Anna Held Audette (1938 – 2013) was a famous American artist who was fascinated by industrial ruins, and relics in general, and used her art to express her vision of that past. She has a few charcoal drawings from Egypt from the second half of the 1970s; one of them has a Coptic theme, ‘Coptic Cemetery’, from 1977 (30 h x 40 w in).

The Coptic cemetery in Old Cairo, close to the Coptic Museum, has often drawn the fascination of onlookers with its old tombs of various structural shapes, crosses and statues. Audette incorporates all that, and add to it spooky shapes of individuals representing the dead, which makes a very thought-provoking spectacle.

The above painting is from the Coptic manuscript, The Four Gospels in Coptic and Arabic, dated to 1663 AD, and kept at the British Library, London (Or. 1316 f.5v). It shows The Flight into Egypt – the painting is titled in Arabic, ‘مريم ويوسف لما توجهوا الى أرض مصر’ (Mary and Joseph When They Departed to the Land of Egypt). It comes immediately after Matthew 2:15 “… that it may be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.”

It seems that the artist was the same as the scribe who wrote the Gospels in two columns, one Coptic and the corresponding translation in Arabic. Unfortunately I do not have the name of the scribe but I suspect it is included in the manuscript which one hope to review on day at the British Library.

The painting is fascinating. The background is not Egyptian but Palestinian. This is not surprising as it is clear from the title of the painting that the artist was concerned with the departure from the Holy Land to Egypt. Tradition has it that the Holy Family fled by night, after being warned by the angel of King Herods’ intention to kill all babies in village, west from Bethlehem to Ashkelon on the Mediterranean coast then east to Hebron, and then, west again, to Gaza, on the Mediterranean coast, to follow from there the northern Sinai coastal route into Egypt. It seems to me that the artist captured the Holy Family as it travelled through Ashkelon, which was a large Greco-Roman city at the time. Anyway, the architecture and nature displayed in the painting is not Egyptian: there are no Nile, papyri, palm trees.

The Holy Family, accompanied by Salome, the midwife, composed of the Virgin Mary riding on a donkey. While dangling her two legs from one side, as women traditionally ride monkeys in the Middle East, the Virgin holds Baby Jesus in her right arm while she holds the rein of the donkey with the left hand. Joseph walks behind the donkey, holding a raised up staff over his left shoulder by the left hand. Salome follows Joseph. All of them wear bright blue and red clothes.

The beauty of Coptic pottery never ends. Above are two Coptic painted pottery jars from the 4^th to 7^th century made of terracotta and 12” (30.5cm) high each.[1]

[1] Vendor is (or was) Barakat Gallery, Beverly Hills, California.

Jean-François Champollion (1790 – 1832) deciphered the Egyptian hieroglyphs in 1822, and made it possible for modern Egyptology to emerge. He perhaps would not have been able to do that at all had he not studied Coptic first. There is one man, who is still largely enigmatic, who helped him to learn Coptic – Yuhanna Chiftichi, a Coptic priest who worked with the French during the French Campaign in Egypt (1798 – 1801), and left with the French, with many other Copts, to France when the French withdrew.[1] In France, he became priest at the church of Saint-Roch on Rue Saint-Honoré, in Paris. There, he assisted the Egyptian Commission in producing Description de l’Ėgypte; but, perhaps, his lasting service to civilisation was his assistance he gave to Champollion, who befriended him, to learn Coptic.

Champollion knew many European and Oriental languages, at least sixteen in total, including Latin, Greek, French, English, German, Arabic, Syriac, Chaldean (Aramaic), Sanskrit, Persian, and Chinese. When he became fluent in Coptic, he wrote in 1809:

 I have thrown myself into Coptic, I want to know Egyptian as well as I know French, because my great work on the Egyptian papyrus [hieroglyphics] will be based on this language. . . . My Coptic is moving along, and I find in it the greatest joy, because you have to think: to speak the language of my dear Amenhotep, Seth, Ramses, Thuthmos, is no small thing. . . . As for Coptic, I do nothing else. I dream in Coptic. I do nothing but that, I dream only in Coptic, in Egyptian. . . . I am so Coptic, that for fun, I translate into Coptic everything that comes into my head. I speak Coptic all alone to myself (since no one else can understand me). This is the real way for me to put my pure Egyptian into my head. . . . In my view, Coptic is the most perfect, most rational language known.[2]

“Coptic is the most perfect and the most rational language known.”

This is the verdict of Champollion on the Coptic language. Those who know Coptic would tend to agree with him. And the Copts must know this, and be sure of the many beauties of their language.

________________

[1] For more on Yuhanna Chiftichi, see: Chiftichi, Yuhanna (CE:519a-520b) by Anouar Louca in Coptic Encyclopedia, ed. Aziz Suryal Atiya (New York, Macmillan, 1991).     

[2] Muriel Mirak Weissbach, Jean François Champollion And the True Story of Egypt in 21st Century Science & Technology magazine, Winter 1999-2000, 12 (4), 26–39, p. 32. See also, Andrew Robinson, Cracking the Egyptian Code, The Revolutionary Life of Jean-Francois Champollion (London, Thames & Hudson, 2012), p. 61.

The above is a watercolour painting by Henri-Joseph Redouté dated June 1799. It depicts Tell Abu-Mina, the archaeological site of the old Coptic Christian town of Saint Mina, which was built in the desert of Mariout, approximately 60 km southeast of Alexandria. Redoute (1766 – 1852), was a Belgian artist who went to Paris and became a member of the Commission des sciences et des arts during the Egyptian campaign (1798-1799). It is while he was in Egypt that he made his painting, titling it Tell abou-Menna. Colline du père Menna dans le Delta. Vu à l’est de Farchy.[1]

The old Coptic Christian town of Saint Mina was named after the Egyptian soldier, Saint Mina (or Minas or Mena or Menas or Mennas) the Wonder Worker, who was martyred in Phrygia, in Asia Minor, in 296 AD, during the reign of Diocletian (284 – 305). His body was brought to Egypt where it was eventually buried in the Western (Libyan) Desert near a spring at the western side of Lake Mareotis (Mariout), not far away from Alexandria. Legend has it that the location of the tomb was forgotten, but later miraculously discovered. Miracles made the tomb of St. Mina a pilgrimage magnet location for the sick and faithful. Around the tomb arose impressive churches, monasteries, baptisteries, cells, kitchens, refectories, store-rooms, wine presses, cisterns, market-place, paved-streets, kilns, hospices, dormitories and hostels, depositories, baths, pools, and accommodation for several thousand inhabitants, including several hundred priests, and thousands of shopkeepers, workmen, soldiers, etc., many vineyards of grapes and vine. The beautiful pavements of the city and its coloured marble columns were unequalled, and emperors like Constantine I (312 – 337), Arcadius (395 – 408) and Zeno (457 – 474) left their mark on the city that became one of the greatest pilgrimage destinations in the whole of Christendom, and certainly the greatest in Egypt.

This great city, however, was to be destroyed after the Arabs occupied Egypt in 640 AD, and Muslim rulers, Arabs and the Berber looted it, destroyed and reduced its great buildings and monuments to rabble, and so, it became, in the Middle-Ages, as the History of the Coptic Patriarchs describes it, “like unto desert”.[2] And so it went into oblivion, but the destroyed site preserved its name, and became known as “Abu Mina” or “Karm Abu Mina” or “Tell Abu Mina” – ‘abu’ being a corruption of the Coptic ‘apa’, meaning father; ‘karm’ being the Arabic for vineyard; and ‘tell’ being the Arabic for hill, which I think was created by the heaps of the destroyed architecture.

It is this site which Redoute saw in Egypt in 1799 and immortalised it in his water-colour, “Tell Abou-Menna”. Whether the past glory of the site had crossed his mind, it is difficult to tell. For the world to appreciate the greatness of the city, it had to wait until in 1905-1907 the German archaeologist Carl Maria Kaufmann (1872 – 1951) made his discoveries and wrote extensively about the city, to astonish may by the splendour of the past city.[3] To protect the site, the UNESCO declared the site World Heritage Site in 1979; and then, in 2001, it added it to the List of World Heritage in Danger.

And modern Copts, too, did their part in reviving the memory of the Egyptian martyr. Saint Mina has always been a popular martyr with the Copts; and to the modern Coptic Pope Cyril VI (10 May 1959 – 1971), Saint Mina was an idol and personal intercessor as he was to many Copts. So, as soon as Pope Cyril VI was elected, he obtained from the Egyptian government a permit to rebuild the monastery of Saint Mina approximately one kilometer north of the ancient archaeological site; and, on 27 November 1959, he laid the foundation stone of the new Saint Mina Monastery. It was quickly inhabited by monks, and enlarged with a cathedral, churches, cells, hostels, and many other buildings, and including gardens and farms. Today, its land extends to over 100 feddan.

Today, a visit to the Monastery of Saint Mina must be accompanied by a visit to the nearby excavation site of the old town if one would like to understand more the history of this holy area.

The new Cathedral of Saint Mina

_________________

[1] Available at the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris.

[2] For more history on the Monastery of Saint Mina, see: Otto F.A. Meinardus, Monks and Monasteries of the Egyptian Deserts (Cairo, AUP, 2002), pp. 168-179.

[3] See: J. C. Ewald Falls, Three years in the Libyan Desert, travels, discoveries, and excavations of the Menas expedition (Kaufmann expedition); trans. Elizabeth Lee (London, 1913).

