_|_ | C O P | N E T 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _|_ This article is one of many more articles about the Coptic Orthodox | Church, the Christian Apostolic Church of Egypt. These articles can be | obtained electronically from Copt-Net Repository, using anonymous FTP COP|NET from pharos.bu.edu:CN. Please mail inquiries to CN-request@cs.bu.edu. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------