CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT 
 FUND GIVEN IN 1891 BY 
 
 HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE 
 
Cornell University Library 
 DT 96.B98 
 
 Arab conquest of Egvpt anj,,te, ,l?Sif,,|t!?il, 
 
 3 1924 028 717 324 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028717324 
 
Afap/. 
 
 Frontispiece . 
 
 a-^° 
 
 Mol6ilicMout/i- 
 
 /^vainUic MouUfi^ 
 
 Ze/3hyr/um Carvopic 
 Tapos/r/s Psrva J 
 A/exancTria £L 
 
 C/iersooesus , 
 
 ' Taniiic Moui/f 
 
 The Delta of the Nile 
 
 TO ILLUSTRATE 
 
 THE CONQUEST 
 
 *»"'" 
 
 10 15 29 2S SO SS 
 
 I>arbCstvbre,i:.Sfan/orcf Ltd. 
 
 OosforcC. 
 
THE 
 
 AEAB CONQUEST OF EGYPT 
 
 AND THE 
 
 LAST THIRTY YEARS OF THE 
 
 ROMAN DOMINION 
 
 BY 
 
 ALFRED J. BUTLER, D.Litt., F.S.A. 
 
 fellow" OF BBASENOSE COLLEGE 
 AUTHOR OF ' THE ANCIENT COPTIC CHURCHES OF EGYPT,' ETC. 
 
 OXFORD 
 
 AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 1902 
 
HENRY FROWDE, M.A. 
 
 PtTBLISHEB TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD 
 
 LONDON, EDINBURGH 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
PREFACE 
 
 For this book, so far as its purpose is concerned, 
 perhaps no apology is needed. It aims at con- 
 structing a history, at once broad and detailed, of 
 the Saracen conquest of Egypt. No such history 
 has yet been written, although scattered essays on 
 the subject may be found from Gibbon onwards — 
 brief sketches or chapters in some wider treatise 
 upon the Roman or the Arab empire. Indeed the 
 fact that no serious and minute study upon the 
 conquest exists in any language is not a little 
 remarkable : but it has been mainly due to two 
 causes — the scantiness of the material accessible to 
 ordinary students, and the total want of agreement 
 among the authorities, familiar or unfamiliar, eastern 
 or western. 
 
 The subject consequently has been wrapped in 
 profound obscurity; to enter upon it was to enter 
 a gloomy labyrinth of contradictions. This may 
 seem exaggerated language : but it is no more than 
 the truth, and it is borne out by the opinion of a 
 very well-known writer, Mr. E. W. Brooks, who says : 
 ' There is scarcely any important event in history of 
 which the accounts are so vague and so discrepant 
 as the capture of Alexandria. The whole history of 
 the irruption of the Saracens into the [Roman] 
 empire is indeed dark and obscure : but of all the 
 events of this dark period the conquest of Egypt is 
 the darkest ^' To render this obscurity in some 
 
 ' Myzaniim'sche Zeilsckrift, 1895, p. 435. 
 
iv Preface 
 
 degree luminous, to bring together the results of 
 recent inquiry, turning to use the mass of fresh 
 material now available, to test the oriental authorities 
 one against another and to set them in comparison 
 with other groups of authorities, and so by the light 
 of research and criticism to place the study of this 
 period on a scientific basis — that at least is the 
 design with which this work has been undertaken. 
 How far the achievement falls short of the design 
 I am fully conscious. In some cases the method 
 failed : it was, in the words of Maeterlinck, 
 'like turning a magnifying glass on silence and 
 darkness.' In other cases failure has been due to 
 my own shortcomings, such as the slightness of my 
 acquaintance with Arabic, and the difficulty of 
 carrying on in isolated fragments of leisure a work 
 demanding concentration of mind and close and 
 continuous study. Nevertheless the result will, it is 
 hoped, provoke further inquiry. Certainly I have 
 been forced to disagree with nearly all the received 
 conclusions upon the subject of the conquest. Even 
 in the most recent historians it will be found that 
 the outline of the story is something as follows : 
 that before the actual invasion of Egypt the country 
 was laid under tribute to the Arabs by Cyrus for 
 three or more years ; that the refusal of the tribute 
 by Manuel occasioned the invasion ; that the 
 Mukaukas, who was a Copt, sided with the Arabs ; 
 that the Copts generally hailed them as deliverers 
 and rendered them every assistance; and that 
 Alexandria after a long siege, full of romantic epi- 
 sodes, was captured by storm. Such is the received 
 account. It may seem presumptuous to say that it 
 is untrue from beginning to end, but to me no other 
 
Preface v 
 
 conclusion is possible. Yet every one of these 
 statements, when its foundation is discovered, is 
 seen to rest on a truth or a half-truth ; and nothing 
 is more interesting than to trace the manner in 
 which facts have been misplaced or misunderstood, 
 and so used in the construction of false history or 
 legend. 
 
 Fault may perhaps be found with the fullness of 
 the notes in places. The answer is that in dealing 
 with a vast mass of controversial and contradictory 
 matter I have felt bound to give both my authorities 
 and my reasons at more length than would have 
 been requisite in dealing with simpler materials. So 
 too of the Appendices, which are very copious. But 
 it was absolutely necessary to construct for oneself 
 the whole framework both of the history and of the 
 chronology. It was impossible, for example, to 
 write about the conquest until one had determined 
 who the Mukaukas was, or until one had worked out 
 the scheme of chronology. It would not have done 
 merely to state what are often quite novel con- 
 clusions without setting out the data on which they 
 are founded ; and those data are exceedingly com- 
 plex, whether the question be the personality of Al 
 Mukaukas, or the chronology of the Persian or of 
 the Arab conquest. 
 
 In regard to the scope of the work, it seemed that 
 the mere invasion of Egypt by the Arabs should 
 not be treated as an isolated event, that its historic 
 significance could only be rightly understood in rela- 
 tion to those great movements which brought the 
 ancient empires of Rome and Persia into collision 
 with the rising empire of Arabia. In some such way 
 alone could the conquest be shown in its true per- 
 
vi Preface 
 
 pective. The reign of Heraclius offers an obvious 
 starting-point, and happens to begin with some very 
 vivid but almost unknown pictures from scenes in 
 Egypt. It covers too the downfall of Persia, the 
 active life of Mohammed, the loss of Jerusalem and 
 Syria to the Caesars, and the Persian conquest of 
 Egypt by Chosroes ; and it illustrates the political 
 and religious causes which were at work preparing 
 the way for the sword of IslAm and the Kurdn. At 
 the same time the action of events passing outside 
 the borders of Egypt has for the most part been 
 traced but lightly and kept subordinate to the main 
 purpose of the book. 
 
 The sources and authorities for the history of the 
 period chosen require some discussion. Of the short 
 notices in western writers of more modern date 
 Ockley's romantic History of the Saracens is almost 
 as well known as Gibbon's Roman Empire. Sharpe's 
 Egypt under the Romans is not of much value. 
 More recent information is given in Prof. Bury's 
 edition of Gibbon, and the same writer's Later 
 Roman Empire ; in Mr. Milne's Egypt under the 
 Romans; and in Prof. S. Lane- Poole's ^^^/^ /;« the 
 Middle Ages and his Cairo in the 'Mediaeval Towns' 
 Series. Weil's Geschichte der Chalifen is valuable, even 
 indispensable, but some what out of date. Von Ranke's 
 Weltgeschichte contains a passage on the conquest and 
 an essay on Amru in Aegypten, which rehearse the 
 conventional story. Indeed Von Ranke's opinion may 
 be summed up in his own words : ' The conquest of 
 Egypt resulted from the desertion of a treacherous 
 ruler of the Copts to the Arab standard '^ — 
 an opinion which can no longer hold the field. Of 
 ' Vol. v> pt. i. p. X43 ; the Essay id., pt. ii. pp. 268 seq. 
 
Preface vii 
 
 the larger French histories one must mention de 
 Saint-Martin's edition of Le Beau's Histoire du Bas 
 Empire, to which later writers' add little or nothing. 
 Thus the passage in Sedillot's Histoire Gindrale 
 des Arabes upon the conquest contains scarcely one 
 accurate sentence. Even C. Diehl can write in his 
 admirable Afrique Byzantine, ' Les Coptes embras- 
 serent presque sans resister le parti de I'envahisseur 
 et assurerent par leur defection la victoire des 
 Musulmans' (p. 553)- But Renaudot's Historia 
 Patriarcharum A lexandrinortcm is a work of pro- 
 found scholarship and research, and its importance is 
 undiminished, as far as it goes. The learned works 
 of Quatremere, who was remarkable alike for the 
 range of his knowledge and the acumen of his judge- 
 ments, have lost little of their value for students of 
 Egyptian history. Yet even if western accounts 
 were less defective, a fresh inquiry of this kind must 
 be based on the original authorities. Of these the 
 Greek writers are very disappointing. Theophanes, 
 who wrote in 813, has wholly misunderstood the 
 Arab conquest. His brief and hurried summary 
 confuses the first and second capture of Alexandria — 
 though he mentions neither — invents a treaty with 
 the Arabs previous to the invasion, and is void of all 
 perspective. He is thus responsible for a good deal 
 of false history. Nicephorus is somewhat better, but 
 unfortunately there is a blank in his text from 641 
 to 668 : what remains is a ' mere list of defeated 
 generals.' Both writers are fragmentary: they 
 disagree with each other ; and in both the chronology 
 is impossible. John Moschus, as well as the Patriarchs 
 of Jerusalem, Zackarias and Sophronius, are religious 
 writers of the late sixth or early seventh century, 
 
viii Preface 
 
 from whose works some incidental references to 
 events preceding the conquest may be gathered. 
 Leonims of Neapolis in Cyprus has left an interesting 
 biography of John the Almoner, Patriarch of Alex- 
 andria, which is useful for the Persian conquest and 
 has been admirably edited by Gelzer. The Chronicon 
 Paschale or Alexandrinum was probably written in 
 the early seventh century in Egypt, but does not go 
 down to the conquest ; while the Latin Chronicon 
 Orientate of Echellensis is dated 1238 a. d. 
 
 The Armenian authorities seem almost useless for 
 the conquest of Egypt, though they deal in great 
 detail with the wars of the Roman Empire against 
 Persia, and the loss of Syria. The bishop Sebeos 
 wrote a history, which has appeared in Russian, and 
 which Mr. Conybeare has edited with an English 
 translation, but not yet published : it throws a good 
 deal of light on this period, but little or none on 
 Egypt. Michael the Syrian, edited by Langlois, 
 seems to follow Theophanes : Chabot's far better 
 edition is not yet complete. The Syrian Elijah of 
 Nisibis exists in MS. in the British Museum, but 
 a portion relating to the Arab conquest has been 
 published by Bathgen. 
 
 Coming now to Egyptian writers, one must place 
 first and foremost John of Nikiou, a Coptic bishop 
 who wrote in Egypt towards the end of the seventh 
 century, and was born probably about the time of 
 the conquest. His history of the world was originally 
 written partly in Coptic and partly in Greek, but it 
 seems to have been translated into Arabic at a very 
 early date. On this Arabic was founded the only 
 surviving version of John's Chronicle, which is in 
 Ethiopic, and which Zotenberg has translated and 
 
Preface ix 
 
 edited. Where the text is clear and uncorrupted, it 
 is of extreme value : but most unhappily it is almost 
 a complete blank from the accession of Heraclius to 
 the arrival of the Arabs before Babylon : thus the 
 story of the Persian conquest and the recovery of 
 Egypt has dropped out, and the history of the later 
 stages of the Arab conquest is in such a tumbled 
 and topsy-turvy state that the true order and 
 meaning of the narrative are almost past the power 
 of criticism to reconstitute. Yet certain cardinal 
 facts are established which, though at variance with 
 later Arab tradition, must be regarded as of absolutely 
 unimpeachable authority, and as furnishing a firm 
 and sure basis for the study of this epoch. Indeed 
 it is the acquisition of John's MS. by the British 
 Abyssinian expedition which has made it possible to 
 write a history of the Arab conquest of Egypt. It 
 is much to be hoped that a Coptic or Arabic version 
 of John of Nikiou, anterior to the Ethiopic, may one 
 day be discovered ^. Dr. Schafer has already found 
 in the Berlin Museum a Sa'idic fragment of six 
 leaves showing, as Mr. Crum notes, a remarkably 
 close relation to John's Chronicle. Zotenberg's 
 edition is defective in some points of translation and 
 in the calculation of dates ; but scholars are awaiting 
 with much interest the appearance of Dr. Charles' 
 English translation. 
 
 ^ M. Am61ineau in his Vie du Patriarche Cople Isaac (p. xxiv. n.) 
 professes to know of an Arabic MS. of John's Chronicle. In reply 
 to my inquiry asking where this precious document is to be found, 
 he will only say that it is ' au fond d'une province de I'figypte ' — 
 a remark which does not illuminate the mystery. On p. xxvi of 
 the same work is a critique strangely depreciating both John and 
 his history: a critique with which I disagree as decidedly as 
 I disagree with M. Am^lineau's chronology of this period. 
 
X Preface 
 
 Of early Coptic MSS. very few are known with 
 any bearing on the subject. The Bodleian frag- 
 ment of the Life of Benjamin has been edited by 
 Amdlineau (Fragments Coptes pour servir a I' Histoire 
 de la Conguiie de F^gypte in Journal Asiatique for 
 1888) : and the same scholar has published the Life 
 of Samuel of Kalamdn in Momiments pour servir 
 a r Histoire de VJ&gypte Chrdtienne aux IV^-VII" 
 Siecles. An Ethiopic version of this same Life of 
 Samuel, Vida do Abba Samuel do Mosteiro do 
 Kalamon, has been published by F. M. E. Pereira, 
 who has also edited from the Ethiopic a Vida do 
 Abba Daniel, To Am^lineau also we owe the 
 Life of Pisentios and the Life of the Patriarch Isaac 
 — ^both seventh-century Coptic documents with 
 passages of great interest : and the Arabic Life of 
 Shenoudi, also edited by Amdlineau, is certainly 
 based on a Coptic original. But the historical 
 value of these Coptic documents is not very great. 
 The writers were set upon recording matters of 
 Church interest — the more miraculous the better — 
 and their minds were almost closed to the great 
 movements of the world about them. It is useless 
 lamenting that, where they might have told us so 
 much, they furnish only a few scanty and incidental 
 allusions to contemporary history. 
 
 But the regret is all the keener because John of 
 Nikiou and other writers of the seventh century 
 are divided by a great gulf from the Arabic writers 
 — a gulf of nearly two centuries. It is true that 
 there is some hope of bridging the gulf when the 
 immense mass of Faydm and other papyri comes to 
 be examined. Those at present published by Drs. 
 Grenfell and Hunt and by Mr. Crum are of little avail 
 
Preface xi 
 
 for the conquest : but the Arabic papyri, which Prof. 
 Karabacek is editing, will certainly throw light upon 
 it, as is proved by his already published catalogue 
 of samples shown at the Vienna Exhibition, in 
 which letters occur from actors in the conquest 
 named both by John of Nikiou and by Arab 
 historians. 
 
 Of the Arab historians one cannot pretend to give 
 an exhaustive list, but a brief notice of the principal 
 ones may be useful. One of the earliest and the 
 most esteemed of the Arab writers was Al Wakidt 
 (747-823 A. D.), whose work is lost save for copious 
 extracts and allusions which survive in other 
 historians. Those works, such as Kitdb FuMk 
 Misr, which bear his name, are wrongly attributed 
 to him, but are often for convenience cited as his 
 rather than clumsily ascribed to ' Pseudo-Wakidaeus.' 
 
 A I BalMhurt (806-92) was educated at Bagh- 
 dad but frequented the court of various caliphs. 
 He wrote circa 868 the Futtlk al Bulddn — a book 
 of conquests arranged according to countries or 
 provinces. If not quite the earliest or the fullest, 
 he is certainly among the most valuable authorities : 
 but he makes it clear that even in the ninth century 
 there was great difference of opinion upon the 
 details of the conquest of Egypt. His name is 
 derived from balddhur or anacardium, an overdose of 
 
 ' Further information may be found in Mr. E. W. Brooks' 
 articles, {i)On the Chronology of the Conquest of Egypt hy the Saracens, 
 in Byzantinische Zeitschrtft for 1895 ; {2) The Arabs in Asia Minor, 
 ra Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. xviii, 1898 ; (3) Byzantines and 
 Arabs in the time of the Early Ahbasids, in English Historical 
 Review for Oct., 1900: see also Mr. Guest's article on the writers 
 quoted by Al Makrizi in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 
 Jan. 1902. 
 
xii Preface 
 
 which caused his death. Al Baladhuri was unknown 
 
 to Weil. 
 
 Ibn 'Add al Hakam died at Fustat in 870. His 
 work exists only in a unique unpublished MS. at 
 Paris, but arrangements are being made for its 
 publication, to which oriental scholars look forward 
 with keen interest. Copious extracts from this 
 writer are given both by later Arabic historians and 
 by Weil and Quatremere. There is a good deal of 
 romance mingled with history in Ibn "Abd al 
 Hakam's chronicle ; but a critical edition of it would 
 be of very great importance. 
 
 There are a number of early geographical writers 
 in Arabic from whom many notes and references of 
 historical value may be gathered. The text of 
 most of them may be found in De Goeje's Bibliotheca 
 Geographica Arabica. Among them may be named 
 Al Istakkrt (probably ninth century) ; Abu 'I Kdsim 
 ibn Haukal (flor. circa 960) ; Shams ad Dtn al 
 Makdast; Ibn Rustah and Ibn al FaMh (flor. circa 
 900) ; Ibn Wddhih or A I YdMbt (died 874), a very 
 valuable authority, but again unknown to Weil ; and 
 Al Masudt (flor. circa 960), a careful observer, and 
 of great importance for the monuments of Alexandria. 
 
 Ibn Kutaibah (828-89) ^'^^ l^ft in his Kitdb al 
 Mddrif^L. sort of historical and biographical lexicon, 
 as Wustenfeld says, 'the oldest among all the 
 purely historical works of the Arabs now extant ' : 
 but he seems to have written entirely from oral 
 tradition without the use of books. His writings are 
 much quoted by later Arab authors, although, as 
 might be expected, his matter is generally meagre 
 and his style sketchy. 
 
 We now come to a writer of high repute and, for 
 
Preface xiii 
 
 the most part, of high importance, At Tabari (839-^ 
 923). Born in Tabaristan, whence his name, after 
 receiving a very good education he travelled in 
 Irak, Syria, and Egypt, studying the Kuran, tradi- 
 tion, law and history. Returning he settled at 
 Baghdad and engaged in teaching and writing. His 
 narrative is as a rule painstaking, minute, and 
 circumstantial, but most unfortunately it is singularly 
 wanting for the conquest of Egypt. For not only 
 is the recital exceedingly scanty, but Tabari's ideas 
 of geography and of chronology are confused and 
 confusing, although the fault lies probably less with 
 the historian than with the copyists who cut down 
 the original, and had no knowledge to guide them 
 in their selection and rejection of different passages 
 and versions put side by side in the chronicle. 
 This may explain the curious fact that he seems to 
 place the capture of Alexandria before the capture 
 of Memphis or Misr. 
 
 The Christian writer Sdtd ibn Batrtk is too well 
 known under his more usual name of Eutychius 
 to need many words. He was born at Fustat in 
 876 and died in 940. A distinguished student of 
 medicine, theology, and history, he became Melkite 
 Patriarch from 933 to his death. His annals end in 
 938. He wove together in a very readable but 
 uncritical story the various threads of narrative 
 found in his authorities, and he has preserved many 
 details of great interest. His chronology has a fixed 
 error of eight years apart from any eccentricity. 
 Another Christian, the Coptic bishop of Ushmdnain, 
 Severus, ibn Mukaffd, has written a Lives of the 
 Patriarchs which is unpublished and little known, 
 save for the use which Renaudot has made of the 
 
xiv Preface 
 
 work. There are three known MSS. of this author, 
 one at the British Museum of about fifteenth 
 century, one at the Bibliotheque Nationale of about 
 fourteenth, and one considerably earlier — perhaps 
 twelfth century — in the possession of Marcus Simai- 
 kah Bey at Cairo. While for matters of Church 
 history Severus is valuable, his authority upon 
 secular history is slender. He lived in the tenth 
 century, but the exact date of his death has not 
 been ascertained. The Paris MS. has a preface 
 written by Mahbdb ibn Mansiir, a deacon of Alex- 
 andria in the latter half of the eleventh century, 
 who edited the ' Lives.' In his own preface Severus 
 says that he had recourse to some Copts to get 
 Greek and Coptic documents turned into Arabic, 
 as the two former languages even then were un- 
 known to most Christians. This is interesting both 
 as showing the state of decay reached by Coptic 
 and Greek, and as showing Severus' own ignorance 
 of both languages. Indeed the evidence as regards 
 Coptic is so remarkable as to seem barely credible 
 (see the Paris Catalogue of MSS., ed. de Slane, 
 p. 83). 
 
 From the ecclesiastical history of the Egyptian 
 Severus we pass to a treatise on political jurispru- 
 dence by ^/ Mdwardt of Baghdad (975-1058). As 
 lawyer, judge, and statesman he attained a very 
 high position, and was no less remarkable for his 
 acumen and learning than for his integrity and 
 independence of character. His Political Constitu- 
 tions is a work of great ability and research, and 
 the main source of our knowledge on the principles 
 of Muslim taxation, as well as upon many other 
 matters of law and custom. 
 
Preface xv 
 
 With this exception, from the tenth century we 
 have to leap across another gap to the twelfth, 
 in which we find the geography oi Al Idrisi, 
 who was a great traveller, and at the age of about 
 60 in the year 11 54 was an honoured guest at 
 the court of Roger II in Sicily. Idrlsl's writings 
 contain a mass of valuable information. A little 
 later are the annals of Ibn al Athtr (11 60- 12 32); 
 those of Abil Sdlih his contemporary, who wrote 
 circa 1200 and may have been born a few years 
 before Ibn al Athtr ; and also the biographical 
 dictionary of Ibn Khallikdn. Ibn al Athlr was a 
 native of Mesopotamia, but studied chiefly at Mausil 
 and Baghdad. Most of his life was spent in study 
 or literary work, but he cannot be regarded for 
 o.ur purpose as other than an inferior authority. 
 His account of the conquest seems based on a 
 bad epitome of Tabarl, and it only multiplies per- 
 plexity : yet, curiously enough, when once the 
 dark passage of the conquest is over, his Faultless 
 Chronicle, as he called it, begins to increase in 
 value. It seems as if there were a fate consigning 
 the conquest to oblivion. Ibn Khallikin, who was 
 a personal friend of Ibn al Athlr, has left a most 
 useful work in his Biographies, from which I have 
 drawn much information. There is an excellent 
 edition of the book in French by MacGuckin de 
 Slane. Abli Silih's history of the Chirches and 
 Monasteries of Egypt is now well known owing to 
 Mr. B. T. Evetts' Oxford edition. 
 
 The Short Egyptian History of ^Abd al Latif 
 has long been known from White's edition with 
 Latin translation. Born in 1161 at Baghdad, the 
 writer saw a good deal of the war with the Crusaders 
 
xvi Preface 
 
 in the time of Saladin, though he was no soldier. 
 But he travelled all over ihe Levant, and stayed a 
 great deal in Egypt, where he first went to hear the 
 wisdom of Maimonides, As doctor, philosopher, and 
 historian he won a very great reputation for learn- 
 ing ; but his contribution to the history of Egypt 
 is marred both by brevity and by discursiveness. 
 
 Ydkut (i 178-1228) is an interesting person and 
 for the most part a sound authority. Born a Roman 
 subject, he was sold as a slave at Baghdad to a 
 merchant and was sent on trading journeys to the 
 Persian Gulf. He parted on some quarrel from his 
 master and took to study, while earning his living 
 as a copyist. By 1200 he had become reconciled 
 to his master, and again was trading to the island 
 of Kis ; but upon his return he found the merchant 
 dead. He then turned bookseller, author, and 
 traveller. About 12 13 he visited Tabriz, Syria, 
 Mausil, and Egypt : two years later he went east- 
 ward from Damascus, and at the well-stocked library 
 of Merv laid the foundation of his Geographical 
 Dictionary, the rough draft of which he finished in 
 1224. But he found it necessary to make a second 
 journey to Alexandria, and his fair copy was not 
 begun till 1227 in Aleppo. In the midst of his 
 labours he died in the following year. It is much 
 to be regretted that he was unable to revise what 
 still remains a work of great historical as well as 
 geographical importance. 
 
 The Chronicle of Al MaMn or Idn al 'Amid, 
 called the History of the Muslims, is a collection of 
 scanty notes arranged according to chronology. The 
 book is well known from the text and Latin transla- 
 tion published by Erpenius in 1625 ; and it has been 
 
Preface xvii 
 
 much quoted by Gibbon and others, to whom it was 
 one of the few Arabic authorities accessible. Less 
 well known is Renaudot's judgement: 'qui Elmacinum 
 sequuntur, si Arabice nesciant, non ipsum sed inter- 
 pretem sequi deprehenduntur, qui, ut in multis saepe 
 falsus est, ita circa annorum Arabicorum cum Romanis 
 comparationem saepissime ' {Hist. Pat. Alex. p. 172) : 
 and again in regard to dates,' infinitis exemplis constat 
 hallucinari saepissime Elmacinum' (id., ib.). Makin 
 seems, as Renaudot shows, to have founded his 
 chronicle, or a large part of it, on Severus — a fact 
 which accounts for some of its untrustworthiness. 
 The date of Makln's birth is circa 1205, but his 
 history stops short of his own time by about a 
 century. Although he was an Egyptian Christian, 
 his work must be regarded as of small value to the 
 student of Egyptian history. 
 
 AbH 7 Faraj (1226-86), called also Barhebraeus 
 from his Jewish extraction, was born at Malatia 
 in Armenia. He is well known from the Historia 
 Dynasiiarum, edited by Pococke with a Latin 
 translation. This history, written in Arabic, is 
 an abridgement by Abta '1 Faraj of a larger work 
 written in Syriac. It contains the first detailed 
 statement of the alleged burning of the Alexandrian 
 library, but adds very little to our knowledge of the 
 Arab conquest. The Chronicon Ecclesiasticum in 
 Syriac by the same writer treats rather of the Syrian 
 than the Alexandrian Church, but yields a few facts 
 of value for our period. Abti '1 Faraj was a Jacobite 
 Christian, who became bishop and finally Patriarch 
 of his community. 
 
 Another Biographical Dictionary — that oi An 
 Nawawt — contains a good deal which is of general 
 
xviii Preface 
 
 interest, though not much of direct bearing on the 
 conquest. He was born at Nawd near Damascus in 
 1234; he devoted his life to study and teaching; and 
 he died of overwork. His tomb is still preserved, 
 and is revered as that of a saint. Al Kazwtnt, who 
 died in 1283, has left a Book of the Monuments of the 
 Countries — a sort of guide to antiquities — which 
 1 have found of service in questions of archaeology. 
 
 The Geography of Abil 'I Fidd next claims mention. 
 Valuable in itself, it is further enriched by the 
 excellent edition of Reinaud, the introduction to 
 which contains a very useful essay on the sources 
 of Arab geography in general. Abti '1 Fidd was a 
 distinguished person. He came of the same family 
 as Saladin and was reared in the same school of 
 chivalry, delighting in battle from his very boyhood. 
 Yet his intellectual side was strongly developed. He 
 ended his life not merely as student and man of 
 letters, but as Sultan of the principality of Hamat, 
 where his court was the resort of men renowned 
 in every branch of art and literature. He was born 
 in 1273 and died in 1331. 
 
 It may not be out of place, if, while speaking 
 of geography, I here refer in passing to Amdlineau's 
 Gdographie de V^gypte d V^poque Copte as an 
 extremely useful work of reference for place-names 
 both in Coptic and in Arabic, and also to Mr. Le 
 Strange's essay on the Arab geographers in the 
 Introduction to his Palestine tmder the Moslems. 
 
 The name of Ibn KhaldUn (i 332-1405) reminds 
 us of the western extension of the Muslim empire. 
 Though he himself was born at Tunis, his family 
 had long been settled in Spain, and left Seville for 
 Ceuta about a century before his birth. He studied 
 
Preface xix 
 
 first in Tunis and then in Tilimsdn : later he fol- 
 lowed the Sultan of Granada back to Spain, and 
 in person negotiated the treaty with Don Pedro 
 the Cruel, King of Castile, which enabled the Sultan 
 to re-enter his capital. Ibn Khaldtin's history, as it 
 survives, is blurred and darkened where it deals with 
 the conquest of Egypt ; yet it has passages of great 
 value and striking authenticity. 
 
 In Al Makrizt (1365-1441) we have an Egyptian 
 authority, a Cairene by birth. His well-known 
 A I Khitat wal Athdr is a monument of laborious 
 compilation. He was a most voluminous writer, and 
 he had access to a vast number of authorities, the 
 greater part of whose works have absolutely perished. 
 Accordingly he is, in mere point of matter, the most 
 important of our authorities. But among his sources 
 are very many authorities of small value, and ob- 
 scure or even apocryphal writers. Hence with all 
 his zeal and his labour Makrizl cannot be said 
 to show any real critical or constructive power in 
 dealing with the mass of rough material at his 
 disposal. 
 
 To I6n Hajar al Askaldn£ {i ^72-14.4.8) we owe 
 another Dictionary of Biography, which is useful for 
 the life of ' Amr and other leaders at the time of the 
 conquest. Born at Ascalon, as his name denotes, 
 he travelled a great deal in Syria, Arabia, and Egypt. 
 He made the pilgrimage when he was ten years old, 
 turned successively merchant, poet, and man of letters, 
 and died at a ripe old age in Cairo. 
 
 AbH 'I MaMsin (1409-69) was the son of a slave 
 
 whom the Sultan Barkfik raised to be governor first 
 
 of Aleppo, then of Damascus : but the historian 
 
 himself was born in Cairo and there educated, 
 
 b 3 
 
XX Preface 
 
 counting Makrlzl among his teachers. His history of 
 Egypt is compiled on much the same method as 
 that employed by Makrlzl, i. e. he sets out different 
 versions of an event with little or no attempt to 
 criticize or decide between them. 
 
 The last of the historians to be named here is 
 As SiiyMt {144.^-1 $os), whose Husn al Muhddarak 
 is largely founded upon Makrlzl, from whom he 
 borrows whole passages verbatim. Suytiti was 
 a native of Cairo, though his family, originally of 
 Persian extraction, had been settled for nearly three 
 centuries at Siiit in Upper Egypt, His father was 
 a Cadi in Cairo, who taught in the Shaikanlah and 
 preached in the mosque of Ibn Tliliin. He began 
 to write at a very early age, and boasted that his 
 works were known in Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia, 
 North Africa, and even Ethiopia : but his vanity and 
 pugnacity made him very unpopular, and after losing 
 or resigning the various professorships which he held, 
 he retired in dudgeon to the Isle of Raudah, where 
 he died. His history shows many signs of de- 
 generacy even in comparison with his immediate 
 predecessors ; but it is true of him, as of the others, 
 that his selection of versions or traditions contains 
 points of information or interest overlooked or 
 rejected in other selections. 
 
 But there is one other writer of considerable 
 importance, not a historian but a writer on topo- 
 graphy and archaeology, whose work was only 
 discovered in 189 1. I refer to Ibn Dukmdk, who 
 was apparently an Egyptian, and who died in 1406. 
 The Arabic text has been published by Dr. Vollers, 
 whose preface appreciates very justly the remarkable 
 erudition of the author. The main purpose of the 
 
Preface xxi 
 
 work is indicated by its title — Description of Egypt — 
 and many of the facts which Ibn Dukmak preserves, 
 especially in relation to the antiquities of Fust4t and 
 of Alexandria, are entirely novel and extraordinarily 
 interesting. To give one example, he shows that 
 the original gateway of the Roman fortress under 
 the church of Al Mu'allakah was in ordinary daily 
 use in the year 1400. It is to be hoped that Dr. 
 VoUers may publish a translation of this curious 
 work. 
 
 These then are the chief oriental authorities which 
 I have drawn upon for this history. Not one of 
 them contains a clear, a connected, or, as I am bound 
 to say, an accurate account of the Arab conquest. 
 Their confusion of dates, of events, and of persons 
 almost passes belief. The confusion of the chrono- 
 logy, and the labour it took to build a scheme both 
 for the Persian and for the Arab conquest, may partly 
 be judged from the Appendices. Theodore, the 
 Roman commander-in-chief, seems unknown to the 
 Arab writers, being confounded with some subordinate 
 leader : Cyrus is confounded with Benjamin : the 
 capture of the town of Misr is confounded with the 
 taking of Egypt (Misr), and with the capture of 
 Alexandria : the Treaty of Babylon is confounded with 
 the Treaty of Alexandria : and the first surrender of 
 Alexandria under treaty is confounded with the second 
 capture by storm at the time of Manuel's rebellion. 
 Of course I am very far from pretending to have 
 made all this tangle plain ; but I have endeavoured 
 to trace the main sources of confusion and to get at 
 the facts underlying the discrepancies of the records. 
 I have also tried to write without bias in favour 
 of either Copts or Arabs. Beginning my study with 
 
xxii Preface 
 
 the prevalent opinion that the Copts sided gladly 
 with the Muslim invaders, I have been forced to the 
 conclusion that history in this has greatly maligned 
 the Copts ; and in the same way, beginning with the 
 common belief that the Arabs burned the library of 
 Alexandria, I have been forced to the conclusion 
 that history in this has greatly maligned the Arabs. 
 Both results were equally welcome ; for I have much 
 admiration for both peoples; but I hold a brief 
 for neither. My one aim has been to discover 
 and set out the truth, but I may hope that both 
 Copts and Arabs will be interested in this attempt 
 to distinguish fact from falsehood and to throw 
 light upon a very dark chapter in the history of 
 Egypt. 
 
 In the spelling of Arabic words I have followed 
 generally the system adopted in the Clarendon Press 
 edition of Abli Salih, and sanctioned by the use 
 of many English scholars : but I have not thought 
 it necessary to transliterate in this manner words 
 which have become naturalized in English, as 
 Mohammed or Omar, Mecca or Cairo. In names of 
 persons and places to which the article A lis pre- 
 fixed, I have for the most part omitted the A I, as is 
 done by Mr. Le Strange in his scholarly Baghdad. 
 In certain cases it has proved far from easy to choose 
 between competing Greek, Coptic, and Arabic forms 
 of the same word : thus while, for example, I have 
 preferred the Graeco-Coptic Nikiou, as the form 
 in use at the time of the conquest, to the Arabic 
 Nakyiis, which is practically a dead word to-day, 
 yet in speaking of the Faytlm I felt obliged to use 
 the familiar term rather than the Coptic Piom or the 
 Graeco-Roman Arsinoite Nome. These inconsis- 
 
Preface xxiii 
 
 tencies are often deliberate, therefore, even if wrong, 
 and must not at least be added to the list of un- 
 intended errors and imperfections in the book. 
 
 My thanks are due to the Rev. Dr. R. H. Charles 
 for the loan of his translation of John of Nikiou ; to 
 Mr. F. C. Conybeare for the loan of an English 
 version of Sebeos; to Mr. B. T. Evetts for many 
 translations from Arabic authors ; and to Mr, W. E. 
 Crum, Mr. E. W. Brooks, and Professor VoUers of 
 Jena, for valuable suggestions and criticisms. Among 
 those who helped me during a recent visit to Egypt 
 I must mention with gratitude His Eminence the 
 Shaikh Muhammad 'Abduh, Grand Mufti of Egypt, 
 who presented me with his own notes and extracts 
 relating to the conquest; Marcus Simaikah Bey, 
 who helped me to collate his MS. of Severus and 
 rendered me most useful assistance in many forms 
 unsparingly ; Max Hertz Bey, who furnished me 
 with much information concerning the Roman fortress 
 at Babylon and other points of art and archaeology; 
 Capt. Lyons, R.E., of the Public Works Depart- 
 ment ; Mons. P. Casanova, Director of the Institut 
 Frangais; and Mr. E. A. Floyer, Head of the 
 Telegraph Department, who aided me freely in 
 questions relating to place-names and topography 
 generally. Above all, my warmest acknowledgements 
 are due to my friend the Very Rev. Dean Butcher 
 of Cairo for the opportunity of revisiting Egypt in 
 connexion with this work, and for the unfailing 
 sympathy and encouragement with which he has 
 followed and lightened it. 
 
 A. J. B. 
 
 Oxford, Sept. 22, 1902. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Preface 
 
 Chronological Tables : — 
 
 A. General 
 
 B. The Melkite Patriarchs of Alexandria 
 
 C. The Coptic Patriarchs of Alexandria 
 Chief Authorities and Editions 
 Note on conversion of Hijrah years 
 
 Chapter 
 
 I. Revolt of Heraclius 
 II. The Struggle for Egypt 
 
 III. Failure of Bonosus 
 
 IV. Accession of Heraclius . 
 V. Egypt under the new Emperor 
 
 VI. Persian Conquest of Syria 
 VII. Persian Conquest of Egypt 
 VIII. Art and Literature 
 IX. Crusade against Persia . 
 X. Exaltation of the Cross 
 XI. Rise of Mohammed . 
 XII. Arab Conquest of Syria 
 
 XIII. Great Persecution of the Copts by Cyrus 
 
 XIV. Arab Advance on Egypt 
 XV. Opening of the Campaign 
 
 XVI. Battle of Heliopolis 
 XVII. The Fortress of Babylon 
 XVIII. Siege and Surrender of Babylon 
 XIX. March on Alexandria 
 XX. Events at Constantinople 
 XXI. Surrender of Alexandria 
 
 page 
 iii 
 
 xxvu 
 
 xxviii 
 
 xxviii 
 
 xxix 
 
 , xxxiv 
 
 21 
 
 33 
 
 42 
 
 54 
 69 
 
 93 
 116 
 130 
 138 
 164 
 168 
 194 
 207 
 221 
 238 
 249 
 
 275 
 299 
 310 
 
XXVI Contents 
 
 Chapter 
 XXII. Reduction of the Coast Towns 
 
 XXIII. End of the Roman Dominion 
 
 XXIV. Alexandria at the Conquest 
 XXV. The Library of Alexandria 
 
 XXVI. Conquest of Pentapolis . 
 
 XXVII. Restoration of Benjamin. 
 
 XXVIII. Muslim Government 
 
 XXIX. Revolt of Alexandria under Manuel 
 
 XXX. Conclusion 
 
 Appendix 
 
 A. On the Relic called the Holy Rood 
 
 B. On the Chronology of the Persian Conquest 
 
 C. On the Identity of ' Al Mukaukas ' . 
 
 D. On the Chronology of the Arab Conquest 
 
 E. On the Age of 'Amr ibn al 'Ast 
 
 F. On the Dates of the Coptic Patriarchs after 
 
 Benjamin in the Seventh Century 
 
 Index 
 
 PAGE 
 
 328 
 358 
 368 
 401 
 427 
 439 
 447 
 465 
 484 
 
 496 
 498 
 508 
 526 
 546 
 
 548 
 563 
 
 MAPS AND PLANS 
 
 1. The Delta to illustrate the Conquest . .frontispiece 
 
 2. The Country from 'ArIsh to Tinnis . . to face page 209 
 
 3. The Isle of Raudah 248 
 
 4. The Fortress of Babylon .... to face page 240 
 
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES 
 
 A. General. 
 
 Revolt of Heraclius in Pentapolis 
 
 Struggle for the possession of Egypt 
 
 Heraclius crowned Emperor 
 
 Persian invasion of Syria .... 
 
 Capture of Jerusalem by the Persians 
 
 Visit of Athanasius to Alexandria 
 
 Persian advance into Egypt 
 
 Persian capture or surrender of Babylon . 
 
 Persian capture of Alexandria . 
 
 Subjugation of the whole of Egypt . 
 
 Heraclius' great campaign against Persia opens 
 
 Hijrah of Mohammed .... 
 
 Persian evacuation of Egypt 
 
 Mohammed's letters to the Rulers 
 
 Final defeat and death of Chosroes . 
 
 Exaltation of the recovered Cross at Jerusalem 
 
 Cyrus sent as Imperial Patriarch to Alexandria 
 
 The Great Persecution of the Copts . 
 
 Death of Mohammed .... 
 
 Arab conquest of Palestine and Syria 
 
 Heraclius' farewell to Syria 
 
 Surrender of Jerusalem to Omar 
 
 Invasion of Egypt : 'Amr at 'Arish , 
 
 Capture of Pelusium .... 
 
 'Amr's raid into the Fayflm 
 
 Arrival of reinforcements under Zubair 
 
 Battle of Heliopolis and capture of Misr . 
 
 Siege of fortress of Babylon begun 
 
 First treaty of Babylon made by Cyrus, Al Mukaukas, but 
 
 repudiated by Heraclius 
 Recall of Cyrus 
 Death of Heraclius . 
 
 end 
 
 A. D. 
 
 609 
 
 609-10 
 
 5 Oct. 610 
 
 614 
 
 of May, 615 
 
 Oct. 615 
 
 autumn, 616 
 
 spring, 617 
 
 end of 617 
 
 . 618 
 
 spring, 622 
 
 16 July, 622 
 
 627 
 
 . 627-8 
 
 Feb. 628 
 
 14 Sept. 629 
 
 631 
 
 631-41 
 
 632 
 
 629-40 
 
 • 636 
 
 • 637 
 12 Dec. 639 
 
 Jan. 640 
 
 May, 640 
 
 6 June, 640 
 
 July, 640 
 
 Sept. 640 
 
 Oct. 640 
 end of 640 
 II Feb. 641 
 
XXVIU 
 
 Chronological Tables 
 
 
 
 A. D. 
 
 Surrender of Babylon under (second) treaty 
 
 9 April, 641 
 
 Capture of Nikiou 
 
 13 May, 641 
 
 Alexandria attacked 
 
 
 end of June, 641 
 
 Return of Cyrus to Egypt 
 
 
 14 Sept. 641 
 
 Capitulation of Alexandria 
 
 
 . 8 Nov. 641 
 
 Excavation of Trajan's Canal ) 
 Building of Fustat j" 
 
 
 winter, 641-2 
 
 Death of Cyrus .... 
 
 
 21 March, 642 
 
 Enthronement of Cyrus' successor . 
 
 
 14 July, 642 
 
 Evacuation of Alexandria by the Romans 
 
 
 17 Sept. 642 
 
 'Amr's expedition to Pentapolis 
 
 
 winter, 642-3 
 
 Restoration of Benjamin . 
 
 
 autumn, 644 
 
 Revolt of Alexandria under Manuel . 
 
 
 . end of 645 
 
 Second battle of Nikiou . 
 
 
 late spring, 646 
 
 Recapture of Alexandria by the Arabs 
 
 
 summer, 646 
 
 Recall of 'Amr from Egypt 
 
 
 autumn, 646 
 
 Reinstatement of 'Amr as Governor of Egj 
 
 Pt 
 
 . Aug. 658 
 
 Death of Benjamin .... 
 
 
 . 3 Jan. 662 
 
 Death of 'Amr .... 
 
 
 . 6 Jan. 664 
 
 B. Melkite Patriarchs. 
 
 
 DATE OF CONSECRATION. 
 
 DATE OF DEATH. 
 
 Theodore 
 
 609 
 
 John the Almoner . . . 609 
 
 
 . 616 or 617 
 
 George 621 
 
 
 . 630 or 631 
 
 Cyrus 631 
 
 
 21 March, 642 
 
 Peter . . . .14 July, 642 
 
 
 unknown 
 
 C. Coptic Patriarchs. 
 
 
 DATE OF CONSECRATION. 
 
 DATE OF DEATH. 
 
 Anastasius . . . June, 604 . 
 
 . 18 Dec. 616 
 
 Andronicus . . . Dec. 616 . 
 
 . 3 Jan. 623 
 
 Benjamin . . . Jan. 623 . 
 
 . 3 Jan. 662 
 
 Agatho .... Jan. 662 . 
 
 . 13 Oct. 680 
 
 John of Samanfld . . Oct. 680 . 
 
 . 27 Nov. 689 
 
 Isaac . . . .4 Dec. 690 . 
 
 . s Nov. 693 
 
 Simon .... Jan.' 694 
 
 
 . 18 July, 701 
 
CHIEF AUTHORITIES AND EDITIONS 
 
 *Abd al LatJf: Historia Aegypti Compendiosa. Ed. White, 
 
 Oxford, 1800. 4to. 
 Ab^'lFaraj: Historia Dynastiarum. Ed.Pococke,Oxon. 1663. 4to. 
 Abu 'lFidI: Geography. Ed. J. T. Reinaud. Paris text 1840, 
 
 trans. 1848 and 1883. 3 vols. 4to. 
 Ab& 'l Mahasin : An NujUm az Zahirah, &c. Ed. Juynboll et 
 
 Matthes, Lugd. Bat. 1855-61. 2 vols. 
 Abu Salih : Churches and Monasteries of Egypt. Ed. Evetts and 
 
 Butler. Oxford, 1895. 4to. 
 Am]elineau, E. : Vie d!un Ev^que de Keft. Paris, 1887. 
 
 Fragments Coptes, Sec, in Journal Asiatique, 1888. 
 Histoire du Patriarche Copte Isaac. Paris, 1890. 
 
 8vo. 
 Vie de Shenoudi in Mdm. Miss. Arch. Fran9. t. IV. 
 
 i. p. 340. 
 Vie de Samuel: id., t. IV. ii. p. 774. 
 Geographic de V Egypte a tJ^poque Copte. Paris, 
 
 1893, &c. 8vo. 
 Histoire des Monasthes de la Basse Egypte. 
 Paris, 1894. 
 Ammianus Marcellinus. 
 
 BALADHURt, Al : Futiih al Bulddn. Ed. de Goeje. Lugd. Bat. 
 
 1866. 4to. 
 Barhebraeus (Abu 'l Faraj): Chronicon Ecclesiasticum. Ed. 
 
 Abbeloos et Lamy. Louvain, 
 
 1872. 3 parts. 8vo. 
 
 BoTTi, G. : L'Acropole d!Alexandrie et le S/rapeum. Alexandria, 
 
 1895. 8vo. 
 
 FouillesalaColonneThiodosienne. Alexandrie,i897. 8vo. 
 
 Brosset: Collection d' Historiens Armdniens. St. P^tersbourg, 1874. 
 
 2 torn. 8vo. 
 Bury, Prof. J. B. : Gibbon's Decline and Fall. London, 1896. 
 7 vols. 8vo. 
 History of the Later Roman Empire. London, 
 1889. 2 vols. 8vo. 
 
XXX Chief Authorities and Editions 
 
 Butcher, E. L. : Story of the Church of Egypt. London, 1897. 
 
 2 vols. 8vo. 
 Butler, A. J.; Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt. Oxford, 1884. 
 2 vols. 8vo. 
 
 Cedrenus. 
 
 Champollion: L'EgyptesouslesPharaons. Paris, 18 14. 2 vols. 8vo. 
 
 Chronicon Orientate, 
 
 Chronicon Paschale, ap. Migne, Patr. Gr. t. 92. 
 
 Crum, W. E. : Coptic Ostraka. London, 1902. 8vo, 
 
 D'Anville: Mimoires sur T Egypte. Paris, 1766. 4to. 
 De Bock, W. : Matiriaux pour servir h t Archiologie de VEgypte 
 Chritienne. St. Pdtersbourg, 1901. FoJ., with 
 plates. 
 De Goeje, M. J. : v. BaMdhuri and Tabari. 
 
 M^moire sur les Carmathes du Bahrain. Leyde, 
 
 1862. 
 Conquite de la Syrie. Leyde, 1864. 
 Bibliotheca Geographica Arabicorum. Lugd. Bat. 
 1870-79. 8vo. 
 DiEHL, C. : L' Afrique Byzantine. Paris, 1896. 8vo. 
 
 Justinien et la Civilisation Byzantine au VP Steele. 
 Paris, 1901. 8vo. 
 'Drap^yroNj'L.: L'Empereur S/raclius. Paris, 1869. 8vo. 
 Dulaurier: CAronologie Arm/nienne, Paris, 1859. 
 
 Egypt Exploration Fund Reports. 
 
 Epiphanius : De Ponder ibus et Mensuris. 
 
 EuNAPius : Vita Aedesii. 
 
 EvsEBivs : Ifistoria Ecclesiastica. Ed. Heinechen. Leipzig, 1828. 
 
 3 vols. 8vo. 
 EuTYCHius, Patriarcha Alexandrinus : Annales:ap. Migne, Patr, Gr. 
 Evetts and Butler : v. Abfl Sdlih. 
 
 Gavet, A.: Le Costume en igypte. Paris, 1900. 
 
 L'Art Copte. Paris, 1902. 8vo. 
 Gelzer, H. : Leontios' von Neapolis Leben des Heiligen fohannes. 
 
 Leipzig, 1893. 8vo. 
 George of Pisidia : ap. Migne. 
 
Chief Authorities and Editions xxxi 
 
 Gregorovius, F. ; The Emperor Hadrian : tr. M. E. Robinson. 
 London, 1898. 8vo. 
 
 Hamaker : Expugnatio Memphidis : v. Wakidt. 
 
 Holm, A.: History of Greece: tr. F. Clarke. London, 1898. 
 
 4 vols. 8vo. 
 Hyvernat, H. ; Actes des Martyrs de VEgypte. Paris, 1886. Fol. 
 
 Ibn 'Abd al Hakam. Paris MS. 
 
 Ibn al AthIr : Faultless Chronicle. Ed. C. J. Tornberg. Leyden, 
 
 1868-74. 
 Ibn al FakIh : v. De Goeje, Bill. Geog. Arab. 
 IB^f DuicmAk : Description de I Egypte. Arabic text. Ed. Dr. 
 
 K. VoUers. Cairo, 1893. 8vo. 
 Iss'&Kik^: Diet. Biogr. Ed. A. Sprenger and others. 1856. 4 vols. 
 Ibn Haukal: v. De Goeje, Bill. Geog. Arab. 
 Ibn Khaldun; Kitdb al dbar, &c. BMak, a. h. 1283. 7 parts. 
 Ibn Khallikan: Diet. Biogr. Ed. de Slane. Paris, 1842, &c. 
 
 4 vols. 4to. 
 Ibn Kutaibah: Kitdb al Mddrif. Ed. Wiistenfeld. Gottingen, 
 
 1850. 
 Ibn Rustah: v. De Goeje, Bibl. Geog. Arab. 
 IdrJsi, Al: Geographia Nubiensis. Paris, 1609. 4to. 
 IsTAKHRi, Al; v. De Goeje, Bibl. Geog. Arab. 
 
 Jarrett, H. S. : History of the Caliphs : see Suyfltt. 
 
 Karabacek, J. : Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus 
 Erzherzog Rainer. Wien, 1887, &c. Fol. 
 Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer: Fuhrer durch die 
 Ausstellung. Wien, 1894. 4to. 
 Kazwini, Al: Cosmography. Ed. Wiistenfeld. Gottingen, 1848-9. 
 
 8vo. 
 KoELLE,S.W.: Mohammed and Mohammedanism. London, 1889. 8vo. 
 Kyrillos II, Mgr. : Le Temple du Cisareum, in Bulletin de la 
 Soci^te' Khe'diviale de Giographie, V^ 
 S^rie, No. 6, F^v. 1900 (Le Caire). 
 
 Lane-Poole, Prof. S. : Art of the Saracens in Egypt. London, 
 1886. 8vo. 
 
xxxii Chief Authorities and Editions 
 
 luktii.s.-VoQi.-E.yVxoLSi.: Egypt in the Middle Ages. London, 1901. 8vo. 
 The Story of Cairo in ' Mediaeval Towns ' Series. 
 London, 1902. 
 LeBeau, C. : Histoire du Bas Empire. Ed. de Saint-Martin. Paris, 
 
 1824-38. 21 vols. 8vo. 
 l.-ESTB.ki^GE.,G.: Palestine under the Moslems. London, 1890. 8vo. 
 Lethaby and Swainson : St. Sophia, Constantinople. London, 
 
 1894. 8vo. 
 
 MA}ikvvY,VrQL].'P.: Empire o/the Ptolemies. London, 1895. 8vo. 
 Makin, Al : Historia Saracenica. Ed. T. Erpenius. Lugd. Bat. 
 
 1625. Fol. 
 'iAk-K'Bxn, K-l: Khitai. Bfllik, a. h. 1270. 2 vols. V. alsoMalan. 
 Malan, S. C. : Original Documents of the Coptic Church. London, 
 
 1874. 8vo. 
 Mas'Odi, Al: Collection douvrages orientaux. Ed, Barbier de 
 
 Maynard. Paris, 1863. 8vo. 
 Matter, M. : Histoire de I'Ecole d! Alexandrie. Paris, 1840, 
 
 2 vols. 8vo. 
 Ma'wardi, Al: Kitdb al ATikdm as Sultaniah. Ed. M. Enger. 
 
 Bonn, 1853. 8vo. 
 Michel LE Grand : Chronique. Ed. V. Langlois. Paris, 1866. 4to. 
 Michel LE Syrien : C/5ro;«z'^«^. Ed.J.B.Chabot. Paris, 1899, &c. 4to. 
 MicHELL, R. L. : Egyptian Calendar. London, 1900. 8vo. 
 'M.iL.'H£.,].G.: Egypt under Roman Rule. London, 1898. 8vo. 
 MoscHus, John : Pratum Spirituale. Ap. Migne, Patr. Gr. 
 Murtadi: Egyptian History. Tr. J. Davies. London, 1672. i2mo. 
 
 Nasiri Khusrau: SeferNameh. Ed. C. Schefer. Paris, 1881. 8vo. 
 Nawawi, An : Biographical Dictionary : ed. Wiistenfeld. Gottingen, 
 
 1842-7. 
 NArovtsos Bey : L'Ancienne Alexandrie. Paris, 1888. Bvo. 
 
 NiCEPHORUS. 
 
 NiCEPHORUS Callistus. 
 
 NiEBUHR, C: Voyage en Arabie. Amsterdam, 1776. 4 vols. 4to. 
 
 NiKiou, Jean de : Chronique. Ed. Zotenberg in t. xxiv of ' Notices 
 
 et Extraits des MSS. de la Bibl. Nat.' &c. 
 
 Paris, 1883. 4to. 
 Also English translation lent by Dr. Charles. 
 Nourisson,V.: La Bibliotheque des PtoMm^es. Alexandrie, 1893. 4tO' 
 
Chief Authorities and Editions xxxiii 
 
 OcKLEY, S. : History of the Saracens. Ed. Bohn. London, 1847. 
 
 8vo. 
 Orosius: Historiae. 
 
 Palestine Pilgrims Text Society's Publications. 
 
 Papyri: Corpus Papyrorum Raineri. Ed. J. Krall (Coptische Texte). 
 
 Faydm Towns and their Papyri. Ed. Grenfell and Hunt. 
 
 The Amherst Papyri. Ed. P. E. Newberry. 
 
 Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Ed. Grenfell and Hunt. 
 
 Pereira, F. M. E. : Vida do Abba Samuel do Mosteiro do Kalamon. 
 Lisboa, 1894. 8vo. 
 Vida do Abba Daniel do Mosteiro de Scet^. 
 
 Lisboa, 1897. 8vo. 
 Historia dos Martyres de Nagran. Lisboa, 
 1899. 8vo. 
 QuATREMiiRE, E. : Recherches sur la Langue et la Litt&ature de 
 tigypte. Paris, 1808. 8vo. 
 M/moires Ghgraphiques et Historiques sur 
 T^gypte. Paris, iBir. 2 torn. 8vo. 
 
 Renaudot: Historia Pairiarcharum Alexandrinorum. Paris, 171 3. 
 
 4to. 
 RuFiNUS : Vitae Patrum. 
 
 Historia Ecclesiastic a. 
 
 Sa'Id ibn BatrIk: : v. Eutychius. 
 
 Sebeos : translation lent by Mr. Conybeare. 
 
 Severus or Ushmunain: Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 26,100; Paris MS.; 
 
 and M. Simaikah Bey's Cairo MS. 
 Sharpe, S. : Egypt under the Romans. London, 1842. 8vo. 
 
 History of Egypt. Ed. Bohn. London, 1885. 2 vols. 
 Simaikah, A. : La Province Romaine de t^gypte. Paris, 1892. 8vo. 
 Socrates : Historia Ecclesiastica. 
 SoPHRONius : Opera, ap. Migne, Patr. Gr. 
 SozoMEN : Historia Ecclesiastica. 
 
 Strzygowski, J. : Orient oder Rom. Leipzig, 190 1. 8vo. 
 SusEMiHL, F. : Geschichte der Griechischen Litter atur in der Alexan- 
 
 drinerzeit. Leipzig, 189 1-2. 2 vols. 8vo. 
 SuYUTf, As: Husn al Muhddarah. Bihl^k, a. h. 1299. 
 
 History of the Caliphs: tr. H. S. Jarrett. Calcutta, 
 1 88 1. 8vo. (Bibl. Ind. t. 18, series iii.) 
 
xxxiv Chief Authorities and Editions 
 
 TABARf, At; Tdrtkh ar Rusul wal MuMk. (i) Ed. Zotenberg. 
 
 Paris, 1871. 4 vols. 8vo. (2) Ed. De Goeje. 
 
 Lugd. Bat. 1879-90, 8vo. 
 Tarikh Jahan Ar^ : tr. Sir W. Ouseley. London, 1779. 8vo. 
 TarIkhRegumPersiae. Ed. W. Schikard. Tubingen, 1628. 4to. 
 Theodoret : Historia Ecclesiastica. 
 Theophanes. 
 
 UsENER, H. : De Stephana Alexandrino. Bonn, 1880. 8vo. 
 Acta Martyris Anastasii. Bonn, 1894. 4to. 
 
 Vansleb: Histoire de t Eglise d'Alexandrie. Paris, 1677. i2mo. 
 Nouvelle Relation dun Voyage fait en Agypte. Paris, 
 1698. i2mo. 
 VoN GuTSCHMiD, A. : Kleine Schriften. Leipzig, 1889-94. 8vo. 
 VoN Ranke : Weltgeschichte. Leipzig, 1884. Several vols. 8vo. 
 
 Wakidi, Al (so-called), Kitdb FutHh Misr {JExpugnatio Memphidis). 
 
 Ed. Hamaker. Leyden, 1825. 4to. 
 Weil : Gesckickte der Chalifen. Mannheim, 1 846. 3 vols. 8vo. 
 Wright, T. : Christianity in Arabia. London, 1855. 8vo. 
 
 YA'KUBi, Al : Ibn Wddhih qui dicitur Al YdMbi His tor toe. Ed. 
 M. T. Houtsma. Lugd. Bat. 1883. 2 vols. 
 
 De Goeje, Bibl. Geog. Arab. 
 YAbli)t : Mu'jdm al Bulddn, or Geographical Dictionary. Ed. 
 
 Wiistenfeld. Leipzig, 1866-73. 6 vols. 
 
 Zachariah of Mitylene : Chronicle : tr. Hamilton and Brooks. 
 
 London, 1889. 8vo. 
 Zo^GK,G. : Catalogm Codd.Copticorum MSS. Romae, 1810. Fol. 
 
 Conversion of Hij rah years into Anni Domini. 
 
 A TABLE showing every year of the Hijrah from a. h. i to 
 A.H. rooo with the date of commencement for the corresponding 
 year a.d., is given at the end of Professor Stanley Lane-Poole's 
 Story of Cairo. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 REVOLT OF HERACLIUS 
 
 Brief sketch of the Emperors from Justinian to Maurice. The 
 Roman Empire in the reign of Phocas. State of Egypt. Revolt 
 of Pentapolis under the leadership of Heraclius. Plan of campaign, 
 The common story, as told by Gibbon, discredited. The Chronicle 
 of John, bishop of Nikiou in the Delta. 
 
 At the opening of the seventh century the Roman 
 Empire seemed passing from decline to dissolution. 
 Sixty years earlier the power of Justinian had spread 
 from the Caucasus and Arabia in the east to the 
 Pillars of Hercules in the west, and his strong 
 personality so filled men's minds that it seemed, as 
 the phrase ran, as if ' the whole world would not 
 contain him ^' His splendour was equal to his power, 
 and for a while at least his wisdom was equal to his 
 splendour. Moreover his triumphs in the realms 
 of science arid art were even more striking than his 
 exploits in war : for of the two foremost achievements 
 by which his name is remembered, the Code and 
 Digest of Justinian still remain the greatest master- 
 pieces of jurisprudence, while the Cathedral of 
 St. Sophia stands to all time as the most splendid 
 monument and model of Byzantine architecture. 
 
 But the menace of decay was felt even in Justinian's 
 lifetime. To the mischief, moral and political, which 
 threatened the state, were added physical calamities. 
 The whole of the East was scourged by a plague, 
 which broke out at Pelusium, and swept through 
 
 ' Professor Bury, quoting from Procopius, History of the Later 
 Roman Empire, vol. i. pp. 470-1. 
 
 BUTLER ^ B 
 
2 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Egypt to Libya and through Palestine to Persia 
 and Constantinople. After the plague came an earth- 
 quake, which wrought almost as much destruction 
 to the cities as the black death to the peoples of the 
 Empire. The last days of the great lawgiver were 
 clouded, by a sense of gloom and foreboding. The 
 government was breaking up, even before his suc- 
 cessor Justin closed his brief and nerveless reign in 
 insanity. Tiberius, who came to the throne in 578, 
 gave some promise of better things. He might at 
 least have essayed to arrest the process of decay : 
 but his life was cut short before he could prove his 
 worth, and he bequeathed to Maurice a bankrupt 
 exchequer, a discontented people, and a realm out of 
 joint. 
 
 Only a man of the strongest brain and of unerring 
 judgement could have dealt with such a crisis : and 
 Maurice, though well-meaning, was not the man 
 for the task. That blind disregard of changing 
 circumstance which so often ruins the application 
 of wise principles marred and thwarted his policy. 
 His army reforms and his knowledge of military 
 tactics — on which he wrote excellently — could not 
 save his forces from defeat ; while his zeal for 
 economy to repair the finances of the state failed in 
 its purpose, and so estranged and wearied his people, 
 that they tossed the crown contemptuously to an 
 illiterate and deformed rebel centurion — Phocas. 
 
 It now seemed as if nothing could save the Empire 
 from ruin. The only strength of Phocas was that 
 of a tyrant upheld by a licentious army and a corrupt 
 nobility — a strength which diminished with every 
 mile's distance from the capital. Thus all the 
 provinces of the Empire lay under a kind of agony 
 of misrule, which was probably lightest in the regions 
 
Revolt of HeracUus 3 
 
 torn by war with the Persians or with the northern 
 barbarians. 
 
 Certainly no part of the Roman dominion was in 
 worse plight than Egypt. There Justinian's efforts 
 to force the orthodox religion on the nonconforming 
 Copts had been partly balanced by Theodora's open 
 sympathy for their creed ^ : but all such sympathy 
 was recklessly cancelled by Justin. So the ancient 
 and bitter strife between the Melkite and Monophy- 
 site parties was more embittered than ever : and for 
 the Copts it filled the whole horizon of thought and 
 hope. Where the two mainsprings of government 
 were the religious ascendency and the material profit 
 of the Byzantine Court, and where the machinery 
 worked out steady results of oppression and misery, 
 it is small wonder that the clash of arms was often 
 heard in Alexandria itself, while not only was Upper 
 Egypt haunted by bands of brigands ^ and harried 
 by raids of Beduins or Nubians, but even the Delta 
 was the scene of riots and feuds little short of civil 
 war^ The fact is that the whole country was in 
 a state of smouldering ' insurrection. 
 
 Phocas' reign began on November 22, a. d. 602. 
 On that day he was crowned with all due solemnity 
 by the Patriarch Cyriacus in the church of St. John 
 at Constantinople, and entering the city by the 
 Golden Gate drove in state by the great colonnades 
 and through the principal streets amid crowds that 
 received him with joyful acclamations. By the 
 
 ^ See Prof. Bury's History of the Later Roman Empire, vol. ii. 
 pp. 8-9, where he quotes from R. Payne Smith's translation of the 
 ^yxxzx. John of Ephesus a curious account of the conversion of the 
 Nobadae, who occupied a region east of the Nile in Upper Egypt. 
 
 "^ See John Moschus, Pratum Spirituale, ap. Migne, Patr. Gr. 
 c. 143. 
 
 ' John of Nikiou (tr. Zotenberg), pp. 529 seq. 
 
 B 2 
 
4 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 beginning of the year 609 the Empire was ready for 
 revolution. It began at Pentapolis. The common 
 form which the story takes is that Crispus, who had 
 married the daughter of Phocas, incurred the Em- 
 peror's furious resentment by setting up his own 
 statue with that of his bride in the Hippodrome : 
 and that having thus quarrelled, he plotted rebellion 
 and invited Heraclius, the Prefect of Africa, to put 
 the scheme in action. The fact however is — and 
 Cedrenus expressly records it — that Heraclius was 
 planning insurrection unbidden of Crispus. Indeed 
 Crispus was not the man to take any initiative : but 
 when he heard of the unrest in Pentapolis, then he 
 ventured to send secret letters of encouragement, 
 and promised help in the event of Heraclius making 
 a movement on Constantinople. Heraclius himself 
 was somewhat old for an adventure of the kind ^ — 
 he cannot have been less than sixty-five — but in his 
 son and namesake, who was now in the prime of 
 life, and in Nicetas his friend and lieutenant-general, 
 he saw at once the fitting instruments of his design. 
 The plan of campaign has been much misunder- 
 stood. Gibbon lends the great weight of his 
 authority to the somewhat childish story that the 
 two commanders agreed upon a race to the capital, 
 the one advancing by sea and the other by land, 
 while the crown was to reward the winner ^. They 
 were starting, be it remembered, from Cyrene': 
 
 ' He had been commander-in-chief in the Persian wars under 
 Maurice, 
 
 ^ Even Diehl adopts this legend: see L'A/rique Byzantine, 
 p. 520. 
 
 ' Some authorities make Heraclius start from Carthage : but 
 from John of Nikiou it is fairly clear that the younger Heraclius 
 set out from Cyrene, and that some time after his departure 
 
Revolt of HeracUus 5 
 
 and given anything like similar forces at starting, 
 surely a more unequal competition was never devised. 
 Heraclius had merely to cross the Mediterranean, 
 coast along Greece and Macedonia, and then to 
 fling his army on the capital : while Nicetas, accord- 
 ing to the received theory, marching to Egypt, had 
 to tear that country from the grasp of Phocas, 
 then to make a long and toilsome journey through 
 Palestine, Syria, Cilicia and Asia Minor, under such 
 conditions that even a succession of brilliant victories 
 or the collapse of all resistance would, in mere point of 
 time, put him out of the running for the prize. No : 
 if there was any idea at all of a race for empire, 
 which is extremely doubtful, the course was marked 
 out with far more simplicity and equality. For it 
 must be obvious that the province of Pentapolis 
 could not have furnished material for a very con- 
 siderable army, still less for two armies : and what 
 the leader of each expedition had to do was not 
 merely to set out for Byzantium, but to raise the 
 standard of revolt as he went, to gather supplies 
 and reinforcements, and then possibly to unite in 
 dealing a crushing blow at the capital. In pursu- 
 ance of this plan Heraclius was to adventure by sea 
 and Nicetas by land — unquestionably: but what 
 Gibbon and the Greek historians have failed to 
 see clearly is this — that while the immediate objec- 
 tive of Heraclius was Thessalonica, that of Nicetas 
 was Alexandria : and that all depended on the acces- 
 sion or subjugation of these two towns for the 
 success of the enterprise. 
 
 It is hardly doubtful that Heraclius had intimate 
 relations with the people of Thessalonica, or at 
 
 the elder Heraclius made an expedition against Carthage and after 
 capturing the city took up his residence there. 
 
6 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 least with a party among them : while Nicetas 
 calculated on a welcome or a slight resistance in 
 Egypt, though, as will be shown, his calculations 
 were upset by the unforeseen intervention of a 
 formidable enemy. But I must again insist — in 
 opposition to Gibbon — that Nicetas' one aim was 
 the conquest of Egypt : that Egypt was the pivot on 
 which his combinations with Heraclius turned, and 
 the only barrier between him and Constantinople : 
 and that, when once he possessed the recruiting- 
 ground and the granary of the Nile together with 
 the shipping and dockyards of Alexandria, it would 
 have been madness to plunge through Syria and 
 Asia instead of moving straight to the Dardanelles 
 and joining forces with Heraclius. 
 
 This then was the plan : Heraclius with his 
 galleys was to make for Thessalonica and there 
 prepare a formidable fleet and army, while Nicetas 
 was to occupy Alexandria — the second city of the 
 Empire — so as at once to cut off the corn supplies 
 from Constantinople, and to secure the strongest 
 base for equipping an armament against Phocas, 
 or at least to prevent his deriving help from that 
 quarter ^. 
 
 The whole incident is dismissed by the well-known 
 Byzantine historians in a few lines, and the part 
 played by Egypt in the revolution has hitherto 
 scarcely been suspected. But an entirely new 
 chapter of Egyptian history has been opened since 
 
 ' The nearly contemporary Armenian historian Sebeos justly 
 appreciates the action of Heraclius. He says : ' Then Heraclius 
 the general, with his army which was in the region of Alexandria, 
 revolted from Phocas : and, making himself tyrant, he occupied the 
 land of the Egyptians.' A scanty account, but it hinges the success 
 of the rebellion on the capture of Egypt, as a right estimate of the 
 situation requires. 
 
Revolt of Heraclius 7 
 
 the discovery — or rather since the translation into 
 a European language — of an Ethiopic MS, version 
 of the Chronicle of John, bishop of Nikiou, an 
 important town in the Delta of Egypt. John 
 himself, who lived in the latter half of the seventh 
 century of our era, must have spoken, with many 
 old men who witnessed or remembered the events 
 connected with the downfall of Phocas. His Chroni- 
 cle, therefore, is of very great importance. In spite 
 of its passage from language to language, where the 
 MS. is not mutilated, its accuracy is often most 
 minute and striking : and though there are errors 
 and inconsistencies, they are balanced by the amount 
 of new knowledge which it discloses. Indeed the 
 work throws all sorts of novel and curious lights on 
 the history of the Eastern Empire, of the Patriarchs 
 of Alexandria, and of Egypt generally during a period 
 of extraordinary interest — a period which has suffered 
 even greater neglect than is warranted by the 
 scantiness and imperfection of the materials ; and 
 it supplements and corrects in many curious ways 
 the inadequate and faulty narratives of Theophanes, 
 Cedrenus, and Nicephorus, 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE STRUGGLE FOR EGYPT 
 
 March on Egypt. Leontius, Prefect of Mareotis, in the plot. 
 The country between Pentapolis and Egypt. Its fertility and 
 population. Phocas alarmed about Alexandria. Nicetas, advancing 
 from the west, wins a battle close to the city. His welcome. 
 BonSsus, Phocas' general, hurries from Syria. Nikiou surrenders 
 to him. His army reaches Alexandria. Naval assault under Paul 
 repulsed. 
 
 From the Egyptian bishop's Chronicle we learn 
 that even in Pentapolis there was some fighting. 
 By large expenditure of money Heraclius assembled 
 here a force of 3,000 men and an army of 'bar- 
 barians,' i. e. doubtless Berbers, which he placed 
 under the command of ' Bonikls ' as he is called 
 in the Ethiopic corruption of a Greek name. By 
 their aid he won an easy victory over the imperial 
 generals Mardius, Ecclesiarius, and Isidore, and at 
 one blow put an end to the power of Phocas in 
 that part of Africa. At the same time, ' Kisll' the 
 governor of Tripolis sent a contingent which probably 
 passed to the south of Pentapolis, In any case 
 Nicetas now began his advance along the coast 
 towards Alexandria, and was joined at some point 
 by both Klsil and BonS^kls. He was secure of 
 a friendly reception up to the very borders of 
 Egypt : for Leontius, Prefect of Mareotis, the 
 Egyptian province on the western side of Alexandria, 
 had been won over, and had promised a considerable 
 body of troops. 
 
 It is thought that nowadays such a march would 
 
Struggle for Egypt g 
 
 lie almost entirely through a waterless desert ; but 
 there is abundant evidence to show that in the 
 seventh century of our era there were many flourish- 
 ing towns, palm groves, and fertile tracts of country, 
 where now little is known or imagined to be but 
 a waste of rocks and burning sands. The subject 
 is one of some interest to scholars and to explorers, 
 and some brief remarks upon it may be pardoned. 
 From Ptolemy we know that the province of Cyrene 
 ceased on the eastern side at a city called Darnis, 
 where the province of Marmarica began. Moving 
 eastward, Nicetas must have passed among other 
 places the city of Axilis, the towns of Paluvius, 
 Batrachus, and Antipyrgus, and the promontory of 
 Cataeonium, all in the nome of Marmarica. The 
 nome of Libya began near Panormus, and included 
 among other towns Catabathmus, Selinus, and 
 Paraetonium ^, or Ammonia as it was also called 
 according to Strabo. Paraetonium was the capital 
 and the seat of government of the Prefect : the 
 name seems to have lingered in the Arabic Al 
 Bartfln. Still further east in the same nome we 
 come to Hermea, then to Leucaspis; and half way 
 between Leucaspis and Chimovicus began the nome 
 of Mareotis, in which the best known towns were 
 Plinthine in Tainia, Taposiris Magna, the fortress 
 of Chersonesus, and the city of Marea or Mareotis. 
 Both Ptolemy and Strabo give many other names, 
 and it is certain that in the first century Egyptian 
 territory was regarded as ending where Cyrenaic 
 began, and that there was no break of impassable 
 country between them. Later the nome of Libya 
 suffered some decay, and in the sixth century 
 
 ^ It was from Paraetonium that Alexander the Great struck off 
 into the desert on his famous visit to the temple of Ammon, 
 
10 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Justinian compensated the Prefect for the poverty 
 of his province by throwing the nome of Mareotis 
 in with his government. But even then the way 
 from PentapoHs to Alexandria was in well-defined 
 stages, with no serious gaps or breaks : nor had the 
 continuous character of the route changed at the 
 time of which I am writing. This is proved beyond 
 doubt. For we know that early in the seventh 
 century the Persian army, after the subjugation of 
 Egypt, moved on by land to the conquest of 
 Pentapolis, and returned after a successful campaign, 
 in which, according to Gibbon, were finally exter- 
 minated the Greek colonies of Cyrene. This, be 
 it remembered, was only eight or nine years after 
 the march of Nicetas. But Gibbon is altogether 
 mistaken in his view of the devastation wrought by 
 Chosroes' troops in that region. Great it was, but 
 in no way fatal or final. On the contrary, less than 
 thirty years later, when 'Amr Ibn al 'Asi the Saracen 
 captured Alexandria, his thoughts turned naturally 
 to Pentapolis, and to Pentapolis he went, conquering 
 Barca and Cyrene. There is no record or hint of 
 either march being regarded as a great military 
 achievement or triumph over natural difficulties. 
 
 Indeed nothing could be more false than to 
 picture the route as lying across inhospitable deserts. 
 For there is express evidence that practically the 
 whole of the coast provinces west of Egypt continued 
 well populated and well cultivated for some three 
 centuries after they fell under Arab dominion. 
 The Arab writer Al Makrlzl mentions the city 
 of Lublah as the centre of a province between 
 Alexandria and Maraklah, showing that the classi- 
 cal names Libya and Marmarica were retained by 
 the Arabs almost unaltered. In another passage 
 
Struggle for Egypt ii 
 
 he says that, after passing the cities of Lubiah 
 and Marakiah, one enters the province of Penta- 
 poHs: and Al Kuda'i and Al Mas'tidi concur 
 in similar testimony. The canton of Lubiah 
 contained twenty-four boroughs besides villages, 
 Makrlzi's account of Marakiah — taken from Quatre- 
 mere's version of it — is in substance as follows : 
 ' Marakiah is one of the western districts of 
 Egypt, and forms the limit of the country. The 
 city of that name is two stages, or twenty-four 
 miles, distant from Santariah. Its territory is very 
 extensive and contains a vast number of palm-trees, 
 of cultivated fields, and of running springs. There 
 the fruits have a delicious flavour, and the soil 
 is so rich that every grain of wheat sown produces 
 from ninety to a hundred ears. Excellent rice too 
 grows in great abundance. Even at the present 
 day there are very many gardens in this canton. 
 Formerly Marakiah was occupied by tribes of 
 Berbers; but in the year 304 a. h. (916 a. d.) the 
 inhabitants of Lubiah and Marakiah were so harried 
 by the Prince of Barca that they withdrew to 
 Alexandria. From that date onwards Marakiah 
 steadily declined, and now it is almost in ruins. 
 But it still preserves some remnant of its ancient 
 splendour ^' 
 
 The last words evidently refer to the city, not 
 the province : they are remarkable as showing how 
 much was left even in 1400 a. d. and we may 
 mention, as at any rate curious, the fact that the 
 Portolanos, or Venetian navigation charts, of about 
 the year 1500, show at least an unbroken series of 
 names along this part of the shores of the Mediter- 
 ranean. But Makrlzl has also something to say 
 ^ Mem. Giog. et Hist. ch. i. pp. 374-S- 
 
12 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 of Mareotis. Formerly he declares that it was 
 covered with houses and gardens, which at one 
 time were dotted over the whole country westward 
 up to the very frontiers of Barca. In his own 
 time Mareotis was only a town in the canton of 
 Alexandria, and used that city as the market for the 
 abundant produce of its fruit-gardens. Champollion 
 says that under the old Egyptian Empire it was the 
 capital of Lower Egypt, and gradually sank into 
 decay after the foundation of Alexandria. In the 
 time of Vergil and Strabo it was, as they testify, 
 at least renowned for its wine. To-day the ruins 
 that mark the site, twelve miles west of Alexandria, 
 are practically unknown, but the soil beneath the 
 sand is found to be alluvial, in confirmation of its 
 ancient repute for fertility. 
 
 It is, then, clear that before the Arab conquest 
 there was a continuous chain of towns, and an 
 almost unbroken tract of cultivated land, stretching 
 from Alexandria to Cyrene, and that the march of 
 Nicetas demanded no great qualities of generalship 
 or endurance. Even at the present time it is 
 probable that the difficulties of the route are greatly . 
 exaggerated : for Muslim pilgrims constantly make 
 their way on foot from Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli 
 along the coast to Egypt. The country abounds in 
 Greek and Roman remains ; but the people are 
 fanatics of the lowest type. The wandering Arab 
 keeps out the wandering scholar, and the whole 
 region, though its shores are washed by the 
 Mediterranean and lie almost in sight of Italy and 
 Greece, is more lost to history and to archaeology 
 than if it were in the heart of the Sahara. The 
 fact is, of course, as much due to the rule of the 
 Turk as to the fanaticism of the Beduin: but 
 
struggle for Egypt 13 
 
 the two form a combination enough to make 
 travel almost impossible. But if ever the country 
 falls under a civilized power, it will be a splendid 
 field for exploration, and might even, with proper 
 engineering works, resume something of its ancient 
 fertility and prosperity. 
 
 This digression, however, has taken long enough. 
 It enables us to follow the movements of Nicetas' 
 army, and to infer that though he met with few 
 perils on the way, yet that the time occupied on 
 the march must have been considerable. Meanwhile 
 in the Egyptian capital plot and counterplot were 
 working. Theodore, son of Menas, who had been 
 Prefect of Alexandria under the Emperor .Maurice, 
 and one Tenkeri (by whom Zotenberg wrongly 
 thinks Crispus may be meant), had engaged together 
 to put Phocas to death and secure the crown for 
 Heraclius. The Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria, 
 another Theodore, who had received his seat from 
 Phocas, knew nothing of this conspiracy; but John, 
 the Governor of the Province and Commander of 
 the Garrison, and yet another Theodore, the Con- 
 troller of Finance, revealed it to him : whereupon 
 the three addressed a joint letter of warning to 
 Phocas. 
 
 The Emperor well knew the uncertain temper 
 of the Egyptians : and, with a view to humour them, 
 he had lately sent from Syria a large consignment 
 of lions and leopards for a wild-beast show, together 
 with a collection of fetters and instruments of torture, 
 as well as robes of honour and money, for just 
 apportionment between his friends and foes. But 
 on receipt of the letter from the Patriarch, while 
 professing to disdain the menace of revolt, yet 
 knowing the supreme necessity of holding Egypt 
 
14 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 at all costs, he neither faltered in resolve nor 
 paltered in action. Summoning the Prefect of 
 Byzantium, he took from him a solemn oath of 
 allegiance, and dispatched him with large reinforce- 
 ments both for Alexandria and for the important 
 garrison towns of Mantif and Athrlb in the Delta. 
 At the same time he sent urgent orders to Boiidsus 
 in Syria to hurl all his available troops on Egypt. 
 For Bonosus was now at Antioch, where he had 
 been sent, with the title of ' Count of the East,' to 
 crush a revolt of the Jews against the Christians — 
 a revolt which seems to have been rather religious 
 than political, although the threads of politics and 
 of religion are often indistinguishable in the tissue 
 of history at this period. Yet so well or so ill did 
 Bonosus achieve his bloody work by wholesale 
 massacre, by hanging, drowning, burning, torturing, 
 and casting to wild beasts, that he earned a name 
 of execration and terror. Indeed he was a man 
 after Phocas' own heart — a ' ferocious hyena ' who 
 revelled in slaughter — and he hailed Phocas' message 
 with delight. 
 
 Meanwhile Nicetas was nearing Alexandria on 
 the west. The town of Kabsain (which may possibly 
 be identified with Fort Chersonesus) surrendered, 
 and the garrison were spared, but the prisoners of 
 the revolting faction were released and joined the 
 march. Messengers were sent on ahead to spread 
 the rebellion in the country round the Dragon Canal 
 — so called from its serpentine windings — which was 
 close to the city. But finding that the imperial 
 forces, strong in numbers and well armed, barred 
 his passage here, Nicetas summoned the general to 
 surrender. 'Stand aside from our path,' he said, 
 'and remain neutral, pending the issue of the war. 
 
struggle for Egypt 15 
 
 If we fail, you will not suffer ; if we succeed, you 
 shall be Governor of Egypt. But the reign of 
 Phocas is finished ! ' The answer was brief — ' We 
 fight to the death for Phocas ' : and the battle began. 
 It is probable that the general was the one under 
 special oath to defend the Emperor, and that he 
 fought with better heart than his soldiers. For 
 Nicetas was completely victorious : the imperial 
 general was killed, and his head set on a pike and 
 borne with the conquering standards through the 
 Moon Gate into the city, where no further resistance 
 was offered. John, the Governor, and Theodore, 
 the Controller of Finance, took refuge in the church 
 of St. Theodore in the eastern part of the town : 
 while the Melkite Patriarch fled to the church of 
 St. Athanasius, which stood by the sea shore, 
 John of Nikiou is silent concerning the Patriarch's 
 fate ; but we know from other sources that he 
 perished. 
 
 The clergy and people now assembled, and agreed 
 in their detestation of Bonosus and his wild beasts 
 and in their welcome to Heraclius' general. They 
 set the head of the slain commander on the gate ; 
 seized the palace and government buildings, as well 
 as the control of the corn and the exchequer ; took 
 possession of all Phocas' treasure ; and last, but not 
 least, secured the island and fortress of Pharos and 
 all the shipping. For Pharos, as Caesar saw and 
 said long before, was one key of Egypt, as Pelusium 
 was the other. Thus master of the capital, Nicetas 
 dispatched Bonikls to carry the revolution through 
 the Delta. It proved an easy task, for everywhere 
 the native Egyptians hated the rule of Byzantium. 
 Town after town made common cause with the 
 delivering army. Nikiou, with its bishop Theodore, 
 
i6 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 flung open its gates: at Mantif the faction in 
 revolt plundered the house of Aristomachus, the 
 imperial governor, and those of the leading Romans ; 
 and nearly every Prefect and every town cast in its 
 lot against Phocas : so that after a triumphant 
 progress Bonikls returned to the capital. Only at 
 Sebennytus or Samanlid Paul, the popular Prefect^, 
 stood to his colours, and Paul's friend Cosmas, 
 blazing with courage, though crippled with paralysis, 
 was carried about the town to fire the garrison with 
 his own spirit ; while at Athrlb ^ another friend of 
 Paul, the Prefect Marcian, equally refused to join the 
 rebellion. The war was not yet over. 
 
 ' SamanM is still a well-known town on the eastern main of the 
 Nile, about half way between Damietta and the head of the Delta. 
 Athrlb lay on the same branch of the river and flourished as late as 
 the fourteenth century : its site is near where the railway now 
 crosses the Nile by Banha al 'Asal. From Athrib a canal ran 
 westward to Manflf, and thence, following a north-westerly course, 
 to Nikiou, which lay on the western or Bolbitic main. The 
 position of both Manflf and Nikiou is quite wrongly given by 
 D'Anville ; but Quatremfere, in a learned note, proves by a brilliant 
 piece of demonstration both the identity of Nikiou with Pshati — thq 
 one being the Greek, the other the Coptic name of the town — and 
 the position of Nikiou on the Nile. Quatremere's conclusions 
 are entirely borne out by John of Nikiou's Chronicle, which of 
 course he had not seen. They are also confirmed by the MS. of 
 Severus of Ushmfinain, who in the life of the Patriarch Andronicus 
 expressly and explicitly identifies the two places. It may be added 
 that both the forms Nakyfis and IbshSdt are found in Arabic. 
 The river or canal passing through Manilf is to-day called ' Bahr 
 al Fara'finiah,' or 'Pharaonic River,' a name which records its 
 great antiquity. Where this stream joins the western Nile, there 
 is an island called Tabshtr, or a place called Tabshir with an 
 island opposite. About six miles north of Tabshir, lies the village 
 retaining the ancient Coptic name 'Ash ShSdi' or 'Ibshddi.' It 
 seems, however, that as not unfrequently has happened, the ancient 
 name does not mark the ancient site, but has been transferred to 
 another settlement. For the modern hamlet called Ibshid! reveals 
 
struggle for Egypt 17 
 
 Bonosus had reached Caesarea when he heard 
 of the fall of Alexandria. The news only stung 
 him to fiercer action. Shipping his whole force at 
 that port, he sailed swiftly southwards, and either 
 landed his cavalry on the confines of Egypt or was 
 met there by a body of horse from Palestine. His 
 plan was now to relieve Athrib ; and for this purpose 
 he took his fleet in two divisions, one by the main 
 eastern branch of the Nile, and one by the Pelusiac 
 channel, while the cavalry followed by land. Besides 
 the Prefect Marcian there was at Athrib a redoubt- 
 able lady named Christodora, who from motives, of 
 private vengeance was a strong supporter of the 
 Emperor's interest. Paul and Cosmas also had 
 come from Mantif to a council of war. In vain the 
 Bishop of Nikiou and the Chancellor Menas wrote- 
 urging Marcian and Christodora to throw down the 
 statues of Phocas and acknowledge Heraclius : for 
 
 not the slightest trace of antiquity. The name extended to the 
 whole district or ' island of Niliiou ' originally, and has lingered 
 on in a village of no importance. Mrs. Butcher in her Story of the 
 Church of Egypt identifies the site of Nikiou with the modern 
 Zawiah Razin. Here are desolate mounds of potsherds, uneven 
 ground, fragments of enormous granite columns, and all the tokens 
 of a vanished Egyptian city. But geographically Zawtah Razin 
 occupies the wrong position, lying South-east of ManM, near 
 Tarranah and entirely away from the ancient canal which joined 
 Maniif to the Nile. The place which Quatremfere calls Tabshir is 
 given as Sabsir or Shabshir on modern maps, and in the latter 
 form one may well discover an echo of the early Coptic form 
 Pshati. It is a great pity, however, that both ShabsMr and Zawtah 
 RazIn, like so many ancient sites in the Delta, have been totally 
 neglected by archaeologists. But I have no hesitation in pro- 
 nouncing with Quatrembre in favour of Shabshir. I may add that 
 in using the form Nikiou I am following the Coptic kikiot rather 
 than the Greek NtKioi/ or the Arabic ^j^y^d. Nikiou was of course 
 a Roman station : it is mentioned in the Itinerarium Antonini. 
 
i8 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 they heard of Bonosus' arrival on the isthmus, and 
 the report was soon followed by the news of his 
 occupation of Pelusium. His advance was watched 
 in alarm by the Heraclian generals Plato and 
 Theodore (really these Theodores are interminable), 
 who had an army in the neighbourhood of Athrlb. 
 They sent an urgent message for succour to Bonikls, 
 who lost no time in moving up the western or 
 Bolbitic branch of the Nile ; but he reached Nikiou 
 only to learn of Bon6sus' arrival at Athrlb. Quit- 
 ting that town, Bondsus moved by the canal which 
 branched off the main river westwards in the direc- 
 tion of Mantif, and with him were Marcian and 
 Cosmas and the relentless Christodora. 
 
 Paul now directed his march to join Bon6sus, 
 and the two imperial forces had hardly united, 
 when the army of Bonakls arrived on the scene. 
 The encounter was fierce but decisive. The rebel 
 troops were completely routed — part hurled into 
 the waterway, part slain, part taken prisoner and 
 thrown into irons. Bonikls himself was captured 
 alive, but put to death : another general, Leontius, 
 met the same fate : while Plato and Theodore 
 managed to escape, and sought sanctuary in a 
 neighbouring monastery. Nikiou, though a forti- 
 fied city, was in no position to hold out against the 
 victorious army of Bon6sus, Accordingly Bishop 
 Theodore and the Chancellor Menas went out to 
 the conqueror in solemn procession, carrying gospels 
 and crosses, and threw themselves on his mercy. 
 They might better have thrown themselves from 
 their city walls. Menas was cast into prison, fined 
 3,000 pieces of gold, tortured with a prolonged 
 bastinade, and set free only to die of exhaustion : 
 while Theodore was taken back to Nikiou by 
 
Struggle for Egypt 19 
 
 Bondsus, who now moved there with his army. At 
 the city gate Bondsus saw the statues of Phocas 
 lying broken on the ground, the work of the bishop, 
 as Christodora and Marcian testified ; and the un- 
 fortunate Theodore was instantly beheaded. This 
 execution was followed by that of the generals Plato 
 and Theodore, and of the three elders of Manuf — 
 Isidore, John, and Julian — all of whom had sought 
 asylum in a monastery, and were tamely surrendered 
 by the monks. ■ Of the general body of prisoners 
 Bonosus merely banished those who had been in 
 Maurice's service, but put to death all who had 
 ever borne arms under the flag of Phocas. 
 
 The tide of war has now fairly turned in favour 
 of the reigning Emperor. Bonosus was virtually 
 master of the Delta, from all parts of which the 
 rebel forces — afraid to fight and afraid to surrender 
 — streamed towards Alexandria by the vast network 
 of waterways which covered the country. For 
 Bonosus himself it was an easy passage from Nikiou 
 down the western main of the Nile, and thence by 
 the canal which ran to Alexandria. 
 
 Nicetas was well prepared to receive him. Within 
 the city he had organized a large army of regulars 
 and irregulars, sailors and citizens, aided warmly by 
 the Green Faction. The arsenals rang with the 
 din of forging weapons, and the walls were manned 
 and furnished with powerful engines of defence. 
 Paul seems to have been sent on by Bon6sus to 
 attack the city with a fleet of vessels on the south 
 side, probably at the point where the fresh-water 
 canal entered through two enormous gateways of 
 stone, which had been built and fortified by Tatian 
 in the time of Valens. But as soon as Paul's flotilla 
 came within range of the city batteries, the huge 
 
 C 2 
 
20 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 stones which they hurled fell crashing among his 
 vessels with such deadly effect that he was unable 
 even to approach the walls, and drew off his ships 
 to save them from being disabled or sunk. Such 
 was the force at that time of the Alexandrian 
 artillery. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 FAILURE OF BONOSUS 
 
 Route of BonSsus. He attacks Alexandria. His repulse and 
 defeat. Action of Paul. Attempted assassination of Nicetas. 
 Recapture of Nikiou. BonSsus driven from Egypt, and the 
 country conquered for Heraclius. State of religious parties in 
 Egypt. 
 
 Bon6sus, who had performed at any rate the last 
 stages of his journey by land, seems nevertheless 
 to have followed Cleopatra's canal, i. e. the principal 
 waterway leading from the Bolbitic branch of the 
 Nile to Alexandria. He first pitched his camp at 
 Miphamomis, and next at Dimkarfini, according to 
 the bishop's Chronicle. Zotenberg has no note on 
 these places, and at first sight they are puzzling. 
 But Miphamomis is called in the text ' the present 
 Sh^bri.' This must be the Sh{lbr4 by Damanh<ir, 
 Now Champollion speaks 'of a place called Momem- 
 phis ^, which he alleges to have been seven leagues 
 west of Damanhiir, or Timenh6r, as he gives the 
 name of the town in its ancient Egyptian form. 
 We can have no hesitation in identifying Mipha- 
 mdmis with Momemphis and in placing it close to 
 Damanhtir : but then Champollion cannot be right 
 in identifying it with Panouf Khet, which the Arabs 
 called Manuf as Safll, and which the French savant 
 places twenty-one miles — an impossible distance — . 
 from DamanhGr. 
 
 As to Dimkardni, one cannot remember any such 
 form elsewhere : but bearing in mind that Dim — or 
 Tim — in ancient Egyptian was a regular prefix de- 
 1 Straho also speaks of the nome of Momemphis. 
 
22 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 noting ' town,' it seems beyond doubt that Dimkar6ni 
 is merely a Coptic form of Chaereum or Karilin^ 
 This explanation fits accurately with the geography 
 of that region ; for Karilin was not only further west 
 on the canal which Bon6sus was following, as the 
 context requires, but was nearly half-way between 
 DamanhAr and Alexandria, being only thirty-eight 
 kilometres from the latter city and thirty-one from 
 Damanhlir. From KariAn Bonosus covered the 
 remaining distance without opposition, and arriving 
 on the eastern side of the capital, he halted his army 
 within view of the walls and resolved to assault 
 them on the following day, Sunday. It would be 
 interesting could we know by what means he hoped 
 to storm the lofty and powerful fortifications which 
 guarded the Great City ^. 
 
 But the Alexandrians were in no mood to stand 
 a siege. The story is that a certain saint of Upper 
 Egypt, called Theophilus the Confessor — who lived 
 on the top of a pillar, and there, it seems, acquired 
 practical wisdom — counselled Nicetas to sally out 
 and give battle. Accordingly he marshalled his 
 troops within the ' Gate of A6n,' where the splendid 
 width of the great street dividing the city lengthwise 
 gave plenty of room for the muster. The name 
 ' Gate of A6n ' is not explained by Zotenberg, and 
 at first sight does not connect with any known 
 feature in Alexandrian topography. But in another 
 
 ^ It is strange that this explanation did not occur to Am61ineau, 
 who referring to this passage in his G/ographie Copte (p. 139) 
 conjectures that the place was a village outside Alexandria^ — a sort 
 of suburb. 
 
 ^ It may here be noted that in all the writings of this time 
 Alexandria is almost invariably called the Great City. Constantinople 
 in contrast is sometimes called the Royal City. 
 
Failure of Bonosus 23 
 
 passage of the MS. we find Alin used as a synonym 
 of 'Ain Shams. Now 'Ain Shams is the Arabic 
 name for the town better known as Heliopolis : and 
 the ancient Egyptian for Hehopolis is On or A6n. 
 The Gate of A<in is therefore the gate towards 
 Heliopohs, which may further be identified with 
 the well-known Sun Gate closing the eastern end, 
 as the Moon Gate closed the western, of that broad 
 avenue which ran east to west in Alexandria, and 
 was crossed at a sort of Carfax by the other main 
 avenue running north to south. It may be added 
 that the preference for old Egyptian forms shown in 
 this use of Aun, and in other passages, is a strong 
 indication that John of Nikiou wrote this part of the 
 original in Coptic. 
 
 But to resume. The imperial forces were now 
 ordered to advance against the city, a mounted 
 general leading the way. While they were still far 
 out of bowshot, they were harassed by a lively fire 
 from the huge catapults roaring and creaking on the 
 city walls and towers. One of these projectiles 
 struck the general, smashing his jaw, unhorsing and 
 killing him instantly: a second killed another officer: 
 and as the assailants wavered, thrown into confusion 
 by this dreaded artillery, Nicetas gave the order for 
 a sortie. The Sun Gate was thrown open, and his 
 main force issued thence, formed line, and by a 
 brilliant charge broke the enemy's ranks, and after 
 a sharp struggle cut Bonosus' army in two and 
 turned it to flight. When Nicetas saw that most 
 of the fugitives were streaming northwards, he put 
 himself at the head of his reserve of black troops, 
 and sallied out from another gate by the church 
 of St. Mark on the north or seaward side of the city, 
 near the north-east angle of the walls. He soon 
 
24 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 headeli off the flying soldiers and drove them back 
 either under the ramparts, where they were over- 
 whelmed by volleys of stones and arrows, or else 
 among the prickly hedges which enclosed the sub- 
 urban gardens, where they were entangled and slain. 
 Those of Bon6sus' men who fled to their left, or 
 southwards, soon found their way barred by the 
 canal in front : behind they saw the swords of their 
 pursuers flashing : and, maddened by the press and 
 panic, they turned their weapons blindly one against 
 another. 
 
 The army of Bon6sus was cut to pieces. Marcian, 
 Prefect of Athrib, Leontius, Valens and many notable 
 persons were among the slain; and such was the 
 effect of the victory that even the Blue Faction 
 abandoned the cause of Phocas. But Bondsus him- 
 self managed to escape and retreat to the fortress 
 of Karilln, a place which figures again some thirty 
 years later in the advance of the Arabs under 'Amr 
 on Alexandria. It lay on both banks of the canal 
 which connected the capital with the Nile. Ibn 
 Haukal describes it in his day as a large and 
 beautiful town surrounded by gardens, and it still 
 survives as a village. What Paul and his flotilla 
 were doing during the battle is uncertain. They 
 may have been making a diversion towards the 
 south-west of the city, but they do not seem to have 
 been near the scene of the encounter either to aid 
 in the fight by land or to rescue survivors. 
 
 When at length Paul heard of this crushing defeat, 
 he thought seriously of surrendering and joining 
 Nicetas ; but he remained loyal to his party, and 
 secured his retreat by some means to Karifin, where 
 he joined Bon6sus. That general — whose extra- 
 ordinary resource and courage challenge our reluctant 
 
Failure of Bonosus 52 
 
 admiration — had no thought of abandoning the 
 struggle. He passed rapidly by the canal to the 
 western main of the Nile and ascended the stream 
 to Nikiou, which his troops still garrisoned. There 
 he recruited his fleet, and, after destroying a vast 
 number of Alexandrian vessels, he succeeded in 
 dominating the river. But not being strong enough 
 to confront Nicetas again, he passed down another 
 waterway (probably that called Ar RugishAt) towards 
 Mareotis, and entered the Dragon Canal on the west 
 of Alexandria with the intention of seizing Mareotis 
 as a fresh base • of operations against the capital. 
 But Nicetas received intelligence of his plan, and 
 defeated it by sending to break down the bridge 
 at a place called Dafashir, near Mareotis, and so 
 ■ blocking the canal. 
 
 Furious with this check, Bon6sus, renouncing the 
 methods of open warfare, resolved to assassinate his 
 rival. He persuaded one of his soldiers to go as an 
 envoy to Nicetas under pretence of arranging terms 
 of surrender. ' Take a short dagger with you,' he 
 said, ' and conceal it under your cloak. When you 
 come close to Nicetas, drive it through his heart, so 
 as to kill him on the spot. You may escape in the 
 confusion ; but if not, you will die to save the 
 Empire, and I will take charge of your children at 
 the royal palace and will provide for them for life.' 
 Such was the plot of Bon6sus ; but it was betrayed 
 by a traitor. One of his own followers named John 
 sent a message of warning to Nicetas j so that when 
 the assassin appeared, he was at once surrounded 
 by a guard, who searched' him and found the hidden 
 dagger. The weapon was used to behead him. 
 
 Thus baulked of his vengeance, Bonosus marched 
 by land to . Dafashir, and wreaked his spite by 
 
26 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 massacring the inhabitants. Nicetas was hurrying 
 to meet him : but Bon6sus knew the folly of risking 
 a battle with the diminished remnant of his force. 
 He therefore retreated, crossed the Nile, and once 
 more gained the shelter of Nikiou. Instead of 
 passing the river to pursue him, Nicetas remained 
 on the western side, and occupied the town and 
 province of Mareotis with a considerable army. 
 The desperate valour of his foe and the baffling 
 rapidity of his movements still gave the general 
 of Heraclius much cause for anxiety, and he met 
 his daring tactics with calculating prudence. It 
 was not till Nicetas had firmly secured his rear and 
 the western bank of the Nile that he passed over 
 the river and advanced on Manllf Here there was 
 a very strong fortress — one of the great works of 
 Trajan — which might have held out for an indefinite 
 time if vigorously defended. But it is clear that 
 popular sympathy was with the revolting party, and 
 that the imperial soldiers were losing heart, in spite 
 of the undaunted prowess of their leader. Many of 
 the garrison took to flight, and the citadel itself was 
 taken after a feeble resistance. 
 
 Having thus mastered the country on both banks 
 of the Nile, Nicetas advanced on the town of Nikiou, 
 which he had caught in a vice. At length the 
 indomitable spirit of Bon^sus was broken. He fled 
 under cover of darkness, and either slipped past the 
 besieging army eastward and got to Athrib, or else 
 dropped quickly down the main river, and then 
 crossed by one of the innumerable canals towards 
 Tanis. In either case he reached Pelusium in 
 safety, and took ship to Palestine : whence under the 
 execration of the people he passed on his way to 
 Constantinople, and joined his master Phocas. The 
 
Failure of Bonosus 27 
 
 fall of ManAf and Nikiou was the signal for the 
 surrender of the other imperial towns and generals. 
 Paul, Prefect of Samanud, and the vigorous cripple 
 Cosmas were captured, but frankly pardoned by the 
 conqueror : and the Green Faction, who had made 
 the occasion of Nicetas' success an excuse for mal- 
 treating the Blues and for open pillage and murder, 
 saw their leaders arrested and solemnly admonished 
 to be on their good behaviour. The two Factions 
 were actually reconciled : new governors were ap- 
 pointed to every town : law and order were re-estab- 
 lished : and Heraclius was master of Egypt. 
 
 It had been a long and a desperate struggle, with 
 a romantic ebb and flow of fortune. We have seen 
 the country roused from its sullen torpor by the 
 sound of Heraclius' trumpets: Nicetas capturing 
 Alexandria almost without striking a blow, and the 
 revolution triumphant through Egypt : then Bondsus 
 flinging himself like a tiger on the head of the Delta, 
 sweeping all before him to the walls of Alexandria, 
 and dashing against the city's bulwarks only to recoil 
 crushed and disabled for any further contest save 
 a guerilla warfare, which he maintained for a time ' 
 with fiery courage ; then, brought to bay at last, he 
 cheated the enemies that surrounded him of their 
 vengeance and stole away in the night It is a 
 remarkable picture, drawn in strong colours, but 
 bearing in every detail the image of reality; it is 
 one entirely unknown to history until revealed in 
 the Chronicle of John of Nikiou. 
 
 For not a word of all this dramatic struggle in 
 Egypt occurs in the Byzantine historians, except 
 that the Chronicon Paschale speaking of 609 A. d. 
 says, ' Africa and Alexandria revolt.' Gibbon, who 
 
28 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 knows every page of their writings, thus sums up 
 what he gleaned from them about the revolution: 
 ' The powers of Africa were armed by the two 
 adventurous youths (Heraclius and Nicetas) ; they 
 agreed that one should navigate the fleet from 
 Carthage to Constantinople, that the other should 
 lead an army through Egypt and Asia, and that the 
 imperial purple should be the reward of diligence 
 and success. A faint rumour of their undertaking 
 was conveyed to the ears of Phocas, and the wife 
 and mother of the younger Heraclius were secured 
 as the hostages of his faith : but the treacherous art 
 of Crispus extenuated the distant peril, the means of 
 defence were neglected or delayed, and the tyrant 
 supinely slept till the African navy cast anchor in 
 the Hellespont.' There is no suspicion here of the 
 part played by Egypt in the revolution. Indeed 
 a few pages later in the same chapter \ Gibbon, in 
 treating of the Persian invasion of Egypt under 
 Chosroes in 6i6 a. d., expressly, speaks of that 
 country as 'the only province which had been 
 exempt, since the time of Diocletian, from foreign 
 and domestic war': an extraordinary statement, 
 which Gibbon in part demolishes in his own brief 
 but vigorous account of the Copts in the following 
 chapter. The truth is that the more one studies 
 this period, the clearer it becomes that Egypt was 
 one of the most restless and turbulent countries in 
 the whole Empire, and, certainly since the Council 
 of Chalcedon, was in an almost chronic state of 
 disorder. There is abundant evidence of this not 
 only within the wide range of the Chronicle of John 
 of Nikiou but in Renaudot's well-known History of 
 the Patriarchs of Alexandria and in other writings, 
 
 ' Ch. xlvi. 
 
Failure of Bonosus 29 
 
 apart from the particular story of Heraclius, with 
 which we are now dealing. 
 
 This is not the place for a discussion upon either 
 the facts or the sources of Egyptian history during 
 the last two centuries of the Empire : but when 
 that record comes to be fully written, it will prove 
 a record of perpetual feud between Romans and 
 Egyptians — a feud of race and a feud of religion — 
 in which, however, the dominating motive was rather 
 rfeligious than racial. The key to the whole of this 
 epoch is the antagonism between the Monophysites 
 and the Melkites. The latter, as the name implies, 
 were the imperial or the Court party in religion, 
 holding the orthodox opinion about the two natures 
 of Christ : but this opinion the Monophysite Copts, 
 or native Egyptians, viewed with an abhorrence and 
 combated with a frenzy difficult to understand in 
 rational beings, not to say followers of the Gospel ^ 
 
 * Nor were the Monophysites without their own divisions. 
 Witness the curious contest between Theodosius, the man of 
 letters, and Gaian the Copt, for the Jacobite Patriarchate in the 
 early sixth century, when the monks were all for Gaian, and 
 though Theodosius got the start of him in performing the vigil 
 at St. Mark's Cathedral and securing his investiture with the 
 pallium, yet the people rose and drove him from the throne. But 
 no sooner was Gaian seated, than Theodora dispatched Narses 
 to depose him and to restore Theodosius. Popular tumults 
 followed and sanguinary encounters in the streets of Alexandria, 
 as the whole city rose, the very women hurling tiles from the 
 housetops on the head of the alien soldiers battling in the streets. 
 
 In the time of Justin I, civil war was waged for years between 
 one party who held that the body of Christ was corruptible and 
 another who held' it incorruptible. Justinian's appointment of 
 Zoilus as Patriarch caused a rebellion in which the Roman troops 
 were overpowered : and his device of making Apollinarius at once 
 Prefect and Patriarch of Alexandria occasioned a massacre, for 
 which the bishop in armour gave the word from the altar, so 
 
30 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 The spirit of the savage fanatics who tore Hypatia 
 to pieces at the altar was alive and unchanged: 
 only now instead of being directed against the 
 supposed paganism of a young and beautiful woman, 
 it was divided between two sects each of which 
 called itself children of Christ, and called the other 
 sons of Satan. But further, apart from all religious 
 dissensions, though crossed and complicated by them, 
 the strife of the Blue and the Green Factions was as 
 real and as relentless on the banks of the Nile as in 
 any part of the Empire. 
 
 So much then for the domestic peace of Egypt at 
 this period : and the alleged freedom from foreign 
 war is disproved at least by the invasion of the 
 Persians in the time of the Emperor Anastasius, 
 when according to Eutychius, a writer born in 
 Egypt, all the suburbs of Alexandria were burnt 
 down, battle after battle was fought between the 
 Persian invaders and the Egyptians, and the country 
 was so harried that it escaped from the sword only 
 to be smitten by a famine which led to insurrection. 
 And what is to be said of the almost perennial 
 persecutions and massacres, such as even Justinian 
 
 that the church ran with the blood of his Coptic congregation. 
 And though Justinian issued what was meant to be a reform- 
 ing edict for Egypt, it was the edict of a tyrant for a people of 
 slaves. 
 
 John of Nikiou implies that the Gaianite faction was still in 
 being at the time when he wrote. The Gaianite doctrine of the 
 incorruptibility of Our Lord's body was gradually abandoned by 
 the Copts, and the Theodosian doctrine of the natural body 
 prevailed. Thus Le Quien quotes the superscription of a letter 
 written by Khail, the forty-sixth Patriarch, as follows : ' Khail by 
 the Grace of God Bishop of the city of Alexandria and of the 
 Theodosian people.' This would be in the eighth century of our 
 era. Coptic documents of the seventh century have the same 
 expression, and Severus identifies the Copts with the Theodosians, 
 
Failure of Bonosus 31 
 
 must be said to have countenanced ? the petty rebel- 
 lions, like that of Aristomachus under the Emperor 
 Maurice ? the outbursts of organized brigandage, the 
 Beduin raids, the continual alarms and incursions of 
 the Sudan tribes, who then as now menaced the 
 frontiers ? If war was not often present in act, its 
 phantom was always hovering in the mirage of the 
 Egyptian horizon. 
 
 It is clear, then, that many causes contributed to 
 keep the whole province in a state of unrest. And 
 the divisions were at once so fierce and so manifold 
 that almost any determined invader might count on 
 the aid of some party within its borders. What 
 helped Nicetas was a genuine detestation of Phocas : 
 the measure of his crimes was full even in the 
 judgement of the Romans, while to the Copts he was 
 not merely a tyrant and an assassin, but the sign 
 and centre of that foreign power and that accursed 
 creed, the existence of which in Egypt embittered 
 their daily bread. But it is probable that, even 
 after the flight of Bonosus, Nicetas felt his continued 
 presence necessary to secure his authority. Un- 
 fortunately the dates here are somewhat hard to 
 follow. Apparently John of Nikiou makes all the 
 war, previous to the defeat of Bon6sus before Alex- 
 andria, take place in the seventh year of Phocas' 
 reign, i. e. before the close of 609 : the battle itself 
 then would be about the end of November, 609 ^, 
 and the subsequent events may have occupied a few 
 weeks longer. Still it would follow that Nicetas 
 was in possession of Egypt in the spring of 610. 
 
 1 This agrees with the statement that John the Almoner 
 was elected Patriarch in 609, in the room of Theodorus, 
 who was killed in the revolt of Nicetas. See Le Quien, Or. 
 Christ, ii. 444. 
 
32 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 On one point the bishop's Chronicle is curiously 
 silent — on the part played in the contest by the 
 powerful fortress of Babylon near Memphis. Next 
 to Alexandria, it was the strongest place in Egypt, 
 and of course it was held by an imperial garrison. 
 In the war of the Arab conquest it was the first 
 objective of the Saracen commander, and its reduc- 
 tion sealed the triumph of the Crescent. This is so 
 fully set forth by the Chronicle, that one can only in- 
 terpret its silence to mean that Babylon surrendered 
 to Nicetas without a conflict. But if so, and if the 
 war in Egypt was over by the spring of 6io, it is 
 more than ever clear that Nicetas had no idea of 
 racing for Constantinople. Else, assuming that he 
 could have drawn an adequate armament from 
 Egypt, which there is no reason to doubt, he might 
 have reached the Byzantine capital and overthrown 
 Phocas six months in advance of Heraclius. It is 
 true that Cedrenus assigns the massacre by Bonfisus 
 at Antioch to 6io, which would make the whole 
 Egyptian war fall within that year : but this chrono- 
 logy is not consistent with the rest of Cedrenus : 
 it disagrees with the Chronicon Paschale : and it is 
 hopelessly at variance with our Ethiopic MS., in 
 which generally speaking the dates are remarkably 
 trustworthy. The balance of evidence is then 
 strongly in favour of the earlier date, and we may 
 take it that Nicetas, having achieved the object of 
 his mission, when he won the final throw of the die 
 on the Nile, was well content to hold the province 
 pending the advance of Heraclius, to keep central- 
 ized and friendly all the imperial forces in the 
 country, and to control its vast resources in corn 
 and shipping on which Constantinople largely de- 
 pended. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 ACCESSION OF HERACLIUS 
 
 Heraclius' voyage. His long delay at Thessalonica. He sails 
 for Constantinople. Fighting at the capital, and death of Bonosus. 
 Naval engagement. Imperial treasure sunk in the sea. Phocas 
 captured and confronted with Heraclius. Sentence of death carried 
 out with barbarity. Coronation of Heraclius. Retrospect. 
 
 Meanwhile how was Heraclius faring ? Our in- 
 formation of his progress by sea is scanty enough, 
 nor does John of Nikiou add greatly to the meagre 
 details of the Byzantine historians, who, like him, 
 reserve their descriptions for the closing scenes at 
 Constantinople. But it is clear that the progress 
 was slow, and that like Nicetas he set out with a 
 comparatively small force of vessels, carrying some 
 Roman and African troops on board, and that he 
 had to collect and organize both a fleet and an 
 army with which he might adventure against Phocas. 
 At the islands where he touched, and at the towns 
 on the seaboard, he was welcomed, and recruits — 
 particularly of the Green ^ Faction — flocked to his 
 standard. Of resistance to his arms there is no 
 record : and yet it is certain that Heraclius never 
 dreamt of moving direct on Constantinople with the 
 small force with which he started. On quitting 
 Africa he coasted along Hellas or threaded the 
 islands slowly to Thessalonica, where he fixed his 
 base of operations and spent a considerable time — 
 
 ' There seems some doubt about the part played by the two 
 Factions. The Blue was originally for and the Green against 
 Phocas : but he clearly alienated even the Blue. John of Nikiou's 
 evidence on the whole goes to show that in Egypt it was the Greens, 
 as in Thrace and Constantinople, who favoured Heraclius. 
 
34 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 not less than a year — in equipping a fleet and army 
 and in strengthening his connexion with the disaffected 
 party led by Crispus in the capital. Thessalonica was 
 at this time, as we know, strongly fortified, and it 
 was one of the few places in Macedonia which had 
 withstood the hordes of Huns and other barbarians 
 then flooding the country \ It was in fact one of 
 the gates of the Eastern Empire : it commanded the 
 trade routes from Carthage, Sicily, and the western 
 Mediterranean to Constantinople. Here then Hera- 
 clius established himself presumably without a strug- 
 gle, and so firmly that one writer, Eutychius, appears 
 to imagine him a native of the town. It must, 
 however, be said that Eutychius' whole account of 
 the revolution is no less imperfect as a record of 
 events than confused in chronology: and on this 
 point he is clearly mistaken. 
 
 During the many months which Heraclius spent 
 at Thessalonica, we can only conceive of him as 
 maturing plans, gathering resources, and removing 
 obstacles. What difficulties he had to encounter 
 we cannot say : it is possible that at this period, 
 which is a blank in the annals, he may have dis- 
 played that combination of calculating foresight 
 and brilliant activity with which he subsequently 
 astonished the world in his Persian campaigns. But 
 it was not till September, 6io, that all was ready, 
 
 ^ A very interesting description of Thessalonica is given in 
 Joannis Comeniatae de Excidio Thessalonicensi Narraiio which 
 may be read in Combefisius' Historiae Byzantinae Scriptores Post 
 Theophanem (Paris, 1685, fol. pp. 320 seq.). The general situation 
 of the town is picturesquely sketched, and full details are given of 
 the forts, walls, and harbours. The magnificence of the streets 
 and buildings and the vastness of its trade, wealth, and resources 
 are a tolerable index of the importance of the city to Heraclius. 
 John wrote circa 900. 
 
Accession of Heraclius 35 
 
 and the vast armament which he had collected and 
 provisioned weighed anchor from the harbour. On 
 the leading galleys reliquaries were carried, and the 
 banner of the Cross waved at the mast-head : while 
 on Heraclius' own vessel an image of special sanctity, 
 ' the image not made with hands,' formed the figure- 
 head. News of the arrival of the fleet in the 
 Dardanelles spread like wild-fire to the capital ; and 
 while Crispus seems for the moment to have kept 
 in the background, Theodore the Illustrious and a 
 large number of senators and officials declared for 
 Heraclius. According to John of Nikiou the city 
 rabble also rose against the Emperor, hurling im- 
 precations on his head. 
 
 Phocas, meanwhile, seems to have been ill prepared 
 for the storm that had been so long in breaking. 
 When he first received news of the revolt of Eg^pt, 
 there was a large fleet of corn-ships from Alexandria 
 in harbour. These he seized, and flung the sailors 
 into prison in the fortress on the harbour of the 
 Hebdomon, where they were kept in long durance. 
 Yet after the failure of Bon6sus' expedition to re- 
 conquer Egypt, we read of no further serious efforts 
 on the Emperor's part. But it was the shout of 
 these Alexandrian prisoners, as they acclaimed the 
 sails of Heraclius, that sounded the first note of real 
 alarm which was borne to Phocas. The Emperor 
 was then at the Hebdomon palace^ near the 
 fortress : but he sprang on his horse and galloped 
 to a palace called the palace of the Archangel 
 
 ' The palace and fortress of the Hebdomon were on the coast 
 about three miles west of the Golden Gate of Constantinople, as 
 Prof. Van Millingen proves in his learned work Byzanline Con- 
 stantinople, pp. 316-41 (London, 1899). The incident in the text 
 is referred to on p. 324. 
 
 D 2 
 
36 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 within the walls. From the Chronicon Paschak 
 we know that this was on a Saturday ; which must 
 have been the 3rd October. Next day Bonosus 
 was sent with the imperial chariots and other 
 troops to encounter any force landed by Heracl'ius : 
 but the charioteers, who had been won over by 
 Crispus, revolted and turned on their leader, who fled 
 back, eating his heart with rage, to the city. There 
 in a fit of savage treachery Bon6sus hurled fire 
 into the quarter round the palace called Caesarion : 
 but, failing to kindle a conflagration, he baffled for 
 a while the pursuing mob, and escaped in a small 
 boat to the quay called Port Julian. Here, however, 
 he was followed and found, and the chase closed 
 about him. He essayed a fierce but vain resistance 
 against overwhelming odds : then in the last ex- 
 tremity of danger he plunged into the sea. As he 
 rose a sword-cut clove his skull, and that indignant 
 spirit fled from the scene where it had wrought so 
 much havoc. The body was taken out of the water 
 and dragged to the Ox Market, where it was burned 
 in public ignominy and execration. 
 
 This account of the death of Bondsus is put 
 together from the records of Cedrenus, John of 
 Nikiou, and the Chronicon Paschale. It is curious 
 how well they combine, and how little real disagree- 
 ment there is between them ; for although the 
 stories differ, it is rather by omission or addition 
 than by any discrepancy of fact. Moreover the 
 points of coincidence are often very striking; and 
 as it is rather a coincidence of logic than of detail, 
 it seems to establish at once the independence of 
 the writers and to carry a conviction of their trust- 
 worthiness. There is no sign of the three writers 
 relying on any common document. 
 
Accession of Heraclius 37 
 
 When the Emperor heard what had befallen 
 Bonosus, he knew that his own hour had come. 
 He had no intention of resigning the crown, nor 
 indeed any hope of mercy in case he surrendered to 
 his enemy : his only chance lay in fighting to the 
 bitter end, and the defection of his best troops made 
 this chance almost worthless. All he had now to 
 rely upon was the allegiance of the Blue Faction, or 
 rather their furious hostility to the Green and their 
 exasperation at the first successes of the rival colour. 
 Phocas accordingly manned a fleet with the Blues 
 in the harbour of St. Sophia, and prepared to give 
 battle to Heraclius. John of Nikiou is responsible 
 for a curious anecdote which, as far as I am aware, 
 does not occur in any other historian. He relates 
 that Phocas and his chamberlain or treasurer, Leon- 
 tius the Syrian, knowing that after the death of 
 Bondsus their own lives were in imminent danger 
 from the mob, took all the hoarded wealth of the 
 imperial treasury and sank it in the sea. All the 
 riches of the Emperor Maurice, all the vast store of 
 gold and jewels which Phocas himself had amassed 
 by confiscating the property of the victims he had 
 murdered, and last but not least all the money and 
 precious vessels which Bondsus had heaped up by 
 his multiplied iniquities, were now in a moment 
 lost to the world. ' Thus,' as the Egyptian bishop 
 remarks, 'did Phocas impoverish the Eastern Empire.' 
 
 It was an act of triumphant spite such as well 
 accords with the character of the Emperor, and 
 apparently it took place when victory declared for 
 Heraclius in the naval engagement. The treasure 
 must have been taken on board the Emperor's 
 galley, to save it from being plundered while the 
 battle was raging, and sunk bodily when the battle 
 
38 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 was lost. For though the contest may have been 
 stubborn, the issue was not doubtful. The imperial 
 vessels were defeated and driven on the shore or 
 captured. All who could, escaped, and fled for 
 sanctuary to the Cathedral of St. Sophia. Phocas 
 himself seems to have made his way back with 
 Leontius to the palace of the Archangel, where 
 they were followed and seized by Photius (or 
 Photinus) and Probus. The crown was struck off 
 the Emperor's head, and he was dragged with his 
 companion in chains along the quay, his raiment torn 
 to pieces. There he was shown to the victorious 
 fleet and army, and with a storm of curses ringing 
 in his ears, he was haled into the presence of his 
 conqueror in the church of St. Thomas the Apostle. 
 
 It is probable that this church was chosen for 
 Heraclius' thanksgiving service rather than St. 
 Sophia, because the latter was too crowded with 
 refugees of the defeated Faction to admit of any 
 large company or solemn pageant. There is no 
 necessity to draw on the imagination for many details 
 of the meeting between Phocas and Heraclius. We 
 may picture a stately basilica thronged with officers, 
 senators and soldiers, priests standing in gorgeous 
 vestments round the altar laden with golden vessels, 
 and the strains of the Te Deum dying away as 
 Phocas is brought in chains. 
 
 For a moment the fallen Emperor and his vic- 
 torious vassal stand fronting each other. Their por- 
 traits are well known as drawn by Cedrenus. Hera- 
 clius was in the prime of life — his age was about 
 thirty-five — of patrician family, of middle stature and 
 muscular build, deep-chested, with well-knit athletic 
 frame : his hair and beard were fair, his complexion 
 bright and clear, his eyes pale blue and singularly 
 
Aceesst'on of Heraclius 39 
 
 handsome. Altogether a man of frank and open 
 presence and aristocratic mien, with a look of power, 
 physical and intellectual : a face denoting courage, 
 insight, ability, and perhaps that unscrupulous- 
 ness which Eutychius commemorates. Phocas was 
 of the same height : but there the resemblance 
 ended. His person was repulsive from its hideous 
 deformity : his beardless face was crossed by a deep 
 and ugly scar which flushed and blackened in his fits 
 of passion ; his jutting eyebrows met on a low fore- 
 head under a shock of red hair, and the eyes of a 
 savage glared beneath them. Foul of tongue, be- 
 sotted in wine and lust, ruthless and remorseless in 
 torture and bloodshed — such was the ex-centurion 
 whose lash had scourged the Eastern Empire for 
 eight years, and who now was called to answer for 
 his deeds. As crime after crime was unfolded, ' Is 
 this,' said Heraclius, ' the way you have governed ? ' 
 ' Are you the man,' was the retort, ' to govern better ? ' 
 Sentence of death was passed, and it is a reproach 
 rather to the manners of the time than to the 
 character of Heraclius that its execution was accom- 
 panied by horrible barbarities — though perhaps not 
 much worse than the drawing and quartering which 
 our own law formerly sanctioned. Phocas' body was 
 dismembered : first the hands and feet were cut off, 
 then the arms, and after other mutilations the head 
 at last was severed, put on a pole, and carried about 
 the main streets of the city. Meanwhile the trunk 
 was dragged along the ground to the Hippodrome, 
 and thence to the Ox Market, and burned on the 
 spot where Bonosus' ashes were hardly cold. The 
 banner of the Blue Faction (not the Green, as 
 Gibbon says) was also burned, and a statue of 
 Phocas was carried through the Hippodrome in 
 
40 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 mock procession by men clad in white dalmatics 
 and bearing lighted tapers, and was thrown on the 
 fire. ' They burned Phocas, Leontius, and Bonosus 
 and scattered their ashes to the winds : for all men 
 hated them.' 
 
 According to John of Nikiou, Heraclius was 
 crowned — against his own wishes — in the same 
 church of St. Thomas; and after his prayer was 
 ended, he repaired to the palace, where all the dig- 
 nitaries of the city rendered him homage. Cedrenus 
 makes the imperial coronation take place in the 
 chapel of St. Stephen attached to the palace, while 
 the Chronicon Paschale puts it out of order between 
 the burning of Phocas' body and his statue, naming 
 no place. It is curious that the Egyptian chronicle 
 confirms the story of Heraclius' reluctance to accept 
 the crown — a reluctance emphasized by the Chroni- 
 con Paschale as well as the Byzantine historians. 
 But his scruples were overcome : and on October 5 
 in the year 610 he was proclaimed Emperor, with 
 Fabia, his betrothed wife, whose name was changed 
 to Eudocia, as Empress. 
 
 Nicetas does not seem to have made any effort to 
 join Heraclius before Constantinople : for though 
 John of N-ikiou uses language apparently implying 
 his presence in the city at the time of Phocas' fall, 
 Zotenberg must be right in thinking that ' Nicetas ' 
 there is a mere slip on the part of writer or copyist 
 for ' Crispus.' The fact of Nicetas leaving Egypt 
 to join forces with Heraclius, and succeeding in his 
 object, would not have been buried, if it were a fact, 
 in the obscurity of a chance allusion. But I must 
 again differ from Gibbon, who says : — 
 
 ' The voyage of Heraclius had been easy and 
 prosperous, the tedious march of Nicetas was not 
 
Accession of Heraclius 41 
 
 accomplished before the decision of the contest : but 
 he submitted without a murmur to the fortune of his 
 friend.' 
 
 The truth, as I have shown, is just the reverse. 
 It was Nicetas' march which on the whole was easy 
 and prosperous : and in spite of the dangers and 
 delays arising from the intervention of Bon6sus, 
 he reached his final goal, the possession of Egypt, 
 long before Heraclius was able to move from 
 Thessalonica. From which it is fair to argue that 
 Heraclius in his voyage had difficulties and ad- 
 versities to master, of which we have no record 
 and no measure. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 EGYPT UNDER THE NEW EMPEROR 
 
 Nicetas remains as Governor of Alexandria. His policy. Gap 
 in the history of Egypt. Our dependence on patriarchal biographies. 
 John the Almoner and the great famine. Corn-ships belonging to 
 the Church. Succession of Coptic Patriarchs. 
 
 Nicetas was confirmed by the Emperor in the 
 governorship of Alexandria or, as it might be called, 
 the Viceroyalty of Egypt '. The adherents of Phocas 
 had now been killed or banished, or had thrown off 
 their allegiance to the lost cause, and the chief work 
 of Nicetas was the resettlement of the Roman civil 
 service and the reorganization of the Roman military 
 service, which between them held Egypt in fee for 
 the Empire. Both these services were filled by the 
 ruling class to the general exclusion of the Copts 
 or natives, and the system was so far analogous 
 to the British administration of India : it differed 
 profoundly and fatally in this, that the whole 
 machinery of government in Egypt was directed 
 to the sole purpose of wringing profit out of the 
 ruled for the benefit of the rulers. There was no 
 idea of governing for the advantage of the governed, 
 of raising the people in the social scale, of developing 
 the moral or even the material resources of the 
 country. It was an alien domination founded on 
 force and making little pretence of sympathy with 
 the subject race. It held the Greek capital of 
 Alexandria and the ancient Egyptian capital of 
 
 ' There is a good note on Nicetas in H. Gelzer's Leontios' von 
 Neapolis Leben des heiligen Johannes, p. 129. 
 
Egypt under the new Emperor 43 
 
 Memphis, with its great bulwark the Roman fortress 
 of Babylon on the eastern side of the Nile, and 
 from Syene to Pelusium it occupied a chain of 
 fortress towns. From these its soldiers and tax- 
 gatherers patrolled the country, keeping order and 
 collecting money, while Roman merchants and Jewish 
 traders settled freely under protection of the garrisons, 
 keenly competing with their Coptic rivals. 
 
 Alexandria itself was as difficult a city to govern 
 as any in the world with its motley population of 
 Byzantine Greeks, Greeks born in Egypt, Copts, 
 Syrians, Jews, Arabs, and aliens of all nations. 
 Yet Nicetas seems really to have won the respect, 
 if not the affection, of the fickle and turbulent 
 Alexandrians. One of his first measures was to 
 grant a three years' remission of the imperial taxes, 
 an act of singular favour, which heightened the 
 popularity already gained by his record as a brilliant 
 soldier. That he remained at Alexandria is no 
 longer open to question ^ True, we hear of him 
 at Jerusalem before the Persian advance to that 
 city, where he is said to have saved some of the 
 holy relics — the spear and the sponge — from capture : 
 but as we shall see he returned to Alexandria again. 
 
 ^ This is quite clear from Leontius and other sources. But the 
 fact of Nicetas' governorship of Alexandria seems unknown even 
 to Professor Bury, who apparently follows Gibbon in thinking that 
 Nicetas was still bent on marching his hapless forces all the way 
 by land to Constantinople, through Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and 
 Asia Minor ; for he says that Nicetas ' did not arrive in Con- 
 stantinople till about April, 612. We know not what detained him 
 on bis journey : but it may be conjectured that he lingered in Syria 
 to operate against the Persians ' {History of the Later Roman 
 Empire, vol. ii. p. 216, n. 2). The story of the landward race to 
 Constantinople is pure legend. Nicetas' destination was Egypt, 
 and he remained there to govern the country he had conquered for 
 Heraclius. 
 
44 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 The fact doubtless is that HeracHus ordered hirrt 
 
 to Palestine in hope that he might offer an effectual 
 
 resistance to the Persian armies, whose numbers 
 
 and strength he greatly under-estimated ; and that 
 
 Nicetas had no alternative but to beat a hasty 
 
 retreat. 
 
 But here most unfortunately the history of Egypt 
 is extremely difficult to recover. The annals of John 
 of Nikiou, which up to this point have furnished a 
 wealth of information, now become totally silent. 
 There is in the MS. a blank of thirty years, just 
 as if some malignant hand had torn out every page 
 on which the record of the reign of Heraclius 
 was written. Some Armenian ' and other eastern 
 authorities who deal with this period throw much 
 light upon the history of some parts of the Empire : 
 but, like the Byzantine historians, they have little 
 to say on the subject of Egypt. Yet dimly through 
 the gloom one may mark the movement of those 
 great events which at the close of the Emperor's 
 life closed the book of Byzantine overlordship in 
 Egypt. 
 
 In tracing the story of Egypt during the thirty 
 years between the accession of Heraclius and the 
 Arab conquest we are mainly dependent on eccle- 
 siastical writers or writers with a strong religious 
 bias. The truth is that in the seventh century in 
 Egypt the interest of politics was quite secondary 
 to the interest of religion. It was opinion on 
 matters of faith, and not on matters of government, 
 which formed and divided parties in the state ; and 
 religion itself was valued rather for its requirement 
 of intellectual assent to certain propositions than 
 
 ^ For a list of Armenian authorities see Journal Asiatique, 6« 
 s^rie, 1 866, vol. vii. p. 109. 
 
Egypt under the new Emperor 45 
 
 for its power to furnish the springs of moral 
 action. Love of country was practically unknown, 
 and national or racial antagonisms derived their 
 acuteness mainly from their coincidence with religious 
 differences. Men debated with fury upon shadows 
 of shades of belief and staked their lives on the 
 most immaterial issues, on the most subtle and 
 intangible refinements in the formulas of theology 
 or metaphysics. And the fierce battles which 
 Juvenal describes as turning in his day on the 
 relative merit of cats or crocodiles as objects of 
 worship found their analogue in Christian Egypt : — 
 
 Numina vicinorum 
 Odit uterque locus, cum solos credat habendos 
 Esse deos quos ipse colit. 
 
 Times had changed, but the temper of the people 
 was the same. Inasmuch then as parties and party 
 divisions were essentially sectarian, it is rather the 
 lives of saints and patriarchs than those of warriors 
 or statesmen, which have survived to furnish the 
 sources of Egyptian history. 
 
 The resulting difficulties are not lessened by the 
 -fact that at this time, as ever since the Council .of 
 Chalcedon in 45 1 , each of the two great parties into 
 which the Church was cloven had its own separate 
 Patriarch and administration. These parties, it may 
 be repeated, are distinguished by the familiar names 
 Jacobite or Coptic and Melkite ^ or Royalist. The 
 Jacobites were by creed Monophysites, by race 
 mainly, though not exclusively, native Egyptians ^ : 
 
 ^ The root ' melek ' signifying king is common to all Semitic 
 languages. The term Melkite as employed in Egypt probably 
 came from the Syriac, so that there is no anachronism in using it 
 before the Arab conquest. 
 
 " The importance of the Copts even in Alexandria is shown by 
 
46 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 while the Melkites were orthodox followers of 
 Chalcedon and for the most part of Greek or 
 European origin. Severus of Ushmtinain and all 
 the authorities agree that, whatever Emperor 
 reigned, the policy of suppressing the Jacobite 
 heresy in Egypt was pursued with relentless in- 
 tolerance : while the Jacobites aimed no less at 
 extirpating all that stood in the following of 
 Chalcedon. 
 
 It has already been shown that the Melkite 
 Patriarch, who was called Theodorus, was slain at the 
 capture of Alexandria by Nicetas In 609^. The 
 revolt of Heracllus was directed against the imperial 
 power at Constantinople, and in joining it the 
 Copts doubtless hoped for better treatment than 
 they had received under the iron rule of Phocas. 
 
 a story in Procopius (Athens, 1896, p. 221). When Justinian 
 in 538 made Paul bishop of Alexandria, he gave him authority 
 over the governor Rhodon, hoping thus to secure obedience to 
 Chalcedon from the chief men of the city. Paul's first act was to 
 deliver to death the deacon Psoes, a Copt who wrote Coptic and 
 was the main hindrance to the Emperor's policy. Psoes died under 
 torture : the people rose in fury : and to pacify them Justinian 
 recalled Rhodon and had him executed at Constantinople in spite 
 of the thirteen dispatches, ordering him to obey the Patriarch, 
 which he produced in self-defence. Liberius, who succeeded 
 Rhodon as governor of Alexandria, proceeded to crucify one 
 Arsenius who had been a principal agent in the death of Psoes ; 
 so that the latter was fully avenged. Le Quien makes out that 
 it was Rhodon who originated the order to murder Psoes : but his 
 bias in favour of the Court party is as clear as Procopius' testimony 
 against the Patriarch Paul. 
 
 ' Sharpe is mistaken in saying that Theodore was bishop ' during 
 the first three years of Heraclius ' : History of Egypt under the 
 Romans, p. 240. The Chronicon Paschale says that in this year the 
 Pope of Alexandria ' was slain by his enemies ' (o-^affrnj dwi 
 ivamiav — which may mean the Copts) i. e. 609, in which year also 
 Zacharias was made Patriarch of Jerusalem. 
 
Egypt- under the new Emperor 47 
 
 Nor at first were they greatly disappointed. The 
 Coptic Patriarch Anastasius, who had been on the 
 throne for five years at the time of the rebellion, 
 retained his seat for another six years till his death 
 on 22 Khoiak (18 Dec), A. d. 616 1. And although 
 the Melkites remained in possession of power and 
 held the principal churches in Alexandria, yet the 
 Copts were able to build or rebuild several churches 
 of their own, such as those of St. Michael, St. 
 Angelus, SS. Cosmas and Damian, besides various 
 monasteries, to all of which Anastasius appointed 
 priests and ordained bishops ^. 
 
 There seems no reason to doubt that Heraclius 
 was genuinely anxious to win over the Coptic party, 
 and at the same time Nicetas felt bound to re- 
 compense their services rendered. Hence although 
 the Byzantine Court still appointed a Melkite 
 Patriarch in place of the slain Theodorus, they 
 
 ' This on the whole seems the most probable date, though here 
 as elsewhere the chronology is extremely difficult. Ab(l '1 Birkat 
 makes Anastasius die in 604 : the Chronicon Orientale assigns his 
 death to 611, after a primacy of 12 years and 190 days: while 
 Echellensis claims greater accuracy in dating him 607 to 619. But 
 on the one hand the Chronicon expressly states that the reception 
 of the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch by Anastasius occurred in the 
 year in which the Persians devastated Jerusalem, i. e. in 61^ : and 
 ■on the other hand we know from Severus that the Persian invasion 
 of Egypt (which happened jn 616) took place after the death of 
 Anastasius, Both statements may be reconciled with the date given 
 in the text for the death of Anastasius, viz. December, 616, although 
 the Chronicon is inconsistent with itself in putting the decease of 
 Anastasius in the year 611. See Appendix B, where all this 
 chronology is discussed at more length. 
 
 ^ Severus of Ushmflnain quoted by Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 444. 
 The Chronicon Orientale goes further in saying that Anastasius not 
 only built new churches, but restored to the Copts many of which 
 the Melkites had taken possession. This could only be by the 
 favour of Nicetas and the Emperor. 
 
48 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 chose, on the special recommendation of Nicetas^', 
 a man whose Hfe and character so far commanded 
 the admiration of the Jacobites, that they honoured 
 him during his lifetime and after death enshrined 
 his memory in the Coptic calendar. It is curious 
 to find that Nicetas was at a later date largely 
 instrumental in bringing about the union of the 
 Monophysite Syrian with the Coptic Church, a fact 
 which shows that his abiding attitude to the Copts 
 was one of sympathy rather than mere tolerance. 
 
 The new Melkite Archbishop was John the Com- 
 passionate, or the Almoner — a name bestowed upon 
 him for his great acts of charity ^ But his lavish- 
 ness was not wholly without a method. He told 
 those about him to go through the city and take 
 note of all his ' lords and helpers.' When they 
 questioned his meaning, he explained : ' Those 
 whom you call paupers and beggars I call lords and 
 helpers : for they truly help us and grant us the 
 Kingdom of Heaven.' So a roll of the poor was 
 prepared, and they received daily relief to the 
 number of 7,500. The governor Nicetas, watching 
 with envy the ceaseless flow of wealth from the 
 Patriarch, went to him one day and said, ' The 
 government is hard pressed for money : what you 
 receive is gotten freely without impoverishing any- 
 body : therefore give it to the treasury.' The 
 
 ^ Gelzer's Leoniios von Neapolis, Anhang ii. p. no (fragment 
 from Life of John the Almoner by John Moschus and Sophronius). 
 
 ^ Gibbon remarks curiously and with curious unfairness : ' The 
 boundless alms of John the Eleemosynary were dictated by super- 
 stition or benevolence or policy ' : and he seems to say that it was 
 in John's time that ' the churches of Alexandria were delivered 
 to the Catholics and the religion of the Monophysites was pro- 
 scribed ' — a statement which happens to be less true of this time 
 than of almost any other. 
 
Egypt under the new Emperor 49 
 
 Patriarch answered: 'What is offered to the heavenly 
 King must not be given to an earthly. I can give 
 you nothing. But yours is the responsibility, and 
 the store of the Lord is under my bed.' So Nicetas 
 called his retainers, and ordered them to take the 
 money. As they were leaving, they met men 
 carrying in their hands little jars labelled 'Best 
 Honey' and ' Unsmoked Honey,' and Nicetas asked 
 for a jar for his own table. The bearers whispered 
 to the Patriarch that the vessels were full of gold : 
 nevertheless John sent a jar to Nicetas with a 
 message advising him to have it opened in his 
 own presence, and adding that all the vessels he 
 had seen were full of money. Nicetas thereupon 
 went in person to the Patriarch and returned all 
 the money he had taken, together with the jar and 
 a handsome sum besides ^. 
 
 Stories of this kind at least show the power and 
 resources of the pontiff at Alexandria, and it is 
 interesting to learn also that the Church had its 
 own fleet of trading vessels. It is related that one 
 such ship with a cargo of 20,000 bushels of corn 
 was driven so far out of its course by storms that 
 it reached Britain, where there happened to be a 
 severe famine. It returned laden with tin, which 
 the captain sold at Pentapolis. In another instance 
 we hear of a flotilla of thirteen ships, each carrying 
 10,000 bushels of grain, which lost all their burden 
 in a tempest in the Adriatic. They belonged to 
 the Church, and besides corn they carried silver, 
 
 ' These details are given by Leontius (Gelzer, op. cit., and 
 Migne, Patr. Gr. t. 93, col. i6i8). Another account — and a 
 very probable one — makes Nicetas demand the money by order 
 of Heraclius, who needed it to reorganize his army : see Lebeau's 
 Histoire du Bas Empire, ed, de Saint-Martin, vol. xi. pp. 52-3. 
 