In 2009, I visited the National Portrait Gallery in London to have a look at the above hand-coloured etching, titled “‘Praetor-Urbanus:’ – inauguration of the Coptic Mayor of Cairo, preceded by the Procureur de la Commune” which fascinated me enormously. It was made by the British famous caricaturist James Gillray (1756 – 1815), and published by Hannah Humphrey on published 12 March 1799.[1] [2] The Library of Congress, which possesses an original plate too, gives a description of the plate in these words: “An obese, Copt [the Praetor Urbanus], holding a mace or staff, rides an ass which, though led processionally by a Copt [the Prosecutor de la Commune][3], proceeds on account of the bayonet with which a grinning French soldier stabs its hind quarters.”[4]

Caricaturists caricature others to create a comic or grotesque effect by exaggerating certain striking characteristics,[5] and by this they ridicule them. This has always been a fair endeavour in the field of politics, particularly when one deals with powerful and nasty politicians. However, it sometimes becomes a bit tasteless and unjustifiably offensive.

Who is the “obese, Copt, holding a mace or staff, and riding an ass” – that ridiculous, barefooted, very dark “Copt” with a small goatee beard who does not look like a Copt at all; who wears outrageous long, beady ear ring; and who absurdly wears a French uniform, badly fitted, and with larger than life Tricolore feathered-hat? There were many prominent Coptic leaders who collaborated with the French against the Mamluks and Turks who had ruled Egypt for hundreds of years, destroying it and oppressing its natives, particularly the Christian Copts. For a long time I wondered if Gillray’s Praetor Urbanus was Mu’allem Yaqub[6] or perhaps Jirjis al-Jawhari[7]. But the date of the publication of the etching – 12 March 1799 – excludes Mu’allem Yaqub, since Yaqub left Cairo shortly after Bonaparte and his army entered it (23 July 1798) to accompany in August General Desaix in his Upper Egyptian Campaign, and did not return back to Cairo until June 1799. During that period, Yaqub had no role in Cairo. Jirjis, on the other hand, stayed in Cairo almost all the time during that period; however, we know that Jirjis served as General Steward for Bonaparte.

The Coptic man in the etching is called Praetor Urbanus. What does that mean? Praetors, who were first introduced by the Romans, were public officers. There were many types of praetors, some military and others civil; and the praetor urbanus was a magistrate who presided in civil cases between citizens – he could take judicial decisions but could not legislate: in other words, the ‘praetor urbanus’ was a civil cases judge. This arrangement was taken by the European nations, including the French. When Egypt fell to the French, Napoleon embarked on introducing the advanced French systems of judiciary into Egypt to replace its archaic and defective Sharia courts that ruled in every single matter, led by Muslim sheikhs from the main four Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence[8] and applied Sharia laws. Barely six weeks had passed since he had entered Cairo, Bonaparte established, on 10 September 1798, civil courts, called Commercial Courts or Disputes Courts, to rule in civil disputes between merchants and between the general public; and the Cairo Court was made up of six Muslim merchants and six Copts, and a Copt, Mu’allem Malati (Meletius), was appointed as its head. This was hitherto something unheard of: a Copt to reside at the head of a court that ruled in commercial and other civil disputes between all, regardless of their religion.

We don’t know much about Mu’allem Malati save that he was renowned to be a wise, just and learned man. Before the French occupation, he worked as a scribe for the prominent Mamluk, Ayub Bey al-Difterdar, who was killed in the Battle of the Pyramids on 21 July 1798. He stayed in his position as Chief Judge of the Cairo Disputes Court until General Menou[9] took over from Kléber [10], after the assassination of the latter in June 1800. Menou, who converted to Islam and married a Muslim woman, reverted Egypt back to its previous status, and discharged all Copts appointed by Bonaparte in the divans and courts, and amongst them was Malati. When the British forced the French to surrender and withdraw from Egypt in August-September 1801, and Egypt was once again in the hand of the Turks and Mamluks, the Ottoman governor Tahir Pasha killed Malati, with other Copts and with Syrian Christians, beheaded him, and threw his head at Bab Zuweila in Cairo.[11] The Coptic Church recognised his death as martyrdom, and celebrates it yearly on the 12 Pashons.

So, Gillray’s Praetor Urbanus was Mu’allem Malati, since he was the Chief Judge residing on civil cases. The British knew about events in Egypt as they blockaded Egypt after the Battle of Aboukir Bay (1-3 August 1798)[12] to prevent any reinforcements, supplies or communication between the French in Egypt and France; and were able to intercept many French dispatches from Egypt. We read in the plate that Gillray made, “etched by J. Gillray from the original intercepted drawing”. It seems that the French artists[13] of the Campaign made a drawing of the occasion on which Mu’allem Malati was appointed Chief Judge; and it is this that Gillray used and caricatured to produce his appalling cartoon. We don’t know if the original has been preserved, and one hopes that it will one day resurface. Perhaps it is kept in the British Archives in London.

Britain and France were in war with each other, and Egypt was a bone of contention between the two: Britain backed the Mamluks and Turks who were oppressing the Copts and other Egyptians to spite the French who were fighting them. Each of Britain and France were fighting for their national interest – and if Britain’s interest was to bring back the status quo ante; i.e. the rule of the hateful Mamluks and Turks, so be it. The Copts and the Fellahin did not matter. And Britain’s loyal cartoonist, Gillray, could make fun of the oppressed Coptic Christian minority because its interests happened to cross with the interests of Britain – religious solidarity, human rights, freedom, equality and good governance, which the Mamluks and Turks never knew, did not count. One can still see the same situation repeating itself in the Middle East of today with many European powers. That explains Gillray’s Praetor Urbanus – it is deeply offensive to the Copts but one can understand how it came about in a period when not only national interests determined caricature but prejudices too.

_______________________

[1] The plate size is 25.5 cm x 37.5 cm on 26.8 cm x 38.9 cm paper size.

[2] The National Portrait Gallery purchased in 1947 and designated it NPG D12684.

[3] The Prosecutor de la Commune is equivalent to the General (or Public) Prosecutor. Here, Gillray also makes fun of the Copt, who was guiding the donkey of the Praetor Urbanus, holding a staff of authority, and wearing French insignia. Donkeys of important people in Egypt at that period were guided by men who cleared the roads off people as they ran before the donkey barefooted.

[4] See here.

[5] See: Oxford English Dictionary.

[6] See: Anuar Louca, General Yaqub in Coptic Encyclopedia (New York, Macmillan, 1991).

[7] See: Harald Motzki, Jirjis al-Jawhari in Coptic Encyclopedia (New York, Macmillan, 1991).

[8] The Hanafi, Maliki, Shafiʿi and Hanbali schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

[9] Jacques-François de Menou, later Abdallah de Menou after his conversion to Islam (1750 – 1810). He headed the French Army in Egypt from the assassination of Kléber on until the surrender to the British on 30 August 1801.

[10] Jean-Baptiste Kléber (1753 – 1800). He was head of the French Army in Egypt after the departure of Bonaparte towards the end of 1799 until his assassination in Cairo on 14 June 1800.

[11] See: عبد الرحمن الرافعى، تاريخ الحركة القومية، الجزء الأول والثانى (القاهرة، دار المعارف، ط٦، ١٩٨٧). Also, see: ايريس حبيب المصري، قصة الكنيسة القبطية، الكتاب الرابع (القاهرة، ط٦، ٢٠٠٨).

[12] Also called the Battle of the Nile.

[13] Vivian Denon went with Bonaparte to Egypt, but during that period, he accomapanied Desaix in his campaign in Upper Egypt. Other French artists who accompanied the French Army in Egypt were Dutertre, Portal, Caquet and Perê.

The above vintage photographs (photographer unknown to me) date from the first half of the 20^th century. They show a view from the River Nile of the Coptic Church of the Virgin Mary in Maadi, Cairo, also known as the Virgin’s Church of the Ferry.

This is a holy place for the Copts, for from here, it is believed, that the Holy Family in its sojourn in Egypt as it escaped Herod the Great, departed on boat to Upper Egypt.

This vintage photograph, of unknown photographer, from the first half of the 20^th century is of Saint Mark’s Coptic Orthodox Cathedral in Azbakeya, Cairo. It has been the seat of the Coptic Pope from 1800 to 1971, until the Patriarch’s seat was moved to the new cathedral in Abbasiya.

I have written about Ragheb Moftah (1898–2001) before, here and here. I now share with you a photograph of the great Coptic musicologist and scholar of Coptic music heritage. It was donated by Laurence Moftah to the Library of Congress, Washington.

It is a passport photo of Moftah in c. 1992 when he was about 34 years old.

To access the Coptic Orthodox Liturgical Chant and Hymnody Collection at the Library of Congress, press here.

The colourful paintings, below, are from Le monastère et la nécropole de Baouit saison de fouilles avril-mai 1903 (The monastery and Necropolis of Bawit, excavated in the season April-May 1903), which was published by the French Institute of Oriental Archaeology in Cairo, in 1904; and was written and painted by Jean Clédat.

Jean Clédat (1871-1943) was a French Coptologist and Egyptologist. He worked in Egypt from 1900 to 1914 and was very active at many archaeological locations; but, perhaps, his greatest work was the excavation of the archaeological site, Bawit, which is located between Dayrut and Asyut, around 50 miles north of Asyut, and a mile inland in the desert. Bawit was a monastery established by Saint Apollo in the fourth-century and it had more than 500 monks, who mostly lived in scattered hermitages (Clédat calls them chapelles [chapels]) round its centre. It was based on the Pachomian type of Coptic monasticism – each day the monks gathered for a common prayer and meal, followed by a religious ceremony from St. Apollo. They then went each to his hermitage to practise asceticism. Bawit was a great cultural, agricultural and trade centre. Its excavations, which started in 1901 and continued until the 1980s, revealed a great wealth of invaluable Coptic art, which includes the oldest known Coptic icon of Christ and Abbot Mina (Panneau du Christ et de l’abbé Ména)[1].

