From professional regulations to monastic rules

Egypt is not only the birthplace of monastic life cut off from the world but also the first place where
these monks established rules to characterize the ideal life, entirely dedicated to god. This novelty
has been pointed out by Jerome, in the early years of the 5 th century, as he provided a translation for
the Praecepta of Pachomius and his successors. Pachomian rules are the best preserved, through
Jerome’s work and some coptic fragments, but we also know a part of Shenoute’s regulations (or,
should I say, of the regulation of Shenoute’s congregation1).

Egyptian monastic rules have been widely studied, but less attention has been given to their roots.
Scholars have tried to determine which rules are the oldest 2 ; who really wrote them 3 ; how the
monks circulated and gathered them4 ; how they convey and reveal the wishes and ideas of the
founders of monastic communities5 ; in what literary form they were written 6… But how Pachomius
or Shenoute came up with the idea of establishing written rules for their followers ? Some scholars
assume to this day that such rules came out of the Holy Scripture 7. This has been affirmed in
numerous texts of our corpus : Theodore, Pachomius’ pupil, claims that the first authors of the « Law
of the holy koinonia » are the apostles, and then Pachomius 8. However, it seems to me that this
position results in taking on the point of view of the leaders of monastic communities. The biblical
language has of course influenced the very form of the rules : good examples are the curses hitting
those who break them. But Philip Rousseau has rightly stated that « in order to understand how life
under rule was supported by that strength, that perfect knowledge, it is not enough to attend simply
to the scriptural background in Pachomius’s early instructions about dress, food and sleep » 9. For his
part, Stephen Emmel has tried to determine what Shenoute read and studied besides the coptic
Bible : he did have basic knowledge in greek rhetoric and notarial work 10. Is it relevant to link these
capacities to the monastic rules ? Bentley Layton has suggested without specifying that one cannot
deny an influence of civil law on the drafting of the rules11.

« An influence of the juridic culture » sounds to me like a too vague idea. We need to go further and
investigate which legal acts share similar characteristics with monastic rules. In this paper, I would
suggest that these rules owe much to the regulations of egyptian professional associations, known by
some papyri from roman and byzantine times. The similarities between the organisation of a
monastery and of an association (of all types) has already been noticed 12, but as far I know without

1
See F. Vecoli, « Norme, malédiction et forme de vie dans les ‟Règles” de Chénouté », p. 66.
2
E. Wipszycka, Moines et communautés monastiques, p. 57-60.
3
E.W. Bentley Layton, p. 39-41 ; F. Vecoli, « Norme, malédiction et forme de vie dans les ‟Règles” de
Chénouté », p. 66.
4
V. Keil, « Zur Form der Regel des Schenute », p. 41.
5
P. Rousseau, Pachomius, p. 90.
6
V. Keil, « Zur Form der Regel des Schenute », p. 44 ; E.W. Bentley Layton, p. 42-44.
7
See A. de Vogüé, Histoire littéraire du mouvement monastique, p. 15.
8
Catechesis of Theodore (Œuvres de S. Pachôme et de ses disciples, p. 41). See also the Catechesis of Horsisius
(Œuvres de S. Pachôme et de ses disciples, p. 80). For his part, Shenoute (n°275) says that to disobey rules is to
disobey God
9
P. Rousseau, Pachomius, p. 103.
10
S. Emmel, « Coptic literature in the Byzantine and early islamic world », p. 90-92.
11
EW. Bentley Layton, p. 46.
12
See E. Lüddeckens, « Gottesdienstliche Gemeinschaften im Pharaonischen, Hellenistischen und Christlichen
Ägypten », p. 209-210, F. Ruppert, Das pachomianische Mönchtum und die Anfänge klosterlichen Gehorsams, p.
296-300, and V.Desprez, Le monachisme primitif des origines jusqu’au concile d’Éphèse, p. 239-241. The parallel
has similarly been drawn between associations and first christian communities. See P. Arzt-Grabner, 2.
dwelling on the issue of rules13. Before getting into the substance of this matter, we have to ask why
monks would act like craftsmen, or share their perceptions.