50 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 fine tissues, and other precious wares \ Nor can 
 it be doubted that the Church had its share of 
 the enormous grain trade between Alexandria 
 and Constantinople which Justinian carefully re- 
 organized ^ And beyond the profits of such traffic 
 and the voluntary offerings of the people, the 
 Church had endowments of land which brought 
 in large revenues. Hence it is not surprising to 
 learn that, while John the Almoner astonished the 
 world by his bounty, Andronicus, who succeeded 
 Anastasius as Coptic Patriarch, and was for some 
 few months at any rate contemporary with John, 
 was scarcely less famed for his wealth and his 
 charity. 
 
 Although the double succession of pontiffs was 
 maintained, and although the early policy of Heraclius 
 was to bring about a reconcilement between the two 
 great branches of the Church of Egypt, yet as a rule 
 the Coptic Archbishop was unable to maintain his 
 
 ' It is possible that the Church secured special trading privileges 
 ■when Hephaestus, governor of Alexandria under Justinian, stopped 
 the public distribution of corn (then amounting to 2,000,000 bushels 
 annually), which had been customary since the days of Diocletian. 
 Hephaestus in a letter to the Emperor criticized the system of 
 distribution as both unjust and impolitic. See Procopius, p. 219 
 (Athens, 1896). 
 
 ^ The corn-stores by the docks at Phiale in Alexandria were 
 liable to attack and plunder in every street riot, till Justinian 
 fortified the granaries in connexion with the service of barges from 
 the Nile with a strong enclosure wall. Moreover the corn-ships 
 were often detained at the mouth of the Dardanelles waiting for 
 a south wind to carry them forward : but to obviate this delay 
 Justinian built large storehouses where the ships could at once 
 deliver their cargoes and clear for return to Egypt, while another 
 service of vessels would carry the corn on to Constantinople when 
 the wind favoured. See Procopius on the Buildings of Justinian, 
 Palestine Pilgrims Text Society, voh ii.. p. 152. 
 
Egypt under the new Emperor 51 
 
 seat in the metropolis. The hostility between the 
 two sects, even when smouldering, was ready to 
 burst into a blaze when fanned by the slightest 
 gust of passion; and the government could not in 
 common prudence brook the presence of the rival 
 Archbishops in the capital^. When, for example, 
 Anastasius welcomed the Patriarch of Antioch, we 
 find him living at the Ennaton, a famous monastery, 
 which lay near the shore nine miles westward of 
 Alexandria^, and from there he went forth in solemn 
 
 ' It is fair to state that Makrtzt makes Anastasius 'take up 
 his residence at Alexandria.' This may mean no more than that 
 he resided near Alexandria, which is not disputed : but Makrizi's 
 whole account of this period is very confused and untrustworthy. 
 See Malan's translation, pp. 67-9. 
 
 ' In Coptic this monastery appears as nieii«.Tore (Zoega, Cat. 
 Cod. Copt. pp. 89, 93), nigeni^Ton (id. ib. 337), and ngenaLToii 
 (Am^lineau, Geographic de V Egypte a V opaque Copte, p. 531). 
 The Greek form to 'EvraToj/ or 'Evarov (Cotelerius, Monumenta 
 Ecdesiae Graecae, t. i. pp. 460, 520; John Moschus, Pratum 
 Spirituale, c. 145, 177, 184) is translated as 'Ennatum' in Latin 
 {Rosweyde, Vitae Patrum, pp. 609, 613). The Arabic Makrizl 
 identifies a monastery which he calls that of s'W'j)^' (""^ ^^ glass- 
 blower) with the Ennaton, y^Ull, and he adds that it is under 
 the invocation of St. George. The Patriarch formerly was obliged 
 after his election in the church of Al Mu'allakah in the Roman 
 Fortress of Babylon at Misr to visit the Monastery of Al Zfijaj, 
 but the custom fell into disuse, says Makrtzt. It certainly 
 points to the very great importance of the Ennaton in the eyes 
 of the Copts — an importance which is emphasized in the history 
 of the sixth and seventh centuries. It was there that, according to 
 the Synaxaria, the body of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, was pre- 
 served, that the work of revising the Syriac version was carried 
 out, and that the union of the Churches of Egypt and Antioch 
 was accomplished at this period. The monastery is mentioned 
 by Aba Salih {Churches and Monasteries of Egypt, ed. Evetts 
 and Butler, p. 229 and note), who uses the form (j^jUU^. Gold- 
 schmidt and Pereira, to whose note I am much indebted, conclude 
 that the Ennaton is the same as Al Zfljij : that it lay nine miles 
 
 E 2 
 
52 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 procession to meet his visitor*. Nor did he go to 
 Alexandria, but summoned thence his clergy and 
 held in the monastery that conclave which resulted 
 in the re-establishment of full communion with 
 Antioch. 
 
 But Andronicus, the successor of Anastasius, offers 
 a remarkable exception to this rule of non-residence. 
 At the time of his election he was deacon at the 
 Cathedral church of Angelion^ in Alexandria, and 
 there in the cells attached to the Cathedral he 
 continued to reside during the whole period of his 
 
 to the west of Alexandria : and that it was under the invocation 
 of St. George (Vida do Abba Daniel do Mosteiro de Scetf, 
 VersSio Ethiopica, p. 37 n.). I think it clear that the name 
 comes from the milestone distance, just as at Constantinople the 
 well-known fortress and palace was called the Hebdomon or 
 Seventh: but the dedication is more doubtful. It appears to be 
 called "^aXa-im in John Moschus ; it was quite distinct from the 
 monastery which appears in Severus as ^^uy^^j but which should 
 certainly be read as \j->j>j^ j>i, or (j-jJ^J, Kyrios or Cyprius. 
 But the fact doubtless is that, as usual in the case of large 
 monasteries, many churches were included within the walls; 
 and as these had their separate dedications, there is ground for 
 some confusion. South-west of Alexandria towards Mareotis there 
 was another called to Ue/iirTov, and we read of another called 
 TO 'OyStoKauKarov : see Revue de t Orient Chretien, 1901, no. i 
 p. 65, n. I. 
 
 ' Mrs. E. L. Butcher, in her work The Story of the Church of 
 Egypt, represents the Patriarch of Antioch as taking refuge in 
 Egypt at the time of the Persian invasion : but the truth is that 
 he came to confer with the Coptic Patriarch on Church matters, 
 more particularly the Union. At the same time great numbers 
 of Syrian clergy with their bishops, as well as laymen of all 
 ranks, are specially recorded to have fled to Alexandria before 
 the Persian invasion. Gelzer's Leontios von Neapolis, Anhang 
 ii. p. 112. 
 
 = It is not clear whether Angelion or Euangelion is the proper 
 title of this church. Both forms are found, but the simple Angelion 
 seems the more common. 
 
Egypt under the new Emperor 53 
 
 primacy, which lasted six years. This immunity 
 from banishment was due to the fact that he 
 belonged to a noble family, and had the support 
 of powerful kinsmen in the government of the city. 
 What the personal relations of the two Patriarchs 
 were is not known; but John the Almoner died 
 a few months after Andronicus came to the Coptic 
 throne, and it is doubtful whether George^, the 
 successor of John in the Melkite chair, lived in 
 Alexandria at all, so that the personal question may 
 never have become dangerous. 
 
 It is useless to regret that these not very interest- 
 ing details of matters ecclesiastical furnish the chief 
 record that remains of the history of Egypt during 
 the first five or six years following the revolt of 
 Heraclius. But it is time now to pass to those 
 great events with which the eastern part of the 
 Empire was ringing, events which had their in- 
 stantaneous echo on the banks of the Nile, and 
 which were destined to shake the Byzantine power 
 in Egypt to its foundations and prepare the way 
 for the Arab conquest. But the great conflict 
 between the Empire and Persia took place on a 
 wider stage ; and in order to understand its bearing 
 upon the fortunes of Egypt, it is necessary to follow 
 its vicissitudes, if only in rough outline. 
 
 ^ Little or nothing is known of George except that he wrote 
 a life of St. John Chrysostom. Theophanes gives fourteen years 
 as the term of his patriarchate, yet inconsistently, though truly 
 perhaps, makes him die in 630, after a period of only ten years 
 on the throne. Eutychius makes a vacancy of seven years 
 between John and George, and this is probably the explanation 
 of the discrepancy in Theophanes. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 PERSIAN CONQUEST OF SYRIA 
 
 Chosroes established on the throne of Persia. Death of Maurice 
 and rupture between Persia and the Empire. Persian conquest of 
 Syria. Jews and Christians. Fall of Jerusalem and captivity of 
 the Patriarch Zacharias. Flight of refugees to Egypt. John the 
 Almoner's measures of relief. Rebuilding of the churches in 
 Jerusalem. Christian council held by Chosroes. The Almoner's 
 mission to Jerusalem. 
 
 When Chosroes, grandson of AnAshlrwin, the 
 great King of Persia, had a few days after his 
 enthronement been driven from his kingdom by the 
 rebel usurper Bahram, he fled with his two uncles 
 across the Tigris, cutting the ropes of the ferry 
 behind him to baffle his pursuers \ He pushed on 
 to Circesium on the Euphrates, wishing to pray at 
 a Christian shrine for deliverance from his enemies. 
 Thence he is said to have wandered irresolute and 
 despondent ; and hesitating whether he should seek 
 protection with the Huns or with the Romans, he 
 threw the reins on his horse's neck and left the 
 decision to chance^. His animal carried him to 
 the Roman frontiers, and he became the guest of 
 the nation with whom his country had been waging 
 war for the space of nearly seven centuries. 
 
 He was well received by the Emperor Maurice, 
 or rather by his lieutenant, at Hierapolis. The 
 Emperor is said himself to have sent him a treasure 
 
 ' Journal Asiatique, 6^ sdrie, 1866, p. 192. The uncles, named 
 Bunddwi and Bustam, were put to death in true oriental style by 
 their nephew on his accession to the throne. 
 
 "^ Tarikh Regum Persiae, ed. W. Schikard, p. 154. 
 
Persian Conquest of Syria 55 
 
 of priceless jewels and to have given him his 
 daughter Mary in marriage ^ It is of more impor- 
 tance that he espoused the cause of the Persian 
 prince, and sent Narses with a vast army to recover 
 the kingdom from Bahrdm. The issue was decided 
 in a bloody battle on the river Zab in the district 
 of Balarath, where, although the Persian commander 
 fought with his usual adroitness and valour, his 
 army was outnumbered and cut to pieces. Bahram 
 fled to Balkh, where the ministers of the King's 
 vengeance soon tracked him down and destroyed 
 him ^, Chosroes was thus by Roman aid placed 
 on the throne of Persia; a picked regiment of a 
 thousand Romans formed his body-guard; and 
 peace was established between the two Empires. 
 It is even said that Chosroes turned Christian, and 
 his costly offerings at the shrine of St. Sergius 
 and his letters to the Patriarch of Antioch are 
 quoted as evidence of his preference for the Jacobite 
 profession of faith ^. 
 
 ^ So Eutychius and Makin, while other writers merely make 
 the lady of Roman birth. She is apparently identified by Gibbon 
 with- Shirin; but the Persian romance called The Loves of 
 Khusrau and Shirtn clearly distinguishes Mary as a separate 
 personality. See Sir W. Ouseley's translation in Oriental Collec- 
 tions, vol. i. p. 224. Yet Shtrln also was a Christian. Sebeos, 
 who calls her Queen of Queens, says that she built besides 
 monasteries a church near the royal palace, which she adorned 
 with gold and silver, and to which she appointed priests and 
 deacons, with endowments from the royal exchequer for salaries 
 and vestments. 
 
 = According to one account he was poisoned by the Queen 
 of the Khakan of Tartary, to whom Chosroes was related. See 
 Sir J. Malcolm's History of Persia, vol. i. p. 155 n. 
 
 = Abfi '1 Faraj, who gives in full the letters exchanged between 
 Chosroes and Maurice, adds that after the defeat of Bahram the 
 King built two churches for the Christians, one dedicated to the 
 
56 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 No doubt his education and his close relations 
 with the Christian Empire, as well as his marriage, 
 softened the traditional hostility of a Magian to the 
 Christian religion. But the Romans claimed as the 
 reward of their alliance an annexation of territory 
 which brought their Empire up to the banks of 
 the Araxes ; and while this loss was galling to 
 Chosroes and his people, the King's leanings to an 
 alien religion were equally galling to his priests, and 
 
 B.V.M., the other to St. Sergius (ed. Pococke, pp. 96-8). The 
 offerings are mentioned by Evagrius, who says that Chosroes gave 
 to the church a processional cross, a chalice and paten, an altar- 
 cross, and a censer — all of pure gold — besides a curtain of Hunnish 
 embroidery spangled with gold. Theophylact also relates that 
 Chosroes in his hour of dejection vowed a magnificent golden cross 
 set with pearls and sapphires to St. Sergius — a saint whom even 
 the wandering tribes venerated — and he gives the same list of 
 additional offerings made by Chosroes when Sira or Shirln showed 
 promise of bearing a son. The great Anflshirwan himself, for all 
 his persecution of the Christians, is alleged to have been on friendly 
 terms with Uranius, a Nestorian Christian philosopher widely famed 
 for his Aristotelian teaching : see Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History 
 eleventh ed., p. 218. 5 (London, W. Tegg, 1880). But the author 
 of this story cannot have read or believed Agathias, who was a 
 contemporary of Uranius, and reports him as a shallow disputatious 
 fellow, given to loafing among the bookstalls of Constantinople. 
 Agathias makes out that Anflshirwdn was no scholar, though a fine 
 soldier, and that Uranius was little better than a drunken parasite 
 at his court (Hist. lib. 2, ap. Migne, Pair. Gr. t. 88). Zachariah 
 of Mitylene gives some interesting details of the honour shown to 
 Christians at the court of the Persian King, and of the good service 
 wrought by Christian physicians, especially in getting the King to 
 build and endow a hospital — a thing then unknown in Persia (tr. 
 Hamilton and Brooks, p. 331). See also infra, p. 66, n. 2, and 
 p. 135, n. I. In India even to-day there is a firm tradition that one 
 of AnflshirwSn's sons, called MushzSd, was a Christian. That very 
 eminent convert from Islam, the Rev. M. Tmad ad Dfn Lalflz, who 
 died in the year 1900, claimed direct descent from this MushzSd 
 {Church Missionary Intelligencer, December, 1900, p. 913). 
 
Persian Conquest of Syria 57 
 
 were doubtless quickly corrected. He was con- 
 sequently driven by powerful forces, religious and 
 political, to break the pact with Byzantium. He 
 got rid of the Roman guard, and he quarrelled with 
 Narses who was in command at Dara; whereupon 
 Maurice, anxious to soothe the King's enmity, re- 
 placed Narses by Germanus ^ 
 
 It was at this time that the deformed and ferocious 
 Phocas, having secured the supreme power at Byzan- 
 tium, had the Emperor Maurice and all his sons 
 and his daughters put to death, Chosroes hardly 
 needed now the pretext his indignation furnished 
 for a declaration of open war. Any doubt he may 
 have felt was removed when Narses set up the 
 standard of revolt at Edessa, dividing the Empire 
 against itself ^ It is true that Narses, venturing 
 in a fit of foolish confidence to visit his partisans 
 at the capital, was seized by Phocas and burnt at 
 the Hippodrome ; but the die was cast. When there- 
 fore Lilius, the envoy of Phocas, reached Germanus 
 
 ' The last page or so of Theophylact may be consulted here : 
 he ends with the rupture of peace. But, though a native of Egypt, 
 he is very disappointing as an authority. He only mentions his 
 country twice, and that to record foolish prodigies. The first is, 
 the rise of a monstrous form from the Nile — a story which curiously 
 is recorded also by John of Nikiou in a slightly altered shape 
 (p. 533) ; the second is the downfall of all the statues of Maurice 
 in Alexandria on the night of his murder. This, says Theophylact, 
 was witnessed by a friend of his own, an illuminator, returning late 
 from a festive party. A natural explanation of the phenomenon is 
 not far to seek. 
 
 ^ It appears from the Tarikh Regum Persiae of Schikard 
 (p. 155) that this revolt coincided with and was probably caused 
 by the elevation of Phocas to the throne. John of Nikiou relates 
 that Chosroes tried to poison Narses and his men and horses : but 
 it is not clear in what way the achievement of this purpose would 
 have advantaged him (pp. 528-9). 
 
58 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 at Dara and was sent on with every mark of honour 
 to the Persian court, bearing letters and royal gifts 
 for the King, Chosroes flung the Emperor's am- 
 bassador into a dungeon and marched his forces into 
 Armenia. 
 
 It is not within the scope of this work to follow 
 the campaigns of Chosroes against Phocas. They 
 neither fall within the period under review, nor 
 connect, save by their broad results, with the history 
 of Egypt ; and the present writer could add little or 
 nothing to the records already written. Suffice it 
 therefore to say that after overrunning Armenia, 
 which had so often been the battlefield of contending 
 empires, the Persian King divided his forces, and 
 sent one army southward to the conquest of Syria 
 and another westward through the heart of Asia 
 Minor with the design of reaching Constantinople. 
 The order of events is by no means clear; but it 
 is the fortune of the southern force that concerns 
 us here, and so slow was its progress that the fall 
 of Antioch only coincided with the coronation of 
 Heraclius. Had the motive of Chosroes in waging 
 war been merely revenge against Phocas, the death 
 of that tyrant might have ended the strife : but the 
 Great King had proved the weakness of his enemies, 
 and the success of his arms only fired his ambition. 
 He now aimed at nothing less than the total sub- 
 jugation of the Roman Empire. It was no visionary 
 scheme. In numbers, equipment, and discipline his 
 troops were far superior to those of the enemy ; his 
 commanders — now that Bondsus and Narses were 
 dead — were unrivalled ; his treasury was full and 
 his people united, while the Ernperor's people were 
 divided, and his exchequer wellnigh exhausted. 
 
 Still the Syrian country was difficult: siege 
 
Persian Conquest of Syria 59 
 
 methods were tedious : and a great amount of time 
 was wasted every year in winter quarters. Hence 
 it was not till the fifth year of Heraclius' reign that 
 the Persian general Khorheam ^ after taking Da- 
 mascus and Caesarea advanced to the capture of 
 Jerusalem. From his head quarters at Caesarea, 
 Khorheam, it seems, sent envoys calling on Jeru- 
 salem to surrender to the Great King ; and the city 
 was actually delivered up to the Persian officers by 
 the Jews, who had prevailed over the Christian popu- 
 lation ^. Some months later, however, the Christians 
 
 ^ Eutychius, ap. Migne, Patr. Gr. t. iii, col. 1082, gives the 
 name as Chorawazaih. It is found as %apPa.pai,as and SapySava^Ss 
 in Theophanes : as 2ap/3apos in the Chronicon Paschale : also in 
 the forms Sharawazaih and Shahrbarz : and it is a corruption of 
 the Persian ' Shah-Waraz,' which means ' The King's Wild Boar.' 
 A wild boar, as the emblem of fierce strength, was engraved on 
 the seal of ancient Persia and also on that of Armenia. The 
 designation Shah-Waraz was of course a title of honour, not 
 a name. The same general (who afterwards for a short time 
 usurped the throne of Persia) is known also by another title, which 
 appears in Armenian authors as Erasman, Razman, Rhomizan, or 
 Ramikozan, and in Greek authors as Rasmisas or Romizanes; 
 in the proper form of Rhozmiozan in Moses of Kaghankatouts ; 
 and as 'Pov/ita^ar in Theophanes. His name as distinguished from 
 these titles was Khorheam. See Journal Asialtque, 6^ s^rie, 
 1866, p. 197. Yet the name Khorheam seems unknown to Persian 
 writers. Mr. Platts tells me that in Persian histories this king is 
 called jjji (kuraz = boar) or j^j __^ (shahr-baraz), or j^.j^ 
 (shahr-yar). 
 
 "^ The same fierce hostility of Jew to Christian is recorded by 
 Cedrenus, who relates that in the last year of Phocas' reign the 
 Jews fell upon the Christians at Antioch, whereupon Phocas sent 
 ]Bon6sus against the Jews, on whom he wreaked vengeance with 
 the most revolting barbarity. See above, ch. ii. p. 14. Doubtless 
 in the next year the Jews at Antioch aided the Persian invaders, 
 as they did at Jerusalem. See Corp. Hist. Byzant. Script, t. vii. 
 p. 708 : also Makrizi (Malan's tr.), p. 68. So also when Shahin 
 (or Saen) appeared in 610 before Caesarea in Cappadocia, the 
 
6o The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 rose In revolt, slew the Persian chiefs, overmastered 
 the garrison, and closed the gates. The Shah-Waraz 
 then advanced to beleaguer the town : but aided by 
 the Jews he succeeded in undermining the walls, 
 and on the nineteenth day from their arrival his 
 troops entered by the breach and took the city by 
 storm ^. Scenes of massacre, rapine, and destruction 
 ensued. The most reasonable estimate, which is 
 that of Sebeos and of Thomas Ardzrouni, places the 
 slain at 57,000 and the captives at 35,000, while 
 the Byzantine historians say loosely that 90,000 
 perished ^. The Armenians are probably nearer the 
 truth, but it is certain that many thousand clergy 
 and monks, saints and nuns, were put to the sword. 
 After twenty-one days of plunder and slaughter, the 
 Persians retired outside the walls, and set fire to 
 the city. Thus the church of the Holy Sepulchre 
 and all the famous churches of Constantine^ were 
 
 Christians fled, but the Jews tendered their submission to the 
 Persians. In harmony with all this is the evidence of Sebeos, 
 which is most explicit ' At this time,' he says, ' all the country 
 of Palestine freely submitted to the rule of the Persian King. 
 Chiefly the remnant of the Hebrews rose against the Christians, 
 and moved by traditional hatred, they wrought much evil in the 
 midst of the faithful. They went over to the Persians, and joined 
 with them in friendly relations.' If further proof of the Jews' 
 intolerant hatred of Christians were wanted, it migh£ be found 
 in the pages of Zachariah of Mitylene, who describes the barbarities 
 wrought by the Homerite Kings of Arabia, who were Jews, upon 
 their Christian subjects : see Hamilton and Brooks' tr., pp. 200 seq. 
 
 ^ This account is given by Sebeos and, I think, by him alone 
 among the authorities. 
 
 " Theophanes, Cedrenus, and Zonaras agree in this number, 
 which is found also in the Tartkh Regum Persiae, p. 155. It 
 tallies closely with Sebeos' number, if we put his slain and captives 
 together. But one MS. of Sebeos gives 17,000 as the number of 
 the slain. 
 
 ^ For an account of these beautiful buildings see Palestine 
 
Persian Conquest of Syria 6i 
 
 destroyed or dismantled. The Holy Rood, which had 
 been buried in its golden and bejewelled case \ was 
 unearthed ^ when its hiding-place had been disclosed 
 under torture, and with countless holy vessels of 
 gold and silver was carried away as plunder, while 
 great multitudes, including the Patriarch Zacharias, 
 were driven into captivity. The reliquary of the 
 Holy Cross and the Patriarch were sent as pre- 
 sents to Mary the wife of Chosroes ^ : but of the 
 ordinary captives many were redeemed by the Jews 
 for the mere pleasure of putting them to death, if 
 Cedrenus is to be believed. ' All these things 
 happened not in a year or a month but within a few 
 days ' pathetically exclaims the writer of the Chroni- 
 con Paschale, and the date is accurately fixed to the 
 month of May, 615 *. 
 
 Pilgrims Text Society, vol. i, and the anacreontics of Sophronius 
 in Migne, Pair. Gr. t. 87 (3). 
 
 ^ Malcolm's History of Persia, vol. i. p. 157. 
 
 ^ The Cross had been buried in a garden and vegetables 
 planted over it. 
 
 ' Eutychius, ap. Migne, Patr. Gr. t. iii, col. 1082. 
 
 * Theophanes gives the fifth year of Heraclius, a. m. 6106. This 
 A. M.=6i5 A.D., as is proved by the correspondence of a.m. 6 113 
 with the year of Heraclius' expedition and Mohammed's appearance 
 (a.d. 622). Sebeos gives the year as Chosroes 25, the latter 
 half of which corresponds with the first half of 615. As regards 
 the day of the month, there is some confusion in the Armenian 
 writers. Thomas Ardzrouni says the capture of the city took 
 place ten days after Easter on Margats 28. Dulaurier {Chronologic 
 Arm/nienne, pp. 222-3) shows that the two dates cannot coincide, 
 since Easter in 614, to which year Dulaurier seems to assign the 
 fall of Jerusalem, was March 31, and ten days later=April 10; 
 whereas Margats 28= May 26. Sebeos agrees very closely with 
 Thomas Ardzrouni, but makes the ten days after Easter= 
 Margats 27, which date Mr, Conybeare puts as equivalent to 
 May 20. But Easter in 615 fell upon April 20, and if we suppose 
 that in the MS. the figure lo is confused with 30, we have in 
 
62 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 So the Holy City was smitten with fire and sword. 
 But of the remnant that escaped slaughter and 
 captivity many fled southward to the Christian cities 
 of Arabia 1 — quiet communities whose peace was 
 already disturbed by echoes of the cry of the rising 
 prophet of IsMm. Yet it was probably in connexion 
 with this very triumph of the idolatrous Persians at 
 Jerusalem that Mohammed uttered his famous pro- 
 phecy : ' The Romans have been overcome by the 
 Persians in the nearest part of the land ; but after 
 their defeat they shall overcome in their turn within 
 a few years ^.' But the main refuge of the scattered 
 Christians was in Egypt, and particularly Alexandria, 
 where the population was already swollen by crowds 
 of refugees who had been flocking thither during 
 the whole course of the Persian invasion of Syria. 
 
 The bounty and resources of John the Almoner 
 were already strained by the prevailing destitution, 
 even before the exiles from Jerusalem were thrown 
 upon the city. To add to the troubles of the time, 
 that same summer saw a serious failure of the Nile 
 flood, and the result was a devastating famine ^ 
 throughout the land of Egypt. Gifts nevertheless 
 
 May 20 an exact correspondence. Moreover the Chronicon 
 Paschale says that the capture took place 'towards the month of 
 June,' and this is quite decisive as between the discrepant dates 
 of the Armenians. It is, however, to be remarked that the 
 Chronicon makes the capture of the city take place in the fourth 
 year of Heraclius, and apparently Severus and Cedrenus agree with, 
 it in placing the date in 614. The testimony of the Chronicon 
 Paschale is difficult to reject, but one must in this particular decide 
 against it on a balance of evidence. 
 
 ' For an account of these communities see Wright's Chrisiianity 
 in Arabia. 
 
 ' Al Kurin, s. xxx, and Sale's notes. 
 
 ' Leontius, ap. Migne, Pair, Gr. t. 93, col. 1625. 
 
Persian Conquest of Syria 63 
 
 poured in to the Church, and few of those who came 
 to John, 'as to a waveless haven,' for refuge were 
 disappointed. Besides the daily dole of food for 
 the needy the good Patriarch provided almshouses 
 arid hospitals for the sick and wounded, and scorned 
 even to rebuke those wealthy men who were mean 
 enough to take advantage of his charity. But such 
 lavishness could not last : and as the famine grew 
 fiercer, John found his chest becoming empty. In 
 this strait he was sorely tempted by a layman who 
 had been twice married and was therefore disquali- 
 fied for orders ^, but who offered a vast sum of money 
 and a great weight of corn as the price of his 
 ordination. John had only two measures of corn 
 remaining in his granary : but in the end he rejected 
 the offer, and was rewarded almost on the moment 
 by the news that two of the Church corn-ships, with 
 large cargoes of grain, had just rounded the Pharos 
 from Sicily, and were moored in the harbour. 
 
 Yet the good works of the Patriarch were not 
 bounded by Egypt or confined to feeding the hungry. 
 No sooner had the Holy City been sacked than 
 a certain monk named Modestus, who had escaped 
 the slaughter, wandered through Palestine begging 
 for alms to reinstate the ruined churches. He was 
 successful in his mission, and returning with a great 
 sum of money to Jerusalem, he found that the Jews 
 had now forfeited the special protection of the 
 Persians, which they had at first received as the 
 guerdon of their service to the conquerors. The 
 Christians were again in favour, and Modestus being 
 appointed civil and spiritual head of the community, 
 was suffered to rebuild the churches. Indeed, as 
 
 ' See Mrs. E. L. Butcher's Slory of the Church of Egypt, vol. i. 
 P- 345- 
 
64 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Sebeos relates, Chosroes had sent special orders 
 to treat the captives kindly, to resettle them, and 
 to restore the public buildings. He also sanctioned 
 the expulsion of the Jews — an order which was 
 carried out with the greatest alacrity. 
 
 The same historian gives a letter written by 
 Modestus to Koumitas, Metropolitan of Armenia, 
 after the completion of the work upon the churches, 
 ' God now has made our adversaries friends/ it says, 
 ' and shown us mercy and pity from our captors. 
 But the Jews . . . who presumed to do battle and 
 to burn those glorious places, are driven out from 
 the Holy City, and must not inhabit it nor see 
 the holy places restored to their magnificence.' 
 And again : ' All the churches of Jerusalem have 
 been set in order, and are served by clergy : peace 
 reigns in the City of God and round about it.' 
 
 Not less curious is the narrative, given by the 
 same writer, of a kind of council held by the 
 Christians at the suggestion of Chosroes. The 
 story is preserved in a letter sent by the Armenian 
 Catholicus and bishops in reply to a message from 
 Constantine, successor to Heraclius. The latter 
 relates that the Great King ordered all the bishops 
 of the East and of Assyria to assemble at his Court, 
 remarking : ' I hear that there are two parties of 
 Christians, and that the one curses the other : which 
 is to be regarded as in the right? They shall 
 come to a general assembly to confirm the right 
 and reject the wrong,' One Smbat Bagratouni and 
 the King's chief physician were made presidents. 
 It is specially recorded that Zacharias, the Patriarch 
 of Jerusalem, was present, and * many other wise 
 inen who had been carried into captivity from Alex- 
 andria.' The council proved very turbulent, and 
 
Persian Conquest of Syria 65 
 
 the King had to expel all sects but those who 
 followed the doctrines of Nicaea, Constantinople, 
 Ephesus, and Chalcedon. These several doctrines 
 he ordered the assembled divines to examine and 
 report upon. Memorials representingvarious opinions 
 were submitted to the King, who discussed and 
 pondered them. Finally, Zacharias and the Alex- 
 andrian divines were separately asked to pronounce 
 the truth under oath, and they declared the right 
 faith to be that approved by the Councils of 
 Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, but not that 
 of Chalcedon : in other words they pronounced for 
 the Monophysites, Thereupon the King ordered a 
 search to be made in the royal treasury or library 
 for the document of the Nicaean faith, which was 
 found, and declared to be in agreement with the 
 faith of the Armenians. Accordingly Chosroes 
 issued an edict that ' All the Christians under my 
 rule shall accept the faith of the Armenians.' Among 
 those who so agreed are named 'the God-loving 
 queen Shlrin, the brave Smbat, and the chief royal 
 physician.' The instrument embodying the right 
 confession of faith, as the result of the council, was 
 sealed with the Great King's seal, and deposited 
 with the royal archives. 
 
 This singular episode, embedded in the letter of 
 the Armenian bishops and so preserved to history, 
 is the most striking evidence we possess of Chosroes' 
 attitude to the Christians. The letter itself has the 
 ring of truth, and there is no reason whatever to 
 question its genuineness. It was written somewhere 
 about the year 638, or some twenty years after the 
 council which it records, and which was assembled 
 not long after the Persian capture of J erusalem. The 
 Great King is here revealed in a new light. He is 
 
66 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 no fanatical heathen monarch, persecuting or warring 
 against the believers in the Cross. On the contrary, 
 he acknowledges the right of the Christians to their 
 belief, shows a curious speculative interest in their 
 tenets, is puzzled by their most unchristian fightings 
 and anathemas, and either from kindly wishes for 
 their welfare or from mere motives of state policy 
 he desires to compose their differences. He was 
 present at the debate, put questions, and weighed 
 answefs. When his mind was made up and his 
 decision given, he seems to have threatened some 
 of the bishops that he would put them to the sword 
 and pull down their churches if they disobeyed his 
 ordinance. But on the whole the story shows a 
 toleration verging on sympathy for the Christian 
 religion — the same frame of mind which is displayed 
 in the order restoring the Christian outcasts to 
 Jerusalem and enabling them under Modestus to 
 rebuild the churches. John of Nikiou relates ^ that 
 Hormisdas' father, the great Antishirwin, after 
 secretly professing Christianity, was baptized by 
 a bishop. However that may be, the influence of 
 Christian queens, physicians, and philosophers at the 
 court clearly enlightened the King's mind and 
 softened his disposition towards the Christian re- 
 ligion 2. We have far more reason for astonishment 
 
 ^ p. 526. 
 
 "^ See also supra, p. 55, n. 3. I may add that, according to Tabari 
 (ed. De Goeje, vol. i. p. 1000), shortly after his accession Chosroes 
 issued an edict allowing the Christians in his dominions to restore 
 their churches and to make converts of the Magians, if they could, 
 alleging that a similar edict had been issued by Anfishtrwin in con- 
 sequence of a treaty with Caesar. Ya'kflbt relates (ed. Houtema, 
 vol. i. p. 194) that when Chosroes announced his early victories to 
 Maurice, the Emperor sent him a robe embroidered with crosses, 
 which he wore to the scandal of his people. Moreover he ' issued 
 
Persian Conquest of Syria 67 
 
 at the normal toleration which the Church enjoyed 
 under Persian rule than for surprise at the occasional 
 outbursts of ferocity from which it suffered. 
 
 But to resume. The contribution offered by John 
 of Alexandria towards the reinstatement of the 
 churches in Jerusalem is said to have been a thou- 
 sand mules, a thousand sacks of corn and of vege- 
 tables, a thousand vessels of pickled fish, a thousand 
 jars of wine, a thousand pounds of iron, and a 
 thousand workmen^ : and John wrote in a letter to 
 Modestus — ' 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^.' He is also recorded 
 to have sent a large convoy of gold, corn, clothing, 
 and the like, under charge of one Chrysippus — 
 though this, albeit separately related, may be the 
 same story in another form — and to have com- 
 missioned Theodore bishop of Amathus in Cyprus, 
 Gregory bishop of Rhinocolura ^, and Anastasius 
 
 a decree commanding that the Christians should be held in 
 honour and publicly acknowledged and promoted to high places, 
 and he announced that a treaty had been made between himself 
 and the King of the Romans such as no king had made 
 before him.' 
 
 ■' Eutychius, ap. Migne, Patr. Gr. t. iii, col. 1082 seq. Euty- 
 chius is of course wrong in saying that these events took place in 
 the sixth year of Phocas : it should be Heraclius, as in Cedrenus 
 and Theophanes. Leontius gives practically the same version ot 
 John's contribution, but he adds a thousand pieces of gold, and he 
 writes ' strings of fish ' instead of pickled fish in jars. 
 
 ^ Zacharias, who was Patriarch of Jerusalem from 609 to 628 
 or 629, and was carried off by the Persians, has left an account 
 of the Persian conquest which may be read in Migne, t. 86, col. 
 3219 seq., and from which I have quoted. 
 
 ' Rhinocolura was a town on the Egyptian frontier towards 
 Palestine. Diodorus Siculus derives its name from a legend that 
 
 F2 
 
68 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Abbot of the monastery of the Great Mountain of 
 St. Anthony \ with large sums of money to recover 
 and redeem as many captives as they could. This 
 was in the latter half of 615. 
 
 a King of Egypt called Artisanes used it as a place of exile for 
 malefactors, who were marked by having their noses slit or cut 
 oif. The town was known in Arab times as Al 'Arlsh. See 
 Quatrem^re, Mem. i. p. 53; Rec. de I'J^gypte, ii. pp. x, xi, 20. 
 Champollion rejects Diodorus' etymology, but cutting off the nose 
 was a recognized and common form of punishment in Graeco- 
 Roman law at this time : see Bury's Gibbon, vol. v. p. 529. Sebeos 
 also relates that Heraclius inflicted this penalty on those who joined 
 Athalaric's conspiracy after his return from Jerusalem. 
 
 ' The monastery here spoken of may well be the well-known 
 one on the Red Sea coast, as its description seems to imply; or 
 it may be one of the same name on the mountain near Kift on 
 the Nile by Kanah. See Abfi Salih, Churches and Monasteries of 
 Egypt, pp. 159-62 and 280. Sharpe in his History of Egypt 
 (vol. ii. p. 368) speaks of a monastery of St. Anthony in the 
 capital : but that seems to me a quite baseless conjecture. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 PERSIAN CONQUEST OF EGYPT 
 
 Union established between the Coptic and Syrian Churches. 
 Advance of the Persians on Egypt. Capture of Babylon and Nikiou, 
 and siege of Alexandria. Flight of Nicetas and John the Almoner. 
 Death of the latter. The city betrayed by a student, Peter of 
 Bahrain. Death of Andronicus. The attitude of the Copts to the 
 invaders : current fallacies refuted. Story of Pisentios and treat- 
 ment of the Copts. Treatment of Alexandria. The Fort of the 
 Persians. 
 
 About the same time that the caravans sent by 
 John the Almoner were crossing the desert from 
 Egypt to Jerusalem, in the early autumn of 615, 
 the Coptic Patriarch Anastasius received a visit 
 from Athanasius, the Patriarch of Antioch, who 
 had been dispossessed by the Persian invasion. 
 They met, as has been stated, in the celebrated 
 Ennaton monastery on the sea-coast westward 
 of Alexandria. One or two bishops from Syria 
 probably accompanied their Patriarch ; others, like 
 Thomas of Harkel and Paul of Telia, were already 
 settled at the monastery, working hard at their 
 great task of revising the Syriac version of the 
 Bible by collation of the Greek : and yet others 
 were in Egypt as refugees. For 'while the Per- 
 sians were ravaging Syria, all who could escape 
 from their hands — laymen of all ranks, and clergy 
 of all ranks with their bishops — fled for refuge 
 to Alexandria ^.' It is therefore extremely prob- 
 able that, as tradition avers, five Syrian bishops 
 were present at the meeting of the two Patriarchs, 
 
 ^ Gelzer's Leontius von Neapolis, Anhang ii. p. 112. 
 
70 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 which resulted in the establishment of union between 
 the Syrian and the Coptic Church. Anastasius 
 only remained a month in Egypt, after which he 
 returned to Syria, where he witnessed the beginning 
 of that curious toleration which seems almost every- 
 where to have followed not far behind the bloody 
 steps of the Persian conquerors. Sword in hand 
 the Persians showed a savage ferocity which passed 
 all bounds of reason and necessity, and which 
 seemed never to tire of mere slaughter : but when 
 the reign of peace returned, they governed with 
 unexpected mildness. So it was in Arabia, in 
 Syria, and in Palestine : and so it was to prove 
 in Egypt. 
 
 The subjugation of Syria had taken six years 
 to accomplish. The capture of Jerusalem probably 
 left little more work for the Persian armies to do 
 in that region : and towards the autumn of the 
 following year 6 1 6, their preparations were complete 
 for a campaign in Egypt. Apparently it was not 
 the same commander, Khorheam, the Shah-Waraz, 
 who led the invading forces, but another general 
 called Shahln ^ and he followed the beaten track of 
 
 ' The Chronicon Orientale and Makrtzl make Chosroes himself 
 the invader of Egypt, but probably only by a loose manner of 
 speech. Another account gives Sa6n or Sais, i. e. Shahtn, as the 
 name of the general, and this is probably the truth, rather than that 
 it was Khorheam, as Eutychius relates. There is no warrant for the 
 statement that Chosroes abandoned his palace for the hardships of 
 the field in either the Syrian or the Egyptian campaign. It was 
 natural to suppose that Khorheam from Palestine pushed on to 
 Egypt: but Tabarl's authority in such a matter is great, and he clearly 
 states that Rumyfizdn (Khorheam), was the general who captured 
 Jerusalem ; that another general, Shahin, was ordered to Egypt and 
 Nubia and sent home the keys of Alexandria to Chosroes ; while 
 a third, FerruhSn, was dispatched to Constantinople. That the 
 general was Shahin seems also proved by the Persian papyri in 
 
Persian Conquest of Egypt 71 
 
 war — the road taken by Cambyses, by Antlochus 
 Epiphanes, by Alexander the Great, and destined 
 not many years later to be taken by 'Amr at the 
 head of his Arabs. 
 
 The route lay from Rhinocolura along the coast 
 to Pelusium, from Pelusium to Memphis and round 
 the apex of the Delta, from Memphis down the 
 western Nile to Nikiou and to Alexandria. The 
 people of the Nile valley had neither the means 
 nor the spirit for any very serious resistance, nor 
 is there record of any great battle fought or 
 desperate effort made to save the country. 
 
 The Greek historians describe the whole^ campaign 
 in a sentence : ' the Persians took all Egypt and 
 Alexandria and Libya up to Ethiopia, and returned 
 with a vast number of captives and a vast amount 
 of spoil ^ ' ; and Egyptian authorities add less than 
 could be desired to their barren narrative. We 
 know, however, that Pelusium was captured without 
 much difficulty, and that the Persians wrought havoc 
 among its many churches and monasteries ^- Not a 
 word is written about the reduction of the great 
 fortress of Babylon near Memphis : but although 
 it is clear that the Persians were masters of the art 
 of siege warfare, it is probable that Babylon was 
 undefended. After the fall of Memphis the army 
 marched by land, aided by a large flotilla on the 
 Nile, and they followed the right bank of the main 
 western branch, past Nikiou, to Alexandria ^ 
 
 the Rainer collection : see Karabacek's Fiihrer durch die Ausstellung, 
 p. 113. 
 
 ^ Theophanes and Cedrenus. 
 
 ^ Abfl Salih, p. i68, and the British Museum MS. of Severus, 
 p. loi, referred to in the note there. 
 
 ' The occupation of Babylon and Nikiou before the capture of 
 
72 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Of the capture of Alexandria itself there remains 
 an account which is interesting ^ This great city, 
 says the chronicle, was that ' which Alexander had 
 built in accordance with the counsels of his master 
 Aristotle, a city girt with walls, encircled with the 
 waters of the Nile, and furnished with strong gates.' 
 The siege lasted some time, and with all their skill 
 the Persians were unable to force an entrance into 
 the great fortress. Indeed its defences were so 
 strong as to be virtually impregnable. It was now, 
 i.e. in 617, some 117 years since a Persian army 
 had overrun Egypt, and on that occasion the flood of 
 conquest which had surged over the Delta beat in 
 vain against the walls of Alexandria ^. These same 
 walls but eight years previously had flung back the 
 desperate battalions of Bon6sus, like rock-shattered 
 billows : and they were destined to prove their 
 strength a quarter of a century later in prolonged 
 defiance of the Saracen leaguer. Clearly then at 
 this juncture the long lines of bulwarks and towers 
 were as formidable as ever ; and a united and 
 resolute garrison, drawing endless resources from 
 the sea, which the Empire still commanded, would 
 have wearied out the besiegers, and either crushed 
 
 Alexandria is related by the Cyprian monk John, who was on a 
 pilgrimage in Egypt. His words are — Trapcycvo/tijv Iv 'AXeiavSpeia 
 Kara tov Kaipov iv o) fL(7^\9ov ot Ilepo-ai iv AiyvirTio, en ovtwv avrSiv 
 i-Tn, TO. IJ.ipr] T^s NiKtou Kal BajSvXGvos t^s Kar AtyvTrrov ; and he 
 
 describes the Tapaxrjv Kal Oopvfiov T^s UepcriKrji cTriSpo/i^s in Alex- 
 andria just as he was departing homewards. Quoted by Gelzer, 
 Leontios von Neapolis, Anmerkungen, p. 152. 
 
 ' The Syrian Chronicle (ed. Guidi and tr. Th. Noldeke) cited by 
 Gelzer, 1. c. 
 
 ^ Circa 500 a. d. in the time of the Emperor Anastasius. The 
 Persians set fire to the suburbs of Alexandria, but could do no 
 more. 
 
Persian Conquest of Egypt 73 
 
 them when weakened or forced them to raise the 
 siege. 
 
 But union had long been impossible to the motley 
 and turbulent population of Copts, Romans, Syrians, 
 Jews, and students and refugees from all parts of 
 the Empire. The Copts and the Syrians hated the 
 Romans, and the Jews hated the Christians, with 
 an enmity on which no common peril could act 
 as solvent : while all would have laugfhed to scorn 
 the idea that between the different races, classes, 
 and creeds there could be any bond of patriotism, 
 which alone might have given them cohesion. It is 
 therefore not surprising to learn that the city fell 
 through treason. 
 
 During the period of investment the baffled 
 Persians wreaked their fury on the country round, 
 particularly upon the monasteries. Story tells of no 
 less than six hundred monasteries in the neighbour- 
 hood of Alexandria, all built 'with keeps like the 
 towers used for dovecotes^.' Confident in the 
 
 ^ Severus of Ushmflnain, Brit. Mus. MS. p. loo; Paris MS. 
 p. 87. Similar keeps still exist at the monasteries in the Wadi 'n 
 Natrfln. That there was a very large number of monasteries near 
 Alexandria is undoubted. In an ancient Coptic document translated 
 by Amdlineau (Histoire des Monaster es de la Basse Egypte, p. 34) 
 Macarius says that he spent three years in the monasteries round 
 about Alexandria, where he lived among remarkable men filled with 
 every virtue to the number of 2,000. This was in the fourth 
 century, and by the seventh the number of monks had largely grown. 
 Even as early as 485 we read in the Chronicle of Zachariah of 
 Mitylene that after the publication of Zeno's Henoticon 30,000 
 monks and ten bishops met at the ' Martyr Church of St. Euphemia' 
 without the walls of Alexandria, where, after resolving not to enter 
 the city for fear of creating a riot, they deputed Bishop Theodore 
 with seven other bishops and 200 archimandrites to wait on the 
 Patriarch Peter, and to confer with him in the cathedral. This 
 record would show that there is a substantial basis of truth in 
 Severus' statement. 
 
74 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 security of these convent castles, the monks not 
 only neglected all precautions for safety but ventured 
 on acts of open defiance against the enemy. But a 
 host of Persians, advancing from the west \ where 
 their camp lay, surrounded the walls and quickly 
 battered down their rude defences. Nearly every 
 man within them was put to the sword, only a very 
 small remnant escaping by hiding in holes and 
 corners. All the treasure and all the furniture in 
 the monasteries was taken as plunder : churches 
 and buildings were broken down or set on fire, and 
 so fell into ruins, which remained visible till long 
 after the invasion of the Arabs. 
 
 But among the precious spoil taken by the enemy, 
 what became of those priceless literary treasures 
 which filled the monastic libraries ? No sure answer 
 can be given : but while many libraries perished, 
 some certainly escaped destruction. Most important 
 of all, the great Ennaton monastery was left in 
 security owing to its distance from Alexandria, 
 and it is highly probable that its collection of 
 books and manuscripts remained uninjured. The 
 survival of the monastery is proved by the fact 
 that the Patriarch Simon (a. d. 694) came from 
 it and was buried in it ^ ; and as Simon was born 
 a Syrian and was renowned for his theological 
 studies, it is clear that the monastery retained its 
 Syrian connexion as well as its repute for learning. 
 
 ' I have followed Severus, whose language implies either that 
 most of the monasteries lay to the east of the city, which hardly 
 agrees with what we know from other sources, or that the Persian 
 forces had worked right round Alexandria, so as to attack it from 
 the west or south-west. 
 
 ^ Von Gutschmidt's Kleine Schriften, ii. p. 501. The convent of 
 Al Ziajaj named by Severus is of course the same as the Ennaton, 
 as I have shown. 
 
Persian Conquest of Egypt 75 
 
 It Is frequently mentioned in subsequent history. 
 Another monastery which survived was Dair Kibrlljs, 
 which lay to the north-east of Alexandria on the 
 coasts The range therefore of the devastation 
 wrought by the Persians round the Great City was 
 singularly limited : for during the siege they were 
 either too busy or too indolent to send marauding 
 parties a few miles across the desert sands to vex 
 the sequestered shelters of the monks. The great 
 group of convents which they sacked and ruined 
 must have been almost or actually within view of 
 the Persian encampment. 
 
 Here, however, we must part company with 
 Severus. He alleges that, when tidings of the 
 destruction of the monasteries and the slaughter 
 of the monks reached Alexandria, the inhabitants 
 in a mad panic opened the gates of the city. The 
 Persian Saldr, or commander-in-chief, had had a 
 dream in which some mighty personage appeared, 
 promised to deliver the city into the hands of the 
 Persians, and cautioned him not to treat the city 
 leniently and not to let any of the inhabitants escape, 
 as they were heretics and hypocrites. Thereupon 
 the Salar, or Shahln as we may call him, made all 
 the able-bodied men, from eighteen to fifty years 
 of age, come out of the city on the pretence of 
 
 ^ Severus at the beginning of his Lt/e of Benjamin expressly 
 records the escape of this monastery from the Persians. The Abbot 
 Theonas in the course of the story remarks that he had then, in 622, 
 lived for fifty years in the monastery. This Theonas must be 
 a different person from the Theonas, steward of the Ennaton, 
 to whom Sophronius wrote an ode about 605, which ode is still 
 extant (Migne, Pair. Gr. t. 87 {3) ). The Cairo MS. of Severus 
 gives the name of the monastery as jj-^i^ or Kibrifis = Cyprius, 
 while the London MS. seems to give uy5^ or Kiranfis, which is 
 not likely to be correct. 
 
76 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 giving them two gold pieces a Iiead ; and when 
 they were all gathered together and their names 
 were written down, he ordered his soldiers to fall 
 upon them and slay them, to the number of eighty 
 thousand. 
 
 Such is the improbable story. We may dismiss 
 the vision with its absurd denunciation of heretic 
 Christians to a Persian, though the language reveals 
 the Monophysite sympathies of Severus and the 
 complacency which he felt at the thought of whole- 
 sale slaughter befalling the Melkite inhabitants of 
 the Great City. But on the other hand the monks 
 who perished were Monophysites or Copts, and 
 the whole tone of Severus indicates hatred and 
 abhorrence of the Persians; so that the story can- 
 not be strained to countenance any sort of com- 
 pact between the Copts and the Persians. More- 
 over, brutal as the Persians were, it was wholly 
 agfainst their laws of war to massacre the inhabitants 
 of a city peaceably surrendered '. The promise of 
 a money payment and the inscription of eighty 
 thousand names as preliminaries to the slaughter 
 are obviously ridiculous, even were it conceivable 
 that the city gates would be thrown open without 
 the conclusion of a treaty guaranteeing the lives of 
 the citizens. Quitting Severus, therefore, we return 
 to the Sj'rian Chronicle, which gives a much more 
 credible version of the capture. 
 
 It will be remembered that the canal which 
 supplied Alexandria at once with food and with 
 water, after winding under the southern walls took 
 a sharp turn to the north, and entering the city 
 passed right across it till it reached the sea. Both 
 entrances were closed by gateways strongly fortified 
 ' This is quite clear from the history of Sebeos. 
 
Persian Conquest of Egypt 77 
 
 and defended by powerful engines of war. In time 
 of siege the canal would be little if at all used for 
 landward traffic, as it would be commanded and 
 controlled by the enemy, at least where it lay 
 out of the range of the garrison's artillery; and 
 the besiegers would naturally have seized most of the 
 corn-barges and shipping. But the seaward gate 
 of the canal was constantly open, not merely for 
 merchant vessels from the main, but for the many 
 fishing boats which brought their daily burden to 
 market. And as the gate abutted on the harbour, 
 in which the Roman war-galleys rode unchallenged, 
 it was doubtless somewhat laxly guarded. 
 
 In this fact the traitor saw his opportunity. He 
 stole without the walls, and, making his way to the 
 Persian general's tent, there unfolded a plan for the 
 capture of the Great City. It promised well and 
 was adopted. The Persians procured a number of 
 fishing-boats, filled them with soldiers disguised as 
 'longshore fishermen, and sent them out to sea at 
 dead of night. Well before daybreak the little craft 
 stood in from the offing, and when they reached the 
 northern gate they gave the password and moved 
 unmolested on to the bridge, which carried the great 
 main street of the city over the canal. Here, still 
 in the dark, they seized their swords and disem- 
 barked. Trusting to their disguise, they passed 
 quietly down the main avenue westward till they 
 reached the Moon Gate, where they suddenly fell 
 on the unsuspecting warders and killed them. It 
 was the work of a moment. Ere the alarm could 
 be given, they flung back the ponderous gates, 
 and as day broke over the temples and palaces of 
 Alexandria, the hordes of Shahln rushed in and pro- 
 claimed the victory of Chosroes from the walls. 
 
78 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 The Syrian Chronicle goes on to say that all who 
 could then took flight ; but that the ships on which 
 the treasure of the churches and of the magnates 
 had been placed as a measure of precaution were 
 blown back by a storm and driven on to the shore 
 by the Persian camp, i. e. westward of the city ^. 
 All the gold and silver and jewels thus captured by 
 the Persian army were sent, together with the keys 
 of the city, to Chosroes. It is curious that there 
 is no mention of the great massacre recorded by 
 Severus ; but it is most improbable that in this 
 the Egyptian writer, living in the midst of living 
 traditions, could be wholly mistaken ; and moreover 
 such a massacre, where a town was not peaceably 
 surrendered under treaty of protection, fully accords 
 with Persian practice. 
 
 But it is clear that some kind of warning had 
 prepared the city for its fate. It was doubtless the 
 warning of despair. The garrison must have been 
 dangerously weakened by the withdrawal of troops 
 to other parts of the Empire or even to Byzantium, 
 as province after province had been ' trampled under 
 foot by the Persians as an ox tramples the threshing- 
 floor^.' Moreover all the corn supplies of Egypt 
 had been cut off from Alexandria ; and although the 
 food of the citizens formed but a fraction of the 
 enormous grain trafiic which flowed through Alexan- 
 dria to all parts of the Mediterranean, all the trade 
 
 ^ Called therefore ' the treasure of the wind.' But this story is 
 told by the Arab writer Ibn Kutaibah (ninth century) of the ship in 
 which Heraclius had placed his precious vessels and jewels when he 
 resolved to quit Byzantium for Carthage. This ship was driven 
 by storms, he says, to Alexandria, where it fell into the hands 
 of the Persians. Kitdb al Mddrif, &c., ed. Wustenfeld, p. 329. 
 
 ^ The words of Severus. 
 
Persian Conquest of Egypt 79 
 
 was outwards ; and when it ceased, it was idle to 
 think of reversing the machinery — of converting 
 exports to imports. Hence, as time wore on and 
 stores diminished, while no relief came from Hera- 
 clius, the pinch of want may well have been acute, 
 and the people saw that they would ere long be 
 forced to surrender from sheer starvation. This 
 being the case, we are no longer puzzled by the 
 flight of the governor Nicetas, whose valour, whose 
 capacity for action, and whose loyalty to the Empire 
 are alike unquestionable. It was ' when Alexandria 
 was about to be delivered over to the godless 
 Persians^' that Nicetas took ship for Byzantium 
 in company with John the Almoner. They got as 
 far as Rhodes, when the Patriarch was seized with 
 illness, and foreboding his end, he sailed for Cyprus, 
 where he landed and soon afterwards died at the 
 place of his birth, Amathus, on November 11, 617 2. 
 That the Alexandrians had virtually abandoned 
 all hope of deliverance must then be admitted ; and 
 
 ^ a)S e/AcXXfv 'AXe^avSpcta rots aOioi's JJipcraii irapaBiSoaOai. are the 
 significant words of Leontius. 
 
 " See Lebeau's Hisioire du Bas Empire, vol. xi. p. 53 : but 
 it must be noticed that in this work the story of John is put long 
 after the Persian conquest of Egypt, and therefore in wrong chrono- 
 logical order. The Copts seem to have made John the Almoner 
 into a martyr as well as a saint in later days, if Breydenbach is to be 
 believed. He visited Egypt in the fifteenth century, and had a spot 
 in Alexandria pointed out to him as the place of John's martyrdom. 
 See his Descriptio Terrae Sanctae, &c., p. 122 (fol. i486). Of course 
 this legend springs from some confusion. John's death is actually 
 commemorated on Nov. 12 by the Eastern Church, the nth 
 being already assigned to St. Menas : see Von Gutschmidt's Kleine 
 Schriften, ii. There is a slight sketch of the Patriarch by the 
 Rev. H. T. F. Duckworth called St. John the Almsgtver (Blackwell, 
 Oxford, 1 901). He states that John's body now rests in the 
 cathedral at Pressburg. 
 
8o The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 the action of Peter, the foreign student who betrayed 
 them, probably hastened but little the inevitable 
 doom of the city. All we know of the traitor is 
 that he came from the region of Bahrain towards 
 the north-east of Arabia; and we cannot be sure 
 whether he was Christian, Jew or Pagan, or whether 
 he had any other motive for his action than the 
 ignoble desire to save his own head at whatever 
 cost to the great seat of learning which had wel- 
 comed him. We do know, however, that Bahrain 
 was a province of Persia, and that even at a later 
 date the inhabitants were described as mostly 
 Persians and Jews^ So that there is some pre- 
 sumption that he may have cloaked his treachery 
 by patriotism. But the story is that he found in 
 the city archives a book, at the end of which it 
 was written — ' When trouble arises over Alexandria 
 from the western gate, which lies towards the sea, 
 then will the city be taken.' This prophecy, doubt- 
 less manufactured after the event, though it would 
 fit in with the capture by Nicetas in 609, discloses 
 nothing of the traitor's motives or religious beliefs, 
 though it does seem to mean that Peter knew the 
 fate of the city to be sealed when he treated with 
 the Persians for its betrayal. 
 
 It was probably at the beginning of 618 that the 
 keys of Alexandria were sent to Chosroes. Great 
 as was the slaughter at the fall of the city, a large 
 number of the inhabitants were spared, of whom 
 some were sent into captivity in Persia^, while 
 others remained unmolested. Among the latter 
 was the Coptic Patriarch Andronicus, who seems 
 
 ' See De Goeje's M^moire sur les Carmathes du Bahrain, p. 7. 
 "^ Prisoners from Alexandria are specially mentioned among those 
 released after the capture of Dastagerd by Heraclius. 
 
Persian Conquest of Egypt 8i 
 
 to have received the same measure of toleration as 
 we know to have been bestowed on Modestus at 
 Jerusalem by direct order of the Persian King; but 
 the shock of the scenes he witnessed and the havoc 
 wrought among his people throughout the land of 
 Egypt seem to have weighed him down with sorrow 
 to the ending of his days \ 
 
 But, as we have seen, Andronicus was allowed to 
 reside in Alexandria during his patriarchate owing 
 to the fact that he possessed powerful relations, his 
 cousin being Chairman of the Council of Alexandria 
 at the time of his election. The fact is interesting, 
 as proving that some of the Copts found their way 
 to high office even under the rule of Heraclius ; and 
 it further indicates that the Persians, in settling the 
 country after their conquest, availed themselves of 
 the service of the principal officials of the govern- 
 ment which they overthrew. Later we shall see 
 that the Arabs acted in precisely the same manner ; 
 nor indeed could it be otherwise when an alien and 
 less civilized army found itself responsible for a 
 highly organized and complex administration. That 
 the Copts fell in with this arrangement may be 
 admitted ; it would have been mere folly to refuse ; 
 but it is quite another thing to say, as the fashion 
 is with modern writers, that the Persians were hailed 
 as deliverers ^. Such a charge is not only ground- 
 less ; it is a complete reversal of the truth. 
 
 ^ Severus of Ushmflnain's Life of Andronicus is nothing but 
 a record of the calamities due to the Persian conquest, and he 
 concludes with the words, ' So when the Patriarch Andronicus had 
 held his office for six years and had suffered from the barbarity of 
 the Persians — when he had witnessed these terrible things, under- 
 gone and endured them — he went to his rest.' 
 
 '^ This statement seems to come from Sharpe, who says, ' The 
 troops with which Chosroes conquered and held Egypt were no 
 
82 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 For it must be remembered that the Persian army 
 was flushed by along career of plunder and slaughter, 
 in which the victims were mainly Christians in formal 
 union with the Coptic Church ; and it is unlikely 
 that the Persians would befriend in Egypt those 
 whom they slew in Syria : while the long resistance 
 of Alexandria and the presence there of escaped 
 refugees from the Holy Land would serve to whet 
 their anger. There can be little doubt that the 
 massacre was indiscriminate. On the other hand, 
 Makrlzl alleges that there, as in. Palestine, the Jews 
 sided with the Persians. 'Chosroes and his soldiers,' 
 he says, ' came into Egypt, where they killed a very 
 great number of Christians and made of them count- 
 doubt in part Syrians and Arabs, people with whom \h& fellahs, 
 or labouring class of Egyptians, were closely allied in blood and 
 feelings. Hence arose the readiness with which the whole country 
 yielded when the Romans were defeated. But hence arose also 
 the weakness of the Persians and their speedy loss of this conquest 
 when the Arabs rebelled ' (Hist, of Egypt, ch. xxi. p. 37). Mr. Milne 
 has closely followed Sharpe, accentuating both statements, with one 
 difference. His words are : ' The new governors of Egypt entered 
 into their inheritance quietly (!) and almost naturally, as the Persian 
 army was largely drawn from Syria and Arabia. . . . Thus they had 
 no great difficulty in ruling Egypt : the wealthier classes had prob- 
 ably a large intermixture of Arabs among them, who welcomed the 
 rule of their kinsmen, while the fellahin at the worst only changed 
 masters. . . . The revolt of the Arabs under the inspiration of the 
 teaching of Mohammed deprived the king of Persia of his most 
 effective soldiers and gave the Romans a chance of recovering 
 Egypt' (ZTw/. of Egypt under Roman Rule, p. 114). Now these 
 two statements, (i) that the people of Egypt welcomed the Persian 
 invaders, (2) that the recovery of Egypt by HeracHus was due to 
 a defection of the Arabs from Persia to Islam, are, I believe, equally 
 and totally baseless. At best the first is pure fiction, while the 
 second is but one step removed from fiction. It is to be regretted 
 that Mr. Milne in his admirable work should adopt Sharpe's vague 
 surmises. Mrs. Butcher {Story of the Church of Egypt, vol. i. p. 347) 
 does the same. 
 
Persian Conquest of Egypt 83 
 
 less captives: for the Jews helped them in their 
 destruction of the Christians and their demolition of 
 the churches \' The context of this passage is, as 
 usual, somewhat confused ; and inasmuch as it does 
 not clearly distinguish between the Syrian and the 
 Egyptian campaign, it may be argued that the action 
 of the Jews refers only to the former. But there 
 was always a large Jewish colony in Egypt and a 
 Jewish quarter in Alexandria : and it is far more 
 likely that the Jews welcomed another opportunity 
 of aiding the enemies of the Cross than that the 
 Copts showed any friendship for the idolaters whose 
 hands were stained with the blood of their fellow 
 believers in Antioch and in Jerusalem. Peter of 
 Bahrain may have been a Jew and the agent of 
 a Jewish conspiracy : and were it so, his action 
 would be at least less ignoble and more easily 
 explicable. 
 
 But we are not dependent on deductions and sur- 
 mises for a vindication of the Copts. It cannot be 
 questioned that most of the monks who perished 
 round about Alexandria were Copts : and if this fact 
 stood alone it would serve to rebut the slanderous 
 allegation that the Copts welcomed the Persians. 
 But it does not. After the capture of Alexandria 
 Chosroes' general marched his army southwards, 
 ascending the Nile, for the subjugation of Upper 
 Egypt. His treatment of the Copts was everywhere 
 the same : everywhere his path was marked by death 
 and devastation. When he reached the city of 
 Pshati or Nikiou ^, as Severus relates, some enemy 
 
 ' Malan's trans., p. 68. 
 
 * Quatrembre {M/m. Giog. et Hist. t. i. pp. 420 seq.), in proving 
 clearly the identity of Nikiou and Pshati, seems not to have known 
 this passage of Severus, who says expressly, ' The city of Nakyiis, 
 
 G 2 
 
84 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 of the Copts filled his ears with tales of the wealth 
 and wickedness of the monks who dwelt in the caves 
 and mountains, and at the same time told him that 
 a great number of them were then assembled in 
 the fortress ^ Moved by these malignant stories, 
 he surrounded the place by troops at night, and at 
 sunrise they rushed in, fell upon the Christians, and 
 slew them to the last man. 
 
 It is not open to question that the monks here 
 slain also were members of the Coptic Church. But 
 what was done at Nikiou was repeated in Upper 
 Egypt : and it so happens that here we possess a 
 record even older and more authentic than Severus 
 —a record in fact practically contemporary with the 
 events it chronicles. For at the time of the Persian 
 conquest there was at the town of Coptos in Upper 
 Egypt a bishop of that diocese named Pisentios, 
 whose biography fortunately remains and has been 
 translated from the Coptic by M. Amdlineau 2. The 
 story of Pisentios has so many points of interest that 
 it may be given somewhat fully without apology. 
 
 It is known that it was customary every year for 
 the Patriarch of Alexandria to write an encyclical 
 announcing the date of the coming Easter. A frag- 
 
 Tvhich is also called Ibshidi,' using of course the Arabic forms, 
 But Quatremfere's note is well worth reading. I have already 
 shown that the site of Nikiou is to be found at the modern 
 Shabshlr, and not at the village of IbshSdt, which has no ancient 
 remains. 
 
 * The fortress doubtless resembled that at Babylon in enclosing 
 a number of Coptic churches. The town was the seat of a famous 
 bishopric, and the gathering recorded by Severus was some kind of 
 convocation on Church business or for a great festival, 
 
 ^ Eiude sur le Christianisme en igyph au Septieme Steele (Paris, 
 1887), The work is also called in the 'tirage k part' Vie dun, 
 AvSque de Keft au Seplieme Stick. 
 
Persian Conquest of Egypt 85 
 
 ment of such a letter, most beautifully written in 
 uncials and dated about 577, is in the British Museum, 
 and such letters or fragments are fairly common. 
 The biography of Pisentios relates that about the 
 time of the Persian invasion, on receipt of the 
 Patriarch's letter, Pisentios wrote a pastoral to all his 
 diocese, in which he said, ' Because of our sins God 
 has abandoned us ; he has delivered us to the nations 
 without mercy ^.' He had heard of the arrival of the 
 fire-worshippers, and was thoroughly alarmed by the 
 stories of their barbarity. Having no mind to play 
 the martyr, he resolved on flight ; and when he had 
 put all in order and distributed his goods to the poor, 
 he went with his faithful disciple John to Mount 
 G6mi in the neighbourhood. This was done before 
 the enemy appeared in Upper Egypt, and therefore 
 not in a moment of sudden panic. It was the 
 leisurely act of a man who knew that to remain at 
 his post was to court death. The idea of seeking 
 protection from the Persians by submission, or of 
 claiming friendship from them, never entered the 
 mind of the bishop : and his action is in ludicrous 
 contrast with the theory that the Copts welcomed 
 the Persians. 
 
 When Pisentios and John fled to the mountain, 
 they laid in a good store of bread and Nile water. 
 As soon as their water was gone, they suffered 
 greatly, not venturing near the river : till at last 
 Pisentios crept down by night to replenish. They 
 stayed a long time in this retreat, ' praying night and 
 day that God would save the people from bondage 
 to those cruel nations.' This was before Coptos had 
 been taken : but then, when it fell, Pisentios fled 
 three miles further into the rocky desert. There 
 ^ Am^lineau, op. cit., p. 30. 
 
86 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 on a mountain-side the two friends found an open 
 doorway, which they entered. Within was a chamber 
 some 70 ft. square and high in proportion, hollowed 
 out of the solid rock, and supported by six piers or 
 columns. It was the burial-place of a vast number 
 of mummies, which lay there undisturbed in their 
 coffins or cases. 
 
 Here Pisentios resolved to live alone, directing 
 John to depart and to return with a measure of meal 
 and with water once a week. As John was about to 
 leave the cave, he saw a roll of parchment which 
 he gave to the bishop. The bishop on reading it 
 found that it contained the names of all those whose 
 bodies were laid to rest in that burial-place. It has 
 been generally taken for granted ^ that the roll was 
 written in hieroglyphics, and it is hence argued that 
 the knowledge of hieroglyphic writing survived 
 among the Copts till at least the seventh century. 
 But this is not stated in the Coptic biography. The 
 story goes on to tell how, when John returned, 
 he heard his master talking in the cavern, and 
 listening discovered that he was speaking with one 
 of the mummies, which had come out of its case to 
 demand the bishop's intercession : for the mummy 
 declared that all its kith and kin had been Greeks 
 and worshippers of the pagan gods. But this legend 
 rather shows that the mummies were as late as the 
 second or third century — as is indicated also by the 
 fact that some were shrouded in the 'pure silk of 
 kings' and by the separate embalming of the fingers : 
 and it is at least a possible inference that the roll 
 was written in Greek characters ^. 
 
 ' By Amdlineau and others. Dr. Wallis Budge seems of the 
 same opinion. 
 
 " I cannot quite dismiss the idea that, even if we take the 
 
Persian Conquest of Egypt 87 
 
 When the mummy had done speaking, it went 
 back to its coffin : but unfortunately we are. told 
 nothing more aibout the Persians — what they did 
 after the taking of Coptos, or how long they 
 remained in Upper Egypt. Pisentios ultimately 
 got back to his flock, and when he died, was buried 
 after a solemn vigil over his remains in the church 
 at Psenti. On his deathbed he bequeathed all his 
 books to his friend Moses, who succeeded him in the 
 bishopric, and was the author of his biography. 
 Both bishops were clearly men of some learning: 
 but as usual with these Coptic writers, their whole 
 mind is concentrated on childish fairy tales of 
 wonders wrought by the saints. Their sole delight 
 is in the miraculous and impossible : and it is only 
 by some strange oversight or accident that they 
 record any fact whatever relating to the great 
 movements of history which they witnessed, and 
 which they knew to involve the fate of their 
 country. 
 
 But we learn two things clearly from this story — 
 first that the Persians spread up the whole valley of 
 the Nile to Syene ; and next that, so far from being 
 hailed as deliverers by the Copts, they were regarded, 
 and justly regarded, with the utmost alarm and 
 abhorrence. 
 
 The life of Pisentios was written in the seventh 
 century. Of the same tenour is another document, 
 dating from somewhat later in the same century, 
 which shows in even stronger colours what the Copts 
 suffered from the Persians. I refer to the life of 
 the well-known Coptic saint, Anba Shanfidah\ 
 
 hieroglyphics for granted, the ability of Pisentios to read them is 
 recorded as another instance of his miraculous power. 
 
 ' Amdlineau, Monuments pour servir a I'hisloire de I'Egypie 
 
88 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 a work which has only recently been brought to 
 light. These are the words in which the biographer 
 records the Persian invasion — words uttered in the 
 form of a prophecy, but written at a time when old 
 men still living could remember the events recorded : 
 ' The Persians shall come down into Egypt and shall 
 make great slaughter : they shall plunder the goods 
 of the Egyptians and shall sell their children for gold 
 — so fierce is their oppression and their iniquity. 
 Great calamities shall they cause to Egypt : for they 
 shall take the holy vessels from the churches and 
 drink wine before the altar without fear, and they 
 shall dishonour women before their husbands. The 
 evil and the suffering shall be very great : and of 
 the remnant one-third shall perish in distress and 
 affliction. Then after a while the Persians shall 
 leave Egypt.' 
 
 No evidence could be clearer or more conclusive- 
 It utterly destroys Sharpe's theory that the Copts 
 welcomed the Persians, as well as his theory resting 
 that imaginary fact on an imaginary kinship between 
 the Egyptian people and the Persian forces. Severus 
 too sums up his remarks about the Persian general 
 by saying, 'this Salar wrought many deeds of cruelty, 
 for he did not know God : but time is too short to 
 relate all his actions.' Before this passage was 
 known, above all before these two almost contem- 
 porary documents came to light, history seemed 
 singularly silent about the episode of the Persian 
 invasion : but on the silence of history was founded 
 
 Chretienne (Paris, 1888). The text in Arabic is taken from MSS. 
 collated in Egypt: they are all from a Coptic original composed 
 about 685 or 690. Shanfidah himself died July 2, 451 : and the 
 prophecies put in his mouth were of course written after the events, 
 but while the memory of them was fairly fresh. 
 
Persian Conquest of Egypt 89 
 
 an airy fabric of conjecture most unjustly disparaging 
 to the Copts. That now falls. 
 
 But the Persians remained ten or twelve years 
 in possession of the conquered country. It seems 
 to have taken them three years ^ to spread their 
 dominion over the length and breadth of Egypt 
 and Pentapolis, although there is no record of any 
 serious or prolonged resistance except at Alexandria : 
 and this lapse of time goes far to account for the 
 discrepancy in the chronology of the period. But 
 although during the work of conquest the Persians 
 acted with a kind of frenzied barbarity, as soon as 
 their rage was glutted and the work done, their 
 rule was far from tyrannical. When therefore the 
 Byzantine garrisons, or the remnant of them, were 
 driven out of the Nile valley and escaped oversea, 
 the Copts settled down in a measure of tranquillity 
 under one more of those changes of masters which 
 had constituted their political history from time 
 immemorial. 
 
 So, when peace was established, the native Church, 
 which had been harried and plundered and in places 
 blotted out, was now left alone and enabled to 
 recover in part from its wounds. Andronicus, how- 
 
 ' See Abfl '1 Faraj (ed. Pococke, p. 99), who mentions the term 
 of three years. The great distances to be covered by the army of 
 occupation postulate a corresponding time. Mistakes constantly 
 arise in dealing with authors who summarize in a sentence and 
 a date the results of a process which required months or even years 
 for its accomplishment. Here, for example, it is extremely prob- 
 able that the Persian conquest extended over the years 616-618 or 
 619. Some writers accordingly give the date of its commencement; 
 others the date of its conclusion : and the discrepancy, though only 
 apparent, serves to mislead critics who are a little wanting in thought 
 or imagination. A like discrepancy concerning the duration of the 
 occupation may be explained in like manner. It is given as ten and 
 as twelve years, and probably both statements are in a measure right. 
 
go The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 ever, did little or nothing towards the rebuilding 
 of the ruined monasteries. It is more than likely 
 that the Persians laid a tribute on the Church 
 revenues, or at least confiscated the endowments 
 of the banished Melkite establishment. But, as 
 regards civil buildings, the behaviour of the Persians 
 was less ruthless than elsewhere. In Syria, it must 
 be repeated, all through the war with the Roman 
 Empire, they spared all the towns and the people 
 that surrendered peaceably : while, in case of resist- 
 ance, the custom was not merely to sack the captured 
 places of every movable treasure, but to demolish 
 the very buildings for the sake of beautiful columns 
 or friezes or precious marbles, which they sent to 
 adorn some palace of the Great King. Egypt was 
 at least protected from vandalism of this sort by its 
 very remoteness. For the Byzantines were still in 
 command of the sea; the Delta was covered with 
 a network of unbridged waterways ; and between 
 Egypt and Syria lay long stretches of sandy desert : 
 so that heavy transport was practically impossible 
 from one country to another. Moreover there is 
 explicit evidence that the splendid public buildings 
 of Alexandria were for the most part left uninjured 
 by the Persians, whatever may have happened to the 
 monasteries without the walls. Indeed the invaders 
 were probably remembered rather as builders than 
 as destroyers in the capital, where a palace they 
 erected was long known as the ' Palace of the 
 Persians \' It would seem that their destructiveness 
 
 ' Chronicon Orientale. Severus also says that the SaMr ' built 
 at Alexandria the palace called Tar^wus, now named Fort of the 
 Persians.' The fort is also mentioned by Barhebraeus {Chron. 
 Eccl. t. i. ch. 362) in a passage which seems to indicate that it was 
 at the landing-place for passengers coming in ships from the east. 
 
Persian Conquest of Egypt 91 
 
 in other places has been exaggerated. Gibbon, for 
 example, alleges that Cyrene and Barca were finally 
 extinguished at this time by the Persians : whereas 
 a few years later the Arabs at least found those 
 cities worth a fresh conquest, nor were they now 
 even extinguished in the sense that they were finally 
 sundered from the Roman Empire. There is no 
 ground at all for the statement that their fate 
 differed from that of Egypt, which for a while 
 was annexed to the realms of Chosroes, but was 
 destined to revert to the crown of Heraclius before 
 passing for ever under the dominion of Islam ^ 
 
 Few facts are known about the Persian occupation 
 of Egypt. It is clear, however, that the conquerors 
 were not fanatical enough to force the worship of fire 
 on the conquered ^, and that here as in Palestine and 
 in Arabia, when their rule was established, it was based 
 on principles of religious toleration. Just as Modestus 
 
 Severus distinctly says the fort was at Alexandria, or one would be 
 inclined to place it at some little distance. Indeed from Suyfiti and 
 others it is clear that it was not within the city walls. 
 
 ^ The Arab historians prove most clearly that Cyrene and Barca 
 were held for the Empire and wrested from the Empire at the time 
 of the Saracen invasion. 
 
 ^ In the Life of the Abbot Samuel there is an isolated story that 
 the barbarians (i. e. obviously the Persians) tried to force him to 
 worship the sun. When he refused, he was tied to a negress. But 
 having cured the illness of his captor's son, he was released and 
 returned to his monastery, where he died after predicting the arrival 
 of the Arabs (which he may have seen) and their defeat by the 
 Christians (which he did not see). Ste. Journal Asiatique, 1888, 
 pp. 384-5. But it is clear that the cult of Mithra was definitely 
 established in Egypt during the Persian occupation, as is proved by 
 many rude monuments, found at Memphis and other places, which 
 are now in the Cairo Museum. The rays of the sun about the 
 head, and the Phrygian cap, show that the figures sculptured are 
 meant for Mithra. 
 
92 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 was allowed by direct order of Chosroes to collect 
 money and to rebuild the churches of Jerusalem, 
 and the Coptic Patriarch was left in undisturbed 
 possession of his see and allowed to reside in 
 Alexandria till his death ; so it seems that his suc- 
 cessor Benjamin was peaceably elected, and passed 
 the first years of his long and stormy pontificate in 
 comparative tranquillity under the shelter of the 
 Persian government. And as the stately splendour 
 of the streets and public buildings in Alexandria 
 suffered little at the hands of the Persians, so the 
 fame of the Great City as the home of learning if 
 dimmed was unextinguished. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 ART AND LITERATURE 
 
 History, medicine, theology. The visit of John Moschus. 
 Alexandrian libraries. Cosmas the Student. Astronomy. Archi- 
 tecture, Painting, mosaic, and opus Alexandrinum. Illumination 
 of books. Sculpture. Ivory. Metal-work. Pottery. Paper and 
 glass. Textiles. Trade. Ships and shipping. 
 
 The literature of this period in Egypt is very 
 scanty, although there was more writing than one 
 is apt to imagined Some authorities aver that 
 John Philoponus was still living at Alexandria: 
 but, though this is erroneous ^, the influence of his 
 theology or his heresy was still felt, and the Patri- 
 arch Sergius found it worth his while to denounce 
 John's speculations in concert with George of Pisidia^. 
 Though no original thinker, John had been a real 
 student in many branches of learning, and some of 
 his notes on Aristotle are still extant. It was at 
 this time that a priest of Alexandria named Aaron 
 wrote in Syriac the medical treatises which remained 
 in great repute among the Arabs, as recorded by 
 Abd '1 Faraj *. 
 
 Indeed the physicians of Alexandria had long 
 been famous, and the school of medicine there was 
 
 ' A slight chapter on literature in the reign of Heraclius may be 
 found in Prof. Bury's History of the Later Roman Empire, vol. ii. 
 pp. 254-"]. On the state of learning at Alexandria, see Matter, 
 Mcole d'AIexandrie, passim. 
 
 ^ Philoponus is shown to belong to the sixth century by 
 A. Nauckius, Encycl. Halensis, sect. iii. t. xxiii. p. 465. See also my 
 chapter below on the fate of the Alexandrian Library. 
 
 ' Drapeyron, L'Empereur Heraclius, p. 293. 
 
 * Ed. Pococke, p. ^. 
 
94 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 frequented by students froni all parts of the Empire. 
 Thus, speaking of the sixth century, Zachariah of 
 Mitylene notes that the court physician to Basiliscus 
 was an Alexandrian : and in another passage he 
 tells of Sergius^ — an arch-physician of Rhesaina — 
 who was not only ' practised in reading many books of 
 the Greeks,' but had ' studied divinity and medicine 
 at Alexandria, for he was skilled in Syriac reading 
 and speaking ^.' This seems to show a special 
 connexion between the study of medicine and the 
 Syriac language, and to render it probable that in 
 the sixth or in the seventh century the principal 
 works on medicine were in Syriac. And it is past 
 question that the Syriac tongue was in constant use 
 and Syriac literature under constant study in Alex- 
 andria, quite apart from the fact that at this period 
 the Persian occupation of Syria had driven shoals of 
 scholars from that country to Egypt. 
 
 It is curious that both Sergius and Aaron were, 
 like the Patriarch Eutychius, learned in divinity as 
 well as in medicine. But there is the clearest 
 evidence that an independent school of theology 
 flourished. Just before the Persian invasion we 
 find Syrian scholars correcting the Syriac version 
 of the New Testament and newly translating the 
 Septuagint. into Syriac. Thomas of Harl^el and 
 Paul of Telia are the two chief names mentioned in 
 connexion with this work *, which was mainly carried 
 
 ' One Sergius is also mentioned by Abfl '1 Faraj as having added 
 two to the thirty treatises composed by Aaron. But he must be 
 a different person. 
 
 ' Zachariah of Mitylene, p. 266. 
 
 ' See Did. Christ. Biog., s. v. Some information about these 
 scholars is also given in Sharpe's History of Egypt, ch. xxi. p. 38. 
 Sharpe makes them work at the monastery of St. Anthony and 
 St, Zacchaeus near Alexandria, but he seems to have misunderstood 
 
Art and Literature 95 
 
 on at the celebrated Ennaton monastery. That 
 there was great activity in Biblical studies needs no 
 proof. But Agathias shows the amazing dishonesty 
 to which theological controversy could condescend : 
 for he mentions an Augustal prefect who employed 
 fourteen scribes or' copyists in the task of corrupting 
 the writings of the Fathers, particularly Cyril, so 
 that from published texts the highest authority 
 could be quoted for the form of heresy which the 
 prefect favoured. It is to be hoped that such frauds 
 were rare : but this happened about the beginning 
 of the seventh century, when sectarian religion was at 
 the height of its strange ascendency over morality. 
 Not only the Ennaton, however, but nearly every 
 monastery had its library and its students. Probably 
 the still surviving Dair Stariani — or the Syrian 
 Convent ^ — in the Natrun desert owes its foundation 
 to this period, when so much of Syrian life and 
 learning was removed to Egypt under stress of the 
 Persian wars. And everywhere in the mountains 
 and deserts, far from the intellectual life of the 
 capital, monks and anchorites wrote in Coptic their 
 controversial treatises, biographies of patriarchs, and 
 but too rarely historical chronicles. 
 
 Of actual history written at this time but little 
 remains. Theophylact Simocatta has left some 
 useful records; but, though an Alexandrian, he 
 scarcely mentions his native city : while the un- 
 known writer of the Chronicon Paschale or Alex- 
 andrinum has left a contemporary document of the 
 
 his authority. I have spoken more fully on the visit of these Syrian 
 students and of their work in the Appendix on the Chronology 
 of the Persian Conquest ; q. v. 
 
 ' See Ancient Coptic Churches f vol. i. p. 316, for a description of 
 this monastery. 
 
96 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 greatest interest and value. The work of John of 
 Nikiou, though written late in the seventh century, 
 was certainly founded on earlier works, of which 
 even the record has perished. 
 
 This list of names, though it implies the study of 
 history, philosophy, theology and medicine, is never- 
 theless a poor one, and gives no idea of the 
 manifold activities of intellectual society at Alex- 
 andria. Most of the writings of the time doubtless 
 perished in the great hurricanes of conquest which 
 swept over Egypt during the first half of the seventh 
 century. But there is evidence enough to show 
 that Alexandria might still claim to be the capital of 
 the world of letters and the centre of culture. For 
 although much of the learning of the place was 
 theological, nevertheless the traditions of classical 
 study still flourished. Essays in Christian idealism 
 or Christian ethics were consciously based on Pla- 
 tonic or Aristotelian doctrine; and just as Paul the 
 Silentiary had described the glories of St. Sophia 
 in Homeric hexameters, so now Sophronius, writing 
 from Alexandria, thought it no shame to pour out 
 his passionate longing for the Holy Places in Ana- 
 creontic lyrics ^. 
 
 It so happens that some interesting details of life 
 in Alexandria at this time are preserved in the 
 writings of John Moschus. These details are not 
 enough to fill a large canvas, and they are given 
 more by accident than by design of the writer, yet 
 the picture they form is curious. John Moschus 
 was a Syrian by birth, though Greek was his native 
 language. He travelled for some years in Egypt 
 with his pupil and friend Sophronius, a native of 
 Damascus, towards the close of the sixth century, 
 ' Migne, Patr. Gr, t. 87. 
 
Art and Literature 97 
 
 and they spent a great deal of time together in the 
 monasteries of the Thebaid or Upper Egypt. When 
 they returned to their own country, John prevailed 
 on Sophronius to take the order of monkhood. 
 They are said to have been driven out of Syria in 
 605 during the wars of Phocas, and to have gone to 
 Alexandria, where they spent a further period of 
 eight or ten years, reading and writing and making 
 frequent excursions to the monasteries about the 
 city and in the desert and the great Oasis. Both 
 scholars were friends of John the Almoner, though 
 that prelate seems to have been far below them 
 in intellectual stature, and like him they fled from 
 Alexandria^at the time of the Persian invasion. 
 It is even related that they accompanied the Al- 
 moner to Cyprus, and that on his death Sophronius 
 preached his funeral sermon, though the evidence is 
 against this story. It is certain that they travelled 
 among the Greek islands and ultimately found their 
 way to Rome, where John Moschus put the finishing 
 touches to his work, and upon his deathbed gave it 
 to Sophronius to publish. About the year 620, 
 when the peaceable practice of their religion had 
 been restored to the Christians under Persian rule, 
 Sophronius went back to Palestine, and in due 
 course published the volume which still survives 
 under the name of ' Spiritual Pastures ^.' 
 
 While much of this work with its stories of 
 miraculous cures and visions is valueless to the 
 historian, yet by dint of search one comes upon 
 some really delightful pieces of information. There 
 is too a kind of scholar-gipsy flavour about the 
 
 ' Aet/x.o)v nveu/inTtKos, better known under its Latin title Pratum. 
 Spirituale. See Migne, Pair. Gr. t. 87 (3), and Did. Christ. Biog., 
 s.v. Sophronius. 
 
 Bin'LEK H 
 
98 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 book which redeems even the more tedious parts 
 from dullness. Some points in Alexandrian topo- 
 graphy will be noticed in a later chapter : we may 
 here remark on the intense intellectual curiosity 
 which almost every page reveals. The two friends 
 were restless in their quest after knowledge, as their 
 travels show, even if some of their journeys were on 
 Church business ^. At one moment they are talking 
 in Alexandria with the bishop of Darna (or Darnis) 
 on the Libyan coast, at another with the Abbot 
 Theodore the Philosopher, or again with Zoilus the 
 Reader. Both Theodore and Zoilus were men of 
 exceptional learning and character, and the Abbot 
 as well as the Reader was very poor. Of both it 
 is recorded that they possessed nothing but a 
 mantle and a few books. While Theodore studied 
 philosophy, Zoilus practised the art of illuminating 
 manuscripts ". At the Ennaton monastery ^, near 
 Alexandria, they found a venerable abbot who had 
 spent eighty years in monastic life. He was a lover 
 of men, but was further distinguished by a very rare 
 quality— love of animals. Every day he fed the 
 birds of the air, the ants great and small, and 
 the very dogs that prowled about the monastery. 
 But whereas Theodore and Zoilus clung to their 
 books, when they parted with all besides, the animal- 
 lover could never keep a coin or a garment or 
 even a book * all he had was given away to the 
 needy *. 
 
 But the most keenly interesting and the most 
 tantalizing passage in John Moschus is one that 
 
 ' The phrase &>^fkda.% xoipiv is taken to mean ' on business,' but 
 it may mean ' for our (intellectual) advancement,' i. e. ' for purposes 
 of study.' 
 
 ^ John Moschus, cap. 171. = Id., cap. 184. * Id., ib. 
 
Art and Literature 99 
 
 describes the intimacy with Cosmas the Student^ 
 enjoyed by the two friends: for John most fre- 
 quently writes in the plural, associating himself with 
 Sophronius, his companion in travel and study alike. 
 The passage is so remarkable that something like 
 a transcription of it may be pardoned. 
 
 'Of Cosmas the Student/ says John, 'we shall 
 write nothing from hearsay — only what we have seen 
 with our own eyes. He was a simple-minded man, 
 abstemious and clean-living: he was easy-tempered 
 and sociable, given to hospitality, a friend of the 
 poor. He rendered us the very greatest service 
 not only by his speculation ^ and his teaching, but 
 because he possessed the finest private library in 
 Alexandria and freely lent his books to all readers^. 
 He was very poor, and the whole of his house, 
 which was full of books, contained no furniture but 
 a bed and a table. His library was open to all 
 comers. Every reader could ask for the book he 
 wanted, and there read it. Day by day I visited 
 Cosmas, and it is mere fact that I never once 
 entered his house without finding him engaged 
 either in reading, or in writing against the Jews. 
 He was very reluctant to leave his library, so that 
 he often sent me out to argue with some of the 
 Jews from the manuscript he had written. 
 
 ' Once I made bold to ask him a question and 
 
 ^ 6 (7;^o\a(JTiKos. Id., cap. 172. 
 
 ^ The word is Oeapov/Ji^os, which in Migne is rendered as a passive 
 and so ' by his presence ' : but the term was still used of the philo- 
 sophic Oeapia : e. g. John of Constantin ' became a gnostic and a 
 theoretic,' says Zachariah of Mitylene, p. 211. 
 
 ° Sw. TO etvai avTov TroXv^ipXov inrep irdvTa^ toiis hr 'AXe^avSpeia 
 ovTas KOI Trpo&vfuai irapmT\a.v Tois BiXcevo'LV. Unhappily the Original 
 contains no suggestion of contrasting private and public libraries in 
 the city. 
 
 H 2 
 
loo The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 said, "Will you be so kind as to tell me how long 
 you have lived in this retreat ? " But he held his 
 peace and made no answer. Then again I said, 
 "In the Ldrd's name tell me"; and after some 
 hesitation he replied, " For three and thirty years." 
 When further pressed, Cosmas remarked that the 
 three principal things he had learned in his studies 
 were " not to laugh, not to swear, and not to lie." ' 
 
 Such is the charming picture of a poor scholar 
 in Alexandria keeping open house for book-lovers ^. 
 It is, as I have said, a tantalizing picture, and 
 mainly for two reasons. First of all, not a word 
 is said about the class or classes of books which 
 th,e library contained, or about their number : and 
 then, next, it is a grievous disappointment that John 
 Moschus and Sophronius, with all their love of 
 literature, with all their interest in books and book- 
 collectors, tell us absolutely nothing about the great 
 and famous public library of Alexandria. Was it, 
 or was it not, still in existence ? They stand on 
 the very edge of the subject, and could, if they 
 would, utter the ^ord that would solve the still 
 baffling mystery : but they turn away in silence and 
 are gone. 
 
 Of course their very silence, coinciding as it does 
 with the silence of so many other writers, has its 
 own logic ; but this is not the proper place for a 
 discussion upon the date of the disappearance of 
 the great library. Such a discussion will come later 
 in this work. At present one can only deplore the 
 fact that neither John Moschus in Spiritual Pastures, 
 nor Sophronius in any of his fairly voluminous 
 
 ' In the Cairo Museum is an interesting monument to a book- 
 lover of this epoch. On the lid of a sarcophagus, sculptured in 
 relief, is the figure of a student grasping in each hand a roll of MS. 
 
Art and Literature loi 
 
 writings which remain, gives a single hint with 
 regard to the existence or non-existence in his 
 lifetime of the library in the Serapeum. 
 
 But so valuable is every scrap and fragment of 
 evidence about the books of Alexandria at or near 
 this period that I may be pardoned for here recording 
 another collection — that made by the Syrian bishop 
 of Amida, Moro Bar Kustant, in the first half of 
 the sixth century. He is described as ' fluent and 
 practised in Greek,' but 'after remaining a short 
 time in his see, he was banished first to Petra and 
 thence to Alexandria. There he stayed for a time, 
 and there formed a library containing many ad- 
 mirable books, in which is abundance of great profit 
 for those who love knowledge, for men of under- 
 standing and students. These books were transferred 
 to the treasury of the church of Amida after his 
 death. He progressed more and more in reading 
 in Alexandria, and there fell asleep.' From this 
 interesting passage in Zachariah of Mitylene^ we 
 may draw at least two conclusions — that Alexandria 
 was still a great place for the book collector, and 
 that the exportation of books was not forbidden. 
 
 But the intellectual interests of Alexandria were 
 not limited to Greek literature or theology. The 
 city of Ptolemy and Euclid was still famous for its 
 devotion to astronomy, and for the skill of its 
 students in mathematics and in mechanics. Astro- 
 logy was still practised, and, postulating at least 
 some knowledge of the stars, it was not without 
 its use to science. When princes and rulers of the 
 world sent to consult a monk in the desert about 
 their future, they put their faith less in his saintliness 
 than in his study of the planets. Nor were the 
 
 ' p. 209. 
 
I02 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 astrologers wanting in political influence. The most 
 famous astronomer of this time was Stephen of 
 Alexandria, whose book on astronomy remains. He 
 is also credited with the study of astrology : and if 
 he forecast the coming empire of Islam ^, it can 
 scarcely be questioned that many of his credulous 
 countrymen listened with an anxious sinking of 
 the heart, and were weakened in their resistance 
 in the hour of trial. But Stephen was a genius — 
 universal philosopher and master, he is called, — and 
 his astrology counts for little in his attainments. 
 To the branches of learning which were studied 
 at this time must be added geography. A great 
 accession to the knowledge of the eastern seas had 
 been made by the explorations of Cosmas, surnamed 
 the Indian Navigator, a merchant adventurer of 
 Alexandria, whom love of travel and discovery 
 rather than love of gain had led to make long and 
 scientific voyages round Arabia and India. Though 
 he had died some years before this period, his works 
 were in men's hands and were much valued : it is 
 unfortunate for us that the greater and the most 
 interesting part of them has perished^. 
 
 But if literary traditions were still cherished in 
 Alexandria, it is even more true that the arts 
 flourished. The architecture of the city with its 
 noble walls and towers, its shining palaces, its stately 
 churches, and colonnaded streets was truly mag- 
 
 ^ H, Usener's monograph on Stephen of Alexandria leaves no 
 doubt of his learning, but makes it pretty clear that this so-called 
 prophecy is the invention of a much later period (De Stephana 
 Alexandrino). 
 
 ^ On Cosmas Indicopleustes see Matter, ^cok d'Akxandrie (t. ii. 
 p. 381), — a work which contains a good deal of valuable informa- 
 tion. 
 
Art and Literature 103 
 
 nificent : and the skill of the builders had in no 
 way fallen off from the days of Justinian when 
 the great Hall of the Thousand and One Columns 
 at Constantinople, which still survives, was built 
 by an Alexandrian, It was the capitals upon the 
 columns in this hall which, according to Professor 
 Freeman, completely broke with classical tradition 
 and prepared the way for the magnificent con- 
 struction of Anthemius at St. Sophia ^ Moreover, 
 the green and red porphyry used to adorn that 
 building was quarried in Egypt and floated down 
 the Nile 2. From the days of the Pharaohs Egypt 
 was renowned for its beautiful alabasters : and 
 churches and palaces all over the world were 
 decked with these costly marbles, the trade in 
 which was centred in Alexandria, and there remained 
 till the Arab conquest extinguished it. 
 
 Painting as a fine art was ancillary to architecture, 
 and was employed together with mosaic of coloured 
 glass ^, mosaic of marble, marble panelling, and 
 
 ^ See, however, Lethaby and Swainson's S. Sophia, Constantinople, 
 p. 249. 
 
 ^ ' They loaded the boats on the bosom of the Nile ' says Paul 
 the Silentiary. 
 
 ' On the subject of glass mosaics in Egypt see Abft gSlih, p. 148, 
 and my note. When I wrote the note, I was not aware that 
 specimens of this work still survive in Egypt. But the head of 
 the kiblah in the mosque of Ibn Tfildn still preserves its tenth- 
 century glass mosaics set round with a purely classical border. 
 One other instance occurs at the mosque of Shajarah ad Durr, 
 and two at Al Azhar, viz. in the kiblah of At Tabarstah and of Al 
 Akhbuhaiah. These instances prove the rareness of the art, which 
 was applied only on a very small scale to the adornment of the 
 most splendidly decorated part of the Muslim building, but they 
 prove also its survival to the fourteenth century. See the report 
 of the Comity de Conservation des Monuments de tArt Arabe, 
 Exercise 1900 (Le Caire, 1900), by Max Hertz Bey. 
 
I04 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 marble pavements for the decoration of interiors. 
 These arts — the art of building, the art of working 
 in glass mosaic, and that form of marble work called 
 characteristically opus Alexandrinum — were pre- 
 served by the Copts long after they had passed 
 under the dominion of the Arabs: and both the 
 walls of the new capital Cairo and its splendid 
 mosques were built and embellished by Egyptian 
 architects, whose genius and whose methods came 
 by direct descent from ancient Alexandria. 
 
 Nor must the art of illuminating books be for- 
 gotten. We have already seen that Simocatta 
 speaks of a friend who was an illuminator, and 
 John Moschus describes Zoilus as practising the 
 same craft. The fact is that all over the East at 
 this time ornamental writing and miniature painting 
 in books were carried to great perfection. The most 
 sumptuous of these manuscripts were on vellum, which 
 was stained purple and then overwritten in letters 
 of gold. Books of this kind were generally destined 
 for the Emperor's own library. There is an extremely 
 interesting letter from an Archbishop of Alexandria, 
 Theonas, to one Lucianus, the Emperor's chief 
 chamberlain and librarian, which one may here fitly 
 produce, though it was written about a. d. 290. It 
 gives first of all advice as to keeping accounts, the 
 custody of robes and ornaments, the making of 
 inventories for gold and silver plate, for crystal and 
 myrrhine vases, and for all the palace treasures. 
 Then it proceeds to say that the library is the most 
 important thing of all. No Christian should despise 
 secular literature, and the librarian must know all 
 about the books. He must arrange them in 
 systematic order with a catalogue : he must take 
 care that all copies are faithful and true: and he 
 
Art and Literature 105 
 
 must restore MSS. or illuminations where they 
 are decayed. Finally, says Theonas, it is not 
 essential that all books should be written in letters 
 of gold on purple vellum^, unless the Emperor 
 makes this a special requirement. This letter at 
 least shows that the Archbishop was familiar with 
 the work of a great and splendid library. In the 
 three following centuries the art of illuminating 
 spread rather than diminished, nor was there any 
 great change of style up to the period of which we 
 are treating. As in Europe in later days, so now 
 in Egypt, much of this illuminating was done in 
 the monasteries : and although the chief centres of 
 production were Constantinople and Alexandria, yet 
 at many places in Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria, and 
 Persia might be found monks who spent their 
 lives in writing precious books and adorning their 
 pages with the richest splendour of design and 
 colour ^ 
 
 Of the sculpture of this time little is known 
 beyond the fact that it was still customary to set 
 up statues of the reigning Emperor not only in the 
 capital but also in the chief provincial towns ; 
 whence it is clear that the art was not wholly lost ^. 
 The Ptolemaic school of sculpture had been the 
 first in the world at that time, and some of its 
 works show a purely classical grace and refinement. 
 Even in Christian times the tradition remained, as 
 is shown for example by the magnificent colossal 
 
 ' See Cozza Luzi's Pergamene Purpuree. 
 
 ° See the late Prof. Middleton's Illuminated Manuscripts (Cam- 
 bridge, 1892), ch. iv. 
 
 ' It was, however, destined to a rapid decay in Egypt under the 
 Arabs and in the Byzantine Empire under the ignorant iconoclast 
 Leo the Isaurian in the early eighth century. 
 
io6 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 figure of an emperor sculptured in red porphyry 
 
 now in the Cairo Museum ^ 
 
 There is no doubt, however, that by the sixth 
 century the art of sculpture had fallen into decay. 
 On the other hand, the peculiarly Byzantine art of 
 ivory-carving attained its highest perfection, dis- 
 playing marvellous taste and delicacy^. So too 
 the goldsmith's art and the art of enamelling on 
 metal flourished in the great school of Alexandria. 
 And as these crafts traced back their origin to the 
 workers of ancient Egypt, so they were preserved 
 long after the fall of Alexandria. In the Middle 
 Ages they had a brilliant renaissance, and to this 
 day they have never been extinguished. 
 
 Among the industrial arts, which flourished in 
 great vigour, may be mentioned paper-making, glass- 
 blowing, weaving, and ship-building. Vast reed- 
 beds of the tall and graceful papyrus plant grew in 
 the thousand waterways of the Delta. Paper was 
 formed of its pith, which was cut in slices, moulded 
 
 1 The head is unfortunately missing, but the statue is thought 
 to represent an emperor of the Later Empire; and Prof. Strzygowski 
 regards it as Christian work. The drapery, pose, and finish are 
 exceedingly good. As a specimen of earlier work, reference may 
 be made to the admirable statue of Marcus Aurelius now in the 
 Museum of Alexandria. 
 
 ^ See C. Diehl, La Civilisation Byzantine au VI° Steele, pp. 
 651 seq. On p. 653 is an illustration from the 'chaire de 
 Maximien,' on which work Diehl quotes Molinier's opinion: 
 'Aucun monument d'ivoire de la pdriode ant^rieure ne nous 
 montre une pareille entente de la decoration jointe h une habiletd 
 technique au-dessus de tout doge ' : and he goes on to show that this 
 work, as well as the small jewels and reliquaries, embroideries, &c., 
 is Egyptian in origin or inspiration. The great ' Syro-Egyptian ' 
 school of art exercised an enormous influence at this time on 
 Byzantine art in general. The remarks of Diehl on architecture 
 (p. 642) and on miniature painting (p. 650) are well worth reading, 
 as indeed is the whole book. 
 
Ari and Literature 107 
 
 into sheets under pressure, and polished with an 
 ■ivory burnisher: then the sheets were joined to 
 form rolls of a manageable length. Enormous 
 quantities of papyrus were exported from the busy 
 quays of Alexandria : and it is not clear when the 
 trade declined or what causes led ultimately to the 
 total extinction of the plant in Egypt ^ The glass- 
 works of Alexandria and of the Nitrian desert were 
 long famous. Strabo says that the glass-workers 
 of Egypt had their own secrets, especially in the 
 factories at Diospolis ; that they counterfeited 
 precious stones and made myrrhine vessels. Glass 
 was part of the tribute imposed by Augustus ^, and 
 beautiful products of the art may be seen in the 
 Alexandria Museum. It cannot be doubted that the 
 craft was handed down among the Copts to mediaeval 
 times, and its last result was the manufacture of 
 those sumptuous enamelled lamps, which once 
 adorned churches and mosques and now are the glory 
 of mediaeval museums. At what period the manu- 
 facture of porcelain arose is uncertain, but it was 
 very early. A Persian traveller ^ who visited Fustat 
 in 1047 ^- D- speaks not only of the fine glass but of 
 the beautiful faience which he saw made there, ' so 
 fine and diaphanous that through the vessel may be 
 
 ' Some interesting information, however, may be found in 
 Mittheilungm a. d. Papyrus Erzherzog Rattier, pp. loi seq. We 
 learn that in the ninth century a roll of papyrus called yult^ 
 (xapTTjs) cost 6 kirit, or the fourth of a dinSr= about 2s, 6d.: while 
 a tflmtr, which was about 8 ft. 6 in. long, cost one-sixth of this, or ^d. 
 
 ^ See Notice historique de VArt de la Verrerie in the Napoleonic 
 Description de I'^gypte. Also Ab<l SSlih, pp. 149-50. 
 
 ' Relation du Voyage de Ndsiri Khusrau, from C. Schefer, p. 151. 
 The ' wastes ' from the kilns often discovered among the rubbish 
 mounds on the site of Fustat fully bear out the existence of the 
 native manufactures. 
 
io8 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 seen the hand that holds it': and he specially mentions 
 iridescent lustre-ware, resembling the shot silk fabric 
 called bMalimiln, which changed its hue according 
 as the light fell on the surface. This evidence is 
 very remarkable, as proving beyond question the 
 high development of the potter's and glass-worker's 
 art in Cairo in the eleventh century. It is clear that 
 the later and better-known Hispano-Mauresque ware 
 traces its origin back to Cairo. 
 
 In textiles too there was a large trade and a great 
 variety of fabrics. The finest linen was still woven, 
 probably finer than anything wrought in the looms 
 of ancient Egypt. Moreover, since the reign of 
 Justinian silk had come into more common use^, 
 
 ^ Catalogue of Egyptian Textiles in S. K. M., by Alan Cole, 
 1887, p. X. Silk in the third century was worth its weight in gold. 
 By the fourth century GregoTy of Nazianzen and other Christian 
 writers denounce the use of silk as a growing luxury. By the 
 middle of the fifth century silk had become so common that not 
 merely the Emperor but all courtiers and wealthy men dressed 
 in it. The streets and houses of Constantinople were all aflutter 
 with pure silk on the occasion of the baptism of the infant 
 Theodosius II: see Bury's Later Roman Empire, vol. i. pp. 196, 
 204; ii. pp. 96-7: see also vol. i. p. 472. In Egypt, however, 
 silk was more largely used at an earlier date than in Europe. 
 By the end of the fourth century silk shrouds were employed for 
 mummies. See an article ' On a Coptic Grave-Shirt ' by Dr. Wallis 
 Budge in Archaeologia, vol. 53, pt. 2, p. 442 : and on the whole subject 
 Yates' Textrinum Antiquorum there quoted. How general was the 
 use of silk in the seventh century may be gathered from the pages 
 of Ockley. Heraclius is said to have had ' above 300 loads of dyed 
 silks and cloths of gold' at Damascus (pp. 150, 156). Vestures 
 of silk are very frequent among the spoils, and all the generals 
 seem to have worn silk even on the field of battle. See pp. 1 70, 
 172, 179, 185, 198, 211. Tapestry of scarlet silk flowered with 
 gold is mentioned p. 226. Mas'fidt says that awnings of green 
 silk were hung over the streets of Alexandria as a protection 
 against the glare from the marble buildings. 
 
Art and Literature 109 
 
 and both in silk and linen sumptuous fabrics were 
 produced, embellished with splendid embroideries. 
 Many textiles, dating from about this time, have 
 recently been discovered at Akhmim, the ancient 
 Panopolis, in Upper Egypt, and are now in the 
 South Kensington and other collections. These are 
 nearly all linen or woven tapestry, and the style 
 of ornamentation, which is in some cases quite 
 classical, in others is distinctly Christian, while yet 
 a third class shows clear evidence of Persian 
 influence. The ten or twelve years of the Persian 
 occupation may well have brought Persian designs 
 into fashion with the Coptic weavers. Just as in the 
 Theodore Graf papyri at Vienna, which range from 
 487 to 909 A. D,, the Greek, Coptic, Sassanid-Persian, 
 Hebrew, and Arabic languages are found, so in this 
 collection of textiles, covering about the same period, 
 the political changes which passed over Egypt are 
 reflected as in a mirror ^. It is exceedingly interesting 
 to note further that the materials, as well as the 
 designs and colours of specimens found at Sakkirah, 
 in the Faylam, and in Upper Egypt are virtually 
 identical. The fact proves not so much the con- 
 servatism of the weavers as their community of 
 
 ' Catalogue S. K. M. p. xiii. The whole of the introduction to 
 this catalogue is well worth reading. See also Gerspach, Les 
 Tapisseries Copies, and Power, Romische und Byzantinische Seiden- 
 Textilien. In his book called Le Costume en £gypie du III' au 
 XII " Slide, Mons. A. Gayet dwells on the extraordinary fine- 
 ness of the linen, silk, tapestry and embroidery of Egypt: but 
 he accounts for the variety of national styles by the variety of 
 races employed in Egypt. This theory I think is mistaken. 
 The workers were Egyptian, but their style was affected by 
 the succession of conquests and the varjdng tastes of the con- 
 querors. On p. 247 M. Gayet shows an Assyrian design of 
 exceptional interest. 
 
no The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 ideas. By the great highway of the Nile new pro- 
 cesses and patterns passed quickly from guild to 
 guild among the scattered towns of Egypt, and the 
 produce of the looms was easily carried to the great 
 markets of Memphis and Alexandria, or after a short 
 caravan journey was shipped from the Red Sea port 
 of Berenice. All these linens and tapestries, tissues 
 interwoven with gold and needlework embroideries 
 in fine colours, were the work of Coptic craftsmen : 
 and the more the history of Egypt, both Byzantine 
 and Saracen, is studied, the clearer becomes the 
 truth that in all the handicrafts — in goldsmiths' work, 
 in enamelling, in metal-work, in glass-work — and in 
 every province of design and construction, it was 
 the Copts who kept alive the artistic traditions of 
 the country. 
 
 At the same time it would be wrong to imagine 
 that in skill and taste the Copts far outshone the 
 artistic workers of the Byzantine Empire or those of 
 Armenia, Assyria, and Persia. All over the East 
 woven fabrics and embroideries, vessels of gold and 
 silver, and jewels of exceedingly fine workmanship 
 were produced : and fine as were the carpets made 
 in Egypt, it is doubtful whether they rivalled the 
 magnificent products of Persia^. So too some of 
 
 ' I may instance the well-known ' winter carpet ' of the Persian 
 kings captured by the Muslims at Ctesiphon. It was 300 cubits 
 long by 60 broad, and was used in winter when flowers were 
 over. It had a white ground with a border of emeralds richly 
 designed : every beautiful and sweet-scented flower and plant 
 was wrought upon it in precioiis stones of divers colours. It 
 was sent to Omar at Medina, who had it cut up in pieces and 
 distributed among his generals. 'Alt sold his portion for 8,000 
 dirhems (Tabart, ed. Zotenberg, vol. iii. p. 416). Tinnts, Kais, 
 and other sea-coast towns in Egypt were the great centres for 
 carpets and other textiles: see Quatrembre, Mim. Hist, et Giog. 
 
Art and Literature m 
 
 the finest illuminations were made not only in 
 Byzantium, but in Persia and Mesopotamia. The 
 most famous dye-works for the imperial purple were 
 at Bostra in Syria, which was captured by the 
 Persians and subsequently by the Arabs. We have 
 seen that Chosroes was no semi-savage king, but 
 a man of great culture : and the arts of the Sassanian 
 Persians, while founded on the traditions of ancient 
 Assyria and Babylon, not only vied with the arts of 
 the Byzantine Empire in taste and refinement, but 
 had perhaps a larger share in forming among the 
 Arabs that school of design which in the Middle 
 Ages rendered Damascus famous. 
 
 But of all the industrial arts practised at Alex- 
 
 t. i. pp. 141, 308, 335, 339. Cedrenus mentions linen, silk, 
 and carpets among the spoil burnt by Heraclius at Chosroes' 
 palace in Dastagerd. In the ninth century the Cahph Al Muntazar 
 (who had slain his father Mutawakkal) was shown a carpet taken 
 from the Persians, which bore the design of a crowned king on horse- 
 back, and on the border the legend, ' I am Shirfiyah, son of Khusril : 
 I slew my father and reigned only six months ' {Oriental Collections, 
 vol. i. no. iii. p. 224 n.). Damietta vied with Tinnls at this time, 
 and for three or four centuries later, in the fineness and splendour 
 of its gauzes, brocades, and cloths of gold : see Ab<l Salih, pp. 62-3 
 and notes. Ya'kfibl writing circa 950 a. d. specifies various textiles 
 then manufactured. In the Fayfim a coarse linen; at Kais 
 garments called by the name of the town and excellent woollen 
 materials ; at Bahnasi veils or curtains called Bahnasl ; fine tissues 
 at Ahnas; crimson carpets at Sifit; small carpets or rugs and 
 leathern goods at Akhmlm; at ShatS fine linen; at Tinnls the 
 celebrated tissues of DabtkJ material, coarse and fine, besides 
 gauzes and striped fabrics and velvet and damask and many other 
 sorts of apparel; and at Damietta strong tissues of Dabiki, fine 
 linen, and gauze were woven {Bibl. Geog. Arab., part vii. pp. 
 330-332 and 337). These crafts were certainly not brought into 
 the country by the Arabs, but survived from Roman times. On 
 embroidered and woven stuffs actually found in Egypt see Strzy- 
 gowski, Orient oder Rom, pp. 113 seq. ; also 90 seq. 
 
112 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 andria perhaps the most important was ship-building, 
 Alexandria was the busiest port and the largest 
 market in the world. Besides the enormous trade 
 in corn, linen, paper, glass and other local products, 
 and the traffic in gold and ivory from Nubia and 
 Ethiopia, all the spices, silks, silver, precious stones, 
 and other wares from the Indian and the Chinese 
 seas came from the Red Sea by canal from Kulzum 
 or Suez to Memphis and thence down the Nile to 
 Alexandria, whence they were distributed over the 
 Mediterranean. So vast a commerce required a 
 very large amount of shipping : and though Egypt 
 was always in historic times destitute of timber for 
 ship-building, it was found more profitable to import 
 balks from Syria and elsewhere, and to build the 
 vessels where the trade which demanded them was 
 centred. Egypt too was famous for a special kind 
 of hemp, admirably adapted for cordage and ships' 
 tackling ^. 
 
 We have already seen that one of the corn-ships 
 owned by the Church at Alexandria carried a 
 burthen of 20,000 bushels, nor is this recorded as 
 in any way an exceptional cargo. The probability 
 is that these merchant vessels were much larger 
 than we are wont to imagine. .The same is true of 
 the war vessels. Not many years after this time, 
 when Egypt was in possession of the Saracens, and 
 when any purely Byzantine shipwrights must have 
 been withdrawn from the docks at Alexandria, the 
 Saracen leader in Syria, Mu'awlah, ordered a number 
 of war-ships to be built in Alexandria and other 
 
 ^ Ibn al Fakth (tenth century) says, 'One of the wonders of 
 Egypt is a kind of hemp called duks, of which ships' tackling is 
 made, and such ropes are called al kirkis' {Bibl. Geog. Arab. 
 part V. p. 66). 
 
Art and Literature 113 
 
 seaports within his dominion. According to Sebeos 
 the ships were of two classes, which one might 
 almost call battleships and cruisers. The battle- 
 ships each carried a thousand men, while the lighter 
 vessels carried a complement of one hundred ^, and 
 were specially designed for fast sailing and rapid 
 manoeuvring round the big ships. Very interesting 
 details are given of the armament of the men-of-war. 
 Not only were they equipped with formidable bat- 
 teries — ' catapults and stone-throwing engines ' — but 
 some of them had lofty towers built upon the deck, 
 so that, when the vessels came alongside fortified 
 walls, the assailants should be on a level with the 
 defenders, and, by leaping or bridging the short 
 space between tower and wall, should effect a lodge- 
 ment on the ramparts. 
 
 But even more remarkable is the express testi- 
 mony of Sebeos that these great ships were armed 
 with 'fire-spouting engines,' i.e. machines for hurling 
 the deadly flames known as Greek fire. This power- 
 ful compound of inflammable materials not merely 
 burned with unquenchable fierceness, but seems 
 also to have possessed an explosive or rending 
 force, which wrought great destruction and caused 
 great terror. But the special interest of this passage 
 in Sebeos lies in this — that it makes ships built in 
 
 1 These numbers are quite clear, as Mr. Conybeare tells me, in 
 ithe MS. of Sebeos, and I see no reason to doubt them, although 
 the text would give the number of large ships as 300, each carrying 
 r.ooo men, and 6,000 cruisers each carrying 100, or a total of 
 800,000 men sent over sea to attack Byzantium, besides those 
 that Mu'awtah took overland to Chalcedon. This is of course an 
 impossible total ; but even if the tale of ships should be reduced, 
 the ' arms and engines ' which Sebeos mentions, as well as tents, 
 provisions, and perhaps horses, must have occupied a very large 
 proportion of the space in the vessels. 
 
114 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Egypt after the Arab conquest to Arab orders 
 armed with artillery for discharging the blazing 
 chemicals, the composition of which is generally 
 held to have been, in the seventh century at least, 
 a Byzantine secret. The invention of Greek fire 
 is usually ascribed to Callinicus, an engineer of 
 Heliopolis, and the Heliopolis is too readily assumed 
 to be the Syrian town of that name instead of the 
 older and more famous city of Egypt. Gibbon 
 clearly leans to Cedrenus' view, that Callinicus was 
 an Egyptian, although he mistakenly speaks of 
 Heliopolis as then in ruins ^. It is scarcely con- 
 ceivable that little more than twenty years after the 
 Arab conquest of Egypt ships built at Alexandria 
 should have been armed with these engines for 
 shooting Greek fire, unless both the discovery of 
 the composition and the construction of the engines 
 had originated in the country. 
 
 Be that as it may, it is unquestionable that the 
 art of ship-building greatly flourished at Alexandria 
 during the first half of the seventh century in 
 Egypt, and that it was not stricken with decline 
 when the Byzantine overlordship of Egypt ended : 
 a fact which proves that in this as in all the great 
 branches of industry in the Nile valley the Copts 
 were independent of Roman direction, if indeed 
 they were not the master craftsmen. 
 
 This rapid review of the arts and of the literature 
 of Alexandria about the time of the Persian con- 
 quest has of necessity in some points touched both 
 
 ' Decline and Fall, cb. 52, note 2. 'Cedrenus brings this 
 artist from the ruins of Heliopolis in Egypt, and chemistry was 
 indeed the peculiar science of the Egyptians.' Lebeau too has 
 an exhaustive note on the subject of Greek fire (vol. xi. p. 419). 
 See also Prof Bury's Later Roman Empire, vol. ii. pp. 311, 319. 
 
Art and Literature 115 
 
 on previous and on subsequent history. But it is 
 designed both to serve as a rough sketch of the 
 material civilization of the time, and to show that 
 its continuity was not broken, at least by the 
 Persians. The armies of Chosroes did little serious 
 mischief either to the architectural or to the literary 
 treasures of the capital. The great libraries, if they 
 existed, did not find their destroyers in the Persian 
 conquerors. The magnificent lighthouse called the 
 Pharos — one of the world's seven wonders — still 
 towered between the city and the sea, capped with 
 clouds of smoke by day and with flaming fire by 
 night : neither the ancient temples, nor the spacious 
 colonnades, nor the countless palaces which made 
 Alexandria famous, were overthrown. Even the 
 churches within the walls were practically uninjured, 
 and worshippers still thronged the great Cathedral 
 of Caesarion and the church of St. Mark, where 
 beneath the high altar still reposed the remains of 
 the Apostle of Egypt ^ 
 
 ' The safety of St. Mark's is known from the testimony of 
 pilgrims at a later date. It survived the second Arab capture 
 of Alexandria, in which the Caesarion seems to have perished. 
 
 I 2 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 CRUSADE AGAINST PERSIA. 
 
 Heraclius sues for peace. His departure for Carthage arrested. 
 War with Persia resolved upon. Futile embassy to Chosroes. 
 Expedition to Cilicia. Command of the sea. Scene in St. Sophia. 
 The campaign ends in the destruction of Persian power. Recovery 
 of the Cross. Triumph of Heraclius. 
 
 The fortunes of Heraclius had now fallen so low- 
 that his Empire was almost bounded by the walls 
 of his capital. On the westward or landward side of 
 Constantinople hordes of Tartars or Huns and other 
 barbarian tribes had roamed for years unchecked, 
 and were prowling round the very gates of the city. 
 On the east the Persian armies, which had con- 
 quered Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, had advanced 
 through Asia Minor sweeping all before them, 
 and were in occupation of Chalcedon on the Asian 
 shore of the Bosporus fronting Constantinople ^ 
 The hopes which had shone on the accession of 
 Heraclius were extinguished or clouded, as the 
 masterful vigour which had won him the throne 
 gave way, or rather seemed to give way, to apathy 
 or despair. The first act of his reign was to send 
 a humble message to Chosroes asking for peace, 
 which was disdainfully refused ^. 
 
 When the tidings came that Egypt was lost to 
 
 ' The position of Chalcedon is accurately described by Theo- 
 phylact, vii. 15, and again viii. 14 (Teubner Classics, ed. de 
 Boor). 
 
 " Sebeos records that Chosroes answered, ' The Empire is mine. 
 He has usurped it, and now sends us our own treasures as presents: 
 but I will not rest till I have brought him into my power.' The 
 ambassadors were put to death, and no reply was sent to Heraclius. 
 
Crusade against Persia 117 
 
 the Empire and the tribute of money and corn from 
 that rich province cut off, with his exchequer and 
 granaries empty and with ferocious enemies be- 
 sieging or threatening his walls, which were guarded 
 by an undisciplined and nerveless garrison, the 
 Emperor seemed to resign all hope of deliverance. 
 His meditated flight gives colour to the view that 
 he felt unequal to the burden of the Empire ; 
 that all the heroic element in his character was 
 overborne by the press of disasters ; and that 
 his moral strength was broken. It was certainly 
 believed that he had resolved to fling off his crown 
 and to return home to Africa : and his subjects 
 might well recall the taunt of Phocas, 'Are you the 
 man to govern the Empire better ? ' But there is 
 some reason to think that Heraclius wished rather 
 to shift the centre of government to Carthage, and 
 there to prepare at leisure for the reconquest of his 
 Asiatic dominions. 
 
 Whatever the truth may be, a vessel laden with 
 treasures he wished to save had already sailed, 
 bound for Carthage, and had reached the coast 
 of Pentapolis, where it suffered shipwreck, when 
 Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, having 
 discovered the design of Heraclius, stood angrily 
 between him and his purpose. By what power of 
 speech or magnetism of will he prevailed, can only 
 be conjectured : it is certain that he breathed a new 
 purpose into the Emperor, and led him to take a 
 solemn oath at the high altar in the Cathedral that 
 he would be true to his trust, and that he would 
 fight for the deliverance of his Empire from the 
 enemies of the Cross ^. 
 
 ' Lebeau's Hisioire du Bas Empire, ed. de Saint-Martin, vol. xi. 
 pp. 19-21. 
 
ii8 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Whether it was the eloquence of Sergius in 
 preaching what was really the first great crusade, or 
 the stirring power of the scene beneath the great 
 dome of St. Sophia, or some new gleam of hope 
 from the altered disposition of his foes, or all com- 
 bined with a reaction from deep discouragement 
 natural in a man whose strong power of brain was 
 governed by a highly nervous temperament, it is 
 beyond question that from this moment a most 
 remarkable change was wrought in the Emperor. 
 To the outer world at least he seemed to cast off 
 like a slough all his weakness and indolence, resum- 
 ing the character of a strong leader, and to show 
 a kingship worthy of men's allegiance. His whole 
 mind was now given to collecting and organizing his 
 resources for a war with Persia. 
 
 Nevertheless his counsels were guided by caution, 
 and while he was preparing to fight, he resolved 
 to ask terms of peace from the Persian general^ 
 
 ' Both the Chronicon Pasckale and Theophanes give %ay]v as 
 the name, while Nicephorus gives Sal'Tos, i.e. ShahJn, to whom 
 also is attributed the conquest of Egypt : see ante, p. 70 n. The 
 Chronicon Paschale very clearly makes SaSn the original captor of 
 Chalcedon, and with equal clearness makes Khorheam (whom it 
 calls ^a.Xj3a.pas, i. e. Shah-Waraz) commander of the Persian army 
 of occupation at Chalcedon ten years later, dating his arrival 
 there 626. Both statements can hardly be correct, but the 
 confusion between Shahtn and Shah-Waraz is more perplexing 
 than surprising. Gibbon calls this latter general ' Sarbaraza,' and 
 two pages lower speaks of a general called ' Sarbar.' The two 
 names refer to the one person, although Gibbon does not seem 
 conscious of the fact. Gibbon places Sa^n in command at 
 Chalcedon now, makes him accompany Heraclius' envoys, and 
 says that he was flayed alive for his pains by Chosroes : but 
 Theophanes makes SaSn die of melancholy and disease some years 
 later after a defeat, Chosroes insulting his dead body. Sebeos 
 describes Shahin as raiding Cappadocia in 610, and subsequently 
 
Crusade against Persia 119 
 
 at Chalcedon, whom he visited in person. The 
 Emperor was advised to send ambassadors to 
 Chosroes, who was represented as certain to grant 
 a favourable reply. Accordingly three distinguished 
 envoys were dispatched with a letter, which is still 
 extant, and with costly presents. The ambassa- 
 dors duly delivered their message to the Great 
 King, who did not refuse the precious gifts they 
 offered: but his reply was stern and uncompromising. 
 ' Tell your master,' he said, ' that the Roman Empire 
 belongs to me. Heraclius is a rebel and a slave : and 
 I will grant no peace till he abandons the worship 
 of the Crucified for the worship of the sun ^.' 
 
 The studied insolence of this answer gave the 
 shock needed to rouse the deadened spirit of the 
 Romans. It pointed afresh the religious aspect of 
 the war, and fired at once the indignation and the 
 enthusiasm of the people. The Emperor now found 
 in them the material required for his new plans. 
 While his ambassadors were on their way to the 
 
 co-operating with Khorheam. But Sebeos, who gives the speech 
 made by Heraclius on this occasion at Chalcedon, alleges that 
 Khorheam had now come to Chalcedon and was in command 
 there. This is doubtless the truth, Shahtn being in Egypt. 
 
 ' Part of this answer is given by Theophanes, part by Persian 
 writers: st& Journal Asiatique, 6® s^rie, 1866, vol. vii. p. 20x. 
 Eutychius relates that Constantinople being hard pressed by 
 Chosroes wished to surrender, but that Heraclius secured his 
 retirement by agreeing to pay 1,000 talents of gold and of silver, 1,000 
 virgins, 1,000 horses, and 1,000 robes of silk. Gibbon adopts this 
 story, but it does not seem worthy of credit. It is inconsistent with 
 the ten years' occupation of Chalcedon, which is well attested, nor 
 does Gibbon explain the inconsistency. The contemporary 
 Chronicon Paschale knows nothing of any such arrangement : and 
 the story is probably nothing but a late version of the embassy 
 referred to in the text. Sebeos gives a somewhat different version 
 of Chosroes' letter to the Emperor. 
 
I20 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Persian court, Heraclius is said to have made peace 
 for a while with his barbarian enemies ^ and so 
 cleared the landward side of the capital. Later we 
 are told that he made an alliance with a Turkish tribe 
 to the north of Persia, and promised his daughter 
 Eudocia in marriage to their chief in part payment 
 for a force of 40,000 cavalry — a compact voided by 
 the death of the chieftain. Yet the evidence of 
 peace in the west is very difficult to establish ^ ; 
 because in 622 or 623 the Avars were still ravaging 
 the country-side, and by an act of infamous treachery 
 nearly succeeded in assassinating Heraclius and 
 capturing Constantinople ; and again in 626 an 
 army of 30,000 Avars besieged the city acting in 
 alliance with the Persians at Chalcedon, who were 
 then commanded, as it seems, by the newly arrived 
 Shah-Waraz. So that the peace with the Avars was 
 neither real nor lasting. Heraclius probably esti- 
 mated the treaty at its true value, and trusted 
 rather to the strength of his walls and his galleys 
 to secure Constantinople in his absence. But such 
 was the warlike ardour of his people, that he soon 
 enrolled and equipped a large army, which with 
 allies ultimately numbered 120,000 men. His plan 
 was first to find a training-ground where he could 
 drill his levies into discipline and practise them in 
 military movements and the use of arms, while vast 
 supplies were being gathered and stored : and then, 
 
 ' Cedrenus ascribes this peace to the eleventh year of Heraclius, 
 i. e. 621 or 622. 
 
 ' Theophanes' account of the matter is probably correct, but his 
 dates are very hard to follow or to reconcile with other authorities, 
 even allowing for the fixed error in his system of chronology. If 
 the attack on Heraclius took place in 623, it would be in the winter 
 when he returned for some weeks to Constantinople from the 
 theatre of war. 
 
Crusade against Persia 121 
 
 when his forces were ready for the field, to strike 
 at the heart of Persia, He resolved therefore to 
 transport his army to the Bay of Issus at the north- 
 east corner of the Mediterranean and to make 
 CiHcia his base — a move of singular boldness which 
 was rendered possible by the fact that his command 
 of the sea was undisputed and his resources in 
 shipping enormous. 
 
 This reveals at once the cardinal blunder of the 
 Persians. Had they only followed up their early 
 victories on land by learning to fight and conquer 
 by sea, nothing could have saved the Empire \ 
 Fortunately for the history of Christian civilization 
 the Persians were not a seafaring people, and at this 
 juncture they totally failed to realize the need of 
 commanding the sea in order to complete and to 
 secure their conquests. Sebeos indeed relates that 
 Chosroes, in sending his insolent letter to Heraclius, 
 sent orders to his own troops to cross over to 
 Byzantium, whereupon they equipped a large squad- 
 ron and made every preparation for battle by sea. 
 But when the Persian flotilla advanced, the Roman 
 galleys fell upon it with such fury that the Persians 
 were shamefully defeated with a loss of 4,000 men ^ 
 and all their ships, and were so dismayed that ' they 
 never again ventured upon this kind of undertaking.' 
 Consequently for not less than ten years they 
 remained in idle occupation of their naval base at 
 Chalcedon, and of the magnificent harbour of Alex- 
 andria, to say nothing of Syrian seaports and the 
 
 ' Chosroes had actually endeavoured, after the Persian occupa- 
 tion of Chalcis, to build a fleet, but the material collected for the 
 purpose was destroyed by fire and the attempt abandoned. 
 
 ^ So Thomas Ardzrouni, who mentions ' 4,000 mailed warriors ' 
 as slain. See Brosset's Collection dHisioriens Arminiens, t. i. p. 82. 
 
122 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 more western ports in Libya and Pentapolis. At 
 all these places they might have gathered and 
 trained their fleets to sweep the Mediterranean: 
 even at Alexandria alone such a navy might have 
 been built and manned as would have given battle 
 to the Roman armaments with every chance of 
 victory. But the land-fighting Persians were blind 
 to the value of sea-power : they failed to read the 
 lesson which the Roman republic of old had been 
 slow indeed to learn, but learned effectively in its 
 wars with Carthage — the lesson which the Arabs 
 were destined to grasp with rapid intelligence before 
 the close of this seventh century. Consequently the 
 Persian camps were chained to the coast : and so 
 limited was their power of offence, that Heraclius 
 before very long discovered his ability to disregard 
 their presence. Even ten years after the capture of 
 Chalcedon the Byzantine galleys rode the sea trium- 
 phant in the narrow strait between the Persian and 
 the Hunnish armies ^ 
 
 Before starting on his expedition round Asia 
 Minor, and in order to defray its cost, Heraclius 
 borrowed all the immense treasures of gold and 
 silver vessels which the churches could lend, to coin 
 into money. It was a wasteful and deplorable 
 method of replenishing the empty state exchequer, 
 but perhaps no other was available. When all was 
 ready, he made over the government to his son, 
 with the Patriarch Sergius and the patrician Bonus 
 as guardians. Then shod in black he entered the 
 great Cathedral, and falling prostrate prayed for the 
 divine blessing upon his undertaking ^ George 
 
 ' Chronicon Paschale, Migne, Pair. Gr. t. 92, col. 1014. 
 ' Cedrenus tells this story, and gives the words of Heraclius' 
 prayer. 
 
Crusade against Persia 123 
 
 of Pisidia, deacon and sacristan of the Cathedral, 
 witnessed the Emperor's devotions and remarked, 
 ' May you dye red in the blood of your enemies 
 the sandals now black on your feet ' — a pious wish 
 which may more easily be pardoned in the poet 
 laureate ^ than in the chaplain of the expedition : 
 for George seems to have accompanied it in both 
 characters. It was on Easter Monday, 622 ^ that 
 Heraclius weighed anchor from the capital, and 
 sailed southward. The armada, after weathering 
 a storm in which Heraclius displayed at once the 
 coolness of a commander and the hardihood of 
 a common sailor, ploughed on its way and made a 
 
 ' The tedious poems on the wars with Persia and with the Avars 
 by George of Pisidia may be found in Migne's Pair. Gr. t. 92. 
 A few lines from the Heracliad will bear translation, as showing the 
 revival of spirit which Heraclius wrought : — 
 
 'When the army was filled with dread of the Persian, 
 When their manner of battle was flight from danger 
 And this had become second nature by use : 
 Who turned their hearts to war and clad them in the armour of 
 
 his eloquence ? 
 Who changed their craven souls, 
 And from their cowardice brought out courage ? 
 Even thou, by thy wisdom and strength. 
 Which roused them to life, when they were like dull stones 
 Cumbering the earth with a profitless burden.' 
 "^ The year is fixed accurately by Theophanes, who expressly 
 identifies it with the year in which Mohammed appeared, i. e. the 
 year of the Hijrah, or 622. The Chronicon Pajc^a/e gives the same 
 date : which may therefore be taken as a fixed point in the misty 
 chronology of this period. George of Pisidia, who sailed with 
 Heraclius, and after him Theophanes and Cedrenus, make the 
 Emperor leave the capital on Easter Monday. Gibbon apparently 
 follows them, but changes the day to Easter Tuesday, presumably 
 from misunderstanding the /eria secunda of the Latin version. 
 Feria prima is of course Sunday. Theophanes confuses the first 
 and the second expedition. 
 
124 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 prosperous voyage to its destination. The force 
 landed and camped at Issus, and seized the pass 
 of Pylae on the frontier between Cilicia and 
 Syria ^. 
 
 It is no part of the writer's purpose to follow in 
 detail the six years' war which Heraclius now waged 
 against the Persian Empire. From the first his 
 arms were victorious. Out of the very unpromising 
 material of which his army was composed he forged 
 a weapon of the finest temper, which he wielded 
 with consummate skill to break down the power of 
 his enemies. His athletic strength and prowess in 
 single combat, his enthusiasm, his burning faith 
 in his mission as champion of the Cross, his readi- 
 ness to share all hardships with his men, his personal 
 ascendency and power of discipline, the rapidity and 
 brilliancy of his tactics, and his coolness in meeting 
 new combinations — all these qualities which he now 
 revealed made him an ideal leader of men and 
 secured him an unparalleled succession of triumphs. 
 
 The expedition to Cilicia drove a wedge into the 
 very centre of the vast territory between the Nile 
 and the Bosporus now controlled by the Persians. 
 In the following year a second expedition to Trebi- 
 zond drove in another wedge to meet it from the 
 northern side of Asia Minor. The pressure thus 
 exerted was enormous ; and, as blow followed blow, 
 the Persians were forced to recall their armies from 
 
 ^ George of Pisidia deals in tantalizing generalities : but Sebeos 
 confirms and supplements his account. According to Sebeos there 
 was a drawn battle close to Antioch city, with great slaughter on both 
 sides. But the Romans retreated to Pylae, where they defeated the 
 Persians, who however recovered and look Tarsus and all Cilicia. 
 Does this mean that the expedition failed .' George of Pisidia gives 
 no hint of such a result, though he records the Emperor's return to 
 Byzantium. 
 
Crusade against Persia 125 
 
 Alexandria and from Chalcedon. It is not clear in 
 what year either event happened; but historians 
 agree in making the occupation of both towns begin 
 and end nearly simultaneously, and they differ little 
 regarding the period of occupation, which in each 
 case is estimated at ten and twelve years by different 
 authorities. We shall not be far wrong in dating 
 the withdrawal of the Persians from the Bosporus 
 and the Nile early in the year 627 a. d.^ 
 
 The crowning achievement of the war — the capture 
 by Heraclius of Dastagerd, some eighty miles to 
 the north of Madain or Ctesiphon — took place in 
 February, 628. On the 24th of that month Chosroes 
 fled ignominiously, but was caught and thrown into 
 prison, where after suffering indignity and torture 
 at the hands of his successor Siroes, he was put to 
 death a few days later. Chosroes' palace was burnt 
 to the ground, and all its magnificent and costly 
 treasures ^ that could not be removed perished in 
 
 ^ The Chronicon Paschale assigns to June 29, 626, the arrival 
 of the Avars and the KhakSn before Byzantium, and makes it some 
 days after the arrival of the Shah-Waraz to take over the command 
 at Chalcedon. The siege failed owing to the fact that the Roman 
 galleys retained their command of the sea and so prevented the 
 designed co-operation between the Avars and the Persians. There- 
 upon the Khakan sullenly retired with his baffled and starving 
 troops : and two years later the war was over. 
 
 " Theophanes deplores the destruction of 'most artistic and 
 admirable buildings and astonishing palaces,' and gives an account 
 of the aviaries and zoological gardens. He says too that vast 
 quantities of aloes and spices, sugar, ginger, linen, silk, carpets and 
 precious metals perished in the flames. Oriental authors have 
 fabulous tales of the wealth and wonders of Chosroes' palace. Thus 
 the Tarikh Regum Perstae (p. 160) tells of an automaton with a 
 sort of orrery which marked rain, thunder, &c. : the Tarikh Jahdn 
 Ard (translated by Sir W. Ouseley, p. 61) says that Chosroes had 
 in his palace 15,000 female musicians, 8,000 household officers, 
 
126 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 the flames. Multitudes of captives from Syria and 
 from Egypt were released, the Patriarch Zacharias of 
 Jerusalem among them ; the reliquary enclosing the 
 Holy Rood was brought uninjured and delivered 
 into the hands of Heraclius^; and the war was 
 
 20,500 horses, 960 elephants : he also had a cup in which water 
 never failed : an open ivory hand which he put in water when a 
 child was born, when it closed and revealed the child's horoscope : 
 a piece of gold soft as wax, and a kerchief which when soiled was 
 thrown into the fire and so became clean again. See also Gibbon's 
 Decline and Fall, vol. viii. p. 230 (Edin. 1848). 
 
 ' It is not clear whether Heraclius recovered the Cross at once 
 from Siroes. According toBrosset (Collection d'Hisioriens ArmMens, 
 t. i. p. 86) Heraclius summoned Khorheam, the Shah-Waraz, and 
 promised him the kingdom of Persia as ransom for the Cross. 
 Brosset adds in a note that Khorheam was then at Chalcedon : but 
 in this I think he is mistaken. For (i) Khorheam left Chalcedon 
 before the fall of Chosroes (see Drapeyron, p. 258), and (2) even 
 were it otherwise, the promise of the kingdom to Khorheam could 
 only have been given after the death of Siroes. According to 
 Drapeyron Heraclius returned to his palace near Chalcedon, leaving 
 Theodore to recover the Cross from Khorheam : and Theodore, 
 having succeeded in the quest, brought the Cross to the palace, 
 whence Heraclius bore it in triumph over the water to Constan- 
 tinople. This was four months later, viz. September 14, 628 
 (pp. 276-7), but the date, which is the date of the exaltation of 
 the Cross at Jerusalem, may arise through confusion with that 
 festival. Sebeos is somewhat at variance with this account, while 
 agreeing that it was from Khorheam that Heraclius recovered the 
 Cross, not from Siroes. Sebeos describes a personal meeting 
 at which Heraclius promised Khorheam the sovereignty, on 
 the death of Siroes in August, 628, asking in return for the 
 Cross. Khorheam vowed assent, went to Ctesiphon, slew the 
 child-king Ardashtr and many of the nobles, found the Cross, 
 and delivered it to special envoys sent by Heraclius with all 
 haste. If this story be true, the Cross cannot have reached the 
 Emperor much, if at all, before Christmas, 628. But it is not 
 clear why Heraclius failed, if he did fail, to get the Cross from 
 Siroes, nor why Khorheam should have been more able and more 
 willing to find and surrender it. It should be noted that Sebeo? 
 
Crusade against Persia 127 
 
 ended by a formal treaty of peace between the 
 Roman Empire and Persia. The great crusade 
 was accomplished by one of the most romantic 
 triumphs in history. 
 
