he argued that it was neither he nor God who hindered their salvation but their own
58
wrongful actions. Their own willful disobedience and refusal to accept Shenoutes
leadership had led them astray: But I am innocent of your blood [i.e., accountability], because I have commanded you; and not only have I commanded you but also
even with blows and cajolings and petitions and a great many other things which I
ought not to do, so that to you I seem to be a wicked man, though I have no other relationship with you except the love of God.39 Shenoutes interest in the womens salvation, then, was not merely altruistic but also self-serving, in his understanding of
Gods requirements for Shenoutes own salvation. It is important to note that the criteria for salvation differed among the monks, depending on monastic rank. Each
monks salvation became dependent on that of the monks below her.
Finally, Shenoutes prophetic status was evident in the divine status of the monastic rules he enforced. He described his reception of the rules for the monastic life inside the veil, upon the altar of the Lord; you have transgressed the words which I have
commanded in the presence of God.40 In his representation, Shenoutes edicts for
running the womens community were not his, but Gods. Not only did this claim suggest that Shenoutes enforcement of these rules had a corresponding divine approval
but it also equated the monastic rules with Scripture in that they were Gods commandments.41 As the recipient of these commandments, Shenoute again presented
himself as Gods chosen agent, and so as having the power to act as archimandrite of
the White Monastery. Not only was the monastic Rule like Scripture, since both were
given by God, but Scripture, if correctly interpreted, also validated the Rule. Because
of his alliance with God and Jesus, Shenoute had knowledge of the authentic interpretation of Scripture. Like other Christian leaders in late antiquity, Shenoute exegeted the Old Testament as if it had been spoken allegorically by Jesus. Here the allegory shows that the monks should behave in accordance with the description in the
Song of Songs 5:1:
The Lord, Christ Jesus, says to you, I ascended to my garden (which is the community).
I harvested my myrrh and my incense (which are your fasts and your night vigils and all
your labors which you do in his name so that your body and soul might be saved). I ate
my bread and my honey (which are the blessings and chants that you perform as you
bless him day and night through your good deeds and all the sayings of the Scripture). I
drank my wine and my milk (which are justice and peace and love and mercy and faith
and patience and every good thing which you do).42
By giving this description and exegesis, Shenoute has granted himself divine approval
of his leadership. The actions of the monastic life that he commanded were all ordained in Scripture, according to his reading of it. He made the same connection between word and practice as did the desert fathers.43 Thus, his claim to knowledge of
Gods will and wishes, as revealed in sacred writings, also served as the basis for his
claim to divine validation of his supreme authority.
Shenoutes discourse of his monastic power upholds the structures that he created
in the authority relationship between himself and the womens community depicted
in the description of the Initial Crisis in chapter 2. His drive toward active leadership
in the womens community involved an expansion of the authority of archimandrite,
which could be achieved only if his actions were perceived as legitimate by the
women who lived in the affected community. Shenoutes discourse was meant to se-
59
cure that legitimacy, in a way his visits had not. This discourse, especially with its emphasis on his exclusive access to knowledge of salvation, supported his changes and
validated the increasing inclusion of the women into the structure of the monastery
as a whole. In addition, his creation of the mutual accountability of each monk for
the others salvation, in the female community, corresponds to the creation of male
envoys and intermediaries in his relationship with the womens community. By having monks accountable to and for one another, Shenoute supported ultimate accountability to himself as head of the monastery. By resting his own salvation on his
successful leadership of the women, Shenoute secured power over them. Although
his discourse in later crises is more complex, his claim to knowledge gained through
being a prophet remains central.
The Aftermath
Shenoute described his relationship with God and its consequential power in order
to persuade the women to accept his authority and to submit to the changes he was
making in their monastic experiences. The same themeshis alliance with God, his
knowledge of Gods will, and hence his ability to lead the monks to salvationare
all evident in later crises: moments when a conict over some issue allowed or forced
Shenoute to articulate his perception of his authority, and the power that underlay
it.44 This possession of knowledge was crucial for two controversial issues: corporal
punishment and expulsion. In discussing those topics, however, Shenoute also began
to modulate his claim to power-over with expansion of his discourse into powerto (dened earlier, n. 15). His claim to knowledge that the punishments were required was not sufcient to support his power in these more controversial areas of
monastic life, and so we see a more complex discourse emerge. Rather than simply
portraying himself as a judge, as we saw earlier, Shenoute also presented himself as
Gods obedient servant, who had no choice but to obey Gods commands to beat and
expel the monks. His obedience required him to suffer since Gods requirements were
painful for him to execute.45 Hence his representation was meant to forge an identication with the monks; like them, he was to be obedient even if suffering resulted
from that obedience.
Shenoutes claim to an alliance with God, stated repeatedly in his description of
the Initial Crisis, allowed him to assert the power that relationship granted him. But
this rhetorical strategy would carry weight only if the monks believed that God participated in their lives and their monastery. Shenoute had to show Gods relationship
with the community, and these descriptions surface in later crises. The monastery,
Shenoute argued, was a community, a congregation, of monks who were headed by
God; Shenoute alternatively referred to the whole monastery as one congregation, or
as a group of congregations, apparently indicating the various buildings that made up
the monastery. These were Gods holy places, his congregations.46 As such, they belonged to God, not to any person, and God was to take care of the monks who lived
within them: For these congregations belong to God, not to people. Also, God is
perfectly capable of exercising care over whatever thing, or things, have to be done
among us.47 In Shenoutes scheme, it did not matter whether he or another human
being was archimandrite; God was still the head of the monastery.48 His portrayal of
60
Gods leadership of the monastery again reects its ideology as an earthly version of
the heavenly realm.
This metaphor of the monastery as Gods holy place also led Shenoute to argue
that the monastery was to be a pure place that would allow God to reside there (just
as God and his angels reside in heaven): How could the purity of the blessed Lord
God not remain in his holy places that span from one end of the earth to the other?49
Any pollutions would make the monastery uninhabitable by God. Moreover, Shenoute asserted that God would make sure that the congregations remained pure by imposing purity upon it: God, according to what is written, will spread his purity, or his
purication, upon those whom he nds to be beloved, at any time in virginity, and
modesty, and any righteous thing in his congregations everywhere.50 However, in
cases where the monks actions have polluted the monastery, Shenoute did not believe that God would abandon the monks, both because of Gods own mercy and for
the sake of those monks who remained faithful: Grace does not belong to you, you
deceitful people, for God did not remove himself from his holy places because of your
abominable deeds, but it [grace] belongs to his mercies and to the faithful brethren
who dwell among us.51 Despite these reassurances, Shenoute still thought it best to
avoid pollutions altogether; such purity was attainable, in Shenoutes thought,
through obedience to a leader trusted by God, that is, Shenoute. Further rhetorical
support of Shenoutes status, as we shall see later, comes from the condition of
Shenoutes body, healthy or ill, as a reection of the purity or pollution of the
monastery.
Throughout the rest of his tenure, Shenoute repeated the key themes of his discourse that we saw in the Initial Crisis. He continued to claim that he gave proper interpretation of Scripture: What would I do, or what can I do, except these things? I
do not see any other option except that I teach according to what I believe from the
Scriptures, lest I wound or hurt someone.52 He chastised any of the monks who did
not accept his letters as divinely inspired, like Scripture; alienation from the community and hostility would come upon these monks for they did not believe what
was said in another letter even though the written word of God says it.53 He continued to assert that the rules for the monastery came from God, and that anyone who
did not obey the ordinances was an enemy: And even though I gather together with
the entire congregation in everything in every way, in every pattern and every ordinance from God, I am an enemy to those people who did not listen to, or to those who
will not obey, the sayings and the ordinances which God commanded in his congregations.54 He also contended that God, not other humans, instructed him about his
sins.55 An implication of this claim was that his ability to instruct the monks about
their sins had a divine basis. In his description, God continued to be Shenoutes ally
in all his actions and sayings toward the monks: It is God who bears witness to me as
I tell you that I did not act in this way without command.56 Shenoute thus sought to
convince his monks that obeying him was the equivalent of obeying God. In one instruction to the monks, Shenoute maintained that God was the companion only of
those who obeyed Shenoute and led the life he advocated. Otherwise he sarcastically
notes, Let God be with you, if he is the companion of thieves or doers of deceit
among you, whether male or female, if they have not distanced themselves from their
61
sins thus far.57 Shenoutes discourse persisted in creating a distance between the
monks as a group and God and Shenoute as their superiors.
Also consistent in these later crises was Shenoutes claim to knowledge of Gods
evaluation for eventual salvation as the basis for his current authority over the monks
as their judge. With regard to reporting disobediences to him, Shenoute instructed
the monks that they would not be able to lie to God at his judgment as they lied to
him.58 On one occasion, Shenoute used threats of Gods condemnation to compel the
monks to confess their misdeeds to him, that is, to compel them to accept the authority of his judgment: If you do not get reproach, you deceitful people, on the day
of judgment, and if your holy brethren do not get approval in that place, then I, whom
you consider to be drunk (or who was drunk) from the bitter pain, have not said any
instructions to you.59 The transgressors were deceitful because they were hiding
their sins, rather then reporting them to Shenoute for correction.60 As in the Initial
Crisis, not only did this use of apocalyptic language support Shenoutes authority, but
it was meant as a moral guide for the monks. Shenoute wanted to remind the monks
always to think of their future salvation, and to allow that goal to shape their current
actions (in obedience to him) and their current self-understanding as monks (subservient to Shenoute, their guide to salvation).
In addition to these many similarities, however, there are two new characteristics
in Shenoutes discourse about the later crises and both these characteristics are connected to two topics that were only hinted at in the Initial Crisis: corporal punishment
and expulsion. First, Shenoute at times had to make strenuous arguments for instances when forgiveness was no longer an option for errant monks, but corporal punishment or expulsion had to be used. Second, he at times had to make a clear distinction between himself and God, even while arguing that God was the instigator for the
punishments of beatings and expulsion. In terms of the former issue, punishment over
forgiveness, Shenoute used beatings as one means to correct the monks behavior and
to provide them with the opportunity to do penance for their sins. Various types of
behavior could lead to corporal punishment, and the beatings themselves could be severe, involving reeds, straps, rods, and a great amount of physical pain. In the crisis
over the Death of a Male Monk (Crisis 6), at least some monks apparently proposed
that forgiveness would be preferable to beatings or expulsion. Shenoute, although he
rejected the monks position, seems to have been aware that these beatings were liable to seem incongruous with the life of love and companionship that his ideal promoted. Indeed, his leadership often included acts of forgiveness. Later in this same
letter, for example, Shenoute urged some female monks to be forgiving of one another, in order to mitigate disputes and maintain the harmony of the monastery.61
Similarly, in the crisis over Gossip (Crisis 5), he wrote to a monk that she was to be
forgiven one last time; she was at the same time punished by the male elder, apparently either by a demotion to living at the gatehouse instead of one of the womens
houses, or by a beating to be administered at the gatehouse.62 Another time, in the
crisis over The Beatings of the Women (Crisis 4), as described earlier, he absolved a
monk named Tapolle from being beaten.63 Thus, while beatings and expulsion were
frequent, Shenoute was not so rigid that he could not allow forgiveness as another
means to keep monks on the path to salvation.
62
Yet, despite the death of the monk and his own pronouncements in favor of forgiveness as a hallmark of monastic life, Shenoute, in this crisis, emphasized the repetition of transgression as a reason to engage in corporal punishment and expulsion.64
He warned that it was even worse to promise not to sin again and then still commit
the sin: Those who return swiftly to the sin which they renounced are impure before
God. And they are all the more impure if they desire to return to the sin which they
renounced and they commit it again after promising not to do it, or not to return to
it.65 For the repetition of sins, he used a colorful biblical image: The dog is impure
in your eyes if he returns to his vomit and eats it right away without delay. But he is
even more impure if he returns to it and eats it after it putrees, and stinks and has
worms in it.66 Moreover, he looked to God for support of punishment over forgiveness. He maintained that the beatings were Gods answer to repeated disobedience to
the way of life God had already revealed to the monks, through Shenoute: It is God
who causes or ordains that I do everything in your community in a disturbing, angry,
wrathful manner, throwing impudent people down as though I were a wrestler, to
punish them.67 Shenoute also answered the objection that in favoring punishment,
he, as archimandrite, was acting without God: Arent you forced to admit as a result
of the ransom that you have obtained by these actions or tortures that I have not
dared to do any deed or say anything in your community without [the participation
of] Godfrom a blow of the rod to a rebuke or curses or, otherwise, scraping with my
hand or foot?68 He argued for Gods role in these actions in order to defend his own
authority in carrying them out, which had then caused controversy in the monastery.69 As archimandrite, Shenoute had the authority to use corporal punishment,
but the level of resistance and argument suggests that his power was not fully established to do so, or at least not to the extent he used the beatings.
In addition, in another crisis (9), Shenoute had to defend an apparently excessive
use of expulsion. The unity of the monastery, and the shared responsibility for transgressions, meant there was the possibility that the presence of wrongdoers could divert other monks away from the right path; the bitterness of the sins would rob
sweet things of their sweetness.70 Shenoute believed that Gods anger was not always
limited to the sinners themselves but could encompass the community that tolerated
them. Obedient monks could lose their salvation if they did not punish wrongdoers:
For just as a judgment and blood and even mourning are upon me whenever I become alienated from you, beloved, so also there is a judgment and blood upon me
whenever I make myself a companion to those who do, or who will do, pestilent deeds
among us.71 Shenoute justied expulsions based on this theological argument, as Pachomius had done.72 Shenoutes leadership never lost sight of its ultimate goal, salvation for as many as possible. It was the essence of communal living that the actions
of an individual affected not only her salvation but also those around her.
The second new aspect of Shenoutes discourse was a need to distinguish between
himself and God in acting as head of the monastery. Although Shenoute routinely argued that God was the instigator of the actions Shenoute undertook, there were times
when Shenoute mitigated this alliance to create a distance between God and himself.
The need for this distinction was especially acute in the crisis over charges of Excessive Leadership (Crisis 9), where one element of his excessiveness was apparently his
extreme rhetoric making God the actor for deeds Shenoute performed. Shenoute de-
63
fended his leadership by distinguishing between what the monks should do for him,
and what could be done by God later. Shenoute did not allow deeds to be kept concealed from him, because eventually all deeds would be called into account by God.
However, unlike God, Shenoute could not know about unreported deeds:
Truly, if the ones who do, or will do pestilent things within these congregations escape
me so that I do not behave towards them as bets their deeds (for I cannot behave in this
way, because I cannot know the secrets of their evils which they do in the dark) . . .
[God] uncovered the secrets of the congregations, since the congregations were not able
to hide from God, though they could hide from people.73
Shenoute was still the judge over the women in the current time but not so much that
he was indistinguishable from God. Shenoute argued that, even though monks might
be able to hide their transgressions from him to avoid expulsion, God would eventually uncover these deeds: But if our sins, though hidden from people, are obvious to
God, then he will uncover, through many methods and many manners, our abominations and our pollutions and every false thing which we do, or will do, in these congregations at that time.74 Shenoute was careful to claim that he did not have access
to secret knowledge because he could not be perceived as claiming to be divine: Let
them be cursed in the eyes of God and humankind, because they have said, I know
which ones of us are sinninga thing which I never said, not even about others.75
Shenoute had authority over the women, and the power to force them to confess their
sins, but, in his hierarchy, his was not as great as the authority and power God would
have. Moreover, his punishments now were less than the punishment such actions
would receive from God: Then what will people do to you, if they catch you in your
abominations, or what can they bring upon you more than that which God will do to
you, or that which he will bring upon you, whether now you are impure people (along
with the one through whom you do all impurities, Satan) or holy brethren (along
with the one through whom they do every righteous thing and every holy thing, Jesus).76 God then was the nal judge, but Shenoute claimed to be best able of all the
monks to know what was necessary to do in this life to earn Gods favorable judgment
when the time came.
Confusion as to whether Shenoute attributed divine characteristics, such as omniscience, to himself could have arisen because there are points in his discourse when
he seems to claim to know when people are sinning, even if others did not. For example, when he describes the transgressions of the ten women mentioned in Canon
4, in most cases he knows the womans error because it was reported to him. In two
cases, however, Shenoute merely notes, And I know what deed caused the beatings
to be given to her.77 Confusion also could have arisen because Shenoute often argued
for no distinction between himself and God in the exercise of the more controversial
disciplinary actions of corporal punishment and expulsion. Shenoutes discourse extended his authority beyond dominion over the monks lives to include their very bodies because those bodies were connected to God: You are sufcient, you who destroy
the work of Gods hands, which means your bodies, by pollutions and every abominable thing.78 In the letter responding to the crisis, Jealousy among the Women (Crisis 7),
Shenoute claimed that it was not he who expelled monks from the community, but
rather God: Oh, what a great grief! Indeed, what a great pain! That God cast forth
64
from his congregations the ones who were caught doing abominations among us.79
According to Shenoutes argument, God protected the purity of his community by
expelling those who polluted it, especially through their disagreements with
Shenoute. Those who were of a single mind with Shenoute were able to resist the
anger and the pain which God brings, or which he will bring, upon those whom he
expels, or will expel, from the community at every appropriate time because of their
pollutions and their thefts and their disobedience and all their other evils.80 At
times, Shenoute admitted that it was he who expelled monks, but he declared that he
did so only to protect the rest of the monks from the anger of God and to secure their
benet, that is, their salvation: So for this reason I am hastening to pursue doers of
pestilent deeds at that time, to cast them forth now from our community so that we
might escape his (Gods) anger and we might receive benet.81 Shenoute both described God as, and apparently believed God was, an active member of the monastic
community, whose actions were those which Shenoute merely carried out.
So too it is clear that several of Shenoutes defenses of corporal punishment as
appropriate (earlier) depended on God being the instigator of the punishment.
Nowhere is this more clear than in his defense in the Death of the Male Monk (Crisis
6), in which he claims that it was not he who beat the monk but God. When
Shenoute defended himself against the accusation of excessive beating, he turned it
into a defense of God: God was not angry with him, nor did he kill him, because he
had done wrong or sinned more than the rest of us, or lied more than any among you,
but because the days of his life were complete. If God killed him in anger, then why
did he not kill us who have sinned more than [he]?82 Not only did Shenoute portray
himself as at least acting in concert with God, if not actually as a puppet performing
actions controlled by God, but he also claimed that his authority over corporal punishment was exclusive because of his exclusive knowledge. Others were not allowed
to mete out corporal punishment because others did not, in Shenoutes opinion, have
the same relationship with God as he had, and so could not be certain that they were
acting correctly:
I do not permit any person in the community (or indeed other people in other places)
to strike people in my name, or based on the essence of the instructions which are in the
Rule that was written for us, lest one of us do difcult deeds within the community judiciously and as a command from God, but another, or others, seek to do them without
counsel or command from God.83
The central tenet of Shenoutes leadership was that he always acted with God, either
carrying out Gods will or revealing Gods commands. This correspondence between
Shenoute and God was also his justication for expelling monks who had not corrected their behavior even after being beaten for their transgressions.
Shenoute had a further defense of his actions in beating and expelling monks,
namely that he had to obey Gods will for the monastery, even when he found his own
actions unseemly. This defense differed from his others in that it emphasized difference and disparity between God and Shenoute, rather than alliance. As a result, it allowed him to portray himself as suffering in his obedience to God. Shenoute often
claimed that he was reluctant to mete out corporal punishment, describing these
beatings as difcult deeds. He only ordered them through obedience to God;
65
Moreover it is he [God] who causes or ordains that I be satised doing these deeds in
this manner and that I entreat the most high to give me a little patience and gentleness through the prayers of everyone who is in the community, whether male or female, who desires peace and goodness for their poor wretched brother [Shenoute].84
Although Shenoute did want to carry out these deeds, he did not blame God for having to do so but faulted the errant monks themselves: For still another sin of yours is
upon you: that you compel me to speak words and to do deeds contrary to my will.85
Shenoute laid blame for his harsh deeds on the monks wrongful actions and represented himself as being tested by God to make sure that Shenoute was an effective
leader who guarded his monks salvation: Just so if I am impelled by those who do, or
did, improper things in the community to do difcult deeds, and moreover God tested
me to see if I would do them, then woe to me if I did not do them! And if I do not
do them, how is it that I can continue [as leader]?86 In Shenoutes presentation, one
motivation for the monks to obey Shenoute was to relieve him of the burden of harsh
leadership.87
In Shenoutes self-portrayal, his obedience enhanced his authority in two ways:
that the object of his obedience was God, and that his obedience made him an example for his monks to follow. Just as Shenoute was obedient to God, even in difcult
deeds, so the monks should obey Gods spokesperson, no matter how difcult. At the
same time that his obedience led to his identication with the monks, his description
also supported his power by making him a model for the monks. Shenoute obeyed
God, as he would obey neither civic powers nor the pleas of the monks in his care: A
king along with his soldiers would not be able to force me to do difcult deeds among
you if God has not commanded me to do all of them. Therefore a multitude will not
be able to force me to do them. If I obey you rather than the will of God, so as not to
do them or to do them, sweetness will turn to bitterness, peace to enmity, love to hate,
and intelligence to ignorance.88 Shenoute justied the monks suffering through
beatings by comparing it to the suffering that God brought upon all humanity, monks
and laypeople, when angered.89 However, his own suffering was even greater. He argued that, because he needed to be obedient to God by carrying out the difcult
deeds, he was in fact suffering in his leadership and so deserved more pity than those
who were to be beaten: And if you pity yourself and others because I do difcult
deeds in the community so many times, then have pity on me since God has commanded me, who said I stood in your midst so that I was fatigued on every side and
weary to my bones.90 The monks had brought the beatings upon themselves through
their own actions, whereas Shenoute was suffering only because he was fullling
Gods will. His power over the monks led to his greater suffering by comparison,
which in turn proved that he was able to be the leader the monks needed to guide
them to salvation.
In these later crises, Shenoute repeated the controlling image of his status as
prophet for his rhetoric of dominance. However, for more controversial topics such
as corporal punishment and expulsion, he had to modulate his claims to power, to argue for a power-to, for the right to carry out his actions, rather than just a powerover, merely an assertion to that right. His self-presentation in these cases was not
limited to his claims to power over the monks but also identied him as a monk himself, in need of obeying Gods will even over and against his own. He identied with
66
the suffering such disciplinary actions created by describing the suffering he underwent to carry them out. This one aspect of Shenoutes suffering allowed him to connect with the monks on an experiential level, even while supporting his authority.
Shenoutes overall rhetoric of suffering is more complex, however, because as head of
the monastery he suffered in a number of ways. Not all these ways were meant to help
him identify with the monks in order to quell controversy, but all combined humility
with authority.
Shenoutes Rhetoric of Suffering

There are three ways Shenoute presented himself as suffering, and all are rhetorically
connected to his claims for ultimate authority in the monastery: through the renunciation of power to identify with the monks, through descriptions of the monastery as
a suffering body, and by identifying himself as a suffering servant, in the same lineage
as the prophets, apostles, and saints from the past. We have already seen examples of
the rst type, when Shenoutes suffering resulted from obedience to a higher authority. Similarly, Shenoute often referred to himself in his letters to women as their
wretched brother, their least brother, or a wretched servant.91 These phrases
suggest a renunciation of the ofce of head of the monastery in favor of a position
equal to that of the women (that he is their brother rather than their father) and the
accompanying description as wretched afrms his suffering and his lowly state. These
self-references are a form of rejection of authority; Shenoute appeals to his similar status, rather than to his institutional authority, as the justication for his commandments to the women. As often is the case in monasticism, his renunciation leads to
greater expressions of power.92 This self-representation worked to enhance his power,
since it identied him as the greatest embodiment of the ascetic values of humility
and renunciation, even as it provided means of connection with others who shared
those values. The other two ways Shenoutes rhetoric of suffering functioned
through the tropes of a suffering body and a suffering servanthave, however, less to
do with identication and more to do with establishing authority.
The Suffering Body

Shenoutes presentation of the monastery, its functioning, and the results of transgression repeatedly used the image of the body. We saw in the monastic oath (chapter 1) that the body symbolized the monastic community; its purity reected the communitys purity, and it was the focus of punishment for transgression. Shenoute also
described the monastery as a single body, a controlling metaphor that united the
monks together into mutual accountability. This trope, not unique to Shenoute, has
its Christian roots in Pauls rst letter to the Corinthians. There Paul, as Dale Martin
has argued, uses the tropes common to a speech of reconciliation, including likening
the polis (or Christian community or, here, Christian monastery) to the body and describing any discord in that community in terms of disease.93 So too, Shenoute described the result of transgressions of the monastic rules in terms of illness, though
there are points in Shenoutes rhetoric when it is unclear whether the resulting ill-
67
ness is merely a metaphor or an actual illness. Since the individuals body was also
part of the monastic body, individual illness could spread. Once the monastic body
was aficted with (metaphorical) illness, there were two possible consequences: the
community could be healed through proper penance or Shenoutes body itself was aficted with illness, which again seems to be just as real as metaphorical. In his descriptions, Shenoute made his own body the reection of the community as a whole.
Once again, Shenoutes suffering, previously a result of fullling Gods commands,
but here as a result of illness, derived from being head of the monastery. The monks
individual illnesses were a result of their own wrongdoing; Shenoutes was an innocent suffering on behalf of the wrongdoing of others.
Just as other Christian leaders, starting with Paul, saw the Church as one unied
body, so Shenoute regarded his monastery. The monks were not simply a community
but members of one body, of which Christ was also a part: We and you are limbs to
our companions and we form a single body in our Lord Jesus Christ.94 As scholars
have shown in the case of 1 Corinthians, the trope of the body was common in letters urging concord and reconciliation.95 Its appearance in Shenoutes letters, which
are similar in genre and ideology to 1 Corinthians, is unsurprising yet has a particular
function arising from the circumstances of this Christian community of the White
Monastery. Shenoute presented his physically divided communities, male and female, with the controlling metaphor of a single body in order to unite the disparate
monks. Implicit in his corporeal metaphor was that a body only has one head; so likewise the White Monastery was to have only one supreme authority.
In his corporeal metaphors, Shenoute also used the Pauline idea that different
members of the community could have different functions, but all be parts of the same
body and hence united. He required that the monks always be of a single mind, or a
single heart, with him, again a Pauline trope borrowed from the standard rhetoric for
homonoia: We, meaning those who are of one mind with me and I with them,
whether male or female, will ght against the anger and the pain that God brings, or
will bring, upon those whom he throws out of the community.96 Moreover, Shenoute
maintained that only through being of a single heart with one another could the
monks be certain that Jesus would be willing to join his heart with theirs.97 Being of
a single mind and heart meant, to Shenoute, a complete absence of conict and complete obedience to his rules and his instructions. He used body imagery to describe
disobedience to these rules as well. The single body could become infected by illness,
or transgression, from any one of its parts; as a united corporate being, every part was
at the mercy of the others. Here Shenoutes use of body imagery and illness as a
metaphor becomes quite complex. As the single body, the monastery needed to be
healed of the transgressions of its member. However, the monks bodies also became
symbols of the monastery was a whole; Shenoute described them as affected with illness that represented a community gone awry.98 The difference in Shenoutes descriptions of bodily illness depended on whose transgressions had caused the illness, ones
own or those of others.
The monks illness was an indication of their own transgressions. Shenoute addressed the transgressors as a people suffering from an illness but unwilling to seek
healing: The person who lies about this illness, hiding it in himself, as it also moves
against him, as it wounds him, and moreover as it ingests things which are harmful to
68
him, does not lie to human beings, but to God, and gathers his destruction unto his
own self.99 In addition to the monks own bodies, the monastic body could also be
described as suffering illness because of the transgressions of its members. The
metaphor of disease implied that the monastery was a single body because it could describe the communal threat of one monks sin; illness was transmutable throughout
the body of the monastery. It also suggested that there were methods of healing. To
heal the body of its illness, physical penance was meted out in the form of corporal
punishment of the transgressors. Physical suffering was necessary as a healing of the
body, that is, of the monastery, from illness, that is, transgressions. In other words,
the beatings were enactments of the metaphors that dened the monastic life:
Therefore, since we are truly a single body, we ought to instruct our companions by
scoldings and blows, not maliciously and with hatred, nor with the authority and arrogance of proud and boastful tyrants, as others have done, but with a love of God
toward our companions, let us instruct each of us, whether male or female.100 Suffering, in turn, was the component that was essential to the cleansing process; thus it
was essential to salvation. If the transgressors continued in their illness they had to
be expelled because of the danger of the spread of their corruption spreading throughout the rest of the body. Although the suffering here described was not Shenoutes,
his discourse makes clear that suffering was the element necessary to keep the
monastery pure. It follows that whoever suffers the most would, in the context of this
discourse, be the most pure and so be the logical choice to be head of the monastery.
Not only was illness a trope for the transgressions in the community, but Shenoute
presented instances of illness, even his own, as Gods punishment of the monks body
for some error.101 Shenoute threatened the monks who ate too much that illness
would result from their transgression.102 He also made frequent references to (apparently real) sickness that he was suffering, a rhetorical device that had become increasing common in the discourse of the previous centuries.103 When Shenoute described the wretched eshes of his body undergoing illness, or described the
necessity of his suffering, he was ascribing to himself the same representations that
hagiographers made ample use of in their descriptions of the physical illness of the
bodies of the saints.104 That this is a self-presentation, much like Perpetuas accounts
of her sickness and sufferings as the source of her power two centuries earlier, only
highlights the strength of the discourse in Shenoutes and the monks selfunderstanding.105 Moreover, Shenoute associated his own bodys suffering with the
dysfunction of the larger community. In the midst of describing a continuing conict
between groups of women, and the continued alienation of one group of female
monks, Shenoute writes, Oh, this great illness which I came upon, or which has
come upon me! Jesus, Jesus, son of the exalted God, take this illness from my body, or
from the body [i.e., the monastery].106 The monks needed to lend their support
to Shenoute and implicitly support his power to ght the illness that he, and the
monastery, were suffering.107 It is part of Shenoutes discourse of monastic power that
his body represents the community of the monastery. When conicts occur, he must
undergo the corresponding suffering, as represented by his illness. If unchecked, the
illness caused by other monks attacked Shenoute himself: Oh, my physical body and
my wretched esh, which has come upon this illness, or rather which this illness entered and descended upon and which is so fearful because it is also spreading to the
69
limbs which are pure of it [i.e., illness].108 Shenoutes suffering in this illness was not
due to his own transgressions, but rather was on behalf of others. In so representing
his illness, Shenoute linked his leadership and his suffering into one.
The Suffering Servant

Shenoutes rhetoric of suffering depicted him as the greatest monk of the monastery.
Not only did he undergo a level of suffering in illness that the rest of the monks did
not, but his service to the monastery, in the form of his leadership, also caused him
suffering. Here, however, Shenoute describes an emotional suffering, rather than a
physical suffering of illness. We have already seen one portion of Shenoutes selfpresentation as a suffering servant: the suffering he endured by obeying Gods requirements of corporal punishment and expulsion to maintain a pure community.
This aspect of Shenoutes rhetoric of suffering served a paradoxical purpose of both
identication with the monks and support for his authority as head monk. Other portraits of his own suffering served less to identify with his fellow monks and more to
prove his superiority over the other monks, who did not suffer as he did. On these occasions, Shenoutes suffering was a result of his monastic service as guide to salvation:
because he knew the true path, he was pained when others veered from it. Shenoute
was in these descriptions a suffering servant, cast in the mold of others of Gods agents
who had also suffered in their service to God.
Late antiquity was a time when the holy person was increasingly a model for other
Christians. Shenoutes rhetoric proposed a view of history as containing a sequence
of exemplars.109 Throughout Shenoutes discourse, Christ, the prophets, apostles,
and all the saints provide a pattern for a life that led to blessings from God.110 These
people had accepted suffering as part of their obedience to God and they lived as servants to God and to humanity.111 For his denition of the nature of monastic life,
Shenoute emphasized these two characteristics of suffering and service: What is the
pattern that the prophets and apostles provide, but to beg to suffer with others even
unto death? And in all these things they give thanks to the Lord.112 Another part of
the suffering was the willingness to be a servant to ones companions: But let us be
servants to one another, like Jesus, who took the form of a servant for us, and like Paul,
the servant of Jesus, and like all the apostles and prophets who were servants to the
Lord and his Christ, according to the Scriptures.113 For both qualities, Christs taking the form of a servant and his suffering on the cross provided the inspiration: And
so we remember the sufferings of all the saints, and we consider how our Lord Jesus
despised shame as he remained steadfast on the cross for all our salvation, because he
is our savior, our Lord and our father.114 The pattern that Christ set was discernible
in the lives of gures from the Hebrew Scripturesthe prophetsand was imitated
by Jesuss followers, the apostles. Shenoute states explicitly that these people provided a pattern for the life of the monks:
Which wise brothers will not follow the pattern of their faithful brethren who are superior in rank to them? This means: which wise people will not wish to do the works which
their ancestors who are in heaven did; this means God and our Lord Jesus? Moreover,
they follow the pattern of the prophets and the pattern of Paul, and all the apostles who
70
said, Follow our pattern, our ordinances, our faith, our patience, our love, our endurance, our persecutions, our sufferings; then also, We gave ourselves to you as a pattern [to follow]; and also, Receive, my brethren, the pattern of the suffering and patience of the prophets.115
Shenoute used these gures as exemplars because of their already-established authority in Christianity.
In addition to being models, Shenoute made the gures of the prophets and apostles our ancient ancestors. This lineage created channels of authority leading from
the ancestors to their proper successors.116 Since Shenoute created a portrait in which
he clearly mimicked the behavior of the models he claimed as ancestors, he created a
genealogy that granted him the authority of the prophets and apostles. I will explore
in more detail in chapter 7 Shenoutes use of familial language to shape monastic
identity. Here it is sufcient to note two examples in which he makes implicit connections between the model ancestors and himself. First, in his justication for corporal punishment, he imagines that the biblical fathers beat their children, although
it was not recorded in the Scriptures.117 In another argument, Shenoute appeals to accounts of holy people in Scripture in favor of his assertion that monks should love all
Christians, not simply ones kin: So that truly we shall be like the sons of Abraham
and the sons of all our ancient ancestors, whom the Lord blessed because they not
only loved their own sons and daughters and all their relatives, but they also loved
everyone who believed in God and who guarded Gods commandments.118
Shenoute also created a link between himself and the ancestors by stressing actions within his leadership that made him seem like the ancestors. The suffering and
humility that these holy gures exemplied were recurring characteristics in Shenoutes descriptions of his leadership of the women. By describing himself in terms
similar to those that he used to describe the monastic role models, Shenoute implicitly argued for his own status as exemplar as well. Shenoute employed a rhetoric of
both humility and pain to establish his authority as a suffering servant. One engendered the other: because Shenoute was in the service of God as head of the monastery,
he suffered; and his suffering for other monks showed his authority as head of the
monastery, a position Shenoute, on these occasions, was careful not to portray as
powerful, but as servitude. In the arguments he used in the letters of the Initial Crisis,
he provided descriptions of his own suffering to prove his commitment to the
womens salvation; likewise, his perception of the womens lack of suffering suggested
to him their lack of concern about their salvation. His position is not of leader, however, but of wretched brother:
These things I say weeping, even as I have wept many times before and still do now. . . .
our little brother, the scribe, is troubled and he too weeps, because he sees me weep, as
my tears ow over my cheeks and [fall] down upon the ground. . . . but I tell you that I,
your wretched brother, am sick at heart, and I have pity on you. But you are not sick at
heart over what you have done, nor do you pity yourselves, o wretched ones. . . . I tell
you I often weep until I can no longer, because I am so sick at heart.119
He used this same rhetorical strategy elsewhere as well: If I am pained (for I am

pained, and there are others who are pained with me, because of the people who did
diabolical deeds within the community) . . ..120 The womens transgressions did not
71
just cause him pain. They also forced him to speak to them harshly, which caused him
still more pain: Now, if you have been depressed because I said these things to you,
know yourselves that it was in much anguish that I said them.121 His pain was greater
than the womens, again placing him above them in this ascetic contest. After hearing his letters, the female monks could not fail to notice the similarities between authoritative biblical heroes and their leaders own suffering. In the conict over Excessive Leadership (9), he expressed his suffering to humble himself before the two
seamstresses who had been hurt by the cloaks condition:
My heart is crushed and it was crushed on account of the pain which evidently showed
in your facesyou the elder and Tapolleas though you had been struck. For you are
at a loss and you were at a loss, very painfully; you are mourning and you have mourned;
and your hearts are disturbed about something that is both clear to you and hidden from
you.122
By expressing his wretchedness and his willingness to endure it, Shenoute presented
himself to his audience of female monks as if he were a prophet of old. Shenoutes appeals to the similarities between himself and gures of unquestionable biblical authority allowed him to appropriate the authority of his models. His rhetoric gave him
the qualications that were necessary to be the head of the monastery: he followed
the pattern set by Paul, the prophets and apostles, and even Christ. Also noteworthy
is Shenoutes self-professed claim for placement among biblical gures, rather than a
patient assumption that it would be assigned to him by posterity.
The rhetoric of the suffering servant, based on the model of Christ and the apostles, pervaded monastic literature and created a source of authority for monastic leaders. Shenoutes use of a rhetoric of suffering, both in body and as a servant, created
that part of his discourse of monastic power that supported his power-to; that is, his
own suffering was meant to convince his followers that he had the ability to transform them into saved beings. It was not sufcient in monastic leadership simply to
have dominion, even based on knowledge of salvation, but one also had to have the
ability to be a monk, according to accepted denitions of monasticism, in order to be
a persuasive leader. Shenoute portrayed his monastic ability in his depictions of the
sufferings he underwent.
Conclusion
The monastery was supposed to be a divinely led community, devoted to a life of obedient suffering in order to achieve salvation. Shenoute argued that he should have total authority in both the male and female communities because only he had access to
Gods revelations about the deeds necessary for salvation. Shenoute based his claims
on a variety of arguments, all of which were designed to convince his followers that
he was like an Old Testament prophet: inspired and guided by God, totally obedient,
accepting of suffering, humble and yet authoritative in his leadership. Moreover,
Shenoutes extension of his authority to include the womens community was an innovation that altered the structure of the monastery. His presentation of his authority, then, in part was a defense of the changes he was making.
72
The question that arises from examination of Shenoutes frequent claims is

whether the women accepted his authority, and if not, how were they able to resist?
What sources of power might they have had outside the authority structures that rendered them subservient to Shenoute? The answer lies in the physical makeup of the
monastery. The concept of the monastery as one united body was in conict with the
physical separation of the mens and womens communities; although Shenoute tried
to bridge the distance through monastic theology and the use of male elders as envoys, the reality of his power rested on the womens cooperation. The space between
them awarded power to the women, despite Shenoutes attempts to the contrary. Finally, Shenoute ordered the womens compliance to his commandments not only out
of concern for his own authority but for the sake of the monks salvation. One imagines that the monks were as concerned with their own salvation as was Shenoute;
however, they were not as compliant with Shenoutes vision of the monastic life, nor
as accepting of his authority, as he would have liked. Their resistance is the subject of
chapter 4.
4
Acceptance and Resistance
The Womens Power
Shenoutes arguments throughout his letters to the women were not stated in a vacuum but in response to specic situations in the womens communities, including the
reaction of some women to his leadership and the decisions he made. These reactions
can be divided into the general categories of resistance and acceptance, and each provided various groups of women in their community with the opportunity to create
their own power. Again, the difference between power and authority has heuristic
value for understanding Shenoutes descriptions of the womens actions. Shenoute
determined the authority women had in their various ranks as part of the overall authority structures of the monastery: there was a female elder who oversaw the community; there were a number of elders who were of senior rank; there were mothers of the various houses; and there were junior monks. Each rank oversaw the
rank(s) below them. All the women were subject to Shenoutes authority, either in
the form of his person or letters or in the proxy form of the male envoy sent by
Shenoute. Yet beyond this authority, some women could use a variety of means to create their own power: separation from Shenoute, secrecy from him, and outright rebellion, along with male monks, characterize the opportunities available to them.
The male envoy(s) from Shenoute gain an important role in these structures since he
(they) represent(s) Shenoutes attempt to limit the womens access to the power created by their separation from him. Yet most discussion of the male envoys relationship to the female community will be left for chapter 5, since it engages with the
specically gendered aspects of the authority structures of the White Monastery. Here
his role will be described, but without gender analysis.
Evidence for cases of resistance to Shenoutes authority is often limited to rejection by two (at times overlapping) groups: leaders in the female community and those
73
74
female monks with kin in the male community.1 These womens opposition ranged
from simple noncompliance, to more active disobedience, to occasional rebellion.
Noncompliance entailed their refusal to follow Shenoutes solutions to their conicts,
whereas disobedience entailed direct action to limit Shenoutes authority in their
community by countering his power with their own. This disobedience, more than
noncompliance, suggests that the women valued and protected their own authority.
While we cannot access the womens motivation in the sources we have, Shenoutes
descriptions of their actions suggest a desire on their part to maintain the status quo
of Shenoutes predecessors, when the women had greater control in their community
without interference by the male head of the monastery. Rebellion, however, seems
to have occurred only when at least some women joined with male monks in questioning Shenoutes decisions and his authority and so shows the limits of the role of
gender in analyses of resistance and acceptance. The two occasions rebellion is recorded in the letters to women occur when the whole community, both male and female, seems to be the audience of the letter. Thus, on these occasions, the women
must have joined a monastery-wide rebellion, based on issues affecting both male and
female monks, rather than seceding their female community from the monastery.
Despite the number and severity of the Initial Crisis and later conicts, overall the
women accepted the administrative authority of Shenoutes position as head of the
monastery and at times used his authority to gain power in their internal struggles.
Whichever group of female monks, or at times an individual monk, Shenoute favored
in a conict had an advantage over their opponents within the female community.
However, it remains questionable whether this type of acceptance implies that the
women also accepted Shenoutes own portrayal of his power and his relationship with
God (as outlined in chapter 3). That the women came to understand that Shenoute
was going to be a constant presence in their lives, for example, does not necessarily
mean they accepted all his actions as God-driven. For a model of a monk who chose
to describe Shenoute much as Shenoute described himself, we may look to Besa,
Shenoutes successor as head of the White Monastery and author of his hagiography.
A Model of Acceptance: Besas Life of Shenoute

Besas Life of Shenoute provides two types of evidence that add to our knowledge of the
development of Egyptian monasticism.2 It supplies historical information about
Shenoutes life, such as when he joined the monastery, that Pcol was his uncle, that
he attended the Council of Ephesus in 431, and so forth.3 However, as a hagiography,
it also provides insight into the way Shenoute was perceived by his nearcontemporaries in late antiquity. It presents a narrative world that reects the culture of the time, rather than just providing information about the historical person
who is its subject.4 For the overall purposes of this study, both types of information are
useful. The real Shenoute was the person who wrote the letters to the female
monks, and who determined much of their life. At the same time, our only access to
the real Shenoutethrough his own constructed discourse of who he isis necessarily suspect. We are fortunate, then, that Shenoutes immediate successor wrote the
hagiography, rather than a much later, or even a non-monastic, gure. As a result, we
Acceptance and Resistance: The Womens Power
75
have access to the way his monks, such as Besa and others, might have viewed him,
a view that, albeit hagiographical, expands the self-presentation of Shenoutes own
letters.
Besas account of Shenoutes leadership emphasizes many of the same qualities
that Shenoute used to describe himself in his letters to women, and thus it provides
an effective bridge between my investigation of Shenoutes self-portrayal and the
womens response to his leadership. In particular, Besa portrays Shenoute as having a
close and trusted relationship with God, which granted him special status in the human world. He presents Shenoute as the perfect monk and as the perfect monastic
leader owing to his ability to show his followers the true path through his example,
his instruction, and his great and incredible signs, just like those of the holy prophets
and apostles of the Lord.5 The similarity between Besas description and Shenoutes
self-presentation during the course of his leadership attests to the success of
Shenoutes rhetoric. His hagiography therefore serves as a model of acceptance of
that presentation that provides a needed balance to the other genre of evidence: letters addressing periods of conict, which focus on resistance rather than acceptance.
According to Besa, Shenoutes relationship with God began early in life and was
the reason he joined the White Monastery. Besa portrays the seven-year-old Shenoute as a boy with mystical powers that led his parents to place him in the care of his
uncle Pcol.6 It is noteworthy that Besa, as narrator, did not present the young Shenoutes abilities as strange or surprising, but merely as signs of his lifes destiny. The Life
does not give details about Shenoutes life as monk before his appointment as head of
the monastery, or the process of that appointment. Rather, the author assumes that
Shenoutes mystical abilities showed to all people the divine authority that was necessary for him to be head of the White Monastery, and this assumption shapes the hagiography accordingly.
Besas descriptions of events during Shenoutes leadership likewise serve to underscore his belief in Shenoutes divinely ordained authority. Most notably, he gives accounts of Shenoutes frequent conversations with the prophets, saints, apostles, and
Jesus himself that are meant to inform the audience of Shenoutes close relationship
with them. Besa does not know, nor does he think that it is of consequence, whether
the conversations happened as visions or in the esh.7 He intends only to suggest that
Shenoute had the same status as those with whom he conversed, with the possible exception of Jesus, one of his conversants. Besa makes clear that the conversations bestowed special authority on Shenoute by describing his own failure ever to see Jesus
and only once being allowed to hear him.8 Since Besa believed that Shenoutes authority had a divine source, he does not express any wonder in his descriptions of
Shenoutes conversations with other holy gures to whom Shenoute was, at least in
Besas eyes, similar. In Besas narrative world, there is no need for explicit assertion
that Shenoutes mystical conversations, and especially his ease in having them, signies his divinely granted authority.
One aspect of Shenoutes leadership that is most troubling to modern Western
readers is its severity, in his rhetoric and in his extensive use of corporal punishment.
Even in antiquity the monks were somewhat ambivalent about the extent of corporal punishment in the White Monastery. Besa, however, shows no concern about excessive severity in his accounts of sentences Shenoute handed to penitents. Most of
76
Shenoutes advice to sinnersto follow an ascetic life as penance, to seek Gods forgiveness, and so forthwas not unusually harsh in comparison to other contemporary ascetic leaders. For example, Shenoute advises a man seeking forgiveness for a
murder to follow a strict ascetic life; the narrative then describes him as gaining both
forgiveness and salvation.9 This mans sentence may be lighter than the one in the
following story because he does not recall his crime.
Those stories that strike modern readers as unusual, even in comparison to contemporary accounts, did not necessarily seem unusual to Besa. One story, for example,
tells of a man who had committed a murder and came to Shenoute for advice about
how to repent his crime:
And my righteous father, the prophet Apa Shenoute, said to him: Do not stay in this
place, but arise quickly and go into the city of Smin, where you will nd the duke.10 He
has come south down the river and is being greeted by his people. Some thieves who
robbed an eminent man of the city of Smin will be handed over to him and he will be
incensed with them. You too must go and join the thieves, and they will say to the duke:
He is here with us. The duke will ask you: Is it true? Say to him: It is true, and he will
therefore kill you with the others. You will then enter into the eternal life of God. [16]
The man left immediately and did just as the holy [Apa Shenoute] had told him, and the
duke cut off his head with the rest of the thieves. In this way the mercy of God came
upon him, just as my father told us.11
The use of capital punishment for criminals was not unusual in antiquity, but here it
was Shenoute who served as judge and sentencer of the murderer. Besa seems unconcerned with the severity of the sentence and emphasizes Shenoutes authority over
the man and his ability to lead him to salvation. While the Life lacks any account of
monastic beatings, or of any monks death at Shenoutes hands, Besas narrative world
seems indifferent to a high level of violence as the source of sin and as a path to salvation.
Besa presents uniform praise and little analysis of Shenoutes leadership. He does,
however, provide hints that not all aspects of Shenoutes leadership were met with his
followers acceptance and enthusiasm. In one narrative, Besa makes passing mention
of the possibility that Shenoutes expectations of the monks could encounter some
ambivalence, though he does not make clear whether the ambivalence was his own
or that of others: Once upon a time a brother erred in a matteras a person, because
God alone is without sinand our father Apa Shenoute threw him from the
monastery in accordance with the canons.12 Besa does not question Shenoutes expulsion of the monk, yet his parenthetical comment reminds his audience of the limits that human beings can achieve. This reminder may be a subtle judgment of
Shenoutes high expectations. Likewise, in several other stories Besa describes the
monks as grumbling in a neutral enough tone to suggest that the monks had cause
for complaint about Shenoutes requirements of them. In each of these narratives,
however, Shenoute is able to resolve the conict and silence the monks grumblings,
usually through recourse to some mystical ability.13 In Besas account, Shenoute thus
convinces the monks both of his authority and of their need to follow him, since he
had their interests at heart all along.
77
Like Shenoutes conversations with prophets and apostles and his mystical abilities, Besas description of Shenoute as the perfect monk also indicates the legitimacy
of his authority in the monastery. Shenoute, in Besas representation, had himself
achieved the high level of asceticism that characterized his rule of life in the monastery.14 He had the character of a true ascetic. He was in a position of authority yet
had true humility. He was severe towards wrongdoers yet had compassion for them
and for the poor and disenfranchised.15 Shenoute is portrayed like other ascetic gures of his day, in his abilities and his extremes.16 For Besa, Shenoutes severity is a
manifestation of his commitment and his strength, both of which were necessary
qualities for a leader in Egypt in an unstable timeeconomically, religiously, and socially. Moreover, Besa accepts Shenoutes own portrayal of himself as a leader who had
personal contact with God, who gave him authority and guided him in his leadership;
who was so much like a prophet that he conversed with biblical prophets; and whose
decisions, even harsh ones, were to be followed since they would lead to salvation for
all, even for the gravest sinners. Thus Besa portrays Shenoute in much the same manner as Shenoute portrayed himself when he defended his leadership to the women in
the monastery. Whether the women also accepted this portrayal remains in question.
Hierarchy in the Womens Community

In the White Monastery, there were three positions of leadership within the womens
community, just as there were in the male community: elder, mother (father), and
house second.17 Shenoute oversaw the women in their positions, and, since the authority structures were designed to uphold his supremacy as head of the monastery,
his commands to these leaders in the female community reect an expectation that
they would participate as his subordinates and his champion to the other monks.
That the female leaders at times used their positions of authority to create their own
power, and promote their own denition of monasticism against Shenoutes, is more
a reection of the uidity of authority structures than a result of gender divisions. In
addition, these female leaders had periods of conict with each other, and with their
underlings in the female community. Authority issues in the womens community
had as much to do with internal power struggles with each other as they did with
struggles with Shenoute. Shenoute often located these internal conicts in eshly issues, such as personality differences and jealousy, but for the most part he did not locate them in gender, in terms of inherent female aws (those occasions when he did
use a misogynist rhetoric appear in chapter 5).
Of the three positions of leadership, Shenoute does not mention that of house second in any of the surviving portions of his letters to the women.18 In contrast, he mentions the other two, female elder and mother, several times throughout the letters, especially the female elder. Shenoutes use of the term female elder in reference to the
female community is vague; at times he uses it in the plural (where the term loses its
grammatical gender, since in Coptic the plural is gender-neutral), but more often in
the singular.19 It seems that there were many women who held the rank, and the accompanying authority, of elder, but only one served as head of the female community,
78
whose title was indicated by the singular denite feminine article: the female elder.
For example, Shenoute only refers to one female elder in his codication of the rules
for the monastery. Also, when he refers to the female elder in his letters, he never
gives her name, thus suggesting that all listeners would know who was meant by the
simple title.20 Chronology presents another interpretative difculty. Given that
Shenoute never gives the proper name of the female elder, and assuming that these
letters span a long period of time, it is possible that not all references to the elder refer to the same woman. So when Tachom was arguing with the female elder in the
Initial Crisis, that may not be the same woman she assisted in the beatings mentioned
in The Beatings of Women (Crisis 4). Likewise, the female elder and Tapolle were ghting at one point, yet at another (either earlier or later) they were united in receiving
Shenoutes defense of the care of his clothing. While such evidence is complicated
by the lack of dates for the letters, it is still evident that there were changes in the
relationships among the leaders of the womens community on a seemingly regular
basis. The women leaders had some power, apart from Shenoute and his (male)
envoys, to inuence the lives of the female monks in their separate community. It
is not surprising that there would be power struggles among them, some recorded
by Shenoute and others surely not recorded and so lost. What is important for our
understanding of the independent relationships among them is that at times these
women resolved their own difculties apart from Shenoutes knowledge or control,
while at other times they used Shenoutes opinion to lend weight to their side in a
power struggle.
The female elders primary duty to Shenoute was, like the male elder, to act as a
messenger.21 She was to visit Shenoute, send female envoys, and report to him about
the state of the womens community; she could also send letters to Shenoute, though
other women could as well.22 Her visits and letters can be seen, as I argue later in this
chapter, as a sign of her submission to Shenoutes expansion of his authority into the
womens community. Yet I will also explore evidence of her refusal to submit entirely,
her ability to follow her own judgment on occasion. The next highest position in the
womens community was the head of one of the individual houses, or mother. The
mothers were apparently responsible for correcting the monks in their houses, only
turning to higher authorities when the situation remained irresolvable. For example,
the monk who wrote to Shenoute requesting a transfer had claimed that she could
not get along with her current mother, Maria. Shenoute did not approve the transfer,
which would have been to a house run by Theodora.23 He refused in part because he
did not think there was a legitimate reason for the transfer: What is the thing which
the good mother, Maria, did violently so that you want a transfer?24 If the monk
could not avoid conict with her current mother, Maria, he argued, what reason was
there to suppose she would be at peace in Theodoras house?25 The position of mother,
like that of elder, was meant to help the monastery function in accordance with the
ideal outlined in the monastic rule. In reality, the women who held these positions
formed better relationships with some monks in their care, worse ones with others.
Shenoute locates these differences in the esh, as simply personality conicts, and
therefore as illegitimate inuences on the monastic experience.
While Shenoute supported Maria and Theodora in their positions as mother, one
letter records a different type of evidence where Shenoute threatened the position of
79
a mother, Tachom. Tachom stepped out of the established authority structures rst by
arguing with Shenoute and then by refusing to accept one of Shenoutes envoys. Her
actions led Shenoute to question whether she was qualied to hold her leadership
post: If you do not admit that the man whom I sent you has the same authority as
myself . . . then you have separated yourself from us.26 Shenoutes authority structure
granted power from the top down: his approval gave the women their authority.
These leaders would only continue to have legitimate authority, in Shenoutes view,
if they continued to be subservient to him as head of the monastery. At the same time,
Shenoutes letter implicitly acknowledges that while Tachom might be acting inappropriately for her position of authority, her support among the female monks gave
her the power to do so.
Overall, then, Shenoute suggested that the most important quality of all the female leaders, just as for the male leaders, was complete agreement with Shenoute. On
several occasions, Shenoute describes those who pleased him, or those with whom he
wants to establish an alliance, in terms of their union with him. For example, I and
all those who wish my peace, that is, those who are of a single mind with me and me
with them, whether male or female describes those monks who ght against the
transgressors in the monastery.27 Later in this letter, Shenoute uses the same language
to describe the female community as he wishes it were, should they be able to resolve
their conict: You, the elder, and Tapolle, and the mothers who are with you and all
those who are in agreement both with you and with us.28 The female leaders had
power within their own community, but in Shenoutes view they still had a responsibility to uphold Shenoutes authority, both by submitting to it themselves and by extending it over the monks in their care. It is the disparity between Shenoutes idealized expectations and the reality that existed among the women that served as the
basis for many other conicts.
Its either you or I: Acceptance and Resistance

Shenoutes leadership of the women had a rocky start. Although (as I will argue in
chapters 5 and 8) only some women objected to Shenoutes initial extension of his authority, the adversity of that period, evident in Shenoutes description, reappears as
a common theme to connect his accounts of the later periods of conict, no matter
who was (were) his opponent(s). I will begin, then, by returning to the Initial Crisis
after Shenoutes appointment, when he altered the relationship between the head of
the monastery and the womens community. As we have seen, whatever the situation
was under Shenoutes predecessors, the relationship between the two communities
had apparently not included the presence of a male overseer in the female community, nor is there any record of regular communication between Shenoutes predecessors and the women. Under Shenoutes predecessors the women seem to have had a
relationship with the male community that they found acceptable.29 Shenoutes aggressive tactics in trying to extend his authority over the female community, in contrast, caused contention between them. He describes his three visits in terms of the
afiction which came upon us as I was talking to you. During his second visit,
Shenoute expelled some monks for transgressing the monastic rule, and he warned
80
that any future transgressions would also result in expulsions. He speaks of the great
suffering he endured because he visited the women, staying all night, even though he
was sick. The implication was that the pain he suffered on account of their transgressions was worse than the pain caused by his exacerbated illness. It also seems clear
that the women were not only sinning, but also arguing with Shenoute throughout
these visits, a point he makes explicit in his description of his third visit: And you
yourselves spoke to us your own words, because of the temptation which came upon
us and the afictions which lay hold of us greatly because of our sins. Shenoute apparently thought these arguments had been resolved through the oath that he and the
women swore during his second visit, to uphold the monastic rules.
Subsequent events, however, including some female monks questioning of
Shenoutes motivations in coming to see them and his legitimacy as a leader in their
community, showed otherwise. As a result, Shenoute regarded himself as exiled from
the female community and his future visits seem to have differed from these earlier
ones. He now led the women from a distance, through letters and envoys rather than
through frequent visits. As is often the case in Shenoutes correspondence, the nal
resolution to the Initial Crisis is not mentioned. Rather the end of the letters simply
outlines Shenoutes re-iteration of the new authority structures that required the
womens submission to Shenoute and his envoys (as I noted earlier, chapter 5 discusses gender in these authority structures). Since this is apparently the end of this
period of controversy, one can assume that the women eventually accepted Shenoutes expanded denition of the authority of the archimandrite. Indeed, one can see
aspects of that acceptance, most often during conicts that occurred among the
women and required an outside arbitrator. Times of resistance, occasioned by particular issues and events, however, remained a problem throughout Shenoutes tenure;
that is, even though there seems to have been general acceptance of Shenoutes authority as head of the womens community, there continued to be debates about the
extent of power that authority granted in response to particular decisions Shenoute
made.
Acceptance
Since Shenoute wrote his letters to the female community in response to conicts and
crises, only rarely did he mention any acceptance of his authority. Given, however,
that Shenoute ruled the monastery for more than seventy years, the ten individual
crises do not seem particularly numerous, even though some were serious and longlasting. There were two different issues at stake in the womens acceptance of
Shenoutes leadership: rst, the question of the validity of his institutional role in making decisions in the female community, and second, whether the women trusted his
decisions and thought they were appropriate to the monastic life. The second question, in short, was whether Shenoute was an adequate moral and religious leader. For
the rst question, institutional authority, the evidence suggests that the women accepted it, for the most part, but they did not seek Shenoutes involvement unless it
suited their purposes as part of an internal power struggle. Evidence of acceptance of
Shenoutes religious leadership, that is, acceptance that he carried out divine will, can
only be inferred from the continuation of Shenoutes leadership. Were Shenoutes de-
81
cisions wholly inadequate, one assumes there would have been greater rebellion, as
witnessed in other forms of monasticism.30 How any woman viewed his claims to divine guidance remains unknown, given the loss of the womens own voices.
Perhaps the best example of acknowledgment of Shenoutes institutional authority over the female community comes from the female monks Request for a Transfer
(Crisis 8). Shenoute regarded the womans request as resulting from his authority as
the father of the community: You sent word to us, honoring the fatherhood.31 In
making her request directly to him, the monk appealed to Shenoutes authority over
her female superiors. Moreover, her request assumes that, if Shenoute granted the
transfer, he would have the power to force the female elder and mothers to obey his
decision, even if it differed from theirs. That an individual monk, among the many
hundreds in the monastery, contacted Shenoute for help is also noteworthy. Such a
circumstance suggests that Shenoute was available as an outside arbitrator not only
to the female leaders, but also to any monk who felt the need for his help. His availability created connections, which were prominent in solitary monasticism, within
the larger, more impersonal communal setting.32 The monks request, then, indicates
that Shenoute was considered to be the supreme institutional authority in the White
Monastery to whom a female monk could appeal and thus circumvent her immediate
superiors.
On another occasion (Crisis 3), part of the female community accepted
Shenoutes authority when a female monk had refused a promotion, leading to controversy about the duties inherent in the monastic life. Some women had reported
this refusal to Shenoute; although the language of their report (as quoted by
Shenoute) is neutral, evidence of conict throughout the letter suggests that some
women had objected to her refusal and so appealed to Shenoutes authority as head
of the monastery to lend weight to their condemnation of her.33 This conict shows
two views that the women had of Shenoutes authority and power in their community. One view, held by at least the monk in question and possibly by her supporters,
was that the women were in charge of their own community, including their own determinations of their ability to serve in leadership capacities; the woman who refused
promotion did so to her female companions (superiors?) without apparent concern
for Shenoute.34 The other group of women in the conict accepted that Shenoutes
authority extended into the womens community and that he had a role in their internal conicts; moreover, their report, like the monks request above, assumes
Shenoute had the power to force the monks to his position. The monk, or monks,
who held the former position seem to have also argued against a life of monastic labor and service, and for one of contemplation. These monks did not challenge
Shenoutes authority by advocating his dismissal as head, but they questioned his
power by rebelling against his denition of the monastic life, and his desire, voiced as
commandments, that the women follow only his denition. Hence, as opposed to
other conicts we will examine below, at least some women asked for Shenoutes intervention in this conict. Shenoute not only responded with the letter but he also
sent the male elder, vested with the authority to make a judgment in the conict and
end the quarrel.
Similarly, the female leaders showed that they accepted Shenoutes institutional
authority over their community on those occasions when they complied with
82
Shenoutes requests to report transgressions in their community to him so that he

could determine what punishments were necessary. Shenoute described the womens
transgressions for which they were being punished as being written to us earlier.35
Thus the women, in accordance with Shenoutes expectations, participated in the
authority structures that connected them to the male community. For the most part,
however, even in their acceptance of him, the female leaders attempted to make
Shenoute a distant authority. He was to be available to them as a last resort, rather
than involved in every decision, or even most decisions in the community. Indeed, as
we shall see, the women created their own power in this changed relationship with
their male head by reporting when and what they wanted. Even on the two occasions
noted earlier when the women treated Shenoute as a higher authority, they did so because he was an outsider: it was his very distance from the situation, as well as his position of archimandrite, which gave him the ability to arbitrate their disputes.36 On
occasions when Shenoute initiated his actions as an arbitrator in the female community, the women were apparently much more reluctant to follow his instructions (or
at least appeared so to Shenoute). It is clear in the Initial Crisis that Shenoute saw the
space between the two communities as an obstacle to the type of leadership he desired, resulting rst in his visits and then in his letters. This space remained an issue
throughout the rest of his tenure. Various female leaders seem to have taken advantage of this obstacle. They used and protected the space between the female and male
communities since it gave them access to power, even if Shenoute treated it as an illicit power. Its illegitimacy was not rooted in the womens gender (yet) but rather in
its wrong place in the authority structures as Shenoute had constructed them.
Resistance: The Use of Space

