THE STORY OF THE
CHURCH OF EGYPT
An Outline Of The History Of The Egyptians
Under Their Successive Masters
From The Roman Conquest Until Now
Edith L. Butcher
1897
[Abridged electronic version for Copt-Net]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
----------
In presenting the following account of 100 years in the history of the
Coptic
Church, we would like to emphasize that this account by Edith L. Butcher
is
just that: An account by Edith L. Butcher. We present it as is,
without
endorsing it, or necessarily approving of its contents (in particular, the
use
of inappropriate language common in 19th century Victorian writings).
Copt-Net Editorial Board
November 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a century old book. It was written by Edith L. Butcher, and
published
in 1897 in London, by Elder Smith and Co., 15 Waterloo Place. If you read
the
book, you will invariably notice the love and passion that the author
has
developed for the Copts and their history. Perhaps, the best to
examplify
this is her quoting of the Revelation:
"Him that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment, and
I
will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will
confess
his name before my Father and before His angels. He that hath an ear,
let him hear what the spirit saith unto the Churches".
In reading the history of the Coptic Church, you will find out that
these
verses are a summary of her history: A continuous struggle and a call on
her
to carry the cross.
Edith says that she went through a labourious searh among dictionaries
and
translations which, to her, "has been a labour of love".
She considered her most important qualification to be her love to the
subject,
and a residency of twenty years in the land of Egypt.
The following are excerpts from the first of two volumes. It deals with
the
history of most of the seventh century. Edith coments on that very
century
saying:
"With one imperfect exception, of the seventh century, all the
available
books on the history of the church of Egypt.....have been written by
men
alien in race or hostile in creed --generally both."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART I
CHAPTER XXIX
THE REVOLT OF THE BROTHERS
In the early years of the reign of Maurice, who succeeded Tiberius II.,
a
fresh revolt broke out in the North of Egypt. It was beaded by
three
brothers--named Abaskiron, Menas, and James--who took up arms against the
Blue
or Imperial party. They seized and pillaged the towns of Bane and Bousir
[1]
and killed a great many people. Eventually they set fire to Bousir, and
burnt
tbe public bath among other buildings. The local prefect managed to make
his
escape under cover of the night, and fled to Constantinople, where
he
represented the serious nature of the rebellion. Maurice sent
indignant
orders to John, the Governor of Alexandria, to see that it was speedily
put
down. But the rebels had not only established themselves firmly in the
Delta,
they menaced Alexandria itself, and seized the corn boats on their way to
that
city. This produced an actual famine, and the mob rose against the
governor,
John, who had originally been a personal friend of tbe three brothers now
at
the head of the rebellion, and attempted to murder him. He was only saved
by
the devotion of some of the principal Egyptians belonging to the
National
Church, who stood by him and brought him off in safety.
John's friendly relations with the Egyptians, however, did him no good
at
Court, and Maurice dismissed him from his office, and appointed a man
named
Paul in his place. Meanwhile the revolt gained ground daily in Egypt, and
the
Byzantine power seemed ready to fall. Isaac, son of the eldest of the
three
brothers, by a brilliant dash made himself master of several vessels,
and
cruised along the coasts, even to Cyprus, making war on all Byzantine
ships.
In this extremity the Byzantine Patriarch was sent to treat with
the
insurgents, and the place of meeting was fixed at Aykelah, the native city
of
the three brothers.
Eulogius had succeeded John about the year 579 A.D., and was the
first
Byzantine Patriarch who had won in some degree the confidence of
the
Egyptians. He was neither Greek nor Egyptian, but a native of Antioch,
and
had been consecrated at Constantinople to rule over fhe handful of
aliens
which the Emperor at Constantinople and the Pope of Rome persisted
in
regarding as file true Egyptian Church. Eulogius was indeed a personal
friend
of Gregory the Great, who shortly afterwards succeeded Pelagius in the see
of
Rome, and maintained a correspondence with him all his life [2]. But
Eulogius,
though no Egyptian, was a true Christian, and by his piety and learning
did
much to save the Greek Church from absolute extinction and degradation
in
Egypt. Eulogius readily consented to treat with the insurgents on behalf
of
the Emperor, and went to Aykelah with his deacon Ailas. The Blues and
Greens
assembled in great force, and long discussions took place, but without
result,
since the insurgents would only accept pardon on condition that John the
dismissed prefect, should be returned to them.
The Emperor evidently thought it expedient to yield, for the insurgents
were
now masters of the whole of Northern Egypt, and all taxes were paid to
them
instead of being remitted to the Byzantine Government. John was sent back
to
Alexandria, and a man named Theodore, who knew Egypt well and was the son of
5
well-known general, took the field against the insurgents.
It appears that one of the original complaints of the Egyptians was that
two
of their nationals whom they greatly respected had been arrested
and
imprisoned. The names of these men are given as Cosmas, son of Samuel,
and
Banon, son of Ammon; but the reason of their arrest by the
Byzantine
Government is nowhere stated. Theodore insisted that these two men should
not
only be set at liberty, but that they should accompany his army, in order
that
the insurgents should see for themselves that they were free. His demand
was
at once acceded to by the Government; not only Cosmas and Banon, but
three
other men who had been arrested with them, were delivered to Theodore,
who
thereupon marched in search of the Egyptian insurgents. He camped
immediately
opposite to them, on the other bank of the river, and brought out Cosmas
and
Banon in full view of their compatriots. At his desire, though whether
by
persuasion or threats we are not told, Cosmas and Barton addressed
the
insurgents from across the river, entreating them to return to
their
allegiance, assuring them that the Roman Empire was not yet enfeebled or
conquered, and that their ultimate success was impossible.
The appeal was successful. Little by little the insurgent camp broke up,
and
its members passed over the river to Cosmas and Banon with the
Imperial
troops. The three brothers were left alone with their immediate
adherents,
but they boldly endeavoured to stand their ground, and met the attack of
the
Byzantine army with desperate courage. They fought till night fell, and
then
fled from the field to Abu San. Here they made a brief halt, but
with
daylight discovered that they were pursued by the Byzantine army. The
gallant
little band retreated fighting towards Alexandria, but they were at
length
overpowered, and all three brothers, with Isaac, were taken prisoners.
They were placed on camels and paraded about the streets of Alexandria,
that
all men might know the revolt had come to an end. Then they were thrown
into
prison; but the prefect, John, stood their friend as much as he dared, and
no
further steps were taken against them till long afterwards, by a new
prefect,
who succeeded John. This man cut off the heads of the three brothers,
and
sent Isaac into exile. The same prefect, probably acting under orders
from
the Emperor, who had evidently, neither forgotten nor forgiven the
revolt,
though he had not dared to use harshness at the time, confiscated the goods
of
the chief men who had taken part in it, and delivered the towns of Aykelah
[3]
and Abu San to the flames.
So ended the revolt of the three brothers, but it was not the only one
in
Egypt during the reign of Maurice and his successors. Again and again,
in
different parts of the country, the smouldering flame of discontent broke
out.
In the canton of Akhmim the insurgents were at length driven by the
Byzantine
army into the barren hills and there surrounded and starved to death.
Under
Phocas, fresh attempt broke out in the district of five towns--Kharbeta,
San,
Basta, Balqua, and Sanhour--the suppression of which was accompanied
by
circumstances of the utmost barbarity. It was because the Egyptians
had
learnt by repeated disappointment and failure that they could not alone
shake
off the yoke, which since 451 had become yearly more distasteful to them,
that
in the early years of the seventh century they looked in despair for help
to
the victorious Arabs, and by this treason to their faith brought
upon
themselves the far heavier yoke under which they have groaned during
twelve
centuries of persecution and degradation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART I
CHAPTER XXX
THE PERSIAN CONQUEST
While the Byzantine rule was tottering to its fall in A.M. 319 Egypt,
the
national party was gaining strength every year. The Patriarch Damian had
been
succeeded in 603 (or 607) by Anastasius, who had the true martyr spirit,
and,
notwithstanding that he left Litria at the risk of his life,
constantly
travelled through his country, and even held ordinations in Alexandria
itself.
He built another church in that city, the stronghold of Imperialism, which
he
dedicated to the Archangel Michael [4]. In his time the Nile rose so
rapidly
in one night that the whole of the town of Esneh was flooded, many houses
were
overthrown by the water, and a great number of the inhabitants perished.
The Egyptians, as might be expected, joined eagerly in the general
revolt
against the Emperor Phocas. Three thousand Byzantine soldiers supplemented
by
a great number of irregular native troops were sent through Pentapolis by
the
eider Heraclius, Exarch of Africa, to secure Egypt for his son, who
was
engaged in making himself master of Constantinople. Bonakis, who
commanded
this contingent, effected a junction with the troops of the Prefect
of
Mareotis without opposition and turned against Alexandria. The governor
came
out to meet them at the head of such troops as remained faithful to
Phocas.