1. Craftsmen among monks

Many monks came from the ranks of craftsmen. Too much emphasis had been placed on the peasant
origin of many of them. Ewa Wipszycka showed that monks from upper classes were not rare 14.
Between these two layers, some artisans and merchants also wanted to join the monastic
communities which have formed in Egypt in the 4th century. The hagiographic literature gives many
examples. Take for instance the Lausiac History : Macarius was apprentice gem-engraver in his
youth ; John of Lycopolis used to learn the trade of carpenter, whereas his own brother was a dyer ; a
merchant named Apollonius became a monk at the mountain of Nitria at the end of his life 15. In the
Life of Pachomius, we hear about a new brother who used to be a baker 16. While going to the bakery
of the monastery, Theodore, Pachomius’ pupil, was asked by a young monk whether he was a baker
before leaving the world17. Thereafter, the same Theodore had a discussion with a brother of Libyan
origin, carpenter by trade18. When asked by a deacon about the fate of the merchants of Alexandria,
Horsisius confessed that many of these people became then monks 19. The pilgrims of the Historia
monachorum in Aegypto met near Achoris a man who kept on working as a smith after joining a
monastery20.The anchorite Eulogius worked as quarryman21.

The presence of skilled craftsmen among monks is not a surprise. Their skills were needed for the
economic activity of the monasteries to which they belonged, while they were also secular craftsmen
to be employed22. The author of the Lausiac History wrote he saw in a monastery in Panopolis 15
tailors, 7 smiths, 4 carpenters, 12 camel drivers and 15 fullers 23. The arabic manuscript of the Life of
Pachomius contains such a list24, and so does a letter from Besa, Shenoute’s successor 25. Some monks
visited by the pilgrims of the Historia Monachorum in Aegypto « were skilled at construction and
promptly built hermitages for any and all newcomers »26. A Father of the Desert may have
deprecated the linen-weaving, which differ from what is usually taken for the best occupation of a

Korinther, p. 376 for the bibliography and recently the comparison between common meals in associations and
christian groups drawn up by C. Leonhard, « Die griechisch-römischen Vereine und die Mahlfeiern der
christlichen Gruppen », p. 258 : Daten über griechisch-römische Vereine können auch dazu herausgezogen
werden, um Entwicklungen der Mahlbräuche christlicher Gruppen (…) zu erklären ».
13
Except perhaps Claire Préaux, « À propos des associations dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine », p. 197, who did not
elaborate on that point.
14
E. Wipszycka, Moines et communautés monastiques, p. 355-360.
15
Lausiac History, 6, 13 and 35.
16
Vie de saint Pachôme selon la tradition copte, 138.
17
Codex S5, 132 (Les Vies coptes de saint Pachôme, p. 278).
18
Letter of Ammon, 3 (Le corpus athénien de Saint Pachôme, p. 148).
19
Sahidic codex S21 (Les Vies coptes de saint Pachôme, p. 398).
20
Historia monachorum in Agypto : Apelles, 1.
21
Anonymes des Pères du Désert, 596. See the greek text in Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, 5, 1900, p. 254ss.
22
E. Wipszycka, Moines et communautés monastiques, p. 479-485 and 499 (for laic external craftsmen).
23
Lausiac History, 32. This passage is missing in some manuscripts ; see E. Wipszycka, Moines et communautés
monastiques, p. 513-516.
24
« Vie de Pakhôme », Annales du Musée Guimet, 17, 1889, p. 377-378. According to E. Wipszycka, Moines et
communautés monastiques, p. 514-515, it might be a reuse of the Lausiac History quoted above.
25
Letters and Sermons of Besa, edited and translated by K. H. Kuhn, p. 33.
26
A. Cain, The Greek Historia monachorum in Aegypto : monastic hagiography in the late fourth century, p. 236.
monk, i.e. the wickerwork27. However, that did not prevent many monks from exercising this
activity28. Similarly, Theodore is supposed to have disapproved the shipbuilding for monks 29, but we
do know that pachomian monasteries had a real fleet, manoeuvred by specialized monks 30. In greek
and coptic papyri, some monks are identified with their trade 31. The Paralipomena on the life of
Pachomius allude to a discussion with a brother shoemaker by trade 32. An egyptian hagiography of
Joseph, widely popular among monks, preserved by two coptic versions and an arabic one from an
original greek text dated from the 4th century, referred to him as « Joseph the carpenter »33.