 It was on Whit Sunday, May 15, in the same 
 year, that the Emperor's dispatches announcing the 
 victorious termination of the war were read from the 
 great ambon in the Cathedral of St. Sophia^ — an 
 
 represents Khorheam as being at ' Alexandria ' when he received 
 the letter of Heraclius which led to their meeting. That this is 
 Alexandria of Syria is clear because (i) Sebeos does not say as 
 usual when he so means ' Alexandria of the Egyptians ' : (2) geo- 
 graphically Khorheam must have been in proximity, because the 
 story, which had left him in Cappadocia, speaks of him as still 
 ' in the west ' directly after the capture of Ctesiphon by Heraclius 
 and as refusing to help Chosroes : and (3) while Tabart, as we have 
 seen, denies that the Shah-Waraz went to Egypt, Mas'fldi says : 
 .1) -jJ!. ^liJl iib ^ 4-Mkjl 1^ sJl jl-i, ' Shahr-bar went against 
 him (Siroes) from Antioch of Syria' (ed. Barbier de Maynard, 
 vol. ii. p. 233). 
 
 ^ It is the Chronicon Paschale which, by incidentally mentioning 
 that May 15, on which day the ceremony took place, was also 
 Whit Sunday, renders us the great service of fixing another point 
 in the chronology. The fact does not seem to have been adequately 
 noticed, but it is very important. Now the only year about this 
 time in which May 15 fell on a Sunday is 628, and the tables in- 
 the Trisor de Chronologic show that in the year 628 Easter Day was 
 on March 27. And Easter Day being on March 27, it follows 
 that Pentecost would fall on May 1 5, precisely in accordance with 
 the explicit statement of the Chronicon. Just as, therefore, the 
 beginning of Heraclius' crusade is fixed with certitude in 622 by 
 its coincidence with the Hijrah of Mohammed, so its ending is 
 fixed in 628 by the coincidence of the date and the festival given 
 by the Chronicon ; and the interval is six years, as all the authorities 
 demand. So much then may be regarded as settled. Drapeyron 
 (p. 267) agrees in the date: yet on the preceding page he makes 
 the letter, which was read in St. Sophia on May 15, written from 
 Armenia after May 8 ! On the other hand, Theophanes seems to 
 close the war in 626, and to place the Emperor's visit to Jerusalem 
 in the same year. The preface to the letter of Zacharias.from his 
 
128 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 incident which seems to have strongly impressed the 
 imagination of contemporary writers, and which was 
 doubtless accompanied by all the state and pomp of 
 wonted use in that great building on a glorious 
 occasion '. 
 
 But the Emperor was still detained for some time 
 in the east by the work of pacification. When, how- 
 captivity (Migne, Patr. Gr. t. 86, col. 3219 seq.) assigns the death 
 of Chosroes to 627 and the restitution of Zacharias to the following 
 spring, 628. But where was Zacharias in the interval ? He certainly 
 did not accompany the Emperor to Constantinople. The Tarikh 
 Jahdn Arti (see p. 125, n. 2) gives the tenth JumSdS al Awwal in 
 A.H. 7, as the date of Chosroes' death. This is very precise : but as 
 the date corresponds to September 15, 628, it must be rejected, the 
 evidence for February being very strong. But with the month the 
 year also would be wrong according to the Arab calendar, since 
 February 628 falls in a.h. 6. The Arabic historian Maktn makes 
 out that the deposition and death of Chosroes took place in a. h. 5. 
 But the writer in the Journal Asiatique (6® s^rie, vol. vii. 1866), 
 following Sebeos and other Armenian authorities, gives the years 
 of Chosroes' reign as extending from the summer of 590 to 628 a.d. 
 These dates are in complete harmony with Tabart, whose authority 
 on Persian history is very high. For he states that the Hijrah 
 of Mohammed took place in the thirty-second year of Chosroes' 
 reign (622) and that Chosroes' death took place in the thirty-eighth 
 year, which would be 628. 
 
 The agreement of these diverse writers with the Chronicon 
 Paschale must be regarded as quite decisive in fixing February, 628, 
 as the date for Chosroes' dethronement and death. Yet this date 
 does not altogether square with the date I have given for the 
 capture of Jerusalem by the Persians, viz. 615 : unless one shortens 
 the period of captivity, which is loosely said to have lasted fourteen 
 years, a total which can only be made up by wrongly counting part 
 of 615 and part of 628 as full years. 
 
 ' No one interested in this splendid monument of Byzantine 
 architecture should fail to read Messrs. Lethaby and Swainson's 
 S. Sophia, Constantinople. The work is rich in historical as well as 
 architectural details,: in particular there is a good deal about the 
 ambon. 
 
Crusade against Persia 129 
 
 ever, the remaining Persian garrisons in Syria and 
 Asia Minor had been withdrawn under safe-conduct, 
 and the Patriarch Zacharias had been restored to 
 his seat in Jerusalem, then Heraclius turned home- 
 ward after six years of strife and entered Constanti- 
 nople in triumph, bearing with him the Holy Rood 
 which he had rescued from the heathen. 
 
 K 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 THE EXALTATION OF THE CROSS 
 
 Heraclius' pilgrimage to Jerusalem with the Cross. The Jews 
 at Tiberias. The Cross exalted at the church of the Resurrection. 
 Climax of the Emperor's career. He sanctions a massacre of the 
 Jews. The Fast of Heraclius. Death of the Patriarch Zacharias, 
 and of his successor Modestus. The Emperor's scheme of religious 
 union. Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis, made Patriarch of Alexandria. 
 
 In the following year, 629, the Emperor set forth 
 in the early spring on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for 
 the purpose of restoring to its place the Cross, which 
 meanwhile had rested in St. Sophia. Two incidents 
 are recorded of the journey. 
 
 According to some writers it was about this time 
 that at Emesa^ (or Edessa) envoys from Mohammed 
 arrived, bearing letters which invited Heraclius to 
 adopt the religion of Islam. This episode, however, 
 seems to belong to an earlier date, before the death 
 of the Great King. The other event is as follows. 
 When the Emperor reached Tiberias, the Jews "sent 
 a deputation with costly gifts to ask for a pledge of 
 security. They remembered their own deeds against 
 the Christians, and feared the Emperor's vengeance. 
 But he generously gave them the promise of protec- 
 tion, and the Jews were prudent enough to obtain 
 his bond in writing. 
 
 The journey was resumed, and at length the Holy 
 
 ' Both places are named : but it is hardly likely that Heraclius 
 went so far out of his way as to reach Edessa, though he stayed 
 there a good deal later. The two places are constantly confused 
 in the records of this time. But I think the whole story is out of 
 place here, the letters having reached Heraclius before the end 
 of 627. See below, p. 139 n. and p. 140, n. 2. 
 
Exaltation of the Cross 131 
 
 City was seen in the distance. It is easy to picture the 
 glittering cavalcade — the flashing steeP and fluttering 
 pennons of the horsemen, the bowmen and spearmen 
 with shield and quiver and lance, and in the midst 
 the Emperor and his staff" 2, one blaze of gold and 
 colour. As Heraclius drew near, he was met by 
 a great procession of clergy and monks under Mo- 
 destus, bearing gospels and tapers and censers — the 
 customary ritual — and followed by a great multitude 
 of the inhabitants. So accompanied he passed to 
 the Golden Gate ^ on the eastern side of the city, 
 where the Patriarch Zacharias was waiting. But 
 after an act of homage the Patriarch rebuked his 
 ruler for the splendour of his garb, and bade him lay 
 
 ^ The ordinary equipment of the Roman cavalry soldier at this 
 time was a steel cap, a coat of mail, gauntlets, and steel shoes : see 
 Mr. Oman's Art of War in the Middle Ages, pp. 184 seq. The 
 writer remarks that the armour prescribed in Maurice's Straiegicon, 
 c. 578, is also prescribed with scarcely any change by Leo the 
 Wise, in his Tactica, c. 900 a.d. Flags were also carried by 
 military ordinance. They are often mentioned by Greek writers, 
 and banners of silk were commonly carried by the Muslim as well 
 as the Roman forces. 
 
 ^ Sebeos specially records that the Emperor had all his ' imperial 
 attendants ' with him on this journey. Some idea of the state in 
 which he moved may be formed from Prof. Bury's description of 
 what was customary even in the fifth century. ' A rich purple 
 dress enveloped the whole body — wrought dragons shone on his 
 silken robes . . . The caparisons of his horse were of gold, and as 
 he rode, seated on a saddle white as snow, he was accompanied by 
 the imperial guards, who carried spears with golden tips and shields 
 with golden centres enriched by golden eyes' (? bosses). Later 
 Roman Empire, vol. i. p. 196. 
 
 ' In the twelfth century this Golden Gate was walled up and 
 only used on Palm Sunday and on the feast of the Exaltation of 
 the Cross — the latter because through that gate Heraclius passed 
 on this occasion bringing back the Holy Rood from the Persian 
 captivity. See Palestine Pilgrims Text Society, vol. vi, City of 
 Jerusalem, p. 14. 
 
 K 2 
 
132 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 aside his purple and gold, that he might approach the 
 holy places with fitting humility : and the victorious 
 Emperor marched on in the guise of a penitent 
 pilgrim. On every side he saw signs of the ruin 
 wrought fourteen years before by the Persians ; but 
 he thanked Modestus for the great work of restora- 
 tion which he had done, especially at the churches of 
 the Resurrection, of the Skull, and of Constantine. 
 Then followed the grand ceremonial known as the 
 Exaltation of the Cross, the memory of which is still 
 celebrated by Eastern and Western Churches alike on 
 September 14. 
 
 Legend has it that the Holy Rood, which was 
 enshrined in a reliquary studded with jewels, had 
 never been profaned by heathen eyes during the 
 period of its captivity with the Persians : that even 
 Chosroes had never dared to turn the key or to open 
 the sacred treasure. It is extremely probable that 
 the Rood was saved from destruction, partly owing 
 to the superstitious reverence with which the heathen 
 King regarded it, but partly also owing to the intrinsic 
 value of the gold and precious stones enclosing it, 
 Chosroes being a great collector of works of art. 
 But however that may be, the relic was restored to 
 the Cathedral church of the Resurrection, and there 
 placed on the altar with solemn rites of great magni- 
 ficence. 
 
 It is not fanciful to see in this triumphant restora- 
 tion of the Cross the dramatic climax of the Empe- 
 ror's career. He was now at the zenith of his power 
 and his fame, and may well have felt that his mission 
 was accomplished. During ten years of failure and 
 shame he had sunk under that strange besetting 
 weakness of will which had bowed his Empire to the 
 dust, which had suffered province after province to 
 
Exaltation of the Cross 133 
 
 crumble away at the touch of barbarian armies, till 
 nothing was left but the walls of his capital and the 
 narrow strip of sea that sundered the beleaguering 
 hosts of his enemies. Then rising like a dreamer 
 from sleep he had astonished the world by an exhibi- 
 tion of iron purpose and strength, of glowing enthu- 
 siasm, of consummate strategy, of swiftness in decision 
 and commanding power over men — qualities which 
 marked him as by far the greatest captain of his age. 
 The armies created and led by his genius had 
 conquered the conquering Persians and freed his 
 empire of their yoke from the Bosporus to the 
 Araxes, from the Araxes to the Jordan, and from the 
 Jordan to the Nile. Above all he had saved Christ- 
 endom from the imminent danger of being swamped 
 by a heathen religion ; he had rescued from a pagan 
 king the most precious symbol of the Christian 
 truth ; and now the restitution of the Cross to its 
 shrine in the Holy City sealed in him the union of 
 imperial conqueror and victorious defender of the 
 faith. He had delivered the Roman Empire and 
 delivered Christendom from the very edge of de- 
 struction. 
 
 But from this moment both his fortune and his 
 character wavered and began to decline. His first 
 political act was one of fierce reprisal against the 
 Jews. People and priests in Jerusalem vied with 
 each other in denouncing that race to the Emperor, 
 and in charging them with more guilt than the 
 Persians for the slaughter of the Christians and the 
 demolition and burning of the churches. The charge 
 was probably true, or near the truth ; it was not fof 
 nothing that the Jews had taken the Emperor's bond 
 of indemnity, and it is clear that they felt at this 
 time a far more bitter hostility against the Christians 
 
134 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 than against their heathen neighbours. Heraclius, 
 however, was loth to depart from his plighted word. 
 He was reminded that he had given the pledge in 
 ignorance of the facts ; that he was not bound by 
 a promise cozened out of him by fraud ; that, had he 
 known how the Jews smote the Christians with fire 
 and sword, he must have dealt very sternly with 
 them ; and so forth. The clamour or the casuistry, 
 or both, prevailed. An edict was issued by which 
 the Jews were driven out of Jerusalem and forbidden 
 to come again within three miles of its walls. But 
 banishment was the lightest punishment they suffered ; 
 for Heraclius seems to have sanctioned the full 
 measure of vengeance which the Christians demanded, 
 and something like a general massacre followed ^ 
 But in order to soothe the Emperor's conscience and 
 their own, the Patriarch and bishops sent letters to 
 every city ordering the institution of a week's fast 
 for ever. That institution still remains, and to this 
 day the first week of Lent with the Copts is called 
 ' The Fast of Heraclius.' It may be taken that the 
 Copts joined in the massacre, having their own scores 
 to settle with the Jews from the time of the Persian 
 capture of Alexandria. 
 
 The Emperor seems to have spent the winter in 
 Jerusalem ; indeed from the date at which the fast 
 is kept, it may be argued that the massacre of the 
 Jews took place early in the following year, 630. It 
 was during this winter that the Patriarch Zacharias 
 died ^ and Modestus, by the voice of King 
 
 ' Makrtzi says that the Jews were ' massacred till none were left 
 in the kingdoms of Rfim, Egypt, and Syria, save those who had 
 fled and hidden themselves.' This would make the massacre 
 extend all over the Empire (Malan's tr., p. 70). The story is found 
 also in Eutychius. 
 
 " In the Acta Martyris Anastasii (ed. Usener, p. 12) it is stated 
 
Exaltation of the Cross 135 
 
 and people alike, was placed on the patriarchal 
 throne. 
 
 It is not clear which of the two pontiffs was 
 responsible for the massacre which sullied the fame 
 of Heraclius ; doubtless both men consented to it ; 
 but, when the Emperor turned northward again, he 
 took Modestus with him to aid in the resettlement 
 of Church matters consequent upon the recovery of 
 Syria, and in the transfer to the orthodox party of 
 those churches which Chosroes had made over to 
 Monophysites or Nestorians ^ The Patriarch was 
 required too to aid in formulating that plan of reli- 
 
 that Heraclius reached Jerusalem in the third indiction, the twentieth 
 year of his reign (which is equivalent to the year beginning September, 
 629), and that while he was there a bishop came from the Catholicus 
 of Persia with letters for the Emperor and for Modestus, who had 
 just been elected Patriarch. Here again is a statement and a date 
 of great precision made by a contemporary writer — made in quite 
 an incidental manner, but therefore all the more worthy of credit. 
 Nor does the writer's belief in the miracles he records affect his 
 trustworthiness on such a question of fact, where inaccuracy could 
 have no motive. But if this date be accepted, it is clear that, 
 inasmuch as Heraclius cannot have stayed very many months 
 in Jerusalem, and Modestus was enthroned before he departed, 
 Zacharias must have died not later than February or March, 630. 
 The period of his primacy is given as twenty-two years : and this 
 fairly agrees with the reputed date of his election in 609. Anastasius 
 was martyred under Chosroes on January 22, 628, and his memoir 
 was probably written a very short time after his death ; so that it 
 may at least be taken as confirming the chronology which makes 
 the entry of Heraclius into Jerusalem take place on Sept. 14, 629. 
 ' Maktn relates that in 625 Chosroes forced the people of Rfiha 
 to embrace the Jacobite creed. One of the royal physicians named 
 John was a Jacobite, and he persuaded Chosroes that so long as 
 the people followed the orthodox party, so long would they favour 
 the Romans ; whereupon the King gave them the choice of changing 
 their creed or death. Cedrenus too says that at Edessa the churches 
 which Chosroes had given to the Nestorians were restored by 
 Heraclius to the Melkites or orthodox. 
 
136 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 gious union between the warring sects of the Empire 
 which had long been among the Emperor's most 
 cherished dreams, and which now seemed feasible to 
 the victorious champion of Christendom. 
 
 But Modestus died in the winter of 630-1, after 
 a reign of only nine months^, and Heraclius failing 
 to find a bishop whose mind would mirror his own 
 Church policy left the patriarchal throne of Jerusalem 
 vacant. But he was not to be shaken from his purpose 
 of reconciling the Jacobite and Melkite, the dissentient 
 and orthodox parties in the Church. Sergius of Con- 
 stantinople brought to the cause the zeal and power 
 for which his name was famous. He was a Syrian by 
 birth, and with him originated the formula of com- 
 promise adopted by Heraclius, whereby it was settled 
 to dismiss the question whether our Lord's nature 
 was single or twofold, but to pronounce positively 
 that there was but one will or operation. As long ago 
 as 623, when the Emperor was in Armenia, he had 
 come to terms with Paulus, so that the union of the 
 State Church with the Armenian Church was accom- 
 plished : and four years later in a visit to the Lazians 
 he gained over Cyrus, the Nestorian bishop of 
 Phasis, to the new doctrine. He now offered the 
 primacy of Antioch to Athanasius on condition of his 
 recognizing the Council of Chalcedon with the Mono- 
 thelite interpretation. The three prelates seem to 
 have met in council with the Emperor at Hierapolis, 
 and the result of their debates was complete agree- 
 ment upon the terms of the compromise, which it 
 
 ' Eutychius gives the term as nine months, Nicephorus one 
 year. After the interval the next Patriarch was Sophronius, who 
 in 633 was present as simple monk at the Synod of Alexandria. 
 His appointment probably took place in 634, though Eutychius 
 makes the vacancy last for six years. 
 
Exaltation of the Cross 137 
 
 was hoped would bring peace to the Church and heal 
 her deep divisions. 
 
 This agreement was probably reached in the early 
 part of the year 631 \ and was immediately followed 
 by the appointment of Cyrus to the primacy of Alex- 
 andria, with instructions to draw the Coptic and 
 Melkite Churches together in the happy union devised 
 by the wisdom of the imperial council. So far 
 the plan of the Emperor had prospered almost 
 beyond expectation. The dispatches which reached 
 him from Egypt were at first encouraging. Cyrus 
 gave glowing reports of his progress, and it seemed 
 as if Heraclius, after recovering and reuniting the 
 Empire which the Persians had torn from his grasp 
 and shattered, was about to fulfil the dream of 
 his life. In battle he had won glory enough, by 
 conquering the heathen and saving Christendom ; 
 it would be a greater glory to bring peace and good- 
 will to the Church, to vanquish its dissensions ^, and 
 join its members in a single brotherhood owning 
 a single faith. The symbol of the recovered Cross 
 was before his eyes ; nor is it to be wondered at if 
 above it he read that legend which had shone in the 
 vision of his great predecessor, EN T0TTI2I NIKA. 
 By the Cross he had conquered in war, and the Cross 
 was to be the inspiration of his statecraft in peace. 
 
 ' Drapeyron (p. 303) is, as I have shown, clearly wrong in 
 making the interview between Athanasius and the Emperor at 
 Hierapolis take place in 629. Apart from the reasons already 
 stated, Cedrenus says it was in the twentieth year of his reign that 
 Heraclius at Hierapolis, after wavering between the Monophysite 
 and the orthodox doctrine, finally forbade by an edict the recog- 
 nition of either one or two natures. While the decision was no 
 doubt taken in 631, the edict was not issued till a few years later. 
 ' OTTOJS o TTcicras ■^pefiitv Toiis pap^apovs 
 ■mifrri crvv avrol'S ^pe/teti' ras atpecreis' 
 quoted by Drapeyron, p. 301. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 THE RISE OF MOHAMMED 
 
 Coincidences between HeracHus and Mohammed. The Prophet's 
 letters to the rulers of the world, and the answers. Battle of Muta. 
 Failure of Tabfik. Death of Mohammed and union of Arabia. 
 The Cathedral at Sana'. Expedition against Syria. Causes of the 
 success of IslSm : Christian opinion. 
 
 History is full of dramatic ironies : but in few 
 periods are they more abounding or more striking 
 than in the reign of HeracHus. Almost at the 
 moment when Heraclius began his career as 
 Emperor, the great rival of his life and work, 
 Mohammed, began his career as Prophet, in the 
 year 6io^. Each of these two great men went 
 through a period of discouragement and danger 
 which lasted for twelve years, and each emerged 
 from the fire of adversity with a spirit tempered to 
 great purpose. It was in 622 that Heraclius started 
 on his expedition to Cilicia, where he struck the 
 first blow for the rescue of the Holy Rood and the 
 recovery of his Empire from the Persians. In 622 
 Mohammed by his flight from Mecca to Medina 
 virtually opened his war for the rescue of the great 
 shrine of the Ka'bah and for the conquest of Arabia : 
 so that from that point dates the Mohammedan era 
 for all time. 
 
 Nor do the coincidences end here. From 622 
 
 ' Mohammed was born in 370, and so was about forty years old 
 at this time, as Arab writers agree. Heraclius was three or four 
 years younger. I may add that this passage about coincidences 
 was written before I had the opportunity of reading Drapeyron's 
 most interesting work, L'Empereur H&aclius et T Empire Byzantin : 
 q.v., pp. 318-9, 
 
Rise of Mohammed 139 
 
 onwards both King and Prophet advanced in a career 
 of victory almost unchequered for the space of six 
 years. With eager eyes Mohammed watched the 
 long eventful combat between Rome and Persia. He 
 had deplored the earlier success of the Persian arms 
 in 614 and 615, as the success of an idolatrous over 
 a believing nation : but when the tide of war so 
 strangely changed, and Heraclius in six years of 
 furious struggle overthrew the might of Persia, then 
 Mohammed, fired with new dreams of dominion, 
 rejoiced to see victor and vanquished both drained 
 of strength, and read in the issue the finger of God 
 preparing the way for the power of Islam. So that 
 the moment of Heraclius' greatest glory may well 
 have been also the moment of Mohammed's greatest 
 encouragement. 
 
 Even before that the Prophet had felt himself 
 strong enough to challenge the submission of the 
 rulers of the world to his new religion. In the course 
 of 627 ^, Mohammed caused letters to be written, and 
 
 ^ There is as usual some doubt about the year. The Arab 
 writers seem mostly (according to Mr. Evetts' note on Abfl Salih, 
 p. 100, n. 3) to place the dispatch of the letters in a. h. 6, which 
 began May 23, 627 a. d. Sale and Ockley give the date 629, but 
 quite inconsistently make the Persian monarch at that time 
 Chosroes Parwlz, whose death occurred in March, 628. It is 
 known that Mohammed started for Mecca in spring — the time of 
 the yearly festival — and that the letters were sent out after his 
 return from the expedition, which ended in the armistice with 
 the Kuraish. Accordingly the expedition must have taken place 
 in 627, in order that Mohammed's letter should reach Chosroes 
 before his dethronement in March, 628, as the story requires. For 
 Tabart leaves no doubt that the Persian King who received the 
 letter was Chosroes Parwlz, and that he received it several months 
 before his death, and therefore well before the end of 627. 
 Consequently we are driven to the conclusion that the letters were 
 dispatched during that year. It follows that Heraclius must have 
 
140 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 he sealed them in Eastern fashion with a seal 
 on which was written ' Muhammad the Apostle of 
 God.' All contained the same claim of allegiance 
 to Islim and to the Arabian Prophet as Vicegerent 
 of the Most High. These letters were sent to the 
 princes of Yaman, of 'Umin ', of Yamimah, and of 
 Bahrain ; to Al Harith, prince of the Saracens on the 
 borders of Syria ; to George, wrongly called the 
 Mukaukas, governor of Alexandria and Viceroy of 
 Egypt ^; to the Negus of Abyssinia ; to Chosroes, King 
 of Persia ; and to Heraclius, Emperor of the Romans^ 
 
 received his letter in the summer of 627. The alternative, which 
 would place Mohammed's expedition in the spring of 628, 
 requires the explicit rejection of Tabari's evidence — a very strong 
 measure. It raises other difficulties, because the letters cannot 
 have gone out before May at the very earliest, and by that time 
 Heraclius was in Armenia. This reasoning assumes the truth of 
 Ibn Ishak's statement that the letters were all written together : 
 on the other hand, it is just possible that the message to Persia was 
 sent more than a year in advance of the message to Heraclius. 
 This interval is unlikely, however, and the question is eminently one 
 in which the Arab authorities may be trusted. 
 
 ' Ibn IshSk (quoted by Dr. Koelle in Mohammed and Mo- 
 hammedanism, pp. 194, 332-3) alleges that the bearer of the letter 
 to 'Umin was 'Amr ibn al 'Ast, the future conqueror of Egypt. 
 But he seems mistaken, since 'Amr was not converted to Isldm at 
 the time. 
 
 " Ibn IsMk, from whom these details come, makes it quite clear 
 that a person whom he calls (though wrongly, of course) Al Mukaukas 
 was virtual ruler of Egypt at this time, and this ruler must either 
 have been directly appointed by Heraclius upon the evacuation of 
 the country by the Persians or else have been continued by the 
 Emperor in an office which he held under the Persian government. 
 But the whole chronology of the letters is full of difficulty, and the 
 probability is that they were sent out at different times, as oppor- 
 tunity served. See a note in Hamaker's Wakidi, p. 24, n. 5. 
 
 ' In dealing with Arab authorities at least one must recognize 
 the use of the term ' Romans,' in preference to ' Greeks ' or 
 ' Byzantines.' Indeed the importance of the first name is shown 
 
Rise of Mohammed 141 
 
 Of the princes of Arabia two sent fair answers, 
 viz. the rulers of Yamimah and Bahrain, and they 
 professed their conversion. From Yaman and 
 "Umin came rough replies, which Mohammed 
 received with curses ; while a polite but worthless 
 acquiescence came from the King of Abyssinia : and 
 it may be remarked that, of all the dominions whose 
 allegiance Mohammed demanded, Abyssinia to-day 
 remains the one power which has never bowed the 
 knee to Islam. The governor ^ of Egypt promised 
 
 by the fact that practically the only Arab name for people of the 
 Empire was Ar R-dm. I am aware of Prof. Bury's condemnation 
 of those historians who use any other epithet than ' Roman ' for the 
 Empire at this period (see the Preface to his Later Roman Empire), 
 but I have not scrupled to speak of the ' Byzantine ' government 
 or the ' Greek ' historians. Yet the people of the Empire called 
 themselves ' Romans,' and to them ' Greek ' was a term of reproach 
 synonymous with ' heathen.' 
 
 ^ In the Appendix ' On Al Mukaukis ' I have shown that the 
 title is given to the governor at this time by an anachronism. I must 
 of course entirely recant the views expressed in my note to AbH 
 Silih, p. 81, n. 4. The office held by the receiver of Mohammed's 
 letter must have been much higher than that of nomarch or 
 pagarch ; in fact it was none other than that of ' Praefectus 
 Aegypti' or 'Augustalis,' or in other words Viceroy of Egypt. 
 The very fact that Mohammed's letter was addressed to him is 
 strong evidence of his position. The theory which makes the 
 Roman official a mere pagarch reduces its advocates to some- 
 thing like absurdity. Thus Mr. Milne in his note on the subject 
 (Egypt under Roman Rule, pp. 224-5) says, 'George was pro- 
 bably prefect of Augustamnica, as his province is not specified, 
 and the names of the prefect of the province of Egypt and the 
 prefects of Lower Egypt and Arcadia at this time are given else- 
 where by John of Nikiou. His post on the eastern frontier of 
 Egypt would make him the first person of high rank to whom the 
 messengers of Mahomet came.' Now in the first place I think 
 the three prefects mentioned are merely military prefects : and in 
 the next it is utterly unreasonable to suppose that, while Mohammed 
 knew all about the ruler of Persia, the ruler of the Roman 
 
142 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 to consider the message, and treated the envoy, 
 Hfitib, with all honour ; he sent back with his reply 
 some valuable presents, which included two Coptic 
 maidens, Mary and Shlrln,the mule Duldul — absurdly 
 said to be the first mule seen in Arabia — the ass 
 Naftlr, and a bag of money ^ Mary adopted Islam, 
 and became a great favourite with Mohammed, but 
 she died in 636, and so never saw the enslavement 
 of her country. 
 
 The Persian King's answer was given in quite 
 another temper. He tore the Prophet's letter to 
 pieces in angry scorn, and wrote orders to Badhin ^, 
 the Persian governor of the province of Hamyar, 
 
 Empire, and the various chiefs and princes of Arabia, he knew 
 nothing of the ruler of Egypt, but sent a letter haphazard to be 
 delivered to and answered by the first local official whom his envoy 
 might encounter. The Arab writers correctly assign to the receiver 
 of the letter the highest office in the country. 
 
 ' Abfl Salih, p. loi. Some writers add butter and honey. 
 
 ^ It may be useful briefly to recall the story of the Persian 
 dominion in Arabia. Yaman, or Arabia Felix, though peopled 
 mostly by a Jewish race, had been under Christian influence ever 
 since the fourth century, and in the sixth the country was subject 
 to Abyssinia. Wishing to throw off the yoke, the people had sent 
 an envoy, Saif, to the Byzantine Emperor, who refused to aid 
 a revolt which was directed against the Christian religion. Saif 
 then went on to Persia in 574, and by a trick overcame the doubts 
 of AnfisMrwSn, who finally sent an army of gaol-birds, in number 
 3,600, under the general Horzid of Dailan. This force was 
 transported in eight vessels — each therefore carrying 450 men 
 besides stores and equipments. On landing they were joined by 
 vast hosts of the natives, and soon captured the capital Sana'. 
 Some years later, on a rebellion of the Abyssinian party, Chosroes 
 sent a fresh army under the same leader, who crushed all resistance, 
 and drove the Abyssinians out of Arabia. The Hamyar dynasty 
 was thus extinguished, and Yaman with Hadramaut, MahrS, and 
 'Umin became a Persian province. It is clearly recorded that 
 Persian rule was mild and hardly felt, while both the Jewish and 
 
Rise of Mohammed 143 
 
 to send him the head of the impudent impostor. 
 ' So shall God rend his kingdom,' said Mohammed 
 when he heard how Chosroes had dealt with his 
 letter — a forecast or a curse which had not long to 
 tarry for fulfilment \ 
 
 And what of Heraclius ? While fresh from the 
 ovations of the capital which had greeted the close 
 of his conquests in Asia, as he was making his way 
 in one long triumph through Syria and bearing the 
 Holy Rood back to the Holy City, did any thought 
 or remembrance cross his mind of the time when 
 those wild horsemen dashed up to his encampment 
 and their leader Dahiah ibn Khallfah delivered 
 Mohammed's letter ? The Emperor must have 
 heard what manner of answer the Persian King had 
 sent : perhaps also he had heard of the murder at 
 Muta : but his own reply had been courteous enough 
 — so courteous that the Arab writers embroider 
 upon it the ridiculous story that Heraclius yielded 
 
 the Christian faith were freely tolerated. See Capt. R. L. Playfair's 
 History of Arabia Felix (Bombay, 1859), pp. 72-7, and Wright's 
 Christianity in Arabia, pp. 175-89. The Kingdom of Hirah 
 was also subject to Persia. Its ruler, Nu'min ab(i Kabfis, who 
 reigned from 589 to 611 a.d., and who had been an idolater given 
 to human sacrifice, became a convert to Christianity, and after his 
 baptism melted down a statue of Venus in solid gold which his 
 people had worshipped. This story is given in lib. vi. c. 22 of 
 Evagrius, whom Wright alleges to be in remarkable agreement 
 with the Arab writers. 
 
 * This remark, which is probably authentic, shows clearly that 
 Chosroes and not Siroes received the letter. Siroes reigned only 
 a few months — till August, 628. His successor, a feeble child, was 
 put to death by the Shah-Waraz, whom Heraclius had nominated to 
 the throne, seeing that a strong man was required. This was in 
 the summer of 629. The Shah-Waraz, however, proved a tyrant 
 of the worst description, and was assassinated early in 630. These 
 dates seem well attested, but they are by no means undisputed. 
 
144 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 obedience to Isldm. Nothing was further from his 
 thoughts ; nor was there the slightest reason why 
 the master of so many war-hardened legions should 
 take seriously the extravagant pretensions of an 
 unknown Arabian chieftain. 
 
 So Heraclius passed on his way unheeding, or at 
 least untroubled. But while the great procession 
 was winding from the Golden Gate up to the church 
 on Calvary for the festival of the Uplifting of the 
 recovered Cross, while all Jerusalem was crying and 
 sobbing with an emotion which broke down even the 
 singers quiring their triumphal hymns i, at that same 
 time a band of 3,000 horsemen sent by Mohammed 
 was crossing the desert to Muta, to avenge the 
 murder of his messenger, and to begin that war with 
 the Roman Empire which ended only in 1453, when 
 Constantinople fell before I slim, and the name of 
 the Arabian dreamer was blazoned, where it still 
 stands, on the walls of the great Cathedral of St. 
 Sophia. It was not far from Muta that the Saracen 
 army under Zaid was attacked by the imperial 
 forces, ahd so severely handled that, after most of 
 the officers had fallen, it was only saved from total 
 destruction by the marvellous dexterity and prowess 
 of Khalid, called henceforth the ' Sword of God.' 
 The remnant made their way back in dejection to 
 Medina : but they found Mohammed undismayed. 
 Before October closed, he put 'Amr ibn al 'Asl at 
 the head of a small force to patrol the Syrian 
 border, and deferred the more serious conflict till 
 he had established his power over Arabia. The 
 
 ^ Sebeos, after saying that there was great gladness on that day, 
 speaks of the ' weeping and sobbing and shedding of tears ' on the 
 part of the Emperor and princes, the troops, and all the inhabitants 
 of the city, so that ' nobody could sing the songs of the Lord.' 
 
Rise of Mohammed 145 
 
 conquest of Mecca soon followed and the, victory of 
 Hunain — events which made the name of Mohammed 
 ring through the remotest deserts of Arabia. 
 
 Filled now with dreams of empire and blinded by 
 his enthusiasm to every hindrance, he planned and 
 openly proclaimed an expedition for the conquest of 
 Palestine. But his project was received with a mis- 
 giving which showed that the faith of m^ny of his 
 converts was not proof against the fame of Heraclius. 
 Instead of the 100,000 well-equipped men whom he 
 wanted, he found that, without the hypocrites and 
 malingerers, he could only muster a miscellaneous 
 force of 30,000. With that number he advanced to 
 Tabiik, about half-way to Muta. There he spent ten 
 days doing nothing. Probably the reports of his 
 scouts deterred him from advancing further north, or 
 he was forced to return by want of food or water. 
 Certain it is that he went back to Medina, and spent 
 a year in organizing an army fit to take the field. 
 From Tabiik, however, various treaties were made 
 with local chieftains, and Khalid with a band of 400 
 horse surprised and captured the Christian chief of 
 D6mah, who had to surrender his oasis, his town and 
 castle, nearly three thousand camels, four hundred" 
 suits of mail armour, and finally his religion \ 
 
 On the whole the failure of Tabtik scarcely retarded 
 the progress of Islim. With very few exceptions, 
 the princes of Arabia now threw in their lot with 
 Mohammed, and the ' year of deputations ' practically 
 saw the whole country united under a single man, 
 whom all from motives of conviction or of pplicy 
 agreed to regard as their sovereign king, their in- 
 fallible general in war, and their God-sent prophet 
 
 ^ Br. Koelle's Mohammed and Mohammedanism, pp. 207-10. 
 
146 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 in religion. In the spring of 632 ^ Mohammed 
 accomplished his last pilgrimage to Mecca, where 
 amidst countless throngs of believers he solemnly- 
 consecrated to Islam the whilom idolatrous shrine of 
 the Ka'bah, and established the ritual which still 
 prevails. Two months later he sounded the trumpet 
 for war against the Roman Empire, and gave the 
 command of the expedition to Usimah, the son of 
 his slave Zaid, who had been killed in the battle 
 of Muta. But three days after the appointment of 
 Usamah, the Prophet sickened of a fever, which 
 carried him swiftly to his grave. 
 
 By the death of Mohammed the cause of Islam 
 was strengthened rather than weakened. For a 
 moment it seemed to totter : but it was too firmly 
 based to fall under any shock from within. Unlike 
 the Emperor Heraclius, Mohammed died, if not at 
 the summit of power, yet at a time when he had 
 realized the dream of his life. He had no sense of 
 failure to cloud his last moments, no feeling that he 
 had outlived or tarnished his triumph. Indeed, had 
 he possessed that gift of prophecy which he claimed, 
 he might have known that the tremendous combina- 
 tion of political and religious forces which he was 
 bequeathing would almost avail in after-time to 
 achieve the conquest of the world. 
 
 Arabia was virtually united before the death of 
 the Prophet, The fall of Chosroes had broken the 
 last link of Persian dominion in Yaman and the south, 
 while Heraclius made no effort to define or assert 
 the somewhat shadowy authority of his Empire 
 in the north oi the peninsula. There seems no 
 doubt too that the Arabian Christians were almost 
 
 * March 9 is the date given, and ' seems to be fixed beyond 
 dispute.' See Mr. R. L. Michell's Egyptian Calendar, p. 35. 
 
Rise of Mohammed 147 
 
 all Monophysite, and that consequently they pror 
 foundly distrusted the Emperor's statecraft, and were 
 weak to resist the Empire's enemies ^ 
 
 What little remained to be done towards binding 
 Arabia under a single sovereignty was done by 
 Abu Bakr, now chosen Caliph, i.e. khallfah, or suc- 
 cessor to Mohammed. Within a single year he 
 launched UscLmah on a victorious expedition into 
 Syria, and, by the aid of the fiery Khilid, crushed 
 the rebellion of Musailamci, the rival prophet who, 
 had sprung up in Yaman. The dying injunction of 
 Mohammed was to drive every religion but Islam 
 out of Arabia ; and this seems to have been accom- 
 plished almost at once. All the Christian commu- 
 nities were swamped and extinguished, and all the 
 art and culture and the learning which flourished 
 among them perished. 
 
 There is no complete picture of the arts in Arabia 
 at this time : but some idea of the splendour they 
 attained may be formed from the descriptions of the 
 cathedral at Sana', which the Muslims defiled and 
 ruined. It was built by Abrahi al Ashram, the vice- 
 roy of the King of Abyssinia, somewhat later than 
 the middle of the sixth century. So intense, we are 
 told, was the King's interest in the building and de- 
 coration of the fabric, that during the whole time he 
 was living and sleeping in the church. In design the 
 church was basilican. Lofty columns of precious 
 marble divided the nave from the aisles. The 
 spaces above the columns, the apse and the upper 
 part of the walls, were adorned with magnificent mo- 
 saics in gold and colours, or embellished with paint- 
 ings. The lower part of the walls was panelled, and 
 the floor was paved with marble of many hues set 
 
 ^ Wright's Early Christianity in Arabia, p. i8i. 
 L 2 
 
148 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 in tasteful harmony. The choir was divided off by 
 a screen of ebony inlaid with ivory most beautifully 
 carved, and gold and silver ornament was lavished 
 all over the interior. The doors were overlaid with 
 plates of gold studded with silver nails, and plates of 
 silver studded with massive nails of gold ; while the 
 doors leading to the three altars were wrought with 
 large panels of gold set with precious stones. On 
 every panel there stood in relief a jewelled cross of 
 gold with a red jacinth in the centre, and round 
 about the cross were flowers of open-work in gold 
 with gems or enamel of many colours. Such was the 
 glorious church which Justinian aided Abrahi to 
 build ^; St. Sophia itself was hardly a more richly 
 embellished or a more glorious work of art. 
 
 Even a brief sketch like this may serve in some 
 sort as a picture of the civilization which Mohammed 
 found in Arabia. But the artistic spirit of I slim was 
 as yet undeveloped, and it saw in all this wealth and 
 beauty mere matter for plunder or for iconoclasm. 
 At what precise date this and other Christian build- 
 ings were demolished, is uncertain. Wright thinks 
 that few, if any, Christians were left in 632 2, and the 
 buildings would hardly have been saved or turned 
 into temples for Islim, as was done in other times 
 and places. The Christian religion and Christian 
 religious monuments were levelled by the first waves 
 
 '■ See Abfl Salih, pp. 300-1, and the notes. Abfi SSlih's language 
 might almost imply the existence of the cathedral when he wrote : 
 'but it is certain that he is merely following TabarJ, though prob- 
 ably an older MS. than we possess now. 
 
 " Op. cit., p. 187. Yet he quotes Asseman for a bishop of Sana' 
 in the eighth century, and a priest of Yaman in the tenth. The 
 titular bishop was probably an exile or a foreigner. Some very 
 interesting information on Arabian Christianity before IslSm may 
 be found in F. M. E. Pereira's Historia dos Martyres de Nagran. 
 
Rise of Mohammed 149 
 
 of that Muslim fanaticism which was originally 
 directed rather against Jews and idolaters. Doubt- 
 less the free use of pictures and frescoed figures in the 
 Christian churches gave offence to the Muslims, and 
 in some cases partially justified them in confounding 
 Christian with heathen worship. However that may 
 be, all Arabia now turned to the Ka'bah and obeyed 
 the Kuran. Whether Christian, Jew, or idolater by 
 religion, whether Abyssinian or Persian, Negro or 
 Arab by race, the people were now brought under 
 one form of faith and worship, and one form of 
 government. 
 
 The Saracen Empire thus founded was really a 
 federal republic under the hegemony of Mecca. Ablj 
 Bakr and the other leaders saw, as Mohammed had 
 seen, that the one thing needed to weld the body 
 politic — to give it complete solidity and cohesion — 
 was foreign conquest. To the Arabs, as to the Jews 
 of old, Palestine was the land of promise, flowing 
 with milk and honey. The love of military adven- 
 ture was in their blood ; their brain was fired by the 
 consciousness of a divine mission. Such a combina- 
 tion of motive has always proved formidable, and 
 and was now to prove wellnigh irresistible. 
 
 ' This is to acquaint you that I propose to send 
 the true believers into Syria to take it out of the 
 hands of the infidels. And I would have you know 
 that fighting for religion is an act of obedience to 
 God ^' So ran Abu Bakr's letter summoning the 
 princes and chiefs of Arabia to muster their forces 
 at Medina. A large army was quickly formed, and 
 after some delay went forward under the generalship 
 of Yazid ibn Abl Sufiyin, with "Amr ibn al 'Asl in 
 command of a division. It was a bold idea to 
 ' Ockley, p. 93. 
 
150 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 challenge the Roman and the Persian Empire at once 
 to combat, but less daring than it seems. For just 
 as it is a mistake to picture the people of Arabia as 
 all idolaters before Mohammed, so it is a mistake to ' 
 imagine them as a race apart, a race severed from 
 the world by impassable deserts and living unknown, 
 till the new force of I slim enabled their hosts to leap 
 across the wilderness and burst upon the nations of 
 the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
 The weakness of Byzantium and Persia, the quarrels 
 and hatreds of Christendom, the flame of their own 
 enthusiasm, their hopes of plunder in this life and 
 dreams of delight in the next — all these were power- 
 ful factors in the success of the Saracen invaders ; 
 but perhaps even more powerful than all other causes 
 was the fact that they had closest racial affinities 
 with a large part of the population they invaded. 
 From time immemorial the borders of Syria and 
 Persia, and the country east of those borders, had 
 been overrun by Beduin Arabs, sometimes settled, 
 sometimes nomadic, and moving for trade or war 
 freely within the heart of both Empires ^ Some of 
 the principal tribes were nominally subject to Hera- 
 clius,sometoChosroes; others were independent; and 
 most of them were ready to throw their sword into 
 either scale, as the interest of the moment demanded^. 
 Saracen scouts accompanied the armies of Heraclius. 
 
 ^ Even in the fourth century we read of Saracens playing a 
 striking part in the defence of Constantinople against the Goths. 
 See Dr. Hodgkin's Italy and Her Invaders, vol. i. p. 284 (Oxford, 
 1892). 
 
 ^ Thus Zachariah of Mitylene speaks of Saracens raiding Roman 
 territory by order of the Persian King; p. 206. Again, on pp. 222 
 and 233 they are described as acting against the Romans. Yet 
 on p. 232 we read of ' Saracens of Arabia ' fighting under Justinian's 
 banners to quell the Samaritan revolt. 
 
Rise of Mohammed 151 
 
 Yet almost the first of his victories in Asia Minor 
 was, as George of Pisidia relates ^, won over a horde 
 of ' long-haired Saracens ' who were devastating the 
 country. The Roman army at Muta is said to 
 have been largely composed of Beduin troops; and 
 on the other hand the conquest of Syria and of Egypt 
 by Chosroes had been doubtless in some measure 
 aided by troops of splendid irregular cavalry recruited 
 from among the Saracens. 
 
 Here then was a. vast amount of fighting material 
 for the Muslim leaders akin to that of their own 
 armies ; to make it available they only required to set 
 it ablaze with their own fanatical belief. At the very 
 outset the task was not remarkably easy, since vast 
 numbers of the Arabs professed Christianity ^. Many 
 of these Christian Arabs fought to the last for the 
 Empire and the Cross ^ ; others were not proof against 
 the contagion of race ; and while some threw off a faith 
 which sat loosely upon them at best, some also ob- 
 served a cautious neutrality, till they could safely 
 range their forces on the winning side. Still the 
 ties of race told largely in favour of the Muslims. 
 
 One more general remark may be pardoned. 
 Among the causes of the Muslim success must be 
 
 ' De Exped. Pers. Aero. ii. 209. 
 
 ^ St. Simeon Stylites was an Arab by birth, and furnishes an 
 example of fanaticism on the Christian side, though one hesitates 
 so to call an innocent, if mistaken, form of self-sacrifice. 
 
 " See for example Ockley's account of the battle of Yermouk, 
 pp. 194 seq. : also for the reference to Christian Arabs, id. pp. 144-5, 
 172, 228-9> 232, &c. John Moschus gives an anecdote of astranger 
 meeting a Saracen woman and putting to her quite naturally the 
 question 'Are you a Christian or a heathen ? ' {Pr. Spir. cap. 136). 
 This of course was before Islam. But communities of Christian 
 Arabs survived the Muslim conquest of Palestine : for Abfi '1 Faraj 
 mentions a bishop of the Christian Arabs in the early eighth 
 century (Barhebraeus, Chron. Eccles. t. i. col. 294). 
 
152 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 mentioned the strange despondency which seized the 
 Christians — a despondency as marked as the enthu- 
 siasm of the MusHms. ' While the Church was vexed 
 by kings and godless priests,' says Cedrenus, ' there 
 rose up Amalek of the desert to chastise us for our 
 sins.' Such are the words in which he records the 
 rise of Isldm ; and brief as they are, they yet reveal 
 a consciousness that Mohammed had a kind of divine 
 mission — at least as the scourge of God — a conscious- 
 ness which is betrayed very clearly by other Christian 
 writers of this time, such as the Armenian Sebeos ', 
 Of course it is a common reflection with a defeated 
 people that they have suffered for their sins, nor is the 
 reflection always ill-founded in fact or in philosophy ; 
 but there seems in these writers a touch of more 
 tragic sorrow, a sense that Christianity in dealing 
 with the Arabs had been weighed in the balance 
 and found wanting, that it could no longer claim a 
 monopoly of divine guidance. It is easy to see how 
 powerfully the cause of Islam was aided by sombre 
 misgivings of this kind in the heart of Christian 
 priests and warriors. Luke, the traitor of Aleppo, 
 was taught by a priest that the Saracens were des- 
 tined to conquer the country, and Basil, the traitor 
 of Tyre, who owed his defection to the teaching of 
 the monk Bahirah, had himself preached the gospel 
 
 ' His language is very curious : ' At that time a certain man of 
 the sons of Ishmael whose name was Mohammed, a merchant, 
 appeared to his people, as it were by the order of God, preaching 
 the truth. . . . Inasmuch as the command was from on high, by 
 his sole behest all came together in a union of law, and forsaking 
 vain idols, returned to the living God, who had appeared to their 
 father Abraham. Mohammed bid them not to eat of unslaughtered 
 meat, or to drink wine, or to tell a lie, or to commit fornication.' 
 Sebeos, it must be remembered, was not only a Christian, but a 
 bishop. 
 
Rise of Mohammed 153 
 
 of Islim through the Empire ^. Though these and 
 the hke stories come mainly from Arab sources, and 
 may be classed as legends, yet they have at least 
 this much historical foundation, that they record 
 among some of the Christians a certain fearful fore- 
 boding of the truth and the triumph of Isldm, 
 
 ' Ockley, pp. 230, 252, 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 THE ARAB CONQUEST OF SYRIA 
 
 Heraclius' lost opportunity. Journey to Edessa. Persecution 
 of dissentients. Sophronius made Patriarch of Jerusalem. 
 Embassies of congratulation to Heraclius. Alliance between Jews 
 and Arabs. Fall of Damascus. Theodore defeated by Khi.lid. 
 The Emperor's farewell to Syria. Rescue of the Holy Rood. 
 Surrender of Jerusalem to Omar. 
 
 When Heraclius ended his sojourn in Jerusalem 
 and bent his steps again northward through Pales- 
 tine, he cannot have realized the danger from Isl4m. 
 The figure of Mohammed was already towering over 
 Arabia, and its colossal shadow had actually fallen 
 on the edge of the Roman Empire ; but the Emperor 
 saw in it nothintor but the menace of one of those 
 border wars with wild desert tribes which were 
 a normal condition of the frontier. For if he had 
 divined the real nature of the peril, he could hardly 
 have delayed to grapple with it : and if he had 
 taken in time those measures which his genius 
 might have designed, and for which his resources, 
 though weakened, were still equal, he would very 
 probably have crushed the Saracen power in its 
 beginnings and have wiped out the name of Moham- 
 med from the book of history. 
 
 But it was not to be. Duty seemed to call the 
 Emperor away from the south, and his thoughts were 
 preoccupied with the work of settling the frontier 
 towns under the treaty with Persia, and of reorgan- 
 izing the finance and the whole administration of 
 the eastern provinces, which had been thrown out 
 of joint by six years of war. Above all he was 
 
Arab Conquest of Syria 155 
 
 now about to carry out those plans for the reh'gious 
 union of Christendom which, as we have seen, had 
 so long been maturing in his mind. He aimed at 
 a union of compromise, not of compulsion. The 
 wisdom of the leaders of the Church could devise 
 the magic formula required : and then, when all the 
 elements of heresy, discord, and difference were cast 
 into the crucible and molten, and there emerged 
 one simple form of faith, refined and purified and 
 annealed against all schism, what a tremendous 
 force would the new Christianity possess against 
 the enemies of the Empire and the Cross ! 
 
 On quitting Jerusalem the Emperor made straight 
 for Mesopotamia ^ His route lay through Damas- 
 cus, Emesa, Beroea, and Hierapolis to Edessa. 
 Edessa was the home of his ancestors : it was the 
 home of St. Ephrem, the father of the Syrian 
 Church^ : and as the see of Jacobus Barudaeus, it 
 was the very shrine of the Jacobite or Monophysite 
 confession, which prevailed in the three hundred 
 monasteries in the neighbourhood and in most parts 
 of Armenia, Syria, and Egypt. Edessa also, from 
 its geographical position between the Euphrates and 
 the Tigris, its proximity to Armenia, Persia, and 
 Syria, was a political centre of enormous import- 
 ance. There could be no more fitting place for the 
 work which the Emperor had now to accomplish. 
 
 The tangle of events at this period is most diffi- 
 cult to unravel. A few threads are clear here in 
 one chronicle ; a few there in another ; but so dis- 
 connected that hardly the most patient labour can 
 bring them into order. It was, however, at Hiera- 
 polis, and in 631, that the Emperor launched his 
 
 ^ Sebeos. 
 
 * Drapeyron, p. 286: see also p. 299 for what follows. 
 
156 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 project for the union of the Church, and made Atha^ 
 nasius Archbishop of Antioch and Cyrus Arch- 
 bishop of Alexandria, The latter appointment was 
 a ruinous miscalculation. We shall soon have to 
 follow the journey of Cyrus to Egypt, and to see 
 what shipwreck the Emperor's project there suffered, 
 as it encountered not only the resistance of the 
 Melkite Sophronius and his followers, but also the 
 opposition of nearly the whole Coptic priesthood 
 and people. We shall see also how Cyrus, baffled 
 in his hopes of peaceably converting the Egyptians 
 to Monothelitism, issued a declaration of war against 
 their Church, and madly strove to goad the Copts 
 into changing their creed by persecution. 
 
 It was a similar failure in Syria which led to a 
 similar persecution of the Syrian Christians. While 
 Cyrus was undoing the work of Heraclius' conquests 
 and making smooth the way for Isl^m in Egypt, 
 much the same process went on in Syria ; although 
 on the one hand Athanasius seems to have shown 
 a forbearance and a tact totally wanting in Cyrus, 
 and on the other hand the presence of the Emperor 
 may have tended both to reduce friction and to 
 repress dissension \ But the evil results of the 
 
 ' Abfl '1 Faraj (Barhebraeus) gives a totally different account of 
 the relations of Anastasius to the Emperor (Chron. Eccles. t. i. col. 
 271-4). He alleges that at Edessa the communion was refused to 
 Heraclius : that at Mabflg Athanasius and twelve bishops presented 
 to Heraclius their confession of faith, which he read and praised, 
 but he urged them to accept the faith of Chalcedon. Upon their 
 refusal Heraclius wrote an edict for all his Empire : ' Whosoever 
 refuses obedience to the synod, let his nose and ears be cut off, and 
 his house be thrown down.' Many conversions followed, while the 
 people of Emesa and others showed great barbarity, and many 
 churches and monasteries were destroyed. It is not easy to under- 
 stand this : but it evidently comes from a writer who has no 
 
Arab Conquest of Syria 157 
 
 Emperor's Church policy declared themselves un- 
 mistakably a little later. After a passionate but 
 vain appeal to Cyrus at Alexandria, the able and 
 learned Sophronius took ship to Constantinople for 
 the purpose of pleading his cause before the Patri- 
 arch Sergius. Sergius, however — one- of the most 
 powerful prelates who ever swayed the destinies of 
 the Eastern Church — was himself prime author of 
 the Monothelite compromise : he could not dis- 
 avow it, and all the astute and subtle refinement 
 of his logic and the winning persuasiveness of his 
 manner failed to move either the reason or the 
 heart of Sophronius, who betook himself sadly back 
 to Syria. 
 
 It seems probable that Sophronius made his way 
 at once to Heraclius in order to strive with him as 
 he had striven with Cyrus and with Sergius. There 
 is no specific record of such an interview ; but it 
 consists with what is known, and without it one can 
 hardly explain the undoubted fact that Sophronius 
 was now appointed by Heraclius to the archbishopric 
 of Jerusalem, which had been left vacant since 
 Modestus died on his journey northward with the 
 
 sympathy with the Monothelite opinions with which Athanasius is 
 credited, and which he doubtless professed, even if he abandoned 
 them later. As regards the further difHculty that Athanasius was 
 Patriarch of Antioch long before any arrangement with Heraclius — 
 we have seen that his visit to Egypt in that capacity took place in 
 615 — I think the explanation may well be as follows. On the 
 Persian occupation of Syria in 614 Athanasius was de facto if not 
 dejure driven from oiBce. His formal reinstatement could only be 
 made after the treaty of peace by authority of the Emperor. The 
 Emperor offered to formally recognize Athanasius, Monophysite as 
 he was, on the terms of the compromise. To this Athanasius 
 agreed, but after his reinstatement he found that he could not carry 
 his people with him ; whereupon he frankly abandoned the com- 
 promise. The Emperor then retorted by an edict of persecution. 
 
158 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Emperor. It is certain that Sophronius never 
 wavered in his hostility to the compromise. Almost 
 his first act as Patriarch was to call a council of 
 the Church, at which he denounced in unsparing 
 language the Emperor's proposals and anathematized 
 the Patriarchs who adopted them^. In accepting 
 the office he had doubtless hoped that the Emperor 
 would renounce the Monothelite heresy and return 
 to the orthodox religion, while the Emperor thought 
 that the gift of a patriarchate would convert 
 Sophronius, as it had converted Athanasius. Next 
 to the appointment of Cyrus, Heraclius could 
 hardly have made a more disastrous blunder : it is 
 scarcely too much to say that it went nearly as far 
 to cost him the loss of Palestine as did the appoint- 
 ment of Cyrus to cost him the loss of Egypt. 
 
 It is easy to palliate these mistakes if one remem- 
 bers the grandeur of the aim and the nobility of the 
 motive which originally prompted them. But in 
 Syria as in Egypt, the failure of the Emperor's 
 Church policy turned to a gloomy intolerance of 
 opposition. It was but a step from this to perse- 
 cution, and his masterful but embittered spirit knew 
 no hesitation. ' When our people complained to 
 Heraclius/ says Ab6 '1 Faraj, 'he gave no answer. 
 Therefore the God of vengeance delivered us out 
 of the hands of the Romans by means of the Arabs. 
 Then although our churches were not restored to 
 us, since under Arab rule each Christian commu- 
 nity retained its actual possessions, still it profited 
 us not a little to be saved from the cruelty of the 
 Romans and their bitter hatred against us^' It is 
 
 ' See the Epistola Synodica ad Sergium written by Sophronius. 
 It is given in Migne, Patr. Gr. t. 87 (3), col. 3193. 
 
 ^ Op. cit., 274. Abfi '1 Faraj writes as a Monophysite Syrian. 
 
Arab Conquest of Syria 159 
 
 melancholy reading, this welcome by Christians of 
 Arab rule as a providential delivery from the rule 
 of their fellow Christians ; but it shows with fatal 
 clearness how impossible was the Emperor's scheme 
 for Church union, and how surely it led to his ruin. 
 
 There remains the third capital blunder, which 
 has been already mentioned — the massacre of the 
 Jews, It was the first in chronological order, and 
 the first to bear baleful fruit. Shortly after the 
 triumphal Exaltation of the Cross at Jerusalem, 
 when the order went forth to banish or slay the 
 Jews, all who had warning in time fled into the 
 desert beyond Jordan, there to tarry a change of 
 fortune. As they waited and watched, their hearts 
 burning for revenge, at length they saw the advanc- 
 ing banners of I slim, and they welcomed the hosts 
 that came as enemies of the Roman Empire. 
 
 While clouds were thus gathering thickly on the 
 horizon, the fame of Heraclius' achievements had 
 
 Precisely the same spirit is shown elsewhere by the writer (col. 
 266-7) where he says that Chosroes sided with the Monophysite 
 Syrians, drove out the Chalcedonian bishops from all the land, and 
 restored all the churches which Domitian, bishop of Melitina, had 
 taken from the Monophysites in the days of Maurice. ' The memory 
 of the Chalcedonians was wiped out from the Euphrates to the 
 East : for God had visited on their heads their own crime, so that 
 they received at the hands of the Persians retribution for all the 
 evil they had wrought us.' It is the old story of Christians 
 sacrificing country, race, and religion in order to triumph over 
 a rival sect of Christians. So some fifteen years after the taking of 
 Damascus we find a Nestorian bishop writing thus : ' These Arabs, 
 to whom God has given in our time the dominion . . . fight not 
 against the Christian religion; nay, rather they defend our faith, 
 they revere our priests and saints, and they make gifts to our 
 churches and monasteries.' The great church at Damascus was 
 then used at the same time both by Christians and by Muslims 
 (De Goeje's ConquSte de la Syrie, p. 84). 
 
i6o The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 spread over the known world, and princes from the 
 farthest East and the farthest West — from India and 
 from France^ — sent envoys with costly jewels and 
 tributes of admiration. But the Emperor was 
 soon reminded of the mockery of his destiny. For 
 almost at the very time when he was receiving these 
 marks of world-wide homage, the Saracens were 
 thundering at the gates of Assyria, and his own son 
 Athalaric and his nephew Theodore were plotting 
 with some Armenians to dethrone and murder him. 
 The plot was denounced by one of the conspirators, 
 and all the guilty had their noses and right hands 
 cut off^, except the aspet, who had refused to agree 
 to the assassination and was rewarded by a merciful 
 sentence of exile ^. 
 
 It seems to have been after this event, and after 
 the sojourn of Heraclius at Edessa, that the Jews 
 held a gathering in the town at which, according to 
 Sebeos, all the twelve tribes were represented. 
 Finding the place denuded of troops, as the Persian 
 garrison had withdrawn and had not been replaced 
 by the Romans, the Jews closed the gates, strength- 
 ened the defences, and defied the Emperor's forces. 
 Heraclius laid siege to the town, which quickly 
 capitulated : he granted easy terms, and told the 
 Jews to return peaceably to their own places. In- 
 stead of obeying, they went into the desert and 
 joined the armies of Islim, to which they acted as 
 guides through the country*. This must have been 
 
 ^ Drapeyron, p. 228. 
 
 '^ On the barbarity of some punishments still sanctioned by law 
 see Prof. Bury's History of the Later Roman Empire, vol. ii. p. 390 : 
 also his edition of Gibbon, vol. v. p. 529, note on Graeco-Roman 
 Law. 
 
 ' The story .is told with considerable detail by Sebeos. 
 
 * This incident is recorded by Sebeos. Another Armenian 
 
Arab Conquest of Syria i6i 
 
 about the year 634, when already the Saracens 
 under Khalid were overrunning Persia. 
 
 The result of this alliance between the Jews and 
 the Arabs was a demand upon Heraclius to give 
 back the promised land to the children of Abraham : 
 else they would claim their inheritance with usury. 
 There could be but one answer to such a summons, 
 and war began. The defeat of the Romans under 
 Theodore at Gabatha was followed by the more 
 serious disaster of Yermouk, Sept. i, 634. In the 
 previous July Abu Bakr had died and was succeeded 
 by Omar as Caliph. Bosrah had already fallen. 
 Damascus, the ancient capital of Syria, was belea- 
 guered by Khilid, and was finally surrendered by 
 the Prefect Mansur under a treaty which secured 
 the life and property of the inhabitants, and their 
 undisturbed possession of the churches in the city. 
 This was in 635: and 'all the patriarchs and 
 bishops in all the world smote Mansur with ana- 
 thema, because he helped the Muslims ^' Before 
 the city fell, Heraclius sent a large army under his 
 
 historian, Ghevond, agrees that the Jews invited the Arabs to turn 
 the Romans out of Palestine. Ghevond's date is the eighth century. 
 A French translation by Shahnazarian was published in Paris, 
 1856. Drapeyron says (p. 32'/) that there was a renewed massacre 
 of the Jews at Edessa, and gives Sebeos as his authority, but 
 I can find no such statement. But this revolt of the Jews seems 
 identical with the revolt of the Arabs described by Cedrenus as 
 happening after the death of Mohammed. These Arabs had been 
 in the pay of the Emperor and were employed to guard the desert 
 passes. Their subsidy now being refused, XmrtjOivrt^ caniKOov irpos 
 Tois bfxxK^vXovi KoX wB-^yrjcrav avTOvi im, ttjv viipav Trji Pa^r/s aTO/xiov 
 ovaav r^s Iprjixov koto, to Stvatov opos. In any case this revolt of 
 the Arabs assisted the Muslim armies in much the same way as the 
 defection of the Jews. For the fact that Heraclius made a systematic 
 persecution of the Jews, see Prof. Bury's Zaier Roman Empire, 
 vol. ii. p. 215. ^ Eutychius. 
 
 BUTLER M 
 
i62 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 brother Theodore, whose superior forces fought 
 a desperate battle with KhMid. The result long 
 hung in doubt, but victory swayed at last to the 
 Muslims, and the rout of the Byzantine legions was 
 complete. Heraclius received the news at Antioch\ 
 and felt that all was over. God has abandoned the 
 cause of the Empire : the victor of the Persian heathen 
 was vanquished by the unbelieving Saracens, The 
 thought was rendered the more bitter, because he 
 was conscious of the guilt he had incurred by his 
 marriage with his niece Martina. He was conscious 
 too of already breaking health of body. On no 
 other theory can his inaction be explained. The 
 man who was foremost in every fight where his 
 personal courage was needed, and master of every 
 movement on the battlefield — the man who six 
 years ago would have met Khilid 'the Sword of 
 God ' on equal terms in duel, and whose genius as 
 a tactician would have baffled and crushed the raw 
 valour of the Arab chieftains, never once led an 
 army in the field against them. His hand and his 
 brain alike were paralysed. In the great assembly 
 which he called in the Cathedral at Antioch, when 
 he asked for counsel, there stood up a greybeard 
 who said, ' The Romans now are suffering for their 
 disobedience to the Gospel, for their quarrels and 
 dissensions, their usury and violence : they must 
 pay the price of their sins.' It was enough : the 
 Emperor felt that with body, mind, and fortune 
 failing his presence was useless, and in Sept. 636 he 
 took ship for Constantinople ^. 
 
 ' This seems the more probable account. Cedrenus, however, 
 makes Theodore after his defeat return to the King at Edessa. 
 Gibbon strangely says, 'In his palace of Constantinople or Antioch 
 he was awakened by the invasion of Syria' (ch. 51). 
 
 ' See De Goeje, Conqu^le de la Syrie, p. 102, where the date of 
 
Arab Conquest of Syria 163 
 
 ' Farewell, a long farewell to Syria ! ' There is 
 infinite pathos in the well-known words of the Em- 
 peror : they are charged with the feeling that his 
 career with all its splendour and triumph is closing 
 in shame — that he is bidding farewell to his 
 greatness. One thinks of the agony of Napoleon, 
 as from the deck of the Bellerophon he gazed his 
 last on France \ Indeed the decline of physical 
 and military vigour in the two great generals has 
 many points of resemblance. But Napoleon after 
 all was king and commander at the very last of his 
 battles ; whereas Heraclius had spent his strength 
 in the futile struggle to unite the Church. He was 
 unable to rally or guide the remaining forces of the 
 Empire in the hour of supreme danger. During 
 three years of crisis his hopes had decayed and his 
 activities had withered. He had suffered the power 
 of I slim to grow unchecked, till it overshadowed his 
 dominion. 
 
 Most of the historians, following or misconstruing 
 the Greek writers, represent Heraclius as suddenly 
 bounding out of this torpor and making a frantic 
 journey to Jerusalem to save the Holy Rood from 
 the hands of the enemy 2. There is no warrant for 
 
 Heraclius' departure is given as Sha'ban, a. h. 15. The evidence 
 that he journeyed by land is by no means conclusive. 
 
 ' Lord Rosebery's Napoleon, p. 112 (London, 1900). 
 
 ^ Drapeyron, p. 349, says, ' Toujours est-il que ce hardi fugitif 
 <;ourut au Calvaire, arracha la Sainte-Croix au patriarche Sophrone, 
 son possesseur legitime, et traversa le Liban au milieu des popu- 
 lations stup^faites ! ' He cites Nicephorus, Theophanes, Cedrenus, 
 and Suidas. Lebeau takes the same view, and Prof. Bury (Later 
 Roman Empire, vol. ii. p. 266) remarks, ' He was able, notwith- 
 standing the proximity of the Saracens, to hurry td Jerusalem and 
 seize the Cross, which he was resolved to prevent from falling again 
 into the hands of unbelievers.' Now I venture to say that all this 
 
 M 2 
 
164 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 this journey beyond the statement that Heraclius 
 took the Cross with him to Constantinople. Un- 
 questionably he did : but he did not travel to 
 Jerusalem to fetch it. The loose and open phrases 
 of Cedrenus and the like cannot stand for a moment 
 against the precise and clear story of Sebeos. He 
 tells how after the battle of Yermouk the Arabs 
 crossed the Jordan, and the terror of them fell upon 
 all the inhabitants of that country, so that they gave 
 in their submission : and he adds, ' In that night,' 
 i.e. the night after the news of the Saracen advance 
 
 story rests on a misconception. To begin with Nicephorus. His 
 account of Heraclius' movements is a tissue of error. He represents 
 Heraclius as taking the Cross to Jerusalem before his triumphal 
 return to the capital, as going through the hurried ceremony of 
 Exaltation, and then at once removing the Cross to Constanti- 
 nople I Heraclius is recalled to the East when the Saracens are 
 ravaging the country round Antioch ; and, while he is still in the 
 East, the Saracens are conquering Egypt I It is clear that 
 Nicephorus, being hopelessly confused about this period, is of 
 small value as an authority, and also that he does not make the par- 
 ticular statement attributed to him. The reference to Theophanes 
 is equally unwarranted. Theophanes says that the Emperor, 
 abandoning Syria in despair, apas /cai to, rt/Ata ^\a, em Trjv Kuv- 
 o-TovTivovTroXiv dirjjet. There is no word of any journey to Jeru- 
 salem. Cedrenus in copying the words of Theophanes inserts 
 after ^Xa " diro 'Itpoa-okvixbiv," but the insertion rests on a mere 
 inference from the fact that the Cross was known to have been left 
 in Jerusalem. Suidas after speaking of the Exaltation of the Cross 
 says in another sentence, ' And the Emperor sent it to Byzantium.' 
 Thus not one of Drapeyron's four authorities proves his statement. 
 I must add the remark that Theophanes is hardly less untrust- 
 worthy on these few years than Nicephorus. For example, he puts 
 the flight of Heraclius before the battle of Yermouk and before the 
 capture of Damascus by the Saracens. Directly after the capture 
 comes the Saracen expedition to Egypt, and Theophanes' story of 
 what happened there is as false as it is fragmentary. In dealing 
 with the conquest of Egypt these Byzantine writers more often 
 darken than illumine the page of history. 
 
Arab Conquest of Syria 165 
 
 came, ' the people of Jerusalem saved the Cross of 
 the Lord, and all the vessels of the churches, and 
 bringing them to the sea-coast they sent them on 
 board ship to the court at Constantinople.' Not a 
 word about Heraclius in this: but the vessel with 
 the sacred treasures doubtless coasted northward 
 and joined the Emperor either at some port on 
 his homeward journey, if he travelled home by 
 sea, or at his palace at Hieria near Chalcedon, 
 where he stayed for some time in a state of pitiful 
 derangement ^ Thence ultimately he bore the Rood 
 once again to the Cathedral of St. Sophia. It 
 had been hailed with triumph as the talisman of 
 his prosperity : it was now received in gloom as 
 the symbol and seal of his adversity. Surely of 
 all the ironies that haunt the career of Heraclius 
 none are more pointed or more bitter than this. 
 
 So far then from the Cross being torn from the 
 hands of Sophronius, its lawful owner, it is clear that 
 the Patriarch himself sent away all the treasures of the 
 Church, and resigned them to the Emperor's keeping. 
 It was the only way to save them. His enemy 
 Cyrus was still at Alexandria : besides, it was not 
 long since Egypt had fallen into the hands of the 
 Persians, and there was at least risk of a Saracen 
 conquest. But all the storms of the late wars had 
 beaten in vain upon Constantinople : it was the in- 
 violate city, as well as the metropolis of the Empire. 
 
 But this act of loyalty to Heraclius, if loyalty 
 it were, proved the last in the life of Sophronius. 
 Jerusalem was now beleaguered by Khilid, who was 
 joined in a few days by AbH 'Ubaidah. The place 
 had been well provisioned, and the bulwarks had 
 
 ^ His so-called ' hydrophobia,' which came on at Hieria, was 
 really the fear of wide open spaces, not of water. 
 
i66 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 been rebuilt and strengthened since the Persian 
 occupation ; so that the Arabs, who had no skill in 
 siege warfare and no siege engines, prowled round 
 the walls for months, exchanging volleys of arrows 
 and repelling sallies of the garrison, but making 
 no substantial progress. It had taken the Persian 
 general but eighteen days to force an entrance : now 
 even the fiery Khalid chafed in helpless wrath under 
 the cliffs and towers of Jerusalem. Authorities differ 
 as regards the length of the siege. It seems to 
 have lasted all through the winter of 636-7, and 
 probably longer : but there is no doubt of the issue. 
 The Saracens were quite unable to take the town by 
 storm, while the defenders failed no less to break 
 the leaguer. From the Roman armies there came 
 no hope of help — only stories of ever fresh disaster 
 — and the same despondency which had seized the 
 Emperor now fell upon the inhabitants of the Holy 
 City. 
 
 Under these circumstances, and probably under 
 pressure of imminent famine, the aged ^ Patriarch 
 Sophronius parleyed with the Arab leaders from the 
 walls, and finally agreed to surrender, if Omar would 
 come in person to settle the capitulation. It is 
 needless here to repeat the well-known story of 
 Omar's arrival on his camel ; how by his uncouth 
 mien, his coarse fare, and his shabby raiment the 
 Caliph shocked Roman refinement ; how he set his 
 seal to the treaty, and forthwith visited the Holy 
 Places in company with Sophronius ; and how the 
 Patriarch said aside to his attendants in Greek, 'Truly 
 this is that abomination of desolation spoken of by 
 Daniel the Prophet.' It is the last recorded remark 
 
 * Sophronius, as appears from John Moschus, must now have 
 been well over seventy. 
 
Arab Conquest of Syria 167 
 
 of the ' honey-tongued defender of the faith ^ ' : for 
 the second time in his latter years he had witnessed 
 the captivity of Zion, and the bitterness of this 
 second captivity quickly ended his life. 
 
 ^ Sophronius was so called : see Mansi, Conciliorum Nova 
 Collectio, t. X. col. 607. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 
 THE GREAT PERSECUTION OF THE COPTS BY 
 CYRUS 
 
 Benjamin called to the patriarchate of the Copts. George, the 
 Melkite Patriarch, successor to Andronicus. Popularity of Benjamin, 
 and his reforms. Evacuation of Egypt by the Persians. Cyrus 
 appointed Patriarch of the Roman Church by Heraclius. Arrival 
 of Cyrus in Alexandria and flight of Benjamin. Sophronius heads 
 the Roman opposition to Cyrus — in vain. Resistance of the Copts. 
 The Ecthesis of Heraclius never understood by the Copts. 
 Complete restoration of Roman dominion in Egypt The Ten 
 Years' Persecution : various incidents. Its general effect in pre- 
 paring the way for the Arab conquest. 
 
 We have now followed the Emperor from the day 
 of his triumph in Jerusalem, when he reached the 
 summit of his victorious splendour, to the day of his 
 farewell at Antioch, when the great conqueror sank, 
 with brain and nerve past action, in the depths of 
 failure and gloom : we have seen how from a little 
 cloud on the southern borders of Palestine there 
 slowly arose, like the form of a jinn in Arab romance, 
 the giant figure of Mohammed, and how the ever- 
 growing Muslim power grappled and wrestled with 
 the Roman Empire in Syria, till it overthrew it and 
 captured first Damascus and then the Holy City : 
 and we have touched lightly on some of the causes 
 which worked together to produce these world- 
 astonishing changes. 
 
 Brief as the survey has been, and needful for the 
 right understanding of the great drama in which 
 Egypt played a large part, it has still taken us away 
 too long from the Nile valley. It is therefore full 
 time to return and to trace there the course of 
 
Persecution of the Copts by Cyrus 169 
 
 events from the beginning of the six years' war, 
 which ended in the death of Chosroes, Unfor- 
 tunately the records for this period are few and far 
 from luminous : one has to grope through it as best 
 one may by the feeble light they furnish. 
 
 One of the few monasteries in the neighbourhood 
 of Alexandria which escaped destruction in the first 
 storm of the Persian invasion was Dair Kibrilis, 
 which nestled amidst its palm-groves close to the 
 shore north-eastward of the city and of the buildings 
 which were plundered ^ It was here that a young 
 man called Benjamin, the scion of a wealthy Coptic 
 family and a native of Farshftt in the province of 
 Buhairah, came and received the monastic habit 
 from the aged superior Theonas. His education 
 was aided by great natural talent, and in no long 
 time he outstripped his teachers both in piety and in 
 learning. It was his wont often to spend the night 
 in prayer within the convent church ; and legend 
 tells that once, as he watched, there came to his ears 
 a voice declaring that he was destined to be the 
 Shepherd of the flock of Christ. Theonas, on hear- 
 ing the story, told him to beware of the wiles of 
 Satan, naively adding that such a thing had never 
 happened either to himself or to any of the brethren 
 during all the fifty years he had lived at Dair Kibritis. 
 Nevertheless he went with Benjamin to Alexandria, 
 and there brought him before the Coptic Patriarch, 
 Andronicus, who was so struck with Benjamin's 
 ability and strength of character, that he kept him in 
 the city, while Theonas was sent back alone to his 
 monastery. Benjamin was in due course ordained 
 to the priesthood, and, remaining by the Patriarch, 
 
 ^ See above, p. 75 n. This story is from Severus' Lives of the 
 Patriarchs [Benjamin) ; Brit. Mus. MS., pp. 102 seq. 
 
lyo The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 won his fullest confidence, and ' aided him in the 
 affairs of the Church and the administration of the 
 whole patriarchate.' 
 
 It was about Christmastide, a.d. 621, that Ben- 
 jamin first entered Dair Kibrl6s ; and he had not 
 been many months in the service of Andronicus, 
 when the Patriarch died, after nominating Benjamin 
 as his successor. Benjamin at this time is described 
 as a young man, and was probably some thirty-five 
 years old ^, but the pallium was duly placed on his 
 shoulders in St. Mark's Cathedral. 
 
 We have already seen that, although Andronicus 
 was not driven from ofifice by the Persian conquest, 
 the Melkite Patriarch, John the Almoner, fled before 
 it to die in Cyprus. The successor of John in the 
 Melkite chair was George : but the Byzantine power 
 had been rooted out of Egypt, and there is little to 
 show that even the nominal appointment of George 
 took place before 621. Still less can it be shown at 
 what date George's appointment was made effective 
 by residence in Alexandria ^. It is even questioned 
 
 ' Benjamin died on 8 Tfibah, 662, after a pontificate of thirty- 
 nine years. Severus gives the same date, 8 Tftbah (= 3 January) 
 for the death of Andronicus, and though the exact coincidence is 
 improbable, Andronicus may well have died on some day in Tflbah. 
 But taking Benjamin's reign as lasting from January 623 to 
 January 662, and bearing in mind that he is described by Severus 
 as suffering greatly ' from the infirmities of old age ' in his latter 
 years, I cannot think that Benjamin was less than seventy-five at 
 his death : nor would the canons allow the consecration of a 
 Patriarch at an age below thirty-five years, because he is required 
 to be ' of middle age.' 
 
 * See note above, p. 53. Eutychius indeed says that George 
 took ship and fled from Alexandria, when he heard that the 
 Muslims had conquered the Romans, taken Palestine, and were 
 advancing on Egypt {Annaks, ed. Pococke, t. ii. p. 266). But 
 this story falls to pieces on the chronology, and is probably a 
 
Persecution of the Copts by Cyrus 171 
 
 "whether he ever set foot in the country. From 
 neither the Persians nor the Copts could he hope 
 for any welcome, nor would his coming have served 
 much purpose until the return of the Byzantine 
 garrisons established again the Church and the 
 Empire in Egypt. The Persians under the pressure 
 of Heraclius' victories evacuated the country early 
 in the year 627 ; and just as there is record of the 
 existence of a civil ruler of Egypt in the interval 
 between that date and the advent of Cyrus as 
 governor, so it may be that George the Patriarch 
 entered Alexandria in 627, and there remained until, 
 as John of Nikiou seems to imply, he was superseded 
 by the same Cyrus as Patriarch. But it is more 
 probable that George's arrival took place rather 
 later. The conclusion of peace with Persia in 628 
 gradually released some of the Roman forces, but 
 only gradually : and the Roman military reoccupa- 
 tion of Egypt can hardly have been accomplished 
 
 reminiscence of the flight of John the Almoner. On the other 
 hand, John of Nikiou mentions (Zotenberg, p. 571) Philiades, 
 brother of George the Patriarch, and three pages lower (p. 574) 
 occur these words: ' Avant I'arrivde du patriarche Cyrus, Georges, 
 qui avait €t6 nomm^ par Heraclius le Jeune, avait €ti trait^ avec 
 ddfdrence par le gouverneur Anastase. Lorsqu'il fut vieux, son 
 autoritd s'^tendit sur toutes les affaires. Le patriarche lui-mSme 
 lui laissait son autorit^.' Zotenberg in his note says that ' Heraclius 
 the Elder ' should be written for ' Heraclius the Younger,' and with 
 this view Dr. Charles agrees. It seems therefore that the George 
 in question may be the Patriarch George. If so, it follows that 
 (i) he did not die in 630 or 631, but was superseded by Cyrus; 
 
 (2) he was living in Alexandria during the pontificate of Cyrus ; 
 
 (3) that he retained, notwithstanding his deposition, great personal 
 influence ; (4) that he was on friendly terms with Cyrus and acted 
 as his Vicar-General during the latter's absence or exile from 
 Egypt. All this is sufficiently novel and remarkable ; but it seems 
 difficult to resist this interpretation of John's language or to reject 
 his testimony. 
 
172 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 much before 629. If George did not arrive in 
 Alexandria till that year, and his office determined, 
 whether by death or by supersession, a year or 
 two later, it is easy to understand why his position 
 in the records of the Church is so vague and 
 shadowy ^. 
 
 When Andronicus, the Coptic Archbishop, passed 
 away at the end of 622 or the beginning of 623, the 
 Persian dominion in Egypt was not even menaced 
 by any revival of the Roman power under Heraclius. 
 There is little question that before his death the 
 Patriarch heard news of the Emperor's first expedi- 
 tion, which voyaged by Rhodes to Cilicia ; very pos- 
 sibly too the gossip of Alexandria was enlivened by 
 rumours brought by Arab caravans concerning the 
 rising prophet of Mecca ; but not the wildest dreamer 
 could have imagined that within a period of twenty 
 years to come the Persians would be driven out of 
 Egypt again by the Romans, and that the restored 
 Roman power would be extinguished and closed for 
 ever by the rude legions of Mohammed. 
 
 Benjamin's election as Patriarch was a popular 
 one : indeed, whatever doubt may be felt regarding 
 the wisdom of Benjamin's after-policy, it cannot be 
 denied that he won the love and veneration of his 
 people, and retained them unimpaired through all the 
 vicissitudes of the most eventful primacy in the 
 Coptic history. But he made no weak concessions 
 to laxity of faith or morals. From the first he set 
 himself sternly to rebuke the careless lives of many 
 among his clergy, and to check the abuses which had 
 
 ^ Renaudot does not question the current story of George's death, 
 although by a slip he writes post Gregorii for post Georgii niortem. 
 Hist. Pat. Alex. p. 161; and Von Gutschmid thinks that George 
 probably died in June of 631 {Kleine Schriften, t. ii. p. 475). 
 
Persecution of the Copts by Cyrus 173 
 
 grown up in many places where the bishops had lost 
 all control in the tumult of war. He had been on 
 a visit to Babylon ^ before his consecration, and now 
 wrote a pastoral letter to all the bishops, in which 
 he said : ' During my stay at Hulwin and Babylon 
 I saw a number of froward men, both priests and 
 deacons ; my soul abhors their works. I write this 
 letter to all the bishops bidding them hold an inquiry 
 once a month concerning everyone of the clergy who 
 had been ordained for less than ten years.' This 
 letter made it clear that he was Archbishop, says the 
 chronicle ^, and he made it clearer still by excommu- 
 nicating several clergy in this diocese of Babylon. 
 The letter was followed by a visitation, in the course 
 of which it is recorded that from Babylon he went 
 on foot, ' accompanied by Abba Mini, bishop of the 
 Castle of Babylon, and Pilihiu, bishop of Hulwan, 
 and a great crowd,' to bring to account a notorious 
 offender, on whose house he called down fire from 
 heaven. But wherever he passed, the people flocked 
 to receive his benediction. 
 
 So chastening and chastising the Church, the 
 Archbishop made his power felt all over Egypt. 
 Unquestionably he did much to restore the unity of 
 the Coptic Church and to bring it back to that settled 
 and organized government which had been disturbed, 
 if not shattered, by the political troubles of the time. 
 For four or five years ^ Benjamin lived peaceably 
 
 ' This is of course the Egyptian Babylon, in the region now 
 misnamed ' Old Cairo.' 
 
 ^ See the Bodleian Library MS. Copt. Clar. Press b. 5, and 
 Am^lineau's translation entitled Fragments Copies pour servir a 
 Vhistoire de la Conqtiek de I'^gypte in ths Journal Asiatique, 1888. 
 It is unfortunate that of this early Life of Benjamin in Coptic so 
 small a fragment alone survives. 
 
 ° Severus says definitely that the Persians remained in Egypt for 
 
174 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 under Persian rule in Alexandria. There he first 
 saw Shahin recalled to retrieve, if possible, the 
 falling fortunes of Chosroes ; then, as Heraclius pre- 
 vailed, he saw the departure of the Persian armies. 
 With what eyes, we wonder, did the Patriarch watch 
 the spearmen and bowmen of the unbelievers march 
 out of the eastern gate of the Great City ? And what 
 were his thoughts as he pondered on the coming 
 return of the Romans ? 
 
 Most of the Persian garrisons in Egypt were pro- 
 bably withdrawn early in 627, while some few de- 
 tached posts may have been held as late as 628 and 
 evacuated under the terms of the treaty with Hera- 
 clius. Then at least it was that the Egyptian 
 prisoners from Dastagerd and other cities of Asia 
 came back to their country ; and it was probably in 
 the winter 628-9 that Heraclius, after his triumph at 
 Constantinople, sent an army by sea to reoccupy 
 Egypt and to restore the Roman Empire from 
 Palestine to Pentapolis. 
 
 Admirable as were Heraclius' motives in raising 
 Cyrus, bishop of Phasis in the Caucasus, to the arch- 
 bishopric of Alexandria, his act was nevertheless 
 a blunder, and that of the most tragic kind. The 
 whole Christian world had been strangely drawn 
 together as they watched with breathless interest the 
 amazing developments of Heraclius' crusade against 
 Persia. When the infidels were vanquished, when 
 Jerusalem was delivered, and when the Cross was 
 exalted, Copts and Melkites alike had gloried in a 
 common triumph ; they rejoiced together also in the 
 
 six years after Benjamin's election. That would bring us to the 
 end of 628 : but I think it impossible to accept this statement, as 
 everything points to the withdrawal of the main Persian army early 
 in 627. 
 
Persecution of the Copts by Cyrus 175 
 
 vengeance wrought upon the Jews, and shared aHke 
 the penance enjoined in expiation of the sin. It was 
 therefore the golden moment — the tide which taken 
 at the flood might have led to a real and lasting 
 union. This Heraclius saw ; he knew too the blind 
 devotion of the age to shibboleths and phrases : but 
 he refused to see that his magic compromise of 
 doctrine might fail to charm the Church in Egypt, 
 or that, if it failed, the very worst way to bring about 
 union was to thrust his message by sheer force down 
 the gorge of those to whom its first savour was 
 bitter. This, however, was the alternative which 
 was offered in Egypt as in Syria. It was part of the 
 philosophy of that age that religious belief could be 
 and should be moulded by state decrees. In this 
 the Emperor was not ahead of his time, and he 
 resolved that by fair means or by foul the formula 
 of his three Archbishops should be made to prevail 
 against all other forms of belief with which it con- 
 flicted. 
 
 Still, even under that resolve, he courted disaster 
 in making choice of Cyrus. For this was the evil 
 genius who not only wrecked the Emperor's hopes 
 of religious union in Egypt, but who after making 
 himself a name of terror and loathing to the Copts 
 for ten years, after stamping out to the best of his 
 power the Coptic belief by persecution, made Coptic 
 allegiance to Roman rule impossible ; the tyrant who 
 misgoverned the country into hatred of the Empire, 
 and so prepared the way for the Arab conquest ; and 
 the traitor who at the critical moment delivered it 
 over by surrender to the enemy. This was the man 
 of evil fame, known afterwards in Egyptian history 
 as Al Mukaukas — that mysterious ruler the riddle 
 of whose name and nation have hitherto confused 
 
176 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 and baffled historians, but whose identity with Cyrus 
 is now absolutely certain \ 
 
 Benjamin seems never to have been consulted 
 upon the feelings of the Copts and the prospects of 
 the experiment in Egypt. It was a fatal omission; 
 for from its very birth the Emperor's plan, so far as 
 Egypt was concerned, was doomed to failure. The 
 landing of Cyrus in Alexandria, which took place in 
 the autumn of 631, was the signal for the flight of 
 the Coptic Patriarch ^. Legend avers that Benjamin 
 was warned by an angel in a dream to fly from the 
 wrath to come ; and the story proves at least that 
 whether he knew or did not know the precise nature 
 of the overtures which Cyrus was bringing, he 
 resolved in advance to reject them, and that he 
 foresaw the consequences. The coming of Cyrus 
 was in fact taken as a declaration of war against the 
 Coptic faith. Ere leaving his post, Benjamin set the 
 Church in order, and called an assembly of priests 
 and laymen, at which he delivered an address 
 ' charging them to hold fast the faith till death.' He 
 also wrote an encyclical to all his bishops, bidding 
 them flee into the mountains and the deserts and 
 
 ^ For the proof of this statement I must refer the reader to my 
 essay on the subject in the Appendix. 
 
 " In Prof. Bury's Later Roman Empire (vol. ii. p. 215, n. i), it 
 is strangely stated that Benjamin fled from before the Persians, and 
 hence it is inferred that ' the Monophysites were not unanimously 
 in favour of Persian rule! The statement is as erroneous as 
 the inference. Benjamin fled some three or four years after the 
 evacuation of Egypt by the Persians at the end of their long occu- 
 pation : see Chronicon Orientate ; Renaudot, Hist. Pat. Alex., 1. c. ; 
 Abft §Slih, p. 230, n. 2 ; and Maktn, pp. 30 and 40, which make 
 it quite clear that Benjamin's flight took place ten years before the 
 death of Heraclius. As regards Prof. Bury's inference, see ante, 
 pp. 81-9, where the idea of sympathy between Copts and Persians 
 is proved to be mythical. 
 
Persecution of the Copts by Cyrus 177 
 
 hide themselves till the anger of the Lord was 
 overpast ; for grievous troubles were coming upon 
 the land, and for the space of ten years they must 
 suffer persecution ; then it would be over. 
 
 Such was the tenourof the letter. When he had sent 
 it, the Patriarch took his departure from Alexandria 
 by stealth under cover of night with only two com- 
 panions. Leaving the city by the western gate he 
 passed on foot to the town of Mareotis, and thence 
 to Al Muna^, an oasis city which lay at the inter- 
 section of the ways from Alexandria to Wadi 'n 
 Natron and from Tarrinah to Barca. It must have 
 been at this time a town of great splendour ; for even 
 centuries later the traveller roaming across wastes 
 of sand was amazed at the magnificent churches and 
 buildings which broke upon his view ^. Here the 
 
 ' This is the form which Severus gives, but Quatremere seems 
 to think the whole town was called Mina, from the saint who gave 
 his name to the great church there {Mem. G^og. ei Hist. vol. i. 
 p. 488). In the Cairo MS. of Severus the word is quite clearly- 
 written ijJlI (muna), not Lu.^. (mina). 
 
 '^ There is at Paris the MS. of an unknown Arab geographer 
 (quoted by Quatrembre, 1. c.) which gives some curious details of 
 Al Muna or Mind worth citing : ' Leaving Tarranah and following 
 the road towards Barca, one comes to Mina, which consists of 
 three abandoned towns in the midst of a sandy desert with their 
 buildings still standing. The Arabs use it as a place for lying in 
 wait against travellers. There may be seen lofty and well-btiilt 
 palaces with enclosure walls about them : they are mostly built 
 over vaulted colonnades, and some few serve as dwellings for 
 monks. There are some springs of fresh water, but somewhat 
 scanty. Ne.^t one comes to the church of St. Mina, a huge 
 building embellished with statues and paintings of the greatest 
 beauty. There tapers burn day and night without ceasing. At 
 one end of the building is a vast tomb with two camels in marble, 
 and upon them the statue of a man carved in marble, who is stand- 
 ing, one foot upon each camel : one of his hands is open, the other 
 closed. This figure is said to represent St. Mina. On the right 
 
 BUTLER N 
 
178 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Patriarch doubtless worshipped at the great church 
 of St. Menas, and after a short rest pushed on to the 
 mountain called Barniij \ He was now close to the 
 Natron monasteries, but he found them nearly 
 deserted : they had never recovered from the ravages 
 which they had suffered some thirty years before ^ 
 and the Beduin refused to allow any large resettle- 
 ment or rebuilding of the churches. Here then was 
 
 as you enter the church is a great marble column, in which a shrine 
 is carved containing figures of Jesus, John, and Zacharias ; the door 
 of the shrine is kept closed. There is also to be seen a figure of 
 the Virgin Mary covered by two curtains, and figures of all the 
 prophets. Outside the church are figures representing all. kinds of 
 animals and men of all occupations. Among the rest is a slave- 
 merchant holding in his hand an open purse. Over the midst of 
 the church rises a dome, beneath which are eight figures said to 
 represent angels. Close to the church is a mosque where the 
 Muslims pray, and all the land round about is planted with fruit- 
 trees and vines. . . . The town of Fustat sends every year looo 
 dinars for the maintenance of this church.' 
 
 Quatremfere has in nearly all cases where I have used the word 
 ' figure ' given ' statue.' Graven images, however, always were and 
 are still most strictly forbidden, and I feel certain that paintings 
 are intended, at least in all those cases where saints or angels are 
 mentioned. The colossal statue set upon the two camels is not to 
 be explained away : it was probably, like the palaces and colonnades, 
 a relic of Greek civilization, though the later Copts may have 
 strangely identified it with St. Menas. But the whole account of 
 this town is singularly interesting. Its position is now unknown, 
 but it probably lay north-west of the Natriin Lakes and nearly due 
 south of Marifit (which latter place is still marked by ruins), and it 
 would thus be on what was called the ' Route of the Pilgrims ' 
 from North Africa. 
 
 ' Am^lineau, G^og. Copie, pp. 319-21. The author cites the 
 Paris MS. Arab. 139, fol. 97, for the arrival of Benjamin at this 
 place. 
 
 ^ In the time of the Patriarch Damianus. The monasteries 
 were reinstated after the Arab conquest, and the church of St^ 
 Macarius was consecrated with great ceremony by Benjamin him- 
 self, as Severus records. 
 
Persecution of the Copts by Cyrus 179 
 
 no place for the Patriarch ; he was still too near 
 the capital to feel secure, too remote from his 
 people to help them. He therefore passed on towards 
 the Pyramids, and by the edge of the desert, to Upper 
 Egypt, till he reached the town of Klis ' ; and not far 
 from K6s he took shelter in a little monastery in the 
 desert, which for centuries later remained famous as 
 his place of refuge. 
 
 This flight of Benjamin practically coincided with 
 the arrival of Cyrus in Alexandria, and there is not 
 a word in any record to suggest that Cyrus made 
 the slightest effort to come to an understanding with 
 the Coptic Patriarch. His very presence seems to 
 have scattered the Coptic clergy in terror. En- 
 throned as imperial Patriarch of Alexandria, he was 
 also armed with the civil power as Viceroy of Egypt ^. 
 It was doubtless this union of the two highest offices 
 which made Benjamin's position untenable ; it cer- 
 tainly clothed Cyrus with almost despotic authority. 
 Professing, however, to have come on a mission of 
 peace, Cyrus expounded the ingenious Monothelite 
 formula, by which the Emperor hoped to heal the 
 breach of Chalcedon. He had to win over both 
 the Melkite and the Coptic communion; but from the 
 first the proposed compromise seems to have been 
 ill stated, ill understood, and ill received. To many 
 of the Melkites it seemed sheer surrender of Chalce- 
 don ; while such of the Copts as heard the proposal 
 
 ^ On Kfts see Quatrem^re {Mem. Ge'og. et Hist. t. i. pp. 192- 
 216), where an interesting note explains the position of the town, 
 and also recounts some curious stories of magic and serpent- 
 charming in connexion with it. Abd Salih mentions (p. 230) 
 without naming the monastery in which Benjamin took refuge. 
 
 '^ The evidence for this union in Cyrus of civil and ecclesiastical 
 power is partly given in the Appendix : there is no room for any 
 doubt on the subject. 
 
 N 2 
 
i8o The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 urged also that by admitting one will and one opera- 
 tion the doctrine admitted one nature — that in fact 
 Cyrus had come over to the Monophysites. 
 
 To remove these misunderstandings, Cyrus held 
 a formal synod or council at Alexandria, at which 
 the matter was set forth for discussion and debate. 
 It was here that our friend Sophronius, who was 
 again in Egypt, led the Melkite opposition, and 
 strove by the most earnest entreaty as well as the 
 strongest argument to turn Cyrus aside from his 
 purpose. Cyrus is said to have replied kindly i, 
 and to have referred Sophronius to the Primate 
 Sergius at Constantinople for the settlement of his 
 scruples : but he was quite unshaken, and the result 
 of the council was to confirm the compromise and 
 to smite with nine anathemas those who rejected 
 it. In all this Cyrus seems to have shown very 
 little of that tact and sympathy which were essential 
 in the bearer of the Emperor's Eirenicon. He met 
 resistance by sheer force of will and weight of, 
 authority, whereas only the most delicate adroitness 
 could hope to deal successfully with the thorny 
 problems of the Church in Egypt. Blame, however, 
 may he on both sides. If Cyrus was overbearing, 
 the Copts might be held blind and intractable, if it 
 were clear that the terms of the offer were ever fairly 
 put before them. To the common lay intelligence 
 there would seem to be little remaining difference 
 
 ^ The note by Dr. Murdock on Mosheim (eleventh edition, p. 256, 
 n. i) makes out that Sophronius was very humble, falling down a^d 
 entreating Cyrus not to press matters, and that Cyrus was very 
 conciliatory. I somewhat doubt this. Sophronius showed more 
 passion than humility in his demeanour. ' With a loud and bitter 
 Cry he burst into tears and flung himself at Cyrus' feet imploring 
 and beseeching him not to proclaim ' the nine heads of anathema : 
 but Cyrus disregarded the appeal. See Mansi, t x. col. 691. 
 
Persecution of the Copts by Cyrus i8i 
 
 between Monophysite and Monothelite : and though 
 it is right to remember that even now divisions 
 between Christians are often equally bitter and 
 equally baseless, yet it would be true that in scorn- 
 ing this offer of union the Coptic Church made a 
 mistake which cost it untold suffering. 
 
 Others may hold that the compromise was un- 
 sound and impossible. But whatever judgement may 
 be passed on the proposal made by the Emperor 
 Heraclius and the three Eastern Patriarchs, and in 
 whatever form it reached the Copts, rightly or 
 wrongly they received it with the deepest hostility : 
 they resented the thought of changing one iota in 
 their shibboleth as treason to their faith and to their 
 religious independence. * It was this last point in 
 which their passion centred. National independence 
 they had never known, and such an ideal can scarcely 
 have entered into their dreams ; but for religious 
 independence they had struggled and fought inces- 
 santly ever since the Council of Chalcedon. That 
 ideal they cherished at all times in their hearts, and 
 for it they were prepared to sacrifice all else what- 
 soever. In this lies the key to all their history. 
 
 When Cyrus found that neither cajolery nor male- 
 diction availed to win over the Copts, he used 
 stronger measures, to which it cannot be denied that 
 Heraclius was a party. But the Emperor at a later 
 period made one more effort for union. As the 
 doctrine of one will and one operation was rejected, 
 Sergius suggested that while one will alone should 
 be recognized, the question whether its operation were 
 single or twofold should be waived and discussion 
 forbidden : and he secured the assent of the Roman 
 Pope Honorius to this solution, or rather evasion, 
 of the problem. It was embodied in a formal edict 
 
i82 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 or Ecthesis, and issued to the Eastern world as 
 a binding ordinance, John, general of militia, was 
 charged by Sergius to take a copy to Cyrus, and 
 with it he took a rood or cross of great sanctity as 
 a present^. But the effect of the famous Ecthesis 
 was only to rouse further opposition. The Emperor, 
 who had thought either to muzzle or to convert 
 Sophronius by raising him to the see of Jerusalem, 
 discovered in him an unrelenting foe to his policy ^ : 
 while to the Copts the later edition of the new 
 doctrine had, if anything, an even worse savour than 
 the earlier. 
 
 It is, however, extremely doubtful whether the 
 Ecthesis, or even the original Eirenicon, ever reached 
 the Copts beyond the gates of Alexandria. For 
 perhaps the most melancholy and pathetic feature 
 of the whole story is this — that Coptic annals betray 
 no gleam of consciousness that any Eirenicon was 
 ever offered at all. All through the Great Perse^ 
 cution it is the doctrine of Chalcedon pure and 
 simple — ' the tome of Leo ' — that is offered, with 
 stripes or death as the alternative; and this is the 
 conviction burnt into the mind of all Coptic historians 
 and graven in all their records. It would seem 
 therefore as if Cyrus, conscious at once of the 
 failure of his mission, and resolved at all costs to 
 drive the Copts within the pale of the established 
 
 ^ The Ecthesis is given in Harduin's Concilia, t. iii. p. 791. 
 See also Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. p. 256 (eleventh edition). Cyrus' 
 effusive acknowledgement of its receipt is given by Drapeyron 
 (p. 389), who mentions the bearer. The cross is mentioned by 
 John of Nikiou (p. 674). It may have held a portion of the 
 so-called ' true cross,' 
 
 " Cedrenus in speaking of Sophronius' death says that the 
 Patriarch died after having made great war against Heraclius and 
 Sergius and the Monothelites. 
 
Persecution of the Copts by Cyrus 183 
 
 Church, troubled little thereafter about the refine- 
 ments of the Emperor's theology, and merely set 
 out the plain alternatives — union or persecution. 
 
 For the whole country was now at the mercy of 
 Cyrus, the Mukaukas. Not merely did the shining 
 streets of Alexandria ring again to the tramp of 
 legions from Byzantium, while its long line of walls 
 and its towers were once more held by Roman 
 guards and mounted with Roman engines of war : 
 but Pelusium, commanding the route from Palestine 
 to Egypt; the chief towns of the Delta, like Athrlb 
 and Nikiou ; and the great fortress of Babylon near 
 Memphis, were garrisoned in the same manner. 
 Thence the network of Roman dominion was woven 
 again over the Faytim and the valley of the Nile 
 southward to the frontier town of Syene below the 
 cataract. All the Roman forces were at the call of 
 Cyrus to do his bidding. Against the reoccupation 
 the Copts were of course quite passive ; but little 
 cause as they had to love the Persians, they soon 
 found that their new rulers would leave them small 
 reason to rejoice in the change. Chastisement with 
 whips was to be followed by chastisement with 
 scorpions. For under the Persians, as soon as the 
 conquerors had established a settled government, 
 the Copts had at least been allowed to practise their 
 own form of religion : and this was the precious 
 privilege which Cyrus, the Mukaukas, resolved to 
 wrest from them. 
 
 So the Great Persecution began. All the au- 
 thorities are agreed that it lasted for a period of ten 
 years, in other words that it virtually coincided with 
 the term of Cyrus' patriarchate. The synod at 
 Alexandria probably was held in October, 631, and 
 the persecution commenced a month or two later. 
 
184 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Of its fierceness there can be no question. ' These 
 were the years,' says Severus, ' during which Hera- 
 clius and Al Mukaukas were ruling over Egypt: 
 and through the severity of the persecution and the 
 oppression and the chastisements which Heraclius 
 inflicted on the orthodox, in order to force them to . 
 adopt the faith of Chalcedon, an innumerable multi- 
 tude were led astray — some by tortures, some by 
 promise of honours, some by persuasion and guile.' 
 The biography of the Coptic Patriarch Isaac \ which 
 was written about 695, represents Isaac in his young 
 days as meeting with a priest named Joseph, .who 
 had been haled before the tribunal of Cyrus, and 
 had been beaten with many stripes for his confession 
 of the faith. Benjamin's own brother, Menas, was 
 tortured and drowned. First of all lighted torches 
 were held against him and he was burnt ' till the 
 fat dropped down from both his sides on the ground 2' : 
 then as he still was unshaken in his confession, his 
 teeth were pulled out : next he was placed in a sack 
 filled with sand, and taken out to a distance of 
 seven bowshots from the shore. Three times he 
 was offered his life, if he would acknowledge the 
 Council of Chalcedon : three times he refused : and 
 then he was sunk in the sea, ' Yet it was hot they 
 who were victorious over Menas, that champion of 
 the faith, but Menas who by Christian patience 
 overcame them,' says the biographer of Benjamin. 
 
 ' Histoire du Patriarche Copte Isaac (p. 12), by E. Am^Iineau. 
 Amdlineau's translation does not quite bring out the force of the 
 pluperfect, as Mr. Crura tells me. The tense is important for the 
 chronology : for when the meeting took place, the confession before 
 Cyrus was clearly a thing of the past. Isaac died in 693, as I show 
 in Appendix F. 
 
 ^ This account is from Severus (Brit. Mus. MS., p. 104, 1. 10). 
 The Cairo MS. agrees. 
 
Persecution of the Copts by Cyrus 185 
 
 Another document — the life of Samuel of Kala- 
 mun^ — the original of which was certainly con- 
 temporary with Cyrus, shows so clearly the part 
 which Cyrus himself took in the persecution, that 
 one may be pardoned for quoting it at some length. 
 The story tells how the Archbishop on coming to 
 the monastery found it deserted except for the 
 steward, who was scourged and questioned. The 
 steward then said, 'Samuel the ascetic held much 
 discourse with the monks, calling you a blasphemer, 
 a Chalcedonian Jew, an atheist, a man unworthy to 
 celebrate the liturgy, unworthy of all communion : 
 and the monks hearing this fled before your visit.' 
 At these words the impious blasphemer fell into 
 a furious passion, and biting his lips he cursed the 
 steward, the monastery, and the monks, and de- 
 parted another way, 'nor has he returned to this 
 day,' adds the chronicle ^. Then the brethren came 
 
 ^ Published by Am^lineau in Mon. pour servir h THistoire de 
 I'^gypte Chre'iienne aux IV'-VIP silcles {M/m. Miss. Arch. 
 Frang. au Caire, t. iv. 2, pp. 774 seq.). As to the date, see 
 next note. 
 
 '' This saying proves the original MS. to have been written 
 before the death of Cyrus in 642. Samuel died at Kalamfln after 
 foretelling the Muslim invasion and the final victory of the Christians 
 (J'ournal Asiatique, 1888, p. 384): from which we may infer that 
 his life was written at the beginning of the invasion and before 
 the success of the Arabs was manifest — in other words early in 
 the year 640. These biographies were written to be delivered 
 as panegyrics directly after the death of a great saint or church- 
 man : so that we may conclude that Samuel died in 639. Pereira 
 points out that Samuel is said to have met at Kalamfin a certain 
 Gregory, bishop of Kais ; that Severus records a meeting between 
 Gregory, bishop of Kais, and the Patriarch John of Samanfid 
 (680-9); and that when the Patriarch Isaac, after his election 
 had been confirmed by 'Abd al 'Aziz, entered Alexandria in 685, 
 he was attended by a Gregory, bishop of Kais. This last date 
 should be 690, not 685 : but the correction only strengthens 
 
i86 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 back in peace to the convent. But as for the Kau- 
 khios (Mukaukas), the Pseud-Archbishop, he came 
 to the city of Piom (Fay^m), cherishing wrath in his 
 heart. There he summoned his minions and ordered 
 them to bring the holy Abba Samuel, his hands 
 tied behind his back and an iron collar about his 
 neck — pushing him on like a thief. So they came 
 to the convent where he abode and took him. 
 
 Samuel went rejoicing in the Lord and saying, 
 ' Please God, it will be given me this day to shed 
 my blood for the name of Christ.' Therefore he 
 reviled the name of the Mukaukas with boldness, 
 and was led before him by the soldiers. When the 
 Mukaukas saw the man of God, he ordered the 
 soldiers to smite him, till his blood ran like water. 
 Then he said to him, ' Samuel, you wicked ascetic, 
 who is he that made you abbot of the monastery, 
 and bade you teach the monks to curse me and my 
 faith ? ' Holy Abba Samuel answered, ' It is good 
 to obey God and His holy Archbishop Benjamin 
 rather than obey you and your devilish doctrine, 
 
 son of Satan, Antichrist, Beguiler.' Cyrus bade 
 the soldiers to smite him on the mouth, saying, 
 ' Your spirit is kindled, Samuel, because the monks 
 glorify you as an ascetic : but I will teach you what 
 
 Pereira's argument, which is that, if these three are one and the 
 same Gregory, as the evidence seems to show, and if Samuel died in 
 639, then we must believe that the episcopate of Gregory covered 
 a period of upwards of fifty years. That is not impossible, of 
 course; but rather than place the date of Samuel's death later, 
 
 1 would prefer to suppose that, just as there were two towns called 
 Kais, one on the north coast and one near Bahnasa, so there may 
 well have been in that period two bishops called Gregory. See 
 Quatremfere, M^m. Hist, et G^og. t. i. pp. 141 and 337. Gregory, 
 bishop of Kais, is named by Abfi Salih as the founder of a church 
 at Hulwin (p. 156). 
 
Persecution of the Copts by Cyrus 187 
 
 it is to speak evil of dignities, since you render me 
 not the honour which is my due as Archbishop and 
 my due as Controller of the Revenues of the land 
 of Egypt.' Samuel replied, ' Satan also was con- 
 troller, having angels under him : but his pride and 
 unbelief estranged him from the glory of God. So 
 with you also, O Chalcedonian Deceiver, your faith 
 is defiled and you are more accursed than the devil 
 and his angels.' On hearing this, the Mukaukas was 
 filled with fury against the saint, and signed to the 
 soldiers to strike him dead. In a word the blas- 
 phemer essayed to slay the saint, but the ruler of 
 the city of Piom delivered him out of his hands. 
 When Cyrus saw that Samuel had escaped, he 
 ordered hiin to be driven away from the mountain 
 Nekl6ne \ 
 
 The Ethiopic version of the life of Abba Samuel 
 is of much the same tenour. It recounts the visit 
 of one Maximianus at the head of 200 soldiers to 
 Samuel's monastery in the desert and the presentation 
 
 ' Nekl6ne, the Arabic An Naklfin, lay near Al Kalamfin, some 
 two hours to the south-west of the city of Fayflm. The monastery 
 called i_,.iil ^j is described by Abfl §alih, pp. 205-6, in close 
 connexion with that of Al Kalamfin. It is also described by 
 Makrizl (id., ib., pp. 313-4), but seems to have long disappeared. 
 See also Quatremfere, Mem. Hist, et G/og. t. i. pp. 411, 473; and 
 Am^lineau, G/og. Copte, p. 273, Journal Asiatique, Nov. 1888, 
 p. 398, and Pereira, Vida do Abba Samuel, pp. 36-40. Pereira 
 is mistaken in placing Kalamfin at a distance of 15 miles or 29 
 kilometres from Alexandria on the authority of Rosweyde (VUae 
 Patrum, lib. x. c. 162). Either '115' must be read instead of 
 ' 15,' or the Kalamfln referred to must be some other monastery 
 and not that in the Fayflm. In the Bulletin de V Institut Franfais 
 d ArcMologie Orientale, t. i. p. 72, Dair Nakalun is described as 
 being in the mountain east of Kflm Bashd, and Dair al Kalamfln 
 as lying at the foot of the mountain at the entrance of the Fayflm 
 and as possessing twelve churches. 
 
i88 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 to him of a document for his subscription to the faith 
 of Chalcedon \ Samuel tore it in pieces and flung 
 it out of the door of the church, exclaiming, 'We 
 have no Archbishop but Benjamin : cursed be the blas- 
 phemous document of the Roman Emperor ; cursed 
 be the Council of Chalcedon, and all who believe 
 therein.' Samuel was beaten and left for dead, but he 
 recovered and made his way to Kalamiin, where the 
 same defiance of Cyrus is recorded and its result ^- 
 
 When these things were done in the desert, one 
 may imagine the fate of the Copts in the Delta 
 and the Nile valley. Stripes, torture, imprisonment 
 and death were the portion of those who resisted 
 Cyrus and refused to abandon their belief. Melkite 
 bishops were appointed to every city in Egypt up 
 to Ansini^ while the Coptic clergy were put to 
 death or scattered abroad in various hiding-places. 
 The search after Benjamin was keen and unrelent- 
 ing; but he was never discovered. Severus says 
 that he moved about from one fortified convent 
 to another, while the life of Shanfidah * seems to 
 
 ' Pereira, op. cit., p. 142. 
 
 '^ Id., ib., p. 146. Cyrus is not named, but is called the Governor: 
 he claims both authority as Archbishop and supreme civil power 
 over Egypt : so that there can be no question of his identity. 
 I may note that in the Coptic Synaxarium, where this incident 
 is recorded, the words are, ' When the news of Samuel's treatment 
 to the tome of Leo came \.o Al Mukaukas, the Patriarch, he laid 
 a snare till he caught him and smote him with heavy blows, saying, 
 " Only confess that the Council of Chalcedon is orthodox, and go 
 your way" ' {^Journal Asiatique, Nov. 1888, p. 397). 
 
 ' Ansina or Antinoe was at this time the capital of the Thebaid. 
 It lay opposite Hermopolis Magna, some way north of Lycopolis or 
 Siftt. It would seem therefore that Cyrus' power was not effectively 
 exercised south of SJflt. 
 
 * The life is in Arabic and is published with a translation in the 
 Mem. Miss. Arch. Frang. t. iv. i, p. 340. The passage concerning 
 
Persecution of the Copts by Cyrus 189 
 
 assign him a refuge in the great monastery of Anba 
 ShanMah, better known as the White Monastery; 
 and this story again differs from the tradition 
 which places his retreat near Kus in the desert. 
 Probably the White Monastery, in spite of the 
 tremendous strength of its walls, was too near the 
 Nile to shelter Benjamin for long, while in the 
 mountains of the desert by Kfls, with their endless 
 caves and rock-cut churches, he could rest safe and 
 unmolested. 
 
 But of those who failed to escape, it is small 
 wonder that a great multitude gave in their sub- 
 mission to Cyrus. It was a reign of terror, and 
 though the spirit of the Copts was unbroken, a whole 
 population could not turn martyrs. Some of the 
 bishops too went over to the enemy, such as Cyrus, 
 bishop of Nikiou ^, and Victor, bishop of the Faytim 
 
 Cyrus and Benjamin is given in the form of a prophecy, and 
 deserves to be quoted. 'The Persians shall leave Egypt. Then 
 shall arise the Liar' (JU-jJl — the common name for Antichrist). 
 ' He shall go before the Roman Emperor, and after receiving from 
 him the two headships, that of the civil government and that of 
 the episcopal, he shall enter into Egypt and shall take possession 
 of Egypt and its dependencies. He shall make moats and strong- 
 holds and shall build the walls of towns in the desert, and he shall 
 lay waste the East and the West. Then shall he fight against the 
 pastor, the chief of the bishops at Alexandria, the Vicar of the 
 Christians in the land of Egypt, who shall flee from him to the region 
 of Timan, until he come to thy monastery, in sorrow and affliction. 
 After he has come there, I will restore him and will set him again 
 upon his throne.' 
 
 For the White Monastery see my Ancient Coptic Churches, vol. i. 
 p. 351, and the admirable work of the late W. de Bock, Mat&iaux 
 pour servir h I'ArcMologie de I'^gypte ChrMenne, pp. 39 seq. It 
 may be, however, that the convent of Shanfldah referred to is that 
 at Kfls, mentioned by Abfl Salih, though it is clearly distinguished 
 by that writer from Benjamin's place of retreat. 
 
 ^ The Brit. Mus. MS. of Severus gives Cyrus, Bishop oi Siknus, 
 
igo The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 — examples which must have been contagious. 
 Many of the people, however, who were unable to 
 fly to the deserts and unwilling to renounce their 
 faith, contrived to maintain secret observances. 
 Even in Alexandria itself, during all the ten years 
 of the persecution, there remained a remnant of 
 the Coptic communion, though bereft of ministers. 
 There was, however, one priest, a native of Mareotis 
 named Agatho, who daily risked his life in the 
 cause. Disguising himself as a carpenter, he used 
 to go about the city by day carrying a bag of tools 
 on his back ; while at night he administered the rites 
 of the Church to his Coptic brethren; It was this 
 Agatho who subsequently became Benjamin's great 
 friend and successor in the patriarchate. 
 
 The monastery of Matra, called As Sukunlah, is 
 recorded to have resisted Cyrus successfully. It 
 was either in or near Alexandria, and the reason 
 given for its remaining scatheless is that all the 
 monks were pure-bred Egyptians, with no single 
 foreigner among them^- 
 
 Boundless as was the patience of the Egyptians, 
 they seem to have made one effort to throw off the 
 yoke of Cyrus. Exasperated by his lawless plunder 
 of their precious vessels, as well as by the stripes 
 and imprisonments they suffered, the sect of Gaianites 
 assembled in the church at Dafashir near Mareotis, 
 and formed a plot against the life of their oppressor. 
 But a Roman officer named Eudocianus, brother of 
 Domentianus and one of the most relentless enemies 
 of the Copts, heard of the meeting and sent soldiers 
 with instant orders to shoot down the conspirators. 
 
 but the Cairo MS. gives Nikiou correctly. Makrtz} for Cyrus reads 
 Butrus or Peter. 
 
 ^ Severus, Brit. Mus. MS., p. 107, 1. 11. 
 
Persecution of the Copts by Cyrus 191 
 
 Some were killed outright, others wounded by the 
 arrows, and others again had their hands cut off 
 without the semblance of trial. So the conspiracy 
 was crushed, and Cyrus was delivered from danger ^, 
 These various anecdotes show in the clearest light 
 the severity of the persecution. It may seem 
 incredible that it could have lasted for ten years, 
 yet nothing is more certain. ' Even after the death 
 of Heraclius,' says John of Nikiou, 'when Cyrus 
 came back to Egypt' (i. e. in 641 after his exile or 
 absence), 'far from abandoning his rage against the 
 flock of God or ceasing to persecute it, he added, 
 violence to violence.' And similar language is used 
 by Severus : ' Heraclius was like a ravening wolf, 
 devouring the flock and yet never satiated, and that 
 flock was the blessed community of the Theodosians^.' 
 But as usual persecution strengthened, in those who 
 were strong enough to resist it, the form of belief 
 it was meant to crush. The Coptic Church was 
 smitten and torn asunder, but it never yielded. The 
 great majority of the people stood fast and staunch 
 in their faith. But the iron had entered into their 
 soul. Through the sullen gloom of those ten years 
 the canker worked in their wounds ; and with the 
 
 ^ John of Nikiou, p. 566. Zotenberg justly remarks that the 
 paragraph recording this incident is out of order. The incident is 
 clearly prior to the Muslim invasion. On Dafashir see Am^lineau, 
 G^og. Copte, p. 122. The place has been mentioned above (p. 25) 
 in connexion with the revolt of Nicetas. 
 
 "^ This passage is curious as proving that in Severus' days the 
 Copts still called themselves Theodosians — that in fact ' Copt ' and 
 ' Theodosian ' were synonymous. The Gaianites must have been 
 a very small body in the time of Cyrus : see p. 29 n. Yet Prof. Bury, 
 speaking of Cyrus' appointment, says that 'his first act was to 
 win over the important sect of the Theodosians or Phthartolatrai ' 
 {Later Roman Empire, vol. ii. p. 251). 
 
ig2 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 final embitterment of their hatred for the Byzantine 
 Church and Byzantine government all hope of peace 
 and reconcilement passed away for ever. 
 
 In this frame of mind, what did the Egyptians 
 feel with regard to that great movement which had 
 sprung from Arabia and was already shaking the 
 cities of Syria ? To their honour, be it said, that 
 there is not the slightest reason to think that they 
 looked upon it with sympathy : yet when they heard 
 that even the Muslims granted a measure of toleration 
 to the Christians, the thought may have risen in their 
 hearts that subjection to the Muslims would make 
 life less unbearable, that the yoke of Mohammed 
 would be lighter than the yoke of the most Christian 
 Emperor Heraclius. That they abhorred the re- 
 ligion of Isl&m is proved by every page of their 
 history : but during those ten years of hopeless 
 misery the sword of Cyrus had cut through wellnigh 
 the last thread which bound their allegiance to the 
 Roman Empire ; and they regarded the advent of 
 the Muslims as a plague sent by divine vengeance 
 upon their persecutors. 
 
 To such a pass had misgovernment brought the 
 finest province in the Emperor's dominions. How 
 far in all this evil work the Mukaukas had obeyed, 
 how far he had betrayed, the orders of his master, is 
 hard to discover. It is clear that the original plan 
 of Heraclius was shaped by a noble purpose. It 
 was a grand ideal to give that peace and rest to the 
 Church which he had given to the State : but he 
 failed to realize the tenacious strength of religious 
 opinion — that it beat through the remotest nerves 
 and fibres of the body politic, and that to remove it 
 by violence would be fatal. His choice of instru- 
 ments, too, was most unhappy. His peace-maker in 
 
Persecution of the Copts by Cyrus 193 
 
 Egypt changed at once into a tyrant, and his 
 message of peace was either never delivered or never 
 heard. That he sanctioned the persecution can 
 hardly be doubted, though it may be questioned 
 whether he sanctioned it save as a last resort; 
 whereas with Cyrus it was the first and only resort. 
 It was in any case the scheme of a visionary to root 
 out sectarian hatred by an edict. The Emperor had 
 hoped by his magic phrase to conjure to rest the 
 angry billows of religious controversy : but then, 
 when he found that he had only raised a furious 
 storm, unable to brook failure, untaught to trust in 
 time and toleration, he condescended, both in Syria 
 and in Egypt, to strive for the end of peace by the 
 method of religious war. In both countries he thus 
 opened the way for the advancing armies of Islam. 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 ARAB ADVANCE ON EGYPT 
 
 'Amr ibn al 'Ast unfolds to the Caliph his design for conquering 
 Egypt. Omar's hesitation in giving leave. Letters of recall sent 
 and opened at 'Arish. The Day of Sacrifice there celebrated. 
 Character of the Arab leader. Stature and physique. Story of 
 his stammering refuted. His history. Conversion to IslSm and 
 appointment by Mohammed as captain. Various anecdotes illus- 
 trating his qualities. 
 
 After the surrender of Jerusalem by the aged 
 Patriarch Sophronius, it seems that both the Caliph 
 Omar and his general 'Amr ibn al 'Asl turned their 
 steps northward. 'Amr at least was sent to take 
 part in the siege of Caesarea \ while Omar fixed 
 his head quarters at Damascus. It was probably 
 at Jerusalem that 'Amr unfolded his plan for the 
 invasion of Egypt : but the time was not then 
 judged propitious. When, however, fortune still 
 shone on the Muslim arms, and the Syrian campaign 
 was more nearly over, 'Amr renewed his proposal to 
 Omar, pointing out the ease with which Egypt could 
 be conquered and the vastness of the prize. There 
 was no country in the world, he said, at once so 
 wealthy and so defenceless ^ He also reminded 
 
 ' De Goeje, Conqu^te de la Syrie, p. 130. Ibn al Athlr and Ibn 
 Khaldfin both say, ' When Omar had taken Jerusalem, 'Amr marched 
 into Egypt ' ; but Balidhurl — an earlier and far better authority — 
 makes "Amr's expedition start from the siege of Caesarea. BalS- 
 dhurl gives one account which represents 'Amr as acting without 
 the knowledge of Omar, while he records also the contrary opinion 
 that 'Amr acted under the Caliph's orders. Makrlzl too gives both 
 versions. 
 
 ^ I have here followed Yikfit's Mujam al Bulddn (vol. iii. p. 
 893). 
 
Arab Advance on Egypt 195 
 
 Omar that Aretion, the Roman governor of Jerusa- 
 lem, who had escaped before the capitulation and 
 fled to Egypt, was there rallying the imperial forces, 
 and that no more time should be lost in striking ^ : 
 moreover, the possession of Egypt would greatly 
 strengthen the power of the Muslims. This confer- 
 ence between the two leaders took place at Al 
 Jiblah ^, near Damascus, in the autumn of the year 
 639 A. D., while the siege of Caesarea was still 
 proceeding. 
 
 Omar saw that the conquest of Egypt was 
 desirable, but thought that 'Amr underrated the 
 difficulties of it, since he was unable to weaken the 
 forces in Syria by detaching an army strong enough 
 for the purpose. When 'Amr offered to start with 
 a force of 3,500 or 4,000 men, the Commander of the 
 Faithful in wavering mood could only promise to 
 think it over ; and 'Amr returned to Caesarea, where 
 Constantine, son of Heraclius, was now in command 
 of the city. There, however, a letter from Omar 
 followed him, borne by Sharlkh ibn 'Ahdib. It 
 sanctioned the plan for the invasion of Egypt, but 
 ordered 'Amr to keep it secret and to lead his force 
 southward by easy stages. 'Amr accordingly departed 
 at dead of night, and marched his little army of 
 horsemen without incident towards the borderland 
 of Palestine and Egypt. He had already reached 
 Rafah^, one stage from the Egyptian Al 'Arlsh, 
 
 ^ Tabarf, ed. Zotenberg, vol. iii. p. 411. 
 
 ^ Ibn 'Abd al Hakam, quoted by Makrfzi. This seems more 
 probable than Eutychius' statement that Omar had returned to 
 Medina and wrote the order for 'Amr to advance on Egypt from 
 that city. 
 
 " On these places see the notes in Hamaker's edition of 
 Wakidt, p. 15; Quatremere, Mem. Ge'og. et Hist. t. i. p. 53; 
 
 O 2 
 
196 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 when messengers spurred in hot haste into his camp 
 bearing dispatches from the Cahph. 
 
 'Amr shrewdly guessed their tenour. Omar's 
 doubts and hesitations had prevailed, and led him 
 to repent his decision. The CaHph had spoken to 
 Othman about the perils of the enterprise, and 
 Othman not only thought the hazard very great, but 
 reminded Omar that the rash and adventurous 
 character of 'Amr was certain to hurry him into 
 disaster, Omar therefore was seriously disquieted, 
 and resolved if possible to recall the expedition : 
 but he felt that if 'Amr's force were already in 
 Egypt, it would be a confession of weakness and 
 a dishonour to the Muslim name to retreat before 
 the enemy. The dispatch accordingly ordered 'Amr 
 to return, if he was still in Palestine, while if 
 he were in Egypt, he must go forward. In that 
 case Omar would pray for his victory, and would 
 send reinforcements ^ But 'Amr had put his hand 
 
 Champollion, H^gypte sous les Pharaons, t. ii. p. 304 ; Amdlineau, 
 Giog. Copte, p. 404 ; Abfi Salih, p. 70. The Arabic text of 
 Wakidi says that 'Amr ' left the desert and those fortresses which 
 were upon the way to Egypt on his right hand, viz. Rafah, Al 'Arish, 
 Al 'Adad, Al BakSrah and Al Farami ' (p. 8). But the statement 
 is not very probable in itself, nor borne out by other authorities. 
 Ibn al Athir indeed makes 'Amr send back from Heliopolis one of 
 his commanders to besiege FaramS and another to besiege 
 Alexandria : but his account of the conquest is a mass of mis- 
 statement and confusion. 
 
 ^ This seems the natural version of an incident which some of 
 the Arab historians have twisted into absurdity : I have chosen it 
 from among the versions given by Makrizt. Ibn 'Abd al Hakam 
 and those who follow him represent Omar as giving his consent to 
 'Amr for the expedition and adding, ' I will shortly send a letter 
 after you, and if it bids you return, you must do so, unless you have 
 already crossed the frontier. In that case, go on and prosper.' It 
 is hard to imagine a more fatuous proceeding : but Omar is not 
 
Arab Advance on Egypt 197 
 
 to the plough, and was not the man to turn back. 
 He knew that the letter boded no good to his 
 project, and he refused to receive it until he had 
 crossed the torrent-bed, which perhaps marked the 
 frontier, and reached the little valley of 'Arlsh. 
 There he read it, and asked ' I,s this place in Syria 
 or in Egypt ? ' and when the answer was ' In Egypt,' 
 he read the dispatch aloud before his officers and 
 said, ' The army will advance in accordance with the 
 Caliph's orders.' 
 
 'Amr no doubt got the answer he wanted, but it 
 is curious to remark that, although 'Arlsh or Rhino- 
 colura was generally regarded as within the Egyptian 
 frontier, the matter was not free from doubts It is 
 clear, however, that the town, although fortified, was 
 not held by a Roman garrison. Yet even as late as 
 the thirteenth century might be seen the ruins of two 
 splendid ancient churches and the remains of the city 
 wall along the sea-front, while the finest marbles and 
 the largest columns at that time found in Cairo were 
 strangely said to have come from 'Arlsh ^- From this 
 point too, according to some authorities, started the 
 
 rightly charged with such folly. The truth of course is that he 
 gave reluctant leave for the expedition, that he repented of it, and 
 that he sent to recall 'Amr, if it still could be done with honour. 
 Eutychius gives three versions of the story which may be compared 
 with those of Makrtzt. 
 
 ^ Quatremfere, I. c, shows that the frontier was sometimes regarded 
 as ending at Waridah, as he writes it. In the Kttdb al Bulddn, by 
 Ya'kubl, c. 900 a. d. (Bibl. Geog. Arab., ed. de Goeje, pt. viii. 
 p. 330) the writer says : ' A traveller from Palestine to Eg3rpt goes 
 to Ash Shajaratan on the frontier of Egypt, then to Al 'Arlsh in the 
 frontier district, then to the village of Al BakMrah ist'c), then to that 
 of Al Warrddah among the sand-hills, then to Al Farama — the first 
 city of Egypt which he reaches : next to the village of Jurjir, then 
 to that of Fakfls, then to that of Ghaifah, then to Fustat.' 
 
 2 Abfi Salih, p. 167. 
 
198 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Great Wall of Egypt, which ran across to Kulzum 
 or Suez, and thence up the eastern bank of the Nile 
 as far as the First Cataract, This wall, attributed 
 to Sesostris, but called by the Arabs the ' Wall of 
 the Old Woman,' had long been broken down, 
 so that it offered no hindrance to the movement of 
 an army even in the seventh century, though frag- 
 ments of its ruins may be seen at Jabal at Tair and 
 other places in Egypt to-day ^ 
 
 It was on the 10 Dhli '1 Hijjah, a.h. 18 ^ or 
 12 December, 639 a.d., that 'Amr's little force cele- 
 brated the Muslim Day of Sacrifice, or Feast of 
 Offerings, or Feast of Pilgrims, as it was variously 
 called. The rite was not without solemnity for this 
 band of desert warriors, who were setting out to 
 conquer the land of the Pharaohs, leagued as they 
 were by ties of clanship and devotion to the great 
 chieftain who led them. Most of 'Amr's following 
 belonged to the tribe of'Akk, although Al Kindl 
 says that one third were of the tribe of Ghifik ^ and 
 Ibn Dukmdk gives a list of Roman converts to 
 Islim from Syria, who were in the Arab army. He 
 also mentions Persian converts from the region of 
 Yaman as taking part in the conquest, though 
 these were more probably enrolled among the 
 reinforcements which the Caliph sent later to 
 Egypt *. 
 
 ' Abii SSlih, p. 59, n. 4, where references are given to Diodorus, 
 Eutychius, and some Arab writers. 
 
 '^ This date, given by Ibn 'Abd al Hakam, fits in so well with 
 other known dates that it may be taken as settled. But to avoid 
 needless repetition on matters of date, I must refer the reader to 
 the essay 'On the Chronology of the Arab Conquest' at the end 
 of this work. 
 
 » Yakftt, 1. c. 
 
 * Ibn Dukmak, part iv. pp. 4-5. These Persians are described 
 
Arab Advance on Egypt 199 
 
 And what of ' Amr himself ? The chronicles give 
 many of his sayings, and a good deal of information 
 about his character ; and in a history of the conquest 
 of Egypt it cannot be out of place to furnish some 
 sketch of the conqueror. 'Amr ibn al 'Asi was 
 somewhere about 45 years old at the time of the 
 invasion of Egypt ^- Short in stature, though 
 strongly built, his athletic and hardy frame excelled 
 in those feats of horsemanship and swordsmanship 
 which Western chivalry has learned to link with the 
 name of Saracen ^ That he was broad-shouldered 
 and broad-chested ; that he had dark piercing eyes, 
 quickly kindling to anger or humour, heavy eyebrows, 
 and a large mouth ; that his face, though powerful, 
 was without sternness — wore indeed a pleasant and 
 cheerful expression ; that he used a black cosmetic 
 for dyeing his beard : these are almost all the details 
 of his outer appearance which have come down in 
 history. The statement that he stammered is pro- 
 bably erroneous. It is true that Abll '1 Mahdsin 
 records this as 'Amr's one defect of body. On the 
 other hand, it is known that 'Amr was remarkable for 
 the quickness and wit of his repartees, as well as for 
 his sustained eloquence ; and the idea that he 
 stammered seems founded on a misunderstanding. 
 
 as the remnants of the army sent by Chosroes to Yaman under the 
 general BadhSn (or Horz^d) : see ante, p. 142, n. 2. 
 
 ' This seems the most probable account of the matter, as I have 
 endeavoured to show in Appendix E against some writers who 
 would make him much older. ' 
 
 ^ Ibn Kutaibah, Ibn Khallikdn, and Abfi 'I MaMsin are the 
 authorities, the works of the two former being a sort of biographical 
 dictionaries. Ibn Khallikin's account of 'Amr has been translated 
 by De Slane. Abfi Salih (p. 78) adds one or two details to the 
 description of 'Amr, which seems to come originally from Ibn 'Abd 
 al Hakam. 
 
200 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 For it is related ^ that Omar once hearing a man 
 stammer remarked, ' I declare that the maker of this 
 man and the maker of "Amr are one ' ; which meant, 
 not that 'Amr was given to stammering, but that 
 God made the speechless and the most eloquent 
 alike : just as ^Amr himself on one occasion, when 
 provoked by a shallow fellow, smothered his scorn in 
 the remark, ' He too is God's creature.' But the 
 story has been misconstrued by some Arab writers, 
 and taken to prove that 'Amr also stammered. Such 
 a construction would make Omar's saying both rude 
 and pointless, and it would seem to clash with the 
 fact of 'Amr's eminence as well as that of his elo- 
 quence. For it is hardly conceivable that, if 'Amr 
 had suffered from this defect, he would have been 
 singled out from the beginning by Mohammed as 
 a capable leader, or could ever have become a great 
 commander. It may be added also that 'Amr acted 
 as imdm, or leader of prayer, to the end of his days, 
 and that Muslim law expressely forbids any one to 
 take that office who stammers 2. The story there- 
 fore that 'Amr had this defect is quite unworthy of 
 belief. 
 
 For the rest, there are many sayings and stories 
 which illustrate his life and character. He was of 
 the tribe of the Kuraish, and his genealogy is known 
 to tradition ^. His conversion to IslcLm took place in 
 
 ' This story comes from Ibn al Hajar, though doubtless copied 
 by him from earlier writers. 
 
 ^ Khdrijah ibn Hudhdfah was assassinated while acting as leader 
 of prayer in place of 'Amr, who was unwell ; see below, p. 493. 
 For the Muslim law see Ma'wardt, Kitdb al Ahkdm as Sultanfah, 
 ch. ix ; 'On the Superintendence of Prayers," pp. 171 seq. 
 
 ' Ibn Kutaibah gives it as follows : Ibn al 'AsJ, ibn Wall, ibn 
 Hashim, ibn Sahm, ibn Husais, ibn Ka'b, ibn Lu'aig, ibn Ghilib, 
 ibn Fihr, ibn Malih, ibn An Nadr, ibn Kinanah : and Abfl '1 
 
Arab Advance on Egypt 201 
 
 A. H. 7 or 8, and there are one or two anecdotes 
 bearing upon it. He was once asked\ 'What delayed 
 your conversion so long, in spite of your intelli- 
 gence ? ' and he answered that he was overawed 
 by the authority of his betters, but that as he grew 
 older and more independent, reflection taught him 
 to slacken in his opposition to the Prophet. When 
 the Kuraish sent one of their number to question 
 him, 'Amr asked his questioner whether the Arabs 
 held the true religion, or the Persians, or the Romans ? 
 On being told ' The Arabs,' he said ' Are we or they 
 the wealthier ? ' ' They are.' ' Then,' he said, ' what 
 advantage have we over Persians and Romans, if 
 there is no life to come, since in this life they have 
 all the advantage over us ? ' 'Amr went on to say 
 that he became convinced of the truth of Mohammed's 
 doctrine of a resurrection and of rewards and punish- 
 ments after death, and so he resolved to give up 
 what was false in the old Arab religion. Some say 
 that 'Amr was in Abyssinia at the time of his con- 
 version, which was brought about by Ja'far ibn Abi 
 Tdlib. 
 
 Another story is that 'Amr said to Mohammed, 
 ' O Apostle of God, I will acknowledge thee, if thou 
 wilt forgive the sins of my past life,' and that 
 Mohammed answered, ' Verily the profession of 
 Islam and the sharing of the Flight ^ cancel all the 
 past.' 'Amr was so grateful for this free pardon that 
 he could not take his eyes off the Prophet's face. 
 ' 'Fore God,' he exclaimed, ' I could not take my fill 
 
 Mahasin calls him further Ab(i 'Abdallah, al Kuraishl as Sahmt 
 as Sahabi. 
 
 ' Ibn al Hajar. 
 
 ^ This cannot mean that 'Amr accompanied the Flight: if it does, 
 the story is apocryphal. 
 
202 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 of gazing upon him, nor regard his countenance as 
 long as I desired, without making him ashamed.' 
 
 Mohammed's opinion of 'Amr was a high one. He 
 praised him as the best Muslim and the most trust- 
 worthy of men ^ He called 'Amr ' one of the good 
 men of the Kuraish,' and highly esteemed him ' for 
 his knowledge and valour.' 'Amr had a half-brother 
 named Hishim,who was slainatthebattle of Yermouk, 
 When questioned about him, 'Amr said, ' Judge which 
 was the better man. His mother was Umm Harmilah, 
 aunt of Omar ibn al Khattab, while my mother was 
 an 'Anazlah. My father loved him more than me, 
 and you know what a good eye a father has for his 
 children. He became a Muslim before me, and has 
 gone to God before me ; for he died a martyr's death 
 at Yermouk, while I was left behind.' 
 
 'Amr's great distinction is that he was made 
 military commander direct by the Prophet. In 
 appointing him Mohammed said, ' I am sending you 
 forth as commander of a troop. May God keep you 
 safe and give you much booty.' When 'Amr 
 answered, ' I did not become a Muslim for the sake 
 of wealth, but for the sake of submission to God,' 
 the Prophet rejoined, ' Honest wealth is good for 
 an honest man' — a maxim which 'Amr doubtless 
 remembered. He was placed at the head of the 
 force which fought the battle of As Salasil, or the 
 Chains, but had to write for reinforcements. So 
 Mohammed sent 200 more men, including Abta Bakr 
 and Omar, under the orders of Abli 'Ubaidah ibn al 
 Jarrdh. As they came up, 'Amr said quietly, ' I am 
 your leader and you are my helpers.' ' No,' said 
 Abft "Ubaidah, ' I am chief of my men, you of yours '; 
 
 ' IJkbah ibn 'Aamir, quoted by Abft '1 MaMsin and An Nawawl 
 in slightly different terms. 
 
Arab Advance on Egypt 203 
 
 but when 'Amr declined this arrangement, he added, 
 ' The Apostle of God enjoined that there should be 
 no dissension ; if therefore you refuse to obey me, I 
 will obey you.' ' I refuse,' said 'Amr ; whereupon 
 Ab<i 'Ubaidah saluted 'Amr, and he stood behind 
 him at public prayer. 
 
 After the battle of the Chains 'Amr was made 
 governor of Umdn, and there remained till the death 
 of Mohammed; a year or two afterwards he was 
 sent by Abii Bakr as one of the generals in the 
 Syrian expedition. There his reputation both as 
 a hard fighter and an able tactician was immensely 
 strengthened, and he ill brooked the superior 
 command which Omar on his accession gave to 
 Abli 'Ubaidah. But perhaps the most striking 
 passage about the conqueror of Egypt is that which 
 records a speech made by 'Amr in self-defence, when 
 Mu'awlah was charged with unduly favouring him ^ : 
 ' I am the man who at the battle of Siffin quoted 
 the verse, 
 
 " When other eyes faltered, mine never quailed ; 
 I half-closed my eyes to their failure, but not to 
 danger." 
 
 Remember, how again and again I returned to the 
 charge. I bear good and evil fortune alike ; I am 
 inexorable, like the serpent at the root of the tree. 
 'Fore God, I am no sluggard or weakling. I am 
 the deaf adder, from whose bite none may recover, 
 whose sting renders a man sleepless. I am a man 
 who shatters what he strikes, who turns to cinders 
 what he kindles. At the battle of Harlrthe foemen 
 
 ' Hisham ibn al KalbJ is the author from whom this is taken. 
 Of course this incident belongs to a later period in 'Amr's career — 
 after the conquest of Egypt. 
 