The authority structures of the White Monastery that Shenoute set in place were
meant, for the women, to overcome the physical separation of the womens and mens
communities. Although never explicitly stated, Shenoutes arguments reect an
awareness that the space was lled, as it were, with female autonomy, which hindered
his vision of his own superior leadership. Despite the womens eventual acceptance
of Shenoutes changes in the authority structures of the monastery at the beginning
of his tenure, they remained able to use the space to protect their own power.
Shenoutes long and furious arguments in favor of his authority over corporal punishment, for example, indicate that the women were undertaking corporal punishment on their own authority, something Shenoute did not allow even the men to do
in his absence.37 Five other examples show the further use of space by women. Some
letters record occasions when the women were not heeding advice, or even instructions, Shenoute had already offered either in his letters or through his envoys. As a
result, the women acted according to their own judgment, rather than following
Shenoutes dictates designed to foster a harmonious environment. In one of these
cases, however, the actions of one woman, Tapolle, suggest acceptance of Shenoutes
judgment, but largely because it served her interest. Likewise, the last example contains descriptions of both acceptance and rejection of Shenoutes judgments. Nevertheless, an important difference moves these examples from the acceptance category to resistance: whereas in the earlier examples at least some women requested
83
Shenoutes involvement, in these instances Shenoute intervened, declared one

group correct, and that group advocated acceptance of his decision. Their acceptance, therefore, suggests more a self-serving interest than institutional acceptance of
Shenoutes denition of his position as archimandrite.
A good example of the limits of Shenoutes power due to his separation from the
female community comes from Tachoms refusal to receive Shenoutes envoy, mentioned earlier. Her action separated her, and her community, from Shenoutes power
over them.38 Shenoute acknowledged that a power struggle was at the heart of his
conict with Tachom when he explicitly denied hierarchical titles in his salutation.39
In addition, Shenoute adopted a humble tone in parts of the letter that suggests that
he was making a gesture of equality; rather than blame Tachom, he diverted responsibility for the conict onto miscommunication.40 Shenoutes deference shows his
awareness that his conict with Tachom was substantial, jeopardizing the access to
the womens community that was necessary for his authority. At the same time, he
continued to exert his authority by claiming that it was Tachoms duty to apologize to
him, even though they had both made mistakes in the situation.41 Shenoute not only
advised Tachom to receive the male envoy but needed her to do so in order to maintain the authority structures that Shenoute had established, including Tachoms own
place in those authority structures: And if the man whom we sent is not your father
according to rank (and he is [your father] according to divine ordination) then you
are not a mother!42 Tachom had the power to separate herself and her followers from
Shenoute, and Shenoutes only recourse was to his legitimate authority structures,
which he presented as the correct means to salvation. In short, Tachoms deance is
the clearest example of female resistance to Shenoutes authority and creation of her
own power. She used the space that separated her from Shenoute in order to create a
authority structure different from his.
While Tachom protected the space between Shenoute and the women in a physical sense, the female elder and Tapolle protected a different type of territory: the
work the women did for the monastic community.43 When Shenoute complained
about the methods the women used to make his garments, and those of the rest of the
male monks, he suggested that he could send measurements to the women, or visit to
have measurements taken, so that the garments t better: Either I will have them
take measurements or I will give measurements to the ones who made them. But I
must try them out! I absolutely will not put them on or wear them with the shoulders
being as narrow as they previously were.44 His arguments anticipate that the female
elder and Tapolle, both of whom he mentions explicitly, will resist his plan. Since
Shenoutes request for visits could be seen as claiming the authority to dictate to the
women how to make garments and how to do their weaving, their resistance would
be to another attempt by Shenoute to overcome the physical separation of their communities. Like the resistance to Shenoutes initial visits, the womens refusal to accede to Shenoutes request was again an effort to maintain their monastic life as it had
been, and to resist changes that would result in less control.
Shenoute did get to dictate the measurements and decorations at least for his own
clothing, however, as was evident in the other conict over clothing (Excessive Leadership [Crisis 9]), when he had to defend his treatment of a particular cloak. The fact
that the cloak in question had been a beautiful cloak, made according to Shenoutes
84
own specications, worsened the accusation of his alleged neglect of it.45 By visiting
and confronting him, the women placed Shenoute in a position subordinate to them.
They were the weavers and seamstresses who produced his clothing, while he was
merely the recipient. Shenoutes humble response reects his defensive position: My
heart is crushed and it was crushed on account of the pain which evidently showed in
your facesyou, the elder and Tapolleas though you had been struck. For you are
at a loss and you were at a loss, very painfully.46 It is noteworthy that Shenoute addressed these two women as a pair who would unite in protesting his treatment of
their services, since these two appear in another letter in which Shenoute describes
a very different relationship to his authority.
Although at times the female monks complied with Shenoutes authority, they
also often ignored his attempts to mediate their conicts. Such was the case, as we
have seen, when Shenoute intervened, through the male elder, in a conict between
the female elder and the monk, Tapolle. That the elder reported the conict to
Shenoute two months before suggests that she complied with his institutional authority. At the same time, she also judged for herself the helpfulness of Shenoutes advice. Shenoute warned the elder that, even though Tapolle had been disobedient to
her, she was being even more disobedient in defying Shenoutes solution for forgiveness: Indeed, will you be able to endure the judgment of God since you are being
overbearing to your sister once and for all because the Evil One has corruptly turned
your heart against your companions?47 Clearly, the female elder had not found
Shenoutes earlier exhortations to be adequate for the situation and so the conict
had continued. In addition, the female elder had refused to take an oath in the presence of the male elders who had been sent to settle the conict. Tapolle did take this
oath and so seems more accepting of the mens authority. Yet her acceptance may well
have stemmed from her desire to appear to be in the right (especially since Shenoute
saw her as in the wrong by starting the conict with her gossip), and as a means to
continue the conict. If so, she was successful in that Shenoute now blamed the elder
for her stubbornness in continuing the conict.48 Tapolle was not completely absolved, however, since she was now in trouble for attacking the female elder for her
lack of forgiveness.
Shenoute was aware both that Tapolle and the female elder had not obeyed his advice and that they remained hostile to one another. He reiterated his directions and
explained why it was benecial for the situation in a lengthy discussion of the need
for forgiveness among all the parties in question: the elder, Tapolle, and him. All have
hindered one another, apparently in their ability to be a mutually supportive community united for everyones salvation: If she has hindered you, you also have hindered me. And if you hindered me, then I and you and everyone who is not willing to
forgive their neighbor because they gossiped about them have hindered God so that
he does not forgive us our sins. All need to be reconciled to one another so that God
will reconcile with them and forgive them: If you [the female elder] do not join your
heart to hers [Tapolles], how do you know that Jesus will join your heart to his? Or
will he? Forgive your sister and tolerate your companions in the fear of the Lord and
you will be perfected by your deeds so that you might be criticized on the day when
every hardship will withdraw from us.49 Some of his frustration in not being able to
85
settle this conict stemmed from his belief that his instructions would lead the monks
to salvation. By disregarding his instructions, the elder endangered her salvation as
well as those under her and she undermined Shenoutes power as the sole guide to salvation. The women who did not accept Shenoutes instructions as the necessary solution to their conict thus called into question not simply his authority as head of
the monastery, but the moral authority that he claimed as part of that position.50 Even
though Shenoutes instructions were based on the rules that governed the monastery
as a united group, the women were sufciently independent not to feel compelled to
obey him.51 Descriptions of such conicts as these provide evidence for the womens
relationship with Shenoute beyond the denition of authority structures. Neither rebellious nor passive, the female elder chose to follow her own course, even when it
ran counter to Shenoute and his envoys wishes. As noted in chapter 2, the picture of
Tapolle is more confused, perhaps due to Senoutes own confusion or lack of knowledge about her motivations and actions. But at the least she was disobedient and perhaps even spiteful toward her female superior, and manipulative of the male authorities who tried to settle the conict.
In another conict among the women (Crisis 7), one whose details have been lost
but which was based on jealousy, Shenoute again had to readdress a situation since
an earlier judgment had not succeeded in reconciling the women. Although the male
leaders had already met with the female community to render judgment of the conicting parties, the group of women who had lost were reluctant to accept their decision. Instead, Shenoute describes these women as laughing and mocking the letter in which he gave his decision.52 In contrast, the group of women who had received
Shenoutes favor accepted his authority, perhaps since they had won the conict, and
thus received a favorable description as being properly grieved over its continuation.
The group of women who were prolonging the conict, like the female elder, resisted
Shenoutes attempts to quell the argument that would, in effect, have silenced their
position. In addition, the womens resistance worsened this conict; rather than remaining an argument internal to the womens community, it expanded to include adversity between these women and the male authorities. This conict, then, stands in
contrast to that over the monks refusal of promotion, where some women requested
Shenoutes presence in order to lend weight to their position. Here it is unclear
whether Shenoute and his male envoys were ever asked to participate and, even so,
their position did not sufciently bolster the women with whom they agreed to end
the conict. Given the womens ability to resist Shenoutes solutions to their conicts, one wonders what might have happened if Shenoute had granted the monk her
request for a transfer and had written to the mothers involved informing them of his
decision. Would the mothers have felt compelled to follow his order, if they disagreed? To what extent could Shenoute, who lived outside the female community,
enforce his decisions and control the womens behavior through envoys and letters?
That is, even after Shenoute becomes a more active leader in the womens community, what power did he actually have?
In many of these cases, the women who were able to defy Shenoute were in
positions of authority. The conicts were disputes between two groups of leaders
Shenoute with his male envoys versus the female leadersfor control over the
86
female community. Whether the women were consciously limiting Shenoutes involvement in their community, and thus consciously wanting to forge their own
independence, remains unknowable given that our evidence is from Shenoutes perspective. Since, however, their resistance succeeded in limiting his power, it is likely
that a desire to maintain their independence was part of their motivation, while the
other part seems to lie in a sincere belief that Shenoutes demands on their monastic life were unreasonable and unnecessary.53 In various conicts the women sought
to deny that Shenoute had the authority to make decisions for their community, either through his letters or through the male envoy, and they acted in ways that limited his power to use his authority. The womens actions re-enforced the boundary
inherent in the space between their community and Shenoute, and so between their
authority to shape their own monastic experience and Shenoutes desire to co-opt
that authority; that is, their actions maintained the physical separation, and the
consequences of that separation, that Shenoute sought to alleviate through his discourse.
Resistance: The Use of Secrecy

Since the women could protect their physical separation in these ways, and hence
preserve their authority, Shenoute had to place the women under surveillance. This
surveillance began as a result of the Initial Crisis, when Shenoutes own visits caused
such controversy. Yet it is notable that the surveillance was not physical, with
Shenoute actually able to observe the women; rather, his surveillance was accomplished through commands for constant reports and apparently frequent visits from
some male elders. This information was essential to Shenoutes ability to make decisions for the women. Secrecy among the women, then, constituted one of the greatest threats to Shenoutes rule and another source of their own power.54 Shenoute attempted to persuade the women that they should prefer acquiescence to resistance to
his surveillance: Now, if you want your mind to be at ease in your community, then
set my mind at ease in our community by telling me frankly about everything that
may happen in your community.55 If the women chose to resolve conicts on their
own, as the female elder did, or to determine punishments of transgressors without
Shenoutes advice, in effect they made their community independent from Shenoute,
as he himself made clear in his constant worrying about it: Now, if your unity with
us only extends that far [keeping {te} pace Young], then you have no love for us in our
community like that which we have for you in your community. And since you will
not tell us what is in your heart just as we tell you what is in our heart, and you will
not tell us the things that happen in your community just as we tell you everything
that happens in our community, then God help you! You must bear responsibility for
everything!56 Independence, then, meant also accountability for the transgression
and error the women would undoubtedly fall into without Shenoutes leadership.
Shenoutes attempts to discourage secrecy among the female monks rhetorically
functioned to gain more information from the women, by claiming to know there was
more to be told. Yet they also reect an actual need to counter the concealment that
the women could use to limit Shenoutes institutional authority.
87
The tension between Shenoute and the women over the issue of full disclosure was
exacerbated by Shenoutes distrust of the women. Part of the distrust is evident in
Shenoutes need to send the envoys to check on the women; part is evident in his frequent accusations that the women were not being truthful. When communication
broke down between the women and Shenoutes envoys, Shenoutes only recourse
was to request more letters from the women. In doing so, Shenoute often claimed to
know that the women had not reported all events, especially transgressions, to him.
In the Initial Crisis, he asked the women why they had not related all the deeds in
their community to him.57 In a later crisis, he accused the women, To this day you
still have not written to us a truthful report after [the elder] departed from you.58
How could Shenoute know that the women had still not been forthcoming, since his
only source of information was the female leaders themselves? The only other possibility was that he gained knowledge through gossip or informers. Since these means
were outside his authority structures, he could not acknowledge it as a legitimate
source of information. By pretending to know that they still had secrets, Shenoute
tried to force the leaders, and so the whole female community, to further confession.
Shenoute did not just claim that there was more activity than he had been told,
but that he also knew about specic unreported transgressions. In the list of women
who were to be beaten, more than one of their transgressions was only described as
and I know what deed caused the beatings to be given to her.59 Shenoute used similar tactics in the crisis over Excessive Leadership (9) when the monks were concealing transgressions from him: The one who sympathizes with sinners, saying . . . If
he [Shenoute] knows that evil-doers secretly exist within the congregations, then
why does he not know about me, and why does he not know that this one, or those,
are doing abominations?60 Shenoutes point was that he had access to knowledge
about actions people tried to hide and that the only surprise was that not all secret
sinners had yet been exposed. The monks again seem to have been divided into two
groups, those who helped their companions hide transgressions and those who informed on transgressors, apparently not through ofcial reports but in some way that
Shenoute did not, perhaps could not, endorse. Shenoutes concerns about secrecy
therefore arose from actual instances of concealment among the women and was not
just a rhetorical trick to make sure all was reported. Moreover, his concerns were
not just about his own authority, but the purity of the community. We can recall
that, in the crisis under his successor, Ebonh, which caused Shenoute to remove
himself from the monastery, one reason for his withdrawal was that the monk and
his immediate superior hid the sin the monk had committed. This secrecy meant, to
Shenoute, that he risked pollution by sins. Any time the head of the monastery, be
it Ebonh, Shenoute or someone else, did not know about sin, he could not purify the
community from sins pollution, thus endangering the salvation of all. Secrecy was
not a gender-specic action in the White Monastery; both men and women successfully hid misdeeds from Shenoute, as they had from his predecessors. Secrecy
among the women, however, highlighted the separateness of their community, based
not on Shenoutes self-removal (as from the male community), but on the womens
gender. This separation, then, as we shall see in chapter 5, inherently gendered their
secrecy.
88
Resistance and Rebellion

Up to this point, most of the power struggles between Shenoute and the women have
involved female leaders who sought to preserve their own authority against Shenoutes attempts to have a more active role in their community than his predecessors
had. During two crises (Death of the Male Monk [6] and Excessive Leadership [9]), however, Shenoute faced not simply resistance from individual leaders but from the female community as a whole, and, moreover, united with monks in the male community. These conicts were not about who had the right to make decisions for the
women but were group reactions to decisions Shenoute had made. The male and female monks resistance focused on the specic claims Shenoute made as part of his
discourse of monastic power and suggest that his standing as the correct representative or embodiment of the deity was in dispute and occasionally in jeopardy.61 The
monks questioned whether Shenoutes actions were appropriate for a religious leader
because, in their view, his actions were excessive. Shenoute faced strong resistance,
and in some cases rebellion, in the monastery on three controversial topics: corporal
punishment, expulsion, and his claim to have an exclusive relationship with God.62
These conicts, then, occasioned the most serious questioning of Shenoutes own
representations of his power, that is, of his justications for acting as he did.
Beyond the question of who was to decide corporal punishment, the monks, male
and female, questioned the appropriateness of the extent of Shenoutes use of corporal punishment after a male monk died while being beaten by Shenoute. We can recall that Shenoute knew that some monks thought that the mans death was a direct
result of the beating: I know that many among you will say, He has killed him violently before the end of his life.63 These monks also began to question whether corporal punishment was an appropriate response to transgression in the community.
Even if it were, they were certain that Shenoute too often resorted to such punishment. In effect, the monks, including the women, were not simply questioning
Shenoutes authority to determine beatings but were challenging the character of his
leadership. They suggested that his leadership, based on beatings, needed to be altered for him to have power as a religious leader for their community.
Another aspect of Shenoutes leadership that the monks, including some women,
thought was liable to be excessive was his practice of expulsion. Shenoute rejected
the possibility, which the monks must have voiced along with their objections to the
beatings, that sinners could be allowed to remain in the community rather than being expelled.64 It is not clear why the monks were objecting to expulsion during the
crisis over the death of a male monk (Crisis 6), but we can see an overall crisis of leadership stemming from this event. Likewise, in the equally serious conict recorded in
My Heart Is Crushed, several aspects of Shenoutes leadership were open to charges of
excess.65 As his seamstresses, the women found his ill-treatment of his clothes, followed by complaints and demands for new ones, to be overbearing. Both men and
women thought that his decision to alienate himself from the monastery for seven
months, including not celebrating Easter with them, was an immoderate display of
anger. Most important to the controversy, however, was his two-month purge of the
community through expulsions. The objections to expulsion, evident in Shenoutes
lengthy and detailed defenses, suggest that there were monks who argued for more
89
avenues of redemption for transgressors before corporal punishment and expulsion

were invoked. In short, these monks seem to have thought that Shenoute was too
hasty in his recourse to the harsher punishments.66 The monks also questioned the
validity of Shenoutes assessment of the pollutions and abominations that led to
these expulsions.
At the heart of the debate in this conict between Shenoute and his followers,
then, lay their evaluation of the extent of power that characterized Shenoutes leadership, a debate that was somewhat cyclical in nature. The monks judged Shenoutes
actions as excessive, to which Shenoute had an excessive, authoritarian response,
which in turn seems to have caused more anger and resentment among the monks.
Their perception of Shenoutes authoritarianism arose from two parts of Shenoutes
own discourse: (1) his claim to know about unreported deeds, as we saw earlier;
(2) his claim that his relationship with God, and the knowledge that it entailed, was
exclusive to him. For his part, Shenoute acknowledged that on this occasion the
monks were correct to characterize his words as excessive but he blamed the monks
themselves for compelling him to be immoderate. Shenoute asserted that those who
wrongfully claimed Gods allegiance, and who would destroy the monks hope for salvation, forced him into strong statements: [i]f these words are too much for a person
like me to say, (and I admit that they are).67 At the same time, Shenoute defended
some of his statements as inspired by God, and therefore to be excused for any excess
they contained.68 He also claimed that excess was appropriate if strong words and
actions were necessary for proper leadership, that is, a leadership that God approved:
Indeed, did I not speak to you my bitter saying, which is indeed greatly excessive,
Either God listens to your prayer, or God listens to my prayer, or, Its either you or
I [that is, whom God will favor].69 These statements carried with them the implication that God would listen to Shenoute and the threat that Shenoutes opponents
would be ignored. God would act this way, moreover, even though Shenoute was being excessive, since Shenoutes actions resulted from coercion and not choice. In this
particular crisis , the monks did not object to Shenoutes authority as head of the monastery but to his denition of monasticism and his description of his leadership and
his relationship with God.70
We can recall from the narrative of this conict in chapter 2 that some opponents
not only questioned Shenoutes actions but also questioned whether or not Shenoute
should be replaced as head of the monastery. They had a list of counter-arguments to
Shenoutes defense of his style of leadership: that some monks should be allowed to
hide their deeds and that not all of Shenoutes commandments were based in truth.71
One opponent started to use the same language as Shenoute and to perform actions
as if he or she were a prophet.72 In other words, this opponent claimed to have the
type of relationship with God that Shenoute reserved for himself. The monk did not
merely suggest that Shenoute should alter his decisions and actions as head of the
monastery to something the monks deemed more suitable. Rather, the monk suggested that Shenoute himself should be replaced. The rebellion called into question
not only the exclusivity of Shenoutes relationship with God but the validity of
Shenoutes claims to that relationship. The length of the conict, the number of expulsions, the number of issues at stake, and the extreme rhetoric in Shenoutes response, all make this conict the most serious of those mentioned in the letters. Once
90
again, the resolution of this crisis is lost. Since we know Shenoute was never ousted
before he died, we can only assume that he withstood this crisis as he did all others.
Conclusion: Dtente
The womens acceptance and resistance of Shenoutes institutional authority focused
on appropriate ways for Shenoute to be involved in conicts and decision-making in
the womens community. The evidence from Shenoutes letters to the female community indicates a tension between the type of authority Shenoute expected and the
level of authority to which the women were willing to submit. Shenoute wanted
supreme authority and knowledge of every conict and wrongdoing. The womens actions suggest they wanted to decide the degree of Shenoutes involvement. He could
arbitrate their problems only when they chose to relate the details of the conict to
him. Shenoutes expectations were based on his vision of the perfect monastery:
Gods community of peaceful inhabitants who lived like angels in heaven. In this
image there is one supreme leader (God/Shenoute) and followers (angels/monks),
whose peace (salvation) depends on their obedience to that leader. We do not know
the womens expectations of life in the White Monastery, but we do know (from
Shenoute) when they objected to Shenoutes implementation of his vision, and we
can reconstruct a reasonable scenario as to why. It is noteworthy, however, that the
monks did not desert the monastery or secede their houses from the monastic system.
Thus, the authority structures within the community were elastic enough to allow for
a certain level of dissent. Even as Shenoute and the women struggled over the institutional boundaries and the nature of the monastic life, the monastery held together
as one united, if not uniform, community, striving for salvation.
The only question that remains from all these situations concerns the actual instances of disobedience themselves. Were transgressions simply the result of what
might be called random human error, or are they evidence of willful rejection of
Shenoutes expectations of the womens behavior? In nearly every conict recorded,
transgressions of some type were the reason for Shenoutes letter. These transgressions
ranged from the specic sins listed for the women who were to be beaten, to vague
pollutions, abominations, and prostitutions of the heart, to those known only
to Shenoute.73 It is possible that some women chose not to obey certain rules owing
to a belief that they were not bound by those rules. Such was the case when the monk
refused to undertake the monastic service commanded of her. It seems more likely
that most transgressions arose from simple fallibility and the complications of several
hundred, or thousand, people living together in one community (albeit in separate
houses). These transgressions in and of themselves do not imply resistance to Shenoutes authority, either as archimandrite or as a self-proclaimed prophet. As much as
Shenoute sought the ideal of complete harmony, even he realized that this ideal was
not realistic in a human setting. Indeed, Shenoute only presented the ideal as a goal;
in actual cases of disagreement, he was more lenient. The widespread evidence for his
forgiveness, partly obscured by the nature of the sources, indicates that he did not
view the womens misdeeds as threats to his leadership but to the perfection of the
community.
91
In most cases, it was not the actual act of disobedience that caused a controversy
but the ensuing theoretical debate about some general aspect of monasticism. Some
women usually escalated the crisis, from Shenoutes perspective, by not accepting
Shenoutes solution to their original conict. For example, again, the appointment of
the monk, who then refused her promotion, was meant to ll the vacancy caused by
the death of another monk; it was not an adequate solution because of the subsequent
problems that arose from it, leading to discussion of more profound questions about
the nature and obligations of the monastic life; the monks request for a transfer led
Shenoute to expound on the proper role of interpersonal relationships and their effect on monastic life. The male monks death led to a defense of corporal punishment,
and a dispute about a cloak led to a defense of expulsion. These cases also incorporated a defense of the validity of Shenoutes relationship with God.74 The question
central to all the conicts was not the role of disobedience, or even the womens willingness to obey Shenoutes authority, but the question of what constituted the monastic life, or, in other words, what was necessary in this life to gain the next.
Shenoutes letters to the women present them as people actively shaping their own
lives as monks, even while accepting Shenoutes leadership as head of the monastery.
The basic functions of the White Monastery depended on their acceptance of
Shenoutes authority, but its vitality necessitated their willingness to cooperate in,
and be committed to, a relationship with him. The picture that Shenoute provides of
these female monks is different from any other known from the formative period of
Egyptian monasticism; neither passive nor reclusive, they were engaged with their
vocation, with their community, and with their male leader. Shenoutes letters are
even more remarkable because they record the experiences of women who may have
been from a less wealthy class than most other records of independent ascetic women
from late antiquity.75 The female leaders had a strong commitment to guiding their
monks and, although not always in keeping with Shenoutes expectations, they did
continue to support the monastery as an institution in which women could strive for
salvation. The struggles over authority that characterized Shenoutes tenure as leader
of the female community resulted not in a divided community but one that grew in
size and strength throughout his leadership. The narratives that one can extract from
Shenoutes correspondence show that the women lived multifaceted, varied lives
(not the uniform generic experience outlined in the rules) but still sought to create a
supportive community in which they could seek salvation; that is, their internal diversity created conict but did not undermine their spiritual commitment to the
monasterysomething Shenoute seemed to fear.
5
They too are Our Brethren
Gender in the White Monastery
Having examined Shenoutes presentation of his authority, and the evidence of some
womens reactions to that authority, I can now ask questions about the role of gender
in both presentation and reaction. To what extent did gender affect Shenoutes understanding of his authority over the women? To what extent did the women believe
that his teachings about the monastic life were not just erroneous but erroneous for
them as women? It must be noted at the outset that, given the nature of the sources,
individual voices among the female community can only rarely be distinguished.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to assume that some resistance, or even great resistance, meant that the women in the White Monastery shared some self-denition as
woman. My goal in this chapter is to examine constructions of gender in Shenoutes
monasticism, and echoes of those constructions in what we know of the womens various responses. It is important not to assume that since these letters have the female
community as their audience, Shenoute therefore crafted female-oriented arguments. That these letters refer mostly to situations the women faced does not in and
of itself mean that these letters would be inherently different than those Shenoute
wrote to a predominantly male audience. Rather, we must see where Shenoute explicitly tried to elide gender and where he incorporated gender into his monasticism.
Because of his valorization of the spirit over the esh as part of his creation of a
salvic community, Shenoute believed in, and wanted to create, a universal monasticism that was unhindered by the esh, that is, by gender and by kinship. The esh
for Shenoute, as for Paul, indicated that realm that existed in opposition to God.1
Since the monastery was to be like God and his angels, it would need to eliminate the
eshnot the body, but those elements that introduced difference and thus disrupted his ideal monasticism. As a result, his arguments include what I call a rheto92
They too are Our Brethren: Gender in the White Monastery
93
ric of unity, which comprises points when he deliberately equates men and women
in his descriptions of proper monasticism. This rhetoric had implications in the real
lives of the monks, that is, in how ascetic practice and monastic discipline shaped
their daily lives. Thus, I will explore changes that seem to have occurred in the
womens lives as a result of Shenoutes attempts at unifying the monastery under his
leadership. Although I have already laid out the changes in the womens authority, I
will here examine the role of gender in those changes and will then focus specically
on the consequences for womens fasting and corporal punishment.
This rhetoric of unity and the changes in the womens community that resulted
from Shenoutes desire for unity existed in a monastery of two separate communities,
male and female. Thus there was an inherent tension between his emphasis on unity,
leading to uniformity, and the reality of enforced separation, especially one based on
gender and thus emphasizing this aspect of the esh. Despite Shenoutes valorization
of spirit over the esh, and his attempts to live out that valorization in this world in
preparation for the next, there were limits to his ability to do so. These limits include
those he recognized, those the women recognized, and those that are evident to our
modern eyes. Just as there are points when Shenoute argued against the inuence of
gender in monasticism, so too he explicitly and implicitly called on gender as a justication for his decisions regarding the female community. A rhetoric of difference accompanied his rhetoric of unity. So too gender affected monastic practices, but here
the picture becomes more complicated since both Shenoute and the women argued
that gender affected the womens lives, but in differing ways. Shenoutes presentations
argued rst for a universal monasticism but then made accommodations for the esh,
that is, for gender. These accommodations encompassed, in his view, the proper role
of gender in monasticism; his gendered monasticism is one in which spirit properly disciplines esh (gender). For Shenoute, the womens desires for gender in monasticism
were, in contrast, examples of how, when allowed to rule, the esh could lead astray.
Whether Male or Female: Universal Monasticism

In his instructions to the monks, both men and women, Shenoute proclaimed a universal monasticism, which corresponded to a universal self. This monasticism derived
from ascetic practices that disciplined the body, such as fasting, sexual renunciation,
and corporal punishment. Thus the angelic life of harmony that Shenoute sought for
his monastery depended in part on both men and women following these proper ascetic practices. These would create the new self that, unlike most embodied selves,
would lack the eshly differences that lead to conict. The esh, here gender, would
be properly disciplined by the spirit, and the community would be like God and his
angels in heaven. Under Shenoutes leadership, then, the womens lives as members
of the White Monastery underwent profound changes. Since Shenoute sought for
these changes to result in a universal monastic experience for both men and women,
we can regard this monasticism as genderless. He did not seek to eradicate the monks
sexual difference, but to create a monasticism that did not allow for distinction between male and female monks. At the same time, as we shall see in the second part
of this chapter, even Shenoutes genderless monasticism was inherently gendered
94
since he engaged with gender as a divisive issue and sought to eradicate the effects of
gender by placing it in its proper place.
In order to achieve this universal monasticism in practice, Shenoute had to create
an ideology that would persuade the monks, especially the female monks, that this
monasticism was the best means to salvation and that his leadership was essential to
achieving it. Shenoutes discourse of monastic power supported this ideology; his
power was linked to his relationship with God, not to his status as a man, and thus
was equally necessary for men and women. Shenoutes desire to be head of one united
monastery meant that the male and female communities needed to be joined. He did
not opt, as we have seen, to join them physically but to join them metaphysically,
through his leadership and his discourse that validated that leadership. Now we need
to examine the evidence for gender within that discourse of monastic power to see
the place of gender within his monastic ideology. His rules for the monastery express
his ideal: a set of ascetic expectations that transcended gender, that was applicable to
all monks, whether male or female. This same ideal is the basis of much of his instruction in the letters. Although Shenoute at times supported his authority over the
women by deriding their gender, more often he justied his actions by claiming that
he wanted monks in our (male) community and in your (female) community to
lead identical lives.2 His program of a genderless monasticism, therefore, served the
purpose of his discourse of monastic power in that it was a clear justication for his
expansion of male authority over the female community. His authority did not lay in
his maleness, but in his position as head of the monastery, both male and female communities. The unity of the monastery was essential to that denition. At the same
time, his rhetoric explicitly engaged with gender as a pertinent issue.
Moreover, his attempts to merge the monastic experience of the male and female
communities resulted in the imposition of a stricter ascetic standard than the women
seem to have had under self-rule. Two controversial issues arose: that the women now
received less food from the male community, and that they became subject to corporal punishment like the men. The womens resistance to these two issues both serves
as our evidence that there were changes and indicates the failure of Shenoutes universalism. Many of the women seem to have had particular expectations of the
monastic life which ran counter to Shenoutes. Whether their expectations also
stems from a self-understanding as woman remains unknown and unknowable; but
Shenoutes presentations of their expectations portrays the women as either weak or
less committed to the asceticism of the monastic life than they should be, in his view.
This picture of ascetic women differs markedly from the typical portrayal in hagiographical sources, of womens great devotion to an asceticism beyond the usual abilities of their gender. The difference should not be overemphasized, however, since in
each case the authors agenda guides the portrayals, in their various extremes, more
so than does any historical reality. In Shenoutes letters, reading for gender in his
explanations of the changes he was making means seeing both where Shenoute used
language directed at the women to present his monasticism as natural and where he
used language directed at the monks, male and female, to efface the effects of gender.3
This reconstruction is therefore much more speculative than more traditional historical reconstructions, but it allows gender to emerge from Shenoutes letters in all
its complexity.
95
The Rhetoric of Unity

Two areas of Shenoutes discourse contribute to his efforts to unite the men and
women into a single monastic experience, even while maintaining gender difference.
Although it is not necessarily a systematic effort of Shenoutes, I call this his rhetoric
of unity. One part encompasses the examples and tropes, usually biblical, Shenoute
used to present his denition of monasticism to the women. These models portrayed
a monasticism that both sexes could follow. The sex of the model, either a male or female apostle, did not have to adhere to the sex of the recipient. Female monks could
follow male models and vice versa. The second area of his rhetoric of unity comprises
two phrases, whether male or female and in our community and in your community, which appear frequently throughout Shenoutes writings. Shenoutes monastic
rules most clearly express his effort to dene a single monasticism regardless of gender, since they routinely address all monks whether male or female and whether a
man in our community, or a woman in your community. Shenoute also uses both
these phrases in his letters to both female and male monks. He uses the rst phrase to
argue for uniformity in all aspects of monastic life for all monks whether male or female. His admonitions and instructions along these lines suggest that the male community, as led by his predecessors, had a monastic standard to which he was now assimilating the women.4 Presumably his own experience made the male community
Shenoutes model for monasticism. Yet Shenoute did not dene monasticism as inherently male, and so his rhetoric of unity lacks an ideology of male superiority.
Rather, his view that the monastery was a single body meant to him that the women
were brethren just like the men. Indeed Shenoute often used brethren (snhu) as a
term to address the female community. The second phrase from the rules, or variations of it, seems to have been the basis for his arguments of reciprocity. This reciprocity kept the sexes united in a genderless monasticism even as it maintained
gender difference by incorporating separation of the sexes.
Shenoutes rhetoric of unity was part of the means by which he persuaded the
monks, female and male, to follow his monasticism, and to accept his exercise of
power. It was a subset of his discourse of monastic power, a subset that focused on gender. We can recall that his attempt to expand his authority had as its greatest obstacle the space that separated the two communities and that his discourse of monastic
power was the means to validating his authority, and establishing his power, over that
space. His rhetoric of unity tried to pull together the two communities by nullifying
the gender difference that the space represented. It did so by emphasizing similarity
over difference. Shenoutes rhetoric of unity was his positive portrayal of the commonality of the monastic life for all people, their shared ability to overcome the limitations of embodiment, in order to live in a new society like God and his angels in
heaven.
The gures Shenoute used to describe the monastic life formed part of his rhetoric of unity. Since he argued that the male and female monks should adhere to the
same monastic standard, he could use the same pattern of the suffering servant to dene the monastic life for both male and female monks.5 We have seen that Shenoute
used scriptural exemplars to describe the perfect monastic life, while simultaneously
promoting his own authority by implicitly associating himself with his exemplars.
96
How he used these paradigmatic gures in the letters reinforces his program of genderless monasticism. Sometimes he provided the women with male models, at other
times he used both male and female examples.6 He emphasized that it was the nature
of the lives of the exemplars that made them models for all monks, whether male or
female. Gender did not, in Shenoutes opinion, affect either the models or the
womens ability to follow them. Shenoutes models of suffering servants were mostly
men: prophets, saints, and apostles, especially Paul: In what have the prophets and
the apostles been servants of the Lord and his Christ except that they chose to receive
sufferings and other things and they died for the name of Jesus?7 The most perfect
example was, of course, our Lord Jesus.8 Shenoute presents these models, although
male, to the women as examples they were able to follow. Shenoute did, however, occasionally balance the predominantly male list of exemplars by adding female models, such as the women of old who also are a holy pattern.9 Even so, he did not
present these models as different from their male counterparts. Rather they were
proof that the ability to accept sufferings, the essential nature of the monastic life, was
a genderless quality:
But the Lord blessed many of our ancestors down to the present day, both men and
women, because they were very willing to suffer along with others, with Gods help.
Some of these ancestors include our ancient ancestors and the prophets and apostles,
who were father to a great many people with Gods help; and Deborah, who was judge
and mother in Israel; and Odolla [Hulda], the prophet whom Josiah, the righteous
king . . . and Anna, the daughter of Phanuuel.10
Shenoutes expectation that the women could, and should, imitate the same models
as the men did (and presumably vice versa) was part of his effort to unite the monastic experience of the two communities. His occasional mention of female gures did
not advocate a particular form of female monasticism but underscored that both male
and female monks could emulate the monasticism he proposed.
Shenoutes use, in one of his letters, of the rst of the creation stories in Genesis
can also be seen as part of his rhetoric of unity. This creation story, in Shenoutes
telling, portrays Jesus, in his role in creation, as a servant to God and so makes Jesus
the model of servitude for the monks.11 He relied on Genesis 1:2627, in which God
creates male and female together, rather than Genesis 2:1725, where God creates
the female out of the male.12 Thus, Shenoute omitted the peculiar position of
women in relation to the story of Creation . . . not made in the image of God but only
in that of man which male Christian leaders often used to justify the regulation of
womens lives.13 The rst version in Genesis 1:2627, in contrast, can be used to emphasize womans equal status in creation and thus it served the purpose of Shenoutes
argument: that both women and men needed to become servants just as the Creator
was a servant when he made the world.14 That Shenoute chose this particular version
for his argument, however, need not imply that he did not also accept the subordinate
position of women implicit in the second version of the creation story. For Shenoute,
the two positions of woman in the two creation myths, as equal on the one hand and
as secondary on the other, were not contradictory but coexistent,15 which also provides the reason that Shenoute could simultaneously attempt to convince the women
that they were brethren like the male monks and still treat them as women, that is,
97
as weaker beings inherently different from men (pp. 10618). These tropes, then, t
with Shenoutes creation of an ideology which supported his exercise of power, not
only over the women but the community as a whole. The womens subjugation to
Shenoutes authority resulted from their inclusion into the monastery, and so into
this ideology.
Of the two phrases, whether male or female and in our community and in your
community, Shenoute uses the rst with regularity in two of the thirteen letters to
women. As with its usage in the rules, the phrase presents Shenoutes argument for
uniformity in all aspects of monastic life, for all the monks. These two letters, one
recording the crisis about the Death of the Male Monk (Crisis 6) and the other about
the accusations of Shenoutes Excessive Leadership (Crisis 9), differ from the other
eleven in signicant ways. The other letters address conicts that were conned to
the womens community; even when the conict was with Shenoute, or the male envoy, it concerned the mens relationship with the womens community.16 These two
letters, while seemingly written to just the women, respond to crises that were affecting the entire monastery, both male and female communities. It is unclear whether
Shenoute wrote the same letter about the conict to both men and women, and used
the same language to describe the larger conict, and then simply appended sections
that concerned the women in particular. For example, in one letter, Shenoute writes
rst (the beginning is missing) about hoarding food in the monastery, the effects of
expulsion, and defensively of his actions in the death of the male monk, all issues that
affect both men and women. He ends the letter, however, by addressing the female
elder and Tapolle, insisting that they end their long-standing feud. In the second letter, Shenoute begins with an address to the female elder and Tapolle about their distress over his ruined cloak but then turns to larger monastic issues: the extensive pollution of the monastery and his attempts to purify it through extensive expulsion.
Since the issues in these crisis affected both communities, we can assume he also
wrote letters, or gave sermons, to the male monks. One question, which at the moment remains unanswered, is whether the male monks would have heard these same
letters, including the portions concerning problems in the female community. Since
these letters were included in the Canons, we know that the entire monastery was the
audience after the fact. The original audience, however, is unknown. In any case, the
recurrence of the phrase whether male or female allows Shenoute to emphasize the
universality of his rule, of the occurrence of sin, and of the ability of both genders to
overcome sin.
Shenoute was using the phrase to acknowledge the extent of the crisis and to advocate the womens submission to his authority along with the mens. What is important about this phrase is that Shenoute does not elide gender by addressing the
community with some other phrase, such as all of you or simply you brethren.
Rather, he repeatedly uses a phrase that incorporates both male and female monks as
male and female. If Shenoute were addressing only the female community, one could
read this phrase as encouraging the female monks to adhere to a monasticism already
practiced in the male community. Since it is far more likely that both female and male
monks heard these letters, Shenoutes rhetoric advocated a universal monasticism to
a mixed gender audience. He wanted carnality, expressed in gender, disciplined by
the spirituality of monastic life. Moreover, since these occasions focused on sin or er-
98
ror, which Shenoute located in the esh, a rhetoric of unity effacing gender (and thus
esh, the source of error) was useful to his discourse. What is unknown, and largely
unrecoverable, is how the women, as its audience, would have experienced this rhetoric.
In the crisis about the male monks death (Crisis 6), Shenoute used the phrase
whether male or female most often to stress the unity of the monastery in the face
of resistance to his leadership. He aimed his arguments at the dissenters, who included both men and women; no gender role is apparent in support of or resistance to
Shenoute in these instances. In the crisis, Shenoute emphasized the unity of the community even with the diversity of gender and rank among its members: The junior
male monks and the junior female monks, every person, whether male or female, are
entrusted to you, the congregation.17 He also advocated that what should join the
monks into a community was concern for their leader, which was manifested in their
obedience to him: I entreat the exalted one with prayers that he give me a little
patience and gentleness to everyone who is in the congregation, whether male or
female, who desires peace and good for their poor wretched brother [Shenoute].18
Finally, he used the image of single-heartedness to express this unity through obedience: These are single-hearted, who guard the words of God and the laws of their
fathers in the community, whether male or female.19 Shenoutes language suggests
that both male and female monks were allied in their concerns about, and resistance
to, Shenoutes leadership. His response was to emphasize unity as central to the monastery, both male and female communities, apparently believing that with unity
would come proper monasticism.
In the crisis over Excessive Leadership (Crisis 9), Shenoute seemed less sure about
his ability to unite the monastery in the face of rebellion. Again the monks were divided, not between men and women, but between loyal followers and recalcitrant
monks. Both male and female monks were among the sinners who were, for Shenoute, at the heart of the problem: Is this not sufcient, on the subject of the things
we, whether male or female, did among these congregations until now?20 Women
as well as men were sources of illness that threatened the whole body of the
monastery: Indeed, you did not listen, or you (pl.) did not listen, you, the ones who
hide upon this illness in them, whether male or female, until the destructions and the
disturbances and other afictions come upon you.21 Further, both women and men
of every rank had been among the sinners from the start of this crisis, which was addressed in an earlier letter: Since I say to him in other letters, which were written to
all of you about those who do, or those who did also now, the pestilent and abominable deeds within you, whether male or female, either superior or young.22 Because
of the threat that the sinners held for others, both women and men had to be expelled
from the community, including those who had apparently been forgiven earlier: And
also now it will happen that others will be alienated from his congregations on account of these deeds, these pestilent deeds, which we, whether male or female, have
not reproved there until now.23 Women and men were among the reprovers and
women and men were among the expelled. Since pollution and purity did not distinguish between the genders, Shenoute would not either.
So too, both women and men were among those monks whom Shenoute deemed
capable of overcoming sin. These monks were apparently listening to Shenoutes ad-
99
monitions and agreeing with his instructions, thus siding with Shenoute in this crisis: We were not ashamed that we, whether male or female, ceased from these abominations, pollution upon pollution, abomination upon abomination, theft upon theft,
every deceitful thing upon every deceitful thing.24 The phrase whether male or female in these letters makes clear that Shenoute did not limit his rhetoric of unity to
theoretical descriptions of monasticism, but also directed it to the reality of monastic
life within the White Monastery: women as well as men were sinners, and so women
should be expected to adhere to the same monastic expectations, in terms of ascetic
practice and suitable punishment, as were the men. His rhetoric of unity, therefore,
contains hints about the way the womens monastic experience changed as a result of
their inclusion in the genderless monasticism that Shenoute professed.
Just as Shenoute used the phrase whether male or female to unite the monks
without regard to gender, so too with the phrase in your community and in our community he tried to unify monastic practice. Again, the emphasis was on uniformity,
without regard to gender: For many times we in our community have had a change
of heart about you [women] because you were performing acts of contrition in your
community, and many times you in your community have had a change of heart because we were performing acts of contrition greatly among ourselves.25 This phrase
is found most often in three crises, the Initial Crisis, A Monk Refuses Promotion (Crisis 3), and The Beatings of the Women (Crisis 4). Each of these crises involved situations to which Shenoute responded by emphasizing reciprocity between the male and
female communities. The Initial Crisis, with its emphasis on the inclusion of the
womens community into the male-run monastery, required Shenoute to emphasize
similarity, and thus implied equality, between the two communities. Shenoutes emphasis on the denition of the monastic life as suffering service, after a female monk
refused her promotion, was a universal denition that gained strength from comparison of the female community with the male. Thus Shenoute argues that just as suffering service exists in the male community, so too it must in the female.26 In the third
case, Shenoute argued for the legitimacy of beating women based on the need for a
reciprocal relationship between the female and male communities. In all three cases,
then, Shenoute relied on a universal monasticism, but one in which the monks in
their separate communities acted in similar ways in order to show the connection between them. Thus, even as the phrase suggests the genderlessness of the monastic
practice in your community and in our community, it reinscribed the sexual difference that separated the two communities, making one ours and the other yours.
This phrase addressed the structure of the monasterytwo separate but equal communities that worked in coordinationwhereas the former phrase addressed denitions of proper monastic discipline. What the rhetoric regarding reciprocity masks,
however, is the way that systematic asymmetry could enter the reciprocal relationship, and yet still be supported by Shenoutes ideology of uniformity.
Shenoutes efforts to amalgamate the women into the larger monastic community
as brethren and his use of male exemplars for their edication were subtly, but significantly, different from the usual Christian arguments that ascetic women needed to
be like a man and therefore not like women.27 Shenoute did not claim to use a male
standard to construct his monasticism and to require the female monks to become
like men to be monks. Indeed, he insisted that the gender difference be maintained
100
and that this difference be properly disciplined by his monasticism, which was a universal standard to which he expected the women as well as the men to adhere. Both
women and men were to become brethren (we would say monks but Shenoute
does not). Although Shenoute used a rhetoric of unity in his letters more sparingly
than in the rules, it is still clear that his endeavors to unite the two communities were
not simply efforts to expand his authority, but to eradicate any differences that gender was bringing to the monastic experience; his concern centered on the monks,
whether male or female, in our community and in your community, having the
same monastic experience to reach the same salvation. Although Shenoute was perhaps consciously structuring his arguments to efface gender, his discourse also includes moments when he reverted to using gendered stereotypes to argue for the
womens submission to his authority; he, and the women, may have been less aware
of these moments, since they are consistent with the dominant ideology of late antique Christianity. To accept Shenoutes rhetoric of unity without also noting his use
of a rhetoric of difference, however, would be to accept Shenoute on his own terms.
Before turning to this complementary aspect of his discourse of monastic power, we
need to examine evidence of Shenoutes attempts to make the womens monastic life
uniform with the mens.
The Womens Monastic Life

Shenoutes rhetoric was meant to persuade the women to accept his universal monasticism, which carried with it certain changes in their monastic life. These changes are
difcult to determine since we lack any detailed description of life in the womens
community under Shenoutes predecessors and also clear comparisons to life in the
mens community, even under Shenoute. It is my goal to see how Shenoute tried to
create a universal monasticism in practice in the womens community, in the context
of those crises where Shenoute is not addressing both communities but is clearly correcting, or chastising, the womens practices or errors. Here examining gender becomes complex. Since Shenoute was trying to create a monasticism for the women
that would be universal, he avoided using gender in his arguments; yet the reasons
for his changes were gendered, namely, his need for a separate female community subordinated not just to Shenoute but to the male elder who visited the women as a
proxy for Shenoute. Thus, in creating a universal monasticism, Shenoute created
inherently asymmetrical authority structures as well. The second part of this chapter
investigates how Shenoute maintained the separation of the communities; here my
focus is on his creation of reciprocity within the separation of the two communities.
Shenoutes uniform ascetic program was not limited to the requirement that each
monk received the same food and clothing and followed the same schedule of work
and prayer.28 It also ensured that no monk received leniency for any physical characteristic that could be perceived as deviant. One rule, for example, outlawed monks
giving portions of their food to other monks who were lame or blind.29 The frequency
of Shenoutes assertions that there should be one expectation of all monks whether
male or female foregrounds gender as the most important of those characteristics
that could be used to argue for special treatment rather than uniformity. Since
Shenoute inherited some of his rules from his predecessors, it is possible that the for-
101
mulas of inclusion that appear in the rules were not his innovation.30 Shenoutes
predecessors lack of contact with the women, however, suggest that they had little
control over, and little concern about, the womens adherence to the rules. Shenoute
provided a contrast, as we have seen, in his aggressive efforts to have the monasticism
practiced by the women be the same as that of the men. The changes that resulted
from these efforts at achieving a universal monasticism are what I am exploring in this
section; however, as will become clear, much of the evidence for these changes results
from their controversial nature. That is, Shenoutes arguments derive from a resistance, or even rejection, among at least some of the women to the changes he was
making. This context creates an unavoidable tension in examining the evidence between Shenoutes universalist ideal and the gendered reality. This section looks at the
former, examining points when contention arose because Shenoute was apparently
making the womens life conform with his monastic standard.
Shenoutes plan to create his monasticism depended, as I have argued, on uniting
the female community with the male under his leadership. His leadership was thus
the source of the proper monasticism, an ideology that his discourse of monastic
power supported, with his rhetoric of unity creating a subset of arguments that engaged with gender in its attempts to efface its importance. This change in leadership
style seems to have affected specic areas of life for the women: corporal punishment,
fasting, and teaching. These three areas of monastic practice show the effects of
Shenoutes desire, evident in his rhetoric of unity, to create reciprocity between the
two separate communities. In these areas the women were supposed to obey Shenoute
not because they were women, but because they were monks, like the men. Here my
reconstruction of the effects of Shenoutes leadership is necessarily speculative. There
are hints throughout the letters that resistance to Shenoutes role in these matters was
in part resistance to changes he was making. Below I suggest scenarios that explain
these various clues. Furthermore, it is certainly possible, and seems likely, that male
monks also had objections to corporal punishment, excessive fasting, and possibly
teaching authority. The lack of a clear misogynist element in Shenoutes arguments
to the women suggests he might have made generic, gender-neutral claims about the
importance of these elements to the monastic life. This uniformity is what makes his
monasticism universal, or here genderless; what genders these same changes is the
necessity that the women, unlike the men, obey Shenoutes authority even as represented by men other than Shenoute. Shenoute focused on the practice, which was
supposed to be the same for both men and women, but ignored any asymmetry in
achieving the uniformity of monastic discipline.
The clearest and best example comes from corporal punishment. We have seen
that Shenoute claimed the authority to mete out punishments in the womens community. He may have claimed this authority early in his tenure, since there are hints
from the letters of the Initial Crisis that corporal punishment was meted out to
women. At one point, Shenoute tells the women who had made sexual accusations
against him that he is innocent not only because I have commanded you, but also
with blows and blame and begging and a great many other things which are not at all
suitable for me to do.31 Since there was no contact between the men and women earlier in the history of the White Monastery, we can presume that Shenoutes role as
punisher would be an innovation. The question that needs to be addressed is whether
102
the women resisted not simply Shenoutes role in determining such punishment but
also objected to corporal punishment in principle as inappropriate for women. Much
of the evidence can be explained simply in terms of a struggle over authority. In this
scenario, the female leaders wanted to determine corporal punishment, rather than
Shenoute, but they were not opposed to the use of corporal punishment in the
womens community, that is, of their female underlings. However, several of Shenoutes arguments suggest that some of the women were opposed, at least in part, to
corporal punishment for women at all, apparently because it was not a suitable punishment for their gender.
Again, Shenoutes desire to unify the monastic experience of men and women inspired his efforts to include women in monastic beatings. Just as there was to be reciprocity in the monastic experience of the two communities in ascetic standards, so
too corporal punishment was inicted on the whole monastery. Corporal punishment
was a method of monastic instruction, and any women who have transgressed the
monastic rules will have to receive their instruction by blows, for they too are our
brethren, just like our brothers are over here in our community.32 This argument suggests that at least some women were claiming that they did not have to suffer corporal punishment because their separate female community implied a status different
from the mens. This example gives insight into other examples of the womens resistance to corporal punishment, which are recorded in the same letter. Shenoutes
arguments for authority over the beatings of women suggest that some womens resistance was rooted not just in aversion to subordination, but to the spread of this type
of punishment, via Shenoutes expansion of his authority, into their community:
And if you report to us regarding those who contradict you disobediently, or regarding any other evil, we shall be responsible for them to chastise them and have them
be instructed in all knowledge, just as you have been hearing about what we have
been doing over here in our community.33 At the same time, the letter fragment begins with Shenoutes complaints that the women have undertaken beatings without
seeking his input. Part of the crisis over Beatings of Women, then, was administrative:
who had the authority to determine corporal punishment? The crisis in this case
stemmed from Shenoutes opposition to a situation in the female community: the
women were deciding the extent of their own corporal punishment, without consulting Shenoute.34 Shenoutes condemnation makes clear that even the men in the
male community did not use corporal punishment on their own authority. He comments about the male monks that they know from God that there is a great injury
and great condemnation on everyone in our community who will do anything for
themselves on their own by their own authority without the male elder.35 While the
conict may have been limited to control over corporal punishment, it may equally
likely have included the womens attempts to assume control of the beatings as a way
to regulate or eradicate this form of punishment in their community.
Another form of resistance to corporal punishment, or at least to beatings by
Shenoute, was the womens reluctance to report their companions wrongdoing, both
in the Initial Crisis and later in Shenoutes leadership. Near the end of the Initial Crisis, Shenoute wrote to the women: You did not write to us about her. Are we governors or merciless soldiers because we seek the salvation of your souls?36 Although the
context for this vague rhetorical question is lost,37 Shenoute later uses a similar one
103
in reference to corporal punishment, specically in his defense after the death of the
male monk: Pray, is it not written in the letter, or do you not remember from the beginning that I said a great many times, crying out in great pain and reproach, sitting
in your midst when we gathered together, O God! O God! O fathers who begat me!
What are these sorts of deeds to me? Am I a soldier? Am I a governor? I am a servant.
I am a shepherd.38 Furthermore, Shenoutes later instructions for the method of applying beatings suggest that the women were reluctant to carry out his punishments.
His elaborate stipulations make clear the womens opposition to (male-controlled)
corporal punishment within their community.39 In addition, Shenoutes repeated arguments for reciprocity between the two communities foregrounds gender as the divisive issue in introducing corporal punishment for the women.40
Other parts of Shenoutes arguments for corporal punishment of the women also
suggest he had to create gender uniformity against claims that gender should affect
beatings. For example, when he described his assumption that biblical gures beat
their offspring, he did not use the generic children, but the more particular sons
and daughters, specically including a female example.41 Because gender was already, in this letter, an issue in questioning the appropriateness of beatings, Shenoute
seems to have anticipated that the women would think a male model, just sons,
would not apply to them as female monks. Rather than respond to the female monks
as women, Shenoute chose to use a universal argument, similar to one he could use
to male monks. Shenoutes rhetoric of describing the monastery as a single body
also defended the inclusion of women in corporal punishment. The womens acts of
disobedience, Shenoute argued, no longer affected only their community; they polluted the whole body.42 Beatings were, as we have seen, the enactment of the
metaphor of cleansing the polluted body. The female monks corporal punishment
was necessary not only for their own salvation, then, but for the good of the whole
monastery: Since we are truly a single body, we ought to instruct one another by
scoldings and blows . . . whether male or female.43 Shenoutes extension of corporal
punishment into the womens community was therefore based on his belief in a genderless monasticism as the best path to salvation. Just as both male and female monks
were to follow patterns of the suffering servant, so too both male and female monks
were to share the same suffering in repenting their sins and cleansing their bodies.
Gender was a consideration, however, in the severity of the punishments. The
men received blows from a strap, and on other places on their body, such as the hand
and thigh; they also received strong enough blows to throw them to the ground.44 The
women, however, received anywhere from ten to forty blows with a rod to the soles
of their feet.45 One reason for the difference was that the women would have had to
be clothed for their beatings, since the male elder was present. However, the difference in the severity of beatings is also an indication of tension between Shenoutes
desire to make identical the male and female monastic experience as monks and his
own cultural assumption that women were weaker: they were to be beaten, but as
women they were not to be beaten as severely as the men.
Two other areas where Shenoute altered the womens monastic experience were
his ascetic demand regarding their fasting and teaching authority in the female community. Here the evidence is more fragmentary than that for corporal punishment. It
is clear there was resistance to beatings, but it is less evident why. For fasting, the rea-
104
sons for the womens complaints are also uncertain. For teaching, the situation is even
murkier and only the slimmest suggestions are possible.
During the Initial Crisis, there were three separate conicts about food: the rst
arose from the division between monks without kin in the monastery and those with
kin (chapter 8); the second arose from stealing food from the storehouses (chapter 2);
and the third resulted from unequal distribution of food due to the favoritism of the
food server (chapter 2). Although all three conicts were conned to the womens
community, gender does not play a clear role in Shenoutes (fragmentary) advice to
correct these situations. In this same crisis (about halfway through the surviving
record), Shenoute responds to a complaint from the women about their inadequate
supply of goods, most likely food, from the men. Shenoute defended the ascetic demands he made of the women but also promised that, if their bodily needs were truly
being neglected, he would instruct the male elder to give them more provisions:
Even though it was right to despise your concerns for bodily needs, nevertheless I
will order the male elder and all your brethren to take care of you in everything so
that you will not nd a word of complaint.46 These bodily needs must refer to food
since that was the main material need the men provided. Here Shenoute exercised
control over the female community with the goal of enforcing a monastic standard
that he saw as proper. Although he does not say it is the same as the mens, we can
presume, from his concerns about reciprocity between the two communities, that it
was at least the equivalent. It would be nice to know the exact amounts allowed for
bodily needs, and if the women were allowed more given their weaker gender, but
at this point such evidence is not available. Rather, it is clear that Shenoute saw his
own leadership as the source of proper uniform monasticism.
This evidence suggests that some of the other conicts, especially the theft from
the storehouses, may have resulted from an unwillingness, or inability, to adhere to
Shenoutes standards for fasting. Indeed, he made strenuous arguments regarding the
benets of fasting in response to these lapses:
The ones whose portion does not satisfy them reveal that they are adorned by them
[their bellies], as their faces fell. When their portion satises them, they reveal that they
make their esh zealous and that they give glory to God. Those who are not satised by
their portion reveal that their god is their bellies and that their glory is their shame.
When their portion satises them, they reveal truly that God is their God and that their
glory is in their self-control. Those who steal from the portion of their brethren reveal
that they are uncontrollable, as they prepare for themselves scourges, as it is written.47
Shenoutes arguments, with calls to conquer their bellies to make their esh zealous through self-control, echo many similar arguments made by other Christian
leaders in the fourth century.48 As I have mentioned, however, Shenoute did not use
arguments based on gender to chastise the women. Any weakness they experienced
in fasting was not, in the surviving record, explained or criticized in gendered terms.
Rather, the evidence suggests that Shenoute was merely concerned to have the
women adhere to the universal monastic life, including proper levels of fasting.
After the Initial Crisis, the women continued to complain about the amount of
provisions Shenoute had sent to them. In the letter about Beatings of Women (4),
Shenoute again told the women that he would speak to the male elder about meet-
105
ing their material requirements: Now concerning your bodily needs, [the brethren]
shall not forget to take care of them for you except in ignorance . . . but you are to understand that you are wretched souls when you . . . [the text breaks off].49 Since this
passage immediately follows Shenoutes praise of the male elders wisdom in his relationships with the women, the elders ignorance about the womens material needs is
jarring.50 The elder knew which women had committed transgressions but did not
know how much food the women needed or thought they needed. The discrepancy
is explicable if we suppose that the male elder was relying on xed ascetic standards
to allocate foodstuffs to the women. That amount of food, however, was not enough
to satisfy the women; stealing, hoarding, and other conicts over food resulted. For
example, since Shenoutes reply to the womens complaint comes just after the list of
women to be beaten, it is worth noting that two of the ten women were to be punished for stealing.51 The womens voices are, unfortunately, lost to us; we do not know
how they themselves worded their complaints. Did they suggest Shenoutes fasting
levels were too high and thus inappropriate for them as women, as at least some
women seem to have suggested in response to corporal punishment? Rather than
present their gender as weaker, did they stress the need for their spiritual independence, in determining their own ascetic lives? All we can surmise from Shenoutes assurance to the women that he would increase their food supply is that he was persuaded that the women did need more food than he had allowed. He seems about to
comment further on the validity of the womens complaints when the manuscript unfortunately breaks off.
It is obvious that to maintain a uniform monastic experience, Shenoute would
need to control teaching of Scripture, the basis of the monastic life and of the monastic rules, in both the mens and womens communities. In order to have this control
in the womens community, however, he had, as we have seen, to change the archimandrites relationship with the womens community. The women may have had
control over their teaching earlier, either making decisions themselves or at least being able to follow a variety of (male) teachers, one of whom may have been Apa Pshoi
of the nearby Red Monastery. The evidence suggests that Shenoute established his
authority, in favor of the womens, to teach or to appoint teachers in the female community as one means to prevent the wrong type of monasticism. This wrong monasticism could arise from misinterpreting the Scriptures, from weakness like laziness
and arrogance, but also from the women making decisions based on what they believed to be appropriate to their lives, without consulting a male authority. One purpose of the male leaders visits and Shenoutes letters was to provide correct instruction about Scripture and the monastic life. At the end of the Initial Crisis, Shenoutes
nal remarks suggest that the women now had to rely on his instructions, both those
he had already sent and also later ones. He declares to the women that if you are
wise they should be able to lead a monastic life based on his lesser sayings that they
have, but assures them he will send more, apparently to clarify of his expectations of
them.52 Another example from an earlier point in this same crisis suggests that
Shenoute believed the women could not listen to words from Scripture (as preached
by him) when they were in conict with him.53 In addition, one of the women listed
among those to be beaten in the later crisis about authority and corporal punishment,
had made the claim, I teach others.54 She was also among those assigned a harsher
106
punishment.55 Further, in his interventions in the conict between the female elder
and Tapolle, Shenoute makes sarcastic references to the usefulness (that is, its ability to lead to salvation) of his instructions versus the womens.56 I think it unlikely
that either the female elder or Tapolle rejected Shenoutes advice as useless to them
as female monks, especially since they were also rejecting each others.57 Nevertheless,
it becomes clear that Shenoutes concern is not just that the women were in conict,
but that they were not following his teaching authority.58 Shenoute took control of
womens monastic education, then, for a variety of reasons, all stemming at least in
part from his desire to enforce uniformity between the two genders, each in its own
community.
The major problem in Shenoutes attempts to create a universal monasticism in
practice is implicit in these descriptions of argument over corporal punishment, fasting, and instruction. It depended not just on the womens submission to Shenoutes
authority, like the men, but on their submission to the male elders and envoys, who
came over to carry out Shenoutes commands. While Shenoute did not use gender in
his rhetoric in a misogynistic way, his rhetoric of unity masks the effects of subordination in the womens lives. Shenoutes universal monasticism was thus based on a
systemic asymmetry that was essential to his exercise of power. Central to his claims
for a genderless monasticism was his stipulation that as members of the White
Monastery, the women were to have uniformity with their male counterparts. All
were brethren, all were parts of the single body of the monastery, and all were to live
under the same rules and suffer the same type of punishments. Uniformity, however,
does not mean equality, and body images in antiquity were used to promote diversity
within unity, and the hierarchy that diversity could generate. In order to run the
womens community, to establish standards for fasting and to inict corporal punishment, Shenoute had to rely on inherently unequal, rather than uniform, authority
structures. Thus, the separation of the female community from the male made a gendered monasticism central to the womens monastic experience. Their resistance, especially to the male elder, resulted from the discrepancy between Shenoutes claims
about their status in the White Monastery and their experience. The inherent asymmetry of the monastery introduced relations of power, not just between the female
monks and Shenoute, but between the female senior monks and the male elders. As
with his attempts to unite the communities, Shenoute needed an ideology to justify
the womens lack of power, and the mens right to power. A rhetoric of difference was
necessary to justify the lack of uniformity at higher levels of leadership in the female
community, as compared with their male counterparts. This rhetoric of difference,
and the structural asymmetry in the monastery, are the subjects to which I will now
turn.
In Accord with the Rules of Divinity: Gendered Monasticism

Both in his rhetoric and in practice, Shenoute relied on strategies of containment
to create aspects of monasticism that were particular to the female monks as women.
His appeals to biblical models and narratives, which we saw in his rhetoric of unity,
relied on the belief that models in the past were superior to envisioning a new and dif-
107
ferent future. Because Shenoute was grounded in the past and looked to it for proper
gender relations, the realized eschatology of living like God and his angels in
heaven without concern for male and female did not extend to the social structure
of the monastery; that is, it did not physically combine the two separate communities. One might explain away the fact that Shenoute did not unite male and female
in practice by noting that he was a product of his culture or by pointing out that many
Christian (male) leaders, from Paul to many of Shenoutes contemporaries, distinguished between what would be the case in the next life and what still needed to be
required while one occupied this body, in this world. Nevertheless, these observations
do not eradicate the importance of gender to Shenoutes monastery and his ideology.
Fourth-century Christian theologians debated whether gender, that is, sexual difference located in the body, was essential to the self, and an intrinsic part of it, or
whether it was something linked to the body but separate from the soul. Linked to
this debate was the question whether or not gender, as manifested in male and female
bodies, would be part of the resurrection body. Both the issue of the self and of the
bodily resurrection were also important to ascetic practices.59 Several scholars have
surveyed the Christian leaders who praised ascetic women for overcoming their
weaker natures, or who expected less of ascetic women than ascetic men.60 These
issuesof gender, the body, asceticism, and resurrectioncoalesce in the Origenist
controversy, through which we can place Shenoute in his cultural and intellectual
context.
In the controversy over Origens teachings, the opponents to Origenism condemned, among other beliefs, the argument that gender was a human construct that
affected only the body. One of the greatest antagonists to Origens ideas was Jerome.
Although Jerome used the image of an ascetic woman being now a man in at least
one letter, he was opposed to the extension of that rhetoric to allow women positions
of leadership equal to those of men either in Christianity or in secular society.61
Jerome also held that gender, that is, the differences between men and women, was
so inherent to the self it they would continue in the afterlife.62 Asceticism, in Jeromes
view, was meant to imitate in this life the self that would exist in the kingdom of
heaven. For leaders such as Jerome, asceticism reinforced the social structure of gender, even while his rhetoric occasionally likened women to men. Jeromes view of the
ascetic self corresponded to his position in the Origenist controversy.63 He opposed
the view of the resurrection as genderless and instead maintained, as Peter Brown
summarizes, that it was absurd to expect, as Origen and Runus seemed to imply, that
women were creatures destined to be divested forever of the sexual characteristics
that separated them from us males.64 In a letter to Paula, Jerome argues against a
strawman Origenist with language that makes clear the importance of gender to the
controversy: If the woman shall not rise again as a woman nor the man as a man,
there will be no resurrection of the dead. For sex has its members and the members
make up the whole body. But if there shall be no sex and no members, what will become of the resurrection of the body, which cannot exist without sex and members?65
Moreover, to legitimize a gendered asceticism, it was necessary to view women as the
other; Jeromes misogynist rhetoric was therefore integral to his view of asceticism,
gender and the self.66 It was a rhetoric that distanced male from female to keep the
difference between men and women clear and distinct.
108
Like Jerome, Shenoute also opposed Origenism, or at least agreed with the antiOrigenists view of the retention of gender in the afterlife.67 Since asceticism and
gender were issues of the Origenist controversy, Shenoutes position implies that he
might have followed the school that saw gender as central to both asceticism and the
afterlife. And indeed, in a conict with the women, he states explicitly that the afterlife is the place where male is not separated from female, by which he does not
mean a unication of the two genders into a third, unknown gender but that gender,
still existent, would not require the separation it does in this life.68 Yet he argued for
a monasticism that appealed to a universal self, unhindered by divisive eshly issues. He believed that the essential elements of monasticism could be expressed in a
series of expectations that anyone could follow. The logical implication of a genderless monasticism was that men and women should live together without noticing
each others gender differences. Shenoute, however, did not accept that logical conclusion for two reasons: rst, like other Christian ascetics, he believed in the sexual
danger that would result in male/female contact and, second, he believed that part of
the renunciation of the esh that characterized monasticism was renunciation of
ones kin. Kin of separate sexes, therefore, had to live apart in order to avoid temptation to emotional attachment, just as men and women in danger of temptation to sexual attachment had to. Thus the rst step in creating an inherently gendered monasticism was an insistence on the separation of the male and female communities. This
separation, however, could nevertheless be overcome (theoretically) if the head of
the monastery managed to treat women and men the same. Shenoute is notable
among Christian leaders of his time for the degree to which he succeeded in doing so,
especially as I noted in his avoidance of misogynistic rhetoric. He believed that both
genders were vulnerable to error and in need of his guidance in order to achieve salvation. Yet points in Shenoutes rhetoric when he called upon cultural assumptions
about women to justify his exercise of power over them, the position of the male elder
and envoys as the womens superiors, and the existence of special rules secluding and
conning the women within the monastery itself all argue that Shenoute was just as
hindered by his own esh as he required his monks not to be. That is, Shenoute
viewed the female monks as women as well as monks, despite his own efforts to universalize his monastic expectations. Moreover, the contradiction and tensions between Shenoutes genderless and gendered monasticism, despite their coexistence,
are not merely a modern scholarly construct: his letters provide evidence that there
were occasions when his attempts at affecting a coexistence of these two ideals confused the female monks themselves.
The Rhetoric of Difference: The Cultural Gender Boundary