He was hopelessly outnumbered from the first, and the insurgent commander
sent
to say that if he would even remain neutral his life should be spared; but
he
indignantly refused the offer, and fell fighting. His head was cut off
and
exposed on the gates of Alexandria. The Byzantine Patriarch, Theodore,
who
had about two years before been nominated by Phocas on tho death of
Eulogius,
took refuge in the church of Athanasius, for the whole city gladly
welcomed
the general of Heraclius, and his life was in danger.
The inhabitants of Nildue, headed by their bishop, hastened to
acknowledge
Herclius, and their example was quickly followed by almost all the cities
of
Egypt. Only one Egyptian of any standing, the same Cosmas who had stopped
the
revolt of the three brothers against Maurice, declared for Phocas and very
few
even of the Byzantine officials. Two of these, however--Paul, Prefect
of
Samannoud, and Marcian, Prefect of Athribis [5]--with a lady
named
Christodora, who seems to have been a person of great influence,
endeavoured
to make a stand for Phocas, especially as they had just received news thst
his
general, Bonose, had arrived with an army at Pelusium. Two native armies
(one
under Theodore and Plato, accompanied by Theodore of Nikius and Menas,
the
chancellor of his diocese; and the other under Cosmas snd Paul, accompanied
by
Christodors) now menaced each other in the district of Menour; but both
sides
waited for the Byzantine troops. On the same day Bonose (for Phocas)
arrived
at Athribis, and Bonakis (for Heraclius) at Nikius, and pushed on hastily
to
join their native allies. The fight took place a little to the east of
the
town of Menour, and victory declared for Bonose. Bonakis was killed,
and
Plato and Theodore, seeing that the day was lost, fled to Atris, and
took
refuge in the convent. Theodore of Nikius and his chancellor came to the
tent
of Bonose, carrying the Gospels and asking for mercy. Bonose seemed at
first
inclined to spare them, and took them with him to Nikius. But Marcian
and
Christodora represented to him that it was by the bishop's orders that
the
statues of Phocas had been thrown down from the gates of Nikius, and that
he
was too dangerous to be allowed to live.
The bishop was therefore beheaded in his own city, and Menas was subjected
to
so severe an application of the bastinado that, though he had paid
three
thousand pieces of gold for his ransom, he died two or three days after he
was
set at liberty. The inhabitants of the surrounding country were struck
with
terror, and the monks of Atris thought to purchase their safety by
delivering
the fellow-countrymen who had sought refuge with them to the
victorious
general. Not only Plato and Theodore, but the principal inhabitants
of
Menour, who had fled to the convent--among them three old men who were
greatly
respected--were brought in chains by the monks to Bonose at Nikius. They
were
all publicly scourged, and then beheaded on the same spot where the bishop
had
been put to death.
This, however, was only a passing success for the adherents of Phocas. All
the
principal inhabitants of Egypt, all the members of the Green party, all
the
strength of the national Church, were for Heraclius. Reinforcements of
all
kinds poured into Alexandria, where Nicetas, the lieutenant of Heraclius,
had
arrived. Paul of Samanhoud made a feeble demonstration agsinst the city,
but
was driven off with stones which sunk his boats in the canal. A hermit
of
great sanctity and renown, named Theophilus, who had lived forty years on
the
top of a pillar by the river, on being consulted by Nicetas (who knew what
an
effect his words would have on the Egyptians), promised victory to Nicetas
and
the speedy accession of Heraclius. On this, Nicetas sailed out of
Alexandria
and gave battle to Bonose. His victory was complete; Bonose fled to
Nikius,
and all the Blues joined Nicetas. Bonoso next sent soldiers to
assassinate
Nicetas under pretext of a message of surrender, but one of his own men
warned
Nicetas. The herald was searched and killed with the dagger found
concealed
upon him for the purpose. Eventually, after some more desultory fighting,
the
adherents of Phocas were finally crushed. Bonose and Theodore the
Byzantine
Patriarch were both killed in the final struggles; Paul of Samanhoud
and
Cosmas were both made prisoners, but were treated with leniency.
Nicetas
devoted himself to the task of restoring order throughout Egypt, for
many
members of the Green (or National) party were inclined to take advantage
of
the confusion to plunder the defeated Blues in all directions. Many of
the
Byzantines left Egypt altogether, and some renounced their Christianity
and
returned to the old pagan religion. Nicetas by a judicious mixture
of
severity and clemency--he remitted all taxes for three years--succeeding
in
re-establishing peace.
But peace could not endure long in Egypt. Barely four years afterwards
Syria
was overrun by the Persian troops of Chosroes, and Egypt was threatened.
The
Christians of Syria took refuge in Egypt in vast numbers, and both John,
the
Byzantine Patriarch (who had been nominated by Heraclius to succeed
Theodore),
and Anastasius, the National Patriarch, vied with each other in relieving
the
necessities of their fellow-Christians. John, of course, was by far
the
richer, as all the ancient endowments of the National Church were by
command
of the Emperor confiscated to the support of the Byzantine Church in
Egypt;
and the deprived Monophysites were only gradually making fresh provision
for
the support of their own Patriarch and clergy. John had four thousand
pounds
waiting for him in the Church treasury when he landed, and, besides
his
official income, enormous sums were sent him for the relief of the
Syrian
refugees. The Patriarch of Antioch himself took refuge in Egypt, but he
went
to the National Patriarch, Anastasius, who received him with open arms and
as
much splendour of reception as the times allowed; for again famine
had
followed in the track of strife, and the Nile had not risen to the
requisite
height. St. John the Almoner, as the Byzantine Patriarch was
afterwards
called, in affectionate memory of his generosity, had shown more
liberality
than prudence in the distribution of the funds entrusted to him. He had
not
only established hospitals for the sick, and relieved the fugitives, but
alms
were given daily to all who applied at his gates. When the men who
were
charged with the distribution represented to John that some of those
who
applied for daily alms wore gold ornaments, he rebuked them for an
officious
and inquisitive spirit, declaring that if the whole world came to ask alms
at
Alexandria they could not exhaust the riches of God's goodness.
As a natural consequence, the money ran short before the need was over,
and
John was in sore distress. In this juncture a rich citizen of Alexandria,
who
greatly desired to be made a deacon (the first step to the high dignity of
a
Patriarch), but who had been twice married, and was therefore
canonically
incapacitated, offered John an immense supply of corn and a hundred and
eight
pounds of gold, if he would break the canon law and admit the donor to
the
diaconate. John was sorely tempted, and even sent for the man, but
finally
told him that, although he could not deny that the gift was sorely
needed,
yet, the motive being impure, the offering must be declined. ``God,'' he
is
reported to have said, ``who supported the poor before either of us were
born,
can find the means of supporting them now. He who blessed the five loaves
and
multiplied them can bless and multiply the two measures of corn which remain
in my granary.''
The citizen, foiled in his ambition, departed, and John himself was a
widower,
a native of Cyprus, and had never been either a monk or a descon; therefore
on
counts his elevation to the Patriarchate of Egypt was uncanonical. But,
for
the Imperial party in Egypt, the Emperor's nomination overrode
all
ecclesiastical laws. Almost at the same moment a message came that two of
the
Church ships had returned from Sicily with a large cargo of corn.
The
Patriarch John fell on his face in mingled humiliation and gratitude,
thanking
God that he had not been permitted to sell the gift of the Holy Ghost
for
money.
Though he received all the ecclesiastical revenues, John, like all the
other
Byzantine Patriarchs, had little authority outside Alexandria and the two
or
three cities which were garrisoned by Byzantine troops. But by his
personal
virtues he endeared himself to the Alexandrians; and, though all
the
endowments of the Church were at his disposal, he lived with the
same
simplicity as the National Patriarch--with whom indeed, as became
his
character, he maintained friendly relations. When Anastasius, who
was
universally loved and respected, died, his successor Indronicus was
permitted
to live openly in Alexandria, and peace was maintained between the
rival
Churches. The Egyptians readily acknowledged the piety of the
Emperor's
bishop, and, though they would yield obedience to no Patriarch but their
own,
they equally with the Imperial Church commemorated John as a saint after
his
death.