The Monastery of Bawit (Saint Apollo) survived until it was destroyed by the Muslims in the 11^th or 12^th century. At the present the ruins cover ninety-nine acres; and it is estimated that only 5% of the archaeological site has been excavated. One hopes that the rest will be excavated in the near future, to add to the recent astonishing discoveries at the monasteries at the Red Sea, the Western Desert and Sohag. Many of the old findings of Bawit are kept at the Coptic Museum of Cairo and the Musée du Louvre in Paris.[2] The latter has a visual representation of the Monastery of Bawit, which you can watch here.

Plate IV: Chapel XXX – North wall. The Baptism of Christ

Plate VIIIa: Chapel XXXII: East wall – left niche

Plate VIIIb: Chapel XXXII: North wall – Right niche

Plate IXa: South wall – West niche

Plate IXb: West wall – Left niche

Plate Xa: Decoration of the outside arc of a niche

Plate Xb: a bird, decorating a corner stone

Plate XI: Chapel XXXII: Internal borders of the arches of the niches

Plate XIII: Chapel XXXIV

Plate XVII: Chapel XXXVII: West wall – Chasing a gazelle

___________________

[1] Kept at the Musée du Louvre in Paris.

[2] See: Pierre du Bourguet, s.j.: Cledat, Jean in Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2; ed. Aziz Suryal Atiya (New York, 1991). See also: René-Georges Coquin and Maurice Martin, S.J, Bawit in Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2.

Modernisation and revival of Coptic must go hand in hand – there is no point in modernising Coptic if we do not aim at its revival; and there can be no hope of revival of Coptic without modernising it first. Coptic nationalists and their friends must aim at achieving both. Here is a preliminary programme that I think will achieve both:

1. Bohairic is the dialect that should be modernised and revived.
2. Neo-Bohairic is the phonology that should be used.
3. The Coptic numeric notation system must be modernised.
4. The Coptic punctuation system must be modernised.
5. New words must be coined and added to the Coptic vocabulary.
6. A trusted and agreed body must be created akin to the Académie française to act as the authority representing the nation, and to decide on the usages, vocabulary, and grammar of the Coptic language, and publish an authoritative dictionary of the Coptic language.
7. Establishment of Coptic schools – this forms part of a Coptic cultural autonomy (Coptic non-territorial autonomy).
8. The Coptic Church should protect and promote the Coptic language.
9. Production of modern publications, including newspapers and books that include not just grammatical works on Coptic but literary works, religious and non-religious, in Coptic, particularly short stories, novels, plays and poems.
10. Digital technology must be used to support the process of revival of Coptic.

Some Copts may not agree on all points; and I suspect point 2 particularly will not get universal support. Why I went for Neo-Bohairic is a matter of practicability. But I will write about each point in detail later. The suggested programme is shared here to trigger more thinking and discussion.

Fate of the animals by the German painter, Franz Marc (1880 – 1916), 1913

In the Coptic Mysteries of St. John the Divine,[1] it is told that after the Saviour had risen from the dead, He came to the Mount of Olives and brought the Apostles into His presence. There, John said unto Christ: “My Lord, Thou didst say to me: ‘Thou are My beloved, and thou hast found grace before me.’ Now therefore, take me up into heaven, and show me everything, so that I may know [all mysteries].” And the Saviour said unto hum: “Ask Me fully and I will hide nothing from thee. Rise up, and let us pray to the Father, blessed be He! and He will hear us.”

Jesus then summons a Cherubim, and say: “I command thee to take My beloved John into heaven, and to explain to hum everything that he shall ask thee.” The Cherubim then takes John to the First and Seven Heavens, and explain to him the mysteries of water and wheat; informs him that the Archangel Michael makes supplication when water should come upon earth to make fruit abundant; shows him the Angel of Famine (Angel of Wrath) and the tree from which Adam ate; answers his questions about the stars, if God decrees ‘the course of man’s life from his mother’s womb’, and if animals have souls and what about their fate.

The whole manuscript, available in Sahidic Coptic, and going back to the first millennium, is interesting. To me it part of the romance genre of Coptic literature: some may discard it as apocryphal in nature but I revel in it as a beautiful piece of literature and learn from it what the Copts of olden days used to think in their popular mind. Though all intriguing, here, I would like to share with you only the Cherubim’s answers in respect of the animals for its lovely nature. Here is how the conversation went:

And I [John] asked the Cherubim: ‘Have the beasts souls?’ And he replied: ‘Every creature possesses a soul, and the soul of every creature is in the blood thereof.’ And I said to him: ‘Will the beasts be punished, or will oblivion be granted to them?’ And he said to me: ‘Let oblivion be theirs, and let them suffer not; but a man is a being who can both suffer pain and enjoy rest.’

Ecclesiastes 3:19 may tell us that animals have souls, and Leviticus 17:11 may tell us the soul of the creature is in the blood; but, to my knowledge, none in the scripture tells us about the destiny of animals. This Coptic manuscript answers the question by telling us that animals are not punished for their actions – instead oblivion is granted them: “Let oblivion be theirs, and let them suffer not,” as the Cherubim told St. John the Divine.

[1] Brit. Mus. MS. Oriental, No. 7026. Published and translated by Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (London, 1913).

Sociologists, philosophers and politicians, of times old and new, have tired themselves writing about the typology of nationalism. One finds different types of nationalism cited: hegemony, particularistic, marginal, of minorities;[1] oppression, irredentism, precaution, and prestige;[2] separation, reform and unification;[3] and many other jumbled classifications that ignore the larger picture and include, as first order, classes such as ethnic, civic, religious, expansionist, liberal, romantic, cultural, post-colonial, liberation, left-wing, national conservatism, anarchic, diaspora, and pan-nationalism. These are jumbled attempts in the sense that they mix the different orders of nationalism, often giving a confused picture.

What make matters worse are definitions that arbitrarily exclude some types of nationalism. Look at the definition by Ernest Gellner: “Nationalism is the belief that the political and the national units should be congruent.”[4] Michael Hechter is similar: “Nationalism is collective action designed to render the boundaries of the nation congruent with those of its governance unit.”[5] These two definitions, with all due respect to the brilliance of their authors, determine that nationalism is exclusively political (that is, it seeks to create a sovereign state for the nation), thereby excluding altogether cultural nationalism (which seeks to secure some form of autonomous governance within a state shared with other nationalities). No doubt, the definition of nationalism which is based on the congruence of the political and national units does describe many nationalist movements in the 19^th and 20^th centuries that put sovereignty of the nation as their main objective. Admittedly, too, several nationalist movements started off as cultural movements and then, at a later stage, become political in the sense that they changed tack and sought to establish a nation-state. However, such definition ignores the reality of the existence of cultural nationalism that seeks as its main objective a degree of autonomy (self-rule) within a multinational state. All nationalisms are either political or cultural in their first order of classification – the primary objective of the former is creation of a sovereign state for the nation while that of the latter is an autonomous rule within a shared state. To define nationalism entirely on the basis of sovereignty, in which the nation is identified with the state, is as inaccurate as describing the animal kingdom, for instance, as vertebrate only. There is a fundamental problem of taxonomy in attendance here.

Anyway, my purpose in this short article is not to define nationalism in general or to discuss its various manifestations, but to define Coptic nationalism and assign it a type. To start with, Coptic nationalism, in the first order, is cultural and not political. This does not mean that Coptic nationalism does not engage in politics – it means that Coptic nationalism does not work for creating a national homeland, a sovereign state of its own. To explain it even more, Coptic nationalism does not work to partition Egypt between Muslims and Christians as the Muslims of India had created Pakistan for the Muslims by partitioning India in 1947. Cultural nationalism cannot arise in a state that is a real nation-state where the state is formed of one nation, and where all citizens share the same culture more or less and enjoy equal rights and privileges: it arises in states that are formed of several nations with unique cultures, where one culture, usually that of the majority, oppresses another culture, and the dominant nation pursues a policy of cultural hegemony. Even though these states are not nation-states (that is, comprised of one nation), they often try to force the impression that they are so, and keep denying that they are multi-national. Their propaganda is often couched in such rhetoric as ‘one national fabric’, ‘national unity’, etc. these states – or rather the dominant nation in them – vehemently deny the existence of any other nation in the state – they are basically multi-national states in a state of denial. It is not that their denial is based on a genuine belief in the oneness of all their national groups and the equal value of all their ‘citizens’ – no, their denial is almost always a necessary companion to their denial of any mistreatment they accord to their national minorities. Further, they know perfectly very well that the recognition of other groups within the state as unique cultural minorities will automatically provide these nations with protection as national minorities in international law.[6] Egypt is such a multinational-state in denial: it pretends to be a nation-state, and suppresses claims to the contrary, when it is in reality a state run by Arab Muslims while the Copts and Nuba, the other two nationalities within Egypt with unique history and culture, are side-lined and their cultures suppressed. Contrast this with states like Switzerland with its German, French, Italian and Romansh nations; and with the United Kingdom with its English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish nations: here, freedom and equality exist, and privileges are shared by all the various national components of the state. These are highly successful multi-state because no nation oppresses another nation: in the United Kingdom the English nation represent 85% of the population while the other three nationalities form 15% of the population; and yet all citizens of the state are treated with equal value and possess equal individual rights, while the collective rights of the three national minorities, the Scottish, Welsh and Irish, are respected, and powers are devolved to their national legislatives and executives. Consequently, no violent conflict arises, and no aggressive nationalism is met. Even when, in the case of Scotland, one minority nation seeks secession, it is all done democratically through referenda, and the result is accepted by the secessionists as much as by the unionists.