Both types of evidence for universal monasticism, the rules for all monks and
Shenoutes rhetoric of unity, have their counterparts in gendered monasticism, that
is, in a monasticism designed for the female monks as women. Within the universal
monastic Rule were rules just for female monks, which focused especially on limiting
their contact with their male brethren and with the non-monastic world; these rules
I discuss at the end of this chapter. The rhetorical counterpart was his appeals to cul-
109
tural assumptions about women, which he used to validate the womens submission
to his external male authority. This rhetoric focused on perceived inherently female
weaknesses that made them different and other than men, and so created a cultural
gender boundary that legitimated the existence of the physical gender boundary
within the monastery. Just as there were occasions when Shenoute appealed to a universal monasticism, so too there were points when he called upon a natural gender
difference to support his insistence on the womens subordination, not just to him,
but to his entire authority structure. The female monks thus had a monastic experience different from the mens not only because they lived in a separate community,
but also because their male leader treated them simultaneously as genderless monks
(brethren) and as members of the cultural category woman.69
Shenoute treated as natural the division of the two communities, and he presented a God-given hierarchy that would allow these two separate communities to
unite under his leadership. Rank-and-le monks, male and female, were subordinate
to their immediate (same-gender) superiors. But the female leadersthe female
elder, elders, and senior female monkswere subordinated to their male counterparts: the male elder and envoys, who in turn answered only to Shenoute. Shenoutes
leadership thus created the very thing he also sought to avoid: a monasticism shaped
by gender. Shenoute did not object to his own gendered monasticism for two reasons:
rst, because it did not, in his view, undermine ascetic practice as the road to salvation; and second, since in these instances he was controlling the role gender would
play, this form of gendered monasticism supported his power as much as genderless
monasticism did. Both Shenoutes rhetoric of unity and his rhetoric of difference,
then, supported his own power. His rhetoric of unity, with its implications of equal
reciprocity and egalitarianism, masked the reality of the womens submission to his
authority and their subordination to male envoys as a result. The calls for unity explained his own ultimate power over all the monks, including the women, while the
emphasis on gender difference explained why the female community should accept
the asymmetrical power relations that limited their own authority and expanded that
of the men. Most of the time Shenoute tries to elide gender and so does not acknowledge its existence except in efforts to unite male and female in common practice. Yet if we read for gender in his letters, we can see that tropes common in early
Christian literature, such as womans need for male guidance, her susceptibility to the
Devil, and her passionate nature all inform Shenoutes discourse, especially on occasions when some of the female leaders have stepped out of their proper place.70 On
these occasions, Shenoute betrays genders effect on his ideology and his monasticism, with proper spheres for each gender. Reading for gender brings forth Shenoutes
rhetoric of difference, which supported those spheres and existed alongside his rhetoric of unity.
At the beginning of his leadership, despite his visits, calls for reports, and the oath
he and the women took, Shenoute seems to have allowed the women to continue to
run their own community.71 The womens failure to resolve their internal strife, however, required their subjugation to male authorities.72 At this time, Shenoute defended his taking control by asserting that the women needed his leadership for their
salvation; however, as was typical for him, he did not draw attention to gender dif-
110
ference in making this claim. Later in his tenure, however, Shenoute began to argue that the women needed to accept male authority in their community as part of
the divine order. He contended that it was not Gods plan for women to make their
own decisions: But take care, wretches, lestsince you have rejected submission to
your brethren, so that they do not rule you by their instruction and by their teaching in your community, [which would be proper] according to the eternal rules of
divinity. Shenoute wanted the womens submission because, in his view, male guidance guarded against womens susceptibility to error and thus to Gods condemnation: If they did cast off their submission, then you rather submit in your community to many masters which are the demons and every evil thing and God becomes
angry with you and brings upon you a wrathful condemnation.73 Elizabeth Clark has
argued that, in other forms of late antique monasticism, male monks were also encouraged not to rely on [their] own judgment rather than on that of someone older
and wiser because self-reliance is a main mechanism by which the Devil is given opportunity for attack.74 In the case of Shenoutes female community, it was not
enough for the younger female monks to rely on the female elder and her advisors.
Shenoutes call for the female leaders submission assumed that they were less capable
than their male counterparts, an assumption that coexisted with his position, expounded in the same letter, that the female monks were brethren just like the men
in the male community. His claim that women had to submit to male authority because they were women legitimated the gender separation by intensifying the difference between male and female even as it paradoxically ensured him the authority to
enact his genderless monastic standards in the female community.
Shenoute also sought to legitimize male guidance of the female community by reminding women of their susceptibility to the Devil. While Shenoute may well have
chastised errant male monks with similar rhetoric, association with the Devil had
particular meaning for a female audience. Early Christian thought used Eves gender
to explain her vulnerability to the serpent (equated with the Devil in early Christian
theology) and her ensuing error. Eve then served as the pretext for continued suspicion of women. Christian women in late antiquity still bore, as women, the responsibility for Eves mistake.75 Shenoute claimed that if the female monks did not follow
male authority they would then follow the Devils. In his arguments, earlier, for female submission to male authority in accord with a divine plan, Shenoute specically
invokes demons and every evil thing as the alternative source of authority for the
women. Similarly, when the women were disobedient or rebellious against male authority, the male leaders were quick to accuse the women of being under the Devils
inuence. Shenoute reports that when Tapolle and the female elder did not allow the
male elder to mediate their conict, the male elder complained to Shenoute that the
women pass all their time taking counsel from the Devil.76 Shenoute agreed with
his envoys assessment and urged the female elder in particular to break her silence
and make peace with her rival. In his disagreement with Tachom, Shenoute also
claimed that it was her susceptibility to the Devil that led her to act in ways that he
deemed inappropriate to her leadership position. He blamed his own misunderstanding of Tachom on God: And I am amazed that a great many times God has confused
your language in your community and in our community.77 Yet he blamed her stub-
111
born continuation of the conict on her consorting with Satan.78 By associating the
women with the Devil, Shenoute also created an implicit contrast between them
and him, given his self-proclaimed association with God. The disparity between
Shenoutes alliance with God and his threat of the womens susceptibility to the
Devil lent further validity to his leadership and to suspicion of the womens ability to
govern themselves.
Likewise, in the late antique construction of woman, part of her susceptibility to
the Devil was rooted in her passionate and less rational nature. Only the rational person could contemplate God, and conversely the passionate were vulnerable to the
Devil. It is not surprising, therefore, to nd Shenoute linking the womens susceptibility to the Devil with a sexualized nature. Moreover, their passionate natures contributed to their deviant status since reason was considered to be a masculine quality.
Shenoute warned the women that Gods plan for the monastery required separation
of the sexes and that the women obey God rather than the Devil: And all of you in
your community, just as it is not your custom to show your faces to men boldly or to
speak with them, so do not show your hearts to a hostile demonic devil, nor speak
with them at all. Speak among yourselves and to God, day or night.79 Moreover,
Shenoute continued his letter with the recurrent image of prostitution to express the
errors of those who refuse to follow the Lord.80 Shenoute drew on the practice of gender separation and seclusion to explain the reason why they should also be separate
from the Devil.81 Just as the women were not to be near men because of the danger of
sexual intercourse, so Shenoute used a sexual image to explain their susceptibility to
the Devil. Moreover, this rhetoric also legitimates the womens seclusion as just as
necessary as their separation from the Devil. His choice of this image shows his construction of gender within a self-consciously universal monasticism.82 His rhetoric incorporates an assumption about female monks that was a primary reason for the
separation: women were enslaved to their passions. Their transgressions, therefore,
sexual or not, were best described in language suitable to their sexual nature.
These examples, at rst glance, do not seem to have the weight to counter the ubiquity of Shenoutes rhetoric of unity, with his constant claims of equating the two communities. Shenoute made few explicit statements to the women that his view of the
divine order required female submission to male authority. Nevertheless, these few
times are important. They betray a gendered monasticism that in turn sheds light on
other points when Shenoute called on gendered tropes to support his position. A view
of women as inferior was implicit in his portrayal of women as weak, prone to evil, and
passionate rather than rational. In addition, these examples all stem from portions of
letters that had a denitively female audience. They suggest that, while the ubiquity
of Shenoutes rhetoric of unity created a dominant ideology of universalism and egalitarianism, the asymmetry that it hides was more evident, both to the women and
Shenoute, than the majority of evidence would allow.83 Reading for gender allows the
complexity to become apparent that Shenoute tried to efface. His rules and rhetoric
resulted in two forms of monasticism in the White Monastery, one in which the female
monks were brethren and the other in which they were woman. We have seen the
structures of unity creating a genderless ascetic practice for the brethren and now can
examine the specics of the power relations of those authority structures.
112
Seclusion and Separation: The Physical Gender Boundary

Shenoutes anxiety that the women have a monastic experience parallel to the mens
resulted from their living beyond his direct control, in ways different from the men
from whom he also lived apart. Rather than self-exile, the women lived in a community whose separateness was intricately linked to their gender. In order to see gender
in their authority relationship with Shenoute, we need to return to the Initial Crisis
and examine what happened when Shenoute began to visit the womens community.
The fragment describing these visits begins in the midst of Shenoutes explanation of
his perception of the visits, the events that transpired during them, and the consequences of those visits at the point he was writing the letter.84 What survives are the
descriptions of his tearing his cloak, the expulsion of some (apparently female) monks
during his second visit, and him and the women taking the oath in the third.
Shenoute provides a general description of all the visits when he denies that a desire
to see the women motivated his visits, a denial that he follows with his claims to virginity.85 Shenoute then defends himself against a judgment of the women, proclaiming his innocence.86 Further, he extends his innocence to a variety of other men
including: his two predecessors; Apa Pshoi (from the Red Monastery); other male
leaders such as Papnoute and another Shenoute; and nally some male monks, whom
he calls your menfolk, your brothers, your sons and then all the men in the male
community from the least to the greatest. Almost as an afterthought, he also includes any of the women who were not participating in the accusations against him.
These divisions are important since they inscribe the various populations of the
monastery, which are dened by a mixture of criteria: rank, gender, biological relationship, and alliance with Shenoute. Moreover, the divisions explain that not all the
female monks were united in their opposition to Shenoute, but Shenoute claimed all
men were united in their support of him (and hence united in maintaining his innocence).
The rest of Shenoutes arguments lend insight into these female monks judgment of Shenoute, and the identity of the complainers: female monks with male relatives in the monastery were questioning the appropriateness of Shenoutes visits
and, by implication, of his active leadership of the female community.87 After his description of the innocent monks, Shenoute points out the results of the womens
(false) accusation and condemnation: that they have transgressed the divinely given
monastic rule, set by Shenoute, and so they will not have Shenoute standing by their
side at Judgment Day. Rather, Shenoute will be standing at Jesus side, participating
in the womens condemnation. Next, Shenoute describes his own banishment from
the female community. He explains that this bodily exile also meant that his soul and
spirit were separate from the women and that, as a direct result, God, Jesus and his
Holy Spirit were also unwilling to reside with the women. Finally, Shenoute describes
his great grief over the situation as it is at the time of writing this letter. He fears for
the womens salvation; that the women (not all, but those accusing him) were not upset about the situation showed their indifference to their own salvation.
Shenoutes rhetoric in this section of his argument attests to the historical situation of the womens complaints. Clearly the womens judgment had constituted a
questioning of his visits, and even a suggestion that these should cease, thus radically
113
altering the type of leadership Shenoute sought. Shenoute responded not only by explaining to the women why such refusal would have dire consequences for them; he
also constructed his institutional power over the female monks, as we have seen, in
terms of his knowledge, specically his divinely revealed knowledge of how the
monks must live in order to receive salvation at Judgment Day. Further, it is clear from
Shenoutes arguments that the women making this judgment wanted the freedom to
visit the mens communities, as Shenoute was visiting theirs, in order to see their male
relatives. Indeed, these women, as a result of Shenoutes visits, had already taken it
upon themselves to begin visiting their male relatives. In his objections to the
womens visits, Shenoute had to explain why he was allowing change in one area
the male leaders visiting the female communitybut not allowing it in another
the female relatives leaving their community to visit the male.
With his visits, Shenoute sought to transform the space of the White Monastery
from a fragmented space, with little contact between the male leader and the female
community, into a unied space. One way to achieve this unity would have been to
allow a freedom of movement between the male and female communities as members
of this one space. Instead Shenoute allowed his movements into the female space, accompanied by various male elders and leaders, but still conned the female monks in
their own space. His defense for secluding the women within their community rested
on the womens motivations for visiting their relatives, not on the womens need for
seclusion: Altogether I see you now, whenever you spend a single month without
seeing them, you then are upset about them and you wonder because you have not
seen them.88 In contrast, Shenoute claimed that he visited the women as an authority gure, not as a man and not because he wised to see them. It was this difference in
motivation that made his visits legitimate within the space of the monastery.
Moreover, Shenoute treated this division as natural because it was based on gender. When Shenoute expressed his objections to the womens visits to the male community, he had to make a general defense of his policy of separation and the gender
segregation it created. As he pointed out several times in short succession, separation
in this life would allow reunion in the next; failure to keep the sexes pure from one
another would lead to eternal separation.89 The women who were transgressing the
gender boundary by visiting their male kin risked, according to Shenoute, losing their
salvation. Although Shenoute restates several times his argument that division was
necessary for salvation, he does not explicitly state the reason. Rather, he presents the
separation as a fact of monastic life and warns against its violation for the sake of being able to join with ones kin in the next life: And I had thought that you would
make the feast of life together, you, your sons, brothers, and menfolk, but now instead
I tell you that many of us shall be estranged from their own and their fathers, and their
brothers.90 Shenoutes arguments are all based on the assumption that the womens
movements are causing the problem. In this way, Shenoute introduced gender relations into the monastic space he had created. Part of the problem, to be sure, had to
do with the biological relationships between the monks; but it was the women who
were to be conned to their community, whereas, as we will see in chapter 8, the men
were allowed to travel to the women. The response of the women (with kin) to
Shenoutes asymmetrical authority structures allows us to see at least some response
to his gender constructions within his ideology. These womens (and perhaps some
114
silent others) actual experience of Shenoutes leadership diverged from his presentation of it. They did not view him, as head of the monastery, as a genderless authority
gure, but as a man, an outsider in their female community. It is not surprising that
these women did not know how to understand his visits in the Initial Crisis and misinterpreted them. The combination of a male leader visiting their community with
frequency, staying all night, and tearing his clothes could certainly lead to confusion,
especially since these visits were also an innovation. Moreover, the womens response
illustrates that the physical boundary between the male and female communities was
genderednot just because Shenoute was apart from the women, as he was from the
men, but because he controlled contact between the two communities, often through
allowing male movement to the female community but not vice versa.
The women who were objecting seem to have thought his visits signaled a change
in the policies established by his predecessors, a change not simply of authority or
monastic standards but also of the gender boundary in the monastery. As we have
seen, they had had no visits between the two communities, either from male leaders
or between relatives. Since Shenoute had initiated regular contact between the two
communities and since he pursued a monasticism that was applicable to all monks
whether male or female, these women seem to have believed that gender was no
longer the basis for separation of the communities. They did not seem to think the
two communities would merge physically into one compound of buildings, but that
the restrictions on their movements within monastic space had been lifted, specically the prohibition against their visiting their male relatives. What had been a
clear division of gender was now murky, as Shenoute sought to redene the monastic space.
As a result of this controversy over his visits, Shenoute set up the system of accountability that I have described as asymmetrical. What is intriguing about the
monastic space is the issue of where gender was, and was not, a factor. Shenoute created a monastery in which each monk had a proper place determined by a combination of rank and gender. Women in general were to be conned to their sphere (in
their community), but when the female leaders were called upon to have a public
(that is, administrative) role, they could legitimately leave that space. All the women
within the female community were accountable to one another, but then the whole
community was subordinated to the male elder. While the female elder had signicant authority compared to other women, in the overall structure of the monastery
she was subservient not only to Shenoute but also to the male elder. In direct contrast
was the male elder, who during his visits carried with him all the authority vested in
him by Shenoute to determine the womens activities.91 Shenoute makes clear in the
Initial Crisis that, although he still met regularly with the male community, letters
(carried by the male elder) were his main form of communication with the women:
And previously, we were speaking with our companions with us, through God, in our
gathering, or we were writing to you, in your own community, on account of our salvation together.92 Furthermore, although Shenoute required reports about behavior,
mainly transgressions, from both the male and female community, in the womens
case these reports had to be made to Shenoute through the male elder.93 During later
conicts, then, the male elder became the focus of the female leaders discontent
about their circumscribed power.
115
Some of the various conicts with the male elder were specically between him
and female leaders, suggesting a power struggle between those of higher rank, while
other arguments show rank-and-le female monks resisting outside male authority.
The variety of rank suggests that, while there was no monolithic reaction on the part
of the women, the male elders authority was problematic to many female monks.
While the female leaders sent their accounts to Shenoute without any complaint
(that has survived), they were hostile to the male elders presence in their community
and his interrogations of them. Part of the crisis over Beatings of the Women (4) was
that the women, presumably the female leaders, had successfully concealed events
from the male elder during his visits, and he responded angrily to their secrecy.94 After hearing of the womens secrecy, Shenoute then sent the elder again, bearing a
warning of a possible visit from Shenoute himself.95 Another, more serious part of the
crisis, however, was the question of authority over these beatings. Shenoute, we can
recall, maintained that, as head of the monastery, only he had the right to decide the
beatings to be inicted. Despite these claims to exclusive rights, Shenoute invested
one other man with limited authority over beatings: the male elder who met with the
women to carry out their punishments. This notable exception highlights the tension
between Shenoute, the male leaders, and the women, in terms of distribution of authority over the womens community. When Shenoute gave his detailed instructions
to the women about the method of carrying out the beatings, he made it clear that
the female leaders were to hold the transgressors down, while the male elder delivered the blows on the soles of their feet. This image illustrates the complex relationships. The female leaders were to participate in the beatings, thus signifying their acceptance of the authority structures, but theirs was a passive role. The male elder
delivered the actual blows, an action that Shenoute often attributed to God, when
referring to his own reluctance to beat the monks. The womens resistance to corporal punishment, then, was not simply a resistance to Shenoutes uniform universal
monasticism, but also a resistance to the asymmetrical power that was necessary to
achieve uniform monastic practices.
Shenoute often had to chastise the women for speaking against the male elder. In
one case, a female monk of unknown rank was warned not to talk back when the male
elder carried out her punishment.96 Just as the female leaders could be seen as protecting their underlings from male control and male punishment of their bodies, so
too the female monks sought to protect their bodies from male control, either in the
form of demotion or, more likely, beatings. In addition, Shenoute warned against resistance to the male elders instructions, carried on Shenoutes behalf. He concluded
one letter by warning Tapolle and the female elder specically, but including all female monks by implication, not to argue with the elder, saying, Yes, yes. No, no.97
Shenoute seems to expect, or at least wish for, the women to accept the mens decisions and directions in silent obedience. The reality has clearly differed. While we
cannot know for certain the womens opinions, nor their self-understandings, the
text is clear in describing their hostility. The male elder was equally hostile to the
women and made his own accusations against them, which in turn did nothing to encourage communication: Was not the male elder correct when he said angrily, You
pass all your time taking counsel from the Devil?98 The female leaders were now
more antagonistic to the male elders who came to visit than they were to the distant
116
Shenoute, in part because these men had the same rank as many of them yet were
given control over the womens monastic experience. Moreover, the womens hostility was similar to their reaction to Shenoutes initial visits; in addition to the question of rank, then, the women resisted, and perhaps resented, the mens attempts to
chastise and correct them, no matter which man was the visitor.
The most extreme example of a female leaders hostility to a male envoy from
Shenoute occurred when Tachom refused to accept a male envoy into her community. Here the conict was inherently gendered, since Shenoute had to rely on male
envoys as a source of communication with the female community (whereas he had
more direct communication with the male community). Further, once again Tachoms actions in creating her own power were connected to a desire to protect physically the female monks under her care. Corporal punishment affected both Tachoms
life in the monastery and her role as a leader.99 She may have herself received a beating, prior to her refusal to accept the envoy. Shenoute had, according to his description, gone to the womens community earlier and punished them with a certain punishment, apparently meaning that he had beaten them.100 By protecting her
authority in her community, Tachom also protected her monks from Shenoutes physical punishment; both acts of resistance led Shenoute to judge her leadership as inappropriate. Further, in Shenoutes instructions for how to beat the women, he specied Tachom as the monk responsible for helping the female elder hold the women
down, as the male leader administered the blows.101 Although we cannot be sure of
the chronology of these two conicts, it may be that Tachom was forced to participate in, and so acquiesce to, male control over corporal punishment, as discipline for
resisting male control earlier.
Incidents that involved Tachom, Tapolle, and the female elder, as well as general
resistance to male authority in the female community, especially with regard to corporal punishment, encapsulate gender as a central issue in negotiating authority
among the leaders of the White Monastery. But we need to place these specic conicts within the larger role of gender in the monastery, which can be inferred from a
variety of special monastic rules for the women. These rules provide broader evidence
of Shenoutes suspicion of women and of an inherent inequality within his universal
monasticism. Moreover, the rules show how Shenoute used a household structure as
a model for the monastery, but one in which the mens community was the public, accessible portion of the house and the female community the private, inaccessible portion.102 These rules, for the most part, controlled the womens movements, forbade
exposure to the non-monastic world, and limited their contact with male monks (in
addition to male relatives). Thus, unlike the asceticism wealthy Christian women
practiced elsewhere, womens sexual renunciation in the White Monastery did not
lead to greater freedom of movement.103
The rules concerning the womens seclusion fall into two categories: regulations
about their own movements and guidelines for proper behavior when male monks
visited the female community. The men were not secluded; their workgathering
palm branches, working in the elds, and so forthallowed them to leave the
monastery. The women, on the other hand, seem to have been primarily involved in
two areas of work: cloth and garment production and the services necessary for the
day-to-day running of the community, such as food distribution. Both types of work
117
kept them conned within their community.104 The rules provide for the travel of
male monks while the women were not even allowed to speak to visitors to their community. Nor were they supposed to leave their community, even to perform charitable
works in the surrounding village for men or women: No woman in your community
shall go to visit a sick person in any place, whether among strangers or in the village
around you, whether male or female, whether a relative of yours or a stranger.105 This
rules point is to conne the women to their monastic community. The female monks
were not credited with the ability to adhere to the monastic rules, including but not
limited to sexual renunciation, if they were allowed the freedom to move between the
monastery and its secular environs. Moreover, any exceptions required approval from
the male elder; thus not even the female leaders were trusted to maintain their own
discipline outside the monasterys connes nor to ensure the discipline of the other
female monks under their care.106
The women were not only forbidden contact with anyone from the secular world,
but also, as we have seen, from their male monastic brethren, relatives and nonrelatives alike. The women were banned from attending the funerals of their female companions since male monks would also be present;107 excepted were the female elder,
and senior female monks, who were permitted to follow the male monks at a distance.108 Sometimes certain male monks had to visit the womens community, such
as when the male elder and his companions made regular but brief visits. Shenoute
did not regulate these visits since he must have trusted the elders not to be tempted
into sexual impropriety. Moreover, their agendasettling conicts among the
women, carrying out Shenoutes instructions, getting more information about the
womens activities, disciplining the women, and so forthserved Shenoutes goal of
a united administration in the monastery, and thus he did not consider these visits to
be violations of the gender separation. There was also contact between the two communities when the female leaders visited Shenoute in the male community.109 Just as
the rules separating the two communities did not pertain to visits that contributed to
the merging of the female community under Shenoutes control, so too the usual rules
conning the female monks to their community were suspended in situations that
Shenoute deemed appropriate. In this case, the womens movements were not an indication of freedom; they were allowed to visit only Shenoute and only because their
visits were vital to his leadership of their community. The rules still controlled these
womens movements and conned them to the White Monastery.
Shenoute also had strict rules about visits made by male monks (of rank lower than
the elders) when they delivered food or needed to repair the womens buildings.110 In
the latter case, the visits could last several days and so required detailed regulations
stipulating how the men ought to eat and sleep in the female community. Shenoute
allowed them to sleep there, but they were forbidden from eating with the women, or
even accepting food they served. Instead, food was delivered from the male community to the male monks separately.111 The provision against eating together, a communal activity, stands in stark contrast to Shenoutes language of unity, of all the
monks being brethren of a single body. While it is understandable in the context of
late antiquity that Shenoute did not want men and women to live together in one
monastery, it is intriguing that the male and female monks were not allowed to eat together when it was convenient to do so. Shenoutes concern can be explained as part
118
of the general anxiety among Christian leaders in late antiquity about the intimacy
that could arise among ascetics who lived together. Athanasius and John Chrysostom, among others, provide long arguments against the practice of spiritual marriage,
male and female ascetics sharing a household but renouncing sexual intercourse. The
consensus held that the constant contact inevitable in such a living arrangement
would destroy even the strongest commitment to sexual purity.112 Eating together was
a public means of proclaiming a shared household, as opposed to private sexual activity; sharing meals, moreover, created an intimacy that was the basis for physical intimacy.113 The male monks sleeping under the same roof as the women did not lead
to the same familiarity as did a shared meal; were the men to eat with the women, it
could naturally lead to sharing beds as well.114
There were, then, a variety of ways the womens separation from the men and their
stricter seclusion made their monastic experience different from the mens, and of
these the most important (or at least the one that appears most frequently in the surviving fragments) was the womens subordination to a male elder as the means of
Shenoutes authority. The need for the womens separation and seclusion from all
men, monks or not, nds its justication in Shenoutes rhetoric of difference: points
when he subscribed to common cultural assumptions about womens weaker, passionate natures and their consequential need for protection against (sexual) temptation. These moments show where Shenoute thought sexual difference was natural
and so still needed to be part of the embodied ascetic experience, rather than something that could be disciplined in favor of a universal monasticism. His rhetoric of difference contributed to the natural inclination to conne women, a strategy of containment that was, as Elizabeth Clark has shown, part of the ideology of gender in
late antique Christianity.115 The women were, on the one hand, participants in the
community like God and his angels in heaven. Yet unlike that future paradise,
where the sexes would, in Shenoutes view, be united, in this earthly version, the
sexes continued to be separated. The womens community was part of the monastic
space but it was female space. This difference created an inherent conict between
Shenoutes rhetoric of unity, and the monasticism that he thought should result, and
the actuality of the womens subordination. What remains uncertain is to what extent either Shenoute or any of the women in the monastery were aware of this tension. What can be said is that at some points during Shenoutes leadership, some
women, usually leaders of the female community, objected to his rules governing their
monastic experience. The reasons for their objections, however, must remain in the
realm of hypothesis, since their voices are lost.
Conclusion
The crux of the conict about gender is simple: Shenoutes ideology promoted a
monasticism for all whether male or female that was the basis for the communitys
status as an earthly version of paradise. But, unlike paradise, where the sexes would
be united, in the White Monastery the women had to live in their own community,
with strict rules governing their separation and seclusion. As a separate community,
the women were subject not just to Shenoute but to a male authority structure that
119
was asymmetrical in its power and gender relations. Shenoutes rhetoric has many examples of his attempts to unify the monastic experience of his follows, to maintain
gender (sexual difference) but subordinate it to their status as monks. Likewise, on
the surface, his leadership of the womens community, including their corporal punishment, fasting, and teaching, had as its ostensible goal the creation of a similar
monasticism for them that would lead them to the same salvation as the men could
expect. In this respect, Shenoute was egalitarian: the women did not need his leadership because they were women (that is, because, they were weaker, more passionate, more sexualized than the men) but because they, like the men, did not share in
the same relationship with God as Shenoute had. Yet Shenoutes rhetoric also betrays, even in these surviving fragments, moments of difference, of calling upon cultural constructions of woman that legitimized his strategy of containment for
their community. And, as noted, this containment subordinated the women to the
male elder, a subordination to which they clearly objected. What remains to be investigated is the controlling metaphor that allowed Shenoute to include the women
as brethren yet create a restricted space for them within the monastery: the family.
6
Gender and Monasticism in Late Antiquity
Gender and its proper place in monasticism are conicted issues in Shenoutes writings much as they were in the writings of other early Christian leaders, especially ascetics. Many male theologians presented what, to modern eyes, seem like contradictions between treating women as human, with a genderless spirit or soul, and treating
women as weak, passionate creatures controlled by their bodies. And what of the paradox of Jeromes misogynist rhetoric and his long friendship with, and deep admiration for, Paula?1 In this chapter I will use two means to place my arguments about the
role of gender in the White Monastery in the context of gender in early and late antique Christianity. First, I will explore the connection between gender and the position of women in monasticism and so will compare Shenoutes monasticism with
other forms of monasticism in the late antique Mediterranean world. But, as many
scholars have noted in recent years, the terms women and gender are not synonymous.
In order to explore more fully the role of gender (and not just women) in both the
White Monastery and late antique Christianity, I will then examine the particular
anxiety caused by eunuchs, by which I mean not just men who were castrated but
specically men who chose to be castrated as a form of asceticism. Such men were part
of Christian circles from as early as the second century, although their practice was
largely frowned upon by Shenoutes day. One reason for its demise was the same as for
its appeal: the lack of gender categorization for a eunuch called into question the relationship between the body and gender. The eunuch points out the fallacy of understanding gender as biologically, and not socially, constructed. In one letter to the
women (one of the ones that I argue may well have been addressed to the entire community), Shenoute referred to his commandment that eunuchs be expelled from the
White Monastery. His condemnation of the eunuchs invokes many typical Christian
120
121
arguments, stemming from earlier controversies. Moreover, his discomfort clearly

arises from the ambiguity of the gender of a mutilated body, an ambiguity that undermines the careful balancing of gender paradoxes on which Shenoutes monasticism
depended.
Shenoutes Monasticism in Context

Other monasteries and ascetic movements in the Mediterranean world of late antiquity also included both men and women. Some forms of asceticism in the second and
third centuries permitted friendships between men and women, friendships that
crossed the gender boundary in Greco-Roman society.2 By late antiquity, however,
the standard monastic practice was to separate men and women.3 Shenoutes division
of the male and female monks was not unusual, nor would it have been surprising to
those who joined the monastery. However, Shenoutes simultaneous efforts to unite
the monastery and to subsume the womens administration under his control was unusual and made his vision of monasticism an alternative in fourth- and fth-century
Christianity. Most sources for other types of monasticism (with the notable exception
of Pachomian monasticism) present monastic women as having authority over their
own communities despite having some sort of association with a male authority. In
addition, womens power seems to have depended on their separation from the male
monasteries (and thus from a male authority). Part of their power lies in the ability to
decide what contact was allowed between men and women; that is, part of their
power lay in controlling the gender boundary. The variety of late antique monastic
structures provides different responses to the question of gender and authority in each
type of monasticism. At the same time, they furnish the context necessary for understanding the relationship between men and women in the authority structures of the
White Monastery and draw attention to the unique aspects of Shenoutes leadership
of the women.
Elsewhere in Egypt
Female ascetics have a long but poorly recorded history in the development of Christianity.4 The details of the rise and development of female asceticism in Egypt remain
a matter of debate.5 Anthonys reference to the house of ascetic women with whom
he left his sister when he departed for the desert is often cited as one of the earliest
references to female ascetics living together, despite concerns about the historicity of
this reference.6 It is not surprising that ascetic women had to live as a group, since in
Roman society, including Egypt, their options were limited. Most unmarried women
could only reasonably expect to live with their parents or with other women. Our best
records for womens living arrangements in Egypt come from the papyri, especially
those of the census records. Of the various household-types represented in the census, women living alone or with other women occur rarely.7 A good example of
women living together comes from the well-known papyri of correspondence of
Didyme and the sisters.8 These women lived in their own community and apparently
engaged in commerce to support it.9
122
In the urban setting of Alexandria, there were women who had taken a vow of virginity and who had various living arrangements. As part of his ascetic program
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria from 328 to 73, created a discipline of virgins
within the church.10 In doing so he specically rejected two possible domestic arrangements for ascetic women: living in a house with an ascetic man, and setting up
an independent household. He proposed instead that women should live either with
their families or in a community of women.11 Athanasiuss purpose was to endorse
patterns of living and devotion that would minimize contact with men.12 The main
element of his program was to dene female ascetics as brides of Christ and also dene the proper behavior for such a bride.13 Part of this proper behavior was seclusion,
through which Athanasius could control the women and utilize them for his own political reasons.14 Women were also, of course, separated in the White Monastery.
However, in the community of female ascetics that Athanasius envisioned, the
women lived under the guidance of an elder mother, assisted by several elder sisters,
who had to be honored like the Lord himself, not as human beings, and obeyed without murmuring.15 Shenoute, in contrast, warned the female monks to obey the male
elder without murmuring, Yes, yes, no, no.16 The difference between Shenoutes
and Athanasiuss descriptions marks the difference in the authority structures for
each female community. Like Athanasius, Shenoute sought to make female monasticism a discipline within a larger, male-run hierarchy. Unlike him, Shenoute viewed
the women as brethren rather than as brides of Christ. That is, Shenoute saw the
women not as a separate group needing to be dened by gendered marriage rules but
an equal part of the larger whole. Athanasius made the female ascetic movement
part of the church and thus under control of the episcopate. Likewise Shenoute made
the female community part of the monastery as a whole, and thus under the control
of the archimandrite. But Athanasius allocated more authority to the female elder in
charge of the community of virgins than was accorded the female elder in the White
Monastery, where Shenoute wanted a greater role, through the activity of the male
elder, in the decision-making of the female community in his monastery.17
Many men in late antique Egypt sought to avoid contact with women by leaving
the cities for the desert.18 However, women came to the desert not only to visit their
male relatives and to seek spiritual advice and healing, but also to be desert monastics themselves.19 The sayings of a few of these womenSarah, Syncletica and Theodorasurvive but make up only a small portion of the desert monastic literature as a
whole.20 There are, of course, methodological concerns about assuming these sayings
represent a female point of view, since we are not certain of the transmission or authorship of the sayings and since we cannot burden the women with an essentialist
femininity. Nevertheless, we can examine the sayings for what the authors, female or
male, may have been trying to convey about female desert hermits. These women
sought seclusion of their own initiative, rather than having it foisted upon them.
Moreover, they often sought it not only to protect themselves from their own sexual
desire, but also from a claimed (or forced by male sources) need to protect those men
who might feel desire for them.21 The women bore the responsibility both for mastering their own sexual passions and also for secluding themselves so that they did not
inadvertently tempt men.22 Women in the desert who did not hide their female bodies from male sight, or in male clothing, were subject to suspicion and rigorous test-
123
ing.23 Some authors of sayings, however, used desert mothers to suggest that the male
monks in their midst should no longer be able to discern the difference between men
and women. One such saying has a desert mother rebuke a male monk who has
crossed the road to avoid them: If you were a perfect monk, you would not have seen
us as women.24 The desert mothers argued that they had female bodies but male natures; that is, that their sex was female but their gender male. Sarah also said to the
brethren, It is I who am a man, you who are women.25 The desert in Egypt provided
a place where men sought to be free of the conicts between the sexes. However,
women, too, chose to go to the desert, a place some viewed as free from the constraints of gender, that is, of the automatic association of characteristics based on sexual difference. Even so, cultural assumptions about gender lingered in the womens
claim to be living as men, not to be neither male nor female. The desert fathers were
reluctant to have contact with women, to admit womens ability to be monastics, and
to allow monasticism to have an effect on gender. The desert mothers sayings, too,
reect some of these hesitations and thus the women sought to be rid of their gender
and its negative connotations.
A third type of asceticism found in fourth-century Egypt was regular communal
monasticism, for which the traditional gure is Pachomius.26 Like Anthony, Pachomius reportedly also had to make provisions for his sister and so he created a separate female community as part of his male monastic system.27 This type of monasticism is most similar to the White Monastery in terms of structure, including the
gendered structure of authority. As with the White Monastery, the Pachomian system required both men and women to follow the same ruleswith the exception that
only men were obliged to wear a hairshirtand ordered the monks to live in separate communities. So, too, the women were not allowed to travel outside their community. The male monks were permitted to visit their female relatives, especially for
economic reasons, but the rules wording allows for visits of any sort.28 Unfortunately,
Pachomiuss letters do not record his responses to activities and situations in the female community, as Shenoutes do for the White Monastery, and we thus do not have
the means to reconstruct any experiences of the women.29 The female monks under
Pachomius had a male elder for supervision, as in the White Monastery, but, as Susanna Elm has pointed out, there are very few insights into the actual relationship
between Pachomius, the mother of the female community, and the supervising father.30 Pachomius may well have sought the same level of control over the women
as Shenoute, or he may have had a laissez-faire relationship like that of Shenoutes
predecessors.
Palestine
Contemporary with Shenoutes monastery were those of Palestine, which also housed
both male and female monks. Despite the rhetorical character of the sources associated with these monasteries, and the authors lack of interest in what we consider
history, certain details are evident. Wealthy ascetic women founded several of the
monasteries for men and women in Palestine. The patroness allowed men to run their
male community, so that they were not subject to female rule, but kept the female
community independent under her leadership.31 These female monasteries were
124
therefore more independent than female communities in the dual monasteries of

Egypt and did not have an ofcial male overseer. The administrative separation did
not always require so strict a gender separation as we saw in the White Monastery. In
Paulas monastery, the women were able to join the men for Psalms and prayers, a
practice forbidden in the White Monastery under Shenoute.32 Still, the female leaders sought to limit contact with men to prayers and meals.33 Separation was still central, but it was under the control of both male and female leaders.
The evidence describing womens lives survives mainly in letters from male leaders to the female communities.34 These letters express the same ideal of a uniform
monastic experience as Shenoutes, but only for uniformity among the women. Both
the male authors and the female leaders seem unconcerned with imitating a brother
(male) monastery. These correspondences also record sources of conict among the
women which resemble those in the White Monastery: class differences, laziness,
anger, and jealousy over distribution of material goods were all divisive issues. There
were power struggles among the female leaders.35 The male writers who gave these accounts were at times dissatised with what they regarded as the womens lax ascetic
standards (like Shenoute), but there is no indication that they had the authority to
change those standards.36 These female monks had monastic rules similar to those in
the White Monastery, but their leaders had a greater freedom to exercise their power
in enforcing the rules, rather than having them enforced.37 Unfortunately, we know
little more than these basic facts of female leadership in the womens monasteries,
since the sources are more concerned with displaying the humility of these women
than describing in detail their authority, and how they ran their monasteries.38
In terms of education, the situation of the women in the White Monastery (where
the evidence is severely fragmented) had similarities to, and differences from, that of
wealthy ascetic women who formed elite networks of patronage to run their own
monasteries and pursue their own religious education. Paula, and both Melania the
Elder and the Younger, all received praise for their memorization of the Scriptures,
and for their facility with Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.39 This praise came from their
male teachers, who also acknowledged that some women could ask questions of interpretation that even they themselves were not able to answer. That the men regarded the women as intelligent and dedicated to their studies, however, did not lead
them to conclude that the women did not need male teachers and interpreters.
Shenoute never expresses his opinion of the female monks intelligence, but he shares
the view that in all cases women were in need of male guidance in interpretations
of Scripture.40 The men who taught these women were also concerned about the
womens liability to heresy, from which their intelligence did not protect them. Melania the Younger, for example, was subject to special scrutiny because of her grandmothers association with Origenism.41 The control Shenoute forced on the women,
who had not had visits from male teachers prior to his tenure, was consistent with the
cultural view of women that was coming to be dominant in late antique Christianity.
Despite some similarities in details of life, Shenoutes letters have a decidedly different tone from those describing the Palestinian monasteries, a tone that shows the
difference in the relationships between their respective author and audience.42 For
the monks in Palestine, the letters are most often merely descriptive; any instructions
are usually not directed to the women as a group but were within the context of the
125
authors personal relationship with the female leader. Shenoutes letters provide more
instruction and often address the community as a whole. The male letter-writers in
Palestine present the women as autonomous authorities in their monasteries and express no interest in visiting the womens community for any reason. In addition, the
letters praise the Palestinian female leaders as wise and effective, able to quell trouble
and lead all their monks to spiritual fulllmenta different picture from the rebellious, argumentative female elder and senior female monks in the White Monastery
that Shenoute describes. The main difference in the two systems that these two collections show is Shenoutes desire to have a more active role in the leadership of the
female community than men like Jerome and Runus wanted. The latter men relied
on their personal relationships with the female monastic leaders (Paula and Melania
the Elder) to shape the monasticism practiced in those communities; they were thus
less concerned with creating clear authority structures than Shenoute was.
North Africa
A situation similar to that of the White Monastery survives from North Africa, where
a group of female monks wrote to request Augustines help to settle a conict that had
arisen during a transfer of leadership following the death of a former leader.43 Dissatisfaction with the new female head had nearly led the monks under her care to riot;
they now requested Augustine to visit their community and remove her. Augustine
claimed that it was their desire for a more lenient form of monastic life, which would
undermine discipline in the community, that led to the monks dissatisfaction, not
the new heads leadership. The response of these North African monks to their new
female head was much like that of the female monks response to Shenoutes new
leadership: suspicion and resistance to changes. That the new head in the North
African monastery was female did not diminish the female monks suspicion and resistance, nor did Augustines gender and distance from the community invalidate his
leadership and authority. Such evidence indicates that there was not a uniform female response to male authority, nor did automatic bonds of sisterhood exist among
female monks. This evidence supports to the view that some of the womens internal
conicts, such as the crisis over the refusal of promotion, may have included debate
and disagreement about how to view and respond to Shenoutes authority; the female
leaders may have been more resistant than monks of lesser rank, as when a female
monk wrote her request for a transfer to Shenoute, prioritizing his authority over that
of her female superiors.
Like Shenoute, Augustine was distressed by the conict; also like Shenoute, he
based his response to the women on general monastic principles and not misogynistic prejudice. Unlike Shenoute, who used his own visits as threats to discipline the
women, Augustine refused to visit the community; he argued that their riots might
grow all the worse in his presence. Moreover, Augustine urged the women to police
one another in running their community, and required witnesses to prove transgressions so that whispering campaigns be avoided.44 Likewise, Shenoute had asked for
mutual accountability among the women in order to enforce discipline and obedience to his rule. On at least two occasions he disciplined monks for spreading gossip.45
The difference lay in the degree of control each male outsider sought in leading the
126
womens community. Although Augustine sent the same type of directive letter as
Shenoute, he appears to have been reluctant to become involved in the womens
quarrels. Shenoute, as we have seen, had the opposite approach in his leadership of
the female monks under his care.
This brief survey suggests some of the similarities and differences between the gender-based authority structures of other monasteries in the Mediterranean world of
late antiquity and those of the White Monastery. All of the parallel cases from North
Africa and Palestine we have examined indicate that administrative distance and the
female autonomy it allowed was the norm everywhere except in Egypt, in the Pachomian monastic system and the White Monastery.46 It was not unusual for a group
of ascetic women to live together, and to be subjected to an outside, distant male authority gure. Indeed gender division was a customary separation.47 Shenoutes attempts to be involved actively in a female community were what made the womens
lives in the White Monastery unusual. Of course, some amount of difference can be
attributed to the difference in the nature of the sources, as I have noted. Despite these
differences, there is seemingly agreement on the question of the relationship between
gender, asceticism, and the self: women were capable of living the ascetic life, but it
did not change their place in the current hierarchy of men over women, a change that
would only occur with the next life, where sexual difference would still exist but not
necessarily result in the gender denitions of this world. But this level of similarity
arises from mutual concerns among male late antique theologians regarding the place
of woman within a religious system that also insisted on the worth of the soul.
Theresa Shaw has argued that men in this period looked to the soul as the point of
similarity between men and women but still allowed for differences between them as
a result of embodiment.48 Shenoutes letters provide additional evidence for female
monasticism that both agrees with larger theological issues and adds unique new examples of one writer in one particular monastery.
Virgins and Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven

The White Monastery, I have argued, contained an essential paradox, more apparent
to us than to Shenoute, between the egalitarianism of his universal monasticism and
the gendered hierarchy he imposed on the women as a subordinate community of the
monastery. A particular ascetic practice in early Christianity called into question the
binary categories of male/female. Ascetic men in early Christianity occasionally castrated themselves in order to guard against engaging in illicit sexual intercourse.49
The evidence suggests that such a practice was, if not common at least well known,
in second- and third-century Christianity, especially in Egypt (particularly Alexandria). By the late fourth century, castration as an ascetic practice had been condemned by orthodox Christianity. Eunuchs were not properly either gender, since
they effaced the sexual difference of the body, and their sexual ambiguity called into
question the essentialism of gender in the construction of self. Shenoutes objections
to the practice of castration among his male monks were based on Christian doctrine
and implicitly on the threat a eunuch posed to the monastic structure. The White
127
Monastery was unable to tolerate the presence of people whose existence questioned
the gendered foundations of the community.
Shenoute ordered men who had castrated themselves to be expelled immediately,
even if they were still bleeding from their wound and in danger of dying. His strictness reects the strength of his concern that the presence of eunuchs would cast doubt
on the necessity of gender segregation in the monastery:
Therefore I am instructing you also about the following matter: If you again catch any
people within your community doing the foolish deed of cutting off their male organ so
that they might live in purity, you must place them on a bed, since they are polluted by
the blood of their wound, and take them out to the road, just as we said to do, when we
gathered together to listen, and they will be an example or a symbol to everyone who
passes by. If you wish, for Gods sake, you may give them into the custody of their relatives so that they might not die in our environs. But if they do not have relatives, take
them to a populated place and leave them there. Only do not allow them to dwell in
your community.50
The ambiguity of the eunuchs gender arose both from their social function and from
the cultural view of what determined masculinity and femininity. The household in
antiquity was divided along gender lines, though more so in Greece than in Rome.51
Eunuchs served as servants to elite women, since they were men whom the husbands
could be sure would not father an illegitimate child. They bridged the male and female spheres that divided and dened Roman society. They could enter the private
realm of the female portion of the household but could also serve in the public political realm of the empire.52 Likewise in early Christianity, eunuchs, according to the
accounts of early Christian writers, could be companions to female virgins. Eunuchs
social function, then, was to allow men, or at least nonwomen, into the female sphere
without the threat of illicit sexual intercourse and pregnancy. Sexually, they were
liminal gures who crossed the boundary between male and female spaces, a transgression apparent in their very bodies as well.
Eunuchs could live in the female sphere because it was assumed their sexual ability was lost with their castration. W. Stevenson has pointed out examples in nonChristian writers that question this lack of sexual ability.53 A few Christian writers
also warned female virgins not to trust eunuchs since they remained sexually capable
and, lacking the threat of impregnation, could act licentiously. One such author, Basil
of Ancyra, wrote:
Since he did not trust himself to overpower licentiousness, he cut off the member with
which he performs the act of lust. Or rather, persuading himself that when possible he
will act licentiously, he stripped the instrument of its licentiousness that he might not
seem to be licentious in his body. In fact he was entirely licentious and lustful and constantly gratied his lust. He calls out for castration, but it is in service of his incontinence. We might say that those castrated become more licentious. They are unable to
master themselves but are afraid of being caught in lust. Thus, so that they who are slaves
to pleasure may act out as lustfully as they please, they cut off the hindrance of their lust
without wishing any hindrance to their continuing enjoyment of lust. And so they engage freely and licentiously in intercourse.54
128
This result of castration, sterility but virility, was well enough known in antiquity to
encourage general suspicion of eunuchs as a sexual threat. In Palestine, Paula warned
her female monks to be wary of eunuchs for similar reasons.55 Paulas description categorized the eunuchs as men since contact with them raised the possibility of causing
gossip about the continence of her female monks.
Whether the eunuch was a man, woman, or some third gender was a matter of debate in non-Christian Roman culture. Late Republican and Augustan poets, such as
Catullus and Ovid, presented a suspicious view of eunuchs in their description of the
myth of Attis and of the cultic practices of the Galli priests.56 In both poems, Attis
and the priests have lost their masculinity to the point of being called female by the
authors. In the second century, the view of the eunuch was even more ambiguous, as
Lucian demonstrates in his work The Eunuch. He noted the eunuchs physical characteristics, such as the lack of the beard and a high voice, made him seem no longer
male and eventually classed him as neither man nor woman but something composite, hybrid, and monstrous, alien to human nature.57 Moreover, the characteristics of
this third gender include shame and cowardice, which are natural to them.58 The
eunuch who appears as a character in Lucians dialogue, however, claims that his gender, while perhaps not male, is at least superior to women. He builds this hierarchy by
claiming that eunuchs must be allowed to practice philosophy since even women
do.59 The suspicion and anxiety created by the sexually ambiguous nature of eunuchs
was strong enough to make castration illegal in second-century Egypt.60 Even so,
some, including doctors, held more tolerant views of castration. The essential element of masculinity, the ability to understand the divine through reason, was thought
to depend on pneuma, which was present in semen.61 With decreased sexual intercourse, more semen was retained and so enhanced ones masculinity. Thus Galen argued that castration would be the answer for those who wished to abstain from sexual contact, if vigor and virility were not removed along with the testicles.62 The
medical texts, then, rendered a positive view of castration as the ultimate means to
achieve sexual continence and to improve a mans relationship to the divine.63 So too
Rouselle has argued that non-Christian men did not undergo castration to renounce
sexual desire and activity but they deliberately and scientically renounced their fertility by ritually removing their testicles.64 The eunuch, therefore, could be regarded
as less than a man, because his lack of masculine characteristics made him seem unmanly, or quite the opposite, as more masculine through his retention of sperm.
These two different views of the gender of the eunuch also allowed for the eunuchs body to stand as a symbol for competing views of the body in asceticism in the
second to fourth centuries. If the eunuch was a third gender, then symbolically he represented an asexuality, set apart from society. For those who argued for the heightened
masculinity of the eunuch, he stood as an enhancement of the cultural values of the
society. Both these symbols were potentially useful to a Christian audience. For ascetically minded Christians, the link between male asceticism and status as a eunuch was in the sayings of Jesus. In Christian Scripture Jesus describes three types of
eunuchs: For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs
who have been made eunuchs by others and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who
can (Mt. 19:12, NRSV). Just as there were two different views of the gender of the
129
eunuch, so too there were two different readings of this passage, one literal and one
allegorical. Each of these alternatives implied a different cultural meaning. The literal eunuch altered his body to create a new state of being in this world, beyond the
male/female, while the metaphorical eunuch used his renunciation to reiterate his
gender: his masculinity stemmed from his self-control. His control of his passions embodied not only the ideals of the philosopher, but the pattern of Jesus Christ.65 His
body remains male and thus symbolizes a gendered society in which human will is
central.66 On the other hand, the literal eunuch was perceived as not having selfcontrol, since his was involuntary. Thus, symbolically, he was not exhibiting the masculinity of sexual asceticism but was constrained, like a woman.67 Yet precisely the literal eunuchs questioning of the traditional gendered social structures was the basis
for his symbolism: he was a powerful symbol of the pre-fall (and future paradise) asexuality that was the goal of much late antique asceticism.
The literal interpretation of Mt. 19:12 presented a problem for mainstream Christianity not just because of widespread reluctance to undergo castration but also because the literal eunuch had no gender. Castration was wrong because the result, a eunuchs body, suggested that gender was a transitory state. It was this view of the body,
and of the effect of asceticism on gender, that later Christians, such as Jerome and
Shenoute, rejected.68 The problem arose, as the Acts of John shows, from the belief
that the body should be altered, rather than the desires. After having been converted
to a life of chastity by John, a young man cuts off his testicles and throws them, as the
pattern and cause of all this, at the feet of his lover; rather than praising this man,
however, John remarks, The one who tempted you . . . has also made you take off the
unruly (members) as if it were a virtuous act. But you should not have destroyed the
place (of your temptation) but the thought which showed its temper through those
members.69 This literal eunuch, therefore, although possible evidence for this ascetic practice, also provides evidence for the opposite view: the valorization of the
metaphorical eunuch, based on self-discipline, over the literal.
Men who followed both a literal and a metaphorical interpretation of Mt. 19:12
lived in Egypt during the rst four centuries of Christianity, according to evidence
from the works of Justin Martyr, Basilides, Clement, Origen, and Shenoute.70 There
is limited evidence for Christians who interpreted Mt. 19:12 literally and who also
thought a literal eunuch was a positive symbol of enhanced masculinity, despite
R. P. C. Hansons argument that castration was a known and on the whole approved
custom in the Christian Church in Origens time.71 These men were the historical
losers and so receive little afrmation in the primarily orthodox literature that survives. What we do have, however, is informative. Justin Martyr cites as an example
of Christian morality a young man in Alexandria who sought permission to undergo
castration and, having been denied it, continued to live in continence.72 Chadwick
notes that it is striking that Justin seems to have seen nothing blameworthy or foolish in the young mans actions but rather regarded his enthusiasm as having an apologetic value calculated to impress pagan readers with the high tone of Christian morality.73 Justins comment is the only positive view of a literal eunuch from antiquity.
Most other positive uses are metaphorical, as discussed later, and literal eunuchs are
elsewhere only portrayed in the negative. Even Origen, a man who was himself later
rumored, in the history by Eusebius, to have followed a literal interpretation and cas-
130
trated himself at the age of eighteen, wrote against a literal interpretation of the passage in his Commentary on Matthew.74 As a eunuch, Origen would have, as Peter
Brown puts it, dared to shift the massive boundary between the sexes. He had opted
out of being male. . . . He was a walking lesson in the indeterminacy of the body.75
Scholars have debated the historicity of Eusebiuss tale, and the implications for reading Origens commentary.76 Whether or not Origen did castrate himself is of less consequence here, however, and more important are the portraits he creates of literal and
metaphorical eunuchs.
Origen refutes those who interpreted any portion of Mt. 19:12 literally, whether
eunuchs by birth, by the hand of others, or by their own hand, and proposed instead
an allegorical meaning of all three types of eunuch. He makes clear in his commentary that he is addressing men who have castrated themselves as part of their sexual
asceticism: [w]e would not have spent so much time refuting the opinion . . . if we
had not seen men of such daring.77 In other words, men in third-century Alexandria
had opted for castration, based on a literal reading of Mt. 19:12, and who undertook
this course not just to follow the Scriptures but to live a life of sexual purity and enhanced masculinity in terms of virtue if not in terms of body. Origens description also
supports Browns of the eunuch as a walking lesson in the indeterminacy of the
body. Although Origen omits discussion of what a man experiences after castration (apparently sexually), he describes the missing facial hair and what, due to the
movement of heat in the body, he would suffer or what headaches and fainting spells
there would be when some of this matter reaches the governing mind and disturbs the
imagination with strange fantasies.78 Origen thus suggests the existence of a group of
male ascetics who underwent castration as the highest form of sexual purity, relying
on the symbol of the eunuchs body as an asexual separation from society. So too evidence from fourth-century Christianity arguing against the practice of voluntary castration indicates a continuation of this practice.79
Yet Origen himself, along with other major Christian writers, preferred to use the
term eunuch as a metaphor for the celibate man, relying on an allegorical reading of
Mt. 19:12. Athenagoras contrasts Christians with their opponents in sexual terms:
[T]hese adulterers and pederasts defame the eunuchs and the once married. Tertullians references to voluntary eunuchs are more ambiguous, but I would argue most
likely metaphorical.80 This image was a powerful statement of the mans sexual renunciation and his alienation from social structures; its power lay in the revulsion the
eunuch caused in Roman society, a society from which ascetic Christians wanted to
distance themselves. Moreover, the metaphorical eunuch emphasized his masculinity through his self-control; he reinforced the distinction between male and female
and so fortied gender rather than eradicated it.81 The difference between the two interpretations of Mt. 19:12 was in the understanding of the relationship between the
body, gender, and the self. Changes in the body, specically in the genitalia, either did
or did not constitute a corresponding change in ones gender, which in turn either did
or did not lead to a change in the self.
To return to the White Monastery: Shenoute opposed the presence of eunuchs because of his concern that his monastery not seem to support what was, by this point
in Christian history, an outlawed practice: Only do not allow them to dwell in your
community so that you might not be considered another sort of heresy because of
131
crooked people who are a hindrance to you by this deed. It is a disgrace that people
obey it and it is an abomination to the Scriptures.82 Shenoute most likely supported
the condemnation of castration since eunuchs inevitably created problems for any
who regarded gender as essential to humanity, both in this life and the next. He therefore also was concerned that the eunuchs presence, as a walking lesson in the indeterminacy of the body, would call into question the strong boundary between the
male and female bodies in the White Monastery. His argument called upon all the
cultural revulsion against the eunuch, who has cut off his male organ, who was polluted by the blood of his wound. He wants them to be expelled as an example or a
symbol to passers-by of the consequence of such an act: expulsion and thus damnation. He acted against their presence as a symbol of the indeterminacy of the body
within the monastery. A community such as the White Monastery could not tolerate
those whose bodies suggested that gender was not the basis of dening the self but
rather changeable and potentially unnecessary.
As in orthodox Christianity, Shenoute, although repulsed by literal eunuchs, used
the metaphor of the eunuch to create a distinction between those who chose the
monastic way of life and those who still live in the outside world. The eunuch as a
trope does not emphasize the gender boundary within the monastery, but the boundary between the monastery and the society the monks had left. Shenoute refers to
those men and women of the White Monastery who have not had children, or who
renounced those they did have, along with their numerous material possessions because they wished to follow the worthy path that they were called to, who are indeed
eunuchs and virginsand this means you, brethren.83 As metaphorical eunuchs,
these monks are eunuchs who do not have children through intercourse but instead
are fathers to many children of God.84 Moreover, Shenoutes use, on this occasion,
of one metaphor, eunuchs, for men and another, virgins, for women suggests that he
subscribed to the view that sexual abstinence reinforced gender distinction rather
than eradicating it; thus he had two different metaphors for the two different genders,
rather than one shared by both.85 However, on another occasion, Shenoute referred
to some rebellious monks, both male and female, as false virgins: You false virgins,
either male or female within us, those who will do abominations within these congregations continually.86 One could speculate that on this latter occasion the mens
disobedience led to their demotion from a male-based metaphor (eunuch) to a female-based one (virgin); demotion was a punishment for transgression and on this
occasion Shenoute was describing men (and women) who were rebelling against his
authority (a transgression). Shenoutes view of gender, asceticism and monasticism,
then, is as complex in his use of metaphor as it was in his treatment of the female
monks.
Shenoutes expulsion of the eunuchs from the White Monastery provides further
evidence that his asceticism made gender central to the body and to the self.
Shenoute maintained that such separation was necessary in this life for the two sexes
to be able to gather together, still as men and women but without sexual tension, in
the next. The eunuchs body raised the question of whether or not gender was essential to the self and whether or not it would continue in the next life. In effect, the
body of a eunuch threatened the very foundation of the structure of the White
Monastery. The eunuchs can be compared to the biological kin, who also created ten-
132
sion with their presence in the monastic community. The difference between
Shenoutes toleration of biological kin and the expulsion of eunuchs lay in the social
structure each recalled. Although problematic, the kin at least recalled the family,
the model for community formation in the White Monastery. Eunuchs, in contrast,
exemplied the eradication of gender, which the community of the White Monastery
could not accept or tolerate under Shenoutes leadership.
Conclusion
Women and gender are two interrelated, yet distinct, topics. One way to understand
Shenoutes denitions of womens place in his monastery, and so his constructions of
gendered monasticism, is to compare it with other forms of female monasticism in
late antiquity. This comparison suggests that Shenoutes particular form of monasticism, with men and women united under one male leader, was unusual. Yet his paradoxes about women and gender were less so. More than one (male) Christian writer
tried to support women in their search for salvation through asceticism and yet could
still present woman as a negative trope throughout his works.87 Recognition of
these paradoxes, and the tensions between positive ideals and misogynist negatives,
seems to have eluded many of these writers. In this, Shenoute is no exception but
rather provides further evidence for the interplay between ascetic theory and ascetic
practice, especially as it concerns the gender of the ascetic. The situation of the eunuch in the White Monastery serves as further example. Shenoute agrees with much
of mainstream Christianity in his horror at bodily mutilation and misinterpretation
of Scripture. Yet, since his monasticism existed for all monks whether male or female, thus retaining gender, and was not a monasticism that recognized neither
male nor female, suggesting a repression of sexual difference, eunuchs, who were neither male nor female, could not be categorized into his monasticism. Nor could they
be safely placed in their proper space, as could women and men. Eunuchs had to be
expelled from the White Monastery because their bodily presence undermined the
structural basis of the monastery, and, by doing so, could potentially unravel
Shenoutes careful weaving of egalitarian and hierarchical monastic threads.
7
Womens Role in the Monastic Family
The Intersection of Power and Gender
At rst glance, it may seem simplistic to say that the White Monastery had the family as its model for the structure of the community and for relationships between, and
among, the monks. Not only was familial language ubiquitous in early Christianity
from its very beginnings and especially within the later monastic movement, but also,
as Brent Shaw has noted, in late antiquity the family was the unit of social and economic production and reproduction.1 The family, then, would seem to have been
Shenoutes natural or inevitable choice as a means to form the community of the
White Monastery. Yet as recent scholarship, especially on gender, has shown us it is
precisely when something seems natural or inevitable that historians should
pause and ask how this inevitable choice supports the authors ideology.2 Asking
this question about family language in Shenoutes letters illuminates the constructedness of the family. Since constructing the monastery as a family removes it from any
biological basis, it undermines the notion that the family is an essentially organic
unit. Family (which I will dene more precisely later) is a place in Shenoutes writings
where authority and gender intersect to support his larger ideology of an egalitarian
rhetoric, even while creating asymmetrical, and now obviously patriarchal, authority
structures alongside his apparent egalitarianism. Shenoute used family to try to reconcile, successfully and not, elements of his monasticism that may seem paradoxical
to us. Furthermore, by creating a monastic family, Shenoute incorporated gender relations in the monastery, by replicating the gender relations of the nonmonastic
household within his new community. By examining Shenoutes structuring of the
monastery as a family, we will revisit topics and anecdotes from previous chapters, but
from a new perspective that integrates the previous two. While we have investigated
133
134
structures of authority through Shenoutes claims to power and through constructions of gender, we can now add the family as a third type of authority structure.
Like gender, family was a carnal aspect of life that Shenoute tried to transform as
part of the monastic life he promoted: a community like God and his angels in
heaven. Family life, in the monastery, was a point where spirit was supposed to discipline esh, not just by renouncing former biological ties in favor of spiritual allegiances but also by shaping the new spiritual family to be like, yet unlike, the biological family. Shenoute regarded the biological family as linked to God as he makes
clear in a sermon to an audience of monks and laity: But we dwell with Jesus and his
angels, not only in his church, his (holy) places and every place where people gather,
but also in our houseswe ourselves and our children, parents and siblings.3 Thus,
he could draw upon these divine associations to sanctify the mundane functions of
the monastery. Shenoute echoes Roman ideals of domestic harmony in his descriptions of the perfect spiritual family yet promoted an ideology that the monastery, unlike the biological family, could attain this ideal thanks to its salvic values. The
monastery had unavoidable differences from the biological family, which allowed
Shenoute to demand greater domestic harmony from the salvic family of the
monastery. Disciplining the esh within the monastery removed the carnal aspect of
the biological family and so mitigated conict located in carnality.
Such a perspective, however, does not recognize the inherent carnality of the
tropes Shenoute relied upon. As we shall see, Shenoute used powerful physical images of parenthood, of infertility, of childbirth, and of childhood yet then claimed to
be innocent of the carnal implications. He tried to control the meaning and spiritual
function of the familial imagery he employed, but contradictions emerged between
his two competing paradigms: the otherworldy set of values of God and his angels in
heaven and the values of this world, located in the household.4 Women in the
monastery in particular proved to be a litmus test of the limitations of Gods community on earth, the central model for Shenoutes monasticism. They were thus in a position to call attention to contradictions in Shenoutes ideology (if they were aware
of them, which is difcult if not impossible to determine).
Before I continue with this investigation, it is clearly necessary to dene the term
family especially since, as is often noted, ancient terms such as familia do not mean the
same thing as the modern term family, that is, a nuclear family consisting of parents
and child(ren).5 People in late antiquity could, as Brent Shaw has shown in the case
of Augustine, have strong nuclear family experiences but nevertheless this was not
what they meant by the term family.6 Rather, family indicated the extensive network
of relationships, all based in the household but not all biologicalslaves, servants,
freedmen and women, remote kin, and the patron-client system all contributed to
this social structure. Shenoute himself rarely uses either of the Coptic terms for family which themselves appear most often in Coptic translations of Greek texts, such as
the Bible.7 Instead, familial language in Shenoutes letters to female monks means his
use of familial terms (brother, sister, father, mother, children) and of familial imagery
(birth, infertility, family members in struggle). Recent scholarship can aid in dening
what I mean when I call the White Monastery a family. One of the largest debates in
family studies, as both Suzanne Dixon and Halvor Moxnes have pointed out, ad-
Womens Role in the Monastic Family: The Intersection of Power and Gender
135
dresses the question whether the family is an organic unit or a social construct.8 Since
I am investigating specically the creation of a new family in the monastic community, the treatments of the family as a construct with assigned meanings is immediately applicable. At the same time, while I do not agree with the essentialism of the
family, its integration into ancient society and it predominant role suggest that the
power of this imagery in Shenoutes writings is attributable to its seeming naturalness to him and his followers. That is, while historians and sociologists may be able
to analyze the family, to people in antiquity the power of the family was its apparent
inevitability.9
I have used the word family here throughout but must also take note of two connected terms: household and kinship. Baldly put, household studies tend to focus on the
economic function of the family, whereas family studies look at the relationships
among its members.10 For the family in antiquity, these two terms often are used interchangeably since the household provided the means of running the extended family. While I will use mainly family, this choice is meant to avoid confusion about the
monastery (a physically divided community) as a household (implying a united physical structure). Household in my investigation generally refers to non-monastic households, and other uses will be explicitly dened. Finally, kinship is a broader term, used
mostly in anthropological studies, to designate afliations beyond the family, or
household, that are central to a society, such as tribes or clans. It is used less often in
the study of the ancient family, but I tend to use it to designate monastic terms such
as brother and sister as kinship terms and to dene the relationship among monks (as
either biological kinship or monastic, that is, spiritual kinship). Thus, my usage differs from the technical anthropological meaning of this term.
The White Monastery was a family in several ways: rst, some of the monks were
actual biological kin who joined the monastery together. Second, Shenoute used familial language to express the social construction of the monastery and of the relationships between the monks. Finally, the monastery replaced the functions of the biological family in terms of providing basic economic and emotional support. My
investigation is divided into three parts, two in this chapter and one in the next; the
rst examines the familial language Shenoute used in order to understand how the
family shaped the practice of monasticism and supported his authority, both over the
monastery as a whole and over the female community in particular. Second, I will investigate how the monastery replaced the family in terms of function, through comparison with the function of the family as expressed in the private letters recorded in
Egyptian papyri. Third, in chapter 8 I will examine the experiences of biological kin
within the monastery family. While Shenoutes familial language describes the ideal
he sought, evidence from both the non-monastic and monastic families shows quarrels over food, clothing, shelter, and jealousies between members. Although Shenoute succeeded in creating a monastic family, he failed to transform it into the spiritual embodiment of domestic harmony that, for him, would properly characterize a
salvic community.
136
Family Language
Family language is so ubiquitous in Shenoutes letters, to say nothing of Christian
writings in general, that its very universality threatens to mask its importance to
Shenoutes leadership of the White Monastery. That Shenoute and the monks used
kinship terms to address one another is not surprising.11 Yet the meanings Shenoute
assigned to these terms are important. Some meanings simply reected rank. In other
cases, however, Shenoute used family imagery to dene monasticism, the proper role
of corporal punishment, or the right view of his authority.12 At such points, Shenoutes family language functioned much like Pauls. Paul, like Shenoute, used family
language to develop and communicate a Christian theology as well as constructing
a church community with a certain kind of leadership and certain patterns of interactions between its members.13 Shenoutes concern with esh and spirit mimics Pauls.
Both authors use ctive kinship to dene the values of their group against those of
outsiders.14 For both, family imagery was the main means to create a group identity
for a community that, in each case, t Mary Douglass high group/strong grid criteria (recall chapter 1, p. 25). Both thus use family imagery to fortify the boundaries for
their group, with a strong sense of social identity within it, and a clear hierarchy for
it.15 Further, both had to confront the ramications of using such language in the presence of actual biological families.16 Neither author, moreover, had a consistent system for employing family language but tended to choose terms that suited his argument at the moment.17 Finally, in both cases, family language provides a point of
intersection between egalitarian rhetoric, with implications for relationships within
the community, and hierarchical structures.18 Shenoute, in his mimicry of Paul, implies that he may have been deliberating writing letters using not only Pauline exegesis but also Pauline imagery and rhetoric to create a monasticism that was itself the
spiritual child of Pauls teachings.
Throughout the letters we can see echoes of both the rhetoric of difference and
rhetoric of unity in Shenoutes family language, thus expanding our examples of
this gender language with those that combine gender and family. Whether the
women were daughters just like sons, or whether they were their own separate
portion of the family, depended, as it did with gender, on whether Shenoute was arguing for unity within one monastic family, or for a specic place for women within
that family. The family model allowed Shenoute to forge relationships between the
male and female community, but it also allowed the women to create their own relationships as part of smaller (separated) family in their own community.
Abraham, Our Father: Monasticism Dened