A yearly sum of Church money was devoted by John to the ransom of
Christian
captives. Discovering that the men who were entrusted with this duty were
in
the habit of taking bribes from the friends of the captives, to
determine
which should first be ransomed, he called them before him and forbade
them
ever to receive such money in future. At the same time he increased
their
salaries, to spare them the temptation. It is said that some were so
much
touched by his forgiveness and generosity that they voluntarily declined
the
increase of pay which he offered. One curious incident is recorded of the
way
in which he managed his congregation. Already, as in all Churches where
a
fasting communion is made obligatory, a very large proportion of
the
congregations belonging both to the Imperial and National Churches had
given
up communicating altogether. But the Imperial churches of Alexandria
a
further innovation had lately grown up. Many of the fashionable members
of
the congregation did not even remain to assist at the celebration of
the
Eucharist, but left the church at the conclusion of the Gospel. On
two
occasions the Patriarch solemnly followed his congregation out of the
church,
and left the service unfinished. On their expressing astonishment
and
inquiry, he calmly told them that ``Where the sheep are, there the
shepherd
ought to be. It is for your sakes,'' he added, ``that I go to the church;
for
my own part, I could celebrate the office at home.'' The congregation
took
the hint, and remained in church till the service was over.
But though his virtues were undoubted, John had not the kind of courage
which
leads to martyrdom. There had been a brief respite; but now that the
Persians
were firmly established in Syria, they advanced into Egypt, and were
welcomed
as deliverers by the National party, who hailed every chance of throwing
off
the hated Byzantine yoke. The whole of the Delta was in their hands, and
they
laid siege to Alexandria. Nicetas, the general who had so
successfully
contended against native levies of undisciplined Egyptians,
evidently
considered resistance hopeless. He persuaded the Emperor's bishop
to
accompany him, and the two fled from Alexandria, which was
immediately
occupied by the Persians in 620. The whole of Egypt submitted to them up
to
the borders of Ethiopia, and for nearly ten years Egypt was once more
a
Persian province. Heraclius had enough to do in defending his own
capital
from the victorious Persians, and made no attempt for some time to
recover
Egypt. Nor did he nominate another Patriarch for the State Church in
Egypt,
though John died in the same year of his flight. Probably he would have
found
no one to accept the office from him at this juncture. About a
year
afterwards Andronicus died, so that both the Churches in Egypt were without
a
head. But when the National Church proceeded to the election of a
new
Patriarch, the small but rich State Establishment appears to have taken
alarm.
If there were but one Patriarch in the country, it was clear that all
the
revenues, which so far they had kept in their own hands, were liable to
be
reclaimed by him, and refusal on their part would be dangerous. It
was
determined to wait the Emperor's pleasure no longer, and the Byzantine
Church
proceeded to elect a man named George, of whom little to his credit is
known,
but who probably served their immediate purpose as well as another.
The National Church elected Benjamin, a man of wealthy parentage,
whom
after-events have made famous. He had been a monk in the monastery of
Deyr
Kirios (Cyrus), and was distinguished for his austerities and his devotion
to
prayer. He had been, for some years before his election, in Alexandria
with
the Patriarch Andronicus, whom he succeeded.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART I
CHAPTER XXXI
THE ACT OF UNION
In the year 629 Heraclius, having waged successful wars against the
Persians
in other parts of the empire, turned his attention to the recovory of
Egypt.
Experience, however, had taught him that he could not retain his hold on
that
country without conciliating the National Church, and in so doing the bulk
of
the population. He therefore on his way back from a victorious campaign
consulted Athanasius of Antioch (the same who had taken refuge in Egypt
some
years before); Sergius of Constantinople; and Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis,
who
represented three different shades of religious opinion, as to the best
means
of doing so. After much discussion it was decided not to mention the
Council
of Chalcedon, since openly to accept or reject that Council would
inevitably
offend one of the two parties beyond retrieval; but it was determined to
draw
up an Act of Union, which should affirm one Will in our Lord instead of
one
Nature. This compromise was accepted by the three bishops above named,
of
whom one was a Monophysite and the other a Chalcedonian Patriarch, and
the
Emperor promptly appointed the third of them (Cyrus) Patriarch of
Alexandria,
and sent him off to that city with full powers to effect the
hoped-for
reconciliation.
What became of the unfortunate George, whom the Graeco-Egyptians had
chosen
for themselves, cannot be ascertained. Makrizi does not know of
his
existence; and Eutychius, a Melkite historian of the tenth century,
declares
that George fled from Egypt ``for fear of the Saracens.'' But as Cyrus
was
appointed Patriarch of Alexandria in 630, and as Amr did not invade Egypt
till
639-40, his memory may be held clear from this accusation. It is
most
probable that Heraclius simply ignored the action of the State Church
in
having set up a Patriarch for themselves, and that George did not venture
to
assert himself against the Emperor's nominee, but retired into private life
on
the arrival of Cyrus.
Cyrus found no difficulty in his task as far as the Egyptian laity and many
of
the clergy were concerned, One Will signified to them one Nature, and
they
readily agreed to accept the Act of Union, and to communicate with the
State
Church in doing so, declaring that the Byzantine Church had come over to
their
views. Indeed, the principal members of the Byzantine party thought the
same,
and received the Emperor's decree with consternation. At the Council
which
Cyrus called in Alexandria to discuss the matter, Sophronius, an
intimate
friend of St. John the Almoner, and a man of great weight in the
Church,
remonstrated with the most urgent entreaties. He declared that the
Emperor
had but evolved a new heresy--indeed, it has ever since been called
the
Monothelite heresy--and implored Cyrus not to publish the Act of Union.
Cyrus
paid no attention to these remonstrances, but was dismayed to find that
the
National Patriarch coldly refused to discuss the matter, or to accept
any
theological decision from the Emperor. Cyrus knew that the
reconciliation
would be of little political value without the sanction of the Patriarch,
and
he attempted to carry his point by force. The lives of the
principal
Egyptians who stood by their Patriarch were in danger, and they retreated
from
Alexandria. Benjamin was banished to a small monastery in the
Upper
Thebaid [6], and Sophronius on the other hand retired into Syria, where he
was
afterwards elected Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Heraclius appears to have been well content with the measure of success
which
his agent had attained, and felt sufficiently secure to go on pilgrimage
in
the following year to Jerusalem. It was on this occasion that the
events
happened which are commemorated in the so-called Fast of Heraclius--a
fast
still kept in Egypt and throughout the East every year [7].
Heraclius had given his word to the Jews of Syria for their safety,
in
consideration of costly presents which he had received from them. But when
he
came on pilgrimage to Jerusalem he was indignant and horrified to find
what
havoc had been wrought there, not so much by the Persians as by the Jews,
who
had profired by the occasion to indulge their deep hatred of the
Christian
religion. The Syrian Christians appealed to the Emperor for vengeance on
the
Jews. Then (says ElMakrizi) Heraclius told them he could not massacre the
Jews, as he had pledged to them his word for their safety, and had sworn it
to
them. Then the Christian monks, patriarchs, and presbyters gave him as
a
reason that he need not be hindered by that from slaughtering them,
inasmuch
as they had dealt with him by craft so far as to make him give them his
word
for their safety, without his being aware of the real state of their case;
and
that they would undertake for him, in expiation of his [breach of] faith,
to
bind themselves and the Christians to a fast of a week every year for
ever.
The Patriarch [of Jerusalem] and the bishops then wrote unto all the
cities,
to constrain the Christians to keep this fast for seven days in the
year,
which is known among them as the ``Week of Herhudys.''
The Persians had been driven back, and the Byzantine garrisons
re-established
at the Delta; but it seems probable that no troops were stationed south of
the
Fayoum, and Upper Egypt appears to have been left practically to itself,
or
later to that celebrated yet shadowy person known as the Makaukas. From
the
deserts of the Arabian peninsula a new and more formidable enemy rose up
to
defy the Roman Empire, viz., the recently created Saracen power, animated
by
the irresistible fervour of a new religion. Mohammed their prophet was
dead,
but his successor Omar was pushing his conquests in every direction. Early
in
the year 640 [8], having overrun Syria, one of their ablest generals, Amr
or
Amru ebn Ass, turned his eyes upon the far more valuable prize of Egypt,
and
by stratagem obtained consent from the Kaliph Omar to the expedition [9].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART I
CHAFFER XXXII
THE ARAB CONQUEST
It has been already pointed out that at the time of the Arab invasion of
Egypt
the greater part of that country was in a state of passive opposition to
the
recently re-established Byzantine occupation. For the last ten years many
of
the officials had systematically kept back the dues which the
Byzantine
Government was powerless to collect, and two or three of them seemed to
have
lived like petty kings in Egypt, paying to the Persians as little as
they
could help, and practically independent of either Persian or
Byzantine
control. When in 680 Heraclius drove out the Persians and re-established
his
garrisons in Egypt, he was too well aware of the insecurity of his tenure
to
proceed rashly, and waited for his religious concessions to the Egyptian
party
to take effect. Still the governors of the different provinces, some of
whom
were native Egyptians, knew that the time of reckoning could not long be
put
off; and all of them had personal as well as political cause to dread
the
re-establishment of the Byzantine power.