Coptic nationalism does not work for a Coptic homeland how much such proposition is attractive. It is not that this objective is impossible. Readers of history will always recognise that partition is always possible when the time is opportune and the circumstances are ripe. The Copts do not put secession as part of their agenda, in my opinion, because of two reasons. First, the Copts hate violence and the shedding of other people’s blood; and, despite all, they have genuine affection, affinity and consideration for Egypt’s Muslim Fellahin (peasants), who are largely descendants of Copts who converted to Islam, particularly in the late 13^th and 14^th centuries. The Copts are a peaceful people; their culture does not glorify violence and war despite their undisputed courage ; they know that partition can come only through a bloody civil war; and they would genuinely ‘hate to engage in slaughtering Muslims to establish their own state. Second, for the Copts, all land of Egypt is sacred land – their Holy Land. The Copts long history, starting from the beginnings of Ancient Egypt and including their Christian phase, is strongly and irrevocably tied to every part of Egypt, its Nile, lakes, deserts and mountains – they cannot, for example, take Sinai as their homeland and move out of the rest of Egypt. It would be the death of their national soul.

Coptic nationalism is better described not as much by what it doesn’t work for as by what it works for – and what it works for is national autonomy for the Copts within the multi-national state of Egypt. The next question to consider is: how does Coptic nationalism see this national autonomy? Autonomy by a certain national minority within a multi-national state is generally expressed in two forms: the first is territorial autonomy where the nation exercises self-government in a certain region where it enjoys numerical majority; and the second is non-territorial autonomy (or cultural autonomy) when the nation is widely spread throughout the state and a regional self-rule is difficult to realise: in this case, the nation’s best option is to have full autonomy over its cultural affairs. By such device, not only the individual rights of the members of a certain cultural nation are recognised but their collective rights as a cultural nation. In both forms of national autonomy, the arrangement is protected in law by inclusion in the constitution of the state.

With territorial autonomy, wide powers are given to the regional government which is run by the national minority. The closest example is the Southern Sudanese Autonomous Region in 1972 – 1983 and then 2005 – 2011. The first regional self-rule in the South of Sudan was established by the Addis Ababa Accord in 1972 which ended the First Sudanese Civil War (1955 – 1972). The region included the three provinces of the South: Equatoria, Bahr al-Ghazal, and Upper Nile; and had its capital in Juba. It was run exclusively by the Southern Sudanese who were largely distinct from the Northern Sudanese in race, religion and culture. It enjoyed a degree of autonomy in political, economic and social affairs; and had its own legislative (People’s Regional Assembly), executive (High Executive Council) and judiciary. Even though the Khartoum government which was run mainly by Arab Muslims was non-democratic, it left the South to run its affairs largely without intervention. However, in 1983, President Gaafar Nimeiry (1969 – 1985), following the discoveries of oil in the South, started to intervene in the politics and administration of the Southern Sudan Autonomous Region[7] and eventually, by a dictatorial decree, abolished it on 5 June. In the same year, on 8 September, Nimeiry introduced the Islamic laws of Sharia all over the country, including the South of Sudan. This led to the end of the Addis Ababa Accord, and to the ignition of the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983 – 2005). The warring sides continued a bitter war until eventually another peace agreement (The Comprehensive Peace Agreement [CPA])[8] was signed in January 2005; and resulted in the restoration of regional autonomy in the South Sudan, and Sharia was restricted to the North of Sudan. The CPA provided for a referendum on South Sudanese independence to be held on 9 January 2011; and it was hoped that the government of President Omar Bashir (1989 – ) would make unity attractive to the Southern Sudanese. The Southern Sudanese, faced with the tyrannical and Islamist government, voted overwhelmingly for separation; and, so, in 2011, the Republic of South Sudan was born, for the Southern Sudanese to have sovereignty and full power over their destiny. Eventually, regional autonomy in the South of Sudan failed because the North failed to make unity attractive to the Southern Sudanese. It must be recognised, however, that, in the years it functioned, the South of Sudan regional autonomy was successful to a large extent in maintaining peace and providing the Southern Sudanese with the opportunity to rule themselves.

Non-territorial autonomy is different from territorial autonomy: autonomy is not given to a region but to the non-territorial nation over its cultural affairs, such as education, schools, university, language, religion, sacred space, charities, history, culture, laws, heritage, monuments, libraries, museum, etc. Its government is democratic and elected from bottom up; and it is funded by the state, donations and taxes collected from the members of the nation, who voluntarily join the nation’s register list. As already stated, this device of self-rule is designed for nations, like the Copts, who are widely dispersed throughout the state and are not concentrated in one region, like the Southern Sudanese. Although its scope is limited in comparison to the powers enjoyed by territorial autonomies, it practises full control over the huge and extremely important sphere of the nation’s cultural life. Even though the nation does not have sovereignty over its own affairs in an independent state, or possess the extended powers that territorial autonomy system provides, it is, nevertheless, an effective tool for protecting the nation and preserving its culture – it is a survival tool against real existential threats through assimilation into the culture of the dominant nations and dissolution of the nation itself.

Non-territorial autonomy was first suggested in 1899 by the Austrian thinker Karl Renner (1870 – 1950)[9] as a tool to end the national conflicts in Austro-Hungary, and saving the Empire, which was multinational, from collapse through the hope that giving national minorities autonomy over their cultural affairs will satisfy them and stop them from seeking secession and forming their own states through carving land from the empire. Austro-Hungary was made up of several nationalities: German, Hungarian, Czech, Slovak, Pole, Ukrainian, Slovene, Croat, Serb, Romanian, Italian, and Jews; with the first two being the dominant nationalities while the rest oppressed. The idea was embraced by other states, such as the Soviet Union, Russia, Sweden, Estonia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, etc.; and has often proved successful in averting conflict and violence.

It must be emphasised that in both territorial and non-territorial autonomies, the nation does not isolate itself from other nations within the state or stop interacting and integrating with them, or withdraw from politics at the state level. The nation with a non-territorial autonomy will have to be still represented and active in the state’s legislative, executive and judicial bodies. Nations who go for non-territorial autonomy are active at two levels: at the state level to ensure the individual rights (civil rights in the American tradition, and political and civil rights in the French tradition) of the members of the nation are respected; and at the national autonomous level to protect the cultural collective rights of the nation as a whole. Simultaneously, members of the nation continue to work with other nations with whom they share the state and country on a patriotic level for the patrie (fatherland).  As Rainer Bauböck says: “Most advocates of such non-territorial solutions do not regard them as fully replacing territorially based politics, but envisage instead a dual form of self-government where individuals would be both citizens of territorial states and members of autonomous non-territorial communities.”[10]

This answers our question: what type of national autonomy does Coptic nationalism work for? Coptic nationalism objective is a non-territorial autonomy. It does not have any secession aspirations; and does not pursue its objectives through violence. It is moderate, patriotic, cooperative and integrative: while working to preserve its culture, Coptic nationalism seeks to engage with the other two nationalities of Egypt, the Arabs and Nuba, at the social and state level; and works for the betterment of the common fatherland (watan) and the goodness of all its peoples.

To conclude: Coptic nationalism is cultural, non-territorial nationalism. This is how it should be defined and typed.

FOR MORE ON THE SAME SUBJECT, go here and here.

____________________________

[1] See Louis Wirth, Types of Nationalism. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 41, No. 6 (May, 1936), pp. 723-737.

[2] Max Sylvius Handman, The Sentiment of Nationalism.

[3] John Breuilly, Nationalism and the Syate, 2^nd ed. (Manchester, 1993), pp. 9-10.

[4] Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Cornell University Press, 1983).

[5] Michael Hechter, Containing Nationalism (Oxford University Press, 2001).

[6] See: UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1992).

[7] Such as dividing the three provinces into smaller units to undermine the influence of the Dinka tribe, the largest in South Sudan.

[8] Also called Naivasha Agreement.

[9] In his Staat und Nation.                                                       

[10] Rainer Bauböck, Multinational Federalism: territorial or Cultural autonomy. Willy Bradt Series of Working Papers in International Migration and Ethnic Relations (Malmö, 2001), p. 4.

Solomon Caesar Malan (1812 – 1894)

Solomon Caesar Malan (1812 – 1894) was French by family, Swiss by birth, and British by naturalisation. He was a cleric and Orientalist who knew many languages, including Arabic. He showed special interest in Oriental Churches, particularly the Armenia, Georgian and Coptic. On the Copts and their Coptic Church, Malan published in 1872-1975 five books which he later included in one volume, Original Documents of the Coptic Church.[1]

The volume contains four different important books:

1. The Divine Liturgy of Saint Mark the Evangelist, translated from an old Coptic manuscript, and compared with the printed copy of that same liturgy as arranged by Saint Cyril.

It appeared in 1872. To my knowledge, this is the first translation into English of the Saint Cyril Liturgy, which is used in the Coptic Church and is thought to go back originally to Saint Mark, the evangelist of Egypt in the first century, and who died a martyr in Alexandria in 68 AD. The manuscript Malan used to translate into English was given to him by a Coptic priest in Jerusalem, and dated to the 13^th or 14^th centuries. It included the Liturgies of Saint Cyril (Cyril), Basil and Gregory, and was written in Coptic and Arabic.

2. The Calendar of the Coptic Church.

This appeared in 1873. He translated it from “a manuscript calendar in Arabic which, until quite lately, was used in a Jacobite Church at Cairo.” It was procured to him by one Dr. A. Grant of Cairo. I think Dr. A. Grant which Malan mentions was the Scottish physician and Egyptologist, Dr. James Andrew Sandiland Grant, or Grant Bey, or Grant of Cairo (1840 – 1896).

Malan’s translation does not include the text of the Coptic Synaxarium but a simple list of the feasts of the saints and events celebrated in the Coptic Church, with notes of his.