204 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 knew me for the most dauntless of heart, the 
 strongest of hand, the staunchest defender of the 
 flag. To me in comparison with my traducer may 
 be applied the words of the poet, 
 
 " If the tree of mine honour be made of gold, 
 Shall I not esteem it of higher worth 
 Than to be placed in competition with vile weeds?" ' 
 
 Language like this seems to reveal the man in all 
 his self-confidence and consciousness of power. In 
 the dispute which followed the battle of Siffln, 'Amr 
 no doubt showed some unscrupulousness, Adh 
 Dhahabl records how he clove through the false 
 excuses and hypocrisy of Mu'awlah at the time of 
 the battle, exclaiming, ' O Mu'awlah, my heart has 
 burnt with wrath while I have listened to your 
 pretences. Do you think that we are rebelling 
 against 'All because our claims are more rightful 
 than his ? No, 'fore God ; it is only that we fly like 
 dogs upon the riches of this world ; and by God, I 
 swear that you shall give me a share in your wealth, 
 or else I fight not upon your side.' In the matter of 
 the arbitration his action reads like a breach of faith 
 with Abli Mlisi. The latter thereafter always 
 mingled in his prayers curses against 'Amr, and he 
 insulted his enemy, saying, "Amr's likeness is the 
 likeness of a dog ; if you drive him away, he puts 
 forth his tongue ; and if you leave him alone, he puts 
 forth his tongue ! ' ' And you,' retorted 'Amr, ' are the 
 donkey laden with books, and none the wiser for 
 them ! ' 
 
 Ibn al Hajar records that one of his friends said 
 
 •of 'Amr, ' I have never met a man who understood 
 
 the Kurin better, or had a nobler character, or was 
 
 more honest and open in his dealings.' One named 
 
Arab Advance on Egypt 205 
 
 Jibiz is quoted as saying, ' I never met a man more 
 learned in the Book of God than Omar. When 
 I was in Mu'awlah's company, I found none more 
 gentle. When I was with 'Amr, I found a man of 
 most intelligent conversation, a most excellent com- 
 panion and counsellor.' One or two more brief 
 anecdotes may be given, bringing out his good- 
 heartedness, his candour of mind, and his love of 
 musical measure. When he was reproached once 
 for riding an old and ill-favoured' mule, he replied, 
 ' I do not grow tired of a beast that has carried me 
 well, nor of a wife who makes my life happy by her 
 society, nor of a friend who keeps my secrets.' On 
 another occasion he had a dispute with Al Mughlrah 
 ibn Sha'bah, who lost his temper and used some 
 strong language. ' Will ye insult me, ye family of 
 Husais ? ' cried 'Amr, blazing with fury. But 'Amr's 
 son 'Abdallah was standing by, and when he called 
 out ' Verily we belong to God ! you have uttered 
 the war-cry of the tribes, which is forbidden,' the 
 father accepted the son's rebuke and freed thirty 
 slaves as an act of repentance. But it was in his 
 younger days at Medina that, after listening to 
 Ziyid's eloquent Khutbah, he exclaimed, ' How 
 marvellous a talent hath God granted to that youth ! 
 Verily if he were a son of the tribe of the ^uraish, 
 it were easy for him to drive the Arab nation before 
 him with a switch ^.' 
 
 Such anecdotes might doubtless be multiplied. 
 But enough has been said to show what manner 
 of man 'Amr was. Putting together some of his 
 characteristics, one may note that he combined great 
 power of brain and body with great enthusiasm : 
 
 ' This story is from 'UmSrah's Yaman (ed. Kay), p. 219. That 
 about the mule is from Abfi '1 Mahdsin. 
 
2o6 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 he had an iron will and unfaltering courage, yet 
 measured aright the advantage which coolness and 
 skill possess over mere valour. In matters of 
 religion and ceremonial he was devout, and, though 
 fiercely swayed at times by worldly motives, yet in 
 the main upright and high-principled. He was not 
 unlearned, as the times went; indeed he was held 
 to be the cleverest^ of the Arabs, and one of the 
 most accomplished ; passionately fond of music and 
 verse; gifted with imagination, a good talker. In 
 'Amr there mingled something at once of soldier, 
 saint, adventurer, and poet. Frank and open in his 
 bearing, heroic in aim and action, he possessed 
 great charm of presence and manner — that talisman 
 which so often avails great men to transmute 
 admiration into personal devotion. 
 
 Such was the captain of the four thousand horse- 
 men who were bent on wresting Egypt from the 
 grasp of the Caesars. 
 
 ' Makin, p. 39. See also references to 'Amr in W. Nassau Lees' 
 Conquest of Syria in Bibliotheca Indica, vol. i. 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 
 OPENING OF THE CAMPAIGN 
 
 Action of Cyrus. Refutation of the story that the Arabs were 
 bought off by payment of tribute. Siege and capture of Pelusium. 
 Desert march to Bilbais. Capture of the town after much fighting. 
 The Arabs arrive at Tendunias or Umm Dflnain. Indecisive 
 engagements. Dangerous condition of the Muslim force. 'Aimr's 
 resolve to invade the Fayflm. Capture of Tendunias. 
 
 The alarm was now sounded through Egypt, and 
 Cyrus, the Mukaukas, heard that the dreaded Saracens 
 were coming. Some measures of defence he had 
 taken already : a moat had been dug round the 
 great castle of Babylon near Memphis, other forts 
 had been strengthened, and the walls of many cities 
 which had suffered in the Persian invasion were 
 repaired ^ But it is false to say that Cyrus now 
 bought off the Arabs by a promise of tribute. That 
 is the statement which Theophanes makes, or seems 
 to make ?. But most unfortunately the Greek 
 historians are quite in the dark both as to the facts 
 and as to the order of events at this period. Nice- 
 phorus^ is even worse than Theophanes, and the 
 
 ' This is clear from the language of the prophecy in the Vie de 
 Shenoudi {Mim. Miss. Arch. Franf. t iv. i. p. 340). 
 
 '^ Corp. Hist. Script. Byzant. t. 44, p. 167 : 'They march on 
 Egypt. Cyrus, bishop of Alexandria, hearing of the attack bestirred 
 himself, and under a convention promised, in fear of their avarice, 
 that Egypt would pay 200,000 dinars yearly as tribute. ... So for 
 three years he saved Egj^t from ruin. Cyrus was then accused 
 before the Emperor of paying Egyptian gold in tribute to the 
 Arabs' — and there follows an account of Cyrus' supersession by 
 Manuel 1 I shall further deal with this at the close of the book. 
 
 ' He declares that ' while Heraclius was still in the East, he sent 
 John, Duke of Barcaina, against the Saracens in Egypt,' and he 
 
2o8 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 writer of the Chronicon Orientate worse than either^. 
 They neither examined nor understood what they re- 
 corded, and their confusion of dates and perversion 
 of truth are such that they have served only as false 
 lights, luring into quagmires nearly every modern 
 writer who has followed them ^ But it must suffice 
 
 tells of some battles and some proposals for a treaty with 'Amr, who 
 was to marry the Emperor's daughter and become a Christian I 
 And all this is said to have happened before Heraclius quitted 
 Syria, i. e. before September, 636, when the invasion of Egypt had 
 not been even thought of. 
 
 ' It alleges that when the Muslims appeared, Heraclius withdrew 
 all the Roman troops from Egypt up to Syene, and paid tribute for 
 ten years to the Muslims until all his treasure was exhausted. It 
 would be difficult to say what period of ten years is intended : but 
 the statement probably refers to events in Syria. If it means that 
 Heraclius paid tribute for Egypt, it can only be described as utterly 
 unfounded. It is curious to find the Cairo MS. of Severus giving 
 almost the same story in the same words, with this exception, that 
 it makes the period eight years instead often. In the British Museum 
 MS. the passage has become childish nonsense. But it is clear that 
 the Coptic writer of the Chronicon Orientale had Severus before 
 him. Severus must have borrowed from Greek sources this story 
 of tribute, but he never troubled to reconcile it with his narrative 
 of the Arab invasion and the persecution of Cyrus. This legend 
 about tribute is quite unknown to the Muslim historians. 
 
 ^ Perhaps the best example of this misleading is seen in Lebeau 
 {Histoire du Bas Empire), who from p. 272 in vol. xi becomes totally 
 unreliable. He actually places the incidents connected with Manuel 
 before the invasion of 'Amr. Drapeyron is equally deceived 
 {JJ Empereur H&aclius, p. 396) ; and so are the Enghsh historians 
 from Gibbon to Bury. The latter follows Lebeau about Manuel 
 {Later Roman Empire, vol. ii. p. 269, n. 3). Mr. Milne also, in 
 Egypt under Roman Rule (p. 115), alleges that the Arabs were at 
 first bought off by subsidies, quoting Paulus Diaconus, xviii. 579. 
 But Paul's authority is quite worthless. His story here is a mere 
 transcript of Theophanes, who, as I have shown, is most inaccurate 
 in all that concerns the Saracen conquest. What hitherto has 
 passed for history on the subject of 'Amr's invasion maybe seen 
 summarized in an article in the Asiatic Quarterly Review by an 
 
opening of the Campaign 209 
 
 here to say that there is not a word of truth in the 
 story of tribute paid to stave off the conquest of 
 Egypt. There is no whisper or hint of any such 
 arrangement in any single Oriental writer — Persian, 
 Arabic, Syriac, or Coptic — with the exception of the 
 passage in Severus copied by the Chronicon Orientale. 
 The idea is a mere blunder of the Greek historians, 
 a distorted image of a totally different and much 
 later transaction, as will be set forth in due order. 
 It was needful at the outset to sweep aside this 
 misconception ; but the way is now clear to follow 
 'Amr on his march through the desert. 
 
 From the valley of 'Arlsh with its groves of palm 
 the road passed nearly due westward, but away from 
 the coast, through a waste of desert, relieved by 
 occasional watering-places and villages. It was the 
 immemorial high-road to Egypt — the road which 
 had witnessed the passage of the first prehistoric 
 settlers in Egypt, the passage of Abraham, of Jacob 
 and Joseph, of Cambyses, Alexander, and Cleopatra \ 
 of the Holy Family, and lately of the Persian 
 
 Oriental writer of some ability, S. Khuda Bukhsh (July, 1901). He 
 writes thus : ' 'Amr was not received as an enemy but hailed as 
 a deliverer. The Patriarch Cyrus, in concert with Mukaukas (!), 
 fondly hoped to stave off the horror of war by paying an annual 
 tribute to the Saracens, but Heraclius rejected the proposal and 
 sent Manuel to defend the province,' &c. There is hardly a word 
 of truth in all this. The same must be said of Ockley's account of 
 the Saracen conquest, which is probably responsible for most of the 
 erroneous versions current in modern histories. To what strange 
 developments these false views about Cyrus and false stories about 
 tribute can lead in the hands of an imaginative writer is shown by 
 Drapeyron, who makes Cyrus a 'rus^ Syrien,' who stopped the 
 invasion at the Isthmus of Suez by a tribute of 200,000 gold pieces, 
 part of which he raised on the credit of the Mukaukas ! {JJEmpereur 
 Heraclius, p. 396). 
 
 ' John of Nikiou, p. 407. 
 
2IO The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 invaders. It was the road of merchants, travellers, 
 and pilgrims at all times, and of the many caravans 
 which here linked Asia to Africa. A few miles 
 before reaching Pelusium the way trends north-west- 
 wards, plunging among dunes or moving sandhills ; 
 but no Roman soldiers were met by the Arabs till 
 they came within sight of the city. 
 
 Pelusium, the Coptic Peremoun and the Arabic 
 Al Faramcl, seems to have stood on an eminence 
 about a mile and a half from the sea ; it possessed 
 a harbour, possibly connected with the town by 
 a canal, and the Pelusiac arm of the Nile here 
 joined the sea. The city was ancient and strongly 
 fortified, full of old Egyptian monuments, as well 
 as churches and monasteries ^ ; and as the key of 
 Egypt on the eastern side, it was a place of 
 the greatest importance, commanding the desert 
 approaches, the coast, and a waterway leading into 
 the Delta. Yet it seems to have been poorly 
 defended. The Persians, who were practised in the 
 art of siege warfare, had captured it with very little 
 fighting, and they probably had made havoc with 
 its walls, wrecking them in parts, as they wrecked 
 the churches. Still the Romans had warning enough, 
 and might easily have repaired the damage. 
 
 But the Arabs under 'Amr had no engineering 
 skill or resources, and they had to capture the city 
 by storm or starvation. We do not know the 
 
 ^ See Abfi Sdlih, p. 167, and my note there. It may be added that 
 the tomb of Galen, the physician, was shown at Pelusium according 
 to Istakhrt (Bibl. Geog. Arab., ed. de Goeje, pt. i. p. 53). At 
 present the site of Pelusium is marked by red mounds which may 
 be seen in the distance from the Suez Canal. There are some 
 remains of buildings said to be Roman, but it is greatly to be 
 hoped that the site may be explored scientifically. 
 
Map Z. 
 
 1 fcLCa po^e 2C0. 
 
 aai 
 
 32-30' 
 
 Map of the Country 
 
 FROM 
 
 AmSH TO TiNNts 
 
 ^tyy-sl-i I I ' ' 
 
 ZO 2S 
 
 TiirUHc Moutft, 
 
 ^liusz,€U> Mbizlfi' 
 
 
 ^B # 
 
 33° 
 
 
 
 -Ofa//r 
 
 3S30' 
 
 31v« 
 
 BTi-a/'A/bcf 
 
 - — " OuAJbat e/ Bura/gh 
 
 31 
 
 "SO' 
 
 33 30- 
 
 X>cLrhi^'AiTe &. ^tan/arif Jjtd. 
 
 Oxford. 
 
opening of the Campaign 211 
 
 numbers of the garrison : but it is clear that the 
 Saracen force was too weak to beleaguer the place, 
 and there were frequent sallies. Desultory fighting 
 lasted a month — or two months according to one 
 authority^ — till at last one of the gates was seized 
 in the repulse of a sally, and the city was taken. 
 The first Arab to force his way through the gate 
 was called Asmaika' ibn Wa'lah as Sabii" ^. Makrlzi 
 and Abti '1 Mahisin (who copied from him) mention 
 a report that the Copts aided the Arabs at the siege, 
 but it is certainly baseless. It seems a mere revival 
 of the old falsehood which charged the Copts with 
 aiding the Persians. It occurs, I believe, in no 
 writer before the fourteenth century, and it seems 
 refuted by the story of the capture which I have 
 given. It is also inconsistent with the fact that the 
 Arabs not only burnt the shipping and dismantled 
 the fortress^, but also, like the Persians, destroyed the 
 remnant of the churches in Pelusium*. Finally, the 
 charge is in direct antagonism to the statement of 
 the nearly contemporary John of Nikiou ^, who says 
 that the Copts did not lend any aid to the Muslim 
 forces until after the enemy had taken possession 
 of Fayiim and all its territory. What point of time 
 this denotes is doubtful : it is certain that it was 
 
 ^ Yakfit says two months; Eutychius, Makrlzt, and others one 
 month. 
 
 2 Al Kindt, quoted by SuyMt. 
 
 = Severus, Brit. Mus. MS., p. 105. It was rebuilt later, and was 
 not finally demolished until Baldwin I utterly destroyed it before 
 his retreat in 1515-6 a.d. 
 
 * Abfi Saiih, p. 168. 
 
 6 p. 559. Weil, who adopts and exaggerates this story against 
 the Copts in his Geschichte der Chalifen, had not seen John's 
 chronicle. He is in any case rather a compiler than a student or 
 critic of this period. 
 
 P 2 
 
312 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 subsequent to the capture of Babylon, and that the 
 aid then given was very partial and limited. 
 
 By the reduction of Faram4 the Arab forces had 
 now secured their only line of communication, and of 
 retreat in case of disaster. They had also formed 
 some measure of the gigantic task which lay before 
 them, if they were ever to capture the far more 
 powerful fortress of Babylon and the mighty city of 
 Alexandria. 'Amr must have realized that without 
 the promised reinforcements he was doomed to 
 failure ; and he knew that reinforcements could 
 come by Farami alone ^. He could spare no troops 
 to hold the town, and he was therefore more than 
 justified in razing its defences, and making it useless 
 to the enemy, if recaptured. What the Romans 
 were about meanwhile, it is difficult to conjecture. 
 Cyrus must have known that it was merely a question 
 of time, when the Muslim forces overrunning Syria 
 
 ^ This consideration quite refutes Ibn Khaldiin's extraordinary 
 statement that ' The Arabs besieged 'Ain Shams (Heliopolis) and 
 sent Abrahah ibn as SaMh to besiege Farami, and Anf ibn 
 Milik ft) besiege Alexandria' ! {Kitdb al 'abar wa Diwdn al mubtadi 
 wal Khobar ft aiyam al'Arab, &c., supplement to pt. ii. p. 114). 
 But Ibn Khaldiin's story is utterly discredited ; for example, he 
 makes Bab-al-Y<ln the first point attacked, and from that 'Amr 
 marches through the Delta to Misr I He thus confuses Pelusium 
 with Babylon. Finally he makes 'Ain Shams the scene of a long 
 siege, thus confusing that place also with Babylon. He has clearly 
 copied or corrected various MSS. without the smallest under- 
 standing either of their history or] of their geography. It is Ibn al 
 Athir who also says, ' The first place captured was Bab-al-Yfln, and 
 the next march was to Misr ' (ed. C. J. Tornberg, vol. ii. p. 440). 
 I may add that Makrizl quotes Saif ibn 'Umar as the authority for 
 the dispatch of a force from 'Ain Shams to Alexandria ; but such 
 a march would have been almost a physical impossibility, and, from 
 a military point of view, it would, even if possible, have been an 
 act of sheer madness. 
 
opening of the Campaign 213 
 
 would turn their arms against Egypt, The event 
 was bound to come. Common prudence would have 
 established posts of observation along the desert, at 
 least as far out as 'Arlsh, to give timely warning; 
 and would have prepared an army to concentrate on 
 Pelusium. Had the Romans sent only 10,000 men 
 to harass 'Amr's line of march, or had they mustered 
 such an army under the fortress, they could scarcely 
 have failed to rout and crush the little force of 
 Arabs, although even that result might not have 
 deferred for long the fate of Egypt. Instead of 
 that, they did nothing. They trusted to the normal 
 garrison to defend the town ; and though they were 
 in a sense surprised by the sudden advance of the 
 Arabs, yet during the month of siege they sent no 
 troops to its relief or rescue. Their tame and 
 needless loss of Pelusium was their first great 
 blunder in the war ; is it possible that one may call 
 it the first act in the great betrayal of the Empire 
 by Cyrus ? Had he already formed in his mind the 
 plan for rendering the patriarchate of Alexandria 
 independent of Constantinople by an alliance with 
 the Arabs against the Empire ? On no other theory 
 does it seem possible to explain his action, at least 
 in its later developments. 
 
 It was now past the middle of January, 640 a. d., 
 which year nearly coincided with the Muslim a.h. 
 19*, when 'Amr resumed his march. His losses 
 in the recent fighting were more than made good 
 by a number of Beduins who, scenting war and 
 plunder, had flocked to his standard ^. From the 
 
 ' A. H. 19 began on January 2, 640, and ended with December 20, 
 640. 
 
 * MakrJzi says that at Jabal al Jalal the tribe of Rashidah and 
 some of the tribes of Lakhm joined 'Amr. In the previous century, 
 
214 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 salt-encrusted country round Pelusium he passed 
 over a stretch of white shell-strewn sand, till he 
 reached the ancient Migdol ^ to the south-west, thence 
 to the point now known as Al Kantarah on the Suez 
 Canal. Here the desert changes to a hard and 
 pebbly surface, while its monotony is relieved by a 
 few green patches of vegetation and reedy brackish 
 lagoons. The Arabs kept to the desert, and probably 
 made for Salahlah. Most ancient conquerors of 
 Egypt, like Cambyses, took a different route, striking 
 nearly due west from Pelusium to Synhfir and Tanis, 
 and thence up through the Delta to Bubastis ^ : but 
 by this time the swamps round Lake Manzilah had 
 spread so as to render that route more difficult. 
 Besides, 'Amr's army were all mounted, and had no 
 means of bridging canals or rivers. Moving then 
 from Salahlah or Kassassin nearly due south, 'Amr 
 crossed the hills ^ of the Wadl Tumilit near the 
 
 c. 565 A.D , Antoninus Martyr, who passed this way from his visit to 
 the Holy Places, speaks of a great Saracen idol and festival as held 
 on Mount Horeb, and of predatory Beduins as roaming the desert 
 near ' Phara,' which may be the same as FaramS or Pelusium 
 (Palestine Pilgrims Text Society, vol. ii. pp. 30-33). The Lakhm, 
 however, were not Arabs : see Ibn Dukmdk, part iv. p. 5. 
 
 ' Jacques de Vitry seems to mention Migdol when he says, 
 ' Beyond Pharamia (Al FaramS) comes another ancient city, which 
 stands in the wilderness near the sea-shore ' : but he is very con- 
 fused, for he continues, ' and next to it is the city of Belbeis, which 
 is called Pelusium and is five stadia from the sea-shore ' (Palestine 
 Pilgrims Text Society, vol. xi. p. 14). 
 
 ^ John of Nikiou, p. 392. The present Arabic names of these 
 towns are Sanhur, SSn, and Tall Bastah or Zagazig. 
 
 ' This expression comes from Severus (Brit. Mus. MS.,p. 105), and 
 it is adopted by Abfi §Slih (p. 71). I do not see what other hills 
 could be meant than those of the Wadt TumilSt. The Cairo MS. 
 says that they ' took the hills ' (jabal), which may mean merely 
 ' kept to the desert.' 
 
opening of the Campaign 215 
 
 place now known for the battle of Tall al Kablr ; 
 and when once he was clear of the Widi, there 
 remained but a short and easy march between him 
 and Bilbais. 
 
 Here, however, the Roman forces began to show 
 some resistance. Their scouts had watched the 
 progress of the Arabs across the desert, but there 
 had been no fighting beyond some trifling skirmishes. 
 The story that two bishops, called Abli Maryam and 
 Abft Marydm (or Abti Martam), were sent by the 
 Mukaukas to parley with the Arabs, is somewhat 
 legendary ^ No bishops of such name ever existed, 
 and the incident may be a myth which has arisen 
 from the boundless confusion caused in the minds 
 of Arab historians by the perusal of documents in 
 which matters of legend and history are hopelessly 
 intermingled, while the text has been corrupted at 
 the hand of careless copyists. Yet there is reason 
 to think that some sort of deputation headed by 
 a bishop did parley with 'Amr at this time. Tabarl 
 even relates that ' Amr urged the Copts to assist the 
 Muslim forces on the ground of the kinship subsist- 
 ing between Copts and Arabs through Hagar. The 
 Copts, however, argued that this relationship was 
 somewhat shadowy, whereupon 'Amr granted them 
 four days to consider the matter. But the Roman 
 general had no need to ponder arguments of this 
 kind. ArtabUn, as he is called by Arab writers, or 
 Aretion as he should be called, was probably the 
 same person as the Roman governor of Jerusalem ^, 
 
 ' Ibn al Athir seems responsible for this story, which I have 
 examined and refuted in the Appendix, ' On the Identity of the 
 Mukaukas.' 
 
 * See ante, p. 195. The corruption of (jj«lsi,l into i^j'^j\ is 
 obvious : Abu '1 Mahasin gives the correct form. 
 
2i6 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 who, as we have seen, fled to Egypt when the city 
 was about to surrender to Omar. As general of the 
 Roman troops he decided to force a battle, and on 
 the second day after the parley he surprised the 
 Arab camp by a fierce onslaught at night. But 
 the result was disastrous, and his force was cut to 
 pieces \ Still the town of Bilbais was strong enough 
 to detain 'Amr for a full month, during which frequent 
 encounters took place, and its capture caused some 
 loss to the invaders. On the other hand, the Romans 
 are said to have lost i,ooo in killed and 3,000 
 prisoners ^. 
 
 'Amr was now but one day's march from the head 
 of the Delta. He passed by Heliopolis, and still 
 skirting the cultivated land, aimed for a point on 
 the Nile called Umm Dlinain, which lay to the 
 north of Babylon, in what is now the heart of 
 
 • Ibn Khaldfln. 
 
 ' So much may be believed of the entertaining legend about 
 Armanfisah, daughter of Al Mukaukas, told by Wakidt. He 
 relates that she was on her way to Caesarea to marry Constantine, 
 son of Heraclius, when, learning that Caesarea was besieged by 
 the Arabs, she returned to Egypt with all her servants and treasures, 
 and reached Bilbais, only to be besieged by 'Amr's forces. 'Amr 
 is said to have treated her with chivalrous regard, and to have 
 restored her with all her jewels to her father. I need not waste 
 time in dissecting this legend : the fact that Al Mukaukas was 
 Patriarch of Alexandria would alone be decisive in disproving it. 
 The story is given by Quatrem^re {Mem. Hist, et G/og. t. i. 
 p. 53), and upon it is based the historical novel Armenosa 
 of Egypt by the Very Rev. C. H. Butcher, D.D. It is worth 
 adding that ' Armanfisah ' is given as the old name of Armant 
 by Abfl §ilih (p. 279). Ibn 'Abd al Hakam with similar un- 
 reality speaks of the wife of Al Mukaukas, and tells a story 
 about a vineyard which she owned and flooded, so that Lake 
 Mareotis was formed. It is a pity that these myths, which are 
 often inspired by the fancy of the Arabian Nights, must be 
 banished from the domain of history. 
 
opening of the Campaign 217 
 
 Cairo ^. But the Roman troops were at length more 
 alert, and were not prepared to allow the seizure of 
 this fortified position, with its harbour and shipping, 
 which were both of great strategical value. The 
 commander-in-chief of all the Roman forces in Egypt 
 at this time was Theodore, a dilatory and incom- 
 petent general, who had only just discovered that he 
 had something more than a raid of Beduins to deal 
 with. Cyrus, the Mukaukas, the Viceroy of Egypt 
 and imperial Patriarch of Alexandria, seems now to 
 have hurried up with Theodore to the fortress of 
 Babylon, where enough troops were assembled to put 
 in the field against the Arabs. Umm Diinain itself 
 was strongly held, and the main force of the Romans, 
 
 ' There is, I think, no doubt that this place, called by the Arabs 
 Umm Diinain, is the same as that called by John of Nikiou 
 Tendunias. If the initial letter, which doubtless represents the 
 Coptic feminine article, is removed, the resemblance between the 
 two names is close enough. Zotenberg (p. 557, n. 2) is mistaken 
 in putting Tendunias to the south of the fortress of Babylon. The 
 course of the narrative makes this improbable : but further Umm 
 Dflnain is expressly identified by Yakfit and MakrJzi with a place 
 which they call Al Maks, situated on the west bank of the canal 
 (i. e. Trajan's canal) and on the river Nile. Makrtzi adds that at 
 the time of the conquest it formed the harbour for Misr. Now 
 it is well known that the original Al Maks occupied what is now 
 the Esbeklah Garden of Cairo. The Nile, which passed under the 
 walls of Babylon and Dair Abd 's Saifain, ran considerably to the 
 east of the present channel, and after rounding Al Kabsh the stream 
 passed north to the position indicated. Here then, near the 
 Esbekiah, must be placed the Roman fort of Tendunias, with the 
 harbour and docks of Misr, and this is the scene of the fighting. 
 The name Tendunias probably is derived from the Coptic 
 T*.nTO)i««.c, as M. Casanova suggests, and the Arabic is a mere 
 echo of the sound without meaning. That the Nile should have so 
 far shifted its course in twelve centuries is not surprising; and Ibn 
 Dukmak leaves no doubt on the subject. See also Prof. Lane- 
 Poole's Cairo, plan on p. 256. 
 
2i8 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 secure behind the massive walls of their fortress, 
 could choose their own moment for attack and for 
 retreat. Several weeks accordingly passed in a 
 series of indecisive engagements, which hurt the 
 Romans little, but wore down slowly the numbers of 
 the Muslims, already perilously weak for the enter- 
 prise on which they had ventured. 
 
 Indeed 'Amr was now in a somewhat serious 
 predicament. He had reconnoitred the country 
 round, and found that he could not hope with his 
 present forces either to invest or to storm the castle 
 of Babylon, nor even to seize the city of Misr, which 
 adjoined and nearly surrounded it. The recent 
 battles had not been so uniformly in favour of the 
 Muslims as their enthusiasm and their fighting powers 
 had led them to anticipate. It was known that Omar 
 had promised to forward reinforcements, and 'Amr 
 now sent urgent dispatches to press for their arrival. 
 But there was no sign of their coming. Every day's 
 delay was now a gain to the enemy, and it seemed 
 that the issue of the war hung in the balance: 
 either scale might prove the scale of victory ^. But 
 though the position was critical, it was not in the 
 nature of the Saracen general to despair or to think 
 of retreat. Recognizing, however, the fact that his 
 main objective, the capture of Babylon, was for the 
 moment out of reach, 'Amr resolved on a diversion 
 of singular boldness. His project was nothing less 
 than to make a dash for the Fay<im, a rich province 
 some fifty miles further south, but on the opposite or 
 western bank of the Nile. For this purpose the 
 
 ^ The Arab writers admit this. Makrizt says that at Umm 
 Dfinain ' there was much fighting, and victory delayed,' while Abft 
 '1 Mahisin's words are even stronger — ' there was much fighting, 
 and it was now doubtful which side would have the victory.' 
 
opening of the Campaign 219 
 
 undisputed possession of Umm Dunain was essential, 
 at least for a time ; and he resolved to achieve it at 
 all costs. How the place was carried is not known, 
 but the demand which 'Amr made on the endurance 
 of his men is shown by an anecdote of this period. 
 He was speaking sternly to some of them, in whom 
 he had noticed a failure of strength or of heart, 
 when a trooper murmured, ' We are not made of 
 iron ! ' ' Silence, you dog ! ' roared the commander. 
 ' If I am a dog,' rejoined the trooper, ' you are a 
 leader of dogs ' — a remark which turned the laugh 
 against 'Amr, and which seems to have gone un- 
 punished. But the task was accomplished, and the 
 capture of Umm Ddnain established 'Amr's force 
 on the Nile banks, and enabled him to seize boats 
 enough to transport his diminished army across 
 the river \ 
 
 ^ The Chronicle of John of Nikiou, our most important authority, 
 ■which is a total blank as regards the earlier part of the invasion, 
 now begins to deal with the movements of the Arabs. The blank 
 most unfortunately covers the whole reign of Heraclius from his 
 accession to this point. It is most lamentable that all the leaves 
 with John's account of the Persian wars, of the Persian occupation 
 of Egypt, and of the ten years' persecution, have been entirely lost, 
 while those that remain are in the most puzzling disorder. It is 
 certain that some chapters are entirely out of place in the text : it 
 is equally certain that whole sentences are out of place in some 
 chapters : while repetitions and omissions make confusion worse 
 confounded. But there seems no doubt that this raid into the 
 Fayfim took place at the time and in the order I have given. It is 
 not mentioned, I believe, by any Arab historian. Indeed Suyfltl, 
 who appears to be quoting Ibn 'Abd al Hakam, says that though 
 'Amr after the capture of Misr sent troops of horsemen to the 
 towns and villages round about, yet the Fayfim remained unknown 
 to the Arabs for a year (Husn al MuMdarah, p. 85). This is in 
 direct contradiction to John's story, but there can be no hesitation 
 in preferring the seventh-century native historian. Baladhuri, who 
 wrote in the ninth century (about 150 years after John), puts the 
 
220 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 capture of the town of Heliopolis, of the Fayflm, of Ushmfinain, 
 and Upper Egypt generally after the fall of Babylon (FutHh, al 
 Bulddn, p. 217) : but as regards Heliopolis the mistake is so indis- 
 putable that it may be safely presumed with regard to the other 
 places. Ibn 'Abd al Hakam's account of the occupation of the 
 Fayflm, as cited by Makrizt, is given by Quatrembre, M^m. G^og. et 
 Hist. t. i. pp. 407 seq. 
 
CHAPTER XVI 
 
 BATTLE OF HELIOPOLIS 
 
 Amr's raid on the Fayflm. The Roman position. Capture of 
 BahnasS. John, general of militia, slain. Roman movement from 
 Nikiou to Babylon. Partial failure of the raid and retreat of 'Amr. 
 Arrival of Muslim reinforcements. Arab armies unite at Heliopolis. 
 Roman forces advance from Babylon to give battle. 'Amr's tactics. 
 Defeat of the Romans. Second capture of Tendunias and occupa- 
 tion of the Fayfim. Treatment of Roman officials. 
 
 As soon as the passage of the river was safely 
 accomplished, 'Amr's force marched southward by 
 the cultivated land to Memphis. This ancient city 
 (which has now completely disappeared) had been 
 falling into decay ever since the foundation of 
 Alexandria : but vast ruins and remains still marked 
 the site of the capital of the Pharaohs at this time, 
 and there were still a good many inhabited houses, 
 although the town of Misr, which lay mostly south 
 of Babylon on the opposite side of the Nile, had 
 become far more populous and important and had 
 even usurped the name of Memphis ^ It was here, 
 
 ^ The remains of Memphis are recorded in the tenth century by 
 Ibn al Faklh, who heard from an old man of a great palace which 
 was in one block of stone. He himself oddly remarks, ' Memphis, 
 the city of Pharaoh, has seventy gates and walls of iron and 
 copper' (^Bibl. Geog. Arab, part vi. pp. 58 and 73). Ya'kubi, 
 rather earlier, says, ' The city of Memphis is falling into ruin.' 
 The town in the region round Kasr ash Shama' was undoubtedly a 
 Pharaonic settlement. Pharaonic monuments have been found 
 there : one well-known statue stood near the southern gate of the 
 fortress, and stones with hieroglyphic inscriptions have been found 
 in the fortress walls. This town was called Misr, but Misr and 
 Menf seem sometimes interchanged. Thus 'Abd al Latlf says, 
 ' Then there are the monuments which are in Misr al Kadtmah : 
 
222 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 perhaps, from the western bank that the Saracen army 
 first had a clear view of the city of Misr and the 
 great. towers of Babylon rising from the water's edge 
 across the isle of Raudah. A nature like 'Amr's 
 may have been stirred as he surveyed the Pyramids 
 on his right, the Nile and Babylon on his left, and 
 the ruins of Memphis about him, though his troop 
 of desert warriors, as they threaded among the palm- 
 groves, recked but little of the ancient civilization or 
 of the Roman or Byzantine buildings that met their 
 gaze. 
 
 The course of their journey is far from clear. 
 The city of Piom or Faylim was held by the 
 governor Domentianus, while Theodosius the Pre- 
 fect of the province was with Anastasius, Prefect of 
 Alexandria, in the Delta not far from Nikiou. The 
 defence of the province was entrusted to John ^, 
 general of the militia or local levies, with John of 
 Metros under his orders. The points of entrance to 
 the Faylim were strongly guarded, and in particular 
 a post of observation was established by the Romans 
 
 and this city is by Al Jizah beyond Fustat, and it is the city which 
 the Pharaohs dwelt in, and which was the seat of the kingly govern- 
 ment ' (ed. J. White, p. 1 1 7). The term Misr seems to have had 
 almost a generic force : thus Al Misrain (the two cities) is used of 
 Kfifah and Bosrah by Ibn KhallikSn (ed. de Slane, vol. iv. p. 204) : 
 but in Egypt as a rule it meant the town on the eastern bank of 
 the Nile by Babylon. 
 
 ^ Zotenberg (p. 554, n. i) identifies this John with the John, 
 Duke of Barca or Barcaina, mentioned by Nicephorus. I have 
 shown that Nicephorus' story of the invasion is totally untrust- 
 worthy (p. 207 supra); still this John was a person of importance, 
 and there is every reason to think that he was directly com- 
 missioned by Heraclius. For it was doubtless the same ' general 
 of the militia ' who had brought the famous Ecthesis from Sergius 
 to Cyrus, and who with the Ecthesis brought the cross referred to 
 by John of Nikiou. See supra, p. 182, and note. 
 
Battle of HeliopoUs 223 
 
 at Hajar al LiMn ^ to keep watch over the enemy 
 and report his movements to John, who was stationed 
 on the bank of the river. A force of cavalry and 
 archers was also sent against the Arabs to arrest 
 their march. The Saracen army seem to have 
 found it impossible to break through the Roman 
 cordon, and edged off to the desert hills, capturing 
 a large quantity of cattle on the way. They 
 advanced in this way to a town called Bahnasi, 
 which they took by storm, and slaughtered all 
 before them — men, women, and children ^ 'Amr 
 now faced about suddenly, as he heard that John 
 with a small force of fifty men had been following 
 him and spying his movements, and was at some 
 distance from his supports. John, realizing his 
 danger, endeavoured by a rapid retreat to regain 
 his camp at Abtiit ^ at no great distance on the 
 bank, of the Nile. His troop marched by night, 
 
 ^ For information on this place reference may be made to 
 Drs. Grenfell and Hunt's FayUm Towns and their Papyri, p. 13 and 
 pi. xviii. Al Lahfin was on the Bahr Yflsuf, about ten miles from 
 the city of Fayflm, and it blocked the mouth of the valley dividing 
 the mountain ranges which encircled the Arsinoite nome. It was 
 a place of great strategic importance for the defence of the pro- 
 vince. See also Mas'fidt, op. cit., pp. 385-6. 
 
 ^ John of Nikiou, p. 555. The story of the massacre must be 
 believed : it was not against the laws of war at that time, and we 
 shall find other instances of the same thing. The Bahnasd here 
 meant was of course in the Fayflm district, and not the well-known 
 Bahnasa, which marks the site of the ancient Oxyrhynchus : this was 
 fifty miles further south. See Am^hneau, Giog. Copte, p. 92. 
 
 ' The position of AbiiJt is uncertain. Zotenberg identifies it 
 with the place of that name in the province of Lycopolis or Siilt, 
 but this is absolutely impossible, as that place is considerably 
 further south than Bahnasa. Am^lineau {Giog. Copte, p. 3) shows 
 that there were two places called Abflit, and the one here in 
 question must be that now in the mfidMah of Banisuaif. It lies 
 near Bflsir Kfiridus, nearly due east of Hajar al LShfln. 
 
224 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 taking cover by day in palm-groves and thickets. 
 But their hiding-place was betrayed to "Amr by 
 a Beduin chiefs They were surrounded and slain 
 to the last man. The general John and his lieutenant 
 both perished, for the Arabs took no prisoners. 
 
 When the commander-in-chief Theodore heard 
 of this disaster, he broke into loud lamentations. 
 Too late as usual, he now hurried all available 
 troops up the river to the island of Lokydn, while 
 Anastasius and Theodosius hastened from Nikiou 
 to the castle of Babylon to strengthen the garrison. 
 From Babylon, however, a further force was sent 
 under a general named Leontius to the Roman 
 camp at Abiiit. On reaching the camp, Leontius, 
 who was obese and indolent and knew nothing of 
 war, found that the Egyptian forces were already 
 in touch with the Arabs, and that Theodore, who 
 had thrown his troops into the city of Fayfim, was 
 making frequent sorties against the Arab head 
 quarters at Bahnasa. Judging that 'Amr would 
 soon be repulsed from that region, he left only 
 half of his men with Theodore, and returned with 
 the other half to report what he had seen to the 
 commanders at Babylon. 
 
 There is no doubt that the Saracens failed to 
 capture the city of Fayfim, and that they now began 
 to retire down the river northward again. Theodore 
 gave orders to search for the body of John the 
 general, which had been thrown into the Nile. 
 It was recovered at last with a net, and embalmed ; 
 then it was placed on a bier with every sign of 
 mourning, and carried down the river to Babylon, 
 
 ' Zotenberg translates 'le chef des partisans,' but Dr. Charles 
 renders ' the chief of the brigands,' by whom are doubtless meant 
 the marauding dwellers in the desert. 
 
Battle of HeliopoUs -22,^ 
 
 whence it was sent on to Heraclius^ The defeat 
 and death of John made a deep impression on the 
 Emperor, who lost no time in signifying his dis- 
 pleasure to Theodore ; and the commander-in-chief, 
 knowing that he must have been judged guilty of 
 John's death upon reports from Theodosius and 
 Anastasius, conceived a bitter enmity against those 
 officers. 
 
 But it was not mere failure which brought about 
 the retirement of the Arabs from the Faylim, Indeed 
 'Amr had probably done more than he had expected. 
 He had extricated his army from a dangerous position 
 at Tendunias, and had removed it to a place of 
 comparative safety : he had kept it employed and 
 had won several successes, if no very great victory : 
 and above all he had gained time. The long-delayed 
 reinforcements were now coming, and it was the 
 news of their arrival which caused the Muslim chief 
 to retrace his steps for the purpose of meeting them. 
 Theodore, likewise, came down the river again with 
 his troops to the fortress of Babylon, where a large 
 army had assembled from different quarters of 
 Egypt. 
 
 The expedition to the Faylim had started about 
 the beginning of May, and it had taken some weeks 
 — weeks which had been worse than wasted for the 
 Romans, while they greatly advantaged the Arabs. 
 It was probably on June 6 ^ that the second Muslim 
 
 ' This fact is a further proof that John had a direct commission 
 from the Emperor. Theodore evidently relied on John's military 
 skill, and was deeply concerned by his death. The direct evidence 
 that John was the bearer of the famous Ecthesis to Egypt, and that 
 he brought with him a cross of great sanctity from the Emperor, 
 has already been given above (p. 182, n. i). 
 
 ' I have shown in the essay on ' The Chronology of the Arab 
 
 BUTLER Q 
 
226 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 army dispatched by Omar arrived in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Heliopolis. This contingent was under 
 the command of a noted leader named Az Zubair 
 ibn al "Awwam, a kinsman and Companion of the 
 Prophet and one of the six counsellors. The 
 legion under him numbered 4,000 men, but was 
 being followed at a short distance by two other 
 columns of equal strength, so that the total reinforce- 
 ments amounted to 12,000 men^. The Nile begins 
 to rise in its deep channel about midsummer, and 
 the Romans were anxious to give battle with their 
 now united forces before the waters overflowed. 
 But they seem to have failed entirely to prevent 
 the junction of the divided Saracen army. They 
 
 Conquest,' that the Coptic tradition associates this date with the 
 appearance of the Arabs in Egypt, and that it cannot possibly 
 apply to "Amr's first arrival. It may, however, mark the arrival of 
 the reinforcing army. 
 
 ' Authorities differ about the numbers. Ibn 'Abd al Hakam 
 says 4,000; BaMdhurt says 10,000 or 12,000; YSkftt 12,000; 
 Makrizi quotes from Al Kindt a statement of Yaztd's that 'Amr's 
 fighting force amounted to 15,500 — i. e. an original force of 
 3,500 augmented by 12,000; while Suyfitt definitely says that 
 the 12,000 came in detachments — a view also noticed by MakrIzJ 
 — and he mentions one detachment, viz. that under Zubair, as con- 
 sisting of 4,000 men. This explains why some Arab writers allege 
 that the total of reinforcements was only 4,000 men. John of 
 Nikiou, curiously enough, gives the same number 4,000, and adds 
 that their commander, named Walwirya, was a barbarian, or negro. 
 The name is unrecognizable, but there was a black commander 
 named 'UbSdah in one of the contingents: and, as Zotenberg 
 remarks, 'WalwaryS' is an obvious corruption. Y^kflt makes 
 'Ubadah ibn as ?tmit, Al Mikddd ibn al Aswad, and Maslamah 
 ibn Mukhallad leaders each of 1,000 men, and Zubair the same. 
 
 There is no sort of confusion not found among Arab historians, 
 so that it is not surprising to find Makrizf deferring the arrival 
 of the reinforcements — 12,000 men under Zubair — until the time 
 when the investment of Babylon was proceeding. 
 
Battle of Heliopolis 227 
 
 possessed Babylon ; they held the command of 
 the river; and they had reoccupied the fortified 
 outpost of Umm DAnain : so that with common 
 skill and prudence they might have foiled all 'Amr's 
 efforts to recross to the eastern bank, and might 
 have crushed him while he was thus isolated. 
 
 Yet with every advantage in their favour they 
 did not prevent 'Amr from stealing or forcing the 
 passage. It seems likely that he crossed somewhat 
 lower down, to the north of Umm Diinain; for 
 Trajan's Canal had silted up from neglect, and 
 would have presented no obstacle, even had the 
 Nile already risen. 'Amr had been aware that the 
 Muslim reinforcements were marching in two columns 
 on 'Ain Shams or Heliopolis, and his position on 
 the western bank had been decidedly dangerous ^ : 
 indeed, he had been seriously alarmed lest the 
 Romans should, by barring his passage, render it 
 impossible to join forces with Zubair. But as usual 
 Theodore lost his opportunity of striking home, 
 and . "Amr's army, elated with their adventures, 
 marched into the Muslim camp at Heliopolis. 
 
 In ancient times Heliopolis had been one of the 
 most famous cities of Egypt. Its name of On ^ 
 familiar in the Mosaic narrative, was still preserved 
 as the name in common use among the Copts in the 
 
 ' John's text in chapter cxii (p. 556) is hopelessly dislocated. 
 The sentence (1. 2, 'Laissant de c6t^ les villes fortifides ils 
 s'^taient dirig^s vers une locality nomm^e Tendounyas et s'^taient 
 embarqu^s sur le fleuve,' refers to the start of the expedition to the 
 Fayflm ; the next sentence speaks of the capture of Misr ; and the 
 next of the return from the Faydm ! A critical reconstruction of 
 the text is much wanted. But 'Amr's disquiet at his position comes 
 out clearly. 
 
 ^ Champollion le Jeune has an interesting note on this place, 
 L'Egypte sous les Pharaons, t. ii. pp. 36-41. 
 
 Q 2 
 
228 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 seventh century, and that it connoted the idea of 
 ' sun-city,' expressed in the Greek form Hehopolis, 
 is not questioned : even the Arabs retained this 
 idea when they changed the name of the place 
 to 'Ain Shams, i.e. Fountain or Well of the Sun ^ 
 On had been no less famous for the splendour of 
 its monuments than for its renown as a religious 
 centre and seat of learning. When Strabo visited 
 it six hundred years before this period, although 
 wars and sieges and the changes of time had over- 
 thrown and ruined most of the temples and statues, 
 yet people still pointed out the halls in which Plato 
 had studied. But when the Arabs came, little of 
 the ancient grandeur remained beyond some broken 
 walls and half-buried sphinxes, and the solitary 
 obelisk, which stands to this day as a memorial of 
 a vanished world. 
 
 Heliopoliswas on a slight eminence and had been 
 surrounded by a rampart of great thickness, some 
 traces of which are still visible ^. Though it had 
 no great military importance at this time, yet it was 
 capable of defence ; it was well supplied with water ; 
 and it was convenient for provisioning the army. 
 For these reasons 'Amr retained it as his head 
 
 ' The modem name Matarfah seems to have prevailed over 
 'Ain Shams. The place is well known to travellers for the Virgin's 
 Tree, and the fountain by which the Holy Family rested. 
 
 ^ Although Heliopolis and On are usually identified, the recent 
 War Office map identifies 6n with Tall al Yahiidkh and Helio- 
 polis with Tall al Hassan. The ruins at Tall al Yahfidiah are on 
 an eminence girt with a crude brick wall, while at Tall al Hassan 
 there still remains on the south side a rampart twenty feet high. 
 It must have been at the latter place that 'Amr camped, as Tall 
 al YahfidJah is some twelve miles further north. The entire level 
 of the country has risen several feet since the seventh century, as is 
 proved both by the depth to which the obelisk is now sunken and 
 the depth at which other remains now lie beneath the desert plain. 
 
Battle of Heliopolis 229 
 
 quarters, while preparing for the conflict which was 
 impending. We have already seen that Theodore 
 at Babylon had been drawing troops from the Delta 
 towns : but by the time he had massed an army 
 capable of driving the Muslims out of Heliopolis, 
 it is probable that the whole of the reinforcements 
 sent by Omar had arrived, and 'Amr now found 
 himself at the head of about 1 5,000 men, including 
 some of the most renowned soldiers of I slim ^ 
 What numbers the Romans mustered can only be 
 conjectured. They had a sound estimate of the 
 enemy's valour. Earlier in the war a Copt was 
 overheard expressing astonishment that the Arabs 
 had dared to enter Egypt and array their handful 
 of men against the immense forces of the Emperor's 
 army ; to which another Copt answered that the 
 Arabs were incapable of yielding — they must either 
 prove victorious or die to the last man ^ Another 
 story is that the Romans were reluctant to fight, 
 saying, 'We have small chance against the men 
 
 ' Ibn 'Abd al Hakam, according to Abfl '1 Mahasin, gives the 
 following list of the chief companions and helpers of the Prophet 
 with the army, (i) The Companions were 'Amr and his son 
 'Abdallah; Az Zubair; 'Abdallah, son of the Caliph Omar; Sa'd 
 ibn AM Wakkas (whose presence is disputed); Kharijah ibn 
 Hudhafah; Kais ibn Abi 'I "As as Sahmf; Al Mikdad ibn al 
 Aswad ; "Abdallah ibn Sa'd ibn Abt Sarh ; Nafi' ibn 'Abd Kais al 
 Fahrl ; Abfl Rafi', the freedman of the Apostle of God ; Ibn 'Ibdah ; 
 'Abdarrahman and Rabl'ah, sons of Shurahbil ibn Hasanah ; and 
 Wardan, the freedman of 'Amr, (2) The Helpers were 'Ubadah 
 ibn as Samit; Muhammad ibn Maslamah; Abfl Aiyfib Khalid 
 ibn Yazld ; Abfl Darda 'Uwaimir ibn 'Admir, also called 'Uwaimir ibn 
 Yazid. The same writer also gives some other names of less illus- 
 trious Arabs: see An NujUm az Zdhirah ft Muluk Misr wal 
 J^dhirah, ed. Juynboll et Matthes (Lugd. Bat. 1885-61), vol. i. 
 p. 22. 
 
 ^ Abfl '1 Mahtsin, p. 8. 
 
230 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 who have conquered Chosroes and Caesar in Syria.' 
 But these stories are from Arab sources, and the 
 latter is certainly doubtful. It is incontestable, 
 however, that the Romans had a vast superiority 
 in numbers, and their forces now available for 
 battle — apart from fortress garrisons — were not less 
 than 20,000. 
 
 It was evidently 'Amr's policy to draw the Roman 
 army into the open plain away from Babylon ; and 
 when Theodore felt himself strong enough to take 
 the offensive, his force moved out towards Heliopolis 
 — a distance of six or seven miles from his camp. 
 Theodosius and Anastasius were in command of the 
 cavalry, but the bulk of the Roman army were foot 
 soldiers — spearmen and archers. 'Amr's spies had 
 given him warning in good time of the enemy's 
 intentions, and he had disposed his forces in position. 
 He himself with the main body of the Arabs would 
 advance from Heliopolis to meet the Romans : but 
 under cover of night he detached two other bodies 
 of troops, placing one not far from Umm Ddnain 
 and the other under Khdrijah at a point further 
 east — probably in the fold of the hills \ close to 
 what is now the citadel of Cairo. The line of the 
 Roman advance thus lay between the two detached 
 corps of Arabs, which had orders to fall on the 
 flank and rear of the enemy when the right oppor- 
 tunity offered^- It was early morning when the 
 
 ' This is probably the incident mentioned in a wrong connexion 
 by Makrtzi, where he says that 'Amr sent 500 horsemen under 
 command of Kharijah that they might hide and fall on the enemy 
 as they came out from among the monasteries. ' They went off by 
 night and entered the caves of Ban<i Wail before morning.' Early 
 after dawn when the battle began, they surprised the Romans by 
 falling on their rear and completed their discomfiture. 
 
 " Zotenberg finds it difiBcult to understand the battle in view of 
 
Battle of Heliopolis 231 
 
 Roman forces emerged from the gardens and 
 monasteries which covered the ground north-east- 
 ward of the fortress, and deployed in the open\ 
 
 the distances between the places mentioned. He errs in putting 
 Tendunias (Umm DClnain) to the south of Babylon instead of to 
 the north. John of Nikiou doubtless regarded it as more north- 
 west, and so he calb the other point in contrast north of Babylon : 
 but apart from other objections, "Amr's plan of battle is reduced to 
 absurdity by placing one of his detachments south of Babylon, one 
 north, and the main army at Heliopolis. Besides, the way to the 
 south was entirely blocked by the Roman fortress and camp. By 
 supposing that 'Amr advanced to meet the Roman army, instead of 
 waiting at his base, one gets rid of the difficulty about distance. 
 Moreover, Zotenberg forgets that the Nile flowed much further 
 east than at present. Place one Arab detachment near the Esbekiah 
 (Umm Dflnain) and the other near the Citadel or the Red Mountain, 
 and the course of the battle is clear enough. One more remark. 
 The ancient Heliopolis covered a far larger area than can now be 
 easily imagined. This is clear not merely from remains discovered, 
 but from the express testimony of Ibn Dukmdk, who says : ' The 
 city of 'Ain Shams in ancient times was of great width and length 
 and contiguous to ancient Misr on the site of the present Al 
 FustSt ' (pt. V. p. 43). This must mean, I think, that there was 
 very little interval between the outskirts of the two towns, though 
 these outskirts consisted only of scattered houses and churches. 
 
 ^ My account of the battle of "Ain Shams will appear to be 
 totally at variance with that given by Tabari (ed. Zotenberg, vol. iii. 
 p. 463). For Tabari alleges that (i) the battle took place after the 
 capture of Babylon : (2) Al Mukaukas with the Coptic army was 
 in possession of 'Ain Shams intending to march on Misr: {3) 
 'Amr's army advanced up to the very gates of 'Ain Shams: (4) The 
 Coptic army was broken at the first shock, losing a great number 
 of killed and prisoners : (5) much booty was taken, and the 
 prisoners were sent to Medina. . It may seem presumptuous to 
 reject so circumstantial an account; but quite apart from the 
 necessity of preferring John of Nikiou's nearly contemporary 
 evidence, it is quite clear that Tabari is making a geographical 
 blunder. His story of the battle is doubtless true, but it was not 
 the battle of 'Ain Shams. This is proved (i) by the order of 
 events ; this battle cannot conceivably come after the capture of 
 Misr, while other battles can and did: and {2) by the fact that 
 
232 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 They were in complete ignorance of 'Amr's stratagem, 
 but they knew that his main army was marching 
 from Heliopolis to meet them. The encounter 
 probably took place about half way between the 
 two camps, somewhere in the region now called 
 'Abbasiah. Both sides knew that on that field 
 the fate of Egypt would be decided ; and both 
 fought with obstinate courage. But while the 
 struggle was at its fiercest, the Arab detachment 
 
 Tabart himself virtually admits the blunder in describing 'Ain 
 Shams as ' a considerable town in the country of the Copts and 
 situated towards the west'. This could only mean either west of 
 the Nile, or west of the Delta : but 'Ain Shams cannot possibly be 
 described as either. The reference, however, is perhaps to one of 
 the battles fought between Babylon and Alexandria, of which more 
 anon : for these were fought in the west. 
 
 This mistake of Tabart (who as a foreigner was ill acquainted 
 with Egyptian geography) has been a fruitful source of error to 
 Arab writers like Ibn al Athir, Ibn Khaldfin, &c. It is one more 
 example of those confusions and perplexities which every historian 
 of this period finds even in the best authorities, and has to unravel 
 by the slow labour of criticism and comparison. But I think that 
 there is a simple and certain explanation of this confusion, which 
 reappears in other Arab writers. When Ibn al Athtr says the 
 Arab leaders besieged 'Ain Shams, and makes Zubair mount the 
 walls of "Ain Shams (as we shall see that he mounted the walls of 
 Kasr ash Shama'), we have the same confusion. Its origin lies in 
 the name Babylon. This the Arabs, or some of them, took to 
 mean Bdb-al-6n, i. e. gate of On, or gate of Heliopolis, and 'Ain 
 Shams is the Arabic name /or Heliopolis. Hence the two places 
 are confounded : for while Baladhuri clearly says that FustSt at 
 the time of the conquest was called Ayfin, later writers read this 
 as AlFi2n and then took it to mean On, i. e. 'Ain Shams. Naturally, 
 then, a siege of 'Ain Shams is constructed upon the error, and 
 incidents are transferred to it from Babylon. 
 
 This solution has not, I think, been given before, but it explains 
 many difficulties in the Arab writers. The forms Bab-al-Yfln, 
 City of Liiln, Kasr-al-Yfln, BSb-al-Lflk, Luniah, and Ayfln all 
 express in various ways the one misunderstanding of the Roman 
 word Babylon. 
 
Battle of Heliopolis 233 
 
 under Kh^rijah issued from the hills, and fell like 
 a whirlwind on the rear of the Romans, Caught 
 thus between two forces they fell into disorder, and 
 moving somewhat to their left towards Umm D(inain 
 were met and charged by what seemed a third Arab 
 army. Disorder now turned into disaster, and in 
 headlong flight they strove to escape the flashing 
 scimitars of the Arabs. Some few got back to 
 the fortress by land : many others, pressing towards 
 the river, seized boats and sailed back to Babylon : 
 but great numbers perished. The victorious Arabs 
 took possession of Umm Dtinain a second time. 
 Of its Roman garrison all but 300 men had 
 perished in the fight. These survivors retreated to 
 the fortress of Babylon and shut the gates : but 
 when they heard of the terrible slaughter which 
 the Romans had suffered, they lost heart and fled 
 down the river by boat to Nikiou. 
 
 Even tradition is silent as regards the losses on 
 either side. But it is known that the commander- 
 in-chief, Theodore, and the two governors, Theo- 
 dosius and Anastasius, were not among the slain. 
 Enough Roman troops too were left to form, with 
 those who had held the fortress during the battle, 
 an effective garrison. But the advantages of the 
 victory to the Arabs were enormous. The town 
 of Misr, which had been hitherto protected by the 
 Roman army at Babylon, was now at their mercy, 
 and it was captured without further fighting ^ They 
 were now masters of the whole river-bank, above 
 
 ' The heading of c. cxv in John's Chronicle reads, ' Comment 
 les Musulmans s'emparerent de Misr dans la quatorziferae ann^e 
 du cycle lunaire,' but there is nothing about the capture in the text. 
 It is but one proof among a hundred of the utterly defective and 
 dislocated state of the text. 
 
234 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 and below the fortress, and moving up their camp 
 from Heliopolis, they pitched it north and east of the 
 fortress in the region of the gardens and churches — 
 the region known in subsequent history as Fustit. 
 Their forces too were now both sufficient to be- 
 leaguer Babylon and free to concert measures for 
 its investment. The Roman army was swept away 
 as a fighting force, and any remnant which escaped 
 was either shut up within . the fortress walls or 
 scattered through the Delta in panic. Moreover 
 the news of the Arab victory at once cleared the 
 city of Faydm of its defenders. For Domentianus, 
 on learning the result of the battle, evacuated the 
 city by night, and marched the garrison to Abtait : 
 there they hastily embarked and fled down the 
 river to Nikiou, without even telling the people of 
 Ablalt that they were abandoning the Faytim to the 
 enemy. As soon, however, as the flight of Domen- 
 tianus was reported to 'Amr, he flung a body of 
 troops across the Nile; the towns of Faylam and 
 Abult were captured amid scenes of ruthless massacre ; 
 and the whole province was brought under Muslim 
 dominion. 
 
 When the last sparks of resistance had thus been 
 quenched in the Fayflm, 'Amr directed the troops 
 there to concentrate at the town of Dal^s^ as the 
 most convenient place of embarkation. The com- 
 mand of the river had for the moment passed to 
 the victors — not the least result of the battle. The 
 Romans still held the fortified island of Raudah in 
 close connexion with Babylon, maintaining com- 
 munication by boat between the two strongholds : 
 
 ' Dalis, the Coptic Tiloj, the Greek Nilopolis, was on the 
 western bank of the river, south of Memphis, and east of Fayfim 
 city. See Amdiineau, Giog. Copie, p. 136. 
 
Battle of Heliopolis 235 
 
 and for a while longer the navigation of the river 
 remained more or less open, because the Arabs 
 were as yet no sailors, and they were busy with 
 further conquest by land. For 'Amr now recalled 
 the various troops of horsemen ^, which had scoured 
 the country after the battle of Heliopolis; and he 
 ordered Apa Cyrus ^ of DaMs to supply Nile boats 
 for the transport of the force in the Faylam from 
 the western to the eastern bank. His intention 
 was to subjugate the whole province of Misr, which 
 extended over the apex of the Delta. 
 
 The battle of Heliopolis was probably fought 
 about the middle of July, 640 a.d. Not less than 
 a fortnight was spent in taking possession of the 
 Fayiim, so that we are brought to the beginning of 
 August for the expedition to the Delta. 'Amr 
 wished to strike a blow there before the rise of the 
 Nile made it impossible. George, the Prefect of 
 the province of Misr, had either been captured 
 when the town was taken or had sent in his sub- 
 
 ' Ibn 'Abd al Hakam (quoted by Suyflti) says that ' after the 
 completion of the conquest of Misr (i.e. the town), 'Amr sent troops 
 of horsemen to the towns and villages round about.' John of 
 Nikiou says of the same time, ' II rdunissait aupr^s de lui toutes 
 ses troupes pour ex^cuter de nombreuses expeditions' — a clear 
 agreement. 
 
 ^ This is the AbdMri in John of Nikiou, p. 559. Zotenberg, 
 puzzled by the word, remarks, ' II n'est pas certain que ce mot soit 
 un nom propre.' But all shadow of doubt is removed by documents 
 in Karabacek's Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer: Fuhrer durch dieAus- 
 siellung. No. 551 is a letter from the well-known Kharijah 
 (p. 230 supra) to Apa Cyrus, pagarch of Heracleopolis Magna, and 
 no. 558, written in Greek and Arabic and dated April 25, 643, is 
 from 'Abdallah ibn Jabir to Christophorus and Theodorakius, sons 
 of the same Apa Cyrus. This latter is the earliest document of 
 Islim in Egypt, if not in the world. No. 554 gives the same name 
 again. 
 
236 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 mission. Indeed the terror of the Arabs' name 
 now secured all the country within reach of their 
 sword, save only the fortified places. 
 
 But the Delta was covered with waterways, some 
 of which were unfordable : and George was ordered 
 at once to have a bridge built over the canal at 
 Kalitib. ' And,' says John of Nikiou, ' people began 
 to help the Muslims^.' It is unfortunate that the 
 bishop's language is not more explicit ; but, taken 
 in connexion with the context and with subsequent 
 passages, this remark seems to prove nothing except 
 that service was requisitioned from the country folk. 
 It was, in other words, forced, not voluntary. Indeed 
 this very passage makes that meaning clear. For 
 after recording that the Arabs captured the important 
 towns of Athrlb and Manuf with all their territory, 
 and subjugated the whole province of Misr, the 
 writer continues, ' Not content with that, 'Amr had 
 the Roman magistrates arrested and their hands 
 and feet fettered with chains or logs of wood : he 
 extorted great sums of money, laid a double tax on 
 the peasants, whom he forced to bring forage for 
 his horses, and he committed innumerable acts of 
 violence.' That measures of this kind crushed 
 resistance, and disposed the people to obey the will 
 of their conqueror, is not surprising: but so far 
 there is not a word to show that any section of the 
 Egyptian nation viewed the advent of the Muslims 
 with any other feeling than terror. 
 
 Although Athrlb and Manlif had fallen, the town 
 of Nikiou, which lay on the western branch of the 
 
 ' c. cxiii. p. 559. Zotenberg's rendering, ' C'est alors que Ton 
 commen9a "k prSter aide aux Musulmans,' goes beyond the original, 
 which merely says ' And they began to help the Muslims.' I think 
 that the help was for a specific purpose, not general. 
 
Battle of Heliopolis 237 
 
 Nile, was too strongly fortified to be taken without 
 a regular siege, for which neither time nor means 
 were available. It remained therefore as a link 
 between Babylon and Alexandria. But the mere 
 report of the Muslim victories determined the 
 Roman chiefs who were there to retire on the 
 capital. They left, however, Domentianus with 
 a small garrison, and sent to Dares at Saman<id 
 the order to defend the country between the two 
 branches of the Nile. But the alarm now became 
 a panic, which spread through every town of Egypt. 
 From all parts the inhabitants streamed towards 
 Alexandria, abandoning lands and houses, goods 
 and chattels, cattle and crops. A new reign of 
 terror had begun for the people who had been 
 scourged by ten years of persecution under Cyrus, 
 Al Mukaukas. 
 
 But 'Amr was not prepared to follow the flying 
 crowds northwards. The Nile, now rising fast as 
 August waned, was making the country impassable : 
 besides he had no wish to leave in his rear the 
 powerful fortress of Babylon unmasked, while to 
 mask it such a number of troops were needed as 
 would leave him no army capable of conquering 
 Alexandria. His next step therefore must be the 
 reduction of Babylon. 
 
CHAPTER XVII 
 
 THE FORTRESS OF BABYLON 
 
 Present state of the fortress. Its position and description. 
 Towers and gates. The Iron Gate. Island of Raudah. Origin 
 of the fortress and of its name. Churches within it. 
 
 Up to nearly the beginning of the twentieth 
 century enough of the ancient fortress still stood 
 to give a clear idea of its structure and its import- 
 ance. These remains owed their preservation 
 entirely to the Copts, whose churches had clustered 
 within the walls from the very beginnings of Chris- 
 tianity, and had found in them a sure bulwark in 
 times of persecution. The walls were Coptic 
 property, save where the Melkite church of St. George 
 or the Jewish synagogue claimed a small section of 
 them ; and the Muslims seem never to have shown 
 any care to preserve a monument which played so 
 large a part in the conquest, and about which so 
 much is written in the pages of their own historians. 
 
 But with the British occupation came a sense 
 of security which has led to the most deplorable 
 destruction. The need of a fortified enclosure 
 having vanished, Copts, Greeks, and Jews vied 
 together in demolishing the walls, wherever their 
 fancy suggested a new entrance or a new building. 
 It is the simple truth that in the last eighteen years 
 more havoc has been wrought upon the Roman 
 fortress than in the previous eighteen centuries. 
 
 At last, when nearly all the mischief was done, 
 the government interfered, and all that now remains 
 is placed under government protection. But that is 
 little enough. 
 
Fortress of Babylon 239 
 
 The ruined castle lies in the region now miscalled 
 Old Cairo. Three sides of the enclosure were 
 almost uninjured a few years ago ; but now of 
 two sides only some fragments remain, while the 
 third is sadly mutilated. The walls were about 
 eight feet in thickness, built of brick and stone 
 courses alternating, and they seem to have formed 
 an irregular quadrilateral, the full extent of which 
 cannot be known until the foundations of the fourth 
 or vanished side are rediscovered. On the south 
 and on the eastern side of the fortress the line of 
 walls was broken out by four projecting bastions 
 at somewhat uneven intervals. Three of the four 
 bastions on the south were recently visible : now 
 one has been completely destroyed, but between 
 the other two may be seen the magnificent ancient 
 gateway, which has been excavated from the encum- 
 bering rubbish mounds to a depth of some thirty 
 feet^- On the western side of the fort there was 
 no bastion — a fact which one may explain by 
 remembering that when the fort was built, and 
 even at the time of the conquest, the Nile flowed 
 under the wall, so that boats moored beneath it. 
 Another gate, opening on to the river, probably lay 
 between the two enormous round towers, which 
 were little injured before the recent changes. Now 
 one of them is all but demolished, the other has 
 been entirely obliterated from view by being en- 
 closed and encased in a rectangular block of modern 
 Arab construction. Each tower was circular on 
 plan, upwards of 100 feet in diameter, and contained 
 an inner circle of wall : radiating walls divided the 
 
 ^ Historians and antiquarians alike owe a great debt of gratitude 
 to Max Hertz Bey for his able work in saving 'this gateway and 
 showing it to the light. 
 
240 Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 space between the two concentric circles into eight 
 compartments, one of which was occupied by a stone 
 staircase leading to the top of the building. The 
 ordinary walls of the fortress were some sixty feet 
 high, as is proved by recent excavations, although 
 the whole fortress is now buried to a depth of thirty 
 feet by the accumulations of ages. But the towers 
 rose higher still, and from their top opened an 
 immense view embracing the Mukattam Hills on 
 the east, long reaches of the Nile to north and 
 south, Jlzah, the Pyramids, and the Libyan desert 
 on the west. And at the time of the conquest, 
 before Cairo was built, the field of vision must have 
 reached as far as Heliopolis ^. 
 
 The two towers were joined by a curtain wall, 
 which was pierced by the gate above mentioned. 
 But it was not this gate, all trace of which is 
 destroyed or buried, but the southern gate now 
 opened out to view, which the Arab writers dwell 
 upon and associate with the Mukaukas. This is 
 no longer doubtful. For the recent excavations 
 have disclosed one very curious result : they show 
 that either the Nile itself or a short inlet from it 
 came right up to the main southern gate of the 
 fortress (the ' western ' gate of the Arab writers ^), 
 and to the quay at which the Roman boats moored. 
 The quay is graduated with steps to suit the 
 changing level of the Nile : but its existence is a 
 
 ^ The present writer has verified this. A full account of the 
 towers is given in Ancient Coptic Churches. The plan showing 
 such part of the enclosure as existed just before the British 
 occupation of Egypt is here reproduced with slight changes. 
 
 ' Neither ' southern ' nor ' western ' is strictly accurate according 
 to the points of the compass ; but the side of the fortress towards 
 Cairo is more naturally called the northern, and that towards 
 HulwSn the southern side. 
 
I'ian.i. 
 
 To face page 240. 
 
 ROMAN Fortress of Babylon 
 
 (Kasr-Ash-Shama) 
 
 Iteu-bishzre C .Stanfor<Z XZH- 
 
 Ox/ord.. 
 
Fortress of Babylon 241 
 
 singular confirmation of the minute accuracy with 
 which facts are sometimes recorded by the Arab 
 historians. Possibly the same arrangement existed 
 at the gate between the round towers towards the 
 Isle of Raudah. But unquestionably it was this 
 southern gate — the gate of Al Mu'allakah — which 
 was the Iron Gate of Arab story. This is proved 
 first by the discovery of the quay : next by the fact 
 that the gateway now standing still shows deep 
 chases cut in the masonry for the portcullis or drop- 
 gate, which was either made of iron or plated with 
 iron : and lastly by the fact that Makrlzl^ expressly 
 identifies the Iron Gate with the 'western' gate 
 (which I call the southern), while his contemporary 
 Ibn Dukmak ^ identifies the ' western ' gate with the 
 gate which is under the church of Al Mu'allakah. 
 
 It is curious in this connexion to note that even 
 as late as the year 1400 a.d. this Iron Gate, marked 
 by the ancient quay, was used as the ordinary 
 entrance to the fortress. Just outside stood the 
 
 ' Khitat, i. p. 286. 
 
 ^ Pt. iv. pp. 25-6. The writer gives no description of the fortress, 
 but names the gates, streets, mosques, and churches in it. I give 
 an extract from this important passage : ' Road of Al Mu'allakah. 
 This is the road vifhich passes underneath the church of that name. 
 It is the gate of the fortress, by which the whole of the Castle of 
 the Romans called Kasr ash Shama' is entered from the Great 
 Market. Road 0/ the Stone. This is entered from the guard-house of 
 Al Bininah, and by that you pass into the fortress, of which it forms 
 the (north-)eastern gate, the last named being the (south-)western 
 gate. The other gates will be mentioned below, if God will. Road 
 of Mahatt al Karh. This is entered from the Fish-Market and 
 the Meat-Market. This is the north(-western) gate of the fortress 
 . . . and it is the last of the well-known gates of the castle.' What 
 I have called the southern gate under Al Mu'allakah is called by 
 Ibn DukmSk, with equal correctness but less convenience, the 
 western gate : see p. 240, n. 2 supra. See also Ibn Dukmak, 
 pp. 15, \(), 30, 33, 49, 81, 103-4, 107-8. 
 
 BUTLER R 
 
242 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Great Market, as it was called, and from this the 
 main road passed through the gateway under the 
 church of Al Mu'allakah, and crossing the enclosure 
 issued out of the walls again by a gate on the 
 northern side towards the mosque of 'Amr. On 
 this side also was the ' guard-house of BinAnah,' 
 possibly the detached Roman building of which 
 a fragment still remains. Although Ibn Dukmak's 
 language implies the existence of several other 
 gates, only one more is mentioned — that upon the 
 western side — which may be the gate between 
 the towers. The western walls, then, were washed 
 by the Nile, and boats came up also to the Iron 
 Gate. At the present day the Nile has retreated 
 far from the ramparts, and the level of the soil has 
 risen so high all round the fortress that the walls 
 lie buried to half their original height. This under- 
 ground portion at least of the ancient circuit has 
 escaped the hand of the destroyer, and it is to be 
 hoped that some day it may see the light again. 
 
 The island of Raudah itself was strongly fortified 
 at this epoch; and by its commanding position in 
 mid channel of the Nile it added immensely to 
 the military value of Babylon. Ibn Dukmik^ 
 seems to say that the Arabs attacked the island 
 during the investment of Babylon, and that when 
 the Romans retreated, 'Amr threw down part of 
 the island walls and towers, which remained in 
 a dismantled state till Ibn T016n rebuilt them in 
 the year 876, for the purpose of guarding there his 
 treasure and his seraglio. The island from another 
 
 ' Pt. iv. p. 109. See also Cairo Fifty Years Ago (E. W. Lane, 
 p. 132 : London, 1896), where the writer mentions remains of a 
 massive wall with round towers of Roman work as visible in his day 
 on the island. 
 
Fortress of Babylon 243 
 
 use was called also Arsenal Island by the Arabs in 
 later ages. The Kilometer at the south end of the 
 island was built in the year 716 a.d. in replacement 
 of an earlier monument of the kind, which was inside 
 the fortress of Babylon. 
 
 At the time of the conquest the whole region 
 eastward of the fortress was an open cultivated 
 plain. Northward spread gardens and vineyards, 
 while all the region between the vineyards and the 
 mountains as far as the present mosque of TtiMn 
 and Al Kabsh was dotted over with churches and 
 convents, some few of which remain to this day, 
 both within and without the walls of Cairo, though 
 the greater number were destroyed in the fourteenth 
 century by Al Malik an Nasir ibn Kala'un \ 
 
 As regards the origin of the fortress, the con- 
 jecture which I ventured to make^, that it was built 
 by Trajan c. 100 a. d., has been amply confirmed 
 by the since-published work of John of Nikiou. He 
 relates that, in consequence of a Jewish rebellion at 
 Alexandria, Trajan first sent Marcius Turbo with 
 a large army, and then ' himself came to Egypt and 
 there built a fortress with a powerful and impregnable 
 citadel, and he brought there abundance of water ^.' 
 This last expression may refer to the wells sunk 
 below the round towers and in other parts of the 
 fortress. John goes on to say that the original 
 
 ' The whole of this paragraph is taken from Makrlzt, Khitat, 
 vol. i. p. 286. He also says, ' The fort overlooked the Nile and 
 boats came up to the western gate, called the Iron Gate. . . . The 
 waters of the Nile have retreated westward since that time.' Abfl 
 Salih mentions many churches in this region which long survived 
 the conquest. Yet he alleges that 'Amr destroyed a large number 
 of churches here (p. 133). 
 
 ' Ancient Coptic Churches, vol. i. p. 178. 
 
 ^ p. 413- 
 
 R 2 
 
244 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 foundations of the fortress were laid by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, who gave it the name of Babylon, his own 
 capital, at the time of his invasion of Egypt, and 
 that upon these Trajan raised the circuit walls and 
 otherwise enlarged the buildings^. All, however, 
 that stands above ground now is undoubtedly Roman, 
 nor is it likely that Trajan followed the lines of any 
 previous construction upon that spot. 
 
 On the other hand, the existence of an earlier 
 fortress in the vicinity is certain. Strabo ^, who 
 visited Egypt about 130 years before Trajan, 
 mentions a strong fort standing on a rocky ridge, 
 and traces the name to some Babylonian exiles who 
 settled there. Diodorus^ recounts that some captives 
 brought by Sesostris from Babylon established them- 
 selves in a castle which they called after their mother 
 city. Josephus* thinks the castle was built during 
 the Persian conquest under Cambyses. Finally, 
 Eutychius ® gives Akhfis, i. e. Artaxerxes Ochus, as 
 the builder of the fortress. It may then be taken 
 for granted that near the present site there was 
 a stronghold called Babylon for many centuries 
 
 ' Curiously enough, Makrizi gives much the same tradition ; but 
 he says that the fortress was 'destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and 
 afterwards rebuilt by a Roman governor, Arjilts, son of Makritls, 
 on its original foundations ' (Khitat, vol. i. p. 287). Archelaus, 
 son of Mercatus (for this seems the Roman name denoted by the 
 Arabic), may possibly be the name of Trajan's prefect or of the 
 architect. 
 
 "^ Geog. lib. xvii. c. i, § 35. 
 
 ' Diodorus Siculus, Hist. lib. i. c. 56. 3. 
 
 * Anl.Jud. ii. 15. 
 
 " See Abfi Salih, p. 177, n. 3, where Eutychius' words are quoted. 
 Vansleb in 1672 saw the ruins of a once magnificent Persian fire- 
 temple, said by tradition to have been built by Artaxerxes Ochus 
 (Nowielle Relation d!un Voyage fait en ^gypte, p. 240). The ruins 
 ■were apparently inside Kasr ash Shama'. 
 
Fortress of Babylon 245 
 
 before the days of Trajan : but I have shown 
 elsewhere^ that the original castle stood rather to 
 the south on the rocky ridge (which is still clearly 
 visible), as required by Strabo's description. At the 
 time of 'Amr's invasion this ridge and the adjacent 
 locality were probably occupied by the town of 
 Misr, which spread as far as the Roman fortress, 
 if not further, to the north. The fortress, however, 
 was surrounded by a moat, which Al Mukaukas, or 
 Cyrus, had lately cleared out and furnished with 
 drawbridges ^. It is probable too that in the town 
 of Misr many ancient Egyptian buildings were still 
 standing, as excavations are constantly yielding 
 large stones covered with hieroglyphic inscriptions. 
 
 The name Babylon has caused much confusion 
 among Arab writers. It lingers on to-day not as 
 the name of the fortress, which is called Kasr ash 
 Shama', Castle of the Torch or Beacon, but in con- 
 nexion with a little convent a short distance to the 
 south, which is still called Dair Babltin. At the 
 time of the conquest the fortress was called in 
 Coptic ' Babylon an Khemi ' or ' Babylon of Egypt ^' 
 The name lent itself easily to misconstruction in 
 Arabic, as the first syllable means ' gate ' in that 
 
 ' Ancient Coptic Churches, vol. i. pp. 172-5. 
 
 ' Severus mentions moats as amongst the works of Cyrus, and 
 Abfl '1 MahSsin says, ' The Romans had dug a moat round the 
 fortress, with gates,' i. e. drawbridges crossing to the gates. Abfl 
 Salih (p. 73) also says, ' The people of Fustat dug a moat against 
 the Arabs.' 
 
 ' fiaJiirXon or fiaiirXwit kxha" or kkhjuih : see ChampoUion, 
 L'Egypte sous les Pharaons, t. ii. p. 34. There is no evidence at 
 all to support his conjecture that the form £i&jCih\ was ever in use 
 in Egypt ; neither Coptic nor -Arabic writers recognize such a form. 
 But 5(^HAti is identified with Ketypuxu in a MS. given by Zoega, 
 Cat. Codd. Copt. p. 88. 
 
246 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 language, and the remaindef suggests a genitive 
 case, as we have already seen'. How the name 
 Kasr ash Shama arose is not so easy to discover. 
 It may well be that ' Shama' ' is a mere echo of the 
 Coptic ' Khemi.' On the other hand, there is a very 
 distinct tradition that a fire-temple was built in con- 
 nexion with the old Babylonian castle, and also that 
 a similar temple was erected on one of the Roman 
 towers, at least during the Persian occupation, in 
 the seventh century. We find even mention of a 
 PCubbat ad Dukhin — Dome or Temple of Smoke — ^ 
 in the Arabic writer Yakut ^. But considering the 
 importance of the towers as signal-stations in time 
 of war, it is easy to imagine that upon one or both 
 of them arrangements were made to light beacon- 
 fires, and that from this fact arose the name Kasr 
 ash Shama' ^ It is, however, curious to remark 
 that, however ill the Arabs understood the name of 
 the fortress, yet among European writers in the 
 Middle Ages it was ' Babylon ' and not ' Misr ' which 
 survived as the name of the place ; and the title was 
 even transferred after the building of Cairo to that 
 city, so that its ruler was spoken of as Soldan of 
 Babylon ^. 
 
 ' See above, p. 232 n. 
 
 ^ On the other hand, the same Yakflt seems to have ill under- 
 stood the name, for he speaks of a ' fortress named Kasr al Yiln or 
 Kasr ash Shdm or Kasr ash Shama" (vol. iv. p. 551). 
 
 ' Wakidi is quoted by Makrtzt as saying that a torch was lighted 
 on the fort upon the first day of every month, when the sun entered 
 a new constellation of the Zodiac; and that the fortress was founded 
 by one of the Pharaohs called Ar Riyan. This is in Wakidl's usual 
 romantic vein. 
 
 * See for example Marino Sanuto and the other authors bound 
 together in vol. 29 of the Palestine Pilgrims Text Society's publica- 
 tions. 
 
Fortress of Babylon 247 
 
 One word more. Though little is told of the 
 buildings which stood in the interior of the fortress 
 when "Amr pitched his camp against it, we know that 
 it contained a Kilometer, of which traces remained 
 in the days of Makrizl ^ We know also that some 
 at least of the churches which were frequented by 
 the Roman garrison, such as the cathedral church 
 of Abti Sargah and possibly Al Mu'allakah, may be 
 seen at the present day after the lapse of nearly 
 thirteen centuries ^. 
 
 ' Of the Dair al BanSt in Kasr ash Shama' he says, 'Here 
 before IsMm was the Nilometer, of which there are traces to this 
 day' (Khital, quoted in Abfi Salih, App., p. 325). 
 
 ^ There seems no reason for doubt in the case of Abfl Sargah, 
 although when I wrote Coptic Churches I did not venture to assign 
 so high an antiquity to any of these buildings. Abfl Sargah is 
 mentioned c. 690, in Amdlineau's Vie du Patriarche Isaac, p. 46. 
 We know also from the fragment of the Life of Benjamin that there 
 was at the conquest a bishop of the castle of Babylon as well as 
 a bishop of HulwS.n — a singular proof of the number of churches 
 in this region. On the whole subject of the fortress, see Amdlineau, 
 G^og. Copie, pp. 75 seq. ; Quatrembre, Mem. G^og. et Hist. t. i. 
 pp. 45 seq. and 71 seq.; Hamaker's FutHh Misr by WakidI, 
 n. pp. 90 seq., and text p. 41 ; also n. p. no and text p. 60, where 
 Al Mu'allakah is stated to have been redeemed by the Copts by 
 purchase from 'Amr, and to have borne a tablet commemorating 
 the fact. On the other hand, though the church existed, one may 
 question whether it occupied its present position across and over 
 the Roman gateway. The exterior walls are certainly non-Roman, 
 and the church rests partly on walls so constructed as to render 
 the use of the gate impossible, and therefore later than the 
 conquest. Wakidt is mistaken in saying that Dair Bulls is the 
 same as Kasr ash Shama' and contains Al Mu'allakah. Dair Bulis, 
 as he calls it, must be that little convent outside the fortress 
 called Dair Bulus, or the Convent of St. Paul, standing in a hollow 
 among the rubbish-mounds south of the fortress. A good illustra- 
 tion of the southern gateway, as it was, may be found in R. Hay's 
 Illustrations of Cairo (London, 1840, fol.), but I know of no plan 
 of the building as it originally stood save Pococke's, which is 
 
248 
 
 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 most inaccurate. The plans under preparation by the Committee 
 for the Conservation of Arab Monuments will furnish a most 
 valuable record at least of the Roman gateway. 
 
 The very interesting Jewish synagogue, which was a Christian 
 church dating from before the conquest, has recently been de- 
 molished by the Jews to make room for a new place of worship. 
 The Jews have also thrown down a large section of the wall. 
 
 Plan 2. 
 
 Island of Raudah at the Conquest. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII 
 
 SIEGE AND SURRENDER OF BABYLON 
 
 Position of the Copts. Cyrus the Mukaukas beleaguered in the 
 fortress. ' Weakness or treachery of Cyrus. He crosses to Raudah 
 and makes overtures to 'Amr. Roman impressions of the Arabs. 
 'Ubadah, 'Amr's envoy, comes to Raudah to negotiate. The 
 Arab terms, and their refusal by the Romans. More fighting, 
 followed by a treaty, which Cyrus refers to the Emperor. Recall, ' 
 disgrace, and exile of Cyrus. Treaty rejected by Heraclius and 
 siege resumed. Fall of the Nile. Campaign in the Delta. Death 
 of Heraclius. The fortress scaled by Zubair. Surrender of the 
 garrison under treaty. Roman barbarity upon the Copts. 
 
 With the beginning of September 'Amr had not 
 only returned to Babylon, but had made all his dis- 
 positions for a regular blockade of the fortress. Its 
 massive walls and lofty towers encircled by the Nile 
 — for the moat was now full of water — promised 
 a long defiance to enemies ignorant of engineering 
 and unprovided with siege equipment. Some few 
 engines of war had been captured in the Faylim and 
 in Trajan's citadel at Man^f, but the Arabs had no 
 skill to work them or to keep them in repair, and 
 they did but little damage to the garrison \ though ' 
 the ridge some 200 yards south of the fortress offered 
 an admirable vantage-ground for the besiegers' 
 batteries. 
 
 The fortress stood, as we have seen, on the edge 
 of the river, its long line of western wall awash with 
 the flood, while the Iron Gate opened on the moat 
 or dock on the south side. Opposite lay the island 
 
 ' One or two Arab writers speak of 'Amr setting up his manga- 
 nika against the fortress, but there is no word to suggest that they 
 proved of any advantage to the besiegers. 
 
250 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 of Raudah, the southern end of which in times of 
 peace at any rate was connected with the fortress 
 by a bridge of boats. Whether the bridge was left 
 standing in war is doubtful ; but it is certain that 
 pontoons were kept moored by the Iron Gate in 
 a position of security, and that boats readily passed 
 from the fort to the island. In spite of his victory 
 'Amr was not yet able to dominate the river. Its 
 swelling tide would have baffled more skilful navi- 
 , gators than the Arabs ; and if he had risked an 
 attack from that side, his boats would have been 
 swept away by the flood or sunk by the defenders' 
 catapults. 
 
 All the Arab writers are agreed that when the 
 siege began, the Mukaukas himself (or the Patriarch 
 Cyrus) was within the walls of Babylon ^ Theodore 
 too had been there before the battle of Heliopolis, 
 though his actual presence at that battle is not 
 recorded : but when the Roman forces were defeated, 
 he seems to have joined the fugitives and hastened 
 to Alexandria. Cyrus therefore, as Heraclius' Vice- 
 roy, was the real commander in Babylon, although 
 the general in charge of the garrison bore another 
 name which the Arabs give as Al 'Araj ^, and which 
 
 ^ Ibn 'Abd al Hakam, Eutychius, Yakflt, Makrtzf, Abii '1 MahSsin, 
 &c. are in harmony on the presence, though of course they differ 
 on the personality, of the Mukaukas. 
 
 "^ See the Appendix C on Al Miikaukas. The confusion 
 on the subject of the commander is very great. Tabari, for 
 example, who actually puts the capitulation of Alexandria before 
 the siege of Misr or Babylon, alleges that ' Al Mukaukas, prince of 
 the Copts, had named Ibn Maryam as commander of the fortress.' 
 This is very curious, for Al Mukaukas, we know, was Cyrus, the 
 bitter enemy and persecutor of the Copts, while Ibn Maryam 
 represents, as I have shown, the Coptic Patriarch who was hiding 
 in Upper Egypt. All that Tabari's sentence can mean is this — that 
 
Siege and Surrender of Babylon 251 
 
 is probably a corruption of ' George,' though this 
 George must be a different person from his name- 
 sake the Prefect, whom 'Amr forced to bridge the 
 canal at Kalidb. Another general who remained 
 through the siege was Eudocianus, elder brother 
 of Domentianus ^. The forces under George may 
 have amounted to 5,000 or 6,000 men — hardly more 
 — but the garrison was amply provided with food 
 and warlike stores of all kinds. The civil population 
 had been swollen by a number of refugees from the 
 adjacent city of Misr and the convents round, but it 
 is probable that most of these were sent away by 
 river, so as to leave the garrison more freedom. 
 All the churches within the walls were now, it must 
 be remembered, in possession of clergy professing 
 Chalcedonian or Melkite opinions, and no other 
 opinion was tolerated. Cyrus had not changed his 
 character as arch-enemy of the Coptic faith — a 
 character which he maintained to the end ; and his 
 
 a Patriarch was virtual commander. That Patriarch is unquestion- 
 ably Cyrus. This fact disposes of Eutychius' statement that Al 
 Mukaukas 'had kept back the revenues of Egypt ever since 
 Chosroes had been beleaguering Constantinople.' Cyrus did not 
 even come to Egypt until three years after the final defeat of the 
 Persians and death of Chosroes. I should hardly notice this par- 
 ticular misstatement of Eutychius but that it has been accepted 
 as true by modern historians. Thus Gibbon (c. li) makes Al 
 Mukaukas ' a rich and noble Egyptian ' who ' during the Persian 
 wars had aspired to independence,' and adds that ' the abuse of his 
 trust exposed him to the resentment of Heraclius.' So Prof Bury 
 makes Al Mukaukas ' a Copt who administered Egypt for the 
 Persian king' {Later Roman Empire, vol. ii. p. 214), and who sub- 
 sequently came to terms with 'Amr. See also p. 208, n. 2 supra, 
 where I have quoted a re,cent writer as speaking of ' the Patriarch 
 Cyrus, in concert with Mukaukas.' The fact is that the discovery 
 of the true identity of Al Mukaukas profoundly modifies the history 
 of this period. 
 
 ' John of Nikiou, p. 570. 
 
252 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 presence in the fort is the strongest proof, if proof 
 were needed, that the only Copts there remaining 
 were those who had been driven by persecution to 
 renounce their creed. Indeed even of those, some, 
 whose sincerity was doubted, were thrown into 
 prison, where, as we shall see, they were treated 
 with great barbarity. 
 
 It is therefore a mere perversion of history to 
 speak, as many Arab, writers do, of the Copts as the 
 defenders or the dominant party within the fortress. 
 The Copts had simply no existence as a belligerent 
 body. Even their religious unity had been shattered 
 by the ten years' persecution. In the mountains 
 and caves and deserts and in fortified monasteries 
 of Upper Egypt there were still Copts and Coptic 
 communities ; but at Babylon, in the Delta, and at 
 Alexandria, all the Copts had been forced within 
 the pale of the established Church, where their 
 secret disloyalty was powerless. Arab historians, 
 writing some centuries after the conquest, naturally 
 speak of Egyptian armies and Egyptian leaders 
 without distinction of Roman or Copt, and the con- 
 sequent mistakes and misunderstandings are legion : 
 but it cannot be too clearly understood that at this 
 time there was no such thing as a Coptic party in 
 the field. The Copts were wholly out of action — 
 crushed by Cyrus ; and it is untrue to represent 
 them as capable of combining among themselves or 
 of fighting or treating with the Arabs. 
 
 But while the heart of Cyrus was still hardened 
 against the Copts, he must have felt how ill he had 
 prepared the country to resist a powerful enemy. 
 His reign of violence had brought about a false 
 semblance of religious unity, but it had torn asunder 
 every shred of sympathy between governors and 
 
Siege and Surrender of Babylon 253 
 
 governed. At the best he could only expect that 
 the Copts should watch in sullen aloofness the 
 struggle between two alien and equally detested 
 powers. All hope of saving Egypt by force of arms 
 was ebbing away : was this the result on which he 
 had calculated ? 
 
 For the moment Al Mukaukas was secure in an 
 almost impregnable castle, girdled by the waters of 
 the Nile. The Roman catapults were more than a 
 match for the Muslim bolts and arrows that volleyed 
 across the moat. But as time wore on, the water in 
 the moat was certain to sink, and already the fierce 
 pertinacity of the assailants was causing some mis- 
 giving in the fortress and some division of opinion. 
 It was about a month after the siege had begun, i. e. 
 at the beginning of October, 640, that Cyrus sum- 
 moned those officers of the garrison whom he trusted, 
 together with the Melkite bishop of Babylon, to a 
 secret council of war, and set before them his views. 
 The war had gone against them. Their main army 
 had been destroyed, and they were now beleaguered 
 by a superior force of men, whose fighting capacity 
 was most formidable. For some months at any rate 
 there was no chance of any relieving army taking 
 the field. The fortress might hold out, no doubt ; 
 but even so, were the chances of war in their favour ? 
 If not, would it not be better to buy off the enemy — 
 to pay him a certain sum to clear out of the country ? 
 If such a peace could be purchased — if payment of 
 an indemnity would secure the retirement of the 
 Arabs — would not Egypt be saved for the Empire? 
 Arguments like these, expanded and fired by the 
 eloquence of which Cyrus undoubtedly was master, 
 prevailed with the council, and it was resolved if 
 possible to carry out the plan. But it was essential 
 
254 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 not to alarm the garrison and the advocates of war 
 to the death : so it was decided that Cyrus and his 
 confederates should take boats by night and steal 
 across to the island of Raudah, whence they could 
 open negotiations with the Arab leader in complete 
 tranquillity ^ 
 
 The plan was carried out with the utmost secrecy. 
 The Iron Gate on the Nile was opened ; and taking 
 the boats there moored, the party crossed to the 
 island, landing at the spot where afterwards the 
 arsenal was erected. George, the commander of 
 the fortress, was probably in the plot, but he remained 
 within the walls to silence any rumours of treachery 
 that might arise when the departure of Cyrus was 
 discovered ^ Cyrus removed all the pontoons, so 
 
 ' It is needless to dwell on the reasons for rejecting the absurd 
 story of Eutychius that Al Mukaukas, being a Copt in sympathies, 
 beguiled the Roman garrison out of the fortress in order to betray 
 it to 'Amr in the Coptic interest. It would be an endless task to 
 criticize here the various versions of the incident in the text ; but 
 two facts seem to stand out in most of the versions. These are, 
 (i) that a Patriarch or bishop opened negotiations, and (2) that 
 the Mukaukas retired to Raudah at the time of high Nile. The 
 intervention of the bishop is put by different authorities at different 
 times, and the retirement to Raudah is variously given as occurring 
 one month after the commencemwit of the siege and as following 
 the capture of the fortress. But even those authorities, like Yikflt 
 and Suyfltt, who take the latter view, make the capture occur 
 at high Nile. This of course is wrong; the date of the capture is 
 fixed irrevocably to the beginning of April — the time when the Nile 
 is at its lowest ; but the fact that negotiations took place at flood- 
 time is just one of those undesigned coincidences of tradition which 
 may be safely trusted. Its accuracy is further strengthened by the 
 independent tradition which places the time one month after the 
 beginning of the siege. Now the siege began about the end of 
 August, and a month later — about the end of September — the Nile 
 is in fact at its highest. Thus the chronology of the incident is 
 somewhat strongly established. 
 
 ^ Makrtzi says that opinions differ whether George accompanied 
 
Siege and Surrender of Babylon 255 
 
 that, in case a panic seized the garrison, they would 
 be unable to leave the fortress ; and as soon as he 
 had secured his position on the island 1, he sent 
 envoys to 'Amr, among them being the bishop of 
 Babylon. They were courteously received, and 
 delivered their message. ' You and your army,' 
 they said, ' have invaded our country, and seem bent 
 on fighting us. Your stay in the land is long, no 
 doubt: but y6u are a small force, far outnumbered 
 by the Romans, who are well-equipped and well- 
 armed. Now too you are surrounded by the waters 
 of the Nile, and are in fact captives in our hand. 
 It would be well for you therefore to send envoys 
 with any proposals you wish to make for an agree- 
 ment, before the Romans overwhelm you. Then it 
 will be too late, and you will regret your error ^.' 
 
 the Mukaukas or not. SuyMi says that at first he stayed behind, 
 but soon joined the Mukaulcas. 
 
 ' It must be remembered that at this time the channel on the 
 eastern side of the island, i. e. between the island and the fortress, was 
 as wide as that on the western side. This is clear from the Sefer 
 Nameh, which expressly states that such was the case even 400 years 
 later (1047 a. d.), though it adds that the current on the eastern 
 side was sluggish, showing that the channel had silted up. Now 
 the eastern channel is extremely narrow, and the Nile flows almost 
 entirely on the west. The head of the island or south end remains 
 in its original position, as it has always been strongly walled and 
 fortified against the action of the river. For the Sefer Nameh, see 
 Relation du Voyage de Ndsiri Khusrau, p. 153. 
 
 "^ This account is from Makrizt, whose detail I shall on the 
 whole follow. He, together with Abfl '1 Mahasin and Suyfitt, 
 gives two separate traditions of the conference. The first is that 
 'Amr entered the fortress to parley, and that a plot was laid to 
 treacherously assassinate him as he was leaving. This story I un- 
 hesitatingly reject as pure fiction, noting, however, that the same 
 story is told by Eutychius with reference to Gazah in Palestine 
 (Hamaker's FutHh Misr, p. 84 of notes). The second tradition 
 is that which I have embodied in the text. It may, how- 
 
256 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 No immediate answer was given, but the envoys 
 were detained in the Arab camp for two days, during 
 which time they were allowed to go about freely and 
 make their own observations on the life and character 
 of the Muslims. 'Amr then dismissed them with 
 the usual offer of terms. ' Only one of three courses 
 is open to you ; (i) Islam with brotherhood and 
 equality ; (2) payment of tribute, and protection 
 with an inferior status ; (3) war till ' God decides 
 between us.' 
 
 Cyrus was relieved by the return of the envoys. 
 He had been anxiously asking whether it was lawful 
 under the Muslim religion to kill ambassadors. But 
 the simplicity and the enthusiasm of the Arabs had 
 deeply impressed the Roman messengers. ' We 
 have seen,' they reported, 'a people who prefer 
 death to life and humility to pride. They sit in 
 the dust, and they take their meals on horseback. 
 Their commander is one of themselves : there is no 
 distinction of rank among them. They have fixed 
 hours of prayer at which all pray, first washing their 
 hands and feet, and they pray with reverence.' And 
 despite the harsh precision of the terms offered, 
 Cyrus thought it better to treat now, while the Arab 
 forces were hemmed in by the floods, rather than 
 await the time when they could move freely through 
 the country. He therefore sent back to 'Amr the 
 request that special envoys might be empowered 
 to discuss terms for agreement. 'Amr accordingly 
 deputed ten of his officers, headed by a powerful 
 
 ever, be remarked that even according to the first tradition the 
 negotiations with "Amr, which are alleged to have taken place 
 within the fortress, came to nothing. The two traditions therefore 
 agree in this, that the first overtures for peace made by the Romans 
 proved abortive. 
 
Siege and Surrender of Babylon 257 
 
 negro called 'Ubidah ibn as Samit : but their orders 
 were to accept no terms incompatible with one of 
 the three defined courses. 
 
 The Arabs were ferried across to Raudah ; but 
 when 'Ubidah was ushered into the presence of Al 
 Mukaukas, the latter was shocked and exclaimed, 
 ' Take away that black man : I can have no dis- 
 cussion with him.' But the Arabs explained that 
 'Ubidah was one of their most trusted and capable 
 leaders, and that 'Amr had commissioned him person- 
 ally to treat with the Romans. To the Archbishop's 
 further astonishment, they added that they held 
 negroes and white men in equal respect — that they 
 judged a man by his character, not his colour. And 
 'Ubidah, when bidden to speak gently, so as not to 
 frighten the delicate prelate, replied, ' There are a 
 thousand blacks, as black as myself, among our 
 companions. I and they would be ready each to 
 meet and fight a hundred enemies together. We 
 live only to fight for God, and to follow His will. 
 We care nought for wealth, so long as we have 
 wherewithal to stay our hunger and to clothe our 
 bodies. This world is nought to us, the next world 
 is all.' This profession of piety moved the Arch- 
 bishop, ' Do you hear this ? ' he said to his com- 
 panions ; ' I much fear that God has sent these men 
 to devastate the world.' Then, turning to 'Ubidah, 
 he remarked, ' I have listened, good sir, to your 
 account of yourself and your comrades, and I under- 
 stand why your arms so far have prevailed. I know 
 too that the Romans have failed by caring over- 
 much for earthly things. But now they are pre- 
 paring to send against you immense numbers of 
 well-armed battalions. Resistance will be hopeless. 
 But for the sake of peace, we will agree to pay a 
 
258 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 sum of money at the rate of two dinars a head for 
 every man in the Arab army, a hundred dindrs for 
 your commander, and a thousand for your Caliph, 
 on condition that you return to your own country.' 
 
 To this 'Ubidah answered, ' Do not deceive your- 
 selves. We are not afraid of your numbers. Our 
 greatest desire is to meet the Romans in battle. If 
 we conquer them, it is well ; if not, then we receive 
 the good things of the world to come. Our prayer 
 is for martyrdom in the cause of Islam, not for safe 
 return to wife and children. Our small numbers 
 cause us no fear ; for it is written in the Book, 
 " Many a time hath a small company overcome a 
 great host, by the will of God." Understand, there- 
 fore, that we can accept no terms save one of the 
 three conditions which we are ordered by the Caliph 
 to offer you.' Cyrus in vain endeavoured to obtain 
 terms more in accordance with his proposal; his 
 arguments fell on deaf ears ; till at last in answer 
 to his final inquiry, 'UbcLdah, losing patience, raised 
 both his hands above his head and exclaimed ve- 
 hemently, 'No, by the Lord of heaven and earth 
 and all things, you shall have no other terms from 
 us. So make your choice.' 
 
 Thereupon Cyrus and his companions held a con- 
 sultation. To the first alternative they answered 
 uncompromisingly, * We cannot abandon the religion 
 of Christ for a religion of which we know nothing.' 
 Thus ruling out the adoption of Islam, there re- 
 mained only submission, with payment of tribute, 
 or war. They argued that submission to the Muslims 
 and payment of tribute would be tantamount to 
 slavery: death would be easier. But "Ubidah 
 explained that both their persons and their property 
 would be respected; that they would retain full 
 
Siege and Surrender of Babylon 259 
 
 control over their possessions and all existing rights 
 of inheritance ; that their churches would be left 
 uninjured, and the practice of their religion un- 
 molested. So interpreted, the terms seemed reason- 
 able and even generous to the Mukaukas, Cyrus, 
 whose courage was sapped by the secret conviction 
 that the Muslims were destined to conquer. But 
 the Christians were not all prepared to surrender 
 their country so tamely as the foreign Archbishop 
 of Alexandria. George, the commander of the 
 fortress, seems by this time to have joined the 
 conference, and it is certain that violent opposition 
 was offered to Cyrus' proposal to capitulate : but 
 here, as so often in this history, a veil falls on 
 the scene, and one can only conjecture what lies 
 behind ^ 
 
 ' The invincible confusion of the Arab writers (on whom we are 
 just now totally dependent in the silence of John of Nikiou) is 
 nowhere better illustrated than in the close of this incident of the 
 conference. Makrizt says that 'Amr's terms were all refused ; that 
 the siege was pressed on ; and that the fort was taken, while the 
 Nile was still high. Then, however, the Mukaukas ' persuaded his 
 companions to agree to the terms of the Arabs, and wrote to 'Amr 
 that the Romans and Copts had prevented acceptance of the con- 
 ditions before, but now they were desirous of paying tribute.' But 
 the order of events is plainly wrong here, as the fort held out till 
 April. Abfl '1 Mahasin has much the same story, but he says that 
 Al Mukaukas had promised submission on behalf of the Copts but 
 against their will, and they refused to ratify the compact. Then 
 the siege was resumed and the fort taken with great slaughter — still 
 at high Nile. The treaty followed, Yakflt is a little clearer. 
 Referring to the conference with 'Ubadah, he says that ' the Mukaukas 
 made a compact with 'Amr on behalf of the Romans and Copts, 
 subject for the former to the approval of the Emperor, who was at 
 once to be communicated with.' He adds that ' the most learned 
 of the Egyptians ' in his day ' took the view that the matter was 
 not settled before the interview between the Mukaukas and 'Ubadah.' 
 Yet even Yakut represents the fortress as captured by storm at 
 
 S 2 
 
26o The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 It seems, however, that failing agreement upon 
 the Muslim proposals, the Roman chiefs asked for 
 a month to consider the matter. 'Amr answered 
 decisively that he would grant only a three days' 
 armistice. By this time Cyrus' secret action was 
 known to the Roman garrison. His party probably 
 returned from Raudah to within the walls of Babylon, 
 where the popular feeling set strongly against Cyrus. 
 Accordingly 'the advocates of resistance had an easy 
 triumph : the soldiers of the Emperor absolutely 
 refused to surrender. Indeed, this decision was 
 reached so quickly, that by the time the armistice 
 had expired, measures were taken to prepare a 
 sudden onslaught upon the besiegers. No answer 
 
 high Nile, and the interview as taking place directly after the 
 capture. These stories therefore are all inconsistent with known 
 fact in some detail or other. But from them we may gather that 
 (i)the interview did take place at high Nile, earlyin October; (2)it 
 resulted in disagreement and a fresh appeal to arms ; (3) the fight 
 was disastrous to the Romans, who now changed their mind ; (4) a 
 treaty was concluded subject to the Emperor's approval, which was 
 to be at once demanded. We know that Heraclius repudiated the 
 agreement. This comes out in the Muslim writers, though usually 
 in connexion with Alexandria — an entirely wrong place, because 
 (i) Heraclius was dead when the treaty of Alexandria was made ; 
 and (2) the treaty of Alexandria was made by direct authority of 
 the then reigning Emperor. Baladhurt, in his confused summary of 
 various traditions, gives one which is correct : for he says that the 
 compact made by Al Mukaukas with 'Amr was repudiated by 
 Heraclius, who sent an army to Alexandria : the gates were shut, 
 and the city prepared for siege. So also through the strange 
 distortions of Eutychius' narrative the fact that a treaty between 
 'Amr and the Mukaukas was made at Babylon emerges. The 
 treaty accordingly must be regarded as historical, though the 
 precise circumstances attending its conclusion are lost. The 
 incident of the attack after the three days' armistice comes from 
 Tabari, who, however, errs in company with the Arab writers in 
 making no appreciable interval between the armistice and the final 
 surrender of the fortress. 
 
Siege and Surrender of Babylon 261 
 
 was sent to 'Amr; but on the fourth day, when 
 the armistice was over, while the Arab commander 
 was considering what action to take, the Romans 
 salHed out over their drawbridges and fell upon 
 the camp of their unsuspecting enemy. The Arabs, 
 though completely surprised, flew to arms, and a 
 desperate battle ensued. But bravely as the Romans 
 fought, their army, which was ere long outnumbered, 
 was slowly driven back, and after severe losses made 
 good its retreat within the walls. 
 
 Al Mukaukas, whose dark and tortuous mind was 
 still haunted by thoughts of surrender, now found 
 his opportunity. The army, which had scorned his 
 counsel, had trusted to the sword : in the battle 
 they had demeaned themselves as Roman soldiers 
 should : yet though they had taken the foe at a 
 disadvantage, by the sword they had fallen. As 
 Viceroy of Egypt, Cyrus could see no prospect of 
 driving the invaders out of the country, and this 
 fresh failure only confirmed his evil forebodings. 
 He found the party of resistance weakened and 
 disheartened, and he had little difficulty now in 
 securing a gloomy assent to his proposal for re- 
 opening negotiations with "Amr. It is somewhat 
 surprising to find that the terms offered by 'Amr 
 remained the same, but there is no reason to think 
 that they varied either now or at any later period 
 in the war. The alternative chosen by the Romans 
 was, of course, subjection and tribute; and this 
 arrangement was embodied in a treaty, which was 
 concluded on the express condition that it was 
 subject to the approval of the Emperor. Cyrus 
 undertook to submit the treaty to Heraclius im- 
 mediately, and it was agreed that pending ratifica- 
 tion there should be no change in the military 
 
262 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 situation, or at least that the fortress should not 
 be surrendered. 
 
 It was at this juncture that Cyrus, Al Mukaukas, 
 took his departure from Babylon and hastened down 
 the Nile to Alexandria, whence he sent urgent 
 dispatches to the Emperor, regretting the action 
 which he had been forced to take, and explaining 
 the absolute necessity of coming to terms with the 
 Arabs. He therefore prayed the Emperor to con- 
 firm the agreement for a treaty and so deliver 
 Egypt from the miseries of war. Heraclius may 
 well have been puzzled by this communication. Did 
 the proposed treaty relate to Babylon alone, or did 
 it cover the surrender of all Egypt, including Alex- 
 andria ? Were the Arabs merely to receive a tribute 
 of money and to retire, or were they to remain 
 masters of the country ? Was Egypt, in a word, 
 to be torn from the Empire and delivered to the 
 enemies of Christendom ? For months past the 
 Emperor had been reproaching his generals and 
 Cyrus, his Viceroy, with their shameful mismanage- 
 ment, which had suffered a handful of Saracens to 
 plant their standards in Egypt and to defy the 
 imperial forces. Now it was proposed either to bribe 
 the barbarians to retire, or to yield them possession 
 of the whole province, with all its corn and gold. 
 What was the meaning of this surrender ? Cyrus 
 must come and give an account of his viceroyalty. 
 
 It was probably about the middle of November 
 when a peremptory message of recall reached Cyrus. 
 Its tone was not reassuring, and his conscience may 
 well have quailed as he prepared the account of his 
 stewardship for his master. He alone knew how 
 far he had betrayed and how far he had followed 
 either the letter or the spirit of the Emperor's 
 
Siege and Surrender of Babylon 263 
 
 instructions during the ten years of the Great 
 Persecution : but he could not disguise the fact 
 that his reHgious mission had been a disastrous 
 failure, while the ruin of his schemes was bringing 
 about the political ruin of Egypt. Withal he must 
 have been conscious, that however honest his motives 
 might be as shaped to himself, yet his easy despair 
 of the Roman cause, and his readiness — even anxiety 
 — to parley with the enemy, clouded his conduct 
 with the suspicion of treachery. Thoughts like 
 these must have weighed down his spirit, as he 
 reached the Emperor's presence in Constantinople. 
 He met with an angry reception. He could only 
 admit the truth of the charge that he had agreed 
 to pay the gold of Egypt to the Arabs ^ : but 
 apparently he thought, or feigned to think, that 
 they could still be prevailed upon to quit the 
 country, and he urged that the tribute might be 
 met by a special tax upon merchandise at Alex- 
 andria, so that the imperial revenues would be in 
 no way diminished. For the rest, he saw no hope. 
 The Arabs were not as other men : they had, as 
 they said, no earthly wants but bread for sustenance 
 and a garment to cover their bodies. They were 
 ' a people of death,' holding it gain to be killed and 
 sent to paradise, whereas the Romans loved the 
 things of this life and clung to them. If the Emperor 
 saw the Arabs and knew their fighting powers, he 
 would be forced to acknowledge that they were 
 
 ' It is this fact which, taken out of its proper setting and 
 misconstrued by Theophanes, has given rise to the story of tribute 
 paid by Cyrus prior to the Arab conquest in order to purchase 
 immunity from invasion. The commission of Manuel to carry on 
 the war, which Theophanes assigns to this period, comes in reality 
 much later, long after the death of Heraclius, as will be shown 
 towards the close of this volume. 
 
264 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 invincible. It was therefore better to come to terms 
 with 'Amr, before the capture of Babylon placed 
 Egypt at his mercy. 
 
 Such was the defence of the Viceroy. Nicephorus 
 adds that before the recall of Cyrus the Emperor 
 had dispatched Marinus to take council with him, 
 and to devise with him measures for dealing with 
 the Saracen crisis : and that, concurrently with the 
 proposal to pay tribute, Cyrus had suggested that 
 Eudocia, or another daughter of the Emperor, should 
 be given in marriage to 'Amr, who would then 
 receive baptism and become a Christian. This 
 story seems to me extremely improbable — a mere 
 wild echo of the arrangement by which Eudocia was 
 promised in marriage many years previously to the 
 chief of the Khazars. Cyrus can have been under 
 no illusion with regard to the uncompromising quality 
 of the Muslim religion, and such a conversion of 
 'Amr passes all romance. Nor is there the slightest 
 warrant for the story in any other chronicle. But 
 it needed not this to fire the wrath of Heraclius. 
 He asked angrily if 100,000 Romans were not a 
 match for 12,000 Saracens. Al Mukaukas — as we 
 may still call Cyrus even in the Byzantine capital — 
 was arraigned on a charge of betraying the Empire 
 to the Saracens, and being adjudged guilty was 
 threatened with death. Heraclius taunted him with 
 behaviour worthy of an Egyptian peasant, called him 
 an abject coward and a heathen, and delivered him 
 over to the city Prefect, at whose hands he suffered 
 great indignities ^ ; then he was sent into exile. 
 
 Meanwhile the rejection of the treaty by the 
 Roman Emperor must have become known in the 
 
 ' The word used by Nicephorus, atKio-o/ievo), seems to mean this 
 rather than torture, as interpreted by Le Quien. 
 
Siege and Surrender of Babylon 265 
 
 Arab camp at Babylon before the end of the year 
 640. All truce or half-measures were now over, and 
 both sides braced themselves afresh for the struggle. 
 The Nile was fast falling, and, as it fell, the waters 
 in the moat sank lower and lower : with it sank the 
 hope, if not the courage, of the defenders. But as 
 the receding flood emptied the moat, the Romans 
 sought to make good the loss by sprinkling the 
 bottom of the ditch with spiked caltrops, which 
 they sowed more thickly in front of the gates. 
 These tactics the Muslims doubtless met by throw- 
 ing down the embankment and endeavouring to 
 level an approach. But generally few details of the 
 siege operations remain. We read of missiles and' 
 battering-rams, of sallies and assaults ; but it is 
 abundantly clear that the Arabs, owing to their 
 want of engineering science, made very slow pro- 
 gress towards the reduction of the fortress. It may 
 even be doubted whether the blockade, though 
 closely set on the landward side, was ever effective 
 on the side of the river. But here the Muslims 
 seemed to have derived some help from a local 
 combination of the Green and Blue factions, prob- 
 ably those of the conquered Faylami. Bands of 
 adventurers under Menas, chief of the Greens, and 
 Cosmas, son of Samuel, chief of the Blues, were in 
 the habit of crossing the river in boats by night 
 and raiding the island of Raudah, or falling on any 
 Roman vessels passing to the fortress or moored 
 at the Iron Gate. These tactics harassed the 
 defenders, and partly cancelled their advantage in 
 the freedom of the river. 
 
 But even on land the watch was not always well 
 kept by the Muslims. One day a small patrol went 
 ' John of Nikiou, p. 568. 
 
266 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 out of the fortress and fell upon Zubair and 'UMdah 
 at the time of their devotions. The Arab chiefs at 
 once leapt on their horses, charged, and chased the 
 Romans, who, as the enemy were gaining upon 
 them, threw off their girdles and ornaments. The 
 proffered spoil was neglected, but the Romans 
 managed to secure their retreat within the fortress, 
 "Ubidah being slightly wounded by a stone slung 
 from the battlements \ Scorning to lift the Roman 
 trappings the two Arabs returned to their place and 
 finished their prayers, while the Roman soldiers 
 came out again and recovered what they had thrown 
 away. 
 
 Wakidl gives particulars of another battle. One 
 Friday, as the Muslim host were gathering together 
 for prayer, 'Amr moved among the crowd exhorting 
 his men to fight valiantly. A Roman spy watched 
 the proceedings and reported them at Babylon. 
 After the usual sermon 'Amr came down from the 
 rude platform on which he had spoken, and while 
 he was leading the solemn recital of prayer, a Roman 
 force, which had crept up unobserved, suddenly 
 swooped on the defenceless Muslims, and caused 
 them some loss^ 
 
 But as the winter waned, sallies and combats 
 without the walls grew rarer, assaults upon them 
 fiercer and more frequent. The Romans, worn out 
 by watching and fighting, found their defences 
 harder to guard. Although the ramparts were little 
 
 ^ This account, taken from Abd '1 MaMsin, is much more 
 probable than that of Makrtzi, who says that when the Roman 
 soldiers re-entered the fort, 'UbSdah threw stones over the walls and 
 went away ! 
 
 ° Ed. Hamaker, p. 104, notes. On p. 55 of text are the names 
 of several Muslims slain in the siege. 
 
Siege and Surrender of Babylon 267 
 
 weakened, if at all, the numbers within were thinned 
 by the plague ^ which now was making havoc in the 
 garrison : while the sentinels upon the round towers 
 scanned the horizon in vain for the flash of Roman 
 spear and cuirass beyond the white domes of the 
 convents which dotted the plain northwards. For 
 now was the time, when the floods were down, if 
 ever a relieving army was to save Babylon. 
 
 Indeed it was probably at this period of the war 
 that news reached 'Amr of an army assembling 
 under Theodore in the country between the two 
 branches of the Nile. 'Amr did not wait to be 
 attacked ; but leaving a strong enough force to 
 maintain the investment of Babylon, he moved up 
 the Damietta branch, crossed the river at Athrlb, and 
 struck northwards in the direction of Samanud. 
 Theodore dispatched two of his generals to hold 
 that city, and their column effected a junction with 
 a body of local militia. These, however, refused 
 to follow the Roman standards or to fight the Arabs. 
 Nevertheless battle was given in the region of 
 Samanud, with somewhat disastrous results for the 
 Muslim force and for some renegade Christians who 
 had adopted Islam and enrolled under its banners. 
 Great numbers of Muslims and their allies perished, 
 and 'Amr found that he could inflict no serious 
 mischief on the northern towns, which were protected 
 against cavalry by moats and canals. He therefore 
 fell back to Bdslr and fortified it : the defences of 
 Man<if and Athrlb were also repaired, and garrisons 
 were left within them. But if Theodore won some 
 
 ' It is YSkfit who mentions the plague, and the fact may be 
 accepted, although coupled with the absurd statement that 12,300 
 persons within the fortress were slain by the arrows of the 
 Muslims. 
 
268 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 advantage in this brief campaign, he was unable to 
 follow it up, and he never succeeded in placing a 
 relieving force anywhere near beleaguered Babylon \ 
 to which place 'Amr now returned. 
 
 The inaction of Theodore may have been partly 
 due to treachery and desertion on the Roman side. 
 How far the local militia was composed of Copts 
 and how far of Roman troops is not known : but 
 during the centuries of Roman occupation there 
 must have been a mingling of blood and of senti- 
 ment which is too often forgotten by historians. 
 The Copts had good reason to hate the Empire ; 
 and on some of the Romans, even apart from 
 religious motives, their loyalty sat so lightly that 
 it was shaken off by the passion or self-interest of 
 the moment. Two cases of the kind are recorded 
 in connexion with this episode. A general named 
 Kalddjl had gone over to the Muslims, but Theo- 
 dore contrived to see him, and used the strongest 
 arguments to secure his return. Kaladji had left 
 hostages in the shape of his wife and his mother 
 in Alexandria, and he agreed to purchase their 
 safety and his own pardon from Theodore for a 
 large sum of money. Accordingly he stole away 
 
 ' This episode is not free from doubt. It is given in John of 
 Nikiou, chapter cxiv, which, however, is full of perplexity. The 
 text says on the one hand that 'Amr started upon this expedition 
 ' leaving a strong force in the citadel of Babylon,' and on the other 
 hand it leaves the Romans in possession of Nikiou. Zotenberg 
 suggests altering the text in a way that would read at (or before) 
 Babylon instead of in Babylon : and this is the best solution. If 
 this emendation is rejected, the alternative is to place the expedition 
 between the fall of Babylon and the fall of Nikiou : but the interval 
 of time is too short, and this alternative is practically impossible. 
 The fact is that the events in this and the following chapters of 
 John's Chronicle are tumbled topsy-turvy, and the task of resetting 
 them in order is almost hopeless. 
 
Siege and Surrender of Babylon 269 
 
 with his troops from the MusHm camp at dead of 
 night, and rejoined Theodore, who sent him on to 
 strengthen the garrison of Nikiou under Domen- 
 tianus. The other traitor who repented was called 
 Sabendls ^. Like Kalidjl he made his escape from 
 the Muslims by night, but he fled down the river to 
 Damietta, which was held by a general named John. 
 By John he was sent on to Alexandria with a letter 
 to the acting governor. He confessed his crime 
 with tears, but said, ' I acted as I did because I had 
 been put to open shame by John, who regardless of 
 my age, had struck me in the face. Thereupon 
 I, who had been a devoted servant of the Empire, 
 went over to the Arabs.' So weak were the bonds of 
 patriotism and religion even among the Romans. 
 
 So at Babylon day followed day without any sign 
 or message of hope to cheer the defenders. It was 
 only ill news that reached them. They had heard 
 of Heraclius' indignation against Cyrus and his policy 
 of surrender, and of the sentence of exile pronounced 
 on the Archbishop : but the legions of which the 
 Emperor boasted still tarried, and the imperative 
 orders which he sent to his generals seemed result- 
 less, so far as concerned the fate of Babylon. Yet 
 hope was not quite abandoned, until at last one day 
 early in the month of March, 641, a great shout went 
 up in the Muslim camp, and the garrison heard that 
 news had come of Heraclius' death. Then indeed 
 their courage failed. They can but have dimly 
 conjectured the turmoil into which this event was 
 destined to plunge the Empire ; but the end of the 
 old warrior king was enough to cause profound 
 discouragement and depression. ' God broke down 
 
 ^ These names are certainly corrupt ; but I give them as they 
 stand in John of Nikiou. 
 
270 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 the power of the Romans by his death,' says the 
 Arab historian \ and his words well express the 
 effect of the change upon the armies in Egypt. It 
 gave corresponding elation to the Arabs, who re- 
 doubled their efforts to carry the fortress. 
 
 But for more than another month Babylon defied 
 capture. Then as victory still delayed, Zubair is 
 said to have solemnly devoted himself as the leader 
 of a storming party, for which preparations were 
 ready. The moat had been filled in at the place 
 destined for the assault, despite all resistance of the 
 sickly and enfeebled garrison. But the actual 
 moment of the attack was skilfully concealed, and 
 the assault was delivered with such swiftness under 
 cover of night ^ that Zubair's scaling-ladder was set 
 against the wall unnoticed ^. The Arab hero sprang 
 
 ^ Suyfitt, who however gives the wrong date, a. h. 19, while 
 quoting Al Laith for the true date, a. h. 20, or 641 a. d. Makin 
 has the same remark with the same error of date, and, like SuyfitJ, 
 he makes the news of Heraclius' death arrive during the siege of 
 Alexandria instead of Babylon. Heraclius died Feb. 11, 641, 
 months before the siege of Alexandria commenced. Makrizt 
 makes the same blunder, but he adds that ' the Muslims were 
 encouraged by the Emperor's death, and continued the siege with 
 renewed vigour.' 
 
 ^ Ya'kfibt is the only writer who mentions the fact that the 
 assault was made at night : see Ibn Wddhih qui dicitur Al JacMi 
 Historiae, ed. M. T. Houtsma, vol. ii. p. 168. 
 
 ' It is not easy to decide at what point the Arab scaling-ladders 
 were applied. Both Makrtzi and Abft '1 MahSsin say that it was 
 near what was called in their day the Market-place of Al Hammam, 
 and Yakflt says it was ' near the site of the subsequent house of 
 Abtl SSlih al Harrani, adjoining the Baths of Abft Nasr as Sarraj, 
 by the aforesaid Market-place.' Eutychius agrees that it was by 
 the Sfik al Hammam, and adds that it was on the south side of 
 the fortress — a detail which seems curiously confirmed by Bala- 
 dhurT. For this writer, after speaking of Zubair's arrival, which of 
 course was from the north, says that he planted the ladder on the 
 
Siege and Surrender of Babylon 271 
 
 from it, sword In hand, upon the battlements, shout- 
 ing the Muslim war-cry 'AUahu Akbar,' while, as 
 the defenders rallied, a fierce rain of arrows swept 
 the walls from without, and gave Zubair's com- 
 panions time to swarm up the ladder and make 
 good their footing upon the parapet within. It 
 seems that, in expectation of an assault upon this 
 section of the wall, the Romans had blocked the 
 ramparts by a cross-wall at either end, so that the 
 scaling-party, after overpowering the guard upon 
 that section and winning possession of the top of 
 the wall, found their passage barred, and were 
 unable to reach the stairs that led down within 
 the fortress. They had effected a lodgement on 
 the ramparts, but could go no further. Now was 
 the opportunity for the defenders : if they had only 
 retained strength and spirit enough, they might in 
 turn have poured such a fire of arrows into the band 
 of Muslims as would have cleared them off. But 
 the limit of their endurance was reached. After 
 a hurried consultation among the leaders of the 
 
 opposite side, i. e. the south. But the place named as Sflk al 
 Hammam was probably part of the subsequent city of FustSt, 
 which has now entirely disappeared. It would seem, however, that 
 the assault was delivered somewhere near the south-east angle of 
 the fortress, where the walls are still standing. 
 
 The authenticity of the incident cannot, I think, be doubted. 
 Balidhuri says that when Fustat was built, Zubair built a house for 
 himself, ' which his son inherited, and in which the ladder wherewith 
 the wall of Babylon was ^xst -aiomxiedi is still kept' ; i.e. ninth century. 
 Yakflt also says, ' Zubair's ladder is said to have been preserved in 
 a house in the Market-place of Wardan until the house was burnt 
 down after a.h. 390' (circa 1000 a. d.). 
 
 Yakflt speaks of a second ladder as having been mounted by 
 Shurahbil ibn Hajtah al Maradi ' near the Street of the Flute- 
 Players '; but this indication also has perished with the city of 
 Fustat. 
 
272 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 defence in the dawning light, a parley was sounded, 
 and George, the commander of the fortress, offered 
 to capitulate, provided the lives of his soldiers were 
 spared. 'Amr at once approved the terms, much 
 to the indignation of Zubair, who urged that he had 
 been on the point of taking • the fortress by storm. 
 ' If you had only waited a little,' he said, ' I should 
 have got down from the wall inside the fortress, and 
 then it would have been all over.' But 'Amr paid 
 no heed to his remonstrance : a treaty of surrender 
 was drawn up, under which it was agreed that in 
 three days' time the garrison should evacuate the 
 fortress, retiring by river, and carrying only what 
 was necessary for a few days' subsistence ; that the 
 fortress itself, with all treasure and war material, 
 should be delivered over to the Arabs ^ ; and that 
 the town should become tributary. 
 
 ' It has been very difficult to construct an intelligible stOry of 
 the fall of Babylon. The story of Zubair's escalade seems to come 
 originally from Ibn 'Abd al Hakam, but generally is twisted by the 
 Arab chroniclers into a shape of absurdity. As Makrizt gives it, 
 the garrison fled on hearing the Muslim cry : Zubair opened the 
 gates, and the Arabs rushed in : whereupon ' the Mukaukas, in fear 
 of his life, proposed submission and tribute.' The Mukaukas was 
 no longer there, and such proposals would be ridiculous after a 
 complete capture by storm. Abfi '1 Mahasin gives precisely the 
 same version. Suyfiti is nearly as bad ; for he says that when the 
 Muslims had entered the fort, the Mukaukas began to negotiate with 
 'Amr. But the version in the text above comes from Tabarf, and 
 is at once so clear and so rational that I have no hesitation in 
 believing it, much as that author has in other respects confused the 
 incidents of the conquest. I should add that there is a general 
 agreement fixing the duration of the investment at seven months, 
 although the date of surrender is confused with that of the unratified 
 treaty of Cyrus, and so is made to coincide with high Nile. Weil 
 in his Geschichie der Ckali/en has been completely misled on this 
 point, affirming the capture at high Nile, and rejecting the seven 
 months' siege : but his whole scheme of chronology is wrong, e. g. 
 
Siege and Surrender of Babylon 273 
 
 The final assault of the Muslims took place on 
 Good Friday, April 6, 641, and the evacuation 
 on the following Easter Monday^. In the interval 
 the fleet of boats was collected from Raudah and 
 provisioned, and all preparations were made for the 
 retreat of the garrison down the Nile. It was a 
 mournful coincidence for the Christian army that 
 their last day within the fortress should be the day 
 of the Resurrection ; and one would fain picture 
 them as thronging the churches in sorrow and self- 
 abasement for their defeat by the followers of 
 Mohammed. It must, however, be recorded that 
 neither the solemnity of the crisis in the history of 
 Christian rule in Egypt, nor the solemnity of the 
 day, availed to abate the fury of religious passion 
 in the hearts of the Roman leaders. We have; 
 already seen that early in the siege a number of 
 Copts in Babylon had been thrown into prison, 
 either from their refusal to abandon their creed or 
 
 he makes 'Amr arrive at Babylon in January. The account of 
 Tabarl is supplemented by that of John of Nikiou, who in 
 chap, cxvii (which is obviously out of order) gives the actual 
 surrender of Babylon, though the story of the siege is missing. 
 
 ' Easter Monday is given with absolute clearness by John of 
 Nikiou. He does not mention Good Friday: but (i) Friday is the 
 Muslim diesfaustus, and is the most probable day for Zubair's act 
 of self-devotion ; and (2) John of Nikiou makes it clear that the 
 garrison were allowed an interval of a day, or two before the 
 evacuation, because they had leisure on Easter Day to commit 
 the acts of barbarity, which he records, upon the Coptic prisoners. 
 I may add that Ibn "Abd al Hakam gives a letter from Omar to 
 'Amr complaining of the delay in the capture of Ale::?andria (the 
 context shows, I think, that Babylon is intended), and in the letter 
 are the words 'Let the attack be made on Friday evening, for 
 that is the time when mercy descends and prayer is answered.' 
 This is recorded by Suyfitt (p. 72) : and we know that Zubair's 
 assault was at night. 
 
274 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 on suspicion of disloyalty. Easter Day was made 
 a day of vengeance upon these unfortunate prisoners, 
 who, after being dragged out of their cells and 
 scourged, had their hands cut off by soldiers acting 
 under the orders of Eudocianus. It is small wonder 
 that the wrath of the Egyptian bishop is launched 
 upon 'those enemies of Christ, who have defiled 
 the Church by an unclean faith, and who have 
 wrought apostasies and deeds of violence such as 
 neither pagan nor barbarian hath wrought : they 
 have despised Christ and His servants, and we 
 have not found such evil-doers even among the 
 worshippers of false idols \' He describes the 
 groans and tears of the mutilated captives, as they 
 were driven out of the fort in scorn ; and, however 
 illogical, it is not unnatural for him to think that 
 the fall of Babylon was a divine chastisement upon 
 the Romans for their savage maltreatment of the 
 Copts. Truly the incident shows what implacable 
 hatred divided the two religious parties among the 
 Christians even at the moment when the fruits of 
 disunion were fatally visible in the triumph of 
 Islam. 
 
 ' John of Nikiou, p. 567. 
 
CHAPTER XIX 
 
 MARCH ON ALEXANDRIA 
 
 The Treaty of Babylon : its nature and limits. Arab lesson to 
 the natives. Renegade Christians. Restoration of Nile bridges. 
 Advance of the Arab army northwards. Nikiou their objective. 
 Battle at Tarranah. Cowardly retreat of Domentianus, and capture 
 of Nikiou by the Arabs. Massacre there. Advance continued. 
 Fighting at Kfim Sharik, Suntais, and Kariiin. Defeat of the 
 Romans and retreat of Theodore. The Muslims reach Alex- 
 andria. Their view of the city, and their powerlessness against it. 
 "Amr's Delta campaign. Failure at Sakha. His march to Tftkh 
 and Damsls, and return to Babylon. Historical fallacies refuted. 
 
 The siege of Babylon, which ended on April 9, 
 641, had lasted for seven months. That fact is 
 clearly preserved in Arab tradition, although the 
 abortive treaty made by Al Mukaukas at high Nile, 
 a few weeks after the siege began, is confounded by 
 practically all the Arab writers with the final treaty 
 of surrender, made when Al Mukaukas was banished 
 from Egypt. In the light of the true story one 
 sees how the confusion arose, and with it another 
 confusion scarcely less remarkable. No question is 
 more keenly debated by these writers than the ques- 
 tion whether Misr — by which they sometimes mean 
 Babylon and sometimes Egypt — was taken by treaty 
 or by force. As regards Babylon we now know 
 that there is a real foundation for a difference of 
 opinion ; for on the one hand it was an act of force 
 — the storming of Zubair — which put an end to the 
 resistance of the Romans, and on the other hand 
 that act of force was not a full capture by storm, 
 though it caused the fortress forthwith to capitulate. 
 Still the truth remains that Babylon was surrendered 
 
 T 2 
 
276 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 under treaty, and that the treaty provided for the 
 retirement of the garrison. Hence we must reject 
 the story of great slaughter wrought within the 
 walls as a mere growth of legend upon the version 
 of capture by force ^. 
 
 But the compact made at Babylon was a military 
 convention and not a political treaty. 'Amr was 
 content to purchase possession of the fortress at the 
 price of the withdrawal of the Rorhans, who neither 
 accepted IsMm nor agreed to pay tribute. But 
 tribute was laid on all the inhabitants of the city 
 who remained behind. As this arrangement was of 
 purely local significance, so the tribute imposed was 
 but slight and temporary. One authority gives it 
 as a dinir for each of the Arabs, together with 
 a change of raiment^, which latter they greatly 
 needed. This squares very well with a story told 
 by another writer^, who says that after the sur- 
 
 ' Eutychius says that while the garrison retreated by boat to 
 Raudah, the Muslims slew, took captive, and plundered. Makrlzi 
 agrees that 'many of the inhabitants were slain, many made 
 prisoners.' Po'ssibly som^ bloodshed did occur ; but Suyfltt says, 
 ' The Muslims took the fort and slaughtered the garrison ' — a very 
 different story, in which he improves on Abil '1 Mahdsin, who alleges 
 that 'when the fort was taken, there was great slaughter.' No 
 credence whatever can be given to the report noticed by MakrtzJ 
 and Suyfitl that 12,300 Romans were slain by arrows within the 
 fortress after the siege was over. 
 
 " Makrizi cites the Hadith of Ibn Wahb, quoting from 
 'Abdarrahman ibn Shuraib for this highly probable statement. 
 The raiment consisted oljubbah, burnus, turban, and pair of shoes. 
 If the Arab forces were by this time reduced to 12,000 men, this 
 would account for the 12,000 din§,rs recorded, of course mistakenly, 
 by some writers as the total tribute imposed on Egypt, the name 
 Misr being wrongly extended, as often happens, from the town to 
 the country. 
 
 ' Tabari. When he speaks oi Coptic soldiers, he may mean 
 Egyptians who had been enrolled in the Roman army as local 
 
March on Alexandria 277 
 
 render there remained at Misr a great number of 
 Coptic soldiers. These seeing the Muslims in rags 
 and tatters remarked, ' Alas ! why did we not know 
 that the Arabs were in such an evil plight ? "For 
 we would have continued the struggle, and not 
 delivered the city.' When 'Amr heard of this, he 
 invited some of the leaders among them to dinner. 
 He had a camel slaughtered, and the flesh boiled in 
 salt water and set before a mixed company of Copts 
 and Arabs. The Arabs ate of the meat, but the 
 Copts only turned away in disgust, and went home 
 dinnerless. Next day 'Amr ordered his cooks to 
 search the town of Misr for every dainty and deli- 
 cate dish it could provide to dress a banquet. This 
 was done, and the same company sat down to a 
 sumptuous repast. When dinner was over, 'Amr 
 spoke to the Copts as follows : ' I must have for 
 you all the regard which our kinship imposes. But 
 I understand that you are plotting to take up arms 
 once more against me. Now aforetime the Arabs 
 ate camel's meat, as you saw yesterday ; but now 
 when they have discovered all this dainty fare that 
 you see before you, do you think that they will sur- 
 render this city ? I tell you they will give their 
 lives first ; they will fight to the death. Do not 
 therefore hurl yourselves to destruction. Either 
 embrace the religion of Islam, or pay your tribute, 
 and go your ways to your villages^.' 
 
 militia — a force which certainly existed, as is clear from John of 
 Nikiou. The remark about kinship would be meaningless applied 
 to Roman soldiers. Yet it is fair to observe that Tabarl often 
 speaks of Copts where he can only mean Romans. In any case 
 the story is not of serious importance, though it illustrates 'Amr's 
 character. 
 
 ^ Ibn al Athfr gives a rather different version of this tradition. 
 'Amr, he says, learned that the Copts spoke disparagingly of the 
 
278 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 This anecdote Is at least curious as showing the 
 other side to those lofty professions of indifference 
 to the good things of this world which we have 
 seen uttered by 'Ubidah and quoted by Cyrus. It 
 is perhaps memorable for another reason, because it 
 cannot be questioned that now the alternative of 
 Islcim was chosen by some of the Copts rather than 
 payment of tribute. The temptation of equality 
 and honour and brotherhood with the conquerors, 
 together with the prospect of plunder in lieu of taxa- 
 tion, proved too strong for many of those Egyptians 
 whose own creed had been crushed out by the 
 millstones of Cyrus' persecution ; and some of the 
 Roman soldiers and settlers similarly abandoned 
 their religion. These are the men who, in the words 
 of the Coptic bishop of Nikiou, ' apostatized from 
 the Christian faith and embraced the faith of the 
 beast ' ; renegades who now, under the cloak of zeal 
 for the Muslim cause, aided in seizing the posses- 
 sions of those Christians whom the war had driven 
 from their homes and in blaspheming them as 
 ' enemies of God ^.' But these apostates were few 
 
 Arabs for their poverty and rough way of life ; whereupon, fearing 
 that this frame of mind might lead to rebellion, he resolved to 
 overawe the Copts by illustrating the difference between the luxury 
 of Egypt and the coarse diet of the Arabs, and by pointing out 
 that on this hard fare the Muslims had conquered the far more 
 numerous armies of their enemies. The lesson made a deep 
 impression on the Egyptians, who remarked, 'The Arabs are in- 
 vincible; they have cast us down beneath their feet.' When this 
 story was reported to Omar, he is said to have remarked that 'Amr 
 made war by argument, as other warriors by force. 
 
 " John of Nikiou, p. 560. Abfi gSlih has a curious tradition 
 that the district adjoining Cairo on the south, long called Al 
 Hamri, derived its name from the fact that there 'the Red 
 Standard (Ar RSyat al Hamra) stood at the time of the conquest 
 of Misr by the Arabs, and around it were gathered those who 
 
March on Alexandria 279 
 
 in number; the bulk of the Coptic people scorned 
 them and their new-found religion alike, as is proved 
 by the bishop's language. Once more, however, 
 it must be repeated that the Copts at this period 
 had neither leader nor organic unity. They were 
 therefore incapable of corporate action. Isolated 
 persons and isolated communities among them de- 
 termined their own course of conduct from time to 
 time, but always in isolation, since there were no 
 means either for the formation or for the execution 
 of any collective purpose. Accordingly it is quite 
 erroneous to speak of the Copts in general as party 
 to the treaty of Babylon, which concerned only the 
 people of that locality. But the terms of the con- 
 vention were offered to people in the vicinity ; thus 
 'Abdallah ibn liudhifah as Sahmi went by 'Amr's 
 orders to Heliopolis and received the submission of 
 the town and the country round it^ a fact which 
 
 asked protection of the Muslims and marched in their rear-guard ' 
 (p. 102). On the other hand, Ibn Dukmak, in describing the 
 several quarters of Fustat, writes : ' Then the three HamrSs, which 
 were so-called because the Romans settled in them : for they were 
 the quarters of Bill ibn 'Amr ibn al Haf ibn Kuda'ah, and of the 
 Banfl Bahr, and of the Banfl Salamat, and of Yashkur of the tribe 
 of Lakhm, and of Hudhail ibn Madrakah, and of the Banfl Naid, 
 and of the Banfl '1 Azrak, who were Romans' (part iv. p. 5). 
 I do not know what is the connexion between ' Hamrd ' and 
 ' Roman,' but it is stated in the context that these Romans and one 
 Rfibll, a Jew, ' had marched from Syria to Egypt, and were among 
 the non-Arab inhabitants of Syria, who accepted Islam before the 
 battle of Yermouk.' 
 
