2.1 Familial Networks

If Manichaeans arrived as refugees they certainly did not remain so: by the mid-fourth century they were firmly entrenched in local society. The households of local families would have been particularly important sites of religious activity. In a recent study drawing on the Kellis papyri, BeDuhn has situated the day-to-day forms of Manichaean ritual in the domestic, familial setting.²⁶ Individual lay practices, such as daily prayers and religious study, would have been centred in the domestic sphere. BeDuhn also argues that the Kellis evidence attests to a domestic context also for activities such as psalm singing and readings of scripture, and the receiving of itinerant Elect into lay homes. Yet the domestic character of Manichaeism should not be exaggerated. BeDuhn himself notes that the situation in Kellis may have been more complex.²⁷ As we shall see in Chapters 8–9, there is strong evidence for more institutionalised forms of worship in the village, including the existence of a communal gathering place.

Rodney Stark has suggested that religious affiliation primarily moves through pre-existing social networks; a ‘structure of direct and intimate interpersonal attachments’.²⁸ In light of this proposition, it is likely that familial ties also provided a primary locus for the spread of adherence, especially considering the density of the Pamour family network we saw in Chapter 4. The evidence from the letter contents confirms this supposition. As we saw in the last chapter, distinctly Manichaean cues can be found in all the House 3 circles, barring only the Petros letters, in letters by key members such as the siblings Pekysis, Pamour III, and Tekysis III, and Pamour’s father-in-law, Makarios. Most of the other family members were certainly also adherents. Psais III, Maria I and II, Partheni II, Psenpnouthes I, Kyria I, Philammon II, Horos I, Tehat, Theognostos, and Andreas are all greeted with distinctly Manichaean cues, and those of whom we have preserved letters invoke shared religious affiliation, even if mostly using less explicit cues.

Naturally, adherence could vary between family members and between family groups. The strongest expressions of Manichaean identity are found in the circle of Pamour III’s in-laws, Maria/Makarios.²⁹ The difference between this circle and the Pamour/Pekysis circle has recently been attributed to a lessening of faith in the later generation,³⁰ but this hypothesis is not, to my mind, tenable. The brothers Matthaios and Piene, who used elaborate cues and were closely affiliated with the Elect, were of the same generation as Pamour III and Pekysis. Moreover, the latter’s younger brother, Psais III, is found copying religious texts on behalf of the community in a letter dated c.370 (see Chapter 7, Section 3.2). We might, moreover, contrast the only preserved letter of ‘father’ Psais II, P.Kellis VII Copt. 110, which does not utilise Manichaean or other religious cues at all – on the basis of which one might argue that Manichaean faith became more important in the succeeding generation of his sons. Linguistic variation between familial circles, whether due to differences in educational level, priorities, or opportunities to engage, provides a more likely explanation than generational differences.

The importance of family bonds is not least seen in the crucial role that women played in Kellis. While most – but not all – of the authors using religious cues were men, as were the majority of authors more generally, a large percentage of the recipients (especially of Coptic letters) are women.³¹ The importance of women in economic terms has already been explored for figures such as Tehat, Partheni II, and Tekysis III. These and other women are also found to have played a vital part in the religious life of the community.³² Tehat was closely involved in organising almsgiving to the Elect, as we will explore in Chapter 8. Maria I was responsible for practical arrangements surrounding the religious education of Matthaios before he went to the Valley, as well as for supporting Makarios and Piene there. While Maria I’s support was mediated by Makarios, other women, such as Eirene, were addressed directly by the Elect for contributions (P.Kellis V Copt. 32). One Elect author even addressed the women of Kellis as a collective, praising their great piety while at the same time requesting alms (P.Kellis V Copt. 31). Women were not restricted to practical arrangements: they also had leading roles in religious contexts. In P.Kellis V Copt. 25, Matthaios laments the death of his ‘great mother’ in the Valley who had died without receiving a proper gathering by the ‘brotherhood’; she had clearly been a woman of high regard. Mother Kyria I kept a large copy of the Epistles (likely those of Mani, see Chapter 7), which Makarios requests Maria I to retrieve and send in P.Kellis V Copt. 19. It is unlikely that Kyria would have kept the book and, as Makarios implies, been unwilling to part with it, if she did not have use for it, and so she may well have been literate. Religious affiliation was clearly deeply embedded in the whole extended family.

2.2 Neighbourhood Networks

In Chapter 4, we were introduced to the neighbours visible in texts found in House 2 of the House 1–3 complex: the carpenters Tithoes I son of Petesis and Ploutogenes son of Pataias. The finds of a Manichaean literary text in House 2, P.Kellis I Copt. 8, should itself alert us to the likelihood that the circles of Tithoes I and Ploutogenes shared in the religious community of the Pamour family. To this it should be added that many of the Manichaean literary texts found in House 3 were written on wooden boards, a fact that may well have had something to do with these two men’s background as carpenters.³³ Furthermore, for Tithoes I, evidence from the letters can be adduced in support. Tithoes I relayed greetings to his son Samoun from ‘brother’ Psenpnouthes and ‘sister’ Kyria in P.Kellis V Copt. 12; a couple who were clearly Manichaean Auditors. Although not certain, a religious context could well have framed Tithoes I’s use of kinship terms here. More revealing is the relationship between his ‘daughter’ Tapsais II and the Pamour family. P.Kellis VII Copt. 116, a letter she authored to Psais III – where she also greets her father Tithoes I – invokes shared religious belief, using what might, albeit uncertainly, even be a distinctly Manichaean expression.³⁴ Tapsais II is greeted in letters with distinct Manichaean cues; for instance in P.Kellis VII Copt. 65, where Pamour III employed the tripartite prayer. Similarly, in P.Kellis VII Copt. 86, whose distinctively Manichaean opening is partly preserved,³⁵ the legible part of the greeting section reads: ‘greet the neighbourhood (ⲧⲣⲁⲟⲩⲏ) for me […] Tapshai’ (ll.8–9).

Considering this evidence, the Tithoes family can, with a fair amount of certainty, be taken to have shared the religious affiliation of their next-door neighbours. Their level of commitment may, moreover, have been high. In P.Kellis I Gr. 12, Samoun requests his father to send his son, Tithoes II, to a monastery in order to learn linen weaving – and in his response in P.Kellis V Copt. 12, his father affirmed that the boy has indeed been sent with ‘father’ Pebok. It is likely that Tithoes II’s apprenticeship at the monastery should be seen within a Manichaean framework, a point to which we return in Chapter 9.