If, however, the Act of Union, otherwise called the Ekthesis had been
accepted
by the Patriarch Benjamin, these men would have been powerless.
But
Heraclius, through his agent Cyrus, whom he had appointed Patriarch of
the
Byzantine (or State) Church in Egypt, made the fatal mistake of
undervaluing
the power of the Egyptian Patriarch. When the bulk of the Egyptian nation,
as
it seemed to Cyrus, gladly accepted his terms, he did not hesitate
to
persecute and banish the Patriarch for refusing. But this only made
the
refusal and disapproval of Benjamin patent to all Egypt, and from that day
the
Act of Union was doomed. Whatever their faults, the Egyptian nation had
never
yet failed in loyalty to their Patriarch. The concessions of the
Emperor
might seem all that they desired, but, if the Patriarch was not satisfied,
the
true Egyptian would have none of them. Slowly the inert mass of
public
opinion swung back from the Emperor, and Cyrus began to perceive that he
had
failed. The dishonest officials breathed more freely; the day of
reckoning
seemed far off.
One of these officials stands out from all the others in a
disgraceful
pre-eminence. Most people have at least heard of the Makaukas, for his
name,
his functions, his very existence even, have been made the subject of
many
controversies. Quite recently, however, the translation of the papyri in
the
collection of the Archduke Rainer has enabled us to clear up some at least
of
the difficulties attending this subject.
Most scholars have long agreed that Makaukas is not a proper name, but
have
been puzzled to decide whether it was a nickname or an official title.
The
fact seems to be that it is neither. The man in question was a
pegarch
(loosely rendered as prefect in most histories), and his name was George,
son
of Menas Parkubios [10]. The pagarch was the civil governor of an
Egyptian
province, the whole administration of which was confided to him. He
was
responsible for the public security and order, and for the collection
and
remittance of the imperial imposts. Also all highways, dams,
canals,
bridges--in short, all the public works of the district--were in his
charge,
even to the coinage, measures, and weights. Only the army (represented
in
most provinces by little more than a single garrison) and the clergy (a
much
more important exception) were exempt from his control. The number of
subordinate officials who looked no higher than their pagarch for orders
was
consequently very great. Recent researches have revealed to us the names
and
districts of the three principal pagarchs in Egypt at the time of the
Arab
conquest.
The official language of Egypt was Greek, and the complimentary title given
to
these pagarchs was a word which signifies in English ``the most
glorious,''
just as our ambassadors always have the prefix ``his excellency.'' The
Arabs
took this word for part of the actual name of the pugarch who treated with
Amr
for the surrender of the country and thus George the Traitor has been
known
for centuries by a title which he has little right to bear, Makaukas
(``the
most glorious'').
The Prefect (or Pagarch) of Lower Egypt was Ammen Menus, a man fiull
of
pretension, but quite ignorant, who detested exceedingly the Egyptians,
and
was continued in his office after the conquest of the country by the
Arabs.
The Pugarch of Middle Egypt--whose province on one bank of the Nile appears
to
have included the districts of Heracleopolis Magna, Arsinoe,
and
Oxyrhynchus--was Cyrus, of whom we know little, except that he joined
in
delivering the country to the Mohammedans. The Pugarch of Upper
Egypt--or
Babylon, as it is called in the papyri--was that George (Girghis) whom we
call
the Makaukas. These were the three important provinces, in each of which
there
were also a military governor and a garrison. Besides these there
were,
either then existing or added immediately after the Arab conquest, two
lesser
pagarchs--Philoxenos, of the Fayoum; and Shenouda, of the Rif Province.
Three out of these five men were by the indisputable witness of their
names
Egyptians [11], but they could not have belonged to the National
Church,
because that would have disqualified them of their official position.
Those
writers who speak of the Makaukas as a Copt are perfectly correct; but
the
inference which some have drawn, that he belonged to the National--or, as
it
is now called, the Coptic (Egyptian [12])--Church, is false. He might in
his
heart incline to the Church of his fathers, but he could not have done
so
openly. He was a Byzantine official and an Egyptian; and he was else alike
to
his emperor, to his Church, and to his country.
He had been long in office at the time of the invasion and was the
most
powerful of all the pagarchs. This was partly owing to the fact that
Babylon,
the capital of his province, was on its northernmost boundary, and that
for
twenty years or more the dwellers in the valley of the Nile had looked to
him
alone as their ruler. The ravages of the Persians taught them that
Byzantium
was powerless; and since the Persians had gone, though Babylon itself had
been
re-occupied by Byzantine soldiers, and small garrisons were also stationed
in
Arsinoe and the Fayoum, the whole country lying south of Babylon had
been
practically unaffected by their return. Whether the soldiers of the distant
garrisons wore Persian or Byzantine dress mattered little to the
population.
They paid their taxes all the same to the pagarchs and left him to settle
to
whom the money was due. For many years the powerful George of Babylon
had
settled it in the simplest manner, by keeping everything himself that was
not
returned in salaries or public works to the province. But when
Heraclius,
believing that by his Act of Union he had conciliated the whole country,
began
to press for a real re-establishment of his government and a repayment of
the
Egyptian revenues, George saw ruin staring him in the face. Already,
from
motives as farseeing policy, he had sent a complimentary embassy to the
rising
power, with gifts of honey and slaves to their leader Mohammed. Now
Mohammed
was dead, and the conquests of Heraclius filled him with dismay. If
the
moribund empire were to rise again, and sweep the Arabs away, as its
troops
had already swept the Persians, he would be the first to be called to
account.
Already the troops of Heraclius and of Omar, Mohammed's successor, faced
each
other in Palestine; and George knew well that whichever power
proved
victorious there was the future master of Egypt. The late successes
of
Heraclius inclined him to think that this would be the winning side,
after
all, and he hastened to act accordingly.
He had a beautiful daughter called Armenosa and he conceived the
brilliant
project of marrying her to Constantine, the widowed son and heir of
the
Emperor, with so large a dowry that the latter might think it expedient
to
waive the question of arrears of tribute. Constantine was then at
Caesarea,
and seems to have favourably entertained the proposal. Accordingly, late
in
the year 639, a gorgeous marriage procession left the city of Babylon
to
escort the Egyptian bride to her royal husband. Her guard of honour
amounted,
we are told, to the number of two thousand cavaliers, besides slaves, and
a
long caravan laden with treasure [13].
On approaching the Egyptian frontier, and evidently intending to pass
by
Kantara to El Arish, Armenosa heard that the Arabs had been victorious
and
were now closely besieging Caesarca and preparing to invade Egypt. The
young
Egyptian acted with a courage and promptitude worthy of her remote
ancestors.
She retired herself to Belbeis and dispatched her regiment of Egyptian
guards
to hold Pelusium in case the enemy came by that way, as seemed most
probable.
She sent warning to her father, but remained herself in Belbeis,
encouraging
the inhabitants to make a stand for the deronce of their country against
the
infidels.
Amr, the Moslem general avoiding Pelusium, marched straight for Belbeis,
and
laid siege to that city. For one month the brave girl held the Arabs at
bay
with her scanty and undisciplined forces. After several obstinate fights
and
great loss of life, Amr at length took the city by storm, and Armenos with
all
her treasures, fell into his hands. Either the warrior respected the
maiden
for her gallant attempt at resistance, or he realised the importance of
doing
nothing to offend the powerful Pugarch of Babylon. He sent Armenosa back
to
her father with all honour, and the Pagarch's difficulty was solved.
From
henceforth there could be little doubt as to which of the rival powers was
the
``rising sun.''
He did not venture, however, openly to avow himself the friend of
the
invaders. Babylon was strongly fortified and well garrisoned by the Imperial
troops. It must be remembered that the Nile ran farther to the east than
it
does now, and that the city of Babylon was connected with the island
of
Rhoda--also strongly forrifled--by a bridge of boats. Another bridge of
boats
connected Rhoda with the west bank of the Nile, where Gizeh now lies.
This
town has existed under a more ancient name from remote times, but it
was
little more than a northern suburb of Memphis. Memphis, though still rich
in
beautiful relics of pagan times, was already a defenseless and
half-ruined
city. Babylon once taken, both she and the other rich cities of the
south
must fall an easy prey to the conqueror. The policy of the Pugarch George
was
to aid Amr in the capture of Babylon, but he still remained outwardly
the
servant of the emperor and the friend of the commander of the garrison.