The monastic imaginary as it can be seen in numerous egyptian texts has been affected by the social
background of many monks. Metaphors and comparisons provide numerous references to the work
of artisans and merchants : the body of a saint or a monk is described as a potter’s vessel 34, the devil
as a rope-maker35, the cell of a monk as a smithery 36… The monks themselves are often designated as
workmen (ἐργατής)37 ; humility should protect them from falling into temptation like blinders for the
beast of burden. Visiting the Desert Fathers is like going into a perfume shop 38. A leather-worker
from Alexandria was told by Anthony the Great himself that he could expect to inherit the Kingdom,
like a goldsmith staying peacefully at home 39. A text attributed to a pachomian monk named Carour
puts in the mouth of apa Besarion (the successor of Horsisius) a parable with tailors 40. Some texts,
like the Sayings of Abba Macarius on Virtues, are full of such images, which have of course the
advantage of being easily understandable, but also attest both to the background of the writers and
to the one of those who are to be edified. Of course, that does not just apply to egyptian monks, but
we may notice that well-educated authors, such as the anonymous one of the Historia Monachorum
in Aegypto, chose the metaphors they used in other fields, more adapted to rhetorical style 41.

The practices implemented from the craftsmen world concern not only the imaginary, but also the
very organisation of the first monasteries. In the foreword of Saint Jerome’s translation of Pachomian
Rules, we learn that the monks are gathered in houses according to their trade. Ewa Wipszycka
argued against the faith of many historians in what Jerome wrote 42. According to her, his description
of egyptian monasteries is far too schematic ; it is also impossible that all the wicker workers
belonged to the same house, since any monk could devote time to that activity. It is a fact that in
hagiography the partition into houses does not seem to follow the division into crafts 43 ; the only
well-identified house is the so-called « house of the strangers » for the Greek-speaking monks. But
27
Anonymes des Pères du Désert, 375.
28
See, in the same collection, Anonymes des Pères du Désert, 59 and 132a. In the Monastery of Epiphanius at
Thebes, several monks worked as linen-weavers. See for example P.Mon.Epiph. 351.
29
Les Vies coptes de Saint Pachôme et de ses premiers successeurs, p. 224.
30
J. Gascou & J.-L. Fournet, « Moines pachômiens et batellerie », p. 40-43.
31
P.Köln 12.491, 1 (smith) ; P.Athen.Xyla. 10, 7 (oil-maker). This is also the case in inscriptions found in ancient
monasteries. See for example (carpenters) P.Brux.Bawit 28, 5n.
32
Paralipomena 23 (Le corpus athénien de Saint Pachôme, p. 135).
33
F. Dunand, « Between Tradition and Innovation : Egyptian Funerary Practices in Late Antiquity », Egypt in the
Byzantine World 300-700, p. 176. According to the editor, Siegfried Morenz, this text may have been read in
monasteries. See Die Geschichte von Joseph dem Zimmermann, p. 51-52.
34
Panegyric of Anthony by John of Hermupolis, 19 ; Shenoute, Canon 8, 279.
35
Apophthegmes des Pères XI, 106.
36
Apophthegmes des Pères XV, 118 ; Anonymes des Pères du Désert, 582.
37
Shenoute, Canon 8, 225 ; Apophthegmes des Pères XIV, 23 ; Anonymes des Pères du Désert, 174.
38
Anonymes des Pères du Désert, 471.
39
Anonymes des Pères du Désert, 490.
40
Œuvres de S. Pachôme et de ses disciples, p. 104.
41
See. A. Cain, The Greek Historia monachorum in Aegypto : monastic hagiography in the late fourth century, p.
113-114.
42
E. Wipszycka, Moines et communautés monastiques, p. 509-512.
there is no need to suppose that such a partition was formally established by Pachomius or the
headmen of his congregation – it may simply occur as a convenient arrangement. Ewa Wipszycka is
certainly right that Jerome’s words should not be taken at face value. However, it cannot be excluded
that monks with skilled craftsmanship often (but not always) belonged to the same house, though
they alone did necessarily not form a complete house. In the texts attributed to Pachomius and his
successors, the monks are often identified by their activity 44, and have leaders responsible for
overseeing their work45. The same texts suggest that these skilled monks were sometimes reluctant
to take part in the farm work46, which might be an evidence of a community spirit in them. According
to the letter of the bishop Ammon, written in the 2 nd half of the 4th century after 3 years spent in the
pachomian monastery of Pboou, a house contained 22 linen workers (λινόυφοι)47. All of this is a
further evidence that monks were influenced by the customs of craftsmen.