2.3 Occupational Networks

Given the strong links often assumed between Manichaeism and merchants, the Pamour family’s involvement in textile trade is perhaps not particularly surprising, but how trading and religious affiliation intertwined needs further explication. Communication networks certainly played a part. In the early fourth century, Pamour I sent tunics to Hermopolis, while his neighbour Horos son of Mersis drove his camels to the same city. A few decades later, Pamour III, Pekysis, and Philammon II are all found travelling to Hermopolis and neighbouring Antinoopolis in order to trade, showing continuity in the family’s dealings. Hermopolis featured a pluralistic religious landscape in this period: the ancient temple of Thoth (Hermes) was still active, the city hosted a vibrant pagan intellectual scene³⁶ and a Jewish quarter. A Christian tradition preserves the story of a Manichaean Elect active in this city, around the end of the fourth century.³⁷ Antinoopolis was for a time the seat of the Pamour family’s best documented Elect associate, Apa Lysimachos, and the Teacher seems to have visited this city regularly.³⁸ They also had contacts further south, in and from Lycopolis – the city of the Neoplatonist Alexander, who wrote against Mani about three-quarters of a century earlier, and the area in which the CMC appears to have been found.³⁹

The traders thus had long-standing ties to important centres in Upper Egypt where Manichaeism had arrived at an early date. Still, the religious affiliation of the earliest generation of traders, Pamour I and Philammon I, is unknown. Pamour I does not use religious cues at all in his only preserved letter, P.Kellis I Gr. 66. A letter that may be ascribed to Philammon I, P.Kellis I Gr. 65, contains a broadly monotheistic, possibly Christian invocation: ‘And if God bids you to save us from trouble and we survive, I shall repay your favour in full. And even if God does not, I shall do you the favour’ (ll.10–15). Even if the ascription of this letter to Philammon I is correct (concerning which doubts remain), it would still not prove a Manichaean affiliation: a mainstream Christian context is possible, and would be in line with the common assumption that Manichaeism first spread among Christians.⁴⁰ At the same time, an encounter with the movement in the period c.300–325 is in itself not unlikely, in light of the family’s strong affiliation by the mid-fourth century.

As we saw in Chapter 4, the Pamour family of the mid-fourth century were part of a larger network of traders and caravan-drivers, which included figures such as Horion, Psenpnouthes I, Papnouthes, Lammon, Psais Tryphanes, Loudon II and Timotheos son of Loudon I, and Ammon the storehouse-owner. The affiliation of Horion and Psenpnouthes I with Manichaeism is certain. Ammon, too, can confidently be identified as an adherent: in P.Kellis V Copt. 37, he expresses sorrow because someone has mistreated ‘those of this word’ (ll.19–20) – a clear invocation of shared religious sentiment, to which can be compared Matthaios’ similar expression in P.Kellis V Copt. 25 (see below). He also adds an appeal to God for an improvement of their situation. Papnouthes and Lammon are greeted in Makarios’ P.Kellis V Copt. 19, and the former adds his own greetings to Pekysis’ P.Kellis VII Copt. 78, which features a Manichaean prayer. As for Psais Tryphanes, his letter P.Kellis I Gr. 73 contains no overt religious cues, although he does speak of ‘the season of the new wine’ (τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ γλεύκος) and praises Pamour’s ‘zeal’ (οἶδα γὰρ τὴν σὴν σπουδήν) (ll.22–24) – both of which may have religious undertones, but which could simply relate to industriousness in business.⁴¹ Yet he is also respectfully styled ‘father’ in Pekysis’ pious letter P.Kellis VII Copt. 78, and probably authored P.Kellis VII Copt. 112, which contains both the broadly Christian expression ‘in the Lord’ and the more peculiar ‘whose name is sweet in my mouth’. It is more likely than not that Psais Tryphanes and his family shared the Pamour family’s religious affiliation.

The above should suffice to indicate that Manichaean affiliation was widespread in these trading circles. How it spread remains unknown. Concrete evidence is unfortunately absent. Yet, some hypotheses may be broached. In Chapter 4, it was proposed that the traders constituted an informal association or a ‘trust network’, giving rise to strong interpersonal attachments. Occupational associations in the Roman period were, as a rule, also cultic associations, and there was in general a close relationship between religious observance and economic cooperation. Recent scholarship of the ancient economy has stressed how informal institutions, such as shared mental models, help to facilitate trade.⁴² This may have made it more difficult for new religious practices to gain entry to such networks, but could also have given added impetus for spread once initial ‘converts’ had been made.

The precise venue for this initial spread is hard to gauge. Did an intrigued member of the trading community take colleagues to a Manichaean gathering? Were Elect preachers involved, or did they only appear later? Did the traders meet business associates in the Valley who in turn introduced them to the movement? The Pagan philosopher Celsus, writing about two centuries earlier, accused Christians of luring gullible people ‘to the wooldresser’s shop, or to the cobbler’s or the washerwoman’s shop, that they may learn perfection’.⁴³ Despite Celsus’ disparaging and polemical intent, it should not be ruled out that for instance textile workshops may have functioned as venues for religious dissemination, and that women such as Tehat, or her counterparts in the Nile Valley, played an important role in introducing colleagues and clientele to the movement, although this begs the question of their affiliation in turn. One of Stark’s axioms, that the religiously inactive are often susceptible to new religious movements, may be considered.⁴⁴ Certainly, it must not be taken to mean that native cultic practice in general was deficient, dominated by unsatisfied ‘consumers’, as Stark posited,⁴⁵ but zealous Manichaean adherents, such as Makarios, may well have appeared persuasive to people who were less religiously engaged. This may well have led them to follow suit – especially if he or she could depend on the arguments and authority of ‘holy men’, such as Apa Lysimachos.

At the same time, while trade concerns are prominent in the letters, it should not blind us to the fact that Manichaean affiliation was not restricted to traders. It is unlikely that all the households greeted by Makarios and Matthaios (for which, see below) were trading families. The community included weavers and camel drivers, roles that admittedly overlapped with trading in the case of the Pamour family; it extended to the neighbouring carpenters, and to local farmers, such as the tenant farmer Kome (see below). Elias, an agent for a landlord, may well have been an affiliate, although the evidence is circumstantial.⁴⁶ The influential figures of Pebos and his brother Horion, sons of Tithoes, may be identifiable with co-adherents found in the Coptic material, although again the evidence is not conclusive, as we saw in Chapter 4. We can add that Matthaios, writing from Antinoopolis in P.Kellis V Copt. 25, counted doctors (ⲛ̄ⲥⲏⲓ̈ⲛⲉ) among his friends (l.40). The city housed a medical school, and so Matthaios – if we take his assertion at face value – had gained friends in what one may loosely term intellectual circles.⁴⁷ The Elect Apa Lysimachos, too, was based here, and Matthaios otherwise reports on the doings of him and the religious community in this letter. It is therefore tempting to suggest that he could have come to know these doctors through shared Manichaean affiliation. Going by the account of Alexander of Lycopolis, the religion had piqued the interest of the literati of Upper Egypt at an early date. Doctors were not in the upper elite of Roman society, but many would have been literate, and medical professionals may well have been drawn to the movement, perhaps intrigued by its dietetic theories.⁴⁸ To be sure, this remains a hypothesis that cannot be conclusively proven. It remains at any rate the case that Manichaeism at Kellis was not restricted to traders.