Meanwhile Heraclius, hearing of the invasion of Egypt, and knowing well
the
weakness of his own hold over that country, sent his confidential agent,
the
Patriarch Cyrus, to treat with Amr and offer him money to withdraw from
the
country. Amr was already encamped before Babylon and had begun the
famous
siege of that almost impregnable fortress. It is said that Cyrus went so
far
as to offer not only tribute, but the Emperor's daughter Eudocia, or
some
other member of the royal family, in marriage to the Caliph Omar.
The
negotiations fell through; Amr already understood that the Pagarch George
was
far more powerful than the Patriarch Cyrus, and the latter only succeeded
in
displeasing his own master Heraclius, who summoned him to Constantinople
and
overwhelmed him with reproaches for his presumption in the matter of
Eudocia.
Indeed, Cyrus would have paid for his proposals with his life, had not
the
fall of Babylon and the danger of Alexandria made his presence necessary
in
the latter city, where his influence was very great.
Amr was too wise to keep the whole of his army idle before Babylon
during
those seven months. He sent to Omar for reinforcements, and as soon as
they
came he dispatched troops with all secrecy to the Fayoum, apparently to
cut
off possible reinforcements from the Imperial armies in that
direction.
However, the Arabs found the Byzantine troops ready to oppose them on
the
other side when they proposed to cross the river, and retreated, but
managed
to carry off a great number of sheep and goats. By this time the
Byzantine
generals in the Delta, Theodosius and Anastasius, had effected a junction
with
the troops at Babylon, by which the garrison was considerably
strengthened.
They also sent reinforcements to the Fayoum, but under command of
one
Leontius, who is described as being fat, lazy, and without practical
experience of war. He left half his troops with the general who had
succeeded
to the command in the Fayoum (one had already fallen in fight with
the
Moslems), and returned with the rest ``to report the condition'' to
his
superiors.
For seven months Amr spent himself in unsuccessful attacks upon Babylon and
in
a fruitless siege. He posted his troops in three divisions--one at On
or
Heliopolis, to cut off reinforcements from the north; one on the northeast
or
landward side of Babylon; and one at Temlounyas (Greek: TiantSnios), a fort
on
the bank of the river to the south-west of Babylon, of which nothing
remains
but some ruined foundations, now at some distance from the riverbank.
Egypt looked on passively while her fate was thus decided by a combat
between
the armies of two alien nations in her midst. Side with the Imperial
troops
they would not; yet their consciences forbade the Egyptians openly to
espouse
the cause of the infidels. They left the issue, as their own
historian
implies, to the judgment of God.
That Babylon fell at last by fraud or stratagem, and not by assault
or
capitulation, is agreed on all hands; but it is hard to reconcile
the
conflicting statements of various writers, and say with certainty what
did
happen. The popular story is that George (the Makaukas) ``persuaded''
the
garrison to retire from the fortress to the island of Rhoda, and that
the
Arabs, having timely notice from the pagarch, at once occupied the fortress.
That George would have done so if he could, and that he did give
secret
information to the Arabs of all the intended movements of the
Byzantine
general, there is no reason to doubt. But a study of the field of
operations
on the spot renders it impossible to believe that any Byzantine general
could
have been deluded into thinking the island of Rhoda a better position for
his
garrison than the citadel of Babylon; and the undoubted evidence we possess
of
the loyalty of the Imperial troops renders it equally impossible to
believe
that they were willing agents in a treacherous desertion of their post.
It
seems better to reject the popular tradition and to accept instead the
far
more credible account given by John of Nikius.
His version is that by a feint Amr drew the greater part of the garrison
out
in an attack upon his troops. When the Imperial soldiers believed
themselves
to have driven off the besieging army, another body of Arab troops cut
off
their retreat from behind and surrounded them on all sides. A terrible
battle
took place, in which the Byzantines sold their lives dearly. Eventually
a
remnant of them broke through the ranks of the Moslems, and succeeded
in
reaching the bridge of boats and making good their retreat on the island
of
Rhoda. Only 300 soldiers were left in Babylon, and they hastily
entrenched
themselves in the citadel, leaving the town perforce to be occupied by
the
Arabs. Here they held out for some time longer; but at length, seeing
the
hopelessness of their position, they agreed to abandon all their war
material
and to withdraw from the citadel on condition that they were allowed to
join
the remnant of the army in Rhoda and to retreat to the north unmolested.
The pagarch had already made terms with Amr, which included all
the
non-Byzantine inhabitants of Egypt. He stipulated that the Egyptians
should
be left absolutely free as far as their religion was concerned, on
condition
of paying tribute and making no resistance to the occupation of the country
by
the Arabs. Amr swore to observe the proposed conditions, on the one hand
with
the pagarch and the Egyptians, on the other with the general and the
Byzantine
troops.
On hearing of the fall of Babylon, Domentianus [14], the general commanding
in
the Fayoum, left the chief city of that province with all his troops by
night,
and abandoned the whole district to the Arabs. They struck the
river
apparently at some point north of Gizeh, and fled towards Alexandria
without
any attempt to join forces with the Babylonian troops, whose idea appears
to
have been to retreat on Nikius [16], and there concentrate their forces for
a
final stand. This, however, Amr gave them no time to do. He did, it
seems,
allow them to begin their retreat northwards without molestation, but
no
sooner were they well away than he started with a division of his army
to
follow and cut them off.
He first came up with the troops which had fled from the Fayoum
under
Domentianus, who showed no fight at all. Their general, hearing of
the
approach of the Moslems, flung himself into a small boat, and, setting
sail
for Alexandria, abandoned his soldiers to their fate. They were not slow
to
follow his example. They flung down their arms on the bank and scrambled
for
the boats. But the boatmen, sharing the panic, took flight also, and made
the
best of their way back to their native province. The Byzantine soldiers
were
left to the mercy of the Arabs, who surrounded them on the river and
massacred
them in cold blood. It is said that only one man, Zacharias, who was
``a
gallant warrior'' escaped to tell the tale.
On the other hand, the retreat of the Babylonian garrison deserves to be more
widely celebrated than it is. They could only have been a few hundred men
at
most, and for three weeks they fought their way back to liberty against
an
enemy greatly superior in numbers and well mounted, through a population
at
the best indifferent and for the most part openly hostile. The militia,
or
irregular troops belonging to the Green and Blue factions, equally and
openly
refused to fight against the invaders. It must be remembered that little
or
nothing was known of the newcomers by the common folk, except the fact
that,
unlike the Byzantine oppressors, for whom hatred had become an
hereditary
passion in the breast of every Egyptian, they were a circumcised nation,
who
believed in one God and claimed to be religious reformers. Even without
the
treason of the pagarch the Egyptians were ready to welcome the Arabs,
though
before six months were over they began to realise how great their mistake
had
been. Meanwhile they held aloof, and remained passive spectators as
the
retreating Byzantines were pushed back inch by inch, as it were,
fighting
every day, and each day with diminished numbers, but without a thought
of
flight or surrender. At Khereu [16] they formed once more against the
Arabs,
and fought a pitched battle with the same ill-success. But they made
good
their retreat into Alexandria, and prepared to defend that city to the
end.
Egypt was now, as John of Nikius expresses it, a prey to Satan. The
Moslems
spread over the delta, plundering, burning, and massacring wherever they
went.
The rival Egyptian nobles--Menus, chief of the Greens, and Cosmas, chief
of
the Blues--carried on, like Ishmaelites, a kind of guerilla warfare
with
Moslems, Byzantines, and each other; with anyone, in short, who came in
their
way. Amr, however, was gradually concentrating all his forces
upon
Alexandria. He left a sufficient garrison in Babylon, but broke up the
great
camp there [17] and moved the bulk of his army northwards. On his way he
took
the city of Nikius, with terrible slaughter, though no attempt was made
at
resistance. They put to the sword everyone they met, ``in the streets and
in
the churches, men, women, and children alike, sparing none.''
Heraclius had hastily dispatched Cyrus to Alexandria to assist in the
defence
of that city, and by this time not only all the Byzantine troops in Egypt,
but
all the civilians of that nationality who could do so, forsakiug their
houses
and goods, had collected within her walls for safety. There was little
hope
of safety, however; For Alexandria, like the rest of Egypt, was torn
by
internal dissensions, and unity of action was impossible.
The general in command was Theodore, and the only other Byzantine
general
remaining appears to have been the cowardly Domentianus. Among the
civilians
who had taken refuge in Alexandria were two of high official rank; one of
whom
was a Monothelite Egyptian, named Menus, and the other a brother to the
late
Byzantine Patriarch George, whose name was Philiades, and who was probably
of
Greek extraction. Domentianus was at feud with both these men, and also
with
the Patriarch Cyrus, his own brother-in-law. Theodore was so
greatly
disgusted with the conduct of Domentianus that he refused to espouse
his
quarrel even against the Egyptian Menas. Domentianus therefore recruited
on
his own account all the Blues he could find in Alexandria for his
protection,
and Menus followed suit by enrolling all the Greens in the city under
his
private standard. Naturally it was not long before the two parties were
at
open war in the streets. It was with the greatest difficulty that
Theodore
suppressed the riots, and degraded Domentianus from his rank of
general.