2. A craftsmen art of gathering

These craftsmen who joined the monastic communities brought not only their skills and way of
thinking, but also their old organisational practices. At the time when were formed the first monastic
communities, from the beginning of the 4th century, the organisations of craftsmen had undergone a
major change few decades earlier. This change has been first described (by Jean-Michel Carrié) as
follows. The voluntary associations which are well attested in Roman times, seem to disappear during
the 3rd century. Under the reign of Diocletian, a new type of organisation comes up in Egypt : the so-
called koinon. These koina of craftsmen are not the product of the desire to associate with each
other, but institutions set up by the authorities in order to facilitate the tax collections. The
consequence of this is that the membership can’t be voluntary anymore. Any craftsman must be
registered in his koinon to share the fiscal burden. In my thesis, I tried to show that the pattern of a
transition from voluntary associations to corporations does not reflect what papyri reveal for both
roman and byzantine times. There was an overlapping of the two types of organisations during the
roman period, and after Diocletian the associative practices have not been simply forgotten. Over the
course of the 4th century, the members of some koina have restructured the functioning of the
corporative organisation, in keeping with the association model. Therefore, the monthly or
intermittent representatives of the first koina, who provided a collective and rotating leadership, are
replaced by one or two elected presidents (kephalaiotai), for an entire year.

Professional associations from the Roman period established internal regulations for their members
on the occasion of the election of the president. The first koina, which were public and fiscal
institutions without any community life, did not, but from the 5th century, some of them drew up a
charter quite similar to those of late associations. The important point is that for egyptian craftsmen
it was still natural at this period to establish common written rules in their organisations. Therefore,

43
It is yet recounted in the greek hagiography (La première vie grecque de Saint Pachôme, p. 226) that
Horsisius, Pachomius’ successor, appointed Theodore headman of the carpenters (οἰκιακὸς τῶν τεκτόνων).
44
Cultivators and shepherds in Praecepta 108 of Pachomius (Œuvres de S. Pachôme et de ses disciples, p. 32) ;
see also the cooks mentioned in the Complaint of Carour (Œuvres de S. Pachôme et de ses disciples, p. 103).
45
Chief baker and chief cultivator in the Regulation of Horsisius (Œuvres de S. Pachôme et de ses disciples, p. 94
and 99) ; chief shoemaker in the Complaint of Carour (Œuvres de S. Pachôme et de ses disciples, p. 105). In the
coptic hagiography, we hear about the chief of the boatmen (Les Vies coptes de saint Pachôme, p. 164).
46
Œuvres de S. Pachôme et de ses disciples, p. 103 and 105. The sahidic codes S 15 contains the account of a
dream made by Horsisius about the fall of the congregation : the monks who lead the community make nice
tunics and comfortable shoes for themselves, while the other brothers are overburdened with agricultutal
works (Les Vies coptes de saint Pachôme, p. 402).
47
Letter of Ammon, 19 (Le corpus athénien de Saint Pachôme, p. 155).
we could discuss whether this organisational background of many future monks may have influenced
the drafting of monastic rules. Yet we should first notice that the regulations of both professional
associations and koina are much shorter than monastic rules and lay down first and foremost the
prerogatives and duties of the president. Craftsmen regulations are the product of an agreement,
while monastic rules are imposed by the leaders. At first sight, these two types of regulations have
nothing in common with each other.