2.4 A Notable’s Patronage Network

Another social site where religious affiliation can be detected is the network of the influential local notable Pausanias. Along with his associate Pisistratos, he is in fact the earliest identifiable actor of Manichaean persuasion in the Kellis material. It has already been argued that he should be identified with the ex-magistrate Pausanias son of Valerios, active in Kellis c.320–340. Evidence for Pausanias’ religious affiliation comes in the form of P.Kellis I Gr. 63, a letter he and Pisistratos received from a certain ‘father’ N.N. It contains elaborate phrasings and Manichaean cues, in response to gifts they had provided for the author, his brothers, and a certain ‘lord [..]ryllos’, an act of charity that should be understood within the framework of Manichaean almsgiving (see Chapter 8, Section 2.3).

The rest of Pausanias’ preserved documents do not display any particular religious leanings, nor can we assume that Pausanias ever used his office in order to promote the movement. However, the material does illustrate that he was well-positioned to facilitate dissemination of the religion in the Oasis. His importance in the village at large has already been pointed out in Chapter 4. The image provided below (Chart 4) is an outtake – a so-called ego network – of the village network chart from that chapter (Chart 1). It has one in depth, displaying the immediate connections of Pausanias himself. It presents Pausanias’ known affiliates and illustrates his different roles: as a Roman official, through the petition from Sozomene and an order from the council-president Heron, and as a local grandee, through orders to the landowner Kome and the carpenter Ploutogenes son of Pataias.

View Full Size

The ego network of Pausanias

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

It is unlikely to be a coincidence that we find Manichaean affiliates among Pausanias’ associates, such as Psais II. Although we do not have letters by Psais II, son of Pamour I, employing Manichaean cues, his affiliation with the movement is overwhelmingly likely (and he is greeted by Matthaios in P.Kellis V Copt. 25, see below). The text that documents their relationship is a gift donation from Pausanias to Psais, whose opening passage reads:⁴⁹

Aurelius Pausanias son of Valerius, former magistrate of the city of the Mothites, to Aurelius [Psai]tos son of Pamour, from the village of Kellis belonging to the same city of the Mothites. I acknowledge that I have granted to you as a perpetual gift (χάριτι αἰ̣ω̣ν̣ίᾳ̣ [καὶ ἀναφαιρέτῳ]) which cannot be withdrawn, from now onwards for ever, from the plots of land belonging to me in the Eastern part of the village of Kellis a plot for building, at the South and the North being fifteen carpenter’s cubits long, at the East and at the West being twenty-five cubits.

P.Kellis I Gr. 38a, ll.1–9

The recipient, Psais II, gains full right of usage of the property previously held by Pausanias. The specific background for the transaction cannot be known. The two men did own (other) properties in close proximity to each other, and so would presumably have been familiar from before. Furthermore, in a majority of other preserved examples of grants of an ‘irrevocable gift’ (χάρις ἀναφαίρετος), the property changed hands between family members, i.e. between people with intimate ties.⁵⁰ No pre-existing kinship tie between Psais II and Pausanias is known to us, nor does one seem likely to have existed. Another type of strong tie must form the background for the transaction, and shared Manichaean affiliation is an obvious candidate.

In addition, we can adduce Kome, who acts as an agent on behalf of Pausanias and Pisistratos in the potsherd O.Kellis I 85. As we saw in Chapter 4, he can be identified with an important landowner in the KAB. One of his associates in that document is Timotheos the monk. This Timotheos can, in turn, be identified as an Elect, active in House 1–3 circles (see Chapter 8, Section 1). If so, an affiliation between Kome and Manichaean circles was maintained into the later fourth century, involving some sort of economic cooperation with the Elect, and even a donation of a child to the Church – if, as Bagnall thinks, Timotheos the monk should be identified as son of Kome. Bagnall proposed that the support of Kome may have been instrumental in gaining a lease of land for a topos Mani in the area Kellis.⁵¹ In turn, Kome’s own affiliation with the group could well have been influenced by Pausanias.

Pausanias was clearly a central figure in Kellis in the 330s, and may well have acted as a patron for the local Manichaean community. Patronage was a core feature of the Roman social order, tying the landowning but largely city-based elite both to the urban plebs and to the rural hinterland.⁵² Religion was often woven into ties of patronage. Roman officials and local notables acted as patrons for religious associations, and drew dependents and others into religious associations in which they themselves participated.⁵³ Wallace-Hadrill, based on the work of Richard Saller, has defined patronage as a ‘social relationship which is essentially (i) reciprocal, involving exchanges of services over time between two parties, (ii) personal as opposed to e.g. commercial, and (iii) asymmetrical, i.e. between parties of different status.’⁵⁴ Unfortunately, our evidence only allows us glimpses of these relationships. Pausanias’ tie with Kome is only documented in O.Kellis I 85, and can only be shown to fulfil the last criterium, i.e. being asymmetrical. Pausanias’ tie with Psais II is only documented in P.Kellis I Gr. 38, and is both personal, asymmetric, and probably long-lasting: although we cannot be entirely sure of its temporal extent, or what types of services Psais II provided in return, the appearance of other documents pertaining to Pausanias in House 3, as well as the intimacy implicit in the gift, suggest an ongoing, underlying relationship. We cannot know the specific background for these relationships, yet it is likely that Manichaean affiliation would have come to play an important role over time. It may, then, well be that Pausanias’ clients had emulated him in adapting his religious allegiance, whether out of respect, persuasion, or to gain favours.

In this context, we may broach the possibility that Pausanias had furnished the local community with a church building; specifically, the West Church. There are several ostraka which link Pausanias and Pisistratos directly to this building.⁵⁵ Other documents belonging to Pausanias (for which, see below) were found in structure D/8, located close by. Moreover, numerous other links to the circles of House 3 are found in the ostraka here.⁵⁶ These finds are unlikely to be a coincidence. The church was built ‘probably not much later than the middle of the century’.⁵⁷ Could Pausanias or Pisistratos have been involved in funding its construction? And if so, was it built specifically for the Manichaean community? To be sure, without direct evidence, a Manichaean context for the West Church remains hypothetical, yet the existence of a building set apart for religious activities and belonging to the community in Kellis is highly plausible (see Chapter 9, Section 3.3).

