# The Greek and Eastern Churches/Part 2/Division 5/Chapter 2

CHAPTER II
THE PERSIAN AND ARAB CONQUESTS
The position of the Copts at the time of the Persian and Arab conquests of Egypt is without parallel in history. Two successive invasions swept over their country with but a short interval between them. This interval witnessed the brilliant exploits of Heraclius, who rescued the Byzantine Empire when it seemed likely to break down utterly and finally, and gave it a new lease of life, though not any approach to its former splendour. Now the question is, What was the attitude of the Copts during these three kaleidoscopic changes of the map of Empire? They were the persecuted native Christians of Egypt who had been robbed of their ecclesiastical revenues and finest churches, and who saw the alien Greek Melchites, themselves but the shadow of a church, enjoying these ancient endowments and possessions. They could have felt no sense of loyalty towards their great oppressor, the Byzantine government. Nevertheless it is certain that they did not help or encourage the Persian invaders. This is proved by the cruel treatment they received. There were no ​less than six hundred monasteries in the neighbourhood of Alexandria. These monasteries were walled and fortified, and the inmates endeavoured to hold out against the Persians. They were all besieged, captured, and destroyed; and the monks were put to the sword, with great slaughter. The same cruel warfare was carried up the Nile as far as Syene, and many monks were slain all along the line of conquest. The Persian King Chosroes allowed Andronicus, the Coptic patriarch, to remain in Alexandria as he had allowed the patriarch Modestus to remain at Jerusalem. No doubt he had reasons of state for these conspicuous acts of leniency. It was well to mark the difference between the national patriarchs and the Byzantine officials.
On the other hand, the Copts were less inclined to join the enemies of the Byzantine Empire just now than at any other time. The Emperor Phocus had made himself hated by all his subjects—Greeks as well as Egyptians and Syrians. Accordingly, when Heraclius led the revolt against the brutal tyrant, the whole empire had been ready to rally to the standard of the great general and assist him in a course of ambition which promised to make for the common weal. After that the Copts were not likely to side with the enemies of the man whom they had helped to set on the throne. The notion that they had done so is a pure fabrication of their Melchite caluminators. Their own grievous sufferings from the sword should have saved them from this false charge.
After Heraclius had repelled the Persian invasion, he was still regarded in a more friendly way by the Copts than had been the case with other Byzantine emperors; and at first he took some pains to cultivate pleasant relations with them. He did not go so far as to refuse to appoint a Melchite patriarch. That would have been to give mortal offence to his Greek subjects all over the empire. ​But he was careful to select for the office a man whose life and character were in high repute even among the national Christians. This was John, who came to be surnamed "the Almoner." The immensity of his charities is some evidence of the wealth of the sinecure post that he held as nominal patriarch of Alexandria, and it may help to explain the bitterness felt by the impoverished national Church that had been robbed in order to endow this alien and generally useless office. The Church had a large share in the enormous grain trade which passed between Alexandria and Constantinople, and all the profit of this now went into the coffers of the Melchite patriarch. John did the best thing that seemed possible for him under the circumstances. He did not renounce the wealth which only came to him in his official capacity, and of which he regarded himself as a trustee; but he gave it away with more than princely generosity. He distributed daily relief among 7,500 poor people in Alexandria. After the sack of Jerusalem by the Persians, he sent to that city of many woes gifts of money, food, and clothing, with a modest letter in which he said, "Pardon me that I can send nothing worthy the temples of Christ. Would that I could come myself and work with my own hands at the Church of the Resurrection."
Here we may see one good result of the Persian invasion. It was the indirect means of drawing the Syrian and Egyptian Churches together in bonds of real Christian sympathy. John the Almoner was treading in the footsteps of St. Paul when he sent aid to the "brethren at Jerusalem." In the autumn of the year 615, while John's caravans were crossing the desert, the Jacobite patriarch of Antioch, Athanasius, paid a visit to Anastasias, the Coptic patriarch of Alexandria, meeting him at the Ennanton Monastery on the seacoast west of Alexandria, where some Syrian monks were already staying for a time in order to revise the Syriac Bible by collation with the Greek text, while others had come as refugees from the Persian invasion. This meeting brought about a result which the ​Melchite John's charities could not effect. It issued in a union between the Syrian and the Coptic Churches, both of which were of the Monophysite creed.