In the letter that records the crisis resulting from the monks refusal of promotion
(Crisis 3), Shenoute used family language in several ways: rst, he created a spiritual
genealogy between biblical gures from the past (the prophets and apostles) and the
monks of the White Monastery. Within that genealogy, he called upon the monks
role both as children of these past gures, who should imitate them, and also as parents, who needed to undertake parenting, that is, caring and nurturing of their fellow monks. Shenoute begins with parenthood language as a way to dene monasti-
137
cism as a life of endurance and suffering, both of which occur through Gods agency
and lead to salvation. Monasticism, in short, becomes the new parenthood in which
parents gain many spiritual children but without sexual intercourse. At the same
time, all the monks are children of Abraham, which places them in lineage from
revered forebears, the prophets and apostles, but also submits them, as children, to
Shenoutes authority. These two seemingly paradoxical images, parents who are also
children, work together for Shenoute to support his denition of monasticism and his
authority.
Shenoute begins the letter by recalling images of biblical couples who prayed to
God for release from their infertility: Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob
and Rachel. Even though Shenoute includes the pain of both husband and wife in his
description, he seems to concentrate his audiences attention on the role of the
women. In each case he dwells on the wifes behavior in seeking children and then
acting of behalf of those children, an emphasis that echoes the biblical accounts
themselves. Once Isaac was born, Sarah spoke boldly with the knowledge of God
in having Hagar and Ishmael exiled. Isaac blessed Jacob rather than Esau, making
Esau Jacobs servant, by the design of Rebecca. Rachel grieved and found fault with
Jacob in her ignorance, because of the abundance of [her] pain, [saying] Give me children or I will die. And Jacob, who was discouraged, said to her, Am I myself the Lord
who robs the fruit from you[r womb]?19 The prominence of the women is unmistakable, setting the stage for Shenoutes emphasis on the female monks, even while including the male monks in his description of proper monasticism.
A lacuna interrupts Shenoutes list and the record begins again with Shenoutes
words, Therefore . . .. The implication is that he is now drawing a conclusion from
his description of these couples (as well as other missing biblical couples), a description that rests on the suffering their childless state caused.20 Therefore, says Shenoute,
it is wrong for both male and female monks to refuse to behave as proper monks, doing assigned monastic duties or any other kind of good work and taking care of
people who live with them. These services were the children of monastic parenthood. In addition, although Shenoute addressed rst male monks and then female
monks separately, he assigned them the same duties. He distinguished, however, between the analogies. The male monks were foolish or blind by refusing to do their
monastic chores; female monks were stupid and wickedly stubborn not simply in
their refusal but also because, in becoming monks, they had chosen to give up childbearing with Gods agency yet still argumentatively and ignorantly refused their new
labor.21 In other words, in describing their error, Shenoute stressed the womens renunciation of childbearing but overlooked the mens analogous renunciation, namely,
of siring children. Such a distinction must surely have had an impact on an audience
of women, some of whom had renounced childbearing, some who might have suffered
from infertility, others who left their children, and still others whose children were
with them in the monastery. Moreover, Shenoute then made an explicit connection
between the biological mothers of old and the proper duties of their monastic counterparts, a connection missing in his description of the male monks:
Given that women who sleep with their husbands usually are willing to have children,
and given that holy women of old (such as Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Anna and the
138
mother of the prophet Sampson, and Elizabeth, the mother of John, who was lled with
the holy spirit from the time he was in his mothers womb) called out to the Lord, praying and beseeching that he not make them pass their lives without bearing children,
then monks in your [female] community will be greatly disgraced if, since they chose to
spend their lives without child-bearing and without husbands, they [nevertheless] renounce [taking care of] people who, through Gods agency, live with them.22
Here Shenoutes logic is unmistakable: if women used to undertake having children

as part of parenthood, and were pained by being infertile, then female monks needed
to be willing to undertake their monastic service. Shenoute invoked the image of parenthood to dene monasticism, using as the shared characteristics the suffering and
endurance each required and the role of Gods agency. Monastic parenthood and biological parenthood both had duties attached to them. A third choice, monasticism
without duties (and as an escape from having children), was not viable for either gender, but Shenoutes language stresses its inappropriateness for women.
By creating continuity between the biblical biological model parents and the
monks in his day, moreover, Shenoute created a spiritual lineage that made the
monks children of Abraham. This lineage had both good and bad parents in its past,
and by implication in the day of Shenoute, and each group included both men and
women. God despised both men and women among our ancestors because they
did not endure having children through Gods agency but rather were controlled by
sloth and arrogance. Although the description of bad parents, and their descendent
monks, includes both men and women, Shenoute then, as with the infertile couples,
examines the particular role of women, adding, As a result [of their sloth and arrogance], the Lord shut the womb of their souls as if they were barren, and made their
instruction dry up like empty breasts, so that these women not continue to teach others any further through Gods agency. Shenoute then balanced his description of
these bad parents and monks with one of good parents, whom the Lord blessed, and
listed these ancestors including Deborah, who was judge and mother in Israel; and
Odolla (Hulda) . . . and Anna, the daughter of Panuuel.23 The special mention of
these women by name (as compared to the more anonymous our ancient fathers and
the prophets and apostles, which described the men) serves as an analogue to the focus on women earlier.
In the next section of arguments, Shenoute examines more specically the monks
who were refusing their monastic chores, and the reasons they did so. At the very end
of this explanation, the function of Shenoutes family language becomes apparent.
He redenes monasticism as parenthood to unite the monks as parents who needed
to take care of each other, over and against the divisions that were currently leading
them to neglect one another: Therefore, brethren, let each one of us not be a burden to our neighbor due to the alienation which exists among us in the divisions of
our hearts toward our companions so that we, in our wisdom, are forced to not take
care of our companions.24 (We can suppose that his reference to wisdom is merely sarcastic.) Evidence for these divisions come from two distinct, yet interrelated, points
in Shenoutes argument. First, Shenoute disagreed with an interpretation, being
spread about the monastery, of Isaiah 56:6, The Lord will give eunuchs and virgins
choice rank and a reputation better than sons and daughters. This (wrong) inter-
139
pretation would allow some monks, who claimed the status of eunuchs and virgins, to
claim that sexual renunciation was sufcient for monasticism. While Shenoute valorizes spirit over esh, he imposes limits on that valorization. Although the monks
were eunuchs and virgins, it was inappropriate
for male monks in our community and female ones in yours, to choose to renounce those
who live with them, and not take care of them, claiming, We are pleasing to God, or,
These people and others are not our concern; and in their stubbornness they use as
proof the saying of the prophet, interpreting it to t their hearts desire, and their own
laziness, saying, The Lord will give eunuchs and virgins the kingdom of heaven; and
so they renounce others, and do not take care of them.25
That is, the lack of biological kin, either through celibacy or leaving ones family, did
not in and of itself constitute monasticism. Rather, monastic duties, especially those
of caring for one another, comprised the toil and suffering that was the essence of
monasticism. Two different groups, whom Shenoute called parents with children
and eunuchs and virgins, held this misinterpretation.
To correct this misunderstanding of Scripture, Shenoute made his second argument: he dened eunuchs and virgins as parents, and thus as having obligations to
take care of other monks, who, although potentially parents themselves, are also the
children who need to be cared for: But people who have not had children, or who
renounced those they did have . . . these people are eunuchs, who do not have children through intercourse, but instead are fathers to many children of God.26
Shenoute presents this monastic parenthood, moreover, in contrast with the parents
who have children, whom he describes as a father or a mother, who have children
and grandchildren and numerous possessions but whom affairs of the world make incapable of caring for their children and all the other things of life, [who] must therefore care for their children through Gods agency, and all kinds of righteous works.27
While it is not entirely certain that the parents who have children were also monks,
it seems most likely, since Shenoute then describes the proper place of these people
in the monastic hierarchy: And we should note that people like these are incapable
of being subordinate to their relatives, so instead they are subordinate to strangers
with Gods help.28 The divisions in the community, which led to the neglect, seem
to have arisen from the distinction between these parents with children monks and
the eunuchs and virgins monks. The eunuchs and virgins monks apparently were
placing themselves in a category different from those monks who still had their children with them in the monastery, and thus absenting themselves of any responsibility for the second group. Moreover, the parents with children seem to have agreed
with this division. Shenoutes family language dening monasticism as parenthood
effaced these biological distinctions. He used family language to rob family relationships of their carnality and replaced that carnality with spirituality; that is, he removed the possibility for error that could arise from eshly familial relationships.
At this point in the letter, Shenoute discontinues his use of family language, focusing instead on the importance of labor and service as components of monasticism.
Within these arguments, however, he makes clear that monastic rank was not to
mimic the economic rank that existed outside the monastery: Therefore let us not
140
say blasphemously, Those who rule us are our masters and we are beneath them like
servants. Those who rule us are not over us, but we are over them and they are beneath us; indeed. they are our servants because they take care of us, with Gods help,
in everything.29 Within the monastic family, then, the normal hierarchical order of
master over servant, or slave, has been reversed. Such a reversal is in keeping with
Shenoutes redenition of the family in his idealized monastic setting.
At the end of the letter, he returns to the lineage he created between the models
of monasticismthe biblical biological parentsand the monks, but now, rather
than emphasizing the monks similar role as parent, he turns to their status as the children of their ancestors, the prophets and apostles, especially Abraham. Here Shenoute recalls not only the beginning of this letter, Abraham, our father, but also
Pauls letter to the Galatians, in which Paul denes the spiritual lineage of Abraham.
By creating a link between Pauls and his claims to Abraham, Shenoute implies that
the monks are the right recipients of Pauls message.
As earlier, Shenoute creates two lines of descent from Abraham, but now rather
than bad and good parents among the ancestors, he depicts sinful and pure children
among them. The sinful children cause grief to our ancient ancestors; they force
God to become angry and destroy them; their parents remove themselves from the
sinful children. The just children bring joy; they allow God to restrain his anger
from ancient tribes because of the just children among them; their parents do not
ee from them, but remain with them all the days of their lives. In each group there
are recognizable descendants: the false prophets, the deceivers, and the deceptive priests on the one hand and the prophets of the Lord God, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel on the other. While the latter group are clearly the descendants
of Abraham, Shenoute warns that even sinners among Abrahams descendants will
be punished. It is not enough, in other words, to be in the right lineage but one must
live by the truth, and speak the truth, because the truth is in them. In order to be
sure that one was performing proper deeds, and living in truth, Shenoute suggested
confession to, and reliance on, him:
Therefore do not lie about evil deeds that you did in the darkness so that we do not belong to Satan, in whom no truth exists . . . [L]et us not be deceitful falsely, and conceal
our sins from our companions because that causes disturbances in every community . . .
[T]he wonder occurs whenever we follow the pattern set by our fathers, the prophets and
apostles and we teach our companions not to sin in the presence of God; and even if, by
a mistake, we ignorantly act wickedly, then we share blame with our companions so that
we repent, so the Lord can pour his blessing on us mercifully and patiently.30
His familial language contributes to the ideology of power that has been predominant
in Shenoutes letters. Here that ideology is linked to the ideal of domestic harmony,
echoing other fourth-century theologians like Augustine, who believed that harmony would result from strong leadership.31 Family imagery in this letter, then, united
the monks under Shenoutes leadership, either in his capacity to dene monastic
practice or in his demands for full disclosure of, and mutual accountability for, sins in
the monastery.
141
Canon 4: Corporal Punishment and the Family

Shenoute also uses family language to unite the monks in their submission to corporal punishment, but in this case he uses family language to address specically the inclusion of women. I noted, in my discussion of this letter in chapter 5, that Shenoute
includes the women as brethren in order to justify their submission, as women, to
beatings, and moreover, to beatings decided upon and inicted by the male leaders.
Here it is important to examine the familial dynamic in making this claim. By using
the language of siblinghood rather than gender-specic brother/sister language,
Shenoute effaces any gender hierarchy of the family in favor of a proclaimed egalitarianism. So too scholars have noted Pauls use of familial language as a means to an
egalitarian rhetoric even within an asymmetrical structure like the household.32 Because there were authority structures in the monastery that mimicked the gender hierarchy of the household, however, the women brethren could not control the corporal punishment in their own community but had to obey the paterfamilias,
Shenoute, since, as he puts it, I know the punishment which is proper to be done to
you all.33 Family language gave Shenoute the context to make the claims about authority and gender that have already been examined.
Family language played a further role in this letter, however, in that Shenoute
apparently had to argue for the appropriateness of corporal punishment in the
monastery at all, in addition to its application to the women. As in Abraham, Our Father, Shenoute uses the image of childhood to argue that the monks, both male and
female and both with and without kin in the monastery, submit to his will. As a nal
point in arguing for the womens submission to the male elders proxy authority for
determining transgressions and their proper punishment, Shenoute threatened to
visit the women himself, since they were not living up to their reputation as Gods
children: I will come to youif I am in the bodyso that I may do things that are
not tting to you in the opinion of the people who will hear, from those who praise
you on the outside when they call you Gods children. . . . Indeed, do children of
God or angels or just people practice deceit through every kind of wicked thing?34
Having established that the monastery was recognized as a family, as Gods children, Shenoute then explored what the proper punishment of children was.
Shenoutes familial imagery, specically of the monks as children, as support of
corporal punishment is striking because it is most uncertain that there was precedent
for the beating of children, either biblically or in the cultural context of the RomanEgyptian family. Shenoute himself does not explicitly acknowledge the latter component since, of course, it would make little difference to the salvic community of
the monastery what the world did. Nevertheless, for his metaphor to work, there
needed to be some cultural acceptance of the beating of children (shared by the
monks), for how else could his claim that as Gods children the monks should be
beaten have persuasive force?35 The evidence for corporal punishment of children in
antiquity is mixed at best. Shaw argues for violence as part of the childhood, or rather
boyhood, experience, both at home and at school, using the case of Augustine in
fourth-century North Africa as an example.36 It is, of course, questionable whether a
North African example would apply to Egypt, even contemporaneously.37 Saller argues that fathers did not og their sons (as opposed to slaves) but that such a view
142
overinterprets the use of power by the paterfamilias; at the same time, he acknowledges the striking of children, especially at younger ages, as a form of discipline or instruction.38 Shenoute himself, earlier in this same letter, allowed that boys and girls
in the monastery were not beaten. Here his use of familial terminology must refer to
actual children, and not junior monks, since elsewhere he mentions that your little
boy [that is, junior monk] can be beaten.39 Moreover, these children are probably
young, and not adult, children, both of whom seemed to have lived in the monastery.
Shenoute seems not to argue for beating of the former, but to allow beating of the latter. These examples suggest that using child imagery to argue for corporal punishment
of the monks would not have been an immediately obvious choice, nor necessarily
one that would make sense to his audience.
Although Shenoute does not address, in this letter, the problem of whether children were beaten in non-monastic families, he does acknowledge the second problem, that on the whole Scripture does not offer much justication for beating children.40 Since he typically turns to the Bible for justication of his decisions, here he
notes that God, being the father of all of us and our Lord Jesus, had declared, The
one who spares his rod hates his sons and daughters (Prov. 13:24).41 Shenoute thus
attributed permission to beat children to God, particularly to Gods role as a father.
Moreover, Shenoutes inclusion of the specic sons and daughters rather than a
generic children, in the context of arguing for corporal punishment for all, illustrates his concern that the women understand their inclusion in this biblical passage.
Despite the pertinence of this proverb, Shenoute, as we saw in Abraham Our Father, preferred to use the prophet and apostles as models for monastic behavior, acting in the way Shenoute urged his monks to act. Yet, as Shenoute himself acknowledged, there are no biblical narratives of one of these men beating his children:
Truly, we are not unaware that we have not found it written that the holy prophets
and apostles chastised some with rods. Shenoute countered this omission by imagining that, even so, these men must have beaten their children, biological and spiritual, when they erred: But we believe that if they had had sons and daughters whom
they begat according to the esh, or rather spiritual sons and daughters [lit., according to God], who heeded them, we believe that they would have ogged them and
the others with rods whenever they were disobedient.42 That is, Shenoute imagined
these fathers behaving toward their children as he himself behaved toward his monks,
in order to have biblical families provide an (imaginary) model for the monastic familial structures. He made explicit the familial aspect of his invented narrative by rst
calling upon the prophets as the monks fathers, and second by examining both biological and spiritual relations to these fathers: We believe also that our ancient fathersAbraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the othersinstructed [that is, with blows]
their sons and daughters whom they begat according to the esh. Now, if others of
spiritual descent had obeyed them, they would not have persisted in ogging them
with rods whenever they transgressed the Lords commandments.43 One wonders,
while reading these convoluted arguments, why Shenoute chose familial imagery
that would not obviously support his arguments. Was he limited by the outsiders view
of the monks as Gods children? Was the familial metaphor so essential to monastic life that Shenoute thought he had to explain corporal punishment in those terms?
The answer seems to lie, again, in one specic reason for the letter: Shenoutes list of
143
ten women who were to be beaten for various transgressions and his instructions for
how these beatings were to be carried out. Shenoute, as we shall see in chapter 8,
seems to defend the beatings of some of these women to their (male) relatives by subsuming all monks, biological and monastic kin, under one familial structure that allowed for patriarchal domination of children in the name of familial harmony.
Canon 6: Birthing Imagery to Dene the Community

Shenoute did not use just familial terms but also familial processes, in this case birth,
to illustrate the monastery as a family. As with the infertility examples in Abraham,
his use of a birthing image must have had profound meaning for a female audience,
some of whom would have given birth and some of whom renounced it. Moreover,
Shenoutes image depends on a double birth, of twins, where one lives but one dies.
His depiction of a stillborn child, in a time when infant morality rates were high, must
have been a deliberate attempt on his part to force his (female) audience to see their
error of their ways. This imagery occurs during Shenoutes discussion of Jealousy
among the Women (Crisis 7) within the womens community. The number of metaphors he used complicates his description; the conict was a ame of the re that
was burning in the womens community,44 and he presented the metaphor of the birth
in the form of a parable, which the male leaders told to the female monks:
Indeed, is it not those who came to see the ame of the re which burns within you who
said, In the morning we will render judgment against this woman just as I said previously in this letter, and is it not they who said, In the morning, we will judge the community; is it not they who said to you about these matters, Some people came from a
woman in the evening, and they were upset because she bore two children, one alive and
the other she found, or rather it was delivered, dead. I wrote the same thing in the previous letter which was read privately within the community . . . Among the ones who
came to listen in the place where they read it, some were weeping and others were mocking, or being crooked, or sneering and they did not rend their hearts. For it is they who
are the originators of the sin, as the phrase goes.45
The people whom Shenoute described as witnessing the double birth were the men
who had come to judge the dispute. The woman giving birth stood for the female
monastic community, and the two infants represented the two groups within the
womens community: the living child represented the good monks, who were properly
grieved about the dispute, and the dead child the bad ones, who were dismissive of it.
Shenoutes family imagery in all three letters demonstrates the vitality of this trope
for the community: it was the means of expressing relationships between the monks
and of creating allegiance to the community. It was a metaphor that gave meaning
and comprehension to the relatively new social institution of the monastery, especially one that had biologically unrelated men and women living as members of the
same organization. Moreover, by using familial language, Shenoute could dene
monastic relationships as egalitarian and symmetrical, or hierarchical and asymmetrical. Through the uidity of familial language, therefore, Shenoute created a specic
place for women, and conned them to that place, even while claiming to promote a
monasticism that did not recognize gender. Familial language and imagery were the
144
means to reconciling what appeared to be paradoxical positions in his leadership of

the female monks.
The Formation of the Monastic Family

It would not have been odd in antiquity to suggest that a group of people, some of
whom were biologically related and some of whom were not, constituted a family
since, as I have mentioned, this word indicated a household arrangement extending
beyond the nuclear family, and even beyond biological kinship, to encompass all
members of the group. Studies of household arrangements in Egypt, moreover, point
to families sharing the same residence: children living with parents even after marriage, and several siblings, along with spouses and children, living together after their
parents deaths.46 Even the gender division in the monastery may not have seemed
too strange, since scholars have also noted the gender division of household and
household work in antiquity, a division that also carries into the monastic family and
provides further evidence for similarities between the monastery, now particularly
the womens community within the monastery, and the family. Shenoutes monastic
family, then, might seem to t within these norms, and, as we shall see, at times the
monks of the White Monastery did act like family members. What would have been
different in the salvic atmosphere of the monastery was the way family members attempted to circumvent rank, for instance, as Shenoutes claim that the rulers in the
monastery were in fact the ruled. For another example, while slaves were considered
part of the household, there were at least legal differences between slaves and sons.47
But Shenoute did not want the monastic family to be identical to the non-monastic
family; he wanted it to transcend that norm and be a perfect family that upheld its
own particular values and lived without conict. It is this tension, between Shenoutes expectations of a perfect family and the monks behavior resembling that of a
regular family, that is the focus of the rest of this chapter. Also important to this tension, however, is that Shenoute tried to transform the hierarchy of the non-monastic
family in some ways but in others maintained the status quo, using the familial model
to transpose familial hierarchies of parent over child and male over female into the
monastic family.
Since the family was the basis for the community of the monastery, it would be useful to compare the latter to what we know of the family in late antiquity, which itself
has been the subject of an increasing amount of scholarship in recent years.48 An immediate problem with this approach, however, is the applicability of this scholarship
beyond the particular circumstances analyzed, especially its relevance to a late antique Egyptian family.49 Ciceros letters to his family during his exile, for example, provide evidence for a Roman familys strong emotional bonds and expectations of kin
during a time of crisis.50 That Cicero had these attitudes toward his family, however,
cannot be taken to indicate that his emotions were common to his peers, much less
to other families many miles away in Upper Egypt, though in both cases we might suspect his attitudes were often shared. Likewise, the dislocation involved in welldocumented instances of divorce does not necessarily attest to a pattern of personal
response in Roman families to divorce.51
145
Despite these limitations, insights from family scholarship prove helpful in understanding how the monastery was a family. Scholars take a number of different approaches to analyzing the basis for familial relations within the late antique family.52
Within these Roman, or even Roman-Egyptian, families, familial support, or pietas,
was encoded in their value system.53 Pietas here does not just mean lial loyalty but
the reciprocal arrangement of parents supporting children and then, in their old age,
being supported by those children. Kin were those people one could rely upon for
food, clothing, shelter, and emotional support, especially in times of difculty. For
women in Egypt in particular, kin took on added importance after marriage since they
could serve as her ally should troubles arise.54 Despite this arrangement, a woman who
had to rely on her distant male relatives . . . was a pitiful creature.55 Moreover, these
expectations of kin support, which I will explore in detail later in this chapter, were
tied to the Roman ideal of domestic harmony. Peace was achieved through the power
of the paterfamilias, and part of that power, both in the non-monastic and in the
monastic family, was to ensure proper distribution of goods. Yet, as Suzanne Dixon has
observed, families could often be dened not by just by support but by competition
over that support.56 Jealousy and resentment, therefore, are evidence of family life, especially when these emotions are attached to material and emotional support within
a determined group. The monastic family then, as we shall see, mimicked a family not
just in its structures, with its paterfamilias, Shenoute, urging peace, but also in that
Shenoute had to ensure the proper distribution of goods for domestic peace, over and
against familial squabbles about material support among the monks. The ideal of
domestic harmony, for Shenoute, was effused with a new soteriological meaning and
thus with greater urgency in the monastery. Unequal distribution was not simply a
family ght but undermined the transformation of the household into the society of
God and his angels in heaven.
Moreover, the extensive number of papyri that survive in Egypt shed light on various aspects of family life: the census returns, marriage contracts, divorce decrees,
wills, and legal battles over inheritances all have contributed to the picture of the Roman Egyptian family.57 These sources are often seen as a counterbalance to the upperclass, literary sources of Cicero and others. While it is likely that many of the papyri,
especially private letters, still stem from a more educated class and not the masses,
the papyri provide two types of evidence that are useful for comparison with
Shenoutes monastery: demography, from the census returns, and private letters. Demography is useful because it provides information not just about life expectancy, fertility, and marriage patterns, which all provide the social context for the people who
would have entered the monastery, but also about household structure: who lived
with whom in what sort of relationships.58 These descriptions in particular create the
sense that the monastery, as a household of various members, related and unrelated,
would have been a powerful image in late antique Egypt.
In addition, the private letters furnish a body of literature contemporaneous with
Shenoute which can provide comparative material for his letters. The private letters
have been the basis of much scholarship on the role of the household in the Egyptian
economy and, most important for my study, the status of women in the family.59 These
letters and the picture they create of household and family life provide important parallels with Shenoutes letters, in terms of shared topics, language, and concerns. Yet
146
there are necessary caveats in using these letters. First, any study based on the papyri
cannot claim to be denitive, since as Pomeroy points out, all the papyri from Roman Egypt will not be published in our lifetimes. Rather, she notes, observations and
tentative conclusions can be made based on the material now available but with open
minds to the future.60 So too Roger Bagnall has described various methodological pitfalls in using the papyri, especially for those not trained in papyrology.61 Finally, and
most importantly, a danger lies in the kinship terminology that appears in the letters.
It has long been recognized by papyrologists that this terminology cannot be taken
literally. Not only did husbands and wives address each other as brother and sister, but so too father, mother, son, and daughter could be used for more distant kin (like uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, cousins, and so forth) and for close
friends, with no kinship ties whatsoever. It would be erroneous, then, to use private
letters with kinship terms as family letters comparative to the monastic family letters Shenoute wrote to his monks, if by family we meant a clear biological relationship among the letter writer(s) and recipient(s). Yet it is precisely because the
kinship terminology in the letters in the papyri has such a wide range of meaning that
they can protably be compared to Shenoutes letters: both the private letters and
Shenoutes letters indicate topics of communication and concern between people,
biologically related or not, close enough to call themselves family. Throughout my
examination, then, I will use kinship terms with this double intent: a brother writing
to his sister will be described as such, even though it may be a husband writing to a
wife, or some other relationship.
With all these methodological caveats in mind, the private letters between family
members provide a model for peoples expectations of material and emotional support
from their kin. The family was an economic unit that saw to the material survival of
its members. A letter from a mother who complained about another person alienating her son shows how material support was indicative of family connection. As proof
of her role as mother, she wrote, When his father died, I paid on his behalf 1,300
drachmae and expended on clothes for him 60 drachmae.62 Kin wrote reminding
their family of their economic needs, with the expectation that the family would help
them: So exert yourself, brother, and send me the veil and the linen cloak and the
blanket I spoke to you about. You know my humble circumstancesthat I need the
things.63 Family members, then, expected their kin to provide them with food and,
in the letters especially, clothing. Garments could be either purchased or homemade,
but men were only involved in the former means. Concern about relatives health was
predominant in formulaic salutations and conclusions; even if this evidence were unreliable as an attestation of kin feeling, reports on illnesses, or requests for reports,
were also the subject of many letters. The kins anxiety over one anothers health, as
well as worry during any breakdown of communication, grant us access to a side of life
missing from the usual, more literary sources from antiquity.
Shenoutes letters are, of course, literary constructions and not documentary
works, but they nevertheless contain elements similar to those found in the private
letters, particularly when Shenoute complains about his garments to the female
monks who made them. Moreover, in these letters he links material and emotional
support and membership in the community, a link that creates the familial basis of
the monastery. He warns against conict among the monks, pointing out that they
147
are unnecessary since all the monks are well provided for, spiritually and materially:
We afict one another vainly, since no one among us lacks anything, from teachings
and sayings down to garments and food.64 The model that the private letters provide
is the basis for understanding how conicts over food, clothing, expulsion, and emotional bonds made the White Monastery like a family. Shenoute succeeded in creating kin-like bonds among the monks, but these bonds more often resulted in the behaving like a non-monastic family than the ideal family Shenoute sought.
Food
The family assumed responsibility for feeding its members, even when kin were separated. Many letters preserved in the papyri record requests for food from kin, or
thanks for that received. One man wrote to his sister, Send your cloak and the jar of
pickled sh and two cotylae of good oil.65 Another man also wrote to his sister, If
you have made any cakes, send them to me, as I shall return in another month.66 In
general, requests for food, and explanations of its need, afrm the writers assumption
that their requests would be fullled based on the familial relationship, which is not,
however, inherently gendered. There is no denitive gender pattern in the instances
food appears in the letters; female relatives both requested and sent food, and male
relatives both sent and received it. Here a difference may have existed between a typical household and the circumstances brought about by kin separation. Within the
household, Sarah Pomeroy has argued, the wife was in charge of the kitchen.67 It is
noteworthy, in comparing the White Monastery with the typical household structure, that in the White Monastery men were in charge of baking the bread and raising the vegetables, whereas the women seem to have been conned, in terms of production, to cloth and garment production. In the monastic family, therefore, men
assumed responsibility to feed the monks but some female monks assumed that responsibility once the food arrived in their community.
In the monastic family, it was not just the provision of food but the act of eating as
a group that fostered a communal identity as family members. Mealtimes were important for the formation of kinship in the family because the fundamental implication of coresidency [a characteristic of the family] is common consumption. Members
of the family eat the same food at the same table.68 Mealtimes in the womens community are the central communal activity recorded in the letters. Shenoute wrote to
the women about mealtimes because the problems that were occurring at them were
disrupting the familial bond that was the basis of membership in the White Monastery. There were two types of problems with mealtimes: among the women, conicts arose because not all women were eating the same food. Conicts between the
women and Shenoute resulted in their not eating at the same table even when the
opportunity arose to do so. Since the monastic family lacked the biological element
of a kinship bond, the other means of creating that bond, the provision of necessary
goods, was that much more important.
The intensity and frequency of the conicts over food attest to the centrality of
food in uniting the community. We can recall that during the crisis early in Shenoutes career, both the unequal distribution of food, based on the food servers favoritism for various monks, and stealing, from others and from the storehouses, frac-
148
tured the womens community.69 The former, favoritism, disrupted the formation of
an ideal familial community, where all members of the family ate the same food at
the same table, because the inequality in food distribution indicated a similar inequality in emotional bonds. For Shenoute, this familial requirement of equality had
a literal interpretation in the monastic family: same food did not mean equivalent
but identical. Shenoute indicates this meaning, and the connection between food
and the cohesion of the community, when he writes, And to my eyes, greatly impure
are they who reach out to select the greater portion, whether bread, or any other thing
to eat, in order to put it into the hand of this particular woman.70 In addition, Shenoute made clear that the womans motivation in favoring some monks over others was
based on eshly desire. Although Shenoutes language here (though not in his previous description of the relationship) is identical to that used to indicate a homoerotic relationship, it seems that such a relationship did not already exist but that one
woman (the server) was trying to initiate it.71 Shenoute here may have used this language both as a rebuke of the womans motives, and as a sexual metaphor for the carnal error of unequal distribution of food. Shenoute locates the error of the food distribution in the esh, in carnality. The food servers actions therefore had two effects:
on the one hand, her use of the means available to herfoodto express her favoritism made the monastery like a family. Access to material goods was one of the
dening elements of the family and here the monks access depended on monastic relationships. On the other hand, her actions disrupted the transformation of the
model of the non-monastic family into an ideal family. Not only was the server acting on homoerotic feelings and so some monks were receiving more food, but also the
monks who were not receiving as much food were upset about the situation; they went
weeping and groaning to their houses after the meal.72
Unlike favoritism, Shenoute does not record (in the surviving thirteen fragments)
weeping and groaning among the women resulting from stealing among the monks.
Rather, on occasions when stealing took place, Shenoute himself expressed dismay
both because it disrupted his authority and it led to another transgression, lying.
Moreover, monks stole both for themselves and for others; in the latter case, Shenoute presented stealing as he did favoritism: evidence of (erroneous) stronger ties
among some monks. Rather than simply indicating love between two monks, however, the evidence for stealing suggests protection for those monks who were unable
to meet the standards of fasting for the community. So, again, stealing food indicates
a familial bond (used to help kin) even as the basic requirement for an ideal family,
equality, was undermined. Of the numerous examples for stealing, the one which illustrates this dynamic best comes from the record of the crisis over The Death of a Male
Monk (6). Shenoute had to warn the monks of the motivations of, and consequences
for, those who stole food (for themselves or for others):
I wish and urge you to judge and discern in this matter whether it is people who are lazy,
either physically or spiritually, who usually eat more. If you understand that it is healthy
people who usually eat more (except for those who control their eating through abstinence on account of the Lord), then know also why those among you who say, We eat
here. We eat there. We eat this. We eat that, why they steal, or give to others stealthily and deceitfully all the time, and yet they are not satised. How could they be satis-
149
ed, robbing, stealing, taking things secretly, being joined to insatiability which burns
like a re before the uncontrollable?73
The problem with these monks was that they were not exhibiting the control on account of the Lord which the monastic life required. Here the concern is not, as it was
with regard to favoritism and as it will be with regard to biological kin, resentment
and envy on the part of the obedient monks, who are eating the proper, lesser amount
of food. Rather it is about the lack of discipline on the part of the monks in question,
since discipline was the means of transforming the family into a spiritual, salvic
community. These monks were acting like a biological family and were expecting
food to satisfy them, even if it meant stealing that food. In the new monastic family,
however, the carnal aspect of the family, here hunger and the desire to protect one
another, was to be disciplined by the spirit; these monks were erring in the monastic
family by continuing to value the carnal over the spiritual. Moreover, these monks
(female and male, most likely) were resisting Shenoutes authority, on behalf of both
themselves and others, and they were expressing that resistance in the familial context of food. Shenoute questioned whether or not this use of food indicated the love
the monks thought it did: Indeed, do you love your neighbors or your relatives if you
stealthily give them things to eat?74 The love the monks were displaying was carnal,
and so needed to be rooted out just as much as the more obvious eshly homoerotic
love in the example above. In short, there seems to have been a disagreement about
the proper use of food to express love for one another, whether giving food or withholding food was a greater indicator of love.
Some of these examples of stealing and favoritism are limited to the female community (in the Initial Crisis) and others seem to have affected the male as well as the
female community; as in the private letters, the distribution of food was not always
a gendered issue. Food, however, entered into the relationship between Shenoute
and the female monks in a gendered way on certain occasions when it seems that
Shenoute refused to eat with the women, in order to show his alienation from them
as a community. One of these examples affects the monastery as a whole. During the
crisis over Excessive Leadership (Crisis 9), Shenoute refused to celebrate Easter with
the congregations because doing so would have exposed his (pure) body to the pollutions of a sinful, disobedient and unrepentant community: Therefore I cannot avoid
saying this other bitter and excessive thing, which is this: Not only will I spend this
Easter with you and in your community, like a stranger, but I will also spend the other
days of my life taking care of my life like a stranger, as I already said in other letters
written to you about those who do, and have done also now, these pestilent and
abominable deeds among you, whether male or female, whether superior or inferior.75 On this occasion, when Shenoute said he would be like a stranger to the
monastery, he used the occasion not just of a meal, but a ritual meal of extreme liturgical importance to make his point. Here, while Shenoute expressed his alienation
from the community through food, particularly its rejection, an ecclesiastical setting
better describes his actions; what is at stake is not simply a meal but a liturgical event.
On an occasion in the Initial Crisis, Shenoute described the pain he suffered when
he sat in that place to eat and drink. Admittedly, the fragment is so sketchy that the
150
exact circumstances are unclear. Nevertheless, the association between eating (in a
communal way) and alienation stands. Since to refuse commensality is . . . to refuse
the meal as symbol of familial bond,76 Shenoutes actions disrupted the same bonds
between the monks, including the women, and him that he argued should not be disrupted within the female community by their own actions with regard to food. That
is, the womens stealing and favoritism disrupted their eating the same food, which
Shenoute judged illegitimate. His refusal to share meals with them disrupted their
eating at the same table, but Shenoute presented his actions as a legitimate means
of expressing his alienation from the monks. Just as the womens arguments over food
and access to it made them seem like a family, if not the ideal family Shenoute sought,
so too his use of mealtimes to act out his anger against the women functioned in much
the same way.
Finally, during the argument about ill-tting garments in the crisis over Jealousy
among the Women (Crisis 7), Shenoute ended his argument for sending measurements
to the female monks by comparing the interdependence between food and clothing
in the monastery: If there is no mystery in all the sayings which you hear, or all those
which are written to your community, then I am senseless since up to now I do not
eat bread from your hand or from your bread. But instead I wear garments from your
community, or from among your garments, never accepting any garments from
strangers, down to the present. 77 This relationship, in which Shenoute depends on
the women not for food but for clothing, suggests a familial dynamic. Were he to eat
with the women (from your hand), he would be making himself subservient to them
as a food recipient, but he does not. Rather, he seems to be in control of that family
good. The women, however, were in charge of his clothing, and they could use that
control to create their own power within the monastic family, the subject to which
we will now turn.
Clothing
The private letters in the papyri often include appeals for clothing to be purchased or
made and then sent to the letter writer. It is open to debate whether there is a gender
pattern in the letters associating women with clothing: men wrote both to other men
and women about clothing, and women both requested and received clothing.78 Yet
it does seem that most of the discussions between men about clothing involve the
purchasing of it; if the subject is making a garment, and therefore at home, a woman
is most likely the producer of the garment. A good example is a letter from a father to
his son, in which he writes, If I can buy a cloak for you privately, I will send it at once,
if not, I will have it made for you at home and thus presumably by female members
of his household, either kin or servants; he continues later, A pattern of the color of
the dress that is being made is enclosed in this letter; give it to Nicanor to look at, in
order that, if he likes it he may write to us, for it has not yet been given out. We are
going to use the local purple.79 This father writes about clothing in a way that suggests that he has control over the process, but that he is not involved in the actual
production.
Often, however, the letters show female kin being in charge, and thus in control,
of garments being sent to their kin, male and female alike.80 A sister reports to her
151
brother, Your mother made you the cotton tunic. We are looking for someone reliable to send it.81 One wife wrote to her husband both that she had received some
clothing and that she was in the process of making his: I also received from Sials a
mattress and two white tunics and a leopard-pattern (?) garment . . . on the day itself
I received the linen tunic only . . . and, look, I am weaving your cloak.82 A woman
writes to her mother, grandmothers and sisters, reporting that some garments have
been nished (cut from the loom) and will be sent shortly.83 Women commonly
provided for female kin, both older and younger. A woman writes to her mother, Receive, my lady, from the seamstress the saffron clothes of your daughter, a tunic
and . . . a tunic for Heraclammon.84 Daughters were also recipients of clothing, but
in this example the daughter has provided the cloth for the garment she was requesting: To my lady mother and my lord brother . . . I sent to you . . . two ounces of purple wool from Berenice in order that you make, please, the frocks and two veils.85
Even if they did not make the clothing, women were often the overseers of the process within the household. One woman discussed the technical details of making the
clothing, such as amount of material, cost, and weaving, but it is unclear why she
thought this report was necessary for the recipient (whose relationship to her is not
stated).86 The color and pattern of the clothing was frequently specied, as we saw in
the example earlier. Some cloaks were purple, which was expensive, while some,
which were also particularly valued, were white. Overall, the letters suggest that expectations about provisions for clothing, including specic desired details, were usually addressed to female relatives. This gender division in domestic work could be
seen as an example of male power, since men seem to have been assigning the women
their alloted tasks; yet it also allowed the women to subvert that power by giving them
the opportunity to control material goods within the family.
Occasionally, a letter from a male relative shows his dependency because of his
lack of control. A man complained to his sister, You have sent me no word about the
clothes, either by letter or by message.87 Another reminded both his mother and sister about his previous complaint, which apparently went unanswered, To my lady
mother and my lady sister . . . And indeed I wrote to you in my letter that I am
naked.88 Even if the female kin were simply in charge of having it made (usually
within the household), she still controlled the process and distribution of the nal
product. In one letter, a man seems to try to assert his power in the situation by warning his sister: You will do well to have my white tunic made quickly in order that I
may nd it if I come to you . . . I wish to know how you are hurrying on the making
of it . . . [B]e careful to have my tunic made properly and let them put good measure
into it and be generous with the coloring.89 Despite these words, it was still his sister
who could use her cooperation, or lack thereof, to assert herself in her relationship
with her brother. We do not, of course, know whether or not his sister did use her control over garments this way. But the possibility that she could creates a power dynamic
in familial relations, and we will see how this same control is mimicked in the familial relations of the monastery.
The familial assumption was that clothing would be provided as requested, and
that the women would provide them. Thus, although the distinction between public
production of textiles and private familial production is not yet clear in the economy
of Egypt, ideologically women were linked with weaving and garment production.
152
The correspondence between women and clothing in the papyri reinforces other descriptions of women and domestic work in antiquity and so genders the work of garment production, which in turn agrees with the general link in antiquity between
women and wool-working, a point that G. Clark notes in her study of women in late
antiquity and that M. Peskowitz explores in detail in her study of Roman Judaism.90
By gendering this ordinary part of life, a situation arose in which it would seem natural for the female monks to continue this work within the monastic family and so
allow Shenoute to include the gender relations of the household within universal
monasticism without seeing the paradox it created. Unlike other monastic practices,
work was divided along gender lines: garment work was womens work and growing
food, baking bread, and maintaining the communitys buildings was mens work.
The division of communities, which Shenoute argued for as a natural part of monasticism, now became more normal, since it reected the natural division of labor according to gender. This inclusion of gender relations and power relations within the
monastic family reects the limitations of Shenoutes attempts to have the monastic
family transcend, through its disciplining of the esh, the carnality of the family
model.
Conicts over clothing within the monastery rarely were internal to the female
community (the one example is discussed in chapter 8). There is no record of stealing clothing, perhaps because it was a less urgent necessity than food or perhaps because there was less opportunity. Rather clothing is the center of discussion two times,
in thirteen fragments, when Shenoute discusses a difculty between him and the
women making his clothes, usually represented by the female elder and the monk
Tapolle. I have already discussed how these women seem to have been protecting
their authority in their community by being able to continue to control their work
(chapter 4). What remains to be seen is how their actions mimic that of a family, in
that the female monks were regulated to a female role yet used that constriction as a
source of power. Their control over a material good needed by the men, including
Shenoute, is analogous to their use of space: an aspect of monasticism that betrayed
their inferiority could also be used to protect their own authority and selfdetermination. As with the issues of space, we do not have proof that the women had
the conscious goal of protection, but we can look at the evidence as it exists for what
it suggests about the role of gender in the monastic family. In the White Monastery,
we have information that we specically lacked in the papyri: the papyri showed us
an association between women and garments and hinted that some men were at a disadvantage in relying on female kin for clothing. The letters from the White Monastery show the same ideological connection between women and garment production, and here it is unmistakable that the women used the gendered work to assert
their authority in the asymmetrical authority structures of the monastery. Moreover,
their subversion of Shenoutes power in dictating their work illuminates the intersection of authority and gender in the family. The gender division of work in the monastic family imported the gendered carnal family into Shenoutes universal spiritual
family.
In both Shenoutes descriptions of the conict over clothingone concerning illtting clothing and the other concerning the disrepair of an old cloak and the unacceptability of its replacementhis dependency on the women making the clothing
153
shapes his presentations; his account of his position at times echoes those of the men
who wrote letters to their female relatives describing their plights. In the rst conict,
for example, Shenoute was put in a defensive position, of needing to explain why,
having already requested alterations, he was still not satised with the garment. He
suggested that perhaps the garments had been made improperly but admitted, if no
errors could be found, then he was in the wrong: But if per chance there are no faults
in their weaving, and if none be found when the weavers examine them, then I was
wrong to approve the cut of the shoulders of the garments that I wear, because they
are broad, indeed, they are wider than my own shoulders and those who made them
should not be blamed. 91 Shenoute apparently felt the need to defend his role in asking for alterations: Perhaps I was ustered before today. I never asked for the shoulders to be opened and widened on grounds of being too narrow. If therefore they
widened the garments on my account, or if I caused them to widen them, well, then,
on my account I will have them made more narrow.92 Also indicative of his defensiveness is his attempt to remove the focus from his own personal garment, and accuse the women of making ill-tting garments for all the male monks (which again
assumes an ideology of women producing garments for men). He claimed that under
the current practice, many men only wore the cloaks out of dire necessity . . . then
the next day or two days later or after several days they put them away, ashamed lest
other monks laugh at them.93 Rather than continue this practice, Shenoute sought,
as we have seen, to have measurements sent to the women and to have ttings for his
own garments.
Shenoute, however, anticipated that some women might object to his plan of
sending over measurements for his garments (and possibly for the rest of the mens as
well). He countered these expected objections by appealing to the familial relationship he and the women had, which is signied by their providing him clothing. Unlike food, which he did receive from strangers, Shenoute, as noted earlier (p. 150),
wore garments provided by the women and never from strangers.94 Clothing, then,
creates the familial relationship. Moreover, Shenoute then made this familial relationship the basis for their monastic relationship:
Indeed, do you not realize that if I do not clothe myself with clothes from your community, you will be carefree and will not have to gure out the type of color or length and
breadth and the decorations of garments? And if, unrelated to the present matter, it were
possible to have others make the garments for the monks, indeed, it might happen that
some companions persuade me to clothe myself from their community.95
Shenoute addressed the real conict over clothing, but also used garment and
measurement as metaphors for the womens proper monastic behavior: obedience
to him and fullling their role in the work of the monastic family. Without this work,
the women would be carefree, rather than engaged in protable labor, that is, work
that would lead to salvation. Shenoute implied that if the relationship over clothing
broke down, the women risked of losing him as a leader, and so would lose the leader
with the ability to guide them safely to salvation.
The second instance is similar: Shenoute was again in a dependent and defensive
position and he again used the conict over clothing, which was conned to the
women, as an analogy to accusations of his excessive leadership current in the entire
154
monastery. Since this time only his cloak was a problem, and not those of the rest of
the male monks, he was on shakier ground in his complaints. To recall the details,
Shenoutes cloak had fallen into disrepair and he had requested a replacement. At the
time of writing the letter, two events had taken place: rst, the original cloak had
been found hidden in a storeroom and questions about Shenoutes truthfulness in reporting it as moth-eaten were raised; and second, Shenoute had complaints about the
replacement cloak and so was requesting a third cloak. It was this last request, for the
third cloak, that the female monks seem to have called excessive, a word Shenoute
then used to examine the monks complaints about his excessive use of expulsion, his
excessive insistence on confessing sins to keep the community unpolluted, and his
excessive protection of his own bodily purity, leading him to refuse to meet with the
monks.
Shenoutes defensiveness regarding his cloak is apparent. He vigorously defended
his claim that it was moth-eaten, apparently against those who thought he was lying.
He professed a complete lack of concern that it had now been found and he claimed
that, once it was moth-eaten, he had wanted nothing more to do with it and so put it
in the storeroom:
It was not that I commanded that people not nd it in the place where I put it (until the
time came for me to tell you what I am going to do with it) and I am amazed to say that
people did nd it in that place. For they learned that [I] knew that they had found it hidden in a mixture of choice, beautiful things and necessary, useful things and perishable,
useless things. And they did not say to me, We have found it, or, What are you doing
with it there? Nor, for my part, did I ask them as they were nding it since I was not interested in it from the day when I knew about the moth damage in it.96
Moreover, his complaints about the replacement garment also seem unusual, coming
from a monastic leader. First, he writes, I was not pleased with it, nor did I approve
of, this linen cloak you made for menot equal to the one that I said the moth destroyed.97 It was also too heavy, and the tassels were not set on it properly so that it
was not the right type of garment. His criticisms here again echo some of the detailed
instructions for clothing we saw earlier in the papyri. Finally, Shenoute presented his
request for a new cloak as being a compensation and I might clothe myself with it as
a repayment.98 That is, he called upon his position as head of the monastery in order
to have the authority to make the request he was making; he tried to counter the
womens actual power, located in their control over garment production, with his institutional authority. Again, the mode of the argument, clothing, transforms this
power struggle into a familial struggle: the women held the familial position for
women in their culture and, in the face of conict, Shenoute, as the male head of the
household, asserted his privileges over access to the material goods. Finally, since this
conict is linked to the time Shenoute refused to celebrate Easter with the monks, including the women, we can see that Shenoute tried to counter the womens power,
over clothing, with his own, over communal meals, just as he did in the conict over
ill-tting garments. This interconnection between different types of material support
and the emotional bonds of the monastery is also evident in the last material good the
monastic household provided: shelter.
155
Shelter
Shelter was not a common issue in the private letters in the papyri. Rather, the times
of separation necessitated detailed instructions about economics: running the family
business, paying and collecting rents, instructions not to sell items before the letter
writer returned, reports of transactions the writer was sent to carry out, instructions
for the registration for the census, and so forth. On occasion, women were entrusted
with the business matters of the family, supporting the common observation of the
relative independence of women in Roman Egypt.99 This economic part of life is not
recorded in Shenoutes letters to the women. To the extent that the White Monastery
was a local business or a source of goods for outsiders in the surrounding area, that aspect of monastic life seems to have been run by the men. It is possible that the women
sold their cloth or garments to help support their community, as we have evidence
other groups of women living together in Egypt did.100 However, if the women had at
some time engaged in these business practices, it seems most likely that Shenoute
would either have ended it (keeping the goods for the monastery) or taken over control of it, since he placed a premium on the seclusion of the women in their community, as we saw in chapter 5.
In the thirteen letters to women, the best parallel to the family as a economic unit,
managing its resources, lies in the shelter the monastery provided and which it could
revoke through expulsion. Shelter was tied to the economic function of the
monastery. Just as non-monastic families could disinherit a member, thus placing in
doubt the nancial future, or even survival, of the disinherited, so too Shenoute, as
head of the monastery, could expel members. Moreover, the means of expulsion included the removal of the clothing that the monastery had provided: Just as we tore
the cloaks, having broken off the girdles of those who had sinned among us, as if they
were soldiers, for they sinned against their king, Jesus, so we pursued them and sent
them away from us.101 There are no exact statistics on the frequency of either disinheritance or expulsion, but one can note that some monks, at least, found expulsion
a too common punishment in the monastery. Expulsion also, of course, disrupted the
very emotional ties that Shenoute sought to create as part of the formation of the
monastic family, just as being disinherited called into question the emotional ties
with the family. Thus, just as food and clothing would be used to express familial connection or (incorrect) stronger bonds with some monks, expulsion provoked an emotional response from those remaining behind in the monastery.
One of the reasons expulsion was controversial in the monastery, therefore, was
the juxtaposition between Shenoutes entreaties to the monks to treat each other as
kin and the alienation that expulsion created. Expulsions, and apparent resistance to
them, date from early in Shenoutes leadership of the women.102 Shenoute does not
comment on the effects of the expulsions in the surviving record of the Initial Crisis,
but he does in the crisis that stemmed from the Death of a Male Monk (Crisis 6).
There Shenoute chastised the monks for their concern for those who had been expelled by pointing out the expellees sins: Indeed, are you very grieved that thieves
or deceitful people who do abominations leave the community?103 The expulsions
disrupted not only the bonds the monks had forged with one another within the
156
community but also Shenoutes relationship with the community. The monks were
protective of one another, as family members would be, but this allegiance was disruptive to their allegiance to the head of the monastery. We can recall that in the crisis over Excessive Leadership (Crisis 9) not only had Shenoute been expelling people
from the monastery for two months, but he had also refused to meet with the monks
for the past seven because of their resistance to his expulsions, which led, in succession, to their tolerance of transgressions, the continued pollution of the community,
and the danger that pollution posed to Shenoutes pure body should he remain among
the monks.104 Despite Shenoutes exhortations, the emotions that expulsions created,
grief at the loss of ones companions, anger at the leader who expelled them, and possibly also confusion about whether expulsion was truly necessary, remained divisive
for the monastic community, particularly because Shenoute and many monks seem
to have had disparate views of what emotional support the monastery should provide,
and how that emotional support should be expressed.
Emotional Support
Emotional support is a complex topic for the White Monastery and not one, as I
noted in chapter 1, that is easy for historians to measure. There are two main ways to
understand emotional support in the White Monastery. The rst follows the methodology of the sections thus far: an examination of parallels of evidence for emotional
support in the private letters and in Shenoutes letters. These parallels will show that
those aspects of the letter that indicate Shenoutes desire for control also seem to have
expressed the desire for mutual emotional support between the women and him. This
approach, then, examines Shenoute and the female monks on equal terms, as both
needing and giving emotional support. The second method looks at Shenoutes attempts at controlling emotions between the monks, as in the earlier example of expulsions. Shenoute divided emotions between good emotions, those that were conducive to harmony and uniformity in the monastery and thus led to salvation, and
bad emotions, those that disrupted harmony and uniformity in the monastery and so
endangered salvation. We have seen his concern about the latter when manifested in
unequal distribution of material goods. There were also other occasions, usually conicts between monks, that led him to articulate further the proper emotional fabric
of the monastery.
The private letters in the Egyptian papyri contain emotional statements rarely expressed in other genres of literature that survive from antiquity.105 Of the various emotional expressions, the two that will be the most helpful for understanding Shenoutes
letters are requests for reports about health and expressions of anxiety caused by a
breakdown in communication between kin. For the rst, it is true that many of the
statements of concern for the recipients health are formulaic; every letter begins and
ends with customary wishes and prayers for good health. Nevertheless the statements
represent a real anxiety in the ancient world. As Roger Bagnall notes, A modern
reader might be tempted to dismiss as so much polite formula the phrases like, above
all else, I pray for your health . . . but that would be quite wrong.106 Family members
who were separated worried about illness and had to rely on gossip to learn of their
kins conditions: A year to-day I have been away from you and all the time you have
157
not thought it proper to give me tidings about yourself or your brother Horion, how
he is; for I love him greatly. Have you produced us a male child? . . . Tell me now about
anything here that you want.107 Letters provided the means of reporting activity that
eased the pain of separation and uncertainty among family members.
As a result, family members suffered acute anxiety when contact ceased. Kin often
wrote requesting a reply, or reminding the recipients that no word had been sent for
some time. With no other form of communication in the ancient world, the lack of
interaction by letter led to fears of numerous dire possibilities, including death: I
wonder why up to the present day you have sent me not a single letter.108 And, For
many days now Ive not had a letter from you and I ask you to tell me why . . . I pray
above all that you are well.109 Kin also wrote to report on how the family was getting
along, providing evidence that domestic harmony was a family concern: Do not be
anxious about us, for there is nothing the matter with us and we are in harmony with
each other.110 Families also experienced disruption, either through conict of various members or through disobedience. A father wrote to his daughter, chastising her
for deance: What I have written to you to do is one thing, what you have done is
another . . . I shall hold you responsible. Despite the fathers anger and warning to
his daughter, he nevertheless closed, I pray for (your) health.111 Letters also recorded reassurances of love, and despair about the loss of love, between spouses.112 For
the most part, this category focuses on the anxiety that came from separation from
loved ones, the need for reassurance that all was well, and the desire to correct behavior that was causing conict among family members. Discussion of feelings do not
often enter historical analysis, since explicit accounts of peoples feelings, especially
with regard to intimate family members, rarely survive from antiquity.113 In the case
of the papyri, however, these letters attest to feelings and emotions even across the
expanse of centuries and differing cultures.
Shenoutes letters to the female monks echo these aspects of emotional family life
from the papyri: he expects and hopes that the women share his concerns about his
health, and he is frequently anxious when he thinks the women have not communicated fully with him the details of life in their community. I have examined both these
topics for what they tell us about Shenoutes self-understanding as head of the
monastery. But to limit their meaning to issues of authority would be to do injustice
to the complexity of the rhetoric. These appeals for communication and for support
during illness make the best sense if they are also meant to create a emotional bond
between the letter writer and audience. Both Shenoutes reports to the women of his
own illnesses and his use of illness as a metaphor presume that the monks cared about
each others health in the same way kin did. Shenoute reported his periods of illness
when he needed the womens sympathy for his position in various conicts.114
Shenoutes ill health provided him and the women with opportunities to act like family members in both expecting to receive concern, and in turn expressing it, especially
through the medium of material goods. The women were able to care for Shenoute in
his illness by making a cloak for him: Shenoute spoke of the garments which they
made to my specications during the illness which I came upon and which came upon
me.115 Or he felt neglected when they were unable to meet his needs: Not excepting the fact that I already said that I would not distress you any further about the garments to clothe myself with, since God did not desire to relieve me from my ill-
158
ness.116 In addition, the women were anxious about him or performed night vigils on
his account.117 Illness produced anxiety and concern among the women, just as it did
in the non-monastic population, and they responded as kin would: with prayer and
material support which, since they were women, was in the form of clothing. Shenoutes use of illness as a metaphor for wrongdoing was not just part of his discourse
of monastic power; rather it also called upon the model of the family as the basis
for monastic identity. His familial metaphor depended on the monks concern for
one another like kin during illness. Its representation of mutual responsibility presupposed common concern for each others health.
So too Shenoutes requests for full reports from the women can be understood in a
familial context. His desire to correct behavior stemmed from his view that such behavior endangered the salvic health of monastic kin since conict was an illness,
a common metaphor in Shenoutes letters. His requests then, can be understood not
only as stemming from his desire for control but also from his concern for the womens
well-being. In the monastic family, that anxiety was expressed as worry about salvation. Moreover, this link between salvation and emotional support allowed Shenoute
to view emotional bonds between the monks as another area of monastic life in need
of rules and control. Shenoute encouraged the monks to love and support one another not because of the intrinsic value of those emotions, but because of their role
in leading monks to salvation. As with material support, Shenoute was concerned
about uniformity, that there not be stronger emotional bonds among some monks
than among others. By using familial language and creating a monastic family,
Shenoute could draw on cultural ideals of domestic harmony to argue that the superior monastic family should be able to live together, all loving each other as part of
their love for God and, further, providing uniform material support in keeping with
this emotional ideal.
Shenoute thus divided emotions into two categories, good and bad. Good emotions were those that he believed led to salvation, bad were those that hindered it.
Like a good father in a biological family, he used two methods of parenting to lead the
monks to the good emotions: an authoritative approach and a loving approach.118
Shenoute had to guard against the errors of some monks leading others onto the path
of wrong emotion:
Do not let the people who fall away from virginity and righteousness and deeds of righteousness within these congregations at any time offend you in your virginity or your
righteous deeds, O you pure brethren. Since they will not be envious of you in your endurance and your purity and your righteousness and your righteous deeds, do not envy
them in their pollutions and their lies and their false deeds.119
Rather than envy and competition, Shenoute promoted peace among the monks, as
well as obedience from the erring monks.120 Love also was a good emotion, and one
that recurs throughout Shenoutes instructions, since it was through love that harmony was to be attained. In the non-monastic family, love for ones kin was part of
the emotional support the family provided. In the monastic family, true love was love
for God; this love was then reected in the monks following of Gods commandments: Who loves God forever without keeping his commandments and his sayings?
He who loves me, he said, will keep my sayings. Who says I love God but is pol-
159
luted or is a thief or is disobedient, or acts against love by transgressing everything?121