At any rate, Pausanias likely played an important role for the community on a more general level. As we saw in Chapter 2, the Dakhleh Oasis had a fairly narrow administrative and economic elite. As a magistrate of the Great Oasis, i.e. of both Dakhleh and Khargeh, Pausanias’ influence was far-flung, as also confirmed by the petition P.Gascou 69, sent by Sozomene, daughter of an ex-magistrate of Hibis. The Manichaean network of House 1–3 extended to communities in Hibis (see P.Kellis VII Copt. 111, 118). Pausanias may have been central in providing a link between the disparate communities of the two oases, at least for the duration of his office(s) and before direct links were established. It is perhaps unlikely that he mediated the initial contact between the local traders and the Manichaean community in the Nile Valley: considering the long-standing ties of the traders to Upper Egypt, and the close ties between Elect and traders in the Valley, it is perhaps more likely that they first came into direct contact with Manichaean circles there. Another possible route of connection between Pausanias and Manichaeism could be the circles of local notables. Manichaeism had, already by the fourth century, gained some adherents in segments of the curial class that filled political office. This is shown by Diocletian’s edict of 302 issued at Alexandria: it ordered Manichaean leaders (Elect) to be burned, and their followers (Auditors) to receive capital punishment, but explicitly excluded those of high birth and public office, who were only to lose their property and be put to hard, manual labour in the mines.⁵⁸ Unfortunately, we do not know the religious affiliation of contemporary notables such as Gelasios, Harpokration, or Faustianos. Whether Pausanias was a lone swallow, or part of a larger, elite Manichaean network, remains unknown.

Much remains uncertain concerning Pausanias affiliation and his role within the community. There are, however, strong reasons to think that he cultivated ties of patronage with local adherents, and he would have provided the community with local legitimacy, resources, and support vis-à-vis the Roman administration, aiding the recruitment of adherents from circles beyond those of the traders.

2.5 Beyond House 1–3

This leads us to another question, namely: how common was Manichaean affiliation in Kellis, outside of what can be gleaned from the House 1–3 material itself? Finds of literary texts from other fourth-century locations have so far been sparse. Yet, as we shall see, several finds do support a picture of widespread Manichaean presence in Kellis.

First, we may note the discovery of a fragment of a Syriac text, P.Kellis VI Syr. 2, in the domestic structure D/8, north of the Main Temple and a good distance away from House 1–3. The text is largely illegible, but, as Franzmann, points out, all other Syriac texts from Kellis are found in House 1–3, and probably of Manichaean provenance.⁵⁹ The usage of Syriac by the Manichaean community provides the most likely explanation in this instance as well. D/8 also yielded two Sahidic Coptic letters, a wooden board with a non-Sahidic Coptic text, magical texts, and Greek papyri relating to the Roman administration.⁶⁰ Two texts in the last group, P.Gascou 69 and 71, are addressed to Pausanias son of Valerios and found in two separate rooms. They provide a direct link to Manichaean circles, and suggest that Pausanias made use of the structure at some point. In the same room as P.Kellis VI Syr. 2 were found three letters belonging to an official named Petechon, probably identifiable with an official by that name in a House 3 letter.⁶¹ This structure, then, may have been used by local officials, and the finds suggest that Manichaeism was spreading in their circles. On the other hand, Petechon’s letters contain nothing else to identify him as an adherent. A Sahidic letter also found in D/8, P.Kellis VII Copt. 128, seems to belong to a mainstream Christian context, insofar as its religious content can be placed.⁶² This should caution against a simple association between finds, find-site, and religious identity, and further comments will have to await full publication of the site. Yet it does indicate that Manichaean literature reached beyond House 1–3.

The other site from where Manichaean material has been recovered in Kellis is House 4. As we shall see below, here we have stronger indices that we are dealing with another local circle of Manichaeans. House 4 is a domestic complex in the western part of Area A, again at some distance away from House 1–3, close to Area D and the Main Temple. The structure is architecturally quite different from the House 1–3 complex: it is larger, and the inhabitants may have been wealthier. It, too, probably housed several families.⁶³ One part of the complex contained two Sahidic Coptic letter, P.Kellis VII Copt. 123 and 124. Both dialect and content contrast markedly with the House 1–3 letters, for instance in their use of Old Testament allusions, and they may well belong to mainstream Christian circles.⁶⁴ Another part, however, produced a Manichaean hymn on a wooden board, T.Kellis II Copt. 7.⁶⁵ It is of unambiguously Manichaean extraction; most notably in its praise of Mani himself, but also, for instance, in its reference to the suffering Light Elements and in its praise of the sun and moon (see Chapter 7, Section 2.1.1).

Other documents from the house may clue us into the people who owned this prayer; most prominently the Coptic letter P.Kellis VII Copt. 122. It was found in the same room and deposit level as the hymn-board, Room 1B (dep. 2), and is written in the same L* dialect used in House 1–3 texts – a peculiar version of this dialect most closely related to that found in the Coptic accounts and a letter attributable to Tehat (P.Kellis V Copt. 50).⁶⁶ The letter is authored by the ‘sons’ Psais and Masi, to their ‘father’ Sarapas, with greetings to a ‘brother’ Sarapis and a little girl. The brothers had left Kellis and were now located elsewhere. While these figures are not easily identifiable with actors in the Coptic House 1–3 material, the recipients can be related to individuals featuring in the KAB: a storehouse-owner named Sarapas, an agent named Sarapis, and his unnamed daughter.⁶⁷ Other ties to the KAB, as well as the Pamour family, are in evidence. A Papnouthes is greeted as a ‘brother’; this was the name of the most important agent of the KAB manager, as well as of an important Pamour associate. The rest of the names are Pakous, Chares, and Philammon (Lammon), caravan drivers acting as intermediaries between the brothers and the father, likely related to associates of the Pamour family of these names similarly engaged with camel driving and freight.⁶⁸ As to religious cues in the letter, Psais and Masi greet Sarapas with the expression ‘in the Lord’, as well as the more distinct phrase ‘whose name is sweet in my mouth’ (P.Kellis VII Copt. 122, ll.1–4) and add a prayer for God to guard him: pieties often found in the House 1–3 texts, as discussed in Chapter 7, although neither can be definitely described as specifically Manichaean.

The editors carefully point out that the Manichaean hymn-board was found near the surface level, and that although it cannot have blown in, it could have been discarded later and not belonged to the inhabitants of House 4.⁶⁹ Fragments of a prayer in Sahidic was found (partly) in the same room, its contents seem to be largely ‘mainstream’ Christian.⁷⁰ Yet, that P.Kellis VII Copt. 122, found in the same room and deposit level, is written in a dialect similar to, furnished with some of the same cues as, and probably featuring some of the same people as the House 3 letters, makes it unlikely that the presence of the hymn should be interpreted as a chance occurrence. It rather suggests the existence of a wider L*-writing community in Kellis closely linked with Manichaean adherence.

A Greek account from the same room, P.Bingen 120, seem to pertain to this circle. It should probably be dated 366/7, and so is contemporary with the KAB. Agents of the KAB manager are found among the business associates of its author.⁷¹ The combination of shared find-site and ties to the estate of the KAB speaks to the large probability that these two documents belonged to the same circle: that of Sarapas. It, too, features a Papnouthes, who may represent a direct link to P.Kellis VII Copt. 122 (and House 3), as well as the name Pisistratos, perhaps providing a link to the circle of Pausanias.

