Psais II and his sons

76

I/Philammon I.²⁸⁶ Psais (II), son of Pamour I and Tekysis I, is better known. His datable activities span the mid-fourth century: from 333 (pkgr.38) to 364 (pkgr.32), and so he was probably at the latest born ca. 315. He also figures prominently, if often indirectly, in the mid-fourth century Coptic documents. He had a brother, Pamour (II), who can only be identified with certainty in one document (pkgr.42). His wife was Tapollo, and their known children include Pamour (III), Pekysis, and a daughter, probably Tekysis (III). Most occurrences of the name Pamour in the Coptic texts relate to Psais II’s son, Pamour III, although there are instances of uncertainty.²⁸⁷ A Pebos son of Pamour occurs in a contract for the purchase of a seventh part of an orchard (pkgr.39). His patronymic could refer to either of these Pamours; I, II, or III.²⁸⁸

Few letters can be attributed to Psais II’s authorship. The only clear example is the Coptic pkc.110 to his sons, where he probably writes from the Nile Valley. The family had strong ties to the Valley: several documents found in House 1–3 were written in Aphrodito, a village located between Lycopolis and Antinoopolis in the Antaiopolite Nome, not far from a route leading to Hibis and the Great Oasis.²⁸⁹ Psais II had made Aphrodito his primary residence by 364 (pkgr.62); his brother, Pamour II, had done likewise by the same year

286 Pkgr.66 and, less certainly, pkgr.65. For pkgr.66, see section 6.1.1. Pkgr.65 features a Philammon writing a Tekysis, taken by Worp to be Philammon I writing to his biological sister and Pamour I’s wife, Tekysis I. See Worp, P. Kellis I, 51, 174. However, the document may belong to a later generation, as tentatively proposed by Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT I, 21. Worp compares it to a letter of Philammon from the Coptic material with similar concerns for financial loss. This letter has now been published as pkc.81: it clearly dates to the mid-fourth century and is authored by Philammon II, who was also a contemporary of at least two women named Tekysis. Still, it was found close to documents of Pamour I, and no other letter by Philammon II in Greek is known.

287 The only certain instance of two Pamours occurs in an account (pkc.44). Here one Pamour receives payment (l.13, Pamour III?), while another provides a payment (l.11). The latter is called Pamour ‘son of Belles’ (or Pamour

‘the blind’? See Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT I, 258, pkc.44, l.11n.). Another possible instance of two Pamours in the same document is pkc.76, a letter by Pekysis, where ‘father’ Pam[our?] is greeted by Charis (l.44), while another Pamour sends greetings (l.47). Pamour III must be the man who sends greetings, as he is often in the Valley, and Charis would not refer to him as ‘father’ – Charis is herself called ‘mother’ by Maria II and Pamour III.

There are, however, other options for restoring the name of the father (if indeed it is a name), see Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT II, 99–100, pkc.76, l.47n. Pamour in Maria/Makarios letters pkc.20 (l.29) and pkc.26 (l.16) seems likely to be Pamour III travelling to and from the Nile Valley, especially given the presence of Philammon, although this is doubted by the editors (Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT I, 36.). Compare also pkc.21 (l.49), pkc.25 (l.61), and pkc.80 (l.30).

288 The seventh-part of the orchard is valued at 5000 T., showing a date in the mid–late fourth century for this Pebos. Furthermore, it can be compared to a price for a whole orchard, which in P. Bingen 120 (l.19), d. 366/7, is 3500 T. Although size and fertility would have played into the price, making a comparison approximate, it seems likely that pkgr.39 is of even later date (370s or 380s?), and so the father should probably be Pamour II or III.

289 Better known from an archive of a later date, for which see Keenan, ‘The Aphrodite papyri’; Ruffini, Social networks.

(pkgr.44).²⁹⁰ Psais II’s wife Tapollo remained in Kellis, where their sons took charge of business.

They, too, begun travelling between Oasis and Valley by the time of or in the early 360s, and it is their circle that is best documented by the private letters.