 ' This comes from Baladhurt. The statement is doubtless 
 correct, and to it we may trace that confusion between the first 
 capture and the final subjection of Heliopolis which vitiates the 
 narrative of Tabari and others. That the number who came under 
 this treaty was small is indicated by Abfl 'I Mahasin, who gives 
 6,000 souls as the total, while he quotes 'Abdallah ibn Lahl ah as 
 giving 8,000, who by it were rendered liable to poll-tax (p. 19). 
 
28o The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 seems to show that at the previous occupation of 
 the place no Muslim administration was established. 
 
 But though the treaty was local, its results were 
 felt all over the Roman Empire. Babylon or Mem- 
 phis had long ceased to be the capital of Egypt: 
 it had been eclipsed by the power and splendour 
 of Alexander's city: but it was the gate between 
 Upper and Lower Egypt, and a strong enemy 
 planted in the wellnigh impregnable fortress had all 
 Upper Egypt at his mercy, and dominated the Delta 
 far northwards. What the Roman generals were 
 doing all the winter through, and why they allowed 
 the Muslim army to slowly wear down the resistance 
 of Babylon, are questions that perhaps will never 
 be answered ; but it is certain that by the capture 
 of the fortress their own power, both moral and 
 material, was greatly shaken, and that of the Arabs 
 immensely strengthened. By Pelusium, Bilbais, 
 Athrib, and Heliopolis "Amr now held all the east 
 side of the Delta : at Babylon he held its apex and 
 gripped the whole valley of the Nile in the middle. 
 The conquest of Egypt was half accomplished. 
 
 It must have been after the fall of the fortress, 
 and not before as the chronicles imply, that 'Amr 
 ordered a bridge of boats to be built — or rather 
 restored — ^from Babylon to Raudah, and Raudah 
 to Jlzah, thus spanning the whole width of the Nile 
 and controlling all traffic and transport upon it. 
 But the Arab commander was anxious to launch 
 his army, too long chained to their camp at Misr, 
 on the way towards Alexandria. In less than three 
 months the Nile would begin to rise again, and there- 
 fore time was precious. While dispatches were sent 
 to Omar reporting progress and requesting more 
 troops, arrangements were rapidly made for the 
 
March on Alexandria 281 
 
 administration of the conquered town and territory : 
 the fortress walls were repaired, and a strong garri- 
 son was left under the command of Khirijah ibn 
 Hudhdfah ^ Then, with his army remounted, 'Amr 
 turned his back on Babylon, rejoicing to take the 
 field again, and pushed northwards, following the 
 western main of the Nile. The general's tent was 
 left in position ; for just as it was ordered to be 
 struck, it was discovered that a dove had nested in 
 the top part and there laid her eggs ; whereupon 
 'Amr remarked, ' She has taken refuge under our 
 protection. Let the tent stand, till she has hatched 
 her brood and they are flown away.' It is even said 
 that a sentinel was left to prevent the dove from 
 being molested *. 
 
 It is not very easy to trace the movements of 
 the Arab forces in the campaign which now opened, 
 because the Chronicle of John of Nikiou in these 
 last chapters often seems a mere collection of frag- 
 ments of history flung together at haphazard, and 
 such narrative as can be founded upon it is often 
 at total variance with Arab records. Yet a certain 
 amount of reconcilement is possible, and there are 
 points on which the coincidence is striking. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the first point at 
 which 'Amr aimed on his march to Alexandria was 
 Nikiou. This was a city of great importance and 
 
 ^ I have already noted that this statement, which comes from 
 Arab sources, is supported by a contemporary document, No. 553 
 in Karabacek's Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer : Fiikrer durch die Aus- 
 stellung. 
 
 ^ I have given YSkftt's version of this familiar story. It fits very 
 well vsrith the time of year when 'Amr left Babylon — the end of 
 April — and it has the ring of truth. The appeal for protection, 
 even on the part of an enemy, was sacred in the eyes of the 
 Muslims. 
 
282 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 a fortress of great strength i- It lay on the river 
 bank — on the east side of the western or Rosetta 
 branch of the Nile — a long day's journey from 
 Babylon, but only about two hours distant from 
 Manlif, which was already in the Arabs' possession. 
 Nikiou was not merely a flourishing town, marking 
 its antiquity by colossal remains from the days of 
 the Pharaohs ; it was also the seat of one of the 
 chief bishoprics of Christian Egypt, and a place 
 of the highest strategical value in the defence of 
 the military route between Babylon and Alexandria. 
 It was here therefore that the Roman resistance 
 should have centred for a fresh stand against the 
 Arabs. 
 
 Moreover it seems that 'Amr began his north- 
 ward march on the western^ or desert side of the 
 Nile, where his cavalry could move with freedom, 
 unhampered by the network of canals in the Delta. 
 The Romans were prepared in a fashion for this 
 movement, and the first encounter took place at the 
 
 ' I have shown in the note on p. 16 that the site of the ancient 
 Nikiou is to be found at the modern village of Shabshtr towards 
 the north-east of Manflf on the Nile. 
 
 ^ The name Warden preserved in a village on the western side, 
 coupled with the tradition given by Makrlzi, clearly suggests that 
 'Amr at first followed the western bank on his march to Nikiou. 
 Indeed, provided that he was sure of crossing the Nile at Atris or 
 Bani Salimah, that route offered fewer obstacles than the canal- 
 seamed country between the two branches of the river. Makrizi's 
 words are as follows ; ' On his way to Alexandria 'Amr laid waste 
 the village called Kharbat Wardan. There is a dispute as to the 
 cause of this devastation. Sa'M ibn 'Ufair says that when 'Amr 
 marched to Nakyfls to fight the Romans, he left Warden behind in 
 this village to settle affairs, but the people seized and carried him 
 off. When at last he was found hidden in a house, 'Amr ordered 
 that the village should be destroyed. Another account is that some 
 of 'Ami's rearguard were slain here.' 
 
March on Alexandria 283 
 
 ancient and important city of Terenouti, or Tarn<it, 
 or Tarranah, as the Arabs learned to call it. Tarri- 
 nah was a regular crossing-place on the Nile, on the 
 way to Alexandria ^ : it was also the point of departure 
 for the great Coptic monasteries in the Libyan 
 desert : and it was natural that the Roman armies 
 should not yield it without resistance. They gave 
 battle 2 to 'Amr, and at least saved their honour, 
 though they suffered defeat, and the Arabs were 
 able to continue their advance towards Nikiou. 
 
 Nikiou lay, as we have seen, on the right bank 
 of the river, near the place where the Pharaonic 
 canal from Athrlb and Manijf joined the Nile. It 
 was too strong a fortress to leave on his flank : 
 so the Arab leader was compelled to cross the 
 river for its reduction, and to recross subse- 
 quently. The Roman commander therefore had a 
 fine opportunity for aggressive tactics. But instead 
 of taking the command here in person with the bulk 
 of his forces, Theodore relied on the weak and 
 cowardly Domentianus to hold Nikiou with an 
 inadequate garrison. Domentianus had a consider- 
 able fleet of boats, which he meant to employ merely 
 
 ' See Amdlineau, G^og. Copte, p. 493, ' C'est Ik qu' Apatir va 
 passer le Nil, venant d'Alexandrie, pour se rendre k Babylone 
 d'Egypte,' and the other references given. 
 ^ This battle is recorded by Yakfit, who says, ' At Tarnfit there 
 • was a battle between 'Amr and the Romans.' Makrtzi makes 
 a strange blunder in this connexion. For in his account of 'Amr's 
 march from Babylon against Alexandria, he says (vol. i. p. 163, 
 Bfllak ed.) that 'Amr encountered none of the Roman forces till he 
 reached Mareotis, and a few lines lower he places 'Amr behind at 
 Mareotis, while his advance columns are at Kdm Sharlk 1 The 
 absurdity of this vanishes if instead of Martfit Ljj^ we read Jo^^ 
 Tarnfit, which is certainly correct: but the slip illustrates the 
 manner in which history is perverted by writers or copyists ignorant 
 of geography. 
 
284 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 for the defence of the town or to contest the subse- 
 quent passage of the Nile, which 'Amr here must 
 make, and which possibly he might even essay if he 
 failed to capture the fortress. But when the Roman 
 general found that the Muslim army was in close 
 proximity, his heart failed, and abandoning army 
 and fleet he took flight in a boat to Alexandria. 
 Finding themselves thus betrayed by their leader, 
 the garrison flung away their arms and rushed down 
 into the canal ^ in a mad endeavour to cross it or to 
 reach the boats. But the panic spread to the boat- 
 men, who, thinking of their own safety, unmoored 
 with all speed and fled in disorder down the Nile, 
 each man making for his own village. Meanwhile 
 the Arabs came up, and falling on the defenceless 
 Roman soldiers in the water put every man to the 
 sword, with the single exception of Zachariah, a 
 man who showed extraordinary valour, and was 
 perhaps spared for that reason. The entry of the 
 Arabs into the town was unopposed : there was not 
 a soldier left to offer resistance. Nevertheless they 
 signalized their victory by a cruel massacre. ' They 
 slew every one whom they encountered in the streets, 
 and those who had taken refuge in the churches, 
 sparing neither men nor women nor little children. 
 From Nikiou they went to other places round about, 
 plundering and killing all before them. In the town ^ 
 of Salina they found Scutaeus and his people (who 
 were related to Theodore) hiding in a vineyard, and 
 they put them to the sword. But it is time to cease : 
 for it is impossible to recount the iniquities committed 
 by the Muslims after their capture of the island of 
 
 ' This description proves the canal to have Iain northward of 
 the town of Nikiou, and confirms the identification of the site with 
 Shabshir. 
 
March on Alexandria 285 
 
 Nikiou on Sunday, the eighteenth day of the month 
 Genbot, in the fifteenth year of the cycle,' which date 
 corresponds to May 13, 641 ^ 
 
 This passage of the Coptic bishop I have given 
 in full, because it shows how little reason the Copts 
 as a body had to sympathize, and how little they did 
 in fact sympathize, with their Saracen conquerors. 
 For Nikiou was a stronghold of the Coptic faith ; 
 and though Cyrus had scourged the people till they 
 renounced its open profession, yet it cannot be 
 questioned that in their hearts the victims of the 
 persecution retained their old allegiance. But Copts 
 and Romans alike were now overwhelmed in indis- 
 criminate slaughter, the record of which contains no 
 word to suggest that Copts were entitled to look for 
 different treatment. At the same time it is clear 
 that division and disorder were spreading like a 
 plague through the country, and it was not long 
 before civil war was added to the calamities of the 
 time. Lower Egypt was split into two camps, one 
 party siding with the Romans, while the other 
 wished to join the invaders. Whether the dividing 
 lines were those of race or creed, or, as seems 
 probable, of faction, is a question left unanswered. 
 But battle and pillage and burning of towns were 
 common incidents in the conflict of the two parties, 
 while the Arabs looked with contettipt and distrust 
 on these uncovenanted partisans. 
 
 ' John of Nikiou, p. 568. For the date see my Appendix D. 
 Zotenberg gives the name of the town as SS. But SS, the ancient 
 Sais, lies nearly as far north as Damanhftr, quite beyond the range 
 of the Arabs at this moment. The heading to the chapter gives 
 Salini as the name of the town, and this I have adopted. For 
 Zotenberg's Esqoutdos I have ventured to conjecture Scutaeus, for 
 a vowel would necessarily be prefixed to render such a name in 
 Arabic, through which language the story passed into the Ethiopic. 
 
286 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 The capture of Nikiou ^ and the dispersal of the 
 Roman fleet on the Nile opened the way for the 
 advance on Alexandria, towards which the main body 
 of the Roman army under Theodore was slo ly 
 retiring. 
 
 'Amr took up his quarters at Nikiou for a few 
 days ; but, ere resuming his march after crossing the 
 river, he sent his lieutenant, Shaiik, to pursue the 
 retreating enemy. The way now lay along the left 
 bank of the Nile, skirting the edge of the desert, and 
 the country was favourable for cavalry. The Muslim 
 advance forces overtook the Romans at a place 
 about sixteen miles due north of Tarrinah, but they 
 found the enemy in greater strength than they had 
 expected. Indeed, so far from routing the Romans 
 at the first onset, they are said to have fought for 
 three days ; and at one period of the contest the 
 Arabs were repulsed and driven up some rising 
 ground, where they stood at bay under fierce assaults 
 from the Romans, who surrounded them. In this 
 dangerous plight Sharik ordered Malik ibn Nii'mah, 
 who possessed a bay horse of unrivalled swiftness, 
 to make his way through or round the enemy and 
 carry a message to 'Amr. This Malik succeeded in 
 doing : for though some of the Romans gave chase, 
 they were unable to overtake him. On hearing of 
 the danger in which Sharik stood, "Amr hurried 
 troops forward at the utmost speed. It is said that 
 the mere news of their coming turned the army of 
 Theodore to flight : it is certain that Sharik was 
 relieved, and the Romans lost the opportunity of 
 overwhelming this detachment of the Saracens, as 
 
 ' The Arab historians know nothing of this event and pass it 
 over in absolute silence. The battle of Nikiou mentioned by 
 Ydkflt is that which took place in Manuel's rebellion. 
 
March on Alexandria 287 
 
 they had lost every opportunity which fortune 
 offered. The scene of the battle was called after 
 the Arab leader, K6m Sharlk\ or the Mound of 
 Sharik, which name remains to this day. 
 
 Steadily pushing the enemy before him, 'Amr 
 now probably marched north-east, still following the 
 canal which borders the desert, till he reached 
 Dalingat, and from that point struck due northwards 
 in the direction of Damanhiir. Once more he found 
 a Roman army barring his passage at a place called 
 Suntais ^, about six miles south of Damanhlir, and 
 once more an obstinate engagement resulted in the 
 retreat of the Romans. They made no effort to 
 rally at Damanhijr or to hold the town ; but stream- 
 ing north from the battlefield they struck the high 
 road to Alexandria, crossed the canal, which now 
 was nearly empty, and took refuge under the fort of 
 Kariftn after a march of some twenty miles. Kariiin 
 was the last in the chain of fortresses between Baby- 
 lon and Alexandria, and it was a place of great 
 importance for the corn traffic. Strategically too 
 it controlled the canal on which Alexandria mainly 
 depended both for food and for water : but although 
 
 ^ The details of this incident come from Makrlz}, who seems to 
 be copying Ibn 'Abd al Hakam. Ockley gives the odd form 
 Keram '1 Shoraik to the place : but his whole account of the 
 conquest is a tangle of misstatement and misplacement which fairly 
 rivals that of the Arab writers. Eutychius calls the place the 
 Vineyard of ShurJk, but it is very unlikely than any vineyard was 
 there. 
 
 ^ Makrizf gives the form Sultais. In the translation of Eutychius 
 the name appears as Salstan — an obvious corruption. Weil in 
 giving the form Siltis suggests that it should be Samiatis, or, as 
 Ewald conjectures, Suntais. There can be no question that the 
 last is the right form. Suntais is a considerable village, almost 
 equidistant from Kfim Sharik and Karifin. 
 
288 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 the defences had been strengthened by the Romans, 
 they in no wise compared with strongholds like 
 Babylon or even Nikiou ^ Here, however, Theodore 
 resolved to make his last stand, nor could he have 
 chosen a better position than this, where the advan- 
 tage of numbers was aided by the works of the 
 fortress and the canal, while his retreat on Alexandria 
 was easy to secure. 
 
 Although the Roman army had been greatly 
 dejected by the fall of Babylon and Nikiou, and by 
 the treason and cowardice displayed by some of its 
 leaders, yet even the Muslim writers admit that 
 during this phase of the struggle it fought with 
 obstinate valour. It was strong in numbers, 
 large reinforcements having come over-sea from 
 Constantinople. Theodore himself, though totally 
 incompetent as general, was not wanting in courage 
 or fighting spirit. Not merely the Alexandrian 
 
 ^ As regards the name "Karifln see Amdlineau, Ghg. Copte, 
 p. 217, who gives the Coptic form jc^epeir -and the Greek xa'pEou 
 (sic), but does not give the more familiar Chaereum. John of Nikiou 
 in chap. Ixvii says that the sweet-water canal (which the heading 
 calls the canal of Karifin) was made by Cleopatra. Procopius in 
 The Buildings 0/ Justinian avers that ' the Nile does not flow as far 
 as Alexandria, but, after reaching the city of Chaereum, proceeds to 
 the left. The ancients dug a deep channel from Chaereum and 
 turned part of the Nile stream into it to flow into Lake Marea. 
 This channel is nowhere navigable for large ships, but at Chaereum 
 the corn is transferred from the large vessels into barges and so 
 brought to Alexandria' (Palestine Pilgrims Text Soc, vol. ii. 
 p. 152). John specially says that Cleopatra's canal was navigable 
 for large vessels, but of course the navigation depended on the state 
 of the waterway. Ibn Haukal describes Karifln in his day as ' a 
 large and beautiful town on both banks of the Alexandrian canal. In 
 summer when the Nile rises, merchants take boat there for the 
 journey up to Fustit. . . . The town is the seat of a governor, who , 
 has under his orders the garrison cdmposed of cavalry and 
 infantry' (Quatrem^re, M^m. G^og. et Hist. t. i. p. 419). 
 
March on Alexandria 289 
 
 army, but all the country round, realized the critical 
 nature of the coming conflict at Karitin, and contin- 
 gents flocked to the Roman standard, not only from 
 Suntais, but from more distant towns like Khais, 
 Sakha, and Balhlb \ It was no single engagement 
 that decided the fate of Karitin. The fighting was 
 not only severe, but it lasted over a period of ten 
 days. In one of the battles, Wardin, the well-known 
 freedman of 'Amr, was carrying the Muslim colours, 
 and 'Amr's son 'Abdallah was badly wounded by his 
 side. Half fainting in the heat of the combat, 
 "Abdallah asked his comrade to retreat a little that 
 
 ^ This is from Baladhurt (p. 220), who directly associates the 
 Copts with the Romans in the struggle at Karifin. SakhS is between 
 the two branches of the Nile, about twenty miles north-west of 
 Samaniid. I cannot find any name in modern Egyptian charts 
 corresponding to Balhit, or BalMb as Yakfit more correctly writes 
 it, in accord with the Coptic neXrni; but the place was well known 
 and was the scene of a revolt by the Copts in a.h. 156 (Quatremfere, 
 Recherches, &c., p. 198). Its position is discussed by Quatremfere 
 (Observations sur quelques Points de la Geographic de t^gypte, 
 pp. 45 seq.), who shows that Ibn Haukal places it six saks north of 
 Sandifln on the Nile, at the junction of a small western branch with 
 the Rosetta main. This, taking the sak at about one and a quarter 
 miles, would place Balhib, as Quatremfere shows, somewhere near 
 what he writes Mentoubes, but what is given in the Domains map of 
 the Delta as Metoubes. But clearly Balhib was on the left, not on 
 the right, bank of the river. The small branch has long disappeared 
 in a morass, but there is a hamlet called Dibi in the place required, 
 and the name DM may even be an echo of the lost Balhib. It lies 
 in the bend of the river some ten or twelve miles south of Rosetta. 
 Amdlineau (Giog. Copte, p. 314) is wrong in saying that the 
 junction spoken of by Ibn Haukal was formerly at the village of 
 ' Dirouet.' Dairflt is close to Sandifln, though across the river, and 
 Am^lineau cannot have read Quatrembre very carefully. 
 
 Khais was in the region of Damietta : see Quatremfere, M/m. 
 Giog. et Hist. t. i. p. 337. Yakfit gives Fartas^ (or Kartasi) 
 among the towns that resisted 'Amr, while he adds that 'Amr made 
 terms \yith BalMb. 
 
 BUTtER U 
 
290 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 they might have more air to breathe in. 'Air?' 
 replied Wardin : ' you want air in front of you and 
 not behind you ' : and they pressed forward together. 
 'Amr, hearing of his son's mishap, sent a messenger 
 to inquire of his welfare, whereupon 'Abdallah 
 quoted some verses of reassuring tenour. This 
 answer was brought to the chief, who exclaimed, 
 ' He is my son indeed \' Fiercely, however, as the 
 Muslims charged time after time, the issue hung in 
 doubt, and 'Amr prayed the ' prayer of fear.' It 
 looks as if this was a drawn battle, although the 
 Arab writers make it a crowning victory. However 
 that may be, there can be no doubt that at the end 
 of the ten days the Muslims were so far victorious 
 that they captured the town and fortress of Karifin, 
 driving back the Roman army. Whether the 
 Romans were chased in headlong flight to the gates 
 of Alexandria, or whether Theodore retreated in 
 good order, cannot be determined, although the 
 impartial record of John of Nikiou seems in favour 
 of the latter alternative. 
 
 These various engagements from "Tarrinah to 
 KariM must have caused serious losses on both 
 sides. The Romans were better able to bear them ; 
 but if allowance is made for the garrisons left by the 
 Muslims at Babylon and various points in the Delta, 
 it becomes clear that 'Amr's further advance would 
 have been impossible, if he had not received heavy 
 reinforcements during the preceding winter or spring. 
 
 ' Makrfzl gives this story, and is the authority for the ten days' 
 fighting. Baladhurt merely speaks of an engagement at Karifln. 
 John of Nikiou is unhappily very brief. He remarks that 'Amr 
 launched a great force of Muslims towards Alexandria, and they 
 took possession of Karifln, its garrison under Theodore retiring to 
 Alexandria. 
 
March on Alexandria 291 
 
 He could not have ventured to appear before 
 Alexandria with less than 15,000 men: it would 
 probably be nearer the truth to place his effective 
 force now at 20,000. The capture of Karilin had 
 completely cleared the way to the capital ; and as 
 soon as his troops had recovered from the strain of 
 the recent fighting, "Amr moved on, and covered 
 unopposed the last stage of the march to Alexandria. 
 Many of the soldiers in that army must have seen 
 beautiful cities in Palestine, like Edessa, Damascus, 
 and Jerusalem ; some may even have gazed on the 
 far-famed splendours of Antioch or the wonders of 
 Palmyra ; but nothing can have prepared them for 
 the extraordinary magnificence of the city which now 
 rose before them, as they passed among the gardens 
 and vineyards and convents abounding in its environs. 
 Alexandria was, even in the seventh century, the 
 finest city in the world : with the possible exception 
 of ancient Carthage and Rome, the art of the builder 
 has never produced anything like it before or since. 
 Far as the eye could reach ran that matchless line 
 of walls and towers which for centuries later excited 
 the enthusiasm of travellers. Beyond and above 
 them gleamed domes and pediments, columns and 
 obelisks, statues, temples, and palaces. To the left ^ 
 the view was bounded by the lofty Serapeum with 
 its gilded roofs, and by the citadel on which Diocle- 
 tian's Column stood conspicuous ^ : to the right the 
 great cathedral of St. Mark was seen, and further 
 west those obelisks, called Cleopatra's Needles *, 
 
 ' The Arabs approached the city from the south-east. 
 
 ^ That the so-called Pompey's Pillar was on the citadel is proved 
 by the recent researches of M. Botti, Director of the Alexandrian 
 Museum. 
 
 ' These obelisks it was reserved for British and American 
 
 U 2 
 
292 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 which even then were over 2,000 years old, or 
 twice as old as the city's foundation. The space 
 between was filled with outlines of brilliant architec- 
 ture : and in the background, towering from the 
 sea, stood that stupendous monument known as 
 the Pharos, which rightly ranked as one of the 
 wonders of the world. Even these half-barbarian 
 warriors from the desert must have been strangely 
 moved by the stateliness and grandeur, as well as 
 by the size and strength, of the city they had come 
 to conquer ^. 
 
 The garrison amounted at this time to not less 
 than 50,000 men : the place was amply provisioned, 
 
 vandalism to remove from Egypt: one is now on the Thames 
 Embankment, one in New York. They were originally brought 
 from Heliopolis in the reign of Augustus. Their height, about 
 68 feet, would enable at least their tops to be seen from some little 
 distance without the walls. 
 
 ' There is a legend that 'Amr had seen Alexandria before. The 
 story is that in his younger days he twice saved the life of a Greek 
 deacon — once by giving him water when he was dying of thirst, 
 and again by killing a snake which was about to attack him in his 
 sleep. The deacon in gratitude promised him 2,000 gold pieces 
 (£1,000) if he would come to Alexandria. 'Amr therefore accom- 
 panied him, and while in the city took part in a game played with 
 a crown-embroidered ball in the Hippodrome. 'Amr succeeded in 
 catching the ball in his sleeve. ' Such a thing never happened to 
 any one,' say the Arab writers, 'without his becoming ruler of 
 Egypt.' The reward named in this legend is not the least romantic 
 part of it. Still 'Amr may well have visited Alexandria in the 
 course of trade, and he may have played a game in which a player 
 who caught the ball was called ' king.' The story can be read in 
 Ockley and Weil, but it comes from Ibn 'Abd al Hakam, and is 
 quoted at length by Makrizt. One version makes the encounter 
 with the deacon take place near Jerusalem, another near Alexandria. 
 Abfl Salih (p. 75) says, ' 'Amr had visited Egypt during the days 
 of ignorance, and knew the roads leading thither, through trading 
 there together with one of the tribe of the ^uraish ' ; and this is 
 very likely the truth. Makrizfs account is in Khitat, vol. i. p. 158. 
 
March on Alexandria 293 
 
 resting on the sea, where the Muslims had not a 
 single vessel to contest the Emperor's supremacy : 
 and the walls were armed with that powerful artillery 
 which, as we have seen, in the time of Nicetas had 
 availed to crush and sink the river-fleets of an enemy. 
 On the other hand the Arabs were totally destitute 
 of siege equipment, being unable to transport the 
 engines of war they had captured, and totally un- 
 trained in the art of siege warfare. The Romans 
 therefore had every material reason for confidence 
 in defying the rude methods of the Saracen horse- 
 men ; while they in turn, reviewing their extra- 
 ordinary successes against the fenced cities of 
 Palestine and of Egypt, found moral causes enough 
 to give them assurance of ultimate victory. But 
 such moral causes were destined to operate slowly : 
 and when 'Amr launched his troops in a mad tilt 
 against the walls, the Roman catapults on the battle- 
 ments hurled such a rain of heavy stones upon them 
 that they were driven back out of range, nor could 
 they again face the fire delivered by that artillery. 
 All that the Muslims could do was to maintain their 
 camp at a respectful distance in the hope that the 
 enemy might be unwise enough to sally out and give 
 battle. 
 
 There is no trustworthy record of any such engage- 
 ment. This incident of the ill-judged attack and its 
 easy repulse under the pounding of the catapults 
 sums up all that John of Nikiou ^ has to say about 
 the use of force against Alexandria ; and his silence 
 must be taken to mean that siege in the proper sense 
 there was none. On the north the city was defended 
 by the sea, on the south by the canal and Lake 
 Mareotis, and on the west again by the Dragon 
 
 ' p. 570- 
 
294 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Canal : on the east side and south-east alone the 
 approach was open, and here the besiegers were 
 unable to come even within bowshot of the walls. 
 They were accordingly reduced to the necessity of 
 proceeding by blockade, and that could only be 
 of the most partial and ineffective kind : the idea 
 of surrounding the city even on the landward side 
 was quite chimerical. At the same time the main- 
 tenance of an army encamped outside Alexandria 
 was a permanent challenge to the Romans, and 
 cut them off from the rest of Egypt. Precisely 
 where the camp was pitched is hard to determine. 
 Suytitl says that it was ' between Hulwah and Kasr 
 Paris, and beyond the latter.' Kasr Fdris, or 
 the Fort of the Persians, was on the east side\ 
 and it may have been built by them as a necessary 
 part of their siege operations, just as we know that 
 Diocletian had been totally unable to make any 
 impression on the strength of Alexandria until he 
 had built a fortress to the east of the city^ But 
 even then it required a vast army, a siege of long 
 duration, and treason within the walls, to enable 
 Diocletian to break through the almost impregnable 
 defences. But we may take it for granted that the 
 Muslims were at once reduced to passive measures, 
 and that their camp, wherever situated, was merely 
 
 ^ See note, p. 90 supra, and the passage in Barhebraeus there 
 referred to. Abfl '1 Fidi agrees -with SuyMt ; while Ibn 'Abd al 
 Hakam says that after remaining two months at Hulwah, the Arabs 
 advanced to Al Maks on the west side. 
 
 * John of Nikiou, p. 417. The passage deserves quoting : ' He 
 succeeded in capturing Alexandria only after he had raised a fortress 
 to the east of the city, and there spent a long time. At last some 
 of the inhabitants came and showed him a place where he could 
 effect an entrance ; but it was only with an immense army that he 
 vanquished the resistance of the city with the utmost difficulty.' 
 
March on Alexandria 295 
 
 a camp of observation. Indeed there is reason to 
 doubt whether any encampment was maintained 
 within sight of Alexandria, or nearer than Karidn. 
 
 It was now about the end of June. The Arab 
 leader was not the man to cherish illusions with 
 regard to the chances of storming the city. He 
 realized that for offensive warfare he was com- 
 pletely powerless against it. On the other hand, 
 he could trust his followers to hold their own against 
 superior numbers, if the enemy dared come out to 
 battle. Therefore, as the Nile was now about to rise, 
 he resolved to leave an adequate army in the camp, 
 and to take such troops as could be spared across 
 the Delta before the country became impassable ^ 
 
 ^ One ought not perhaps to pass over in silence the statements 
 of the Arab historians with regard to the Copts at this period. 
 Ibn 'Abd al Hakam says that the Copts helped the Arabs in every- 
 way they required, and that the Coptic chiefs kept the roads and 
 bridges and markets open for them on the march to Alexandria ; 
 and other writers have copied this report. Unfortunately Ibn 'Abd 
 al Hakam completely disarranges the order of events, and no 
 reliance whatever can be placed on this assertion as indicating any 
 general action on the part of the Copts at the moment in question. 
 At the same time it is true, as we have seen, that assistance was 
 rendered by the renegades who had turned Muslim and by those 
 Egyptians whose services were requisitioned. But I have no doubt 
 that the whole statement refers to the period of Manuel's revolt. 
 Even less worthy of credence is Baladhurl, who says that when 
 the Arabs appeared before Alexandria, the Copts in the city wished 
 to come to terms, and Al Mukaukas asked for an armistice, which 
 was refused. The story goes on to tell that Al Mukaukas then, in 
 order to give the Arabs an impression of the great numbers of the 
 garrison, put women and children on the walls with their faces 
 turned inwards, while the men stood facing the enemy. "Amr 
 thereon sent a message saying, ' Our conquests' have not been 
 made by force of numbers. We have encountered your Emperor 
 Heraclius, and you know the result.' The truth of this remark so 
 struck Al Mukaukas, that he again counselled submission ; but the 
 people reproached him with cowardice and treachery, and insisted 
 
296 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 But as the Romans had abandoned the country round 
 Alexandria, all the pleasant houses and wealthy villas 
 outside the walls fell a prey to the Saracens. They 
 secured an immense booty, and pulled most of the 
 dwellings to pieces, merely for the sake of the wood 
 and the iron, which they sent by barges on the Nile 
 to Babylon for use in bridging operations there 
 against some hitherto inaccessible city ^. 
 
 The column which 'Amr now led across the Delta 
 cannot have been a large one. Little resistance was 
 likely to be encountered, except at the fortified places, 
 and these it was now too late in the season to besiege, 
 even had he any such intention. But as he had to 
 return to Babylon, 'Amr purposed at any rate to 
 
 on fighting. All this is pure romance. Al Mukaukas had long 
 been in exile, and the story is a mere echo from the siege of 
 Babylon. Both Copts and Romans in isolated cases went over 
 to the Muslim side; neither as a body welcomed or sided with 
 the invaders. 
 
 * This is from John of Nikiou's ch. cxv, which is needlessly 
 misunderstood, and wrongly corrected, in Zotenberg's note (n. i, 
 p. 562). Upon the text, which runs as follows, 'Alors il alia 
 rejoindre ses troupes ^tablies dans la citadelle de Babylone 
 d'figypte et leur remit tout le butin qu'il avait fait k Alexandrie. 
 II fit ddtruire les maisons des habitants d' Alexandrie qui avaient 
 pris la fuite,' Zotenberg remarks ' il faut lire " Babylone " au lieu de 
 " la citadelle de Babylone " ' ; but the latter is quite correct, as the 
 Arabs were in possession of the citadel. He adds, ' " Le butin fait 
 a Alexandrie" et "les habitants d' Alexandrie " sont deux autres 
 erreurs de traduction ' ; but surely the plunder of the suburbs is 
 rightly described as 'taken at Alexandria,' and it is no stretch 
 of language to call the dwellers in the suburbs 'inhabitants of 
 Alexandria.' 
 
 I agree with Zotenberg in finding it impossible to understand 
 the passage describing the purpose for which the wood and iron 
 were employed. The ' city of the two rivers ' cannot mean Raudah, 
 but must be some city in the Delta. The road to it from Babylon 
 must have necessitated bridges of some sort. 
 
March on Alexandria 297 
 
 make his presence felt in Lower Egypt. Accordingly 
 he marched back to KariOn and Damanhur, and 
 thence struck eastward through the province now 
 called Gharblah till he came to Sakhi. This place, 
 which lies about twenty-two miles nearly due north 
 of the modern Tantah, was then and for long after 
 the conquest regarded as the capital of the province, 
 and it was strongly fortified^. Any hopes of sur- 
 prising the town were disappointed : once again 
 the Arabs had to acknowledge their weakness and 
 failure against strong walls encompassed by water : 
 and they pushed on southward, probably following 
 the Bahr al Nuzam, till they came to T6kh, which 
 lies about six miles north-east of Tantah, and from 
 TAkh to Damsis ^. At both places they were easily 
 
 ^ Yakfit says, ' Sakha is the fortress of the province of Al 
 Gharbiah and the residence of the will. It was taken by KhSrijah 
 ibn HudhSfah, when 'Amr invaded Egypt' (vol. iii. p. 51). But 
 Kharijah was left in command at Babylon, and John of Nikiou 
 (p. 561) distinctly says that on this occasion 'Amr could do nothing 
 against SakhS.' The capture was made at a later stage in the war. 
 SakhS is one of the few places in the Delta mentioned both by 
 John and by the Arab writers. 
 
 ^ In John of Nikiou's account of this matter the words are ' II 
 marcha sur Sakha et sur Tfikho-Damsis,' as rendered by Zotenberg. 
 Amdlineau ingeniously conjectures that in the latter name the 
 Ethiopic has run together the two Arabic names Tlikh and Damsis, 
 mistaking the copulative for a termination {G^og. Copte, p. 525). 
 This is quite convincing. As regards Tfikh, there are at least six 
 places of that name in the Delta — Tfikh al Aklam in Dakhaltah ; 
 Tukh Dalakah, Tflkh al BaMghtah, and mh Tanblsha in Manil- 
 fiah; Tukh al Malik in Kaliflbtah; and Tiikh Mazid in Gharbiah. 
 The last of these is probably, from its position, the one in question 
 here. 
 
 Damsis, now called Mit Damsis, lies about nine miles due east 
 of Tfikh Maztd on the right bank of the Damietta branch. In the 
 Domains map of Lower Egypt (Cairo, 1888) th? name is wrongly 
 given as ' Mit Ramses ' — a curious error. Niebuhr gives it correctly 
 as 'Miet Demsis' {Voyage en Arable, &c., t. i. map, p. 71). 
 
298 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 repulsed. A raid down the eastern branch of the 
 river to Damietta is mentioned in the same con- 
 nexion, and may have been made by 'Amr's column 
 at this time. Its object was to burn the crops now 
 ripening for harvest, and it achieved no other result. 
 No progress was made in the task of reducing the 
 Delta to subjection, a task in which the Muslims 
 had now been occupied for twelve months^, and 
 'Amr, after many futile acts of violence and pillage, 
 brought his column back to the fortress of Babylon. 
 The number of points at which 'Amr encountered 
 resistance throughout the Delta, and his almost 
 tota;l failure against the more northern provinces, 
 add one more to the many proofs destructive of 
 the two current fallacies — that ' Egypt surrendered 
 almost without striking a blow,' and that ' the 
 Egyptians hailed the invaders as deliverers.' 
 
 ' John says that 'Amr ' spent twelve years in warring against 
 the Christians of northern Egypt, but failed nevertheless in reducing 
 their cities ' (Dr. Charles' version). Zotenberg conjectures two years 
 instead of twelve ; but this would be wrong in point of chronology. 
 If we read twelve months instead of years, the chronology is right, 
 because it was now about the end of July, 641, and the first 
 operations against the Delta towns began after the battle of 
 HeliopoUs in July, 640. 
 
CHAPTER XX 
 
 EVENTS AT CONSTANTINOPLE 
 
 Last days of Heraclius. Constantine and Heraclius II left 
 partners with the Empress. Recall of Cyrus from exile. Death 
 of Constantine. Rebellion of Valentine. Plan for restoration of 
 Cyrus to Alexandria. Cyrus' motives for yielding to the Arabs; 
 Accession of Constans. Martina in favour of peace with the 
 Muslims. Theodore and Cyrus sent back to Egypt. Theodore's 
 plan for escape to Pentapolis, and its miscarriage. They land at 
 Alexandria. 
 
 While the events thus chronicled were passing 
 in Egypt, great changes had also taken place at 
 Constantinople. The death of Heraclius has been 
 briefly recorded as happening towards the end of 
 the siege of Babylon. After his melancholy farewell 
 to Syria in 636, his mind, which had suffered some 
 derangement, slowly recovered its balance in the 
 seclusion of Chalcedon : and in dealing with the 
 crisis on the European side of his Empire he dis^ 
 played something of his old alertness and skill in 
 diplomacy. But his health was broken : and the 
 ravages of a painful disease were quickened by 
 the monotonous recurrence of disasters, first in Syria, 
 then in Egypt. The fall of Jerusalem had been 
 followed by the fall of Antioch and of Caesarea 
 and by the practical abandonment of Syria to the 
 enemy : yet Heraclius was keenly alive to the im- 
 portance of saving Egypt for the Empire. The 
 drain of men and money caused by years of war 
 had been enormous, but his diminished armies and 
 exchequer could still furnish large reinforcements 
 for the defence of the Nile. When Arab historians 
 assert that he intended to command an expedition 
 
300 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 in person \ they forget that the invasion of Egypt 
 began little more than a year before his death, and 
 by that time the mortal disease which was upon 
 him had robbed him of all physical activity, if not 
 of the very power of motion. The Emperor died 
 on Sunday, February 1 1, 641^, in the thirty-first year 
 of his reign, aged sixty-six, two months before the 
 surrender of Babylon. 
 
 ^ E.g. SuyM, who writes: 'Reinforcements kept arriving by 
 sea from the Emperor for the Romans in Alexandria ; for he said, 
 " If the Arabs take Alexandria, there will be an end of Roman 
 sovereignty." Now the Romans had no more important churches 
 than those of Alexandria ; and when the Arabs had conquered 
 Syria, their festival (i. e. Easter) was kept at Alexandria. The 
 Emperor commanded that the city should be well provisioned and 
 its walls put into good repair, intending himself to take part in its 
 defence, because of its great importance ; but as the Emperor was 
 finishing his preparations, God destroyed him' (p. ^o). The date 
 which the writer gives for the Emperor's death, and the context 
 generally, make it clear that Heraclius the elder is referred to. 
 
 ' This date may be taken as fixed, but there are the usual 
 discrepancies on the subject. Theophanes and Cedrenus give 
 March 11, Indict. 14, after a reign of thirty years and ten months: 
 which is impossible, as the reign began in October. The Chronicon 
 Orientale says that the Emperor died on Feb. 9 or 15 Meshlr, after 
 a reign of thirty-one years and five months. Though Feb; 9 does 
 correspond to 15 Meshlr, this term properly reckoned would 
 bring us to March, 642. But Nicephorus put the duration of the 
 reign very precisely at thirty years, four months, and six days. 
 Heraclius was proclaimed on Oct, 5, 610 {Later Roman Empire, 
 vol. ii. p. 206), and counting from that date the term given by 
 Nicephorus we come to Feb. 11, 641. This day was Sunday, as 
 the Chronicon Orientale requires, whereas Feb. 9, which it gives, 
 was Friday. Lebeau has the date correct ; but his editor, de Saint- 
 Martin {Histoire du Bas Empire, t. xi. p. 283), in a note prefers the 
 mistaken date of Theophanes and Cedrenus, remarking, 'As no 
 other author gives the precise date of Heraclius' death, there must 
 be an error in Lebeau's text ' ! I may add that John of Nikiou 
 gives ' the month of YakStit, which is February of the Romans, in 
 
Events at Constantinople 301 
 
 So ended the strange vicissitudes of a great career. 
 The work of his Hfe had been to rebuild the shattered 
 fabric of the Eastern Empire. It was a hopeless 
 task when he essayed it: yet he accomplished it, 
 or seemed to accomplish it, in an almost miraculous 
 manner. But his downfall began with his triumph. 
 The fabric he had raised lacked all cohesion, since 
 his own unwisdom loosened or destroyed those bonds 
 of common citizenship and common Christianity 
 which might have held the people together under 
 a system of religious toleration. That this fatal 
 policy of the Emperor synchronized with the rise 
 of the Muslim power from unknown Arabia is one of 
 the most strange and most inscrutable coincidences 
 of history. So fell, however, the destined order of 
 the world : and Heraclius lived long enough to 
 realize the mistakes he had committed, or at least 
 to deplore the fatality which destroyed all the fruits 
 of his labours. In matters relating to the Church he 
 had followed the maxims of his time : his misfortune 
 was that he had not risen above them, nor devised 
 new principles of Church statesmanship to meet the 
 new requirements of the age. For that failure he 
 deserves rather pity than blame, though some re- 
 morse must have been added to the physical suffer- 
 ings which closed his life. Before he died, he made 
 all arrangements for the succession, and he made 
 his son Constantine swear to show mercy to all 
 prisoners and exiles, and to recall those whom he 
 had banished \ The Emperor was buried in the 
 church of the Holy Apostles, and his tomb was left 
 open for three days : with his body was placed the 
 
 the fourteenth year of the cycle, and the year 357 of the Martyrs,' 
 which is right in every particular. 
 ^ Sebeos. 
 
302 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 crown of gold. This Constantine removed, but it 
 was subsequently restored by Heraclius II, and 
 dedicated to the church ^ 
 
 By the will of Heraclius, Constantine, the son of 
 his first wife Eudocia, and Heraclius, the son of his 
 second wife Martina, were left co-heirs of the Empire 
 with the Empress. It was an impossible compromise ; 
 and the strong-willed Martina, who had virtually 
 ruled alone during the close of her husband's life, 
 was not a woman to brook such a division of 
 authority. Constantine, the elder of the two half- 
 brothers, was given the pre-eminence by the people, 
 and the treasurer, Philagrius, sided with him as well 
 as Valentine, who was now created general and sent 
 in command to Asia Minor ^ : so that Martina's 
 designs in favour of her own son, Heraclius (or 
 Heraclonas, as he was called for distinction), met 
 with strong resistance. Sergius, the Patriarch, had 
 passed away before his sovereign, and a monk named 
 Pyrrhus had been elected in his place. Pyrrhus 
 seems for awhile at first to have sided against 
 Martina with Constantine, and to have proclaimed 
 Constantine Emperor to the exclusion of Martina 
 and her children ^. But David and Marinus had 
 
 ' Nicephorus, who says the crown was valued at 70 lb. of gold. 
 
 " This comes from Sebeos. Prof. Bury justly remarks that ' the 
 history of the successors of Heraclius is veiled in the most profound 
 obscurity,' and regrets that there are no contemporary historians 
 {Later Roman Empire, vol. ii. p. 281). But Sebeos and John of 
 Nikiou are both practically contemporary, and both contribute a 
 fair amount to the history of this period. Sebeos, no doubt, is 
 chiefly concerned with Armenia ; John has a wider scope, though 
 naturally his main interest is in Egypt. Both, however, are hard 
 to understand. 
 
 ° John of Nikiou, p. 564. The statement is very clear, although 
 quite against the received story. Thus Prof. Bury makes Martina 
 ' in close league with the monothelitic Patriarch Pyrrhus ' (Id., ib., 
 
Events at Constantinople 303 
 
 Pyrrhus kidnapped and secretly conveyed to an 
 island in the west of Africa \ 
 
 In fulfilment of his father's behest, Constantine 
 now sent a large fleet to bring Cyrus back from 
 exile ^. He wished to confer with the Archbishop 
 on the state of Egypt, and Martina also pressed for 
 his recall, as she was sure of his sympathy with her 
 ambitions. Both the date and the result of this 
 conference are quite uncertain, because it is not 
 known where Cyrus was exiled, or how long it took 
 for him to return to the capital. But Theodore was 
 also summoned from Egypt to advise the Emperor, 
 while Anastasius^ was left in command of Alexandria 
 and the towns on the littoral, which had not yet 
 
 p. 282). Pyrrhus must have changed sides : for John himself 
 (p. 579) quotes a letter, said to have been addressed in the joint 
 name of Martina and Pyrrhus to David, the Matarguem, urging 
 him to make war against the elder branch of Heraclius' family. 
 
 ^ Possibly Malta or Gozo is intended. 
 
 '^ Mr. Brooks, in his article in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift 
 (1895, p. 441) discussing this passage of John of Nikiou, says that 
 the fleet was merely sent to bring Cyrus from Constantinople to 
 Chalcedon. But John's words are : ' Constantine assembled a great 
 number of vessels, and sent them under Kirius and Salikrifls to 
 bring the Patriarch Cyrus to him.' Surely no large fleet was 
 necessary, for such a short journey. It is clear that Cyrus was still 
 in exile, and though the place is unknown, the fact of his exile is 
 not doubtful. John ascribes the recall of Cyrus to Martina, who 
 doubtless urged it upon Constantine (p. 582). 
 
 ' I have here taken a slight liberty with the text of John of 
 Nikiou, transposing the two names. The text runs, 'he sent orders 
 to Anastasius to come to him, leaving Theodore to guard the city 
 of Alexandria and the cities of the coast' (p. 564). But I think 
 that these names must have been interchanged, because (i) 
 Theodore was the commander-in-chief, and Anastasius' superior; 
 (2) on p. 574 we find that Anastasius was actually governor of 
 Alexandria prior to the return of Cyrus; and (3) on p. 573 
 Theodore is with Cyrus at Rhodes on his way back to Egypt. 
 
304 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 fallen to the Muslims. Theodore was not in favour 
 of any peace policy : and, whatever Cyrus may have 
 said, he prevailed on the Emperor to promise that 
 he would send large reinforcements to Egypt during 
 the summer. Orders were actually given and vessels 
 were made ready for the embarkation of troops, 
 when Constantine, whose health had been failing 
 ever since his accession to the throne, was seized by 
 a fatal illness. He died on May 25, 641, after a 
 reign of about a hundred days. Whether he died 
 a natural death, or whether he suffered from foul 
 play at the hands of Martina, is uncertain : but the 
 charge of murder was openly made by Constans 
 against the Empress, and the suspicion of it haunts 
 the records of the time \ 
 
 Martina profited by the death of Constantine to 
 proclaim Heraclonas sovereign of the Roman Empire. 
 As a concession to popular feeling, Pyrrhus was 
 recalled from exile ; but the renewed ascendency of 
 Martina kindled a resentment which soon flamed 
 into rebellion. When Valentine heard of the death 
 of Constantine and of Philagrius' disgrace which 
 followed, he came with his army to Chalcedon, 
 where Martina was, and demanded Philagrius' rein- 
 statement. This was agreed to by the troops of 
 the Empress, and confirmed in a set speech by 
 
 ' John shows that Constantine's sickness began with his acces- 
 sion, but that his end came from a vomit of blood — possibly the 
 rupture of a blood-vessel. Nicephorus agrees that the illness was 
 of long duration. Theophanes seems to accuse Pyrrhus of con- 
 triving the murder with Martina, but Pyrrhus was in exile, and not 
 a partisan of Martina's. Cyrus may be meant, as the two names 
 are often confused (see Zotenberg's note i, p. 564 of John of 
 Nikiou) : but the charge is probably groundless. Sebeos uses 
 a curious expression in saying that Constantine ' died, deceived by 
 his mother.' 
 
Events at Constantinople 305 
 
 Heraclonas ; but, not content with this measure of 
 success, Valentine crossed with Domentianus and 
 other patricians to the capital, and there crowned 
 the son of Constantine, known as Constans II, in 
 association with Heraclonas '. 
 
 It seems certain that before this revolt of Valen- 
 tine broke out, Heraclonas had already arranged for 
 the restoration of Cyrus to his charge in Alexandria. 
 The coronation of Constans must have taken place 
 early in September, 641 ^, after the departure of 
 Cyrus on his journey to Egypt. Cyrus was accom- 
 panied by a large number of priests ; but so far from 
 being shorn of his civil power, he was expressly 
 authorized by the Emperor to conclude peace with 
 the Arabs, to put an end to all further resistance in 
 the country, and to arrange for the proper adminis- 
 tration of Egypt. The terms of the authority given 
 him suggest that Cyrus still cherished some hope of 
 retaining the suzerainty of Egypt for the Empire : 
 but there can be no doubt that he had impressed his 
 conviction — honest or dishonest — of the necessity for 
 
 ^ According to Sebeos, Valentine on his arrival at Constantinople 
 seized Martina, and, after having her tongue cut out, put her and 
 her sons to death, and crowned the younger Constantine. John of 
 Nikiou (p. 580) speaks of a revolt of the army at Byzantium led by 
 Theodore, who seized Martina and her three sons, tore off their 
 diadems, slit their noses, and sent them to Rhodes. The two 
 versions differ, but both refer to the second revolt of Valentine, 
 which occurred at a later period. Sebeos seems to indicate that 
 Valentinian and Valentine are the same person ; for he speaks of 
 Valentianus and Valentin indifferently in c. xxxii. Prof. Bury 
 {Later Roman Empire, vol. ii. p. 287) doubts the identity, but 
 perhaps without sufficient reason. 
 
 ^ Mr. Brooks shows (1. c, p. 440, n. 2) that the Synod of Rome, 
 held on Oct. g, 649, is described as being in the ninth year of 
 Constans : but he was not crowned as sole ruler till some time in 
 November. 
 
3o6 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 surrender upon the childish Emperor, the feeble 
 senate, and the incapable courtiers of the capital. 
 It is clear too that he had won over Martina to his 
 pusillanimous counsels, that the party of Martina was 
 the party of peace at any price with the Muslims, 
 and that her policy was the policy of surrender 
 incessantly preached by Cyrus. 
 
 What tangle of motives crossed in the recesses of 
 the Patriarch's mind, almost passes conjecture. He 
 had been a craven, if not a traitor to the Empire, for 
 months before the question of the imperial succession 
 had divided men to the point of civil war. Why 
 was he so ready to abandon the field of his work, or 
 at least the fruits of his labours ? For ten years 
 he had scourged and smitten the Copts into some 
 semblance of subjection, but he knew that upon the 
 removal of his heavy pressure they would spring 
 back to their old faith. Had he come to see that 
 his whole plan of persecution was a blunder and 
 a failure ? Nothing is further from the fact. It is 
 far more probable that, with the lessons of Syria 
 before his eyes, he despaired of the fortunes of the 
 Empire in Egypt, and counted not merely on toler- 
 ance for his own form of religion in Egypt, but on 
 such a reward for his aid to the Muslims as would 
 enable him to maintain his ascendency over the 
 Coptic Church in Egypt, while securing at the same 
 time absolute independence of Constantinople. 
 
 Upon the ruins of the Empire Cyrus was building 
 new schemes for the aggrandizement of the patri- 
 archate of Alexandria. Such at least seems the 
 most probable theory of his action, the theory 
 which best explains his mysterious relations with 
 'Arnr and his betrayal of the Roman cause. He 
 
Events at Constantinople 307 
 
 was a traitor to the State in the imagined interest 
 of the Church. 
 
 Meanwhile he was content to follow or to guide 
 the Empress, and to set at nought the strongly- 
 expressed opinion of his Church against the scandal 
 of allowing the issue of an incestuous marriage to 
 sit upon the throne. There is clear evidence that 
 Cyrus on his return journey to Egypt was furnished 
 with a military force, destined presumably to 
 strengthen the garrison, in case his peace proposals 
 were rejected, or it may be to strengthen the faction of 
 the Empress among them. Moreover, a new general 
 of militia, named Constantine, was sent with him to 
 replace the fallen John ; and Theodore either sailed 
 at the same time, or was already at Rhodes when 
 Cyrus arrived, waiting to join the expedition. 
 Martina was also there, though it is doubtful whether 
 her journey was caused by the progress of Valen- 
 tine's rebellion, or by alarm at the specific act of the 
 coronation of Constans. Probably she wished to 
 consult with Theodore and Cyrus on this new 
 development : but there was matter enough for 
 anxiety in the troubled state of the court and the 
 capital. 
 
 For the plots of Valentine were as unscrupulous 
 and as far-reaching as those of Cyrus. He had 
 already sounded the depth of the army's affection 
 for the Empress, and found it, at least in places, 
 very shallow. All the treasure of Philagrius he 
 squandered in bribing the soldiers in Egypt, and he 
 so divided the forces there, that they ceased fighting 
 the Muslims and turned their arms against each 
 other. Civil war therefore had already broken out, 
 and that not between Copts and Romans \ but be- 
 ^ See p. 285 supra. 
 X 2 
 
3o8 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 tween different portions of the imperial army. It 
 was, however, important to secure the adherence of 
 Theodore, and to detach him from the cause of 
 the Empress. Nothing was impossible in that 
 atmosphere of conspiracy and cabal ; and Theodore 
 had his own unavowed ambitions. When therefore 
 Theodore received at Rhodes a secret missive from 
 Valentine urging him to renounce allegiance to 
 Martina, and when he learned that a similar message 
 had been sent to Pentapolis and in fact to every 
 province of the Empire, while treason was at work 
 among the very troops ordered to Egypt with 
 Cyrus, he made up his mind to abandon the cause 
 of the Empress and to sail clandestinely for Penta- 
 polis. His motive in this is by no means clear. 
 He may have desired merely retirement and shelter 
 from the coming storms ; or he may have resolved, 
 like Heraclius, to stake his fortune on a throw for 
 the crown, and to found a new empire at Carthage ; 
 or he may have wished to gather resources and 
 watch events, detesting the policy of surrender and 
 hoping to strike a blow at the Muslims from Carthage. 
 His scheme was to part company in the darkness 
 with the fleet convoying Cyrus, and the captain of 
 the vessel on which he sailed was the only soul 
 made privy to it. Apparently the captain promised 
 acquiescence, but repented of his promise, and 
 alleged that the wind was contrary for the voyage 
 to Pentapolis. So it befell that Theodore's design 
 miscarried, and he found himself in Cyrus' company \ 
 
 ^ The question of the date of Cyrus' arrival at Alexandria is dealt 
 with in the Appendix on the Chronology of the Arab Conquest. 
 Since writing it I have only found fresh reason to strengthen the 
 conviction that he landed with Theodore upon the day given above. 
 It is probable that Theodore was in a different vessel, and it seems 
 
Events at Constantinople 309 
 
 with the rest of the convoy, in the harbour of 
 Alexandria before daylight on the morning of Holy 
 Cross Day, September 14, 641. 
 
 as if he stole away from Rhodes without informing Cyrus of his 
 plan. If so, he must have been overtaken by the ship carrying 
 Cyrus. 
 
CHAPTER XXI 
 
 SURRENDER OF ALEXANDRIA 
 
 Civil war in Egypt. Factions in the capital. Arrival of Cyrus. 
 Triumphant procession to the Caesarion. His sermon there. 
 Persecution of the Copts resumed. Cyrus' secret journey to 
 Babylon. Affairs in Upper Egypt. Conferences between Cyrus 
 and 'Amr. Cyrus agrees to surrender. Treaty of Alexandria. 
 Its provisions as variously related. John of Nikiou's version. The 
 Arab text, and Arab commentaries. 
 
 During the absence of Cyrus in exile, there had 
 been frequent outbreaks of civil strife in Egypt. 
 For a time the people of the province of Misr were 
 at open war with those of the more northernly pro- 
 vinces. Peace was restored after many acts of 
 hostility; but no sooner had this quarrel ceased 
 than fierce feuds arose within the walls of the 
 capital. The Roman commanders were divided by 
 jealousy and hatred, while the Green and Blue 
 factions were more ready to fly at each other's 
 throats than to face the enemy at their gates. Do- 
 mentianus, the betrayer of the Fay6m and of Nikiou, 
 was at odds with Menas, his rival for the reversion 
 of the commandership-in-chief. Menas had a bitter 
 grudge against Eudocianus (brother to Domentianus) 
 for the barbarities he had committed that Easter 
 Day on the Copts in Babj^lon ^ ; while Theodore 
 
 ' This shows, no doubt, that Menas was a Copt or had Coptic 
 sympathies. The Menas here named by John (p. 5^0) must be 
 a different person from the Menas who was Prefect of Lower 
 Egypt under Heraclius (p. 577), and who is described as loathing 
 the Copts. But the difference in the sentiments is a clear proof 
 that no argument as to sympathy can be founded on the Coptic or 
 non-Coptic character of a name. 
 
Surrender of Alexandria 311 
 
 had not forgiven Domentianus for his cowardly 
 desertion of his post and his army at Nikiou. The 
 wonder is that Domentianus was not cashiered or 
 put to death ; the resentment of his superior officer 
 was a small punishment. But he probably escaped 
 the fate he deserved by the favour of Martina and 
 by reason of his kinship to Cyrus, whose sister he 
 had married. Still in spite of kinship and friendship 
 and claims of gratitude, Domentianus showed to- 
 wards Cyrus disrespect and unreasoning hatred. 
 The Blue Faction were with Domentianus, and he 
 enlisted a large force of the Blues in his quarrel — 
 a move which Menas met by enrolling a body of 
 the Greens. In this dangerous state of tension 
 there came to Alexandria one Philiades, Prefect of 
 the province of Faylam, and brother to George, 
 the predecessor of Cyrus in the office of Melkite 
 Patriarch. Philiades had been befriended by Menas, 
 but ill requited his friendship. Moreover, he had 
 been guilty of corruption or embezzlement of public 
 money, and had made himself as unpopular with the 
 army as Menas was popular. 
 
 Matters soon came to a head. One day while 
 Menas was at service in the great church called 
 Caesarion with his Coptic fellow worshippers, the 
 townsfolk rose in revolt against Philiades, and meant 
 to kill him. He escaped, however, and hid in a 
 friend's house, whereupon the rioters went to his 
 own dwelling, plundered it, and set it on fire. The 
 rioters were of the Green Faction, and Domentianijs 
 at once sent his Blue company against them. A 
 fierce encounter took place in the streets ; six men 
 were killed and many wounded ; and Theodore had 
 the greatest difficulty in repressing the disorder. 
 In the end Philiades had his property restored, and 
 
312 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Domentianus was deprived of his military rank, 
 though he seems to have been reinstated later when 
 Theodore was summoned to Constantinople. The 
 fact is that Domentianus, in spite of his personal 
 hostility to Cyrus, was in close agreement with him 
 on political questions ; both were high in the favour 
 of the Empress Martina ; and both pressed upon 
 her the policy of surrender to the Arabs. 
 
 In relating the story of the faction fight in Alex- 
 andria, John of Nikiou seems to confess that he is 
 unable to explain its causes. For while his language 
 suggests that the riot arose both from private 
 enmities and from political partisanship, he is careful 
 to add that by some its ferocious character was 
 attributed to religious dissension : and yet he throws 
 no ray of light on the nature of that dissension. 
 Was it between Monophysite and Melkite ? or 
 between orthodox Melkite and Monothelite ? or 
 between Jew and Christian? The matter is too 
 complex for conjecture : but when one remembers 
 that a vast number of refugees from the Delta and 
 Upper Egypt had flocked to Alexandria for protec- 
 tion, and that John here speaks of the Caesarion as 
 the scene of a Coptic service^, it might be argued 
 both that the number of Copts in Alexandria had 
 greatly increased, and that during the absence of 
 their persecutor, Al Mukaukas, in exile, they had 
 recovered some of their confidence and freedom. 
 The Copts therefore may have been strong enough 
 to fling their sympathies and antipathies into the 
 seething cauldron of Alexandrian party warfafe. 
 Yet one is astounded to read that when Cyrus, 
 Al Mukaukas, landed on that September morning, 
 
 ' He would not speak of any other than a Coptic congregation 
 as an ' assembly of the faithful' (p. 571). 
 
/ 
 
 Surrender of Alexandria ! 313 
 
 the whole city went wild with delight,' ' rejoicing 
 and giving thanks for the arrival of the Patriarch 
 of Alexandria ^ ' ; and all the people, mefn and women, 
 young and old, flocked to greet hini"''a.nd do him 
 honour. Not a note of discord is soLjtided or a 
 whisper of fear. Yet the Copts can have felt no 
 joy or even hope at the return of Al Mukaukas, 
 and the conclusion is irresistible that after all they 
 were but a very small body, lost in the great popula- 
 tion of the capital. 
 
 But ere the news of his arrival spread through 
 the waking city, Cyrus betook himself in secret with 
 Theodore to the convent of the monks of Taben- 
 nesi, which probably lay near the landing-place -. 
 
 ^ These words are Dr. Charles' rendering of the Ethiopic version. 
 Nothing to my mind more clearly proves the impartiality and 
 conscientiousness of John of Nikiou than this account of Cyrus' 
 return. It would have been easy to represent his reception as cold, 
 or to say nothing about it. John writes that it was very warm, 
 and that it was the return not so much of the man as of the 
 'Patriarch of Alexandria' which caused the rejoicing (p. 574). 
 Amdlineau in his strange critique upon John actually makes this 
 truthfulness a cause of reproach : ' Je suis en outre bien dtonn^ 
 que Jean de Nikiou, dvSque Jacobite, reconnaisse a Cyrus, qu'il 
 devait ex^crer et anathdmatiser, la dignitd de Patriarche d'Alex- 
 andrie, alors que le Patriarche Jacobite Benjamin, le seul legitime 
 a ses yeux, vivait en exil dans la Haute-figypte ' ( Vie du Patriarche 
 Copte Isaac, p. xxvi). Surely John's candour vastly increases our 
 confidence in him as a historian. 
 
 ^ Tabennesi was a place about ten miles north of Tentyris or 
 Pandarah in Upper Egypt. It was the centre of the brotherhood 
 of the order of St. Pachomius : see Quatremfere, Me'm. Ge'og. et 
 Hist. t. i. p. 281, and Am^lineau, Ge'og. Copte, p. 469, and the 
 authorities there quoted. It was a strictly Coptic order, but the 
 convent in Alexandria had clearly been appropriated by Cyrus for 
 the Melkites, or else the monks there were among the many 
 thousands whom the persecution had detached from the Coptic 
 profession of faith. 
 
314 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 The door of the church was closed, and a message 
 was sent summoning Menas to the monastery. 
 Theodore at once gave Menas the office of military 
 commanderr^r the garrison, deposing Domentianus, 
 whom the, populace forthwith hounded out of the 
 city. The coincidence of Cyrus' arrival with the 
 festival of the Exaltation of the Cross was well 
 calculated to revive the drooping spirits of the 
 Romans, and Cyrus made the most of it. It will 
 be remembered that when John, general of militia, 
 was dispatched to Egypt by Heraclius as bearer of 
 the famous Ecthesis to Cyrus, he brought also with 
 him for the Patriarch a cross of special sanctity — 
 possibly enclosing a portion of the Holy Rood itself \ 
 This treasured relic had been deposited in the convent 
 of the monks of Tabennesi, and nothing was more 
 natural than that it should be carried in procession 
 with Cyrus to the great church of Caesarion, at 
 which the festival service was to be holden. All 
 the way from the convent to the cathedral Cyrus' 
 path was strewn with carpets, while streamers and 
 banners of silk fluttered, the smoke of incense rose, 
 and hymns resounded in his honour. Yet broad as 
 were the streets of the Great City, they were so 
 thronged that people trod one upon another, and 
 the Archbishop had the utmost difficulty in making 
 his passage through the crowds to reach the 
 cathedral. The procession, however, moved slowly 
 onward, and at length, after passing between the 
 two ancient Egyptian obelisks and through the 
 cloistered court, entered the door of the Caesarion. 
 
 There, as was fitting, the Archbishop in his sermon 
 dwelt upon the Invention of the Cross ^ and its 
 
 ' See above, p. 182, n. i, and p. 222, n. i. 
 
 "^ This passage in John of Nikiou (p. 574) is obviously corrupt, 
 
Surrender of Alexandria 315 
 
 Exaltation, which the Eastern Church, then as now, 
 celebrated together. It was a theme which might 
 have fired a less eloquent tongue than that of Cyrus, 
 as he recalled the strange eventful history of Hera- 
 clius' crusade, the recovery of the Holy Rood from 
 captivity with the Persians, and its uplifting on that 
 day of triumph in Jerusalem. Yet what lesson did 
 Cyrus draw, or wish to draw, from the story ? Jeru- 
 salem itself was now in captivity to the Muslims, 
 and the Muslims were at the very gates of Alex- 
 andria. The position was almost as bad as when 
 Chosroes held all Palestine, Syria, and Egypt : but 
 did Cyrus dare to point the moral of hope and faith 
 to his hearers, to encourage them in resistance in 
 the name of the Cross, when in his own heart he 
 had forsaken the cause of the Cross and resolved 
 to bow it down before the standards of Mohammed ? 
 Perhaps he avoided politics altogether : but it is 
 certain that he did not unburden ' the secrets of his 
 overcharged soul ' that day in the ambon. 
 
 and has been misconstrued by Zotenberg, who renders thus : ' II fit 
 ouvrir (?) la citerne dans laquelle se trouvait la Sainte-Croix qu'il 
 avait regue avant son exil du G^n^ral Jean. II avail pris aussi la 
 vfedrable croix du convent des Tabenn^siotes.' Zotenberg himself 
 puts the query after the words which he translates ' II fit ouvrir'; for 
 he sees that the whole sentence makes no sense. Dr. Charles 
 renders : ' He highly extolled the well in which the Holy Cross had 
 been found ' and this gives a clear allusion to the Invention by 
 Helena. The words which follow have, I feel sure, slipped from 
 their proper order. It was not the Holy Cross itself which Cyrus 
 had received through John before his exile : Heraclius never would 
 have sent and never did send that most precious of all relics to 
 Egypt. The cross which came to Cyrus was the cross kept by the 
 Tabennesi monks,, and the passage should run: 'He had taken 
 also (to the Caesarion) from the convent of the Tabennesi monks 
 the cross which he had received at the hands of the general John.' 
 This makes complete sense out of absurdity. 
 
3i6 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 But the service ended unhappily. When they 
 came after the sermon to the mass, the deacon 
 instead of reading the verses proper to the day 
 gave out another psalm with direct reference to the 
 return of the Archbishop, whom he desired to praise 
 and congratulate. The people who heard it said at 
 once that the change was against the canons and 
 was of very evil omen for the Archbishop, and, as 
 the story runs, that he would never look upon 
 another Easter ^ No doubt they thought him 
 looking worn and ill. His exile had told upon him 
 physically : his rough passage through the crowds 
 and the exertion of preaching had tried his strength : 
 and above all he must have carried on his face 
 tokens of that inner conflict which was tearing him 
 to pieces. These people trusted him ; hailed him 
 as their champion and deliverer ; their hearts were 
 lifted up and their faith in the Cross exalted ; they 
 would fight and conquer in that sign. But while 
 their hopes were kindled, the Archbishop was de- 
 pressed by the gnawing consciousness that he was 
 about to betray them all, to betray the cause of the 
 Cross and the cause of the Roman Empire. It was 
 a dramatic situation, and it is small wonder that 
 haggard looks told of the strain even on that 
 haughty temper, and that in them men read the 
 omen of death. 
 
 For some little time after his arrival Cyrus was 
 busied in dealing with matters of Church and State 
 which demanded urgent attention in Alexandria. 
 Anastasius seems to have acted as civil governor 
 
 ' The question of the coincidence of Cyrus' return with that of 
 Theodore, and the question of the day upon which the wrong 
 chant was used, are discussed in the Appendix upon the 
 Chronology of the Arab Conquest. 
 
Surrender of Alexandria 317 
 
 of the city during the absence of Cyrus, and it is 
 just possible that the George to whom Cyrus had 
 delegated his episcopal authority upon his departure 
 was none other than his predecessor in the office of 
 Patriarch \ George was now an old man but very 
 influential, and he was treated with great deference 
 by all from the governor downwards. He had no 
 part in the persecution of the Copts ; indeed the 
 absence of Cyrus on the one hand, and the severance 
 of whole districts from imperial control on the other, 
 had given the Copts a breathing-space. But Cyrus 
 had not forgotten his hatred against the native 
 Church of Egypt. He was ready to hand over the 
 country to the enemy, and to make peace with the 
 unbeliever ; but for the Copts there was no peace 
 and no forgiveness. The sword was again drawn : 
 and so far from being softened by his own adversity, 
 Cyrus hardened his heart and renewed his reign of 
 violence and oppression against those who were not 
 beyond his reach ^. 
 
 It is indeed strange that the Mukaukas should 
 have thought it worth while to revive his persecu- 
 tion. Possibly, however, his action may have served 
 to blind the people of Alexandria to his real design, 
 which was to deliver all Egypt over to the Arabs. 
 For that he had no doubt the Emperor's warrant ; 
 but it was a warrant wrung from a puppet ruler by 
 
 ^ This is only a bare possibility. John of Nikiou says that he 
 had been nominated by Heraclius, but the ofHce is not stated. 
 It must, however, have been either the patriarchate or the governor- 
 ship of the city, and John's language implies the former : see p. 170, 
 n. 2 supra. On the other hand if this George were governor, could 
 he be the George said by Arab writers to have been governor in 
 627 at the time of Mohammed's mission to Egypt — the George 
 son of Mtna wrongly called Al Mukaukas ? 
 
 ^ John of Nikiou, p. 566. 
 
3i8 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 cowardice and chicanery, and a warrant which he 
 dared not avow either, as it seems, to the highest 
 officers of state in Alexandria or to the people. 
 Alone, or accompanied only by some of his priests, 
 who may have shared his secret, the Mukaukas 
 made his way to Babylon. It was now the season 
 of high Nile again ^ — towards the end of October — 
 and just about a year had passed since he had made 
 his abortive treaty of Babylon, which the old Emperor 
 tore up in indignation. 
 
 'Amr himself had only just returned to Babylon ; 
 but whether up to this time he had been engaged 
 against those Delta towns which foiled him, or 
 whether he had in person led an expedition which 
 was sent to Upper Egypt, is uncertain ^. The fact 
 of the expedition is not doubtful, and a small column 
 of Muslims got as far as Antinoe, the modern 
 Ansini, then the capital of the Thebaid. As the 
 Roman troops were not yet all withdrawn from this 
 region, the townsfolk took counsel with their Pre- 
 fect, named John, and desired to offer resistance to 
 Arabs. John, however, absolutely refused to fight : 
 he seized all the public money which had been 
 collected, and carried it off with his troops, making 
 his way across the desert westward to Alexandria. 
 He had no wish to meet the fate which had befallen 
 the garrison of the Fayftm, and was besides quite 
 unable to cope with the Muslims. So the conquest 
 of Upper Egypt was comparatively easy. 'When 
 
 ^ The fact that Al Mukaukas twice negotiated at the time of the 
 inundation explains and excuses much of the confusion in the Arab 
 writers between the siege of Babylon and that of Alexandria. 
 
 '^ Ibn Kutaibah says that 'Amr's return from the Delta was in 
 Dhfi'l Ka'dah, a. h. 20 (Oct. 12-Nov. 10, 641), but John of Nikiou 
 makes out that he returned earlier and went himself to Upper 
 Egypt (p. 562). 
 
Surrender of Alexandria 319 
 
 the Muslims saw the weakness of the Romans and 
 the hostility of the people to the Emperor Heraclius 
 because of the persecution, wherewith he had visited 
 all the land of Egypt, against the orthodox faith at 
 the instigation of Cyrus, the Chalcedonian Patriarch, 
 they became bolder and stronger in the war ^ ' : for 
 little as the Copts loved the Saracens, here, in Upper 
 Egypt the feeling against their persecutors was most 
 bitter. In the Fayflm, which was already settling 
 down under Arab rule as a tributary province, matters 
 had gone so far that the inhabitants killed any 
 Roman soldier they chanced to encounter, and 
 further south the Copts had even less motive to 
 fight for the Empire. 
 
 But, after the subjugation of Upper or at least 
 Middle Egypt, the Arab commander had come back 
 to Babylon to rest there during the flood-time : and 
 it was in the great fortress that he received Cyrus, 
 when he came on his mission of surrender. 'Amr 
 gave him a kindly welcome, and, on hearing that his 
 purpose was to sue for peace, he remarked ' You 
 have done well to come to us.' The Patriarch said 
 that in order to put an end to the war, the people 
 would be willing to pay tribute, adding, ' God has 
 given this country to you : let there be no more 
 enmity between you and the Romans ^' One may 
 well believe that negotiations and consultations were 
 spun out over several days in oriental fashion ; but 
 in the end an agreement was reached on all points, 
 and a treaty was signed on November 8, 641. 
 
 ' John of Nikiou, 1. c. 
 
 " ' Heretofore there has been no strife with you ' are the con- 
 cluding words of Cyrus in the text. Zotenberg inserts the word 
 prolong^es before hosiiliUs, but that scarcely redeems the curious 
 inaccuracy of the statement. There is clearly some error in 
 the MS. 
 
320 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 This treaty — which may be called the Treaty of 
 Alexandria, both to distinguish it from the former 
 Treaty of Babylon and because it turned mainly on 
 the surrender of Alexandria — sealed the Arab con- 
 quest of Egypt. Its terms are somewhat variously 
 Reported, but the principal covenants are given by 
 John of Nikiou as follows : — 
 
 (i) Payment of a fixed tribute by all who came 
 under the treaty. 
 
 (2) An armistice of about eleven months, to expire 
 the first day of the Coptic month Paophi, i. e. Sep- 
 tember 28, 642 \ 
 
 (3) During the armistice the Arab forces to main- 
 tain their positions, but to keep apart and undertake 
 no military operations against Alexandria ; the 
 Roman forces to cease all acts of hostility. 
 
 (4) The garrison of Alexandria and all troops 
 there to embark and depart by sea, carrying all their 
 possessions and treasure with them : but any 
 Roman soldiers quitting Egypt by land to be subject 
 to a monthly tribute on their journey. 
 
 (5) No Roman army to return or attempt the 
 recovery of Egypt. 
 
 (6) The Muslims to desist from all seizure of 
 churches, and not to interfere in any way with the 
 Christians. 
 
 (7) The Jews to be suffered to remain at Alex- 
 andria. 
 
 (8) Hostages to be given by the Romans, viz. 
 
 ^ This would be Just eleven months by Arab reckoning, rather 
 less by Roman. See Appendix on the Chronology. The armistice 
 is clearly recorded by Ibn al Athfr, though it is made to cover only 
 such time as was required to obtain Omar's answer about the 
 disposal of the prisoners. 
 
Surrender of Alexandria 321 
 
 1 50 military and 50 civilian, for the due execution of 
 the treaty. 
 
 These articles are not set out by the Coptic 
 historian quite in the order in which, for the sake 
 of convenience, I have ventured here to place 
 them. Under the first article a general security 
 was given for the life, property, and churches of 
 the Egyptians, who were also to be allowed the 
 free exercise of their religion. For the payment of 
 tribute and taxes constituted them a protected people 
 {ahl adh dhimmafi) with a status implying these 
 privileges. The tribute was fixed at two dinars per 
 head for all except very old men and children, and 
 the total capitation-tax was found to amount to 
 1 2,000,000 dinirs, or about ^6,000,000 ^ : but in 
 addition to the capitation-tax, a land-tax or property- 
 tax was imposed. The third article must, I think, 
 be limited by reference to Alexandria alone, because, 
 although Cyrus made the treaty on behalf of the 
 Egyptians in general, he could not guarantee that 
 every city and community would consent to be bound 
 by it ; and it would be unreasonable that the Arabs 
 should be debarred from fighting in case of further 
 resistance. It is, moreover, clear that in fact such 
 
 ' The number of the able-bodied male population is very 
 variously given by the Arab authorities, who make the capitation- 
 tax vary between 12,000 and 300,000,000 dinars : but 12,000,000 is 
 the most probable estimate. The land-tax was at first made payable 
 in kind — a fact which seems to be the foundation for the statement 
 that the Copts supplied the Arabs with provisions after the surrender 
 of Babylon. Abfi Salih says that 'Amr imposed a yearly tax of 
 26f dirhems, but from the well-to-do he exacted two dinars and 
 three ardebs of wheat. ' In this way the country produced 
 12,000,000 dinars without reckoning the tribute of the Jews in 
 Egypt ' (p. 75) : but on p. 74 is a rather different account, clearly 
 from another source. 
 
 BUTLER Y 
 
322 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 resistance was offered in places, and was conquered, 
 during the term of the armistice. 
 
 It will be noticed that John of Nikiou's version of 
 the treaty says nothing about the date of the first 
 payment of tribute or of subsequent payments, but 
 he implies clearly that an instalment was demanded 
 very shortly, and this is explicitly confirmed by the 
 Arab writer Ibn Khaldlan ^ 
 
 We are now in a position to appreciate the per- 
 plexity of the Arab writers and the divergence of 
 their answers to the question they are so fond of 
 debating — whether Egypt was taken by treaty or 
 by force. One must, however, so far anticipate the 
 later history of Alexandria as to remark that, three 
 or four years after its surrender by Cyrus, it was 
 recovered by the Romans, and retaken by the Arabs : 
 but the second capture was by force of arms, and 
 not by capitulation. Here, then, we have some 
 curious coincidences. First of all Babylon was 
 surrendered by Al Mukaukas at the time of high 
 Nile under a convention, which the Emperor refused 
 to ratify. Subsequently the fortress was stormed ; 
 but, before the storming party made good their 
 entry, the garrison offered to surrender, and did 
 actually capitulate unier treaty. Next, Alexandria 
 surrendered at the time of high Nile under a treaty 
 and almost without pressure ; but after the city had 
 been for some time in possession of the Arabs, it 
 was recovered by the Romans, who were only 
 
 ^ John makes the Arabs come shortly after the treaty to take the 
 tribute from Alexandria : Ibn Khaldfln, quoting the terms of the 
 treaty, says, ' The people of Egypt are bound to pay the poll-tax as 
 soon as they have come to an agreement upon this treaty, and the 
 overflow of the river has ceased.' The extract is further important 
 as showing that the treaty was made at high Nile. 
 
Surrender of Alexandria . 323 
 
 driven out after a siege which ended in capture 
 by force. 
 
 Looking at these strange results, when one 
 remembers that the earliest Arab authorities wrote 
 some two hundred years after the conquest, and 
 when one reflects on the immense difficulty of 
 preserving these bewildering coincidences in their 
 original shape through two centuries of tradition 
 mainly oral, then one may feel astonished, not that 
 the story has passed through endless confusions and 
 contortions, but that the Arab mind, so wanting in 
 historic sense, so blind to historic proportion, should 
 have stored up so many fragments of truth, however 
 out of order and relation. It is quite intelligible 
 now that some writers should represent Babylon as 
 taken by treaty, others by force ; and the same in 
 regard to Alexandria. The fact is, that while both 
 versions are in a sense true in each case, neither is 
 true in either case without qualification. 
 
 It is worth while briefly to examine some of these 
 authorities, who add some interesting details. Thus 
 Balidhuri, who wrote in the ninth century, quotes 
 'Abdallah, the son of 'Amr, as saying, that after the 
 capture of Babylon by force, 'Amr took counsel with 
 his chiefs and resolved to come to terms with the 
 Egyptians. He made a treaty imposing a tribute 
 of two dinirs a head on all able-bodied males, and 
 a tax on all landowners ^ : moreover, every Muslim 
 was to be provided with a complete change of raiment 
 every year. By request of the governor, Al Mu- 
 kaukas, this treaty was to apply to the whole of 
 Egypt, but all Romans who wished were permitted 
 
 ^ This tax is given as three ardebs of wheat, two kists of olives, 
 two of honey, two of vinegar, to be collected and stored in the 
 public storehouse (p. 215). 
 
 Y 2 
 
324 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 to quit the country, Baladhuri wrongly represents 
 the Emperor as rejecting this treaty, for it is quite 
 clear that he is describing the Treaty of Alexandria. 
 On the other hand, in proof of the statement that 
 Egypt was taken by force, he records a story that 
 'Amr, speaking once from the pulpit, said, ' I have 
 taken my seat in this country without a compact 
 with one of the Copts. If I please, I can kill them 
 or sell them as slaves.' These words, if rightly 
 reported, could only mean that the Copts had no 
 voice in the matter — that the only parties to the 
 treaty were the Arabs and the Romans. This, of 
 course, was true ; but the Copts were covered by 
 the treaty; and Balidhuii goes on to prove this. 
 For he relates that when Mu'awiah wrote to Warddn 
 pressing him to increase the tribute of the Copts, 
 Warddn pointed out that he could not do so without 
 violating the treaty of peace. So too he quotes 
 a son of Zubair as saying, ' I lived seven years in 
 Egypt and married there. The people were taxed 
 above their means and were in distress, although 
 ^Amr had made a treaty with them with fixed condi- 
 tions' He adds that there is other evidence for the 
 existence of the treaty. But he cannot get rid of the 
 idea that Alexandria was taken by force, although 
 he admits 'that 'Amr did not kill or enslave the 
 inhabitants, only making them protected allies.' The 
 two things are quite inconsistent, and his admission is 
 proof that, in speaking of capture by force, Baladhuri 
 is thinking of the second capture of Alexandria. 
 
 But the text of the treaty is actually given by 
 Tabari, who by a strange confusion calls it the Treaty 
 of "Ain Shams, instead of the Treaty of Alexandria. 
 Here are the words : — 
 
 ' This is the security which 'Amr ibn al 'Asl gave 
 
Surrender of Alexandria 325 
 
 to the people of Egypt for themselves, their bodies, 
 and their possessions, for the whole and the part 
 and all their numbers. Nothing shall be added to 
 this treaty or taken away from it. The Nubians 
 shall not be allowed to invade the country. The 
 people of Egypt are bound to pay the poll-tax as 
 soon as they have come to an agreement on this 
 treaty of peace, and when the overflow of the river 
 has ceased — fifty millions^ in amount. 'Amr is 
 bound to protect those whom he taxes. But if any 
 of the Egyptians refuse to accept the treaty, the 
 tribute shall be reduced in proportion ; nevertheless 
 we decline to give protection to those who refuse 
 payment. If the Nile fails to rise to its full height 
 in any year, the tax shall be abated in proportion to 
 the level it reaches. All Romans and Nubians who 
 come under this treaty of peace shall retain their 
 possessions and shall be bound to pay the same 
 taxes ; but those who refuse and prefer to depart 
 shall have a safe-conduct, until they leave our 
 dominions and reach a place of security. The 
 tribute is to be paid in three instalments, each 
 instalment being a third of the total ^ Upon all 
 within this document is the covenant of God and 
 His protection, and the protection of His Apostle, 
 and the protection of the Khalifah and Prince of 
 the Faithful, and the protection of all the faithful. 
 Nubians who come under this treaty are bound 
 to help the Muslims with so many slaves and so 
 many horses ; not to make raids into Egypt ; and 
 not to hinder the passage of merchandise, going 
 or coming. 
 
 ' This of course is incorrect. 
 
 * This seems to be the meaning of the obscure passage — 
 
 ^^it U eJiJ iW >>i^ J^ J '^^'' M^ ^ (•4*^ J 
 
326 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 ' Witnessed by Zubair and his two sons, ' Abdallah 
 and Muhammad. Written by Warden ^.' 
 
 This form of treaty, though by no means inconsis- 
 tent with the terms given by John of Nikiou, is not 
 coextensive with them : one account in fact supple- 
 ments the other. Yiklat quotes Ibn 'Abd al Hakam 
 as saying, 'AH Egypt was occupied by treaty, a 
 tribute of two din&rs a head being imposed on every 
 man, with the understanding that it was not to be 
 increased, while landowners also had to give a pro- 
 portion of their produce. The Alexandrians, how- 
 ever, had to pay poll-tax and land-tax, the amount 
 to be determined at the will of the governor, because 
 they were conquered by force of arms without treaty 
 or compact.' Here again the second capture is con- 
 fused with the first surrender of Alexandria. But 
 the best discussion on the subject is to be found in 
 Makrlzt, who states the various views with great 
 clearness, and cites the various authorities^. The 
 
 ^ This treaty is preserved by Ibn Khaldiin, who quotes it from 
 Tabari; but it does not seem to occur in Tabarfs extant account 
 of the conquest of Egypt; see Zotenberg's edition, vol. iii. pp. 461 
 seq. Nevertheless it is clear that Tabari makes Alexandria taken 
 under capitulation. 
 
 ' Khttat, vol. i. p. 294. Certain local treaties are named, but 
 the Copts are said to have made in the general treaty six con- 
 ditions : (i) that they should not be driven from their homes, 
 (2) or parted from their wives, (3) or removed from their villages, 
 (4) or deprived of their lands, (5) that the tribute should not be 
 increased, and (6) that they should be protected from their enemies. 
 These headings do not seem very accurate or logical, and nothing 
 is said about religious freedom, which certainly came within the 
 covenants. Zaid ibn Aslam is quoted as saying that Omar pos- 
 sessed a box containing all the treaties, but there was none with 
 Egypt; and Ibn Shihah avers that, although Egypt was taken 
 partly by treaty and partly by force, yet Omar made the people 
 in every part of the country a protected people. For example, 
 
Surrender of Alexandria 327 
 
 evidence for the occupation by treaty is overwhelm- 
 ing, and one may sum up the matter in the words 
 of the old man who, on hearing it remarked that 
 there was no treaty with the Egyptians, retorted, 
 ' He who says there was no treaty will forget to say 
 his prayers.' 
 
 when 'Abdallah ibn Sa'd wanted some land in Egypt, he paid 
 purchase-money for it, on the ground that the country was occupied 
 by treaty. Malik ibn 'Anas, 'Abdallah ibn Lahi'ah, and Nafi' ibn 
 Yazfd assert that Egypt was taken by force of arms. Al Laith, 
 'Abdallah ibn AM Ja'far, Yahla ibn Aiyiib, and others rightly main- 
 tain the occupation by treaty. 
 
CHAPTER XXII 
 
 REDUCTION OF THE COAST TOWNS 
 
 'Amr sends news of the surrender to Omar. Its date. Cyrus 
 breaks the news to the chief men in Alexandria. The arrival of 
 Arab envoys makes it known to the populace. Their fury, and its 
 appeasement. Criticism of Cyrus' treachery. The military position 
 of Alexandria. Effect of Heraclius' death. Treaty ratified by 
 Heraclonas. Building of the Muslim city of Fustdt, and of the 
 Mosque of 'Amr. Restoration of Trajan's Canal. Campaign in 
 the northern Delta. Capture of Ikhna, Balhib, Baralus, Damietta, 
 Tinnts, ShatS, &c. Story of Shati, and importance of the date. 
 Historical fallacies once more refuted. 
 
 When the treaty was duly completed, 'Amr called 
 Mu'awiah ibn Hudaij al Kindt, and told him to carry 
 the news of the surrender to Omar^. Mu'awiah 
 asked for a letter, but 'Amr retorted, 'What have 
 I to do with a letter ? Are you not an Arab who 
 can give a report of what you have witnessed ? ' 
 So Mu'awiah departed on his long desert journey, 
 and, arriving at Medina at noonday, he made his 
 camel kneel down at the door of the mosque and 
 entered. While he was there, a maid came out of 
 Omar's house, and, seeing a stranger with the marks 
 of travel upon him, asked his name. He gave it, 
 adding that he brought a message from 'Amr ibn 
 
 ^ The messenger's name is thus more correctly given by 
 Baiadhurt, but as Ibn Khadij by Makrizt, who tells the story 
 apparently in connexion with the second capture of Alexandria. 
 But Makrfzl (or his authority Ibn Lahi'ah) says that Muawtah's 
 errand preceded 'Amr's letter descriptive of Alexandria, That letter 
 was written upon the first entry of the Arabs into the city. More- 
 over, Omar was dead before the second capture. He was buried 
 on ist Muharram, a. h. 24 = Nov. 7, 644 (Ibn al Athlr, vol. iii. 
 p. 38). The story therefore rightly falls where I have placed it. 
 
Reduction of the Coast Towns 329 
 
 al 'Asl. The maid went back to the house, but 
 returned so hastily that Mu'awlah 'heard the veil 
 flapping against her feet' as she ran. She bade 
 Mu'awiah follow to the house, where Omar de- 
 manded his news. ' Good news, O Commander of 
 the Faithful,' was the answer ; ' God has opened 
 Alexandria to us.' They went back at once to the 
 mosque, where the muezzin called the people to- 
 gether, and a service was held in thanksgiving. On 
 returning to his house with Mu'awlah, Omar said 
 a further prayer, and then ordered bread and oil 
 to be set before his guest, who was somewhat 
 embarrassed and ate shyly. Dates were added to 
 the repast, but there the Caliph's luxuries ended. 
 When Mu'awlah excused himself for the rather 
 tardy delivery of his message on the ground that 
 he thought Omar would be taking his noontide rest, 
 the Caliph answered, ' Bad is what you said, and bad 
 is what you thought. If I slept by day, I should lose 
 my subjects : if I slept by night, I should lose myself. 
 How can I sleep with these two reasons against it }' 
 
 So simply was the news delivered and received 
 at Medina : very different was its reception in 
 Alexandria. 
 
 The Treaty of Alexandria was signed at Babylon 
 on Thursday, November 8, 641 ^. It of course 
 
 * I have given the reasons for this date in the Appendix. 
 Prof. Lane-Poole quotes from Tabart the statement of ZiySd that 
 peace proposals reached 'Amr at Balhib ; that they were referred 
 to the Caliph ; and that the Muslims waited for his reply at the 
 same place, BalMb. This story is most improbable as it stands ; 
 it conflicts equally with Ibn Kutaibah and with John of Nikiou, 
 who both bring 'Amr to Babylon at this time; and it is hardly 
 credible that 'Amr's army remained so long in that one position. 
 The truth doubtless is that while the treaty was made at Babylon, 
 its ratification was received from Omar at Balhfb. 
 
33° The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 required ratification by the Roman Emperor as 
 well as by the Caliph Omar ; but the armistice of 
 eleven months allowed ample time for all formalities. 
 Cyrus now hastened back to the capital, bearing the 
 treaty with him. 
 
 His first care was to communicate the terms of 
 the compact to the general Theodore, commander- 
 in-chief, and to Constantine, general of militia. It 
 is curious to find that, although Theodore bore the 
 title of Augustal Prefect, he had no lot or part in 
 the negotiations, and was not even present at Baby- 
 lon. But Theodore's position altogether is puzzling. 
 One cannot even say whether he was made privy to 
 Cyrus' design of surrendering the city. If he was, 
 he must have changed his mind and come over to 
 the peace party : if he was not, it is strange that 
 he should acquiesce so readily in what can only be 
 called a shameful capitulation. 
 
 Meanwhile news of' the secret treaty passed in 
 confidential whispers among the heads of depart- 
 ments and the leading men in the capital. The 
 populace were kept in ignorance ; but dispatches 
 were sent to the Emperor Heraclonas, announcing 
 the terms of surrender and recommending them for 
 ratification. It seems that both the generals con- 
 curred in this recommendation, and their concurrence 
 must be held in some measure to exonerate Cyrus 
 from responsibility, although Theodore's proved 
 incompetence as military commander deprives his 
 judgement upon the military situation of all real 
 value. However, when Cyrus had prepared the 
 ground in Alexandria, he summoned the chiefs of 
 the army and of the civil government to a council. 
 Headed by Theodore and Constantine, they came 
 and presented their homage to the Patriarch, whom 
 
Reduction of the Coast Towns 331 
 
 we must imagine seated and robed in full pontificals. 
 With his wonted skill he explained the terms of the 
 treaty, enlarging upon its necessity and its advan- 
 tages, till he saw with melancholy triumph conviction 
 carried to the minds of his hearers. 
 
 Thus one more step was gained by Cyrus in his 
 plans for the betrayal of Egypt. But the veil of 
 mystery in which he had shrouded them could not 
 last much longer. The disclosure to the people was 
 made not by open avowal of Cyrus, or by the voice 
 of rumour, but by the sudden appearance of an 
 Arab force advancing towards the city. The alarm 
 rang out, and from every quarter the people hastened 
 to man the walls and towers. The Arabs rode 
 forward unconcerned, while the Roman generals, 
 who had now destroyed all fighting spirit in the 
 army, tried to calm the people by arguing that 
 further resistance was hopeless and impossible. Ere 
 the Saracens came within range of the Roman 
 artillery, they were seen to be bearing flags of 
 truce. Answering signals were made : but when 
 the Saracens stood within speaking distance, what 
 was the amazement of the Romans to hear that the 
 enemy had come, not to attack the city, but to receive 
 the tribute agreed upon by Cyrus, Al Mukaukas, in 
 the treaty which he had proposed and had signed 
 for the capitulation of Alexandria. Furious and 
 incredulous the mob tore through the streets 
 towards the Archbishop's palace ; and when at 
 last Cyrus appeared, for a moment his life was 
 in danger, as the people ran upon him to stone 
 him. 
 
 His age and dignity saved the Archbishop. Stay- 
 ing the rage of the people with a gesture, he found 
 his tongue, and summoned all his eloquence to 
 
332 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 soften the public confession of his treason, and to 
 justify his conduct. The action he had taken, he 
 said, was forced upon him : no other course was 
 possible in the interests of his hearers and of their 
 children. The Arabs were irresistible : God had 
 willed to bring the land of Egypt under their 
 dominion. Either the Romans must come to terms, 
 or they must see their streets deluged with blood, 
 and after pillage and massacre the survivors must 
 forfeit the remnant of their possessions. . The 
 capitulation secured life and property and religion. 
 Besides, all who preferred to live under a Christian 
 government were free to quit Alexandria. The 
 alternatives of exile from Egypt and submission to 
 Muslim rule were indeed bitter; and the Patriarch 
 was moved to tears, as he besought the people 
 to believe that he had done his best and to 
 accept the treaty which he had made for their 
 deliverance. 
 
 Once more the sinister counsel of Cyrus prevailed. 
 Popular opinion swung round into agreement with 
 the army, and consented to surrender the Great 
 City to the Arabs on the terms of the treaty. 
 The rioters felt ashamed of their outburst of anger 
 against His Holiness the Archbishop, who had used 
 his powerful intercession to save them from destruc- 
 tion at the hands of their conquerors. So the citizens 
 not only furnished the instalment of tribute now de- 
 manded, but added to it a large sum of gold. The 
 money was placed on board a vessel, which passed 
 out of the southern water-gate of the city, and was 
 delivered by Cyrus himself to the Muslim com- 
 mander ^. 
 
 ^ This is not stated in the text (p. 576), but it is given in the 
 heading to ch. cxx on p. 358 of John of Nikiou's Chronicle. 
 
Reduction of the Coast Towns 333 
 
 Thus was sealed the surrender of Alexandria. 
 A computation of dates makes it possible that this 
 first payment of tribute took place on the first day 
 of Muharram, A. H. 21 (December 10, 641). Although 
 there is no specific authority for such a statement, 
 Arab tradition fixes that day as the d.ay of the 
 conquest ; and the tradition may well have arisen 
 from the impression made upon those present when 
 the act of submission was performed by the first 
 payment of tribute. It is true, nevertheless, that 
 the Arabic authorities one and all make the ist 
 Muharram fall on a Friday, whereas no ist Mu- 
 harram fell on a Friday at this time, or nearer than 
 645. It follows that the tradition cannot be true in 
 its entirety, and it may therefore be altogether false : 
 but it is so firmly rooted in the Arab lore of the 
 conquest that it probably possesses some historical 
 basis ^. In any case it is interesting to remark one 
 more of those singular coincidences which emerge 
 from, and partly explain, the confusion in the 
 chronology of this period. It is this ; that, although 
 some of the Arab historians insist that the fall of 
 Alexandria took place three years after the entry 
 of 'Amr's army into Egypt, while others aver that 
 both Babylon and Alexandria fell in the same year, 
 viz. A. H. 20 ; yet, in spite of the apparent discrepancy, 
 both sets of historians are right. Babylon sur- 
 rendered in April, 641, and Alexandria in November, 
 641, which dates both fall within a. h. 20: and on 
 the other hand, while 'Amr's invasion began in 
 December, 639, his army did not actually occupy 
 
 ' Mr. E. W. Brooks thinks that the date really applies to the 
 second capture of Alexandria, which he would place on Friday, 
 ist Muharram, a. h. 25, or October 38, 645. But I shall show 
 reason against this theory in a later chapter. 
 
334 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Alexandria till three years later, in October, 642, at the 
 end of the eleven months' armistice. It is pleasant 
 to find truth behind such a veil of contradictions. 
 
 But what is to be said of this amazing treaty of 
 surrender ? Of the dark and subtle part played by 
 Al Mukaukas or Cyrus, the Patriarch, of his strange 
 intimacy with the leader of the Arabs, and of his 
 strange anxiety all through the war to hasten the 
 submission of Egypt, it is difficult to speak in 
 measured language. The guilt of deliberate treason 
 to the Roman Empire must remain an indelible 
 stain on his memory, stained already by the folly 
 and the brutality of the ten years' persecution. If 
 from the moment of his appointment the Archbishop 
 had bent all his powers to the single end of destroy- 
 ing the Roman dominion over Egypt, he need not 
 have swerved for a moment from the course he 
 actually followed. But one is filled with wonder 
 to see with what avidity he seized that opportunity 
 of betraying Egypt which was mainly the result of 
 his own scandalous misgovernment. It is no pallia- 
 tion of his conduct to say that he had the formal 
 authority of Heraclonas, the Emperor, for the capi- 
 tulation. It was easy to talk over a weakling prince 
 who knew nothing of Egypt, and whose policy 
 answered every touch of the helm in his mother's 
 hand. 
 
 Moreover the treachery of Cyrus began months 
 before at Babylon. This fact alone disposes of any 
 defence on the ground of military necessity. True, 
 the greater part of Egypt was now conquered ; but 
 that was not true at the time of the abortive treaty 
 of Babylon. Besides, Alexandria had not even been 
 seriously menaced, nor had any of the coast towns 
 fallen. When the Muslim army had first ventured 
 
Reduction of the Coast Towns 335 
 
 to assault the capital, it was beaten off ignominiously, 
 nor, as was hinted above, is there any reason to 
 believe that it remained permanently encamped 
 within sight of the city. This is clear both from 
 the silence of John of Nikiou with regard to any 
 such encampment, and from his statement that 
 when a Muslim force was seen advancing — the force 
 sent to receive the tribute — its appearance caused 
 a stir of alarm in the city. No such commotion 
 could have arisen if the Muslim army had been in 
 daily view from the walls for some months, as the 
 Arab writers allege. It is clear that here again 
 they are confounding the first surrender of Alex- 
 andria with the second capture, when there really 
 was some kind of siege ; but this first surrender did 
 not result from any military necessity ^ 
 
 ' One is sorry to dismiss all the romantic stories woven by Arab 
 fancy into the siege of Alexandria, but there really is no alternative. 
 The truth seems to come out in Suyflti's account of 'Amr's letter 
 to Omar, which states that only twenty-two Muslims fell during 
 the siege, although this letter is given as written after the second 
 capture of the city. The well-known story of 'Amr and Wardan 
 being taken prisoners, during the repulse of a storming-party which 
 had broken into the town, is a mere fable. Virtually the same story 
 is told of the same warriors in reference to the siege of Damascus, 
 and both anecdotes may be found in Eutychius, who winds up the 
 siege of Alexandria by making the Arabs drive the Romans out of 
 Alexandria by sea and by land. Another version of the story gives 
 the same details, but sets them in the siege of Gazah in Palestine. 
 The legend seems to come originally from the fairy tales of Ibn 
 "Abd al Hakam. The Grand Mufti of Egypt remarks, in a note on 
 Tabari with which he furnished the present writer, ' In this account 
 also no mention is made of any battle of Alexandria, which, accord- 
 ing to tradition, took place only after an uprising in the year 25,' 
 and this is doubtless the truth. 
 
 But it is interesting to note Abfl S^lih's remark (p. 76) that 
 the number of Muslims slain in the conquest of Egypt, without 
 reckoning those killed in the siege (what siege is uncertain), was 
 
336 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 It must be repeated that Alexandria was practi- 
 cally impregnable to any force which 'Amr could 
 bring against it. The total circuit of the walls was 
 some nine or ten miles, of which about three rested 
 on the sea, while lake, morass, and canal protected 
 the greater part of the remainder. Since, then, 
 only a very small section of the walls was open to 
 attack, it was easy for the defenders to concentrate 
 all their force in repelling an assault : and even if 
 the Arabs could have put out of action the formi- 
 dable engines on the ramparts, their rude methods 
 would never have breached the walls. In fact there 
 appears no instance in all the history of Alexandria 
 in which the city was captured by storm without 
 betrayal from within. 
 
 Consequently, as long as the fleets of the Empire 
 ruled the sea — and the Muslims had not yet dreamed 
 of sea-power — there can have been no military reason 
 for the treaty made by Cyrus. The army no doubt 
 was disheartened by the fall of Babylon and by the 
 remembrance that they had been beaten in every 
 pitched battle during the campaign ; they knew also 
 that their leaders were either cowardly or incapable. 
 But all that might have been changed by fresh 
 troops with fresh leaders and fresh spirit. The fact, 
 however, is that since the death of Heraclius there 
 was no longer a ruler able to weld or to wield the 
 forces of the Empire. At Alexandria itself the 
 population was split into groups so divided in 
 sentiment and interest that a state of feud and riot 
 was the normal state of society; but the death of 
 Heraclius rent in two the central government, 
 leaving nothing but a war of factions. ' It broke 
 
 12,300 — a fair estimate for the various battles of that long 
 campaign. 
 
Reduction of the Coast Towns 337 
 
 the strength of the Romans' in more ways than 
 the Arab writer meant : for the great issue of the 
 moment — the defence of the Empire — fell into 
 abeyance. In the chaos wrought by the intrigues of 
 Martina and the plots of Valentine Egypt was cast 
 adrift ; and Alexandria, on which the fate of Egypt 
 now depended, lost hope of any such help from 
 without as would not merely save the city but clear 
 the enemy out of the country. 
 
 That at the time of the surrender there was no 
 apparent prospect of the Romans taking the offen- 
 sive and rolling back the invasion, may be granted. 
 But Alexandria might have defied capture for two 
 or three years at least ; and when once the sceptre 
 was in firm hands again, the hope of recovering all 
 Egypt would not be chimerical, though the blunders 
 of the past had given the Muslims a grip on the 
 country difficult to loosen. The military position 
 was by no means past retrieval ; and though Cyrus 
 could plead the moral weakness of the army and the 
 political disunion of the people, nothing can acquit 
 him of the charge of losing Egypt to the Empire. 
 Alexandria should have been held at all costs : 
 Cyrus delivered it to the enemy by a clandestine 
 and gratuitous surrender. 
 
 It remains a problem why the people of Alex- 
 andria, who were ready to stone Cyrus for his 
 treason, were so quickly prevailed upon to pardon 
 him and to accept the treaty. Fickle and frivolous 
 as the people were, it was no mere whim which 
 decided them to abandon their allegiance to the 
 Empire and to bow under the dominion of Isldm. 
 There can, I think, be but one explanation beyond 
 those already suggested, and that is that the 
 Alexandrians were wearied out both by the vicis- 
 
338 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 situdes and by the misgovernment which they had 
 suffered during the past forty years, and that they 
 hoped to find under Muslim rule a period of settled 
 peace, of religious tolerance, and of lighter taxation. 
 It may have been this relief from taxation which 
 turned the scale : for while it is difficult to estimate 
 the fiscal burdens borne under the Romans, there 
 can be no doubt that the taxes were manifold and 
 heavy, as well as vexatious, whereas the poll-tax 
 and land-tax demanded by 'Amr had at least the 
 charm of simplicity, directness, and fixity, and 
 amounted, or seemed to amount, to less than the 
 sums exacted for the imperial exchequer. In 
 proportion as patriotism in Egypt was weak, the 
 appeal to the purse was strong : and this promise of 
 reduced taxation may count for a great deal in all 
 the Muslim conquests. In the case of Alexandria 
 it may have been the determining factor ^ although 
 it is known that the hope of financial relief was 
 bitterly disappointed. 
 
 The treaty was ratified — possibly by the last act 
 of Heraclonas, whose reign ended that November. 
 It seems that the terms were rehearsed in a pro- 
 clamation now issued by 'Amr to the people of 
 Egypt. The proclamation offered protection to the 
 'person, property, religion, churches, and crosses' 
 of the Egyptians, and promised to defend the 
 people against Nubians and all other enemies on 
 condition of payment of tribute ^. But neither the 
 
 ' Mr. Milne in his Egypt under Roman Rule gives a good deal of 
 information about the taxes, but does not make it clear what was 
 the total of taxation payable by the Alexandrians or Egyptians at 
 this time, nor whether Alexandria was still exempt from the Roman 
 poll-tax as in the days of Josephus (p. 12 a). 
 
 " This proclamation is from Ibn Kathlr (quoted by Abil '1 
 Mahasin). Ibn Kathlr says that it was made after the capture of 
 
Reduction of the Coast Towns 339 
 
 news of the surrender of the Great City, nor the 
 liberal nature of the terms offered, availed to para- 
 lyse all further resistance. The cause of the Empire 
 was now quite hopeless, with Alexandria under 
 captivity, and it was the plainest unwisdom to reject 
 the treaty : yet although the country as a whole 
 came under it, some few towns in the north of the 
 Delta stood loyal to their colours. These towns 
 therefore had to be conquered before the campaign 
 was over ; but 'Amr was free to move against them 
 at a time of his own choosing. 
 
 Meanwhile he had other work in hand at Babylon. 
 He had resolved to build a new Muslim city in the 
 plain which stretched from the Roman fortress to 
 the Mukattam Hills, and which had been the scene 
 of his encampment. This city is said by BalAdhuri 
 to have been planned by Zubair, who built himself 
 a house, in which the ladder used in scaling the 
 fortress was kept till it perished in a fire. Ydklit, 
 however, mentions four different persons ^ as directly 
 appointed by 'Amr to superintend the laying-out of 
 the streets and quarters, which were assigned to 
 different tribes of the Arabs. In any case it may 
 be taken for granted that both the architect and the 
 builders of the new town were Copts, no Arab as 
 yet possessing the requisite art and knowledge. 
 The name Fustat, by which the town became known, 
 is clearly a foreign word, and it is a source of 
 
 'Ain Shams : but this is a mere blunder. The terms he gives are 
 exactly those of the Treaty of Alexandria, and he adds that all the 
 people of Egypt accepted the conditions. Broadly speaking, this 
 is true of the Treaty of Alexandria, but it is certainly untrue with 
 regard to any other treaty, nor indeed was any treaty made at 
 Heliopolis. 
 
 ^ Mu'awiah ibn Hudaij, Sharik ibn Summayyf, 'Amr ibn Kahzam, 
 and Jibrll ibn NSshirah. 
 
 Z 2 
 
340 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 perplexity to the Arab writers. They say generally 
 that it means either a tent ^ of leather or skin, such 
 as ■ Amr is said to have used, or else an assembling- 
 place : one tradition even avers that every city is 
 a fustdt. But Yikllt gives six ways of pronouncing 
 the word ^, and its connexion with the tent of 'Amr 
 and the story of the dove's nest has at least an 
 element of truth. For the form Fttssdt takes us 
 back at once to the Byzantine cpoarcraTov (the Roman 
 fossatuni) which was in common use at the time of 
 the conquest in the sense of camp. The Romans 
 at Babylon naturally spoke of the place where 
 "Amr's army encamped as the (poa-a-aTov, and the 
 Arabs learned the word from them. It is strange 
 that this explanation should appear novel ^ 
 
 ^ Abfi Sdlih casts doubt on this interpretation. He says, ' It was 
 called Fustat, or the meeting-place of the people, and the Arabs 
 did not put up a tent, not being acquainted with the use of tents ' 
 
 (P- 74)- 
 
 ^ Fustat, FistSt, Fussat, Fissat, Fustat, and Fastat. In support 
 of the theory that the name comes from the Roman ' fossatum,' 
 see Sophocles' Byzantine Lexicon, s.v. ^oo-o-Stov. The term might 
 have been heard by the Arabs in Syria as well as at the fortress of 
 Babylon. It would be used mainly in connexion with a fortified 
 city, and this association may account for the fact that some Arab 
 writers actually say that 'fustSt' means a city. See Makrlzi, 
 Khifat, vol. i. p. 296. The tradition referred to in the text is given 
 by YSkfit, who writes : 'A tradition says, " You are bound to assemble 
 together, for the hand of God is upon the fustat," meaning the town 
 in which men assemble : so every town is a fustSt.' Ibn al Faklh 
 says that Bosrah was called Fustat. 
 
 ' Dr. Wallis Budge in his little book called The Nile, p. 112 
 (T. Cook & Son, London, 1890), gets near the truth. But although 
 in a note he remarks, 'Arab. JolklS, another form of JolJls = Byzantine 
 Greek <f>ocTa-3.Tov,' yet in the text he says, ' FosMt means a tent.' It 
 is questionable whether the Arabs used tents for military purposes 
 at this time : but apart from that doubt, the meaning of camp is so 
 strongly founded on both historical and philological reason as to be 
 virtually incontestable. 
 
Reduction of the Coast Towns 341 
 
 It is very unlikely that at first the town of 
 Fustdt was laid out on any large scale or with any 
 idea of making it the Muslim capital '. The troops 
 in the fortress were too cramped for either health or 
 pleasure, and it was not lawful or not desirable to 
 dispossess the people of Misr of their houses. Con- 
 sequently, as all fear of further war in this part of 
 the country was removed, the Arabs could build 
 outside the walls of Babylon quite unmolested. 
 From small beginnings the town had a rapid growth 
 when, a year later, Omar refused 'Amr permission 
 to retain the seat of government at Alexandria. 
 Fustat Misr — for it was called by the double name — 
 soon spread over the whole area now occupied by 
 the rubbish mounds south of Cairo, and became the 
 recognized capital of Egypt. Outside the city of 
 Fustdt to the northward later arose the suburb of 
 Al 'Askar, to which the central power was attracted. 
 Further north again Al Katai' was founded by 
 Ahmad ibn Tftlljn, and all the rulers of the Tulunide 
 dynasty had their palaces in that quarter ^ After 
 
 ' The date of the foundation of Fustat is of course disputed. 
 Baladhuri seems to place it after the capture of Babylon, while 
 most of the other Arab writers place it after the occupation of 
 Alexandria and the Caliph's refusal to allow 'Amr to reside in 
 Alexandria. It seems probable that the town was begun after the 
 surrender of Alexandria at the time given in the text, and that later 
 it assumed the dimensions and importance of a capital city, when 
 Omar had pronounced against Alexandria. Weil, I think, is 
 mistaken in putting the first building of Fustat after the Muslim 
 enlry into Alexandria, as he certainly is in the statement that 
 Alexandria ' fell by the sword.' Abii '1 Mahasin says very clearly, 
 ' 'Amr founded Fustdt in a.h. 21 after the taking of Alexandria,' and 
 the winter of 641-2 after Dec. 10 falls in a.h. 21. 
 
 ^ The name KatSi' means ' landed estates ' or ' fiefs.' Quatre- 
 mbre translates from Makrizt a very interesting description of the 
 quarter called by this name and of the fine buildings it contained 
 
342 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 the Tulunides, Al 'Askar regained for a while its 
 preeminence, until it was finally discrowned towards 
 the end of the tenth century, in the time of the 
 Fatimides, by the building of Misr al Kihirah — 
 Misr the Victorious, or Cairo as it was called by the 
 Venetians, who passed on the epithet instead of 
 the name to Europe. 
 
 A little to the north of the ruined Roman fortress 
 there stands to this day the venerable mosque of 
 "Amr — the oldest mosque in Egypt. It is a familiar 
 object to travellers, and no description of it is here 
 necessary. But it seems probable that the first 
 foundation of the original mosque took place in this 
 same winter of 641-2 ^. The spot chosen was that 
 on which 'Amr had set up his standard and which 
 came to be called the Place of the Standard''. It 
 lay among orchards and vineyards ^ close to the 
 bank of the river *, and it had been occupied by one 
 Ab<i 'Abdarrahman Kaisabah ibn Kulthlim, but at 
 the request of 'Amr he surrendered it as a free gift 
 for all the Muslims. A common place of worship 
 was their first necessity ; but the original mosque of 
 'Amr was a very simple building. Its dimensions 
 were only fifty cubits by thirty ; the roof was very 
 
 {M/m. G^og. et Hist. t. ii. pp. 458 seq.); and a description of Al 
 'Askar precedes it (p. 452). 
 
 ' Both Yakfit and Aba '1 Mahasin give this date (a. h. 21). 
 
 ''■ This is from Yakftt. The account which makes it the place 
 of 'Amr's standard and not of his tent is the more probable, and 
 renders the derivation of FustSt from <j>oa-(r5.Tov even more certain. 
 
 ' Ibn "Abd al Hakam, quoted by Suyfiti. 
 
 * See Quatrembre, M/m. G/og. et Hist. t. i. pp. 7 1 seq. Hamaker 
 (Expugnatio Memphidis, p. 132 of notes) refutes Wakidi's state- 
 ment that the mosque was founded on the site of a Christian 
 church. The error doubtless arose from the fact that in the later 
 structure some columns were employed obviously taken from 
 Christian buildings. 
 
Reduction of the Coast Towns 343 
 
 low : there was an open space in front of the 
 mosque, but no courtyard, and a roadway round it : 
 six doors gave access to the building. It soon 
 proved too small for the congregation, who had to 
 sit in rows in the open space. The kiblah is said 
 to have been built by eight ^ of the Prophet's 
 companions, chief among them being Zubair, Al 
 Kaddad ibn al Aswad, and 'Ubadah ibn as Simit. 
 It had a more direct orientation than the present 
 kiblah. When the building was finished, a minbar 
 or pulpit was placed in it, and from this 'Amr used 
 to hold forth ^, until Omar rebuked him for exalting 
 himself above the heads of his fellow believers, and 
 ordered its destruction. The first additions to the 
 mosque were made c, 673 a.d.^ by Maslamah ibn 
 Mukhallad, who made an extension on the north 
 side, substituted mats for the pebble pavement, 
 built a turret at each angle, added minarets, on 
 which his own name was inscribed, and increased 
 the number of muezzins, ordering them also to 
 chant the call to prayer at daybreak instead of 
 beating the wooden gong* as heretofore. About 
 
 ^ Suyfitt- Other writers say thirty or even eighty. 
 
 '^ Abd '1 Mahasin quotes from Ibn 'Abd al Hakam a long report 
 of a sermon preached by 'Amr. It is at least an interesting 
 composition. 
 
 ' Yakfit and Suyfitt give a.h. 53, while Abfl '1 Mahasin writes 
 A. H. 63 — by a slip, doubtless. 
 
 * The nakfis or wooden gong was in use by the Christians prior 
 to the use of bells, and remains in use to this day in many Muslim 
 countries, where bells are disliked or forbidden. Its discontinuance 
 by the Egyptian Muslims is recorded by Abfi '1 MahSsin. The 
 nakfis was sometimes made of metal — a plate of iron or copper 
 suspended by strings. See Vansleb, Histoire de tJ&glise d'AIexan- 
 drie, p. 59 ; Butler, Ancient Coptic Churches, vol. ii. pp. 79-80 ; 
 Pereira, Vida do Alba Daniel, p. 50, n. i ; and Hamaker, Expugnatio 
 Memphidis, pp. 166 seq., where the matter is treated at great length. 
 
344 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 the year 696 ^ 'Abd al 'Aziz pulled down a portion 
 of ' Amr's mosque — or possibly only the extension — 
 and rebuilt it: and somewhat later in 711^ the 
 Caliph Walld ibn 'Abd al Malik wrote to Kurrah 
 ibn Sharlk, the governor of Egypt, ordering him 
 to pull down the whole of the mosque and rebuild 
 it. It was then that the mosque took in the main 
 the form which it still preserves ^, although several 
 subsequent alterations are recorded *, 
 
 Of the domestic architecture at Fustdt some few 
 details are known. The houses were chiefly of brick, 
 and soon rose to a height of four or five stories. 
 We must picture large irregular piles of building, 
 with Roman columns used freely as supports, but 
 possessing no merit of design and little ornament — 
 precisely such buildings as may be seen, or might 
 be seen twenty years ago, still standing in Rosetta. 
 Some of these blocks at Fustat are said to have 
 
 * A.H. 77. 
 ^ A.H. 92. 
 
 ' So says Suyfiti, writing circa 1500 a. b. There has certainly 
 been no material alteration since that date. 
 
 * It was enlarged in 750 when SiUh ibn 'All was governor of 
 Egypt, and again in the days of Harfln ar Rashid, c. 791. Further 
 additions were made in 826 by 'Abdallah ibn Tahir, and in 871 by 
 Abfi Ayfib Ahmad ibn Muhammad : but the additions of 'Abdallah 
 ibn Tdhir were destroyed in 884 by a fire and replaced by the 
 magnificent Sultan Khamdrawaih. Various improvements were 
 made in the tenth century, but the mad Caliph Al Hakim disfigured 
 the mosque by removing the mosaics and replacing them with white- 
 wash. The reader is referred for further details to a very full 
 history and description of the mosque of 'Amr given in an admirable 
 paper by Mr. E. K. Corbett in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic 
 Society for Oct. 1890, vol. xxii. N. S. The article is accompanied 
 by plans and illustrations. There is also an extremely close and 
 interesting account of the mosque in Ibn DukmSk (pt. iv. pp. 59-67), 
 whose MS. was discovered and published subsequently to the 
 appearance of Mr. Corbett's article. 
 
Reduction of the Coast Towns 345 
 
 contained as many as two hundred people, and the 
 ground floor was seldom inhabited. Khirijah ibn 
 tludh^fah, the well-known lieutenant of 'Amr, is 
 said to have been the first to have a balcony or 
 loggia built : but Omar on hearing of it wrote to 
 'Amr that it could only be for the purpose of spying 
 out the secrets of the neighbours, and that it must 
 be taken down. Baths also were built at Fustdt, but 
 they were called at once Hammam al Fdr, or the 
 Mouse Baths, owing to their ridiculous smallness 
 in comparison with the splendid baths of the 
 Romans. 
 
 Besides houses and baths and a mosque, a grave- 
 yard was necessary. A curious legend is told that 
 Cyrus, the Mukaukas, offered 'Amr 70,000 dindrs for 
 a plot of ground by the ravine at the foot of the 
 Mukattam hills ; and when he was pressed to give 
 his reason for offering so large a sum, he replied 
 that, according to the ancient writings, this was the 
 Plantation of Paradise. Omar settled the matter 
 by remarking that he knew of no Plantation of 
 Paradise save the ground in which believers are 
 buried. The request of Cyrus was refused : the 
 ground was marked out as the Muslim burial-place : 
 and in after years "Amr himself and four other of 
 the Prophet's companions were there laid to rest. 
 
 The other great work which 'Amr seems now to 
 have undertaken was the excavation of Trajan's 
 Canal ^ This ancient waterway, which had left the 
 
 ' In placing the excavation of Trajan's Canal inthis winter 641-2 
 I am running counter to Al Kindt, who says it took place in a. h. 23, 
 which year begins in Nov. 643. But it is known that, before the 
 death of Omar in Dhfi '1 Hijjah, a. h. 23, Egyptian vessels were 
 landing their cargoes in Arabia, and it is scarcely conceivable that 
 the -whole length of the canal could have been cleared out and 
 rendered serviceable in less than a year. Of course it is possible 
 
346 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Nile a little to the north of Babylon, and, passing by 
 Heliopolis and the Wadl Tumilat to Al Kantarah, 
 had joined the Red Sea at Kulzum \ had silted up 
 through long neglect under the Romans. It was 
 of far more ancient date than the time of Trajan, 
 who merely restored it to utility, as 'Amr proposed 
 doing. Indeed, as Weil shows ^, part of it at least 
 
 that the work was done in the previous winter 642-3 ; but that date 
 is unlikely, because 'Amr was then engaged in the expedition to 
 Pentapolis. Moreover it can scarcely be doubted that John of 
 Nikiou means to place this work in the winter 641-2. At least he 
 seems to speak of it as begun during the life of Cyrus and before 
 the expedition to Pentapolis; and although it is true that he makes 
 it come after the Muslims had taken full possession of the country, 
 it is clear that John regards that possession as effective before the 
 death of Cyrus, and therefore at this period. The argument from 
 order in John's disordered narrative may be worth little (pp. 577-8) 
 in itself, and it might be argued that the Arabs were not placed in 
 full possession of the country by the Treaty of Alexandria. This 
 is true to the letter, but for all practical purposes possession was 
 complete, save in the extreme north of the Delta. Moreover, 
 Balidhuri's authority is in favour of the earlier date. For he says 
 (p. 216) that in the year of famine, a.h. 21, Omar wrote ordering 
 "Amr to send the tribute paid in kind, i.e. corn and other produce, 
 to Medina by sea, and it so continued to be sent with some inter- 
 mission until the reign of Abfi Ja'far al Mansfir. This does not 
 prove that the canal was open in a.h. ar (ends Nov. 29, 642), but 
 it does prove that 'Amr felt in that year the advantage of a con- 
 tinuous waterway to the sea. On the whole therefore, in spite of 
 Weil, the evidence seems in favour of the commencement of the 
 work being made early in 642. Possibly it was not finished before 
 643 : but, as Weil points out, Ibn 'Abd al Hakam's very detailed 
 account of Omar's journey to JSr, the port of Medina, to see the 
 arrival of the ships from Egypt, proves that the canal was in full 
 working order some time before his death in Nov. 644. Possibly 
 the canal •^■is, finished in the winter 643-4, and used at the following 
 flood of the Nile for the first time. 
 
 ^ See Quatremfere, M^m. Giog. et Hist. X. i. pp. 176 seq. 
 
 ^ Geschichte der Chalifen, i. pp. 130 seq. Weil refers to Hdt. ii. 
 158, Mannert's Geographie der Gr. und Romer, x. i S., pp. 503 seq.. 
 
Reduction of the Coast Towns 347 
 
 was laid out by Pharaoh Necho, who also pierced 
 the Isthmus of Suez from sea to sea. In the time 
 of Ptolemy Philadelphus II the canal was repaired 
 and reinstated, but it was made to branch off the 
 Nile at Phacusa instead of Bubastis. The date at 
 which the waterway was cut from near Babylon to 
 Bubastis is uncertain : but this channel was not 
 wholly successful, being available for use only at 
 high Nile ; and for want of proper care it became 
 unnavigable some time after the second century of 
 our era. The mere drift of the sand would soon 
 choke up the bed, when once it was neglected : and 
 it is alleged that the line of the waterway was so 
 lost, that it had to be pointed out to "Amr by a 
 Copt, whose services were rewarded by exemption 
 from tribute. On the other hand, the rapidity with 
 which the excavation was accomplished must be 
 taken to show that some sections of the course of 
 ninety miles were still in fair order, although it is 
 true that rapid results were accomplished by the 
 vast gangs of natives, who were driven like slaves 
 to the work and kept at it by taskmasters, according 
 to the custom in vogue from time immemorial. 
 The Arabs indeed seem to have applied this system 
 of forced labour with exceptional rigour : insomuch 
 that the Egyptian bishop is betrayed into very 
 strong language : ' The yoke they laid on the 
 Egyptians was heavier than the yoke which had 
 been laid on Israel by Pharaoh. Him God judged 
 by a righteous judgement by drowning him in the 
 
 and Letronne in Revue des Deux Monies, xxvii. 215. There is 
 also some information to be found in Abfi Stlih, pp. 172-3 and 
 notes, and p. 88 n. The bed of the canal where it passed through 
 what is now Cairo has recently been filled up, and is occupied by 
 an electric tramway. 
 
348 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Red Sea after He had sent many plagues both on 
 men and cattle. When God's judgement lights 
 upon these Muslims, may He do unto them as He 
 did aforetime unto Pharaoh M' Yet it would seem 
 that this great severity was rather incidental to the 
 period of conquest than a permanent characteristic 
 of 'Amr's government. 
 
 It is related that 'Amr contemplated excavating 
 a branch canal from Lake Timsah northward to 
 join the Mediterranean, so that the whole isthmus 
 would be pierced as now by a waterway : but Omar 
 forbade the design on the ground that the Romans 
 would then be able to sail through into the Red 
 Sea and stop the pilgrimages. This story deserves 
 all credence. 
 
 But these works of peace did not altogether divert 
 the Arab commander's attention from military 
 matters. Although the Treaty of Alexandria had 
 practically completed the subjugation of the country, 
 there were still a few towns in the north of the 
 Delta, particularly on the sea-coast, which refused 
 to be bound by it. Against these 'Amr was entitled 
 to proceed even during the armistice ; and there 
 seems no doubt that he sent an expedition to reduce 
 themjn the spring of 642. The movements of the 
 Arab army are, however, difficult to follow. On 
 this phase of the conquest John of Nikiou sheds 
 no light whatever; while the details given by the 
 Arab writers, who are our only authorities, are hard 
 to correlate or to understand. 
 
 It may, however, be conjectured that the army 
 set out from Karilin and moved along the coast 
 eastward. In what was known as the western 
 Hauf there was a town called Ikhnd, not far from 
 
 ' John of Nikiou, p. 578. 
 
Reduction of the Coast Towns 349 
 
 Alexandria \ Talamd, the governor of Ikhnd, had 
 received from 'Amr a dispatch communicating the 
 terms of peace agreed upon with Cyrus ; but being 
 dissatisfied, he is said to have sought an interview 
 with 'Amr and inquired about the amount of the 
 poll-tax. The Arab chief, irritated by the discussion, 
 pointed to a neighbouring church and exclaimed, 
 ' If you filled that building with gold to the roof, 
 I would not define the amount of the poll-tax. You 
 are our treasury, and if you give us abundant 
 supplies, we shall treat you liberally, but if we are 
 in want, we shall make heavy demands upon you ^.* 
 Talamfi naturally resented this language and decided 
 not to surrender ; and it was against Ikhna accord- 
 ingly that the Muslims now marched. But the town 
 was soon forced to capitulate : and, although it 
 yielded under a written treaty, many prisoners were 
 taken and sent to Omar at Medina. A like fate befell 
 Balhlb ^, which was a strong place a few miles south 
 of Rosetta : and it was here apparently that 'Amr 
 received Omar's ratification of the Treaty of Alex- 
 andria*. In the Caliph's letter, which was read out 
 
 ' Yakflt, vol. i. p. i66. I am unable to identify Ikhna on 
 modern maps or lists of villages. 
 
 ^ This language is so totally at variance with the solemn agree- 
 ment fixing the poll-tax and making it unalterable, that if it was 
 used at all at this stage, it can only have been uttered as an ill- 
 humoured jest. But it is far more reasonable to suppose that the 
 words were spoken later, when Ikhn^ was reduced to the last 
 extremity and had to capitulate. In that case the words were better 
 justified, as 'Amr was not bound by the Treaty of Alexandria, 
 which the conquered town had rejected. 
 
 ^ See n. i, p. 289 supra. Baladhuri calls this place Balhlt — 
 a mistake reproduced by Abfli '1 MaMsin and Suyfltt — but Yakfit 
 gives it correctly. 
 
 * I have already shown reasons for disagreeing with the story of 
 Balhib as given on p. lo of Prof. Lane-Poole's Egypt in the Middle 
 
350 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 before the troops, instructions were given that all 
 prisoners who chose to adopt Isldm should be set 
 at liberty and received as brothers. The story is 
 that a great number of the captives went over to 
 the Muslim religion, their decision being hailed with 
 shouts of triumph by the Arabs. But a sudden and 
 wholesale conversion of this kind was certainly an 
 unusual, if not an unparalleled event. If made, it 
 was clearly made under the strongest pressure of 
 worldly motive by men of easy convictions : prob- 
 ably, however, the story is greatly exaggerated. 
 
 In close connexion with Ikhnd, treaties of peace 
 are recorded as made with Kuzman (perhaps Cos- 
 mas), governor of Rosetta, and with John, governor 
 of Baralus \ From Baralus it would seem as if the 
 Arab forces still followed the coast line till they 
 came to Damietta^ John, the governor, offered 
 no further resistance to the Arabs, who now con- 
 trolled all the outlets of the Nile. Khais, in the 
 region called the Hauf near Damietta, was also 
 
 Ages. Both on geographical and on historical grounds it is quite 
 impossible that 'Amr can have spent the time of the armistice here. 
 
 ' Rosetta of course commanded the entrance to the western 
 branch of the Nile, and Balhib commanded the waterway from the 
 Rosetta branch towards Alexandria. Baralus (ndpoXos) was a town 
 at the Sebennytic mouth of the Nile, and both town and district 
 retain the name to this day, although the Sebennytic channel has 
 long since been choked, forming a lake which is only parted from 
 the sea by a narrow strip of sand. Ikhn^, Rosetta, and Baralus are 
 mentioned together by Makrlzt. 
 
 "^ The submission of Damietta is mentioned by BalSdhurt, who 
 says, nevertheless, that the expedition to Tinnls, Damietta, Tfinah, 
 Damtrah, ShaM, Dakahlah, Bana, and Busir was under TTmair ibn 
 Wahb al Jumahl. It seems more probable that the command was 
 entrusted to a lieutenant. Baladhurl does not record any fighting, 
 but says that 'Umair made terms with the people of these places 
 on the same conditions as those of the general treaty. 
 
Reduction of the Coast Towns 351 
 
 reduced to submission ^ : and it is probable that the 
 whole country of the Delta was now subjugated 
 with the exception of some towns which stood on 
 islands in the vast but shallow waters of Lake 
 ManzHlah. 
 
 A century before the Arab conquest ^ this region, 
 now covered by flood, had been unrivalled in Egypt, 
 save perhaps by the Fay{im, for its climate, its 
 fertility, and its wealth. Gardens, palm-groves, 
 vineyards, and cornlands were watered by never- 
 failing streams from the Nile, and flourished in great 
 luxuriance. But the sea broke through the line of 
 sandhills, which served as a rampart, and year by 
 year encroached further, till it swamped all the low- 
 lying land, leaving only a number of islands lifted 
 above the flood. Tilth and villages were swept 
 away, though a number of towns stood high enough 
 to escape the devastation. Of these the most famous 
 was Tinnls — a town of some magnitude and archi- 
 
 ^ The Arab authorities differ considerably about the names of 
 the resisting towns. Baladhurl gives Balhit (Balhtb), Khais, and 
 Sultais in one place, and in another, as we have seen, he names 
 Sakha, Balhit, Khais, and Sultais as assisting the Roman army at 
 the battle of Suntais. To this list Yakfit adds Fartasa, and he 
 remarks that ' when 'Amr had taken Alexandria he made captives 
 of the people of those towns^ and sent them to Medina.' Yakiit 
 gives the position of Khais. Makrizt records written treaties with 
 Ikhna, Rosetta, Baralus, Sultais, Masll, and Balhib ; so does Suyiitt. 
 As to Khais, this must be the town which Ydkflt (vol. ii. p. 507) 
 describes as in the western Hauf and as being taken by Kharijah 
 ibn Hudhifah, and the western Hauf is described as being towards 
 Damietta, the eastern towards Syria. The Khais in the description 
 quoted by Quatremfere (M^m. Giog. et Hist. t. i. p. 337) would 
 seem to lie east of Pelusium, and to be therefore a different place. 
 
 ^ In the year 251 of the Coptic era. For all this information 
 about the lake towns see Quatrembre, M^m. G^og. et Hist. t. i. 
 pp. 287 seq. Quatrem^re translates at some length from Makrizt 
 and Mas'fldt. 
 
352 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 tectural beauty, with an enormous manufacture of 
 the finest textiles. Other towns on the lake, like 
 Tunah, Damirah and Dabik, boasted the skill of 
 their weavers, but they could not compare with 
 Tinnls, which ranked with Damietta and Shati for 
 the richness and delicacy of its fabrics. Only at 
 Tinnls and Damietta could the weavers produce 
 a robe of pure linen worth loo dinars (50 guineas) : 
 while Mas'udi records a garment made for the 
 Caliph in a single seamless piece costing 1,000 
 dindrs. This was woven of gold thread with an 
 extremely small admixture of fine linen. It is also 
 on record that the trade of Tinnls with Irak alone 
 amounted to between 20,000 and 30,000 dinirs 
 yearly before it was crushed by vexatious tariffs. 
 
 Tinnls stood on an island^ of considerable size, 
 and was reached from the south by a channel called 
 Bahr ar Riim, which may have been identical with 
 the Tanitic branch of the river and ran to Salahlah. 
 There was also easy and direct communication by 
 water with Pelusium, or at least with Tlnah its 
 harbour. Even as late as the tenth century Tinnls 
 is said to have possessed many ancient monu- 
 ments, besides 160 mosques, each adorned with 
 a lofty minaret, 72 churches, and 36 baths ; and its 
 fortified walls had 19 gates, all heavily plated with 
 iron^. From other islands the dead are said to 
 
 " Quatremere thinks the name of the town is derived from vijo-or 
 — with the Coptic feminine article prefixed. If so, this part of the 
 country must have been flooded long before the sixth century. 
 Indeed Cassian, who was in Egypt in 390-7 a. d., says definitely 
 that ' Thinnesus ' is so beset on all sides with sea or salt marshes, 
 that the people were wholly dependent on sea traffic, and they had 
 to bring soil in barges when they wanted to make more building- 
 ground. 
 
 ' Quatremfere, 1. c, p. 329. Yet the dimensions of the town are 
 
Reduction of the Coast Towns 353 
 
 have been ferried acfoss the lake for burial at 
 Tinnis, where they seem to have been embalmed. 
 A century later the Persian traveller, Nclsiri 
 Khusrau', who visited Tinnis in 1047 ^.d., is amazed 
 at its prosperity. He speaks of 10,000 shops 
 and 50,000 male inhabitants. A thousand vessels 
 were moored at the island, which grew nothing, and 
 depended on trade for all provisions. The rise of 
 the Nile swept away the girdling flood of salt 
 water, and filled the vast underground cisterns and 
 reservoirs with sweet water enough to last for a 
 year. The splendid coloured stuffs woven by the 
 Copts were of more value than ever. In the Sultan's 
 looms fabrics were woven for him alone; a single 
 turban cost 4,000 dinars ; but these fabrics were never 
 put on the market. The Roman Emperor offered 
 a hundred cities in exchange for Tinnis, but was 
 refused. Besides these royal textiles, a fabric was 
 woven called dUkalimiln — a shot silk of lustre so fine 
 that it was said to change colour every hour of the 
 day. But the steel cutlery of Tinnis was almost as 
 famous as the products of its looms ; and altogether 
 it was a place of curious interest and great im- 
 portance. 
 
 There is a legend that the governor of Tinnis 
 at the time of the conquest was a Christian Arab 
 named Ab(i Tiir, who went out at the head of an 
 army of 20,000 Copts, Romans, and Arabs to fight 
 the Muslims on their advance against Tinnis after 
 the capture of Damietta ^. Several engagements 
 
 given as about a square mile only — an obvious error. Tinnis was 
 destroyed in a.h. 624, nothing but ruins remaining. The island 
 is still called by the same name, and there are ancient remains 
 upon it. 
 
 ^ See Se/er Nameh, ed. C. Schefer, pp. no seq. 
 
 ^ Quatremfere, I.e., p. 307, quoted from Mas'fidi. The Arab 
 
 BUTLER A a 
 
354 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 were fougfht before the Muslims were able to rout 
 the Christian army and to capture its commander. 
 The surrender of Tinnls followed : and after the 
 division of the spoil the Muslim army moved on to 
 Farami. Whatever proportion of truth and error 
 this story may contain, two things are fairly certain — 
 that Tinnls came under the Muslim dominion at 
 this time, and that its industrial activities were not 
 directly impaired by the conquest. Neither here 
 indeed nor at TQnah, Bflrcl, Dabik, or the other 
 islands lost in the blue expanses of Lake Manzilah, 
 was there anything to attract Muslim settlers, and 
 it may safely be said that this region remained 
 almost exclusively Christian for a long time sub- 
 sequently ^ Its disappearance from history can be 
 dated. 
 
 force must have come by water, and it is absurd to suppose that the 
 governor of Tinnts could muster 20,000 men or transport them 
 over the lake. But numbers in Arabic documents are seldom to 
 be taken literally, and one should doubtless read 2,000. Of course 
 Abfi Tftr may be a mere invention of legend. There is no other 
 record of any Christian Arab leader in Egypt. This story, how- 
 ever, appears in an early Arab writer, and though it is dated 
 300 years after the alleged ev€mt, yet Mas'iidt himself appears to 
 be quoting from a lost History of Damietta. 
 
 ^ About the year 824 a. d. Dionysius, Patriarch of Antioch, was 
 driven by stress of weather into the harbour of Tanis, where 30,000 
 Christians are said to have met him with great rejoicing. He was 
 welcomed by the Patriarch of Alexandria and a number of bishops, 
 who remarked that no Patriarch of Antioch had visited Egypt 
 since the days of Severus. Dionysius, with a better historical 
 memory, reminded them of Athanasius' visit, which took place 
 early in the seventh century, and of the formal union then effected 
 between the two Churches. See Barhebraeus, Chron. Eccl. X. i, 
 c. 360. 
 
 By the harbour of Tanis must be meant the harbour at the mouth 
 of the Tanitic branch of the Nile. It would of course be nearer 
 to Tinnls than to the city of Tanis, which is much further inland. 
 
Reduction of the Coast Towns 355 
 
 The island of Tinnls was much exposed to raids 
 from the sea, though it was always strongly garri- 
 soned, and in the year 11 92 Saladin ordered its 
 evacuation. A few years later, in 1227, Malik al 
 Kimil had its forts and walls razed to] the ground, 
 and it became a mere heap of ruins ^. 
 
 There is another anecdote relating to the conquest 
 of this region, which claims at least some notice. 
 Makrizl in speaking of Shatd describes it as a town 
 which lies between Tinnls and Damietta, and which 
 legend avers to be named from one Shati, son of 
 Al Hamtak, the uncle of the Mukaukas^. This 
 derivation is pure romance : but the story goes on 
 to say that when the Arabs laid siege to Damietta 
 and captured it, Shati, who was governor of the 
 town, went out at the head of 2,000 men and 
 declared his adherence to Islam — a religion which 
 he had long studied with interest. When he saw 
 that the Arabs encountered prolonged resistance at 
 Tinnls, Shati collected and armed a force from 
 the towns of Baralus, Damirah, and Ashmfin-Tanah ; 
 
 The modern Arab name of Tanis is San or SSn al Hajar, The 
 position of the harbour is still marked on the coast about half way 
 between Port Said and Pelusium. 
 
 ^ A good description of the ruins is given in Ghillebert de 
 Lannoy's (Euvres Recueillies et PublUes, par Ch. Potvin, Louvain, 
 1878, pp. 138-9, quoted by Schefer, 1. c. 
 
 2 WakidI gives the name (p. 130) as drol^Il (Al Hamirak), 
 perhaps more correctly. It is of course impossible to credit for 
 a moment these details about the relations of Al Mukaukas. The 
 myths about his so-called daughter and wife have already been 
 rejected as wholly unfounded, and his uncle and cousin must be 
 dismissed with as litde ceremony. Cyrus cannot have had any 
 relations in Egypt, unless he brought them with him. 
 
 As a matter of fact Shati lies near to Damietta on the east, but 
 is a long way from Tinnis. But the ancient Tamiatis, here intended, 
 was some distance further north. 
 
 A a 2 
 
356 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 then, joining his levies to the Arab reinforce- 
 ments sent by 'Amr, he marched Against the enemy. 
 In a battle which followed Shati displayed brilliant 
 valour, slaying with his own hand twelve of the 
 foremost captains of Tinnls : but he fell in the thick 
 of the combat and was buried outside the town, 
 where, says Makrizi, ' his tomb is still shown, and is 
 still frequented on the day of his death, 1 5th Sha'bdn, 
 by pilgrims from all the country round ^' 
 
 Now it would be easy to destroy nearly the whole 
 of this story. The town of Shati was so named 
 long before the Arab conquest, when it was already 
 famed for the fineness and splendour of its textiles. 
 Moreover we know from John of Nikiou that the 
 governor of Damietta at this time was not called 
 Shati at all, but John ^. And lastly, the relationship 
 of Shati to Al Mukaukas is clearly apocryphal. But 
 though the personality of Shata is legendary, there 
 is one circumstance which redeems the story from 
 fiction, and that is the date. For the Arab historian 
 gives the day of the hero's death as Friday, 15th 
 Sha'bdn, a. h. 21. This corresponds to July 19, 642, 
 and the date is one that cannot be shaken. For in 
 the first place, the year 642 is the year postulated 
 by the whole course of this history ; and in the next 
 place July 19 in that year did in fact fall on a 
 Friday. Such a double coincidence is very rare, 
 but where it occurs the date must be absolutely 
 
 ' Quatrembre, 1. c, p. 339. It is not quite clear whether 
 Makrlzt means that the warrior was buried at Tinnls or at Shata. 
 It would seem, however, that the place where he fell would be the 
 place of his burial, and this is the more likely because the battle took 
 place in the heat of summer. I may add that the story of ShatS is 
 also given by Wakidt in very similar terms, text pp. 130 seq., 
 147-8, and notes 179, 190). 
 