A final document needs to be seen in conjunction with the above. In 2018, a letter in Greek from a different part of the House 4 complex was published.⁷² It was sent from a person of religious authority named Theodoros, addressing three figures: father Psais, ‘katholikos and priest’ (καθολικῷ κ̣[α]ὶ̣ π̣ρ̣[ε]σ̣[β]υτέρῳ), another (unnamed) priest, and father Psais, ‘the manager’ (προνοητής). Theodoros uses elaborate and peculiar religious cues. Some features are seemingly at odds with Manichaean provenance – an apocryphal citation attributed to the prophet Jeremiah,⁷³ and the absence of distinct Manichaean opening and closing greetings. At the same time, there are several strongly Manichaean notions present: the partial truth of all human religious writings, the sobering up from ‘forgetfulness’ ([ἀνα]ν̣ῆψαι ἐκ τῆς λ̣ή̣θης, l.29), and not least the writer’s self-depiction as a crucified, ‘shining element’ ([… ἐσ]τ̣αύρωµαι καὶ τὸ ἑ̣µαυτ[ο]ῦ φω[τε]ι̣[νο]ν, l.30). The same room and deposit contained P.Bingen 119, an account similar to P.Bingen 120, showing ties to the KAB and perhaps to House 1–3.⁷⁴

Again, proper evaluation of the House 4 material will have to await full publication of the site, but a hypothesis may be broached. The documents from Room 1B belonged to the family of Sarapas, a storehouse-owner in the KAB and recipient of P.Kellis VII Copt. 122. Sarapas’ circle did business with associates of the Pamour family, and perhaps had ties to Pisistratos. While other families in the same housing complex may have had more ‘mainstream’ Christian affiliation, the circle of Sarapas were Manichaeans: part of the same network of adherents to which the Pamour family and Pausanias belonged. Certainly, the find of Manichaean literature from House 4, and the Syriac fragment from D/8, show that the religious community extended much beyond the immediate circles of the Pamour family.

3.1 The Letters of Makarios and Matthaios

Above, we have seen that Manichaean affiliation extended through several different networks and circles in Kellis. In the following, we shall attempt a rough calculation of the number of Manichaeans in the village, using two letters found in House 3 as our starting point: Makarios’ P.Kellis V Copt. 19 and Matthaios’ P.Kellis V Copt. 25. They contain greetings to extensive lists of neighbours and associates, who were, as we shall see, considered part of the local Manichaean community. Jean-Daniel DuBois has previously suggested that Matthaios’ letter would be a good place to start for such an undertaking.⁷⁵ Its greetings provide the most complete snapshot we have of the Pamour family’s social circles at any one time. It can be compared to the roughly contemporary letter of his ‘father’ Makarios, which also greets a substantial number of people. Both letters contain several names that are lost in lacunae, and a substantial number of people that are mentioned indirectly. In each case, we shall present both a ‘minimum’ and a ‘maximum’ estimate of the number of people implied in the collective greetings and lacunae.

The greetings in Makarios’ P.Kellis V Copt. 19 are primarily to individuals, of whom about 23–24 names are well preserved (including the recipients themselves, Maria I and Matthaios). Some individuals are greeted together with unnamed relatives, by familial terms such as ‘his father’ or ‘her children’. In the first estimate, I count every instance of a familial term in the plural at a minimum of two. For the ‘maximum’, I reckon one extra person in each plural term (i.e. altogether three). One group is specified as located outside of Kellis: a greeting to ‘Partheni and Pena, and all in Thio’ (ll.76–77).⁷⁶ The number of people implied by ‘all in Thio’ cannot be known; I here estimate a ‘minimum’ of five, including the named women (one ‘small’ household: Partheni, Pena, and two family members), and a ‘maximum’ of ten (two ‘large’ households, one of Partheni and one of Pena).⁷⁷ This gives a number somewhere between 40 and 49 people (see below, Table 4). The majority of known addressees are women: about 20 out of 26 cases where gender can be determined. The strong prevalence of women greeted suggests that many of the men are absent. The number of people belonging to Makarios’ intended audience, but not mentioned, is thus probably much higher.

View Full Size

Makarios’ greetings (P.Kellis V Copt. 19)

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Turning to the closing greetings of Matthaios’ letter P.Kellis V Copt. 25 (below, Table 5), about 19 names are preserved. Naturally, there is much overlap between the two letters. Of those that do not recur, we find that […]fnoute, Mo[…], Drousiane, Kyria (daughter), Kame (I and II), Lammon, Pion, Pena, and [..]aeis appear only in Makarios’ letter; Andreas, Pekysis, Phila, and Marsa only in Matthaios’ letter. However, Makarios certainly knew Andreas, Psais II, Pamour III, and Pekysis, all of whom occur in other letters by him; Matthaios would likewise have known most or all the people named by Makarios. Space, absence, or other factors may have caused them to omit certain names. Furthermore, whereas Makarios mainly greets people individually, Matthaios also greets some collectives: in addition to spouses, siblings, and children, he greets four separate ‘houses’. Some of the people he omits, then, may be covered by the general term ‘house’ (ⲉⲓ̈). In two cases, there could be some overlap between named individuals and collective greetings. Matthaios greets both ‘my father Pshai and his wife and children’, and immediately afterwards ‘Pakosh and Pamour and their children and their brothers, each by name’ (ll.60–61).⁷⁸ Presumably, these are Psais II and his sons Pekysis and Pamour III, the latter two greeted both as part of Psais’ household (children), and separately, with their own siblings and children. In a similar vein, it might be that Hatres and Tsemnouthes are among the ‘sons and daughters’ of Philammon II and Charis, greeted in the line above (ll.62–64), although there is no corroborating evidence for such a familial tie. However, it may also be that Psais II’s other children, such as Tekysis III and perhaps Psais III, are intended in the first instance, and that Pamour III and Pekysis’ ‘siblings’ include in-laws and colleagues such as Kapiton I or Theognostos.

View Full Size

Matthaios’ greetings (P.Kellis V Copt. 25)

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

All the other greetings are clearly to separate groups. Counting every occurrence of the plural ‘children’, ‘brothers’, etc. at two, adding another person for each ‘house’, and taking Hatres and Tsemnouthes to be among the ‘sons and daughters’ of Philammon and Charis, gives a minimum of 53 of people. Adding another person per house as well as another child per plural occurrence (i.e. assuming three children on average), adding two children to Psais II in addition to Pamour III and Pekysis (e.g. Tekysis III and Psais III), and separating Hatres and Tsemnouthes from Philammon/Charis, gives a ‘maximum’ of 76 people.