Pamour III and Pekysis

Psais II’s sons, Pamour III and Pekysis, are central figures in the archive, although their network of relatives and associates extended well beyond them. Their period of activity cover ca. 350 to 380. Pamour III was the older of the two brothers. He is first recorded in a dated document in 352, signing an oath declaration with many of Kellis’ prominent household heads (pkgr.24, l.15), and so he must have been a grown man at this time, born ca. 330 or earlier.²⁹¹ He authored letters both in Coptic (pkc.64–72) and Greek (pkgr.71).²⁹² The majority of his letters contain postscripts by a Maria (II), probably his wife. Most frequently, Pamour and Maria write from the Nile Valley, and address Pamour’s brother Pekysis, as well as brother Psais (III).²⁹³

Pamour III started out working in the Oasis, but moved to the Valley at some point, perhaps in the 360s. Family may have played a role. By the early 360s, Pamour had married and fathered three children – among them a boy named Horos and a girl – as documented in a contract dealing with exchange of property rights from Pamour’s deceased wife to Horos, dated 363 (pkgr.30).²⁹⁴ The property was located in Aphrodito, and so his wife may have originated there. Going by the letters, this wife should be Maria II, but identifying the two presents some problems (see below). Pamour and Horos are described as ‘Egyptians’ (pkgr.30, ll.6–7), perhaps indicating that the family was attempting to integrate into Valley society,

290 Perhaps their absence from a list of prominent Kellites (pkgr.24, d.352) could be taken to indicate that they had already moved by this time, twelve years prior.

291 The possibility that this was Pamour I son of Psais I, is unlikely: he was an adult in 301 (okell.4), and already in 333 it is his son Psais II that signs for the family, see pkgr.38. This text moreover mentions Psais II’s ‘son’ (pkgr.38b, l.10), and so Pamour III may have been a boy by that time, born in the 320s.

292 Excepting, perhaps, pkc.70, whose author is lost, but was clearly closely connected to the Pamour family.

293 For Pekysis: pkc.65–67. For Psais III: pkc.64, pkc.72, pkgr.71, perhaps pkc.68 and pkc.70. Pkc.68 was written to brother ⲡ…, but greets Pekysis in the closing, meaning that Psais III was probably the recipient (also indicated by the size of the lacuna, l.7). For the relationship of Psais III to the rest of this family, see section 3.2.3.

294 Worp, P. Kellis I, 90, pkgr.30, l.9n. For other actors by the name Horos in the House 3 circles (Horos I and II), see 3.2.3 and 3.2.4. For the question of what pkgr.30 may tell us about the date of Pamour III’s letters, see below.

78

although Pamour was located in the Oasis (with Horos?) when it was drawn up and had to be represented by his father, Psais II.²⁹⁵ Pamour’s latest appearance in a dated document is a lease made in Kellis (pkgr.33), dated 369, which does not specify that he was residing in Aphrodito at that time. A private contract in Coptic between him and his brother Pekysis (pkc.69) confirms that he moved permanently to the Valley at some point. This contract also reveals that Pekysis was in charge of their inherited property in Kellis.²⁹⁶

Pekysis himself is the author of a number of letters (Coptic pkc.73–79, Greek pkgr.72, pkgr.76). Pekysis also had wife and children – at least one son – by the early 360s (pkc.25). His wife was probably Partheni II, a weaver.²⁹⁷ He, too, often writes about business taking place in the Valley, although it seems that he retained property in and stronger ties to Kellis than his brother (as indicated by pkc.69). Despite frequently occurring in the letters, he is only identifiable with certainty in one datable Greek document: a loan-contract from 382 (pkgr.44), which saw him borrowing a gold solidus from another Kellis-villager but located in Aphrodito.

This late text does not specify that he resided in Aphrodito, and Pekysis must have brought it back with him to the village, so it is likely that he was still a Kellis-resident.

Although both brothers employ long religious greetings and invocations, displaying distinctly Manichaean symbolic cues (see section 9.3.1), they are mainly concerned with their textile business. Their closest business associates were also family members: it included their

295 Lewis comments on this line: ‘Horos’ family had ties of long standing with the Valley … It is not hard to imagine that Oasis families with such Valley connections might be dubbed “Egyptians” by their neighbours, thus expressing, I suspect, much the same combination of envy and disdain with which some people used to speak (or still speak?) of “city folk”.’ Lewis, ‘Notationes legentis’, 29–30. While plausible, it does not explain why the nickname appears in a document drafted in Aphrodito. The disdain thus may have been that of the scribe and/or the villagers in Aphrodito towards Oasites – newcomers who were trying to become ‘Egyptian’.