Shenoute was quite insistent that the monks love God. On one occasion, he explained the success of his leadership: Perhaps you honor me, or shower me with great
glory, because I often force, even violently, some of you to love God and his commandments and to hate pollutions, disobedience, and every evil thing.122 In addition
to loving God, the monks were to love one another, in order to achieve a community
with domestic harmony. As an ideal family, the monastery was supposed to be better
able to achieve that harmony through obedience and through the expulsion of disruptive emotions; love guarded against hate, which led to strife and envy; equal love
for all monks guarded against favoritism, which led to conict. Shenoute directed the
monks towards love, because love fostered forgiveness and tolerance, not quarrels.123
Therefore, Shenoute could conclude that jealousy and conict were signs that the
monks were not fullling their familial duty of love for God and each other.
There seems to have been debate, however, about which actions were consistent
with love and which were not. For example, we saw above that Shenoute described
some monks as justifying giving hoarded food to others on the basis of love: because
they loved their companions, they did not want them to leave the monastery (and
jeopardize their salvation). Shenoute, on the other hand, saw salvation being jeopardized by the transgression of hoarding. So too he warned the monks that they could
not be relied upon to determine corporal punishment for their companions, because
they had a wrong understanding about what constituted loving actions:
Moreover, whenever someone makes a covenanted promise to the community that he
will not do such-and-such a thing in the community, since this is the desire of the community, but afterwards he changes his mind and he does the thing he promised not to
do, you in the community will not be angry with him because you do not wish to be.
Whenever God himself counsels me to do difcult deeds in the community again or for
a second time, what will you do to him? He is your brother, or your junior companion.
Senseless one! Will you be able to take a rod and censure him?124
Emotional support in the monastic family, like material support, was to be provided
only in amounts thought adequate to help the monks along on the path to salvation.
Conclusion
Investigating Shenoutes use of familial language and the monasterys function as a
family articulates Shenoutes ideology: his familial language supports his power and it
legitimates his simultaneous expectations of the women as monks and his treatment
of them as women. Although the monastery was based on a familial model, the necessity of the separation of the sexes altered familial relationships. The monastic family had similarities to the non-monastic family, but these were not to include the commingling of the sexes, even relatives, which would recall the inherent sexuality of the
secular household. While the whole monastery was cut off from the world, albeit
still engaged in preaching and commerce, this did not lead to privatization of the
monastery, and hence increased power for women within a private realm.125 Creation
of a monastic household validated the seclusion of women into their own separate,
160
and subordinate, sphere within the space of the monastery; moreover, the creation of
womens monastic work further supported this gender separation.
Shenoutes construction of the monastery as a family was the means by which he
was able to combine egalitarian rhetoric and patriarchal structures. Through dening
monastic space as a household, Shenoute was able to include gender within a genderless system. Through examining space and family relations we can see the codication of gender relations Shenoute effaces in his rhetoric of unity. Power and gender
relations, which seemed paradoxical in previous chapters, converge in familial relations. Here it becomes clear how Shenoute could both dene the women as
brethren with the same set of monastic requirements and yet also dene them as
mothers, sisters, and daughters within the monastic family, and thus mimic the asymmetry of the patriarchal household in the authority structures of the monastery. Family, as the title of the chapter suggests, allows us to see the intersection of authority
and gender in the monastery, in terms of Shenoutes leadership of the female monks.
8
According to the Flesh
Biological Kin in the White Monastery
If the monastery (both as a whole and the womens community in particular) was dened as a family, and functioned like a family, what happened when biological family
members joined this nonbiological family? This question is not unique to the White
Monastery, or the women in the White Monastery. The common ideology promoted
in monastic literature is, as Elizabeth Clark has examined, an antifamilial tendency,
that is, an attempt to denigrate biological bonds in favor of monastic (familial) bonds.
One excellent example from her study is that of a man who, out of obedience to his
monastic superior, was willing to throw his child into a river, unaware that the child
would be saved downstream by fellowmonks.1 The point of that story, of course, was
to encourage people choosing the monastic life to have allegiance and loyalty to the
monastery, and the authority structures in it, over natural allegiance to kin. One
would expect, in the context of such a predominant ideology, to nd Shenoute also
urging biological kin, men and women, in the monastery to forego their eshly ties,
and, indeed, he did. One would also expect that the gender divisions in the monastery
would have particular effects on biological kin. The monastery was like a family except that male and female kin (monastic and biological) were to be separated, a separation that went farther than the male/female division of upper-class Roman households. Again, the evidence from Shenoutes letters support this expectation of a
different experience, resulting from the gender division, for biological kin in the
monastery, however much that differentiation countered Shenoutes desire for a uniform monastic experience for all. The total picture of monastic life for biological kin,
however, is more complex than these two straightforward expectations.
I have argued that Shenoute sought domestic peace by dening the family, a carnal image, in spiritual terms. Thus, the perfect family had to be noncarnal, free from
161
162
esh, and so protected from esh as a source of error. Biological kin brought literal
carnality into the monastery, and Shenoute had to reconcile that carnality with the
familial tropes he used to dene the monastery. Shenoute had to strive to teach biological kin how to act like kin not just to their kin, but to all the monks. Biological
allegiance was not so much destroyed as it was supposed to be equated with monastic
bonds in general. At the same time, Shenoute had to teach the monastic kin to treat
the biological kin as monastic brethren, and not as a separate party. Yet Shenoute
himself frequently treated the biological kin as a special group within the monastery
in expected and unexpected ways. Not surprisingly, he called attention to their eshly
ties when those ties were, in his view, a source of transgression or conict. In these
cases, the kin monks were acting much like the non-kin monks discussed in chapter
7: love and concern resulted in taking material care of one another. The monks with
kin were dangerous, however, because their inequality stemmed from actual, and not
metaphorical, carnality. Moreover, their actual carnality could remind the monks of
the carnality of the familial metaphor, which Shenoute tried to efface.
A more surprising emphasis on biological ties appears in relation to the separation
of the sexes in the monastery. Several times in his letters to the female community,
Shenoute used biological relationships to manipulate the female monks into compliance with his claims to authority. Thus, examination of biological kin in the
monastery as a whole reveals, just as examination of monastic kinship did, an intersection of authority and gender: the gender division of the monastery created special
tests for the biological kin, female and male, and meeting the emotional needs of kin
by allowing them to see each other provided Shenoute with an opportunity to afrm
his own power.
Biological Kin
Other forms of monasticism in late antique Egypt had to contend with the division
of the monks loyalty between their new community and their family. Pachomius and
his successors struggled with the issue, and their divergent answers suggest that a
leaders position depended on his point in the development of the institution. In the
earlier period of Pachomian monasticism, under its founder, monks were allowed to
continue their relationships with their biological families after they had joined the
monastery. The male monks could go to the womens community if they had relatives
there, but they had certain restrictions: Let us speak also about the monastery of the
virgins: No one shall go to visit them unless he has there a mother, sister, or daughter, some relative or cousins, or the mother of his own children . . . [T]hey shall be accompanied by a man of proven age and life. The reasons these visits were allowed
were both specic, if some paternal inheritance was due them, and open to interpretation, for any evident reason . . . if there is some obvious reason.2 It is unclear
whether men were allowed to visit their female relatives simply because they desired
to see them. However, after the monastic system became more structured, the position of Pachomiuss eventual successor, Theodore, became more rigid, at least according to his hagiography (the rules do not seem to have changed). Theodore refused to meet with his mother when she same to see him, even though she had a letter
According to the Flesh: Biological Kin in the White Monastery
163
from a bishop requiring him to meet with her. He authorized his inexibility by a literal interpretation of Luke 14:26, thus arguing that true followers of Christ had to renounce their families completely.3 It would be simplistic to suggest that all Egyptian
monasticism progressed from more lenient to more strict attitudes toward including
biological families in the life of the monastery. Yet the tension between the bonds of
the biological family and the expectation of their renunciation in the monastic family continued, not only in Egypt but elsewhere.4 Given this commonality, it is reasonable to expect a rigid rejection of continued contact with biological kin within
the monastery on the part of Shenoute who, like Theodore, was a third-generation
leader of the institution. A point of comparison appears when Shenoute also used
Luke 14:26 to praise the monks who had renounced their families, thus following the
word of God.5 But one should also expect that there would have been a variety of
views among his followers, some of whom might have agreed with complete renunciation of relatives and others who saw familial support as necessary to helping each
other to salvation.
Kinship Language
The very fact that Shenoutes kinship language can refer to both biological and
monastic family demonstrates the complexity of familial relationships in the White
Monastery. In Shenoutes denitions of the monastic family, discussed in chapter 7,
it is obvious that some need for those denitions arose from the tension between biological and monastic kin. In his response to Crisis 3: A Monk Refuses Promotion,
Shenoute dened all monks as parents in order to quell division between two groups,
monks with kin and monks without; and for Crisis 4: The Beatings of Women, he argued that biblical fathers beat both spiritual and biological children to justify his beating of both monks related and unrelated to other monks. He presumed the presence
of biological kin in his audience in nearly all his discussions of family. The kinship
terms discussed in chapter 7 most likely refer to monastic, and not biological, relationships because they lack the technical phrase Shenoute used to designate biological kin: kata sarx. Shenoute called relatives among the monks those who belong
to you according to the esh [kata sarx]. For the most part, Shenoute used this
phrase when he wanted to emphasize the role biological kinship had in a particular
conict, as I implied in discussions of familial language in chapter 7 and as will be clear
in the discussion of evidence for biological kin below. The importance of this phrase
is twofold: it conrms that biological kin lived in the monastery, and Shenoutes use
of it reects a divided community, a division to which Shenoute contributed. In several conicts, Shenoute separated his audience into two groupsthose monks who
were monastic companions to one another and those who were related by blood
and so emphasized the coexistence of two distinct populations within the monastery.
Problems arise, however, because Shenoute does not always use the phrase when
referring to biological kin. The examples in chapter 7 describe those occasions when
the phrase is lacking and also, I argue, refer to monastic kin. In this chapter I wish to
concentrate on examples that include the indicator kata sarx and those where
the phrase is missing but I would argue nevertheless biological kin were meant. The
ambiguity of these latter examples necessitates, in each case, a clear methodology for
164
interpreting Shenoutes meaning in his use of familial language. One example comes
from the list of women who were to be beaten. 6 We can recall that the need for these
womens beatings most likely led Shenoute to use familial language in defending the
appropriateness of corporal punishment (chapter 7). These women were, with one
exception, identied by their relationship to a relative: Therefore, Thesnoe, Apa
Hermefs daughter . . . the sister of Apa Psyros . . . Tsophia, the sister of the recent Elder . . . Tjenvictor, the sister of John the younger . . . Taese, the sister of the younger
Pshai . . . Takous, who is called Rebecca . . . Tsophia, the sister of Zachariah . . . and
Tapolle, her sister . . . Tsophia, Josephs sister . . . Tsanso, the sister of Apa Hllo.7 It
is possible that Shenoute was referring to monastic relationships between these
monks, but that seems unlikely for two reasons: rst, familial language tended to be
general, whereby all monks were brothers and sisters, and fathers and mothers, to one
another rather than to a particular person. Second, if these were particular monastic
relationships, that would indicate some type of teacher/disciple relationship between
a senior man (father/brother) and a junior woman (sister). We have no evidence from
this period that men were Apas to women, and I would nd surprising such a gender
mix in a monastic setting. This gender mix, on the other hand, makes perfect sense
with a biological interpretation, where the women are identied by their male relatives. The interpretation of Shenoutes formulas as referring to biological kin also explains why Takous has no kinship tie listed; she may have had none (possibly a freed
slave), or at least none that were known to the community. Thus, she was the Takous
who is called Rebecca.
This interpretation, that Takous did not have a male relative known to the community, raises the question of whether or not the other male relatives were all members of the monastery. The womens identication by their relationship to male relatives could be explained by the Roman practice of patronymics.8 It is also possible,
however, that these male relatives served as convenient referents because they were
known to the monastic community through their own membership in it. In the three
cases where the male relative was identied as an Apa, there seems to be little ambiguity.9 Three of the other eight men have the designation younger, a common
phrase in the White Monastery to designate a persons monastic age, that is, how
long they had been a monk.10 Only two of the men, Zachariah and Joseph, have no
monastic terminology connected to their names. Of the ten women listed, then, only
one does not have a male relative attached to her name, three are associated with
Apas, another three with men who seem to be junior monks, and three remain ambiguous. While it is impossible to extrapolate from this isolated example that as few
as 30, and as much as 90, percent of the (possibly)1800 female monks had relatives in
the mens community, the kinship language does suggest that relatives joined monasteries with great frequency, and that it is possible that monks with kin comprised a
majority of the population within the White Monastery.
The Egyptian cultural context provides another possible explanation of this use of
kinship language. Papyri from Roman and late antique Egypt show that it was common for sibling language to be used for spouses, so that, as discussed in chapter 7,
Egyptologists for this time period are reluctant to treat any kinship language as necessarily biological.11 It is possible that certain of Shenoutes references in this list were
to former spouses. While sibling terminology for spouses may have been less common
165
in the later Christian period, the use of such language to refer to a previously conjugal relationship is consistent with an ascetic setting.12 The evidence is by no means
conclusive, yet it is possible that Shenoutes references to siblings could include
monks who had been married. Thus, the most persuasive interpretation of this list is
that Shenoute used biological relationships to identify the female monks who were
to be beaten, with the clarication that biological relationships include former
spouses, as well as parents, children, and siblings.
Familial imagery not only created a basis for monastic relationships but could show
the superiority of life in the monastery over biological family life, as is evident in a
particular moral fable Shenoute told to the community. Shenoutes story is about a
man whose mother had gone blind and insane. He begins the story as a means of explaining the (bad) blindness of his followers, and his own (good) blindness to any
teaching other than his own:
What would I do, or what can I do, except these things? I do not see any other option
except that I teach according to what I believe from the Scriptures. . . . Who is the witness of these words or this deed except God? No one sees or knows. Another way of saying this is this: Some people announced to a man, Your mother has lost her mind, and
a mist or some covering is over her eyes; but those who see her do not realize that she
cannot see because her eyes are open; but she cannot see.13
The son went to her aid and decided to take her to a place of healing.14 During their
journey, however, he was also put in charge of his blind brother. Unable to take care
of the demands of both blind relatives, the man deserted his brother in order to get
his mother to help. When he then returned to look for his brother, he was unable to
nd him and thus succeeded in aiding only one of the two relatives:
But his brother became violent and so got loose from his brothers hand, because his
other hand was holding on to his mother. And the brother ed away from him, far away,
having ed with all his strength, groping in dark places. And the brother got away because he was not able to run after him since his mother held him back. And the brother
did not hear him calling out, Return to me, and he did not return. So the man walked
along with his mother until he came to the place where she could be healed. He left her
there and then he returned, disheartened, looking for his brother. And after he had remained, looking for him with all his might, even searching out the dark places, he could
not nd him.15
In this story, the inability to care for ones kin led to emotional stress, as is especially
evident in the description of the mans disheartened search for his deserted brother.
Moreover, the emotional bonds themselves were the source of grief, made apparent
in the sons response to his mothers condition: He went to his mother, who had
borne him, to the place where she was, and he saw her in her two-fold condition:
madness and blindness. And he sat down and cried before her.16
The allegorical meaning of the parable suggests the necessity of leading (blind)
sinners to a monastery, a place where they can receive salvation (healing).17 The story
had the added implication that the monastery was a better place for the blind than
the biological family. Shenoutes story implied that people were not always able to
care for their kin, and to respond to their needs. The story thus asserted the superiority of the extended monastic family over the limited resources, both material and
166
emotional, of the biological family. The mans inability to care for both his relatives
would have been averted if he had people to rely on other than kin. Indeed in this
story, the mans brother is brought to him by someone else who then deserts him, leaving him with the burden of both blind relatives:
And as he was walking with his mother, another man came along. Now furthermore, the
brother of the man who was leading and supporting his mother was blind. This other
man gave over the blind brother into the rst mans hands and then went away and hid.
And when the rst man saw that the other had hidden or gone away, and saw that neither of the two remained with him, neither the person who told him his mother was insane nor the one who entrusted his blind brother to him, he traveled on, groaning, along
the road on which he had begun his journey, with his mother, who had borne him, following near behind him.18
At the same time, this story also had a moral for the monastic kin, but in their case a
mixed one. Just as Shenoute warned biological kin about relying only on their kin, so
too he encouraged monastic kin in their choice to renounce their biological ties.
They did not share the same emotional stress as the man in this story. They were not,
however, to desert the biological kin, as this man was deserted, leaving him to suffer
on his own. Although the man burdened by his biological family is the focus of this
story, a variety of evidence for tension between monks with kin and monks without
suggests that Shenoutes fable contained various meanings.
Material Conict
The monks with kin, not surprisingly, treated their kin with favoritism when it came
to material possessions, in direct contrast to Shenoutes instructions. While disputes
among the monks indicated the kin-like bond between them (chapter 7), ghts between monks with and without kin divided the community because of the advantage
that the monks with relatives in the monastery seemed to enjoy. One of the rst
recorded conicts pertained to kin and the support they were giving each other. This
support also showed the validity of Shenoutes concerns about achieving domestic
harmony. Unequal food distribution between kin resulted in resentment and conict,
and the monks carnal status, as kin, was the focus of that resentment. After joining the monastery these relatives added to the number of people who needed provisions; thus the monks without kin had more competition for the materials that the
monastery provided and seem to have perceived the monks with kin as constituting
a special threat. This perception of the monks with kinthat they were protective
of the material interest of their family members rather than of their fellow monks
caused jealousy among the others.
As described in the narrative in chapter 2, Shenoute became aware of this problem early in his tenure as archimandrite, when he had to outline in detail his expectations of the uniformity of support all monks should receive, regardless of diversity
of gender, monastic rank, or family allegiance: Whether a male elder or a senior female monk, whether a junior male monk or a junior female monk, whether blood relatives, or strangers, or orphans who do not have kin among us; and I say to you that
you shall give them either a cloak, or a garment, or sheep-hide or something to eat,
167
or any other material possession at all.19 Despite this variety of possible reasons for
unequal distribution, Shenoute (after a two-page lacuna where other issues may have
been explored) turns his attention specically to the question of biological kin, who
were apparently receiving different sorts of material goods in greater abundance than
were their non-kin monastic brethren.
Although there was a medley of material goods at the heart of this conict, food
in particular remained a continual source of conict later in the Initial Crisis, and beyond it. When monks later hoarded food for others, both monastic kin and biological kin were involved in this transgression.20 Shenoutes explicit inclusion of the relatives, however, indicates his recognition of the implications of the biological ties in
this situation. Shenoutes objections here were twofold: he objected to the monks
inability to follow the monasterys food requirements and to the allegiances among
some monks, including biological kin, that created unequal relationships (reected
in the food practices). He ascribes to the monks who hoarded food the argument that
they were concerned that the other monks who were having difculty not leave the
monastery and lose their salvation. The monks may have been particularly anxious
to save their relatives souls so that they might spend eternity with them, as well as, or
perhaps even rather than, other monks. Shenoute answered that the monks were
losing the benet of their calling in the monastery, namely, attaining salvation.21 The
monks were asking their relatives not to talk about their hoarded food because other
monks would nd out and also expect extra food.22 The families who joined the
White Monastery together did not renounce their kin by leaving them, but they
were required to renounce their kin by treating their kin as they did all other
monks.23 By continuing to provide their kin with familial support, in the form of food,
within the monastery, the monks indicated that their dedication was not solely to the
monastery; as a result, they were divisive to the monastic family Shenoute advocated.
While Shenoute clearly objected to the monks actions, what was the response of
other monks? Not surprisingly, Shenoute describes them as resentful. In the Initial
Crisis, Shenoute seems to have become aware of the problem of unequal distribution
because of the consequential problem of unrest among the non-kin monks. He reported that some monks were whispering off to the side saying, It is the one who
has kin in this place who is cared for, or who will be cared for.24 Although here it is
unclear whether Shenoute thought these monks were jealous of the care or scornful
of the extra care the kin needed, the former seems more likely on other occasions. In
addition, throughout his denitions of the monastic family in the examples I set forth
in chapter 7, Shenoute was aware of the diverse family backgrounds of his audience
and that these arguments would consequently have different meaning for the various
groups, those with biological kin in the monastery and those who had left their biological families, parents or children, to join. In one of those examples, from Crisis 3
(A Monk Refuses Promotion), we saw Shenoutes anxiety that the presence of biological kin were leading other monks to say, They are not our concern. This concern
seems to mean providing access to material support, partly because material support
is what kin and non-kin argued about on other occasions and partly because in this
particular context Shenoute addressed the role of the biological family in providing
material support. In this conict, monks were turning their back on fellow monks,
based on the assumption that biological kin would care for each other (as they were
168
in the Initial Crisis) and non-kin monks would care for each other. These two groups,
however, would not care for the other, and it was this separation to which Shenoute
objected. It is therefore not insignicant that Shenoute began the letter invoking the
pain of being (involuntarily) childless and that he now asked eunuchs and virgins
who had either not had children or left their children to be parents to other monks,
including the biological children of other monks. The familial language was necessary not simply to dene monasticism, but to overcome a serious material conict
arising from eshly differences.
There were paradoxical consequences to the unequal distribution of provisions resulting from corporeal bonds, including those of kinship. The monks who were supposed to be better ascetics were nevertheless, according to Shenoutes description,
complaining about their material disadvantage or seeking to redress their disadvantage. They ignored monks with kin in order to stabilize their own access to resources.
In the Initial Crisis, as noted earlier, Shenoute described the monks who did not benet from favoritism in the distribution of food as going weeping and groaning to
their houses after the meal.25 In this situation as well as others discussed earlier, relatives, or those with some attachment of the esh, were the cause of envy and strife.
The monks with relatives were the losers in the ascetic competition but nevertheless caused resentment among the winners.26 These monks were more ascetic both because they received less material support and because they suffered greater emotional
loss when they renounced their families. They did not, however, accept their lesser
lot stoically, as one would expect in a hagiographical account of monastic life. Rather,
they complained to Shenoute about the actions of the monks with kin, actions that
Shenoute sought to correct. They apparently also resented the very fact that some
monks were allowed to join the monastery along with their relatives, rather than having to suffer as did the monks who had left their kin. Thus, not just the actions but
the very presence of relatives in the monastery proved disruptive to the harmony
Shenoute sought for his ideal family. The resulting actions of both kin and nonkin undermined the unity of the monastery. In some ways, these disruptions were similar to those the monks caused when they treated their companions like kin; the crucial difference is that the monks without kin were expressing their spiritual kinship
bond (metaphorical carnality) even when they erred through stealing or favoritism, whereas the monks with kin were still loyal to their biological bonds (actual
carnality).
Yet what is striking about these examples is that often Shenoutes anger was not
limited to, or even in some cases mainly directed at, the kin. Rather, he admonished
those who treated the kin as a separate and special group within the monastery, that
is, the non-kin monks. The kin erred in taking special care of each other, but
Shenoute apparently also thought the monks without kin had a responsibility to ignore kin bonds as much as the kin did. Thus, for example, the non-kin should have
had concern for the monks who were biological kin. So too we can recall that he
argued against anyone, kin or non-kin, claiming that virgins and eunuchs had a special status. Kin allegiances were not just to be renounced; all monks were to act as
if biological kinship no longer existed. The carnality of the family, either real or
metaphorical, needed to be effaced in response to the need to create a community of
realized eschatology. While biological kin carried the burden of renouncing ties
169
with those who resided with them in the monastery, the responsibility did not just lay
with them. For, as Shenoute recognized, if the biological kin were not taken care of
as if they were simply monastic kin, they would continue to rely on their relatives,
and the monastery would continue to be two families in conict, rather than one
united community.
Emotional Conict
Shenoute sought both to avoid conict among the kin and to subsume the biological
family within the monastic. The monks with biological kin in the monastery suffered
from sources of stress that, while shared by other monks, were again dened by their
biological relationship. Thus, while both corporal punishment and expulsion were,
as I have shown, controversial for all monks, Shenoute called special attention to the
affect of these punishments on biological kin in the monastery. In addition, separation was an issue that was not relevant for the non-kin but had special meaning for
the biological kin. Within each community, male and female, monks were to be separated from their kin so that their old family order did not affect their new monastic
rank.27 The separation of relatives also eroded their former relationship and helped
to create new bonds with unrelated monks. Furthermore, the gender division of the
monastery kept male and female relatives secluded in their own communities. Separation of the sexes, however, differed from corporal punishment and expulsion because Shenoute met this emotional need and allowed visits, although most likely
because doing so supported his authority structures. Once again, then, Shenoutes
ideologies of power and gender intersect in the family, but here in the actual family,
not just the metaphorical family of the monastery.
We can begin by recalling that Shenoute used familial imagery to justify the beating of spiritual and biological sons and daughters, an image that presented difculty
since he lacked any scriptural descriptions of biblical gures beating their children.
Once again, as with the hoarding of food, the conict affected all the monks, but
those with biological kin merited special mention.28 I noted in chapter 7 that the lack
of evidence for beating children within families made this metaphor problematic for
defending the corporal punishment of spiritual sons and daughters, but this point
holds even greater weight for actual biological children in the monastery. Paradoxically, it seems that the reason Shenoute used familial imagery was to defend the beatings of several of the women on the list of ten transgressors, women who had biological relatives in the monastery (see earlier in this chapter and chapter 7). That their
beatings might be objectionable to their kin we can discern not just from scholarship
(which only addresses the beating of boys, never of girls) but from a sermon Shenoute
preached to refugee families living in the monastery. He advocated, despite objections, corporal punishment within the non-monastic biological family. Shenoute argued that parental love consisted of doing whatever was necessary to lead your child
to salvation, even including smear[ing] the esh and blood of ignorant sons and
daughters and siblings on the rod.29 So too Shenoute dened the monastery as a
salvic family where familial relationships must be dened in terms of the communitys goal of salvation for all. Analogy linked the two families, although here
Shenoute was less concerned with arguing for the superiority of the spiritual family.
170
Rather, he united all children, male and female, biological and spiritual, under one
appropriate monastic instruction, namely, corporal punishment. Moreover, his use of
familial language in his letters illustrates his efforts to impose a patriarchal hierarchy
on the women (locating the authority for beatings in the father) even while using
an egalitarian rhetoric, where all the monks, as Gods children, were brethren to
one another. As with other issues of gender in Shenoutes rhetoric, this paradox may
not have been evident to Shenoute, since it is a paradox that informs Christian social structures from its inception.
That these male relatives may have been objecting, or that the women might have
expected them to, is further indicated near the end of the fragment, where Shenoute
wrote, we and the elders, along with your sons, your fathers, your brothers, and all
your relatives, and all the brothers who pray for this.30 Here the actual meanings of
these kinship terms is open to interpretation. The question is, do the sons, brothers,
fathers, and relatives all describe blood relations, while we and the elders . . . and all
the brothers who pray for this describes the male monks who were not relatives? Or,
alternatively, do the sons, brothers, and fathers include both biological and spiritual
kin?31 Or is it possible that the sons, brothers, and fathers are only in a monastic relationship to the female monks, and all male relatives are included under all your relatives? Would Shenoute have referred to junior male monks as the womens sons,
just as he referred to junior female monks as the female elders daughter? At any
rate, Shenoutes catalogue was meant to describe the male community as a whole in
order to argue that all male monks, including the womens relatives, agreed with
Shenoutes position of subordinating the women to male control of corporal punishment. This example illustrates Shenoutes tendency to treat biological kin as a special group within the monastery. It also shows, however, the particular circumstance
of biological kin: Shenoute used the separation of male and female kin to render the
women more vulnerable to his authority, since a possible source of protection was
removed.
As with corporal punishment, expulsion caused a specic response on the part of
the biological kin who remained in the monastery. These monks were protecting
their blood relatives, not just spiritual kin, and thus placing their biological allegiances above their monastic ones. Thus, whereas Shenoutes objections to non-kins
support of one another meant objecting to the monastic familial bonds he also advocated, he has a clearer reason to object to the reactions of biological kin: they were
placing their biological ties above their spiritual ones. The best and clearest example
of biological kin resenting the expulsion of their kin comes from My Heart Is Crushed,
the letter responding to accusations of excessive leadership including a purge that
lasted several months. Shenoute specically cautioned the monks:
Also, do not let people among us in these congregations at any time be timid in their endurance because of sons or daughters or a brother or sisters or mothers or any other blood
relatives of theirs being thrown out of the holy places of God because of pestilent deeds.
Let your love display to God that you love him more than sons or daughters or brothers
or sisters or fathers or mothers and more than the world and all those who are in it. Is
this not sufcient on the subject of the things we, whether male or female, have done
among these congregations until now?32
171
Shenoutes instruction in this conict was clear: the monks with kin were to show
greater allegiance to the monastery, and thus to God, than to their own family members. The monks could not contest expulsions based on the relationship with the expelled but were to accept the expulsions in light of the transgressions the expelled had
committed. These two lists of relatives, however, are subtly different; one is specic
in its references to family members, whereas the other is general. In the list of the
monks who were thrown out, there is a brother, whereas in the second list, that category is in the plural. There are no fathers among the expelled, but they are listed
among the kin who are to be loved less than God. These differences suggest the rst
list indicates those monks who actually were expelled, while the second is a general
list of any relatives, used to make the rhetorical distinction between spiritual ties
(God) and biological ones (relatives).33 Moreover, the overall context in this letter
of extreme measures of Shenoutes leadership suggest that these monks viewed the
expulsion of their kin as another example of Shenoutes harshness.
The nal issue that elicited an emotional conict was separation of the sexes,
which affected biological kin in a way it did not monastic kin. All the monks were
expected to embrace the ascetic values of the community, even if those values had
not been their motivation to join. The monks who had kin in the monastery, then,
had to suffer the emotional strain of renouncing the emotional bonds with people
who still lived in their midst. These biological family members still fullled the two
major requirements for a family: blood-relation and co-residence.34 Shenoute was not
the rst head of the White Monastery who required biological kin within the
monastery to renounce their families as if they had left them upon joining the monastic community.35 In order to effect this renunciation, Shenoute enforced his predecessors practice of separation of kin. Female monks had female kin within the
monastery as well, who may have been separated from them in different houses.36
These women, however, would still have been able to see each other, especially
at communal mealtimes.37 With regard to the womens male relatives, however,
Shenoute enforced separation by refusing to allow the women to visit the male community, which we can recall resulted in a main conict of the Initial Crisis.
Once again, however, Shenoute used ambiguous language whose meaning depends on the reconstruction of the historical situation (chapter 5) and on the assumption that Shenoute used rhetoric that was most compelling for that situation. In
order to illustrate the result of their damnation in such a way that the women who
were objecting to his leadership would be moved to become obedient to him,
Shenoute described the separation of sexes in this world: this separation was necessary for the sexes to be reunited in the next life. But, he warned, mistakes could lead
to losing salvation and so lead to eternal separation of the sexes. That is, if the women
erred they would lose the goal of their current separationreunionand instead be
separated forever, which would be far worse than the current separation. And since
he was addressing the women who challenged his authority, he talked about their separation from the men they cared about, which is to say, their separation from male relatives who lived in the male community of the monastery: For if you will not enjoy
your sons, your brothers, your menfolk, and all your people, then why did you remove
yourselves from those who are among your kin?38
172
It had already been clear in Shenoutes description of the guilty (you) and the
innocent (Shenoute, his predecessors, Papnoute and another Shenoute, all the male
monks, and some of the female monks) in the monastery that not all the women were
making this accusation or condemnation against Shenoute, but only some.
Shenoutes imagery reveals who the guilty women were. It follows from his choice of
this description of damnation that these female monks desired to see their male relatives, a desire Shenoute regarded as a natural one among others to be resisted and endured in the monastic life. Indeed he points out that he resisted and endured his own
desire to visit the men: But if I, this wretched one, spends a single week without having seen your sons and your brothers and your menfolk and all those who are with us
together, I am expecting them like a brother who has not seen his brothers for a
year.39 It further indicates, however, that the women were leaving their community
to go visit their male relatives. This action Shenoute regarded as a major monastic
transgression. Monks were supposed to suffer from their separation, and any relief
from that suffering endangered their reunion as part of the salvation they were seeking in the next life: But I thought that you would make the feast of life together, you,
your sons, brothers, and menfolk. But now I say to you that there are many among us
who will be strangers to their relatives, to their fathers and their brothers. . . . This
means you.40 I have already argued that Shenoutes crossing the gender boundary to
impose his authority over the female community suggested to some female monks
that the gender boundary was no longer part of a unied monastic space. This (erroneous) perception of their freedom would explain why the women would now visit
their male relatives, a practice that had been forbidden under Shenoutes predecessors. To counter this perception, Shenoute had to present separation of the sexes as a
natural part of monastic life to uphold his twin ideologies of power and gender. The
monks with kin (barring any existence of spouses) did not need to be separated by sex
in order to avoid sexual tension, as was the case for the rest of the monks. But their
separation t with the common Christian ascetic ideology of an antibiological family position for those joining a monastery. Shenoute drew upon that ideology in naturalizing the separation of the sexes, including kin. The exceptions when kin were allowed to see one another interrupted this naturalization.
Despite his insistence that the female monks with kin were to suffer from the distress of their separation from their male relatives, Shenoute found a way to have the
biological kin visit each other through administrative visits, as becomes immediately
obvious as the letter continues. By using male relatives as part of the male envoys system of supervision of the female community, Shenoute both met the emotional needs
of the biological kin (without admitting compromise) and used the relatives to support his subordination of the female community. These women were more likely to
accept the envoy system Shenoute was developing at this point in his leadership if
one result was visits with their loved ones:
Is it your hearts desire to see us [in the afterlife] just as we wish to see you? Then why do
you not pay attention to my instruction which I told you with my own mouth, as you all
listened, Do not hide anything in your community from us, but communicate it to us
that we may judge it either by means of your elders appointed for you or through all your
relatives who are about to come to you.41
173
Given the terms of this particular controversy, it is most striking that Shenoute used
male relatives among these envoys. He again reminded the women, however, that
they risked eternal separation from those very relatives (at whom they would be directly looking as the letter was read) should they refuse his leadership:
Why do you refrain from telling us what goes on in your community? Is it not inseparable from the fact that it is not woven into your spirit to look upon your sons, your
brothers, your menfolk, your fathers and all your relatives in our community, when we
are all together in the place where male is not separated from female?42
Shenoutes accommodations of the kins desire to see one another had two conditions: visits were allowed only in mens ofcial capacity as envoys and the men could
go only if the women were going to engage in full disclosure of life in their community
to their leader, Shenoute. Both these conditions served to subordinate the women
and indicate how the asymmetry of Shenoutes authority structures was possible
within the familial model.
The family, then, both metaphorical and actual, was a place where gender and authority intersected. Shenoute, his desire for uniformity notwithstanding, treated the
monks in terms of three categories: rank, gender, and presence of biological kin in the
monastery. In this case, the female monks who visited their relatives had stepped out
of their proper place; while we might think that their male relatives were polluted by
the womens visits, it was exactly this pollution which Shenoute sought to contain in
his earlier description of who was innocent. Furthermore, I have argued, these same
male relatives were not out of their proper place when they went to the female community as envoys. Female monks of a certain rank were also allowed to go to the male
community to discuss conicts and problems, signaling further their participation in
Shenoutes authority structures. Rank, gender, and familial, monastic or biological,
allegiance, then, all create the reality of life in the monastery, in contrast to
Shenoutes ideal. Nowhere is the intersection and interrelation of these three categories more obvious than in the case of the monk Tachom.
Shenoute Writes to Tachom: Power Relations,

Gender Relations, and Family Relations
Tachoms experience, much of which we have already seen (chapters 2, 4, and 5), was
not typical of female monks in the White Monastery. Indeed her particularity is important: her rank as mother allowed her to resist the male envoy whom Shenoute
sent, after her apparent beating, and to protect the female monks under her care from
beatings; that resistance, and her prominence, in turn may have led to her enforced
role in other beatings of female monks. And in this particular conict, when
Shenoute and Tachom had been out of contact with each other for some time,
Tachoms biological relationship with the envoy whom Shenoute sent also contributed to the historical situation.
In his letter, the entirety of Shenoutes complaints were expressed in familial
terms. He signaled his alienation from Tachom at the beginning of the letter, by denying any familial relationship between them: This is Shenoute who writes to Tachom
as a barbarian to a barbarian, and not like a father to a mother, not like a brother in
174
the presence of a sister. The fragment ends with his attempt to revoke her status as a
female leader, as a mother. In the midst of his argument, however, comes the crux
of the matter, Tachoms refusal to accept Shenoutes envoy. Her refusal shocked
Shenoute not simply because she deed his authority, but also because she refused
to acknowledge her familial bond with the envoy, her brother. Shenoute chastised
Tachom for her actions, then, both as a monk and as a biological sister:
And if the man whom we sent is not your father according to rank (and he is [your father] according to divine ordination), then you are not a mother; if you do not admit
that the man whom I sent you has the same authority as myself (especially since he is
physically your brother), then you have separated yourself from us.43
Once again, Shenoutes technical term kata sarx (physically, your brother) appealed explicitly to their biological relationship. Tachom had a duty to receive the
envoy not only because he was her monastic superior, but also because he was her
blood brother. Yet Shenoute also made clear that in both the monastic and biological relationships, Tachoms brother was her superior (and for once the brother of a
named woman is anonymous, and not vice versa). She was a monastic mother, but as
a monastic father he was greater; they were siblings but as a brother, she should yield
to him. Shenoute granted her brother the same status as himself, even as he threatened her status as mother. In terms of gender, then, there was a hierarchy between
the two, but Shenoute here did not weigh the spiritual relationship over the biological. Both their monastic and their biological bonds were the means by which
Shenoute hoped to persuade Tachom to relent. His appeal stands in direct contradiction to his instructions elsewhere to ignore biological relationships in favor of
membership to the monastery. Shenoutes usual anticarnal stance is here softened by
his greater need to bring Tachom, and her community, back under his control within
the monastery.
Shenoutes metaphorical familial language, and at times the actual biological familial relationships, constructed the social denitions of the community of the
monastery. But with that language, or family, Shenoute was able to dene the relationships as egalitarian and therefore symmetrical, or as hierarchical and therefore
asymmetrical. Through the uidity of language and the patriarchal structure of the
family, Shenoute created a place for women and conned them to that place, even
while promoting a monasticism that did not include eshly divisions such as gender and biological allegiance to family. Shenoute, as I have argued throughout, located error in the esh, either actual or symbolic, and he regarded differences arising
from the esh as suspect. Gender was an aspect of embodiment that, Shenoute
warned, was to be properly disciplined so that women and men could live in their
bodies as brethren monks, that is, not renouncing or denying their gender but also
not allowing it to determine their ascetic lives. So too the biological kin created special challenges in Shenoutes monasticism. Despite this link between esh and error,
though, Shenoute included carnality, trope or actuality, familial or gender, in the
monastery. He did so under his conditions and ultimately it is this decision-making
process that characterizes Shenoutes monastic leadership.
Notes
Introduction
1. The name White Monastery is modern, referring to the walls of the church building
(which are white, as opposed to the red walls of another nearby monastery). Shenoute seems
to have called the monastery simply the congregations. Archaeologists now tend to call it
the Monastery of Apa Shenoute. For a discussion of the use of the two names in scholarship,
see Stephen Emmel, Shenoutes Literary Corpus (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1993), 17, esp.
nn. 31 and 32.
2. There is no agreement on the precise dates for events in Shenoutes life. Janet Timbie
follows Leipoldts view (Johannes Leipoldt, Schenute von Atripe und die Entstehung des national
gyptischen Christentums TU, vol. 25.1 [Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1903], 4247) that Shenoute
entered the monastery around 370 and took control after the death of Pgol in 388. He accompanied Cyril to Ephesus in 431 . . . [and died] in 451 (The State of Research on the Career of Shenoute of Atripe, in The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, ed. Birger A. Pearson and
James E. Goehring [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], 260). Scholars now date his death later, in
466, following J. F. Bethune-Baker, The Date of the Death of Nestorius: Shenoute, Zacharias,
Evagrius, JThS 9 (1908): 6012. Emmel has revised these dates somewhat, based on evidence
from his own writings or from those of his immediate successor (Emmel, Corpus 10), suggesting that Shenoute was born in 346/47, entered the monastery around the age of nine, became its head a bit earlier than Leipoldt suggests, and was aged 118 at the time of his death in
465 (911).
3. Leipoldt cites the Arabic Life of Shenoute (Va 331) for this number (Leipoldt, Schenute
93). He also gives several reasons for accepting this number as accurate: (1) in comparison to
the numbers of refugees from the foreign invasions, 4,000 seems a small enough portion of the
population to be acceptable; (2) the physical layout of the monastic communities is extensive
enough to accommodate 4,000 monks. Since, however, the Arabic biography is not a fully reli175
176
Notes to Pages 34
able source for hard numbers, I refer to the amounts of monks with more vague terms (several
hundreds, thousands) and do not build any arguments on the presence of 4,000 monks. At
the same time, it is noteworthy that, even if these numbers are exaggerated, the exaggerations
still provide for a signicant female presence, 45 percent of the monastic population.
4. As Peter Brown argues in Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992), 140.
5. In Power, Brown focuses on Shenoutes role as a civic patron, as does Bowman, although
he also discusses Shenoutes relationship with the survival of pagan practices in the area
(Alan K. Bowman, Egypt after the Pharaohs, 332BCAD 642 [Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1986], 51, 192, 196). Bagnalls description of Shenoute is one of the few that considers
his role as monastic leader, though his real concern is the character of local Egyptian peasantry:
Shenoute had serious problems controlling [his monks]. . . . Egyptian peasants were famously
given to resisting authority through sullen avoidance and passive denial of demands placed on
them (Roger Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993],
302). The most notable exception to Shenoutes usual neglect in studies of monasticism is
Elms recent work on female monasticism in Asia Minor and Egypt (Susanna Elm, Virgins of
God: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994], 296
310). Another recent exception is Clokes inclusion of one of Shenoutes letters in his analysis
of the spiritual power of female ascetics in late antiquity (Gillian Cloke, This Female Man of
God: Women and Patristic Spiritual Power in the Patristic Age, AD 350450 [New York: Routledge, 1995], 2023). Shenoutes writings are usually only studied by Coptologists because to
date his importance lies in the complexity of his language.
6. Brown, Power 140.
7. According to Besas description, these acts of charity were also occasionally accompanied by miracles. See Besa, Life of Shenoute, trans. David Bell (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian,
1983), 13843, 14450. Reference is to sections of the work, not page numbers.
8. Besa, Life 8990, 1078, 13537. See also Timbie, State of Research 265.
9. Timbie (State of Research 265) notes many of these roles and suggests that further research is necessary on all these roles Shenoute had in the monastery and the secular community.
10. Bowman, Egypt After the Pharaohs 192. See also Basa Life 8384, 12527 and David
Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 7782.
11. Not Because a Fox Barks. The Coptic text is available in mile Chassinat, Le quatrime
livre des entretiens et ptres de Shenouti, MIFAO vol. 23 (Cairo: Institut franais darchologie
orientale, 1911). A translation is available in English in John W. B. Barns, Shenoute as a Historical Source, in Actes du Xe congrs international de papyrologues: Varsovie-Cracovie 39 septembre 1961, ed. Jzef Wolski (Wroclaw, Warsaw, and Krakow: Zaklad narodowy Imienia Ossolinskich Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1964). He has translated the passage about
Shenoutes attack on the governors house without reference to urination, however. Instead he
calls them lthy concoctions. But cf. A Coptic Dictionary ad. loc.
12. See Brown, Power 14041, for a portrayal of Shenoute as civic patron; see also David
Brakke, Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 208
13, for Anthony as spiritual patron; Besa makes Shenoutes deeds more a spiritual patronage by
associating charity, hospitality, and so forth with Shenoutes mystic abilities.
13. In addition to traveling with Cyril, Shenoute had contact with Timothy I, Theophilus,
Dioscurus, and probably also Timothy II in Alexandria (Emmel, Corpus 45). One ripe
area of research is the relationship between Shenoute and the ecclesiastical authorities in
Egypt. It is clear that Shenoute supported Alexandrian theology in the various disputes of the
fourth and fth century, but beyond that not much is known.
Notes to Pages 45
177
14. Emmel, Corpus 2.

15. See Emmel, Corpus 1415.
16. These monks have only returned to the White Monastery in recent years as part of the
Coptic Orthodox Churchs effort to repopulate its historical spaces. Thanks to Caroline T.
Schroeder for this description from her travels to the White Monastery, July 1999.
17. Stephen Emmel (Corpus 104) has reconstructed the transmission and structure of
the Canons and Discourses. The name Canon derives from the appellation in the manuscripts
themselves; Discourse is Emmels preferred translation but others use the Greek Logoi to
refer to these collections. My work is based entirely on letters from the Canons. My corpus of
thirteen letters depends on Emmels reconstruction, most notably Canon 2. Emmel assigns English titles to Shenoutes works, based on the incipit of the complete text. I have used these in
some of my citations. Works whose incipit is lost must be referred to in other ways.
18. Emmels dissertation reconstructs all of the manuscripts in order and so reconstructs
the literary corpus they record. I could not have written this study without his reconstruction,
and I have relied on it throughout my work.
19. Leipoldt (annotated by Crum) published several volumes of Shenoutes works, but
without access to all the manuscripts he could not create a critical edition (Johannes Leipoldt
with W. E. Crum, Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia, 3 vols. [Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 190613], henceforth cited as Leipoldt, Opera; the accompanying Latin translation is
by H. Weissman, Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia [Paris: Imprimerie nationale,
193136]). Amlineau also published Shenoutes works, but his transcriptions are not always
accurate and his translations are imperfect (. Amlineau, Oeuvres de Schenoudi: Texte copte et
traduction franaise, 2 vols. [Paris: Ernest Leroux, 190714]). Recently Dwight Young has edited a volume of Coptic texts in diplomatic transcriptions with English translation (Young, ed.,
Coptic Manuscripts from the White Monastery: Works of Shenoute, 2 vols. [Vienna: Brder
Hollinek, 1993]). Throughout this study, I have used my revisions of the translations in volume 1 of this edition (volume 2 is a collection of plates, and so all my references are to volume
1). The amount of revision varies from slight to heavy. All citations will be noted Y.rev. without indication of the level of revision. In addition, all citations of Young will have two references to page(s): the rst refers to the Coptic text, the second to Youngs translation, which follows the text. There are also scattered publications of smaller pieces of Shenoutes corpus.
These manuscripts were not recovered all at once but in spurts by a variety of travelers and
scholars (see Emmel, Corpus 1531, for a history of the recovery of Shenoutes writings in the
West). As a result, they are dispersed in libraries throughout the world, with the Bibliothque
nationale having the largest single collection. (Emmel, ibid.: 2526, surveys the libraries
throughout the world that hold Shenoute manuscripts [p. 29 for the collection in Paris]).
20. Timbie, State of Research 259. For a discussion about the role of Shenoute in future
studies of Coptic literature, which depends on the future of textual work, see Tito Orlandi,
The Future of Studies in Coptic Biblical and Ecclesiastical Literature, in The Future of Coptic Studies, ed. R. McL. Wilson (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978), 14363. Recently, Coptic scholars
have begun working to create a normalization of the manuscript tradition. See Stephen Emmel, Editing Shenute: Problems and Prospects, Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients
6.2 (1999): 10913.
21. Deborah Valenze posed this question to me and I am grateful for her insight.
22. Throughout this study I will use the term monk to refer to either men or women in the
White Monastery, though when gender is important I will clarify which I mean. I use the term
this way for two reasons: rst, Shenoute did not use a particular term for women, distinguishing them and their monastic lives from the male counterparts. For me to impose the term nun
or even sister, then, would be anachronistic. Second, this lack of a particularly female term is
not limited to Shenoute. Although Athanasius, among others, was fond of the term bride of
178
Notes to Pages 58
Christ to describe female virgins in an urban environment, for the most part female terminology for women in communal monasticism is lacking, as Terry Wilfong has also argued (Wilfong, The Women of Jme: Womens Roles in a Coptic Town in Late Antique Egypt [PhD.
diss., University of Chicago, 1994], 110).
24. E. Clark, Devils Gateway and Bride of Christ: Women in the Early Christian World,
in Ascetic Piety and Womens Faith: Essays on Late Ancient Christianity, Studies in Women and
Religion, 20 (Lewiston: E. Mellen, 1986), 23.
25. Later citations use only the manuscript page numbers.
26. This sentence refers to ZE 63/64 and 67/68, the rst fragments of the four letters that
record the Initial Crisis. See chapter 2 for more details about these fragments and the information they provide.
27. During my fellowship at Harvard Divinity School, I was fortunate enough to participate in a graduate seminar for the New Testament program led by Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza
entitled Rhetoric and Historiography. Although we did not discuss Shenoute or monasticism
in particular, I am grateful to her, the other faculty, and the students for their many discussions
during this seminar.
28. The second phrase is E. Schssler Fiorenzas, in her Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1 Corinthians, New Test. Stud. 33 (1987): 389. Earlier she notes, Letters are a direct response to a specic historical-political situation and problem . . . The situation controls the rhetorical response in the same sense that the question controls the answer
(387).
29. Presumably Shenoutes original audience would know the situation, and thus not need
it reiterated. However, Shenoute collected these letters into the Canons, to be read for the edication of the entire monastery, even after institutional memory of a particular conict may
have faded. We can presume, therefore, that Shenoute saw the main purpose of these letters as
monastic teachings that evolved from the historical situations, and was less interested in the
history of the monastery.
30. Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), xiv.
31. For scholarship on authority in Paul, Elisabeth A. Castelli, Imitating Paul: A Discourse
of Power (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991) has been most helpful; for feminist methods of rhetorical criticism, there are several works of Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza, especially
Rhetorical Situation and Antoinette Clark Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets:A Reconstruction through Pauls Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); Dale Martins The Corinthian
Body was invaluable for his corrections about how to think about the body in antiquity, and for
his insights into the body politic of Paul, a concept that Shenoute seems to share, or mimic.
For more on Shenoutes concepts of the body, see the forthcoming dissertation by Caroline
Schroeder (Duke University). Finally, recent scholarship on familial language in Paul, collected in Halvor Moxnes, Constructing the Early Christian Family (London: Routledge, 1997)
will appear at several points in the notes to chapters 7 and 8, along with Stephen J. Joubert,
Managing the Household: Paul as paterfamilias of the Christian household group in Corinth,
in Philip F. Esler, ed., Modelling Early Christianity: Social Scientic Studies of the New Testament
in Its context (London: Routledge, 1995), 21323.
32. See E. Clark, Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999).
33. Elm has noted that Shenoutes language is not always as precise as we would like
(Elm, Virgins 300 n. 47).
34. Castelli, Imitating Paul.
35. Liz James, ed. Women, Men, And Eunuchs: Gender in Byzantium (New York: Routledge,
1997), xvixvii.
Notes to Pages 815
179
36. Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1995) has been especially helpful for my formulation of this thesis. Note, for
example, the similarity between my thesis and his description of Pauls goal: Paul was motivated by a Hellenistic desire for the One, which among other things produced an ideal of universal human essence, beyond difference and hierarchy (7). Thanks are also due to Susan
Shapiro for her many conversations on this point.
37. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1: 26.
38. Teresa Shaw, The Burden of the Flesh: Fasting and Sexuality in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 164 and 180.
39. Shaw, Burden 203.
1. Daily Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

1. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:26.
2. Leipoldts monograph (1903) provides a useful schematic description of monastic life
under Shenoute, with sections on Work, Dress, Food, Death, The Sick, and so forth.
His work is the basis for much of this chapter, along with Karl Kuhns (1956) similar treatment
of Shenoutes successor Besa, and Susanna Elms (1994) description of womens life under
Shenoutes leadership, which itself depends on Leipoldt. Unfortunately, Leipoldts study is
dated. Future study of all of Shenoutes monastic rules has been made possible by Stephen Emmels recent (1993) reconstruction of Shenoutes works and is an urgent necessity. The notes
in this chapter are complicated and require some explanation. I have read the various rules that
Leipoldt used to write his monograph. However, my citation system for those rules and
Leipoldts differ since I use the publication information and Leipoldt uses abbreviations for the
manuscripts (see Leipoldt, Schenute 23, for an explanation of his abbreviations). In my notes,
therefore, I include the following information: where the rule is now published, what abbreviation Leipoldt used in his monograph to cite the rule, and on what page of his monograph the
rule is cited. There are several cases where Leipoldts note seems to be incorrect. In those cases,
I have cited only the rule I used as evidence. It should also be noted that Shenoute repeats some
rules frequently; I have conned my quotations to illustrative examples.
3. This description is, of course, based on the legends of the origins of monasticism. For a
good evaluation of those legends, see James E. Goehring, The Origins of Monasticism, in
H. W. Attridge and G. Hata, eds., Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism (Detroit: Wayne State
University Press, 1992) 23555. For a description of the varieties of monasticism beyond the
traditional orthodox version of its development, see Goehring, Monastic Diversity and Ideological Boundaries in Fourth-Century Christian Egypt, JECS 5.1 (1997): 6183.
4. Philip Rousseau, Spiritual Authority of the Monk-Bishop: Eastern Elements on Some
Western Hagiography of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, JThS 22 (1971): 394.
5. Philip Rousseau, Pachomius: The Making of a Community in Fourth-Century Egypt (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985) 101.
6. A further step of some importance was the insistence of superiors that they be consulted
in advance, as it were, and not merely informed of problems which disciples had recognized,
analyzed and grappled with for some time alone (Rousseau, Ascetics 53).
7. Graham Gould, The Desert Fathers on Monastic Community (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993)
30. The theme of obedience recurs throughout Goulds study of the monk-disciple relationship,
but see especially 5258.
8. Rousseau, Pachomius 9899.
9. Russeau points out, We know already how mistaken it would be to depend on the Rules
to describe the structure of authority in Pachomian communities (Pachomius 1056).
10. Rousseau, Pachomius 9597.
180
Notes to Pages 1517
11. For the fear of God, and thus a reluctance to judge others, among the solitary monks,
see Gould, Desert 8991. We shall see in chapter 2 that Shenoute differs from the solitary
monks on this issue.
12. Philip Rousseau, Ascetics, Authority and the Church in the Age of Jerome and Cassian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 5155.
13. Rousseau, Ascetics 52.
14. Rousseau, Ascetics 5253.
15. Rousseau argues there was (Ascetics 37), whereas Gould argues against this (Desert 82
86).
16. Gould, Desert 58; cf. also 34.
17. For the purpose of the teaching relationship in solitary monasticism, see Gould, Desert
ch. 2, esp. 2736. For the use of the rule in Pachomian monasticism, see Rousseau, Ascetics 45.
18. According to Gould, These virtues of obedience and submission were, as we have already seen, regarded as good in themselves in determining the disciples capacity to make
progress in the monastic life; their importance was no doubt reinforced by belief in the inspiration of the abbas words, even though this belief emerges at comparatively few points, and
even with some reticence, in the texts of the Sayings (Desert 41).
19. This is the main point of Brakke, as he summarizes in Athanasius 16. See also Elm, Virgins ch. 11, for a discussion similar issues.
20. Brakke, Athanasius 261.
21. For the role of the exemplar in late antiquity, see Brakke, Athanasius 261. For Athanasiuss program of formation of the self, see ibid.: 245.
23. See Map 9, The Monasteries of the Upper Said, The Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. 8. To
measure the distance from Cairo, one needs also to consult maps 7 and 8.
24. See appendix 3, The Nomes, in Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity 33335, for a list of
the nomes. His appendix 2, Money, is also helpful for an introduction to basic facts of life in
fourth-century Egypt.
25. There has been some excavation of the church building. See Peter Grossman, On the
Recently Excavated Monastic Buildings in Dayr Anba Shinuda: Archaeological Report, Bulletin de la Socit dArchologie Copte 30 (1991): 5364. A good drawing can be found in vol. 8:
76768 of The Coptic Encyclopedia. See also 8: 76869 for a discussion of art and architecture.
These sites, however, represent only the male community and not the female community that
lay in the village (discussed later).
26. Leipoldt, Schenute 9293. He also cites both Alfred J. Butler, The Ancient Coptic
Churches (Oxford: Clarendon, 1884), 35159, and J. Grafton Milne, A History of Egypt under
Roman Rule (Chicago: Ares, 1898), 101, 104, 156, 157, for descriptions and pictures of the
church building.
27. See Roger Bagnall, Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History (New York: Routledge,
1995), 34, for a good discussion of the changes in the agricultural landscape in modern Egypt
and the limitations it places on the historical imagination of late antique Egypt.
28. Most follow Leipoldt on this account (Leipoldt, Schenute 99). See also Derwas J. Chitty,
The Desert a City (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1966), 22, 2526, for his description of the Pachomian system. For a more detailed discussion, see Rousseau, Pachomius,
ch. 3, Forming the Community, and 4, The Days Routine.
29. Ewa Wipszycka has recently challenged Jeromes assertion that the monks were divided
among the houses by profession. A more detailed examination of the rule material from the
White Monastery would be necessary to verify whether her arguments pertain there also
(Wipszycka, Contribution ltude de lconomie de la Congrgation Pachmienne, JJP 26
[1996]: 167210).
Notes to Page 18
181
30. Elm, Virgins 304. I discuss this further at pp. 2526.