3.2 Kellis Households and Egyptian Demographics

In order to examine the plausibility of this range for the size of the ‘houses’, we can again draw on Bagnall and Frier’s study of Egyptian demographics. They reckoned that ‘the average attested size of Egyptian families is about 4.4 persons.’⁷⁹ The average size of conjugal family households they calculated at 3.43 in villages (4.86 for cities), and that of extended families at 4.47 in the villages (6.13 for cities). Extended families were more common in villages than in the cities, and probably made up the majority of families there. The average for the number of persons per family unit derived from the minimum count of Matthaios’ letter, 3.12, is below that found by Bagnall and Frier for households of conjugal families, and much below that for extended families. The average derived from the ‘maximum’ count, 4.47, is identical with Bagnall and Frier’s average for extended village families. One should be careful not to put too much weight on extrapolation from these (uncertain) averages to the concrete case of House 1–3. Still, as extended families do appear to have been more common in the countryside, the ‘maximum’ estimate of 76 people (with three children on average) seems more likely to be accurate.

This number must be seen in light of the suggested population of the village. It has been estimated that Kellis had a population of c.500 at its nadir to c.1500 at its zenith, and perhaps c.1000 in the fourth century.⁸⁰ The former seems small in light of the number of people listed in the KAB alone, while the highest estimate may be somewhat large considering the abandonment of the settlement around 400 CE. Using the simple estimate of c.1000 individuals for the mid-fourth century given by Bagnall in P.Kellis IV, and taking Matthaios’ greetings as a complete enumeration of Manichaeans in Kellis, the ‘minimum’ estimate of 53 people constitutes around 5% of Kellis inhabitants, the ‘maximum’ of 76 people almost 8%.⁸¹ As we saw, the latter is the more likely. Furthermore, it is unlikely that Matthaios’ greetings exhausted the Manichaeans in the village: the general greeting at the end suggests that there were others he had not named. As we have seen, Manichaean affiliation was also found outside the immediate circles of the Pamour family.

3.3 Shared Religious Affiliation

Before drawing this conclusion, however, an urgent question needs to be addressed: can we, in fact, take the people greeted in these letters as co-adherents? Although we cannot reach absolute certainty, some observations based on the letter contents strongly suggest that we can. Most tellingly are the instances where the authors address and explicitly include them within a shared religious community. Thus, in the middle of a string of greetings to about eight women, including Talaphanti and ‘the woman within’ (ⲧⲣⲙ̄ⲛ̄ϩⲟⲩⲛ), both with children, Makarios adds:

Tell them that I myself am very grateful to them, and God is my witness that […] all in my prayers and my supplications. I [remember] you (pl.) very very much (ⲧⲟⲛⲟⲩ ⲧⲟⲛⲟⲩ), praying for your health […] night and day; just as I see you are zealous, whether I am far [from you] or near to you

P.Kellis V Copt. 19, ll.65–70

This heartfelt and pious expression of gratefulness, addressed to some or all of these women, include what seems to be a variant of the ‘far but near’ formula. Perhaps his thanks are for assistance of a specifically religious nature; at any rate, it indicates that he took their shared religious affiliation for granted. More directly, Matthaios ends letter P.Kellis V Copt. 25 by bidding Maria to greet – in extension of the other greetings listed previously – to everyone ‘who wishes our word (ⲉϥⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲡⲛ̄ϣⲉϫⲉ)’ (l.74).⁸²

To this, we may note that both Makarios and Matthaios use elaborate cues and discuss religious affairs at some length in these letters. Makarios describes, for instance, a quarrel he has had with a deacon during his ‘practice’ ([ⲙⲉ]ⲉⲗⲉⲧⲁ, l.49), while Matthaios discusses the travels of the Teacher. Relating such affairs would primarily make sense if the authors thought the recipients, Maria I, Psenpnouthes I, and Kyria I, but also the people to whom they were to extend their greetings and presumably relate the letter contents, were interested in them. Not least, the lavish use of kinship terms in an extended sense – the numerous greetings to ‘mothers’, ‘daughters’, and so on – could well be anchored in shared religious affiliation, a notion of the community as a spiritual family: the ‘living race/family (ⲧⲣⲉⲓ̈ⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲁⲛϩ̄)’ that Makarios invokes in P.Kellis V Copt. 22 (l.5).⁸³ There are, then, good reasons to think that Makarios and Matthaios took most or all the people they greet to be fellow-adherents. To be sure, we cannot know how many confined their affiliation to expressions of sympathy, contra how many were enthusiastically engaged in communal life and actively appropriated Manichaean notions and symbols. This is, however, irrelevant to whether they were in some sense fellow-adherents.

Finally, to prefigure later discussions somewhat, we can already note here that these estimates should make us sceptical of the notion that Manichaeans at Kellis were confined to domestic settings or intimate cells for their religious activities. The movement’s repertoire of practices involved communal ritual, for which – as will be seen in the next chapters – there is indeed evidence at Kellis. As discussed above, it should not be excluded that one of the churches excavated in the village may have belonged to the Manichaean community. The size is also relevant when re-examining the common idea that Manichaeism did not appeal to people in the countryside. It is unlikely that all these families were traders, and if the group arrived in Kellis only around 300 (or later), its growth would seem to have been quite rapid. This suggests an ability to attract adherents in a wider segment of the population than previously assumed, including in the countryside.⁸⁴

4.1 Positive Interaction

There is no doubt that many adherents participated in the political and economic life of the village, and we have already surveyed much of the evidence for such engagement. As we saw in Chapter 4, Horos III son of Pamour III undertook a liturgy. The family’s associate Pausanias was himself both a Manichaean and an active participant in nome administration. No open hostility towards the Roman political order can be detected in the private letters, although it should be emphasised that liturgical service was compulsory, and is certainly not a sign of support for this system, either.

More interesting are signs of cross-denominational interaction, which may be evinced by the occurrence of certain ‘catholic priests’ in the House 3 material. A dichotomy between a (Manichaean) ‘Holy’ Church, to which the most of the House 3 authors belonged, and a dominant ‘Catholic’ Church, with which they interacted, could be implied by these texts. Still, it may be premature to take it as a given that the term ‘catholic’ (καθολική) is used to designate a specific (mainstream) church organisation, as against other, competing churches. In the papyri, the term could simply refer to the main church in a village.⁹³ The Manichaeans, too, considered their message universal, and may at any rate have preferred to use the dominant terminology in official documents. This must be kept in mind when we examine the evidence below.

One ‘catholic presbyter’ is found in the oft-discussed P.Kellis I Gr. 24 (352), pertaining to Ploutogenes son of Ouonsis. The term is associated with the patronym ‘son of Ouonsis’ (Ο̣ὐών̣σιο[ς] π̣ρ̣ε̣σβυ̣[τ]έρου καθ[ο]λικῆς ἐκκλησίας, l.3). Unfortunately, the preceding words are lost. The term could either be taken to relate to Ouonsis or to a lost preceding name.⁹⁴ It seems somewhat unlikely that it relates to Ploutogenes son of Ouonsis himself: the petition sent by Ploutogenes the subsequent year, P.Kellis I Gr. 23 (353), makes no mention of any religious office for him; there, he is simply one of the local komarchs. If he had been a presbyter this would presumably have emphasised. Still, it could well relate to his father, or to an unknown brother. The context for the document is one of wider village concerns, and so it does not necessarily show close interaction with the House 1–3 people.⁹⁵ But as we saw in Chapter 4, Ploutogenes son of Ouonsis does appear to have had some kind of link to the Pamour family. If the title belonged to Ploutogenes or one of his family members, it suggests that this ‘catholic’ family had no trouble associating with Manichaeans or vice versa – but how and in what capacity remains obscure. Another document involving a catholic priest could pertain to the same man. It is a highly fragmented contract involving a certain Ploutogenes, dating to 337 (P.Kellis I Gr. 58). The ‘catholic priest’ is named [Harp]okrates, and witnesses on behalf of Ploutogenes. An identification with the son of Ouonsis is possible, but given that the name Ploutogenes is common, and that no patronymic is preserved, it remains tentative. The name is not known from elsewhere in the House 1–3 material, or even in the village at large, and so Harpokrates’ role vis-à-vis the family is unknown.