3. The similarities between professional regulations and monastic rules

What are the similarities between professional regulations and monastic rules ? The first aspect to be
considered here is the target of these regulations. Of course, professional associations did not seek
to guide their members to salvation – we cannot find any religious provision (neither pagan nor
christian) in the remaining egyptian documents issued by professional associations or corporations.
The internal solidarity is nevertheless a common concern to both types of documents. Members of a
professional association or a koinon were expected to help a fellow in need and were punished if
they failed in this duty. « If anyone neglects another in trouble and does not give aid to release him
from his trouble, let him pay eight drachmai », says the ordinance of a cattle-owners association from
Tebtynis48. Four centuries later, a regulation issued by the goldsmiths of Oxyrhynchos contains a very
similar stipulation49. Similarly, the members of a pachomian community had to provide support to a
sick brother. More broadly, the fellow-craftsmen who were guilty of misconduct should be liable to a
penalty. The professional regulations did not completely detail the cases of misconduct, allowing the
group to rule on a case-by-case basis50. However, the worst abuses seemed to be defamation and
deception51, as it was among monks. The Fathers of the Desert, who were often critical of cenobitic
life in general, reported the lies, the envy stirring within the monasteries 52. The Praecepta et Instituta
of Pachomius punish any monk who behaves aggressively, lies or says bad things about another 53. A
main characteristic of monastic rules is to care not only about the behaviour but also about the
feelings of the monks. Shenoute goes so far as to threaten those who secretly hate or despise their
brothers54.

The obligation to attend other members’ funeral could seem to correspond first with the central role
of death in christian faith, but connects in fact a very old concern, which has been barely affected by
religious changes and Christianisation. It was the function of professional associations (and other
types of associations) to give deceased members a decent burial. The cattle-owners of Tebtynis still
followed in this field the Egyptian custom : « if one the members dies, let all be shaved and let them

48
P.Mich. V 243, 6 (Tebtynis, 14-37) : ἐάν τις παρίδῃ τινὰ ἐν ἀηδίᾳ καὶ μὴ συνεπισχύσῃ ἐπὶ τωὶ (l. τὸ) συλλῦσαι
αὐτὸν τῆς ἀηδίας, δ[ό]τ̣ω̣ι̣ (l. δότω) (δραχμὰς) η̣.
49
PSI XII 1265, 12-13 (Oxyrhynchos, 426 or 441) : καὶ εἰ ἀ[πο]λιφθῇ (l. ἀπολλειφθῇ) τις ἐξ [ἡ]μῶν ὑποκῖσθ[αι] (l.
ὑποκεῖσθαι) αὐτὸν τῇ κατὰ συνηθια<ν> ζημίᾳ. Earlier in the text, the goldsmiths said they cared about
harmony (σύστασις) among them.
50
P.Mich. V 243, 3 : ἐὰν δέ τις ἐκπαροινήσῃ ζημιούσθωι (l. ζημιούσθω) ὃ ἐὰν τῶι κοινῶι δόξηι (« If anyone
misconducts himself, let him be fined whatever the society may decide »).
51
P.Mich. V 243, 7-8 : ἐάν τις τοῦ ἑτέρου κατηγορήσῃ ἠ̣ι (l. ἢ) διαβολὴν ποιήσηται, ζημι(ούσθω) (δραχμὰς) η.
ἐάν τις τὸν ἕτερον ὑπονομεύσῃ ἠι (l. ἢ) οἰκοφθορήσῃ, ζημιο(ύσθω) (δραχμὰς) ξ (« If anyone prosecutes
another or defames him, let him be fined eight drachmai. If anyone intrigues against another or corrupts his
home, let him be fined sixty drachmai »)
52
See Anonymes des Pères du Désert, 642.
53
Œuvres de S. Pachôme et de ses disciples, p. 35-36 (n. 9, 10 and 17).
54
F. Vecoli, « Norme, malédiction et forme de vie dans les ‟Règles” de Chénouté », p. 73.
hold a feast for one day, each bringing at once one drachme and two loaves of bread »55. Those who
did not respect the rules of mourning were liable to a penalty 56. Not surprisingly, monks gave great
importance to the passage into the other world and were expected to attend the funeral of a late
brother57. The pachomian rules have moreover been inspired by a new concern for humility during
the funeral ceremony : the monks were not allowed to recite a psalm on their own initiative.