3. A Short History of the Copts and Their Church, translated from the Arabic of Taqi-ed-Din El-Maqrizi.

It appeared in 1973.

4. The Holy Gospel and Versicles, for every Sunday and other feast day in the year; as used in the Coptic Church, translated from a Coptic manuscript.

This part appeared in 1874. Malan tells us that the manuscript was in Coptic and Arabic, and he got it from Rev. B. W. Wright, Vicar of Norton Cuckney, who bought it from Cairo.

5. The Divine Euchologion, and the Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory the Theologian; translated from an old Coptic manuscript.

This part appeared in 1875, and it contains the remaining liturgies of the Coptic Church: that of Saint Basil (Euchologion) and that of Saint Gregory.

[1] Solomon Caesar Malan, in Original Documents of the Coptic Church, Vol. 1 (London, D. Nutt, 1872-1875).

I think the above Coptic tapestry fragment is particularly cute and funny. It is kept at the Coptic Museum in Old Cairo (Inv. No. 1708). We don’t know where it comes from in Egypt but it is dated to the 7^th/8^th centuries. The museum’s caption reads: “a tapestry roundel with woollen and linen threads, decorated with two standing figures with haloes flanking a rod.” I would like to look at it as two aliens!

A tapestry roundel with woollen and linen threads is decorated with two standing figures with haloes flanking a rod.

The above painting on vellum is from a Coptic manuscript is Fol. 001v, Theodore Tyro which forms part of Manuscript M.613, titled “Martyrdom of SS. Theodore the Anatolian (the Oriental), Leontius the Arab, and Panigerus the Persian”, and which is kept at the Pierpont Morgan Library (Dept. of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts) in New York. It dates to after Dec. 31, 867.

St. Theodore here is given the name, “Saint Apa Theodoros of Anatolos (Anatolia)”. Anatolia is in now modern Turkey, occupying the eastern – and most – part of it; and the word comes from the Greek ‘Ἀνατολή’ (Anatolḗ), which means ‘east’ or ‘sunrise’. Being from Anatolia, he came to be known as the Oriental, and is called in Copto-Arabic manuscripts ‘المشرقي’. This is a misleading translation; and a more accurate way is to call him Saint Theodore the Anatolian, as Manuscript M.613 rightly calls him. The official site of the Pierpont Morgan Library gives a summary of the painting:

Theodore Tyro, name inscribed, nimbed, wearing jewelled necklace and inscribed garment, armed with, or pierced by, sword, mounted on bridled horse wearing caparison (?), with stirrups, holding reins in left hand and with cross-surmounted lance in right hand transfixing prostrate demon, labelled, in form of serpent with human head, chained to object labelled “cathedra”, and trampled by the horse; the saint flanked above by two wreaths or possibly crowns, each held by Hand of God, emerging from arc of heaven.

The summary misreads the name given to the saint, and read it as “Theodore Tyro”, which is inaccurate.

To my knowledge, Manuscript M.613 has not yet been translated into any European language. One hopes that it will soon appear in English; and the importance of the manuscript exceeds its Coptic literature value to shed light on the life of Saint Theodore the Oriental (celebrated in the Coptic Synaxarium on 12 Tuba), and help makes the distinction between him and the other great warrior martyr, Theodore of Shawtp (20 Apip). The two martyrs are even more confused in Western sources, and are given the names Theodore of Amasea and Theodore Stratelates.

In the Coptic Synaxarium, St. Theodore the Oriental was from Antioch of Pisidea (also called, Antiochia in Phrygia) in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). He was from an aristocratic family – his father was the minister of Emperor Numerianus (283 – 284). Theodore was an officer in the Roman army fighting the Persians. The story in the Synaxarium connects him to two other warrior martyrs, Leontius the Arab (22 Apip) and Panigerus the Persian (5 Tuba).[1]

[1] See: Réne Basset, Synaxaire Arabe-Jacobite in Patrologia Orientalis (Paris, 1907 to 1923).

A nation cannot live in cultural vacuum (black circle): you either occupy your national space with your own culture (blue circle) or it will be filled in by a foreign culture (red circle), often that of your enemy

How much I would like to drill into the heads of my people that no nation lives in cultural vacuum: a nation is composed of human beings, and human beings are in need of a certain culture to live on. Culture is not just essential to mankind, but mankind cannot be imagined without some sort of culture even in its primitive stages. Culture is composed of the beliefs in regard to the world in general and the divine; what is right and what is wrong; the way to treat each other, marriage, family, women, and children; the world view that determines the type of friends and enemies and decides allegiances and enmities. These sets of values, beliefs, traditions, customs, etc., are encoded, and passed on from one generation to the next, in religion, laws, language, literature, music, etc.

Fill in your national life with your own culture, to determine how you behave and live and what sort of civilisation you build, or risk having a foreign culture occupying your national space and determining for that; and decide for you what kind of men and women you become.

You cannot have your own culture without having your own language, literature and music. Let in the language, literature and music of others, particularly those who are intent on destroying your unique identity, and you shall lose your cultural independence, and be assimilated to that foreign culture.

The Copts must have their own language, literature and music, or they will humiliatingly feed on the culture of others that make these others what they are. In clearer words: the Copts must replace the culture of the Arabs and Muslims that dominate their lives, by reason of them being ruled by a majority of Arabs and Muslims, by creating their own culture, not just in religious areas, but in every area in which culture is important. Have your own language, literature and music; and drive away the culture of the Arabs and Muslims.

I must add a note of explanation here: this writer does not call boycotting the study or knowledge of the culture of the Arabs or even enjoying some aspects of it; nor does he paint all Arab culture with tar. He, however, calls for creation of a special vibrant national culture for the Copts that can determine the way they live and treat the world and each other without influence from Arab and Muslim culture. Let Arabs have their culture; and let Copts have theirs. Let us try to understand each other’s culture; but let us stop trying to assimilate the other into one’s culture through dominance.

Coptic icon from the 18th century by Ibrahim al-Nasikh depicting St. Theodore of Shwtp saving the widow of Euchaita and her two sons from the dragon

Saint Theodore of Shwtp (or Saint Theodore the General [Stratelates] or Saint Theodore the Tyro [the Recruit] or Saint Theodore of Amasea) is a special warrior saint and martyr in the Coptic Church, and must be differentiating from another great warrior saint and martyr, Saint Theodore the Eastern (Oriental or Anatolian); and has been venerated from early times in the Coptic Calendar on 20 Apip, the day of his martyrdom by fire in Amasea, in Pontus, Asia Minor (modern Turkey), sometime between 305 – 310 AD, during the reigns of Maximianus (d. 310) and MaximinusII (d. 313). In Coptic language he is called Theodoros, same as his original name in Greek ‘Θεόδωρος’, meaning gift of God; but with Arabisation, his name was corrupted to Tadros (تادرس) or Tawaḍros (تواضروس).

The Saint has a special connection with Egypt in many ways: his father, Yu’annis (John), was an Egyptian from a village in Middle Egypt called Paphor which was a satellite of the town of Shwtp, a little bit south of Asyut, on the eastern bank of the Nile.[1] Yu’annis was recruited to the Roman army and sent to Asia Minor to fight the Persians who were threatening the Roman Empire. There, he got married to a Roman lady, Straticia, who remained pagan and got rid of her husband to raise their son, Theodore, pagan like her. Yo’annis returned to Shwtp in Egypt. There, his son, Theodore, who had converted to Christianity, came to visit him, and remained with him until he died; following which, the saint returned to Asia Minor. Further, the body of Saint Theodore was brought to Egypt to be entombed in Shwtp after his martyrdom in Amasea (it was taken by a woman to Euchaita, a close city to Amasea, and where the story of the slewing of the dragon occurred). This event is celebrated in the Coptic Calendar on 5 Hathor. Sometime, most probably after Egypt fell under the yoke of Muslims, the relics of Saint Theodore were translated to Cairo, where they are distributed amongst the Convent of Saint Theodore, Harat al-Rum, the Church of the Holy Virgin, Harat al-Rum, and the Church of the Holy Virgin, Harat Zuwayla.[2]

Coptic art includes many icons of both Theodores, of Shwtp and the Oriental. The icon attached to this article of Agios Theodoros Pistratilatees (Saint Theodore Stratelates), was painted by the Coptic artist from the second half of the 18^th century, Ibrahim al-Nasekh (Ibrahim the Scribe). It depicts the famous story of the saint saving the two sons of the widow in Euchaita (Euchetos), a town in Pontus, Asia Minor, from a raging dragon.[3]

The story of Saint Theodore of Shwtp has come to us from Arabic texts, mainly in the Copto-Arabic Synaxarium, and Coptic Bohairic dialect. One of the Coptic manuscripts is kept at the Vatican Library, Vat. Copt. 65, which is dated to the 14th century. The manuscript contains three works: a homily of Mark, 49th patriarch of Antioch, on the burial of our Lord; an encomium on SS. Theodore the General and Theodore the eastern; and life of St. Onuphrius the anchorite by St. Paphnutius the anchorite. That of the two Theodores, is an encomium delivered by Theodore, archbishop of Antioch c. 750 – 773 AD) in the sanctuary of St. Theodore the Eastern in Antioch Pisidia at the festival of St. Theodore the General on 20th of Apip. We learn from the introduction to the encomium that the town had not yet built an oratory of St. Theodore the General, and hence the encomium was delivered at the sanctuary of St. Theodore the Eastern. The 20^th of Apip was a day the Christians of Antioch celebrated too the consecration of the sanctuary of St. Theodore the Eastern.