31. This is Leipoldts opinion about Shenoutes goal (Leipoldt, Schenute 12930). However, Leipoldt also gives a negative assessment of the worship services, saying that they lacked
the religious feeling moderns would want (130). Elsewhere he calls Shenoutes monastic life
unchristian (144), and Shenoutes spirituality Christless. See also Besa, Life 1922. Bell
agrees with this assessment but argues that it was not atypical of the state of Christianity in
Egypt at this time.
32. Leipoldt, Schenute 98. Compare p. 24 in this book for further discussion of the cell
system.
33. In the season when a re is burned in the wintertime, at the hour of rising in the morning, an hour and a half or even a couple of hours before daylight, they will pray four sets of
prayer, six rounds per set, so that on account of human greatness or weakness no one might afict his neighbor. And if they get up too early on some day by mistake, they will pray ve sets,
six rounds per set (Leipoldt, Opera 4:53).
34. Whenever a man in our community, or a woman, is at any time found working, before
the gong has been rung for the rst set of prayer at dawn, they will be reprimanded unless the
father of these holy places has ordered them to do so; so also likewise the female elder in the
village (Leipoldt, Opera 4:81).
35. Leipoldt cites Sz 528 (Leipoldt, Opera 4:109) for this description, but the text is not as
detailed as his description (Schenute 130): As a general rule, the brethren will do everything
as follows, when they are assembled together in groups of twenty, thirty, fty or more, or even
all of them together. They shall rst pray one set of prayers before they have begun work, and
when they are going to stop they shall pray one set. This will take place every day, even if they
are reaping reeds. The description of the monks bending and rising occurs in the description
of the prayer service (Leipoldt, Opera 4:67) and is probably implied by the description of sets
of prayers. The evidence for Leipoldts description of the sounding of a metal plate as a signal
to pray is from 4:81, but this is not in the text he cited.
36. Leipoldt uses the following for his assertion: From our fathers fathers, and from the beginning of time until now, every prot and every advantage and every righteousness <. . .> inquiries according to the Scripture (Leipoldt, Opera 4:165 = Sp 3:29, on Leipoldt, Schenute
130); the Coptic text is corrupt.
37. And when they are about to celebrate mass on any occasionmorning, evening, or
the eve of Sundaywhenever the rst man has nished reading, the one who is appointed to
read after him will stand in the area of the pulpit during the last round of prayer when the rst
man stops reading so as to be ready. When he descends [from the pulpit], this other will ascend
immediately after they have prayed so as not to interrupt things, as has happened (Leipoldt,
Opera 4:15556 = Sp 3:23 [Leipoldt, Schenute 130]). See Besa, Life 99, n. 27, for Bells summary
of worship services in the White Monastery.
38. Leipoldt, Opera 4:623 = Sp 4:136 and Sbm 168. See also chapter 5, pp. 11618.
39. See n. 50 for the time of the meal.
40. The womens work is difcult to assess; some women made clothing, but whether all
women did is not certain, nor is it certain that they made enough clothing for the whole
monastery. See n. 66.
41. Gillian Clark, Women in Late Antiquity: Pagan and Christian Lifestyles (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993), 103, notes that [w]oolwork was easy to integrate into the ascetic lifestyle. Women of all classes learned to make fabric. She also suggests that weaving cloth was a
female counterpart to male basket-weaving in that it left the mind free for prayer. The evidence
should also be kept in mind that in Egypt boys took part in linen production (Keith Bradley,
Discovering the Roman Family: Studies in Roman Social History [Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1991], 107). Linen production was not a household chore in Egypt but one of the regions most
182
Notes to Pages 1819
valuable industries, not limited to female workers. Thus, while all Egyptian women would have
known how to weave, so may have many Egyptian men, especially among the poor.
42. No man who ever enters these congregations to be a monk shall say, The work I did
in my own house is what I will perform here, or do here, unless he is ordered to do so (Leipoldt,
Opera 4:163 = Sp 3:2729 [Schenute 125]).
43. When any ordained person ever enters these congregations to be a monk, whether
priest or deacon, they shall be submissive just like all the brethren, obeying the personnel of
the house to which they are assigned in every task that is commanded to them. And as for the
schedule [?] of the Eucharist: obviously, it is they who will take precedence in the rota [?] which
the father of these congregations will at any time establish for the celebration of the Eucharist
(Leipoldt, Opera 4:165 = Sp 3:29 [Schenute 112 and 132]). It should be noted that in his hagiography, Besa claims that Shenoute himself was a priest, though he gives no account of Shenoutes ordination (Life 89).
44. Leipoldt gives a similar list (Leipoldt, Schenute 125). See also Leipoldt, Opera 4:54
(= Sbm 168), 4:109 (= Sz 528).
45. Bell emphasizes the centrality of the monastery for the surrounding culture to support
his contention that expulsion of monks had serious implications for their survival. Both
Leipoldt and Kuhn are interested in the economic functioning of the monastery (Leipoldt,
Schenute 13637, and Karl Kuhn, A Fifth-Century Abbot JThS, 2d ser., 5 [1954]:3648, 174
87; 6 [1955]: 3548). Kuhn, in contrast to Bell, argues that the monastery under Besa was not
economically self-sufcient. Leipoldt points out that goods produced in the monastery were
sold to villagers in the area; money was accepted for payment as well as other goods, such as the
massive amount of wheat needed to support the many monks as well as poor who came seeking bread. Even so, both donations and the work of the monks were necessary for the monastery
to survive; he also outlines the fathers duties as businessmen for the monastery.
46. Leipoldt, Opera 4:42 = Sp 1:79 but Schenute 12728 cites Sbm 200.
47. Leipoldt, Schenute 116. See also Elm, Virgins 3023, and n. 57. Several accounts in
Besas Life of Shenoute also make clear that the monks, presumably all men unless noted otherwise, were in charge of grinding the our, baking the bread, and distributing it to the poor.
Compare ibid.: 20, 2728, 29 and 13843. Bell argues that bread baking in the monastery was
infrequent (see Leipoldt, Opera 4:54). A rule notes that monks cooked once a week, but since
bread is not specied, this is most likely a reference to the vegetable supplement, especially
since a discussion of suspicious herbs follows: The ordinance for food which is to be cooked
for all the community is: once a week. And all the vegetables which they think may be rotten
and unt to cook and eat shall be shown to the elder before being thrown out (Leopoldt, Opera
4:54).
48. Leipoldt, Schenute 117. The rule reads: They shall neither take away nor increase nor
add to any menu items that our fathers appointed for our tables where we eat our food: they
shall not change them from the way they are, by giving oil with the pickled sh, or with the
salt or the charlock or with anything else whatsoever on our refectory tables, with the sole exception of in the inrmaries (Opera 4:55 = Sbm 168).
49. For not using wine, Leipoldt points out the rule that forbids wine to anyone but the
sick: No one shall eat anything like this in any place with the sole exception of in the inrmary, since if they want some wine, they will want other things too (Sz 382). Here I have used
the Zoega text (Georg Zoega, Catalogus Codicum Copticorum Manu Scriptorum Qui in Museo
Borgiano Velitris Adservantur [Rome,1810. Reprt. Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms,
1973]).
For limiting the use of all material goods, including water: We who are wretched, make
ourselves poor, we are hungry, we thirst, we tolerate many sufferings. We say that we do these
things for God, even as far as our poor clothes and our diets, not drinking water often enough
Notes to Page 19
183
to satisfy, not drinking wine or eating esh, and abstaining from many other things (Leipoldt,
Opera 4:23 = Sz 417 [Schenute 117]).
For mixing bread with vinegar, the following rule pertains to food allotments for the
brethren in the village, that is, the women: And the vinegar will be mixed here for the
brethren who are in the village and sent to them from time to time just as it is mixed for those
here. Thus they will eat with their companions the choice things and those which are not
choice (Leipoldt, Opera 4:88 = Sz 525). So too the women had to rely on the mens community for wine for the Eucharist: And the wine for the Eucharist will be mixed here and sent
there for the eternal Eucharist (ibid.: 4:88 = Sz 525).
50. And it [the fast] is complete at the ninth hour [i.e., 3 P.M.] (Leipoldt, Opera 4:92 = Sz
525 [Schenute 11718]).
51. See chapter 2, pp. 3536.
52. W. E. Crum, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum (London: British
Museum, 1905), 85a = Sbm 201 (Leipoldt, Schenute 11718). This text is of uncertain attribution, according to Emmel, Corpus 1221. There are numerous other rules against secretive,
or extra, eating, even among the sources Leipoldt used: If some among us, whether junior male
monks or junior female monks, or male or female elders, should, God forbid, eat twice in one
day the elder shall hold them to the ordinance requiring them to eat at the time in which he
said for the server to serve them food (Leipoldt, Opera 4: 5354 = Sbm 168). Although the citation is from Leipoldts editions of Shenoutes works, he does not use this rule in his monograph as evidence in his discussion of sharing food.
53. For the condemnation of sharing, see n. 84. The prohibition against sharing with relatives read as follows: If a man among us, or a woman, is ever found to be taking from their portion and giving to their biological sons or daughters, or their brothers or their sisters or if a father takes from his son or a mother from her daughter, or any other relatives of theirs take from
any other man or woman at all, they shall be expelled from these holy places (Leipoldt, Opera
4:81= Sbm 169). Again, Leipoldt does not use this rule in his monograph. See also ibid.: 4:106,
as a parallel.
54. Crum 84b = Sbm 201.
55. Leipoldt, Opera 4:70.
56. So Leipoldt notes (Schenute 119).
57. According to Leipoldt, (Schenute 119). This is opposed to a wooden board, which Bell
describes (Besa, Life 95n.13).
58. Whenever they sound the gong to summon [monks] to the refectory, no person among
us shall tarry and not go to the meal, even if they are performing the two or three day fast or are
protracting it for a whole week. If there are one, two or three people [still inside] they shall not
lock the outer door of the house against them until the brethren in that house come out, or
even if they are more, as many as ve or ten. So, too, if there are four or ve or more who have
not gone to the meal, it is wrong to lock [the door] lest someone take offense (Leipoldt, Opera
4:103 = Sz 526 [Schenute 119]).
59. Leipoldt, Opera 4:91= Sp 3:5 (Leipoldt, Schenute 132). How Leipoldt drew his conclusions and description from this text remains obscure to me.
60. No one among us shall remain behind and not attend the gathering at the hour of
prayer, unless the elder has urgently assigned him a task. In the same way, no one among us shall
be late at the hour when we celebrate the Eucharist, nor shall any remain behind and not attend, unless ordered by the male elder in our community, or by the female elder in your community (Leipoldt, Opera 4:66).
61. Leipoldt does not mention these, but Shenoute refers to the female monks performing
night vigils with special attention to his health (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:154) and he includes
night vigils in his description of monastic life (see my ch. 2).
184
Notes to Pages 1921
62. Kuhn, Fifth Century Abbott 186. In the letters to women, Shenoute makes references to teachings about the Scriptures, both his own and others, but these do not tell us anything about the structure of the lessons; rather, they point out that teaching was a source of authority, and thus another aspect of monastic life to be controlled.
63. Leipoldt, Schenute 132; the evidence is from the Life. Cf. Besa Life 72n.71. This practice is opposed to the twice-a-week celebration in the Pachomian system.
64. Leipoldt, Schenute 132 (Opera 4:9192 = Sp 3:5). He also wonders whether the Eucharist
replaced the daily meal, though there is not evidence that it was substantial enough to do so.
65. The rule regarding funerals for female monks suggests than only priests or deacons of
the monastery were allowed to celebrate the funeral: None of the foreign priests or deacons
shall enter the community to bury a woman who has died, except for the priests of the village
where the female community is, and the deacons or a reader brought along with them to read
(Leipoldt, Opera 4:62). It seems that either presbyters or deacons could celebrate the Eucharist
as well (4:16566). For the separation of the sexes during funerals, see ibid. 4:6263.
66. Leipoldt, Schenute 125 discusses mens work, for which he cites Opera 4:42 = Sp 1:79
and Sa 278. He discusses the womens work in one sentence in the section on clothing
(Leipoldt, Schenute 115, repeated by Elm, Virgins 302). His source for his assertion that the
women were in charge of clothing production for the monastery is the rst two pages of a letter to women called My Heart Is Crushed, which begins with Shenoutes defense of the mistreatment of a garment the women made for him. Leipoldt, as he himself notes, makes a broad
conclusion from this bit of evidence through comparison to the women in the Pachomian
monastery. Other evidence from the letters to women, notably the last part of a letter fragment
published in Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:15058, supports Leipoldts conclusion that womens work
was conned to garment production. The role of womens work, and the signicance of their
being assigned cloth and garment production, is discussed in chapter 7.
67. Such questions future studies of Shenoute as a monastic leader should answer, if the
sources provide the evidence.
68. Therefore those among us, whether male or female, who want God, the Lord Jesus, to
bless them and put his spirit upon them, as it is written, and who want him to guard them
through his angels until they have perfected their endurance and go to him, shall guard all the
sayings which our fathers commanded to us . . . telling us about the word of the Lord with all
their might and with all their soul, wanting for us to receive eternal life (Leipoldt, Opera 4:65).
69. For renouncing possessions, the rule reads: And all who shall come to us to be a monk,
whether male or female, shall rst renounce all the possessions that they have into the hands
of the monastic stewardship, from the moment they are at the gate-house of the Lords communities. One monthor two, or three at mostafter they have entered, they shall list [or
renounce?] in writing their ownership of all the things that they have brought with them, in
accordance with our fathers ordinances. In this way no one who wishes to renounce their ascetic life in our community will afict those who come (Leipoldt, Opera 4:71). Leipoldt discusses the role of the oath and other aspects of joining the monastery, Schenute 10613. Presumably the monks written renunciation did not have to be in favor of the monastery, as Kuhn
has argued for Shenoutes successor, Besa (Kuhn, Fifth-Century Abbott 176).
70. Leipoldt, Opera 3:20. Leipoldt discusses the oath, in Schenute 10810.
71. The focus on the body as the symbol of the purity or pollution of the community ts with
scholars analyses of other groups of early Christians, many of whom use Mary Douglass work as
the basis of their analyses. See Ross Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); Denise Kimber Buell, Making Christians: Clement of Alexandria amd the Rhetoric
of Legitimacy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999) esp. 1n.2.
72. Nearly every scholar who has written about the White Monastery accounts for the
large numbers of monks in part, in terms of economic pressures leading to monastic vocation.
Notes to Pages 2122
185
See Leipoldt, Schenute 11112. One of the clearest pieces of evidenceboth of economic motivation and its place in the monasteryis mentioned in a letter to the female community,
Abraham, Our Father.
73. Chitty, Desert 22.
74. Since transgressions were pollutions, one might expect Shenoute to use the language
of pollution, sexual imagery for example, to describe the transgressions even if they were not
sexual sins. His language is a rhetorical reinforcement of the deling aspect of disobedience to
the rule. For the use of jwHm in Besas works, see also Kuhn, Fifth Century Abbott 184. In
both cases, such language would also recall the oath, in which the monks promised not to dele or pollute (jwHm) their bodies in any way.
75. Leipoldt provides this overview of sins based on all his reading of Shenoutes works but
does not give specic sources (Leipoldt, Schenute 147). The rst three, stealing, lying (especially to hide sins), and slander often caused conict among the women, and between the
womens community and Shenoute.
76. In her review Timbie notes, From the beginning, scholars who have commented on
Shenoutes monastic activities have compared him unfavorably with Pachomius (Timbie,
State 264).
77. His punishments were often well deserved: monks and nuns stole everything they
could lay their hands on, called each other nasty names such as crooked nose and caused
trouble in a multitude of ways (Elm, Virgins 304).
78. Leipoldt, Schenute 14748. He notes that Shenoutes rule created an unfavorable climate in the monastery, resulting in the high valuation of material goods that were so severely
denied to them. On p. 123, he notes that it is surprising there is not more sickness among the
monks given their long hours of exhausting labor and their insufcient eating. Orlandi faults
Leipoldts study for overemphasizing the severity of his rule (Orlandi, Coptic Literature 65).
Indeed, Leipoldt does not seem to take into account the rules for extra eating and the responsibilities of the elder to control over-work and over-asceticism, even though these texts were
available to him.
79. Egyptian peasants were famously given to resisting authority through sullen avoidance
and passive denial of demands placed on them. Transforming their relationship to authority,
even to one freely chosen, must have been an extraordinary challenge (Bagnall, Egypt in Late
Antiquity 302). H. I. Bell, in discussing the position of the peasants under foreign rule, also
comments, So far as the Egyptians were concerned, this last factor [cooperation] was probably
never forthcoming. Individual Egyptians may conceivably have welcomed the new regime
with enthusiasm . . . but the reaction of the peasantry as a whole, especially in Upper Egypt,
seems to have been one, at best of passive acquiescence, at worst of sullen resentment (H. I.
Bell, Egypt, from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest [Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1948], 55).
80. Besa, Life 21.
81. Veilleux, Preface xxiii in Besa, Life.
82. As opposed to Leipoldts suggestion that the monks were unaware of the harshness of
life before entering, disappointed upon discovering it, and yet apparently trapped (Leipoldt,
Schenute 112).
83. My argument here differs from Veilleuxs. He argues that the best explanation for such
large numbers of people following Shenoute is their need for security during a time of instability. My argument focuses less on the monks motivations and more on the resources that the
monastery provided. Cf. Veilleux, Preface in Besa, Life.
84. The rules focus on equality of quantity, dened as giving food to people in any fashion
from ones portion, whether relatives of theirs, or strangers, whether poor or orphans or sick, or
lame or blind, or any other person at all. Upon those who dare to do this within these congre-
186
Notes to Pages 2223
gations at any time Jesus will pour his curses and his anger, not his blessings and his mercy, as
they suppose. These are the practices of people who refuse to submit to the law of the community (Leipoldt, Opera 4:87). For a discussion of equality of quality, of choice versus lesser
types of food, see ibid.: Leipoldt, Opera 4:8788 = Sz 524 (Schenute 116).
85. In their goodness, our fathers condescended to permit us to be given a few bits of bread
outside the refectory not only because of our weakness but that so no one of us should be deceived by a theft or a robbery (Leipoldt, Opera 4:5657).
86. No one among us, whether male or female, including the ones who rule over these
congregations at any time shall set apart their bread, or their clothing, or shall eat alone in private outside the place where all the brethren eat their bread (Leipoldt, Opera 4:104 = Sz 527
[Schenute 117]).
87. As for men who have worked strenuously doing choreseither reaping rushes, or
plucking palm-leaves, or gathering date-palm bers, or grinding grain or baking at the time of
bread makingin short every chore in which they might labor beyond their ability, [the elder]
is the one who will determine when they are in need and will order them to eat a little and
drink a cup of water (Leipoldt, Opera 4:54). Whenever the elder sees someone who has suffered in the ascetic way of life, or indeed in any other thing, for the sake of God, and he compels them to eat, he is responsible for his deed (ibid.: Opera 4:60).
88. And whenever people become sick among us, whether male or female, and need to eat
in the inrmary and ask for a little oil for the salted sh or the salt or the charlock or any dish
of this sort, it shall be given to them in the amount which is ordained and they shall not pass
beyond that to excess (Leipoldt, Opera 4:55). This list follows the list of things usually forbidden to the monks; cf. n. 48. The leniency for the sick monks is noted by Leipoldt rst on
page 120 but also throughout the section on the sick (Schenute 12024).
89. Leipoldt, Opera 4:8586 = Sbm 200 (Schenute 123). Leipoldt notes this as part of his
emphasis on the meager amount of food allowed to the monks. It should be noted that he does
not take into account the rules allowing for additional eating, although they are recorded in
the material he used.
90. And whenever a man in our community, or a woman in your community, vows not to
eat or not to drink for two or three or four days, or more, for the sake of God, and certain others adjure them and compel them to eat, those latter are committing sin. And these others who
compelled them will not elude evil; for those who said, We will eat on the day when we said
that we would eat and then they did not eat are better in the eyes of God than the ones who
said, We will not eat on the day which we said we would not eat and then they do eat
(Leipoldt, Opera 4:5960). See also ibid.: Opera 4:8081= Sbm 169, which is identical to Sz
525 (cited on Leipoldt, Schenute 119); this passage also discusses the elders role in not hindering fasting.
91. The Lenten fast of forty days is described at Leipoldt, Opera 4:58: During the forty days
of Lenten fast, absolutely no person among us shall get possession of bread, whether male or female, whether a senior person, or junior, until having completed all of it from the rst week until the beginning of Easter. See also Kuhn, Fifth Century Abbott 186. That elderly monks
were exempt: A man, whenever he becomes very old, or a woman, whenever she becomes very
old, among us, shall not be made beyond their own desire to perform two-day fasts, even in Lent
and even in Holy Week (Leipoldt, Opera 4:84 = Sbm 169 [Schenute 120]).
92. See ch. 2, pp. 3536.
93. Such cases in the womens community are discussed in chs. 2, 5, and 7.
94. Leipoldt bases this claim on the following passage: Pray, have you forgotten the pollutions and the abominations and the stolen booty from the possessions of the altar and the
theft from all quarters and the sin we found among you? (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:68 = Sz 396
[Leipoldt, Schenute 148]).
Notes to Page 24
187
95. Therefore the one who will eat his bread according to the canons laid down for us, let
him eat it righteously so that it shall not become a sin for him, but rather so that the saying
which is written shall say to him, The one who eats, eats for the Lord. For he thanks God
(Leipoldt, Opera 4:78= Sp 5:91 [Leipoldt, Schenute 119]).
96. No one among us shall despise a dish that he is about to eat or that his heart does not
desire, while all the brethren eat it (Leipoldt, Opera 4:85 = Sp 5:41 [Schenute 117]).
97. Leipoldt, Schenute 12324. He cites Sp 3:40 but that reference must be incorrect. The
relevant passage seems to be Leipoldt, Opera 3:11011, but this is nowhere cited in Leipoldts
monograph.
98. Leipoldt cites a parable for the former claim to obedience (Leipoldt, Schenute 124),
while the latter seems to be his opinion (125).
99. All persons who enter these congregations at any time to be monks, whether male or
female, shall not clothe themselves, either with a covering (prhv) or a cloak (rvwn) or anything else from their own belonging brought from outside. This is so that there may be uniformity in everything and that ignorant people may not be inhabited by covetousness for a beautiful garment (Hbsw), or a covering (prhv), or a cloak (rvwn), or anything like this, and so
that none shall say that anything is their own possession. All who persevere to the end in our
community, whether male or female, have all things that belong to us as common property.
Those who give up their perseverance at any point and leave us, or who are expelled because
of the wicked deeds they did in our community, shall own nothing of this from that time on.
Let them be beggars (Leipoldt, Opera 4:166 = Sp 3:29; Schenute 114). However, Leipoldt
argues they were allowed to bring some pieces of material with them into the monastery
(Schenute 114).
100. So Leipoldt, Schenute 114, asserts, citing Leipoldt, Opera 4:104 = Sz 527.
101. Leipoldt notes both Sp 5:76 and 2:13 (Schenute 114). The former text is of doubtful
attribution according to Emmel (Emmel, Corpus 1217). The latter, Amlineau, Oeuvres
2:313, reads: Who among us will say, I was not at leisure? Tell me: did the weight of this ages
deeds and the many earthly matters weigh heavy upon us? Was any among us rich and another
poor, so that I say, or rather he says, The suffering of poverty and the laziness[?] of wealth weigh
heavy upon us? Tell me, do we not all have uniformity in everything, in food, in clothing, in
all bodily needs?
102. Chitty, Desert 22, gives the description of the physical layout of a Pachomian
monastery, which most argue Pcol and Shenoute used as a model.
103. James Goehring has argued that desert withdrawal was more a literary device for describing the monks renunciation than an actual movement into the remote desert (Goehring,
Withdrawing from the Desert: Pachomius and the Development of Village Monasticism in
Upper Egypt, HTR 89:3 [1996]: 26785).
104. Leipoldt, Schenute 9293 and 9597. The location of the womens community was
taken by Leipoldt to be in the village. The rule material often refers to the village, saying that
some rule should also be followed by those in the village. It also occasionally refers to the female elder who is in the village (Leipoldt, Opera 4:81), on at least one occasion to the congregation which is in the village (Opera 4:107), and on another to the community of the
brethren which is in the village (where brethren can mean female monks; see ch. 5, p. 00)
(4:69). As Elm points out (Virgins, 302), there may have been two communities of women, one
in the village and one not, given a reference to two different mothers she cites (Leipoldt, Opera
4:108). At the same time, however, mother is a loose term in the womens community and does
not mean (as in modern convents) the overseer of the community, for which position the elder
was used (see ch. 4, pp. 7778). Since there has not been any signicant archaeological excavation of the remains of the White Monastery other than the church building and since the
location of the womens community(s) separate from the mens is most likely lost to us,
188
Notes to Pages 2425
Shenoutes elliptic phrases remain a mystery for the time being. Elm, Virgins 290, notes that Pachomius also built the female community for his monastic system closer to the village; cf. 299,
for the phrase monastic compound to describe Shenoutes monastery and for her discussion
of the problem of locating the womens community.
105. Elm, Virgins 303.
106. No man or woman shall live alone, according to what is written for all of us, whether
lame or blind, or any person at all (Leipoldt, Opera 4:157 = Sp 3:25 [Schenute 98]).
107. Leipoldt expresses this opinion to explain why Shenoutes living arrangments differed
from Pachomiuss system, which did allow living alone (Schenute 98). However, Chitty argues
that at least in Palladius day there were three monks to a cell in the Pachomian system, due
to the number of monks who had joined (Chitty, Desert 22). While the section that Leipoldt
cited makes no explicit reference to the cell-mates as policing their companions, elsewhere
Shenoutes rule does advocate reporting transgressions to ones superior.
108. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity 226.
109. For the more dated view, see Jean-Michel Carri, Lgypte au IVe Sicle: Fiscalit,
conomie, Socit Proceedings of the XVI International Congress of Papyrology (Chico, 1981):
43146. Roger Bagnall argues against an economic crisis, however.
110. At exactly the same period, however, when farmers might have expected to make
their own way, unrestrained by their neighbors they found themselves thrown back upon each
other by the increased weight of taxation, which rested on the village as a whole (Peter
Brown, The Making of Late Antiquity [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978], 84f).
For the exemption of the White Monastery from taxation, see Brown, Power and Persuasion
141. Brown does not give evidence for his assertion that the more tangible miracle of an imperial tax exemption for the lands of the White Monastery soon followed. In contrast, the Pachomian monasteries of the same period have records of tax receipts, but these monasteries
may have been using more valuable land closer to the village than the male community of the
White Monastery was (Goehring, Withdrawing 284).
111. Leipoldt, Schenute 112. As has been mentioned, all scholarship on life in the White
Monastery mentions the monks economic motivations for joining the monastery.
112. Leipoldt writes that just as the White Monastery looked like a fortress from the outside, so the monks lives were militaristically regulated within (Schenute 98). However, following Butler, he has mistakenly assumed that the church building that still stands was the
monastery building during Shenoutes time. His description of the relationship between
Shenoutes regulations and the surviving architecture are therefore suspect (see Butler, Ancient Coptic Churches 1:35159). Leipoldts disapproval about the extent and the control of
Shenoutes monastic code has inuenced later studies of Shenoutes leadership. Elm serves as
an example, but she has made some noteworthy corrections. Bell writes that there was no part
of the running of the monastery and no action of any monk that was beneath his attention
(Besa, Life 9). In contrast, Kuhn notes that of the actual rules governing daily life in the
monasteries, little can be learned from Besas writings. There is some information about rules
for the sick and for eating (Kuhn, Fifth-Century Abbot 183).
113. Cursed is the one who practices deceit among us secretly saying, They have not
brought any accusation against me for what I do in private. All these curses will come upon
them, man and woman alike (Leipoldt, Opera 4:170 = Sp 5:14). Other evidence provided by
Leipoldt includes the reporting of transgressions (Opera 4:15960 = Sp 3:26), an uncertain
Shenoute text (Sp 2:49) and the need for two or three witnesses when monks reported the
transgressions of others (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:98 = Sp 1:52). Cf. Leipoldt, Schenute 14041.
114. Veilleux notes the security that a community like Shenoutes could provide but then
claims that it is false: In a massively insecure society, the strongly structured form of monasticism at the White Monastery and the very strong personality of the prophet Shenoute (for so
Notes to Pages 2527
189
he is called) provided thousands of Egyptian fellahin with the dose of security they needed to
quiet their existential and religious anguish (A. Veilleux, preface to Besa, Life x).
115. The focus on this boundary, the use of the body to represent it and Shenoutes concern about hierarchy all suggest that the White Monastery would be a high grid, high group
society in Mary Douglass theory of the composition of societies (Douglas, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology [New York: Pantheon, 1970], 5464, 5960 for diagrams). This understanding of the symbolic universe of Shenoute and his monks indirectly informs my analysis.
116. The word for dele, pollute, jwHm, recurs frequently in both Shenoute and Besas
works as a description for unspecied transgressions; it may have served as a reminder of the
oath. See Kuhn, Fifth Century Abbott 184.
117. Douglas, Natural Symbols 6581.
118. Leipoldt, Schenute 145. Leipoldt does not cite Shenoutes rule aimed at regulating the
emotional response to expulsion of, or desertion by, other monks: Let no kind person who fears
God among us, whether male or female, be pained because of people who ee from these congregations, or who are thrown out, so long as I live (Opera 4:104).
119. The discussion that follows is based on evidence that occurs throughout Shenoutes
letters to the female community, all of which will be discussed and cited in later chapters.
120. Masturbation would also have been forbidden. It is not yet known whether
Shenoutes position on nocturnal emissions has survived in either the rules or in his letters.
121. My analysis here is informed by ideas in Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality, Volume
1: An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Random House, 1978).
122. The positions of authority had titles, most often elder and house-person (which
Leipoldt calls house-leader), but people in authority were often called just father or
mother. Thus, a woman called mother could have held a variety of positions of authority,
but if called the elder, only one. These terms are further complicated by the fact that monks
of more senior rank were usually refered to as the elder monks. Elms general description of
the hierarchy leaves out the mothers of the houses and the overlap between both the elders and
the house-leaders who served as additional mothers: The female community followed the
same organizational principles as the male ones. It was guided by a mater et anus or mother
and elder (thllo), who was, in turn, assisted by a second and a committee of elder sisters. See
chapter 4, pp. 7779 for further discussion.
123. According to the ordinances laid down for us, whoever witnesses a deed within these
congregations at any time shall speak to no one ever at all but the people of the house and especially the rulers of these holy places. This is to ensure that no disturbance may exist among
the brethren. The fathers of the houses do not ever hide anything from the governors of these
congregations. They shall observe this rule also in the village. Whenever the mothers who are
in authority in that place shall have certain knowledge of any deed, they shall write to [the fathers] about it, and send [the letter] to them to see what it is appropriate to do. If their answer
is pleasing to God, then the blood [of the sinners] will be upon themselves and their sentence
will rest upon the house leaders and those appointed alongside them and all who give an account to God for all the souls who have ever been entrusted to them, whether male or female,
within these holy places (Leipoldt, Opera 4:15960 = both Sp 3:4 and 3:26 [idem, Schenute
127). See also Schenute 135.
124. Twelve times a year the elder will make his monthly visitation of all the houses of the
community. He will examine all the cells in each house, every window and every vessel in
which the portions allotted to them are received, in order to ascertain whether they have more
than what is specied in the rules, or whether someone has done a wicked deed by taking any
item into his cell beyond the rule laid down. The same rule will apply in our small community
to the north. The father there will act in the same way, as well as those appointed by him. He
shall inform the elder of every wicked thing which he nds in his communitypollutions,
190
Notes to Pages 2728
thefts, small amounts of bread above what is allotted found among the monks possessions, or
any other thing at all like this. He shall not hide any wicked deed at all from him. The female
elder shall do the same (Leipoldt, Opera 4: 58 = Sbm 168 [Schenute 138]).
125. A rule outlines the order of the hierarchy in the monastery: After the father . . . is his
second . . . and all the others whom he has acquired as counselors. . . . God will cross-examine
these two about everything . . . so also [God] will cross-examine every house-person and their
seconds . . . so also he will cross-examine the mother of the congregation and the one who
comes after her, her second, and all the others who are in agreement with them (Leipoldt,
Opera 4:44). This rule seems to be the basis for Elms description (n. 122 here), but as with most
of the rules, the reality was more complicated.
126. See chapter 5, pp. 11618, for a discussion of rules secluding the women.
127. Whenever there is an occasion for brethren to go to a place where there are people,
the brethren shall walk in a group. And whenever someone gets outside of the group, the rest
will wait for their companions until they are gathered together again. Afterwards they shall
walk to the place where they are going (Leipoldt, Opera 4:158 = Sp 3:25 [Schenute 146]). Female monks were not allowed to leave the monastery, as will be discussed in chapter 5.
128. Whenever the brethren of our community go for a day to the small community and
the brethren who are in the small community come for a day to our community, or if they go
south to the community of brethren which is in the village to bury a woman who has died, it is
very good not to speak much on the roads but to meditate until they arrive at our community
or the small community (Leipoldt, Opera 4:69).
129. No physician among us shall heal an outsider, not even for wages but also not free of
charge. . . . All the more, cursed is anyone who might treat a woman outsider, or treat the genitalia of a man in the environs of the congregation, or anywhere else (Leipoldt, Opera 4:160
61 = Sp 3:26 [Schenute 146]). An interesting side-note here is that Shenoute makes the same
rule for women who were doctors as well: Just as it happens among us, so also it shall be for the
ones in the village. No female doctors within these congregations at any time shall behave in
this way (Leipoldt, Opera 4:161).
130. Leipoldt (Schenute 141) cites Opera 4:46 (= Sp 1:87), where this is at least true for the
monks who worked in the areas of service to other monks. It also seems that female monks who
were caught in transgression could be sent back to the gatehouse, where novices lived.
131. Leipoldt, Schenute 140. While not discussing corporal punishment, Rousseau also argues for more impersonal relationships in communal monasticism, as compared to the close
teacher-disciple relationship that characterized solitary monasticism (Rousseau, Ascetics 33).
Shenoute does express pain and concern about his use of corporal punishment, however, even
though he ultimately defends it as appropriate (see my chapter 2).
132. Amlineau, Oeuvres 2:310. In his defense of his authority to determine corporal punishment, in Canon 4, Shenoute repeatedly uses the word paideuein to refer to the beatings.
For him, the beatings are the instructions through which one learns to imitate the life of the
saints. See chapter 3.
133. This discrepancy was noted earlier in examining the various views of life within the
White Monastery. It is especially Shenoutes use of corporal punishment that leads modern
scholars to denigrate his leadership in comparison to Pachomiuss.
134. Both Leipoldt (Schenute 14143) and Elm (Virgins 305) quote this text at length.
135. Leipoldt notes that Shenoutes blows to the men tossed them to the ground; thus the
men were not sitting on the ground, having their feet beaten as the women did (Leipoldt,
Schenute 143). He also notes the death of a monk (cf. chapter 2). For the former description,
see Sz 380 and for the latter, see Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:3773.
136. Young, Manuscripts 96 (109).
Notes to Pages 2832
191
137. She has perpetrated iniquities by degenerate conduct and also she has stolen. . . . She
talks back and without cause quarrels hardheartedly with her instructor and with many (others) and she has slapped the female elder or hit her on the head. . . . She is immature in understanding and knowledge. . . . She hastens to Tsansno with friendship and a carnal desire . . .
whose mouth has learned to speak lies and hollow words . . . [she] who says, I teach others
(Young, Manuscripts 1035 [11213]). Elm also provides a translation (Virgins 305).
138. Some of the rules address concerns about the spread of ideas among the monks. There
was a rule that controlled the reading of unfamiliar books (Leipoldt, Opera 4:72).
139. Besa, Life 1011. Bells point, however, may be accurate for those monks who joined
the monastery under economic distress.
140. Kuhn, Fifth Century Abbott 178. Desertion also happened under Shenoute, as
the rule outlawing continued concern for deserters shows (Leipoldt, Opera 4:104). See also
Schenute 110.
141. Kuhn, Fifth Century Abbott 176.
142. Leipoldt, Schenute 144.
143. Leipoldt argues this (Schenute 14445). Cf. Opera 4:104 = Sz 527. This seems to be
more the case than Elms claim that expulsion was effective; the monks may have feared expulsion, but any penalty that caused the amount of disruption expulsion did is not effective.
144. Leipoldt, Opera 3:19394 (= Sp 1:5) but such language recurs frequently in
Shenoutes letters; in the sources for this study, it is especially frequent in My Heart Is Crushed.
145. In contrast with Leipoldts assessment that it was unchristian (Leipoldt, Schenute 144).
2. Womens Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

1. We know from the last page of Canon 2 (YC 176) that there were ve letters in the
canon. Emmel concludes his summaries of Canon 1 (80214) and Canon 2 (81423), In any
case, Canons 1 and 2 together contain a collection of letters from early in Shenoutes career,
marking a series of major crises in the ethical development of the monastery as it grew after
Pcols death (Emmel, Corpus 823). In a letter fragment in Canon 2, Shenoute refers to his
two predecessors, one of whom has died recently (Karl Kuhn, Letters and Sermons of Besa,
CSCO vol. 157 [Louvain: Imprimerie orientaliste 1956], 11718). An early dating of these letters is supported not only by Emmels reconstruction but also by the nature of the crisis that
they reect, which is of a type that is more likely to occur at the beginning of a leaders tenure.
For the letters of Canon 2, Emmel has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that certain
fragments previously attributed to Besa should in fact be attributed to Shenoute; they are contained in Kuhn, Letters 11726, 131, 13233 (frags. 36, 37, 42, 43; Emmel, Corpus 13339
and 80217).
2. In several of the nine letters, Shenoute refers to a previous letter that he wrote to the
women about the crisis. It seems that Shenoute did not include these other letters in his
canons, although it is possible that he is referring to a letter fragment for which we do not have
the title.
3. These narratives will show the interest I have in issues of power, gender, and kinship,
and should be suggestive to the reader. They will also serve as the basis for the later analysis and
therefore will necessarily repeat throughout those chapters.
4. Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza, Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1
Corinthians New Test. Stud. 33 (1987): 386403 provides an example of the type of methodology that is necessary for how I intend to read these letters.
5. The corpus of thirteen letters I have used throughout this study is based on their assignment as letters to women by both Leipoldt and Emmel. My corpus, which is based on Emmels
192
Notes to Pages 3233
dissertation and consultation with him, is a more conservative list than Leipoldts. Yet I anticipate that, as more of Shenoutes works are published and translated, more addresses to female
monks will be found throughout the Canons and will enhance my description. See, for example, Dwight W. Young, Five Leaves from a Copy of Shenutes Third Canon Muson 113
(2000): 284, n. 99. See Emmel, Corpus 1239 for Leipoldts list, Briefe an die Nonnen. I discuss cases of uncertainty about the audience in footnotes.
6. For a more detailed discussion of the surviving fragments of Canon 2 and their relationship with one another, see Emmel, Corpus 81423. The four letters that discuss this crisis are
recorded by ve different manuscripts. I refer to the manuscript pages by the letter names Emmel has assigned to them: XC, XL, YC, YD, and ZE.
7. I argue that all the letters relate to a single crisis for three reasons. First, Emmel has argued that Shenoute organized these letters himself, thereby suggesting that he had some rationale for their grouping (Emmel, Corpus 793). Second, Shenoute refers to events of the crisis throughout the letters, thus connecting them into a cohesive group. Third, my exegesis of
the letters suggest that they all address a period in which one major issue, Shenoutes establishment of his authority, was central.
8. Ebonhs tenure is lost to history. Most scholars believe that Shenoutes predecessor was
his uncle, Pcol. Emmel has argued, however, that Shenoute was the third rather than the second archimandrite of the White Monastery. His argument is based on evidence from Canon 1,
which he summarizes on 80214, esp. 81112. Ebonh is the hypothetical name that Emmel assigns to Shenoutes predecessor.
9. eite ouHoite eite ouprhv eite ouvaar/ nesoou eite ouHnaau nouwm eite
Celaau nHnau pthrF (ZE 63: ii.2326). At this point the manuscript becomes damaged but
this seems to be the end of the list.
10. eite euHllo pe eite eunoC nsHime te eite euvhre vhm pe eite euveere
vhm te eite eHenkatasarx ntetuhtn ne eite eHenvmmo ne h Henorfanos emntourwme mmau Hrai nHhtn (ZE 63: ii.215). The terms vhre vhm and veere vhm are here
used as monastic terms for monks who were either still novitiates or newer members of the
monastery.
11. etetnjiCol m;pem/[t]o ebol m=pjoe/is etetNjw m=mos HnHenkasks+ ns/aousa
njioue enetn+erhu je peteountF/rwme m=mau Hm+peima ntoF petouFi m=peFroouv h
ntoF petounaFi peFroouv (ZE 68: i. 721). Although Shenoute does not talk about the
monks who do not have kin, the implication of this statement is clear. The ones who are whispering are whispering about the monks who have kin, which only makes sense if the whisperers do not have kin in the monastery.
12. etbepai mrrlaau nHwb ejwn NHouo enFkh nhtn an eHrai etre{n}tnTlaau
nHnau nHouo nHoine Hatnthutn cwris netkh nhtn eHrai (ZE 64: i.1222). Shenoutes
use of kh eHrai is the clue that this section may be discussing rules for the monastery. See D. W.
Young, Precept: A Study in Coptic Terminology (Or 33 (1969): 50519). Young uses this
verb as the basis for his examination of the variety of words for precept, all of which are the
direct object of this verb.
13. alla Fi proouv ntoF Nnetnerhu HnouHote mnoustwt jekas erepjoeis
smou erwtn nFauzane m=mwtn HnHwb nim Nagaqon (ZE 63: i. 615). It is important to note
the philological connection between this quote and the one above, in n. 11. The phrase Fi
proouv is the main verb of both sections and thus points to the issue that was the basis of the
conict.
14. Hrai NHhtn Hathn h HatNthutn ntwtn (ZE 64: i.1012). Literally, among us ourselves or among you yourselves. These phrases denote the male (us) versus the female
(you) community and they occur frequently throughout Shenoutes letters to the women.
There is no easy translation for them, especially as they often make complex sentences even
Notes to Pages 3334
193
more burdensome. D. Young translates in our domain or jurisdiction, a phrase that I think
suggests that the women had more control in their jurisdiction than Shenoute desired.
15. etbeppeirasmos entaFei eHrai ejwn eijw mos nhtn (ZE 68: ii.712).
16. In XC 219: ii. 2021 there is a great sickness upon Shenoute; in XC 219: ii. 2225,
he walks on my feet because of the great pain in me.
17. And after we did these things, and others, among you, we came and we went during
the night after dawn had passed. Once again we came to you for a third time, while a great sickness was upon us; and I came on foot, because of the pain in my heart. And when we spent all
night, we did not speak many words from Scripture to you. (auw nai mn+Henkooue NterNaau Hatn+thutn auw anei ebol anbwk Hnteuvh etmau auw NtereHtooue oueine
palin on anei varwtn+ m=pmeHvoNt Nsop ereounoC Nvwne Hijwn auw neimoove pe
Hn+naouerhte etbepemkaH etHm+paHht auw Nter=nr= t
= euvh thrs+ enjw nhtn+ NHenmhhve an Nvaje ebol Hn+negrafh [XC 219: ii.1030]). Shenoute here switches between we
and I; the we could either be a plural self-reference, which is not uncommon in Shenoutes
rhetoric, or could include the male elders who accompanied Shenoute on some of these visits.
18. These two men are included in Shenoutes later defense of his visits: Shenoute also
and Papnoute are innocent of your blood (Kuhn, Letters 117 [114]). Throughout this study, I
have used my revisions of the translations in Karl Kuhns edition. The amount of revision
varies from slight to extensive. All citations will be noted K. rev. without indication of the
level of revision. Throughout my notes, Kuhn references are rst to the page of the volume of
Coptic text and second to the page of the volume of English translations.
19. Who among our fathers from the beginning came to you (pl.), commanding to you an
oath from the Lord? Or on which day did our rst father, who has [died], come to you, speaking with you in person as a witness to you? Or which time did he ever come, speaking to you
concerning these things? Or our other reverend father [come], the one who has recently [died],
except about this thing only, that he come and appoint the eucharist, and he then left and went
away without having seen you (Kuhn, Letters 117118 [113]). K. rev.
20. Examples of tearing clothing as a gesture of grief and frustration come from both the
Old Testament (see Job 1:20 for one example) and the New (see Acts 13). It was also a common gesture of mourning in antiquity.
21. eie etbeou Ce anon ennapwH an NnenHoite eHrai eHNnennobe ebol je
m=pn+evCm+Com epwH m=penHht (XC 219: i. 39).
22. Ntereouei mmwtn joos nai je aHrok ekpwH NneHoite (XC 219: i.1216).
23. Kuhn, Letters 117 (113). K. rev. It is at this point that he includes Papnoute and
Shenoute, as well as other male monks, in his defense.
24. auw anok ainouCs emate Hm+paHht Hn+ounoC Norgh jeou monon je asjepai
alla jeNtos Hwws on nepetevve eros pe etrespwH pesHht eneouNCom pe
auw nesHoite an auw pjoeis sooun jeNsabhl jeaiT so etbepna pjoeis
neinar=nesHoite poCe sn+[t]e eHrai Hiwws (XC 219: i.1632).
25. Kuhn, Letters 118 (114). K. rev.
29. Elm argues that there was a male elder who resided permanently among the women.
However, the evidence Elm uses for her generalization is based more on Shenoutes ideal,
which seems to have grown out of these early controversies, rather than on the evidence for
the struggles over that ideal (Elm, Virgins 3023).
30. When Shenoute outlines the rules about womens movement in the monastery in
Canon 5, he indicates that some of the rules continue the practice of his predecessors. No
woman among you shall, at any time, come to us in order to visit their blood relatives even if
194
Notes to Pages 3435
they are sick or have died. Women shall not be permitted to come to visit them or go to their
people, as they could formerly, until our rst father undertook to prevent any of you from visiting any blood relatives of yours when sick, or to come and see their kin (Leipoldt, Opera
4:61).
31. Shenoutes description, your children and your brethren and your menfolk and all
your relatives, is from Kuhn, Letters 12122 (117). For a complete list from this section of
Canon 2, see chapter 8, pp. 17173.
32. See Kuhn, Letters 12122 (117).
33. Although not as compelling an explanation, the possibility that Shenoute is merely rejecting a request for visits does exist. One might well imagine the women writing to Shenoute,
arguing, Since youve visited us, we assume we may also visit the mens community. Upon
hearing that they were not allowed this, one woman might have answered, Well, then, why is
Shenoute visiting us? And why did he tear his cloak? and thus the conict grew. However,
while I think that the two issues of visitationthe womens to the mens community and
Shenoutes to the womenswere in conict, I think it more likely that the women simply
took it upon themselves to visit the men, to which Shenoute objected.
36. Kuhn, Letters 122 (11718). K. rev. Another issue is whether the men were allowed to
visit the women. Having read through Emmels summaries of all the Canons, there is no indication that an equivalent letter exists. However, Shenoute may well have spoken to the men
personally more easily than the women. In the Pachomian monastic system, there was a rule
against the men visiting the womens monastery, except in the case of blood relatives. Let us
speak also about the monastery of virgins: No one shall go to visit them unless he has there a
mother, sister, or daughter, some relatives or cousins, or the mother of his own children. If they
do visit, they shall be accompanied by a man of proven age and life (Veilleux, Pachomian
Koinonia [Cistercian Studies, vol. 45 (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1980)]
2:16667). See chapter 8 for more on relatives within the monastery.
38. Tme eueje aur=Houo erwtn+ Hn+oumetanoia mn+ oumn+tvanHthF auw piebihn
etm+pva an NopF; erwm/e/ eteanok pe (XC 253: i. 815).
39. etraHmoos eHrai HjNoutrapeza eouwm h esw . . . auw tai te qe evaiouwm
m=poeik auw Ntasw m=pmoou evaisooF eHmoos eHrai Hm+pma etm=mau (XC 253: ii. 117).
The context here is obscure because this is one of the more badly damaged of the manuscripts;
however, it is certain that he is addressing the female community. His reference to a separate
eating area thus seems to suggest an alienation from that community, but this remains open to
interpretation.
40. For we are wretched people before the Lord whenever we think about our sins. But I
say these things to you so that we might repent. For there is one who pities us (who is God) and
there is one who has compassion on us (who is the Lord Jesus) (gar anon Hentalaipwros
m=pemto ebol m=pjoeis envanmeeue ebol enennobe alla eijw nhtn+ Nnai jekas enemetanoi Hws eouNpetna Haron etepnoute pe auw Hws eouNpetvanHthF Haron
e/pepjoeis is pe [XC 254: i. 417]).
41. auw evwpe tai te ntasei eji etressoutntoot ebol etreouwt Ntoote
eros emate Hmpetswt auw etreT nas nmpeto nnoC emate auw etrHouo evwpe
de tai te ntasei eji etressoutn+toot ebol epetCojb= auw epetsobk+ etrestaas
eHrai etoots+ ntaI nqe nnebihn (YD 193: i.831). Since reclining while eating was a practice in antiquity, it might be that the stretching here refers to that. However, reclining seems
to have been on the decline by late antiquity and it is questionable whether women engaged
in this practice. For further discussion on reclining, see Katherine M. D. Dunbabin, Triclin-
Notes to Pages 3536
195
ium and Stibaldium, in Dining in a Classical Context, ed. William J. Slater (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991), 12148. For discussion about reclining, women and sexual
advances, see Alan Booth, The Age for Reclining and Its Attendant Perils, in Slater, Dining
in a Classical Context, 10520.
42. This you served again after you found her (pai Ntatetn+kaaF eHrai nkesop
NtertetnCn [YD 194: i. 2631]). We know from Shenoutes rules that all monks were required to attend the daily meal, even if they were fasting. Thus, it seems unlikely that this provision refers to nding a woman who had not attended the meal, but rather nding her somewhere among the women who were gathered together.
43. auw Hotan esvanei eji nCitai eterepetnouwv Hiwws etetnsoouN eros
peto NnoC (YD 194: i.1926).
44. tCij ntai etoumeeue eros je ntos pe (YD 193: ii.29194:i.1).
45. And on the other hand you take the lesser and smaller portion in order to hand it
to the one you do not feel desire for (auw NtetNFi de HwwF m=petCojb+ auw petsobk+
etreteNtaaF eHrai enCij ntai eterepeNouwv Hiwws an [YD 194: i.1019]).
46. eretouei touei noCneC NtetHitou[ws] etetnvouvou mwtn ejnnetnerhu
HnoumntreFbaabe Nnetnerhu (YD 191: i.817).
47. nta an te etetn+me mmos Hm+petn+ouwv Nsarkikon alla eta NtoF te etetnmoste m=mos etbeje tagaph jhk ebol an HmpetNHht Hntetnmn+treFT (YD 194: i.31
ii.12). It is noteworthy that here Shenoute changed from the more simple desire to the more
particular eshly desire, a phrase used to indicate homoerotic attachment, at this point in
his argument. See Terry Wilfong, Friendship and Physical Desire: The Discourse of Female
Homoeroticism in Fifth-Century CE Egypt, in Lisa Auanger and Nancy Rabinowitz, eds.,
Among Women: From the Homosocial to the Homoerotic in the Ancient World (Austin, Tx.: University of Texas Press, forthcoming, March 2002) for further discussion of homoeroticism in female Egyptian monasticism, including Shenoute.
48. auw ta te qe evareta bwk eHoun epesh esrime auw esavaHom erwtn+ ta
de Hwws etresbwk eHoun epesh esrave auw essmou erwtn+ Hn+oumn+tpetvoueit
(YD 194: ii.1226). There is room for interpretation in Shenoutes vague use of this one
without further qualications. The woman who is weeping and sighing is doing so either because she has not had enough to eat, or because she is the object of these wrongful feelings and
benets. The woman who is rejoicing could be doing so because she is forced into greater asceticism through her smaller portion or she could be, wrongly to Shenoute, thankful for her
good standing. The only indication one has is the adverb describing the rejoicing and blessing, Hnoumntpetvoueit. While this could indicate that the blessings will not result in a
more favored status (and thus more food), it is more likely that the blessings are useless because
of their wrongful origin.
49. The theft from the portion of your companions and the theft from every vessel in the
place where something was usually found (pjioue ebol Hntto Nnenerhu mNpjioue
ebol HNHnaau nim Hpma etevauHe eouon NHhtF [YD 191: i.25ii.1]).
50. This point perhaps borders on an argument from silence. However, it is noteworthy
that in this section of Canon 2 Shenoute addresses both thievery and the favoritism in food distribution. Only in the latter case does he also address the damage to the relationships among
the women. Since maintaining harmony was of such importance to Shenoute, one might reasonably expect him also to attack the problems among the women caused by stealing. His failure to do so suggests that no such problems existed.
51. netepepeumeros rwve eroou seouoNH ebol jepeunoute p/e Hhtou auw
erepeueoou Hm+peuvipe neterepeumeros rwve eroou seouonH ebol name jepnoute pe pnoute auw erepeueoou Hnteuegkrateia na etjioue ebol HNNto Nn/
eusnhu seouoNH ebol jeHenatamaHte ne (YD 192: i.325). He also uses a reference to
196
Notes to Pages 3637
Scripture, The ones who are not satised by their portion reveal that their gods are their bellies and that their glory is in their shame. When their portion satises them, they reveal truly
that God is their God and that their glory is in their self-control. The biblical reference is to
Phillipians 3:19.
52. This threat is implied in the language Shenoute uses to describe what will happen if he
visits the women: It will happen as when someone cuts off and digs up the root of a fruitless
tree in the midst of an abundant wheat eld and the evil tree will fall down since it was destroying everything abundant in its environs (auw snavwpe nqe noua eFvwwt auw eFbolbl ntnoune nouvhn natkarpos Hra Hntmhte noueivHe eFrht nHms enanouou
emate auw nFHe eHra nCipvhn eqoou nFtako nnetmpeFkwte throu etnanouou
[YD 200: ii.120]).
53. We saw his threat of expulsions as a result of these visits in the description in n. 52. He
also expelled people in earlier visits, which seems to be the sense of Therefore I tell you that
if I come to you again it will not be like my rst visit or like the time I wrote to you so that these
people might be alienated from you (etbepa Tj/w/ mmos nhtn je evane/i/ varwtn n/s/navwpe a/n/ nqe nvorp h nqe mpsop ntantnnoou nhtn e/tr/ e
/ na rvmmo erwtn [YD
201: ii. 1323]).
54. If you are very straight in the presence of the Lord, and it is I who am crooked before him, then let God listen to your prayers, in your community (evje Ntwtn de
tetnsoutwn emate pem=to ebol pjoeis eanok de petCoouC NnaHraF ee marepnoute swtm= epenvlhl HatethuN [YD 205: i.617]).
55. mh anrlaau nHwb Holws ajn+tetn+gnwmh mh Ntwtn+ an pe ntat/e/tn+tNnooun/
etretetn+aHeratthutn+ katanetn+twv (YC 175: i.1927).
56. pHllo . . . eFmokH nHht etbeqe ntaFnau erwtn etetnlupei eHra ejwou auw
ta te qe entauCw epaHou etbensops nnHllo etthv nhtn Hatethutn (YD 202:
i.112).
57. The elder who is pained in the previous note is male. However, whether or not the
elders are all men, or both men and women, remains ambiguous in Coptic.
58. As evidenced by Shenoutes use of 1 Cor.1:12.
59. NtatetnTou nau nasou etreuvwpe nhtn nHmHal (YC 175: ii. 69).
60. h evje NtetnaFi proouv an Nna nim ntoF= [p]etnaFi roouv Harwtn+ (YC 175:
ii.26).
61. ene m=mn+Com on mmwtn+ {pe} neinaCn+ar/ ike erwtn+an pe (YC 175: ii.913).
62. You, Tachom, tell me through your father and your brother why you are not in agreement with the female elder. Behold, I will send them to you. If you (pl.) do agree with your
companions lovingly, then forgive these [words] because I have sinned against you (pl.) and I
troubled you by my words (auw nto taHwm matamo ebol jitnpoueiwt mnpouson je
etbeou ntetnsoutwn an mnqllw eisHhhte Tnatnnoouse ne evje tetntht je
nHht mnnetnerhu Hnoume eekw na ebol je arnobe erwtn aTHise nhtn+ Hnnavaje [YD 206: i.219]).
63. You (pl.) must perfect your love towards your companions so that all people might walk
uprightly. If you (pl.) will become an evil leaven, then who is it who will become a good leaven?
If you (pl.) and your companions walk crookedly, then who is it (f.) among you who will walk in
equality with her neighbor? (etreteNjwk ebol ntetnagaph eHoun enetnerhu
jekas erep/laos thrF+ moove eNousooutn+ evje tetnavwpe nouqab eFHoou ee
nim petnavwpe nouqab enanouF evje tetnamoove Hn+ouCwouC mnneNerhu ee
nim tetnamoove Hn+ouvwv mntet Hitouws Hatethutn+ [YD 206: ii.630]).
64. . e navCmCom . e/Ha NNvaje throu etmpaHht oua oua alla evwpe
NtetNHensabe eutetnaeime epjwk HiNHenkou (YC 176: ii. 412).
65. The suriving fragment is published in Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:17.
Notes to Pages 3740
197

70. The source is a letter entitled Abraham Our Father, preserved in Canon 3. Most of the
letter is published in Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:1835. The last eight manuscript pages were unpublished when I wrote my dissertation and during much of the revision process (Emmel, Corpus 826). They have recently been published (Young, Five Leaves). I have altered some of
my translations to take into account corrections from Young, to whom I am grateful for personal correspondence on this matter. I have removed the Coptic from my notes, since the text
is now available, but kept the references to the manuscript letters (YA) assigned by Emmel and
used by Young. It is believed that this letter is addressed only to the female community based
on its subject matter and the fact that Shenoutes language addresses not the monastery as a
whole, but only your [female] community.
71. YA 553: i.31ii.15.
72. YA 553: i.1524.
73. YA 553: ii.18YA 554: ii.14.
74. In Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:1720 the list includes Sarah, Rebecca, and Rachel. Later he
includes other mother gures such as Anna and the mother of the prophet Samson, and Elizabeth, the mother of John (1:2021).
75. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:20. There is a lacuna between the list of biblical women and this
conclusion, but given Shenoutes rhetoric style it seems most likely that the examples of the
biblical women at least contributed to the conclusion.
77. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:24. Also, P.Oxy. 16:1895 is a contract of adoption from a widow
who was unable to continue to support her daughter. It is a sixth-century document, a bit later
than our time period, but gives a good example of the type of adjustments families made to economic hardship.
79. For the rst point: Therefore let no one in our community or in your community pour
forth the gift of the Lord so as to avoid caring for others who had taken up residence with them
with Gods help (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:31).
81. Only a fragment of this letter is preserved (Canon 4); the beginning and the end are lost
and there is a lacuna in the middle of the fragment. Text and translation are in Young, Manuscripts 91113. Only part of the fragment is translated in Leipoldt, Schenute 142f, with English
by Elm, Virgins 305. The letter fragment is addressed unambiguously and exclusively to the female community, based on subject matter.
82. Portions of this letter, published and translated by Leipoldt, serve as the basis for both
his and Elms analysis of the relationships between Shenoute and the women. Thus, Elm
notes, [c]ontroversies, strife, at times open rebellion, were part of life in the White
Monastery. Maintaining control over his numerous followers was one of Shenoutes main
concerns (Elm, Virgins 304); and However, precisely these two issuesShenoutes insistence on being always informed as well as the fact that he alone, and in his absence, the elder
father, had ultimate control over disciplinary matterscaused the greatest rifts (306). Elm
is right in this general assessment. It is my purpose here, however, to explore the dynamics of
authority and power struggles further, as Elm herself suggests is necessary (309). In addition,
Elm believes that the male elder lived among the women. I am less certain, since it is clear
that at least one male elder made periodic visits to the women, although it is unclear how long
these visits lasted.
198
Notes to Pages 4042
83. Young, Manuscripts 9495 (109). Y. rev. Shenoute here uses a term that is rare in
Sahidic, alou vhm, rather than the more common vhre vhm, because he has already coopted
the latter term as part of his monastic terminology. Use of it here would confuse to his monastic audience.
84. Young, Manuscripts 95 (109) and 10607 (113). Y. rev. The theme of the male elders
authority repeats several times: Therefore, nothing exists to prevent him now from acting in
accordance with what pleases God when he comes to youwhether they are those upon
whom he wishes to impose punishment when they are alone in their cells or those whom he
wishes to punish at the gatehouse, or those whom he wishes to strike so that he may deal them
blows according to that which they deserve (9596 [109]). Y. rev. Also, Now, if he wishes to
add to [the amount of] these blows, he is responsible; it is a good thing that he will do. Moreover, if he wishes to subtract from them, he is the one who knows [what to do]. If he wishes to
expel someone, he is responsible (106 [113]). Y. rev.
85. The two apparent exceptions seem to be a sarcastic utterance, described below.
86. Young, Manuscripts 9496 (109). Y. rev.
87. I can see no other teaching or message to tell you but that which is clear to my mind:
if God wishes, I am about to come to you (Young, Manuscripts 98 [110]). Y. rev.
90. Young, Manuscripts 92 (108). Y. rev. Also, Now if you hide any evil deed in your community from us from today forward, we will have a great hostility toward you in our hearts. And
we will spend all our time caring for our companions as strangers, either we or you. . . . Now if
you tell us every evil deed that will happen in your community from today forward, we will have
a great peace in our hearts toward you. And we will spend all our time, we and you, caring for
our companions as brethren and as fellow-companions to our neighbors, we and you (Young,
Manuscripts 9697 [110]). Y. rev.
98. Young, Manuscripts 92 (108 nn. 412 and 414). Y. rev. I believe this entire section of
Shenoutes transfer of power from him to the women is sarcastic rather than a real transfer, in
light of all the arguments that follow it.
99. The male elder shall do all these [ beatings] with his [own] hands on the bottom of the
[womens] feet as they are made to sit on the ground, and as the female elder and Tachom and
other senior women assist him by holding them for him, and as the other female elders, who
are there with them also assisting him, hold rods over their feet for him until he ceases chastising them, as I have also done formerly. And he will tell me about any who oppose him in anything when he comes to me (Young, Manuscripts 1056 [113]). Y. rev. See Elm, Virgins 306 for
her analysis of this evidence.
100. She has perpetrated iniquities by degenerate conduct and also she has stolen: thirty
blows. . . . She has stolen some things: twenty blows. . . . She talks back and without cause
quarrels hardheartedly with her instructor and with many [others] and she has slapped the female elder or hit her on the head: twenty blows. . . . She is immature in understanding and
knowledge: fteen blows. . . . She hastens to Tsansno with friendship and a carnal desire: fteen blows . . . [she] whose mouth has learned to speak lies and hollow words: fteen blows . . .
[she] who says, I teach others: forty blows with a rod, because at times she hastened to her
Notes to Pages 4245
199
neighbor in friendship and at times she also lied (Young, Manuscripts 1035 [11213]). Elm
also provides a translation (Virgins 305). Elm explores the interesting hierarchy of the sins of
the women: Clearly, lying, the failure to make appropriate disclosures, attempts to teach others and general disobedience were the most threatening offenses and thus punished hardest,
the penalties surpassing even those for stealing and sexual desire for other sisters (Elm, Virgins
3056).
101. Tapolles sister, Tsophia, was given ten blows, a lighter sentence, but her transgression
was not made explicit: And I know for what deed they will be given to her. And her sister,
Tapolle, they should be given to her too but because of God and the worry on her mind we forgive her this time (Young, Manuscripts 104. Y. rev). Elm suggests in her translation that
Tapolle is also forgiven because she was too fat to bear the beating: Because I know that she is
very fat and round and could not tolerate [the beatings] well (Elm, Virgins 305). Young, however, takes the singular feminine pronoun in reference to the garment Tapolle wore and supports his translation with references to other garment metaphors in Shenoutes letters (Young,
Manuscripts 113 and n. 491). Also, the last sentence describing Tapolles transgression makes
less sense with Elms translation: For it is heavy and very wide. And if you are clever, you ought
to understand that breadth and thickness. For the Coptic, see Young, Manuscripts 1045.
102. Young, Manuscripts 1045 (11213). Y. rev. He notes that in a friendship suggests
that it was a sexual advance.
103. See Terry Wilfong forthcoming, which discusses this evidence for female homoeroticism and its implications at length.
104. A short fragment, the rst of four preserved in Canon 6, published in part by Amlineau (Oeuvres 2:30911) but without the nal page of the fragment (Emmel, Corpus 833).
The letter fragment is unambiguously addressed to the female community only, based on subject matter.
107. But let me hear that you have murmured, or talked back in any way and the male
elder will send you to the gate-house to receive your penalty! (Amlineau, Oeuvres 2:310).
The text may be corrupt in this passage, as Amlineau has noted.
109. This is the longest of the fragments, published by Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:3773 (Emmel, Corpus 835). This letter fragment perhaps addresses not just the female community. The
ending, which describes the quarrel between the female elder and Tapolle at length, clearly addresses these two women and the female community their conict was affecting. It is certain
that the earlier section addressed at least the female community but may have included the
male community as well. It is included in this study because the issues Shenoute raised did affect the women, albeit not exclusively.
110. Do you indeed love your neighbors or your relatives if you stealthily give them things
to eat? (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:57).
117. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:44. Note his correction.
200
Notes to Pages 4546

124. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:69. See also 1:72. Shenoute made the latter statement about
Tapolle in the midst of a lengthy section appealing to the elder to put aside her anger and her
refusal to be reconciled to Tapolle (1:7173).
129. Do I not consider the things she babbled against you to be sins? (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:70).
132. Shenoute gives a lengthy discussion of the need for forgiveness among all the parties in
questionthe elder, Tapolle, and him. All have hindered one another, apparently in their ability to be a mutually supportive community united for everyones salvation: If she has hindered
you, you also have hindered me. And if you hindered me, then I and you and everyone who is
not willing to forgive their neighbor because they gossiped about them have hindered God so
that he does not forgive us our sins. All need to be reconciled to one another so that God will
reconcile with them and forgive them: If you do not join your heart to hers, how do you know
that Jesus will join your heart to his? Or will he? Forgive your sister and tolerate your companions in the fear of the Lord and you will be perfected by your deeds so that you might be criticized on the day when every hardship will withdraw from us (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:7172).
134. The fragment which lacks both beginning and end, is published by Amlineau,
Oeuvres 1:15058 (Emmel, Corpus 83536).
135. Shenoute uses the image of re to describe the conict that has sparked and spread
throughout the womens community: Until you quench the great ame which burns in the
jealousy of the one whom you call your enemy (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:151).
136. If you did not pay attention in order to know the measurement of the breadth and
height, and the composition, of the re which burned among your community in those days,
because you did not come out from the treasury or the house with its locked doors to see it since
it was not of concern to you to watch it. Others came from their distant cells and they saw it,
but not completely, but they measured the breadth and the height of its ame in order for it not
to become of concern to them (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:151).
137. Shenoute suggests that he has quoted comments by the male leaders who had visited
the women earlier in this letter and in a previous letter: Indeed, those who came to see the
ame of the re which burns in your community, are they not these people who have said, In
the morning we will pass judgment upon [the community], just as I said previously in this letter? . . . just as the one who spoke with her wrote in the rst letter which was read privately in
your community (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:152).
139. O this great illness which I came upon, or which came upon me! Jesus, Jesus, son of
the exalted God, take this illness from my body, or the body, so that the aficted who are anxious about me and who perform night vigils on my account might rest (Amlineau, Oeuvres
1:154).
141. If I am pained (and I am pained and there are others pained along with me because
of those who do devilish deeds in your community), moreover I am greatly in agreement, and
Notes to Pages 4647
201
there are others in agreement with me, because of those who do angelic deeds in your community (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:155).
142. But if per chance there are no faults in their weaving, and if none be found when the
weavers examine them, then I was wrong to approve the cut of the shoulders of the garments
that I wear, because they are broad, indeed, they are wider than my own shoulders and those
who made them should not be blamed (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:15556).
143. Well, then, on my account I will have them made more narrow (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:156).
144. Either I will have them take measurements or I will give measurements to the ones
who made them. But I must try them out! I absolutely will not put them on or wear them with
the shoulders being as narrow as they previously were (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:156).
145. Otherwise, from the beginning certain other monks put away certain garments and
do not wear them. Or else they wear them today out of dire necessity, because they are at a loss
and then the next day or two days later or after several days they put them away, ashamed lest
other monks laugh at them (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:15657).
146. It should be noted that the women appear only to have refused visits for taking measurements, not visits altogether. Their refusal is implied in Shenoutes strenuous arguments for
the visits, apparently against their objections.
147. If there is no mystery in all the sayings which you hear, or all those which are written to your community, then I am senseless since up to now I do not eat bread from your hand
or from your bread. But instead I wear garments from your community, or from among your garments, never accepting any garments from strangers, down to the present. But I eat bread [received] from strangers. Truly, if I do not clothe myself with garments from your community,
how will I know their measurements? Or how will I measure them? Indeed, do you not realize
that if I do not clothe myself with clothes from your community, you will be carefree and will
not have to gure out the type of color or length and breadth and the decorations of garments?
And if, unrelated to the present matter, it were possible to have others make the garments for
the monks, indeed, it might happen that some companions persuade me to clothe myself from
their community, knowing that this is the desire of their companion. Even if this does not happen, the time will come when I will put them away (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:15758).
149. This fragment, called People Have Not Understood, is published in parts. The rst folio is published by W. Pleyte and P. A. A. Boeser, Eptre, in Manuscrits coptes du muse dAntiquits des Pays-Bas Leide (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1897), 40911, to be read with von Lemms
comments (Oscar von Lemm, Koptische Miscellen XXVI: Zur leidener Handschrift Insinger
No. 89, BASURSS, 6th ser., 2: 5560 [1908]). The next three folios are published by Henri
Munier, Manuscrits coptes, CGC Nos. 92019304 (Cairo: Imprimrie de lInstitut franais
darchologie orientale, 1916), 7075. A missing corner of the rst folio remains unpublished.
My thanks are due to Stephen Emmel for sharing his transcription of the reconstructed rst
folio.
150. Just [as you] aficted [your (?) soul] and the souls of others until they made it possible for you to enter the place where you are now [i.e. the monastery], I also fear that you will
afict us until you leave it! (XF frg. 1a). The translation is Emmels (Emmel, Corpus 837).
151. This letter, called My Heart Is Crushed, is 62 pages in length and is largely unpublished. Recently, four pages (XO 63/64 and 79/80), which are in Paris while the rest of the manuscript is in Cairo, were published (Dwight W. Young, Additional Fragments of Shenutes
Eighth Canon APF 44 (1998): 4768). I have kept my translations as they were, but cite
Youngs article for comparison. In addition, I have removed the Coptic from my notes for these
four pages of XO, but kept the XO references, assigned by Emmel. Young has published a translation of XO 63/64 in a second article, Pages from a Copy of Shenutes Eighth Canon, Orien-
202
Notes to Page 47
talia 67 (1998): 6484. It is standard to consider this letter as a letter to women for the same
reason that the long fragment, in n. 109 here, is: it has a direct address to the female elder and
Tapolle. Like the previous fragment, however, this address forms only a portion of the letter.
There seems to be a shift in subject and most of the letter, while denitely directed toward
women, may address both the male and female communities, the congregations.
152. As for the former cloak which I had requested from you so that I could clothe myself
with it . . . I liked its color and its decoration, and others commented on its beauty (XO 63:
ii.825).
153. The moth ate it, infested it and made it full of holes. . . . I want to keep it because of
its choice colors but I am ashamed of its ruinous condition. But most of all, I will be greatly
ashamed to wear it lest any of the others should say something to me afterward, observing that
the moth has eaten it (XO 63:ii. 3264:i.24). Shenoutes defensiveness about the condition
of the cloak suggests that, despite his protestations to the contrary, he bore some responsibility
for its condition. One possibility is that he did not clean it properly, thus either allowing it to
become ruined or open to moth damage. For a description of cleaning techniques in antiquity,
see Bentley Layton, The Soul as a Dirty Garment, Muson 91 (1978): 15569.
154. It was not that I commanded that people not nd it in the place where I put it (until the time came for me to tell you what I am going to do with it) and I am amazed to say that
people did nd it in that place. For they learned that [I] knew that they had found it hidden in
a mixture of choice, beautiful things and necessary, useful things and perishable, useless things.
And they did not say to me, We have found it, or What are you doing with it there? Nor, for
my part, did I ask them as they were nding it since I was not interested in it from the day when
I knew about the moth damage in it (enanouou mn+tmhte nHenken=ka eunar=Hencria
eur=vau auw Ntmhte NHenkenka Nsesmont an oude Nsenar=vau . nouHwb [an] auw
mpoujoos na jeanHe eroF h je ekrou naF mmau oude anok Hw mpijnouou
Hm+ptreuHe eroF epeidh paouwv voop an nHhtF ejwF jinmpeHoou NtasouN
ptako Nqoole n=HhtF [XO 64: ii.1065: i.23]). The Coptic provided is from the unpublished
XO 65, and begins at beautiful things.
155. Since you care about the truth, how can you say that the moth did not damage it?
(XO 64: ii.2431).
156. Otherwise I was not pleased with, nor did I approve of, this linen cloak which you
made for menot equal to the one that I said the moth destroyed ([e]mmon pervwn N[vns]
ntatet[nta]mioF na h Frvau[an] mpent[ajo]os etbh/[htF] jeaqoole takoF
mp[ir=]ana h mp[i]twt on nH[ht] ejwF [XO 65: ii.2266:. i.1]).
157. Therefore, I did not speak freely so that I could go into a crowd wearing it. But you
will ask me why and what fault does it have? First of all, it is heavy on me. For, instead of attaching fringe to it, or [setting] its tassels so that they will be spread apart, or so that when they
get twisted or untwisted over time they will be entwined with the fringe, you have braided upon
it like a tunic or a cloak (etbepa rw mpiparrhsiaze m=mo etraparage Ntmhte Noumhhve eFCoole m=mo alla tetnajoos na jeetbeou h je ou on Nsfama petnHhtF+
vorp+ men je FHorv+ Hijw je epma Ntetn+kw nneFtwwte HiwwF h neFloou jekas
euvanvavou [h] Nsebolou [e]bol mn+N[sa] Henshu [ns]evwpe [eu]olm+ mn+n[lo]ou
ea[tet]NHolkF+ [ej]wF Nqe [n]ouvthn [h] ouprhv [XO 66: i.130]). Leipoldt makes a distinction among the Coptic terms for various articles of clothing (Leipoldt, Schenute 11516).
Shenoutes discussion of tassels and possibly knots is comprehensible in the context of the making of clothing, especially hemming, in antiquity. Two articles that give useful and clear descriptions of this process are H. Granger-Taylor, Weaving Clothes to Shape in the Ancient
World: The Tunic and Toga of the Arringatore, Textile History 13 (1982), 325 and Elisabeth
Crowfoot, A Romano-Egyptian Dress of the First Century B.C.? Textile History 20 (1989),
12328.
Notes to Pages 4748
203
158. For if you will make a cloak for me, construct it for me completely fringed and totally
decorated according to the specications that I gave you, just like those of the tunic, so that I
might wear it as a compensation and I might cover myself with it as a repayment. If these words
are too much for a person like me to say to you (and I admit that they are), then know how excessive these profanities are that we have committed or are doing now in Gods holy places,
namely, the congregations (evwpe etetnatamio na Nour=vwn smn+tF+ na eFjhk ebol
NneFtwwte eFkosmei Hn+Hwb nim Hm+pvi ntataaF nhtn+ nqe on m=patevthn je eietaas Hiwwt eujikba auw einaCoolet m=par=vwn eutwwbe evje Henparapvi ne {ne}
nevaje etreourwme ntaHe joou Henparapvi gar ne eime Ce HwwF je Henparapvi
nouhr ne nemnt+asebhs Ntanaau h etn+eire mmoou on tenou Hra Hn+mm
= a etouaab
m=pnou[te] neFsunagwgh [XO 68: ii.3169: ii. 4]).
159. So too, impure people who do false things hidden from the congregation should not
think that they will escape the revenge of the curse which is upon [them], or which will be upon
[them] (NteiHe on m=prtreHenrwme Nakaqartos eueire NHenHbhue NkroF NHwp etsunagwgh meeue er=bol epjikba m=psaHou etHijwou h etnaei eHra ejwou [XO 76:
ii.1427]).
160. pma pe pa ntaukw noujrop Harat etm+kaat eei nhtn eHoun HnneHoou
ntajoos nhtn+ je av pe auw je vaHoun etenou ouNwne Njrop HiteHih auw
Hm=pa ntajoos je Nqe etem=peswouH eHoun nm+mhtn+ Hn+ousooutn h outwt nHht
evlhl h ntoF emevtouvaje ntepnoute eis Houo esavF+ Nebot TnaswouH an on
tenou etbeou HwwF mh ebol an je Thps+ Nrwme ntapnoute aau Nvmmo eron
HNebot snau etbeneuHbhue eqoou auw on tenou snavwpe nte/Henkooue r=vmmo
eneFsunagwgh etbeneHbhue neHbhue on Nloimos etem=pnsaHwn ebol mmoou etmmau vaHoun etenou eite Hoout eite sHime (XO 70: ii.2671: ii.14). A monk distanced herself from her past sins through confession and penance and a promise not to repeat her sin.
161. m=pwr on etrerwme r=Cwb Hn+teFHupomonh Hra NHhtn nouoeiv nim Hra Hnnesunagwgh etbeHenvhre h Henveere h ouson h Henswne h Henmaau h Celaau
Nkatasarx ntau eunouje mmoou ebol Hn+mma etouaab mpnoute etbeneuHbhue
nloimos maretetn+agaph ouwnH; ebol eHoun epnoute je tetn+me moF NHouo
evhre Hiveere Hison Hiswne Hieiwt Himaau auw NHouo epkosmos mn+netn+HhtF
throu Hw an etbem=peqoou Ntanaau Hra Hnnesunagwgh jinvorp vaHra etenou
eite Hoout eite sHime (XO 84: i.3- ii.18).
162. Therefore I cannot avoid saying this other bitter and excessive thing, which is this:
Not only will I spend this Easter with you and in your community, like a stranger, but I will also
spend the other days of my life taking care of my life like a stranger, as I already said in other
letters written to you about those who do, and have done also now, these pestilent and abominable deeds among you, whether male or female, whether superior or inferior (etbep/aI mn\Com m=mo etraCw m=peje pekevaje Nsive h m=parapvi etepa pe je ou monon je
einar=p/epasca nm+mhN h H/aHthtn+ Nqe Nouvm+mo alla einar= NkeHoou on m=pawnH+ eiFi
m=proouv mawnH+ Nqe Nouvm+mo katapentaouw eijw mmoF Hn+Henkeepistolh eushH
nhtn+ throu etbeneteire h nentaueire on tenou NneHbhue Nloimos auw Nbote
Hra NHhtn+ eite Hoout eite sHime eite noC eite kou [XO 115: i.8ii.14]). To clarify,
Shenoute did make the statement but he did not regard it as excessive, whereas some of the
other monks did.
163. mh nouvaje an NtoF pe eHouo epvi pentajooF nhtn= . . . erepn[ou]te
vaje e[nm]ma je ei[na]joos nht[n] nteHe je [T] voop oubhtn ntwtn nettako
nteuHelpis Nousop Nouwt (XO 73: ii.574: i. 4).
164. If these words are too much for a person like me to say, (and I admit that they
are) . . . (XO 69: i.1824).
204
Notes to Pages 4853
165. petjw mmos je ouNHenHbhue euHhp (XO 85: ii.1921).