296 See also pkc.77, where Pekysis greets from Pamour while present in Aphrodito.

297 Pekysis places Partheni’s name on the address, greets ‘my wife’ (ⲧⲁⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ) with children in the incipit (pkc.75, ll.4–5), and ends his letter with a greeting (in Greek) to ‘my lady Parthene’ (l.44). She is often identified by the hypocoristic Heni, as the editors also argue Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT II, 142, pkc.84, l.17n.. This is for instance shown in pkc.76. The letter has Partheni on the address, but the incipit is addressed to Horos. However, in the letter body he discusses weaving involving ‘Heni’, and shortly afterwards addresses a woman (fem. ‘you’) directly together with his children (l.34) and asks her to perform weaving. It seems clear that Partheni/Heni is the same person, wife of Pekysis. Admittedly, there were two persons of this name associated with the Maria/Makarios circle; a Heni/Partheni occurring in Matthaios’ letters (pkc.25, l.57; pkc.26, l.40) and a ‘mother’

Partheni in Makarios’ pkc.19 (l.76; see also pkc.47, l.29). However, the former is probably Pekysis’ wife, considering the closely linked mentions of Partheni and Maria II (Pamour’s wife) in Matthaios’ letter pkc.25 (for which, see Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT I, 193, pkc.25, l.57n.). Most instances of Partheni/Heni (especially those involving weaving) would appear to relate to Pekysis’ wife.

wives, Maria II and Partheni, their sister, Tekysis III,²⁹⁸ her husband Kapiton, the couple Philammon II and Charis, and the figures Horos, Theognostos, Psais III, and Andreas. All of these occur as authors and/or recipients in their own right. The latter two, Psais and Andreas, should probably be identified with the leaders of the Psais/Andreas circle, as argued below.

Their relationship was close and in some way familial – Psais III could well be a younger, biological brother; son of Psais II – but the precise nature of their bonds is difficult to untangle.

Furthermore, the letters belonging to the Maria/Makarios circle probably relates to the family of Pamour’s wife Maria II: her mother, Maria I, her father/uncle Makarios, and her brothers Matthaios and Piene.

Both the Psais/Andreas and the Maria/Makarios circles should be included in the extended ‘Pamour family’. The later history of this family is unclear. Only two papyri from House 3 give evidence to activity after 382, but do not (as far as we can tell) concern descendants of Pamour III or Pekysis. A contract dated 386 (pkgr.45) may concern a nephew of Pamour III/Pekysis, a man named Kapiton son of Kapiton, at that time resident in the village Thio.²⁹⁹ It also involves a scribe named Andreas, perhaps identifiable with the brother or colleague of Psais III. The last datable text of the archive is pkgr.77, a heavily fragmented record of a judicial proceeding from 389.³⁰⁰

Dating the Pamour letters: Maria II and P. Kell. Gr. 30

As noted above, the editors dated the private Pamour letters to the late 360s or early 370s. A document that could help date their correspondences more precisely is pkgr.30: it would put them about a decade earlier (i.e. the early 360s). However, this text causes some difficulties as well. It is as already indicated a contract for exchange of property rights between Horos, son of Pamour (III) son of Psais (II), and a man named Psenpnouthes. Horos had inherited a

298 Per Makarios’ letter pkc.20 (ll.44, 55) there were two actors by this name active in the mid-fourth century.

Makarios terms one of them ‘mother’ (pkc.20, l.44, see also pkc.83, l.2), and so it may be that she could be identified with Pamour I’s wife Tekysis I (only documented as active in pkgr.37, d.320, 35–40 years prior), but this cannot be known and so I here operate with three Tekysis-figures. Most instances of the name likely relates to Tekysis III, sister of Pamour/Pekysis. For her marriage to Kapiton, see pkc.75 and pkgr.76.

299 For a discussion of the identification of Kapiton I and II, see section 4.3.3.

300 Another possibly quite late document is pkgr.39, dated based on the price for parts of an orchard of 5000 talents. The man who buys it, Pebos son of Pamour, could be son of either Pamour II or Pamour III.

80

share in a house in Aphrodito from his mother. Since Pamour III and Horos are unable to participate, it falls to Psais II to represent them.

Maria II is by far the most likely candidate to be the wife of Pamour III. If her death is documented by this contract, it would place all letters that she was involved in at a time prior to 363.³⁰¹ Conversely, letters by Pamour III where Maria II is absent, but where one would expect her to appear, could (more tentatively) be dated after her death.³⁰² A direct mention of her death might even be found in a letter by Philammon II. He speaks of a ‘great evil’ that has befallen Pamour,³⁰³ writing Pekysis that: ‘For you are the ones who ought to comfort him;

surely we know that a great evil has befallen him. And we also heard that the old woman departed the body.’ (pkc.80, ll.12–16). Since the second evil involves the death of an elderly woman, it might be suggested that the first evil similarly involved the death of a family member, and presumably one which primarily befell Pamour. The death of his wife seems an obvious candidate. Maria, furthermore, does not otherwise appear in Philammon’s letters (pkc.80–82), although pkc.81 does not mention Pamour either.