 "^ John of Nikiou, pp. 561 and 584. 
 
Reduction of the Coast Towns 357 
 
 authentic : and it is further confirmed by the fact 
 of the yearly pilgrimage, lasting even to the time 
 of Makrlzl. It may therefore be taken as proved 
 that a battle took place on the date in question 
 close to Tinnls on the island, and that a Roman or 
 Coptic general from Shati was slain after greatly 
 distinguishing himself while fighting on the side of 
 the Muslims. 
 
 This date is both interesting and important, 
 because it shows to what a length of time resistance 
 to the Saracens was protracted in the Delta, even 
 after the surrender of Alexandria. And when it is 
 remembered how intensely Coptic in sentiment were 
 the people of Tinnls and all this region of the lake, 
 it will not be denied that the record of the battle at 
 this date gives one more shock to those twin time- 
 honoured fallacies — that ' Egypt fell almost without 
 striking a blow ' and that ' the Copts welcomed the 
 Arabs as deliverers.' The betrayal of Alexandria 
 by Cyrus must have extinguished the last hope of 
 triumph for the Christian cause in Egypt ; and it is 
 astonishing that nevertheless these isolated com- 
 munities in the Delta should have held out for 
 nearly a year longer. It argues in them a stubborn 
 courage and a devotion to their religion, for which 
 history has too long refused them the due meed of 
 honour. 
 
CHAPTER XXIII 
 
 END OF THE ROMAN DOMINION 
 
 Roman withdrawal from Upper Egypt. Refugees in Alexandria. 
 Action of Cyrus. His loss of influence and fears for his safety. 
 His depression and death. Story of the poisoned ring. Roman 
 ofiicials retained in ofiice. Appointment of Cyrus' successor in the 
 patriarchate. GlOom in the capital. Evacuation of Alexandria by 
 the Roman army under Theodore. 
 
 Long before the last embers of hostility were thus 
 smothered in the Delta, the reduction of Upper 
 Egypt, at least as far as the Thebaid, seems to 
 have been completed by a separate Arab column 
 under Kharijah ibn Fludhafah. The Nile valley 
 had been denuded of Roman troops, with very few 
 exceptions, during the previous year, 641 ; and the 
 scanty remnant of the imperial garrisons had neither 
 spirit nor numbers left to dispute the Muslim claim 
 to dominion. Hence there is no record of further 
 fighting in that region, and it may be taken that the 
 surrender of Upper Egypt followed peaceably on 
 the surrender of Alexandria. 
 
 Upon what passed in the capital itself during the 
 remainder of the armistice, history is not altogether 
 silent. The city, as we have seen, was crowded 
 with refugees swept in from all parts of the country 
 before the advancing tide of invasion. By the 
 terms of the treaty Roman soldiers and settlers 
 within the walls were free to leave by land or by 
 sea ; while no provision was made for the Egyptians, 
 But as the refugees witnessed the constant departure 
 of vessels bound for Cyprus, Rhodes, and Byzantium, 
 they became restless, and pined to return to their 
 
End of the Roman Dominion 359 
 
 villages. Consequently they approached Cyrus, 
 whose influence with 'Amr was known to be potent, 
 and begged of him to sue for the requisite permission. 
 Apparently leave was refused. Nor is the failure 
 of the Patriarch's mission surprising, when one re- 
 members that it must have taken place before 
 March, and therefore some time before the actual 
 cessation of hostilities in the Delta. As most of 
 the refugees belonged to Lower Egypt, clearly there 
 was danger of their carrying arms or aid to some 
 of the still unconquered cities. 
 
 But Cyrus took the refusal deeply to heart. It 
 was a direct check to that policy of winning favour 
 with the Copts by which, it seemed, he now hoped 
 to cancel something from the heavy reckoning of 
 their resentment. He appears already to have 
 despaired of retaining the ascendency over them 
 which he had hoped to found on his alliance with the 
 Muslim power. Gloomy presentiments overcast the 
 mind of the Mukaukas, as he saw the end of the 
 Roman sovereignty drawing nearer. All the news 
 from Constantinople was against him. Martina and 
 her sons had been put aside, or put to death, 
 and Constans had been proclaimed sole Emperor 
 by the end of November (641). Pyrrhus, who was 
 on friendly terms with Cyrus, and had apparently 
 been converted by Cyrus to the interests of Martina, 
 had been banished, and Philagrius, the enemy of 
 Cyrus, had been recalled. A second revolt by 
 Valentine ^ had failed owing to the hostility of the 
 
 ^ John of Nikiou, p. 582. Zotenberg makes out that this second 
 rebeUion took place in 644: but his date can hardly be correct. 
 Sebeos says that the revolt occurred in the second year of Constantine 
 (Constans), which would be 642-3, unless the second year were 
 regarded as beginning on Jan. i, 642, as is possible. In any 
 
360 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 populace : but when Valentine was seized and 
 brought before Constans on a charge of usurping 
 the purple, the rebel swore the most solemn oath 
 that he was guiltless of any such design, and that 
 his only purpose in gathering an army was to fight 
 the Muslims. Thereupon the Emperor, accepting 
 these professions of loyalty, reinstated Valentine, 
 and agreed to marry his daughter : and Valentine 
 gave proof of his sincerity by striking wildly at all 
 who could be imagined to favour Martina and 
 Pyrrhus. Among the rest, he charged Arcadius, 
 Archbishop of Cyprus, with treason, and sent a troop 
 of soldiers to arrest him. Death, however, inter- 
 vened, and released Arcadius from the summons. 
 
 But the incident revealed to Cyrus his own im- 
 minent danger. Arcadius was a man of the most 
 blameless and saintly repute; yet he was to have 
 been haled like a malefactor to Constantinople to 
 take his trial. How then could Cyrus hope to 
 stand, if arraigned on the same charge of treason ? 
 His friendship for Martina and for Pyrrhus was 
 notorious, as well as his guilt for the loss of Egypt. 
 Moreover the court party had now realized what 
 the loss of Egypt meant, and were furious with the 
 man who had brought this evil and dishonour upon 
 the Empire. 
 
 It is no wonder that, as message followed mes- 
 sage telling of these events at Constantinople, the 
 Archbishop sank into profound depression. Menaced 
 by fear of exile or death at the Emperor's bidding, 
 which was still law in Alexandria; baffled in his 
 
 case John of Nikiou is perfectly clear in making 'the triumph 
 and power of Valentine ' after this revolt one of the things which 
 depressed Cyrus. As Cyrus died in March, 642, Valentine's 
 rebellion must have taken place about January of that year. 
 
End of the Roman Dominion 361 
 
 plans for conjuring away the memory of the per- 
 secution and making friends of the Copts ; his 
 Church policy for ever discredited ; and his state- 
 craft rendered for ever infamous by its very triumph 
 — Cyrus was now a broken man in mind and body. 
 All his dreams of ambition had dissolved : his very 
 hopes of personal safety were gone. As he felt the 
 shadows closing round his life, his conscience awoke 
 to a sense of his crimes as well as his failures. 
 Torn by unavailing remorse, he deplored his be- 
 trayal of Egypt with ceaseless tears ^. So plunged 
 in gloom and despondency he fell an easy victim 
 to a dysentery, which seized him on Palm Sunday, 
 and on the following Thursday, March 21, 642, he 
 died. 
 
 It is quite clear that Cyrus died a natural death, 
 and that his end was hastened by the misery and 
 ignominy into which he had fallen. Of the two 
 passages in which his death is recorded by John of 
 Nikiou.the first says that 'overwhelmed with sorrows, 
 he was taken ill of a dysentery and died,' the other 
 says that 'he wept unceasingly, fearing lest he 
 should suffer the same fate that had befallen him 
 previously, i. e. exile : and in the midst of this 'grief 
 he died according to the law of nature ^.' But in 
 the one case it is stated that he was afflicted by the 
 calamities which had come upon Egypt and the 
 brutal treatment of the Egyptians by the Arabs, 
 
 ^ In the text John of Nikiou is made to say (pp. 582-3), ' His 
 greatest sorrow had been to see the refusal by the Muslims of 
 his requests in favour of the Egyptians' : but the title of the chapter 
 runs, with far more reason, ' Of the death of Cyrus, the Chalcedonian, 
 with the remorse of having delivered Alexandria into the hands of 
 the Muslims.' This doubtless points to the need for correcting 
 the reading of the text. 
 
 ^ pp. 578 and 582. 
 
362 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 while in the other we are told that his chief sorrow 
 was the refusal of his intercession on behalf of the 
 Egyptians. There is no reason to doubt this ac- 
 count of his end, although a Coptic tradition as old 
 as Severus ^ gives a somewhat different version. 
 ' When 'Amr took Alexandria,' it runs, ' and settled 
 the affairs of the city, the misbelieving governor, 
 who was both Prefect and Patriarch of Alexandria, 
 feared that 'Amr would put him to death. Accord- 
 ingly the misbeliever touched a poisoned signet-ring 
 with his tongue, and so perished on the spot.' It 
 was not so much 'Amr as the Roman Emperor 
 whom Al Mukaukas feared : but the fact of his 
 terror, and the fact that it hastened his death, are 
 both curiously preserved in this dramatic legend. 
 
 One other point in connexion with the story of 
 Cyrus' death calls for notice. We have already 
 seen that 'Amr treated the Egyptians during the 
 conquest with great harshness ^, and that the Coptic 
 historian's wrath is roused against him for the severity 
 of the tasks laid on his countrymen. So here, in 
 speaking of the Patriarch's last days, John says, 
 "Amr had no mercy upon the Egyptians, and he 
 failed to observe the treaty they had made with 
 him : for he was of barbarian race ^.' In another 
 passage * he enters into more detail, and records that 
 a man named Menas, who had been nominated 
 Prefect of Lower Egypt by Heraclius, was continued 
 in office by the Arabs. Menas was a presumptuous 
 man, unlettered, and a deep hater of the Egyptians. 
 Similarly one Sinddi, or Sanutius, was continued as 
 
 '■ Brit. Mus. MS., p. 106. See also Pereira's Vida do Ahba Samuel, 
 p. 48, where the Synaxarium is quoted. 
 ' P- 34'7 supra. 
 ' p. 578. * p. 577. 
 
End of the Roman Dominion 363 
 
 Prefect of the Rif, and one Philoxenus^ as Prefect of 
 Arcadia, or the Fayum. All three of these men 
 are described as loving the heathen and hating the 
 Christians, upon whom they laid grievous burdens. 
 The Copts were forced to carry fodder for the cattle 
 of the Arabs, and to provide them with milk, honey, 
 fruit, vegetables, and other things in great abun- 
 dance over and above the ordinary rations, i. e. the 
 taxes in kind : and these orders the Copts executed 
 under the stroke of incessant terror. 
 
 This account is highly interesting for two reasons. 
 The three Prefects named — the most important in 
 Egypt save the Prefect of Alexandria — were not 
 only Roman officials, but Roman officials under the 
 governorship of Cyrus, and therefore Melkites, 
 without any religious or political sympathy with the 
 Copts : and this is a proof that, so far from the con- 
 verts to Islam coming exclusively from the Copts, 
 some at least of the most influential of the rene- 
 gades were from among the Romans. One almost 
 begins to wonder whether the conduct of Al Mu- 
 kaukas himself could not be explained on the theory 
 that he was a secret convert to the religion of 
 Mohammed. The second point is this. It is now 
 established that 'Amr treated the Copts, both before 
 and after the surrender of Alexandria, with the 
 sternest rigour. But if so, how is it possible to 
 maintain that, in the hackneyed phrase, the Copts 
 welcomed the Arabs with open arms ? Such a 
 theory might be demolished from this passage alone 
 
 * Among the papyri of the Archduke Rainer Collection is a letter 
 from this same Philoxenus, Prefect of Arcadia, naming the con- 
 tribution to be paid to Kharijah at Babylon (Karabacek's Fuhrer 
 durch die Ausstellung, p. 138, No. 553). This is one more con- 
 firmation of John of Nikiou's remarkable accuracy. 
 
364 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 in John of Nikiou : and those Arab writers, of much 
 later date, who seem to countenance it, must be 
 held either to convict themselves of error or to 
 convict their hero 'Amr of the blackest ingratitude. 
 But the closer one examines the history of this 
 period the clearer it becomes that Cyrus was not 
 alone in his treason to the Empire. The ease with 
 which these three great Roman officials ransomed 
 their office by the transfer of their political and their 
 religious allegiance to Isldm, and the manner in 
 which they used their new lease of power to strike 
 at the faith and the fortunes of the Copts — these 
 things prove beyond cavil that there was a wider 
 conspiracy against the Empire among the Romans, 
 and that the conspirators were as hostile to the 
 Copts as they were benevolent to the Arabs. 
 
 Little remains to be told of the six months in 
 Alexandria between the death of Cyrus and the 
 entry of the Arab forces. Indeed, the only event 
 of which we have any certain knowledge is the 
 appointment of the successor of Cyrus in the Melkite 
 patriarchate. This did not take place till some 
 three months later, when, on July 14^, the festival 
 of St. Theodore, the deacon Peter was duly clothed 
 with the pallium and seated on the throne left vacant 
 by the last of the imperial Patriarchs of Alexandria. 
 The delay may have been caused by reference to 
 Constantinople, or by the difficulty of finding a can- 
 didate for an office which was henceforth to be sun- 
 dered from the hierarchy of the Empire, and there- 
 fore to be held on a most precarious tenure. For 
 all hope of aid from Byzantium had now finally 
 vanished. The boasted army of Valentine proved 
 utterly powerless to attempt the recovery of Egypt, 
 ' Mr. Brooks rightly corrects Zotenberg's date, July 26. 
 
End of the Roman Dominion 365 
 
 although the people there were already beginning 
 to discover how idle were their dreams of a settled 
 government with fixed taxation. The whole country 
 is described as suffering oppression at the hands of 
 the Muslims ; but the burden fell most heavily upon 
 the city of Alexandria. There the interruption of the 
 traffic which had enriched the people, and also the 
 departure of those wealthy nobles and merchants 
 who had resolved to abandon their home in Egypt, 
 made the incidence of the new taxation very severe 
 upon those that remained. In spite of the smooth 
 phrases of Cyrus, they were feeling now the bitter- 
 ness of subjection to the enemies of their country 
 and their religion. 
 
 Depression and melancholy hung over the city 
 during the last few weeks of the armistice. Already 
 many of the houses were left empty, and the bustle 
 of departure from the quays grew less, as vessel 
 after vessel, laden with retiring Romans and their 
 goods and chattels, sailed northwards to return no 
 more. But a great fleet was gathering in the harbour 
 to remove the remaining legions of the imperial 
 army. Theodore, who was appointed governor of 
 Egypt on the death of Cyrus, and Constantine, who 
 succeeded him as commander-in-chief, seem to have 
 personally undertaken the mission of arranging for 
 the withdrawal of the Roman forces throughout 
 the Delta, acting in concert with the Arabs ^. The 
 Nile was now rising high, and all the waterways 
 
 ^ Zotenberg (p. 583, n. 2) is right in his view that the presence of 
 Theodore and Constantine in the interior was in consequence of the 
 armistice, and that there is no suggestion of any resumption of 
 hostilities at this time. Zotenberg offers no opinion on the reason 
 of their absence from Alexandria; but the reason I have given above 
 seems adequate. 
 
366 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 were available for transport. This accordingly was 
 the season agreed upon for the evacuation, and with 
 its arrival the remnant of the Roman garrisons 
 embarked in boats under Theodore and Constantine, 
 and passed down to Alexandria. At the same time 
 the hostages held at Babylon by the Arabs were 
 released, or at least escorted down the river to join 
 their comrades in the capital ^ 
 
 Once more the Feast of the Cross had come 
 round. By a strange irony that festival of Septem- 
 ber 14, which a year ago was marked by the arrival 
 of the traitor Archbishop, Al Mukaukas, was now 
 marked by the final act in the downfall of the 
 Christian dominion in Egypt. Even as the Exalta- 
 tion Service was sounding in the Cathedral, the last 
 touches were being given to the vessels in harbour 
 and the last orders for embarkation were issued. 
 And three days later ^, on September 17, Theo- 
 dore's fleet, bearing the mournful residue of the 
 imperial army, cast off its moorings and set sail for 
 Cyprus ^. 
 
 ^ The release of the hostages before the entry into Alexandria is 
 curious, but it shows the strength of the Muslim position and the 
 weakness of the Romans by this time. Most of the Romans must 
 already have cleared out of the country. 
 
 "^ Mr. Brooks shows that the words ' Aprfes la f^te de la Croix ' 
 in Zotenberg's version (p. 582) of John of Nikiou are displaced. 
 I agree in the main with his contention, but I think rather that 
 the following two lines Me 20 du mois de haml6 . . . siege 
 pontifical ' are wrongly here inserted and should be put back at 
 the beginning of the paragraph before the words ' Ensuite 
 Theodore.' Then ' aprbs la f6te de la Croix ' need not be moved, 
 but runs on naturally with 'le 20 du mois de maskaram.' 
 
 ^ Suyfitt says, ' There were 200,000 men of the Romans in the 
 city, of whom 30,000 fighting-men fled in 100 large ships with 
 all the property they could take, while those who remained had to 
 pay tribute.' The context lends some colour to the idea that the 
 
End of the Roman Dominion 367 
 
 Only a few days now remained for the wretched 
 inhabitants to set their house in order. On Sep- 
 tember 29 the eleven months of the armistice ex- 
 pired : the great gates were flung open : and 'Amr 
 at the head of his rude desert warriors marched in 
 past the long lines of gleaming colonnade and the 
 stately palaces of the great city of Alexandria. So 
 the Roman Empire in Egypt ended. 
 
 reference is to the second capture of Alexandria ; but the balance 
 of evidence is against it, and the language used seems clearly to 
 point to the evacuation under the treaty. It will be remembered 
 that the treaty expressly provided that the Romans should take 
 their property with them, whereas at the second capture there 
 certainly was no leisure for such a proceeding. In any case it 
 is not likely that an army of 30,000 men all embarked and set sail 
 together, though the proportion of ships to men is not unreasonable. 
 By the date of the evacuation the garrison had doubtless dwindled 
 to a much lower number. Suyiitf s account of the evacuation 
 seems to come from Makrizt, who quotes Abfl Kabil as his 
 authority. The 100 large ships carried away 30,000 Roman 
 soldiers with money and goods; and it is added that 600,000 
 inhabitants were left to pay the poll-tax, besides women and 
 children — which must be an exaggeration. 
 
CHAPTER XXIV 
 
 ALEXANDRIA AT THE CONQUEST 
 
 'Amr's letter to the Caliph. Dazzling brightness of the city. 
 Colonnades. Reservoirs. The Bruchion. The Cathedral church 
 of Caesarion : its description and history. Cleopatra's Needles : 
 confusion of obelisks with the Pharos. Crabs of bronze and glass: 
 Arab testimony vindicated. The Serapeum described : original 
 plan and structure. Position of the Library. Diocletian's Column. 
 Arab legends. Amphitheatre. The Pharos : classical and Arab 
 authorities. Structure of the tower. The marvellous mirror: 
 story of its destruction. Ruin of the Pharos. The Cairo minaret 
 modelled upon it. 
 
 ' I HAVE taken a city of which I can but say that 
 it contains 4,000 palaces, 4,000 baths, 400 theatres, 
 1 2,000 sellers of green vegetables, and 40,000 tribu- 
 tary Jews.' Such is the current form of the well- 
 known letter^ of 'Amr reporting his capture to the 
 Caliph. While these I'ound numbers contain an 
 obvious overstatement, which was probably not in the 
 original letter but has arisen from copyists' errors ^, 
 they show clearly enough what an impression the 
 city made upon its conquerors. But amazed as 
 they were at the size and splendour of Alexandria, 
 they were even more struck by its extraordinary 
 brilliancy. ' Alexandria is a city containing much 
 
 ' If we read 400 palaces and baths, 40 theatres, 1,200 sellers 
 of vegetables, and 40,000 Jews, there is nothing improbable in the 
 estimate. Zachariah of Mitylene, who gives careful statistics of 
 Rome, says there were 1,797 houses of magnates or palaces, and 
 926 baths there (pp. 317-8). 'Amr's letter comes in Ibn 'Abd al 
 Hakam, also in Eutychius, in Makrizi, and in Maktn. Makrlzt 
 gives a typical exaggeration from Abft Kabll : ' Among the baths 
 were 12,000 vaulted buildings, the smallest of which contained 
 1,000 sitting-rooms ' ! 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 369 
 
 marble in pavements, buildings, and columns,' says 
 one writer \ ' The city was all white and bright by 
 night as well as by day,' says another ^ : and again, 
 ' By reason of the walls and pavements of white 
 marble, the people used all to wear black or red 
 garments ; it was the glare of the marble which 
 made the monks wear black. So too it was painful 
 to go out by night : for the moonlight reflected from 
 the white marble made the city so bright that a 
 tailor could see to thread his needle without a lamp. 
 No one entered the city without a covering over his 
 eyes to veil him from the glare of the plaster and 
 marble.* Yet a third Arab writer^, of the tenth 
 century, alleges that awnings of green silk were 
 hung over the streets to relieve the dazzling glare 
 of the marble *. 
 
 All the streets were colonnaded, according to the 
 same author. This certainly was true of the two 
 great avenues which, as we have seen, intersected the 
 city. One of these ran from east to west, joining 
 the Sun Gate to the Moon Gate *, while the other 
 
 ' Istakhrf (BiM. Geog. Arab., ed. de Goeje, part i. p. 51), 
 
 2 SuyutJ [Husn al Muhddarah). The monks of Serapis used 
 to wear black, but it may be doubted whether this was the reason : 
 see Dr. Botti's Fouilles a la Colonne Thiodosienne, p. 37, n. 2. 
 
 3 Masudi (p. 429). 
 
 ■* The general impression made on the Muslim mind by Alex- 
 andria is well illustrated by Ibn Dukmak (part v. p. 117), who 
 writes : ' 'Abd al Malik ibn Juraij said, " I have made the pilgrimage 
 sixty times ; but if God had suffered me to stay a month at 
 Alexandria and pray on its shores, that month would be dearer 
 to me than the sixty prescribed pilgrimages which I have under- 
 taken."' And again (p. 118): 'According to the law of Moses, if 
 a man make a pilgrimage round Alexandria in the morning, God 
 will make for him a golden crown set with pearls, perfumed with 
 musk and camphor, and shining from the east to the west.' 
 
 ° Some authorities put these gates in the wrong place, viz. north 
 
 BUTLER B D 
 
37° The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 ran from north to south : they met and crossed in a 
 large open space enclosing gardens and surrounded 
 by fine buildings. Beautiful gardens too belonged 
 to many of the palaces in the middle of the city \ 
 Suytiti, apparently quoting from Ibn 'Abd al Hakam, 
 writes that ' Alexandria was composed of three cities 
 side by side, each with its own wall, and the whole 
 encircled by another wall.' This must refer to the 
 Egyptian quarter, the Roman quarter, and the Jews' 
 quarter : but its accuracy is perhaps doubtful. 'Abd- 
 allah ibn Zarlf alleges that there were seven forts 
 and seven moats, and the Fort of the Persians 
 was certainly regarded as one of the wonders of 
 Alexandria. 
 
 Nor were the Arabs less amazed at the buildings 
 than at the substructure of the city — that marvellous 
 subterranean labyrinth of cisterns, many descending 
 to a depth of four or five stories, and each story 
 showing a forest of columns and chambers. ' Alex- 
 andria is a city upon a city : there is nothing like 
 it on earth,' exclaims Suyiitl, ' so full is it of columns 
 loftier and larger than any to be seen elsewhere.' 
 These underground chambers were for the storage 
 of fresh water. They were fed by conduits running 
 
 and south of the city. If there were any doubt, it would be 
 removed by John of Nikiou's plain statement (p. 415) that 
 Antoninus Pius built the Sun Gate at the east and the Moon 
 Gate at the west. Am^lineau is among those who appear 
 mistaken: 'La Porte du Soleil se trouvait au sud de la ville, 
 prfes du canal amenant I'eau du Nil ' {G^og. Copie, p. 32). The 
 Gate of the Sun was no doubt also the Gate of Heliopolis (Id., ib., 
 p. 42), but the road to Heliopolis ran through the East Gate: 
 there was no great highway out on the south except for boats. 
 Am^lineau's article on Alexandria is meagre and disappointing. 
 
 ' John Moschus says, eiVt yap TrapoiSeuToi /itVoi' T^s ToAcms iv 
 roi'; oXkok tuiv //.eyto-ravaiv {Pratum Spirituale, cap. 207). 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 371 
 
 from the Nile canal, which passed through the city 
 in the Egyptian quarter ; and being filled at flood- 
 time they held enough water to last the whole year 
 through 1. 
 
 In former times the most splendid part of the city 
 was that called the Bruchion, which was bounded 
 on the north by the harbour and on the south by 
 the great avenue running from the Sun Gate to the 
 central garden. The destruction wrought in this 
 quarter by Aurelian was no doubt great, but probably 
 it has been exaggerated ^ : and it is unlikely that the 
 ruin would have been left unrepaired. Here in any 
 case had stood the palaces of the Ptolemies : here 
 also had been the Mausoleum, where Alexander's 
 body rested in its golden shell, and the Museum 
 with its marvellous libraries, the centre of the learn- 
 ing of the world. In the same quarter towards the 
 east was still to be seen the Tetrapylus, an open 
 temple or pavilion with four rows of columns about 
 it. Here Alexander was said to have laid the bones 
 of Jeremiah the Prophet, and the place was held 
 
 ^ Some of these reservoirs remain to the present day. See an 
 article entitled Les Citernes ^Alexandrie by Dr. Botti in the Bulletin 
 de la SocUti ArcMologique d' Alexandrie, No. 2, 1899, pp. 15 seq., 
 where some interesting plans are given. Caesar, De Bell. Civ. iv, 
 mentions these cisterns and the canal which supplied them. 
 
 ^ Ammianus Marcellinus (xxii. r6) seems to say that the city 
 lost the greater part of the area called Bruchion owing to the ruin 
 caused by civil broils in the time of Aurelian. But John of Nikiou 
 proves conclusively that the area of the city had not shrunk in 
 the manner alleged, and that the old line of waU on the eastern 
 side was standing as strongly as ever, Antoninus Martyr, who 
 visited the place in the century before the conquest (c. 565 a. d.), 
 says ' Alexandria is a magnificent city,' which he could hardly say 
 if its finest quarter was in ruins (Palestine Pilgrims Text Society, 
 vol. ii. p. 35). 
 
 B b 2 
 
372 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 in great veneration ^ Close by the Tetrapylus was 
 the church of St. Mary Dorothea, built by Eulogius, 
 and further east, near the walls and near the shore, 
 the great church of St. Mark^ was still standing and 
 within it the marble shrine containing the bones of 
 the Apostle himself. ' Coming from Egypt as one 
 enters the city,' says Arculfus^ 'one meets on the 
 north side a large church, in which Mark the Evan^ 
 gelist is buried. His sepulchre is shown before the 
 altar in the east end . . , and a monument to him 
 has been built of marble above it.' In the same 
 part of the town were the churches of St. Theodore 
 and St. Athanasius *. 
 
 But more renowned in the seventh century even 
 than St. Mark's was the church called the Caesarion, 
 which stood in the same quarter toward the middle 
 of the bend of the great harbour. This church had 
 almost usurped the place of the Cathedral. Its 
 vast fabric, with the two ancient Egyptian obelisks 
 
 ^ John Moschus, Pratum Spirituale, cap. 77. Am^lineau (Giog. 
 Copte, p. 29) cites a Coptic MS. which places the Tetrapylus in 
 the middle of the town and concludes that it was on the ' Grande 
 Place.' The expression is too vague to warrant such an inference. 
 
 ^ John of Nikiou says (p. 524) that it was close to the sea, and 
 (p. 548) that it was near a gate of the city. There seems, however, 
 to have been a second church of the name ; see Am^lineau, Geog. 
 Copte, pp. 37-8. 
 
 ' Arculfus was in Egypt c. 670 a. d. ; see Palestine Pilgrims Text 
 Society, vol. iii. p. 52. Two hundred years later the city had 
 so shrunk that Bernard the Wise, c. 870, says : ' Beyond the east 
 gate is the monastery of St. Mark: there are monks here at the 
 church where he formerly lay. But the Venetians coming by sea 
 bore away his body to their own island ' (id., ib., p. 5). By 1 350 
 the church where St. Mark was martyred was 'about two miles 
 east of Alexandria ' (id., vol. vi. p. 33). So clearly is the dwindling 
 of the city shown. 
 
 ' John of Nikiou, p. 543. 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 373 
 
 standing in its fore-court, towered above the city 
 walls, and was the most conspicuous object in the 
 near foreground of the view ^, just as the acropolis 
 with the Serapeum and Diocletian's Column was in 
 the background, as the traveller entered the harbour 
 by the Pharos. The Caesarion had originally been 
 a heathen temple. It was begun by Cleopatra in 
 honour of Caesar, and was finished by Augustus. 
 The description given by Philo is worth quoting ^ : — 
 
 ' That temple of Caesar's in Alexandria under the 
 name of Sebastian (Augustus) is a piece incom- 
 parably above all others. It stands situate over 
 against a most commodious harbour; wonderful, 
 high, and large in proportion; an eminent sea- 
 mark; full of choice paintings and statues, with 
 donatives and oblations in abundance ; and then it 
 is beautiful all over with gold and silver ; the model 
 curious and regular in the disposition of the parts, 
 as galleries, libraries, porches, courts, halls, walks 
 and consecrated groves, as glorious as expense and 
 art could make them, and everything in the proper 
 place; beside that the hope and comfort of sea- 
 faring men, either coming in or going out.' 
 
 This ' superb palace,' as John of Nikiou ^ terms it, 
 
 ' This is confirmed by Strabo, Philo, and Pliny, See an 
 interesting article by Monsignor Kyrillos II entitled Le Temple 
 du C^sareum in the Bulletin de la Soc, Khidiviale de G&graphie, 
 Ve S^rie, No. 6, F6v. 1900 (Le Caire, 1900). I am indebted to 
 this article for much information. Am^lineau, forgetful alike of 
 classical and of Arab authorities, strangely says : ' Je ne sais pas trop 
 oil placer le C^sarion, car les details manquent absolument ' (Giog. 
 Copte, p. 32). The site of the obelisks being well known, that of 
 the Caesarion cannot, as we shall see, be doubtful. 
 
 * Philo's Embassy from the Jews of Alexandria to Caligula in 
 Josephus, ed. Sir R. L'Estrange, London, 1702, fol., p. 1087. 
 
 ' p. 405- 
 
374 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 was changed by Constantine the Great into a 
 Christian church and dedicated to St. Michael ^ but 
 at the date of the conquest it still retained its old 
 name, Caesarion. It was about 350 a. d. that it 
 became the patriarchal church or Cathedral. But 
 in 366, in the days of Athanasius, a furious crowd 
 of pagans and Arians met in the great open space 
 before the church, and rushing in they burned the 
 altar, the throne, carpets, veils, and all they could 
 lay hands upon. If any books remained from the 
 libraries mentioned by Philo, they must then have 
 perished; but the church was restored in 368. 
 Readers of Hypatia will remember that it was in 
 the Caesarion, some fifty years later, that the maiden 
 
 philosopher was torn to pieces by a mob of Christian 
 
 • 
 
 ' The Coptic Synaxarium for 12 Ba'finah (Festival of the 
 Archangel Michael) is curious. It runs thus : ' The reason why 
 we keep the feast of St. Michael to-day is that there was in the city 
 of Alexandria a great temple built by Cleopatra, daughter of 
 Ptolemy, in honour of Saturn ; and his feast was kept there on 
 this same 1 2 Ba'flnah. In the temple was an idol of brass (or 
 bronze) called Saturn, to which upon this day many sacrifices 
 were offered. This custom was kept up by the people until the 
 time of the Patriarch Alexander in the reign of the Emperor 
 Constantine.' The Synaxarium goes on to say that Alexander 
 wished to destroy the idol, but the people refused to renounce their 
 ancient custom and the rejoicings of the day. Finally, the Patriarch 
 offered to retain the festival and holiday, to make the sacrifices 
 to the true God for the benefit of the poor instead of to the idol, 
 and to change the dedication to St. Michael. This offer was 
 accepted, and the idol was broken in pieces; but the name Caesarion 
 remained. The church stood until the Muslims came, and then 
 was destroyed. So the record closes. Eutychius says that a cross 
 was made out of the bronze statue : he adds that the church ' Igne 
 periit cum Occidentales Alexandriam ingressi earn vastarunt' — which 
 is somewhat obscure — and that the Copts in his day continued 
 the feast, at which they slew many victims in sacrifice (Migne, Patr. 
 Gr. t. Ill, col. 1005). 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 375 
 
 fanatics ^ in an orgie truly worthy of the ancient 
 temple of Saturn. It was in the baptistery of the 
 Caesarion that Timothy Aelurus took refuge nearly 
 half a century later, only to be dragged out and sent 
 into exile ; and when after twenty years of banish- 
 ment Timothy landed again at Alexandria 'he 
 was received with great state, with torches and 
 songs of praise, by the various people and lan- 
 guages there,' and escorted in triumph to the same 
 Caesarion ^. 
 
 There is no description of the interior of the 
 Caesarion remaining; but it may be taken for granted 
 that it was of the basilican type, and retained its 
 splendid embellishment. The last great scene of 
 pomp under the Caesars was the service of rejoicing 
 for the return of Cyrus, whose sermon must have rung 
 strangely in the memories of those who now watched 
 the entry of 'Amr's army. But the church did not 
 long outlast the conquest. Yet its name in the Arab 
 form, Kaisariah, given first to some kind of palace 
 or public building, survives to-day, though with 
 a changed meaning^. 
 
 ^ The authority for this is Socrates, who wrote soon after the 
 event {Hist. Eccl. vii. 13-15). John of Nikiou (pp. 464-6) gives 
 an account which, accusing Hypatia of magic arts, approves 
 her death, but makes it appear that after being stripped in the 
 Caesarion she was dragged through the streets till she died, and 
 was burned at the place called Cinaron. 
 
 * Zachariah of Mity lane's Chronicle, p. no. Zachariah speaks 
 of the 'Great Church' here and also p. 76: but on p. 64 he 
 expressly says 'The Great Church is called Caesarion,' which 
 establishes the identity. The welcome given to Timothy is 
 curiously like that given to Cyrus on his return from banishment. 
 
 ' The principal street, or High Street, in an Arab town is now 
 called the Kaisariah. A passage in Shams ad DJn al Makdasi 
 almost looks as if in early days the term were applied by the 
 Muslims to their larger mosques (Bibl. Geog. Arab, part iii. 
 
376 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 The two obelisks of red Aswin granitCj which 
 stood before the Caesarion, excited the curiosity and 
 wonder of the Arabs, and their historians have many 
 particulars about them, Thus Ya'k(abi (ninth cen- 
 tury) says, ' There are two obelisks of variegated 
 stone standing on two brazen crabs with ancient 
 inscriptions^' ; and Ibn Rustah (early tenth century) 
 in much the same manner speaks of ' two monuments 
 like lighthouses (manirah), square, and standing on 
 two figures of scorpions, made of copper or brass, on 
 which are inscriptions. It is also reported that the 
 figure of the scorpion was melted by a fire kindled 
 beneath it, and that the monuments felP,' His 
 contemporary, Ibn al Faklh, discloses already the 
 beginnings of a strange confusion between these 
 obelisks and the great lighthouse or Pharos, which 
 the Arabs called Al Mandrah. For he says, 'The 
 mandrah of Alexandria stands on a crab of glass in 
 the sea ' ; and again, ' it has two pillars standing on 
 two images, one of brass and one of glass, the brazen 
 image in the form of a scorpion and the glass image 
 in the form of a crab ^' By Mas'ddi's time the 
 legend had crystallized into one of those fairy tales 
 in which the imagination of the Arabs delighted. 
 He says : ' The lighthouse was built on a foundation 
 of glass in the form of a crab, on a tongue of land 
 
 p. 197). It was certainly used to denote a quadrangle sur- 
 rounded by colonnades, which might serve as mosque or as 
 market-place; and it is from this latter use that the modern 
 acceptation of the term is derived; see Abfl S^lih, p. 116, n. i. 
 The high street is the natural place for sale and barter in an eastern 
 town. 
 
 ' Bill. Geog. Arab, part vii. p. 339. 
 
 ^ Id., ib., p. 117. See 2S&0 Athmceum, July, 1887, and de Goeje's 
 note on this passage. 
 
 ' Id., part V. pp. 70, 71. 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 377 
 
 projecting into the sea. On the top of the light- 
 house were images of brass. One figure pointed with 
 its right hand to the sun, wherever it might be in the 
 heavens, and lowered its hand as the sun sank ; 
 another pointed to the sea in the direction from 
 which an enemy was approaching, and as the enemy- 
 drew near, it cried out in a terrible voice, which could 
 be heard two or three miles away, and so alarmed 
 the inhabitants ^.' 
 
 Of course the Pharos was an entirely distinct 
 monument — a solid structure of stone towering an 
 immense height into the air — and it is ludicrous to 
 imagine that its wide and vast foundations could rest 
 on a crab of crystal. Nevertheless it is exceedingly 
 interesting to trace the origin of this seemingly idle 
 legend. For it comes from a mere misunderstanding 
 of historical fact most accurately reported by the 
 earliest Arab chroniclers. There is no doubt what- 
 ever that, at the time of 'Amr s entry into Alexan- 
 dria, the two obelisks in front of the Caesarion stood 
 on crabs as described. This was proved at the time 
 of the removal of the obelisk which is now at New 
 York. It was found that the monolith rested on 
 four gigantic crabs of metal, which held it clear of 
 the pedestal. The pedestal was formed of a single 
 block of granite, which rested in turn on three 
 graduated courses of stone. At the time of the ex- 
 cavation — for the base had been buried for centuries 
 
 ^ Quoted by Makrizi, Khitat, vol. i. p. 255. Suyfitt, giving his 
 authority as the writer of Muldhij al Fikr, goes a step further 
 in saying that ' the lighthouse was built of hewn stone fixed with 
 lead over vaults of glass, which again stood on a crab of glass ' ! 
 (Hum al Muhddarah, vol. i. p. 53). Ibn Rustah marks the 
 confusion when he says that ' the manarah was built on four crabs 
 of glass.' 
 
378 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 — only one of the four crabs was discovered, and 
 that in a mutilated condition ; but the design and 
 purpose of the crab were unmistakable, an inscrip- 
 tion in Greek and in Latin upon the metal was 
 still legible, and the truth of the Arab historians 
 was vindicated ^. This is a striking example of the 
 way in which archaeology sometimes comes to the 
 rescue of history. 
 
 But, it will be said, what becomes of the crabs or 
 scorpions of glass under the other monolith ? Is 
 this a mere romantic fancy ? No answer could be 
 more illogical. Given two closely related statements, 
 one of which is proved to be pure truth — to be 
 indeed a statement of singular exactitude — to argue 
 that the other is pure invention would be something 
 like a wanton defiance of history. Nor is one forced 
 to choose between defying the laws of history and 
 defying the laws of natural science. Of course it 
 may be the case that no monolith the size of Cleopa- 
 tra's Needle could rest on crabs of glass of modern 
 make, nor could crystal have been found in blocks 
 of size adequate for the purpose. But there is a 
 mineral of extreme hardness and polish, viz. black 
 obsidian, which so resembles glass that it is defined 
 as natural glass. The crabs under the second 
 
 ^ A photograph of the crab may be seen on pi. v of Lt.-Col. 
 H. H. Gorringe's Egyptian Obelisks (London, 1885), and other 
 plates show the substructure. N^routsos Bey in his L'Ancienne 
 Alexandrie, pp. 16, 17, gives a full description of the original 
 setting of the obelisk. Of the four supports in the form of crabs 
 only one remained: this was of ancient copper — 'cuivre repute 
 aurifere.' ' Ce support repr^sentait un crabe marin couch^ \ plat 
 ventre sur le bloc de granit et portant sur le dos une broche qui 
 entrait au dessous de la carne du monolithe.' The three other 
 supports were of the same design, and kept the obelisk up clear 
 of the substructure. 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 379 
 
 obelisk — that now in London — may have been formed 
 of black obsidian ; or, if this be impossible, then some 
 other hard and highly polished stone was employed. 
 Or finally, rather than discredit the Arab writers in 
 a matter wherein their truth shines out clearly, one 
 may accept their statement quite literally. That the 
 Egyptians had not merely great skill but great 
 secrets in the making of glass is undoubted ; and it 
 may well be that they were able to produce a ma- 
 terial so toughened as to withstand the pressure of 
 the monolith. One may note at the same time that 
 the obelisk of London did actually fall long before 
 its fellow. 
 
 We now see the two great monuments reared 
 above their storied bases before the Caesarion, one 
 held up on four crabs of copper or bronze, the other 
 on four scorpions of toughened glass or obsidian. 
 And, when we dispel the confusion between these 
 obelisks and the Pharos, it is clear that the brazen 
 images recorded by Makrlzl stood not on the top of 
 the Pharos, where they would have been almost 
 invisible, but on the top of the obelisks. The figure 
 ' pointing to the sun ' was undoubtedly a winged 
 Hermes or Nike, probably standing on one foot 
 upon the cap of the column \ and stretching forth its 
 right hand in an attitude familiar enough in Greek 
 sculpture ; while the other figure, ' pointing to the sea,' 
 was designed with a view to symmetry. Exceedingly 
 splendid must have been the appearance of these 
 ancient monoliths in the setting devised by the taste 
 and skill of the Augustan age, and very impressive 
 the view of their lofty summits, as seen from the 
 ships passing in and out of the harbour. 
 
 Of the Museum itself there is practically no record 
 ^ It is proved that there was a metal cap on the obelisks. 
 
380 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 remaining at this time, and it must be taken to have 
 perished long before — possibly in the conflagration 
 caused by Julius Caesar when he was besieged in this 
 quarter by the Egyptians under Achillas ^, possibly in 
 later wars or in the convulsions of dying paganism ^. 
 But it is time to pass on to the Serapeum — a group 
 of buildings of great beauty, and one which greatly 
 struck the Arabs. It stood of course in a different 
 part of the city, in a position now marked by Dio- 
 cletian's Pillar. This quarter was known as the 
 Egyptian quarter, and never lost its original name of 
 Rakoti : indeed to the Copts Alexandria was always 
 known less by the name of its great founder than by 
 that of the fishing-village which existed for ages 
 before Alexander — a curious instance of their time- 
 defying conservatism. The site of the Serapeum is 
 fixed precisely both by ancient written documents and 
 by recent antiquarian researches. 1 1 is usually named 
 in close connexion with Diocletian's Pillar, which the 
 Arabs called "^Amildas Sawdrz — Pillar of Columns — 
 and this was near the southern gate of the city 
 called by the Arabs the Gate of the Tree ^. It is 
 not generally understood, and the present levels of 
 Alexandria make it very difficult to realize, that the 
 Serapeum was built on a veritable acropolis, rivalling 
 
 ' See below, pp. 407 seq., where this question is discussed. 
 
 ^ Matter says the Museum is not named after the fifth century 
 (J&cok t^Alexandrie, t. i. p. 331). Dr. Botti assigns the dis- 
 appearance of the Museum to an earlier date : ' aprfes Caracalla 
 I'ancien Mus^e n'existe plus' (Fouilles a la Colonne The'odosienne, 
 p. 138). This study of Dr. Botti's is exceedingly valuable for the 
 history and topography of ancient Alexandria. By the Colonne 
 TModosienne he means what is generally called Diocletian's Pillar : 
 the name Pompey's Pillar comes from a mistaken reading of the 
 inscription beneath it. 
 
 ' Both Yakflt and Kazwlni give this name. 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 381 
 
 that of Athens. This citadel, however, while it 
 towered above the city, was mainly artificial. For 
 although there was a core of natural rock in the 
 middle of the site, the vast mass of the acropolis had 
 been reared by the hand of man, the lofty outer 
 walls enclosing vaulted substructures which rose 
 story above story ^ Thus a huge quadrangular fort- 
 ress was formed, with a broad level summit, adorned 
 with magnificent buildings. There seem to have 
 been two ways of access ; one by a carriage road, the 
 other by a long flight of one hundred steps, though 
 it is not easy to see the use of the latter ^. The 
 
 ^ The core of rock is visible to this day, while the description of 
 Rufinus leaves no manner of doubt that the citadel was in the main 
 a huge pile of masonry. He says : 'Locus est non natura sed manu 
 et constructione per centum aut eo amplius gradus in sublime 
 suspensus, quadratis et ingentibus spatiis omni ex parte distentus : 
 cuACta vero, quo ad summum evadatur, opere forniceo constructa. 
 . . . Extrema totius ambitus spatia occupant exedrae et pastophoria 
 et domus in excelsum porrectae, in quibus vel aeditui vel hi quos 
 dyveuoi/Tas vocant, id est qui se castificant, commanere soliti erant. 
 Porticus quoque post haec omnem ambitum quadratis ordinibus 
 distinctae intrinsecus circumibant. In medio totius spatii aedes 
 erat pretiosis edita columnis et marmoris saxo extrinsecus ample 
 magnificeque constructa. In hac simulacrum Serapis ita erat 
 vastum ut dextra unum parietem, alteram laeva perstringeret : quod 
 monstram ex omnibus generibus metallorum lignorumque compo- 
 situm ferebatur ' (^Hist. Eccl. ii. c. 23). Rufinus does not mention 
 the library, but he witnessed the destruction of the idol and 
 presumably the temple. Eunapius speaks of the destruction of 
 the building as very thorough : t<p re ^apaveCw KareXvjjiyvavTo Koi 
 TOts dvaO'^iJ.acnv iiroXifirja-av . . . tov 8e SapaTTttou /aovov to e8a<^o? 
 ov\ vttiiiX.ovTO 8ta jSapos rwv XWuiv ov yap rjcrav £vjj,eTa.KiVT]TOi- 
 avy)(ia.vTK Se airavra kcu, trvvTapd^avre?, k.t.X. {Viia Aedesii, 
 cc. 77-8). This was in the reign of Theodosius, while Theophilus 
 was Patriarch of Alexandria and Romanus commander of the 
 garrison. 
 
 * Dr. Botti in his first study of the' subject (L'Acropole ctAlex- 
 andrie, p. 7) seems to overlook the carriage road, not having the 
 
382 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 staircase lay on the eastern side of the acropohs. At 
 the top of the long flight of stairs one entered the 
 propylaeum, which was upheld by four enormous 
 columns, two on each side of the passage ; the passage 
 was closed by gates or grills of bronze ^. 
 
 The general arrangement of the buildings on the 
 summit is not easy to understand from the descrip- 
 tions which remain : but it seems to have been as 
 follows. The space was oblong — some 500 cubits 
 in length and 250 in breadth ^. On the edge of the 
 
 whole passage of Aphthonius before him: 'Done pas, da routes 
 d'accfes, mais seulement un escalier monumental de cent degr^s; pas 
 de route carrossable.' But in his Colonne TModosienne (p. 24) the 
 passage set out in full proves that there was a way open for carriages 
 on one side. Dr. Botti in the latter work (p. 82) gives a somewhat 
 curious translation of Aphthonius' words — tio-iovrt Se Trap' air^r 
 Trfv aKpmoXiv rlrTapcn TrXevpats ets x<^pos luais Sirjp€Tai (? Birjprjrai) 
 Kat TO cr)(^na irXaicnov Tvy)(a.v€i Tov /j/ajxavT^/jLaTOi. He renders 
 ' quand on entre dans I'acropole (on ne trouve qu') un seul plateau, 
 lequel est divis6 en quatre ailes semblables, et son ordonnance 
 quadrilatfere tient de la figure d'un moule h, briques.' Surely to 
 a-xrj/jM TOV i/,r]xavi^fji.a.To? goes together, and the sentence means 
 'the general plan of the arrangement is quadrilateral.' The pre- 
 ceding words mean that the space occupied by the quadrangle 
 is divided into four by ' ribs ' of equal length, i. e. by cross colon- 
 nades, as I show in the text. 
 
 ^ This citadel and its entrance are mentioned by Polybius in 
 reference to the revolt of Cleomenes : ' the commander of the 
 citadel secured the entrance gate ' (v. 39). Had Matter recollected 
 this passage, he would not have questioned Aphthonius' use of the 
 term acropolis {^cole & Alexandrie, t. i. p. 325). 
 
 ^ The measure is from Mas'fidt. The description of the buildings 
 is the result of a careful comparison of the statements of Rufinus 
 and Aphthonius : but the latter is very far from clear even where 
 he means to be precise. Aphthonius visited Alexandria c. 315 a. d. 
 His Progymnasmata gives a comparison between the acropohs of 
 Athens and that of Alexandria, which is full of interest, if obscure : 
 see Dr. Botti's Colonne Thiodosienne, pp. 24 seq. But the whole 
 work should be read together with the same writer's L'Acropole 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 383 
 
 plateau on every side stood a range of handsome 
 and lofty buildings, connected in various ways with 
 the service of the temple. All round the great 
 quadrangle enclosed by these buildings ran a broad 
 colonnade ; while four other colonnades were built 
 out at right angles, one from the centre of each side. 
 Thus the outer colonnade with the others formed 
 roughly the design of a cross set in an oblong. But 
 the centre of the whole quadrangle and of the 
 whole acropolis had been occupied by the temple of 
 Serapis. This temple unfortunately had long been 
 overthrown when the Arabs entered Alexandria : 
 but there is no doubt that it was a building of sur- 
 passing beauty and grandeur. The main fabric was 
 oblong : it enclosed a central hall upheld by great 
 columns of most precious marble, and its walls 
 were of marble, within and without. In the midst of 
 the hall stood a colossal chryselephantine statue of 
 Serapis, whose outspread arms nearly touched the 
 wall on either side, the left hand bearing a sceptre, 
 while under the right hand of the deity was a 
 monstrous image of Cerberus, round whose triple 
 head of lion, dog and wolf coiled the folds of 
 a huge python ^. The whole chamber was em- 
 bellished with priceless works of sculpture in 
 marble and bronze, among which a series repre- 
 senting the combats of Perseus was conspicuous. 
 Adjoining the temple walls, and running round 
 them, was a magnificent colonnade, which thus stood 
 parallel with the outer colonnade, and was joined on 
 
 d' Alexandrie el le Sirapeum, to both of which I am much in- 
 debted. 
 
 * Macrobius, lib. i. c. 20. So Pseudo - Callisthenes (Btos 
 'AXc^avSpou, c. 33), describes the image as tj} Sc^ioi x"P' Kofii^ovra 
 6-qpiov TroXvfjiOp<f)OV ry 8e €v(jivvfji,<a CTK^nrpoi' Karexovra. 
 
384 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 to it by the four cross colonnades above mentioned. 
 But those porticoes which girt the temple were of 
 exceptional splendour. The capitals of the columns 
 were made of bronze overlaid with gold ; the ceil- 
 ings were covered with gold or brilliant colours; 
 and walls and floors were of costliest marble ^ 
 
 But, above all, it was from these temple cloisters 
 that doors opened into those bays or chambers of 
 the main fabric, some of which contained the great 
 library of Alexandria^, while others had served as 
 shrines for the ancient divinities of Egypt. Some- 
 where in the temple precincts had stood two antique 
 obelisks; there had also been a marble fountain of 
 great size and beauty; and at whatever time the 
 
 ^ The description of Ammianus Marcellinus is worth quoting 
 (xxii. 16): 'His accedunt altis sublata fastigiis templa, inter quae 
 eminet Serapeum : quod licet minuatur exilitate verborum, atriis 
 tamen columnariis amplissimis et spirantibus signorum figmentis 
 et reliqua operum multitudine ita est exornatum ut post Capitolium, 
 quo se venerabilis Roma in aeternum toUit, nihil orbis terrarum 
 ambitiosius cernat.' Possibly the plan given of the temple of Isis 
 and Serapis at Rome, conjecturally restored, may furnish some 
 idea of the arrangement at Alexandria : see Lafaye, Histoire du 
 Culte des DivinMs d! Alexandrie (Paris, 1883), plan facing p. 224. 
 The language of Tacitus is very restrained [Hist. iv. 84) ; he 
 merely notes that the temple was of grandeur proportioned to the 
 size of the city (' pro magnitudine urbis extructum') — a phrase which 
 Matter strangely misunderstands, alleging that Tacitus compares 
 the whole group of buildings to a town — ' cet ensemble que Tacite 
 compare \ une ville' {^cole d Alexandrie, t. i. p. 323). The same 
 mistake occurs in de Saint-Martin, who says, ' Sa grandeur, dit 
 Tacite, ^galait celle d'une ville' (Histoire du Bas Empire par 
 Lebeau, t. iv. p. 406 n.). 
 
 * This seems the undoubted meaning of Aphthonius' language : 
 ■7rap<aKoSo/ji,^vTai 8e crj/Kot Tuiv (TToGv evSo^cv, ot fxiv Tafj-tla yeyetrqiixvoi. 
 rais Pi/3XoK, TOis f}>i\oTrovovcnv av€<ay/ji.evoi , ^fiiXocrocjieiv Kat iroXtv 
 airaaav eh i^ovcriav T^s tro<^tas iiraipovm' ot Se rows waXai Tifxav 
 iSpv/jLevoL 6eovi. 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 383 
 
 great column, familiarly known as Diocletian's Pillar, 
 was erected, it is certain that at the time of the 
 Arab conquest it towered above the citadeP. One 
 part of the Serapeum was occupied by a church 
 dedicated to St. John the Baptist. Among other 
 churches, which were also standing in the citadel, 
 are named that of SS. Cosmas and Damian, and the 
 Angelion^ The latter survived the conquest, and 
 
 ^ Dr. Botti (op. cit.) thinks that it was erected after the de- 
 struction of the Serapeum which took place in 391, and calls it the 
 Theodosian Column. 
 
 ^ According to Dr. Botti, the Angelion was originally called the 
 Arcadion, and the Arcadion was originally called Claudion. He 
 further identifies the Arcadion with the Hadrianon (op. cit., pp. 135, 
 138, 139). These identifications seem to me scarcely established; 
 The Hadrianon was a temple which had been turned into a sort of 
 Record OflSce, where registers and archives were kept : see some 
 remarks in Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. i. pp. 68-72, and ii. p, 182, 
 It seems doubtful whether this building was on the Serapeum 
 plateau at all ; nor is there any reason why it should have been 
 turned into a church, when it served so useful a purpose. Gregoro- 
 vius, however, for the conversion into a church refers to Epiphanius, 
 Haeres. xix. 2 (The Emperor Hadrian, p. 358). Eutychius 
 (Migne, t. m, col. 1025-6 and col. 1030) records that Theophilus 
 built a large church in the name of the Emperor Theodosius, 
 covering it all over with gold, besides many other churches, such 
 as that of St. Mary and that of St. John : while as to the Arcadion, 
 he says ' ecclesiam magnam Alexandriae struxit Arcadii nomine 
 dicatam,'and this was certainly not prior to 398. This quite agrees 
 with the much earher record of John of Nikiou, who expressly 
 states (p, 450) that the Patriarch Theophilus luilt a magnificent 
 church to which he gave the name of the Emperor Theodosius, 
 and another which he called after his son Arcadius : he also 
 converted a temple of the Serapeum into a church which he called 
 after Honorius. This church of Honorius, he adds, was also called 
 the church of SS. Cosmas and Damian, and it lay opposite the 
 church of St. Peter. Unless John is wrong, the Arcadion was a 
 new structure at the end of the fourth century. But the question 
 is one of some perplexity, because Sozomen's language (Hist. 
 Eccl. v. 15) almost makes it appear that it was the temple of 
 
 BUTLER C C 
 
386 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 being in danger of falling was splendidly reinstated 
 towards the end of the seventh century by the 
 Patriarch Isaac^ 
 
 One other building remains to be noticed. Ad- 
 joining the propylaeum, and forming part of it, was 
 the Oecus or House, distinguished from the other 
 buildings of the acropolis by a lofty golden dome, 
 which rested on a double ring of columns. Its 
 purpose is not clear, and it may have been merely 
 ornamental; but it seems to have survived the destruc- 
 tion of the temple, and is noticed in Arab chronicles 
 with the 'Amdd as Sawiri^. Strange stories are 
 told of the latter. It was part of a temple built 
 Ijy Solomon, according to the general opinion. Ibn 
 al Faklh says that if a man threw a bit of pottery 
 or glass against it with the words ' By Solomon, 
 Son of David, break in pieces,' then it broke ; but 
 without the talisman it broke not. Another legend 
 was that if a man closed his eyes and walked 
 towards the pillar, he always failed to reach it : and 
 Suyiitl naively records that he proved the truth of 
 this himself by several trials. The same writer 
 quotes ' the learned men of Alexandria ' as saying 
 that upon the pillar was a cupola under which 
 Aristotle sat to study astronomy — a reminiscence of 
 
 Serapis which was turned into the Arcadion : to juei' oSv Sepan-iov 
 (sic) <58e ^\(o mx. /jLer oi ttoXv eh eKKXrjcriav inerecrKevda-Or] 'ApKaSiov 
 ToS )8acn\e(os iTTiiwfwv. Yet ^epdiriov must mean here the acropolis, 
 not the temple merely, and (itTea-KevoLO-O-q must mean ' rebuilt,' not 
 converted, because Sozomen makes it clear that the temple was 
 pulled down. 
 
 " Amdlineau, Vie du Patriarche Copte Isaac, pp. 57-8. 
 
 ^ This seems to be the ' dome overlaid with brass which shone 
 like gold,' which' is spoken of by SuyM : but Makrizl speaks of 
 ' a dome formed of one block of white marble of the finest work- 
 manship.' They may be the same. 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 387 
 
 the dome and the library. Makrlzl's account of the 
 Serapeum, quoted from Mas'ftdl, is truthful enough : 
 ' There was in Alexandria a great palace without 
 equal on earth, standing on a large mound opposite 
 the gate of the city. It was 500 cubits long and 
 250 broad, with a huge massive gateway, each pier 
 of which was a monolith and the lintel a monolith. 
 In the palace were about 100 pillars, and in front of 
 it a great pillar, of unheard-of size, surmounted by 
 a capital.' Yet the same writer alleges that the 
 pillar rocks in a wind. All these extraordinary 
 buildings were supposed to have been raised by 
 genii or giants of old. ' The jinn built an assembly 
 hall for Solomon at Alexandria with 300 columns, 
 each 30 cubits high, of variegated marble polished 
 like mirrors, so that a man could see in them who 
 was walking behind him. In the midst of the hall 
 was a pillar 1 1 1 cubits high. The roof was a single 
 block of green marble, square, hewn by the jinn^.' 
 These jinn were men whose heads resembled great 
 domes, and whose eye would rend a lion. Another 
 explanation, however, is that in ancient days the 
 stones were as soft as clay, or, as another writer 
 puts it, 'In the marble quarries it was easy to 
 work before mid-day, for the marble was as soft 
 as paste ; but in the afternoon it became hard and 
 intractable.' 
 
 These tales record the astonishment of the Arabs 
 at the buildings which now passed into their posses- 
 sion. It is melancholy to trace the record of their 
 destruction, though only fair to say that much of it 
 was due to earthquakes. By the eleventh century 
 the city was all in ruins, though strangely enough 
 the many columns, which some writers make 500 in 
 * Suyfltt, ffusn al MuMdarah, p. 55. 
 C C 2 
 
388 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 num"ber, are all described as standing ^ A hundred 
 years later Idrlsi saw them still : round the great 
 pillar was a court with sixteen columns on each of 
 the shorter sides and sixty-seven on each of the 
 longer^. Benjamin of Tudela^ in 1 160 saw ' a large 
 and beautiful building with columns of marble divid- 
 ing the various halls ' in what he calls the ' school of 
 Aristotle/ just as the Muslim writers call it the 
 'porch of Aristotle' or the 'house of wisdom.' 
 But in 1 167 a wretched governor of Alexandria, 
 named Kariji, the vizier of Saladin, had all these 
 columns broken down and most of them taken to 
 the seashore, where they were thrown into the sea 
 to render an enemy's landing more difficult*. And 
 from that day to this Diocletian's Pillar has risen in 
 solitary grandeur as the one remnant of that matchr 
 less group of buildings which stood on the acropolis 
 of Alexandria ^ 
 
 Reserving for the moment the question of the 
 fate which befell the great library, one may pass 
 on to notice one or two other monuments. The 
 amphitheatre, which the Arabs mention, seems to 
 have been one which lay to the west of the citadel, 
 
 ' Dr. Botti, Colonne TModosienne, pp. i, 2. ^ Id., ib., p. 12. 
 
 ' Id., ib. But these columns probably belonged to the exterior 
 colonnades ; those of the temple had disappeared, or at least been 
 overthrown, in the time of Theodosius. 
 
 * Makrizt, Khitat, vol. i. p. 159. 'Abd al Lattf, however, who 
 says that he saw about 400 large columns broken into pieces, and 
 lying on the edge of the shore, thinks that Karaja's intention was 
 either to deaden the force of the waves which were undermining 
 the city walls, or to keep oif the enemy's fleet — in any case a 
 childish piece of mischief, he adds (p. 1 1 3). 
 
 ° Yakflt's impression is thus given : ' When I visited Alexandria, 
 I went round the city and saw nothing admirable or wonderful 
 except one column called the 'AmM as SawSrt by the gate called 
 Bab ash Shajarah.' 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 389 
 
 although there certainly was a hippodrome also out- 
 side the eastern gate of the city* This amphi- 
 theatre, they sayS held a million spectators, so 
 arranged that one and all, from the highest tier of 
 seats to the lowest, could see all that went on and 
 hear every word uttered without any crushing or 
 inconvenience. The theatre, which stood some- 
 where in the Bruchion, was a distinct and a magnifi- 
 cent building. 
 
 But it was on the Pharos that the Arabs lavished 
 their greatest wonder and admiration. This colossal 
 lighthouse-tower stood, as is well known, at the 
 north-east corner of the island of Pharos, which was 
 linked to the mainland city by a long causeway on 
 arches called the Heptastadium. At the time of 
 the conquest the island was fringed by quays and 
 occupied by various buildings, conspicuous among 
 which stood the two churches of St. Sophia and 
 St. Faustus and the guest-house which lay between 
 them 2. In Caesar's time the island had been occu- 
 pied by a large village, the people of which were 
 lawless freebooters. The lighthouse itself he calls 
 a marvellous piece of architecture^. Strabo de- 
 scribes it as a tower wonderfully constructed of 
 white stone in several stories*. It was built by 
 Sostratus of Cnidus in the reign of Ptolemy Phila- 
 delphus as a guide for mariners, and though it 
 had suffered from the action of the sea and other 
 causes, yet it had always been strengthened as need 
 
 * Makrtzt, op. cit., p. 158. 
 
 ^ These details are from John Moschus, Prat. Spir. cap. 105 and 
 106. 
 
 ' Pharus est in insula turris magna aliitudine, mirificis operibus 
 exstructa, quae nomen ab insula accepit [Bell. Civ. iii. sub fin.). 
 
 * Geog. xvii. i. 6. 
 
39d The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 arose \ and at the time of the Arab conquest it was 
 in full working order and flashed the sun by day and 
 its own fire by night for many leagues over the sea. 
 The coast was low and harbourless : moreover 
 vessels coming to Alexandria had to cross a wide 
 space of open sea out of sight of all land : so that it 
 was an enormous advantage to have this conspicuous 
 landmark visible by day and by night at a distance 
 of sixty or seventy miles. 
 
 Many remarks on the Pharos may be found in 
 the Arab writers. Istakhrl^ says, ' The mandrah, 
 founded on a rock in the sea, contains more than 
 300 rooms, among which the visitor cannot find his 
 way without a guide.' Ibn Haukal^ adds that it 
 'was built of hewn stones fitted together and 
 fastened with lead : there is nothing like it on 
 earth,' and the same style of construction is recorded 
 by Idrlsl* more fully. ' The lighthouse,' he says, 
 ' is unparalleled in all the world for its architecture 
 and strength of structure. It is built of the hardest 
 Tiburtine stone, bedded in molten lead, and so firmly 
 set that the joints cannot be loosened. On the 
 north side the sea washes against it. Its height 
 is 300 cubits, taking three palms to the cubit, 
 and so its length is 100 statures of man. From 
 
 * The Greek Anthology records such a case of repair (674 Epid.): 
 I have rendered the lines thus in Amaranth and Asphodel: — 
 
 ' A tower of help for mariners on the main 
 
 Flashing my safety-beacon through the night, 
 I tottered in the thundering hurricane 
 Until Ammonius' toil renewed my might. 
 The wild waves past, to him upon the land. 
 As to the great Earth-shaker, sailors lift the hand.' 
 ^ Bibl. Geog. Arab, part i. p. 51. 
 ^ Id., ib., part ii. p. 99. 
 
 * Geographia Nubiensis, pp. 94-5. 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 391 
 
 the ground to the middle story are 70 statures, 
 from the middle to the top 26, and the lantern on 
 top is 4 statures ^' There is no doubt about the 
 general design of the tower. It was built in four 
 stories, each less in diameter than the one below. 
 The lowest, or ground story, was square on plan; 
 the next was octagonal ; the third circular ; and the 
 topmost was an open lantern containing fireplaces 
 for the beacons and a wonderful mirror. On the top 
 of the square and at the foot of the octagonal section 
 was a broad terrace commanding a wide view of 
 city and sea, and a smaller terrace of the same kind 
 marked the division between the octagonal and the 
 circular section^ The ascent was by a wide stair- 
 
 ^ What precise measure is intended I do not know, but even if 
 a stature were put at only 5 feet, the height of the tower would 
 be 500 feet. Most of the Muslim writers give 300 cubits as the 
 measurement, and one will not be far wrong in taking this as 
 500 feet English. It is curious that Idrisl does not distinguish 
 between the first and the second stages of the tower. Ya'kflbl 
 gives the height as 175 cubits, and Mas'fidi says 'it is now (tenth 
 century) 230 cubits, but was formerly 400, it having been ruined 
 by time, earthquakes, and weather.' Kazwlni says that the first 
 and second stories were equal in height (he makes each 90 cubits); 
 and if this were so, IdrJsi's measurements would give 105 cubits 
 for each of the first and second stories, 78 for the third, and 
 12 for the lantern. This sounds probable enough. Makrlzi 
 mentions a different measurement, viz. 121 cubits for the square 
 story, 81 J for the octagonal, and 3i-| for the circular. Ibn al 
 Fakih says that, according to some, the cubits were ' royal ' cubits, 
 so that 300 would equal 450 ' cubits of the hand.' 'Abd al Latif 
 says that he read the MS. of a traveller who measured the Pharos 
 and gives 121, 8i.| and 31^ for the three stories, but he adds 
 10 cubits for the lantern or shrine (masjid) on the top. Holm 
 in his History of Greece (tr. F. Clarke, vol. iv. p. 304) gives the 
 height as 650 feet: but for merely mechanical reasons this is 
 scarcely credible. 
 
 * Mas'fldi in Bibl. Geog. Arab, part viii. p. 46, and other writers. 
 
39^ The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 case roofed over with slabs spanning the space 
 between the walls ^ ; and under the stairs were 
 chambers. After the second story the staircase 
 narrowed so as to fill the whole of the interior, save 
 for a shaft like a well in the centre : it was lighted 
 by small windows from top to bottoni^. 
 
 The number of the rooms and the intricacy of the 
 interior made a great impression on the Arabs. * It 
 is said that whoever entered this lighthouse became 
 distracted and lost his w^ay, by reason of the number 
 of chambers and stories and corridors which it con- 
 tained. ... So it is reported that when the Moors 
 arrived at Alexandria in the caliphate of Al Muktadir 
 with an army, a body of them entered the lighthouse 
 on horseback and lost their way, till they came upon 
 a crevice in the crab of glass ^ upon which the 
 structure was founded; and many of them fell 
 
 ' Yakflt, vol, i. pp. 256 seq. 
 
 ''■ It does not seem quite clear whether there were actual steps or 
 an inclined plane for mounting the tower. Some writers speak 
 of steps, while Masudt says ' it was ascended by an inclined 
 pa^ssage without steps,' and others say that a loaded horse could 
 ascend to all the rooms. It would be interesting to know how 
 the fuel for the beacon-fire was raised to the top of the tower ; but 
 it was probably hoisted up the shaft in the centre by a windlass. 
 
 ' I have explained the origin of this above, p. 376. No writer 
 better illustrates the confusion between the Pharos and the pair of 
 obelisks than Ibn al Fakih, who after saying (Bibl. Geog. Arab. 
 part V. p. 70), 'the manarah of Alexandria stands on a crab 
 of glass in the sea,' remarks on the. next page, ' the manarah of 
 Alexandria has two pillars standing on two images, one of brass 
 and one of glass : the brazen image is in the form of a scorpion, 
 the glass in the form of a crab. The observatory is beside them, 
 and it is called the mandrah' Suyfltt quotes a statement that the 
 lighthouse was built on vaults of glass, which again rested on 
 a crab of brass! Yakftt explains the glass foundation by the 
 legend that when Alexander (sic) wished to build the tower, he 
 threw stone, brick, granite, gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, glass and 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 393 
 
 through it and perished '.' But even more marvel- 
 lous stories are told about the mirror, which all the 
 Arab writers agree in regarding, quite apart from 
 the lighthouse on which it stood, as one of the 
 wonders of the world. In the ancient Egyptian 
 city of Rakoti there is said to have been a dome on 
 pillars of brass, all gilded, and above this dome rose 
 a lighthouse, on which was a mirror of composite 
 metal, five spans in diameter 2. This mirror was 
 used as a burning-glass to destroy the ships of 
 an enemy. It was in imitation of this that in 
 Alexander's city the mirror was erected on the 
 summit of the Pharos : but its purpose was rather 
 to reveal a distant enemy ' coming from the land of 
 the Romans.' This was soon exaggerated : and 
 "Abdallah, son of 'Amr, is quoted as saying, ' One 
 of the wonders of the world is the mirror hanging 
 in the mandrah at Alexandria, which shows what is 
 passing at Constantinople ^' But Mas'tidl describes 
 it as 'a large mirror of transparent stone, in which 
 ships could be seen coming from Rum at too great 
 a distance for the eye to detect them': while another 
 
 all kinds of minerals and metals into the sea to test them ; and 
 when they were taken out and examined, the glass alone was found 
 of full weight and unimpaired. Accordingly glass was chosen for 
 the substructure. 
 
 ^ Makrlzi. The account of the manarah begins vol. i. p. 155 
 of the Khilat. 
 
 ^ Here Makrizl quotes Ibn Wasif Shah's History of Misrdim. 
 Murtadi agrees : 'They made in the midst of that city a little turret 
 on pillars of copper gilt, and set upon it a mirror consisting of 
 divers materials, in length and breadth five spans, the turret too 
 cubits high. ... It was used as a burning-glass against the enemy. 
 The Pharos also had not been made but for a mirror that was upon 
 it' {Egyptian History, p. 102). 
 
 ' Ibn al Fakih in Bibl. Geog. Arab, part v. p. 71. 
 
394 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 writer, in substantial agreement, alleges that the 
 mirror was made of 'finely wrought glass S' and 
 a third gives the material as ' Chinese iron ' or 
 polished steeP. All say that it showed vessels at 
 sea far beyond the range of common vision : a man 
 sitting under the mirror could see all the way to 
 Constantinople. 
 
 What was the purpose of this mirror ? Was it 
 a mere reflector to flash the sun-rays by day and 
 the beacon-light by night ? and was it an ordinary 
 mirror, or had it a complex refracting surface, so 
 that it might really serve as a burning-glass under 
 the intense heat of the sun in Egypt ? These are 
 questions for men of science : but it is at least 
 curious that, as early as the tenth century of our 
 era, the Arab writers in their account of this mirror 
 should anticipate the use of the telescope. It is also 
 curious that different writers should describe the 
 mirror as made of some transparent material — 
 ' finely wrought glass ' and * transparent stone ' : for 
 these terms suggest a lens rather than a mirror. Is 
 it conceivable that the great Alexandrian school of 
 mathematics and mechanics discovered and con- 
 structed the lens, and that their discovery was lost 
 and forgotten in the destruction of the Pharos ? 
 
 That the Pharos was used as a signal-station as 
 well as lighthouse is certain : but it is not quite 
 clear whether the fire was kept up day and night. 
 Idrlsl speaks of a fire by night and 'a cloud of 
 smoke by day ' : but another account represents the 
 
 ' Zaj&j mudabhar is the term used by Makrfzl. 
 
 "^ Suyflti, who says that the mirror was seven cubits .wide ; that it 
 showed all ships coming from Europe ; and that it was used as 
 a burning-glass. ' They turned the mirror towards the westering 
 sun, and the rays being reflected burned up the enemy's ships.' 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 395 
 
 ligiithouse keepers as living in the building and ready 
 always to light the beacon by night ^. Unfortunately 
 no evidence of the original practice is obtainable : 
 for the Pharos suffered serious injury within a century 
 of the conquest. The story is that in the caliphate 
 of Al Walid ibn 'Abd al Malik, i. e. early eighth 
 century, the Romans were so annoyed at the 
 advantage which the Pharos gave to the Muslims 
 as a watch-tower against sea-raids and surprises, 
 that they resolved to destroy it by stratagem. 
 Accordingly one of the courtiers^ of the Emperor 
 went with rich presents to the Caliph, and feigning 
 to have incurred the Emperor's mortal enmity, 
 professed his desire to become a Muslim. He 
 was believed and welcomed to Isldm, and to the 
 friendship of Al Walld, whose imagination he fired 
 with stories of buried treasure in Syria. This was 
 duly discovered ; and the Caliph, becoming greedy 
 of wealth, listened eagerly to the report of the wily 
 Roman, that a vast store of gold and jewels, which 
 had belonged to the ancient kings of Egypt, was 
 buried in vaults and chambers beneath the Pharos. 
 So the Caliph sent troops to conduct the search, and 
 they pulled down half of the lighthouse tower, 
 removing the mirror, before the plot was suspected. 
 
 ^ Arculfus (c. 670 A.D.) speaking of this 'very high tower' says, 
 ' Men are employed there by whom torches and other masses of 
 wood, which have been collected, are set on fire to serve as a guide 
 to the land, showing the narrow entrance to the straits. . . . Round 
 the island also,' he adds, ' beams of immense size have been 
 regularly laid down to prevent the foundations from yielding to 
 the constant collision of the sea' (Pal. Pil. Text Soc, vol. iii. 
 
 ?• 50)- 
 
 ^ Another account says that it was some Christian priests, who 
 showed a,n ancient book containing the secret of the buried 
 treasure. 
 
396 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Then the people resolved to stop the work of 
 destruction, and to send a report to the Caliph : 
 whereupon the traitor fled by night to his own 
 country. But of course the mischief was done : one 
 half, or at least a third part, of the tower had been 
 thrown down : and the traitor had accomplished his 
 |)urpose by destroying the magic mirror. Too late 
 the Arabs saw that they had been duped : ' they 
 rebuilt the manirah of brick, but could not raise it 
 to its former height ; and so, when they replaced the 
 mirror, it was useless ^' 
 
 There is no reason to question the substantial 
 truth of this story : nor is it surprising that the 
 damage proved irreparable. The Pharos must 
 indeed have been a miracle of construction to stand 
 secure for centuries, while towering in the air to 
 that astonishing height ; and the builders under 
 the Arab dominion could not hope to rival the 
 architecture of the Ptolemies. Indeed Mas'udl 
 seems to deny that there was any attempt at 
 restoration, though in this he is probably mistaken* 
 Little is known of the subsequent history of the 
 Pharos. Ahmad ibn Tuldn ^ built a wooden cupola 
 on its summit c 875 a.d. — a statement which seems 
 to show that the building was no longer used as 
 a lighthouse, but merely as a watch-tower. This 
 cupola did not last very long ; and when it was 
 swept away by the winds, a small mosque was built 
 in place of it under Al Malik al Kimil. A few 
 years after Ibn Tuldn one of the piers on the 
 western side, where the sea washed the walls, was 
 found to be ruined, and was rebuilt by Kha- 
 
 ' Suyfiti, op. cit., p. 53 : but the Arab writers generally think 
 that the mirror was broken in pieces, as is far more probable. 
 ^ The author oi Mahdhij al Fihr, quoted by As Suyflti. 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 397 
 
 inarawaih \ In the next century, on the loth 
 day of Ramadan, a.h. 344 (December 28, 955 a.d.), 
 about thirty cubits of the top were thrown down by 
 a severe earthquake, which was felt all over Egypt, 
 Syria, and North Africa, in a series of fierce shocks 
 lasting half an hour 2. In 1182 another mosque on 
 the summit is recorded by Ibn Jubair^, who gives 
 the height of the tower as 'above 150 cubits,' 
 showing how it had diminished from its original 
 stature : and Yikut, writing perhaps forty years 
 later, actually gives a diagram showing 'a square 
 building like a fort,' with a shortened second story, 
 and a small cupola above it. Upon this he rather 
 hastily argues that all accounts of the vast size of 
 the Pharos are ' shameless lies.' But he hardly 
 seems aware of the great changes which time had 
 wrought. ' I sought the place of the mirror and 
 found no trace of it,' he remarks ; as if he expected 
 to find it on the reduced and mutilated building, 
 which was all that remained at the date of his visit*. 
 But even greater destruction followed. In the time 
 of Kala'un the Pharos is already described by an 
 Arab writer as a ' shapeless ruin ®,' in spite of some 
 repairs carried out by the Sultan Baibars : and 
 though there was some subsequent attempt at 
 restoration, the earthquake of 1375 seems to have 
 demolished all but the lowest story of the tower ^. 
 
 ' Al Mas udi. 
 
 "^ ' While I was at Fustat,' says Mas'ddi. 
 
 ' Quoted by MakrtzJ. 
 
 * Ydkiit's account of the manarah may be read in Wflstenfeld's 
 Geographisches Worlerbuch, vol. i. pp. 286 seq. 
 
 = Ibn Fadl Allah, quoted by Suyutt. 
 
 ^ There can be little doubt that the Fort Pharos which was 
 battered in the bombardment of Alexandria is on the site of the old 
 lighthouse. Some part of it appears to be ancient, but apparently 
 
398 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 But if the Pharos has long vanished, the tradition 
 of its grace, and even of its use, has been preserved 
 in the Egyptian minaret, to which it gave the name 
 and to which it served as model ^ Though the 
 mediaeval minarets of Cairo vary in combination 
 of design, in many of them one may see an exact 
 reproduction of the design of Sostratus, which was 
 a tower springing four-square from the ground, then 
 changing to a smaller octagonal and from the 
 octagonal to a still smaller circular shaft, and 
 crowned on the top with a lantern. 
 
 No antiquarian history of Alexandria has yet been 
 written ; and much research, of a kind now in many 
 places impossible, would be needed to provide 
 materials for it and to settle points at issue. But 
 even a rough sketch like the present, wanting as it 
 is, may serve to give some idea of what met the 
 eyes of the Arabs as they entered the city. Nor 
 was the view from without less imposing. The 
 northern walls followed the curving shore, as we 
 have seen, while the southern walls rested on the 
 canal, till it entered and flowed through the city ; 
 and all round on every side they were built with 
 such strength and skill, and so varied by towers and 
 
 archaeologists have not seriously examined the site with a view 
 to planning and preserving what may be worth preserving An 
 American writer, Mr. Kay, thinks that he discovered traces of the 
 original foundations under the walls of the existing fortress, which 
 was built by Kait Bey circa 1480 : see the American Architect and 
 Building News, vol. xi. no. 348, pp. 101-2, Aug. 26, 1882. Others, 
 however, place the site to the east of the fort on a spot now covered 
 by the sea. 
 
 ' This theory I broached in the Athenceum of Nov. 20, 1880, 
 and I still hold by it. As to the name, mandrah is not now used 
 in Egypt for minaret, but it was so used originally, as the Shaikh 
 Muhammad 'Abduh, the Grand Mufti, informs me. 
 
Alexandria at the Conquest 399 
 
 bastions, that their architecture roused the enthusiasm 
 of travellers far into the Middle Ages ^. 
 
 ' Nearly all plans of ancient Alexandria err in leaving a con- 
 siderable space between the walls and the canal. That this is 
 wrong is conclusively proved first by the testimony of John of 
 Nikiou in the story of the fighting between Nicetas and Bonosus 
 given in the opening chapters of this book, and next by the explicit 
 evidence of Arculfus, who remarks, 'The city is surrounded by 
 a long circuit of walls fortified by frequent towers constructed along 
 the margin of the river and the curving shore of the sea ' (op. cit., 
 p. 52). Again the same writer says: 'On the south it is surrounded 
 by the mouths of the Nile, on the north by the sea ; so that on 
 this side and on that it is surrounded by water ' (id., ib., p. 49). Of 
 course I am aware that the city shrunk and the walls with it, so 
 that the line standing in the Middle Ages differed considerably from 
 the original walls : see H. de Vaujany's Recherches sur les anciens 
 Monuments situe's sur le Grand Fori (PAlexandrie, pp. 74-84 
 (Alex. 1888). But the general style of the walls was probably 
 preserved. Certainly they made a great impression on travellers 
 even seven or eight centuries after the conquest. Thus in 1350 
 Ludolph von Suchem writes : ' Now Alexandria is the first seaside 
 city of Egypt, one of the best of the Soldan's cities. On one side 
 it stands on the Nile, the river of Paradise, which falls into the sea, 
 and its other side is on the sea. This city is exceedingly beauteous 
 and strong, and is fenced about with lofty towers and walls, which 
 seem impregnable. ... In this city still stands entire to this day 
 a great and exceeding beauteous church, adorned in divers fashions 
 with mosaic work and marble. . . . Indeed many other churches are 
 still standing in Alexandria at this day, and in them rest the bodies 
 of many saints ' {Description of the Holy Land, tr. by Aubrey 
 Stewart, pp. 45-6, London, 1895). So Breydenbach, c. i486, 
 speaks of viewing the 'gloriosam civitatem Alexandriam, mari magno 
 pro parte una cinctam, pro alia amoenissimis et fertilissimis ortis 
 circumseptam ' ; and he goes on to say that several of his fellow 
 travellers mounting the outer wall took a view of the circuit of 
 fortresses and moats, and agreed ' that they had never seen a more 
 lovely or better fortified city, with beautiful ramparts and strong 
 and lofty walls and towers.' Yet within they found ruin and 
 desolation, save for a few churches {Descriptio Terrae Sanctae, 
 p. 120). A plan of ancient Alexandria may be found in the 
 Khedivial Library at Cairo, dated c. 1600 : it shows a complete 
 
400 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 circuit of walls, double in places, but is poorly drawn without scale 
 or perspective. Much better is D'Anville's plan at p. 52 of his 
 Mimoires sur t^gypte, showing the ancient and modern walls 
 together. A rude sketch is given in Janssonjus' Theatrum Urbium, 
 t. 4 (Amstelodami, n. d.). In J. White's Aegyptiaca (Oxon. 1801), 
 there is a plan and a good deal of information : so in Parthey's 
 Alexandrinisches Museum (Berlin, 1838). Most of the encyclopaedias 
 give some kind of plan, as does Tozer's Selections from Siraho. 
 All these plans are small, and most of them take for granted 
 debateable points. The plan in Matter's Ecole (TAlexandrie is 
 somewhat larger, though wanting in detail and in accuracy, 
 N^routsos Bey in UAncienne Alexandrie also gives a plan on 
 a larger scale, which is perhaps the best, although it seems in 
 places not to distinguish Byzantine from Arab walls, and it is clearly 
 wrong in placing the church of St. Mark and the Tetrapylus south 
 of the Caesarion : but the Phiale and canal ports are well shown. 
 The new Museum at Alexandria contains a plan of the ancient 
 and modern town on a very large scale. Present researches will 
 doubtless in time recover most of the old lines of the city, though 
 the subsidence of the soil over the whole area of ancient Alexandria, 
 as well as the encroachment of the sea, renders the reconstruction 
 of the plan very difficult. See Dr. Hogarth's article on his excava- 
 tions in Egypt Exploration Fund Report, 1894-5. 
 
CHAPTER XXV 
 
 THE LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA 
 
 Question of its destruction by the Arabs. AbA '1 Faraj's story. 
 Internal evidence against it. John Philoponus not alive at the 
 invasion. Did the Library exist then ? The original Museum 
 Library. Probably burned in time of Julius Caesar. Library from 
 Pergamus. The Daughter Library in the Serapeum. Destruction 
 of the Temple of Serapis. Extent of the destruction : various 
 authorities. The Library annexes perished : what became of the 
 books ? Silence of two centuries of writers. Bearing of the Treaty 
 of Alexandria on the question. Silence of writers after the conquest. 
 Summary and conclusion of the argument. 
 
 Whether the Arabs upon the capture of the city 
 burned or did not burn the great Library of Alex- 
 andria is a question which has long been keenly 
 debated : but inasmuch as learned opinions still 
 differ, and the problem remains unsolved, it cannot 
 be left unexamined in a work professing to deal with 
 the conquest. 
 
 The story as it stands in Abll '1 Faraj ^ is well 
 known, and runs as follows. There was at this time 
 a man, who won high renown among the Muslims, 
 
 ^ Ed. Pococke, p. 114 tr. and 180 text. Renaudot thinks the 
 story has an element of untrustworthiness : Gibbon discusses it 
 rather briefly and disbeheves it. Pococke translates only the 
 Arabic abridgement of Abfi '1 Faraj. In the Nineteenth Century 
 for October, 1894, there is an article on the question by Vasudeva 
 Rau, who alleges (p. 560) that the story is not in the original 
 Syriac, and probably was a later interpolation. The abridgement, 
 however, was written by Abft '1 Faraj himself, and the suggestion 
 of interpolation is a mere conjecture. Nor would the fact, if 
 established, be material. The article generally is based rather on 
 a /rwrz' argument than research, and consequently is not of much 
 value. 
 
 BUTLER D d 
 
402 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 named John the Grammarian. He was an Alexan- 
 drian, and apparently had been a Coptic priest, but 
 was deprived of his office owing to some heresy by 
 a council of bishops held at Babylon. He lived to 
 see the capture of Alexandria by the Arabs, and 
 made the acquaintance of 'Amr, whose clear and 
 active mind was no less astonished than delighted 
 with John's intellectual acuteness and great learn- 
 ing. Emboldened by 'Amr's favour, John one day 
 remarked, ' You have examined the whole city, and 
 have set your seal on every kind of valuable : I make 
 no claim for aught that is useful to you, but things 
 useless to you may be of service to us.' 'What 
 are you thinking of ? ' said 'Amr. ' The books of 
 wisdom,' said John, 'which are in the, imperial 
 treasuries.' ' That,' replied 'Amr, ' is a matter on 
 which I can give no order without the authority of 
 the Caliph.' A letter accordingly was written, put- 
 ting the question to Omar, who answered : ' Touch- 
 ing the books you mention, if what is written in 
 them agrees with the Book of God, they are not 
 required : if it disagrees, they are not desired. 
 Destroy them therefore.' On receipt of this judge- 
 ment, 'Amr accordingly ordered the books to be 
 distributed among the baths of Alexandria and used 
 as fuel for heating : it took six months to consume 
 them. ' Listen and wonder,' adds the writer. 
 
 Such is the story as it makes its appearance in 
 Arabic literature. Abti '1 Faraj wrote in the latter 
 half of the thirteenth century, and he says nothing 
 about the source from which he derived the story : 
 but he is followed by Abd '1 Fidi in the early four- 
 teenth century, and later by Makrizi ^ It is true 
 
 ' This author, like 'Abd al LatJf, reports the story by way of 
 allusion, taking it for granted. Thus speaking of the Serapeum 
 
The Library of Alexandria 403 
 
 that " Abd al Latlf, who wrote about 1 200, mentions 
 incidentally the burning of the Library by Omar's 
 order, and, giving no details, seems to take the fact for 
 granted. This allusion seems to show that in his day 
 the tradition was current. Nevertheless the story is 
 not to be found in any written document until five 
 and a half centuries after the capture of Alexandria, 
 and it is challenged by the silence of every writer 
 from John of Nikiou to Abii Silih. It may of course 
 be argued that it survived for several hundred years 
 as an unwritten tradition; and this view may be 
 held to receive confirmation from the undoubted 
 fact that the tradition lives to this day among 
 the Copts, although they give seventy days, instead 
 of six months, as the period of burning. There is, 
 however, nothing to show that this Coptic tradition 
 is older than Abtl '1 Faraj : in other words, though 
 current as a popular story, it may have been 
 derived from mediaeval writers. This one can 
 neither prove nor disprove : but the doubt deprives 
 the tradition of independent value. 
 
 Let us, however, examine the story as it stands. 
 It is undeniably picturesque, and the reply of Omar 
 has the true Oriental flavour. This ' really is the 
 strongest point about it. But unfortunately precisely 
 the same reply of Omar is recorded in connexion 
 with the destruction of books in Persia ^ ; and just 
 
 he says, ' Some think that these columns upheld the Porch of 
 Aristotle, who taught philosophy here : that it was a school of 
 learning: and that it contained the library which was burnt by 
 'Amr on the advice of the Caliph Omar' (Khita^, vol. i. p. 159). 
 
 ' See Prof. Bury's ed. of Gibbon, vol. v. p. 454 n., where Ibn 
 Khaldfln, quoted by Hajt Khalfah, is given as the authority. I may 
 add that the feelings of the Muslims towards the books of the 
 idolatrous Persians would be very different from their feelings towards 
 
 D d 2 
 
404 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 as the story of ' Amr's captivity and his escape from 
 detection and death owing to the timely cuff 
 administered by WardcLn, has been taken out of its 
 proper setting and put into the siege of Alexandria 
 by Muslim writers, so may this anecdote be wrongly 
 told of the Alexandrian Library, although it may rest 
 on a foundation of fact, such as the evil wit of Omar's 
 words seems to postulate. But there are other 
 points in the story which will not bear the strain of 
 criticism. Granting for a moment that the destruc- 
 tion of the Library took place as related, we have to 
 believe that, instead of being made into a bonfire on 
 the acropolis, the books were laboriously put into 
 baskets and taken down to the city ; that they were 
 then laboriously distributed among the countless 
 baths ; and that they served as fuel for the space of 
 six months. This is a tissue of absurdities. Had the 
 books been doomed, they would have been burnt on 
 the spot. Had 'Amr refused them to his friend 
 Philoponus, he would not have placed them at the 
 mercy of every bath-keeper in the city. If he had 
 so placed them, John Philoponus or any other person 
 might have rescued a vast number of them at a 
 trifling cost during the six months they are alleged 
 to have lasted. Further, it cannot be questioned 
 that in the seventh century a very large proportion 
 of the books in Egypt were written on vellum \ 
 Now vellum is a material which will not burn as fuel, 
 
 the books of the Christians. In their early history at least the 
 Muslims disliked the destruction of the written name of God. 
 
 ^ Drs. Grenfell and Hunt have shown, against the received 
 opinion, that the use of papyrus in book-form remained as long as 
 Greek was written in Egypt, although vellum was preferred by the 
 Copts in particular : see Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. ii. pp. 2-3. 
 Still even the more ancient books in the Serapeum Library would 
 have been mostly on vellum. 
 
The Library of Alexandria 405 
 
 and all the Caliph's orders could not make it burn : 
 what then became of all these manuscripts ? And 
 when one has deducted all the writings on vellum, 
 how can it be seriously imagined that the remainder 
 of the books would have kept the 4,000^ bath- 
 furnaces of Alexandria alive for 180 days ? The 
 tale, as it stands, is ridiculous ; one may indeed listen 
 and wonder. 
 
 But, it may be said, these small points are un- 
 fairly pressed ; a minute dissection of details will 
 not get rid of the broad fact of the destruction by 
 burning. Let us then relinquish mere internal criti- 
 cism, and pass on to consider how far external 
 evidence is for or against the main facts of the 
 story. There are two points presumably vital — 
 the existence of John Philoponus ^ at the time of 
 the conquest, and the existence of the Library. 
 Now there can be very little doubt about the former 
 point; John was not alive in 642. I need not 
 recapitulate the whole proof of this statement. It 
 is known that John was writing as early as 540 ^ 
 
 ^ I have already shown, p. 384 n., that this figure, given by the 
 Muslim writers, is doubtless exaggerated: but however the figure 
 be reduced, Abfi 'I Faraj's statement will not stand the test of 
 simple arithmetic. 
 
 ' The Arab story calls John ' Grammaticus,' the word being 
 transliterated by Abfl '1 Faraj. There is no doubt that Philoponus 
 is meant : see e.g. Nicephorus Callistus, who says, rov •ypajn/iartKoi' 
 'lojaiTjjv OS hriKkrfiti SiXottoi/os (xviii. 45). 
 
 ' I have already referred to Nauck in this connexion. But the 
 facts are set out more clearly and accessibly in the Diet. Christ. 
 Biog., s.v. Johannes Philoponus. The evidence that John's life lay 
 in the sixth century, if not actually bounded by it, is conclusive, 
 despite the doubtful document quoted by Gibbon from Fabricius 
 as dated 618, and the statement attributed to Nicephorus which 
 makes John a contemporary of George of Pisidia in the reign of 
 Heraclius. The Nicephorus in question is Callistus, who wrote in 
 
4o6 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 if not before the accession of Justinian in 527; and 
 though he may have survived for a few years at the 
 beginning of the seventh century, if he had been 
 aHve in the year 642 he would not have been less 
 than 1 20 years old. It is therefore clear that Philo- 
 ponus had been dead for some thirty or forty years 
 when 'Amr entered Alexandria. 
 
 The question whether the Library itself was in 
 existence at that time is at once more interesting 
 and more difficult of solution. The earliest and the 
 most famous Library was, as is well known, in the 
 Bruchion quarter. If the idea of founding this vast 
 collection of the world's literature came from Ptolemy 
 Soter, and if he actually formed the Library, it was 
 completely equipped and organized by Philadelphus 
 his successor. It seems to have been part of the 
 splendid group of buildings known as the Museum ^. 
 
 the fourteenth century, and is of no great authority : but I confess 
 that he appears to be wrongly quoted. His evidence seems to me 
 to tell wholly against the theory that Philoponus was alive in 642. 
 For John is associated with Dioscorus, Gaius, and Severiis of 
 Antioch, as writing against the Council of Chalcedon and prevailing 
 ' until Justinian ascended the throne (527 a.d.), when these champions 
 of heresy carried their studies into holes and corners ' (Hist, xviii. 
 45 in Migne, Patr. Gr. t. 147, p. 422). Moreover John is described 
 as aK[ji,a.<ravTa iirl T^s irapovirrj'S yjyejxoviai, and the context shows 
 that this refers to Justinian and not to Heraclius. Nor is John 
 declared to be contemporary with George of Pisidia. As I read it, 
 George is called contemporary, though much younger, with 
 Leoniius Monachus. Now Leontius Monachus seems to have died 
 early in the seventh century — his list of Alexandrian Patriarchs 
 closes with Eulogius, ob. 607 ; and Leontius Monachus uses 
 language implying that John Philoponus was dead when he wrote 
 (Migne, t. 86, col. 1187). Matter deals with this question of the 
 date of Philoponus very inadequately (icole d Alexandrie, t. i. 
 
 P- 339)- 
 
 ' Prof. Mahaffy questions this point, for whatever reason : 
 Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 98. 
 
The Library of Alexandria 407 
 
 The Museum, as Strabo says, adjoined the royal 
 palaces, which were of vast extent, occupying quite 
 one fourth of the whole area of the city. It con- 
 sisted of a great central hall with a colonnade about 
 it, and cloistered courts. These communicated with 
 other buildings, such as the Schools of Medicine, 
 Anatomy and Surgery, Mathematics and Astronomy, 
 Law and Philosophy : a park was also attached, with 
 a botanical garden and an observatory^ — all the 
 apparatus of a great University. What was the 
 precise structural arrangement of the Museum 
 buildings, and where precisely the Library was 
 situated, cannot be determined : nor indeed is there 
 any agreement even about the site of the Museum. 
 Strabo is provokingly silent concerning the Library, 
 when his evidence would settle the question whether, 
 as some ancient writers allege, it perished in the 
 conflagration of 48 b. c, a few years before his visit. 
 Caesar was then besieged in the Bruchion quarter 
 by the Egyptians under Achillas, and he set fire to 
 the harbour shipping : it is alleged that the fire 
 
 ^ See an interesting pamphlet entitled La Bibliotheque des 
 PtoUmies, by V. Nourisson Bey. The particular statement in the 
 text is on p. 8 : but I have to acknowledge my debt to the writer 
 on several points. Other authorities beside Parthey's Alexandri- 
 nisches Museum and Ritschl's Alexandrinische Bibliothehen in 
 Opuscula (1866) are Weniger, Akxandrinisches Museum (1875), 
 Holm's History of Greece, vol. 4, and Susemihl's Gesckichte der 
 griechischen Litteraiur in der Alexandrinerzeit (189 1-2). Gustave 
 le Bon in La Civilisation des Arabes (Paris, 1884) rejects the story 
 of the burning of the Library ; but his work is rather a popular 
 book than a serious study. Sddillot's Hisioire GMrale des Arabes 
 (2nd ed., Paris, 1877) casts doubt on the story; but he does not 
 discuss it closely. He refers, however, to the Revue Scientifique de 
 la France, 19 Juin, 1875, no. 51, pp. 1200 seq., for an essay on the 
 subject, which I have been unable to see. 
 
4o8 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 spread and utterly destroyed the Library. Caesar 
 himself — if he wrote the account ^ — gives no hint of 
 any such catastrophe ; on the contrary, he remarks 
 that Alexandria is practically fire-proof, as the archi- 
 tects used no timber, but raised their buildings on 
 vaulted substructures, and roofed them with stone 
 or concrete ^- Such a remark would be deliberately 
 misleading, if the writer were suppressing the fact 
 that he witnessed and caused the burning of the 
 Library. It is difficult either to convict or to clear 
 Caesar of the charge. Plutarch has no doubt of 
 the fact : ' As his fleet was falling into the hands of 
 the enemy, he was forced to repel the danger by fire : 
 this spread from the dockyards and destroyed the 
 great Library ^' Seneca clearly believed the story : 
 ' Four hundred thousand books were burned at 
 
 ^ If De Bella Alexandrino was ■written, as modern critics think, 
 by Asinius PoUio, it is easy to understand the writer's silence on 
 this incident 
 
 ^ De Bella Civili iv. ad init. Yet somewhat later, when the 
 Egyptians had suffered a great naval defeat, they are described as 
 refitting all the old vessels they could muster and bringing up the 
 Nile guard-ships. Oars were wanting to equip these vessels ; so 
 the Egyptians stripped colonnades, gymnasia, and public buildings 
 of their roofs to provide wood for the making of oars. This incon- 
 sistency in the narrative deserves attention. Moreover John of 
 Nikiou says that Diocletian burned the city — ' la livra aux flammes 
 entiferement' (p. 417). Orosius speaking of Diocletian's victory 
 says ' urbem direptioni dedit ' — an equally strong expression though 
 fire is not mentioned (Hist. vii. 25. 8). Eulogius, brother of the 
 martyred Macarius of Antioch, was sent by Constantine with an 
 army to Alexandria and 'burned all the temples of Alexandria, 
 destroyed them, and seized their possessions ' (Hyvernat, Actes des 
 Martyrs, p. 74). These instances seem to show that Caesar's view 
 is mistaken or exaggerated. 
 
 Plut. Caes. 49 ■trepiKOTrro/Ji.evo'S tov (TToXov rjvayKdcrOr] Sio. Trvpos 
 aTTwo-ao-Oai tov kivSvvov o Koi, ttjv fji.eya,\rjv /Sl^XioO'^kiqv Ik tUv vaopiiov 
 linveii,6[Ji,evov Biicjidupev. 
 
The Library of Alexandria 409 
 
 Alexandria ^' The language of Dio Cassius ^ Is 
 rather odd : ' The conflagration was widespread ; 
 besides the dockyard and much else, the stores of 
 corn perished, and the stores of books ; and these 
 books, it is said, in vast numbers and of great value.' 
 But there can be no doubt what the tradition was in 
 the fourth century. The words of Ammianus Mar- 
 cellinus^ are plain enough; he speaks of Alexandria's 
 ' priceless libraries, about which ancient writers agree 
 that the 700,000 volumes got together by the unre- 
 mitting care of the Ptolemies were destroyed by fire 
 
 ' Prof. MahafFy, in quoting Seneca's sneer against Livy, seems 
 inclined to accept his opinion that these books were valued rather 
 as ornamenting the dining-hall than as aiding the advancement of 
 learning (Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 99). One may perhaps prefer 
 Gibbon's view : ' Livy had styled the library elegantiae regum 
 curaeque egregium opus — a liberal encomium, for which he is pertly 
 criticized by the narrow stoicism of Seneca ' (chap. li). 
 
 ^ Xlii. 38. I TOS T£ a-KoQriKOS KoX TOV (TLTOV KoL TUIV jStySAtOV ■ 
 
 irXeicTTciv 8r] koX aptcrruiv, ws <^a(TL, ye.vojj.ivwv — Kavdrjvai,. The 
 ' storehouses for corn ' one can easily understand, but what are the 
 ' storehouses for books ' ? One cannot imagine, however, a vast 
 collection of valuable books as piled in warehouses ready for 
 exportation, nor book-warehouses as a part of the ordinary trade 
 equipment of the docks. After all there is far less difference 
 between o.7ro6rJKr] twv /St'/SXwv and ^ijSXioOi^Kri in the Greek than 
 between book-warehouse and library in the English. 
 
 ' xxii. 16. Aulus Gellius gives the same number of books, 
 but the estimates vary. Epiphanius, who also wrote in the fourth 
 century, gives 54,800. See Parthey, Alexandrinisches Museum, 
 p. 77. The truth is that there was not one library but several: 
 Ammianus even speaks of ' bibliothecae innumerabiles ' : and this 
 fact may account for the difference in the estimates. Susemihl 
 gives the number of books in the time of Callimachus as 42,800 in 
 the Outer Library (which is doubtfully, I think, identified with the 
 Serapeum), while in the Royal Library were 400,000 composite 
 volumes or rolls and 90,000 simple {Geschichte der griechischen 
 Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, i. 342). Susemihl's account of 
 the general arrangements (pp. 336 seq.) is interesting. 
 
4IO The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 in the Alexandrian war, when Caesar devastated 
 the city.' Orosius closely agrees with this account : 
 ' During the combat orders were given to fire the 
 royal fleet, which happened to be drawn on shore. 
 The conflagration spread to part of the city, and 
 burned 400,000 books, which were stored in a 
 building which happened to be contiguous. So 
 perished that marvellous record of the literary 
 activity of our forefathers, who had made this vast 
 and splendid collection of works of genius \' On 
 the whole it seems more natural to believe than to 
 disbelieve that the Library perished in Caesar's 
 conflagration. 
 
 But seven or eight years after this adventure of 
 Caesar's, the library of the Kings of Pergamus was 
 sent by Mark Antony to Alexandria ^. Whether 
 the Museum was still able to house such a collection, 
 or whether these volumes formed the foundation of 
 the later Serapeum Library, is a question which has 
 
 ^ ' In ipso praelio regia classis forte subducta iubetur incendi. 
 Ea flamma cum partim quoque urbis invasisset quadringenta milia 
 librorum proximis forte aedibus condita exussit, singulare profecto 
 monumentum studii curaeque maiorum, qui tot tantaque inlustrium 
 ingeniorum opera congesserant ' (Hisi. vi. 15. 31). Orosius seems 
 to have had before him either the passage of Livy or that of Seneca. 
 The words ' proximis forte aedibus condita ' might appear at first 
 sight to bear out the singular theory of some critics that the books 
 happened lo he stored in a warehouse close to the shore. The 
 improbability of such an arrangement is almost enough to refute 
 the theory, nor would the word condita be chosen to express a 
 temporary deposit of the kind. All difficulty vanishes \i forte is 
 taken as qualifying proximis, as I have done in my translation. At 
 the same time it looks as if both Orosius and Dio Cassius were 
 following a common original not very clear in expression. 
 
 "^ Plutarch in his Life of Antony says that Antony gave to 
 Cleopatra the libraries from Pergamus, which contained 200,000 
 simple rolls. 
 
The Library of Alexandria 411 
 
 exercised scholars \ I think it very possible that 
 neither alternative is true. We have already seen 
 that the great temple of the Caesarion was begun by 
 Cleopatra in honour of Julius Caesar and finished 
 by Augustus ; and that its libraries are mentioned 
 among its most splendid embellishments '^. Nothing 
 would be more natural than to suppose that, if the 
 Museum Library had perished, room was provided 
 for the Pergamus collection, or some part of it, in 
 the Caesarion, while the remainder perhaps went to 
 the Serapeum. 
 
 However that may be, two things are fairly cer- 
 tain ; that some of the Museum buildings remained 
 in use till the time of Caracalla, who drenched the 
 city with blood, closed the theatres, and suppressed 
 the syssitia or Common Hall at the Museum in the 
 year 216 a. d. ; and that at some date early in 
 the Christian era, in place of the vanished Museum 
 Library, another great Library was founded in the 
 Serapeum on the acropolis. The Museum buildings 
 are said to have been razed to the ground by Aure- 
 lian ^ in 273, when he wrought havoc in the Bruchion 
 quarter to punish the Alexandrians for the revolt 
 of Firmus ; and the members or Fellows of the 
 Museum then either fled over sea or took refuge in 
 the Serapeum. The Serapeum Library was called 
 the Smaller or ' Daughter Library *,' but it is not 
 
 ^ Susemihl thinks that the Pergamus collection was probably 
 stored in the colonnades of the temple of Athene Polias (op. cit., ii. 
 666) : but where was this ? 
 
 '^ By Philo Judaeus: see supra, p. 373. 
 
 ^ Eusebius, however, attributes the destruction of the Bruchion 
 quarter to Claudian; and he may be right : see the note on p. 415 
 of vol. ii of Heinechen's Eusebius. 
 
 * Epiphanius, Z>e Fond, et Mens. xii. Epiphanius was a bishop, 
 for whose date see p. 409, n. 3. 
 
412 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 possible to fix a date either for the end of the 
 Mother Library^ or for the beginning of the 
 Daughter, though the latter is said to have been 
 founded by Ptolemy Philadelphus. Nor is the 
 question very material. We know that in the 
 fourth century the elder Library had perished, and 
 the younger had been some time established. 
 
 Here then in the Serapeum all the traditions of 
 the earlier learning were maintained ; the Univer- 
 sity, with its great collection of books, was estab- 
 lished ; and that association of Aristotle's name 
 with Alexandrian study which began at the Museum, 
 was continued at the Serapeum unbroken ''■■. In other 
 words, those courses of philosophic and scientific 
 study which had made Alexandria the centre of the 
 
 ^ One is bound, however, to give the opinion of Dr. Botti : 
 ' Apr^s Septime Severe il n'est plus question de la grande biblio- 
 th^que. Aprbs Caracalla I'ancien Musde n'existe plus : le Claudium 
 tient ferme jusqu'k Aur^lien,' Colonne TModostenne, p. 138. The 
 Claudium -was a sort of School of History opened by Claudius and 
 attached to the Museum; it was not very successful. Dr. Botti 
 seems to attribute the origin of the Daughter Library to Trajan or 
 Hadrian : but see Prof. Mahaflfy's Empire of the Ptolemies^ p. 167. 
 
 " This explains the frequent connexion of Aristotle's name with 
 the Serapeum buildings by Muslim writers : see above, p. 388. 
 Matter is mistaken in thinking that this association first occurs 
 in Benjamin of Tudela — ' tradition que jusque-lk aucun ^crivain 
 n'avait constat^e non plus' (J&cole dAlexandrie, t. i. pp. 327-8). 
 The fact is that it is a commonplace of Coptic and Arabic tradition 
 alike : see e.g. the Paris Coptic MS. 129", f. 92 seq., translated in 
 part by Mr. W. E. Crum, and shown to be founded on Eusebius 
 {Proceedings of Soc. Bill. Arch., Feb. 12, 1902). The reference 
 to Alexandrian learning and the school of Aristotle is on the twelfth 
 page of Mr. Crum's paper. It is an easy transition from school in 
 the sense of system of learning to school in the sense of place of 
 learning ; and the traditional study of Aristotle's system gave rise 
 to the belief that he had taught in person both at the Museum and 
 at the Serapeum. 
 
The Library of Alexandria 413 
 
 culture of the world were still in being ; only the 
 seat of learning had been moved from the Museum 
 to the Serapeum. 
 
 But towards the end of the fourth century the 
 Serapeum was doomed to destruction by the Chris- 
 tians under Theophilus. We have already seen 
 that in 366 the Caesarion was wrecked and plun- 
 dered in a fierce religious contest, in which there is 
 too much reason to think that the Caesarion library 
 perished. As Christianity gathered strength, the 
 war with paganism became fiercer. The Serapeum 
 naturally served as the camp and fortress of the 
 pagans ; and for a while they used the advantage 
 which the position gave them to raid the city and 
 slaughter the most zealous of the Christians. Siege 
 was laid to the acropolis ; but before matters were 
 forced to the last arbitrament it was agreed to take 
 the Emperor's decision. The edict of Theodosius 
 pronounced wholly in favour of the Christians. It 
 was read aloud between the contending parties in 
 the court of the Serapeum ; and as the worshippers 
 of the old Egyptian idols fled, the Christians, under 
 their bishop Theophilus, dismantled and demolished 
 the great temple of Serapis. This happened in the 
 year 391, and the fact is uncontroverted. 
 
 The case is changed when we come to the question. 
 Did the Library perish in the ruin ? To that ques- 
 tion no positive answer can be given ^ ; it is matter 
 
 ' Yet positive opinions are ventured upon by some writers. 
 Thus Nourisson Bey (La Bibl. des PioUm^es, p. 21) says that when 
 the Serapeum was taken by the Christian force, which he puts in the 
 year 389, the library was methodically plundered, and the books were 
 sent to Rome and Constantinople, where Theodosius was forming 
 a great collection. I do not know on what authority this assertion 
 rests. Prof. Bury takes quite a different view in his edition of 
 Gibbon (vol. iii. p. 495, App.): ' I conclude that there is no evidence 
 
414 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 of debate : one can only examine and test certain 
 fragments of evidence, in the hope that they may 
 justify a conclusion. Now there can be no manner 
 of doubt that the temple itself was destroyed in 391, 
 and that the destruction was thorough. It was razed 
 to the foundations, as Eunapius alleges, perhaps with 
 some exaggeration ; and one or more Christian 
 churches were built upon the site. Since, however, 
 there is no specific evidence that the Library perished 
 in the destruction of the temple, one must show one 
 of two things in order to prove the ruin of the 
 Library — either (i) that the Library was housed in 
 the temple, or (2) that the whole of the buildings on 
 the acropolis were wrecked by the Christians under 
 Theophilus ^ Of these alternatives the second is 
 easily refuted. I have already shown that as late as 
 the twelfth century there were remains of considerable 
 magnificence still standing. The exact position of 
 
 that the Library of the Serapeum did not survive till the Saracen 
 conquest.' Gibbon himself, of course, believes in the destruction 
 of the Library by the Christians under Theophilus, and not by the 
 Arabs under 'Amr. Dr. Botti agrees with Nourisson Bey in affirm- 
 ing at least the removal of the Library before 391 : 'La biblioMque 
 fille tombde au pouvoir de George de Cappadoce est saisie par 
 le gouvernement central de Constantinople en 362 : on pent se 
 demander si elle ne fut pas brflMe d'ordre de Jovien' (Colonne 
 TModosienne, p. 138). 
 
 ' Matter justly says : ' To make the destruction complete, not 
 only must the sanctuary of Serapis have been destroyed, but also 
 its vast annexes — the courts, porticoes, dwelling-rooms, and the 
 library, which had been established there over six centuries ' 
 (ticok i Alexandrie, t. i. p. 321): but the word 'there' rather 
 begs the question. He thinks the damage to these buildings was 
 slight and soon repaired; and his conclusion is that, as the 
 remembrance of the older Museum faded, the Serapeum took its 
 place in tradition as well as in fact, and that ' the new establish- 
 ment so prospered, that at the time of the Arab conquest the 
 Serapeum still possessed a considerable library.' 
 
The Library of 'Alexandria 415 
 
 these remains is as unknown as their original pur- 
 pose ^ Accordingly their survival proves nothing 
 except that, if the Library was in these buildings, it 
 may have survived with them. There is, however, 
 some fairly explicit evidence to show both the position 
 of the Library and the amount of the destruction 
 wrought \)Y the Christians. For on the one hand we 
 have the testimony of Aphthonius, who visited the 
 Serapeum in the fourth century some time before its 
 destruction ^ ; and on the other that of Rufinus, who 
 
 ^ I must, however, protest against Matter's inference from the 
 passage in Benjamin of Tudela which he quotes (op. cit., pp. 327-8). 
 Benjamin's words are : ' Outside the city is the School of Aristotle, 
 tutor to Alexander. It is a great and beautiful building adorned 
 with marble columns between every school. There are about 
 twenty of these schools, to which people used to come from all 
 parts of the world to hear the wisdom of Aristotle.' This passage 
 proves unquestionably that in the twelfth century, among the fine 
 buildings which remained, there were some twenty halls or rooms 
 adjoining a colonnade : but it does not and cannot prove that these 
 particular rooms were those used by students of philosophy. 
 Tradition associated Aristotle with the Serapeum buildings in 
 general, and therefore with those surviving when Benjamin wrote : 
 but it cannot be taken to prove that any particular surviving 
 buildings were those devoted to purposes of study, still less that 
 they were those in which the Library had been housed. I may 
 further remark that Benjamin's account does not agree with that of 
 an earlier writer, who says of the Serapeum that it is a ruin, and 
 ' nothing now remains of it except the columns or pillars, which are 
 all standing, not one of them having fallen' (Arabic MS. of 1067 
 A.D. at Paris, quoted by Dr. Botti, Colonne TModosienne, p. i). 
 Now given the fact that in the fourth century the central temple 
 was completely demolished, and also, the fact that in the eleventh 
 century certain columns are all described as still standing in situ, it 
 is quite clear that the columns referred to are those of the exterior 
 colonnade of the acropolis and not those of the temple. 
 
 '^ Matter (op. cit., p. 324) tries to place Aphthonius' visit after 391, 
 but cannot escape the difficulty in which the language of Aphthonius 
 places him. For the Syrian writer says distinctly that the annexes 
 
4i6 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 was present at the destruction, and wrote after it. 
 The two accounts help each other out : ye't it is very 
 curious that while Aphthonius does not directly 
 mention the temple, Rufinus is totally silent about 
 the Library. It is nevertheless quite clear that 
 Aphthonius associates the Library with the temple 
 building as opposed to the other buildings upon the 
 acropolis ^ ; and that at the date of his visit the 
 Library was there, open as usual t6 readers. 
 
 of the temple are built adjoining the colonnades on the inner sides, 
 some used for the library and open for students, others devoted to 
 the service of the ancient gods. Either therefore Aphthonius wrote 
 before the destruction of the pagan shrines, or else the Christians, 
 having wrecked the sanctuary of Serapis, spared and tolerated the 
 other pagan sanctuaries. Matter is forced to choose the latter 
 alternative, but it will not commend itself to many candid minds, 
 nor is there any evidence to support it. Sozomen on the contrary 
 says that the Serapeum remained in the occupation of the Christians 
 from its capture to his own time. 
 
 ' In describing the four colonnades which were built one from 
 the middle point of each side of the temple at right angles to meet 
 the exterior colonnade, he says aiXij 8e Kai-a, /aeVoi/ Trepto-mXos. A 
 comparison both with the context and with the language of Rufinus 
 proves that this avkf] must mean the temple itself : for Rufinus is 
 unmistakable — In medio iotius spatiiaedes erat. The avki] therefore 
 corresponds to the temple, which had a peristyle about it and on 
 each side a colonnade at right angles. Then follows the passage 
 already quoted (supra, p. 384, n. 2), irapcoKoSo/tiyi/rat Se o-ijkoi twv 
 tTTowv tv^oBiv, K.r.X. ; which passage makes it quite clear that both 
 the chambers set apart for the Library, and the chapels of the 
 ancient gods, were built within the peristyle of the temple, or opened 
 out of the surrounding cloister, as we might say. If there were any 
 doubt on the point, it would be removed by the inscription found 
 by Dr. Botti on the site: SapairtSt koI toTs (rvvvdois Sects wtp 
 (Torrrjpia? avTOKparopo^ Kaitrapos Tpaiavov 'Ahpiavov Se;8acrT0t), which 
 expressly places the other deities t'n the same temple (L'Acropole 
 dAlexandrie, p. 22). Moreover, either these shrines were in the 
 temple, or they were in the great exterior range of buildings. But 
 of the latter Rufinus says that they comprised lecture-rooms, or 
 abodes for the priests, or for the staff of custodians, or for the 
 
The Library of Alexandria 417 
 
 But if the Library was part of the temple building, 
 and if the temple building was utterly destroyed, 
 how can it be argued that the Library did not 
 perish ? The destruction of the temple was com- 
 plete : it was thrown down to the foundations. 
 Eunapius ^ says that ' they wrought havoc with the 
 Serapeum and made war on its statues. . . . The 
 foundations alone were not removed owing to the 
 difficulty of moving such huge blocks of stone.' 
 Theodoret, speaking of the same events, says, ' The 
 sanctuaries of the idols were uprooted from their 
 foundations ^.' Socrates says that the Emperor's 
 order was for the demolition of all the heathen 
 temples in Alexandria, and that ' Theophilus threw 
 down the temple of Serapis': and again, 'The temples 
 were overthrown, and the bronze statues melted down 
 to make domestic vessels^.' The same writer records 
 
 monks or ascetics or the like. I have no hesitation, therefore, in 
 concluding that the books were actually stored in the temple 
 building, and this agrees with all we know of such arrangements. 
 There may be a question about the Museum ; but I have already 
 shown that the Hadrianon and the Caesarion had their libraries, 
 and I may clinch matters by giving the words of Orosius — hodic in 
 templis extent, quae et nos vidimus, armaria librorum {Hist. vi. 
 
 15- 31)- 
 ' 1. c. supra, p. 381, n. i. 
 
 ^ Jlist. Eccl. V. 2 2 Ik pdOpiav avea-Tratre to. twv etSwXcov reixh/t} : 
 and he speaks of the temple of Serapis in a tone of regret : rSnr 
 7rajTa;(0i) y^s, KaOa. <j}a(TL tlvcs, fj.iyuTTO'S re oStos /cat /caWicrTOS. 
 
 ' ffist. £ccl. V. 16 \v€cr6ai tovs iv 'AXe^avSpeta vaous . . . dva- 
 KaOaipii ixkv to WLiOpaiov KaTao-Tpi<j)U Se to SapaTreiov. The Mithraeum 
 was a temple in which the bloody rites of Persia were celebrated. 
 There is nothing to prove that it was on the acropolis ; but the 
 Emperor made a special grant of the site, and the building was 
 turned into a church. So Sozomen speaking of a temple of 
 Dionysus says, TO Alovvctov Upov cts sKKk-qcrCav /iCTCo-KeiJa^e^' rebuilt 
 in the form of a church': a different expression from avaKoBaipn. 
 = ' purified and consecrated.' 
 
 BUTLER E e 
 
4i8 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 the discovery of stones with hieroglyphic inscriptions 
 during the demolition of the temple of Serapis : and 
 similar language is used by Sozomen ^, who describes 
 the Christians as having uninterruptedly occupied 
 the Serapeum from its capture by Theophilus to 
 his own time. All these writers, be it noted, belong 
 to the first half of the fourth century, and so are 
 almost contemporary. It is to be regretted that 
 they are not explicit about the fate of the Library, 
 nor do they mention the destruction of other build- 
 ings on the acropolis. Rufinus, however, throws 
 some light on the subject, because he speaks of the 
 exterior range of buildings round the edge of the 
 plateau as practically uninjured, though void of its 
 former pagan occupiers : but he makes it clear, that 
 while this outer range remained, with its lecture- 
 rooms and dwelling-rooms, not only the great temple 
 of Serapis, but the colonnades about it, had been 
 levelled to the ground ^. 
 
 ' V. 15 TOW VO.OV TovTov KaOaipovixivov. See preceding note, and 
 also supra, p. 385, n. 2. 
 
 ^ I have already given the passage from Rufinus (supra, p. 381, 
 n. i). Dr. Botti not having the Latin text before him, gives La Faye's 
 translation, which is correct ; and he justly shows that, as Rufinus 
 was a witness of the destruction of the temple, his tenses, past and 
 present, must be taken as distinguishing what survived and what did 
 not survive at the time his record was written. Accordingly Rufinus 
 proves, in Dr. Botti's opinion, that not only the statue and the temple 
 were demolished, but also ' le portique can6 de la cour centrale.' 
 The words of Rufinus here are, 'Porticus quoque post haec omnem 
 ambitum quadratis ordinibus distinctae intrinsecus circumibant.' 
 The language is rather obscure perhaps, but I translate: 'Next (to 
 this outer range) came colonnades, which used to run round the 
 whole space of the interior, dividing it into quadrangles.' This 
 agrees with the design as disclosed by Aphthonius; but if I am 
 right in this interpretation, the destruction extended further than 
 the peristyle round the temple, to which Dr. Botti seems to confine 
 it {Colonne TModosienne, p. 35). 
 
The Library of Alexandria 419 
 
 The argument now stands as follows : the Library- 
 is proved to have been stored in rooms which, like 
 the shrines of the old Egyptian gods, formed part 
 and parcel of the temple building. The temple 
 building is proved to have been utterly demolished 
 and destroyed. Therefore the Library suffered the 
 same destruction -. 
 
 Of course it may be urged that the books, as 
 opposed to the chambers which contained them, 
 may possibly have been rescued. It is indeed 
 alleged that the books had been removed bodily 
 by George of Cappadocia some thirty years before 
 the capture of the Serapeum by the Christians under 
 Theophilus : and it is asserted also that now, upon 
 the capture, they were packed off to Constantinople^. 
 It may well be doubted whether the mob which 
 hacked the statue of Serapis to pieces, burning the 
 fragments on the spot ^, and which left not a stone 
 standing of the grandest and most glorious temple 
 in the world, was in any mood to care tenderly for 
 those literary treasures, which after all were pagan, 
 and were under the guardianship of the great idol. 
 Strange as the silence is of contemporary writers, 
 
 ^ I may here remark that John Philoponus is made by Abft '1 
 Faraj to speak of the books as stored ' in the imperial treasuries.' 
 This description is at once false and instructive. It is false, because 
 the rooms in the Serapeum could by no stretch of language be 
 called ' the imperial treasuries ' : and it is mstructive, because the 
 phrase seems to carry an echo of \h!tfiscus Caesaris associated with 
 the old Museum. 
 
 ^ See supra, p. 413 n. 
 
 ' Theodoret, Htsi. Eccl. v. 22, distinctly says that the statue, 
 ■which was mainly of wood, was thus treated, only the head being 
 dragged round the city. This agrees with Michael the Syrian, who 
 says, ' L'idole fut brisde ; on la jeta au feu, et on promena sa t6te 
 par les rues' (ed. Chabot, tom. i. fasc. ii. p. 318). 
 
 E e 2 
 
420 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 it is far easier to believe that the books perished in 
 the flames ^ which consumed the image of Serapis, 
 than that they were plucked from the ruin of the 
 temple and sent oversea. Orosius indeed is quoted 
 as having seen the empty shelves or cases in the 
 Serapeum. If the quotation were accurate, it would 
 prove both that the books had disappeared by 416, 
 when Orosius wrote, and that the Library building 
 remained : but it is not accurate ;, the words do not 
 justify the construction put upon them ^. For Orosius 
 makes no mention of the Serapeum. He is speaking 
 of the destruction by fire of the original Museum 
 Library, and he argues roughly as follows : — Granted 
 that in certain temples empty bookshelves may be 
 
 ' Dr. Botti seems rather to lean to the view that the Library of 
 the Trajanum mentioned by Suidas (s. v. 'lo^Stavos) as burned by 
 Jovian may have been that at Alexandria, although the context 
 seems to associate the event with Antioch {Colonne ThMosienne, 
 pp. 139-41). 
 
 ''■ Hist. vi. 15. 31. After describing the destruction of the 
 original Library in Caesar's conflagration (see passage quoted supra, 
 p. 410, n. i), Orosius continues: 'Unde quamlibet hodieque in 
 templis extent, quae et nos vidimus, armaria librorum, quibus 
 direptis exinanita ea a nostris hominibus nostris temporibus 
 memorent-^quod quidem verum est — ; tamen honestius creditur 
 alios libros fuisse quaesitos qui pristinas studiorum curas aemula- 
 rentur, quam aliam ullam tunc fuisse bibliothecam, quae extra 
 quadringenta milia librorum fuisse ac per hoc evasisse credatur.' 
 The language is rather obscure: but its sense may be closely 
 rendered as follows : ' On this point, however true it may be that 
 at the present day there are empty bookshelves in some of the 
 temples (I myself have seen them), and that these shelves were 
 emptied and the books destroyed by our own people in our own 
 time (which is the fact) : still the fairer opinion is that, subsequently 
 to the conflagration, other collections had been formed to vie with 
 the ancient love of literature, and not that there originally existed 
 any second library, which was separate from the 400,000 volumes 
 and owed its preservation to the fact of its separateness.' 
 
The Library of Alexandria 421 
 
 seen to this day; and granted that they were emptied 
 by acts of violence done in our own time ; these facts 
 prove that Hbraries existed in recent years, but they 
 do not prove that aHbrary survived which had formed 
 a section of the old Museum Library and had escaped 
 the fire through being housed in a separate building : 
 they prove rather that other books were collected, in 
 emulation of the old Library, at a date subsequent 
 to the conflagration. 
 
 Such is Orosius' argument : it is directed to show 
 that no part of the great Ptolemaic Library was 
 rescued from the burning ; and, as Matter and 
 others contend, it contains no reference to the Sera- 
 peum ^ Precisely ; but that fact has a double bearing. 
 For if there is one inference which the language of 
 Orosius warrants beyond doubt, it is this — that at the 
 time when he wrote there was no great and ancient 
 library in existence in Alexandria. Had such a library 
 
 ^ Matter's discussion of this question is singularly unconvinc- 
 ing: see L'^cole d' Alexandrie, t. i. pp. 336 seq. He quotes John 
 Philoponus, Ad Arist. Analyt. pr. i, fol. 2 b, as saying that kv 
 ■KoKauuM /SifiXioO-qKai'i there were reported to have been forty books 
 of Analytics : and Matter from this expression infers the existence 
 of new collections. But when he quotes Ammianus {Comment, in 
 Arist. Caieg., ap. AM., fol. 3 a) as saying that forty books of 
 Analytics and two of Categories must have existed tv ry iMydXr} 
 PifikioOriKTi, he rightly urges that this statement merely proves the 
 disappearance of the Museum Library by the fifth century and not 
 the non-existence of any other Hbrary. Matter is also justified in 
 insisting that Orosius says nothing about the Serapeum; but he 
 hardly appreciates the consequences of that argument. Prof. Bury, 
 in his Appendix to Gibbon already cited, urges that Gibbon's 
 statement of the destruction of the Alexandrian Library rests only 
 on Orosius. I have shown that there is a good deal of evidence 
 independent of Orosius. When Prof. Bury adds, 'It is highly 
 improbable that Orosius was thinking either of the Alexandrian 
 Library or the Serapeum ' in regard to the empty shelves, I agree 
 with him. 
 
422 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 existed in the Serapeum in 416 a. d., it is simply 
 inconceivable that Orosius, in following the train 
 of thought which I have set out, should have passed 
 it over in silence. Orosius therefore is really a wit- 
 ness not to the destruction of the Serapeum Library 
 in 391, but to its non-existence in 416. ^ 
 
 The case, however, against the existence of the 
 Library in the seventh century, which is the point 
 at issue, is not yet complete. Of course no one 
 supposes that even in the great wars upon books — 
 such as the war made by Diocletian upon Christian 
 books and the war made by Theophilus upon pagan 
 books — all the books in Alexandria perished. Even 
 after the destruction of the great public libraries, 
 there must have been many volumes in private 
 collections, and many in the remoter monastic 
 libraries. The very fact that Alexandrian learning 
 was not extinguished proves the use of books. But 
 if the great Serapeum Library had continued in 
 existence into the seventh century, how comes it 
 that not a single writer in the fifth or sixth century 
 can be cited to establish the fact in clear and unmis- 
 takable language ? Take one particular instance. 
 I have already related the visit of John Moschus 
 and his friend Sophronius to Egypt not many years 
 before the Arab conquest; and I have shown the 
 keen intellectual interest of the two scholars and 
 their fondness for anything in the shape of a book ^ : 
 but though they were both fairly voluminous writers, 
 and though they travelled and resided a great deal 
 in Egypt, their pages will be searched in vain for 
 any allusion to other than private libraries in the 
 country. Two centuries of silence, ending in the 
 silence of John Moschus and Sophronius, seem to 
 ^ Supra, pp. 96 seq. 
 
The Library of Alexandria 423 
 
 render it impossible that any great public library- 
 can have existed when the Arabs entered Alex- 
 andria. 
 
 One or two other points remain to be noticed. 
 Let it be granted for a moment that all the fore- 
 going reasoning has not seriously shaken the theory 
 of the survival of the Serapeum Library; and suppose 
 also that the Library was intact when the Arabs cap- 
 tured Alexandria ; I would still say that its destruc- 
 tion by the Arabs is extremely improbable. For this 
 reason : that the Arabs did not enter Alexandria 
 for eleven months after its capture, and in the treaty 
 of surrender it was expressly stipulated that during 
 the interval, not only might the Romans them- 
 selves depart, but that they might carry off all their 
 movable possessions and valuables ^. During all this 
 period the sea was open, and the passage to Constan- 
 tinople and other ports was absolutely unhindered. 
 The mere market value of the books in the Serapeum 
 Library, if it existed, must have been enormous : 
 their literary value must have been keenly appre- 
 ciated by a large number of persons with intellectual 
 interests : and these students would surely have fore- 
 stalled the fabled zeal of John Philoponus by securing 
 the removal of such priceless treasures while it was 
 still time, instead of leaving them to the ignorant 
 mercy of the desert warriors to whom the city was 
 to be delivered. 
 
 Finally, the silence that prevails among fifth and 
 sixth century writers reigns also after the conquest. 
 There are no Arab historians of Egypt in the seventh 
 or eighth century ; and it might be said that later 
 writers were anxious to suppress the story of the 
 
 ' See supra, p. 320, clause 4 in the Treaty of Alexandria, and 
 John of Niliiou, p. 575. 
 
424 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 burning of the Library. But this cannot apply to 
 the Coptic bishop, John of Nikiou, who was a man 
 of learning, and who wrote before the end of the 
 seventh century. The range and the detail of his 
 work prove that he had access to plentiful sources 
 of information fifty years after the conquest. AbA '1 
 Faraj himself — the author of the charge against the 
 Arabs — proves that Alexandria continued to be 
 frequented by students about the year 680 a. d. : 
 for he represents James of Edessa as going to Alex- 
 andria to complete his education after receiving a 
 thorough instruction in the Greek language and in 
 the Scriptures at a Syrian convent \ This evidence 
 warrants the assertion that some private and monas- 
 tic libraries continued after, as before, the conquest. 
 But if there had been a great public library before 
 the conquest, and if it had been burned by the Arabs 
 at the conquest, is it possible that John of Nikiou — 
 an almost contemporary writer, who deals minutely 
 with the capture of Alexandria — should have con- 
 signed to oblivion an event which not merely im- 
 poverished his history of its best materials, but 
 robbed the literary world of its great storehouse 
 of treasure for all time ? 
 
 It may not be amiss to briefly recapitulate the 
 argument. The problem being to discover the truth 
 or falsehood of the story which charges the Arabs with 
 burning the Alexandrian Library, I have shown — 
 
 (i) that the story makes its first appearance more 
 than five hundred years after the event to which it 
 relates ; 
 
 (2) that on analysis the details of the story resolve 
 into absurdities ; 
 
 (3) that the principal actor in the story, viz. John 
 
 ^ Barhebraeus, Chron. Eccl. t. i. c. 290. 
 
The Library of Alexandria 425 
 
 Philoponus, was dead long before the Saracens 
 invaded Egypt ; 
 
 (4) that of the two great public Libraries to which 
 the story could refer, (a) the Museum Library 
 perished in the conflagration caused by Julius 
 Caesar, or, if not, then at a date not less than four 
 hundred years anterior to the Arab conquest ; while 
 (3) the Serapeum Library either was removed prior 
 to the year 391, or was then dispersed or destroyed, 
 so that in any case it disappeared two and a half 
 centuries before the conquest ; 
 
 (5) that fifth, sixth, and early seventh century 
 literature contains no mention of the existence of 
 any such Library ; 
 
 (6) that if, nevertheless, it had existed when Cyrus 
 set his hand to the treaty surrendering Alexandria, 
 yet the books would almost certainly have been 
 removed — under the clause permitting the removal 
 of valuables — during the eleven months' armistice 
 which intervened between the signature of the con- 
 vention and the actual entry of the Arabs Into the 
 city; 
 
 and (7) that If the Library had been removed, or 
 if it had been destroyed, the almost contemporary 
 historian and man of letters, John of Nlklou, could 
 not have passed over its disappearance in total 
 silence. 
 
 The conclusion of the whole matter can be no 
 longer doubtful. The suspicion of Renaudot and 
 the scepticism of Gibbon are more than justified. 
 ■ One must pronounce that Abli '1 Faraj's story Is 
 a mere fable, totally destitute of historical foun- 
 dation \ 
 
 ' My only concern in this matter has been to establish the truth, 
 not to defend the Arabs. No defence is necessary : were it needful, 
 
426 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 it would not be difficult to find something in the nature of an 
 apology. For the Arabs in later times certainly set great store by 
 all the classical and other books which fell into their hands, and 
 had them carefully preserved and in many cases translated. Indeed 
 they set an example which modern conquerors might well have 
 followed. Thus Sddillot relates {Hist. G^n. des Arabes, t. i. p. 185) 
 that when the French captured the town of Constantine in North 
 Africa they burned all the books and MSS. which they captured, 
 ' comma de vrais barbares.' The Enghsh on the capture of Magdala 
 found a large library of Abyssinian books, which they carried off : 
 but before long they abandoned the greater part at some wayside 
 church, because it was too much trouble to transport them. The 
 selection of books for keeping seems to have been made at random : 
 but the value of the books saved is some measure, of the loss to 
 the world of learning of the books abandoned. The British Museum 
 MS. of John of Nikiou was among the treasures rescued in this 
 haphazard manner. 
 
CHAPTER XXVI 
 
 CONQUEST OF PENTAPOLIS 
 
 Expedition to the West. Small opposition. Surrender of Barca 
 under treaty. Capture of Tripolis and of §abrah by storm. Return 
 of 'Amr to Alexandria, and to Babylon. Fortress built at Jizah. 
 Expedition to Nubia forced to retreat. 'Amr's description of 
 Egypt, and his sermon. Story of the virgin and the Nile. 
 
 Though the fall of Alexandria extinguished the 
 Roman Empire in Egypt, 'Amr ibn al 'Asl did not 
 regard it as marking the accomplishment of his 
 mission. The main of the Roman armies had left 
 the country — under a compact never to return. 
 Such resistance as still lingered clung to remote 
 places in the Delta, relying on natural defences of 
 river or lake, but powerless to reverse the broad 
 result of the war : thus the cities of ManzS.lah, as we 
 have seen, kept alive hostilities for several months 
 after the occupation of Alexandria. But since the 
 time when the Arab horsemen under Zubair had 
 first saved the imperilled fortunes of " Amr, a steady 
 stream of reinforcements had been poured into 
 Egypt, not merely repairing the waste of war, but 
 swelling the strength of the Arab army. Conse- 
 quently 'Amr now had at his disposal a large body 
 of troops, apart from those required to garrison the 
 chief towns and to capture the last remaining strong- 
 holds of the enemy. 
 
 The spirit of conquest was as much in the genius 
 of 'Amr as the spirit of expansion was in the genius 
 of Isldm. As soon, therefore, as Egypt was secured, 
 and before the fighting there was all over, the Arab 
 chief decided upon an expedition to Pentapolis, the 
 
428 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 next province of the Roman Empire westward of 
 Egypt. The establishment of settled government 
 for the Nile valley must have been nearly completed 
 during the eleven months of the armistice ; so that, 
 when the Arabs entered Alexandria, they had to 
 provide merely for the administration of the city. 
 Had it been otherwise it would have been impos- 
 sible for the expedition to follow so closely upon the 
 occupation of the capital as it did follow ; for the 
 date cannot be much later than the beginning of the 
 year 643 ^. 
 
 It has been shown in connexion with the revolt of 
 Heraclius against Phocas that, in the seventh cen- 
 tury, stations or towns were dotted along the whole 
 
 ' Ibn al Athlr (vol. iii. p. 19) says that the invasion of Barca was 
 in A.H. 22, i.e. Nov. 30, 642 — Nov. 20, 643. The same writer 
 (p. 38) gives correctly the date of Omar's death, and he must be 
 preferred to Yakfit and Ibn Khaldfln who give a. h. 21 for this 
 invasion. I have elsewhere suggested that the discrepancy may be 
 due to the fact that 'Amr must have started soon after the beginning 
 of the Muslim year. There was of course a second expedition to 
 Pentapolis in a. h. 25 ; but the two are clearly distinguished at 
 least in Ibn al Athlr. Severus, as might be expected, confuses 
 them ; and, in speaking of an expedition which followed the restora- 
 tion of Benjamin to the patriarchal throne, he fails to make it clear 
 that he is not referring to the first, but to the second invasion of 
 Pentapolis. Yet there is no manner of doubt on the subject : as 
 the second invasion exactly fits with the known chronology, while 
 if the first were imderstood, other events of well-ascertained date 
 would be thrown into hopeless disorder. Moreover Eutychius here 
 is of service : for he says, ' 'Amr took Tripolis in the west in a. h. 
 22, in the twenty-second year of Heraclius and the tenth of Omar's 
 caliphate.' The date of Heraclius must be ruled out, because 
 Eutychius chooses always to give it wrongly. But a. h. 22 does 
 coincide for about half the year with the tenth year of Omar, since 
 Omar began to reign July 24, 634, and his tenth year would begin 
 in the early summer of 643, while a. h. 22 ended in November, 643. 
 Tripolis was probably captured in May or June of that year. 
 
Conquest of PentapoUs 429 
 
 route between Alexandria and Cyrene, and that 
 much of the way lay through fertile country \ The 
 march, which was an easy one for Roman troops, 
 was a mere promenade for Arab horsemen ^- Nor 
 was much opposition encountered. There is no 
 record of any fighting at all at Barca, which seems 
 at once to have capitulated under treaty, agreeing 
 to pay 1 3,000 diucLrs as yearly tribute '. Two 
 curious stipulations were made, (i) that the people 
 of Barca might sell their children to raise the tribute- 
 money, and (2) that the tribute should be delivered 
 in Egypt, no tax-collector being allowed to enter the 
 country. According to Yfikiit, most of the people 
 here became Muslims. From Barca 'Amr swept 
 on to Tripolis, which was better fortified and had 
 a larger Roman garrison. The city shut its gates, 
 and for some weeks withstood the blockade which 
 the Arabs established *. The sea was open, but no 
 relief came by the sea ; and when the garrison was 
 nearly worn out with fighting or hunger, the Arabs 
 
 ' See ch. i. supra. 
 
 ^ Suyfltl implies that only cavalry were taken : Hum al Muhd- 
 darah, p. 86. 
 
 ' Ibn al AtMr, Yakflt, and Ibn Khaldfin all agree that 'Amr 
 ' made peace ' on these terms, but there is no mention of fighting. 
 