The deplorable surprise of the reign of Heraclius appeared only too soon. The man who had the genius to save the empire had not the common sense to govern it. Heraclius was one of the greatest generals the world has ever seen; he proved to be one of the most incompetent, blundering rulers who ever mismanaged a great empire. We do not expect a soldier to be a theologian, and Heraclius maybe forgiven for leaving the subtleties of Christology to his professional adviser, Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople. But he cannot be excused for the inconsiderate way in which he forced what he intended to be an olive branch on to the people whom he desired to reconcile with orthodoxy. He did not even consult Benjamin, the patriarch of the national Church of Egypt at the time. Cyrus, his nominee for the Melchite patriarchate of Alexandria (in the year 630), was the very worst man to select as a conciliator. Cyrus took his appointment as an excuse for forcing his alien Melchite authority on the national Church of Egypt. His cruel policy was anticipated from the first. Benjamin the Coptic patriarch fled into hiding directly Cyrus landed (a.d. 631). He knew what this mission meant. The Coptic monks were now worse off than the British monks of Bangor, when Augustine, less than thirty years before this very time, had approached with orders to compel them to submit to Rome. They fled in all directions. So did many of the clergy of the national Church. All were seized with terror. And their fears were justified. Those who resisted Cyrus were severely dealt with—imprisoned, tortured, killed. Many, however, submitted, even among the bishops. There are few more pitiable passages in the history of the Church than this. Here we have a brief interlude between one non-Christian invasion and another—between the pagan Persian and the Mohammedan Arab invasion. During this short interval a Christian power is ruling in Egypt. ​Yet it proves to be a time of misery for the national Church. The dominant party of Christians spend it in brutally persecuting their fellow-Christians.
Cyrus's violent measures went on for ten years. After seven or eight years of this persecution, Heraclius made his last attempt at securing the peace of the Church by the issue of the Ecthesis advocating the newly invented Monothelete idea. It is probable that outside Alexandria the monks never heard of the existence of this document. No extant Coptic writing betrays any knowledge of it. To the Copts their old friend Heraclius appeared to have been changed into a persecutor, trying to force them back to the hated Chalcedonian heresy. This was a double mistake. The Ecthesis was a departure from Chalcedon, and as such was destined ultimately to be anathematised by an œcumenical council, and the emperor was no persecutor, but a peacemaker—in intention. Meanwhile, from the first Cyrus was exceeding his master's orders and directly contradicting the spirit of them. In being vested with supreme authority over Egypt he was able to oppress the Copts, who do not seem to have dreamed of going behind him to appeal to Heraclius, as though they had had any doubt of his approval of Cyrus. It must be admitted that although his original intention had been pacific, Heraclius, like Constantine three centuries earlier, was driven by force of circumstances into at least an acquiescence in persecution. This is the inevitable destiny of the autocrat who desires to force comprehension by the mutual reconciliation of all differences on his reluctant subjects. Heraclius must have known of Cyrus's persecution. Unless he was too weak to interfere, he must have acquiesced in it. No doubt in the latter part of the ten cruel years he was bitterly disappointed with his pet device for settling ecclesiastical differences. His Ecthesis was a last attempt at conciliation, and, in spite of some temporary success, in the end it proved to be a failure, partly because it was entrusted to the wrong hands.
​The sequel to Heraclius's magnificent feat in hurling back the Persians from Egypt and Syria and re-establishing the crumbling power of the Byzantine Empire is one of the greatest disappointments in history. For the moment it looked as though the glorious days of Constantine or Theodosius were returning. Then rose the thunder-cloud from the Arabian desert, and the hosts of Islam swept over province after province, till at length, after centuries of Titanic wrestling, the remnant of the Roman Empire in the East was finally subdued, and the Crescent gleamed on the central dome of St. Sophia, there to remain till the present day.