Meanwhile the Arabs were closing round them on all sides, and in the autumn
of
the year 640 the siege had begun.
Though supplies were cut off by land, the sea was always open to
the
Alexandrians, and this accounts for the fact that, in spite of all
her
internal weakness, Alexandria held out against the Moslems for more than
a
year. At first they confidently expected succor from Constantinople, but
the
state of affairs there was not favorable to so costly and difficult
an
enterprise as the reconquest of Egypt. Ieraclius was already stricken
for
death, and breathed his last in February 641.
When the news of his death reached Alexandria, Theodore felt that all hope
was
gone. What his personal feelings about the succession were, we do not
know;
but Domentianus, Menas, and the Patriarch Cyrus agreed in desiring peace
with
the Moslems, and their united influence with the principal men of the city
was
too strong for him. Surrender became a question of time and terms.
The one opportunity that fate had put into their hands had been thrown
away.
On one occasion, we are told, Amr himself, with his second in command and
his
freedman, was taken prisoner by the Byzantines in a brilliant sally,
and
brought before Theodore. No one knew the name and rank of their prisoner;
and
when Amr by his haughty bearing was in danger of revealing himself, he
was
saved by the presence of mind of his freedman, who pressed forward and
struck
him on the mouth, bidding him hold his peace before his betters. Amr's
second
in command then took the conversation on himself, and contrived to
persuade
Theodore and Cyrus to send them ``back to Amr'' with proposals for a
truce.
It was only the tumultuous rejoicings of the Moslem army at the
unexpected
return of their leaders which revealed to the Alexandrians the
opportunity
they had lost.
A desperate attack which left the Arabs for a short time masters of the
city
brought matters to a crisis. The Byzantines did, indeed, succeed
in
dislodging them again, owing to the rashness of the Moslem general, but it
was
felt vain to continue the struggle any longer. Cyrus was empowered to
treat
with Amr for the surrender of the city and the withdrawal of the
Byzantines
from Egypt.
The terms, if we may take them from John of Nikius. were as good as
they
could have expected. Eleven mnonths cessation of hostilities was granted
to
allow all Byzantines living in Egypt, who desired to do so, to leave
the
country. A large sum of money was demanded as their ransom, and it was
agreed
that those who preferred to remain in the country should pay tribute in
common
with the native Egyptians to the Moslems. All the Byzantine troops were
to
withdraw with the honours of war, taking with them that which belonged
to
them. A solemn undertaking was given that they should never attempt
to
re-enter the country, and one hundred hostages--fifty from the army, and
fifty
civilians--were to be given till the engagement should be carried out.
On their part the Moslems promised that they would observe the same terms
with
the Byzantine Christians as they had already promised to the Egyptians;
that
they would take no church from them, nor attempt to interfere in their
religious affairs. Curiously enough, the last clause of this
treaty
stipulated that the Jews should be allowed to live in peace in
Alexandria.
Probably the community had undertaken, on this condition, to find the
greater
part of the money which was paid to the Moslems.
Cyrus returned to the city and laid the proposed agreement before Theodore
and
the other chief men oF the various parties; but there was some demur,
and
eventually they proposed to send an express to Constantinople and
ask
Constantine's sanction before concluding the agreement. It thus happened
that
the Moslem general and his army entered the town to receive the
promised
ransom before the surrender had been publicly announced. The population
flew
to oppose their entry, and a troop of soldiers was hastily dispatched
to
restrain the mob and assure them that peace had been made by the
Patriarch
Cyrus. On this the fury of the mob turned itself against Cyrus, and
they
clamoured for his life. Cyrus, who had plenty of courage, came out and
faced
the howling mob, who, instead of falling upon him, gradually quieted down
to
hear what he had to say. Then he made them an address which so worked
upon
their feelings that they were covered with shame, and offered willingly
to
bring their gold towards the payment of the ransom.
Thus, in the December of the year 641, Egypt passed under the Moslem
yoke,
from which--whether under Arab, Circassian, or Turk--she has never since
been
able to free herself, and which slowly but surely has crushed out her art,
her
civilisation, her learning, her religion, and well-nigh her very life; for
of
the four millions who make up the present population of Egypt [18] there
are
barely seven hundred thousand who can claim beyond dispute to be the
true
descendants of the ancient Egyptians and the enduring witnesses
through
centuries of persecution for the faith of Christ.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART II
CHAPTER I
THE NEW MASTERS
It was thirty years before the commencement of our present era that
Egypt
exchanged the yoke of the Ptolemies for that of the Romans. It was in the
year
642 A.D. that the treason of a renegade native delivered her into the hands
of
the Arabs. Though Egypt had been more or less Christian since the
preaching
of St. Mark, her faith had been at variance with that of her masters
during
the greater part of these six centuries.
Until 323 the State religion of Egypt was pagan; from about 340 to 380 it
was
generally Arian; and after 451 it became, to give it the name used by
Egyptian
historians, Chalcedonian. The National Church of Egypt, whether right
or
wrong in her rejection of Chalcedon, fairly claims that she has remained
ever
the same--rejecting all later creeds than that of Nicea, and refusing
to
acknowledge any Pope but her own. Since the conquest of the country by
the
Arabs the State religion has always been Moslem, and has gradually
absorbed
into itself the greater part of the Egyptian nation. Still there
are--not
seven thousand, but more than seven hundred thousand, who have not bowed
the
knee to Baal; and with a pathetic pride those who have remained faithful
call
themselves, not the Church, but the nation.
It has been a popular notion for some centuries that Europe owes to the
Arabs
her science and much of her learning. In one sense this is partly true,
``for
what they were able to assimilate in course of time from the
ancient
civilisations which they destroyed they passed on in a more or less
imperfect
form to Europe; but a careful study of history shows us that they
originated
nothing of value. The Arabs through the tenth, eleventh, and
twelfth
centuries invented the Arab art and architecture which spread through
the
Saracen world were Greek, Armenian, and Circassian rulers who
employed
Egyptian architects and developed existing styles. The very names which
used
to be quoted as proof of an Arabic origin are found by modern research to
be
Greek or Egyptian, pronounced or written as if they were Arabic.
(For
instance, 'Alchemy' is of 'El Khemi' or Egypt.) In Egypt their physicians,
their architects, their engineers, and their artisans were all natives of
the
country, and for some centuries Christians as well. Even now any place
of
trust, or any post where superior intelligence is needed, is filled by a
Copt,
and generally by a Christian Copt. This may appear a startling assertion
to
make, but it will be borne out by anyone who will take the trouble to
study
the history of Egypt under the Moslems, and who will put aside
popular
prejudice in examining her condition at this day. The Arabs, and after
them
the Turks, were splendid soldiers, and had some virtues which the
Egyptians
would have done well to emulate; but at heart [t]heir idea of
government
is personal aggrandisement, and their idea of civilization personal
luxury
[19].
At the outset of their career the Arabs, however, were far superior
to
personal luxury. Their food was of the simplest, their couch of the
roughest,
and they despised the refinements which they afterwards so coarsely
imitated.
Amr was almost aghast at the wealth and splendour of Alexandria, and wrote
to
Omar in extravagant terms of his conquest. But though he writes much of
the
baths and the shops, he says nothing of the books or the works of art
which
still adorned that city and everyone knows the story of the library.
Gibbon
throws doubt upon its destruction, but his only good argument against it
is
the silence of the contemporary writers, and this is by no means
conclusive.
It was not till they had lived among the Egyptians for a century or two
that
the Arabs realised what they had done. At the time it must have seemed
to
them a most trifling incident. One of the most learned of the
Alexandrian
scholars of that day--one hesitates to call him John Philopompus, because
it
seems almost impossible that he can have lived so long--sought an
interview
with the conqueror, and entreated that the books of the Alexandrian
library
should not be dispersed or destroyed, but might be delivered to
his
guardianship. Amr, we learn, was inclined to grant his request, but
inquired
with curiosity what he could possibly want with the musty old parchments.
The
scholar replied indignantly, but incautiously, that some of them were
worth
all the riches of Alexandria put together. Amr replied that, if so, he
was
not empowered to give them to the first man who asked for them, and
referred
the question to Omar.
The Kaliph's decision was simple. ``If these books contain nothing more than
that which is written in the book of God (el Koran), they are useless; if
they
contain anything contrary to the sacred book, they are pernicious; in
either
case, burn them.'' It is written that the books sufficed for six months'
fuel
for the public baths of Alexandria [20].