Still, this chain of events remains conjectural, and there are some objections. One concerns the age of Pamour III’s son, Horos, who inherited his mother in the contract pkgr.30 (d.363). He was appointed to a liturgy according to letter pkgr.72, where Pamour III’s wife is alive and sends greetings. Naphtali Lewis has suggested that Horos did not represent himself in pkgr.30 because he was a minor, and so had to be replaced by his grandfather.³⁰⁴ However, Horos being a minor at his mother’s death (pkgr.30) is inconsistent with her being alive at his

301 These include pkc.64–66, pkc.71, pkc.77, and pkgr.71, as well as pkc.115, on the assumption that its author, Tekysis, is sister of Pamour and Pekysis, and the recipient is Psais III who has gone to the Valley (see pkc.105 for this development). Pkc.42, from mother Louiapshai and sister Maria to Paulos, probably also belong to this group:

Matthaios, in addition to mentioning Maria, presumably his sister, greets ‘mother’ Louiapshai in pkc.25. This is, however, unlikely to be his (or Maria II’s) biological mother, presumed to be Maria I, and so Louiapshai may be an aunt or a grandmother. This latter possibility indicates that the ‘sister’ in pkc.42 could be Maria I as well.

Finally, they would include the letters that mention Pamour’s ‘wife’, but without name, pkgr.72–73.

302 Primarily the letters pkc.72 and pkc.103. One might add that her presence or absence is unclear in some presumed Pamour III-letters: pkc.67–68 and 70. The author of pkc.70 is, however, somewhat unclear, while pkc.67–68 are very lacunose (it is also possible that Maria’s postscript is in fact partly preserved in pkc.67).

Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT II, 60, pkc.67, l.33n).

303 For Pamour as the main object of consolation, see ibid., 123, pkc.80, ll.9–10n.

304 Lewis, ‘Notationes legentis’, 29.

liturgy-appointment (pkgr.72): liturgies were usually reserved mature, able-bodied men.³⁰⁵ It is, then, possible that Pamour III had two wives: one who died in 363, while Horos was a minor (pkgr.30), and one who was alive when Horos came of age (pkgr.72). The latter could be Maria II.³⁰⁶ However, the need for a representative in pkgr.30 might also be satisfactorily explained by Horos being located with Pamour III in the Oasis (where indeed he is in pkgr.72), rather than as a minor with Psais II in the Nile Valley. This would leave room for there to have been one wife, Maria II, who died in 363, and place pkgr.72 before this date.

Another objection comes from cross-referencing with the other circles. If Maria II was the wife who died in 363, most of the Pamour letters would be contemporary with, or separated only by a few years from, those of the Maria/Makarios circle. However, Makarios is absent from the Pamour circle. This led the editors to propose a ‘generational shift’ between the Makarios and the Pamour circle, and date the Pamour letters to the late 360s–370, the Maria/Makarios to the late 350s.³⁰⁷ In that case, Maria II has to be taken as Pamour III’s second wife. On the other hand, the extensive overlap between these circles in other respects suggests that if there was a generational gap, it was not very large (see Chapter 5). I therefore prefer a dating in the early–mid 360s for the letters of the Pamour circle, but the issue cannot be entirely resolved on present evidence.

305 In theory, men may have become liable to liturgies already at the age they became liable to the poll-tax, i.e.

at 14, but the youngest liturgists hitherto documented in the papyri range between 18–20 years, and the vast majority are older. See Lewis, Compulsory public services, 72 n.46. This would put at least 5 years between pkgr.30 and pkgr.72, placing the latter at the earliest in 368–370 (and probably not too long after).

306 Although as the wife remains unnamed in both pkgr.30 and pkgr.72 we cannot say for certain which wife – the one pre or the one post-363 – would be Maria II. A third possibility, that Maria II was not Pamour’s wife at all (but, for instance, his biological sister), appears much less likely.

307 The editors wrote: ‘it is certainly conceivable that Makarios and Pamour might both write to Kellis at approximately the same time, and still give the impression of this generational “shift” because they are addressing different contemporaries. Thus, when we speak of generations we do not necessarily imply (say) a twenty year gap between such. … there are a number of factors that lead us to a notional date for the Makarios family letters ca. the latter 350s.; and for Pamour ten to fifteen years later.’ Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT I, 11.

However, note that if Makarios is identifiable with a man by that name in pkgr.10, he was still active in 368/9.

82