 * Ydkflt gives three months, Ibn Khaldfin one month, as the 
 duration of the siege. Yet Ibn Khaldfin, whose whole account is 
 better written and truer-looking than that of Ydkfit, speaks of the 
 inhabitants as ' worn out by the siege.' Ibn 'Abd al Hakam dates 
 the capture of Tripolis a. h. 23, according to Weil {Geschichte der 
 Chalifen, vol. i. p. 124 n.), but this would make an impossibly long 
 interval after the surrender of Barca. John of Nikiou speaks of 
 the wealthy men of the province taking refuge with Abuli^nos, the 
 Prefect, and his troops in a strongly fortified city, which he calls 
 Dfishera (p. 578). But apparently John means to say that the 
 Arabs failed to capture Dfishera : they certainly can have had little 
 or ao equipment for siege warfare. 
 
43° The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 discovered that the city was undefended on the 
 harbour side, and that an entrance was practicable. 
 A few men managed to force a passage round be- 
 tween the city wall and the sea, and rushed on the 
 enemy. As their war-cry, ' AUahtl Akbar,' rang 
 through the streets and the flash of the scimitars 
 was seen, a panic seized the defenders, who caught 
 up what goods they could carry, ran to the ships, 
 and hoisted sail. Meanwhile the gates were aban- 
 doned, and ' Amr entered with the bulk of his army. 
 Moving with characteristic swiftness, 'Amr next 
 surprised the city of Sabrah ^, dashing upon it early 
 in the morning. The inhabitants were entirely off 
 their guard, as they fancied that the Arabs were still 
 occupied in beleaguering Tripolis, and the city fell 
 at the first onset. It was taken by force of arms 
 and plundered. This marked the end of the rapid 
 campaign. 'Amr returned to Barca, where he re- 
 ceived the formal submission of the Berber tribe of 
 Lawdtah ^, which occupied most of the country ; and 
 thence he led his victorious forces back to Egypt ^, 
 
 ^ Mr. Alex. Graham in his Roman Africa (London, 1902) gives 
 at the end of his work a list of correspondences between ancient 
 and modern names. In this Sabrata (presumably the same as the 
 Arab Sabrah) is represented as the modern ZurSrah, and Barca as 
 the modern Tolometa. On p. 156 will be found an account of 
 Roman remains at Tripoli, and the whole book is full of illustrations 
 of Roman architecture, which dates from an earlier period no doubt, 
 but was not very materially altered before the Arab conquest. 
 
 ^ The Arab historians say that this tribe of Lawsttah came 
 originally from Palestine in the time of Goliath. The tradition is 
 worth recording, and it goes as far back as Ibn 'Abd al Hakam. 
 
 ' According to Weil, who is presumably quoting Ibn 'Abd al 
 Hakam, 'Amr wished to pursue his career of conquest further west- 
 ward, but was recalled by Omar, who saw more danger than 
 advantage in such a compaign. Moreover ' the Mukaukas wrote to 
 'Amr that the Romans would make an effort to recover Egypt.' 
 
Conquest of Pentapolts 431 
 
 with a long train of captives and with abundance of 
 spoil. 
 
 It is said that 'Amr wished to take up his abode 
 in Alexandria, particularly as he found so many of 
 the splendid palaces deserted. But Omar had 
 already determined that Fustit was to be the future 
 capital of Egypt, and he did not choose to have his 
 Viceroy established in a great city resting on the 
 sea and sundered from the Arabian desert by all the 
 network of the Nile. It was probably in the sum- 
 mer of 643 that 'Amr returned to Babylon, where 
 the two bridges over the Nile — joining the island of 
 Raudah with Babylon on the eastern bank and with 
 Jlzah on the western — as we have seen, had been 
 reinstated^. But the western bank with the town 
 of Memphis was exposed to sudden raids from the 
 wild desert tribes beyond the Pyramids, and to meet 
 this danger, as well as to plant the Arab power 
 firmly astride the Nile, "Amr ordered a fortress to 
 be built at Jizah. The work was finished before 
 November of that year ^. 
 
 This latter statement is certainly erroneous. Al Mukaukas was 
 dead, if Cyrus was meant : while if the title were given to Benjamin 
 (as Ibn 'Abd al Hakam seems to give it), he was still hiding in 
 Upper Egypt. 
 
 ^ These bridges were made of boats or barges, moored with their 
 heads up stream, and joined by planks. They existed before the 
 conquest; and it was part of the contract made on the surrender of 
 Babylon that the Copts should keep in repair ' the two bridges ' 
 ^^--il ~\^. See n. 19 on p. 129 of Hamaker's Expugnatio 
 Memphidis. 
 
 ^ Abfi SSlih, p. 173, says that the fortress was built in a. h. 22, 
 which ended Nov. 20, 643. Yakfit says that the Arab colony 
 established at Jtzah consisted of Himyarites, Abyssinians, and 
 members of the tribes of Hamdin, Rua'in, and Al 'Azd ibn al Hajar 
 (vol. ii. p. 177). As far as I know, this is the only mention of 
 Abyssinians as forming part of the conquering army. Abu Silih 
 
432 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Peace now reigned throughout the whole of the 
 Delta and the Nile valley as far as the southern 
 border of Egypt at Aswan. But the Sudan now, as 
 ever, was a thorn in the side of the government. 
 Its untameable tribes, secure in their mountains and 
 deserts, had no notion of changing their Christian 
 faith to Isldm, nor of abandoning their ancestral 
 right of raiding the wealthy cities of Egypt. An 
 expedition which "Amr sent against the Nubians not 
 merely failed to vanquish them, but was forced to 
 retreat^, having suffered much loss from the excep- 
 tional skill of the Nubian archers, whom the Arabs 
 henceforth distinguished as the ' eye-wounders.' 
 Desultory fighting lasted for some years ; till in the 
 reign of Othman a treaty of peace was made, under 
 which the Nubians engaged to deliver an annual 
 tribute of slaves to the ruler of Egypt, while the 
 Arabs undertook to deliver convoys of provisions 
 and a robe of honour. It was clearly a peace on 
 equal terms : the time had not yet come for the 
 conquest of the Sudin ^. 
 
 mentions only the HamdSn : and I think Yakflt must be mistaken, 
 because Balldhuri speaks of the Abyssinians as enemies. ' When 
 the Muslims occupied Egypt, an army of Abyssinians marched 
 from Al Biyami and attacked the Arabs, continuing to fight with 
 them for seven years,' he says : and he adds the curious remark, 
 'They made themselves invincible for the time by flooding the 
 country' (ed. de Goeje, p. 223). Of course in both cases the term 
 may be loosely used to denote either Sudanis of some sort or else 
 men from Yaman in South Arabia. 
 
 ' These are the very words of Ibn al Athlr. The campaign 
 may be the same as that mentioned in the preceding note as 
 recorded by Baladhurt, but Ibn al Athtr says nothing about the 
 country being flooded. According to Ya'kfibi the invasion of Nubia 
 under 'Ukbah ibn Nafi' took place before the foundation of Jlzah, 
 but he agrees that the Arabs met with a stout resistance. 
 
 ^ The final subjection of Nubia was accomplished in 652. The 
 
Conquest of Pentapolis 433 
 
 Meanwhile the country was settling down under 
 the mild and just government of 'Amr ibn al 'Asi ; for 
 that was the character it assumed when the long 
 struggle of the conquest was over. The description 
 of Egypt, which he now wrote on the demand of the 
 Caliph Omar, gives an interesting glimpse of 'Amr 
 both as poet and as statesman. It was in rhymed 
 prose, and ran as follows ^ : ' Know, O Commander 
 of the Faithful, that Egypt is a dusty city and 
 green tree. Its length is a month, and its breadth 
 ten days. It is enclosed by a barren mountain 
 range and yellow sands. The Nile traces a line 
 through its midst : blessed are its early morning 
 voyages and its travels at eventide ! It has its season 
 for rising and for falling, according to the course of 
 the sun and the moon. It causes milk to flow, and 
 brings cattle in abundance. When the springs and 
 fountains of the land are loosened, it rolls its swell- 
 ing and sounding waters till the fields are flooded on 
 both sides. Then there is no escaping from village 
 to village save in little boats, and frail skiffs, and 
 shallops light as fancy or the evening mist. After 
 the river has risen to its full measure, it sinks back 
 again to its former level. Moreover the people, who 
 are devout in worship, and are our protected allies ^, 
 have learnt to plough the earth well and truly and 
 to hasten the seed-time, trusting that the Most High 
 will give the increase and will grant the fruit of their 
 
 treaty of peace is given by Makrizl, and may be found translated 
 in Prof. Lane-Poole's Egypt in the Middle Ages, pp. 21-3. 
 
 * I have followed the version given by Abfl '1 Mahasin. It 
 differs somewhat from that given by Gibbon in his fifty-first chapter 
 from Vatier's rendering of Murtadi. 
 
 ' The use of this expression by 'Amr of course confirms the fact 
 that relations of protection and alliance between the Arabs and the 
 Egyptians were established by treaty. 
 
 BUTLER F I 
 
434 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 labour, though the labour is light. So the crop is 
 grown, and streams of water bring on the harvest, 
 as moisture from beneath gives nourishment. At 
 one time Egypt is a white pearl ; then golden 
 amber ; then a green emerald ; then an embroidery 
 of many colours. 
 
 ' Blessed be God, because it has pleased Him to 
 bestow benefits upon this land, to give it increase, 
 and so to establish the inhabitants in their country, 
 that no sound of complaint is heard from the people 
 to their ruler ; that the land-tax is not demanded 
 before its due season ; and that a third of the 
 revenue is spent on bridges and sluice-gates. If the 
 governors continue to act thus, the revenue will be 
 doubled, and God will reconcile the different 
 religions and the variety of worldly interests.' 
 
 The same genial wisdom shines through the 
 sermon which the conqueror of Egypt delivered at 
 the mosque of 'Amr, as it is still called, on the 
 Friday in Easter week of 644 ^. It is recorded from 
 the lips of one of his hearers, who went to the 
 mosque with his father. He saw the crowd driven 
 
 '"This date is the result of a series of inferences. Ibn 'Abd al 
 Hakam, from whom the sermon comes, gives it as related by Zahya 
 ibn Dahir al Ma'afirt, who says, 'I went with my father to the 
 Friday praras, at the end of winter, a few days after the Great 
 Thursday of the Christians.' If the Great Thursday means Maundy 
 Thursday, as I presume, this fixes the day. The year is less certain ; 
 but 644 seems the only year about this time in which 'Amr was 
 at FustSt and was in a position to exhort his hearers to a quiet 
 enjoyment of the country at pasture-time. The sermon is given 
 also by Suyfitt, who calls the narrator Bahtr ibn Dijir al MaghSri 
 — a good illustration of copyist corruption. Mr. Corbett in his 
 article on the mosque of 'Amr (Royal Asiat. Soc. Journal for Oct. 
 1890, p. 768) thinks that Epiphany is meant: but the Egyptian 
 winter cannot be described as over in the middle of January. 
 
Conquest of PentapoUs 435 
 
 tack with whips, as they pressed too closely ; heard 
 the muezzin call to prayer ; and watched 'Amr as he 
 mounted the pulpit. *Amr's strong build, his 
 capacious head, dark eyes, and cheerful countenance 
 made a deep impression on the young Muslim, who 
 notes also that he wore a striped garment in the 
 texture of which were threads of gold, 
 
 'Amr briefly gave praise and glory to God, and 
 prayed for the Prophet ', He urged his hearers to 
 give alms, and to render dutiful obedience to their 
 parents. He recommended moderation and forbade 
 excess. He warned the Muslims against those 
 things which cause fatigue in place of repose, narrow 
 means in place of abundance, and weakness in place 
 of strength : and those things are mainly the enlarge- 
 ment of the household, avarice in heaping up money, 
 .and vain and purposeless chatter. Idleness and 
 frivolity are the chief sources of vice, and crush out 
 the nobler desires of the soul. Then 'Amr changed 
 his subject and said: 'O ye congregation, the 
 Twins are hanging in the sky and Sirius is still 
 covered ; the heavens have begun their yearly 
 course, the sky is clear and there is no plague ; the 
 flood is diminished, the pasture is good ; milk 
 abounds for kids and lambs, and the shepherd must 
 watch well over his flock. Therefore go forth with 
 the blessing of God to your cultivated land, and 
 enjoy its benefits — milk and flocks and herds and 
 game : feed your horses and fatten them,, guard 
 them and better them, for they are your defence 
 against the enemy, and through them you gain booty 
 and wealth. 
 
 ' And take good care of your neighbours the 
 
 ^ What follows is little more than a transcript of Abil '1 Mahasin's 
 Story of the sermon taken from Ibn 'Abd al Hakam. 
 
 F f 2 
 
436 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Copts.: Omar, the Commander of the Faithful, told 
 me that he heard the Apostle of God say : God will 
 open Egypt to you after my death. So take good care 
 of the Copts in that country ; for they are your kins- 
 men and tinder your protection. Cast down your 
 eyes therefore, and keep your hands off them ^. 
 
 ' Know that you are an army of defence up to the 
 Day of Resurrection, because of the many enemies 
 who surround you, and the desire of their hearts 
 towards you and your country, which is a storehouse 
 of corn and money and wealth and blessings of 
 every kind. Omar told me that he heard the 
 Apostle of God say : When God opens Egypt to you, 
 gather a large army there, and it will be the best 
 army in the world. So Abii Bakr asked : Why, O 
 Apostle of God ? And he said : Because they and 
 their wives form an army of defence until the Day of 
 Resttrrection ^- 
 
 ' Therefore praise God, O ye congregation, because 
 He has made you rulers of this country ; and enjoy 
 
 * Ibn 'Abd al Hakam in his FuMh Misr proves by Muslim 
 tradition how strong was the claim of the Copts to good treatment, 
 and how strong was the injunction laid by Mohammed upon his 
 followers to accord it. The passage is extracted from Ibn 'Abd al 
 Hakam by Abfl Salih : see pp. 97-100, with Mr. Evetts' notes. 
 It would be well if the Muslims had remembered more often in 
 their history the dying command of their Prophet. 
 
 ^ The story as here given is not very clear. It usually takes 
 another form, viz. that Mohammed on his death-bed said three 
 times, ' Take charge of the men with curly hair ' ; then swooned 
 away. When he recovered they asked his meaning, and he said, 
 ' The Copts of Egypt are our uncles and our brothers-in-law. They 
 shall be your allies against your enemy and your helpers in your 
 religion.' When asked, 'How. shall they be our helpers in 
 religion ? ' Mohammed answered, ' They shall relieve you of the 
 cares of this world, so that you shall be at leisure for religious 
 worship.' 
 
Conquest of Pentapolts 437 
 
 your green fields, so long as' they remain pleasant to 
 you. But when the weather grows oppressive, and 
 the posts grow hot ; when flies multiply and the 
 milk turns sour ; when the herbage withers, and the 
 roses are gathered from the trees ; then come back 
 to your Fustat with God's blessing. 
 
 ' I have said my say, and may God preserve you.' 
 The Muslims have a curious tradition that one 
 of the first acts of 'Amr's administration was to 
 abolish the annual custom of sacrificing a virgin 
 to ensure the rise of the Nile. The story is that 
 the river, deprived of its immemorial tribute by 
 'Amr's ordinance, refused to lift its flood, until a 
 letter of the Caliph's was thrown in the stream 
 and secured its obedience ^. This of course is mere 
 legend : there is no more reason to believe in the 
 toleration of human sacrifice in Christian Egypt 
 than in the miraculous power of the Caliph's letter. 
 Yet this legend, like most others, seems to have 
 some foundation in history, inasmuch as among 
 the savage tribes in the far south of the Suddn the 
 custom did prevail of throwing into the Nile a virgin 
 apparelled as a bride ^; and it is possible that a 
 
 ^ The story may be found in Ibn al Fakih (Bibl. Geog. Arab. 
 part V. p. 65). It gives the date for the sacrifice as 12 Ba'finah 
 (6 June) : the refusal of the Nile continued till ' the day before the 
 festival of the Cross,' i.e. till 13 September, when the Caliph's 
 letter was flung into the river. The date shows the absurdity of the 
 story. An English version occurs in H. S. Jarrett's History of the 
 Caliphs in Bibliotheca Indica, vol. xviii. series iii. p. 130. 
 
 "^ That the custom lingered in Bornu down to modern times is 
 clear from the travels of Harnemann (vol. i. p. 143) and Burck- 
 hardt {Travels in Nubia, App. ii. p. 444), quoted by Hamaker in 
 Expugnatio Memphidis, p. 133. Hamaker also refers to Rich's 
 diary in Quarterly Review, 1820, p. 232, and his whole note is well 
 worth reading. 
 
438 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 similar custom was found in some barbarous region 
 of Nubia which was conquered in the early days of 
 Islim. It is possible also that in Egypt itself the 
 practice of sacrificing a maiden to the Nile subsisted 
 under the Pharaohs, as it is certain that a good deal 
 of more innocent superstition of ancient origin was 
 preserved in ceremonies attending the invocation 
 of the river, which lasted down to the fourteenth 
 century ^ But it is quite false to charge the 
 Christians with keeping up inhuman rites totally 
 repugnant to their religion. 
 
 The utterances of 'Amr already quoted indicate 
 clearly enough his methods of government and the 
 relations he sought to establish between victor and 
 vanquished. Even more decisive evidence of the 
 same spirit was shown in the order, which he now 
 issued, for the recall and reinstatement of the 
 Patriarch Benjamin. It was a recognition of the 
 fact that the political and the religious settlement of 
 the country were bound up together. 
 
 ^ Hamaker, ib., p. 134, records in particular the use of certain 
 relics of St. George for the purpose of raising the flood. The 
 church of St. George to which they belonged was pulled down, and 
 the relics were burned and the ashes scattered in the river, in a. h. 
 755. or 1354 A. D. 
 
CHAPTER XXVII 
 
 RESTORATION OF BENJAMIN 
 
 State of the Coptic Church at Cyrus' death. Recovery of free- 
 dom. 'Amr's invitation to Benjamin. Return of the Patriarch 
 from exile. His interview vi^ith 'Amr. Revival of the Church. 
 Repair of desert monasteries. Exultation of the Copts. Their 
 verdict on the expulsion of the Romans. 
 
 By the death of the Roman Patriarch, Cyrus, and 
 by the departure of the Roman armies on which his 
 power had rested, a tremendous change had been 
 wrought in the position of religious parties. The 
 long ordeal of the Great Persecution was over. 
 Though a new Melkite Patriarch had been appointed 
 in Alexandria, he had little or no jurisdiction beyond 
 the city walls : his power was gone, and his following 
 greatly minished. But the Coptic Patriarch was 
 still in hiding — an exile and a wanderer in Upper 
 Egypt. His Church lay weakened and almost life- 
 less, it seemed, from the blows rained upon it during 
 the space of ten years by the relentless hand of 
 Cyrus. Now, however, Christianity had ceased to 
 be the state religion ; over both parties was thrown 
 the shield of I slim, and between them its sword. 
 This state of things allowed free play to religious 
 sentiment. The Muslims had no interest in the truth 
 or falsehood of the pronouncement of Chalcedon ; 
 while the Copts were no longer under the dominion 
 of a terror which forced them to renounce or to 
 conceal their true belief. In the novel atmosphere 
 of religious freedom the Coptic Church revived, and 
 soon proved its claim to be considered the Church 
 
440 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 of the nation. 'Amr's admission of this claim was 
 sealed by his decree for the recall of Benjamin. 
 
 The decree is said to have been prompted by 
 information given to 'Amr by one Sanutius (or 
 ShanAdah), who, though a Copt by creed, had held 
 the position of dux or general in the Roman army '. 
 But even Sanutius was ignorant of Benjamin's hiding- 
 place ^, so that the decree had to be published in 
 general terms. It ran as follows : 'In whatsoever 
 place Benjamin, the Patriarch of the Egyptian 
 Christians, is living, to that place we grant protec- 
 tion and security, and peace from God. Wherefore 
 let the Patriarch come hither in security and tran- 
 quillity, to administer the affairs of his Church and to 
 govern his nation ^' It is not improbable that the 
 action of Sanutius coincided with a general act of 
 submission to Muslim authority made by the monks 
 of Widl 'n Natr<in, For Makrlzl quotes Christian 
 historians as relating that 70,000 monks from these 
 monasteries went to meet "Amr ibn al 'Ast, each 
 carrying a staff, and that when they declared their 
 allegiance, he gave them a letter — doubtless a 
 * writing of security,' and perhaps the very decree 
 in question *. As usual in Arab documents, cyphers 
 
 ' Severus, Brit. Mus. MS., p. 106, 1. 10. Most of the facts here 
 given come from the same source. 
 
 "^ This is one more proof, if proof were wanted, of the absurdity 
 of making Benjamin play the part of Al Mukaukas at the con- 
 quest. 
 
 * Abfi Silih says that in the decree it was written: 'Let the 
 Shaikh and Patriarch come forth in confidence with regard to his 
 own person and to all the Copts who are in the land of Egypt or 
 elsewhere : for they shall be safe from all violence and treachery,' 
 and so on (p. 231). This is much the same in substance, though 
 not so precise as the earlier Severus. 
 
 * Makrtzi speaks of this letter as still existing at the Wadi "n 
 
Restoration of Benjamin 441 
 
 have grown upon the original number and swollen 
 it to absurdity ; but that a deputation of 70, 
 or even 700, monks waited upon the conqueror 
 and was very well received may be regarded as 
 historical. 
 
 The bill of immunity was not long in reaching 
 Benjamin, who now came forth from his retreat, and 
 went in triumph to Alexandria. Great were the 
 rejoicings of the people upon his return. It was 
 now full thirteen years since he had abandoned his 
 seat on the arrival of Cyrus, and had stolen away 
 by the western desert. Ten years of this period 
 corresponded to the ten years' persecution, and 
 three years had been spent under the rule of the 
 Muslims ^ During the whole of this time Benjamin 
 
 Natrfln. He speaks also of another letter from 'Amr ' about the 
 treasurership of the northern districts' as preserved at Dair Macarius: 
 see MA SSlih, App., p. 320. Severus says nothing about the 
 deputation, but writes that it was ' Sanutius, the believing duke, 
 who had secured the return of the Patriarch, and obtained his 
 safe-conduct from the Muslim commander.' The existence of the 
 letter at Dair Macarius is also mentioned in Amdlineau's Histoire 
 des Monasteres de la Basse Egypie, p. xxxii. 
 
 ' There is a general agreement upon Benjamin's period of exile 
 and its division. Severus says that he came back 'after an absence 
 of thirteen years, of which ten were in the reign of Heraclius and 
 three under the Muslims,' though he adds erroneously ' before they 
 conquered Alexandria.' John of Nikiou (c. cxxi. p. 584) says that 
 he came back ' thirteen years after he had taken flight to escape 
 from the hands of the Romans,' although the rubric of the chapter 
 makes the period of exile fourteen years, viz. ten under the Roman 
 Emperors and four under Muslim rule. Makin gives thirteen years. 
 I think there can be little doubt that the return of Benjamin fell 
 towards the autumn of 644, i.e. the end of a. h. 24. Makfn 
 absurdly puts it in a.h. 20, while Severus with equal error connects 
 it with 'Amr's expedition to Pentapolis. One might produce a sort 
 of agreement between Severus and John of Nikiou by taking the 
 period of exile as fourteen years, which would date Benjamin's 
 
442 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 had been moving about among his people in secret, 
 or lurking in desert monasteries ; and it is worth 
 remarking that neither the decisive conquest of 
 Egypt by the Muslims nor the expulsion of the 
 Roman armies furnished the exiled Patriarch with 
 any reason for emerging from concealment. No fact 
 could more clearly show how history has maligned 
 the Copts in charging them with aiding the Arabs 
 or hailing their country's enemies as deliverers. If 
 the Copts had welcomed the Arabs, it could only 
 have been by command or consent of their Patriarch : 
 and if Benjamin had sanctioned any such alliance, 
 he would not have waited for three years after the 
 complete victory of the Arabs, and then have been 
 lured from his retreat only by an uncovenanted 
 promise of protection. Such an argument, if it 
 stood alone, would be strong, if not conclusive : it 
 is, however, but a link added to a chain of evidence 
 which has become wellnigh irresistible. 
 
 When Sanutius reported Benjamin's arrival in Alex- 
 andria, 'Amr commanded the Patriarch's presence, 
 giving orders at the same time that he should be re- 
 ceived with all due honour and Ceremony. Benjamin's 
 handsome and dignified bearing and his grave elo- 
 quence are represented as having made a deep 
 impression on "Amr, who remarked to his companions, 
 ' In all the countries I have conquered up to this 
 day, I have never seen a man of God like this.' 
 Of the ' noble oration,' which Benjamin is sa,id to 
 have delivered, "Amr can have understood nothing; 
 
 return a. h. 25: which was the date of the second expedition to 
 Pentapolis. But this is to do violence to Severus' story, which 
 seems to refer, however wrongly, to the first expedition ; and the 
 fact is, that it is not worth while trying to reconcile all of these 
 desperate discrepancies. 
 
Restoration of Benjamin 443 
 
 but the practical suggestions of the Patriarch were 
 well entertained, and he was given full authority to 
 bear rule over his people and to administer the 
 affairs of the Church. 
 
 The restitution of Benjamin saved the Coptic 
 Church from a perilous crisis, if not from destruc- 
 tion. Never was the guidance of a strong character 
 more needed. Under the persecution of Cyrus, as 
 we have seen, thousands had been forced out of 
 their allegiance, and had professed adherence to 
 Chalcedon. Of course conversions wrought by 
 threat or violence could not at first be real. But 
 the process had been working for ten years ; habit 
 had been growing; and the result could not be 
 undone in a moment. Even more formidable, how- 
 ever, was the defection of the Copts to Isldm. Nor 
 would it be right to attribute this defection solely to 
 motives of worldly advantage. The offer of brother- 
 hood with the conquerors and of freedom from 
 tribute was potent enough to sweep down the tide 
 all those whose religion was not strongly anchored ; 
 but it must be sorrowfully granted also that many 
 men of thoughtful mind may have sickened of a 
 Christianity which so belied its Founder — a Christi- 
 anity out of which all love and all hope had vanished 
 in the war of sects — and hence may have sought 
 refuge and repose in the calm simplicity of Islam. 
 
 There was little or no prospect of bringing back 
 to the fold those who had renounced the Christian 
 faith altogether ; but it was otherwise with regard to 
 many of those who had been driven by force or fear 
 into the Melkite communion. The news of Benjamin's 
 reappearance and return to the throne of Alexandria 
 roused the greatest enthusiasm throughout Egypt. 
 Most of the common people returned with joy to 
 
444 ^^^ Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 their old pastor, 'and received the crown of con- 
 fession ^' The apostate bishops, who had joined 
 the Church of the Empire, were also invited to 
 resume their old allegiance. Some of them were 
 received back with bitter tears of penitence ; but 
 one bishop in particular is mentioned as refusing to 
 return for very shame and for fear of being known 
 as an apostate. His case was probably typical of 
 many. Still the cause of the Coptic Church pro- 
 gressed. While at first Benjamin ' turned all his 
 thoughts by day and by night to bringing back the 
 scattered members of his flock that had gone astray 
 in the days of Heraclius,' later, as he succeeded in 
 reuniting and reorganizing the body of his people, 
 he gave his mind to rebuilding the ruined monas- 
 teries, particularly those of the Widl 'n Natron, 
 which had never recovered from the devastation 
 wrought early in the seventh century. 
 
 The money was found and the work was done. 
 Severus gives a long and interesting account of 
 events in this connexion. He shows how a depu- 
 tation of monks came to Alexandria and entered 
 the ' Porch of the Angels ^,' as Benjamin was cele- 
 brating on Christmas Day; how they begged him to 
 come and consecrate the newly built church of St. 
 Macarius in the desert ; how Benjamin granted their 
 request, and travelling by Al Muna and Mount Bar- 
 nuj arrived at the monastery of Baramlis, whence 
 he went to visit other monasteries. So on the 2nd 
 January he came to the Dair Macarius, whence he 
 
 ' Severus, 1. c, p. 107, 
 
 '^ The term is 'Stoa Angelon,' a mere transcription of the 
 Greek. It clearly refers to the church called the Angelion, 
 and would seem to prove that Angelion is more correct than 
 Euangelton. 
 
Restoration of Benjamin 445 
 
 was welcomed by the 'great teacher' Basil, bishop 
 of Nikiou, and a procession with palm-branches and 
 censers. On the following day, 8th Tlibah, the 
 church was solemnly consecrated — with attendant 
 miracles which need not here be recorded. One 
 may, however, notice the words of Basil, who ' gave 
 thanks to the Lord who had made the Patriarch 
 worthy to see that glorious desert once more, and 
 those holy fathers and brethren, and the procla- 
 mation of the orthodox faith ; who had saved him 
 from the heretics, and had delivered his soul from 
 the great and cruel dragon which drove him away, 
 and had granted him to behold his children once 
 more around him ^.' 
 
 This is not the language of people suffering under 
 oppression, but the language of people rejoicing in 
 deliverance. Its tenour is fully confirmed by other 
 passages of the same writer. ' I was in my city of 
 Alexandria, and found a time of peace and safety 
 after the troubles and persecutions caused by the 
 heretics ^' are the words put into the mouth of Ben- 
 jamin ; and his people are described as ' rejoicing 
 like young calves when their bonds are loosened, 
 and they are set free to suck their mother's milk.' 
 John of Nikiou wrote fifty years after the conquest, 
 and he is unsparing in his denunciation of the Muslim 
 religion and the renegades who adopted it ; but of 
 ' Amr he remarks that ' while he exacted the taxes 
 which had been determined upon, he took none of 
 the property of the churches, and committed no 
 act of spoliation or plunder ; nay, he preserved the 
 churches to the end of his days ',' The relief, 
 
 ^ Severus, 1. c, p. iii, 11. 15-20. 
 
 ^ Id., p. no, 1. 5, and p. 108, 1. 18. 
 
 ' p. 584. Vansleb alleges that he saw on the walls of Al 
 
446 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 therefore, of the Copts was very great. They had 
 passed out of the long reign of terror, under which 
 the folly of the Byzantine government had placed 
 them, into a state of peace and security. Before 
 they had been under a double bondage, civil and 
 religious ; now their civil bondage was lightened 
 and their religious bondage removed. True, their 
 new rulers brought a strange and unchristian creed 
 into the land, but even in this result they could read 
 the divine judgement. For all agreed in saying, 
 ' This expulsion of the Romans and victory of the 
 Muslims is due to the wickedness of the Emperor 
 Heraclius and his persecution of the orthodox by 
 means of the Patriarch Cyrus ; this was the cause 
 of the ruin of the Romans and the subjugation of 
 Egypt by the Muslims^.' Such was the popular 
 verdict. The verdict of history will not take quite 
 so sectarian a colour; but it will most surely confirm 
 the reasoning which links together the misgovern- 
 ment and the downfall of the Roman Empire. 
 
 Mu'allakah in Kasr ash Shama' or Babylon a contract given by 
 'Amr ibn al 'As! in his own hand for the protection of the church : 
 it cursed all Muslims who should wish to deprive the Copts of it. 
 He alleges that the Copts ransomed the church from 'Amr {^Nouvelle 
 Relation d'un Voyage /ait en igypte, p. 237). 
 1 Id., ib. 
 
CHAPTER XXVIII 
 MUSLIM GOVERNMENT 
 
 .Equality of Christians before the law. Status of a protected 
 people. Religious conditions. Political settlement. Roman 
 officials retained. Land-tax and poll-tax: nature and amount. 
 'Amr's just government and the Caliph's displeasure : their corre- 
 spondence. Omar's avarice imitated by Othman. Story of Peter 
 the Copt. Exemption of converts from the poll-tax and its 
 consequences. Decline of state revenue. Pressure on the 
 Christians. 
 
 After all that the Copts had suffered at the 
 hands of the Romans and the Patriarch Cyrus, it 
 would not have been unnatural if they had desired 
 to retaliate upon the Melkites. But any such design, 
 if they cherished it, was sternly discountenanced by 
 'Amr, whose government was wisely tolerant but 
 perfectly impartial between the two forms of religion. 
 Many facts might be cited in proof of this conten- 
 tion : for example, the admission of Severus that 
 a Melkite bishop remained a Melkite to his death ; 
 his evidence that Benjamin worked on the perverts 
 only by persuasion and remonstrance; the continued 
 mention of Melkite churches in later history * ; and 
 the fact that the Melkites are spoken of in consider- 
 able numbers fifty years after the conquest ^. So 
 
 ' One such church on the top of the tower in Kasr ash Shama' 
 has remained to this day in the very centre and stronghold of the 
 Copts. 
 
 ' The contemporary document Vt'e du Patriarche Isaac (tr. 
 Amdlineau, p. 52) records that the Patriarch ' convertit un grand 
 nombre de leur herdsie; il les amena \ la foi orthodoxe: \ quel- 
 ques-uns il donna le baptSme, il regut les autres en les faisant 
 anath^matiser eux-mSmes leurs h^r^sies,' &c. The heresy must 
 
448 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 that the two forms of Christianity must be imagined 
 as subsisting side by side under the equal protection 
 of the conquerors. 
 
 Nor does this protection seem at that early date to 
 have been trammelled with conditions which the law 
 of I slim carried in its later developments. The status 
 of a protected people was created by the treaty of 
 peace, by which the Christians engaged to pay 
 tribute in return for security at home and protection 
 against foreign enemies. But as early as the tenth 
 century the law declares that the obligation to pay 
 tribute is governed by two classes of conditions — 
 the first absolutely binding in all cases, the second 
 depending in each case on the terms of the treaty. 
 The binding conditions are these : (i) the Kurin 
 is not to be reviled, nor copies of it burned ; (2) the 
 Prophet must not be called a liar nor spoken of 
 contemptuously ; (3) the religion of IslS.m is not to 
 be condemned, nor must any attempt be made to 
 refute it ; (4) no Christian may marry a Muslim 
 woman ; (5) no attempt may be made to seduce a 
 Muslim from his religion, nor to injure him in purse 
 or person ; (6) the enemies of Islim must not be 
 assisted, nor the rich men among them entertained. 
 The contingent conditions are as follows ; (i) sub- 
 jects must wear a distinctive garment with a girdle 
 fastened round the waist ; (2) their houses must not 
 be built higher than those of the Muslims ; (3) the 
 sound of their bells ^ must not be forced on the ears 
 of Muslims, nor their reading or chanting, nor their 
 opinions on their peculiar tenets, whether Jewish or 
 
 be mainly if not exclusively that of the Byzantine Church — the 
 following of Chalcedon. 
 
 * The ndkfis is more strictly a wooden gong than a bell. See 
 supra, p. 343, n. 4. 
 
Muslim Government 449 
 
 Christian; (4) crosses must not be displayed nor 
 wine drunk in public, nor must swine be seen; (5) 
 the dead are to be mourned in private and to be 
 buried in private; (6) subjects must ride only 
 common horses or mules, not thoroughbreds ^ 
 There is nothing very unreasonable in any of these 
 conditions, but it may be doubted whether they 
 were attached to the payment of tribute so early as 
 the conquest of Egypt, Many regulations, which 
 grew out of usage into law, came in the days of law 
 to be regarded as part of the original constitution of 
 Islim. For example, Ma'wardl says, 'It is not lawful 
 for subject people to build a new church or syna- 
 gogue in the territory of Islllm, and any such 
 building must be demolished ; but they may restore 
 old churches or synagogues which have fallen into 
 ruin.' But this distinction cannot be traced in the 
 beginnings of Muslim rule in Egypt, because not 
 only is Benjamin described as receiving a large sum 
 of money from the duke Sanutius for the purpose 
 of building a church to St. Mark in Alexandria ^, 
 but the Patriarch John of Samantid did actually 
 build a church with the same dedication ^, and under 
 his successor, Isaac, the ruler of Egypt 'Abd al 
 
 • These details are from Ma'wardt, who wrote in the first half of 
 the eleventh century; died a. h. 450 = 1058 a.d. His work, Kttdb 
 al Ahkdm as Sultdniah, is the chief authority for early taxation, 
 and is freely used in the present chapter. The long passage 
 about the taxes begins on p. 245 for the tribute, and 253 for the 
 land-tax. 
 
 ^ Severus, 1. c, p. 108, \. 10. It is not quite clear whether 
 Benjamin succeeded in raising enough money. The text does not 
 support the idea that there was any question of rebuilding the 
 original church of St. Mark. 
 
 ' Vie du Patriarche Copte Isaac (ed. Am^Iineau), p. 44. John's 
 date was 680-9 a.d. : see Appendix F. 
 
 BUTLER G g 
 
450 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 'Aziz himself is represented as giving orders for the 
 erection of a church at his newly settled town of 
 yulwdn ^ It would seem, therefore, that in matters 
 ecclesiastical the Copts were granted every reason- 
 able freedom. 
 
 It is less easy to define the political settlement of 
 the country. Broadly speaking, however, the civil 
 administration was maintained unaltered. The 
 Arabs were good fighters, but they had received no 
 tradition and no training in the arts of government, 
 nor did they possess any system which they could 
 substitute for or graft upon the ancient and highly 
 organized civil service of Egypt. But they had 
 a quick and receptive intelligence, and were per- 
 fectly capable of taking over and directing machinery 
 which they found in working order. It has been 
 shown above that some of the highest Roman 
 officials not merely retained their posts, but adopted 
 the religion of IsMm, and probably a number of 
 Roman people followed their example. On the 
 other hand, a great number of vacancies must have 
 b^en created by the departure of those Romans who 
 declined to remain as Muslim subjects. These 
 places were filled with Coptic Christians, and in no 
 long time practically the whole business of the 
 state was managed by Christians. This was not 
 merely a result logically flowing from the conquest 
 of a highly civilized by an uncivilized people, but 
 it was prudently foreseen and expressly sanctioned 
 by Mohammed himself. In this way, unfettered by 
 worldly cares, the Muslims could better devote 
 themselves to religion. It is, however, curious to 
 find with what vitality the old Roman titles persisted 
 
 ^ Vie du Pairiarche Copie Isaac, p. 78. The date would doubtless 
 be 693. 
 
Muslim Government 451 
 
 under Arab rule : for quite at the end of the seventh 
 century the Copts continued to speak of a registrar 
 or secretary as ckartularius, of his superior as 
 eparckos of the land of Egypt or archon, of the 
 governor's residence as the praetorium, while the 
 governor of Alexandria is actually called the au- 
 giistal'^ : moreover, the term dux is found in several 
 eighth-century documents ^, mostly legal, and is used 
 by the tenth-century writer Severus ^. 
 
 But while the Roman system of registration and 
 of collection was continued, it seems probable that 
 the taxation fixed under treaty by the Arabs was at 
 once somewhat less vexatious and less burdensome 
 than the Roman. It is hard to get at the truth in 
 such matters. One is dependent upon Arab writers, 
 whose proneness to differ on points of history reaches 
 its climax on questions of statistics. Thus Ibn 'Abd 
 al Hakam* alleges that when 'Amr was firmly estab- 
 lished, he made the Copts pay a similar tribute to 
 that exacted by the Romans, but it was to fluctuate 
 in proportion to their wealth and prosperity. This, 
 I think, can only mean that he continued the Roman 
 system of land-tax : for the poll-tax imposed by 
 the Arabs was a fixed payment, while undoubtedly 
 the land-tax varied in accordance with the rise of the 
 Nile and the general conditions of agriculture. Ibn 
 'Abd al Hakam goes on to say that it was the duty 
 of the village headmen to meet and examine into 
 the state of agriculture, and to distribute the burden 
 
 ' Vie du Patriarche Copie Isaac, pp. 5, 7, 73. 
 
 2 See Mr. W. E. Crum's Copiic Ostraka, no. 356. 
 
 ^ Mr. Milne shows how the framework of the Roman system of 
 local government is preserved under Muslim arrangements even to 
 this day; see his Egypt under Roman Rule, p. 216. 
 
 * Quoted by Suyflti, p. 87. 
 
 Gg 2 
 
432 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 of taxation accordingly. They were in fact a sort 
 of local commissioners for the assessment of the 
 land-tax. Any surplus above the prescribed amount 
 was to be expended on local improvements, and 
 a portion of land in every township was set aside to 
 provide a fund for the maintenance of public build- 
 ings, such as churches and baths. Any hospitality 
 which the Muslims claimed of right from the Copts 
 was to be taken into account, as well as the stated 
 expenses for the entertainment of the governor 
 upon his visit. 
 
 Such no doubt is a fair description of the inci- 
 dence of the land-tax. But it is not clear whether 
 this land-tax was specially imposed by treaty at the 
 conquest, or was merely continued and regarded as 
 the ordinary • Incident of land tenure ; nor is it 
 always clear whether Arab writers in speaking of 
 the revenue of Egypt refer to the total of taxation, 
 or to the amount of the poll-tax, or tribute, alone. 
 On the whole it would seem that they are dealing 
 with the tribute. For on the one hand we are told 
 that the population paying the capitation-tax of two 
 dinars under the capitulation was 6,000,000 ; and 
 on the other the revenue raised by 'Amr after the 
 settlement is given as 12,000,000 dinars \ This 
 
 ' Suyflti, I. c, quotes 'Abdallah ibn Salih for these figures, and 
 Abii S^lih (p. 82) makes the very interesting statement that in 
 A. H. 30 'Amr raised 1,000,000 dinSrs, while in a. h. 22 he raised 
 1 2,000,000. In other words, in the year coincident with the capture 
 of Babylon the poll-tax amounted to one million, which increased 
 to twelve on the completion of the conquest. This sounds extremely 
 probable. The same figure of 12,000,000, is given by Ibn Haukal 
 on the authority of Abii Hdzim al Kadi (fiill. Geog. Arab, part ii. 
 p. 87), who expressly states that the amount in question repre- 
 sented the poll-tax alone. When Balddhurt states that the revenue 
 raised by 'Amr in Egypt was 2,000,000 (p. 216), one must regard 
 
Muslim Government 453 
 
 sum is contrasted by Muslim historians with the 
 20,000,000 said to have been levied by AI Mukau- 
 kas\ If these figures could be taken as accurate, 
 and as calculated upon the same basis, so as to 
 furnish a fair comparison, they would of course 
 prove that Arab rule brought to the Egyptians 
 a great relief of taxation. But while the Arab 
 figures denote the revenue raised by the poll-tax 
 alone, it is hardly likely that the Roman figures 
 refer to that one heading, although a poll-tax was 
 one among the many items in the Roman schedule 
 of taxation I Still there can be no doubt either 
 that the Roman taxes were excessive in amount 
 and unjust in their incidence, owing to the exemp- 
 tion of privileged persons or communities', or that 
 Heraclius was very hard pressed for money in the 
 years preceding the Arab conquest : and there is 
 no reason for discrediting the plain statement of 
 
 the discrepancy as due to a copyist's blunder, which blunder is 
 repeated in the figure 4,000,000 given instead of 14,000,000 as 
 the revenue raised by 'Abdallah ibn Sa'd. Ya'kfibi says (id., part vii. 
 P- 339) that 'Amr raised 14,000,000 in his first year and 10,000,000 
 in the next. Here the difference is not easily explained ; but 
 12,000,000 seems settled by a concurrence of testimony, in spite of 
 the fact that Makrizi, Khitat, i. p. 76, makes the population on which 
 the tribute was levied 8,000,000. 
 
 ' Abfl SSlih is not very consistent. He seems to say (p. 81) 
 that the Romans levied 20,000,000, and at the same time that the 
 tribute which Heraclius required of Cyrus was 18,000,000. He 
 may mean that the balance was retained by Cyrus. 
 
 ^ See Mr. Milne's Egypt under Roman Rule, pp. 12 1-2. The 
 whole of this chapter is worth reading, for it shows at once how. 
 arbitrary and complex the taxation was, and how closely in many 
 details the Arab system followed the Roman: see, for example, 
 pp. 119 and 125. 
 
 ' Mr. Milne, I.e., quotes Josephus as showing that the Alexandrians 
 were exempt from the poll-tax; but how long that exemption 
 continued is not stated. 
 
454 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 the Muslim historians that upon the conquest the 
 burden of taxation was lightened. On the other 
 hand, exemptions were abolished. Some obscurity- 
 hangs over the position in Alexandria. It is certain 
 that the people sorely fretted under the new system. 
 This result might be due to the loss of a privileged 
 immunity from poll-tax, if such immunity existed ; 
 or it might be due to the fact that the city suffered 
 out of all proportion both by the interruption and 
 the loss of its lucrative commerce during the long 
 war, and by the departure of many wealthy mer- 
 chants and burghers upon the capitulation. But 
 the capitulation itself is harder to understand, if 
 under it the city had to sacrifice an ancient immu- 
 nity from direct tribute. On the whole it seems 
 more probable that Alexandria had been robbed of 
 its privilege at some time before the conquest. 
 
 The tribute, which the Arabs call jiztah, was 
 fixed, as has been shown, at two dinars a head, and 
 was not levied on old men or children, or women or 
 slaves, or madmen or beggars. But although every 
 man was liable for his share of tribute, so that the 
 total amount of the poll-tax depended on the count 
 of polls, it seems that the incidence of the tax 
 varied, and consequently shares were not equal. 
 The two gold pieces would be nothing to a rich 
 man, but a heavy burden to the fellih. Hence the 
 governor seems to have had the right to divide the 
 tributaries into three classes — the poor, the middle- 
 class, and the wealthy — and to assign to each a 
 different proportion of the tribute^. This arrange- 
 
 ' Makrfzl quotes Yazid ibn Aslam for the statement that Omar 
 wrote to the military commanders, ordering the tribute to be so 
 apportioned that the rich man's poll-tax should be four dindrs, the 
 poor man's forty dirhems. This seems too sharp a division. On 
 
Muslim Government 455 
 
 ment, however just in theory, was obviously liable 
 to abuse ; and it did in fact lead to arbitrary increase 
 of taxation in defiance of the treaty. Nothing could 
 be more equitable in the abstract than that the tax 
 on each poll should vary with a man's means of 
 payment, while the total remained unchanged; or 
 that, while the total of land-tax varied with the 
 season, the charge on any particular holding should 
 vary with the productiveness of the soil : but it was 
 not in human nature that such a system should 
 continue to be honestly administered. It demanded 
 ideal justice, but opened the door to every form of 
 avarice and corruption : and it is no wonder that it 
 broke down in practice. 
 
 In this connexion it is interesting to notice Ibn 
 'Abd al Hakam's story that 'Amr, upon the request 
 of the Caliph Omar, asked the Patriarch Benjamin^ 
 
 the other hand, Ma'wardl says, ' There is a dispute among lawyers 
 as to the amount of the jiztah. According to AbA Hantfah there 
 are three different amounts : (i) from the rich are due forty-eight 
 dirhems ; (2) from the middle-class twenty-four ; (3) from the poor 
 twelve. These sums he gives as the maximum and the minimum, 
 and he forbids governors to exercise their own discretion as to the 
 amount.' It is impossible to read Ma'wardJ without being struck 
 by admiration for the extraordinary sense of justice and fairness 
 which animates the theory and system of taxation he is describing. 
 I give one example : ' Even when a protected people breaks its 
 treaty by refusing payment of tribute, it is not lawful to kill or to 
 rob them or to take their children, so long as they abstain from 
 violence. Such rebels, however, must be given a safe-conduct and 
 quit the territory of Islam ; and if they refuse to depart submissively, 
 they must be ejected by force.' Nothing could better show how 
 permanent was the idea of a contract subsisting between protectors 
 and protected. 
 
 ^ Ibn 'Abd al Hakam says it was Al Mukaukas who was con- 
 sulted : but he clearly identifies the Mukaukas with Benjamin in 
 many passages. Of course 'Amr might have asked the same 
 questions of Cyrus : but Ibn 'Abd al Hakam represents the Mukaukas 
 
456 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 what was the best way of keeping the country in 
 order and raising the revenue. The conditions laid 
 down by the Patriarch were these : (i) that the 
 taxes should be collected at the right time, viz. the 
 end of the agricultural season; (2) that no taxes 
 should be demanded after the vintage ; (3) that the 
 canals should be dug out yearly ; (4) that the dykes 
 and sluice-gates should be kept in repair ; and 
 (5) that no unjust or tyrannical official should be 
 appointed. This fifth condition was the hardest of 
 all to secure ; for the very nature of the appoint- 
 ment tended to develop just those qualities which 
 would render it fatal. 
 
 That the early government of 'Amr was animated 
 by a spirit of justice and even sympathy for the 
 subject population, can hardly be questioned. He 
 received, however, little encouragement from the 
 Caliph. 'Amr had filled the Caliph's granaries with 
 corn from Egypt, had poured gold into his coffers, 
 and had extended his dominion : in return he re- 
 ceived little but abuse and ingratitude from Omar. 
 The relations of the two men at this time are shown 
 in a vivid light by some correspondence which has 
 been preserved, and which must be regarded as 
 quite authentic^. ' I have been thinking,' writes 
 
 as alive at the time of Manuel's rebellion. Moreover the incident 
 of the consultation seems the same as that quoted above from 
 Severus, although Severus makes Benjamin's advice quite general. 
 Makrizt gives the terms of the reply rather differently : for he 
 places among the conditions of good government (i) that the land- 
 tax be levied only in kind, {2) that no delay be allowed, and 
 (3) that the officials be paid punctually. 
 
 ' See Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen, t. i. p. 125 n. Ibn 'Abd al 
 Hakam, who gives the letters, had actually seen them, and De Sacy 
 is quoted as fully admitting their authenticity, basing his opinion 
 partly on the archaic character of the language used. I have 
 followed Weil's translation closely. 
 
Muslim Government 457 
 
 Omar, ' upon you and your condition. You find 
 yourself in a great and splendid country, whose 
 inhabitants God has blessed in number and power, 
 by land and by water. It is a land which even the 
 Pharaohs, in spite of their unbelief, brought by use- 
 ful works to a state of prosperity. I am therefore 
 greatly astonished that it does not bring in the half 
 of its former revenue, although this falling-off can- 
 not be excused by reason of famine or failure of 
 crops. Moreover you have written ere this of 
 many taxes which you have laid upon the country. 
 I hoped now that they would come to me, instead 
 of which you bring excuses which have no meaning. 
 I shall surely not take less than was formerly paid. 
 . . . Even in the past year^ I might have demanded 
 this of you, but I hoped that you would yourself 
 fulfil your duty. Now, however, I see that it is 
 your bad administration which hinders you. But, 
 by the help of God, I have means to compel you to 
 render me what I demand ' ; and so forth. 
 
 'Amr answers by admitting that under the 
 Pharaohs, who gave great attention to agriculture, 
 Egypt was more productive than now under the 
 rule of the Muslims^ : but he goes, on to complain of 
 the hard words used by the Caliph. ' I have served 
 
 ^ This seems to date the correspondence to about the beginning 
 of 644. 
 
 ' ^ Ibn Rustah {Bibl. Geog. Arab, part vii. p. ii8) says that the 
 revenue of Egypt under the Pharaohs was 96,000,000 dinars. Abu 
 Salih says that the Pharaoh of Moses' time raised 90,000,000, and 
 Makrlzt gives 90,000,000, adding that, according to Ibn Dahiah, 
 the dinir then was worth three of Muslim date. ' Ash Sharif al 
 Harrini says that from a Sahidic list translated into Arabic he found 
 that the revenues of Egypt in the time of Joseph amounted to 
 24,400,000 dinars,' i. e. 73,200,000 Muslim dinars : see Mr.Evetts' 
 note on p. 80 of Abii Salih. 
 
458 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 the Apostle of God,' he proceeds, ' and his successor, 
 Abll Bakr; I have (praise be to God) answered 
 to the trust reposed in me, and I have rendered 
 towards my prince the duty which God laid upon 
 me. . . . Now take back the governorship which you 
 have given me : for God has kept me free from the 
 avarice and meanness wherewith you have charged 
 me in your letters. . . . You could not have said 
 more of a Jew of Khaibar, God forgive you and 
 me.' 
 
 This simple and dignified language produced no 
 effect upon Omar, who replied bluntly : ' I did not 
 send you to Egypt in order to sate your lusts and 
 those of your people, but because I hoped you would 
 by good administration increase our revenue. There- 
 fore upon receipt of this letter send me the taxes ; 
 for I have here people in great need,' 
 
 'Amr begged for a respite till the time of harvest 
 — precisely in accordance with Benjamin's maxim. 
 He urged that he could not raise a large revenue 
 without injustice to the natives, and that it was 
 better to be merciful to them than to oppress them, 
 or to force them to provide the money by selling 
 their necessaries ^ It is needless to credit him, as 
 Weil does, with insincerity and with sordid motives : 
 for even if the love of money was growing upon 
 the conqueror, it had not at this time filled his mind 
 to the dispossession of his sense of justice and sense 
 of duty to the Egyptians. But Omar set his face 
 like flint against mercy in money matters. He 
 dispatched Muhammad ibn Maslamah to Egypt with 
 orders to raise what he could beyond the tribute 
 
 ' This sentence is translated from Mak:rizt, Khitat, i. p. 78. 
 An account of the correspondence is also given by Balddhurl 
 (p. 219). 
 
Muslim Government 459 
 
 which 'Amr had already remitted, or, according to 
 another account, to demand from 'Amr one half of 
 his private possessions. It is true that Ibn Masla- 
 mah charged 'Amr with protecting the Egyptians 
 for his own profit, just as Omar charged him with 
 neglect of duty and fraud. But the admission that 
 'Amr did protect the Egyptians, together with the 
 language of his own apology, outweighs the evidence 
 against him. And in truth the charge of greed 
 recoils on Omar, who, as Balidhuii says, 'was in 
 the habit of fixing and writing down the total of the 
 revenues of each province, when he appointed a 
 governor for it; and whatever was raised beyond 
 this amount he used to share with the governor, or 
 in some cases take entirely for himself. Thus even 
 the heroic Khalid had been called upon in Syria 
 to give an account of all his possessions, and had 
 been ordered to surrender one half of them, even 
 it is said to the abandonment of one of the sandals 
 on his feet. When counselled to restore what he 
 had taken, Omar replied, ' Before God, I restore 
 nothing : I am a merchant for the benefit of the 
 Muslims.' By the Muslims he meant either himself 
 or the narrow clique at Mecca : and this purblind 
 view of his duty to Islam, this policy of filling his 
 exchequer at the expense of his newly won do- 
 minions, was destined to cost him his life. 
 
 But the disastrous lesson had been too well learnt 
 by his successor. When 'Abdallah ibn Sa'd, who 
 was made governor of Upper Egypt and the Faytlm 
 by Omar, replaced the conqueror as Viceroy of 
 Egypt, he contrived to wring another 2,000,000 
 din3.rs from the natives, raising the sum to 14,000,000. 
 ' The milch-camel gives more milk than in your 
 time,' said Othman to 'Amr. ' Yes,' was the reply ; 
 
460 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 ' and the reason is that you are starving her young 
 ones.' Not merely that, but to raise the tribute 
 was clearly unlawful. I have already shown that 
 when Warden was ordered by the Caliph Mu'awlah 
 to increase the tribute levied on the Copts, he 
 answered that it was impossible owing to the terms 
 of the treaty ^ : and I have quoted 'Urwah son of 
 Zubair as saying that ' the people were taxed above 
 their means and were in distress, notwithstanding 
 the fact that *Amr had made with them a treaty on 
 fixed conditions.' 
 
 All this contrasts with and vindicates the justice 
 of 'Amr. One anecdote told by Ibn 'Abd al Hakam, 
 if it deserved credence, would give rather a different 
 impression. 'Amr, he says, threatened death to any 
 Copt who concealed treasure. A Christian of Upper 
 Egypt, named Peter, was charged with such conceal- 
 ment, but when brought before 'Amr, he stoutly 
 denied it, 'and so was imprisoned.' Shortly after- 
 wards 'Amr inquired if Peter had mentioned any 
 name, and was told that he had only spoken of a 
 monk of Mount Sinai. Thereupon 'Amr had Peter's 
 signet-ring removed, wrote a letter to the monk 
 saying, ' Send me what you have,' and sealed it in 
 Peter's name. In due time there came a messenger 
 bearing in answer a small jar closed with a leaden 
 seal. This was opened by 'Amr, who found inside 
 a paper with the words, ' Your property is under 
 the cistern.' So 'Amr had the water drawn off fropi 
 the cistern, and when the stone slabs of the floor 
 
 ^ Baladhuri, p. 217. Makrizt agrees. He gives WardS.n's 
 answer as follows, ' How can the tribute be increased, when it was 
 expressly stipulated that it should not be increased ? ' but he adds 
 the information that Mu'awlah's order was merely to increase the 
 tribute by one kirdt, i.e. by' 5^,. or say two per cent. 
 
Muslim Government 461 
 
 were taken up, a chamber was found containing 
 thirty-two ^ bushels of gold coin. Thereupon Peter 
 was beheaded in front of the mosque of 'Amr at 
 Babylon. One ought not perhaps to pass over such 
 a story in silence ; but it would not stand and is 
 hardly worth serious criticism. It is just one of 
 those romances with which the writer loves to em- 
 bellish his history. It is certain that the Copts had 
 bitter reason to regret the removal of 'Amr from the 
 government. 
 
 Little more need be said here about the incidence 
 of the taxation : there is, however, one point of 
 great importance to notice. The Muslims were at 
 first forbidden to acquire land, and the land grants 
 made were very few 2. The idea was that they 
 should remain as soldiers, and not engage in agri- 
 culture as settlers. As the permanency of the occu- 
 pation was realized, this restriction was withdrawn 
 or abandoned, and the Muslims became landowners. 
 But in all cases the land which they acquired re- 
 mained subject to land-tax, of which the equitable 
 apportionment in no wise varied when possession 
 was transferred from a Copt to a Muslim. Con- 
 sequently if a Copt changed his religion for I slim, 
 he gained no remission of the land-tax. It was 
 otherwise, however, with the poll-tax. The pay- 
 ment of poll-tax or tribute was the sign of subjection 
 and the token of unbelief. The adoption of Islim 
 cancelled at once the unbelief and the subjection. 
 On this point the Arab writers are agreed. The 
 Caliph Omar ibn 'Abd al 'Aziz (who died in January, 
 
 ^ Ibn Dukmak says fifty-two. 
 
 ^ Ibn 'Abd al Hakam says that the only grant made by Omar 
 was that of i,ooo feddans at Munyat al Asbagh to Ibn Sindar — 
 a very excellent estate. 
 
462 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 720 A. D.) is condemned by Makiizl for his rule that 
 if a tributary dies, the poll-tax is due from his repre- 
 sentatives : because ' it seems,' he says, ' that Egypt 
 capitulated, and the terms of the capitulation are 
 still in force : so if a man dies, the tribute, which is 
 a tax on polls, cannot be levied from his survivors.' 
 But the same Omar II 'released all converts to 
 Isldm from payment of the poll-tax, although it had 
 been exacted in such cases. The first to exact 
 tribute from members of the protected peoples who 
 were converted to I slim was Al Hajjdj ibn Ytisuf. 
 Then the Caliph 'Abd al Malik wrote to 'Abd al 
 'Aziz ibn Marw^n bidding him do the same in Egypt: 
 but Ibn Hujalrah persuaded the latter not to intro- 
 duce this unjust innovation, saying, ' Let us exact 
 the poll-tax from Christian monks, but how can we 
 take it from converts to Islam ? ' 
 
 It is related that Ibn Sharlk, who received this 
 ruling of the Caliph's, made a remonstrance showing 
 that conversions had largely reduced the total of 
 the poll-tax, causing a deficit of 20,000 dinars in the 
 sum apportioned for official salaries in the govern- 
 ment service. The answer of the Caliph was in 
 sharp, decisive language : ' I have received your letter. 
 I made you commander-in-chief of the army in 
 Egypt, but I recognize your weakness : therefore 
 I have bidden my messenger to give you twenty 
 blows on the head, after which I order you to re- 
 lieve converts from payment of the poll-tax. Your 
 opinion is hateful to God, who sent Mohammed as 
 a guide, not as a tax-collector.' On this the Arab 
 historian comments very justly : ' Upon my life, 
 Omar's great desire was to convert all men to 
 Islim \' 
 
 ^ Makrizl, Khitat, vol. i. p. 7 8 : see also the two preceding pages. 
 
Muslim Government 463 
 
 There was therefore a direct premium placed on 
 a change of religion ; and although religious freedom 
 was in theory secured for the Copts under the 
 capitulation, it soon proved in fact to be shadowy 
 and illusory. For a religious freedom which became 
 identified with social bondage and with financial 
 bondage could have neither substance nor vitality. 
 As I slim spread, the social pressure upon the Copts 
 became enormous, while the financial pressure at 
 least seemed harder to resist, as the number of 
 Christians or Jews who were liable for the poll-tax 
 diminished year by year, and their isolation became 
 more conspicuous. This vicious system of bribing 
 the Christians into conversion had also the obvious 
 effect of crippling the state revenues. The fall in 
 the income from tribute was rapid. For while ' Amr, 
 as we have seen, raised 12,000,000 dindrs, and the 
 tyrannical 'Abdallah ibn Sa'd raised 14,000,000 ; in 
 the caliphate of Mu awlah, when many had been 
 converted, the total was reduced to 5,000,000. 
 Under the great Hirlin ar Rashld it fell to 4,000,000; 
 and after that it remained at 3,600,000, till towards 
 the end of the ninth century ^ As the public 
 
 ' Ya'kflbi (died a. h. 260) gives this information {Bibl. Geog. 
 Arab, part vii. p. 339). He does not quite agree with Abfi Salih, 
 who makes out that the tribute stood at 5,000,000 dinars in the 
 time of Ahmad ibn Tfilfln ; at 4,000,000 under Ya'Iiflb ibn Yflsuf ; 
 and that from this it dropped to 3,000,000 (p. 82). But the earlier 
 writer here must clearly be preferred. Indeed Ibn Rustah says 
 that under 'Abdallah ibn al HabhSb the revenue was 2,700,337, 
 but under Mflsl ibn 'Isi it had fallen to 2,180,000. This was 
 circa a. h. 180, or about the end of the eighth century {Bibl. Geog. 
 Arab., ib., p. 118). Yet it is difficult to believe that so vast a change 
 had taken place in 1 50 years. Indeed according to Prof. S. Lane- 
 Poole {The Story of Cairo, p. 60), conversions came slowly : ' About 
 ninety years after the conquest a governor, despairing of any con- 
 
464 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 exchequer thiis became impoverished, new methods 
 of taxation had to be devised to counterbalance the 
 loss on the tribute ; and it can scarcely be doubted 
 that in fixing fresh taxes some discrimination was 
 made in favour of the Muslims as against the 
 Christians. It is thus probable that in fact, as well 
 as in seeming, the burdens of the Christians grew 
 heavier in proportion as their numbers lessened. 
 The wonder, therefore, is not that so many Copts 
 yielded to the current which bore them with sweep- 
 ing force over to Islam, but that so great a multitude 
 of Christians stood firmly against the stream, nor 
 have all the storms of thirteen centuries moved their 
 faith from the rock of its foundation. 
 
 Nevertheless, few things are more remarkable in 
 history than the manner in which a handful of 
 victorious Arabs from the desert absorbed and 
 destroyed in Egypt, broadly speaking, both the . 
 Christian religion and that older Byzantine culture, 
 which owed at once its refinement and its frailty 
 to the blending of the three great and ancient civili- 
 zations of Rome, Greece, and Egypt. 
 
 siderable accession to the Muslim ranks, was driven to import 5,000 
 Arabs into the Delta. It was only by slow degrees, after much 
 intermarriage and many partial immigrations, that Egypt became 
 Muslim.' This would seem rather to under-estimate the pressure 
 put upon the Copts and its results. 
 
CHAPTER XXIX 
 
 REVOLT OF ALEXANDRIA UNDER MANUEL 
 
 Death of Omar. Othman deposes 'Amr from the governorship. 
 Character of 'Abdallah ibn Sa'd. Alexandrians intrigue with 
 Constantinople. Manuel sent to recover Egypt, and welcomed at 
 Alexandria. Gibbon's misstatement traced and corrected. 'Amr 
 reinstated as commander-in-chief. The Copts side with the 
 Arabs. The Roman army advances to Nikiou. Hotly contested 
 engagement there. Romans driven back to Alexandria. The 
 Arabs recapture the city by force of arms. Benjamin's demands 
 from 'Amr. Importance of the incident. Origin of some current 
 historical errors explained. 
 
 But the conquest of Egypt was not quite ended. 
 The war, which seemed to have closed, was reopened 
 by a fierce attempt on the part of the Romans to 
 recover their dominion, and the story of this adventure 
 has yet to be briefly recounted. 
 
 Omar's evil policy of keeping all his Viceroys 
 under suspicion and displeasure, and of wringing the 
 last farthing from his dominions, hastened his end. 
 He was assassinated a few days before the close of 
 A. H. 23, and buried on i Muharram, a. h. 24 \ on 
 which day Othman was proclaimed his successor 
 in the caliphate. But bad as the rule of Omar 
 had been, the change of rulers was a doubtful gain 
 to the Muslim Empire. If Omar worried and abused 
 his best agents, Othman deposed them. One of 
 Omar's last acts had been to diminish the authority 
 of 'Amr ibn al 'Asl by giving the government of 
 Upper Egypt and the Fay6m to 'Abdallah ibn Sa'd 
 ibn AM Sarh, whom he also made controller of the 
 
 ^ November 7, 644. 
 
 BUTLER H n 
 
466 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 land-tax. Othman completed 'Amr's discomfiture 
 by removing him altogether from the government 
 of Egypt in favour of this same 'Abdallah, who was 
 summoned from Shadmiih ^ in the Fayfim where he 
 happened to be residing. 
 
 Estimates of the new governor vary somewhat 
 unaccountably. According to Nawawi, 'he was 
 one of the most intelligent and noblest of the 
 Kuraish'^: while 'Amr unsparingly condemned his 
 incompetence both as governor and as military 
 commander, and Tabarl brands him with the 
 strongest possible censure : ' Of all the waklls 
 of Othman the worst was 'Abdallah, governor of 
 Egypt ' ^ ; and this at a time when the whole Muslim 
 Empire was in a ferment of revolt against the 
 iniquitous rule of the Caliph and his Viceroys. 
 The more favourable opinion of "Abdallah seems 
 merely a pleasant platitude, void of historical value. 
 His oppression of the Egyptians is not a text which 
 admits of two readings. The Caliph's purpose in 
 appointing 'Abdallah was to get a larger return 
 from the tribute, and there is reason to think that 
 
 ^ Yakfit, ed. Wiistenfeld, vol. iii. p. 265. 
 
 ^ Ed. Wustenfeld, p. 345. 
 
 ' Ed. Zotenberg, vol. iii. pp. 583 seq. When Othman called 
 a council of his Viceroys in view of the disaffection, this 'Abdallah 
 thus spoke his mind with cynical frankness : ' Prince of the Faithful, 
 men are all greedy: divide the public treasure among the dis- 
 contented, and you will secure them all.' But this was not the 
 language of 'Amr, whose stem but fearless rectitude comes out in 
 his speech : ' Othman ! or Prince of the Faithful, I should say : 
 there is not one of the Prophet's companions whom you have not 
 wounded. The people groan under your tyranny and that of your 
 wakils. Recall your waktls, or else renounce your authority and 
 your responsibility. But if you think to essay violence — then, in the 
 name of God ! ' Othman called 'Amr a lousy fellow for his pains, 
 yet acted upon his advice for the moment. 
 
Revolt of Alexandria under Manuel 467 
 
 'Abdallah's first measure was to increase the pro- 
 portion borne by the Alexandrians. Unquestion- 
 ably the burden of taxation now lay very heavily 
 upon them ; and it was their distress under its 
 weight which prompted some of their leading men 
 to write letters to the Emperor Constans at Byzan- 
 tium, praying to be delivered from the tyranny of 
 the Muslims, At the same time they pointed out 
 that Alexandria was held by a very weak garrison, 
 quite incapable of resisting a Roman army. 
 
 These arguments prevailed with Constans, who 
 had never forgotten the wound to the pride and 
 to the prosperity of the Empire caused by the loss 
 of Egypt, He ordered a large armament to be 
 prepared with the utmost secrecy. The Romans 
 were still masters of the sea : their naval supremacy 
 was as yet uncontested and unchallenged, Omar 
 had heard vague rumours of ocean warfare, and 
 had written to ask 'Amr's opinion about it, saying, 
 'Describe to me. the sea and its rider,' To this 
 'Amr had quaintly answered : ' Verily I saw a huge 
 construction, upon which diminutive creatures 
 mounted. If the vessel lie still, it rends the heart ; 
 if it move, it terrifies the imagination. Upon it a 
 man's power ever diminishes and calamity increases. 
 Those within the ship are like worms in a log. If 
 it rolls over, they are drowned ; if it escapes peril, 
 they are confounded.' And this description had 
 sufficed to daunt Omar, who was remarkable for 
 his fierce courage, and to deter him from ordering 
 Mu'awlah to adventure upon the sea^ It was 
 not till Mu'awlah himself became Caliph that the 
 Arabs learned the meaning and the value of sea- 
 power. 
 
 1 SuyGtl's History of the Caliphs, tr. by H. S. Jarrett, p. i6o. 
 H h 2 
 
468 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 There was therefore no Arab vessel afloat now 
 to bring news of the expedition which the Emperor 
 had dispatched under the command of Manuel for 
 the recovery of Alexandria. A great fleet of three 
 hundred sail bore into the harbour without warning, 
 and anchored without resistance ^, There were only 
 a thousand Arab soldiers to defend the city : these 
 were quickly overpowered and slain, very few making 
 good their escape : and Alexandria came once more 
 under the dominion of the Caesars. 
 
 It is this incident which has given rise to the 
 curious statement, found in Gibbon and other 
 writers, that three or four days after the original 
 capture of Alexandria the Romans, who had de- 
 parted by sea, returned and surprised the scattered 
 forces of the Arabs, and regained for a brief space 
 possession of the city. There is no foundation for 
 such a story, which rests on a mere misunderstanding. 
 It springs in fact out of that confusion between the 
 first and the second capture of Alexandria which 
 blends the details of the two events. For example, 
 the story postulates a capture by storm in the first 
 instance, and has nothing to rest on if there was no 
 capture by storm. But it has been proved beyond 
 question that Alexandria was taken in the first 
 instance under capitulation ; that an armistice of 
 eleven months was granted to the inhabitants ; and 
 that on the expiry of that term the Arabs made 
 
 ' There is one of the usual contradictions on this point among 
 the authorities. Ibn Khaldfin says that the fleet remained off the 
 coast because Al Mukaukas forbade the Romans to land. Al 
 Mukaukas was of course dead. Ibn 'Abd al Hakam's account is 
 that the fleet anchored at Alexandria, and the Romans in the city 
 joined the imperial forces : and all the other Arab writers make it 
 clear that the Romans took possession of the city and slaughtered 
 the garrison. 
 
Revolt of Alexandria under Manuel 469 
 a peaceable entry. Their occupation of the city- 
 was undisturbed from that moment until the arrival 
 of Manuel \ 
 
 Upon the date of this seizure of Alexandria by 
 the Romans there is unusual agreement among the 
 Arab writers, who place it at the beginning of a.h. 
 25, i.e. towards the end of 645 of our era 2. With 
 regard to the position of 'Amr ibn al 'Asi at that 
 moment, the same consent, is not to be found. If 
 Tabarl is to be believed — and his authority is very 
 high — 'Amr had actually been recalled to Mecca ^ 
 
 ^ The story is justified by the language of Suyfltt, who says : 'After 
 the capture of the city and the flight of the Romans by land and 
 sea, 'Amr left i,ooo of his companions within the walls, and went in 
 pursuit of the fugitives by land. But those who had escaped by 
 sea returned to Alexandria, killed all the Muslims who were unable 
 to flee, and took possession of the city' (p. 73). But the confusion 
 is that of a compiler selecting events in ignorance of their true 
 historical order. The incident is a mere gleam reflected back from 
 the later story of Manuel's raid. It may be said that the same 
 double account of a descent on Alexandria occurs almost textually 
 in Eutychius (ap. Migne, Patr. Gr. t. in, col. 11 12). This points 
 no doubt to a common origin ; but the original source is vicious ; 
 and when once it is proved, as it has been, that the first capture of 
 Alexandria was by peaceable surrender, the whole fabric of the 
 romance falls to pieces. Briefly then the story has no genuine 
 warrant ; it clashes with facts ascertained beyond dispute ; John of 
 Nikiou knows nothing about it; and it must be banished from 
 history. 
 
 ^ Baladhurt (p. 221) gives this date with a possible alternative of 
 A.H. 23. Ibn al Athir (p. 62) says a.h. 25. Yakut and Abfl '1 
 Mahasin agree. MakrJzt says that the seizure of Alexandria by the 
 Romans took place in a.h. 24, and its reconquest a.h. 25; which 
 account is also given by Abfl '1 MahEsin, who places the defeat of 
 the Romans in the month Rabi' I, a month nearly coinciding with 
 January, 646. This, however, seems hardly to allow time enough 
 for the events of the campaign. 
 
 ' Ed. Zotenberg, vol. iii. p. 559- He says that in the beginning 
 of A.H. 25 Othman began to depose Omar's Viceroys: but when 
 
470 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 and, when the news of the revolt arrived, he there 
 received orders to resume the command in Egypt. 
 In any case it seems certain that he had been 
 removed from office prior to the landing of the 
 Romans, and that his incapable successor had let 
 the defences of the country fall into a state of 
 dangerous weakness. Manuel's army not only held 
 Alexandria unchallenged, but they roamed over the 
 adjacent country of the, Delta, plundering the towns 
 and villages and levying supplies of corn and wine 
 and money with impunity. Nor do they seem to 
 have paid much regard to professions of friendship ^ : 
 wherever the army moved, or detachments were 
 scattered in idle occupation, the people were for the 
 most part treated as conquered enemies. 
 
 Yet there must have been marked exceptions. 
 
 he heard of the revolt of Alexandria, he made 'Amr start for Egypt. 
 This clearly would throw the reconquest considerably later into the 
 year 646. Balidhurl agrees that 'Amr was deprived of his 
 government in a. h. 25 in favour of 'Abdallah ibn Sa'd (p. 222); 
 whose appointment is dated in the same year by Nawawi (p. 345), but 
 in A. H. 2 6 by Ibn al Athtr (p. 67). Ibn 'Abd al Hakam in speaking of 
 the revolt says, ' By this time Othman had removed 'Amr from the 
 government,' as quoted by MakrizI {Khitat, vol. i. p. 167) ; and in 
 another passage on the governors of Fustit, MakrJzt speaking of 
 'Abdallah says : ' When Manuel the Eunuch attacked Alexandria, 
 the people begged the Caliph to reinstate 'Amr, so that he might 
 fight the Romans.' On the whole it seems established that 'Amr 
 was removed before the revolt : but it is not clear whether he had 
 actually left Egypt. Eutychius says distinctly that he was then in 
 Egypt, while Abfl '1 Mahisin says that ' Othman relieved him of 
 the cares of government, that he might give all his energy to fighting 
 Manuel' (p. 73). 
 
 ' Ibn al Athir says that the Romans 'extorted money and supplies 
 from people in the neighbourhood of the capital, whether friendly 
 to their cause or not ' (p. 62). Al Makrizi says that they ' began to 
 occupy the villages and drink their wines and eat their food and 
 lay waste all the country.' 
 
Revolt of Alexandria under Manuel 471 
 For this revival of Roman power was due of course 
 to the Roman element, which was strong in Alex- 
 andria, and which counted on a certain amount of 
 sympathy among the people of the Delta: and 
 whole villages are mentioned as having sided with 
 the Romans. On the other hand, the Copts had 
 little enough to hope from a renewal of Roman 
 ascendency. The record of Cyrus' persecution was 
 graven too deep upon their memories : and even 
 now, though the shadow of another tyranny was 
 coming over them, they had a measure of civil 
 and religious freedoin greater than they could dream 
 of retaining under the rule of Byzantium. The 
 Copts, therefore, not only sided with the Arabs 
 at this crisis, but they would have been guilty of 
 supreme folly if they had again courted the stripes 
 and fetters of the imperial government. Whether 
 the Patriarch Benjamin remained in Alexandria, or 
 whether he fled before the returning Roman army, 
 is not quite certain, although the evidence points 
 strongly to his flight or absence at the moment : 
 but there is no question that both in act and in 
 sympathy he stood with his people loyal to the 
 cause of the Arabs, as bound by the Treaty of 
 Alexandria. 
 
 While the Roman army were amusing themselves 
 in tasting the delights of Egypt again, and were 
 proving again their skill in throwing away golden 
 opportunities, 'Amr had, on the urgent petition of 
 the Arabs, been reinstated in the military command 
 at Babylon. It was felt at once that his unrivalled 
 prestige and unrivalled ability were demanded to 
 cope with a situation as dangerous as any in the 
 history of the conquest. For if the Roman army, 
 instead of wasting their time in the Delta, had 
 
472 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 marched straight for Fustit, it is quite possible 
 that they might have defeated "Abdallah and have 
 recaptured Babylon. As it was, they allowed 'Amr 
 ample time to take up his post and to organize his 
 army. He was in no way hurried. Indeed Khdrijah 
 ibn !Hudhafah, the commander of the fortress of 
 Babylon, thinking that delay was all in favour of 
 the Romans, urged 'Amr to strike at once before 
 the enemy were reinforced, or the whole of Egypt 
 would be in insurrection. "Amr took a different 
 view. ' Nay,' he said, ' I will challenge them to 
 come out and attack me. So they will do damage 
 to the people of the country through which they 
 pass, and God will confound one part of our enemies 
 by the other.' It is worth remarking that the Arab 
 generals at this stage made no distinction between 
 Copts and Romans : they clearly thought that both 
 parties alike were in armed rebellion. This proves 
 that they had no ground of presumption that the 
 Copts were friendly or even neutral : yet they 
 would have had very strong ground if it had been 
 true that the Copts on the original invasion hailed 
 the Arabs as deliverers. 
 
 Accordingly the Romans, moving leisurely, were 
 drawn on southwards as far as Nikiou ^ before they 
 
 ' Weil {Geschichie der Chalifen, vol. i. p. 158 n.) cannot settle the 
 name of the town, which is given by Ibn 'Abd al Hakam in many 
 forms — Nafyfls, Takyfis, Tayfis, Nafuis, &c. These are simple and 
 easy transformations of the original (j-^ — mere variations of the 
 points. Makrizi gives the form correctly, and the words 'Then 
 a battle took place on land and on the river ' would almost alone 
 remove any doubt. Moreover Yakut (vol. iv. p. 810) says, 'At 
 Nakyds there was a battle between 'Amr and the Romans, when 
 they rebelled against him,' clearly pointing to the revolt of Manuel. 
 Weil of course had not seen John of Nikiou's Chronicle, and he 
 had no very clear idea of the topography of the conquest. 
 
Revolt of Alexandria under Manuel 473 
 
 encountered the advance of the Arabs, who numbered 
 perhaps 15,000 men^. We are not told whether 
 Nikiou itself was taken : but a desperate battle took 
 place between the two armies under the walls of 
 the fortress and on the canal or river which ran 
 by the town. The Roman army fought with signal 
 valour. "Amr himself was in the thick of the 
 combat, and having his horse wounded by an arrow 
 was obliged to dismount and fight on foot. In one 
 part of the field the Arabs were routed and put to 
 flight. Conspicuous on the Roman side, both for 
 his prowess and for the magnificence of his armour 
 chased and inlaid with gold, was a mounted officer, 
 who, as the battle hung in doubt, shouted a challenge 
 to the Arabs to single combat. One Hfimil, of the 
 tribe of Zubaid, took up the challenge, and the two 
 champions tilted with spears without decisive result. 
 Then the Roman flung away his lance and a long 
 duel followed, sword against scimitar. Meanwhile 
 the two armies paused and watched the encounter, 
 standing in serried ranks beside the lists and shouting 
 encouragement to the combatants. At last a fierce 
 lunge made by the Roman was parried and returned 
 with a blow of the Arab's scimitar, which clove deep 
 through the collar-bone of his adversary and killed 
 him. Htimil himself was covered with wounds, 
 which shortly proved fatal ; and "Amr had his 
 body sent on a litter to Fustat, where it was buried 
 at the foot of the Mukattam Hills. 
 
 On the fall of the Roman champion the battle 
 was renewed with fresh fury ; but it ended at last 
 in the defeat of Manuel's forces, which were driven 
 
 ' Baladhurt puts 'Amr's army at 1,500, but this is probably 
 a mistake for 15,000. The Roman army was doubtless superior 
 in numbers. 
 
474 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 in headlong rout towards Alexandria. The broken 
 army reached the capital in great disorder, hotly 
 pursued by the Arabs, but they closed the gates 
 and prepared to stand a siege ^ As ' Amr marched 
 through the Delta he was everjrwhere assisted by 
 the Coptic villages, which provided bridge-builders 
 and such supplies as they could furnish after being 
 plundered by the Romans. When the Saracen 
 army came once more before the walls of Alex- 
 andria, and "Amr surveyed the almost impregnable 
 defences of the city, he was keenly mortified, as he 
 reflected on the folly which had left them standing, 
 and yet unarmed by a proper garrison ; and he 
 swore that if he captured the city a second time, 
 he would level its walls and make it as easy to 
 enter as the house of a harlot. The Arab camp 
 was pitched on the eastern side of the city — the 
 only side open to siege operations — and he is said 
 to have set up his engines of war, and battered the 
 walls till a breach was effected. This story, how- 
 ever, runs counter to all that is known of the vast 
 strength of the ramparts ; and it is much easier to 
 credit another account which in this siege, as in the 
 siege of Diocletian, makes the capture due largely 
 to treason from within. For it is said that one of 
 the warders of the gate, named Ibn Bisimah, entered 
 
 ^ BalSdhuri makes no mention of Nikiou: but he gives an 
 engagement near Alexandria. ' 'Amr encamped near Alexandria, 
 where he was attacked by the Roman forces, who were ravaging 
 the country. After enduring the attack for an hour behind their 
 trenches, the Arabs charged and put the Romans to flight, so that 
 they retreated in haste without stopping or turning till they had 
 re-entered the gates of Alexandria ' (p. 221). Of course there may 
 have been a second battle near the city. In any case the extract 
 is interesting as showing that the Arabs had adopted the Roman 
 system of entrenched camps. 
 
Revolt of Alexandria under Manuel 475 
 
 into communication with 'Amr, and undertook to 
 throw open the gate, if his own safety and that of 
 his family and property was guaranteed ^ 
 
 In whatever manner an entrance was made, the 
 city was taken by storm in act of resistance, and 
 the Arabs rushed in plundering, burning, and slaying 
 all before them. Nearly all that remained in the 
 eastern quarter by the gate, including the church 
 of St. Mark, perished in the fire ; and the work of 
 slaughter went on till somewhere in the middle of 
 the city 'Amr himself put an end to it. The spot 
 on which he had bidden his followers to sheath the 
 sword was afterwards marked by a mosque called 
 the Mosque- of Mercy. Some part of the Roman 
 soldiers managed to reach their ships and put out 
 to sea : but great numbers perished in the city, 
 and Manuel himself was among the fallen. The 
 women and children were taken as the prize of war. 
 
 This was the second capture of Alexandria; it took 
 place in the summer of 646, and it was a capture by 
 force. The two events are very clearly distinguished 
 in time and in circumstance : but unfortunately they 
 have not been kept apart by Arab writers, and it is 
 past the power of criticism to bring back to their 
 right order the two series of incidents, which are 
 found in almost every possible permutation. This, 
 however, is beyond question the place for recording 
 one incident which has caused much perplexity, 
 having been taken out of its proper setting and 
 thrust into the story of the first capture, viz. the visit 
 said to have been paid by Al Mukaukas to "Amr for 
 
 ^ This account is preserved by Suyutf, who seems to connect it 
 with the first capture. In this he is wrong, but the story may well 
 be true of the second capture. The confusion between the two 
 events is invincible. 
 
476 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 the purpose of making some very strange proposals. 
 Of course Al Mukaukas was dead long ago : but 
 just as the title is mistakenly carried back by Arab 
 writers to the governor before the conquest who 
 received Mohammed's mission, so it is mistakenly pre- 
 served after the conquest, and applied to Benjamin, 
 the Coptic Patriarch \ Accordingly, when one reads 
 that during the siege of Alexandria Al Mukaukas 
 came to 'Amr and offered to help him on three condi- 
 tions, the episode must be construed as referring to 
 Benjamin's action in connexion with the revolt of 
 Alexandria, when Manuefs army had seized the city. 
 The dislocation of this incident is of extreme im- 
 portance for the history of the conquest : it is in 
 fact the main cause of the misunderstanding upon 
 which the most erroneous versions are founded. 
 There is no such thing as a critical history of the 
 conquest. All the Arab historians give a selection 
 of passages from various writers recording different 
 events ; but in their process of selection they often 
 fail to distinguish what ought to be distinguished, 
 and they group together incidents which are out 
 of true chronology and order. When once the story 
 
 ^ See Appendix on the Mukaukas. The fact of Cyrus' death is 
 truly recorded in the story of the poisoned signet-ring, though the 
 story itself is, as I have shown, quite apocryphal. Baladhurt is 
 conscious of the diflSculty of representing Al Mukaukas as alive at 
 this time. His words are (p. 222): 'It is said by some that Al 
 Mukaukas deserted the Alexandrians when they rebelled, and that 
 consequently 'Amr retained him and his friends in their offices. 
 Others say that Al Mukaukas was dead before the rebellion broke 
 out.' The fact is that Benjamin was now Patriarch and leader of 
 the native Egyptian community, as Cyrus had been Patriarch and 
 leader of the Roman-Egyptian community : and it is not surprising 
 that some Arab historians transferred the tide from the one person- 
 ality to the other. But this confusion of persons naturally led to 
 confusion of events and dates. 
 
Revolt of Alexandria under Manuel 477 
 gets out of place and out of relation to its true 
 context, it becomes insensibly modified to suit its 
 new surroundings, and in many cases degenerates into 
 falsehood or absurdity. So it is here. For Makrizl ^ 
 gives the three stipulations named by Al Mukaukas 
 to 'Amr as follows : (i) that the Arabs should never 
 break their treaty with the Copts, and should reckon 
 him (Al Mukaukas) among them; (2) that they 
 should make no treaty with the Romans ; (3) that 
 they should bury him by the bridge at Alexandria 2. 
 Now this statement of the terms is not only wholly 
 improbable in itself, but it is a gross perversion of 
 the original account from which it was taken. It 
 represents Al Mukaukas as, by inference, a Roman 
 begging the Arabs to observe their compact with 
 the Copts and to make no compact with the Romans ; 
 and from this springs the story that the Copts, as 
 opposed to the Romans, made a treaty with the 
 Arabs on their arrival in Egypt; and from this 
 again springs the legend that the Copts welcomed 
 the Arabs as deliverers. But the same authority 
 gives another version of the terms, as follows, from 
 Ibn 'Abd al Hakam^: (i) that the Romans should 
 not be treated as generously as the Copts, because 
 they had suspected Al Mukaukas on account of the 
 advice he had given them ; (2) that the treaty made 
 with the Copts, to which they assuredly would adhere, 
 should not be broken ; (3) that Al Mukaukas him- 
 self should be buried at St. John's church. Here 
 we get back to an earlier version and so nearer the 
 truth ; and it is specially to be noted that there is not 
 
 ' Khitat, vol. i. p. 293. 
 
 "^ w.jj^i)!^^-^. In SuyM it is given ^Jii>. ^J\ ^J, a corrup- 
 tion of (j-iiyJ or St. John, 
 ' Khiiat, vol. i. p. 163. 
 
478 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 a word corresponding to the sentence I have put in 
 italics. The supposed request of Al Mukaukas to 
 be reckoned as a Copt is a wholly unauthorized 
 insertion of a writer who sought by it to clear up 
 a position which quite naturally passed his under- 
 standing. The insertion was made to support the 
 erroneous theory that Al Mukaukas was with the 
 Copts in sympathy, and had negotiated a treaty in 
 their favour. 
 
 But fortunately there survives in Baladhuri a 
 version of the demands of Al Mukaukas, which 
 proves clearly that the incident belongs not to 
 the first capture of Alexandria but to the revolt 
 of Manuel, and that by Al Mukaukas only Benjamin 
 can originally have been intended. In that version 
 what Benjamin asked of 'Amr was as follows : ' (i) 
 not to grant as favourable terms to the Romans as 
 to me, and (2) not to ill-treat the Copts, because it is 
 not they who have broken the treaty ; and (3) if I die, 
 have me buried in such a church ^' Now this, phrase 
 
 ' The Arabic ^^ ^^a c^b J (_,fliijJl (jU for the words in italics 
 is very clear : ^jii^ can only mean the ' breaking of the treaty.' 
 These words I have taken from an extract made for me by the 
 Grand Mufti of Egypt from some Cairo MS. De Goeje's version 
 (p. 215) puts the terms rather differently: (i) that the Romans, 
 who had suspected and rejected Al Mukaukas' pacific proposals, 
 should receive less favourable terms than the Copts ; (2) that the 
 treaty made with the Copts should not be broken, while the Copts 
 on their part would remain faithful to the Arabs ; (3) as before. 
 ^m^Iineau in referring to this incident (though he associates it with 
 the first capture) cites the third demand, viz. that for burial in a 
 church, as proof that Al Mukaukas referred to must have been 
 a Patriarch. He says: 'II ^tait patriarche parce que les seuls 
 patriarchs avaient la prerogative de se faire enterrer dans une 
 ^glise. Je n'ai jamais rencontrd dans un document Copte la plus 
 petite mention qu'un ^vSque, un saint moine, un martyr aient ^t^ 
 enterrds dans I'^glise de leur paroisse ^piscopale, de leur mpnast^re. 
 
Revolt of Alexandria under Manuel 479 
 
 in italics illuminates the whole matter. The Copts 
 were no party to the rebellion of Alexandria, which 
 was a breach of the treaty made by Cyrus, Al 
 Mukaukas. They had no sympathy with this con- 
 spiracy to restore the Roman Empire. Accordingly 
 their chief — Benjamin as he now was — approached 
 "Amr, and promised the aid of his people, provided 
 that they, who had been loyal, should be honourably 
 treated and not confounded with the rebels. Thus 
 replaced in its proper context the incident becomes 
 as intelligible and interesting as before it was obscure 
 and puzzling. I venture to dwell upon it at some 
 length, because it really is of great historical moment, 
 and because it gives a -good illustration of the 
 difficulties which criticism has to encounter, and may 
 hope to remove. 
 
 Such then were the Patriarch's proposals. On 
 hearing them 'Amr had remarked, ' The last is the 
 easiest of the three.' It was easy to promise 
 Benjamin burial in the church of St. John, but 
 it was not easy to distinguish in all cases between 
 the action of the Copts and that of the Romans, 
 
 de leur village : au contraire, rien n'est plus frequent dans I'histoire 
 des patriarches ' {^Journal Astaitgue, /Nov.-Dec. 1888, p. 401). 
 But Amdlineau's argument does not hold good of the Melkites, 
 because Abu SSlih expressly states that the Melkites, as well as 
 the Armenians and Nestorians, ' 3u?y in their churches' (p. 136). 
 Assuming that Amdlineau is correct as regards the Copts, though 
 there may be some doubt about it, his argument could then only 
 prove that it was a Coptic Patriarch, and not a Roman, who 
 approached 'Amr; that it was in fact Benjamin and not Cyrus. 
 This only corroborates my view that the episode belongs to the 
 period of Manuel's revolt, when Cyrus was dead and Benjamin 
 was in power again. Among the Copts at the present day bishops 
 also have the privilege of being buried in the churches; but I 
 cannot say how far back such a privilege was recognized. 
 
480 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 or to decide how far the Copts were responsible 
 for the insurrection. The point at which the inter- 
 view between 'Amr and Benjamin took place is 
 doubtful, but it may be conjectured that it was at 
 Babylon before 'Amr set out on his march to meet 
 the Romans, and before he felt sure what part the 
 Copts had been playing. From the first they had 
 probably shown a passive hostility to Manuel ; they 
 certainly aided the march of the Arabs through the 
 Delta ; and this attitude must have been determined 
 by Benjamin in virtue of his arrangement with the 
 Arab leader. 
 
 Here, then, at last we find the Copts in willing co- 
 operation, under regular agreement, with the Arabs, 
 and their co-operation continued until the Roman 
 army was destroyed and Alexandria recaptured. 
 And this discovery reveals the true foundation on 
 which rests the story of an alliance made between 
 the Copts and the Arabs upon the first entry of the 
 Arabs into Egypt — a story which is false in itself 
 and has been refuted over and over again in these 
 pages, but which has been built on a basis of mingled 
 fact and misunderstanding. Briefly the story is true 
 of the campaign ending with the second capture of 
 Alexandria, and not of any earlier campaign ; it is 
 true of the rebellion, and not true of the conquest ; 
 it is a historical picture, but set in the wrong 
 framing ^. 
 
 ^ Since writing the above I have found a passage in Ibn Dukmdk 
 which completely corroborates the fact that the three conditions 
 demanded of 'Amr must be referred to the time of Manuel's revolt. 
 I give it in full : ' Ibn Wahb says that, according to Al Laith ibn 
 Sa'd, Al Mukaukas the Roman, who was Viceroy (eUi«) of Egypt, 
 made terms of peace with 'Amr. The terms were, that those of 
 the Romans who pleased should be allowed to depart, and that 
 a tribute of two dinars a head should be paid by the Copts. 
 
Revolt of Alexandria under Manuel 481 
 
 But there is one other legend which has perplexed 
 and misled historians, and which may now be once 
 for all banished. I have already mentioned the 
 story — found in the pages of Severus and Theo- 
 phanes — that Cyrus paid tribute to the Arabs for 
 three or more years before the invasion of Egypt 
 and in order to buy off the Arabs ; and this story 
 I have denounced as wholly unworthy of credence ^ 
 without finally demonstrating its falsity. Now, how- 
 ever, the clearest light is thrown upon its genesis, 
 and it is seen to be a fallacious inference from a 
 misunderstood passage in a compressed and garbled 
 narrative. I have no doubt that the story came 
 originally from a Greek authority, such as Theo- 
 phanes, who had run the events of several years 
 together in a confused summary which has little 
 or no regard for chronology. Theophanes alleges 
 that when the Arabs attacked Egypt, Cyrus promised 
 under a convention that Egypt should pay a yearly 
 tribute of 200,000 dinars ; and he goes on to say ^ : ' So 
 
 Heraclius, however, repudiated these terms, and in his anger sent 
 Manuel to fight the Arais. When 'Amr was besieging Alexandria, 
 Al Mukaukas came out to him and said, "I ask three things of 
 you." "What are they ?" (i) " That you will not grant the same 
 terms to the Romans as you have to me; for I advised them to 
 submit and they were deaf to my counsels ; (2) that you will not 
 break your treaty with the Copts, for they have not broken their 
 treaty with you ; and (3) that I may be buried in Ab(i Yuhannis 
 when I die.'" Of course this passage has its own confusions: 
 e.g. it seems to make Manuel's expedition follow closely upon 
 Heraclius' rejection of the first treaty, and it confuses Cyrus, 
 Heraclius' Viceroy, who died long before Manuel's arrival, with 
 Benjamin : but it clearly shows the connexion of the three demands 
 with the campaign of Manuel. See Dr. VoUers' ed. of Ibn Dukmdk, 
 part V. p. 118. 
 
 ' Supra, pp. 207-9. 
 
 ' Corp. Hist. Script. Byzant. t. 44, p. 167. This convention 
 
 BUTLER I 1 
 
482 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Cyrus for thre6 years saved Egypt from extermina- 
 tion. Cyrus then was accused before the Emperor 
 of paying Egyptian gold in tribute to the Arabs, 
 and the Emperor in wrath summoned Cyrus and 
 appointed Manuel, an Armenian, as Augustal. When 
 the year was out, the Arabs sent to receive their 
 money ; but Manuel answered, " I am no defenceless 
 Cyrus to pay you tribute, but am well armed," and 
 so sent them empty away. Then the Arabs armed 
 against Egypt, and, making war, drove Manuel 
 before them ; but he got safely with a few followers 
 to Alexandria, Then the Arabs again put Egypt 
 under tribute. When the Emperor heard of all 
 this, he sent Cyrus to persuade the Arabs to retire 
 from Egypt under the former convention. Cyrus 
 came to their camp, and said he was innocent of 
 the treachery, and would confirm on oath the former 
 agreement. The Arabs wholly refused this arrange- 
 ment.' It is really impossible to characterize the 
 blunders and the confusions of this narrative : it 
 is a tissue of misstatement. Yet any one reading 
 it would be bound to infer that the Arabs were 
 met by Cyrus on their first advance, and bribed 
 to retire from the country; that Manuel was sent 
 by Heraclius directly he heard of the arrangement; 
 and that after the defeat of Manuel, the Arabs 
 
 can only be the Treaty of Alexandria, which is confused with the 
 Treaty of Babylon. The 'three years' are a reminiscence of 
 the period between the actual occupation of Alexandria, 642, 
 and the mission of Manuel, 645. What 'the year' may mean 
 cannot be known. The demand for tribute could only have 
 reached Manuel in Alexandria, yet just below Manuel is driven 
 back to that place. Theophanes makes Cyrus alive after this 
 event, just as some of the Arab writers make Al Mukaukas alive, 
 of course quite wrongly : Cyrus is confused with Benjamin. But 
 the whole account is as uncritical and unhistorical as possible. 
 
Revolt of Alexandria under Manuel 483 
 
 refused to renew the original convention, which bound 
 them to evacuate the country. Such is the per- 
 version of history upon which this legend of the 
 tribute is founded : it needs no further refutation ^ : 
 and yet serious works of the present day regard the 
 legend as truth ^. 
 
 ^ Theophanes appears to make these events happen in the 
 twenty-fifth year of Heraclius. Von Ranke quotes Michael the 
 Syrian (ed. Langlois from the Armenian) as confirming the story 
 of tribute. Of course Michael followed Theophanes, or the same 
 source as Theophanes, down to 746 at least : but if Von Ranke 
 had quoted another sentence or two, he would have had to 
 acknowledge the absurdity of Michael's narrative. For Michael 
 makes Omar invade and conquer Egypt previous to the conquest 
 of Jerusalem, or rather its surrender by the Patriarch Sophronius. 
 The mistake of Omar for 'Amr is pardonable: but the historian 
 who makes payment of tribute by Cyrus anterior to the Arab 
 invasion of Egypt must be judged by the fact that on the same 
 page he makes the Arab conquest of Egypt anterior to the fall 
 of Jerusalem. 
 
 ^ E.g. Prof. Bury's Later Roman Empire, vol. ii, p. 269, n. 3. 
 
 I 1 2 
 
CHAPTER XXX 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 Treatment of Alexandria. Story of Talamd. Restoration of 
 captives. Remonstrance of the loyal Copts, and award of com- 
 pensation. Reinstatement of 'Abdallah and departure of 'Amr. 
 Final effort of the Romans bafHed. Close of this history. 
 Questions of interest which might be followed. Death of Benjamin. 
 Death of 'Amr, and the place of his burial. 
 
 Alexandria met and deserved the fate of a con- 
 quered town. The city had been guilty of rebellion 
 in taking up arms against the Arabs and in calling 
 upon the Romans for aid. The revolt might have 
 been justified, if it had been successful : but the 
 rebels now were doubly in the wrong — they had 
 broken the treaty of capitulation, and they had failed 
 to reconquer the country. It is not easy to decide 
 whether they had any moral ground for the breach 
 of treaty. Such ground could only be furnished if 
 the treaty had been broken by the Arabs. There 
 are hints that this was the case — that tribute had 
 been exacted in excess of the covenanted amount ; 
 but clear proof is wanting. In any case the action 
 taken by the Emperor would seem quite indefensible. 
 He had put his hand and seal to a solemn compact, 
 in which he had promised that the withdrawal of his 
 forces from Egypt should be final, that no Roman 
 army should again, land in the country. If he con- 
 sidered that the Arabs had not kept the terms of 
 the treaty, he might have denounced it as no longer 
 binding : but it was against all the laws of war to 
 equip a vast armament in secret, and to seize the 
 
Conclusion 485 
 
 capital of Egypt in direct defiance of treaty ^. The 
 Arabs therefore were entitled to treat the rebels 
 with some sternness. And in their entry, when the 
 city was given over to fire and sword, no discrimina- 
 tion could well be made between friend and foe, 
 Copt and Roman. It was otherwise with regard to 
 the country places. As soon as the revolt had been 
 stamped out in Alexandria, 'Amr in fulfilment of his 
 vow ordered the walls on the eastern side of the 
 city to be razed to the ground. He then turned his 
 arms against those towns in the Delta which had 
 overtly aided the rebellion. It seems that Talama ^, 
 the governor, or ex-governor, of Ikhna, a coast- 
 town between Alexandria and Rosetta, had been 
 one of the prime movers in the rebellion, having 
 himself journeyed to Constantinople and returned 
 in company with the Roman armament. The defeat 
 of the Romans left him in a forlorn position. He 
 was taken prisoner, and brought before 'Amr, who 
 was advised to put him to death. The Arab com- 
 mander, however, treated the matter lightly. He 
 ordered golden armlets to be put on Talami, a 
 crown on his head, and a purple robe on his 
 
 * The Arabs had a great regard for the point of honour in such 
 matters. When a little later than this the Caliph Othman was 
 besieged in his own house by a force from Egypt, the cutting off 
 of his water-supply aroused great indignation in IslEm. Tabarl 
 says, ' This is a thing which is disallowed against the besieged even 
 among the Romans.' The statement is at least curious. 
 
 ^ See above, p. 349. Weil has no warrant whatever for his 
 assertion that Talam^ was a Copt: on the contrary, he was 
 distinctly a Roman governor. The whole movement of the revolt 
 came from the Byzantine party, or Melkite party, in Egypt. The 
 Copts had neither sympathy with it nor share in it. To speak of 
 the Copts as desiring the return of the Romans at this juncture 
 and as promising their whole force in aid of it, is an extraordinary 
 perversion of history. 
 
486 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 shoulders : then mockingly told him to depart and 
 bring another of his imperial armies against Egypt. 
 In the end Talami was thankful to be allowed to 
 stay in Egypt and pay the poll-tax ^ The other 
 towns which fought on the side of the Romans in 
 the revolt of Manuel were in the main the same as 
 those which offered strongest resistance to the Arabs 
 in the original conquest of Egypt, viz, Balhlb, Khais, 
 Suntais, Fartasi, and Sakhi^- From all these places, 
 
 ' The Arab writers associate TalamS's demand concerning the 
 tribute (see above, I. c.) with this incident. It is exceedingly 
 difiScult to say which of the incidents told in connexion with 
 Manuel's revolt belong properly to the first, and which to the 
 second, capture of Alexandria. But there is very strong evidence 
 that a separate special treaty was concluded with TalamS, and this 
 can only have been on his first capitulation. I have little doubt 
 that he was continued in ofSce by the Arabs, and abused the trust 
 reposed in him to foment the rebellion. But in the second 
 instance, when he was absolutely at 'Amr's mercy as a captured 
 rebel, there could be no question of a special treaty. The account 
 of his treatment by 'Amr is given by Makrizl and others. 
 
 '^ Here again there is some difficulty in getting at the truth. 
 Thus when Yikflt says (vol. i. p. 733) that with Balhib 'Amr made 
 peace on the terms of the poll-tax and land-tax on his way to 
 Alexandria, he can only refer to 'Amr's first march on Alexandria. 
 Yet he goes on to say, ' The people of Egypt helped 'Amr in his 
 struggle with the Alexandrians, except Balhib, Khais, Suntais, 
 Fartasi, and Sakha, which all assisted the Romans. Therefore 
 when 'Amr had taken Alexandria, he made captives of the people 
 of those towns, and sent them to Medina and other places ; but 
 Omar restored them to their homes, and included them in the 
 general protection granted to the Egyptians': and this passage 
 can relate only to the time of the rebellion. It is true that Omar's 
 name is wrongly used instead of Othman's, but that mistake is 
 easily accounted for and easily corrected; whereas the opposition 
 between the statement that Balhtb made a treaty of peace, and that 
 Balhib continued hostile and was conquered by force, is irrecon- 
 cilable. The truth seems that this place, having originally come 
 under treaty, joined in Manuel's rebeUion. So of Khais, YS.kflt 
 
Conclusion 487 
 
 as from Alexandria itself, captives were takea and 
 were sent to Medina : but when the Caliph Othman 
 was formally consulted with regard to the treatment 
 of the rebel towns, he had the good sense to return 
 the captives and to grant an indemnity to the in- 
 habitants concerned in the revolt, restoring their 
 status as protected people, subject to payment of 
 the fixed poll-tax^. In other words, the Caliph 
 renounced his right to treat Alexandria and the 
 other places as the lawful prize of war and their 
 inhabitants as slaves at the mercy of their con- 
 querors. There seems to have been a strong desire 
 on the part of some of 'Amr's forces both to divide 
 the city of Alexandria and to remain there : it is 
 
 says (vol. ii. p. 507) that ' it was conquered by Kharijah ibn Hu- 
 dhifah,' and that ' its inhabitants helped the Romans against 'Amr ' : 
 where the first statement relates to the conquest, the second to the 
 rebellion. Makrtzt cites earlier writers for the fact that ' Suntais, 
 Misil, and Bilhait (BalMb) fought for the Romans against the 
 Arabs,' which tells one nothing; but Suyfiti's language removes 
 all doubt : ' The villages of Bilhait, Al Khais, Suntais, and Kartasa 
 rebelled, and the captives taken thence were sent to Medina and 
 elsewhere : but Omar (Othman) sent them back and made all the 
 Copts a protected people, including Alexandria and the rebel 
 ■villages.' These words could have no meaning except in relation 
 to Manuel's revolt, although it is certain that the Arab historians 
 transposed the record which they found, and mistakenly inserted 
 it in the narrative of the first capture of Alexandria. The whole 
 story that Alexandria was taken in the first instance by force arises 
 from similar confusion. A certain amount of this confusion may 
 be reduced to order by criticism, but some of it is past all remedy. 
 ' One now sees the true meaning of Yahya ibn Aiyfib and 
 Khalid ibn Hamid when they say that all Egypt except Alexandria 
 was occupied by treaty, and though the three villages named fought 
 for the Romans, 'yet Omar (Othman) decreed that they and 
 Alexandria were to be treated like the rest of the country.' The 
 reference is to the rebellion of Manuel, and not to the first invasion 
 of Egypt by the Arabs. 
 
488 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 even said that 'Amr himself wished to fix his abode 
 in the sea-side capital. But any such intention, now 
 as before, was repressed by the Caliph. Moreover, 
 'Amr was only allowed to stay for one month in 
 Alexandria, after which he handed it over to 
 'Abdallah ibn Sa'd; 
 
 One characteristic anecdote must not be passed 
 over in silence. After the recapture of Alexandria, 
 the Copts of the various Delta villages which had 
 been ruthlessly plundered by the Roman army, 
 came to 'Amr and complained that while they had 
 stood loyal to the Arabs as bound under treaty, 
 they had not received the protection to which under 
 the same treaty they were entitled, and in con- 
 sequence they had suffered severely. The justice 
 of this remonstrance is obvious : but it is not every 
 victorious general whose conscience would be 
 troubled by such a protest. Of "Amr, however, it 
 is recorded that he was struck with remorse, and 
 exclaimed : ' Would that I had encountered the 
 Romans as soon as they issued forth from Alex- 
 andria ! ' What is more, he at once ordered full 
 compensation to be paid to the Copts for all their 
 losses. This frank admission of responsibility and 
 frank restitution prove at once the excellence of 
 'Amr's principles of government and the nobility 
 of his nature. 
 
 But these very virtues were regarded as vices by 
 the jaundiced eye of the Caliph. He was not blind 
 to the supreme military talent of the conqueror, 
 and so offered to reward his service by giving 
 him the post of commander-in-chief of the army, 
 while the unscrupulous 'Abdallah was to be retained 
 as controller of the taxes and governor-general. 
 Such an offer could only meet with contemptuous 
 
Conclusion 489 
 
 rejection ; and ' Amr's resentment of the mockery 
 is well preserved in his caustic remark, ' I should 
 be like a man holding a cow by the horns while 
 another milked her.' But he had served the 
 Caliph's turn in crushing the rebellion, and was no 
 longer wanted. What the Caliph required was a 
 man to wring money out of the Egyptians, and the 
 man for that purpose was "Abdallah ^ 'Amr 
 accordingly quitted the country. 
 
 Here then the story of the Arab conquest may 
 fitly close. The suppression of Manuel's revolt and 
 the recapture of Alexandria by the Arabs mark the 
 definitive establishment of Muslim dominion upon 
 the Nile valley. It is true that nine years later 
 the Emperor Constans fitted out a second armada, 
 which he destined for the recovery of Egypt. But 
 it was too late. By this time the Arabs had learned 
 something of seamanship; and their fleet, though 
 inferior in numbers and fighting capacity, so baffled 
 the Roman force that the expedition never effected 
 a landing in Egypt. Its failure in battle was turned 
 to disaster by storm : the broken remnant of the 
 great fleet was scattered and driven over the seas. 
 From that moment the Muslim power was not 
 again seriously menaced, although the coast towns 
 long continued subject to isolated and fruitless raids 
 on the part of Byzantine sailors or pirates. 
 
 It might perhaps be interesting to follow out the 
 social and other changes which resulted from the 
 conquest; to trace the rapid decay of Graeco- 
 ' Severus says of him : ' He loved money and collected treasure 
 for himself in Egypt. He was the first to build the divan at Misr, 
 and he ordered that all the taxes should be collected there ' (Brit. 
 Mus. MS., p. 108, I. 20). He associates with his government also 
 a terrible famine — the worst since the days of Claudius. 
 
490 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Roman culture and the slow growth of a new 
 Saracenic civilization; and to distinguish those 
 unyielding elements of old Egyptian life and thought 
 which no transmutation of society could alter. One 
 might show how the old classical learning strove 
 in vain to maintain its position in the fallen city 
 of Alexandria, but was dispossessed by slow degrees 
 and finally banished to the cells and convents of 
 the desert ; where it lingered in inanition till the 
 Coptic language itself dwindled and disappeared. 
 One might study the process by which the use of 
 Arabic spread over the country, finding its first 
 expression in the coinage late in the seventh century 
 and then adopted in the public offices and public 
 documents \ gaining upon the Coptic and driving 
 out the use of Greek in common speech, save for 
 some few words which took Arabic shape or those 
 terms and phrases which remain as fossils to this 
 day embedded in Coptic literature. One might also 
 sketch the decline of those great and splendid cities 
 which the Romans had left in Egypt : for Alexandria, 
 though first among the cities of the East, if not of 
 the world, was only one among many which reached 
 from Syene to the Mediterranean ^ One would find 
 
 ' Suyflti seems to say that Arabic coins were first struck in 
 A.H. 75 and that Arabic was first introduced into the divans between 
 A.H. 86 and 90 {Hum al MuMdarah, vol. ii. p. 226 and p. 8). 
 
 ^ For example, Antinoe (Ansina) was built on a scale of great 
 splendour. It was on plan a long quadrilateral divided by a great 
 main street, which was intersected by three principal cross-streets. 
 These streets were all colonnaded, as at Alexandria, and statues 
 adorned the cross-ways. At the harbour on the Nile a triumphal 
 arch with three gateways was reared on Corinthian pillars, with 
 equestrian statues on each side. Outside the town were baths, 
 circus, and gymnasium. See Gregorovius' The Emperor Hadrian, 
 P- 357- 
 
Conclusion 491 
 
 that temples and palaces were suffered to fall into 
 ruins ; that precious marbles were quarried for 
 building or burned for lime; that bronze statues 
 were melted down and turned into coin or domestic 
 vessels; and yet that, through all the melancholy- 
 history of decadence and destruction, certain forms 
 and traditions of classical art were kept alive by 
 Coptic craftsmen, and that from these traditions, 
 moulded afresh by the Arab spirit, there sprang a 
 new school of art and architecture, with schemes 
 of decoration from which all suggestion of the human 
 form was banished, but which achieved results as 
 remarkable for originality as for grace and beauty 
 and splendour. But a great deal has already been 
 done towards tracing the descent of Saracenic from 
 Byzantine art ^ ; and in any case researches of this 
 kind lie beyond the limits of the present work. 
 
 So too of the Coptic race and religion. It has 
 already been shown how powerful were the forces 
 tending to drive the Copts into complete social and 
 religious union with Isldm : and few things are 
 stranger in history than the absolute absorption 
 of the one part of the Copts and the stubborn 
 refusal of the other part to renounce their ancestral 
 customs and their religion — a refusal which has 
 stood the test not only of the severest persecution, 
 under which sufferers may be sustained by fire of 
 enthusiasm, but also of that long dull wearing 
 pressure of a daily life in which a sense of sub- 
 jection, a consciousness of inferiority, was ever 
 present. Of course the survival of Christianity was 
 largely due to the influence of the monasteries, and 
 their security was due in some degree to their re- 
 
 'See Prof. Lane-Poole's Art of the Saracens in Egypt, and 
 M. Gayet's L'Art Copie. 
 
492 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 moteness in desert or mountain fastness. Yet few- 
 passages in the annals of Egypt are more agreeable 
 reading than those which tell of the extremely 
 friendly relations which prevailed between some 
 of the Coptic abbots and the Caliphs, and the 
 delight which the latter took in visiting picturesque 
 and pleasant convents ^ But studies of this kind 
 belong to a later period, and here must be left alone. 
 
 It rnight be thought perhaps that one ought at 
 least to follow out the fortunes of the conqueror 
 of Egypt. This would be an easy task : for in 
 coming to the time of settled Arab government 
 one emerges from the dark labyrinth of controversy 
 and contradiction into the open light of history. But 
 the part which 'Amr played in the troubled politics 
 of Islam after his dismissal from Egypt ; the story 
 of Othman's murder; the contest between 'Ali and 
 Mu'awlah ; 'Amr's victorious march into Egypt and 
 his reinstatement as governor — all this is written 
 in the chronicles of the caliphate, which have been 
 long accessible to the reader. 
 
 It was in Rabi' I of a.h. 38 (Aug.-Sept. 658) 
 that "Amr entered upon his second governorship. 
 He soon pacified the country, and after rewarding 
 his army entered on the enjoyment of the revenues, 
 in the disposal of which Mu'awlah left him unfettered 
 discretion. The curious episode of the arbitration 
 between the rival claims of 'AH and Mu'awlah 
 
 ' See e.g. Abfi Salih, pp. 149-50, 312-3. A somewhat 
 curious glimpse of the friendly relations subsisting between Copts 
 and Arabs is given in a MS. catalogued by Zoega (<3at. Codd. 
 Copt. p. 89). There a Copt of the Thebaid is mentioned, one 
 John, son of Mark, a deacon, ' who lived with the Ishmaelites and 
 Elamites ; for he was a trader in wares relating to women's apparel 
 or adornment.' This was soon after the conquest, in the caliphate 
 of Othman. 
 
Conclusion 493 
 
 recalled him for a short space from Egypt, and 
 upon his return he had a narrow escape of being 
 assassinated. A conspiracy having been formed 
 to put to death the three great leaders of Islim — 
 'Ali, Mu'awlah, and 'Amr— one Yazld was told off 
 to murder 'Amr while he was leading the Friday 
 prayers at the mosque. On the day destined for 
 the deed it so happened that 'Amr was somewhat 
 "unwell, and he deputed the well-known general 
 Khirijah ibn Hudhifah to take his place. Unaware 
 of the change, the assassin plunged his dagger into 
 Khdrijah. When confronted with the governor 
 Yazid said boldly, ' By God, it was you I wanted.' 
 ' But God wanted Khirijah,' said 'Amr. 
 
 On January 3, 662, the Patriarch Benjamin passed 
 away after a long period of illness and infirmity. He 
 had been Archbishop of Alexandria for the space 
 of thirty-nine years — a strange and stormy epoch, 
 rich in great events, stirred with the adventure of 
 nations, as race met race and creed encountered 
 creed in combat for the dominion of souls and 
 for the empire of the East. Benjamin, elected 
 under Roman rule, had seen the Persians under 
 Chosroes take possession of Egypt and of almost 
 the whole realm of the Caesars. He had seen the 
 grandly victorious campaigns of Heraclius ending 
 in the recall of the Persians from the Nile valley ; 
 and with the return of the Roman armies he had 
 seen the arrival of Cyrus, before whose persecution 
 he fled into the desert, there to remain for thirteen 
 years till the era of Roman dominion was closed 
 for ever. Above all he had seen a new power 
 and a new religion issue from the wastes of Arabia, 
 challenging Magian and Christian alike, sweeping 
 in conquest over Syria, Persia, and Egypt. After 
 
494 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 all the wars and revolutions he had witnessed, he 
 was able to leave his Church in comparative peace 
 under the rule of the conquering Muslims and their 
 great chieftain 'Amr ibn al 'Asl. 
 
 " Amr survived him almost exactly two years. The 
 Berbers of Pentapolis had been causing continual 
 trouble, and from 66 1 to 663 "Amr had sent more 
 than one expedition against them. When at the 
 end of 663 his lieutenants returned in triumph, they 
 found "Amr at Fustit in his last illness. It is related 
 that when he lay dying, Ibn 'Abbis went to 'Amr 
 and said : ' You have often remarked that you would 
 like to find an intelligent man at the point of death, 
 and to ask what his feelings were. Now I ask you 
 that question.' 'Amr replied : ' I feel as if the 
 heaven lay close upon the earth, and I between 
 the two, breathing as through the eye of a needle.' 
 When his son 'Abdallah entered the room, 'Amr 
 pointed to a chest and said, ' That is for you.' 
 ' I have no need,' said "Abdallah. ' Take it,' said 
 'Amr ; ' it is full of money ' : but "Abdallah still 
 refused ^ The last words of "Amr are recorded 
 as follows : ' Almighty God, thou hast commanded, 
 and I have disobeyed ; thou hast forbidden, and 
 I have transgressed. I am not innocent enough 
 to deserve thy pardon, nor have I strength to 
 prevail against thy will.' He died on Yllm al Fitr 
 A.H. 43, or January 6, 664, at the age of about 
 seventy ^. 'Abdallah carried his body to the place 
 
 ^ The Muslim writers make 'Abdallah's refusal prompted by the 
 fear that 'Amr's wealth was ill-gotten. This is a most dishonouring 
 accusation against both. There is no evidence that "Amr got 
 wealth by ill means, or that his son had any such thought. Surely 
 in his natural grief, at his father's death-bed, the last thing 'Abdallah 
 would care about is his money. 
 
 "^ See Appendix E, ' On the age of 'Amr.' 
 
Conclusion 495 
 
 of prayer and prayed over it, his prayer being 
 followed by all who were present. 
 
 'Amr was buried at the foot of the Mukattam 
 Hills, 'near the entrance to the ravine.' But the 
 place of his grave has been clean forgotten. For 
 centuries the mountains have been scarped and 
 quarried, till even the landmark of the ravine has 
 so long disappeared that tradition itself has sunk 
 into silence. The new capital of Fustat which 'Amr 
 founded, and which rose later to great magnificence, 
 has long since been levelled with the dust, leaving 
 no vestige but the mosque which bears 'Amr's name, 
 and which still marks at least the site of his original 
 building. Close by in Dair Abti 's Saifain and in 
 Kasr ash Shama' churches are still standing which 
 date their foundation, if not their structure, back to 
 the Roman Empire. The very walls of Babylon, 
 which were nearly complete some twenty years ago, 
 still remain in places, and probably the whole circuit 
 could be revealed to a great depth, like the gateway, 
 by excavation. But one may search the desolate 
 plain and the fringe of the mountains in vain for 
 any stone to mark the grave of "Amr : for the 
 Muslims have neither memorial nor remembrance 
 of the place where the conqueror of Egypt is 
 buried. 
 
APPENDIX A 
 ON THE RELIC CALLED THE HOLY ROOD 
 
 The story of the finding of the cross in May, 338, is well 
 known, and it is certain that the wood found by the 
 Empress Helena was preserved for some centuries. Socrates 
 {Eccl. Hist. lib. i. xvii) says that Helena put one portion in 
 a silver chest and left it at Jerusalem, sending the other 
 portion to the Emperor. The evidence for the subsequent 
 history of the cross is fairly complete and continuous. 
 
 To begin with the fourth century. In the paper on the 
 Churches of Constantine at Jerusalem, in vol. i of the 
 Palestine Pilgrims Text Society's publications (pp. 33-5), 
 there is a quotation from the Breviary showing that in the 
 basilica of Constantine was an altar of silver and gold 
 supported on nine columns, and that the cross was adorned 
 with gold and gems. Theodosius {De Terra Sancta) speaks 
 also of ' the chamber wherein is the Cross of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. The Cross itself is adorned with gold and gems, 
 the open sky being above and a latticed railing of gold 
 round it.' So too St. Silvia of Aquitania (circa 385 A.D.) 
 — who, by the way, mentions the use of incense at the 
 church of the Resurrection — records the Good Friday 
 ceremony, which she witnessed, as follows : ' Then is brought 
 a silver-gilt casket, in which is the holy wood of the Cross : 
 it is opened, and, its contents being taken out, the wood of 
 the Cross and also its inscription are placed on the Table.' 
 Then all the people come and kiss the cross (id., ib., 
 
 P- 63). 
 
 Antoninus Martyr visited the Holy Places circa 565 A.D., 
 and there saw the relic still in the atrium of the basilica of 
 Constantine, where it was kept in a shrine or chamber. He 
 says nothing about the case, but he mentions the sponge 
 and the reed, which Nicetas is said to have rescued later — 
 in the seventh century. 
 
Appendix A 497 
 
 We have seen that in 615 the rood was taken by the 
 Persians, when they captured Jerusalem, and sent with other 
 spoil to Chosroes ; that it was recovered by Heraclius in 
 628, taken to Constantinople that winter, restored to its 
 place in the church of Constantine with great pomp in 639, 
 and again sent to Constantinople a few years later, c. 636, 
 to save it from falling into the hands of the conquering 
 Muslims. 
 
 It was seen at Constantinople about the year 670 by the 
 pilgrim Arculfus, who had been to Jerusalem and had 
 beheld the great churches just as they were left after 
 their reinstatement by Modestus, — an interesting piece of 
 evidence, because it shows how tolerantly the Christian 
 churches were treated by the Muslims towards the end of 
 the seventh century. But of the cross Arculfus says that 
 it was kept at St. Sophia's in a wooden case, which rested 
 in a large and very beautiful aumbry or shrine. On three 
 consecutive days in the year, i. e. Maundy Thursday; Good 
 Friday, and Easter Eve, the reliquary was placed on 
 a golden altar. On the first day the Emperor and the 
 army entered and kissed the cross — all in order of rank. 
 On the next day the Queen with her ladies and other noble 
 women kissed the cross. On the third day the Patriarch 
 and clergy went through the same ceremony, with the same 
 regard to precedence. The reliquary was then closed and 
 carried back to its aumbry (id., vol. ii. pp. 55-6). 
 
 In the tenth century Porphyrogenitus gives a similar 
 account of the cross, though apparently the chest contain- 
 ing it was then kept in a different part of the cathedral. 
 There is some obscurity regarding the ultimate fate of this 
 and of other relics kept at St, Sophia ; but the subject is 
 exhaustively treated in Messrs. Lethaby and Swainson's 
 admirable work, S. Sophia, Constantinople, pp. 93, 93, 97 
 seq., &c. 
 
 Kk 
 
498 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 APPENDIX B 
 
 ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PERSIAN 
 CONQUEST 
 
 It may be doubted whether it is possible at present to 
 establish with finality the dates connected with the Persian 
 conquest of Egypt. Some recent writers tend to put the 
 event later than 616 A.D., and Gelzer, who has written 
 a learned note on the subject [Leontios von Neapolis, p. 151), 
 argues that Alexandria cannot have fallen before 619. In 
 this he dissents from Von Gutschmid, who places it a year 
 or two earlier. 
 
 The evidence cited by Gelzer is as follows. Theophanes 
 makes the conquest take place in 616. Barhebraeus gives 
 the seventh year of Heraclius, following the Patriarch 
 Michael, who says (Jerusalem edition, p. 293) that the 
 Shah-Waraz invaded Egypt in the seventh year of Heraclius. 
 The conquest of Egypt is put by Isidore (Roncalli, Chron. 
 Min. ii. 461) in 616, while Tabari records that the keys oi 
 Alexandria were delivered to Chosroes in the twenty-eighth 
 year of his reign, i.e. 617-8 ; ' thus giving the date handed 
 down by Michael.' 
 
 I may here remark that the seventh year of Heraclius 
 = October, 616 — October, 617, whereas the twenty-eighth 
 of Chosroes falls about evenly between 617 and 618, and no 
 part of it can fall in 616 : so that the agreement between 
 Michael and Tabari is not very obvious. Further, Bar- 
 hebraeus (or Abu '1 Faraj) elsewhere (Hist. Dyn., ed. 
 Pococke, p. 99) clearly assigns the capture of Jerusalem by 
 the Persians to the fifth year of Heraclius, and so, in this 
 as in many points, is inconsistent. 
 
 Gelzer goes on to say that Von Gutschmid has shown 
 with great acuteness (Kleine Sckriften, iii. 473 seq.) that 
 the Persian invasion cannot have taken place before 617, 
 because Syrian authorities f rove that the visit of Athana- 
 sius of Antioch to the Monophysite Patriarch Anastasius of 
 
Appendix B 499 
 
 Alexandria took place in 6i6, whereas the Patriarch in office 
 when the Persians entered Alexandria was Andronicus. 
 Moreover, as Barhebraeus shows, the real promoter and 
 author of the union was Nicetas, who fled with John the 
 Almoner at the approach of the Persians. Von Gutschmid 
 puts the death of Anastasius on December i8, 616, Andro- 
 nicus, his immediate successor, stayed on and was able to 
 reside (as I have shown in the text) within the city. ' From 
 this,' says Gelzer, ' it clearly follows that at least at the 
 beginning of the patriarchate of Andronicus (end of 616) 
 Alexandria was still in the possession of the Greeks. 
 Accordingly the earliest date for the Persian conquest must 
 be the summer of 617, as Von Gutschmid supposes.' 
 
 On the whole I think Von Gutschmid's dates are correct, 
 though not free from difficulty. To begin with, it is by no 
 means certain that the year given by the Syrian authorities 
 is rightly identified as 616; because, while they generally 
 reckon by the Greek or Seleucid era, they often differ by 
 a year from the ordinary calculation of that era, inasmuch 
 as they start from 311 B.C. instead of 313 {Trisor de 
 Chronologie, col. 36). It is therefore possible that Syrian 
 evidence is rather in favour of 615 than 616, in which case 
 it would be in agreement with the Chronicon Orientale, 
 which alleges that the visit of Athanasius to Egypt took 
 place in the same year in which Jerusalem was stormed by 
 the Persians. Then, again, the Egyptian writer Severus of 
 Ushmunain dates the death of the Coptic Patriarch 
 Anastasius on 1% Khoiak (December 18) in the year 330 of 
 Diocletian. This Renaudot wrongly identifies with 614, 
 because Khoiak falls in 613. These statements are hope- 
 lessly incompatible : but it is impossible at least to place 
 the capture of Jerusalem in 613. 
 
 There are, however, some other Syrian authorities whose 
 evidence must be cited. For it is well known, though not 
 mentioned by Gelzer, that there exist Syriac biblical MSS. 
 which are dated in the seventh century, and which were 
 writen at the Ennaton monastery near Alexandria by 
 Thomas of Harkel and Paul of Telia, under the direct 
 
 K ka 
 
500 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 orders of the Patriarch Anastasius, and in direct connexion 
 with his visit to Egypt. These MSS. were part of a sys- 
 tematic revision of the Syriac text by collation of the Greek 
 version of Philoxenus ; the dates they bear are of capital 
 importance. 
 
 ' Thomas of Harkel is known to have completed his 
 version of the New Testament into Syriac in 927 of the 
 Greek era ^' Now this 927, unless equivalent to the 
 ordinary 926, would run from October, 615, to October, 616. 
 There is also another Syro-Hexaplar MS. in the British 
 Museum (Add. MSS. 144,376), which is subscribed as com- 
 pleted in the same year 615-6. 
 
 The MS. of the Third Book of Kings is dated Shabat, 
 927, which = February, 616. That of the Fourth Book of 
 Kings has a subscription which represents both Paul and 
 Athanasius as dwelling at Alexandria in ^28, which runs 
 from October, 616, to October, 617, thus fixing the visit of the 
 Syrian Patriarch to the autumn of 616. In another Syro- 
 Hexaplar MS. at Milan we find the date of completion 
 given as 928 or 616-7. 
 
 In these MSS., then, there is a record of peaceable study 
 at the Ennaton Monastery extending over the two years 
 615-7 and incidentally fixing the visit of the Syrian 
 Patriarch in October, 616, because his host the Coptic 
 Patriarch died in December of the same year. The dates 
 here are reckoned according to the ordinary calculation of 
 the Greek era. But if we are to regard them as based on 
 the special Syrian computation of that era, the result will 
 be to place the visit in 615-6, and the record of work 
 from 614-6. In this latter case we fall into agreement 
 with Barhebraeus, who states {Chro7i. Eccles. t. i. 367-9) that 
 'Athanasius went to Alexandria, where Anastasius was 
 Patriarch, and entered into union with him. This union 
 between our (Syrian) Church and the Church of Egypt was 
 in the year of the Greeks 927,' i.e. October, 615 — October, 
 616, as Barhebraeus does not follow the Syrian variation of 
 the era. There is no way of reconciling these discrepancies 
 
 * See Did. Christ. Biog., s. v. Thomas of Harkel and Paul of Telia. 
 
Appendix B 501 
 
 otherwise than by reference to a different method of cal- 
 culating the era : and as it was especially the Syrians of 
 Babylonia who advanced the Greek era by a year, there 
 is nothing improbable in ascribing that method to Thomas 
 of Harkel and Paul of Telia. In that case we have an 
 agreement between the Chronicon Orientate, the biblical 
 MSS., and Abu '1 Faraj, which practically dates the union of 
 the two Churches in October; 615. This seems a fair and 
 a reasonable solution. 
 
 I think it would be still necessary to assign the death of 
 the Coptic Patriarch to Dec. 18, 616, not to 615; and for 
 this reason, that there is no other way of making the reign of 
 Andronicus, his successor, fit in with the known dates for its 
 duration and for its termination. For the duration is fixed 
 to a few days over six years ending 8 Tubah, or 3 January. 
 But given some 3 January as the date for the death of 
 Andronicus and for the beginning of Benjamin's patriarchate, 
 no other year but 633 will fulfil the necessary conditions. 
 For on the one hand it is clear that Andronicus saw the 
 beginning of the Persian invasion, which I put late in 61 5 ; 
 and on the other hand it is clear that the same Patriarch 
 saw the beginning of Islam. For the Chronicon Orientale, 
 while giving Andronicus' date as 611 to 617, yet adds, ' In 
 his time the power of the MusHms had its rise,' i.e. July, 
 6%%, and this is corroborated by Makin, who places the 
 election of Benjamin in the first year of the Hijra, 623-3. 
 Abu Salih's testimony is equally explicit ; for he records 
 that Andronicus was Patriarch ' at the first appearance of 
 the Muslims in the twelfth year of HeracHus' (ed. Evetts 
 and Butler, p. 231). This concurrence of evidence for 
 dating the enthronement of Benjamin in January, 633, is 
 very strong — indeed, almost irresistible. Le Quien follows 
 the dates of Severus, who makes Andronicus' term of office 
 from 614 to 6ao ; while Echellensis claims greater accuracy 
 for his scheme, in which Andronicus reigns from 619 to 
 
 622. 
 
 Now if, as seems proved, Andronicus died about Jan. 3, 
 633, and reigned for just over six years, starting Dec. 18, 
 
502 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 it follows that his reign began in 6x6, and that Anastasius 
 died on Dec. i8, 6i6. This date agrees with that fixed by 
 Von Gutschmid [Kleine Schriften, ii. pp. 471-4). 
 
 The discussion has taken us somewhat far from the 
 biblical MSS. written at the Ennaton Monastery, but it is 
 necessary to go back to them for a moment. 
 
 These MSS. show that (i) Thomas of Harkel was working 
 at the translation for at least two years before the visit of 
 the Syrian Patriarch. 
 
 (a) The visit itself may well be assigned to October, 615. 
 
 (3) Patil of Telia continued at work at least three months 
 after the visit, till January, 616. 
 
 A difficulty is raised by the fact that Athanasius is 
 loosely stated to have gone with five other Syrian bishops, 
 whereas the language of Barhebraeus shows most decisively 
 that Thomas of Harkel was driven from his diocese of 
 Mabijg, and fled to Egypt for refuge. That Thomas and 
 Paul were present during the visit need not be doubted, nor 
 that three other bishops either travelled with Athanasius, or 
 were driven to Egypt by the Persian occupation of Pales- 
 tine. We have the express statement of John Moschus 
 that many bishops were so driven to Egypt. But it is far 
 more likely that the very residence of these Syrian scholars 
 at Alexandria, and their consequent intimacy with the 
 Coptic Patriarch prior to the Patriarch of Antioch's visit, 
 settled all the preliminaries for that formal union which 
 was so quickly ratified after the actual meeting of the two 
 Patriarchs. 
 
 There is one further piece of evidence furnished by these 
 MSS. It is highly significant that of the other books of 
 the Bible attributed to Paul of Telia, not one is dated, the 
 last date being, as I have shown, the very beginning of 
 616. It does not seem reasonable to argue that the work 
 must nevertheless have been done in the same monastery 
 'of the Antonians^' under the same conditions, and that 
 therefore the Persian invasion must be put later than 616. 
 
 ' Strangely called ' Of the Antonines ' by the Diet. Christ. Biog. Of 
 course it means that the monks followed the rule of St. Anthony. 
 
Appendix B 503 
 
 On the contrary, these Syrian scholars, who had seen or 
 heard of the great havoc wrought in their own country by 
 the Persians, would naturally take alarm at the first news 
 of the Persian advance into Egypt ; and it is highly 
 probable that in the summer of 616 they fled oversea 
 accompanied by the monks of the Ennaton and their more 
 precious possessions, including the Greek MSS. of the 
 Scriptures. But without recourse to this hypothesis, there 
 is another possible explanation, consistent with the con- 
 tinuance of the work in Egypt. 
 
 This brings us to a point which has been singularly over- 
 looked, and which therefore requires some emphasis. It is 
 the almost invariable custom of writers upon this period to 
 speak of the Persian conquest as a single incident to be 
 dated in a single year ; in other words, they fail to dis- 
 tinguish between the invasion of Egypt and the fall of 
 Alexandria. These two events must be at least a year 
 apart, and there is not the smallest doubt that ancient 
 writers sometimes fasten their date upon the one event and 
 sometimes upon the other ; and this fact accounts for much 
 of the prevalent confusion. 
 
 That the Persians were not advancing on Egypt early in 
 616 may be regarded as proved. Moreover, even were 
 they ready for a fresh campaign so soon after the fall of 
 Jerusalem, it is more probable that they would not cross 
 the desert in the summer. We may therefore conclude 
 that the advance began in the autumn of 616, and that the 
 army took Pelusium, where they sacked the monasteries, 
 before the end of that year. They had then to march to 
 Memphis, to capture the formidable fortress of Babylon, 
 and to fight their way down the western branch of the Nile 
 past Nikiou (as we know they did) to Alexandria. We 
 know also that they spent a long time besieging the city 
 before it was delivered over to them by treachery. All 
 this must have taken at least a year. Consequently it is 
 impossible on any theory of dates to place the capture of 
 Alexandria before the end of the year 617 or the beginning 
 of 618. 
 
504 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 It is thus easy to suppose that the Syrian scholars 
 continued their work at the Ennaton Monastery till the 
 Persian forces were approaching, and then took refuge in 
 the city, whence escape by sea was always open. They 
 would thus have gained another two years, which would 
 probably have sufficed to finish their labours. 
 
 So much then for the Syrian authorities. But it will 
 be noticed that the argument which has brought us to 
 the winter of 617-8 as the earliest date for the fall of 
 Alexandria brings us into precise agreement with the date 
 given by Tabari. It also, though proceeding on different 
 and partly discordant data, brings us into near agreement 
 with Von Gutschmid's conclusions, viz. that in December, 
 616, 'Alexandria was still in the possession of the Greeks, 
 and that the earliest date of the Persian conquest' (if by 
 that he means the capture of Alexandria) ' must be the 
 summer of 617.' Tabari in saying that the keys of Alex- 
 andria were not sent to Chosroes before the winter, goes 
 a little beyond th'is statement, and I agree with him. 
 
 Briefly then the dates may be set out thus : — 
 
 (i) Capture of Jerusalem .... End of May, 615. 
 
 (a) Visit of Athanasius to Alexandria October, 615. 
 
 (3) Persian advance into Egypt . . Autumn, 616. 
 
 (4) Death of Coptic Patriarch . . . Dec. 18,616. 
 
 (5) Capture of Babylon Spring, 617. 
 
 (6) Capture of Alexandria .... End of 61 7. 
 
 (7) Subjugation of the whole of Egypt 61 8. 
 
 I may add that the conquest of Upper Egypt cannot 
 have been completed much before the winter of 618, 
 because we know from a dated Coptic papyrus that 
 Arsinoe, or Fayfim, was still under Roman rule on June 9, 
 618 {Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, vol. ii, Koptische Texte, 
 ed. J. Krall, i bd. p. aa). But, broadly speaking, this table 
 shows that from the capture of Jerusalem to the complete 
 occupation of Egypt there is a period of three years, exactly 
 as recorded by Ab(i '1 Faraj (ed. Pococke, I.e.). 
 
 This scheme now enables one to place John the Al- 
 moner's mission of relief to Jerusalem in the winter of 
 
Appendix B 505 
 
 615-6; for the envoys clearly went by land, and they 
 certainly could not have gone while the Persian armies 
 were on their way to Egypt. The flight of John with 
 Nicetas will naturally fall in the autumn of 616, if they 
 fled at the news of the Persian invasion, though Leontius' 
 words rather suggest that they escaped only a short time 
 before the surrender of Alexandria, i.e. a year later. 
 Above all, this scheme will fit in with the chronology of 
 the Arab writers both for the lives of the Patriarchs and 
 for the period of the Persian occupation. This period, as 
 Gelzer rightly remarks, is ten years. 
 For the Coptic Patriarchs I give the following dates : — 
 
 (i) Anastasius . from June, 604, to Dec. 18, 616. 
 
 (3) Andronicus . „ Dec. 616, „ Jan. 3, 523. 
 
 (3) Benjamin . „ Jan. 623, „ Jan. 3, 66a. 
 And for the Melkite Patriarchs :— 
 
 (i) Theodore, killed in 609. 
 
 (2) John the Almoner from 609 to 616 or 617. 
 
 (3) George ... „ 621 „ 630 or 631. 
 
 (4) Cyrus .... ,,631 „ 642. 
 
 Now if with Gelzer, on the single authority of Thomas 
 Presbyter, the union of the Syrian and Egyptian Churches 
 be put in 618, we have to dislocate the whole scheme of 
 the succession of the Coptic Patriarchs, and above all to 
 put Benjamin's enthronement at least as late as 625 ; 
 whereas the Egyptian writers insist that his pontificate 
 began in 622-3, the year of the rise of Mohammed. For 
 me that correspondence is decisive, even if it stood alone, 
 to determine the date of Benjamin ; but it would be easy to 
 multiply evidence from Egyptian sources to refute 625. 
 
 Then as to the ten years' occupation. Gelzer would 
 make this end in 629, i.e. at least a year after the con- 
 clusion of peace between Heraclius and Siroes. Now there 
 are three strong reasons against this : (i) the whole aim of 
 Heraclius' strategy in 622 and the following years was to 
 relieve the Persian pressure on his capital and on Egypt ; 
 and it is, if not proved, yet highly probable, that Egypt 
 was evacuated by reason of this pressure even as early as 
 
5o6 The A rab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 the spring of 637 — a little over ten years from the invasion, 
 as I contend ; (2) even if this were not so, Sebeos distinctly 
 records that Siroes, in the treaty of February, 628, agreed at 
 once to evacuate all the Roman possessions, and did 
 evacuate them ; (3) Mohammed's envoys were sent out 
 to the different rulers in the summer or aututnn of 627 at 
 latest, as Tabari shows, because he represents Chosroes' 
 messengers to Yaman as detained there for some months 
 before the news came of the king's death, which occurred 
 in February, 628 ; and it is beyond question that when 
 Mohammed sent to Egypt, that country was recovered to 
 the Empire and ruled by Heraclius' viceroy, 'Al Mukaukas,' 
 as he is wrongly styled. 
 