While engaged in arranging the affairs of Alexandria the Moslem
general
received a strange embassy. The monks of Nitriit in Scetis had mixed
but
little with politics for some time, and we do not hear of their taking part
in
any of the petty civil wars and futile rebellions of the sixth century.
But
the tidings that the Byzantines had been driven out of the land by a
new
power, whose very name was unknown to them, but who--so the rumour
ran--was
favourable to the Egyptians and to their National Church, drew them once
more
from their desert retreat. In solemn procession they came, barefoot
and
roughly clad but with all the dignity of an independent state, to treat
with
the new conqueror. They demanded it guarantee of their safety and
liberties,
and the return of their rightful Patriarch, Benjamin, to Alexandria. Amr
must
by this time have been well aware of the importance of conciliating
the
National Church. He at once gave the monks the charter they
desired--which
Makrizi says that he saw still preserved in one of their monasteries
eight
hundred years afterwards--and wrote a letter to the Patriarch Benjamin
to
assure him that he was henceforth free to show himself as openly as
he
pleased. Benjamin lost no time in returning to Alexandria, where he
was
received with great joy. The Byzantine Pittriarch, Cyrus, did not
long
survive the downfall of all his hopes. He was taken ill on Palm Sunday,
and
died in three days. A man named Peter was elected--whether by the Court or
by
the bishops of the Byzantine Church in Egypt--in his place; but, finding
that
Benjamin was recognised as the only true Patriarch by Amr, he
quietly
abandoned his post, and withdrew to Constantinople with the
Byzantine
refugees. For sixty years after his death no attempt was made to set up
a
Greek Patriarch in Egypt.
From Alexandria Amr sent an expedition into Pentapolis, but did not attempt
to
occupy the country which, since the Arab conquest, has practically ceased
to
form part of the Egyptian dominions. He contented himself with carrying
off
an enormous booty, consisting chiefly of cattle, and a great number
of
captives, who were reduced to slavery. After this he returned to Babylon,
and
began to build a new town for himself and his followers, a little to the
north
of the older city. [T]he recorded actions of Amr show him to have been
not
merely a successful soldier, but a statesman; and he fully realised
the
importance of keeping his army separate from the inhabitants of Babylon
and
Memphis. He exacted enormous sums from the conquered people, but for the
rest
he let them alone, and governed them through men of their own nation. In his
time the promise which he had given of religious liberty was strictly
kept;
justice, even if it strongly resembled tyranny, was dealt alike to Melkite
and
Monophysite, and the native Egyptians were ready to acknowledge that they
were
better off under the infidel than they had been under ``the
Chalcedonians.''
Amr had the Nilometers from Phila to Rhoda put into sorely needed repair,
and
gave orders that Trajan's Canal, since then known as El Khalig [21], should
be
cleared out and prolonged. He regulated and simplified the administration
of
justice, but permitted the Egyptians to be judged by their own
compatriots,
and the decisions of the Moslem Kadi were only binding on the army
of
occupation. He built the first mosque in Egypt on the site where the
present
mosque of Amr, though more than once rebuilt, still stands; but all
the
columns needed for it were brought at a later date from the churches
of
Memphis--a precedent which has been followed ever since, the Arabs having
no
faculty for stone-carving, though in time they learned how to cut a
plain
shaft with a mere block for base and capital.
While Amr was thus usefully employed in Egypt, the Caliph Omar
was
assassinated, and one of the first acts of his successor, Osman, was to
recall
Amr from the scene of his successes, and nominate his brother (the
same
Abdallah who, according to some authorities, had served in Egypt, and was
the
first to enter Nubia) Viceroy of Egypt. Abdallah was appointed in 647,
but
cared little to enter on his new duties. He increased the tribute payable
by
the Egyptians, but thought more of extending the Arab conquests than
of
governing well the countries which had submitted to him. One expedition
had
already been sent into Nubia, or the country south of Aswan, and the
first
thought of the new governor when he went to Egypt was to avenge
its
comparative failure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART II
CHAPTER II
THE SOUDAN EXPEDITION
Though the Roman or Byzantine rulers of Egypt had never really
established
themselves for any length of time beyond the limit of Phila, the
bloodless
conquest of paganism by Christianity in all these southern countries had
been
going on steadily for centuries. The Christian religion at the time of
the
Arab invasion was professed not only in the valley of the Nile, but far
down
to the southern frontier of Abyssinia, on the eastern side of the
African
continent. All these countries acknowledged the head of the National
Church
of Egypt as their Pope. There were a number of politically
independent
Christian kingdoms between Aswan and Abyssinia, which, it must be
confessed,
fought a good deal among themselves; but on the whole, as even
Mohammedan
historians acknowledge, this part of Africa was never so well settled,
well
governed, and well cultivated as at this time. Not even Egypt herself
has
suffered so terribly and her civilisation been so effectually destroyed by
the
Arab and Turkish invasions as these kingdoms, which under the influence
of
Christianity had but just begun to emerge from the chaotic condition which
we
have learnt to regard as the normal state of the African interior.
Opinions differ as to whether Amr marched in person against Nubia in 643
or
sent an army under the command of one of his Emirs. In the Book of
the
Conquests, by Ahmed el Koufi, the author writes that Amr ebn Aas was in
Egypt
when he received a letter from Omar, commanding him to march on Nubia
and
conquer this country, the country of the Berbers; of Barkah; of Tripoli in
the
west; and all the provinces belonging to them Tandjah, Afrahenjah, until
Sous
el Aksa.
Amr, the writer adds, had intended to send the sum of ten thousand
dinare,
which he had just received as tribute from the Alexandrians, to Omar; but
on
receiving these orders he divided them instead among the soldiers of his army,
and after making the necessary preparations sent Abdallah ebn Said into
Nubia
with 20,000 men.
Abdallah allowed his soldiers unbridled licence; they spread themselves
over
the country, murdering and pillaging on all sides. After the first
surprise,
however, the Nubians gathered together for the defence of their country to
the
number of 100,000 (?), and attacked the Moslems with so much courage
that,
says their historian, ``they had never experienced so terrible a shock.''
One
of the principal Moslem warriors told the writer afterwards that he
had
``never seen men aim their arrows with such skill and precision as
these
Nubians.'' He declared that during the war it was not uncommon for a
Nubian
to shout to a Moslem to know in which particular member he preferred to
be
struck; and if the Arab mockingly answered the challenge and mentioned
any
particular part of his person, he instantly received an arrow in the
place
indicated, without fail. But ``they preferred to aim at the eyes of
their
enemies.''
In the end the victory remained with the Arabs, but they gained little
by
their success at first, not even a single prisoner since the Nubians
fought
to the death. The Moslems judged it expedient to retreat across the
frontier,
and it might have been long before they ventured again into a country
where
they had met with so stubborn a resistance, had it not been for the
rashness
of the Nubians themselves, who in the following years made more than
one
expedition into Egypt, and did much damage. The Arabs after the death of
Omar
were greatly hindered by internal dissensions, and Amr was recalled from
Egypt
by the new Kaliph while the new governor, Abdallah ebn Said, did not go
near
the place for some time. Had the Egyptians combined with the Nubians to
expel
the invaders at this juncture, there is little doubt that they could
have
succeeded with ease. But the Heaven-sent leader of men, so greatly
needed,
did not appear, and the opportunity was lost. The Nubians
exhausted
themselves in objectless raids and in the year 653 Abdallah,
who
had now taken over the government of Egypt, marched again into Nubia with
the
resolute purpose of subduing that troublesome country.
He penetrated as far as Dongola (the Dongola of the seventh century was
nearly
a hundred miles south of the present town) and laid siege to that city.
He
constructed a stone-throwing machine, the like of which had never been
seen
among the Nubians and directed it either by accident or design, against
the
principal church of the city, to such good purpose that in a short time it
lay
in ruins.
The fall of their great church seems to have intimidated the Nubians
as
nothing-else could have done, and their king (whose name is variously given
as
Kalidourat, Balidaroub, and Kalidourdat--none of which versions are likely
to
be correct) opened negotiations for peace.
Eventually a formal treaty was concluded between the Arabs and the Nubians,
in
which the former agreed not to invade Nubia, and to give aid, if called
upon,
in the wars of the latter. In return the Nubians were to allow a mosque to
be
built in Dongola for those Arabs who might desire to settle there, and to
see
that no harm was done to it, and no Moslem annoyed or hindered in the
exercise
of his religion. They were even to hold themselves responsible for
the
cleaning and lighting of this mosque. Moslems were to be allowed free
entry
into the country, but no fugitive slave from the Arabs in Egypt was to
be
given shelter.