Another Coptic manuscript kept at the Vatican, and related to St. Theodore the General, is BHL 8077 (BHL refers to Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina). It comes under the title, The Passion of St. Theodore the Recruit. Vat. Copt. 65 does not talk about the martyrdom of the saint except in passing; however, BHL 8077 tells us the story of his martyrdom in detail. Here, we have no romance or exaggeration of the story as is usual in many martyrs’ stories one finds in Coptic sources. It appears that the original writer of this manuscript (we don’t know his identity) was a witness to St. Theodore the Generals (he calls him Theodore the Recruit, for he was a recent recruit to the Roman army) passion, and had access to the official documents that detailed the martyr’s trial.

Both manuscripts were translated into English and published in 1910 by the British Coptologist and Latinist, Eric Otto Winstedt (1880 – 1955) in his Coptic Texts on Saint Theodore the General.[4] I include below, the English text (pp. 73-133), which I have obtained from the internet. I have no access to the book itself. I have edited the spelling mistakes in this text (possibly the result of careless scanning), and arranged it in sections with headings that are mine. One hopes to do more on this text in the future by way of annotation.

Three stories are especially interesting from the Coptic (Egyptian) point of view in encomium (Vat. Copt. 65):

First: the story of the enrolling of recruits from Egypt for the war with the Persians during the short reign of Emperor Numerianus (July 283 – 20 November 284). It was then that the father of the saint, Yu’annis, was recruited from Paphor of Shwtp (Pshot in the text being a copyist error, most probably). We learn how Yu’annis, his family and the whole community resisted the recruitment. For Yu’annis, it was because he was to be taken to a foreign land, and be robbed of the land of his fathers, as you shall see from the text. This attitude of the Egyptians to recruitment in order to be taken to a foreign land seems to be a recurring theme with the Fellahin, until modern times, who dreaded most their dispatch to foreign land and rooting them out of theirs. The long section that deals with this episode contains several anthropological details of the Copts of that period, such as the shaving of hair in mourning, as displayed by Amphylia, the sister of Yu’annis. This may be rooted in Ancient Egypt.

Second: in the encomium, we come across the extra-ordinary confrontation between Emperor Diocletian (284 – 305) and St. Theodore the General: here, Diocletian denigrates the saint because of his father’s Egyptian origin, and threatens him by sending him to “the barbarian land of Egypt.” Saint Theodore answers with pride in his roots: “It is not just for you, Diocletian, to abuse the land of Egypt in which you grew up in your orphanhood. No shame is it to me, sinner, that you call my father an Egyptian, because that was the land of his fathers. But great shame is it that a goatherd should sit upon the throne as king and drink men’s blood like a ravening beast. In truth, sinner, it were well for thee to be tending sheep in the fields as in days gone by rather than to be king.”

Third: here, is repeated, again, the Coptic belief that Diocletian was from Egyptian origin, or that he lived in Egypt in his orphaned childhood, tending goats. This was often rejected by researchers out of hand without much attention. I think this should be reconsidered.

SAINT THEODORE THE GENERAL (Vat. Copt. 65)[5]

The two Theodores – the glory of the city of Antioch Pisidia

Glorious indeed is the noble mother who cherishes two sons of the kingdom at one time, my beloved: and the more so if those two children are of royal race. For this reason their nurse is rightly honoured, because she brought them up and cherished them well. And most of all if they show their boldness and valour to the king, and, when they grow up, walk before the king rightly and slay all his enemies; then theron the nurse glories in the children she has cherished well till they are valiant warriors for the kingdom. And when they have grown a little, the king will honour them because they show him their boldness and are warriors in the battle. Then the king too gives them rank and honour, that the court may exalt them the higher. And when after a time they go to war and do some little valiance in proportion to their strength, the king rejoices in them, because they are sons of the kingdom: and he writes their name in the register of the kingdom. And so he appoints them generals of the whole army; and men honour them and glory in them, saying, “If these do such great valiance in their childhood, how much the more when they grow up, will they be mighty men and generals.” Then the king and his great men honour those little children because of their bravery, and cherish them well in the pleasure of the palace and the feast, that their strength grow.

On this wise then, my beloved, these two heroes from their childhood were heroes, and generals in their demeanour – I mean Theodore the general, whose feast we are celebrating today in the sanctuary of his comrade the Eastern. My beloved, they were two valiant lions from their childhood in all things: they were mighty in their babyhood: they were warlike generals and warriors. So they then are like the two sons of Mouses the prophet, Jesou the son of Naue, and Chaleb the son of Jephone, who won the battles before Mouses. And these two heroes, whose feast we celebrate together today, St. Theodore the Eastern and St. Theodore the General, have names worthy of glory abiding forever. They are the mighty ones who fight for Antioch and scatter the wars that rise against her like Jerusalem, whose mighty men, Abenner the son of Ner and Symei the son of Cirara fought for her and watched over her gates day and night that no stranger might rise up against her. Even so these two heroes fought for the city Antioch that the Persians might not master her.

The two Theodores and the dragons

Behold then, my beloved, the valour of these saints, who are equal with one another: the Eastern slew the dragon which was beneath the ladder, which troubled the angels coming down from heaven and adjured them in the name of the Exalted. For this reason when St. Theodore the Eastern trampled upon him, the angels rejoiced in coming down upon the earth, because there was none to hinder them again. For this reason the archangel Michael prayed for him while he did this valiance that his throne might be placed before his own in the skies. This very saint it was, who trampled on the great dragon that fought with the angels. Again this saint too whose festival we are celebrating today, St. Theodore the General, slew the raging dragon, consoled the orphans, removed the grief of the widows, set free those in bonds, abolished unrighteous sacrifices, although none of his troop of soldiers fought with him, but he alone in the strength of Christ slaughtered this so great dragon. For this reason, when he saved the little child of the widow and slew the dragon, his sacrifice pleased the Lord, and him gave him this great valour. And he gave him power to crush every dragon upon the earth and those beneath the earth and those in hell: that, if they even hear of him, they tremble. For he it is who slew their father first; and therefore do his sons tremble before him. Again this true hero and mighty champion was not content with these favours. God gave his soul in honour to the holy Archangel Michael to take to the place of his fellow martyr and saint, Theodore the Eastern, that their comradeship might abide for ever in the heavens.

I tell ye, ye god-fearing people, that even to the dragons which are in the roads causing fear to sinners and stinging them, these too even so, when they hear the name of St. Theodore the Eastern and St. Theodore the General, know their valour and that they are the foes of the dragons. Straightway they hide themselves before them: when they hear their name, they vanish. I tell you, my beloved, if a soul is in the hands of a dragon that is stinging it for its sins, if one of these generals is passing by the place, when the dragon recognises the footfall of his horse, he leaves that soul and tortures it not for fear of the holy martyrs. Especially if it be a soul who makes memorial of these saints upon the earth in any way, be it a book of memorial, be it an offering, be it any good thing, then none of the tribe of dragons can approach that soul to do it any harm whatever.

Truly, my beloved, my joy is double today: I rejoice over two martyrs, Theodore the Eastern and Theodore the General; though they were both generals and their names were equal with one another in honour. For the beginning of the name of both is in one letter. For Theta is the beginning of their names. The interpretation of Theta is Theos: Theos again is god, who gave strength to them that they might become martyrs and their name endure. And when the name of God is reckoned with them, they are three in one letter, and the Trinity is complete and inseparable, that is to say the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If I connect their names with the Trinity, this is true: but not in honour nor in power nor in might, nor in godhead, nor in majesty; but as it were the sons of God, and heirs of his Christ. When I look at the majesty of their conduct   and their faces filled with joy and grace, I count them the sons of God, even as a bunch hanging from the vine, whose branch covers the vineyard, which rejoices in its shade and drinks of its water. Even so these two heroes, Theodore the Eastern and Theodore the General, live from the glory of the Trinity, since they are servants and join theirs of Christ. And I too, the humble Theodore, feel a longing towards these two mighty and valiant lions and warriors, my lord Theodore the Eastern and my lord Theodore the General, the fame of whose might has filled the whole world.

Saint Theodore the Eastern is like Abner

My lord Theodore the Eastern then resembled Abenner, against whom none ever prevailed in any war he entered, either to take him on the point of his lance or to endure the weight of his chariot. Against Abener none ever prevailed save the man of wiles Joab. And none ever prevailed against this mighty man, the Eastern, in war: but they who were in the battle would ask one another saying: “Cometh not Theodore the Oriental to the battle this time?” And when they knew the side of the battle where he was, they would flee to the other side. If again the Oriental saw the battle afoot, he would ride into their midst, and cry aloud saying: “I am Theodore the Oriental.” Straightway when they heard his voice, they were afraid and trembled and fell down from their horses, and were crushed. And none could sustain this great hero’s chariot nor his lance by reason of their weight except himself; and in all these valiant deeds none took him except the abominable unrighteous sinner Diocletian.

Saint Theodore the General is like Nathan the Prophet. His encounter with Diocletian:

Again I see my lord Theodore the General himself inclining to listen to the halting words of my humble self, the insignificant Theodore, and rejoicing to hear his praise from my mouth as I speak in his honour. And this other too, my lord Theodore the General, resembles Simei the son of Cyrara, who had no fear before king David, but reviled him in the midst of his people on the day when he met him in the way. He reviled him because of the death of Ourias the Hittite and said to him in the midst of the whole people that he was an unrighteous king ………. like thy father the Egyptian, who strove against the god of thy mother and was banished by her to the land of Egypt. Now grieve me not from this time forth, lest I be wroth with thee and send thee to the barbarian land of Egypt, like thy father the Egyptian.” St. Theodore answered and said to Diocletian: “It is not just for you, Diocletian, to abuse the land of Egypt in which you grew up in your orphanhood. No shame is it to me, sinner, that you call my father an Egyptian, because that was the land of his fathers. But great shame is it that a goatherd should sit upon the throne as king and drink men’s blood like a ravening beast. In truth, sinner, it were well for thee to be tending sheep in the fields as in days gone by rather than to be king. Know Diocletian, thy sceptre is a …. of the darkness of the air, thy crown is a crown of …., thy beaker a sword of double edge, thy wine blood of deceit, thy table destructive war, the pledge of death thy feast, thy throne a grave and sepulchre, accursed one.”