The last instance is found in P.Kellis I Gr. 32 (364), and pertains to a Jakob, son of Besis, ‘first(?) reader (πρ(ωτο?) ἀναγνώστης) of the catholic church’ (l.21).⁹⁶ It is more directly tied to the Pamour family, as this Jacob writes on behalf of an Aurelia Marsa from Kellis, who rents a room in Aphrodito from Psais (II) son of Pamour (I). In addition to the term ‘catholic’, the name ‘Jacob’ is suggestive of mainstream Christian affiliation. The name does not recur in the House 1–3 letters, and there is as such no reason to assume that he was closely affiliated with the Pamour family.⁹⁷ Marsa, on the other hand, could be identifiable with Marsha, a woman greeted among the other members of the community in the above-examined letters of Makarios and Matthaios. Admittedly, in those two letters she is located in Kellis, and so the identification is not certain. If she is to be identified with this Marsha, it may well be that we can here see how certain members of the community had a pragmatic view of boundaries between different groups. Conversely, it may be that she did not consider herself part of the Manichaean community, despite the attempt of Matthaios to include her in the fold. Finally, her employment of Jacob could simply have been an act of necessity, based on a need for a literate witness. There are in other words multiple ways in which this interaction can be interpreted.

That participation in larger economic and political structures, and interaction with people identifying with other communities, would be the norm for Auditors is not particularly striking. At any rate, it tells us little about their attitudes to them. More interesting are the activities of the monk Petros on behalf of the topos Mani, likely showing a Manichaean monastic institution dealing directly with the estate of Faustianos (see Chapter 9, Section 3.3). The religious affiliation of this landlord is unknown, although some evidence – if highly uncertain – may suggest that the local estate manager considered himself a ‘mainstream’ Christian.⁹⁸ At any rate, if the identification of the topos with a Manichaean monastery is correct, it shows it operating as an economic entity, much like other cultic associations of antiquity, and that a depiction of the Elect simply as world-denying renouncers is too simple.

4.2 Negative Interaction

Alongside these signs of engagement with wider society, there are signs of anti-worldly sentiments and evidence for a high degree of tensions with surrounding society (‘negative’ interaction). Let us first look at the lay religious cues. Several authors utilised prayers addressed to the God of Truth for health, which in some cases were combined with another prayer for protection against ‘evil’ (ⲡⲉⲑⲁⲩ) or ‘temptation’ (ⲡⲓⲣⲁⲥⲙⲩⲥ), in line with similar use by Mani.⁹⁹ Thus, Pamour III prays for his recipients being protected against ‘the snares of the devil and the adversities of Satan’ in P.Kellis VII Copt. 65 (ll.12–15), and again against ‘temptations of Satan and the adversities of the evil place’ in P.Kellis VII Copt. 71 (ll.8–9).¹⁰⁰ Similarly, Matthaios prays for Maria to be ‘free from any evil and temptation of Satan’ in P.Kellis V Copt. 25 (ll.19–22), and the lost author of P.Kellis V Copt. 34 prays for his recipient to be ‘free from every evil of Satan’ (ll.11–12). Makarios and Matthaios include appeals for ‘freedom’ (ⲡⲁⲣⲣⲏⲥⲓⲁ) in several letters (P.Kellis V Copt. 20, 22, 25). At the very least, these passages suggest that the Manichaean view of the world as in some sense an ‘evil’ place was widely shared by adherents in Kellis. This view was not, of course, restricted to the Manichaeans, and its social significance is indeterminable – Manichaeans could certainly express positive views of the world, as well. Perhaps it might imply that the community was somewhat austere, but this cannot be measured.

In addition to prayers against cosmic evil, several references to evils taking place in this world can be detected, however, indicating social tensions. We may start with the letters of Matthaios and Makarios, whose calls for freedom may be connected to events in the Valley. These latter appeals are, perhaps, comparable to Mani’s own calls for parrhesia found in the Berlin Kephalaia, as noted by the editors, who comment: ‘We wonder if it is more than the tyranny of distance that keeps the family away from the oasis’.¹⁰¹ Matthaios’ prayer in P.Kellis V Copt. 25 continues with implying a degree of anxiety, alluding to hope for a meeting in the afterlife. It reads:

And furthermore I pray that this great day of joy should happen to us, the day for which we pray indeed every hour, and God grant us that we may see the image of each other in freedom and with a smiling face. Or indeed: whether they are dreams (?) or whether it is the sphere […];¹⁰² or else again: perhaps they change and cast us once again towards you, and we will be satisfied with the face of all our beloveds. Would therefore that this may happen to us! (ll.22–30)

Considering the mundane tone concerning travel in other letters, attributing his concerns here to separation caused by physical distance between Oasis and Nile Valley alone seems insufficient. On the other hand, there is no mention of hardships or persecutions in this letter. Perhaps his heartfelt prayer could rather be seen in light of his expression of sorrow for the death of his ‘great mother’ found in the same letter.

The calls for freedom in Makarios’ letters P.Kellis V Copt. 20 and 22 provide stronger indications of social tensions, as they relate certain events that suggest that the family was experiencing troubles. They presume current knowledge on the part of the recipients that we no longer possess, and so we should proceed with care. In P.Kellis V Copt. 20, Makarios reports that Matthaios had experienced some problems, reporting to Maria that: ‘Let it be you know that brother Sarmate has petitioned Pkonaes (?). He ordered Kleoboulos to return, and cause to be given back the things of Mathaios that had been taken’ (ll.40–42). This seems to relate to the confiscation of Matthaios’ ‘things’ by a Roman official.¹⁰³ In another letter, P.Kellis V Copt. 22, Makarios provides a more detailed (if still obscure) description of hardships, writing: ‘How many […] these or our sanctuary? Are not you yourself a catechumen? For we are not retaliating against anyone in this place for what they are doing to us’ (ll.60–62). He further mentions someone pursuing a man (or a book), and ‘the fire that burns in my heart on account of the book which they took’ (ll.65–66). In the following, fragmented part of this passage can be read references to ‘weakness’, ‘toil’, and ‘by body, by spirit’ (ll.67–69), for which the context remains obscure. In the next passage, whose connection to the former is somewhat unclear, he complains to either Maria I or Kyria I that: ‘You had no pity for your brother’s son, because he is under persecution (ⲇⲓⲱⲅⲙⲟⲥ); though you know that I have spent two years without him. He has no one who can guide him but God, the one who repays’ (ll.73–75).