166. petjw on m=mos je Henme an ne nvaje etFjw m=moou (XO 85: ii.2529).
167. m=prswtm+ nesnhu epa eFjw m=mos je Toubenetr=peqoou Hra NHhtn+ nqe
etetn+nau eroF Hm+pnoCneC NteFyuch eFFi NneFCij eHra etp/e eFjw NneteHnaF
an ejoou etetnmeeue je eFvlhl epa h eFo Nroouv naF etrepnoute tsabeiatF+
ebol (XO 86: i.23ii.13). It is unclear whether the opposing leader was male or female. The
pronouns are masculine but it is debatable which gender Shenoute would have used even to
describe a female opponent. Since this period of crisis clearly affected both the male and female communities, the leader could have been male and somehow created a following in the
separate female community as well.
168. Rather now in your heart, brethren, just as you see those who will speak bitter words
about the excessive thing, so I will make many deceitful, thieving, lying people alien to these
congregations (ntoF tenou Hm+petn+Hht nesnhu Nqe etetnnanau en/etnajw NHenvaje Nsive mm=parapvi Fnar HaH Nrwme NkroF NreFjioue NreFjiCol Nvmmo enesunagwgh [XO 124: ii.621]).
169. I speculate about what these reasons might be in chapter 5, p. 116.
3. Shenoutes Discourse of Monastic Power

1. This denition of rhetoric is Averil Camerons (Averil Cameron, Christianity and the
Rhetoric of Empire [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991], 13). Judith Perkins points
out the recent accomodation of historians of the use of discourse as important repositories for
historical understanding as well as important vehicles for historical change (Judith Perkins,
The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian Era [New York: Routledge, 1995], 5). See also H. A. Veeser, ed., The New Historicism (New York: Routledge, 1989)
for a series of essays on this type of historical analysis.
2. Rousseau, Spiritual Authority 380.
5. Shenoutes discourse also, as I argued in my introduction, drew on similar themes from
the Pauline corpus. See Castelli, Imitating Paul, esp. 1617.
6. Letters by both these men survive. Pachomiuss are undecipherable, however. Scholars
have debated the authenticity of Anthonys, with Samuel Rubenson recently arguing for
Anthonys authorship. In addition, Rubenson notes the similarity between Anthonys letters
and Pauls and suggests that the author of Anthonys letters sees himself in the same position
relative to his audience as Paul was to his. I make a similar argument about Shenoutes selfrepresentation in his letters to the female community discussed later in this chapter. See
Samuel Rubenson, The Letters of St. Anthony: Monasticism and the Making of a Saint (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 48.
7. There is also a hagiographic Life of Shenoute which, like that of Pachomius, was written
by his successor (here Besa). It is discussed in chapter 4.
8. Kuhn, Letters 117118 (113) (Initial Crisis). K. rev. It is clear that Shenoutes immediate
predecessor did not perform the Eucharist as a ceremony for the women, since he did not see
the women. There is some ambiguity as to what he did accomplish, expressed by the verb twv,
which can mean merely appoint, suggesting that Ebonh brought the women the Eucharist
to allow them the ritual. It could also mean ordain, suggesting that Ebonh consecrated the
Notes to Pages 5355
205
bread and wine himself. In either case the womens prerogative to celebrate the Eucharist was
the decision of the head of the monastery.
9. As reported by Shenoute, just after he has described the situation under his predecessors
in the White Monastery (Kuhn, Letters 118 [113]).
10. Recall chapter 2, pp. 3335 for the details of the conict.
11. Emmel, Corpus 80214. Emmel speculates that the sin Shenoute objected to may
have been homoerotic behavior among some of his male companions. Caroline Schroeders
forthcoming dissertation at Duke University, Disciplining the Monastic Body, will concentrate on this material from Canon 1.
12. taI te qe entansmine Noudiaqhkh Hiousop enjw mos ebol Hit pnoute
(XC 220: i.30ii.2).
13. jeFsHouor= NCiprwme paI etnaktoF epaHou Nkesop NNsateIdiaqhkh entansmNt auw Fsmamaat NCiPpetnaaHerat HNoutajr (XC 220: ii.210).
14. Shenoute has been trying to correct monastic practices, both in person (according to
his description in these letters) and in the letters themselves (see ch. 2 for the details of the Initial Crisis). That he desires to be a spiritual guide, and a preacher, is suggested by his statement
that, as a result of the current strife, it was not possible for us to speak to you a single comforting word, through Gods agency (neNCom gar pe etrenjw nhtN Nouvaje Nouwt
Nsols ebol Hitpnoute [XC 219: ii.30XC 220: i.3]).
15. Richard Valantasis summarizes a variety of theoretical approaches to power and analyzes their usefulness for the study of asceticism (Richard Valantasis, Constructions of Power
in Asceticism, JAAR 63.4 (1995): 775821). The distinction between power-over and
power-to is Thomas E. Wartenbergs, as Valantasis describes it: Wartenberg begins with a basic distinction between two fundamental referents to power: power as power-to (synonymous
with ability, capacity) and as power-over (in the sense of force, inuence, might; synonymous
with dominion) (77879). Wartenberg limits his study to power-over which, as Valantasis
notes, leaves aside part of the construction of power in asceticism (781).
16. I am, of course, indebted to Foucaults discussion of the relationship between power and
knowledge. here especially Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other
Writings, 19721977 Colin Gordon, ed., (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980). Foucaults work
has also been instrumental in the work of those scholars who are cited throughout the footnotes of this chapter.
17. Valantasis, Power 77881. See n. 15 here.
18. Valantasis, Power 782.
19. See Castelli, Imitating Paul 16 for the role of the model in mimesis.
20. Both Cameron, Rhetoric of Empire and Perkins, Suffering Self describe the development
of a Christian rhetoric, Cameron more generally in its relationship to social power and Perkins
focusing on one aspect of that rhetoric. It is noteworthy that their discussions of Greco-Roman
practices also hold true for the Coptic environment of the White Monastery.
21. James Goehring, New Frontiers in Pachomian Studies, in The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, ed. Birger A. Pearson and James E. Goehring (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 24244.
22. Webers well-known routinization of charisma. Webers analysis of charisma is summarized in Sociology of Charismatic Authority 1827 and the normalization of charisma
within institutions in Charismatic Authority and its Routinization, 4865, both in Max
Weber, Max Weber On Charisma and Institution Building: Selected Papers, ed. S. N. Eisenhadt
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968). For a discussion of routinization and the role it
played in the transmission of authority in the Pachomian monastic system after Pachomiuss
death, see Goehring, New Frontiers 241.
23. Goehring writes, If the founder appointed a clear successor or established the path
through which the authority was to ow after his death, continuity is maintained. This path
206
Notes to Pages 5558
may be hereditary, by appointment, or by election. The important point is that it was established by the authority of the founder in his own lifetime. When the founder fails in this matter, a crisis of continuity inevitably follows. The difculty is heightened when the founder dies
unexpectedly (New Frontiers 241).
24. Emmel, Corpus 805, speculates that Ebonhs effacement from the history of the
monastery resulted from this disgrace.
26. XC 219: i.39, 1216 (Initial Crisis).
27. ZE 199: i.23200: i.4 (Initial Crisis).
28. The result of Jesuss and the womens actions is that the women gain inheritance and
he has become their father according to the Scriptures (ZE 200: i.4 -23) (Initial Crisis).
29. Also when a person hates his neighbor, God hates him and when that person humiliates
his neighbor, God humiliates him. And when the person [sc]ares his neighbor away from God,
God himself scares that person away from Gods self (Hotan de erva[n]ourwme mestepetHitouwF varepnoute mestwF auw ervanprwme qm+ko m=petHi[t]ouwF varepnoute qm/= oF auw er[v]anprwme [C]wtp petHi[t]ouwF ebol [e]pnoute varepnoute
HwwF CotpF+ ebol m=moF [YC 28: i.1431]) (Initial Crisis). Shenoute here is using a generic he.
30. evje tetNvipe an eijw nht=n+ Nna eie m=mnpn+a+ n+tepnoute eHra n+Hhtthutn+
evje tetn+eire an NHtht+n+ eHra ejmpentatetn+aaF eie mn+laau navNHthF ejwtn+
auw evje atet+n+ vipe de eijw nhtn+ Nnai eang+outalaipwros Nrwme auw evje
apet=nH+ ht m=kaH etetn+swtm+ ena ereNnobe Ntouei touei mmwtn+ Hhp etetHitouws
eie Nnaji vipe n=ouhr Hm+peHoou eterepnoute nakrine nnenpeqhp (YD 195: i.13
ii.15) (Initial Crisis). However, there is a parallel manuscript for this portion, published by
Kuhn, Letters 13233. It is an uncertain transcription that reads in part: auw evje etetn=vipe de [a]n ejw nhtn= na ee ang=outalaipwros n=rwme. I do not agree with
Kuhns reconstruction of a negative here because it rhetorically works better without it, as the
YD manuscript reads.
31. Kuhn, Letters 118 (114) (Initial Crisis). K. rev.
32. On a simple level, the threat of a Final Judgment can of course act as a sanction for
maintaining acceptable behavior. Paul does not hesitate to use this sanction in his other letters. . . . On the whole, though, the connection between apocalyptic expectation and immediate moral admonition in 1 Thessalonians is more subtle. The endtime language reinforces
the sense of uniqueness and solidarity of the community . . . and that in turn produces a disposition of the admonitions are successful, to act in a way appropriate to the communitys health
(Wayne Meeks, Social Functions of Apocalyptic Language in Pauline Christianity, in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 1217, 1979 [Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr {Paul
Siebeck}, 1982], 694).
33. Douglas Burton-Christie, The Word in the Desert: Scripture and the Quest for Holiness in
Early Christian Monasticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 27382.
34. Kuhn, Letters 131 (12426) (Initial Crisis).
35. YD 205: i.617 (Initial Crisis). Shenoute is here posing a hypothetical situation, but it
is clear that he believes the exact opposite is the actual case in the monastery.
38. Haqh de mpoou envaje mnnenerhu ebol Hit=mp
+ noute Hathn Hm=penswouH
eHoun h ensHa nhtn Hatnthut=n+ Hwtthutn etbe penouja Hiousop (ZE 185: i. 818)
(Initial Crisis).
Notes to Pages 5860
207
41. For a good discussion of the relationship between monastic practice and Scriptural interpretation, see Burton-Christie, Word 15054.
42. ZE 199: i.23200: i.4 (Initial Crisis). Transcription is published by Carl Wessely, Grieschische und koptische Texte theologischen inhalts (Leipzug: H. Haessel Hachfolger, 190917),
1:156.
43. Burton-Christie, Word in the Desert 15054.
44. Foucaults expression of the relationship between resistance and power facilitates determination of the womens resistance as evidenced in Shenoutes expression of power, and
vice versa: Where there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather consequently, this resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power (Foucault, History of Sexuality, vol. 1: 95). See also Valantasis, Power 783.
45. Only in these instances does Shenoutes suffering allow him to create an analogue between his monastic life, and those of the rest of the monks. In the rest of his rhetoric of suffering (pp. 6671), it underscores his authority.
46. m=ma etouaab m=pnou[te] neFsunagwgh (XO 69: ii.13) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
47. nesunagwgh gar napnoute ne auw narwme an ne pnoute on rwve
eFiproouvm= pHwb h neHbhue etevve eaau Hra NHhtN (XO 78: i.314) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
48. To be sure, these congregations do not belong to me, nor do they belong to them, but
they belong to God. Thus God is perfectly capable of taking vengeance upon [these monks] because they did pestilential deeds within [the congregations], or because they did not renounce
abominations thus far (evjpe Nnou an ne nesunagwgh oude Nnouou an ne alla
napnoute ne pnoute rwve on etreFjikba m=moou je aurHenHbhue Nloimos Hra
NHhtou h je m=poukatootou ebol Hn+Henbote vaHoun etenou [XO 87: i.15ii.2]) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
49. nav NHerepouop m=pjoeis pnoute etsmamaat namoun ebol an HnneFma
etouaab jinarhjF+ mpkaH vaarhjF on m=pkaH (XO 83: i.1122) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
50. pnoute katapetshH naT ouw mpeFouop h peFtbbo eHra ejnnetnavwpe
naF m=merit Hn+tmn+t=paraqenos mntmn+t=vau mn+Hwb nim m=mn+t=me Nouoeiv nim Hra
Hn+neFsunagwgh Hm+ma nim (XO 82: ii.2683: i.11) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership). God will
also preserve purity through the exposure of hidden abominations, and the expulsion of corruptive members, both of which are treated below as part of Shenoutes theology of monastic
leadership.
51. m=pwtN/ an pe peHmot Ntwtn+ Nrwme NkroF je m=pepnoute saHwF ebol
NneFma etouaab etbenetn+Hbhue Nbote alla paneFmn+t=vanHthF auw p/anesnhu
pistos ne etouhH Hra nHht=n+ (XO 118: i.1231) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
52. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:52 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk). Shenoute makes a similar argument another time saying, I can see no other instruction to tell you but that which is
clear in my mind: if God is willing, I will come to you (Young, Manuscripts 98 [110] Y. rev.)
(Crisis 4: The Beatings of the Women).
53. je mpoupisteue epentaujooF Hnkeepistolh erenvaje m=pnoute etshH
jw mmos (XO 117: ii.1119) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
54. auw kan eFvanswouH eHoun mn+tsunagwgh thrs+ H=n+Hwb nim katasmot nim
Hn+twv nim ntepnoute eFo+ Njaje enetem=pouswtm+ h neteNse .. swtm+ an Nsanvaje mn+ntwv Ntapnoute Hwn m=moou Hn+neFsunagwgh (XO 116: ii.121) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
55. I know about my sins only through your teaching, O God, or while you are teaching
me (w Ntok mauaak pnoute . . . aeime gar enanobe Hitn+teksbw h Hm+ptrekTsbw na
208
Notes to Pages 6062
[XO 114: ii.320]) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership). See Burton-Christie, Word in the Desert 238
40 for a different monastic response to sin.
56. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:45 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk).
58. Let their blood, or their judgment come upon them because, after all those deeds
which God did among us, we still sin in our disobedience to the truth (Amlineau, Oeuvres
1:60) (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk). Also, [i]t is not possible to deny or to lie about
them [wrongful deeds] in the tribunal (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:47) (Crisis 6: The Death of a
Male Monk).
59. evwpe etetn+vantm+ji m=petnnoCneC Ntwtn nrwme NkroF HmpeHoou m=pHap
ntenetn+snhu etouaab ji m=peutwt nHht Hm=pma etmaau eie m=pepentatetn+souwnF+
je FtaHe h aFTHe Hm=pemkaH nHht etsave jelaau Nvaje nhtn+ (XO 77: i.24ii.12)
(Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership). Obviously, the reverse is the case; Shenoute has said the instructions and the others will get reproached.
60. So too, impure people who do false things hidden from the congregation should not
think that they will escape the revenge of the curse which is upon [them], or which will be upon
[them] (NteiHe on m=prtreHenrwme Nakaqartos eueire NHenHbhue NkroF NHwp etsunagwgh meeue er=bol epjikba m=psaHou etHijwou h etnaei eHra ejwou [XO 76:
ii.1427]) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
61. For Shenoutes long description of the need for, and benet from, harmony among the
women, see Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:70ff. (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk).
62. Amlineau, Oeuvres 2:310 (Crisis 5: Gossip). The text may be corrupt in this passage,
as Amlineau has noted. I certainly do not intend to discount the pain and suffering of the
beatings that the monks had to suffer. These have often, however, dominated discussion and
understanding of Shenoutes leadership without any nuances.
63. Young, Manuscripts 104 (11213) (Crisis 4: The Beatings of Women). Y. rev.
64. Moreover, whenever someone makes a promise in the community that he will not do
misdeeds in the community, since this is the desire of the community, but afterwards he
changes his mind and he does the thing he promised not to do, you in the community will not
be angry with him because you do not wish to be (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:50) (Crisis 6: The
Death of a Male Monk). The community is here the entire monastery, not just the male or female community.
66. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:67 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk). See Prov. 26:11, also
quoted in 2 Peter 2:22.
69. This controversy is about beatings in general; beatings of the women will be considered
in chapter 5.
70. Surely it is not a bitter thing, whose bitter effects bear witness to it and mingle with it,
just as a sweet thing, when mixed with despicable bitterness, is robbed of its sweetness (nav
NHe ousive an pe pemkaH NHht ereneFHbhue Nsive r=mntre HaroF h euthH nm+m[aF]
Nqe nouN[ka] eFHolC; ea[u]sive eFsh[v] eFthH nm+[maF] Fi mmau m=[pe]HloC etn[Hh]tF
[XO 71: ii.1527) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership). Shenoute used this imagery in a letter addressing a controversy that was, in part, based on his perception that some monks were envious of the wrong-doing which was rampant in the monastery. Thus they were allowing the bitterness of others wrongdoing to ruin the sweetness of their own obedience.
71. Nqe gar eteouHap <pe> mnousnoF m/n/kemn+t+Hhke NHouo eHra ejm+petvaje
nm+mhtn+ eFvanaaF nvmmo erwtn+ mmerate ta on te qe eteouHap pe mn+ousnoF
Notes to Pages 6265
209
eHra ejwF eFvankw naF Noumn+tv

= bhr mn+neteire h netnaeire NHenHbhue Nloimos
Hra NHhtn (XO 115: ii.14116: i.4) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
72. Indeed, are you very grieved that thieves or deceitful people who do abominable deeds
leave the community? Let them go so that we might not be implicated, and so that they might
not take you with them in their impiety and all their sins (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:58) (Crisis
6: The Death of a Male Monk). For Pachomius, see Rousseau, Ascetics 534.
73. m=mon ervanneteire h netnaeire NHenHbhue Nloimos Hra Hnnesunagwgh
r=bol epetjw Nna etmtreFeire nau kata neuHbhue Fnaveire gar an ebol on je
neFnaveime an en/n/etqh/p Nneukakia etoueire m=moou Hmpkake . . . tenou Nsunagwgh nF+Cwlp+ ebol Nneqhp Ntau emn+Com etreuHwp epnoute erwme an (XO 80: i.6
81: i.15) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
74. alla evje erenennobe Hhp enrwme euouon/H+ epnoute eie Hn+HaH Nsmot h
Hn+HaH Ntwv/ FnaCwlp+ ebol Nnensw/wF mn+nenjwHm+ mn+Hwb nim NkroF etn+eire m=moou
h etn+naaau Hra Hn+ nesunagwgh Nouoeiv nim (XO 81: ii.1582: i.1) (Crisis 9: Excessive
Leadership).
75. marouvwpe eusHouort+ NnaHr+Npnoute mn+Nrwme je aujw m=petempeijooF
eneH oude eHenkooue jeTsooun enetr=nobe Hra nHhtn+ (XO 78: ii.2579: i. 4) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
76. auw ereNrwme narou nhtn euvantaHwtn+ Hn+netn+bote h eunavNou ejwtN
NHouo eneterepnoute naaau nhtN h netF=naNtou ejwtN h Ntwtn tenou Nakaqartos Nrwme mn+petetn+eire Nnebote throu ebol HitootF+ psatanas h nesnhu
etouaab mn+petoueire NHwb nim m=me mnHwb nim etouaab ebol HitootF is+ (XO 76:
ii.2877: i.24) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
78. tetnrwve ntwtn nettako m=pHwb NNCij m=pnoute etenetn+swma ne Hra
Hn+HenswwF mn+Hwb nim Nbote (XO 75: ii.616) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
79. w [pe]noC nHhbe [e]bol je evje oumkaH N[H]ht pe je a[pn]oute nou[j] ebol
Hn[ne]Fsunagw[gh] Nnentau[ta]Hoou eu[ei]re NHen[b]ote Hra nHhtn (XO 72: i.2032)
(Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership). Also, God is perfectly capable of exercising care over whatever
thing, or things, have to be done among us, and he still acts according to his will even when he
throws out the impure person from the midst of what is holy and the deled person who sinned
within [the congregations] secretly from the midst of the pure, or the one who sympathizes with
the one who sins (pnoute on rwve eFiproouv m=pHwb h neHbhue etevve eaau Hra
NHhtN auw etpeFeire katapouwv etF+ouavF+ vants/pw
/ rj ebol m=pak[a]qartos
H[n]tmhte [m]p/etouaab [a]uw petja[H]m Hn+tmhte [m]pettbbhu [H]r/a Hn+neF[ma]
etouaab [e]t/rn
+ obe [H]r/a NHhtou Hnoupeqhp h petsuneudokei mn+petr=nobe [XO 78:
i.8ii.1]) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
80. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:15455 (Crisis 7: Jealousy among the Women).
81. etbepa rw erepetvaje nm+me Cep/h ep/wt Nsa neteire nneHbhue Nloimos
Hm+pishu tenou enojou ebol nHhtn+ je ener=bol ep/Cwnt m=petm+mau nteouHhu vwpe
nan (XO 85: i.1531) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
82. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:44 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk). Note Amlineaus correction.
83. Amlineau, 1:45 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk). An exception to this claim occurred when Shenoute delegated his authority over corporal punishment to the male envoy to
the womens community. See chapter 5, pp. 11516.
85. jekenobe on nhtn+ pe pa eHrai ejwtn jetetn+swk mmo etrajw n;Henv[a]je
auw etraeire NHenHbhu[e] parapaouwv (XO 75: ii.1627) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
210
Notes to Pages 6568

87. See Kuhn, Letters 13132 (12526) (Initial Crisis).
89. Is it not God who brings his anger on the world from time to time, teaching people to
repent? (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:60) (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk). This rhetorical question refers to foreign invasions. Shenoute presents the invasions as the result of Gods anger
against both the world and the monastery.
90. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:49 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk). Shenoute here refers to
himself in the third person; he is the one who is fatigued and wearied by the things God has
commanded that he do.
91. Several examples have already been seen previously and appear also in the quotations
that occur later in this discussion. Shenoutes self-references usually occur in conjunction with
the rest of his rhetoric, as analyzed here.
92. Valantasis, Power 78687.
93. Martin, Corinthian Body 3840.
94. Young, Manuscripts 9697 (109) (Crisis 4: The Beatings of Women). Y. rev. Martin has
argued that this comparison is not simply an analogy, an argument that arises from postCartesian dualities, but that the individual body and communal bodies were microcosm and
macrocosm of the same universe (Martin, Corinthian Body 1521).
95. Martin cites Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1991).
97. If you do not join your heart to hers, how do you know that Jesus will join your heart
to his? (Amlineau, 1:70) (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk).
98. Perkins notes Galens use of the body this way: In the cultural world brought into being by narratives such as the Prognosis and Letter Seventeen, that offered an image of contemporary society as deeply awed and out of equilibrium, matched with a conception of the self
as a physical body similarly tending to disequilibrium and sickness inhabitants did, indeed, begin to look to other worlds for therapy (Perkins, Suffering 172).
99. petjiCol ejm+pevwne eFHwp m=moF NHhtF+ eFr= nkekim eroF eFpwli=H m=moF
eFouwm de on Nnetr+boone naF eFjiCol an erwme alla epnoute auw eFswouH
eHoun eroF mpeFtako mmin mmoF (XO 96: ii.1230) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership). The
masculine pronouns are presumably generic and could refer to either men or women.
101. Shenoute was not alone in viewing or portraying illness in this way. In her study of
the hagiography of Syncletica, Castelli notes, The author of the text reads Sycleticas illness
not at all on the biomedical or physical plane, but rather on the religious or metaphysical
plan. Her illness is gured as a cosmic battle with the malignant one, the enemy, Satan; it
also places her within the powerful historical lineage of those holy people who have suffered
before her (Elizabeth A. Castelli, Mortifying the Body, Curing the Soul: Beyond Ascetic
Dualism in The Life of Saint Syncletica, differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 4.2
[1992]: 14546). Shenoutes illness may also place him within that historical lineage, but the
link between suffering and past gures is more evident in his description of the suffering of
monastic service.
102. It is good if God brings a sickness on this kind of people and then they are not even
able to eat what they have, and their souls are saved more than if they had handed it over to
insatiability (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:56) (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk).
103. This is the central thesis of Perkins, Suffering. Shenoutes descriptions of his illness
functions on other levels in his letters as well. See chapter 7, pp. 15758.
Notes to Pages 6874
211
104. For the texts from Shenoute, see later. For the use of physical suffering as a source of
power for ascetics, see Perkins, Suffering 200214.
105. Perkins points out the importance of Perpetuas recognition and reliance on her
power that she understands as the result of her suffering (Perkins, Suffering 108). Likewise
Shenoute does not make explicit connections between his bodily suffering through illness and
his power as head of the monastery but rather acts on his understanding of the power his suffering creates.
107. He prays for release from the illness so that those whom I trouble, who are anxious
about me and perform night vigils on my account, might rest, because I myself am aficted by
the pains which you know, you, good God, because they are in the body of the one who is at
risk among them and on their behalf. And heed what King David did just as he forgot: he
fought either against the pain of the blows or against the anger which the Lord God brought
upon Oza (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:154) (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk).
108. w tasarx h nasarx nebihn ntauei eHra epevwne h Ntape vwne ei eHoun
h eHra ejwou auw euHote pe je eFr=pkepvwne Hn+m=m=elos etF+NHhtou emmelos
ettb+bhu NHhtF+ (XO 99: ii.27100: i.11) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
109. Peter Brown, The Saint as Exemplar in Late Antiquity, Representations 1 (1983): 7.
110. But the Lord blessed many of our ancestors from the beginning until the present day,
both men and women, because they were very willing to suffer, as others do, with Gods help as
our ancient ancestors and the prophets and apostles (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:22) (Crisis 3: A
Monk Refuses Promotion).
111. See Burton-Christie, Word in the Desert 24045 for the use of Christ as a model for humility in the sayings of the desert fathers.
112. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:28 (Crisis 3: A Monk Refuses Promotion). And, How have the
prophets and the apostles been servants to the Lord but that they chose to suffer with others
and that they died for the name of the Lord? (1:30). Since this was Shenoutes main point,
characteristically he repeated it numerous times throughout the letter (Amlineau, Oeuvres
1:3032).
113. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:29 (Crisis 3: A Monk Refuses Promotion).
116. Buell argues a similar point in her analysis of images of both procreation and geneaology in the works of Clement of Alexandria. Especially useful for comparison to my investigation is Buell, Making Christians (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 915,
79104.
118. YA 547: i.222 (Crisis 4: The Beatings of the Women ).
120. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:155 (Crisis 7: Jealousy Among the Women).
122. XO 63: i.12ii.7 (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
4. Acceptance and Resistance

1. Chapter 8 focuses on the latter group.
2. I have used Bells translation of Besas Life throughout this section. The Coptic is found
in Leipoldt, Opera vol. 2.
3. The only information from the hagiography that I treat as historical is that which can
be conrmed from Shenoutes own writings (see Emmel, Corpus 911). In this way, I hope to
212
Notes to Pages 7478
avoid a positivist reading of the hagiography of the sort Lynda Coon rightly criticizes (Lynda
Coon, Sacred Fictions: Women and Hagiography in Late Antiquity [Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1997]).
4. Brakke, Athanasius 202, noting Susan Garrett, The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Lukes Writings (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 6, as his source for this idea. Brakkes
study of Athanasiuss Life of Anthony does not treat it as a source of historical information
about the real Anthony but as a piece of social discourse between Athanasius and his readers.
5. Besa, Life 2.
6. Besa, Life 45, 7.
7. And also once upon a time, one day our father apa Shenoute was walking with the great
prophet Jeremiah (for in the spirit, the Lord knows; or in the body, again the Lord knows)
(Besa, Life 94 [Leipoldt, Opera 2:46]).
8. For Besas failure, see Besa, Life 2526. For other accounts of visions that grant Shenoute
authority, see ibid.: 22, 30, 32, 9192, 9495, 96, 97, 11518, 12224, 15460, 18788.
9. Besa, Life 3637 for the description of the sin; 3841 for his redemption (Leipoldt, Opera
2:2324).
10. Bells n. 19, p. 97 (Besa, Life) gives an explanation of his translation of this word.
11. Besa, Life 1416 (Leipoldt, Opera 2:1415). Some have argued that Shenoute advocated capital punishment as a penalty for the monks. However, Young has argued against Shenoutes endorsement of the death penalty, at least for monks, and Besa points out that the
monastic movement looked to reconcile people to God, not martyr them (Dwight Young, Unfullled Conditions in Shenoutes Dialect, JOAS 20 [1961]: 4023).
12. Besa, Life 98.
13. Besa, Life 20, 29, 77. A particular story of two monks, one devoted and the other frivolous, stands out in showing Shenoutes ability to convince the wayward of the value of the ascetic life. Also, 10914.
14. Besa, Life 1012, 87
15. Besa, Life 98101, 16271.
16. Shenoutes place among other Egyptian leaders is evident when he names those he is
going to join as he approaches his death (Besa, Life 172).
17. As we saw in chapter 1, pp. 2627. This section expands that earlier description with
additional information provided by the letters.
18. We only know about the position from the rules for the monastery. There are many examples of rules that name the female elder. See Leipoldt, Opera 4:58 for just one instance.
19. In Shenoutes instructions for the beatings, one female elder was singled out but there
were both senior monks and other female elders present: and as the female elder and Tachom,
and other senior women assisting them, hold the [female monks] for him [the male elder], and
as the other elders, who are there with them assisting him (Young, Manuscripts 105 [113])
(Crisis 4: The Beatings of the Women ). Y. rev. Here, the Coptic makes clear that the other elders were all female.
20. The word for elder, hllo, can be either a name or a title, which creates some confusion
in interpreting these references. I would argue that it is meant as a title, not a name, both when
used as the feminine (Thllo, the female elder) and as the masculine (Phllo, the male elder).
We know from the rule material that such a title existed for both men and women. In addition,
one would assume that if there were a woman who had the name Thllo, Shenoute would try
to differentiate that woman from the woman who held the position Thllo (and likewise for
the men).
21. For a more detailed understanding of the similarities between the female and male
elder, and the duties of the female elder within the womens community, there needs to be a
Notes to Pages 7882
213
comprehensive study of discussions of the female elder throughout Shenoutes rules and letters,
both published and unpublished.
22. The reference to a letter from the female elder to Shenoute is preserved in Canon 6
(Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:68) (Crisis 6: The Death of A Male Monk). Shenoute referred to both
the letters and visits as the means by which the women were to communicate all disobedient
activities to him: Whether you have been condemned or honored by your words which you
wrote to us in your letters, or by the mouth of those whom you have sent to us, only these about
whom you wrote to us will have to receive their instruction with blows (Young, Manuscripts
100 [111]) (Crisis 4: The Beatings of the Women). Y. rev. The female elder and Tapolle may have
visited Shenoute concerning clothing, as recorded in My Heart Is Crushed (XO 63: i.12ii.25)
(Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
23. Shenoutes response, But how do you know that the other mother will be protable
for you? suggests his refusal and his reason, namely that the monk should seek to have prot
from her current mother (Pleyte and Boeser, Eptre 411, along with von Lemm, Koptische
Miscellen 58) (Crisis 8: A Request for a Transfer).
24. Pleyte and Boeser, Eptre 411, along with von Lemm, Koptische Miscellen 58)
(Crisis 8: A Request for a Transfer).
25. Munier, Manuscripts coptes 7172 (Crisis 8: A Request for a Transfer).
26. Leipoldt, Opera 3:22 (Crisis 10: Tachom).
29. Again we are limited in our evidence for what the situation was like prior to Shenoute;
we only know that there was resistance to his changes.
30. It is true that the ancients had a different view of authority, and its function, than we
do in post-Enlightenment, to say nothing of postmodern, times. Nevertheless, there are numerous instances, especially in the theological crises of the fourth and fth centuries, of group
rebellion against Christian leaders, ascetics and bishops alike, that suggest that the masses
did believe they had some role in choosing a leader based on his beliefs and abilities.
31. Pleyte and Boeser, Eptre 41011, along with von Lemm, Koptische Miscellen 58
(Crisis 8: A Request for a Transfer).
32. Rousseau suggests that the opposite was usually the case (Rousseau, Ascetics 4950).
33. Their appeal is evident in that they wrote to Shenoute, apparently requesting his intervention (YA 553: i. 1524) (Crisis 3: A Monk Refuses Promotion).
34. It is possible that there was a contingent of monks who agreed with the monk who refused her appointment. The tone of the letter suggests that the questions about the nature of
the monastic life were greater than the single conict. Furthermore, at the end of the letter,
Shenoute suggests that this woman was used as a pawn by a larger group: Finally, if we nd out
that she did not tell the truth because others prevented her, we shall punish the others. They
shall not be hidden from you for both she and they have taken an oath with falsehood, on the
advice of Satan (YA 554: i. 115) (Crisis 3: A Monk Refuses Promotion).
35. Young, Manuscripts 1034 (112) (Crisis 4: The Beatings of the Women). Elm has a different interpretation of Shenoutes knowledge as recorded in this list. She points out that
Shenoute, as demonstrated by the letter, was well-informed. Most of the punished sisters had
relatives among his monks, so that he may well have known things than not even the mother
was aware of (Elm, Virgins 306). Elms point here is well noted. She does not, however, explain how Shenoute would receive this information since visits between male and female relatives were not allowed, as Elm notes elsewhere (304). More importantly, it is Shenoutes point
in this letter that he does not know, nor does the male elder, everything that the female elder
knows. There are then both ofcial and unofcial lines of communication between the two
214
Notes to Pages 8286
communities, and it is important to know which Shenoute is relying on, and when, and also
how limited each form was.
36. That the holy person gained distance and could therefore serve as an arbitrator is
Browns observation (Peter Brown, The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity, JRS 61 [1971]: 9193). Browns argument elsewhere, however, suggests that the holy person could serve also as an example rather than as a strange distant creature (Brown, The Saint
as Exemplar 10).
37. Young, Manuscripts 96 [108] (Crisis 4: The Beatings of the Women). Y. rev. See chapter
2, pp. 4042.
38. Both Elm and Gillian Cloke have noted that Tachoms actions established her own authority, and self-determination for her community, against Shenoute (Elm, Virgins 307; Cloke,
Female Man 2023).
39. It is Shenoute who writes to Tachom, like a barbarian to a barbarian, and not like a father to a mother nor like a brother in the presence of a sister (Leipoldt, Opera 3:21) (Crisis 10:
Tachom).
40. I am amazed that a great many times God has hindered your communication in your
community and in our community (Leipoldt, Opera 3:21) (Crisis 10: Tachom).
42. Leipoldt, Opera 3:22 (Crisis 10: Tachom). Elm notes that Shenoute follows the only
possible strategy: he reverses her line of argument. . . . Does she not realize that her questioning of the fathers authority attacks the very foundation of the entire organizational structure
of which she herself is a part? (Elm, Virgins 307). This is the basis of Shenoutes expectations
of all the female leaders: that as authorities themselves, they will uphold the authority of
others.
43. I examine the gendered aspect of the womens work in chapter 7 on family structures
in the monastery.
45. While it may seem surprising that Shenoute was concerned about the adornment of
his clothing, H. Maguire has argued that the designs on clothing, especially in Egypt, had
apotropaic powers and were important for that reason. See Maguire, Garments Pleasing to
God: The Signicance of Domestic Textile Design in the Early Byzantine Period, Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 44 (1990), 21524.
46. XO 63: i. 1229 (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
48. Amlineau, 1:72 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk). Shenoute made his statement
about Tapolles absolvement of guilt in the midst of a lengthy section appealing to the elder to
put aside her anger and her refusal to be reconciled to Tapolle (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:7173)
(Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk).
50. W. H. Werkmeister, The Function and Limits of Moral Authority in Authority: A Philosophical Analysis, ed. R. Baine Harris (University, Al.: University of Alabama Press, 1976), 97.
51. Werkmeister, Moral Authority 98.
52. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:152 (Crisis 7: Jealousy Among the Women).
53. For the second part of their motivation, see chapter 5 on the role of gender in the
White Monastery.
54. Elm also notes that the best way for the women to resist Shenoutes claim to supreme
authority was to keep secrets from him: The easiest way to challenge Shenoutes demand for
absolute control was to withhold information. . . . The mothers did not seem to be too interested in readily revealing everything that happened within their communities, and they had
good reason to disobey (Elm, Virgins 306).
Notes to Pages 8689
215
55. Young, Manuscripts 934 (109) (Crisis 4: The Beatings of the Women). Y. rev.
57. Kuhn, Letters 125 (120) (Initial Crisis).
60. petsuneudokei mn+petr=nobe eujw mmos . . . je evjepetjw Nna sooun
jeouNHenreFr=peqoou Hra Hn+nesunagwgh NHwp eietbeou m=pF;eime eroi h aHroF
m;pF+soum=pa h na je seeire NHenbote (XO 78: i.31ii.25) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
61. R. Baine Harris, The Function Limits of Religious Authority in Authority: A Philosophical Analysis, 136. Harris (139) also argues that a holy person, as the embodiment of the deity, is a religious authority but a prophet, a charismatic gure, is merely a spokesperson and does
not necessarily represent the nature of the deity ts better into the category of moral authority
(see Werkmeister, Moral Authority 98). In the case of the archimandrite, however, several
different forms of authority were combined into one position. Harris argues that moral and religious authority can coexist in one person if their moral arguments have religious signicance.
He cautions, however, against confusing the two forms of authority. Shenoute had moral authority in his ability to present instructions to the community, as noted in the previous paragraph. His religious authority, however, came from the idea that his actions were those considered necessary, and appropriate, by the deity.
62. I have already presented Shenoutes defense of two of these topics, in chapter 3.
63. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:49. (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk). When Shenoute
writes, at the same time, that he would obey God rather than kings or armies, and so too will
obey God rather than the entreaties of his followers, his argument suggests that there was vocal group among the monks who argued for less corporal punishment. It was this group whom
Shenoute was refusing to obey in reconsidering his use of corporal punishment in light of the
death.
64. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:58 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk). Shenoutes arguments
against the grief the monks felt at the expulsion of their companions and his accompanying
reasons for their expulsions suggests that those who were grieving were making the arguments
I suggest earlier.
65. See Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership in chapter 2, pp. 4749, to review the details of this
conict.
66. XO 72: i.20ii.32 (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership) in which Shenoute gives a lengthy justication for the great pain caused by the expulsions of fellow monks. See also XO 84: i.3
25, where Shenoute argues that the expulsions of others should not affect the ascetic endurance of the monks still in the monastery (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership); and Amlineau,
Oeuvres 1:51, another injunction against grieving over the loss of expelled members (Crisis 7:
Jealousy among the Women).
67. XO 69: i.1824 (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
68. XO 73: ii.574: i.4 (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
69. mh m=pejoos nhtn ntoF Hmpavaje etsave h etr=Houo epvi je h ntepnoute swtm+ epetn+vlhl h ntepnoute swtm+ epatwbH; h je h anok h ntwtn (XO 75:
i. 819) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership). Shenoute made the rst of these statements in a letter
in the Initial Crisis, though there is no certainty that is the occasion he is referring to. Usually,
Shenoutes delineation between you and us is between you women and us men. In this
case, however, given the extent of the controversy, it seems to be between you, monks and
me, Shenoute.
70. Because the same texts, the letters, are used for both Shenoutes position and the objections, it may seem circular to argue that the monks objected to every point Shenoute made.
216
Notes to Pages 8996
However, in the case of this most serious controversy preserved in My Heart Is Crushed, the
monks objections are to aspects of leadership found in other letters as well. Thus, the evidence
for Shenoutes exclusive authority, his need to know all to guard his supreme authority, his authoritarian style, and his arguments over clothing recur throughout all the letters. Only the objections are quoted here.
71. XO 85: ii.1929 (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
73. Both the specic sins and those known only to Shenoute come from the list of ten
women in Canon 4 (Young, Manuscripts 112) (Crisis 4: The Beatings of the Women). The combination of pollutions and abominations, with little explanation, is most characteristic of My
Heart Is Crushed (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership). The image of the prostituted heart is from
Amlineau, Oeuvres 2:30911 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk).
74. One presumes that other letter fragments also responded to specic transgressions, but
these have been lost; for example, the object of the jealousy that divided the womens
community; the actual transgression that the monk repeated, which Shenoute described as a
prostitution of the heart; I speculate about Tachoms reason for refusing the male envoy in
chapter 5.
75. Cloke assumes this in her categorization of Shenoutes letter to Tachom (Cloke, Female
Man 2023). Since there was a variety of economic backgrounds in the White Monastery,
nothing denite can be said.
5. They too are Our Brethren

1. Martin, Corinthian Body 64.
2. This phrase is literally, in Coptic, among us and among you.
3. Susan Shapiro, A Matter of Discipline: Reading for Gender in Jewish Philosophy,
in Judaism since Gender, ed. Miriam Peskowitz and Laura Levitt (London: Routledge, 1997),
15873.
4. The possibility exists that the men had not had a stricter standard than the women previously but that Shenoute now was imposing new monastic rules on the whole community.
That is, the mens quality of life was also changing under his leadership. Even so, the fact remains that Shenoute aggressively pursued the merger of men and women into one monastery.
5. This technique of instruction through imitation is not limited to Shenoute, and studying the way that other authors used it can lend understanding to Shenoutes rhetoric. For a
good discussion of imitation in Athanasiuss ascetic theology, see Brakke, Athanasius 16181.
6. Whether Shenoute used biblical models of both sexes in letters with a presumably male
audience still needs to be explored.
7. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:30. As always with Shenoutes style, he repeats the models of both
suffering and service several times over, from 1:2632 (Crisis 3: A Monk Refuses Promotion).
8. Thus, we remember the suffering of all these saints, and we pay attention just as our
Lord Jesus did not care about shame, as he remained steadfast on the cross for all our salvation,
for he is our savior (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:28) (Crisis 3: A Monk Refuses Promotion).
12. Let us create a human being according to our image and according to our likeness,
and when they created the human being according to their image and according to their likeness, according to the Scriptures, God breathed into it a breath of life. The human being became as a living soul, male and female God created them (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:33) (Crisis
3: A Monk Refuses Promotion).
Notes to Pages 96100
217
13. Averil Cameron, Virginity as Metaphor, in History as Text, ed. Averil Cameron (London: Duckworth, 1989), 189.
14. Moreover, from the beginning, God also became a workman (even though he is Lord
and he is king), in as much as he created his angels as spirits, as it is written, and in as much as
he created the world out of the non-existent (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:32) (Crisis 3: A Monk Refuses Promotion).
15. See G. Clark, Women in Late Antiquity 12124 for the role of Eve in early Christian
thought.
16. For example, the letter in Canon 4 (Crisis 4: The Beating of Women) addresses the
womens lack of co-operation in Shenoutes authority structures, through their secrecy and
their continued independent action. In that letter, Shenoute used the phrase in our community and in your community to stress the unity of actions in a separated monastery. Since that
crisis also involved the specic issue of corporal punishment, it is discussed on pp. 10203.
17. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1: 39 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk).
20. nHw an etbem=peqoou Ntanaau Hra Hnnesunagwgh jinvorp vaHra etenou
eite Hoout eite sHime (XO 84: ii.918) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
21. m=pkswtm h m=petnswtm ntwtn+ netHwp ejmpevwne NHhtou eite Hoout eite
sHime vantentako mn+nvorvr+ mnHenkeqliyis mm+mauei eHra ejwt=n+ (XO 97: i.316)
(Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
23. auw on tenou snavwpe nte/Henkoouer=vmmo eneFsunagwgh etbeneHbhue
neHbhue on Nloimos etem=pnsaHwn ebol mmoou etmmau vaHoun etenou eite
Hoout eite sHime (XO 71: ii.115) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
24. m=pn+vipe etrenkatootn+ ebol eite Hoout eite sHime Hn+nebote jwHm+ ejnjwH=m swwF ejnswwF jioue ejnjioue Hwb nim NkroF ejnHwb nim NkroF (XO 69: ii.4
16) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
25. HaH gar Nsop anmetanoi Hathn etbethutn+ jetetnrHhbe Hatnthutn auw HaH
Nsop atetnmetanoei Hatnthutn+ Hwtthutn jetnr+Hhbe emate Hathn Hwwn on (XC
254: ii.414) (Initial Crisis). It should be noted that Shenoute still allowed some differences between the two which did not affect his general argument. The work differed in the two communities, for example, but the general requirement of work was the same. In addition, most of
the letter fragment in Canon 4 provides Shenoutes vision of the relationship between the two
communities, and his authority versus the womens (Crisis 4: The Beating of Women, chapter 2,
pp. 4042).
26. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1: 20 (Crisis 3: A Monk Refuses Promotion).
27. A number of scholars have analyzed the role of ascetic becoming like men through their
asceticism. In some cases, ascetic women wore mens clothing and cut their hair short. Thecla
serves a notable and much-copied example. Other scholars have examined the need for Christian women to deny or alter their feminine identity. See Elisabeth Schssler-Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroads,
1983), 278; Anne Hickey, Women of the Roman Aristocracy as Christian Monastics (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 1987), 9; Elizabeth Castelli, Virginity and Its Meaning for
Womens Sexuality in Early Christianity, JFSR 2.1 (1986): 86; and Cameron, Virginity 192.
28. This is the extent of Elms discussion (Elm, Virgins 303).
29. Was anyone even more merciful than our blessed founder? Was it not a time of famine
when he expelled the one who committed this deed, namely, giving food from ones portion to
anyone at all, whether relative or non-relative, whether poor, orphan, sick, lame, blind, or anyone else at all (Leipoldt, Opera 4:87).
218
Notes to Pages 1014
30. Elm argues that Shenoutes rules and canons were not originally conceived for a male
community only and then simply passed on to a later female addition. They were from the beginning conceived for and addressed to men and women alike, sive mas siva femina (Elm, Virgins 300), emphasis hers. She is contrasting the Pachomian rule, which was written for men and
later expanded to include women, and Shenoutes. However, not all the rules Shenoute codied were handed down to him from his predecessors. Thus, it is uncertain whether Pcols rule
was that different from Pachomiuss. For a good discussion of how differing monastic rules for
men and women lend insight to cultural assumptions about gender, see Hope Mayo, The
Sources of Female Monasticism in Merovigian Gaul, Studia Patristica 16.2 (1985): 3237.
32. Young, Manuscripts 100101 (111) (Crisis 4: The Beating of Women). Y. rev.
34. See Crisis 4: The Beating of Women in chapter 2, pp. 4042, to review the details of
these arguments.
36. Ntetntn+noou nan etbhhts+ mh anon HenHhgemwn h anonHenmato Natna
jetn+vine Nsapouja Nnetn+yuch (YC 175: i.714) (Initial Crisis).
37. Since we do not have the folio which directly precedes YC 175 (that is, YC 174 or any
parallel), the context there is lost.
39. Young, Manuscripts 1056 (113) (Crisis 4: The Beating of Women). Y. rev. Cf. Elm,
Virgins 306. The role of the male elder in carrying out the beatings is discussed later in this
chapter.
40. It is important to note that I am referring to Shenoutes phrase in our community and
in your community, which he addresses to the women, and not whether male or female,
which he addresses to all monks.
42. Such an argument would also justify the inclusion of women into the punishment of
expulsion, as we saw earlier. An example from that crisis reads: You did not tolerate it until
they took counsel concerning you, whether male or female, to throw you from them one by
one, two by two, three by three until you perish and you become few in these congregations,
you, the ones who did wickedness to them alone by these wicked pestilent deeds, those abominations (XO 124: i.732) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership). As noted there, however, it is much
less clear that expulsion was opposed as inappropriate to women; there is far more evidence
that corporal punishment was opposed.
44. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:49 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk) for blows to the hand
and thighs. Although this description appears in a letter to women, it recalls the conict over
the death of a male monk and for the most part Shenoute was defending the level of punishment of the men, as well as the continuing need for the inclusion of women. For descriptions
of blows that threw men to the ground, see Leipoldt, Schenute 143.
46. Kuhn, Letters 123 (118) (Initial Crisis). K. rev. Kuhn translates the last passage: You
will not nd an excuse to make (118) (Initial Crisis). It is unclear whether the brethren are
here male or female. I suspect male, because of the context and because Shenoute tends to refer to the women as brethren when he is addressing them directly and in the context of their
relationship to the monastery as a whole. Since he here refers to women within the womens
community, one would expect a phrase like the senior female monks.
47. YD 192: i. 325. Cf. chapter 2, n. 51.
Notes to Pages 1047
219
48. T. Shaw, Burden examines the relationship between self-control in fasting and gender,
esp. 22053. Also useful for comparison with Shenoutes writings is her analysis (161219) of
the relationship between fasting and the life in the next world, similar to Shenoutes desire that
his community be like life in the next world.
50. He for his part is a wise person in all his deeds (Young, Manuscripts 106 [113]) (Crisis 4: The Beating of Women). Y. rev. Shenoute here is specically praising the male elder in order to legitimate the male elders authority in beating the women (see the discussion that follows).
51. The lack of evidence in the letters for stolen goods other than food allow us to presume
that these women were guilty of stealing food.
52. YC 176: ii. 412 (Intitial Crisis).
53. In his review of his visits, Shenoute says that and when we spent all night, we did not
speak many words from Scripture to you. For it is not possible for us to speak to you a single
comforting word with Gods help because of all the pain (auw Nter=nr= t
= euvh thrs+ enjw
nhtn+ NHenmhhve an Nvaje ebol Hn+negrafh ne NCom gar pe etrenjw nhN Nouvaje Nouwt Nsol ebol Hipnoute etbe pemkaH NHht thr) (XC 219: ii.25
220: i.5).
54. Young, Manuscripts 105 (112) (Crisis 4: The Beating of Women). Y. rev. There are various possibilities for interpretation here, given that this sentence is in the second tense. Youngs
(that the I refers back to Shenoute) is unlikely. Shenoute rarely refers to himself in the rst
person and in this type of sentence especially he would most likely refer to himself as the one
who speaks to you or some such phrase. Thus, the woman appears to have received punishment for claiming the right to teach at all.
55. She was to receive forty blows with the rod. It is unclear whether her punishment was
harsher because she taught or because she had more than one transgression to repent.
56. In fact, how is your saying useful to us? Our saying is not useful to you! (Amlineau,
Oeuvres 1:69) (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk).
57. I know why you heart is not completely joined to her heart. Her saying is not useful to
you, nor yours to her (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:69) (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk).
58. In a passage I discuss at greater length later in this chapter, Shenoute continues by
agreeing with the male elders negative assessment of the senior female monks ability to lead
the female community properly. His implication here, then, seems to be that the women have
erred in rejecting his leadership, and he describes the rejection in gendered terms (cf. the discussion that follows, pp. 11011).
59. As E. Clark has argued in her work, using P. Brown as a starting point. Cf. Carolyn
Walker Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity: 2001336 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), 9091 for her effort to expand the argument beyond fear of loss
of differentiation to fear of decay.
60. This theme recurs in studies of the history of female asceticism and monasticism in
early Christianity, which serve as a necessary background for this study (see chapter 6). For a
good list of such sources, see T. Shaw, Burden 45n. 6. Works such as these are spread throughout my notes.
61. Cloke points out that Jerome wrote about a woman named Theodora, that she was
once a woman but now a man; once inferior, but now an equal (Let. 71.3) (Cloke, Female
Man 127). G. Clark, however, argues that Jerome distrusted feminine charm, but also objected
to those who tried to deny their female nature by cutting their hair short and dressingas
Melania didin cilicia with hoods (G. Clark, Women in Late Antiquity 117).
62. Brown, Body and Society 38083.
220
63. E. Clark, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 177.
65. Jerome, Letter 108.23 (Petersen, Handmaids of the Lord: Contemporary Descriptions of
Feminine Asceticism in the First Six Christian Centuries [Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications,
1996], 152). The Latin text can be found at CSEL 55.341.
66. Cameron, Virginity 189.
67. E. Clark, Origenist Controversy 15157. The treatise she uses to argue for Shenoutes
anti-Origenism is summarized in Tito Orlandi, A Catechesis against Apocryphal texts by
Shenoute and the Gnostic Texts of Nag Hammadi, HTR 75:1 (1982): 8595. He notes that
Shenoute somewhat confuses Origenistic and Gnosticizing doctrines, and thus the intellectual milieu to which he refers may be rather nearer to the Evagrian movement. But he also
points out that this text proves or at least implie[s] that the Evagrian movement moved south
into Upper Egypt by inltrating the Pachomian and Shenoutean monasteries (ibid.: 95).
Shenoutes view of gender and the afterlife is apparent in his comment that the sexes will be
allowed to mix in the afterlife as they are not allowed now.
68. Kuhn, Letters 125 (120) (Initial Crisis), K. rev.
69. See Elizabeth A. Clark, Ideology, History, and the Construction of Woman in Late
Antique Christianity, JECS 2 (1994): 15584.
70. It is important to note that, while gendered rhetoric is attached to female insubordination, not all female resistance elicited a gendered response from Shenoute. On reading
for gender, see Shapiro, Matter of Discipline, and also Miriam B. Peskowitzs use of Shapiro
in Spinning Fantasies: Rabbis, Gender, and History (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1997),
54.
71. Recall chapter 2, pp. 3237 (Initial Crisis). At the very least, Shenoute presents himself as requesting the female leaders input for every decision he made for the community.
72. Here Shenoute appoints elders (apparently male) to set ordinances for the female community.
74. E. Clark, Foucault, the Fathers, and Sex, JAAR 564 (1988): 630.
75. Cameron, Virginity 189 and 191. For a full discussion of the role of Eve and her error
in the writings of Christian men of late antiquity, see Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent
(London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1988).
78. Shenoute uses the metaphor of the edication of the tower of Babel to represent
Tachoms stubbornness: If I say, If I had not changed, what would you have done to me? This
means, If I have not changed, would you not also have begun to build a tower? . . . And as it
is, those who build the tower, not to name names, have their entire training from the evils of
Satan. (Leipoldt, Opera 3:2122) (Crisis 10: Tachom).
79. Amlineau, Oeuvres 2:31011 (Crisis 5: Gossip).
80. The Lord loves pure hearts and everyone who is pure chooses himself. Let us hate the
person who is polluted in spirit and body and who turns away from his community . . . those
women who prostitute their hearts turning away from the Lord, as it is written . . . those women
who perform acts of prostitution behind the back of the Lord and their thoughts, as it is written . . . those who sin as their hearts are being lled with wicked thoughts (erepjoeis gar
me nnHht etouaab ouon de nim etouaab swtp naF auw jekas p/rw
/ me etjaHm HmpeFHht mn neFswma enemestwF auw nFsto ebol Hra HnneFsunagwgh . . . netnaporneue HmpeuHht ebol mpjoeis nqetshH . . . netnaporneue HipaHou mpjoeis auw
221
HipaHou nneumeeue nqe etshH . . . netr=nobe HmptrepeuHht mouH mmeeue

mponhron [YJ 34: i.1ii.11]) (Crisis 5: Gossip).
82. My ideas here are indebted to Peskowitz, Spinning Fantasies.
83. There are more examples beyond those discussed above of Shenoute using female imagery to shape his argument to the women. In those examples, however, the fragmentary nature of the evidence has obscured the details and the reason for Shenoutes imagery.
84. Shenoute mentions three contentious visits in one of the earliest surviving fragments
of Canon 2 (ZE 68). Assuming he is discussing the same three visits in this late fragment, we
can be sure that the series of visits were complete and that they had provided signicant controversy, of which only some record survives.
85. XC 21920 (Initial Crisis).
86. The evidence for the rest of my summary can be found in Kuhn, Letters 117ff.
87. I discuss the role of the biological kin in this resistance in chapter 8.
88. Kuhn, Letters 122 (117) (Initial Crisis). K rev.
91. Elm emphasizes the disparity between the male elders authority and the female elders
authority, questioning whether the female elder would be an effective leader if she had to relinquish control to the male elder; the male elders principal duty was to keep Shenoute
abreast of all developments in the female community. The mother on her own could decide
nothing of signicance. Everything important required Shenoutes prior consent negotiated
through the elder brother. . . . How can someone who is subjected to the supervision of a mere
father be an effective leader herself? (Elm, Virgins 30506). She gives only one example of deance by a female leader (307).
92. ZE 185: i.818 (Initial Crisis).
93. Elms assessment of the contrast between the authority of the male and female elder is
very helpful. However, as she herself notes, there is more evidence for the power struggles than
for simple female submission to male authority (Elm, Virgins 305 and 309).
95. I can see no other teaching or message to tell you but that which is clear to my mind:
if God wishes, I am about to come to you (Young, Manuscripts 98 [110]) (Crisis 4: The Beating
of Women). Y. rev.
99. The possibility exists that all three references are not to the same Tachom.
100. When will the day come that you, one and all, will understand what kind of punishment I am bringing to youpunishment such that the news of your folly would ll the village
where you are; not as though I am your master, but on account of the love of God! (Leipoldt,
Opera 3:21) (Crisis 10: Tachom). The phrases Shenoute uses here, punishment (timwria,
which means vengeance, punishment, including physical punishment and torture), love of
God (which he often uses as the reason for beatings), and news of your folly would ll the village (where news could also mean sound, in either case suggesting an extensive punishment that would be notable to others), all lead me to interpret Shenoutes typical elliptical langauge as a reference to corporal punishment.
101. Young, Manuscripts 105 (113) (Crisis 4: The Beating of Women).
102. See Margaret Y. MacDonald, Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of
the Hysterical Woman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 3041.
222
103. Elizabeth Clark, Ascetic Renunciation and Feminine Advancement: A Paradox of

Late Ancient Christianity, Anglican Theological Review 6 (1981): 245. This is more true of elite
ascetic women, rather than women who joined communities, such as those in the Pachomian
monasteries and female communities in Alexandria under Athanasius.
104. See G. Clark, Women in Late Antiquity 9798, for the role of cloth production by nonreligious women as a means of gender separation.
105. Leipoldt, Opera 4: 61.
106. Nor shall any of the elders who are gate-keepers in your community go from the village to any other place at all to visit sick people without being told by the male elder among
us. The gender of the rst group of elders is not specied, since it occurs in the plural, but it is
most likely that they are female senior monks subjugated to the male elders nal authority. The
rule continues, Nor shall any woman among you go beyond the gate of the community or
leave for any business without having been ordered to leave by the male elder (Leipoldt, Opera
4:61).
107. They were not to attend the burial but were allowed to go to the great gathering, and
you shall read and pray, according to the custom among us. But you shall not be able to sing
psalms at all, either for the woman who died or in the evening (Leipoldt, Opera 4: 62).
108. Whenever women in your community die, the brothers shall come and say psalms for
them and take them and bury them. Those who sing psalms shall be appointed from the time
when they are in the community . . . no one shall sing psalms . . . except those the male elder
appoints . . . [The brothers] shall not be allowed to see any of you, nor shall you be allowed to
see any of them . . . save for the female elder and six additional senior female monks who have
great seniority. Only they shall go with the brothers when a woman who came to the monastery
dies in your community, or her daughter, mother, or sister. You, however, shall walk behind the
brothers and remain at a distance (Leipoldt, Opera 4:6162).
109. Two examples: Your words which you sent to us in your letters or by the mouth of
those whom you have sent to us (Young, Manuscripts 100 [111]) (Crisis 4: The Beating of
Women), Y. rev., and Shenoutes description of seeing the pain in the female elder and Tapolles
faces in My Heart Is Crushed (XO 63: i.12ii.7) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
110. Moreover when some of the brothers go south to the community of brethren in the
village to spend a few days there building a holy place or doing any similar task, and when it is
necessary for them to sleep there until they nish, they shall have sent to them what is necessary for their meals from our community in this place. They shall not be given any dishes of
food from you [women], nor shall [the brothers] be permitted to see the [women] while they are
working. Rather, they shall enter their own houses and rest there more than they do here daily,
until they nish working there (Leipoldt, Opera 4: 69).
111. It is clear, since the food was sent as needed, that the two communities were close
enough that the men could have returned to their own quarters to sleep. To be specic, the food
was delivered to the men, not to the women who would then serve it to the men. Shenoutes
concern here does not seem to be about the food but about who served the food and who was
eating with whom.
112. For John Chrysostom, see the sections of his On Virginity in E. Clark, Women in the
Early Church (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1983), 12226. For Athanasius, see Brakke,
Athanasius 3034, and 4457; and Elm, Virgins 341. See also Cloke, Female Man 7781 for a
general discussion of the issue of spiritual marriage and various objections against it.
113. Herlihy gives sharing food as one of two indicators of kinship (David Herlihy, Making of the Medieval Family: Symmetry, Structure and Sentiment, Journal of Family History 8.2
[1983]: 116).
114. Cloke discusses Jeromes Letter 17 for his arguments against the practice that included
counseling the woman to live in a separate building and take their meals apart: For if you re-
223
main under one roof with him, slanderers will say that you share his bed (Cloke, Female Man
79). See also E. Clark, Jerome, Chrysostom and Friends: Essays and Translations (New York:
E. Mellen, 1979), 48ff.
115. E. Clark, Ideology, History and the Construction of Woman, 15758.
6. Gender and Monasticism in Late Antiquity

1. Elizabeth Clark, Ideology, History, and the Construction of Woman in Late Antique
Christianity JECS 2 (1994): 179.
2. Rosemary Rader, Breaking Boundaries: Male/Female Friendship in Early Christian Communities (New York: Paulist, 1983).
3. Note, however, that several male ascetic leaders maintained friendships with women in
their letters. See E. Clark, Jerome, Chrysostom and Friends: Essays and Translations.
4. For a good review of the most commonly cited examples of female ascetic communities
in late antiquity, see Rosemary Rader, Early Christian Forms of Communal Spirituality:
Womens Communities, in The Continuing Quest for God, ed. W. Skudlarek (Collegesville,
Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1982).
5. Brakke, Athanasius 19 details what evidence there is. See also Armand Veilleux, The
Origins of Egyptian Monasticism in The Continuing Quest for God (documented in n. 4).
6. Life of Anthony 3. See Brakke, Athanasius 24, for questions of historicity. It may even be
that the practice of ascetics living together began with women. Judge notes that the rise of the
term monachos in the Greek papyri seems to be a male version of an already-established female
practice of asceticism and life-long virginity (Edwin A. Judge, The Earliest Use of Monachos
for Monk (P. Coll. Youtie 77) and the Origins of Monasticism, JAC (1977): 7289).
7. Roger S. Bagnall and Bruce W. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994).
8. Vincent L. Wimbush, ed., Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 46263.
9. See A. M. Emmett, Female Ascetics in the Greek Papyri, Jahrbuch der osterreichischen
Byzantinistik 32.2 (1982): 50715, and A. M. Emmett, An Early Fourth-Century Monastic
Community in Egypt? in Maistor: Classical, Byzantine and Renaissance Studies for Robert
Browning, ed. A. Moffat (Canberra: Byzantina Australiensia, 1984). For a more general discussion, not limited to women, see Edwin A. Judge, Fourth-Century Monasticism in the Papyri, Proceedings of the XVI International Congress of Papyrology (Chico, Cal.: Scholars, 1981):
61320.
10. Brakke, Athanasius 21. While Athanasius was involved in an urban context whereas
Shenoute, though near a town, was located mainly in the Egyptian countryside, this difference
may not be as great a dichotomy as it rst seems. Recent studies have emphasized the universality of an educated Hellenized class, even in the more remote sections of Upper Egypt, as a
means of unication. It seems reasonable to suggest that Shenoute might have been in that
class, but the monks are far less certain. For a discussion of the role of countryside versus urban
settings in the Arian controversy, see Charles Kennengieser, Athanasius of Alexandria vs.
Arius: The Alexandrian Crisis, in Roots of Egyptian Christianity, ed. Bierger A. Pierson and
James E. Goehring (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 20415.
11. Brakke, Athanasius 2526. Athanasius was especially opposed to the practice of ascetic
women living with ascetic men; see 3134 and 4457.
13. For a discussion of the implications of Athanasiuss use of the phrase bride of Christ,
see Brakke, Athanasius 5357.
224

16. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:73. Women in the White Monastery did disobey their female
elder, as we know from the list of transgressions in Canon 4, but we have no record of Shenoute
urging the women to obey their female and male leaders equally. It is also more than possible
that Athanasius sent male emissaries to the communities of virgins. The distinction I am making, therefore, may be more due to the sources than a depiction of reality, but nevertheless
the difference in language and emphasis is important.
17. See both Brakke and Elm for Athanasiuss maneuvering to draw the ascetic movement
into the hierarchy of the Church. Brakke argues this for the ascetic movement as a whole, not
just female virgins, whereas Elms concentration is on Athanasius as one gure in the development of female asceticism and monasticism in fourth-century Egypt.
18. A saying attributed to Sisoes reads, The disciple of Abbott Sisoes said to him, Father,
you have grown old. Let us move a little closer to the settled land. The Old Man said, Where
there is no woman, that is where we should go. The disciple said to him, What other place is
there that has no woman, is not the desert? The Old Man said to him, Take me to the desert.
(Elm, Virgins 271, who is citing Browns translation, Body and Society 242). See also G. Clark,
Women in Late Antiquity 101 and Elm, Virgins 257ff., esp. n.13 in which she gives a list of sayings that rebuke women. For the Greek text, Patrologia Graeca 65: 392D.
19. See E. Clark, Foucault, The Fathers, and Sex JAAR 56.4 (1988): 627 and Elm, Virgins 27172 for further reasons for the womens presence in the desert, 25372 for the problems
it created.
20. These sayings have been translated by Benedicta Ward in The Desert Christian: Sayings
of the Desert Fathers, the Alphabetical Collection. (New York: Macmillan, 1975), 8284 and
22935. Her translations also appear in Kraemer, Maenads, Martyrs, Matrons and Monastics
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1998), 11724. For a detailed discussion of the various sayings and collections and the reliability of Greek traditions, see Elm, Virgins 255 n.5. I have largely relied on
Ward and Elms translations, as noted.
21. The latter point, the womens need to protect men from the sexual desire women provoke, is more often ascribed to women by male authors than acknowledged by the women
themselves. See The Life of Saint Mary the Harlot, in Kraemer, Maenads 32532, esp. 326. See
also Benedicta Ward, Harlots of the Desert: A Study of Repentance in Early Monastic Sources
(Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1987).
22. Cf. E. Clark, Foucault 684, for the self-mastery of women in the desert.
23. Cloke, Female Man 19798.
24. Elms translation in Virgins 267. See also Thomas Merton, The Wisdom of the Desert:
Sayings from the Desert Fathers of the Fourth Century (New York: New Directions, 1960), 32.
25. Ward, Desert Christian 230 (also Kraemer, Maenads 117). Also, [a]nother time, two old
men, great anchorites, came to the district of Pelusia to visit her. When they arrived one said
to the other, Let us humiliate this old woman. So they said to her, Be careful not to become
conceited thinking of yourself: Look how anchorites are coming to see me, a mere woman.
But Amma Sarah said to them, According to my nature I am a woman, but not according to
my thoughts. (Ward, Desert Christian 230; Kraemer, Maenads 117).
26. James Goehrings work has effectively undermined the notion that Pachomius
founded monasticism or that monasticism was an orthodox Christian movement (among
many other accomplishments in questioning the traditional picture of Egyptian monasticism).
See James Goehring, Monastic Diversity and Ideological Boundaries in Fourth-Century
Christian Egypt, JECS 5:1 (1997) 6183. My goal here is not to present the received tradition
as historical truth, or rely on hagiographies for historical information, but simply to provide
some context for the White Monastery, especially that of the leader traditionally viewed as the
model for Shenoutes monasticism.
225
27. Besa, Life 27 (Bohairic; Greek, 32), as also noted in Elm, Virgins 28990.
28. See ch. 2, n. 36. The difference between men and women in allowing visits in Pachomiuss monastery suggests that Shenoutes rule against female monks visiting their male relatives does not preclude the reverse. If that were the case, the restrictions on the womens movement as women increases the difference in treatment each group, male and female, received.
31. Thus, for example, Jerome writes about Paula that after she established a monastery
for men, whose governance she handed over to them, she divided the many virgins . . . into
three bands and a monastery. Jerome, Let. 108.20 (trans. E. Clark, Women in the Early Church
135). The Latin text can be found at CSEL 55.334.
32. Jerome, Let. 108.20 (E. Clark, Women in the Early Church 135).
33. Jerome, Let. 108.20 (E. Clark, Women in the Early Church 135).
34. There are some exceptions. We have information about Melania the Youngers monastic system and leadership from her hagiography as well, for example.
35. Cloke, Female Man 172 attests to power struggles in Melania the Youngers monastery.
36. Paula and both Melanias, the Elder and the Younger, all received praise for their asceticism from their male leaders. It was Melania the Elders monastery that Jerome was criticizing.
See Cloke, Female Man 170.
37. For a description of the womens authority and their exercise of it, see Cloke, Female
Man 17585.
38. E. Clark, Authority and Humility: A Conict of Values in Fourth-Century Female
Monasticism in Ascetic Piety and Womens Faith, Studies in Women and Religion, 20 (Lewiston, Me.: E. Mellen, 1986), 209228.
39. For example, Melania the Elders monastery had a strict regimen of study of scripture
and theology (Cloke, Female Man 168). Cf. Palladius, LH 55 for a description of one womans
study. Cf. also Cloke, Female Man 173 for Melania the Youngers emulation and imitation of
her grandmothers study.
40. See pp. 10506.
41. E. Clark, Origenist Controversy 24.
42. For a good collection of those letters of Jeromes which pertain to female asceticism, see
Petersen, Handmaids of the Lord 87280.
43. Augustine, Let. 211 (translated in Adolar Zumkeller, OSA, Augustines Ideal of the Religious Life, trans. Edmund Colledge, OSA [New York: Fordham University Press, 1986], 372
75). Portions of the letter also appear in Clark, Women in the Early Church 13740. The Latin
text is in CSEL 57.35671.
44. Cloke also describes a whispering campaign in one of the communities Palladius depicts (Cloke, Female Man 7273).
45. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:71 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk) and 2:309 (Crisis 7: Jealousy among the Women).
46. Perhaps because independent administrations were normal for fourth-century monasticism, Timbie assumed that Shenoutes letter to Tachom about her refusal to accept his envoy
was written to the female head of a separate monastery. Timbie did not have access to the mention of Tachoms name in Canons 2 and 4 (Timbie, State of Research 269).
47. This phrase is from Cloke, Female Man 93.
48. See T. Shaw, Burden of the Flesh 85 for an example from Basil of Ancyra.
49. Later in Egyptian Christian history, the eunuch would have remained a recognizable
gure from his position in the Byzantine court. See Terry Wilfongs discussion of the eunuch
and his impact on the Christian opposition of the categories male/female (Wilfong, The
Women of Jem 5354).
226
50. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:66 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk). I have dicussed the audience of this letter in chapter 5, p. 97. I have assumed that the section prior to the end addresses both communities and that Shenoute wanted to make his points about the illegitimacy
of castration to both men and women. Furthermore, I believe that Shenoute was responding
to actual situations where men had castrated themselves and providing for future occurrences,
rather than for a hypothetical possibility.
51. G. Clark, Women in Late Antiquity 9498.
52. Walter Stevenson, The Rise of the Eunuch in Late Antiquity JHS 5.4 (April 1995):
495511.
53. Stevenson, Rise 499501.
54. Basil of Ancyra, De virginitate tuenda 63, PG 30:769C. Brown (Body and Society 268),
Cloke (Female Man 62), and Rousselle (Aline Rousselle, Porneia: On Desire and the Body in Antiquity, trans. Felicia Pheasant [London: Basil Blackwell, 1988], 123) all note this passage.
Modern studies of men castrated as punishment for sexual offenses show that Basil was correct:
Based primarily on anecdotal accounts, rather than controlled clinical studies, Kinsey et al.
concluded that there was little basis for the assertion that castration impaired sexual function
in most men. Detailed studies conducted since the publication of the Kinsey reports suggested
that castration can have variable effects on the sexual activity of men. Heim and Hursch reviewed the results of prospective studies of men that had been castrated as treatment for sexual offenses. In these studies, half to two-thirds of the men reported a rapid loss of sexual desire
and interest, whereas in the remaining men sexual activity waned gradually, with as many as
10% reporting sexual intercourse for up to 20 years after castration. The study further suggests
that the greater effect was felt by older men, whereas the younger men had the more delayed
reaction. (Benjamin D. Sachs and Robert L. Meisel, The Physiology of Male Sexual Behavior, in The Physiology of Reproduction, ed. Ernst Knobil, Jimmy D. Neill, et al. [New York:
Raven Press, 1988]), 2:1422.
55. So strictly did Paula keep them separate from men that she would not allow even eunuchs to approach them, in case of giving cause for slanderous people to gossip (Cloke, Female
Man 97).
56. Both Catullus and Ovid imply a negative view in their discussions of the castrated Galli
priests (Ovid, Fasti, 4.22146; Catallus, Carminium 63). Catullus was both horried and fascinated at the same time; his description comes from a poem about Attis and the priests; the
priests have unmanned your bodies in utter revulsion from love. Moreover, Attis is a she
after castration; Attis alone with herself reviewed what she had done / and with clear mind
saw what she lacked and where she was / with fevered brain she took her return to the sea
(Catullus, 63.1517, 4449 [trans. G. P. Gould (London: Duckworth, 1983)]).
57. Lucian, Eunuch 6. On beards, Lucian, Eunuch 8; on voice, Lucian, Eunuch 7 (Lucian,
The Eunuch. trans. A. M. Harmon. [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936]).
58. Lucian, Eunuch 7. Cf. also Rousselle, Porneia 126, where she points out that under Roman law, there were two people: the one who castrated and the one who exists after castration. Thus, legally ones personhood changed through castration.
59. Lucian, Eunuch 7: He said that Diocles was acting unjustly in trying to exclude a eunuch from philosophy in which even women had a part.
60. Henry Chadwick, The Sentences of Sextus: A Contribution to the History of Early Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 110, interpreting Justin, Apol.
1.29. See also Justinian, Digest 8.5 for later legislation that would have affected the whole empire (The Digest of Justinian ed. Theodor Mommsen, with the aid of Paul Krueger and Alan
Watson [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985]).
61. Pneuma was regarded by ancient doctors and philosophers as the essential quality that
made a male a man. It was present in semen, and thus a great deal of attention was paid to the
227
proper diet, exercise, sleep habits, and sexual activity to maintain a high level of semen. See
Rouselle, Porneia 1315.
62. Galen, as cited in Oribasius, Medical Collection 22.2, cited by Rousselle, Porneia 1920.
Although Galens statement reads like a contrary-to-fact statement, that is, that castration is
not a solution since virility is in fact lost, Rousselle does not think that is what Galen meant.
Rousselle explains later that the genital organs transmitted the vital spirit, necessary to be a
man, but were not the producers of the spirit. Thus, through castration, this spirit could be retained and could continue on its journey, becoming a psychic spirit, that of a superior man
(Rousselle, Porneia 127).
63. So argues Rousselle, Porneia 125.
64. Rouselle, Porneia 125.
65. Hans J. W. Drijvers, The Saint as Symbol in Late Antiquity, in Concepts of Person in
Religion and Thought, ed Hans G. Kippenberg et al. (New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990), 144.
66. Drijvers, Saint as Symbol 151.
68. E. Clark, Gibbon Redivivius, The Journal of Religion 70 (1990): 436.
69. Acts of John 5354 in New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, ed. Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, trans. R. McL. Wilson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963).
70. Of particular interest, but beyond the scope of this study, is the history of exegesis of
Mt. 19:12 from Basilides to Clement to Origen.
71. R. P. C. Hanson, A Note on Origens Self-Mutilation, VC 20 (1966): 81. His note
provides a list of references to castration among Christian men in the second and third centuries that leads him to this conclusion. Most of his evidence is included in my discussion
here.
72. Justin, Apology 1.29.
73. Chadwick, Sentences of Sextus 1959: 110.
74. Eusebius, HE 6.8.12 and Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15.15. PG 13.3.
76. Jon Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity: Epiphanius of Cyprus and the
Legacy of Origen (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1988), 13435 provides a summary of
the positions of various scholars. He, Chadwick, and Patricia Cox (in Biography and Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983]) disbelieve
the account, while Hanson and Henri Crouzel (in Origen, trans. A. S. Worrall [San Francisco:
Harper and Row, 1989]) support it.
77. Origen, Com. Matt. 15.3.
78. Origen, Com. Matt. 15.3. Crouzel refers to this description in arguing that Origens
commentary shows sensitivity to the situation of a eunuch, suggesting Origen had indeed castrated himself. Origen, however, claims this knowledge comes from medical books.
79. The Council of Nicea ruled against any castrated man becoming a priest, unless he had
not chosen to be castrated (that is, he was castrated as a slave). Given the exceptions, the rule
was meant to outlaw the practice of voluntary castration among Christian men. The later
Apostolic Traditions removed the exceptions, perhaps because it was not possible to determine
the motivation of castration. See Hanson, Origens Self-Mutilation 8182 for the rule from
the council.
80. Both references are from Hanson, Origens Self-Mutilation 8182.
81. E. Clark, Foucault 68384.
82. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:66 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk). Shenoute is here referring to Mt. 19:12, which suggests that in his time there were still arguments about its correct
interpretation. Despite his commentary, the legend of Origens self-castration was still current,
as evidenced by Epiphanius. In the era of the Origenist controversy, then, the role of Origens
228
rash act must have been recalled as part of the larger issues, but whether it was a central issue in the controversy is uncertain. Epiphanius, for example, mentions Origens castration, in
the Panarion, but he discounts it as improbable.
86. Ntwtn+ m=parqenos m=nouj eite Hoout eite sHime Hra NHhtN na etnaeire
nHenbote Hra Hn+nesunagwgh Nouoeiv nim (XO 121: ii.27XO 122: i.6) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
87. As Elizabeth Clark explores in Ideology, History, and the Construction of Woman
179.
7. Womens Role in the Monastic Family

1. Brent Shaw, The Family in Late Antiquity: The Experience of Augustine, Past and
Present 115 (1987):47.
2. I am thinking here of Peskowitz, Spinning Fantasies and the gender theory she draws on
and summarizes well in her introduction, esp. 710 and 2025, as well as E. Clark Ideology,
History, and the Construction of Woman.
3. Shenoute, On Cleaving to Protable Things, trans. David Brakke, OLP 20
(1989):11541, at 122.
4. Martin explores a similar tension between value systems in Pauls rst letter to the
Corinthians, throughout his work The Corinthian Body.
5. See Bradley, Discovering the Roman Family (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 145.
6. Shaw points out the tension developing in late antiquity between the familial experience and familial language. He concludes, importantly, that the nuclear family existed but
within the larger conception of household and there was no vocabulary to express its separate
existence (Shaw, Family in Late Antiquity 49).
7. Both words have predominant meanings other than family. hi, most often house,
also means household and family (although these terms are differentiated in scholarship on
the family). The citations Crum gives are primarily, but not exclusively, biblical and translate
Greek oi\ko (A Coptic Dictionary, s.v.). The second term is mnteiwt, generally fatherhood.
Although Crum gives family as the primary meaning this is true only in biblical contexts
(ibid., s.v.).
8. Dixon surveys the numbers of objections and arguments in dening the family as a topic
of study: Some scholars argue that it is not useful to dene the family in terms of its functions
because so many of these functions can be and are performed by non-kin groups and because
kin do not themselves necessarily fulll the same roles in the economy or in peoples lives. . . .
[O]thers argue that the family itself is a social construct and that in treating it as an organic unit
scholars simply obscure the manifold interests represented in families (Suzanne Dixon, The
Roman Family [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992], 24). Halvor Moxnes argues
that the previous structural-functionalism of earlier family sociology has been, and should be,
abandoned in favor of regarding families as social systems that are human constructions with
assigned meanings (Moxnes, What Is Family? 18).
9. In a panel discussion of religious paradigms for parenting in late antiquity at the 1998
Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion, it was noted that all examples in the
three papers under discussion showed a transformation from biological to spiritual family but
that there was seemingly no evidence for an anti-familial position, that is, one that disregarded the family as a stucture entirely. Anti-familial then means anti-biological family, but
not an abandonment of the social institution (Orlando 1998).
229
10. For a more detailed discussion of these terms and the scholarship associated with them,
see Moxnes, What Is Family? 1617. Much of my discussion that follows comes from his
treatment.
11. For examples of biological family members joining monasteries in other geographic locations, and a later time period, see Alice Mary Talbot, The Byzantine Family and the
Monastery, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990): 11929. She also describes kinship language in
a communal monastery and the relationship to the image of the monastery as a family.
12. I am indebted to Denise Buells recent study of familial imagery in Clement of Alexandria (Making Christians) for helpful articulations of familial imagery and authority, and for reinscribing Paul into later theological writings.
13. Eva Marie Lassen, The Roman Family: Ideal and Metaphor, in Moxnes, Constructing
103.
14. Philip F. Esler, Family Imagery and Christian Identity in Gal. 5:13 to 6:10, in Moxnes,
Constructing 134.
15. Lone Fatum, Brotherhood in Christ: A Gender Hermeneutical reading of 1 Thessalonians, in Moxnes, Constructing 189 for high group/strong grid. See also Esler, Family Imagery 141.
16. Esler, Family Imagery 135.
17. Reidar Aasgaard, Brotherhood in Plutarch and Paul: Its Role and Character, in
Moxnes, Constructing 176.
18. Both Fatum, Brotherhood, and Karl Olav Sanches, Equality within Patriarchal
Structures: Some New Testament Christian Fellowship as a Brother- or Sisterhood and Family, in Moxnes, Constructing 15665, explore these two issues.
19. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1: 18ff.
20. I argue that the lacuna consisted mainly of further examples of barren biblical couples,
because later in the letter Shenoute refers back to his list of examples but there includes
people missing from the beginning. Cf. the quotation that follows. Leipoldt makes the same
assumption in his editorial comment in his publication of the same manuscript (Leipoldt,
Opera 4:28).
27. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:22 and 24 (Crisis 3: A Monk Refuses Promotion).
30. For the Coptic for all the quotations in this paragraph, see Young, Five Leaves
27080. All translations are my own.
31. The role of the father which denes the household is a power relationship: he dominates because he must enforce the peace of the household to ensure its harmony (B. Shaw,
Family in Late Antiquity 11).
32. Fatum, Brotherhood in Christ.
35. Unless he made a distinction between being a child of God and a child in a nonmonastic family, in terms of leading to salvation, which he does not. In fact, he argues the opposite, that biological families should imitate the monastic one in beating their children
(chapter 8).
230
36. Shaw, Family in Late Antiquity 2324.

37. Bagnall points out that the papyri show us a picture quite different in many other respects, however, from that visible in Roman Africa in this period, specically referring to
Shaws work, but does not address corporal punishment of children in particular (Bagnall,
Egypt in Late Antiquity 201). It is, then, perhaps noteworthy than in a particular letter from the
papyri (P.Oxy. 49:3506) an angry father does not threaten his daughter with corporal punishment, even though Roman law would presumably allow him to do so: Within the household, it was the paterfamilias who wielded authority, including the legal right to inict corporal punishment (Saller, Corporal Punishment, Authority and Obedience in the Roman
Household, in Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, ed. B. Rawson [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991], 157). For the tensions between fathers and children, and the
power of the father in that context, see S. Dixon, Roman Family 158.
38. Saller, Corporal Punishment 16162.
39. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:50 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk). This is assuming there
was not a change in excepting boys and girls from punishment between these two letters.
40. Shenoute talks about corporal punishment within biological families in a sermon, On
Cleaving to Protable Things, which I discuss in chapter 8.
44. He begins this metaphor earlier, soon after the start of the fragment, in the pages preceding (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:15051) (Crisis 7: Jealousy among the Women). See chapter 4 for
more about male monks judging of the womens disputes.
46. Hobson has studied the relationship between the houses and households (that is, families) in Roman Egypt and concludes that the basis of house occupancy was familialand for
the most part patrilinearand that the partition of property resulting from the system of inheritance led to shared households of siblings (Deborah W. Hobson, House and Household
in Roman Egypt, YCS 28 [1985]: 223). She also points out that the prevalence of brother-sister
marriage in Roman Egypt would consolidate these households (224, with reference to K. Hopkins, Brother-Sister Marriage in Roman Egypt, Comparative Studies in Society and History 22
[1980]: 30354). Bagnall and Frier also give several examples of household arragements, described in census returns, where households combine various families, sometimes even including ex-spouses (Bagnall and Frier, Demography 5763 and 12134). See also Bowman, Egypt
After the Pharaohs 130.
47. Shaw points out the difference, that the sons were the legal inheritors of their fathers
estates (Shaw, Family in Late Antiquity 11). Saller argues that the distinction between the
ogging of slaves and the treatment of sons was not just in the fathers love for a son, but in the
class difference between the one able to suffer physical punishment and the one who was not.
While sons were subservient to their fathers power, they, since they were not slaves, were unlikely to be taught a servile manner through beatings (Saller, Corporal Punishment 163). See
also Theodore S. de Bruyn, Flogging a Son: the Emergence of the pater agellans in Latin Christian Discourse, JECS 7:2 (1999): 24990. Although de Bruyn focuses on western authors, and
not eastern, one can see parallels between Shenoutes discourse and Augustines. He also makes
a useful distinction between oggings, with a whip, and beatings, with a rod (285).
48. In the last two decades, there has been a growth of study of the Roman family. Still, study
of the family in the ancient Mediterranean world lags behind the rest of the eld of family history, in part due to the nature of the surviving sources. The scholarship I am relying upon is not
meant to be exhaustive for the topic the family in late antiquity but best serves, in my judgment, the discussion of the formation of the White Monastery as a family. For further discussions
231
of issues in the Roman family, see Rawson, The Family in Ancient Rome and The Roman Household: A Sourcebook, ed. Jane F. Gardner and Thomas Wiedemann (New York: Routledge, 1991).
50. After analyzing Ciceros letters from exile for his relationships with wife, daughter and
son, Bradley concludes, The individual bonds between husband and wife and parent and
child . . . remained discrete, separate threads in a densely and extensively woven fabric
(Bradley, Discovering 201).
51. Dixon, Bradley, and Bagnall all treat divorce in their discussions of the family in antiquity, yet the only general conclusion one can come to is that divorce was not uncommon,
and in Egypt was fairly easy to obtain. This conclusion tells us little about ways families in general responded and adapted to divorce; as with many other family issues, the topics are personal,
requiring a personalized response. For a discussion of the impact of Christianity on this issue, see Roger Bagnall, Church, State and Divorce in Late Roman Egypt, in Florilegium
Columbianum: Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller, ed. K. L. Selig and R. Somerville (New
York: Italica Press, 1987).
52. Saller, Bowman, and Bradley have focused their attention on the emotional bonds,
which can dene a family. Paul Veyne analyzes the power dynamic, as does Shaw. Dixon looks
at function and ritual.
53. Saller, Corporal Punishment 148. Saller has also pointed out the dangers of focusing
on the power of the paterfamilias: Some scholars focus on the paterfamilias legal power, as if
they were the essence of Roman family life rather than a legal construct (145).
54. See Sarah B. Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt: From Alexander to Cleopatra (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990), 308, for arrangements in marriage contracts for
continued contact with kin.
55. Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt 309; she cites BGU II 648.
56. Dixon points out that one of the stresses of marriage was the introduction of new
household members, who would then be in competition for the material goods the family provided (Dixon, Roman Family 14142). She also gives a list of the functions of the family (30).
57. Dixon notes, The material from Roman Egypt, which does contain concrete information from household-based censuses and individual wills and contracts of sale, adoption and
apprenticeship, is enriching our knowledge of Roman families, though she does not use this
knowledge in her study (Dixon, Roman Family 32). Every scholar whose work on Egypt is cited
in these notes has consulted the papyri. For the most part, the papyri are the basis for the descriptions of family life in Egypt (Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity 199207; Bowman, Egypt After the Pharoahs 13132). See also John Garrett Winter, Life and Letters in the Papyri (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1933).
58. Bagnall argues that, [d]emography sets the context for the study of people and families in antiquity (Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity 182). For a condensed demographic description of late antique Egypt, see 18284. A more in-depth exploration can be found in Bagnall
and Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt.
59. Roger Bagnall, Family and Society in Roman Oxyrhynchus in Alan Bowman, et al.,
eds., Oxyrhynchus: A City and Its Texts (London: Egypt Exploration Society, forthcoming) and
Raffaella Cribiore, Windows on a Womans World: Some Letters from Roman Egypt, in Making Silence Speak: Womens Voices in Greek Literature and Society, A. Lardinois and L. McClure,
eds. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 23339.
60. Sarah Pomeroy, Women in Roman Egypt: A Preliminary Study Based on Papyri, in
Reections of Women in Antiquity, ed. H. Foley (London: Gordon and Breuch Science Publishers, 1981), 318. I have limited myself to the collected papyri from Oxyrhynchos, which are
both extensive and easily available. The following description is in no way meant to be exhaustive but rather illustrative of recurring familial concerns. Fortunately, some additions can
232
be made through the use of Jane Rowlandsons Women and Culture in Greek and Roman Egypt:
A Sourcebook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), a recent publication that examines evidence for womens lives in a larger sampling of the Egyptian papyri.
61. Bagnall, Reading Papyri 23.
62. P.Oxy. 10:1295 (that is, vol. 10, no. 1295). I have relied on the editions and translations the various volumes provide, as well as additional translations of some letters provided by
Roger Bagnall, NEH Summer Seminar, Columbia University, 1999.
63. P.Oxy. 33:2682. Cf. also P.Oxy. 42:3060.
65. P.Oxy. 7:937.
66. P.Oxy. 12:1489.
67. Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt 93.
68. David Herlihy, Making of the Medieval Family: Symmetry, Structure and Sentiment,
Journal of Family History 8.2 (1983): 116.
69. YD 191: i.27ii.1 (Initial Crisis). For a description of the storehouses for food in
Shenoutes monastery, see Besa, Life 14043.
70. auw Henakaqartos emate nnaHra ne na etsooun ntootou ebol etreuFi
m=peto nnoC evwpe ouoeik pe h evwpe keHnaau nouwm pe je euetaaF eHra etCij nta (YD 193: ii.1630) (Initial Crisis).
71. See Wilfong, Friendship and Physical Desire for further discussion of the use of
friendship in Shenoutes writings. I am also grateful to Terry for personal correspondence about
interpretation of this particular text.
72. YD 194: ii.1226 (Initial Crisis).
74. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:57 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk). See chapter 8, p. 167,
for discussion of the role of biological kin in this conict.
75. XO 115: i.8ii.14 (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership). For a positive interpretation of monks
living like a stranger, see Peter Brown, Body and Society, 246; he argues that being like a
stranger to one another was the goal of monastic life; however, in the context of Shenoutes
statement here, his need to celebrate like a stranger was not a good situation but opposed to
the ideal of celebrating like a companion. The dichotomy of stranger versus companion occurs throughout Shenoutes letters.
76. Caroline Walker Bynum, Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Signicance of Food to
Medieval Women (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 223.
78. A rough estimate is that about 20 percent of the letters written by women involved
clothing issues. It is not yet known how this percentage compares to the amount of clothing
that appears in letters written by men.
79. P.Oxy. 8:1153.
80. Clothing also included sheepskins, which were also part of the monastic wardrobe, but
these were not distributed by women (P.Oxy. 49:3505).
81. P.Oxy. 59:3991.
82. P.Oxy. 56:3860.
83. P.Oxy. 59:4001.
84. P.Oxy. 14:1679.
85. P.Oxy. 20:2273.
86. P.Oxy. 31:2593. It is possible that this woman was engaged in a textile business, and
not a private, family-oriented process, since the author is silent about the recipients of her
labors.
87. P.Oxy. 2:293.
233
88. P.Oxy. 17:2151. Another man also had had previous attempts to get clothing go unanswered: To his mother . . . I wrote you previously to let me know . . . if you have nished the
cloaks (P.Oxy. 59:3996).
89. P.Oxy. 8:1069. Another writer took a less strident approach to his mother: Be pleased,
my lady mother, to buy me a thick veil for the winter, and to get the Oasis hood from Peter, son
of Esour, that I may wear it when I come (P.Oxy. 10:1300). Sometimes the male relative was
contacting his female kin merely because he had forgotten his cloak: I have left my cloak behind with Tecusa at the gateway (P.Oxy. 12:1489).
90. G. Clark, Women in Late Antiquity 98101, has a good representative discussion of the
role of women in weaving and garment production. Peskowitz, Spinning Fantasies 81, discusses
how weaving remained ideologically gendered even with a male-run textile industry.
98. XO 68: ii.3169: ii.4 (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
99. Cf. Pomeroy, Women in Roman Egypt. She explores the effects of land-ownership on
womens lives, their relationships with family, and their literacy rate. See also Bagnall, Egypt in
Late Antiquity 130.
100. The most commonly cited example is that of Didyme and her sisters, which has
been proposed as an early Christian group of ascetic women.
101. Nqe ntanpwH n[ni]vthn ea[n]swl=p+ n=na
= nzwnh nnentaur=nobe Hra nHhtn nqe
nHenmato je aur=nobe epeur=ro is+ anpwt Nswou anjoouse ebol nHhtn+ (XO 71:
ii.2972: i.9) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership). The clothing involved may well have been clothing that identied the people as monks. Such was the case in the Pachomian community,
where the monks all wore the same outt. For a discussion of clothing in Pachomiuss
monastery, see Constantine Tsirpanlis, The Origin, Nature and Spirit of Christian Monasticism, Orthodox Thought and Life 3 (1986): 90. This possibility, that clothing needed to be made
in a particular way in order to identify the monks as members of the White Monastery, also illuminates Shenoutes anger about the unacceptable cloak that began this letter.
102. YD 201: ii. 1323 (Initial Crisis).
104. XO 70: ii.27XO 71: ii.14 (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
105. Bowman, who quotes some letters that he nds illustrative, notes, Innumerable letters testify to the strength of feeling within the family and the household in Egyptian society.
He gives no elaborate comment on the examples he chose (Bowman, Egypt After the Pharaohs
131).
107. P.Oxy. 9:1216. Cf. also P.Oxy. 10:1293. Bagnall points out that illness produced
acute anxiety on the part of both the victim and nearby family members. Still worse than the
situation of the relatives at hand, perhaps, was the plight of those at a distance who might be
kept in suspense and anxiety (Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity 187).
108. P.Oxy. 34:2729.
109. P.Oxy. 41:2980. Cf. also P.Oxy. 59:4000.
110. P.Oxy. 3:530, a letter in which a son is reporting to his mother.
111. P.Oxy. 49:3506. It is difcult to know to what extent this conict would upset the kin
relationship. On the one hand, we have seen the reliance on kin throughout these letters. On
234
the other, Bowman writes, Family loyalties, as we would expect, could be undermined (Bowman, Egypt After the Pharoahs 132).
112. P.Oxy. 4:744 for the former. For despair about lost love, see Bowman, Egypt After the
Pharaohs 131. See also Gustav Adolf Deissman, Light from the Ancient East (New York: Doran,
1927) for his description of what he sees as emotional coldness to an abandoned child.
113. John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance (New York: Vintage, 1990), 5, 2122.
114. Once again we came to you for a third time, while a great sickness was upon us; and
I came on foot, because of the pain in my heart. And after we spent all night talking to you, but
not with many words from the Scriptures (XC 219: ii.1730) (Initial Crisis).
116. nsabhl gar an je aouw eijw mmos jeTnalupei mmwtn an jinmpeinau etbeHenvthn etaau Hiwwt empepnoute rHnaF eTmton na nHhtou Hmpavwne (XO 65:
ii.315) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
118. There was a tension between the legal construct of the authoritative paterfamilias,
and the evidence of family feeling: parental authority is coercive but within the bounds
of the house it is balanced by a counter-ideology of love (Shaw, Family in Late Antiquity
18).
119. m=pr=trenetHe ebol Hn+tmn+t=parqenos mn+tmn+t=me h neHbhue Ntm+Ntme Hra
Hn+nesunagwgh Nouoeiv nim skantalize m=mwtn Hn+tetnmntparqenos h netnHbhue
mmntme ntwtn nesnhu etouaab evje senakwH an erwtn+ Hn+tetn+Hupomonh
mn+petn+tbbo mntetn+mn+tme h netn+Hbhue mmn+t=me m=pr=kwH eroou Hm+peujwHm+ mnpeuCol mnneuHbhue NkroF (XO 83: ii.2XO 84: i.2) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
120. [The Lord] commanded them, saying, Children of peace, let your peace rest itself
upon the [children of hostility]. Children of the hostility, let your peace return to you. Indeed,
is peace not the companion of the spirit of the just, and is the spirit of the just not the companion of peace? (nqe NtaFHwn mmos etootou je Nvhre NTrhnh maretetneirhnh
mton mmos eHra ejwou nvhre Ntmn+tjaje maretetneirhnh kots+ erwtn+ h Trhnh
tkoinwnos an te m=pepna NNdikaios auw pepn+a+ NNdikaios pkoinwnos an pe NTrhnh
[XO 120 i.12ii.5]) (Crisis 9: Excessive Leadership).
123. Forgive your sister and tolerate one another in the fear of the Lord and you will perfect your deeds so that you will not be sorry on the day when every hardship will withdraw from
us, if you say, How am I bound to her? or I do not hate her. It is written, Hatred usually wakes
a quarrel. Love tolerates everything (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:7071) (Crisis 6: The Death of a
Male Monk).
124. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:50 (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk). Here I have taken the
terms brother and junior companion (literally, son or little boy) as monastic terms and not as indicating a biological relationship between them and any female monks. I believe this since in
cases where biological relationships were at issue in allegiances and conict, Shenoute makes
that relationship clear. See chapter 8, pp. 16366.
125. See Ross Kraemer, Blessings 142 and MacDonald, Power of the Hysterical Woman,
building on Kraemer.
8. According to the Flesh

1. E. Clark, Anti-Familial Tendencies in Ancient Christianity, JHS 5.3 (1995): 36566.
2. Rule 143 (Veilleux, Pachomian Koinonia 16667).
235
3. Rousseau, Pachomius 6970. For a comparison of Theodore and Pachomiuss views about
the relationship between monks and their blood relatives, see 15152.
4. Talbot has examined some of the same issues I am examining here, but in the later
Byzantine period. Her topics include the family image which shaped the monastery and the
presence of biological families within the monastery (Talbot, Byzantine Family 11929).
6. Two further examples appear in the following discussion, the historical reconstruction
of emotional conict and the biological kin.
7. I have here changed Dwight Youngs translation (Manuscripts 1035 [11213]), following
instead Leipoldts (in German) and Elms (in English). The word for young, vhm, follows the
mens proper names. Leipoldt and Elm therefore translate young Hllo, young John, and
young Pshai. The rst name, Hllo (literally, old man or elder) requires special comment.
While it is attested as a personal name in Coptic, it seems out of place as a name in the monastery,
since it was also a title of monastic authority. So the phrase must mean the young elder, by
which Shenoute must mean an elder who has been appointed to that position more recently.
8. It is clear from the letters in the papyri that women, as well as men, were often identied by their relationships to other relatives. See Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity 181207.
9. It is possible that the Apa could be a member of another community, or a desert hermit,
but for him to be identiable as a relative of the female monks suggests some association with
the White Monastery.
10. Shenoute uses the Coptic words for little boy, vhre vhm, and little girl, veere
vhm, as monastic terms referring to junior monks throughout his letters to women.
11. Bagnall, Egypt 205. Cf. also Hopkins, Brother-Sister Marriage 30354. Brother-sister
marriage was no longer practiced in fourth-century AD Egypt, but the language remained inuenced by this past practice. For a discussion of the relationship between marriage and kinship,
see R. Saller and B. Shaw, Close-Kin Marriage in Roman Society, Man 19 (1984): 43244.
12. For example, after Melania the Younger and her husband have entered a spiritual marriage, she advises him also to alter his clothing and exhorts him to be persuaded by me as your
spiritual mother and sister (Life of Melania the Younger, 8).
14. And the man stood up in the place where he was told this news, and he went to his
mother, who had borne him to the place where she was and he saw her in her two-fold condition: madness and blindness. And he sat down and cried before her. But she laughed and rejoiced, because she was very glad and was not ashamed, nor did she grieve because she was going insane or already was. And after the man was satiated from crying, he took her by her hands
and brought her to himself, as she stumbled along blindly behind him, leaning on his shoulders, as he led her to a place where he thought she could be healed (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:53)
(Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk).
17. Just prior to relating this story, Shenoute referred to periods of sin as a period of his
blindness, a fountain of bitterness and pain [that] will ow into the soul of the person whom
these people rob in the twinkling of an eye at night (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:52) (Crisis 6: The
Death of a Male Monk).
19. ZE 63: ii.126 (Initial Crisis).
20. Pray, do you indeed love your neighbors or your relatives if you stealthily give them
things to eat? (Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:57) (Crisis 6: The Death of a Male Monk).
236
23. Talbot has a later example of two monks, a mother and a daughter, who had to live together without speaking for years in order to renounce their biological bond (Talbot, Byzantine Family 121).
24. ZE 68: i.1421 (Initial Crisis).
25. auw ta te qe evareta bwk eHoun epesh esrime auw esavaHom erwtn= ta
de Hwws etresbwk eHoun epesh esrave auw essmou erwtn+ Hn+oumnt+petvoueit
(YD 194: ii.1226) (Initial Crisis). In this instance, the recipient of the favoritism was not necessarily a relative but was the object of eshly desire. The monks whom Shenoute described
as wailing and weeping appear to be not at all like the ideal monks presented in Palladius, Lausiac History 34. Palladius recounts the tale of a female monk who was abused by her fellow
monks. According to one such description, she never abused anyone, she never murmured or
spoke either little or much, although she was boxed, abused, cursed and loathed (Palladius,
LH, trans. Robert Meyers. [London: Longmans, Green, 1965]). In such an idealized description, one might imagine that a good monk was thankful for her sufferings, whereas the monks
under Shenoute are very resentful of their sufferings. For a good discussion of the role of the
ideal of apatheia in Palladiuss description, see K. Vogt, La Moniale folle du monastere des
Tabennsiotes: Une interprtation du chapitre 34 de lHistoire Lausaica de Pallade, Symbolae
Osloenses 62 (1987): 95108, esp. 1024.
26. The concept of competition in asceticism is from Bynum, Holy Feast, Holy Fast 3839.
27. Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:24 (Crisis 3: A Monk Refuses Promotion). Cloke notes the impact
the divine rank of virgins could have on family rank and quotes Augustine, On the Good of
Widowhood 11, on the subject in which a mother is told she is now inferior to her virgin
daughter (Cloke, Female Man 58).
28. The biological kin were mentioned in his defense and on the list of women to be punished.
29. Shenoute, On Cleaving, trans. Brakke, 126.
30. Young, Manuscripts 107 (113) (Crisis 4: The Beatings of Women). A similar example is
listed on p. 171, at n. 38, here.
31. It was possible for a male monk to be described both in terms of a biological relationship to a female monk and in terms of his monastic relationship.
33. It is noteworthy that no fathers, and only one brother, were expelled (though blood relatives could also include men) because it raises the possibility that families were expected to
accompany a father, or senior male relative, were he expelled. Thus no relatives remain in the
monastery to complain whereas relatives of women expelled did remain behind.
34. Herlihy, Medieval Family 116.
35. In the rule against visits, Shenoute makes clear that the founding father devised this
rule, after a period of time when monks were allowed to visit their relatives. Leipoldt, Opera
4:61 (see chapter 2, n. 30 for translation).
36. Recall Amlineau, Oeuvres 1:24, pp. 3940 (Crisis 3: A Monk Refuses Promotion).
37. This has been made obvious by the conicts over hoarding food. It also perhaps explains some of the envy and resentment by kinless monks, if these women demonstrated emotion at seeing one another.
40. Kuhn, Letters 123 (11718) (Initial Crisis). K. rev. Please note that my translation follows the actual Coptic and not Kuhns emendation.
Bibliography
Aasgaard, Reidar. Brotherhood in Plutarch and Paul: Its Role and Character. In Moxnes,
Constructing Early Christian Families, 16682.
Amlineau, . Oeuvres de Schenoudi: Texte copte et traduction franaise. 2 vols. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 190714.
Bagnall, Roger. Church, State and Divorce in Late Roman Egypt. In Florilegium Columbianum: Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller, ed. K. L. Selig and R. Somerville. New York:
Italica Press, 1987, 4161.
. Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
. Family and Society in Roman Oxyrhynchus. In Oxyrhynchus: A City and Its Texts,
ed. Alan Bowman, Revel Coles, Dirk Obbink, and Peter Persons. London: Egypt Exploration Society, forthcoming.
. Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History. New York: Routledge, 1995.
Bagnall, Roger, and Bruce W. Frier. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994.
Barc, Bernard, and Marie-Odil Strasbach. Dictionaire inverse du copte. Louvain: ditions
peeters, 1984.
Barns, John W. B. Shenute as a Historical Source. In Actes du Xe congrs international de papyrologues: Varsovie-Cracovie 39 septembre 1961, ed. Jzef Wolski. Wroclaw, Warsaw, and
Krakow: Zaklad narodowy Imienia Ossolinskich Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk,
1964, 15159.
Basil of Ancyra, De virginitate tuenda. PG 30.669809.
Bell, H. I. Egypt, from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1948.
Besa. Life of Shenoute. Trans. David Bell. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian, 1983.
Booth, Alan. The Age for Reclining and Its Attendant Perils. In Dining in a Classical Context, ed. William J Slater. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991, 10520.
237
238
Bibliography
Boswell, John. The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from
Late Antiquity to the Renaissance. New York: Vintage, 1990.
Bowman, Alan K. Egypt after the Pharaohs, 332 BCAD 642. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1986.
Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.
Bradley, Keith. Discovering the Roman Family: Studies in Roman Social History. Oxford: Oxford
Brakke, David. Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Brown, Peter. The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.
. The Making of Late Antiquity. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1978.
. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992.
. The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity. JRS 61 [1971]: 80
101.
. The Saint as Exemplar in Late Antiquity. Representations 1 (1983):125.
Buell, Denise Kimber. Making Christians: Clement of Alexandria and the Rhetoric of Legitimacy.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.
Burton-Christie, Douglas. The Word in the Desert: Scripture and the Quest for Holiness in Early
Christian Monasticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Butler, Alfred J. The Ancient Coptic Churches. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1884.
Bynum, Carolyn Walker. Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Signicance of Food to Medieval
Women. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
. The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity: 2001336. New York: Columbia
Cameron, Averil. Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1991.
. Virginity as Metaphor. In History as Text, ed. Averil Cameron. London: Duckworth,
1989, 181205.
Carri, Jean-Michel. Lgypte au IVe Sicle: Fiscalit, conomie, Socit. Proceedings of the
XVI International Congress of Papyrology. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981, 43146.
Castelli, Elizabeth A. Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox,
1991.
. Mortifying the Body, Curing the Soul: Beyond Ascetic Dualism in The Life of Saint
Syncletica. differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 4.2 (1992): 13453.
. Virginity and Its Meaning for Womens Sexuality in Early Christianity. Journal of
Feminist Studies in Religion 2.1 (1986): 6188.
Catullus. Poems. Trans. G. P. Gould. London: Duckworth, 1983.
Chadwick, Henry, ed. and trans. The Sentences of Sextus: A Contribution to the History of Early
Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.
Chassinat, mile. Le quatrime livre des entretiens et ptres de Shenouti. MIFAO, vol. 23. Cairo:
Institut franais darchologie orientale, 1911.
Chitty, Derwas J. The Desert a City. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1966.
Clark, Elizabeth. Anti-Familial Tendencies in Ancient Christianity. JHS 5.3 (1995): 356
80.
. Ascetic Piety and Womens Faith: Essays on Late Ancient Christianity. Studies in Women
and Religion, 20. Lewiston, N.Y.: E. Mellen, 1986.
. Ascetic Renunciation and Feminine Advancement: A Paradox of Late Ancient
Christianity. Anglican Theological Review 6 (1981): 24057.
Bibliography
239
. Foucault, the Fathers, and Sex. JAAR 56.4 (1988): 61941.

. Gibbon Redivivius. The Journal of Religion 70 (1990): 43236.
. Ideology, History, and the Construction of Woman in Late Antique Christianity.
JECS 2 (1994): 15584.
. Jerome, Chrysostom and Friends: Essays and Translations. New York: E. Mellen, 1979.
. The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
. Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.
. Women in the Early Church. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1983.
Clark, Gillian. Women in Late Antiquity: Pagan and Christian Lifestyles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Cloke, Gillian. This Female Man of God: Women and Patristic Spiritual Power in the Patristic
Age, AD 350450. New York: Routledge, 1995.
Coon, Lynda. Sacred Fictions: Women and Hagiography in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997.
The Coptic Dictionary. Ed. W. E. Crom et al. Oxford: Clarendon, 1939.
The Coptic Encyclopedia. 8 vols. Ed. Aziz S. Atiya. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1991.
Corley, Kathleen. Private Women, Public Meals: Social Conict in the Synoptic Tradition. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993.
Cox, Patricia. Biography and Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1983.
Cribiore, Raffaella. Windows on a Womans World: Some Letters from Roman Egypt. In
Making Silence Speak: Womens Voices in Greek Literature and Society. ed. A. Lardinois and
L. McClure. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001, 22339.
Crouzel, Henri. Origen. Trans. A. S. Worrall. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1989.
Crowfoot, Elisabeth. A Romano-Egyptian Dress of the First Century B.C.? Textile History 20
(1989): 12328.
Crum, W. E. Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 1905.
de Bruyn, Theodore. Flogging a Son: The Emergence of the pater agellans in Latin Christian
Discourse. JECS 7.2 (1999): 24990.
Dechow, Jon. Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity: Epiphanius of Cyprus and the Legacy of
Origen. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1988.
Deissman, Gustav Adolf. Light from the Ancient East. New York: Doran, 1927.
The Digest of Justinian. Ed. Theodor Mommsen, with the aid of Paul Krueger and Alan Watson.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Dixon, Suzanne. The Roman Family. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.
Doorn-Harder, Pieternella van. Contemporary Coptic Nuns. Columbia, S.C.: University of
South Carolina Press, 1995.
Douglas, Mary. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
Drijvers, Hans J. W. The Saint as Symbol in Late Antiquity: Conceptions of the Person in
Late Antiquity and Early Christianity. In Concepts of Person in Religion and Thought, ed.
Hans G. Kippenberg et al. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990, 13757.
Dunbabin, Katherine M.D. Triclinium and Stibaldium. In Dining in a Classical Context, ed.
William J Slater. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991, 12148.
Elm, Susanna. Virgins of God: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford
Emmel, Stephen. Editing Shenute: Problems and Prospects. Sprachen und Kulturen des
Christlichen Orients 6.2 (1999): 10913.
240
Bibliography
. Shenutes Literary Corpus. Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1993.

Emmett, A. M. An Early Fourth-Century Monastic Community in Egypt? In Maistor: Classical, Byzantine and Renaissance Studies for Robert Browning, ed. A. Moffat. Canberra: Byzantina Australiensia, 1984, 7783.
. Female Ascetics in the Greek Papyri. Jahrbuch der osterreichischen Byzantinistik 32.2
(1982): 50715.
Esler, Philip F. Family Imagery and Christian Identity in Gal. 5:13 to 6:10. In Moxnes, Constructing Early Christian Families, 12149.
Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History. 2 vols. Trans. Kirshopp Lake (vol. 1) and J.E.L. Oulton (vol.
2). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926 (vol. 1) and 1932 (vol. 2).
Fatum, Lone. Brotherhood in Christ: A gender hermeneutical reading of 1 Thessalonians. In
Moxnes, Constructing Early Christian Families, 183200.
Foucault, Michel. History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction. Trans. Robert Hurley. New
York: Random House, 1978.
. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 19721977. Ed. Colin
Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980.
Frankfurter, David. Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance. Princeton: Princeton
Gardner, Jane F. and Thomas Wiedemann, eds. The Roman Household: A Sourcebook. New
York: Routledge, 1991.
Garrett, Susan. The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Lukes Writings. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1989.
Goehring, James. Monastic Diversity and Ideological Boundaries in Fourth-Century Christian Egypt. JECS 5:1 (1997): 6183.
. New Frontiers in Pachomian Studies. In The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, ed. Birger
A. Pearson and James E. Goehring. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986, 23657.
. The Origins of Monasticism. In Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism, ed. H. W. Attridge and G. Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992, 23555.
. Withdrawing from the Desert: Pachomius and the Development of Village Monasticism in Upper Egypt. HTR 89:3 (1996): 26785.
Gould, Graham. The Desert Fathers on Monastic Community. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993.
. Women in the Writings of the Fathers: Language, Belief and Reality. In Women in
the Church, ed. W. J. Sheils and Diana Wood. London: Basil Blackwell, 1990, 113.
Granger-Taylor, H. Weaving Clothes to Shape in the Ancient World: The Tunic and Toga of
the Arringatore. Textile History 13 (1982): 325.
Griggs, C. Wilfred. Early Egyptian Christianity from Its Origins to 451 CE. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1990.
Grossman, Peter. On the Recently Excavated Monastic Buildings in Dayr Anba Shinula: Archaeological Report, Bulletin de la Socit dArchologie Copte 30 (1991): 5364.
Hanson, R. P. C. A Note on Origens Self-Mutilation. VC 20 (1966): 8182.
Hareven, Tamara. The History of the Family and the Complexity of Social Change. AHR 96
(1991): 95124.
Harris, R. Baine. Authority: A Philosophical Analysis. University, Al.: University of Alabama
Press, 1976.
. The Function and Limits of Religious Authority. In Authority: A Philosophical Analysis, 13240.
Herlihy, David. Making of the Medieval Family: Symmetry, Structure and Sentiment. Journal of Family History 8.2 (1983): 11630.
Hickey, Anne. Women of the Roman Aristocracy as Christian Monastics. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 1987.
Bibliography
241
Hobson, Deborah W. House and Household in Roman Egypt. YCS 28 (1985): 21129.
Hopkins, Keith. Brother-Sister Marriage in Roman Egypt. Comparative Studies in Society and
History 22 (1980): 30354.
James, Liz, ed. Women, Men, and Eunuchs: Gender in Byxantium. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Joubert, Stephen J. Managing the Household: Paul as paterfamilias of the Christian Household
Group in Corinth. In Modelling Early Christianity: Social Scientic Studies of the New Testament in Its Context, ed. Philip F. Esler. London: Routledge, 1995, 21323.
Judge, Edwin A. The Earliest Use of monachos for Monk (P. Coll. Youtie 77) and the Origins of Monasticism. JAC (1977): 7289.
. Fourth-Century Monasticism in the Papyri. Proceedings of the XVI International Congress of Papyrology. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981, 61320.
Kennengieser, Charles. Athanasius of Alexandria vs. Arius: The Alexandrian Crisis. In Roots
of Egyptian Christianity, ed. Bierger A. Pierson and James E. Goehring. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1986, 20415.
Kraemer, Ross. Her Share of the Blessings: Womens Religions among Pagans, Jews, and Christians
in the Greco-Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
. Maenads, Martyrs, Matrons and Monastics: A Sourcebook on Womens Religions in the
Greco-Roman World. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
Kuhn, Karl. A Fifth-Century Abbot. JThS, 2d ser., 5 (1954):368, 17487; 6 (1955):3548.
. Letters and Sermons of Besa. CSCO vols. 157, 158 (Copt. 21, 22). Louvain: Imprimerie
orientaliste, 1956.
Lassen, Eva Marie. The Roman Family: Ideal and Metaphor. In Moxnes, Constructing Early
Christian Families, 10320.
Layton, Bentley. A Coptic Grammar with Chrestomathy and Glossary: Sahiclic Dialect. Wiesbaden: Harrassuwitz Verlag, 2000.
. The Soul as a Dirty Garment. Muson 91 (1978): 15569.
Leipoldt, Johannes. Schenute von Atripe und die Entstehung des national gyptischen Christentums.
TU, vol. 25.1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1903.
. Sinuthii Archimandritae Vita et Opera Omnia. With the assistance of W. E. Crum. 3 vols.
(numbered 1, 3, and 4). CSCO, vols. 41, 42, 73 (Copt.1 [= II.2.T], 2 [= II.4.T], 5 [= II.5.T].
Paris: Imprimrie nationale, 190613.
Life of Melania the Younger. Trans. Elizabeth Clark. Studies in Women and Religion, 14. New
York: E. Mellen, 1984.
Lucian. The Eunuch. Trans. A. M. Harmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936.
MacDonald, Margaret Y. Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical
Woman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Maguire, H. Garments Pleasing to God: The Signicance of Domestic Textile Design in the
Early Byzantine Period. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990): 21524.
Martin, Dale. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.
Mayo, Hope. The Sources of Female Monasticism in Merovigian Gaul. Studia Patristica 16.2
(1985): 3237.
Meeks, Wayne. Social Functions of Apocalyptic Language in Pauline Christianity. In Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 1217, 1979. Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), 1982, 687705.
Merton, Thomas. The Wisdom of the Desert: Sayings from the Desert Fathers of the Fourth Century. New York: New Directions, 1960.
Milne, J. Grafton. A History of Egypt under Roman Rule. Chicago: Ares, 1898.
Moxnes, Halvor, Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor.
London: Routledge, 1997.
242
Bibliography
. What is Family? Problems in Constructing Early Christian Families. In Moxnes,

Constructing Early Christian Families, 112.
Munier, Henri. Manuscrits coptes. CGC Nos. 92019304. Cairo: Institut franais darchologie orientale, 1916.
New Testament Apocrypha. 2 vols. Ed. Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher. Trans.
R. McL. Wilson. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.
Origen. Commentary on Matthew. PG 13.3.
Orlandi, Tito. A Catechesis against Apocryphal Texts by Shenoute and the Gnostic Texts of
Nag Hammadi. HTR 75:1 (1982): 8595.
. The Future of Studies in Coptic Biblical and Ecclesiastical Literature. In The Future
of Coptic Studies. Ed. R. McL. Wilson. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978, 14363.
The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. 60 vols. Ed. and trans. Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt et al.
London: Egypt Exploration Fund for the British Academy, 18981994.
Pagels, Elaine. Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1988.
Palladius. The Lausiac History. Trans. Robert Meyers. London: Longmans, Green, 1965.
Perkins, Judith. The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian Era.
New York: Routledge, 1995.
Peskowitz, Miriam B. Spinning Fantasies: Rabbis, Gender, and History. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1997.
Petersen, Joan M., ed. and trans. Handmaids of the Lord: Contemporary Descriptions of Feminine
Asceticism in the First Six Christian Centuries. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications,
1996.
Pleyte, W., and P. A. A. Boeser. Manuscrits coptes du muse dAntiquits des Pays-Bas Leide.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1897.
Pomeroy, Sarah B. Women in Hellenistic Egypt: From Alexander to Cleopatra. Detroit: Wayne
State University Press, 1990.
. Women in Roman Egypt. A Preliminary Study Based on Papyri. In Reections of
Women in Antiquity, ed. H. Foley. London: Gordon and Bruell, 1981, 30322.
Rader, Rosemary. Breaking Boundaries: Male/Female Friendship in Early Christian Communities.
New York: Paulist, 1983.
. Early Christian Forms of Communal Spirituality: Womens Communities. In The
Continuing Quest for God, ed. W. Skudlarek. Collegesville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1982,
8899.
Rawson, Beryl, ed. The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986.
. Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Rousseau, Philip. Ascetics, Authority and the Church in the Age of Jerome and Cassian. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1978.
. Blood Relationships among Early Asectics JThS n.s 23 (1972):13544; 25 (1974):
113.
. Pachomius: The Making of a Community in Fourth-Century Egypt. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1985.
. Spiritual Authority of the Monk-Bishop: Eastern Elements on Some Western Hagiography of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. JThS 22 (1971): 380419.
Rousselle, Aline. Porneia: On Desire and the Body in Antiquity. Trans. Felicia Pheasant. London:
Basil Blackwell, 1988.
Rowlandson, Jane.Women and Culture in Greek and Roman Egypt: A Sourcebook. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Rubenson, Samuel. The Letters of St. Anthony: Monasticism and the Making of a Saint. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
Bibliography
243
Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Misogynism and Virginal Feminism in the Fathers of the
Church. In Religion and Sexism, ed.R. Ruether. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974, 150
83.
Sachs, Benjamin D., and Robert L. Meisel. The Physiology of Male Sexual Behavior. In The
Physiology of Reproduction. 2 vols. Ed. Ernst Knobil, Jimmy D. Neill, et al. New York: Raven
Press, 1988, 2: 13931485.
Saller, Richard. Corporal Punishment, Authority and Obedience in the Roman Household.
In Rawson, Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome. 14465.
Saller, Richard, and B. Shaw, Close-Kin Marriage in Roman Society Man 19 (1984): 43244.
Sandes, Karl Ovar. Equality within Patriarchal Structures: Some New Testament Perspectives
on the Christian Fellowship as a Brother- or Sisterhood and a Family. In Moxnes, Constructing Early Christian Families, 15065.
Schssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad, 1983.
. Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1 Corinthians. New Test.
Stud. 33 (1987): 386403.
Shapiro, Susan. A Matter of Discipline: Reading for Gender in Jewish Philosophy. In Judaism
since Gender, ed. Miriam Peskowitz and Laura Levitt. London: Routledge, 1997, 15873.
Shaw, Brent. The Family in Late Antiquity: The Experience of Augustine. Past and Present
115 (1987): 351.
Shaw, Teresa. The Burden of the Flesh: Fasting and Sexuality in Early Christianity. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1998.
Shenoute. On Cleaving to Protable Things. Trans. David Brakke. OLP 20 (1989):11541.
Shisha-Halevy, A. Akhmimoid Features in Shenoutes Idiolect. Muson 89 (1976): 35366.
. tw etw: A Shenoutian-Coptic Idiom and a Suggestion for Its Analysis. WZKM 69
(1977): 3339.
Smith, Dennis. Social Obligation in the Context of Communal Meals: A Study of the Christian Meal in 1 Corinthians in Comparison with Graeco-Roman Meals. Th.D. diss., Harvard Divinity School, 1980.
Stevenson, Walter. The Rise of the Eunuch in Late Antiquity. JHS 5.4 (April 1995): 495
511.
Talbot, Alice Mary. The Byzantine Family and the Monastery. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44
(1990): 11929.
Timbie, Janet. The State of Research on the Career of Shenoute of Atripe. In The Roots of
Egyptian Christianity, ed. Birger A. Pearson and James E. Goehring. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1986, 25870.
Tsirpanlis, Constantine. The Origin, Nature and Spirit of Christian Monasticism. Orthodox
Thought and Life 3 (1986): 8195.
Valantasis, Richard. Constructions of Power in Asceticism. JAAR 63.4 (1995): 775821.
Veilleux, Armand. The Origins of Egyptian Monasticism. In The Continuing Quest for God,
ed. W. Skudlarek. Collegesville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1982, 4450.
. Pachomian Koinonia. 3 vols. Cistercian Studies, vol. 45. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian
Publications, 1980.
Veeser, H. A., ed. The New Historicism. New York: Routledge, 1989.
Vogt, K. La Moniale folle du monastre des Tabennsiotes: Une interprtation du chapitre 34
de lHistoire Lausaica de Pallade. Symbolae Osloenses 62 (1987): 95108.
von Lemm, Oscar. Koptische Miscellen XXVI: Zur leidener Handschrift Insinger No. 89.
BASURSS, 6th ser., 2: 5560, 1908.
Ward, Benedicta. The Desert Christian: Sayings of the Desert Fathers, the Alphabetical Collection.
New York: Macmillan, 1975.
244
Bibliography
. Harlots of the Desert: A Study of Repentance in Early Monastic Sources. Kalamazoo,

Mich.: Cisterician Publications, 1987.
Weber, Max. Max Weber On Charisma and Institution Building: Selected Papers. Ed. S. N. Eisenhadt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Werkmeister, W. H. The Function and Limits of Moral Authority. In Authority: A Philosophical Analysis, ed. R. Baine Harris. University, Al.: University of Alabama Press, 1976, 94
100.
Wessely, Carl. Grieschische und koptische Texte theologischen Inhalts. 5 vols. Studien zur Palaegraphie und Papyruskunde, vols. 1, 9, 11, 12, 15, 18. Leipzug: H. Haessel Hachfolger, 1909
17.
Wilfong, Terry. Friendship and Physical Desire: The Discourse of Female Homoeroticism in
Fifth-Century CE Egypt. In Among Women: From the Homosocial to the Homoerotic in the
Ancient World, ed. Lisa Auanger and Nancy Rabinowitz. Austin, Tx.: University of Texas
Press, forthcoming, March 2002.
. The Women of Jme: Womens Roles in a Coptic Town in Late Antique Egypt.
PhD. diss., University of Chicago, 1994.
Wimbush, Vincent L., ed. Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Winter, John Garrett. Life and Letters in the Papyri. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan
Press, 1933.
Wipszycka, Ewa. Contribution ltude de lconomie de la Congrgation Pachmienne.
JJP 26 (1996): 167210.
Wire, Antoinette Clark. The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Pauls Rhetoric. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Young, Dwight. Additional Fragments of Shenutes Eighth Canon. APF 44 (1998): 4768.
. Coptic Manuscripts from the White Monastery: Works of Shenute. 2 vols. Vienna: Brder
Hollinek, 1993.
. Five Leaves from a Copy of Shenutes Third Canon. Muson 113 (2000): 26394.
. Precept: A Study in Coptic Terminology. Or 33 (1969): 50519.
. Unfullled Conditions in Shenoutes Dialect. JOAS 20 (1961): 399407.
Zoega, Georg. Catalogus Codicum Copticorum Manu Scriptorum Qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris
Adservantur. Rome, 1810. Reprt. Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms, 1973.
Zumkeller, OSA, Adolar. Augustines Ideal of the Religious Life. Trans. Edmund Colledge, OSA.
New York: Fordham University Press, 1986.
Index
Anthony the Great, 14, 16, 52, 121

portrayed as spiritual patron, 3
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, 16, 118,
122
Athenagoras, 130
Augustine, bishop of Hippo, 12526, 141
Authority in the White Monastery
dened, 51
gender and, 10614
female
and rebellion, 8890
over corporal punishment, 4042
use of secrecy, 8687
use of space, 8286
hierarchy of, 2627, 47, 7779,
106
Shenoutes authority
charges of excess in, 4749
over the women, 3536, 5254, 5659,
8082
see also Female elder; Male elder
Biological kin in the White Monastery

compared to Pachomian monasticism,
16263
corporal punishment and, 16970
expulsion and, 17071
material conict and, 4344, 16669
as members, 3940
as metaphor, 16566
role in authority structures, 49, 17374
separation and visits, 33, 3435, 113,
17173
see also kata sarx
Body, 63, 93, 115, 120, 1223, 126, 13132,
purity of, 8
role in Origenist controversy, 107
Shenoutes body, 53, 6669, 149, 154, 156
as symbol of White Monastery, 21, 25,
53, 56, 6669, 72, 95, 98, 103, 106,
117
versus esh, 92
Brown, Peter, 107, 130
Bagnall, Roger, 22, 146, 156

Basil of Ancyra, 127
Bell, David, 18, 22
Besa and Life of Shenoute, 7477
Castelli, Elizabeth, 7
Chadwick, Henry, 129
Childbearing
as metaphor for conict, 14344
245
246
Childbearing (continued)
as metaphor for monastic work, 39,
13740
Children
and corporal punishment, 14143
as metaphor, 138, 14143
Cicero, 144, 145
Clark, Elizabeth, 5, 110, 118, 161
Clark, Gillian, 152
Clothing in the White Monastery
conict between Shenoute and the
women over, 4647, 4748, 83
84
distribution of, 24
expulsion and, 155
production of, 1920
role in the White Monastery as a family,
15254, 16669
Corporal punishment , 2829
authority over, 4042, 10103
of biological kin in the White Monastery,
16970
of children in antiquity, 14142
metaphors for
difcult deeds, 64
healing illness, 68
of monastic children, 14143
as monastic instruction, 41
Shenoutes defense of, 44, 6162
Crisis 1. See Initial crisis
Crisis 2, 3738
Crisis 3, 3840, 81, 99, 13640, 163, 16768
Crisis 4, 4042, 61, 63, 78, 87, 99, 10203,
10405, 10506, 14143, 163, 164,
165, 16970
Crisis 5, 4243, 61
Crisis 6, 4346, 61, 62, 64, 84, 85, 88, 97,
98, 103, 14849, 155
Crisis 7, 46, 6364, 83, 85, 14344, 150,
15253
Crisis 8, 47, 78, 81
Crisis 9, 4749, 62, 71, 8384, 87, 88, 97,
9899, 149, 154, 156, 17071
Crisis 10, 49, 83, 11011, 116, 17374. See
also Tachom
Desert mothers, in Egypt, 12223
Dixon, Suzanne, 134, 145
Douglas, Mary, 136
Index
Easter, 48, 88, 149, 154
Ebonh, second head of the White
Monastery, 32, 33, 53, 55, 87
Elm, Susanna, 21
Emmel, Stephen, 53
Emotional support
biological kin in the White Monastery
and, 16973
role in the culture of the White Monastery, 2526
role in the White Monastery as family,
15659
Eucharist, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 33, 53
Eunuchs
and gender, 12629
and Isaiah 56:6, 13839
and Matthew 19:12, exegesis of, 12830
as metaphor, 40, 130, 131, 13839
role in early Christianity, 12930
role in Roman literature, 128
role in Roman society, 12728
in the White Monastery, 12021, 12627,
13032
Expulsion, 29, 3637, 4243
role in White Monastery as family, 15556
Shenoutes defense of, 6263, 8889
Family
dened for antiquity, 13435
and domestic harmony, 15859
in Egypt, 14546, 147, 15052, 155,
15657
and hierarchy, 13940
role in Shenoutes discourse, 13334
White Monastery as, 135
See also household; kinship
Fasting in the White Monastery, 19
changes in, 10305
Female elder, 37, 42, 4446, 47, 73, 7779,
81, 8385, 86, 97, 106, 109, 110,
114, 11516, 122, 125, 152. See also
Tapolle
Female monasticism
in Egypt, 12123
and methodology for White Monastery,
56
in North Africa, 12526
in Palestine, 12325
Index
Flesh
discipline of/subordination to spirit, 8, 11,
9293, 152, 16162
as source of sin, 8, 77, 78, 93, 98, 108,
134, 139, 14849, 168, 174
See also kata sarx
Food in the White Monastery
favoritism and, 3536
grown, 19
mealtimes, 19
regulation of, 2224
role in the White Monastery as family,
14750, 16669
and stealing, 36, 4344
Gender
and Genesis creation stories, 96
and monastic practice, 93, 10006
and rhetoric
in our community or in your community, 99
use of the Devil, 11011
use of Scripture, 9597
whether male or female, 9798
role in feminist scholarship, 810
and the self in late antiquity, 10608
and Shenoutes universal monasticism,
93
see also: Authority, Eunuchs
Gould, Graham, 15
Homoeroticism, 26, 3738, 42, 148
Household, dened, 135
Illness
feigned by monks, 23, 44,
role in family, 15658
Infertility, as metaphor, 39, 137
Initial crisis, 3237, 5659, 70, 7980, 87,
99, 10203, 104, 105, 11214,
14748, 14950, 155, 16667, 168,
17173
James, Liz, 8
Jerome, 51, 10708, 125
Justin Martyr, 129
kata sarx, 163, 174
247
Kinship
dened, 135
role in White Monastery, 16366
Leipoldt, Johannes, 2122
Male elder, 37, 4142, 43, 4446, 81, 84,
11416
Martin, Dale 7, 66
Melania the Elder, 124
Melania the Younger, 124
Moxnes, Halvor, 134
Origen of Alexandria, 12930
Origenism, 124
Origenist controversy, 10708
Pachomius, 1416
monasticism compared to Shenoutes, 17,
52
women in the Pachomian system, 123
Papyri, 14546, 16465
Parenthood, as metaphor, 140
Paterfamilias, 145
Paul the Apostle, as author, compared to
Shenoute, 7, 8, 6667, 92, 136
Paula, 124
Pcol, founder of the White Monastery, 17,
33, 53, 55
Peskowitz, Miriam, 152
Pietas, 145
Pomeroy, Sarah, 146, 147
Prayer, role in White Monastery, 13, 18,
19
Rhetoric, 67
and authority over the female community,
5255, 10001
rhetoric of unity, 9293, 95100, 111,
136
rhetoric of difference, 93, 10811,
136
dened, 51
role of Devil in, 11011
role of Judgment Day in, 34, 57, 61,
11213
role of prophet in, 5566
role of Scripture in, 7, 58, 60, 6970,
13638, 14243
248
Rhetoric (continued)
role of suffering body in, 6669
role of suffering servant in, 6971
and Shenoutes power, 5455
Saller, Richard, 141
Salvation
and monastic authority, 2629, 34, 39, 41,
52, 83,
and monastic life, 13, 2022, 23, 25, 43,
48, 84, 87, 90, 100, 103, 119, 153,
156, 15859, 163, 167, 169, 17172
and Shenoutes power, 78, 54, 5566, 76,
94, 108, 109, 113,
Shaw, Brent, 134, 141
Shaw, Teresa, 8
Shelter, provided by monastery, 2425
Shenoute
Canons and Discourses, 4, 56
civic role, 3
his life, 34, 7475
his universal monasticism, 89, 92,
93106
as new head of the female community,
3334, 37, 5254, 7980, 81, 10001
place in scholarship, 4
relationship with God, 5666, 89, 94
reports from women to, 8687, 158
Stevenson, Walter, 127
Tachom, 37, 42, 49, 79, 83, 11011, 116,
17374
Index
Tapolle, 42, 4446, 61, 79, 82, 8386, 106,
110, 115, 152. See also Female elder
Theodore, Pachomian monk, 21, 55
Veilleux, Armand, 22
Virgins, 40
Virginity
and Shenoute, 33
White Monastery
as family, 14459
as God and his angels in heaven, 7, 89,
13, 23, 28, 60, 92, 93, 95,
as Gods community, 5960
location, 17
male and female communities in, 94, 101
oath to join, 2021
oath between Shenoute and the female
community, 5354
physical structure of, 17
purity of, 25, 60
relationship with Red Monastery, 53
transgressions in, 21, 23, 9091
Women in the White Monastery
as brethren, 95, 109, 111, 119, 122, 141,
174
seclusion in, 11617
separation from male monks in, 11718
Work
as redemptive suffering, 39
role in White Monastery, 13, 18

Shenoute and The Women of The WH PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Shenoute and The Women of The WH PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Shenoute & the Women

of the White Monastery:

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

This page intentionally left blank

Shenoute & the Women of

Oxford New York

Copyright 2002 by Rebecca Krawiec

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

American Historical Review

Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

This page intentionally left blank

Shenoute and the White Monastery

The Women of the White Monastery: A Methodology

Approaching the Women: Format of the Study

This page intentionally left blank

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

The White Monastery and Late Antique Egypt

Daily Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

Daily Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

Daily Routine in the White Monastery

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

Daily Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

The Monastic Culture of the White Monastery

Daily Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

Shenoutes policy of strict self-denial of material things led to an increased valuation

Material Aspects of Monastic Culture

Daily Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

Daily Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

Social and Emotional Aspects of Monastic Culture

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

The Organization of Authority Structures

Daily Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

The Exercise of Power

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

Daily Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

The Initial Crisis (Canon 2)

Womens Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

Womens Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

recipients, in Shenoutes description, probably refer to both individual women and,

Womens Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

Crisis Two: Female Homoeroticism (Canon 3)

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

transgressors. When Shenoute continues, it is unclear whether he is speaking about

Crisis Three: A Monk Refused Promotion

Womens Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

Crisis Four: The Beatings of Women (Canon 4)

Womens Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery

Crisis Five: Gossip (Canon 6)

Womens Life in the White Monastery under Shenoute

Crisis Six: The Death of a Male Monk (Canon 6)