Now we have to see the relation of this triumphant march of Islam in its early days to the Copts and their Church. Mohammed never entered Egypt. The prophet died in the year 632. It was seven years later that the Moslems invaded Egypt. Omar was then caliph. A letter he had despatched to Amr', who was on the way to Egypt, recalling the general to Medina, had reached its destination, but Amr' did not open it, and marched on in spite of what he suspected to be its orders. His subsequent victories condoned the act of insubordination. There can be no doubt that these victories were won partly by aid rendered in Egypt itself. But there is some confusion in reference to the source and manner of this assistance. It has been attributed to the Copts. If that were correct, we could hardly regard them as traitors, since they were already the subjects of a foreign master in the Byzantine emperor, who represented the alien Church that had appropriated their ecclesiastical property. It was but a question of a change of masters. Still, the Byzantine Empire, though viewed by the Copts as heretical in its acceptance of the decrees of Chalcedon, was a Christian power, and the admission of the Moslem conqueror was an encouragement to Islam as a rival religion which threatened to stamp out the faith of Christ. The persecution of Christians by their fellow-Christians is never more convincingly futile as a defence of the faith than when it ​drives the victims into the arms of the infidel But it is not proved against the Copts that they rendered any practical assistance to the Arab invaders. They were crushed and scattered by the Melchite persecution that had followed the issue of the Ecthesis and its enforcement by Gyrus. Benjamin their patriarch was in exile; his flock was in no condition to seriously influence public affairs. The action that was taken to smooth the way for the invader came from another source, and that a source the circumstances of which made it far more treasonable in character. A mysterious personage, known to the Arab writers as "the Mukaukas," described as "the chief ruler of Egypt," has been accused as the chief traitor to Christianity at this juncture. Mr. Stanley Lane Poole suggests that the mystery of his personality may be explained en the hypothesis that two distinct persons are involved under the same name. He accepts the view that the title Mukaukas, as a form of a Greek word meaning "most glorious," appears to have been used for any Byzantine official. Now, in the year 628, a certain Egyptian official of the empire named George, and bearing this title, sent two slave girls, a white mule, and a pot of Benha honey as presents to Mohammed, and one of the slave girls, known as "Mary the Copt," became a concubine of the prophet. Twelve years later we meet a Byzantine official with the same name and title as Mohammed's friendly Mukaukas; possibly, however, it is suggested, he is not the same man, but perhaps a son. This George rendered the Arabs some assistance in taking Misr. In return he got these terms—(1) A moderate poll tax for the Christians, consisting of two dinars (about £1, 1s. 0d.) per head, a land tax, and the requirement of giving three days' hospitality to soldiers. (2) No peace with the Romans till they were all made slaves. (3) A promise that when George died he should be buried in the church of St. John at Alexandria.
If this view were adopted, we could not reckon the Mukaukas to be a very important person, and the difficulty ​would be to account for so much fuss being made about him and his treachery. But another theory is advocated by Mr. Butler, which, if it is adopted, will throw a very different light on the story. This is that the official with the barbarous name in the Arab chronicles is no one else than the well-known Cyrus, the Melchite patriarch of Alexandria. So astounding a conception is enough to take away our breath when it comes upon us for the first time. The reader must be referred to Mr. Butler's exhaustive examination of the whole case for an adequate appreciation of the evidence, which is cumulative. The theory appears to have been originated by the Portuguese scholar Pereira. It starts from a statement of Severus of Ushmunaim, that "Cyrus was appointed by Heraclius after the recovery of Egypt from the Persians to be both patriarch and governor of Alexandria. This is very significant. It points to a double office, and suggests the idea that the man who was at the same time at the head both of the civil and of the ecclesiastical establishments at Alexandria could really dominate Egypt. We can well understand the Arabian view of him. Then it is suggested that the strange title Mukaukas, that has given rise to so many conjectures, is derived from the word kaukasios and indicates Cyrus, who came from Phasis in the Caucasus as a native of that district. It is certain that Cyrus entered into early negotiations with the Mohammedan General Amr', promising him an annual tribute and the emperor's daughter Eudocia for his harem if he would withdraw his troops. Heraclius was in a rage when he heard of his official's daring proposal, and summoned him to Constantinople, ​where we should have expected his immediate execution. But the terror of the Arabian invasion was so great that the emperor sent Cyrus back to arrange terms. When the Mukaukas was at Babylon, the ancient Coptic capital, he had carried on secret negotiations for surrender. But his policy had then been frustrated. Alexandria, open to the sea and strongly fortified by land, should have stood a long siege. It was surrendered without a blow. This apparently needless action of the defenders is attributed to the treachery of the Mukaukas. It may have been owing to a wise policy for the protection of the city, its treasures, and its citizens. Subsequently Alexandria was recovered by the Byzantine; and after that the Arabs took it by assault. It is difficult to see what Cyrus had to gain by treachery. But there is no doubt that he negotiated terms of surrender with the Arabs. The fact is confirmed by John of Nikiou, who states, however, that Cyrus was not alone in desiring peace, the inhabitants generally also wishing for it. On the other hand, he states that Amr' fought for twelve years against the Christians of North Egypt before he succeeded in conquering that province—the very district where Cyrus had most influence. When Alexandria was taken the stern Amr' forbade pillage.
The famous story of the destruction of the library is now discredited. According to the statement of Abul-Farág, Amr' consulted Omar as to what he should do with the books, and the caliph replied, "If these writings of the Greeks agree with the book of God, they are useless and need not be preserved: if they disagree, they are pernicious and ought to be destroyed." So, we are told, they were distributed among the 4,000 baths of the city, and even then it took six months to burn them all. Gibbon follows Renaudot in throwing doubt on this picturesque story, and later critics have confirmed their scepticism. It is not to be met with ​till the thirteenth century, six hundred years later. Besides, it is in itself unlikely. It is very doubtful whether there was a library of any considerable size in Alexandria at the time. Ptolemy's famous library appears to have been destroyed by Cæsar. A few years later the library of the kings of Pergamum was lodged at the Serapeum; but when the Serapeum was destroyed by the mob in the fourth century, this library must have been burnt or scattered. Then John Philoponus, who, according to the late Arab story, had asked Amr' for the books, could not have been living in the year 642, because he is known to have been writing more than a century before this date. Moreover, the Arabs did not enter Alexandria for eleven months after the city had capitulated, and during all that time the inhabitants were free to carry off their treasures. When the entry was made, Amr' prohibited destruction of property. Lastly, there is the inherent improbability—as Mr. Butler points out—that books, many of them of parchment, would be used for lighting 4,000 bath fires. It would have paid the bathmen better to have sold them to scholars, many of whom would have come forward as eager purchasers. Putting all these facts together—the destruction of Ptolemy's library by the Romans in the first century b.c.; the destruction of the Serapeum, which contained the library from Pergamum in the third century a.d.; the evident impossibility of that part of the story that introduces the name of Philoponus; the ample opportunity for saving the books given to the Alexandrians; Amr's rigorous prohibition of deeds of violence; and the general improbability of the whole narrative—we have ample reasons for rejecting the tradition as not true.
After the Arab conquest of Egypt, the centre of government was removed from Alexandria to Fustât ("the tent"), near what is now known as "Old Cairo." This place was more easily reached from Medina and at the same time out of the Byzantine influences of Alexandria. Here the government was carried on for two hundred and fifty years.
​As regards the two parties of Christians, the tables were turned. The orthodox, being the party of the Byzantine Empire, were in disfavour, and they were robbed of their swollen possessions, some part of which reverted to its rightful owners, the Copts. At first these people were leniently treated. Amr' received a deputation of monks begging for a charter of rights and the restoration of their patriarch Benjamin after an exile of thirteen years. In reply he graciously granted the charter and invited the patriarch to return. His decree ran as follows: "Let every place, wherein Benjamin the patriarch of the Coptic Christians may be, possess full security, peace and trust from God: let him come with safety and fearlessness, and freely administer the affairs of his Church and people." A little later the Copts were allowed to build a church behind the bridge at Fustât. Altogether the national Church in Egypt was at first much freer and happier under the rule of the unbeliever than it had been under that of the orthodox emperor. Benjamin was now able to conduct a thorough visitation of his churches unmolested. On the other hand, Amr' would allow no retaliation on the Melchites. The two Churches were to live together side by side. For the time being there was peace in Egypt. This is one of the few interludes between the many severe persecutions and the long weary ages of ill-treatment to which the Christian inhabitants have been subject.
Nevertheless, it is only by comparison with the more harsh government of later times that we can regard this early Arab period as pacific and lenient. In England or America we should think the tyranny of Islam even at its best simply intolerable. In accordance with the universal ​rule—the choice being Islam, tribute, or the sword—the Christians were heavily taxed, while the Mohammedans paid no taxes. Thus they, together with the Jews, bore all the financial burden of the State, paid the expenses of the government and the army, and supported the luxuries of the harems. Over and above this, their lives were spared and their freedom of worship was allowed only on the following conditions:—
1. The Koran must not be reviled nor copies of it burnt.
2. The Prophet must not be spoken of disrespectfully.
3. Islam must not be condemned or reviled.
4. No Christian may marry a Mohammedan woman.
5. No attempt may be made to convert or injure a Mohammedan.
6. The enemies of Islam are not to be assisted.
To these general regulations there were added certain humiliating restrictions, as that houses of the Christians must not overtop houses of Mohammedans; the ringing of church bells must not be forced on the ears of Mohammedans; crosses must not be displayed in public; Christians must not ride on thoroughbred horses; certain burial ordinances must be observed, etc.
Gradually the Christians were made to feel that, though within the limits imposed upon them they could enjoy a considerable measure of personal liberty, they were in a state of social bondage. The extraordinary democratic nature of Islam gave to Egyptian converts equal privileges with the invaders from Arabia, except in some military matters. Accordingly, it was not like the case of the invasion of England by William the Conqueror, after which the Normans as conquerors lorded it over the defeated English. In Egypt the native people could share the privileges of the victorious Arabs if they would adopt the religion of their masters.
Viewed from a distance and in the abstract, this policy may appear to be large-minded, noble, generous. Religion is exalted above race, and the victor is willing to share the spoils of war with the vanquished, on conditions that ​do not make for his own material advantage. Thus, though a religion of the sword, Islam maintains its character as essentially, by its creed and constitution, a missionary religion. On the other hand, this very characteristic of the Mohammedan government added to its pressure of tyranny on those people who adhered to another faith. It was all the worse for the Christian Copt to see his fellow-Egyptian passing over to the rival faith and so increasing the forces of the oppressor. For an oppressor the Mussulman ruler must be, as regards the Christians, even when his methods are the mildest. Bribery was resorted to as an additional means of detaching the weak from the Church and winning them to Islam. If these things were done in the green tree, what was to be expected in the dry? Although the Arab rule in Egypt began so moderately that the Copts were ready to rejoice in it for the relief it afforded from the Melchite tyranny, they were soon to have reasons for repenting of the welcome they had given it. It was not long before their disadvantages were increased, and from time to time in the subsequent centuries they were harassed with savage outbreaks of persecution. The Christians never enjoy full liberty under Islam; they are always treated as inferiors, if not as outlaws; and they are often subject to great cruelty without hope of redress. Egypt has proved to be no exception to this melancholy generalisation.
* ↑ "Six hundred glorious monasteries like dove-cotes," says the ancient writer of the "History of the Coptic Patriarchs of Alexandria," in Patrologia Orientalis, tome i. fasc. 4, p. 465.
* ↑ See p. 129.
* ↑ Μεγαυχής.
* ↑ The Arab Conquest of Egypt, Appendix c.
* ↑ See also Patrologia Orientalis, tome i. fasc. 4, "Hist, of Pat.": "When Heraclius obtained possession of the land, be appointed governors in every place, and he sent a governor to the land of Egypt named Cyrus, to be prefect and patriarch at the same time" (p. 489).
* ↑ καυκάσιος.
* ↑ Other suggested derivations are from καύκον, a supposed copper coin, and καυκίον, a little bowl; or perhaps the term is a dark allusion to vicious practices.
* ↑ John of Nikiou, Chronicle, cxvii.
* ↑ Ibid. cxx.
* ↑ Ibid. cxv.
* ↑ In 'Abd-el-Latīf and Abu-l-Farág.
* ↑ John of Nikiou, cxxi.
* ↑ Severus in Renaudot, pp. 163, 164. In the "Hist. of the Patriarchs" the decree is given as follows: "Amr' wrote to the provinces of Egypt—'There is protection and security for the place where Benjamin the patriarch of the Coptic Christians is, and peace from the governor. Therefore let him come forth secure and tranquil, and administer the affairs of his Church and the government of his nation,'" Patrologia Orientalis, tome i. fasc. 4, pp. 495, 496.