Ye see now, god-fearing people, the valour of this mighty man, this general, this victorious champion, this athlete, this martyr, this general, this hero, this good warrior in the lists of his lord, my lord St. Theodore the general, how he spake these words to the face of the king without fear. Now he is worthy to be exalted according to the desert of his valour, which he revealed in the city of Antioch, whose children are dwellers in heaven and in Sion.

Antioch Pisidia and its many worrier martyrs

And I will tell you too, my beloved, what this city Antioch resembles in its honour. It is like a spring of sweet water springing forth from beneath trees laden with fruit of sweet scent, the fame of whose scent fills the whole world. Even so then is it, my beloved. A wicked tyrant came walking and found its water sweet, and its trees covered with fruit. He abode by it in pride and drank of its water and ate of its fruit. But in his pride he cut down the trees that men could not find them and live from their fruit; and he destroyed the water of the spring. Accordingly that tyrant sinned against God and warred against man. But when God saw that he cut down the trees, and began to cover the spring, he deceived him swiftly in his wicked pride. And the spring appeared again and bubbled up, the roots of the trees which he had cut down, flourished exceedingly, and grew greater and worked cures healing the sick in many ways at one time. That spring is this city of Antioch abiding in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. Those trees, which it caused to spring up, are the warlike generals, St. Theodore the Eastern and Claudius and Apater and Apa Victor and Kyrios Justus and Eusebius and Basilides and Susinius and Stephen and Apa Polius and Theodore the General and many more. The tyrant who came upon them is Diocletian, who slew them in the name of Christ. The spring which he hid and got dominion over, is the glorious faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he despised. And these are the trees which grew up a second time after the tyrant whom God smote and he died an evil death. The spring which bubbled up again is the holy faith which is boldly revealed: the trees which were cut down and whose roots grew up again are the bodies of those saints which appeared upon the earth and performed signs and wonders, and cured the sick. Verily the riddle of the Prophet is accomplished, which he spake about Jerusalem; it fits with Antioch, when he says: “Their blood was shed round about Jerusalem, and there was none to bury their bodies.” Who are they who were slain round about Jerusalem, Prophet David, whose bodies were not buried? The prophets’ bodies were buried; the Apostles were covered. Now, my father the prophet, tell me of those who were slain in the neighbourhood of thy city save the little children whom Herod slew among his children, for their bodies were many; the soldiers took half of their bodies from their mothers who would not give them up. The soldiers clave them in the middle and cast them on the dung heaps: while the other half remained in the hands of their mothers who wept over them. And on my city Antioch, fell this violence from the unrighteous king Diocletian, who strove with God and laid hands on every one who believed on Christ, and slew them, so that the streets of the town ran with blood, like a stream of water, shed in the name of Christ: and the soldiers persecuted everyone who buried their bodies, except those who gave them money and gifts and took them in secret.

Now my city Antioch is glorious even as Jerusalem for the number of martyrs slain in it. The little children of Jerusalem were slain against their own wish and that of their parents: but the martyrs of my city of their own free will gave their heads to the sword, leaving their parents and their servants and their goods; and gave their bodies as a sacrifice to God. The wonder of my city Antioch surpasses that of Jerusalem, for her great and mighty warriors and her rich men who left what was theirs and followed after their conqueror, our Lord Jesus Christ, and were slain in his holy name. For this reason my city glories even as Jerusalem. The martyrs of my city Antioch vowed great gifts to the kingdom of heaven before they were slaughtered; the martyrs of my city had abundance of wealth and honours, and the things which people desire to see and see them not. The little children of Jerusalem were not granted the request of the kingdom of heaven according to the word of Revelations: “Rest ye till your brethren, who are killed as ye, be fulfilled”. Wherefore they stand waiting before them.

Again I hear of the first martyr of the city of Jerusalem, Stephen the archdeacon, who confessed Christ in the Synhedrim of the Jews, and was slain by them. The chief commander and martyr too of my city was Stephen son of Nicomion, the brother of Basilides. He too was the first fruit of the confessors of Antioch; he too was the first who set his hope on Christ, for lo, when the king wrote the abominable decree, he stood and was troubled in his soul and said: “What is this new violence, king, which you have revealed in this town? What is this written anathema of Apollo? for my Lord Jesus Christ destroys everyone who believes on him.” Then Stephen got great strength, he leaped upon the soldier in whose hand the decree was, tore it from his hands and rent it in pieces, the king and all his great men looking on. And the king said to him, “Stephen, what is this thou hast done? Thou hast done this to thy destruction and thy slaughter.” Straightway the king unsheathed his sword with his own hand, and clave him in twain in the middle. And the head of St. Stephen abode a great while before the king speaking to his destruction. It cried aloud abundantly making mention of all the saints of my city Antioch. And so the fame of the head of St. Stephen spread abroad in Antioch, so that great crowds assembled to see the head speaking to the destruction of the king. And the king, when he saw the head of the saint speaking to his destruction in the presence of the crowd, was greatly ashamed and bade them bury it, while still speaking. And it came to pass when it was buried in the ground, it spake again abundantly; for three days after its burial every one heard it speaking and cursing the king like John the Baptist abusing Herod. Then when Diocletian saw that the head of St. Stephen did not keep silent, he had it cast into a vessel of lead with its mouth sealed, and thrown into the sea at night. So did St. Stephen fulfil his martyrdom on the 13th of the month Phamenoth;[6] and his holy body was given to his mother.

How Saint Theodore the eastern was named Theodore

After this let us return to the memorial of St. Theodore the General whose feast we are celebrating today in the chapel of his comrade Theodore the Eastern, since their honoured festivals meet on one day, the 20th of Epiphi. This is the day of the dedication of the shrine of Theodore the Eastern. His mother then called him the Eastern after the name of her father who was dead. And his mother called her firstborn the Eastern and he died. Again she bore our lord Theodore the Eastern; and his father Zotericus called him after the name of his father Theodore: and likewise again his mother for the love she bore her firstborn called him too the Eastern after the name of his elder brother who was dead and her father, the Eastern. So the kindred of his father called him by this name, the Eastern. These two names were connected with one another and were sweet in the mouth of everyone like honey. The name of the father prevailed and had precedence, and he was called Theodore. Likewise the name of his mother followed and he was called the Eastern.

How the body of Saint Theodore was entombed in Egypt

Now I call upon you, martyrs of my lord Jesus Christ, that ye aid me in my feebleness, because I have taken courage and come into your midst at the will of the god-fearing king Constantine and his officers and councillors. Ye asked me about the body of St. Theodore the General, why his body was not placed with the body of his comrade the Eastern, but abode in the land of Egypt, – and our city of Antioch lacks it – since he walked at all times with Theodore the Oriental. And it is right that I should tell you why they took his body to Egypt; though it was no foreign land, but the land of his fathers.

The difficult times of Emperor Numerianus. Now it happened, my beloved, that when the father of Claudius was king at Antioch, and St. Kyrios Claudius was a little child with his sisters Kyria Theognosta and Thouasia, great wars arose: and he grew sick through fear at the wars and died. And the court saw that St. Kyrius Claudius was a child and so small that he could not manage the affairs of the realm, as the barbarians were more than the Romans. They took the brother of Ptolemy, the father of St. Claudius, whose name was Numerianus and seated him upon the throne of the Romans. So the barbarians were not content in heart because the son of the king had been taken captive and their cities spoiled. But when they heard that king Ptolemy, the father of St. Claudius, was dead, they rejoiced thinking there would be no king seated on the throne. They bribed seven nations to join them in the war, saying: “In as much as they slew the son of the king and laid waste our cities, we too will not spare them, till we have slain Claudius the son of the king in retribution, and ravage their lands.” But behold merchants came from the Persians and told Numerianus their crafty trick: and they told him: “They have bribed seven nations to join with them.” And when Numerianus heard this, he trembled greatly, and turned to flee in secret and leave his realm because of the danger from the various barbarians. But they warned the king that he should enrol recruits of Egypt for the war. And straightway he called a general, Anastasius, and gave him a guard of soldiers to go to the south of all Egypt, saying to him: “Come, raise thy hand above my head, and swear that of all the recruits thou findest in the land of Egypt, thou wilt let none off, till we send them to the war.”

The difficult recruitment of Yu’annis, later father of Saint Theodore the General. And Anastasius went to the south of Egypt, and ceased not to sail on the river until he landed at a port called Paphor of Pshot, which was the land of the father of St. Theodore the General, whose festival we are celebrating today. When the general visited that place, the governor of it, whose name was Cyrus, came out to meet him, and held a great banquet for him and his soldiers. And the blessed John, the father of St. Theodore the General, was the brother of the governor’s wife: and he too came to meet the general. Now this John was comely in person, fresh-faced, and a distinguished officer, and mighty to look upon.

When the general saw him, he rejoiced greatly thinking to make him a recruit; and he set him before himself. And John was in distress and mourning; but the general gave him a bag of gold and a royal robe and a fine horse and soldiers under him. And when the blessed John saw the honour which the general gave him, he was very downcast and wept, saying: “My lord, it is not meet that thy servant take anything from thee: but it is right for us to give thee honours.” And when the general saw that he wept, he was afraid that he would flee and took him to a port and confined him.