A religious context for these incidents is, however, rejected by Brand. Regarding the confiscation in P.Kellis V Copt. 20, he argues that: ‘[i]f Matthaios or his father Makarios indeed petitioned a Roman official after a theft or assault, it is most unlikely that they would have been afraid of maltreatment by the Roman authorities for their religious affiliation.’¹⁰⁴ However, while such a petition indeed shows that they had some hope of being given redress by the governor – and as we have seen, they may well have had influential contacts, – it does not imply that the religious community was on good terms with the Roman administration in general.¹⁰⁵ Religious conflict could have flared with local officials such as Kleoboulos, who may well have been logistes of the Great Oasis.¹⁰⁶ Regarding the event(s) in P.Kellis V Copt. 22, Brand comments that the incident concerning the book ‘could have been about a failed business transaction (including books?), for which Makarios blames Maria (or Kyria)’, and, regarding the matter of persecution, that ‘the Coptic term persecution (ⲇⲓⲱⲅⲙⲟⲥ) was also used in military or legal settings. Without further context, it remains unclear whether religious persecution was meant’.¹⁰⁷ But here he neglects to discuss the passage concerning retaliation for hostile acts at the ‘sanctuary’, as well as the other religious markers both in the opening and in the same passage. As argued in Chapter 5, it is especially significant that Makarios invokes Maria I’s (or Kyria I’s) role as catechumen while beseeching help in these matters. These indices make a religious context highly likely.

That the community experienced such hardship is supported by an explicit reference to religious tensions in a letter pertaining to the younger generation, that of Psais/Andreas. In P.Kellis V Copt. 37, Psais III’s associate Ammon writes:

Now, great was the grief that overcame me, and the heartbreak that seized me, when I heard about what happened; namely that they shook those of this word (ⲁⲩⲕⲓⲙ ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲓⲥⲉϫⲉ). For it is possible for God to thwart their designs. In fact, I wanted to come to you, but I was told that it was not allowed. (ll.13–25)

The ‘shaking’ of ‘those of this word’ clearly describes a violent act against fellow-adherents.¹⁰⁸ Unfortunately, no further details are given. Questions concerning where it took place, who the perpetrators were, what prevented Ammon from going to Psais III, or why that is relevant are all unanswerable. Ammon takes this information as already known to Psais III. It is perhaps possible that it was Psais III himself who had informed him in a previous letter.

A specifically religious disruption is again likely to form the background of a letter by an Elect who styles himself ‘your father who is in Egypt’. In his letter, P.Kellis V Copt. 31, he justifies his request for goods addressed to a plurality of female catechumens in Kellis by writing, in a passage that unfortunately is very lacunose, that he and his companions are ‘afflicted’ (ⲧⲛ̄[ⲗ]ⲁϫϩ̄, l.34)¹⁰⁹ and that ‘the place is very difficult’ (ⲡⲙⲁ ⲙⲁⲭϩ [ⲧⲟⲛⲟⲩ], ll.47–48). The letter ends with a mysterious instruction:

[…] this letter to you (pl.). When you have finished reading it, send it to my son with certainty. Do not let it stay with you, it may fall into somebody’s hands. Indeed, what is even this constraint (ϯⲕⲉⲁⲛⲁⲅ⳿ⲕⲏ)! (ll.52–55)

The mix of ‘being afflicted’, a sense for urgency, and a need for secrecy strongly suggests that the author and his associates are under outside pressure.¹¹⁰ Perhaps some exaggeration of the troubles should be allowed for, considering the letter’s purpose of acquiring alms (see Chapter 8, Section 2.3), and the nature of the affliction remains obscure. But whatever the exact troubles, there is little doubt that they pertain to a specifically religious context.

There are other letters from the generation of Pamour III that contain very similar allusions to what might, potentially, be religious troubles. Pamour III alludes to difficulties in one letter, writing: ‘You wrote to me: “When the place is quiet, then write to me”’ (P.Kellis VII Copt. 72, ll.26–27). The significance of ‘quiet’ (ⲙⲁⲧⲛ̄) is most unclear, however, and he might simply be referring to conditions pertaining to trade, as suggested by the editors.¹¹¹ In a passage from a letter addressing Partheni II, Theognostos writes:

God is witness that your (pl.) memory is in our heart at all times, as we wish to come and see you. But what can we do? For the place is disturbed now and we are afraid. Let nothing evil happen whilst the place remains disturbed.

P.Kellis VII Copt. 83, ll.5–8

The disruption of the ‘place’ (ⲡⲙⲁ ⲧⲏϩ), the restriction on movement (comparable to that of Ammon), the fear that Theognostos and his associates have experienced, and the potential for further ‘evil’ (ⲡⲉⲑⲁⲩ), suggests a serious tumult. But again, the events may not relate to religious difficulties, and could pertain to broader conditions in the Oasis or the Valley.

Of the above-considered passages, we may reasonably see religious tension as forming the backdrop in the letters of Makarios (at least P.Kellis V Copt. 22), Ammon, and the Elect Father. Certainly, it is unlikely that we are dealing with full-scale persecutions. As far as can be determined, Makarios’ letter belong to the mid – late 350s and the letter of Ammon to around 370. The former, at least, is situated before the time of the edict of Valens and Valentinian against Manichaean assemblies in 373, and both were written before the harsher measures undertaken by Theodosius I.¹¹² Singular incidents of hostility from, for instance, a specific Roman official (as perhaps in P.Kellis V Copt. 20) do not on their own prove a high degree of tension with society in general. At the same time, there is ample reason to see the accumulation of evidence as indicating a high level of tension. At least in Ammon’s letter we are dealing with actual violence towards a plurality of adherents. The fact that they relate to different incidents, spread out over a long period and probably a wide geographical area show that difficulties were recurrent.¹¹³ Not least, that the community experienced trouble even before official sanctions began indicates that tensions were not only the product of authorities on the imperial level. These factors point to widespread and persistent tensions that, at certain points, could erupt in violence.

Brand is right in that we are not dealing with persecutions, in the sense of a deliberate program for the suppression of the group. But his argument that the problems were restricted to ‘petty acts of discrimination’ (cited above) is unpersuasive, insofar as it downplays the social consequences of such tensions. Even if violent eruptions were not regular, and mainly caused by small groups of ‘extremists’, they would have served to spread fear among other members of the group – especially if such acts had some level of acceptance in broader society or among state officials. Violence does not have to happen on a daily basis (or even be realised) in order to be effective: threats and abuse are enough to create an atmosphere of persecution, and strengthen in/out group dynamics.