The worst feature of the treaty was the clause which laid the foundation
of
the Arab slave trade--so difierent an affair from the domestic servitude
which
has existed from time immemorial in Oriental countries. Three hundred
and
sixty slaves from the interior, of both sexes, among whom should be found
no
old man or old woman or child below the age of puberty, were to be
brought
every year to the Governor of Aswan, for the Imam. As may be imagined, it
was
not long before forty slaves were required as a backsheesh for the Governor
of
Egypt in addition to the three hundred and sixty forwarded to the
reigning
Iraart. Presents of wine, wheat, barley, and fine robes for the king were
to
be sent in exchange; but occasionally the Mohammedan governor for the
time
being had scruples about the wine. Another question of
conscience
subsequently arose--whether, so long as the tribute of s]aves was duly
paid,
it was just to take slaves from Nubia beyond the stipulated number.
The
Mohammedan judges to whom the question was referred made no difficulties
in
deciding that all slaves taken in the wars which constantly prevailed in
these
countries--which, indeed, were bound to prevail for the purpose of
obtaining
slaves for the tribute--and all those who had been reduced to a condition
of
slavery in their own country, were legitimate trade.
It is also recorded by Moslem authorities that one of the
principal
inhabitants of Nubia presented a mumba, or pulpit, to the new mosque of Amr
at
Fostat, and sent Victor, Iris own carpenter, who was a native of Denderah,
to
fix it in its place.
The Egyptians were not slow to feel the difference between the government
of
Amr and that of Abdallah, and in the year 657 they showed unmistakable
signs
of preparing for a general rebellion. Abdallah left the country to
consult
the Kaliph; but a conspiracy had already been formed by the Arabs
themselves
against Osman, and Abdallah was hardly out of Egypt before that country
was
taken possession of by one of the principal conspirators, whom the army
of
occupation appear to have readily received. Osman hastily promised all
that
was demanded of him by the Arab rebels, and in particular the request of
the
Egyptian party--that Abdallah should no longer be their governor. But
secret
instructions having been found on one of Osman's messengers that the
new
Governor of Egypt, Mohammed ebn Bekr, was to be assassinated as soon as
he
reached the country, the indignant Arabs appear to have made common cause
with
the Egyptians against the Kaliph. They marched upon Medina, killed Osman,
and
elected Ali in his place the commotions which followed, Egypt was left
without
a governor; two were named, but were dismissed or died without entering
the
country, and the appointment of Mohammed ebn Bekr was finally confirmed
in
A.H. 37.
The Moslems, however, were still disunited. Ali reigned in Persia,
Arabia,
and Egypt; but Syria was in the hands of Moawiyah, and Amr was on his
side.
In the year 660 (A.H. 41) the assassination of Ali and his son Hussein,
with
the abdication of his elder son Hassan, left Moawiyah sole master of
the
Moslem world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART II
CHAPTER III
ABD EL AZIZ
Moawiyah is the first Kaliph of the dynasty of the Ommyades, so called
after
Ommyah, the great-grandfather of Moawiyah. Egypt had reason to rejoice in
his
accession, for he at once restored the governor whom they had respected
as
well as feared--Amr ebn Aas. He died, however, about a year afterwards,
and
Moawiyah sent one of his younger brothers, Atbah, to govern Egypt.
Atbah
dying within the year, another man was appointed and speedily dismissed;
so
that Egypt had three successive governors within as many years. Finally,
in
664 (A.H. 45) Mosleima was appointed Governor of Egypt, and remained there
till his death in 681 (A.H. 62). During these seventeen years and the
three
years of his successor, Said ebn Zezid, Egypt remained in comparative
peace,
though in all other parts of the Saracen Empire there were
constant
dissensions and civil wars, owing to the struggles of the different
Moslem
leaders for supreme power.
About a year before the accession of Moawiyah, Benjamin, the
National
Patriarch of Egypt, died at a ripe age. He had laboured unremittingly
to
encourage and strengthen the members of the National Church, to refound
the
monasteries which had been pillaged and destroyed in the recent
commotions,
and to reform the morals of his people. He had sent a new Metropolitan
to
Abysssinia, and with him a monk named Tekla Heimanot, of great sanctity,
who
is held in reverence to this day, and credited for being the first founder
of
monasticism in that country. Benjamin's last act was to consecrate a
new
church to St. Macarius in the desert settlement of Nitria.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
---------
[1] These towns were so near together that they are now confounded under
the
name of Abousir-Bana, near Samanhoud.
[2] In 598 Gregory wrote a letter to Eulogius of Egypt, which must
interest
all Englishmen. After congratulating the Patriarch on his success
in
reviving the Byzantine Church in Egypt, he tells him of the efforts
which
he on his part is making for the conversion of the Angles. He
tells
Eulogius all about the mission of St. Augustine to England, and
relates
with joy that at the last Christmas no less than ten thousand pagans
had
received Holy Baptism.
[3] The town which rose upon the ruins of Aykelah was called
Zawiet.
Professor Amelineau identifies it with the present Zawiet-Sakr.
[4] In Egypt the Archangel Michael had taken the place of one of the
pagan
gods, to whom they were greatly devoted. In the fourth century
Pope
Alexander solemnly broke the brazen image of this idol in Alexandria,
and
altered the temple into a church. But he only won the consent of
the
people by promising them that they should find the patronage of Michael,
to whom he dedicated the church, far better for them than that of
the
idol, and that nothing should be changed in the yearly feast which
they
had been wont to celebrate, save only that it should be held in honour
of
Michael instead of the idol. This ancient heathen feast has been kept
in
Michael's honour ever since. The Egyptians have a legend that on one
day
in the year the mouth of the pit of purifying fire opened, and it
is
Michael's privilege to plunge into it and bring up as many souls
into
Paradise as he can carry on his wings.
[5] Athribis is ruined, and its place taken by the modern town of Beuha.
[6] It is said that Benjamin was cheered in his flight by the vision of
a
celestial messenger, who foretold to him that within ten years the
Lord
would deliver the Egyptians by the advent of a nation circumcised
like
themselves, and that by them the Byzantine yoke should be broken
for
ever.
[7] It is curious that almost the only lasting result of the attempted
Union
of Heraclius in Egypt has been to impose the observance of this fast
on
both Churches alike.
[8] This date used to be given as 638, but modern researches have
established
it two years later.
[9] Omar's reply was to the effect that if Amr were already on Egyptian
soil,
he might go forward; if not, he must return. Amr having reason to
guess
what was in the letter, refused to open it until he camped within
the
frontier of Egypt.
[10] Menas, or Mena, was such a common name in Egypt that a surname,
usually
Greek, was often attached to those who bore it.
[11] It was not uncommon for Egyptians of the Imperialist party to take
Greek
names, but no instance is known of a Byzantine taking an Egyptian
name.
[12] The ancient religious name for Memphis was Ha ka ptah. When the
Arabs
came, they called it Agupta (hard g), and the inhabitants Agupti.
In
course of time it became Gupt and Gupti, which the English
mispronounce
Copt and Coptic.
[13] The story of Armenosa is taken from El Wakedi, and not from the papyri
or
from the chronicle, which is here imperfect.
[14] This name is probably corrupt.
[15] Nikius is the Greek name not only of a city, but a district called
the
Isle of Itikius, lying between two branches of the river. Both
the
district, which was a diocese, and the city had but one name also in
Egyptian--Pshati. This older name is still preserved, but given to
a
modern hamlet in the same district-- Ibshadi.
[16] Khereu, now El Kerioum, about twenty miles from Alexandria, whence
it
used to be considered the first halting-place.
[17] Then occurred--so runs the graceful legend which shines out from
a
background of treachery and bloodshed like & gleam of sunshine on a
day
of storm--a curious incident. When the order was given to strike
the
tents of the Moslem camp, some one told Amr that a pair of doves
had
built their nest on the roof of his tent, and that the young ones
were
not yet fledged. Amr at once gave orders that they should not
be
disturbed, and that his tent should be left standing as it was
until
his return from Alexandria.
[18] Since the above was written, a new census has been taken (in 1897).
The
figures are not yet published, but it is currently reported that
the
total population is now over eight millions, of which about nine
hundred
thousand are acknowledged Christians of the National Church of Egypt.
[19] The pure-bred Arab in Egypt, represented by the present Bedouin tribes,
is still superior to personal luxury; but the reigning Arabs of
the
eighth to the eleventh centuries degenerated almost as quickly
as
their Turkish successors.
[20] It is true that the ancient library of Alexandria was burnt by
Julius
Caesar, but it was shortly after replaced by the rival library
of
Pergamus.
[21] This ancient canal is now being filled up (1897) by order of
the
English sanitary authorities. It is not known yet whether the
Pharaonic
festival of the Nile will be discontinued in consequence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------