 Gelzer's appeal to Nicephorus will not support his date 
 of 629. Nicephorus' words are : ' Sarbaros after hearing 
 of the death of Chosroes, Siroes, Kaboes, and Hormisdas, 
 returned from the country of the Romans ' ; and ' when 
 peace was ratified, Sarbaros gave back Egypt and all the 
 East to the Romans, removing the Persian garrisons, and 
 he sent the life-giving cross to the Emperor.' But the 
 Shah-Waraz did not become king by agreement with Hera- 
 clius till at least the end of 629 {Jotcrnal Asiaiique, 1866, 
 p. 220), whereas it is certain that Heraclius recovered the 
 cross in 628. Moreover, Nicephorus himself, after record- 
 ing certain other events, goes on to say that subsequently 
 the cross was taken by Heraclius to Jerusalem, then again 
 returned to Constantinople, where the Patriarch Sergius 
 received it ; ' and it was in the 2nd Indiction that these 
 things happened,' i.e. 629! If this incoherent story proved 
 anything, it would be that Egypt was evacuated before the 
 recovery of the cross, and therefore before September, 6a8 ; 
 but it proves nothing except that Nicephorus is an incom- 
 petent witness. 
 
 The fact is that the ten years of the occupation may 
 count from the entry of the Persians into Egypt, or from 
 the capture of Alexandria, or from the completion of the 
 conquest of Egypt up to Syene ; and the length of the 
 period must of course depend on the starting-point. 
 
Appendix B 507 
 
 I have endeavoured in this note to show that much of 
 the confusion arises from the failure to distinguish between 
 the invasion of Egypt and the conquest of Egypt, which 
 are neither synonymous nor synchronous. One other 
 source of confusion is the failure to distinguish between the 
 year Anno Domini (beginning January i) and the Greek 
 year of Alexander's era (beginning September i), which 
 spreads over part of two years of our reckoning. Further, 
 there is the failure to take into account the Syrian reckon- 
 ing of the Greek era, which sometimes differs from the 
 ordinary reckoning by one year, and which begins the year 
 in October instead of September. A final source of error 
 may be mentioned — the attempt to found the chronology 
 on too narrow a basis. This may be done in two ways, by 
 unduly narrowing either the period or the sources of evi- 
 dence. It will not answer to discuss the dates of a period 
 of ten or twelve years and to settle them without regard 
 to the consequences, i. e. without facing the bearing of those 
 dates on previous or subsequent chronology, and ascer- 
 taining whether the inevitable deductions will stand criti- 
 cism. But it should also be remembered that, in dealing 
 with these events of the seventh century, the sources of 
 history are many and various. There are Greek, Armenian, 
 Syrian, Arab, and Egyptian writers who have something 
 to say ; and it is not legitimate to base any system of 
 chronology upon the evidence of one or two sets of writers 
 without due regard to the others. 
 
 In making these remarks I am profoundly conscious of 
 the difficulties besetting any attempt to reconcile authorities 
 which are often really, as well as apparently, irreconcilable. 
 But it may not be presumptuous to indicate some of the 
 pitfalls which research must encounter. I would only add 
 that in differing with Gelzer, I do so with all admiration 
 for his learned and scholarly work. But while I am far 
 from claiming that the scheme of chronology I have put 
 forward is free from all difficulty, I may perhaps claim that 
 it is broadly based, and reconciles a large number of very 
 different and wholly independent authorities. 
 
5o8 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 APPENDIX C 
 
 ON THE IDENTITY OF ' AL MUKAUKAS ' 
 
 (Revised and amended from a paper in the '^Proceedings of 
 the Society of Biblical Archaeology.') 
 
 There is in the history of Egypt no figure at once so 
 familiar and so mysterious as that denoted by the Arabic 
 title Al Mukaukas, or Al Mukaukis. That the person in 
 question played the leading part on the Roman side at 
 the crisis of the Saracen conquest — that he was chiefly 
 responsible for the surrender of Egypt — is agreed : but 
 here all agreement ends. His personal identity, his name 
 and nationality, the office he held, and the action he took, 
 the very meaning of the title by which he is known — all 
 these are questions debated, disputed, and answered in a 
 fashion, but in such a fashion as to reveal the most hope- 
 less discord ofopinion. Nor is this discord to be wondered 
 at ; for it is clear that from the earliest times the Arabic 
 authorities themselves are completely bewildered on the 
 subject. 
 
 Among modern historians, Von Ranke {Weltgeschichte, 
 V, i. 14a seq.) calls Al Mukaukas governor of Egypt and 
 a Copt, but seems to doubt his historical character. De 
 Goeje (' De Mokaukis van Egypte ' in the Etudes dMiies 
 a Leemans) remarks that the Arabic historians seem to have 
 confused the Mukaukas in some points with Cyrus, the 
 imperial Patriarch of Alexandria, although he was a different 
 person and held a different office. Prof. Karabacek, in his 
 article ' Der Mokaukis von Aegypten ' ( Mittheilungen aus 
 der Sammlung der Papyrtis Erzherzog Rainer, vol. i. pp. 
 i-ii), concludes that the proper name of the Mukaukas was 
 George, son of Mind Parkabios, thus explaining the name 
 w-^9 or rather ^f given to his father by some of the 
 authorities. Karabacek assigns to the Mukaukas the ofiSce 
 of pagarch, and explains the title as the Arabic form of the 
 Greek //.tyaux^'y, which he assumes to have been an honorary 
 
Appendix C 509 
 
 designation, analogous to « iiSo^oVaros and the like commonly 
 found in seventh-century papyri. Mr. Milne in his note on 
 ' George the Mukaukis ' {Egypt under Roman Rule, p. 224) 
 identifies the man with a George the Prefect mentioned 
 by John of Nikiou, who is assumed to have been Prefect 
 of Augustamnica (i. e. Athrib : see Hyvernat's Actes des 
 Martyrs de [j&gypte, vol. i. p. 296), though Athrib is hardly 
 ' on the eastern frontier of Egypt,' as Mr. Milne's argument 
 requires. Prof. Stanley Lane-Poole {Egypt in the Middle 
 Ages, p. 6, note 2) leans to the jueyauxTjs theoiy of the name, 
 and adopts Mr. Milne's identification of the man with 
 George the Prefect, in spite of the Arab traditions which 
 make the Mukaukas 'governor of all Egypt, ruling from 
 Alexandria.' He further accepts the conventional story 
 which makes the Mukaukas a Copt. So Professor Bury 
 speaks of him as ' the Coptic governor ' of Egypt {Later 
 Roman Empire, vol. ii. p. 270). The varying accounts of 
 these writers are at best but partial and incomplete, because 
 they have not grappled closely with the problem in its 
 bearings on the history of the conquest, and so tested their 
 theory against the various difficulties which its application 
 must encounter. Moreover, Al Mukaukas is not the only 
 person whose identity is disputed. Almost all the chief 
 actors on the Roman or the Egyptian side in the war are 
 equally shadowy personalities, and they are often confounded 
 together. Hence to identify the Mukaukas is only half the 
 problem. Other figures have at the same time to be 
 examined, and their identity determined. But this is a 
 necessity which, I believe, no writer has yet fully appre- 
 ciated : so that one may say that the problem in its entirety 
 has never yet been adequately stated. The fact is that 
 confusion of names and persons permeates the whole history 
 of the conquest to such a degree that only in writing, or 
 attempting to write, that history does one realize the 
 magnitude or the intricacy of the problem. 
 
 I propose first of all to cite the evidence of the principal 
 Arabic writers, and to see what material they furnish for 
 stating or solving the questions at issue. 
 
510 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 BalMhurt (born 806 A.D.) mentions the Mukaukas as 
 having made peace with 'Amr, and as siding with the 
 Copts after Heraclius' disapproval of the treaty. In 
 Manuel's rebellion some say that he sided with the Arabs, 
 others that he was dead. Baladhuri gives no name to the 
 Mukaukas. 
 
 Tabari (839-923 A.D.) distinguishes the prince of 
 Alexandria from the prince of Memphis : the latter was 
 the Mukaukas, who was also prince of the Copts. The 
 Mukaukas sent to Memphis an army imder command of 
 the Catholicus, who was chief of all the bishops of the 
 Christians, and whose name was Ibn Maryam. 
 
 Eutychius (born 876 A.D.) was a Melkite. He avers that 
 Al Mukaukas was controller of the finances of Egypt in 
 the name of Heraclius, a Jacobite at heart, though by pro- 
 fession a Melkite, and that he had kept back the tribute 
 due to the Emperor ever since the Persians had beleaguered 
 Constantinople, No name is given to the Mukaukas, who 
 is made to live till after the revolt of Manuel. 
 
 The MS. of Severus of Ushmilnain (? flor. early tenth 
 century) is very important. His words are : ' When 
 Heraclius had recovered his territories, he appointed 
 governors in every place. To us in the land of Egypt 
 Cyrus was sent to be governor and Patriarch together^ 
 Of the ten years' persecution, the time of Benjamin's flight, 
 he says : ' These were the years during which Heraclius 
 and Al Mukaukas were ruling Egypt.' Again he says : 
 ' When the ten years of the reign of Heraclius and the 
 government of Al Mukaukas were over.' He further de- 
 scribes ' the misbelieving governor, who was both Prefect 
 and Patriarch of Alexandria.' Finally, Benjamin is made 
 to speak of ' the time of the persecution which befell me 
 when Al Mukaukas drove me away'; and it is Severus who 
 represents Benjamin as driven from his seat by the arrival 
 of Cyrus. To Severus then Cyrus is the Mukaukas. 
 
 There is now a gap of nearly two centuries till we come 
 to Ibn al Athir (born 11 60 A.D.), who mentions both Abii 
 Maryam and Abfi Marydm, the former Catholicus of 
 
Appendix C 511 
 
 Memphis (notice the absurdity of this title), the latter 
 a bishop. Both were sent by Al Mukaukas to attack 
 'Amr, but parleyed with him, and brought terms which the 
 Mukaukas rejected. The Mukaukas himself was in com- 
 mand at the battle of Heliopolis, and later appears as 
 governor of Alexandria during the siege. He made peace 
 with 'Amr, and was alive during Manuel's rebellion. 
 
 Ibn al Athir is very confused as to the order of events in 
 the early part of the conquest. 
 
 Abil Sdlih wrote circa laoo A.D. He testifies that 
 ' Mohammed sent Hatib ibn Abi Balta'ah to Al Mukaukas, 
 governor of Alexandria,' i.e. in a.h. 6, which began 
 May 33, 637. After the recovery of Egypt, 'The country 
 was placed by Heraclius under the government of George, 
 son of Mina, the Mukaukas, i^fX\ U** ^\ ^=.. Again, of 
 a monastery in Upper Egypt he says, ' It was here that 
 Benjamin lived in concealment in the reign of the Roman 
 Emperor Heraclius, who was a Chalcedonian, and while 
 George, son of Mini, the Mukaukas, was ruling in Egypt, 
 until the completion of the ten years, through fear of both 
 of them, according to the warning of the angel.' The 
 writer goes on to say that these were the ten years of the 
 persecution suffered by the orthodox (i.e. Copts). But 
 Abu Salih also quotes from the Book of Al Janih the state- 
 ment that 'the bishop of the Romans at Misr and Alexandria 
 was named Cyrus ' (p. 73). 
 
 YdMt (born circa 1178 A.D.) further complicates matters. 
 He says that the fortress of Babylon ' was commanded by 
 Al Mandafur called Al 'Uairij on behalf of Al Mukaukas 
 ibn Karkab al Y-HnAnt ' (j^jJl ^^^ ^.), son of Karkab, the 
 Greek, ' whose usual residence was at Alexandria.' 
 
 MaUn (born circa 1205 A.D.) says that 'the governor 
 of Egypt in the name of Heraclius was Al Mukaukas, who 
 together with the chief men of the Copts made peace with 
 'Amr.' 
 
 Ibn Khald-Hn (born 133a A.D., flor. late fourteenth 
 century) follows Ibn al Athir, but has his own confusions. 
 He makes the Mukaukas a Copt. 
 
512 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Ibn Dukmak (wrote circa 1400) speaks of ' Al Mukaukas, 
 the Roman, the Viceroy of Heraclius.' 
 
 Makrtzt (born 1365 A.D.) quotes Yaztd ibn Abi Habib for 
 the statement that ' the Mukaukas the Roman, being governor 
 of Egypt, made peace with 'Amr.' Ibn 'Abd al Hakam is 
 quoted as the authority for the survival of Al Mukaukas to 
 the time of Manuel's rebellion. Ibn 'Abd al Hakam was 
 an early writer (died 870 A.D.), whose work survives in MS., 
 but he is a romancer as well as an historian, though often of 
 value. Weil has quoted largely from him. 
 
 Makrtzi follows Yikiit about Al 'Uairij, and in making 
 the Mukaukas son of Karkab (or Karkat) the Greek. He 
 says that the Copts had a bishop at Alexandria called Abfl 
 Maydmtn ; that the Mukaukas made terms with the Arabs ; 
 but that Heraclius repudiated the agreement, reproaching 
 him with imitating the meanness and cowardice of the Copts. 
 Of Cyrus he says that Heraclius, i^xSCLi)! i^Jm, [J-j^ ^Ul, 
 ' made Firush (sic) Patriarch of Alexandria ' — a mistake for 
 ,_,y3. Wakidi (so called, romance of uncertain date) says that 
 ' the king of the Copts at that time was the Mukaukas, son 
 of Ra'il' 
 
 'Abu 'IMahdsin (born 1409) makes Benjamin the Coptic 
 bishop of Alexandria, and states that ' the commander of 
 Kasr ash Shama' was Al 'Ughairij, who was subordinate to 
 the authority of Al Mukaukas ' ; and two MSS. give the 
 name of the Mukaukas as Juraih ibn Mind, U~» ,^.1 Jfj=ri 
 obviously a mistake for U^ ^jI JJf, or George, son of 
 Pvlina. Elsewhere, however, the same writer says that the 
 fortress was ' commanded by Al Mandafiir, called Al 
 'Ughairij, on behalf of Al Mukaukas, son of Karkab al 
 Yflnini.' 
 
 This author also cites Ibn Kathir's story (compiled from 
 Ibn Ishak and others), that the Muslims on their entry into 
 Egypt were met by Abfi Maryam, the Catholicus of Egypt, 
 and Abu Martdm, the bishop ; and these two prelates are 
 introduced at the building of Fustdt. 
 
 Suy-^tt (born 1445 a.d.) nearly agrees with the last 
 writer. He states that the fortress was commanded by Al 
 
Appendix C 513 
 
 Mandakul, called Al 'Araj, for the Mukaukas ibn Karkab 
 al Yfinini : that the Mukaukas' usual residence was 
 at Alexandria: that he made terms with 'Amr, which 
 Heraclius repudiated : and that ' the name of the Coptic 
 bishop is Abii Mayimln.' 
 
 This review of the chief Arabic authorities brings out 
 their many discrepancies: but it is clear that there are 
 three persons to be identified, viz. Al Mukaukas, AbA 
 Maryam, and Al 'Araj. I will take them in reverse order. 
 
 (i) Al 'Araj, Al 'Uairij, or Al 'Ughairij. This name 
 seems first to occur in Yikut (early thirteenth century) as 
 the name of the commander of the fortress of Babylon, 
 whose title was Al Mandaffir, which may be a mistake for 
 Al Mandatur, and so a transcription of the Byzantine 
 /xai/fidrtop, though the word does not seem to be elsewhere 
 used as commander. Ydkut is followed by Ab(i '1 MahSsin 
 and by Suyutt, though the latter changes the title to 
 Mandakul by a mistake in copying {jf^L» becomes Jj3jX«). 
 Prof. Lane-Poole asserts that this Al 'Araj or Al Ara'ij is 
 identical with Artabiin, one of the Roman generals, and 
 that he was also called ' Ibn Kurkub ' {Egypt in the Middle 
 Ages, p. 5, note a). But there is no real authority for the 
 identification, nor for transferring the name ' Ibn Karkab ' 
 from the Mukaukas to Al 'Araj. 
 
 I think, however, that Al 'Araj is merely a perversion 
 through much copying of an original yurij or Jurtj, and 
 that in fact the name of the commander of the fortress was 
 George, probably a different person from the ' George the 
 Prefect ' who is mentioned by John of Nikiou. 
 
 (a) Abil Maryam. This person is described by Prof. 
 Lane-Poole as a 'Catholic' of Misr, who 'joined 'Amr's 
 army.' The term Catholicus means nothing more nor less 
 than Patriarch. It occurs among our authorities first in 
 Tabari, whose Persian associations made him familiar with 
 it, as the common designation of the chief bishop of the 
 Nestorian and Armenian Churches : it is of very frequent 
 use in Sebeos and other writers, and is perfectly well known 
 to Du Cange. Indeed Tabarl himself defines the term as 
 
 BUTLER L 1 
 
514 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 meaning ' chief of the bishops of the Christians,' but he 
 adds the perplexing statement that his name was Ibn 
 Maryam. Now, it may be taken that there were only two 
 Chief Bishops or Patriarchs at the time of the conquest, viz. 
 Cyrus and Benjamin, with the possible but immaterial 
 exception of a Gaianite Patriarch unknown. ' Ibn Maryam' 
 cannot possibly stand for 'Cyrus,' but it can very well 
 stand for ' Benjamin ' ; and I hope to show that the two 
 are identical. By Ibn al Athir's time the name had been 
 corrupted to Ab'd Maryam, who is ' Catholicus of Memphis.' 
 Makrlzl says that the Coptic bishop of Alexandria was 
 called Abfi MaySmin : while Abii '1 Mah^sin says, rightly 
 of course, that the Coptic bishop of Alexandria was called 
 Binyamin or Benjamin. Finally, Suyutt avers that the 
 Coptic bishop is AbA May&mtn. One has only to put 
 these facts side by side to see at a glance how easily ' Abba 
 Binydmin ' became twisted into ' AbA Mayimin,' and then 
 into ' AbA Maryam,' while ' Ibn Maryam ' probably is a 
 corruption of the simple 'Binydmin.' The Arab writers 
 of course knew the name Maryam (Mary) as one held in 
 high reverence by the Christians, and they mistook the 
 unfamiliar ' Abba ' for the familiar ' Abfi,' while the first 
 syllable of Binydmin ^^. was detached and mistaken for ^U 
 From these confusions, aided by copyists' errors, sprang the 
 extraordinary names ' Father of Mary' and ' Son of Mary,' 
 as applied to a bishop. But we may now confidently 
 dismiss 'Abfl Marydm' and 'Abfl Martam' and 'Ibn 
 Maryam ' and ' Abft Maydmtn,' and substitute in place of 
 these fantastic figures in every case the name of Benjamin, 
 the Coptic Archbishop of Alexandria. 
 
 But it is not enough to drive away these phantoms. 
 Admitting that the historical person intended is Benjamin, 
 it is quite impossible to accept the statement that he had 
 any part or lot in the dealings with 'Amr, whether by 
 parley or by battle. The r61e assigned to Benjamin by 
 Tabari and those who follow him, like Ibn al Athlr, is 
 ridiculous. He is made into a military chieftain under the 
 orders of Al Mukaukas, and Tabari, to achieve consistency. 
 
Appendix C 515 
 
 has to make Al Mukaukas prince of the Copts. But the 
 whole weight of the Egyptian authorities (Tabari was a 
 foreigner, who travelled in Egypt) is against both supposi- 
 tions. They agree clearly in recording that for ten years 
 before the conquest, and also for the three years of its 
 duration, Benjamin was in hiding in Upper Egypt. Even 
 if it stood alone, Severus' Life of Benjamin would be quite 
 decisive on this point : but all the authorities, from John of 
 Nikiou onwards, on this point are in harmony. 
 
 What, then, is the explanation of the Arab writers 
 assigning an active part in the conquest to Benjamin ? It 
 is this : they found in early records, or traditions, that the 
 leader of the defenders and the foremost person in arrang- 
 ing terms with the invaders was an Archbishop of Alex- 
 andria ; and they found that after the conquest and in all 
 Coptic story the only recognized Archbishop of Alexandria 
 was called Benjamin. Moreover, at the second capture of 
 Alexandria, at the time of Manuel's rebellion, it was^'Qen- 
 jamin who approached 'Amr and treated with him ; and 
 this episode has been confused with the treaty made by 
 Cyrus. Hence the two persons were confounded, and 
 Benjamin has been given the part played by Cyrus at the 
 ionqtiest. But, lest this explanation be regarded as obscu- 
 rum per obscurius, we now come to the crucial question, 
 who was Al Mukaukas ? 
 
 (3) Al Mukaukas. While practically all the Arabic 
 authorities speak of a person called by this title, it is very 
 noticeable that in the list I have given no name, as distin- 
 guished from the title, occurs in Balddhuri, Tabari, Euty- 
 chius, Severus, or even Ibn al Athtr. Wakidt, it is true, 
 calls him 'son of Ra'il'; but that is merely one of those 
 fanciful names given to kings, magicians, &c. of prehistoric 
 times by Arab romance. It is not till we get to the year 
 laoo A.D. that we find Al Mukaukas named as George, son 
 of Mind, by Abu Salih, while his contemporary Yakut 
 gives the name as George, son of Karkab the Greek. This 
 difference points to two separate traditions, or two separate 
 sources of information— an inference which is curiously 
 
 L 1 2 
 
5i6 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 confirmed by the fact that we find a little later both pater- 
 nities given for the same George in different passages by 
 one and the same writer, Abu '1 Mahasin. 
 
 For the moment I will only note that these names are 
 irreconcilable, and that they are of quite late authority. 
 In themselves they can throw no light on the personality of 
 Al Mukaulj:as. We must therefore leave them, to see if the 
 identity of the Mukaukas can be established on an inde- 
 pendent basis, and, if so, whether the solution of the problem 
 of identity will enable us to understand the names. Now 
 if Balddhuri gives little help to our inquiry, Tabari is 
 decidedly misleading. He not only makes the Mukaukas 
 ' prince of the Copts,' but he makes him head the surrender 
 to the Arabs from inside the fortress of Babylon. In this 
 he is doubly mistaken ; for the Mukaukas was not a Copt, 
 and he was not in the fortress when it was taken. But 
 whereas Bal^dhuri represents the Mukaukas as governor 
 of Alexandria, Eutychius represents him as controller of 
 finance, acting for Heraclius. Eutychius, it must be 
 remembered, was a Melkite, and while admitting that the 
 Mukaukas professed the same faith, declares that he was in 
 heart an adherent of the Coptic communion — an absurd 
 statement fabricated to explain the Mukaukas' action. 
 
 It is not till we come to Severus that the riddle of the 
 Mukaukas' identity is solved ; and there the solution is 
 clear and unmistakable. Severus was a Copt ; he had no 
 motive to disguise the action of the Mukaukas ; and above 
 all he wrote his history upon a collation of Coptic and 
 other documents, which were preserved in the library at 
 Dair Macarius, at the monastery of Nahiy^, and in private 
 collections. He is sometimes, no doubt, inaccurate and 
 impossible. Yet he gives a good deal of information not 
 to be found in the early writers I have cited. This is what 
 he says : — 
 
 ' Cyrus was appointed by Heraclius after the recovery of 
 Egypt from the Persians, to be both Patriarch and governor 
 of Alexandria! We know that he held office for ten years, 
 during which he fiercely persecuted the Coptic Church. 
 
\ 
 
 Appendix C 517 
 
 This time Benjamin describes as ' the ten years during 
 which Heraclius and Al Mukaukas were ruling over Egypt'; 
 yet he names Cyrus as ' the misbelieving governor who 
 was both Prefect and Patriarch of Alexandria under the 
 Romans! Further, whereas Severus represents Benjamin 
 as fleeing before the arrival of Cyrus on the warning of an 
 angel, he also represents Benjamin as saying 'Al Mukaukas 
 drove me away! There remains, then, not the smallest 
 doubt that Severus identifies Al Mukaukas with Cyrus, and 
 distinguishes him from Benjamin. 
 
 That Severus is right, and all the other Arabic author- 
 ities wrong where they differ from him, I shall endeavour 
 to prove. 
 
 Of the few undisputed facts about this period, one is that 
 Cyrus was armed with both civil and ecclesiastical power, 
 and another that as Patriarch and Viceroy of Heraclius he 
 persecuted the Copts for a period of ten years. John of 
 Nikiou speaks of 'the persecution which Heraclius made 
 through all Egypt against the orthodox (Coptic) faith, at 
 the instigation of the Chalcedonian Patriarch Cyrus '; and 
 Coptic history is full of it. So John's whole story of the 
 conquest assumes the Viceroyalty of Cyrus, which is incon- 
 testable. But Abu Saiih says that the country was placed 
 by Heraclius under the government oi Al Mukaukas; and 
 that Benjamin's flight lasted for ten years, according to the 
 warning of the angel, while Al Mukaukas was ruling in 
 Egypt. True, Abfi Salih calls Al Mukaukas George, son 
 of MinS. : but of that anon. Ibn Dukmak and Makin agree 
 that Heraclius' Viceroy was Al Mukaukas. Makrizt repre- 
 sents the Mukaukas as making terms with the Arabs, and 
 his master Heraclius as repudiating the bargain ; and Abu 
 '1 Mahdsin follows him in this, as does Suyutt. There is, 
 therefore, fair agreement among the Arab writers as to the 
 position occupied by the Mukaukas, but none as to the 
 name he bore. And if they were the only authorities, 
 the case would not be so strong as it is, though it might 
 well rest on the single evidence of Severus. 
 
 There are, however, a few Coptic documents, as well as 
 
5i8 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 ArabiC; which bear on the question. The Arabic life of 
 Shanfidah, published by Am^lineau, is from a Coptic original 
 written in the seventh century. It contains by way of 
 prophecy these words : ' Then shall Antichrist arise and 
 shall go before the Roman Emperor, and be made governor 
 with the double office of ruler and of bishop. He shall 
 come down to Egypt . . . and he shall make war on the 
 chief of the bishops at Alexandria . . . who shall fly to the 
 region of Tlman.' This, of course, is a description of Cyrus 
 and his treatment of Benjamin. More important is a frag- 
 ment in the Bodleian Library (MSS. Copt. Clar. Press, b. 5), 
 which has also been published by Amdlineau under the 
 title of the ' Life of Samuel of Kalamiin.' 
 
 This fragment recounts the visit to a monastery of a 
 person who is called iiKa.-if5(;^ioc nenccirToa.p5^HenicKonoc or 
 ' the K*>irxJ0Cj the false Archbishop.' The story is told in 
 my text (ch. xiii), and need not be repeated. But the 
 Ki^TX'oc is there clearly called not only Patriarch but 
 also ' controller of the revenues of the land of Egypt ' 
 (Tei«iAp5(^HC e'xn ■^HAi.(id(3'ion nTe5(;^(j)p6. nKHAJie). Hence in 
 a contemporary ^ document we have a ' Chalcedonian ' (or 
 Melkite) Archbishop, whose authority is disowned by the 
 Copts in favour of their own Archbishop Benjamin, yet 
 who claims in his person the union of civil and ecclesi- 
 astical sway over Egypt ; further this person is called 
 
 How exactly this description tallies with the description 
 given by Severus of the office and function of Cyrus, the 
 Chalcedonian Patriarch and Viceroy of Heraclius, needs no 
 pointing out ; it agrees also in part with Eutychius, Makin, 
 Ibn Dukm^k, and Makrizi ; but the most interesting thing 
 about this fragment is that here we have the name Mukau- 
 kas in its original Coptic form, and it is assigned to a person 
 whose identity with Cyrus is no longer open to question. 
 
 Yet Am^lineau misses the true solution. Forced to the 
 conclusion that the Mukaukas was a Melkite Patriarch, he 
 
 ^ The actual MS. in the Bodleian is dated by Hyvemat about the 
 tenth century. 
 
Appendix C 519 
 
 has no thought of identifying him with Cyrus ; he says, in 
 fact, that it is difficult to place him ; that Cyrus must have 
 left Alexandria in 639, ' and perhaps it was at this time 
 that the Mukaukas was chosen to replace Cyrus : perhaps 
 even he was the enemy of Cyrus ! ' 
 
 But among the brilliant services which the French savant 
 has rendered to the cause of Egyptian literature, he does not 
 pretend to have made a special study of the Arab conquest. 
 Hence, although his article on the Mukaukas (' Fragments 
 Coptes' in Journal Asiatique, October-November, 1888, 
 PP- 389-409) has a real importance, it does not range over 
 a wide enough field ; it does not set out the authorities it 
 cites with due regard to their chronology or their value ; 
 and it adopts some theories of previous writers without 
 critical examination. For example, having settled that 
 Al Mukaukas was a Melkite Patriarch, the objection is 
 raised, 'If this is so, how comes it that the Coptic historians 
 who have written in Arabic— Eutychius, Maktn, Abu '1 
 Faraj, &c. — have said nothing about it ? ' This objection 
 looks formidable, but vanishes at a touch of criticism. 
 Am^lineau's own reply is as follows : ' Je dois repondre 
 naivement que je n'en sais rien. Des deux derniers, Al 
 Makin ne consacre que deux lignes au Mukaukas, Abu '1 
 Faraj n'en parle pas. Eutychius lui est favorable, et, s'il 
 savait la chose, peut-etre la lui a-t-il pardonn^e en faveur 
 de sa conduite post^rieure ; s'il ne savait pas, c'est une 
 raison p^remptoire pour qu'il n'en parMt pas. D'ailleurs, 
 . . . il ^crivait longtemps apres les evenements, au moins 
 600 ans.' 
 
 Eutychius a Copt, and writing at least 600 years after 
 the conquest ! It is a curious statement. For of the three 
 historians named by Amelineau, Abu '1 Faraj was not a 
 Copt at all, nor even an Egyptian, but a Syrian. A second, 
 Eutychius, was not a Copt, but actually Melkite Patriarch, 
 though he does not identify Cyrus with the Mukaukas: 
 and Eutychius wrote, not 'at least 600 years/ but less 
 than 300 years, after the conquest. Moreover, Eutychius 
 expressly states that the Mukaukas was controller of the 
 
520 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 revenue in the name of Heraclius : and in this he agrees 
 almost textually with Am^Iineau's document. Makin was 
 a Christian, and may have been a Copt ; but he is a late 
 authority, and of no great value. It thus appears how 
 utterly baseless is Am^lineau's objection concerning his 
 so-called Coptic writers. There is, however, one Coptic 
 historian of early date and of capital importance, who wrote 
 in Arabic, and whose evidence, as I have shown, would, 
 even if unsupported, establish the identity of the Mukaukas 
 beyond discussion. I mean Severus, whom Am^lineau 
 does not quote. Briefly, however, I may now give Ame- 
 lineau's conclusions as follows : — 
 
 I. The story of Mohammed's mission to the Mukaukas 
 
 in 6 a7 is a myth. 
 1. The Mukaukas was named George, son of Mini, and 
 
 the ' Ibn Karkab,' which should be written, as Kara- 
 
 bacek shows, ' Ibn Farkab,' denotes a second name 
 
 = riapKclySto?. 
 
 3. The Mukaukas was of Coptic race on one side, if not 
 on both. He was in the Emperor's service, and was 
 originally a Melkite by faith. 
 
 4. He was a Melkite Patriarch, but his date can only be 
 conjectured. 
 
 5. The name Mukaukas was a nickname derived from 
 KO.VXQV or Kavyiov, a small bronze coin used from the 
 time of the Justins. 
 
 We now come to an extremely interesting contribution 
 to the subject made by the learned Portuguese scholar, 
 F. M. E. Pereira {Vida do Abba Samuel do Mosteiro do 
 Kalamon). This translation of the Ethiopic 'Life of 
 Samuel ' is enriched with valuable notes and essays, among 
 which is a short treatise on the Mukaukas (pp. 41-53). 
 Like Amdlineau, whom he largely follows, the writer does 
 not cite the MS. of Severus, and he does not accurately 
 classify or appraise his authorities : but he shows how 
 closely the Ethiopic tallies with the Coptic story, though 
 very singularly — like nearly all our authorities — it refrains 
 from naming the chief actor in the episode, whom it calls 
 
Appendix C 521 
 
 'the governor,' and whom the Coptic fragment calls 
 nKj^irxioc, and Archbishop. Pereira's conclusions differ 
 somewhat from Amdlineau's and are as follows : — ' 
 
 1. The author of the persecution was a person known by 
 the title of nne-Txioc or Al Mukaukas. 
 
 2. He was a Greek by origin. 
 
 3. He was Patriarch of Alexandria, governor of Egypt, 
 and controller of the finance. 
 
 4. His proper name was Cyrus. 
 
 5. The name Mukaukas is derived from Kavyov or kovxiov. 
 As to the identity of Al Mukaukas with Cyrus only one 
 
 more word need be said. Amelineau quotes the Coptic 
 Synaxarium under 8 Tdbah— the day of Benjamin's death— 
 as follows: 'Benjamin suffered great evil at the hands 
 of Al Mukaukas ; he fled to Upper Egypt during ten full 
 years . . . The Mukaukas was the head of the faith of 
 Chalcedon, and had been made ruler and Patriarch over 
 Egypt.' The Ethiopic Synaxarium is in complete accord 
 with this. It is given in full by Pereira, and contains these 
 words (text p. 173, tr. p. 180), 'The Mukaukas, that is to 
 say the governor and Archbishop of the city of Alexandria 
 and all the land of Egypt: It is true that the MS. of 
 this version of the Synaxarium seems to be dated fifteenth 
 century {Catalogue des MSS. ^thiopiens de la Bibl. Nat., 
 1877, p. 153). But it nevertheless goes back to a very 
 ancient original. In any case it is remarkable to find with 
 what extraordinary accuracy the true tradition is preserved 
 in these office-books of the two Churches (which were, of 
 course, in very close relation), while the secular writers 
 for the most part confused and darkened the story, and 
 finally lost the truth. 
 
 But that Cyrus was Al Mukaukas and that Al Mukaukas 
 was Cyrus, appointed Viceroy and Archbishop of Alexan- 
 dria by Heraclius, may now be regarded as finally settled. 
 It is curious that John of Nikiou never uses any title cor- 
 responding to Al Mukaukas or nKj^-s-xioC) but his whole 
 history of the period teems with evidence that Cyrus the 
 Patriarch was the author of the ten years' persecution and 
 
522 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 the governor of Egypt. To the objection that the Mu- 
 kaukas is spoken of as governor of Egypt in 637, when 
 Mohammed sent his letter claiming submission to Islim, the 
 answer is easy. It is the plainest of truth that not a single 
 Arab writer who uses the term Al Mukaukas has any con- 
 ception of its meaning or origin ; and the use of the term, 
 as applied to the governor of Egypt in 627, is a mere 
 anachronism. The Arab chroniclers had two facts before 
 them : (i) that Mohammed sent a mission to the governor 
 of Egypt in 627, and {%) that the governor of Egypt at 
 the time of the conquest — the man who occupies the most 
 prominent position in its annals — was called Al Mukaukas. 
 They wrongly inferred that the earlier governor was called 
 by the same title, and this confusion between the two was 
 so easy as to be almost inevitable to minds naturally un- 
 critical. There is no ground, therefore, for rejecting, as 
 Am^lineau does, the whole incident of the mission, an 
 incident as well attested as any in the history of Isldm. 
 A similar confusion explains the application of the title Al 
 Mukaukas to Benjamin at the time of Manuel's rebellion. 
 
 To sum up. The term Al Mukaukas is applied to three 
 persons : (i) to a governor who received Mohammed's 
 mission some years before the conquest ; (a) to the governor 
 at the time of the conquest ; (3) to the Head of the Copts 
 at the time of Manuel's rebellion. This shows that the 
 Arabs had no clear idea about him, but the whole evidence 
 proves that the title belongs properly to the governor at 
 the time of the conquest. For all the Arabic authorities 
 show that the action of the Mukaukas centres in the 
 surrender of Egypt ; and John of Nikiou proves conclu- 
 sively that the betrayer of Egypt was Cyrus. 
 
 It remains now to explain how Cyrus comes to be called 
 ' George son of Mind,' or ' George son of Karkab.' John 
 of Nikiou, as we have seen, mentions one George the Pre- 
 fect, whom 'Amr ordered to construct a bridge over the 
 canal at Kaliub. George, therefore, was an historical person 
 who occupied a prominent position at the time of the 
 Saracen invasion ; and he may be the same person whom 
 
Appendix C 523 
 
 ■we have encountered under the guise of Al 'Ughairij. It 
 is easy to believe that Arab writers have confounded him 
 with Cyrus. Whether this George were 'son of Mini' 
 or 'son of Karkab,' in my judgement cannot be settled, 
 and matters next to nothing; but I am unable to think 
 with Karabacek that George's father bore both names, 
 though it may be that ' Karkab ' should be written ' Far- 
 kab,' and ' Farkab ' stands for TlapKa^ios. The word »_^ 
 occurs far too late in Arabic literature to represent any- 
 thing but a blunder or a series of blunders in copying. 
 Abu Salih (p. 156) says that JJ is derived from ' Gre- 
 gorius.' Now if we suppose that _^ was corrupted into 
 j_^ — an extremely probable supposition — we have the 
 simple explanation that Ibn Karkab is a mistake for Ibn 
 Karkar and that it means 'son of Gregory.' Note also 
 that Gregory appears as ' Grigor ' in Armenian, and that 
 the name was a very favourite one in that part of the 
 world. The form ' Karkur ' is the common equivalent of 
 ' Gregory ' among Copts and Armenians to-day. Hence 
 it is perfectly possible that Cyrus was son of Gregory, and 
 George son of Mind. M. Casanova, however, suggests to me 
 that ^j ^\ is a mere corrviption of ,_jo^ jsl Abu Kirus, 
 so that we get in fact the name Cyrus concealed in the 
 ' Ibn Karkab.' This is both ingenious and plausible. 
 
 The meaning and origin of the title Al Mukaukas are 
 more difificult. Late authorities like Damirfs Zoological 
 Dictionary (c. 1400), and the Kam^s, which follows him 
 (nineteenth century), are cited to show that the term 
 yj^l means a ringdove, and various legends are told in 
 explanation of the title : but it can hardly be questioned 
 that this derivation is a mere inversion of the fact that in 
 more modern times the name Al Mukaukas has been given 
 to the ringdove as a playful nickname. Nor can Kara- 
 bacek's conjecture, that the term is derived from \t.i.yavyj\s, 
 be accepted. Apart from the fact that there seems no 
 evidence for the existence of any such title, the very close- 
 ness of the correspondence between the Greek and the 
 Arabic form is really fatal to the theory. It is hardly con- 
 
524 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 ceivable that the Arabs should have reproduced such a 
 Greek form so nearly. 
 
 We have seen that the title Al Mukaukas occurs in the 
 early Coptic form nKe^irxioc, and that Am^Hneau and 
 Pereira agree in deriving the term from a Byzantine word 
 said to signify a small hollow piece of bronze money, and 
 in thinking that the name was given to Cyrus in derision 
 of his r61e as controller of the finance, or taxes, or 
 tribute. This explanation, though very far-fetched, might 
 be more convincing if there were any clear evidence 
 for the use of Kouxpv or kou^wv in Egypt or elsewhere at 
 this time or any other. As far as I know, there is none. 
 Where does Am^lineau find these forms at all ? He refers 
 to Du Cange, who gives kuvkiov as = a little bowl or cup, 
 and one instance of its use in the sense of a hollow 
 coin, where the reference is cited as 'Nov. 105 Justin.' 
 Du Cange is careful to add that the reading Koudov in that 
 passage is doubtful, and may stand for kokkIov. This seems 
 Amdlineau's warrant for the existence of the supposed 
 'piece of Byzantine money in use since the time of the 
 Justins ' ! Pereira adopts this etymology without question : 
 ' Esta palavra, que tambem se escreve Kav^ov e Ka-ux<.ov, 
 6 o nome de uma moeda cavada, em uso no imperio 
 Byzantino, desde o tempo do imperador Justino ' (p. 53) ; 
 but it rests on very slender evidence if any, and must be 
 rejected. 
 
 So far, then, there seems no satisfactory explanation of 
 the title Al Mukaukas ; and perhaps the problem is hope- 
 less. But I venture to offer two possible solutions for what 
 they are worth. 
 
 (i) The Arabic writers who give the vocalization of Al 
 Mukaukas write u-4y^\ which is also the vocalization for 
 the late word in the sense of ringdove, and it may have 
 been so written to produce identity. On the other hand, 
 the Ethiopic is very clear in writing ' Mukaukas,' and tliere 
 can be no doubt that the term passed into Ethiopic at 
 a very early date. Now, not a single author who has dealt 
 with this problem has asked the question. Where did Cyrus 
 
Appendix C 525 
 
 come from ? what was his origin ? Remember he was not 
 an Egyptian, nor even a Constantinopolitan ; and surely 
 there is no question that would have been heard more often 
 among the eager and curious crowds of Alexandria. And 
 the answer would have been, U tov KauKdo-ou— KavKao-ioj : 
 for Cyrus was translated by Heraclius from the see of 
 Phasis in the Caucasus. It is, therefore, extremely probable 
 that he was at once called 6 Kavudmo^ in Greek, and this 
 Greek form may have taken shape in Coptic either as 
 nK«.TX«.cioc or nK«>irx.ioc, giving origin in its less corrupted 
 form in the seventh or eighth century to the Arabic 
 'Mukaukas,' and surviving in the tenth century in the 
 more corrupted hks^itxioc of the MS. in the Bodleian 
 Library. The Coptic n would easily go into the Arabic 
 mti-, the process aided by the analogy which would result 
 with the participial form in Arabic. 
 
 Though not free from objection, this explanation is at 
 least based on historical fact : and if the change of Ka>irKa.cioc 
 into Rt^vyjoc be thought too violent even for two centuries 
 of Coptic speech and script, I may urge that Phasis was in 
 Colchis, and that Cyrus might also with equal propriety 
 have been called nuoXxioc (the Colchian), from which to 
 nKa^iPxioc the transference is very easy, 
 (a) The other explanation is as follows : — 
 In Du Gauge's Glossary will be found the word /coCxoy, in 
 the sense amatus, amasius (with the corresponding feminine 
 Kav\a, concubind), connoting a form of vice. From this word 
 it would be quite simple and natural to coin, if it did not 
 exist, the adjective d Kaixios, denoting a person addicted to 
 that form of vice. This term d Kavy^io-s would go straight 
 into the Coptic as nKa.irxioc, the adjective unaltered and 
 the article changing, exactly on the analogy of n«.ce&Hc for 
 d d(re/37js, which is found more than once in the very docu- 
 ment in which hkj^txioc occurs, and is there applied to the 
 same person, Cyrus. But, it will be said, this imputation 
 on Cyrus is quite without warrant in history. Granted ; 
 but that is no proof that the Copts did not make it. On 
 the contrary, it is extremely probable that they did. The 
 
526 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 ten years' persecution of Cyrus planted in their hearts the 
 bitterest hatred, which found vent in savage denunciation 
 of the enemy. In this very document Cyrus is called ' The 
 Impious One,' ' Jew,' 'Atheist,' ' Son of Satan,' 'Antichrist'; 
 his doctrine is 'devilish,' his faith is 'defiled,' and he is 
 ' more accursed than the devil and his demons.' Is it likely 
 that, when the religion of Cyrus was assailed in terms like 
 these, his moral character would escape censure ? If then 
 his private life was the mark of the same unmeasured 
 abuse, nothing is more likely than that he was charged with 
 the vice which is suggested by the term 6 Kaiy^M^, however 
 ill-founded the charge may have been. 
 
 These two solutions which I have given seem independent 
 and incompatible ; but I would suggest that they may really 
 be closely connected. For it is easy to imagine both that 
 Cyrus was originally called 6 Kauxao'ios or 6 KoXx"«os (or 
 KoA.x'os), and that the quick wit of the Egyptians caught 
 up the name and transformed it into the abusive epithet 
 6 Kai5x'os. Thus a term, purely geographical in origin, was 
 transformed into a foul invective ; and the name has lasted 
 for centuries after its real significance was totally forgotten. 
 
 APPENDIX D 
 
 ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE 
 ARAB CONQUEST 
 
 So great are the difficulties of dealing with the dates of 
 this period that the task of finding the truth seems almost 
 impossible. It is not one problem that a writer has to face, 
 but a number of problems so entangled and interlaced that 
 a solution in one direction seems always to bring fresh 
 complications in another. But a great deal has been done 
 to simplify matters by Mr. E. W. Brooks, whose learned 
 article on this subject in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift 
 (1895, pp. 436-45) may be said to have rescued the 
 chronology from the domain of conjecture, and to have 
 set it on a scientific basis. His article must be the founda- 
 
Appendix D 527 
 
 tion of any study either of the dates or of the order of 
 events of this epoch, and I most readily acknowledge my 
 great obligations to it. 
 
 The Greek authorities, as Mr. Brooks shows, are of no 
 value. Neither Theophanes nor Nicephorus mentions the 
 fall of Alexandria, although the latter does say that 
 Heraclonas, after the death of his half-brother Constan- 
 tine in May, 641, restored Cyrus to the patriarchate of 
 Alexandria, implying that the city was not then captured 
 or near capture. Nicephorus' history breaks off in 641, and 
 the story is resumed only in 668. But both Nicephorus 
 and Theophanes are totally untrustworthy with regard to 
 the earlier part of the invasion ; their stories are full of 
 discrepancies, and they confound the order of events in a 
 way that must prove, and has proved, seriously misleading 
 to historians who rely upon them. 
 
 Syrian and Armenian authorities seem equally useless. 
 Elijah of Nisibis (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 7. 197, fol. 39, cited 
 by Mr. Brooks) puts the conquest of Alexandria in A. H. 20 
 (Dec. 640 — Dec. 641). Abu '1 Faraj is silent, save for the 
 well-known story of the destruction of the library. Sebeos 
 also is silent. 
 
 The Arabic writers rival the Greek in omissions, con- 
 fusions, and discrepancies ; but a study of them is not 
 fruitless. 
 
 Ibn 'Abd al Hakam (quoted by Weil, Geschichte der 
 Chalifen) says that 'Amr was at Al 'Arish on the Day of 
 Sacrifice, 10 Dhfi '1 Hijjah, A.H. 18 = Dec. la, 639; and 
 also that the siege of Alexandria lasted for nine months- 
 after the death of Heraclius. Suyuti cites the same writer 
 as saying that, while after the conquest of Misr 'Amr sent 
 troops of horsemen to the towns and villages round about, 
 the Fayiim remained unknown to the Arabs for a year. 
 
 BalMhuri puts the invasion of Egypt in A. H. 19 (begins 
 Jan. a, 640), and makes both the battle of Heliopolis and 
 the expedition to the Fayilm subsequent to the fall of the 
 fortress of Babylon. He says that 'Amr marched north- 
 wards, i.e. to Alexandria, in A.H. ai (Dec. 10, 641— Nov. 39, 
 
528 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 642), after having stayed some time at Babylon ; and that 
 in the same year — the Year of Famine — Omar wrote 
 bidding 'Amr send the tribute by sea. He also quotes 
 the statement that Misr was conquered A. H. ao. Misr is 
 generally translated here and elsewhere as ' Egypt,' whereas 
 in this case it means unquestionably the town of Misr (or 
 Memphis), the predecessor of Fustdt. 
 
 Ibn Kuiaibah says that 'the battle of Bab al Yfln was 
 won by 'Amr in A. H. ao.' 
 
 TabaH alleges that the order to invade Egypt came to 
 'Amr at the beginning of A. H. 20 = end of December, 640 ; 
 and he gives the precise date of Rabi' II in the same year 
 (March ao— April 17, 641) for the fall of Babylon. The 
 two statements are inconsistent, since it is impossible that 
 Babylon could have been taken within three months of 
 'Amr receiving in Palestine the order to march. But the 
 second date is corroborated from independent sources, so 
 that the first must be erroneous ; and if we put the invasion 
 in the beginning of A. H. 19 instead of ao, we find Ibn 'Abd 
 al Hakam, Balddhuri, and Tabari in practical agreement 
 as to the opening of the campaign. Indeed it is certain 
 that Tabari musi have written 19 ; because in his account 
 of the death of 'Amr he places exactly four years of his 
 government under Omar, whose death took place in Dhfi 
 '1 Hijjah, A. H. 23 : consequently 'Amr's rule began Dhft '1 
 Hijjah, A. H. 19 ; and it would be absurd to date his rule 
 of Egypt from a time anterior to the invasion. 
 
 Tabari further says that Alexandria capitulated after 
 five months of siege ; and that the revolt (which I call 
 Manuel's revolt) occurred early in A. H. 35. 
 
 Eutychius' statements are as follows. Faramd, i.e. 
 Pelusium, was taken after one month's siege, and the 
 fortress of Babylon after seven months' siege. Al Mukaukas 
 escaped from the fortress at the time of high Nile. There 
 were three battles between Babylon and Alexandria, and 
 the Great City was taken ' on Friday of Muharram in the 
 new moon in A. H. 20, the twentieth year of Heraclius 
 and eighth of Omar's caliphate.' The conquest of Barca 
 
Appendix D 529 
 
 followed, and Tripolis was subdued in A. H. 0,2. If by 
 Friday of Muharram is meant the first day of the month, 
 I Muharram in A.H. 30 = Det. 31, 640 : but i Muharram 
 in the eighth year of Omar = Dec. i o, 641 . Neither day fell 
 on a Friday. The former date would be in the thirty-first 
 of Heraclius, and at the latter Heraclius was no longer alive. 
 So much for Eutychius. 
 
 Severtis of UshmAnain says that 'the prince of the 
 Muslims sent an expedition . . . under 'Amr in the year 357 
 of the Martyrs,' and ' the army of Islam marched down into 
 Egypt in great force on 13 Ba'ilnah, i.e. the Roman 
 month of December.' Here again is an error; for the 
 la Ba'tlnah or Payni = June 6 : while if December, 357 
 A. M. is right, that must be December, 640, not 641. The 
 Chronicon Orientate says that ' on la Payni, ^^'j A. M. 'Amr 
 came to Egypt and took it' But la Payni, 357 A.M. = 
 June 6, 641 ; and Makrizl specially says that ' the Coptic 
 date for the capture of the fortress is la Payni.' Severus 
 adds that 'in 360 A.M. the Muslims took the city of 
 Alexandria and threw down its walls' — a touch which 
 shows that he is thinking of the second capture after 
 Manuel's revolt. Clearly the chronology of Severus is not 
 helpful. 
 
 Ab4 Sdlik adds little to our knowledge. He quotes 
 from the Book of Al Jan&h that 'Amr conquered Egypt 
 (or Misr) in A. H. 19 (Jan. a — Dec. ac, 640) : that he 
 encamped outside a place called Jandn ar Rihin (p. 73). 
 He also says that 'Amr conquered Egypt (or Misr) on 
 Friday, i Muharram, A. h. ao : he quotes or misquotes the 
 date given by Severus. 
 
 YdMt is important. He says that 'Amr begged Omar's 
 leave to invade Egypt in A.H. 18 (Jan. la, 639— Jan. a, 640). 
 The Roman forces first met the Arabs at Farami, and 
 fighting continued about two months. After that little 
 resistance till Bilbais was reached, where there was constant 
 fighting for a month : then came an easy march to Umm 
 Dunain or Al Maks, where the Arabs were delayed fighting 
 about two months. 
 
 BUTLER M m 
 
53° The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 This gives a total of. nearly six months from the invasion, 
 making allowance for the time spent in marching, and would 
 bring us from Dec. 13 with great nicety to June 6. 
 
 It was at this point, says Yikilt, that 'Amr sent for rein- 
 forcements ; and the fortress was taken at the time of high 
 Nile, i. e. September or a little later. Yet the same writer 
 a page or so lower says, ' The conquest of Babylon took 
 place on Friday, i Muharram, A. H. ao' (= Dec. ai, 640), 
 the date usually assigned for the capture of Alexandria. 
 This is bewildering enough. Yikiit adds that 'Amr set 
 out towards Alexandria in Rabi' I, A. H. ao (Feb. ao — 
 March ao, 641) — probably an error for Rabi' II — and on 
 reaching the city 'Amr besieged it for six months. Else- 
 where he says that Alexandria was taken after a siege in 
 A.H. 30 (ends Dec. 9, 641), and that 'Amr made peace with 
 Barca in A.H. ai (Dec. 10, 641 — Nov. 39, 64a).. 
 
 According to Ibn Khaldiin, after the capture of Jerusalem 
 'Amr asked leave to invade Egypt, and this was in A. H. ai : 
 'Amr also marched into Africa (Barca) in A.H. ai ! 
 
 Makrizt is rather voluminous. He repeats that 'Amr 
 was at 'Arlsh on the Day of Sacrifice: that he spent a month 
 at Farama : that AI Mukaukas evacuated the fortress at 
 high Nile, and that it was still high Nile when the fortress 
 was taken. But he quotes AI Kindi as saying that after 
 the capture of Babylon 'Amr set out for Alexandria, and 
 this was in Rabi' I, A. H. ao — or Jumdda II, according to 
 another writer (Rabi' I begins on Feb. ao, Rabi' II on 
 March ao, Jumdda I on April 17, 641, and Jumida II on 
 May 18: the true date lies in Jumdda I, as we shall see). 
 Heraclius' death is wrongly given as A.H. 19, and the 
 writer says that it encouraged the Muslims, who continued 
 the siege with increased vigour: but he quotes AI Laith 
 for the alternative date A.H. ao, which is correct. The 
 capture of Alexandria took place nine months and five 
 days after the death of Heraclius, and that was on Friday, 
 I Muharram, A. H. ai (Dec. 10, 641, but Monday). AI Laith 
 says the first capture of Alexandria was in A. H. aa (begins 
 Nov. 30, 64a). Makrizt gives a list of authorities for dates 
 
Appendix D 531 
 
 in relation to the conquest, varying from A. H. 16 to 36, 
 but adds that ' A. H. 30 is the most probable, and the most 
 generally accepted.' 
 
 Ah& '/ Mahdsin cites Adh Dhahabl for the statement 
 that Omar .wrote the order for the invasion in A. H. 30 
 (begins Dec. 31, 640) : and Ibn 'Abd al Hakam for the state- 
 ment that the siege of Babylon lasted seven months. He 
 himself puts the ' conquest of Egypt,' or perhaps of Misr, 
 I Muharram, A. H. ao ; he quotes Ibn KathJr, Wakidt, and 
 Abii Ma'shar for the same date for the capture of Misr. 
 Wakidi puts the capture of Alexandria in the same year, 
 while Abu Ma'shar puts it in A. H. 35. Saif says that both 
 Misr and Alexandria were taken in A.H. 16. The first year 
 of 'Amr's government was A. H. 20. 
 
 SUyAtt, after quoting Al Laith for A. H. 30 as the date of 
 Heraclius' death, says that the siege of Alexandria lasted 
 for nine months after that event, having begun -five months 
 before : and yet adds that the city fell on ist Muharram, 
 A.H. 30 1 This however is a slip, for several pages later 
 Suyfiti remarks that ' the first capture of Alexandria was 
 in A.H. 31, the second A.H. 35.' He cites Ibn Kutaibah, 
 as quoted by Al Kuda'i, for the statement that 'Amr returned 
 from Alexandria (i.e. to Babylon) in Dhft '1 Ka'dah, a.h. 30 
 (Oct.-Nov. 641). 
 
 So much for the chief Arabic authorities. Their dis- 
 crepancies are obviously great and hard to reconcile. But 
 it is easy to mark some of the sources of the confusion 
 which prevails among these writers, and has puzzled and 
 misled modern historians. Probably jio other period of 
 the same brevity has so many natural pitfalls for the 
 chronologer. Here, as in the case of the Persian conquest, 
 we have a period of some three years, and a date is loosely 
 given for the conquest, when in one case it represents the 
 invasion, in another the completed subjugation, of the 
 country. Further, the name ' Misr ' most unfortunately 
 denotes both the town of Memphis close to Babylon on 
 the south and also the whole country of Egypt. Conse- 
 quently the 'capture of Memphis' and 'the capture of 
 
 M m 2 
 
532 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Egypt ' are often impossible to distinguish. Then the 
 capture of Babylon was a different event from the capture 
 of Misr : but the two localities practically adjoined, and 
 the confusion of the events was almost. inevitable. Lastly, 
 Alexandria was captured not once, but twice ; and even 
 the earliest Arab chroniclers, who wrote aoo years after- 
 wards, found the tradition much bedimmed and the order 
 of events forgotten. Accordingly their mistakes and 
 contradictions must be pronounced more deplorable than 
 surprising. 
 
 But an entirely new light has been cast on both the 
 history and the chronology of the conquest by the work 
 of John, the Coptic bishop of Nikiou. John was one of 
 the bishops attending the consecration of the Patriarch 
 Isaac in 690 A. D. (see infra, pp. 548-50), and was probably 
 born about the time of the invasion ; but he must have 
 heard every incident recounted by eyewitnesses. His 
 evidence therefore is of extreme value, as far as it goes, 
 though unfortunately parts of the history are entirely 
 wanting, while others are in such lamentable disorder that 
 the sense cannot be followed. But notwithstanding the 
 state of the Ethiopic MS., it gives some fresh dates of 
 remarkable precision, and these dates give fixed bases for 
 the construction of a scientific chronology. 
 
 We have already seen that for. the time of the Persian 
 conquest there is a blank in John's history. The gap 
 reaches from the accession of Heraclius to thirty years 
 beyond, from 610 to 640 about. The entry of the Arabs 
 into Egypt is not recorded: and when the story is resumed, 
 Theodore, commander-in-chief of the Roman forces in 
 Egypt, had just heard of the defeat and death of John, 
 general of the militia, in the Fayflm. The Roman troops 
 then concentrated at the fortress of Babylon with the 
 intention of giving battle to the Arabs before the inun- 
 dation. The Nile begins to rise about Midsummer, and 
 reaches its full height at the autumnal equinox: so that 
 the engagement at Heliopolis may be set down to July 
 or August. If now we follow Ibn 'Abd al Hakam, Balidhuri, 
 
Appendix D 533 
 
 and Tabari in placing the entry of the Saracens in December, 
 639, we have the battle of Heliopolis in July or August, 640 : 
 and it may well be that the reinforcements of the Saracen 
 army were first seen from the towers of Babylon on June 6, 
 a day which from Severus and others is proved to have 
 a strong hold on Coptic tradition, but which cannot be 
 associated with any decisive event in the conquest. 
 
 Mr. Brooks is clearly right in regarding chapters cxiv 
 and cxv of John's history as out of place. The heading 
 of chapter cxv runs, ' How the Muslims got possession of 
 Misr in the fourteenth year of the lunar cycle, and took 
 the citadel of Babylon in the fifteenth year,' although un- 
 fortunately the corresponding narrative has dropped out of 
 the body of the text. In chapter cxvi the death of 
 Heraclius is dated 'in the thirty-first year of his reign, 
 in the Egyptian month of Yakitit, which answers to the 
 Roman month of February, in the fourteenth year of the 
 cycle and the year 357 of Diocletian.' The fall of the fort- 
 ress of Babylon is said in ch. cxvii to have happened on 
 Easter Monday, and in cxviii the capture of Nikiou is 
 dated the following ' Sunday, 18 Genbot in the fifteenth 
 year of the cycle.' Mr. Brooks, following Zotenberg, 
 remarks that of these dates the only one which we can 
 control— that for the death of Heraclius— is absolutely 
 accurate, since we know that Heraclius died on Feb. 11, 
 641 ; and that this fact is a strong presumption for the 
 accuracy of the other dates. But both authors, in spite of 
 this assertion, find themselves compelled to demonstrate 
 that the other dates are only partially correct. Thus 
 speaking of the cycle years named in the heading of ch. cxv 
 Mr. Brooks says, ' I cannot think that much confidence is 
 to be placed in these dates' (p. 439) 5 and again he proves 
 that when the 18 Genbot fell on a Sunday it was not in the 
 fifteenth year of the indiction, as John states ; that in short 
 we must alter John's date, which would give May 13, 642, 
 to May 13, 641. In other words, part of John of Nikiou's 
 evidence has to be explained away. 
 
 Now I venture to think that this is quite needless. The 
 
534 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 mistake arises from a misunderstanding of John's cycle, 
 which John's critics wrongly identify with the indiction. 
 But John himself clearly calls it the lunar cycle, and he is not 
 referring to the indiction — which doubtless had fallen into 
 disuse in Egypt when he wrote — but to the Dionysian 
 cycle of nineteen years, which continues in use to the 
 present day, and in which the numbers are commonly called 
 the Golden Numbers. Zotenberg says that this cycle was 
 not used for civil purposes ; but, the indiction being obso- 
 lescent in Egypt, John was more than justified in using the 
 ecclesiastical reckoning, with which as a learned bishop he 
 must have been quite familiar. We may now set out his 
 statements thus : — 
 
 (i) Capture of the town of Misr, fourteenth year of cycle. 
 
 (2) Death of Heraclius, fourteenth year of cycle on Feb. 
 11,641. 
 
 (3) Capture of citadel of Babylon, fifteenth year of cycle, 
 Easter Monday, i.e. April 9, 641. 
 
 (4) Capture of Nikiou, fifteenth year of cycle, May 13, 
 641. 
 
 This table shows that, if John is correctly reported, the 
 year of the cycle he employs changes between Feb. 11 and 
 April 9. But this is precisely the case : for the Dionysian 
 lunar cycle began on March 23 (S. Butcher on the Ecclesi- 
 astical Calendar, p. 73, and Bond's Handybook of Dates, 
 p. 318) ; and the fourteenth year of the cycle extends from 
 March 23, 640, to March 22, 641, the fifteenth year simi- 
 larly from March 23, 641, to March 22, 642. If my theory 
 be sound, the exactitude of John's chronology is completely 
 vindicated ; not only is there nothing which requires ex- 
 plaining away, but our confidence in the writer's dates is 
 greatly strengthened. 
 
 I may add that the indiction, as used in Egypt before 
 the conquest, had become worse than useless for historical 
 purposes, because, as Wilcken shows [Hermes, 19, pp. 293 
 seq.), instead of commencing with i Thoth, the Egyptian 
 new year's day, and so corresponding with a calendar year, 
 it was reckoned sometimes from the day of the reigning 
 
Appendix D 535 
 
 Emperor's accession, and sometimes from various other 
 days through the summer, on a system, or want of system, 
 which no one can understand. There is the more reason, 
 therefore, to credit a capable writer like John with the use 
 of a notation of fixed and unimpeachable value. 
 
 There is one other passage in John's story which gives 
 a cycle date and which may seem to tell against my theory. 
 In ch. cxxi we read, ' In the second year of the lunar 
 cycle, there arrived John from Damietta . . . who assisted 
 the Muslims in order to prevent them from destroying the 
 city.' This year would run from March 23, 646-7 ; so 
 that the event must have happened after Manuel's rebellion, 
 of which there is not a word in the Chronicle. Nevertheless 
 I think the date is correct. The existence of another gap 
 here at the end of the history is no matter for surprise. 
 The alternative is to take the year of the indiction, which 
 would be 643-4. But this is practically impossible, 
 because in that year there is no record of any event which 
 would have inclined the Arabs to the destruction of Alex- 
 andria ; whereas by all accounts Manuel's revolt and the 
 Roman reoccupation of Alexandria took place about 
 November, 645 ; his forces were not crushed till some 
 months later ; and the recapture of the city by the Arabs 
 almost certainly happened after March 33 in 646. We 
 know too that on the recapture a great part of the city 
 perished in the flames, and that 'Amr actually did destroy 
 part of the walls, so that he may well have contemplated 
 the destruction of the whole city. Moreover, Zotenberg 
 appears in his translation to have omitted an important 
 word ; for where he renders ' Apr^s avoir pris possession 
 d'Alexandrie, il ('Amr) fit dessdcher le canal de la ville,' 
 Dr. Charles renders, ' When he seized the city of Alexan- 
 dria, he often had the canal emptied ' ; and these words 
 show that, in writing the paragraph in which the date 
 occurs, the writer's mind was travelling considerably beyond 
 the first capture, which, as we shall see, occurred in 64a. The 
 date atissue, therefore, fits in with my theory of the Dionysian 
 lunar cycle, which I venture to regard as established. 
 
536 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 We now come to a date of great importance and some per- 
 plexity, that of the Patriarch Cyrus' return from Constanti- 
 nople to Alexandria. Cyrus had been recalled from Egypt 
 by Heraclius about mid November, 640, .after the first 
 abortive treaty for the surrender of Babylon ; and he 
 seems to have been sent into exile. Restored to favour 
 by Heraclius' successor, Constantine III, he was to have 
 been sent back to Egypt, when after a reign of one hundred 
 days the Emperor died in May, 641. Heraclonas came to 
 the throne, but the revolt of Valentine secured in the same 
 summer the association of the Emperor's half-brother, 
 Constans, in the purple. About the same time Cyrus was 
 dispatched with reinforcements to Egypt, and he was at 
 Rhodes — probably taking in stores at the ajrsenal — early in 
 September. Theodore, the commander-in-chief for Egypt, 
 was also at Rhodes, and throwing off his allegiance to 
 Martina at the instigation of Valentine, wished to sail for 
 Pentapolis, but was landed at Alexandria with Cyrus at 
 dawn on 1 7 Maskaram (Thoth), the feast of the Holy Cross, 
 i.e. September 14. 
 
 Such is the narrative formed from the sadly dislocated 
 story of John of Nikiou, and it is confirmed by the state- 
 ment of Nicephorus that Cyrus was sent back by Hera- 
 clonas. But now comes in one of those unfortunate ex post 
 facto prophecies, so common in Coptic writers, which would 
 make it necessary to fix the date of Cyrus' arrival at Easter. 
 Directly after his arrival John relates (ch. cxx) that in the 
 celebration at the great church of Caesarion on Easter Day 
 the deacon at the mass chose another chant instead of the 
 proper one, ' This is the day which the Lord hath made,' 
 &c. (Ps. cxviii. 2,4-26) ; the change was considered very 
 ill-omened, and the word of the priests went abroad that 
 Cyrus would never see another Easter. And when Cyrus 
 subsequently died on Holy Thursday, 25 Magabit — three 
 days before the following Easter — the people pointed to the 
 accomplishment of the prophecy. Mr. Brooks shows with 
 convincing clearness that 25 Magabit (Phamenoth) is March 
 31, not April a as Zotenberg reckons ; and further, that as 
 
Appendix D 537 
 
 in 643 Easter Day fell on March 24, in that year, and that 
 year only, Holy Thursday coincided with 25 Magabit ; so 
 that 'the death of Cyrus is fixed beyond possibility of 
 doubt to Thursday, March 21, 642.' It follows that the 
 Easter on which Cyrus is by this tale supposed to have 
 returned was the Easter of 641, which fell on April 8. 
 Put briefly now John's assertions would be as follows : — 
 (i) Cyrus landed September 14, after the death of Hera- 
 clius, or 641. 
 
 (2) He celebrated at Easter, 641, the day of his return. 
 
 (3) He died March 31, 642. 
 
 These assertions are obviously inconsistent. Zotehberg 
 makes no doubt that Cyrus landed on Sept. 14, and thinks 
 it is very strange that his return should be celebrated by 
 a solemn service seven months later. But he accepts the 
 strangeness, and puts Cyrus' death off to 643. Mr. Brooks 
 takes another view. Proving conclusively that Cyrus died 
 on the Thursday before Easter, 643, he argues that Zoten- 
 berg is wrong in making the return of Theodore . and the 
 return of Cyrus coincide, and he dates the arrival of Cyrus 
 Easter, 641. He sees the difficulty of rejecting John's 
 statement that the return of Cyrus occurred after the death 
 of Constantine HI, and the concurrent testimony of Nice- 
 phorus ; but he inclines to the view that John's text is here 
 faulty. Finally he says, ' Whether indeed Cyrus actually 
 returned before Easter, 641, must be left an open question, 
 but that John means to represent him as having done so 
 I can feel no doubt ^. It is of course possible that the 
 chronology has been altered for the purpose of bringing in 
 the prophecy ' (1. c. p. 441). 
 
 I cannot quite agree with either of these views. On the 
 one hand Zotenberg's date for Cyrus' death is absolutely 
 untenable^ ; and on the other I think Mr. Brooks is wrong 
 in separating the return of Cyrus from the return of Theodore, 
 which latter event occurred on Sept. 14, 641. Mr. Brooks 
 
 ' Pereira, in his Vida do Abba Daniel (p. i8), adopts Zotenberg's 
 chronology without examination, just as he adopts Am^lineau's for the 
 date of Isaac (p. 29). 
 
538 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 says that the two events are 'entirely distinct'; but the 
 text reads thus : ' He (Theodore) entered Alexandria on 
 the night of the seventeenth day of Maskaram, on the 
 festival of the Holy Cross. And all the inhabitants of 
 Alexandria, men and women, old and young, went out to 
 meet the Patriarch Cyrus, rejoicing and giving thanks for 
 the arrival of the Patriarch of Alexandria. And Theodore 
 betook himself secretly with the Patriarch to the church of 
 the Tabionnesiotes, and closed the door.' In face of this 
 language it seems to me plainly impossible to suppose that 
 the two men arrived at different times, or that, when 
 Theodore arrived, Cyrus had already been upwards of five 
 months in Alexandria. Moreover, if Cyrus returned at 
 Easter, 641, other difficulties follow. Not only must we 
 reject John's whole account of the events at Constantinople 
 after Heraclius' death, or at least Cyrus' part in them, as 
 well as the evidence of Nicephorus, but we must reject 
 a further very clear statement of John's. For after relating 
 the solemn service at the Caesarion, he says that Cyrus then 
 went to Babylon. Mr. Brooks accepts this, and adds that 
 Babylon ' had just then fallen into the hands of the Arabs,' 
 having been captured, as he proves, April 9, 641. Yet on 
 the next page he shows that the capitulation of Alexandria 
 which Cyrus agreed upon with 'Amr at Babylon, and which 
 admittedly was the object of Cyrus' visit to Babylon, took 
 place in the month between Oct. la and Nov. 10, 641. 
 How can these statements be reconciled ? Moreover, we 
 know from John and from other sources that 'Amr left 
 Babylon almost directly after its capture, and was already 
 at Nikiou by May 13, so that there is no room left for the 
 visit and the negotiations of Cyrus. Moreover, to date 
 the capitulation of Alexandria in this interval would be, as 
 Mr. Brooks would acknowledge, to dislocate the whole 
 chronology. 
 
 Holding then with Zotenberg that Cyrus landed with 
 Theodore on Holy Cross Day, i. e. Sept. 14, 641, and 
 holding with Mr. Brooks that Cyrus died the Holy Thursday 
 following, i. e. March ai, 64a, one has to reconcile this 
 
Appendix D 539 
 
 position with John's evidence. A study of the context 
 will give the key to the problem. For on examination 
 it ■becomes transparently clear that the festival at which 
 Cyrus' return was celebrated, when the wrong chant was 
 used, was not Easter at all, but the Exaltation of the Cross, 
 i. e. the festival of the day on which, as I contend, Cyrus 
 landed. For (i) we are told in so many words that Cyrus' 
 sermon was all about the Cross ^; and that he specially 
 carried in procession from the convent of the Tabionnesiotes 
 that portion of the Holy Rood or that Cross which the 
 general John had brought to Cyrus before his exile. These 
 details are quite pointless if the festival was Easter, but 
 full of point if it was Holy Cross Day. Further, just as 
 a few lines earlier Theodore is shown to have repaired 
 immediately on landing to the convent of the Tabionne- 
 siotes in company with Cyrus, so here Cyrus is represented 
 as having come from the convent of the Tabionnesiotes to 
 the Caesarion for the so-called Easter service. If it had 
 been really at Easter, this coincidence about the convent is 
 meaningless ; while if, as I contend, it was the Exaltation 
 service, the coincidence is a simple necessity. On landing 
 he went to the convent, and from the convent he came in 
 procession to the Caesarion. Finally, the chant 'This is 
 the day' &c. is used on all despotic days and during the 
 
 days of festival-^;;lifiJ ^i\ J.«l^ w>i--Jl jUc^l ^ — but I am 
 unable to discover whether its liturgical use furnishes 
 any clear evidence either for or against Easter. On the 
 whole, however, I cannot doubt that the service which 
 Cyrus attended on his arrival was that of the Exaltation, 
 
 1 Zotenberg has missed the sense of the passage. He renders, ' II 
 fit ouvrir (?) la citerne dans laquelle se trouvait la Sainte-Croix qu'il 
 avait regue avant son exil du gdndral Jean.' The query is his ; but 
 Dr. Charles' version is, ' Now he extolled highly the well in which the 
 holy cross had been found, which he had received previously to his 
 exile from the general John.' Cyrus was obviously recounting the 
 story of the Invention of the Cross, and all doubt must vanish when it 
 is remembered that with the Eastern Church the Invention and the 
 Exaltation of the Cross were always celebrated on one and, the same 
 day, September 14. 
 
540 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 or in other words that his arrival took place on Septem- 
 ber 14, 641. 
 
 But if this is so, what becomes of the prophecy ? My 
 answer is twofold : (i) that it may still stand for what it is 
 worth. For if it was made at the Exaltation service, it 
 referred either to the anniversary of that same festival or to 
 the next Easter: and in either case it came true. But 
 (a) the rational explanation is that on Cyrus' return the 
 people saw signs of illness or change upon him, and 
 coloured the incident of the chant with their own fore- 
 boding. ' He will never see another Easter ' was the 
 language of the forecast. Some years later the fact of his 
 death just before Easter became the central fact in the 
 story, the terms of which were then altered at a time when 
 the precise details of what passed were forgotten. Because 
 Cyrus did not see another Easter, the origin of the fore- 
 cast was thus loosely assigned, regardless of chronology, 
 to the previous Easter. Accordingly it was natural that 
 the words ' on the day of the Holy Resurrection ' should 
 be interpolated in John's text, where indeed they look 
 wholly out of place ^. They are almost certainly some 
 scribe's note, which has been embodied in the text ; and 
 if they are removed, every perplexity disappears, and the 
 order of events which was confused and obscure becomes 
 clear and luminous. 
 
 John's next statement nowfollows quite naturally. Shortly 
 after Holy Cross Day, Cyrus repaired to Babylon to seek 
 an interview with 'Amr, whose return from his somewhat 
 barren campaign in the Delta is fixed by Ibn Kutaibah in 
 Dhil '1 Ka'dah, A.H. 20 (Oct. la — Nov. 10, 641). This would 
 give the date of Cyrus' visit as towards the end of Octo- 
 ber ; so that it would be impossible to fix the date of the 
 treaty as early as Oct. 17 with Mr. Brooks. Even if 'Amr 
 had reached Babylon early in Dhfl '1 Ka'dah, which is not 
 stated, several days must have been spent in negotiating, 
 
 ' 'Lorsque— le jour de la Sainte-R&urrection — on commenga k 
 cdMbrer la messe, au lieu de chanter le psaume du jour,' &c. (Zoten- 
 berg). 
 
Appendix D 541 
 
 and I cannot think the treaty was concluded much before 
 the end of Dhft '1 Ka'dah— in fact I would place the date 
 of capitulation arranged by Cyrus on Nov. 8 precisely. 
 The terms included an armistice of eleven months — within 
 which time the Roman troops were bound to evacuate 
 the city of Alexandria. Mr. Brooks chooses Oct. 17, 
 because it gives eleven months exactly to Sept. 17, 64.3, 
 which he shows to be the date of the evacuation. But 
 there is no reason to think that the Byzantine army would 
 stay to the last day of the armistice, when once they were 
 ready to sail: and if the eleven months counted from 
 Nov. 8 by Arab reckoning, the time would expire on 
 Sept. 39. Mr. Brooks urges that his date (Oct. 17) 
 ' exactly agrees with the statement of Ibn 'Abd al Hakam 
 that the siege lasted nine months after Heraclius' death.' 
 Heraclius died on Sunday, Feb. 11, 641 ; so that even by 
 Arab reckoning we get into November. On the other 
 hand, MakrJzt says that the capture of Alexandria took place 
 nine months and five days after the death of Heraclius. 
 Now Feb. 1 1 in 641 = 23 Safar, and nine months and five 
 days added give 38 Dhfi '1 Ka'dah, which corresponds to 
 Thursday, Nov. 8. 
 
 This I think is the true date. As Mr. Brooks observes, 
 the treaty cannot have been later than November, because 
 Cyrus on his return to Alexandria from Babylon requested 
 Theodore to submit it to the Emperor Heraclius, i. e. 
 Heraclonas, whose death occurred within that month. But 
 it is an interesting question whether the Arab writers, while 
 correctly giving the interval between the death of Heraclius I 
 and the surrender of Alexandria, dated his' death Feb. 11, 
 or March 11. Theophanes and Cedrenus both give, though 
 wrongly, March 11 as the date; and possibly this may have 
 misled Muslim historians. For it is curious to remark that 
 if we calculate the nine months and five days from March 11, 
 or aa Rabi' I, we come to 37 Dhfi '1 Hijjah, or Dec. 7. Now 
 this Dec. 7 was a Friday and comes very close to the 
 1 Mubarram (Dec. 10) which is so firmly fixed in Arab 
 tradition as the day of the fall of Alexandria. 
 
542 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 Mr. Brooks shows with great force that John's remaining 
 dates give, when rightly interpreted, July 14, 64a, as the 
 date of the enthronement of Peter, the successor of 
 Cyrus in the Melkite Patriarchate, and Sept. 17 of the 
 same year as the date on which the city was evacuated 
 by the imperial forces (p. 443). I may add that the 
 return of Benjamin from his exile in Upper Egypt took 
 place in the year 644, though probably nearer the end 
 than the beginning^. 
 
 But I am bound to disagree with Mr. Brooks in one or 
 two suggestions which he makes. He quotes Eutychius, 
 Ibn 'Abd al Hakam, and Makin as concurring in fixing the 
 duration of the siege of Alexandria at fourteen months ; 
 and he accordingly dates the commencement of the siege 
 about the end of August, 640. He also quotes Eutychius 
 as stating that the siege of Babylon lasted seven months, 
 which, as Babylon fell April 9, 641, would give early in 
 September, 640, for the commencement of the siege of 
 Babylon : so that the two fortified places would have been 
 besieged practically together. Now on military grounds 
 alone this is quite impossible. 'Amr never had troops 
 enough to invest the two fortresses at once. Nor is there 
 any direct authority to warrant Mr. Brooks' deduction. 
 On the contrary the authority is all against it. John him- 
 self makes 'Amr quit Babylon after the capture on April 9, 
 641, and seize Nikiou a month later: and if we take 
 Jumdda I as the mean between Rabi' I, given by Al Kindt ■ 
 and Yaktit, and Jumdda H given by the writer cited in 
 Makrlzt, this exactly tallies with John's account. From 
 Nikiou 'Amr's army marched on northwards, and it is quite 
 possible that they established a leaguer of Alexandria at 
 the end of June or early in July, 641. This therefore, and 
 not August or September, 640, must be the point from 
 which the fourteen' months' siege is to be counted, if the 
 statement of Eutychius, Ibn 'Abd al Hakam, and Makin 
 
 ' Am^lineau puts the return of Benjamin in 641 ( Vie du Patriarche 
 Isaac, p. xiv), but this allows an exile of ten years only, instead of the 
 thirteen agreed on by practically all the authorities. 
 
Appendix D 543 
 
 is accepted. In other words, the period of fourteen months 
 is to be reckoned backwards from the actual occupation of 
 the city at the end of September, 642, and not from the 
 date of the treaty in 641. 
 
 This conclusion brings us into almost exact agreement 
 with Tabari, who says that the siege lasted five months 
 before the capitulation : and it would be just four-and-a-half 
 months by Arab reckoning from July i to November 8. 
 This coincidence seems to confirm both my dates, and at 
 the same time it suggests an explanation of the widely 
 different terms assigned by different writers for the duration 
 of the siege. Obviously some authorities reckoned from 
 the investment up to the treaty of surrender, others up to 
 the actual evacuation of the city. SuyClti's statement which 
 I have quoted above seems a confusion between Tabari and 
 Eutychius, and is an obvious blunder.- Al Ya'kilbt, Bali- 
 dhurt, Ibn Khaldiin, and other writers who give three 
 months as the duration of the siege, clearly mean that 
 three months elapsed before the treaty ; and if to this period 
 we add the eleven months of the armistice, we again get 
 fourteen months between the first appearance of the Arabs 
 before the city and its occupation. Thus, although these 
 several accounts somewhat differ, the discrepancies can be 
 nearly reconciled and that in a striking manner. 
 
 Similarly I must demur to Mr. Brooks' assertion that 
 'the interval of eleven months' (i.e. the period of the 
 armistice) 'was occupied by 'Amr in an invasion of 
 Pentapolis.' I admit that John's text, as it stands, lends 
 colour to this view, because the short paragraph in which 
 the invasion is mentioned is placed just before that re- 
 counting the death of Cyrus. But there is a second account 
 of Cyrus' death later ; and the disorder of the whole chapter 
 is so obvious that the argument from order is by no means 
 conclusive. Military reasons surely would have forbidden 
 'Amr from undertaking a distant expedition before he was 
 in possession of Alexandria, the only possible base for such 
 an enterprise. Ibn al Athir here is 'decisive as to the date, 
 which he puts in A. H. 32 : and however the other Arabic 
 
544 T^h^ Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 writers vary the date, they are agreed (see Eutychiils and 
 Ydkflt) that Barca was occupied a year subsequently to the 
 capture of Alexandria. I put the expedition to Pentapolis 
 accordingly in the winter following the evacuation of 
 Alexandria. The Muslim year A. H. %% began on Nov. 30 
 in 64a ; and if the expedition started soon after the turn of 
 the year, we have an easy explanation of the fact that the 
 date varies between A. H. ai and A. H. aa in the Arab 
 authorities. 
 
 I have no doubt that ' Amr was fully occupied at Babylon, 
 possibly in arranging for the complete subjugation or sub- 
 mission of Upper Egypt, certainly in reopenmg the canal 
 of Trajan. From Balidhurl we know that the year of 
 famine in Arabia was A. H. ai (begins Dec. 10, 641) : and 
 Ibn al Athir says that in this year, i. e. probably August or 
 September of 64a, 'Amr sent corn to Medina by the canal 
 which he had dug out. The canal could only be cleaned 
 out in winter at low Nile, and could only be navigated in 
 summer at high Nile: in the winter of 640-1 'Amr was 
 busy with the siege of Babylon ; so that the excavation 
 must be assigned to the winter of 641-a, as Ibn al Athtr 
 implies. The same authority quite definitely states that 
 the date of 'Amr's invasion of Barca was A.H. a a, which ran 
 from Nov. 30, 64a, to Nov. ao, 643. 
 
 I set out the dates, then, as follows : — 
 
 (x) 'Amr's army at Al 'Arish . . . Dec. i a, 639. 
 The day comes from Ibn 'Abd al Hakam, but Bald- 
 dhuri, Tabari, Yakiit, and Makln are in practical 
 agreement about the date of the invasion. 
 
 (a) Pelusium captured circa Jan. ao, 640. 
 
 Eutychius, Ydkut, &c. agree that the town was taken 
 after a siege of one month. 
 
 (3) 'Amr's raid into the Fayilm . . May, 640. 
 John of Nikiou is the sole authority for this. 
 
 (4) Arrival of Arab reinforcements . June 6, 640. 
 This is on the authority of Severus, but doubtful. 
 
 (5) Battle of Heliopolis July, 640 : 
 
 followed by the occupation of the town of Misr. 
 
Appendix D 545 
 
 (6) Siege of the fortress of Babylon 
 
 begun Sept. 640. 
 
 Ibn 'Abd al Hakam and Eutychius 
 agree on this. 
 
 (7) Treaty made by Cyrus, the Mu- 
 
 kaukas, but denounced and dis- 
 owned by Heraclius .... Oct. 640. 
 
 (8) Surrender of Babylon .... April 9, 641. 
 
 The day comes from John of Nikiou. This date repre- 
 sents the ' conquest of Egypt/ or rather ' conquest of Misr,' 
 which the best authorities, according to Makrizi, put in 
 A. H. 20. These authorities include Ibn Kutaibah, Euty- 
 chius, Yakut, Abu 1 MaMsin, Ibn Kathir, Wakidi, Abfi 
 Ma'shar, &c., though they do not all agree in their inter- 
 pretation of the phrase, some taking it to mean the fall of 
 Babylon, others the fall of Alexandria. But Tabari gives 
 the date for the fall of Babylon as Rabi' II, A. H. 20 (March 
 20 to April 17, 641), and so is in complete harmony with 
 John of Nikiou. 
 
 (9) Nikiou captured May 13, 641. 
 
 (10) Alexandria attacked End of June, 641, 
 
 (11) Return of Cyrus Sept. 14, 641. 
 
 (12) Capitulation of Alexandria . . Nov. 8^ 641. 
 {i"^ Excavation of Trajan's canal . . Winter, 641-2. 
 
 (14) Death of Cyrus March 21, 642. 
 
 (15) Enthronement of Cyrus' successor July 14, 642. 
 
 (16) Evacuation of Alexandria by the 
 
 Romans Sept. 17, 642. 
 
 (17) Expedition to Pentapolis . . . Winter, 642-3. 
 
 (18) Return of Benjamin Autumn of 644. 
 
 (19) Revolt of Manuel End of 645. 
 
 (30) Recapture of Alexandria by the 
 
 Arabs Summer, 646. 
 
 Though this chronology comes in an appendix to my 
 history, I was forced to work it out before writing the 
 narrative, as the order of events obviously depended on 
 the settlement of dates. It has been a very difficult 
 problem or set of problems, and I have been obliged to 
 
 RUTLER N H 
 
546 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 show the working in great detail, much as I regret the 
 length of this essay. My table of dates differs in several 
 material points from Mr. Brooks' list, but in closing the 
 subject I cannot but again acknowledge the debt which 
 students owe to his researches. 
 
 APPENDIX E 
 
 ON THE AGE OF 'AMR IBN AL *ASt. 
 
 There is some discrepancy among the Arab authorities 
 on the subject of 'Amr's age at the time of his death, 
 though their agreement upon the date of that event is 
 nearly unanimous. It may be taken for granted that he 
 died on the Yum al Fitr A. H. 43, corresponding to January 
 6, 664. His age at that time is variously given as ninety, 
 seventy-three, and seventy. I believe the last number to 
 be correct, or at any rate ninety to be wrong. 
 
 In the calculations which follow I assume that the Arab 
 writers have reckoned by Arab years, and I therefore make 
 a rough allowance for the difference in the length of the 
 year on the two systems. 
 
 The ninth-century Ibn Kutaibah in his account of 'Amr 
 (ed. Wiistenfeld, pp. 145 seq.) says that he died at the age 
 of seventy-three in A. H. 4a or 43, though some say 51. 
 He adds that his son "Abdallah died at the age of seventy- 
 two in A. H. 6^, and was only twelve years youhger than 
 his father. Now if this were true, 'Abdallah would have 
 been born c. 615 A. D., and therefore. 'Amr about 603 : 
 consequently "Amr at his death in 664 would have been 
 about sixty-three. Ibn Kutaibah therefore is quite in- 
 consistent. 
 
 Ibn Khallikan gives 'Amr's age as ninety, following 
 Wakidi. 
 
 Ibn al Hajar quotes Yahya ibn BakJr as saying that 
 'Amr lived to be ninety years old, and he adds that 'Amr 
 was seven years old when Omar was born. Suyfitt agrees ■ 
 with this, saying that 'Amr died at the age of ninety in 
 
Appendix E 547 
 
 A. H. 43. Now Omar's death took place on a6 Dhii '1 
 Hijjah, A. H. 23 = Nov. 3, 664, at the age of fifty-five. 
 Omar therefore was born c. 590 A. D. ; and if 'Amr were 
 seven years old at that time, he was born c. 583 A. D. In 
 other words 'Amr was not ninety but eighty when he died. 
 There is, however, some discrepancy about Omar's age at 
 death. Ibn Kutaibah (p. 91), while strongly afifirming that 
 fifty-five is the correct age, alleges that Wakidl on the 
 authority of 'Amir ibn Sa'd gives sixty-three. If the age 
 of sixty-three be taken, Omar's birth would fall c. 683 and 
 'Amr's c. 575 A. D. ; and 'Amr in 664 would be well over 
 ninety by Arab reckoning. It follows also that at the time 
 of the conquest he would be sixty-four or sixty-five by 
 European reckoning. This seems very improbable. 
 
 Nawawl, however, who affirms that the 'Id al Fitr of 
 A. H. 43 is the right date for 'Amr's death against all 
 others which are assigned for it, also avers that 'Amr's 
 age at death was seventy (ed. Wiistenfeld, p. 478). This 
 would place 'Amr's birth about the year 595, and would 
 make him consequently some forty-four years old at the 
 time of the conquest. 
 
 We have therefore to choose between the two statements 
 that the commander of the Arab forces at the time of 
 the invasion was forty-four and that he was sixty-four. 
 A priori there cannot be much doubt on the subject. A 
 fiery and impetuous character could scarcely have been 
 predicated of a man so far beyond middle life, nor can 
 'Amr be imagined to have playtd the part he did, both 
 during the conquest and subsequently in Egypt and in 
 Syria, at the more advanced age. If, for example, 'Amr 
 was ninety at the end of G^-i,, he was about eighty-five at 
 the battle of Siffin in 658 — a battle in which he is known 
 to have shown the most amazing activity and personal 
 prowess. This alone is something like a reductio ad 
 absurdum of the statement. But it is extremely easy to 
 see how it arose. For nothing is simpler than to mistake 
 seventy for ninety in copying in the Arabic, and nothing is 
 more natural than that ^^^^^ or seventy should have been 
 
 N n 2 
 
548 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 corrupted into i^?^ or ninety. And it is the later 
 authorities who give the higher number. We may conclude 
 then that 'Amr died at the age of seventy. 
 
 APPENDIX F 
 
 ON THE DATES OF THE COPTIC PATRIARCHS 
 
 AFTER BENJAMIN IN THE SEVENTH 
 
 CENTURY 
 
 Questions connected with the conquest made it neces- 
 sary at times to refer to the successors of Benjamin, and 
 some importance attaches to their chronology. Not the 
 least of such questions is the date at which John of Nikiou's 
 history was written. The evidence as usual is indirect, but 
 it turns mainly on the date of the Patriarch Isaac, at whose 
 consecration John was present. Isaac was third in suc- 
 cession from Benjamin, the two intervening Patriarchs being 
 Agatho and John of Samanfld : but as it seems possible 
 to ascertain the date of Isaac's consecration exactly, it will 
 be easier from that fixed point to work backwards for the 
 others. 
 
 The chief source of information is the Coptic ' Life of 
 Isaac' which has been published with a translation by 
 Amelineau {Histoire du Patriarche Copte Isaac). The 
 writer in an interesting preface asserts that the Coptic 
 document merely avers that Isaac died on 9 Athor (which 
 is Nov. 5, not Nov. 6 as stated) : ' A cette date se bornent 
 toutes les indications chronologiques, c'est-a-dire qu'elle ne 
 nous apprend absolument rien.' But because Makln gives 
 A. H. 69 as the year of his death, Amelineau concludes 
 that Isaac died Nov. 6, 688. Von Gutschmid gives the 
 date Nov. 5, 693. 
 
 But Amelineau is wrong in saying that the Coptic docu- 
 ment gives no other indication for the chronology. He 
 has overlooked a very material statement. For on p. 50 
 we read that Isaac was consecrated 'on 8 Khoiak, which 
 
Appendix F 549 
 
 was a Sunday ' — the proper day for the ceremony. Now 
 about this period the 8 Khoiak fell on a Sunday only in 
 the years 684 and 690 : of these years 684 is quite impos- 
 sible^ consequently Isaac was consecrated on 8 Khoiak 
 (or Dec. 4), 690. This then is the date at which John of 
 Nikiou was present. Severus makes the term of Isaac's 
 pontificate vary between two years nine months and three 
 years in different MSS. ; but knowing that Isaac died on 
 Nov. 5, if we now assign Nov. 5, 693, as the date of Isaac's 
 death, we get a term of two years eleven months, which 
 is the exact term assigned by Makrizt. 
 
 It would be easy to follow Amelineau's preface, and to 
 show how entirely he has mistaken the period at which 
 Isaac was born, and which he places before the Arab 
 conquest. Indeed he makes Isaac about eighteen at the 
 time of the conquest (which he puts in 640), and dates his 
 birth 62a. To this conclusion he is largely led by the fact 
 that Isaac as a boy was placed with a relative Menesdn, 
 who was K5(^*^pTo\a.pioc ^e> P'^ftj n^rewpfioc eqoi nend.p5<;^oc 
 e'^X'^P*' "-"^^ X"**-'i or registrar to George, eparch of the 
 land of Egypt. This title is distinctly curious, as showing 
 how the forms of Byzantine government persisted after 
 the conquest : but that they did so remain is not for 
 a moment in doubt, inasmuch as in the same document 
 reference is made to an official who is actually called 
 ni*.iriTOTCT«.\ioc, or the Augustal (p. 73), and that in direct 
 connexion with the ' king of the Saracens,' 'Abd al 'Aziz, 
 who is mentioned by name a few pages earlier (pp. 43 and 
 64). The occurrence of the title therefore is far from 
 proving that Isaac's boyhood was spent under Byzantine 
 rule. Indeed his flight into the desert at a time when he 
 was hardly out of his boyhood is conclusively proved to 
 have taken place after the conquest, because we find his 
 parents directly afterwards consulting a Coptic Arch- 
 bishop at Alexandria. This cannot have happened 
 between the years 631 and 644, since there was no Coptic 
 Archbishop in the city during that period : nor can it have 
 been previous to 631, because soon after his flight Isaac 
 
55° The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 is found talking to a country priest, of whom, the story says 
 (p. \<i), ' many testify that he was a confessor, and had been 
 set before the judgement-seat of Cyrus, and had received 
 many stripes for the confession of the faith ' ^ ; and this 
 language proves that the persecution of Cyrus, which lasted 
 from 631 to 641, was over. It follows that the parents' 
 appeal to the Archbishop must have been subsequent to 644, 
 and consequently that the Archbishop was Benjamin. 
 
 There is little or nothing to show in what decade this 
 appeal took place;, about 6^6 or 660 or 670. I incline to 
 the first decade, because I attach weight to the continual 
 assertions of Isaac's youth — therein disagreeing with 
 Amelineau, who for example sees no difficulty in inter- 
 preting 'jeune gar9on' as a middle-aged man, although 
 it is given in strict antithesis to ' vieiUard ' (pp. 'i$-6\ If 
 the period in question were about 657, Isaac was born 
 about 640, and was about ^j, when he died. The Patriarch 
 to whom he acted as secretary for a time was doubtless 
 Agatho, though the only Patriarch mentioned by name 
 is John of Samaniid (p. 42), who nominated Isaac to the 
 succession. I may further note that if Am61ineau's 
 chronology were right, i. e. if Isaac had been born in 622, 
 then the ten years of the great persecution, i.e. 631 to 641, 
 would coincide with Isaac's ninth to nineteenth year. But 
 during the whole of this time, as I have said, there was no 
 Coptic Archbishop at Alexandria, as the story demands : 
 whereas if, as I contend, Isaac was born circa 640, and fled 
 into the desert circa 6$% then the story runs naturally; 
 because Benjamin had been back in Alexandria for thirteen 
 years at that date— during in fact the greater part of Isaac's 
 boyhood. 
 
 Having now fixed the date of Isaac's consecration and 
 death, we know that his predecessor John of Samanfid, 
 after a reign of nine years, died on a certain i Khoiak, or 
 Nov. 27. This would naturally be Nov. 27, 690 ; but we 
 
 ^ Amdlineau's translation, '.qu'on le fit monter sur le tribunal de 
 Cyrus,' does not bring out the pluperfect form of the Coptic original, 
 eeL-s-Te^goq, as Mr. Crum tells me. 
 
Appendix F 551 
 
 ■should have to admit that Isaac was consecrated exactly 
 a week after the death of his predecessor, whereas the 
 Coptic Biography contains a long account of the dissensions 
 which followed on the vacancy, and the efforts made to 
 secure the election of one George, who claimed to have 
 been rightfully nominated. The archdeacon, however, 
 forbade the consecration of George, and subsequently on 
 the arrival of a commission ■ from the Saracen ruler, the 
 bishops were summoned to lay the matter before him at 
 Babylon. George's life failed to bear the necessary scrutiny : 
 people flocked from all parts of the country to hear 'Abd 
 al 'Aziz's decision : and when it was given at their wish 
 in favour of Isaac, there were dances and rejoicings from 
 Babylon to Alexandria (pp. 44-9). It is obvious that all 
 this must have taken a long time : so that we are forced, 
 while maintaining that Isaac was enthroned on 8 Khoiak, 
 690, to throw back the death of John of Samanfld to 
 I Khoiak (or Nov. 37), 689. In other words, there was 
 a year's vacancy. This inference is confirmed by the 
 Chronicon Orientale, which asserts that John died on 
 I Khoiak which was a Saturday. We have seen that 
 in 690 8 Khoiak was Sunday ; therefore i Khoiak in 
 that year was also Sunday : but i Khoiak fell on a 
 Saturday, as required, in 689. 
 
 Allowing now nine years to John's pontificate, we get 
 back to 680 for its commencement. His predecessor 
 Agatho died on Oct. .13, so that the term corresponds 
 very closely. John died therefore on Oct. 13, 680, after 
 a period of office which is given as nineteen years. But 
 we have already seen that Benjamin died on 8 Tflbah, or 
 Jan. 3, 663; and the interval amounts to eighteen years 
 and something under ten months — a close approximation. 
 The chronology thus dovetails with nicety. 
 
 The table of chronology may now be set out. I have 
 followed in the main the data given by Severus ; and these 
 taken in conjunction with Isaac's Biography and other 
 authorities seem to fit so well together as almost to preclude 
 the chance of error. Von Gutschmid, while agreeing on the 
 
552 The Arab Conquest of Egypt 
 
 dates for the death of Benjamin and the death of Agatho, 
 differs in putting the death of John of Samandd on May 2, 
 689 {Kleine Schriften, ii. 500), for which there is not 
 adequate authority: moreover, he puts the consecration 
 of Isaac in Feb. 690, and his death Nov. 5, 69a — dates 
 which are conclusively refuted by the Coptic Biography. 
 The true dates seem to stand as follows : — 
 
 
 Date of 
 
 Term of 
 
 Date of 
 
 Patriarch. 
 
 Consecration. 
 
 office. 
 
 death. 
 
 Benjamin . . . 
 
 Jan. 
 
 623 . 
 
 39 years . 
 
 Jan. 
 
 3, 662. 
 
 Agatho .... 
 
 Jan. 
 
 66% . 
 
 19 >. • 
 
 Oct. 
 
 J3, 680. 
 
 John of Samanfid 
 
 Oct. 
 
 680 . 
 
 9 ,. • 
 
 Nov. 
 
 27, 689. 
 
 
 (One 
 
 year's vacancy.) 
 
 
 
 Isaac .... 
 
 Dec, 
 
 , 4, 690 
 
 3 " • 
 
 Nov. 
 
 5> 693. 
 
 Simon .... 
 
 Jan. 
 
 694 . 
 
 74 „ ■ 
 
 July 
 
 18, 701. 
 
 The dates for Simon. 
 
 , and the 
 
 explanation of the delay 
 
 in his appointment 
 
 :, may 
 
 be found in Renaudot. 
 
 
INDEX 
 
 "Abdallah, son of 'Amr, pp. 205, 
 289, 323, 494. 
 
 — ibn Sa'd, 459, 465-6, 47 2> 
 488, 489. 
 
 Abraha al Ashram, 147. 
 
 Abu Bakr, Caliph, 149, 203. 
 
 Abft Maryam, 215, 513-4. 
 
 Abuit, 223, 234. 
 
 Abyssinia, 140, 141, 142 n. 2, 
 i47> 426, 431 n. 2. 
 
 Acropolis of Alexandria : see 
 Serapeum. 
 
 Agatho, Coptic Patriarch, 190. 
 
 'Ain Shams : see Heliopolis. 
 
 Alabaster, 103. 
 
 Alexandria, captured by Nicetas, 
 15; assailed by Paul's fleet, 
 19; by Bon&sus, 23; suburbs 
 destroyed, 30; resort of Syrian 
 refugees, 69; captured by 
 Persians, 72-7; commerce of, 
 112; 121; evacuated by Per- 
 sians, 171; reoccupied by 
 Romans, 183; viewed by the 
 Arabs, 291; Arab failure be- 
 fore, 293 seq. ; capitulation, 
 317 seq.; strength of, 336; 
 armistice, 358 seq. ; evacuation 
 by Romans,366-7; description, 
 368-400 ; plans, 399 n. ; fate 
 of the library, 401-26 ; re- 
 covery of city by Romans, 467 
 seq. ; recapture by the Arabs, 
 474-5 ; treatment, 484-5 ; 
 captives restored, 487; Mus- 
 lims not allowed to settle there, 
 487 ; decay of learning, 490 : 
 see also App. D, passim. 
 
 'Amr ibn al 'Ast, given a com- 
 mand, 144, 149; advances on 
 Egypt, 194 seq.; his age, 199, 
 
 App. E; characteristics, 199- 
 206 ; early visit to Alexandria, 
 292 n.; sermon, 343 n., 434; 
 description of Egypt, 433 ; his 
 government, 445, 456-9 ; sup- 
 pression of Manuel's revolt, 
 469-80 ; refused leave to 
 settle at Alexandria, 487 ; his 
 just treatment of the Copts, 
 488 ; supersession, 489 ; 
 second governorship, 492 ; 
 escapes assassination, 493 ; 
 death and burial, 494-5. 
 Anastasius, Coptic Patriarch, 47, 
 51, 69, 498-502, 505. 
 
 — Prefect of Alexandria, 222, 
 
 23°. 233. 303. 316. 
 Andronicus, Coptic Patriarch, 
 5o> 52-3. 80-1, 89, 169-70, 
 
 172, 499. 501. 605- 
 Angelion, the : see Church. 
 Antinoe (Ansina), 188, 318, 
 
 490 n. 2. 
 Antioch, 14, 162, 163 n. 2, 291, 
 
 299. 
 Anfishirwan, 54, 56 n., 66. 
 Apa Cyrus, 235 and n. 
 Arabia, arts in, 147-8. 
 
 — Christians in, 59 n. 2, 62, 
 146-9. 
 
 Arabia Felix : see Yaman. 
 
 Arabic language, use of, 490 
 and n. i. 
 
 Arabs, 149-53; conquer Syria, 
 154-67; invade Egypt, 194 
 seq.; reinforced, 226 ; capture 
 Babylon, 272 ; enter Alexan- 
 dria, 367 ; conquer Pentapolis, 
 427 seq. ; their government, 
 447 seq.; their art, 491. 
 
 ■Araj, Al, 250, 513. 
 
554 Index 
 
 Arcadia : see FayClm. 
 Arcadion, the, 385 n. 2. 
 Arcadius, Archbishop of Cyprus, 
 
 360. 
 Architecture, loz, 344, 368- 
 
 400. 
 Archon, 451. 
 ArdasMr, king of Persia, 126 
 
 n. I. 
 Aretion, governor of Jerusalem, 
 
 195, 215, 513. 
 'Artsh, Al, 195-7, 209. 
 Aristotle, school of, 412 and n. 
 
 2, 414 n. I. 
 Armanusah, 216 n. 2. 
 Armenian Church, 65, 136, 155, 
 
 478 n. 
 Armour, 121 n. 2, 131 n. i, 
 
 145- 
 Arsinoe (Fayfim), 504. 
 Art, Arab, 491. 
 — Graeco-Roman, 102-15. 
 Artabun : see Aretion. 
 Artillery, 19, 23, 113, 114, 243, 
 
 293- 
 
 Ashmfln-Tanah, 355. 
 Astrology, loi. 
 Astronomy, loi. 
 Aswan : see Syene. 
 Athanasius, Patriarch of Antioch, 
 
 51, 69, 136, 137 n., 156, 354 
 
 n. I. 
 Athrib, 14, 18, 26-7, 183, 236, 
 
 267, 280. 
 Augustalis, 141 n. i, 451. 
 Augustamnica, 141 n. i. 
 Authorities : App. B, C, D, F, 
 
 and notes passim. 
 
 Babylon, fortress near Memphis, 
 32, 43, 51 n. 2 ; taken by 
 Persians, 7 1 ; Benjamin's visit, 
 173, 207; confused with 'Ain 
 Shams, 212 n., 231 n. i, 
 245; 222, 237; description, 
 238 seq. ; siege, 249 seq. ; 
 scaled by Zubair, 270, 280, 
 319; capitulates, 272 ; Treaty 
 of Alexandria there signed. 
 
 329; 346, 43i> 471-2, 480, 
 
 528, and App. D, passim. 
 Bahirah, monk, 153. 
 Bahnasa in Fayfim, 223, 224. 
 Bahrain, 80, 141. 
 BahrSm, 54. 
 Balhib, 289, 329 n., 349, 486 
 
 and n. 
 Baralus, 350 and n., 355. 
 Barbarity, Roman, 160 and n. 
 
 2, 274. 
 Barca, 12, 91, 177, 429, 430. 
 Basil, bishop of Nikiou, 445. 
 
 — of Tyre, 152. 
 Beduins, 3, 213, 224. 
 Benjamin, Coptic Patriarch, 92, 
 
 169-79; family, 169; elected 
 Patriarch, 172; reforms abuses, 
 173; flight before Cyrus, 177; 
 restoration to power by 'Amr, 
 
 439-46 ; 455, 471, 476, 478- 
 80 ; death, 493 ; chronology, 
 501, 505; identity, 514-5- 
 
 Berbers, 8, 11, 430, 494. 
 
 Bilbais, 216, 280. 
 
 Black troops, 23, 257. 
 
 BoniMs, 5 seq. 
 
 Bon6sus, Count of the East, 1 4 ; 
 acts against Nicetas, 1 7 seq. ; 
 death, 36. 
 
 Bornu, 437 n. 2. 
 
 Bruchion, quarter of Alexandria, 
 371 and n. 2, 411. 
 
 Bubastis, 214, 347. 
 
 Bflkalimfin, 108, 353. 
 
 Burial in churches, 478 n. 
 
 Caesarea, 17, 194, 299. 
 
 Cairo, xix, xx, 242 n., 243, 
 246, 278 n.i, 342, 347 n. 
 
 Canal, Cleopatra's or the Fresh- 
 water, 19, 21, 76, 287, 288 n., 
 
 293, 371- 
 
 — Dragon, 14, 25, 293. 
 
 — Pharaonic, 16 n. 
 
 — Trajan's, 217 n.,. 227, 345-8, 
 
 544- 
 Capture by force or capitulation, 
 question of, 272, 322-7, 433 
 
415, 486 n. I, 2, 
 
 n. 2 
 n. I. 
 
 Capture of Alexandria by Ni- 
 cetas, 15 ; by Persians, 72 seq. ; 
 by Arabs, 319-27. 
 
 — of Babylon, 271-4. 
 
 — of Jerusalem by Persians, 
 60; by Arabs, 166. 
 
 Carpets, use of, no and n., 125 
 n. 2. 
 
 Catapult : see Artillery. 
 
 Catholicus = Patriarch, 513-4. 
 
 Chaereum : see Karifin. 
 
 Chartularius, 451. 
 
 Chosroes, king of Persia, 54 ; 
 relations to Ciiristians, 55 and 
 n. 3, 66, 135 and n. ; his wife 
 Mary, 61 ; holds a council of 
 bishops, 64 seq.; 78, iii; 
 neglect of sea-power, 121; put 
 to death, 125; his palace 
 burned, 125.; treatment of the 
 cross, 132 ; reply to Moham- 
 med's letter, 142-3 ; 498, 506. 
 
 Christian Arabs, 151 and n., 
 353 and n. 2. 
 
 Christians, their conversion to 
 Islam, 198, 362-4, 461-4. 
 
 — their divisions, 150, 443, 
 446. 
 
 — their opinion of Islam, 152-3, 
 
 347-8. 
 ■ — their relations to Persian 
 rulers : see Chosroes. 
 
 — of Syria welcome Arab rule, 
 158 and n. 2, 159 ; denounce 
 Mansflr for aiding the Arabs, 
 161 ; their religious freedom, 
 
 497- 
 
 Chronology, 61 n. 4, 89 n., 127 
 n., 134 n. 2, 139 n., 254 n. i, 
 300 n. 2, 345 a, 359 n. 
 
 — of Arab conquest, App. D, 
 272 n. I, 273 n. I, 333, 356, 
 441 n. I, 469 n. 2 and 3. 
 
 — of Persian conquest, App. B. 
 
 — of Patriarchs, App. F. 
 Church of Angelion, Alexandria, 
 
 52 and n., 385 and n. 2. 
 
 Index 
 
 487 
 
 555 
 
 Church of Arcadion, Alexandria, 
 385 n. 2. 
 
 — of St. Athanasius, Alexandria, 
 
 15. 372. 
 
 — of Caesarion, Alexandria, 
 "5. 3"> 314, 372-6, 411, 
 413- 
 
 — of SS. Cosmas and Damian, 
 Alexandria, 47, 385. 
 
 — of St. Euphemia, Alexandria, 
 
 73 n- 
 - — of St. Faustus, Alexandria, 
 
 389- 
 
 — of St. John the Baptist, Alex- 
 andria, 385, 477. 
 
 — of St. Mark, Alexandria, 23, 
 115, 170, 291, 372, 449, 475. 
 
 — of St. Mary Dorothea, Alex- 
 andria, 372. 
 
 — of St. Michael, Alexandria, 
 
 47- 
 - — of St. Sophia, Alexandria, 
 
 389- 
 
 — of St. Theodore, Alexandria, 
 
 15, 372- 
 
 — of St. George at Babylon, 
 238. 
 
 — of Al Mu'allakah at Babylon, 
 51 n. 2, 241 and n., 247. 
 
 — of Abfi Sargah at Babylon, 
 247 and n. 
 
 — of SS. Apostles, Constanti- 
 nople, 301. 
 
 — of St. John, Constantinople, 
 
 3- 
 
 — of St. Sophia, Constantinople, 
 I, 38, 96, 103, 1 1 7-8, 127-8, 
 130. 144, 165, 497. 
 
 — of St. Thomas, Constanti- 
 nople, 38. 
 
 — of St. Mina in the desert, 
 177 n. 2. 
 
 — of Constantine at Jerusalem, 
 60, 496, 497. 
 
 — • of Holy Sepulchre at Jerusa- 
 lem, 60. 
 
 — of the Resurrection at Jeru- 
 salem, 67, 132, 496. 
 
 — at Sana", 147-8. 
 
556 
 
 Index 
 
 Cisterns, underground, 353, 370. 
 Civil war in Egypt, 4-30, 285, 
 
 310. 
 Claudion, the, 385 n. a. 
 Cleopatra's Needles, 291, 314, 
 
 372, 376-9. 
 Coinage, Arab, 490 n. i. 
 Companions of the Prophet, 
 
 229 n. I. 
 Constans, Emperor, 305, 359, 
 
 467, 489. 
 Constantine, general of militia, 
 
 330- 
 
 — son of Heraclius, 195, 302, 
 
 303- 
 Coptic language, xiv, 490. 
 
 — names, 310 n. 
 
 Copts, as artists and craftsmen, 
 no. 
 
 — their opinion of Islim, 192, 
 
 347-8- 
 • — persecuted : see Persecution. 
 
 — reject the Monothelite com- 
 promise, 180-1. 
 
 — their relations with the 
 Persians, 76, 81-9. 
 
 — their relations with the Arabs, 
 211, 215, 252, 279, 285, 295 
 
 n., 3i9> 347-8. 357. 361-4. 
 
 436 and n. i, 442-3, 445, 
 
 448-9, 471, 472, 474, 499- 
 
 80, 485 n. 2, 492 n. I. 
 Corn-trade, 35, 49, 50 and n. i 
 
 and 2, 63, 78, 112. 
 Cosmas Indicopleustes : see 
 
 Indicopleustes. 
 
 — leader of faction, 265. 
 
 — the Student, 99. 
 
 Cross, the Holy, App. A, 61, 
 126-33, 144, 163 and n. 3, 
 164-6, 314, 506. 
 
 Ctesiphon, 125, 126 n. i. 
 
 Cycle, Dionysian, 534-5- 
 
 Cyrene, 9, 10, 12, 91, 429. 
 
 Cyriacus, Patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople, 3. 
 
 Cyrus, Al Mukaukas, bishop of 
 Phasis, Patriarch of Alexandria, 
 appointed, 136-7, 156, 174, 
 
 175-6; union of offices, 179; 
 synod of Alexandria, 180; his 
 dealings with the Arabs, 
 2 1 2-3 ; hurries to Babylon, 
 217; commands at Babylon, 
 250 ; parleys with Arabs, 255 
 seq. ; surrender arranged, 261 ; 
 recall by Heraclius, disgrace, 
 and exile, 262-4; return to 
 Constantinople, 303 ; restora- 
 tion to office, 305 ; his policy, 
 306-7, 334, 363 ; lands at 
 Alexandria, 309, 312-4; his 
 clandestine surrender of the 
 city, 317-9; treaty, 320-1 ; 
 return from Babylon, 330; 
 disclosure of treaty, 330-2 ; 
 pays tribute, 332 ; intercedes 
 with 'Amr, 359 ; melancholy 
 and death, 359-62 ; identity, 
 App. C, App. D, 536-45. 
 Cyrus, bishop of Nikiou, 189. 
 
 Dafashir, 25, 190. 
 
 Dair Abfl 's Saifain, 217 n., 495. 
 
 — Bablfln, 245. 
 
 — Baramfls, 444. 
 
 — Bulus, 247 n. 2. 
 
 — Kibrifis, 51 n. 2, 75, 169. 
 
 — Macarius, 440 n. 4, 444, 516. 
 
 — Suriani, 95. 
 Dalas, 234-5. 
 Damanhfir, 21, 287, 297. 
 Damascus, in, 155, 161, 163 
 
 n. 2, 168, 291. 
 Damietta, 269, 298, 350, 353, 
 
 355 and n. 2. 
 Damlrah, 355. 
 Damsls, 297. 
 Dastagerd, 125, 174. 
 DJbi, 289 n. 
 Dimkarflni, 21. 
 Diocletian, 294, 422. 
 Diocletian's Column, 291, 373, 
 
 380, 385, 386, 388. 
 Dionysius, Patriarch of Antioch, 
 
 354 n. I. 
 Domentianus, 190, 222, 234, 
 
 269, 283, 305, 31 1-2. 
 
Index 
 
 Dove, story of, 281. 
 Dushera, 429 n. 4. 
 Dux, 440, 449, 451. 
 
 Ecthesis of Heraclius, 182. 
 
 Edessa, 57, 130, 135 n. i, 155, 
 156 n., 160, 291. 
 
 Egypt, invaded by Persians c. 
 500 A. D., 72 n. 2; invaded 
 under Chosroes, 71 seq. ; re- 
 covered by Heraclius, 171 ; 
 governed by Cyrus, 175 seq.; 
 invaded by Arabs, 194 seq. ; 
 'Amr's description of, 433. 
 
 Emesa, 130, 155. 
 
 Ennaton, monastery, 51 and n. 
 
 2, 74, 499. 500-4. 
 Eparchus, 451. 
 
 Era, Mohammedan, r27 n. i, 138. 
 — Seleucid, 499. 
 Euangelion, the, 444 n. 2. 
 Eudocia, 120, 264. 
 Eudocianus, 190, 274, 275. 
 Exaltation of the Cross, 130 seq., 
 
 163 n. 2, 314, 366. 
 Ezbekiah, 217 n. 
 
 Factions, 16, 19, 24, 33, 39, 
 
 265, 311. 
 Faience, 107. 
 Fakiis (Phacusa), 197 n. i, 
 
 347- 
 FaramS,, Al : see Pelusium. 
 Fast of Heraclius, 134. 
 Fayiim, 183, 186, 189, 211, 
 
 218-25, 227 n. I, 234, 249, 
 
 265, 319, 351. 
 Flags, 131 n. I, 278 n. i. 
 Forced labour, 347. 
 Fustat, xiii, xxi, 197 n. i, 270 
 
 n. 3, 278 n. I ; building of, 
 
 339 seq. ; name, 340 and n. ; 
 
 344. 472. 494. 495- 
 
 Gaian, 29 n. 
 Gaianites, 29 n., 190. 
 Galen, tomb of, 210. 
 Gardens in Alexandria, 370. 
 Gate, of canal at Alexandria, 1 9. 
 
 557 
 
 Gate, the Golden, at Constanti- 
 nople, 3, 35 n. 
 
 — the Golden, at Jerusalem, 
 131, 144. 
 
 — the Iron, at Babylon, 241 
 and n., 243-4, 249-50, 254, 
 265. 
 
 — the Moon, at Alexandria, 1 5, 
 77. 369 and n. 5. 
 
 — the Sun, at Alexandria, 22-3, 
 369 and n. 5. 
 
 — of the Tree, at Alexandria, 
 380. 
 
 George of Cappadocia, 419. 
 
 — commander at Babylon, 251, 
 254, 272. 
 
 — governor of Alexandria, 140. 
 
 — Melkite Patriarch, 53, 170 
 and n. 2, 171-2, 3ir, 317 and 
 n. I. 
 
 — of Pisidia, 93, 123, 151, 405 
 n. 3. 
 
 — Prefect of Misr, 235. 
 
 — son of Mtna, or son of 
 Karkab, A pp. C. 
 
 Gibbon, iii, xvii, 4, lo, 27-8, 
 40-1, 43 n., 91, 119 n., 123 
 n. 2, 208 n. 2, 250 n. 2, 401, 405 
 
 n. 3. 414. 425. 433, 468. 
 Glass-making, 106-7, 376, 
 
 378-9- 
 Gong : see Ndklis. 
 Greek historians criticized, xvii, 
 
 163 n. 3, 207 and n. 2, 3, 263 
 
 n., 481-3, 506. 
 
 — language, decay of, xiv, 490, 
 
 527, 541- 
 Greek fire, 113-4. 
 Gregory, bishop of Kais, 185 
 
 n. 2. 
 
 Hadrianon at Alexandria, 385 
 
 n. 2. 
 Hajar al Ldhun, 223. 
 HamrS, Al, 278 n. i. 
 Harfin ar Rashid, 344 n. 4. 
 Hebdomon, the, 35. 
 Heliopolis (On or 'Ain Shams), 
 
 114; confusion with Babylon, 
 
558 
 
 Index 
 
 212 n., 231 n. I ; 216, 220; 
 
 battle of, 221 seq. ; 240, 279, 
 
 346. 
 Helpers of the Prophet, 229 n. i. 
 Heraclius, Prefect of Africa, 4. 
 
 — II : see Heraclonas. 
 
 — the Great, rebels against 
 Phocas, 4-9 and 34-41 ; 
 crowned Emperor, 40 ; war 
 with Persia, 116-29; triumph 
 in Jerusalem, 130-3, 144 ; 
 orders massacre of Jews, 134; 
 Church policy, 136-7, 154-9; 
 comparison with Mohammed, 
 138-9, 146; Mohammed's 
 letter, 130, 140, 143; neglect 
 of Muslim power, 154; perse- 
 cution of Syrians, 158 ; escapes 
 assassination, 160; farewell to 
 Syria, 163; brings back the 
 cross, 1 65 ; appoints Cyrus to 
 Egypt, 136-7, 175-6; recalls 
 Cyrus, 262; death, 269; 270 
 n. I, 298-301, 505. 
 
 Heraclonas, 302, 330. 
 Hierapolis, 136, 137 n., 155. 
 Hieroglyphics, use of, 86. 
 Hijrah, 127 n., 138. 
 
 — and Christian era, xxxiv. 
 Hippodrome at Alexandria, 292 
 
 n. I, 388-9. 
 Honorius, Emperor, 385 n. 2. 
 
 — Pope of Rome, 181. 
 Hospital in Alexandria, 63; in 
 
 Persia, 55 n. 3. 
 Hulwan, 173, 247 n. 2, 450. 
 iCfimil, 473. 
 Hypatia, 374. 
 
 IkhnS, 348-9, 485. 
 Illumination : see Manuscripts. 
 Independence, Coptic idea of, 
 
 181. 
 Indicopleustes, Cosmas, 102. 
 Indiction, the, 534-5. 
 Isaac, Coptic Patriarch, 184, 
 
 447 n. 2, 449, 548-50. 
 Islim, causes of its success, 139, 
 
 i6°-3. 158-9. i92-3> 274. 
 
 Isldm, conversions to, 362-4, 
 461-4. 
 Ivory carving, 106. 
 
 Jacobites : see Monophysites. 
 Jacobus Barudaeus, 155. 
 Jeremiah, tomb of, 371, 
 Jerusalem, captured by Persians, 
 
 59-60 ; surrendered to Arabs, 
 
 166 ; 291, 299. 
 Jews, hatred of Christians by, 
 
 59 and n. 2, 130, 133-4. 
 
 — lend aid to the Muslims, 160. 
 
 — protected by Arabs, 320. 
 Jizah, 43 r. 
 
 John the Almoner, 48, 53, 62-3, 
 67, 79 and n. 2, 96, 170 and 
 n. 2, 504-5. 
 
 — duke of Barcaina, 207 n. 3, 
 222 n. I. 
 
 — general of militia, 182, 
 222-4, 314. 
 
 — Prefect of Antinoe, 318. 
 
 — governor of Damietta, 269, 
 
 350, 356. 
 
 — Moschus, 48 n. i, 96 seq., 
 422. 
 
 — of Nikiou, bishop, 96 ; state 
 of his MS., viii-ix, 219, 227 n. 
 1,532; 314 n. 2, 532 seq.; his 
 impartiality, 313 n. i. 
 
 — Philoponus, 93, 402-6. 
 
 — of Samanfid, Coptic Patriarch, 
 185 n. 2, 449, 550-1. 
 
 Julius Caesar, 380, 389, 407-11. 
 Justin, Emperor, 2. 
 Justinian, i, 3, 10, 29 n., 50 
 and notes. 
 
 Ka'bah, the, 146, 149. 
 
 Kais, 185 n. 2. 
 
 Kaisartah, 375 and n. 
 
 Kalifib, 236, 251. 
 
 Karifln, 22, 24, 287-9, 291, 
 295> 297, 348. 
 
 Karkab, origin of name, 523. 
 
 Kasr al Faris : see Persians. 
 
 Kasr ash Shama' {see also Baby- 
 lon), 221 n., 245-6, 495. 
 
Index 
 
 Khais, 289 and n., 350, 351 
 
 n. I, 486 and n. 2. 
 Khaiid, the 'Sword of God,' 
 
 144, 145, 161, 162, 165, 459. 
 Khdrijah ibn Hudhafah, 230, 
 
 233, 281, 345, 358, 363 n., 
 
 472. 
 Khorheam : see Shah-Waraz. 
 Kubbat ad Dukhan, 246. 
 Kulzum, Al, 346. 
 Kfim Sharlk, battle of, 287. 
 Kfls, 179. 
 
 Ladder, Zubair's, 270 and n. 3. 
 Lake, Manzalah, 214, 351, 427. 
 
 — Mareotis, 293. 
 Lakhm, Arab tribe, 213 n. 2. 
 Lawatah, Berber tribe, 430. 
 Library, monastic, 74, 95. 
 
 — at Alexandria, xvii, 99-101, 
 104, "5, 373. 384. 401-26. 
 
 — at Merv, xvi. 
 Libya, province of, 10. 
 Lighthouse : see Pharos. 
 Leontius, general, 224. 
 
 — Monachus, 405 n. 3. 
 
 — of Neapolis, 48 n. i, 49 n., 
 498 seq. 
 
 — Prefect of Mareotis, 8. 
 Luke of Aleppo, 152. 
 Lustre- ware, 108. 
 
 Maks, Al, of Alexandria, 294 
 n. r. ■ 
 
 — Al, of Cairo, 217 n., 529. 
 Manuel, 208 n. 2, 263 n., 295 n., 
 
 455 n. I, 468-75, 480 n., 
 
 482 n. 
 Manfif, reinforced by Phocas, 
 
 14; declares against Phocas, 
 
 16 ; taken by Bon6sus, 18 ; 
 
 surrenders to Nicetas, 26; 
 
 captured by Arabs, 236, 249; 
 
 strengthened, 267 ; 282. 
 Manuscripts, corruption of 
 
 patristic, 95. 
 
 — illumination of, 98, 104-5. 
 Marble, use of, 103-4, 147, ,197, 
 
 369, 386 n. 2, 387. 
 
 559 
 
 12, 25, 51 n. 2, 
 
 Mareotis, 9, 
 
 177. 
 Marinus, 264. 
 Marmarica, 9-13. 
 Martina, Empress, 162, 302, 
 
 304 seq., 359. 
 Massacre by Arabs, 223, 284. 
 
 — by Heraclius, 134, 159. 
 
 — by Persians, 60, 74, 78, 
 84. 
 
 Maurice, Emperor, 2, 54-7. 
 Mausoleum of Alexander, 371. 
 Medicine, study of, 92-3. 
 Melkites, 29, 45, 47, 135, 179, 
 
 251, 443> 446, 485 n. 2. 
 Memphis, no, 221 and n., 260. 
 Menas, bishop of Bab3'lon, 173. 
 
 — brother of Benjamin, 184. 
 
 — chancellor of Nikiou, 18. 
 
 — leader of faction, 265. 
 
 — Prefect of Lower Egypt, 362. 
 
 — Roman officer, 310-1, 314. 
 Migdol, 214. 
 
 Minaret, origin of, 398. 
 
 Mipham6mis, 21. 
 
 Mirror on the Pharos, 393-6, 
 
 3^7 • 
 
 Misr, city of, 212, 2r9 n., 221 
 and n., 230 n. 2, 233, 235 n. i, 
 25i> 280, 341, 531. 
 
 Mithra, cult of, 91 n. 2, 244 
 n. 5. 
 
 Modestus, Patriarch of Jerusa- 
 lem, 63, 64, 132, 134-5, 136, 
 
 157- 
 
 Mohammed, alleged prophecy, 
 62; his career, 138-53 ; death, 
 146; his talk with 'Amr, 201- 
 2 ; his injunctions regarding 
 the Copts, 436. 
 
 Momemphis, 21. 
 
 Monastery, St. Anthony, 68 
 and n. 1 ; Matra, 190; Alex- 
 andrian, 73 (see also Ennaton, 
 Dair Kibrtfls, Tabennesi) ; 
 Edessa,'i55; Wadl 'n Na- 
 trfin, 178 and n. 2, 282; 
 Kfls, 179; NahtyS, 516; Nak- 
 ihn,' 187 n.; the White, 189; 
 
56o 
 
 Kalamfin, 185 and n. 2 ; inr 
 
 fluence of, 491. 
 Monophysites, 29, 45, 47, 135, 
 
 137 «•) 155. isSandn. 2, 181. 
 Monothelitism, 156 and n., 157, 
 
 179, 181, 182 n. 2, 303 n. 3. 
 Mosaics, 103, 147. 
 Mosque of 'Amr, 242, 343-4, 
 
 434- 
 
 — of Mercy at Alexandria, 475. 
 
 — of Tfllun, 243. 
 Mu'awiah, Caliph, 203-5, 467, 
 
 493- 
 
 — ibn Hudaij, 328-9. 
 
 Mufti, the Grand, xxiii, 335 n., 
 398 n. I, 478 n. 
 
 Mukaukas, Al {see also Cyrus), 
 his identity, App. C, 141 n., 
 216 n. 2, 2go and n. 2, 254 
 n. I, 259 n., 272 n, 317 n. i, 
 345, 355, 465 n. i, 475-9, 
 480 n. 
 
 Muna, Al, 177, 444. 
 
 MusailamS, 147. 
 
 Museum at Alexandria, 379, 
 406-7, 411. 
 
 Muta, battle at, 144, 151. 
 
 Nakfis, 343 n. 4, 448. 
 
 Narses, 57. 
 
 Nestorians, 135, 136, 158 n. 2, 
 478 n. 
 
 Nicetas, 4; advances on Egypt, 
 8 ; struggle with Bon6sus, 1 7- 
 27; made governor of Alex- 
 andria, 42, 43 n., 46-8 ; flight 
 from Alexandria, 79, 496, 505. 
 
 Nikiou, town in Delta, 15; its 
 site, i6 n. ; taken by Bon6sus, 
 18; recovered by Nicetas, 25- 
 27 ; taken by Persians, 71 and 
 n. 3 ; Persian massacre, 83-4 ; 
 reoccupied by Romans, 183; 
 222, 234, 236, 268 n.; com- 
 manded by Domentianus, 269 ; 
 taken by the Arabs, 281-5, 
 286, 288; Roman army under 
 Manuel defeated, 472-4. 
 
 Nilometer, 243, 247. 
 
 Index 
 
 Nubians, 3, 325, 338, 432. 
 
 Obelisk, 228, 372, 373 n. i, 
 
 376-9- 
 Officials, Roman, adopt Islam, 
 362-3, 450. 
 
 — retain Roman titles, 450-1. 
 Omar, Caliph, 166, 194-6, 200, 
 
 205, 273 n. I, 320 n., 328-9, 
 341, 345 and n., 349, 402, 
 
 403, 455-9, 465, 467, 469 n- 3, 
 Omar ibn 'Abd al 'Aztz, Caliph, 
 
 461-2. 
 On : see Heliopolis. 
 Opus Alexandrinum, 104. 
 Othman, Caliph, 432, 459, 465- 
 
 6, 469 n. 3, 485 n. r, 487 and 
 
 n. I. 
 
 Papyrus, 106, 404 n. i. 
 Paul of Telia, 69, 94, 499-501. 
 Pelusium (FaramS), 15, 43, 71, 
 183, 195 n. 3, 197 n. I, 210- 
 
 3, 2i4n. I, 280, 354 n. 1,528. 
 Pentapolis, 4, 10, 49, 117, 308, 
 
 427-38, 494, 543- 
 Persecution of the Copts by 
 Cyrus, 183-93, 232, 252, 273- 
 
 4, 312, 317, 446- 
 
 — of the Jews by Heraclius, 134, 
 159, 160 n. 4. 
 
 — of the Syrian Christians by 
 Heraclius, 158. 
 
 Persian conquest of Syria, 54 seq. 
 
 — invasion of Egypt, temp. 
 Anastasius, 30. 
 
 — do. temp. Heraclius, 69 seq., 
 115; evacuation, 171, 174; 
 chronology, App. B. 
 
 — relations with Copts, 76, 
 81-9. 
 
 — rule, 91, 142 n. 2. 
 
 — toleration of Christianity, 64- 
 66 n. 2, 81, 158 n. 2, 183. 
 
 Persians, Fort of the, or Kasr al 
 Faris, at Alexandria, 90 and n., 
 294. 
 
 Peter of Bahrain, 80. 
 
 — the Copt, 460. 
 
Index 
 
 561 
 
 Peter, Melkite Patriarch, 364. 
 
 Phacusa : see Fakfis. 
 
 Pharos, the, 15, 292, 376-7, 
 389-98. 
 
 Phiale, canal harbour of Alex- 
 andria, 50 n. 2, 400. 
 
 Philagrius, 302, 304, 307, 359. 
 
 Philiades, Prefect of Fayiim, 
 
 3"- 
 
 Philoponus : see John. 
 Philoxenus, Prefect of Fayflm, 
 
 363- 
 
 Phocas, Emperor, 2 ; puts Nar- 
 ses to death, 57 ; warned of 
 danger, 1 3 ; dispatches Bon6- 
 sus, 14; alarmed byHeraclius' 
 fleet, 35 ; sinks the imperial 
 treasure, 37 ; trial and death, 
 38-40. 
 
 Pisentios, bishop of Coptos, 
 84 seq. 
 
 Plague, I, 267, 43s. 
 
 Pompey's Pillar, 380 n. 2 : see 
 also Diocletian's Column. 
 
 Porphyry, 103, 106. 
 
 Praetorium, 451. 
 
 Pshati : see Nikiou. 
 
 Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople, 302 and n. 3, 359. 
 
 Rafah, 195. 
 
 Rakoti, 380, 393. 
 
 Raudah, isle of, 222, 242, 250, 
 254 and n. i, 255 and n. i, 
 257> 265, 276 n. I, 431. 
 
 Religion and politics, 44-5, 73, 
 150, 158, 181, 263, 268-9, 
 
 274, 319. 438, 446. 
 Renegades, 152, 267-9, 278, 
 
 295 n., 362-3, 443. 
 Revenue of Egypt, 321, 452- 
 
 60. 
 Rhinocolura, 67 and n. 3, 71 : 
 
 see also 'Artsh. 
 Rhodes, 172, 303 n. 2, 305 n. i, 
 
 307-8. 
 Rood, the Holy : see Cross. 
 Rosetta, 289 n., 344, 349. 35° 
 
 and n. i, 485. 
 
 Sabrah, 430, 
 
 Sakhi, 289 and n., 297, 486 
 
 and n. 2. 
 Saladin, xviii, 355, 388. 
 Salahtah, 214. 
 Samanfld, 16, 267. 
 Samuel, Abbot of Kalamfln, 91 
 
 n. 2, 185 and n. ?. 
 Sandifln, 289 n. 
 Sanutius, Dux, 440, 449. 
 
 — Prefect of the Rtf, 362. 
 Saracens, 150-1, 213 n. 2 : see 
 
 also Arabs. 
 Sarbar, Sarbaros : see Shah- 
 
 Waraz. 
 Sculpture, 100 n., 105-6, 178, 
 
 383- 
 Sea-power, 12 1-2, 336, 348, 
 
 467, 489. 
 
 Sebennytus : see Samanfid. 
 
 Serapeum, the, 291, 373, 380- 
 8, 410-1, 413 seq. 
 
 Sergius, Patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople, 93, 117, 122, 136, 157, 
 302. 
 
 Sermon, 266, 314-5. 434-6. 
 
 Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, 
 52 n. 2. 
 
 Shabshlr, 16 n. 
 
 Shahtn, 59 n. 2, 70 and n., 75, 
 77, 118 n., 174. 
 
 Shah-Waraz, Persian general 
 and king, 59 and n. i, 70 and 
 n., 118 n., 120, 126 n., 143 n., 
 498, 506. 
 
 Shanfldah, Anba, 87-9. 
 
 Sharik, 286-7. 
 
 Shata, 350 n. 2, 355-6- 
 
 Ships,(i)trading,35,49-5o,ii2. 
 
 — (2) war, 1 1 2-3, 366 n. 3. 
 
 — 'Amr's description of, 467. 
 Siege of Alexandria, 293, 475, 
 
 542-3- 
 
 — of Babylon, 249 seq. 
 
 — of Bilbais, 216. 
 
 — of Jerusalem, 165-7. 
 
 — of Pelusium, 211. 
 
 Silk, use of, 86, 108 n., 109 n., 
 119, 125 n. «, 131 n. I, 369. 
 
562 
 
 Index 
 
 Simeon Stylites, 151 n. i. 
 Simon, Coptic Patriarch, 74. 
 Siroes, king of Persia, 143 n., 
 
 5o5> 506- 
 
 Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusa- 
 lem, 48 n. I, 60 n. 3, 96 seq., 
 136 n., 157-8, 165-7, 180, 
 182 n. 2, 422. 
 
 Sostratus of Cnidus, 389, 398. 
 
 Statues, 4, 17, 106, 178, 377, 
 
 379. 383. 417,419- 
 Stephen of Akxandria, 102. 
 Sudin, the, 432. 
 Suntais (Sultais), 287, 351 n. i, 
 
 486 and n. 2. 
 Syene (Aswan), 43, 208 n. i, 
 
 432- 
 Syria, Christians in, 156, 158. 
 Syriac language, 93, 94. 
 
 Tabennesi, 313 n. 2 ; convent 
 
 of, 313-4- 
 Tab6k, Mohammed's failure at, 
 
 145- 
 Talamd, 349, 485-6. 
 Tamiatis, 355 n. 2 : see also 
 
 Damietta. 
 Tanis, 214, 354 n. i. 
 Tarranah, 177, 283. 
 Taxes, land-tax, 321-6, 338, 
 
 363, 451-6- 
 
 — poll-tax, 272, 321-6, 332-3, 
 338, 349 and n. 2, 429, 448, 
 451-6, 486, 487. 
 
 Tendunias : see Umm Diinain. 
 Terenouti : see TarrSnah. 
 Terms granted by Arabs, 256, 
 258-9, 261, 276, 321-7, 
 
 443- 
 Tetrapylus, 371-2. 
 Textiles, 108 seq., 352. 
 Theodore, bishop of Nikiou, 15, 
 
 17- 
 
 — nephew of Heraclius, 160. 
 
 — Roman commander-in-chief 
 in Egypt, 217, 224-5, 233; 
 250, 267-9, 283, 286, 290, 
 303, 3o7-9> 310, 31 1: 314, 
 33O; 365- 
 
 Theodore, Patriarch of Alex- 
 andria, 13. 
 
 — Prefect of Alexandria, 13. 
 Theodosians, 30 n., 191. 
 Theodosius, Emperor, 413. 
 
 — Coptic Patriarch, 29 n. 
 
 — Prefect of Fayfim, 322, 225, 
 23o> 233. 
 
 Theonas, Abbot, 169. 
 
 Theophilus, Patriarch of Alex- 
 andria, 413. 
 
 Thessalonica, 5, 33-4. 
 
 Thomas of Harkel, 69, 94, 499- 
 502. 
 
 Tiberius, Emperor 578 a. d., 2. 
 
 Timber, use of, 408 and n. 2. 
 
 Timothy Aelurus, Patriarch of 
 Alexandria, 375. 
 
 Tinnts, 350 n. 2, 351-4. 
 
 Toleration of Christianity by 
 Persians : see Persian ; by 
 Arabs, 152, 158, 259, 497. 
 
 Tome of Leo, 182, 188 n. 2. 
 
 Trajan, Emperor, 243-4: see also 
 Trajan's Canal. 
 
 Treasure, 37, 78, 117, 122, 125, 
 148, 165, 272, 320. 
 
 Treaty of Alexandria, 259 n., 
 320-7, 329, 338 n. 2, 345 n., 
 348, 349 and n. 2, 471, 482 n., 
 540-1. 
 
 — Babylon, 259 n., 261, 264, 
 272 and n., 275-6, 320, 482 n. 
 
 — local, 351 n. I, 486 n. i. 
 Tribute, alleged payment by 
 
 Cyrus before invasion, 207-9 
 and notes, 258, 263 and n., 332, 
 480-3. 
 
 — see Taxes, poll-tax. 
 Tripolis, 8,, 429-30. 
 Tflkh, 297 and n. 2. 
 
 Tulfin, Ahmad ibn, Caliph, 396. 
 
 'Ubadah ibn as Samit, 257, 266, 
 
 343- 
 Umm Dflnain (Tendunias), 216, 
 
 217 and n., 225, 227, 230 and 
 
 n. 2, 233. 
 Union of Christendom, Hera- 
 
Index 
 
 563 
 
 clius' schemes for, 136-7, 155- 
 
 6. i75> i79> 192-3- 
 Union of Coptic and Syrian 
 
 Churches, 52 and n. i, 70, 
 
 500-2, 505. 
 Uranius, 55 n. 3. 
 
 Valentine, 302, 304 seq., 359. 
 Vellum, use of, 104, 105, 404 
 
 n. I. 
 Vessels, precious : see Treasure. 
 Victor, bishop of Fayfim, 189. 
 Virgin sacrifice, story of, 437-8. 
 
 Wadt 'n Natron, glass-works at, 
 107; monasteries, 178; 440, 
 444. 
 
 — Tumildt, 214, 346. 
 
 WalM, Al, Caliph, 395. 
 Wall of the Old Woman, 198. 
 War-cry of Muslims, 271, 430. 
 Warden, 'Amr's freedman, 280 
 n- 2, 326, 335 n. 
 
 Yamimah, 140, 141. 
 Yaman, 141, 142 n. 2, 146. 
 Yazfd ibn Abfl Sufian, 149. 
 Yermouk, battle of, 161, 163 
 n. 2, 164, 202. 
 
 Zacharias, Patriarch of Jerusa- 
 lem, 46 n. I, 61, 64, 129, 131, 
 134 and n. 2. 
 
 Zagazig, 214 n. 2. 
 
 Zubair, Al, ibn al 'Awwam, 226, 
 227, 266, 270-2, 326, 339, 343. 
 
OXFORD 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 
 BY HORACE HART, M.A. 
 
 PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY