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        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 the 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 5well-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 there upon 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.

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.

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].

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

[Introduction to the church] [Churches in the church] [Priestes in the church] [ Services Schedule]

[Films done by the church] [Rofaat of saints in the church] [Links  Our Guest book] [Site map]