The main purpose of both monastic rules and professional associations regulations is to promote the
hierarchical principle. The main part of the stipulations in the second types of documents is
concerned with the office of president, since they were written at the time of his appointment. The
fellow-craftsmen defined carefully the powers and duties of their president ; as long as the latter
carried out his mission, arguing with him was forbidden. The tenant farmers from an imperial estate
in Tebtynis stated that « All shall obey the said president »58. « No one among us is allowed to stand
in array against you, the chief, in any way », says the ordinance of the goldsmiths from Oxyrhynchos,
four centuries later59. Monastic rules are similarly clear as regards obedience and respect to the
superior60, but are incomparably more detailed. Few issues are left aside. The superior (i. e. the
headman of the house) oversees all aspects of the monks’ life, and acts as an intermediary between
them and those of the other houses or the world outside 61. He is the « linchpin of the pachomian
system »62.

The superiors had to monitor and check the work done by the monks, and then to deliver the
resulting goods. This has never been the function of the representatives in professional associations
and corporations, since these groups interfered rarely in the individual business of their members.
The only well-attested exceptions are the limits on competition : salt-merchants from 1st century
Tebtynis decided to define some areas reserved for certain individual members, to establish a ceiling
for the quantity which could be sold by a single member and to fix the minimum purchase prices 63.
Even after the changes of the Diocletianic period, the koina allowed their members to work as they
wished and only occasionally coordinated the efforts to fulfill a joint task (such as public orders).
However, the koina had to pool contributions in order to pay taxes, from which monks were exempt.

The respect for authority leads to a special attention to the seating order and the behaviour during
meals and ceremonies. The ordinances of egyptian professional associations and corporations
provide few details about this aspect of the gatherings, but we know through documents from other
provinces that craftsmen paid special attention to how they were placed in relation with each other,
to who was allowed to speak first, etc 64. In the Pachomian rules, there are many stipulations of this
kind. That is even how the Praecepta begin (1 : the one who comes for the first time in the assembly
must wait for his headman to lead him to the right spot ; 2 : he will seat decently and modestly with
his knees covered65, etc.).

55
P.Mich. V 243, 9-10 : ἐάν τις τῶν συνοδειτῶν (l. συνοδιτῶν) τελευτήσῃ, ξυράσθωσαν πάντ̣ε̣ς καὶ ἑστιάτωσαν
ἡμέρ(αν) α, ἑκάστου παραχρῆμα εἰσφέροντος (δραχμὴν) α καὶ κάκεις δύο.
56
P.Mich V 243, 11-12 ; P.Mich. V 244, 16-18 (Tebtynis, 43).
57
Pachomiana latina, 127-128.
58
P.Mich. V 244, 15-16.
59
PSI XII 1265, 7-8 : καὶ μὴ ἐξεῖναι μηδενὶ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἀ̣ν̣τιπαρατάττειν σοι τῷ κεφαλαιωτῇ εἰς μηδοτιοῦν.
60
Pachomiana latina, 130 : « Let no one walk in front of the headman ».
61
Pachomiana latina, 47 : « Let no one dare visit a sick brother without the permission of the superior ».
62
V.Desprez, Le monachisme primitif des origines jusqu’au concile d’Éphèse, p. 243.
63
P.Mich. V 245 (Tebtynis, 47).
64
See O. van Nijf, The Civic world of professional associations in the Roman East, p. 209-240.
65
A regulation of Horsisius recalls the obligation to have the legs covered while sitting : see Œuvres de S.
Pachôme et de ses disciples, p. 87.
The comparison between professional groups regulations and monastic rules could be pursued
further. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the literary form and the structure of the
monastic rules, since we cannot be sure that the latter have retained the form in which they have
been originally written. It is yet possible to find some occasional similarities. The way of denoting a
prohibition is close in the two kinds of texts : a sentence beginning with « the one who » or « if one
of us » and ending with the penalty. We already gave some examples from the regulations from the
1st century ; we read the same pattern in Late Antiquity documents. The ordinance of the goldsmiths
from Oxyrhynchos says : « if one of us fails to come to the meeting on scheduled time although he
has been summoned, without being sick or out of town, you the chief has permission to punish
him »66. A century later, a very similar wording is used in the charter of boat makers working as
hunters for a large estate from the village of Aphrodito : « Someone stealing a piece of wood as a
robber, if it is in the water, he will give one-third of a gold piece… »67. The diversity of the monastic
rules is noticeable in the formulation of what is prohibited or compulsory. However, sentences such
as those we have indicated are not uncommon : « Let blame immediatly the one who leaves the
synaxis in which the oblation is offered whitout his superior’s approval »68, « if one falls asleep while
sitting during the speech of the house or monastery headman, let him immediatly be compelled to
stand up… »69, « if one comes late to the meal, unless due to an order of the superior, he shall be
compelled to the same penitence… »70.

These similarities could be found to be fragile. After all, the need for a recognized hierarchy and an
internal solidarity is not specific to professional associations or monastic congregations. One might
think that these two types of regulations do not have direct links to each other, but simply fill the
same need and share the same purpose. « It is very tempting to suggest that the values that were at
the core of professional associations in the early Roman period and beyond, that is, trust, solidarity
and mutual support, had a universal character. These were to be found in Egypt well before
Christianity and continued to be an integral part of the identity and rules of associations in later
periods and in different regions outside Egypt », writes Micaela Langellotti71. However, we have to
keep in mind that the way of life in pachomian monasteries is not a simple evolution of the eremitic
practices, but a real break. Would otherwise Pachomius’ decision, while living with few brothers, to
welcome new monks have caused a quarrel mentioned in hagiography 72 ? Of course, the rules have
not been drafted once and for all when the first community was founded – we can’t even be sure
that Pachomius had the rules written down during his lifetime 73. But this changes nothing to the fact
that the intellectual and organisational approach of creating cenobitic communities is completely
different than living with other anchorites. Pachomius did not want to create lauras with a more
66
PSI XII 1265, 8-9 : εἰ δέ τις ἐξ ἡμῶν κληθεὶς εἰς σύλλογον μὴ ὑπακούσῃ ε̣ἰ̣ς̣ τ̣ὴ̣ν ὡρι[σμ]έν[η]ν [ὥ]ραν ἄνευ
κακώσεως καὶ ἀποδημίας, ἐξέσται σοι τῷ κεφαλαιωτῇ τοῦτον καταδικάσαι. See also the quote of n. 47.
67
SB III 6704, 26-28 (Aphrodito, 538) : ὁ δὲ κλεψάμενος ἕν̣α ξ[ύ]λον ἐν λυστ ρ̣[ικῷ] (l. λῃστρικῷ) τ̣ρ[ό] π̣ῳ̣, εἰ
μ̣ὲν ἐν τῷ ὕδατι, παρέξει χρυσοῦ [τ]ρ̣ιμή̣σιον ἕν.
68
Pachomiana latina, 18 : De collecta in qua offerenda est oblatio, qui sine praecepto maioris exierit statim
increpabitur.
69
Pachomiana latina, 21 : Si quis dormitauerit sedens, praeposito domus uel monasterii principe disputante,
statim surgere compelletur, et tamdiu stabit donec ei iubeatur ut sedeat.
70
Pachomiana latina, 32 : Si quis ad comedendum tardius uenerit, excepto maioris imperio, similiter aget
paenitentiam, aut ad domum ieiunus reuertetur.
71
M. Langellotti, « A World full of Associations : Rules and Community Values in Early Roman Egypt », p. 195.
72
P. Rousseau, Pachomius, p. 60-61.
73
P. Rousseau, Pachomius, p. 52.
complex community life ; he imaginated (through a dream given by God, according to hagiography) a
new and complete monastic way of life which is derived from a different model. Contrary to what
was thought formerly, this model is not the army, in which he served briefly 74. It may be simply the
village community, where both agricultural works and religious ceremonies were collectively carried
out. However, the village customs were not drafted in the form of written rules as specific as those of
pachomian monks. What kind of well-attested text contained such rules at that time, aside from the
regulations of professional associations ? The various associations (called σύνοδος) which were
known in Roman times seemed to have disappeared before the creation of the first cenobitic
communities.

The similarities in both concerns and wording are probably no accident. Pachomius and his imitators
sought to create communities in which members could consecrate themselves to God, and for this
purpose used the models of organisation they knew. The associative model is the framework from
which the Egyptian Fathers imaginated the monastic ideal. The regulations’ provisions for craftsmen
have increased many times over, have been systematized to affect all areas of the monks’ life, well
beyond their concord and their relations with authorities75.

Carl-Loris Raschel

74
E. Wipszycka, Moines et communautés monastiques, p. 507
75
F. Vecoli, « Norme, malédiction et forme de vie dans les ‟Règles” de Chénouté », p. 84.