The governor, who was the husband of John’s sister, heard that he was confined and weeping in sorrow, and besought the general for him: but the general would not let him off because of his love for him. And it came to pass that while the blessed John was confined, his sister Amphylia, the wife of the governor, was told that John her brother was taken and that they were carrying him to the war: and she arose and went to John her brother in the place where he was confined. She tore the hair of her head and they wept together, John because he would be taken to a foreign land, and his sister because she would be deprived of her brother. However there was much weeping and groaning, and a great crowd gathered round them. Then the general heard the voice of the crowd, and enquired what was happening. They told him that it was the sister of John weeping for him. Straightway he bade them bring John forth from the midst of them, for he feared that they would take him away. And when they brought him to the general, his sister came forth from the midst of the crowd before the general, her head uncovered; she took half of the hair of her head and cast it on her brother weeping. And Anastasius the general hid his face for her sake and said to her: “My sister, spare your nobility. By the health of the king, he shall get no harm.” But Amphylia, the sister of the blessed John, said: “My lord, my honour and glory and my nobility are my brother. My lord, if you separate me from my brother, my honour and my nobility will fall below every one. I beg you, my lord general, by the health of the king, if you desire money, my goods, my gold, my silver, my beasts, my gardens, my man servants, my maid servants and anything that is mine, they are my brother’s. Take them, and leave me my brother. If you desire men, here are my two sons, whom I have nourished at my breast, take them and leave me my brother. Do not cause my heart this great grief.”

For all that the general did not leave him; but bound his hands till the morrow. And it happened in the night as the blessed John was confined in chains and weeping for sorrow, behold a light appeared to him, and he heard a voice saying: “John, John, cease from weeping.” John answered saying: “My lord, I weep because they entreat me evilly and take me to a foreign land, and wish to rob me of the land of my fathers.” The voice said to him: “Weep not for the land of your fathers: your seed shall inhabit it forever. The place in which you are confined shall be an abiding place for his body for ever. He will guide the ships that sail; he will chase the demons and dragons that are upon the earth. The place in which you are confined he will make a wine-press and a lake shall be dug in its midst for the treading out of the vintage and the blood of Christ. Now, John, weep not for the land of your fathers; nor have fear for the war. The sword will not shed blood, nor will a wound touch thy body.” The blessed John’s heart came to him; he ceased from weeping; but he marvelled how “my seed shall inhabit my land. I have not taken wife, nor begotten child, but let the will of the Lord come to pass for me.”

After this those of the city and district made warlike preparations; and brought the barbarians who dwelt in their district to slay the general, and take John from his hands. But John was told of this plan, while he was confined, and was grieved at heart greatly. He sent to Cyrus the governor, the husband of his sister, and to Amphylia his sister, saying: “What is this thing ye wish to do? Do ye wish to slay the general? Nay, my brethren, do not this violent deed in the presence of God, lest the king be wroth and send and destroy our city. But give place to God: we trust he will not desert us ever.” He told them what he had heard in the prison.

But on the morrow they brought the blessed John out of the prison to go with him. A number of those of his district, male and female, small and great, widow and orphan, all went with him weeping and saying: “We salute thee, our beloved brother John. All the good things thou hast done to us God pay back to thee. The fleece of thy sheep is our clothing; the growth of thy fields our food; thy wine and thy oil comfort us.”

Then his sister Amphylia threw herself upon his neck, weeping and saying: “I salute thee, my beloved John, the light of my eyes: I salute thee, my brother who art pleasant to me, because they part me from thy sight. I salute thee and the foreign land to which they take thee. I am a woman, a weak vessel. I have not strength to go thither. I salute thee, my beloved brother: I know not what land will be thine. I gave my two children and all my wealth for thee; and they did not free thee for me. Now take the hair of my head, that when thou beholdest it, thou mayst remember me in the land to which thou goest. And may He that gave peace to Joseph in the presence of Pharaoh king of Egypt aforetime, give grace to thee my brother. May Jesus guide thee and his angels protect thee in every place to which thou goest.” So spake Amphylia the sister of John weeping: and the general himself wept at that hour. Then she turned to Anastasius the general and said to him: “I adjure thee, thou who takest my brother from me by violence, that thou show mercy to my brother in the hour of his sorrow. O Anastasius the general, thou art like death the spoiler of souls. Alack! I gave thee money for my brother, and thou wouldst not let him free. Remember thou hast separated brother from orphan sister. I adjure thee by the health of the king, general, vex no more my brother in the road. I adjure thee, general, send not my brother to the war: for I have watched over him always.” So spake his sister and embraced him and kissed him, weeping.

Yu’annis marries the daughter of General Anastasius, Straticia

But the general took him to the capital and the good God gave him great grace in the presence of the king and his great men, and they sent him not to the war. But the general took him into his house and loved him greatly, seeing the great grace in his face. He asked the king to command him to give his daughter in marriage to him: and the king bade him give her.

Saint Theodore is born. His name chosen after that of Theodore the Eastern

And one day the wife of john gave birth to this great light St. Theodore the general, on the 11th of the month Choiak; and his mother Straticia said to his father: “I will call my son Theodore, that he may receive the honour and the might of Theodore the eastern, the son of Sotericus, and that all the great men of the court do him like honour.”[7] And the blessed john said: “this is the command of god. We will call him by this name Theodore.”

THE PASSION OF ST. THEODORE THE GENERAL (BHL 8077)

During their time Maximianus and Maximinus sent throughout all the territory of their empire an edict against all the followers of the true religion of Christ, that they could escape tortures and live by tasting food which had been offered in sacrifice, and that those who spoke against this were to be surrendered to the judges and subjected to many different punishments. At this time Theodore was conscripted for military service, and together with him many other recruits, and was assigned to a legion entitled the legio Marmaritarum under the command of the praepositus Brincas. This legion was staying in the city of Amasea in the province of Hellespontus, where all were being compelled to offer sacrifice to the idols in accordance with the imperial edict.

When he spoke out against these things blessed Theodore was brought to the praepositus Brincas. Brincas said to him, “Why do you not obey the commands of the emperors’ and offer sacrifice to the immortal gods?” Blessed Theodore, since he was faithful to God and filled with the Holy Spirit, replied, standing in the midst of the legion, “It is because I am a Christian that I have not accepted the command to offer sacrifice to evil images; for I have as my king Christ in heaven.” The praepositus Brincas said to him, “Take your arms, Theodore, and accept military service; agree to sacrifice to the immortal gods, and obey the victorious emperors.” But Saint Theodore said in reply, “I serve my emperor and cannot serve another.” The praepositus Brincas said, “All these standing about are Christians, and they serve.” Theodore said, “Each knows how he serves. But I serve my lord and king of heaven, God, and his only son Jesus Christ.” The ducenarius Possidonius said, “So, your God has a son?” Saint Theodore replied, “He has a son who is the Truth through whom all things were made.” The praepositus said to him, “Can we know him?” Saint Theodore replied, “I wish that he would give such understanding to you as to recognise him.” Possidonius the ducinarius asked, “And if we recognise him, will we be able to leave the earthly emperor and go to him?” Saint Theodore replied, “There is nothing which prevents you from deserting the darkness, and the trust which you hold in the house of your temporal and mortal earthly king, and going over to the Lord, the living and eternal heavenly king, in order to become soldiers like me.” The praepositus Brincas said, “Let us give him a truce for a few days in order to take stock with himself and be converted to what is best.”

When he had received this time to think blessed Theodore remained in prayer. The officials, troubled also about the other Christians, went about the city to capture whoever else they found believing in Christ. When they had seized some they brought them to jail. Blessed Theodore, sitting with them, taught them the way of salvation and perseverance, saying, “Do not fear these tortures which are being inflicted upon you in order for you to deny the heavenly king and lord, Jesus Christ.” When he had said these and similar things to those who had been locked-up, he waited for an opportune time and entered by night the temple of the mother of the gods. He set fire to it, and burned it. But he was seen by someone, and accused. The book-keeper Cronides was terrified when he learned what had been done. He seized blessed Theodore and brought him to the governor Publius, saying, “This pest, a recent conscript, came into our city, set fire to the ancient temple of the mother of the gods, and harmed our gods. Thus I seized him, and have brought him to your highness in order for him to pay the penalty, in accordance with the command of our victorious emperors, for his bold deeds against our gods.” The judge, when he had listened to the praepositus Brincas who had been summoned, said to him, “Did you give him amnesty in order to set fire to the temple of our gods?” In response he said, “I exhorted him often, and gave him an amnesty in order for him to think matters over with himself, and to compromise with us and make sacrificial offerings to the gods. If he has done this, since you are the judge, charge him in accordance with your authority as one who has contempt for the gods and despises the commands of our victorious emperors.” Thus, seated on his platform, the governor ordered blessed Theodore to be brought to him.
When he had been brought the governor said to him, “Why have you set fire to and burned our goddess instead of sacrificing to her with incense and libations?” Blessed Theodore said, “I do not deny what I have done. I have burned her with fire. Such is your goddess, and her power, that fire can touch and burn her. I have burned wood in order to set fire to stone.” Then, filled with fury, the governor ordered that he be beaten, saying, “Do not answer me with speeches. The bitterest tortures await you in order to make you obey the commands of the emperors.” Blessed Theodore said, “I do not surrender to you, nor do I fear your punishments, even if they are extremely fearful. So do what you want. For the expectation of good things calls me to be confident on account of the hope which has been placed in me and the crown which My Lord Jesus Christ has prepared for me.” The judge said, “Sacrifice to the gods and save yourself from the tortures which have been prepared for you.” Saint Theodore said, “Those tortures which you are bringing are not fearful to me. My Lord and king, Jesus Christ, stands before my face, he who will rescue me from your punishments, whom you do not see because you do not see with the eyes of your heart.” Thus the judge was angered, and roaring like a lion he ordered him to be thrown into prison, that the door of the prison be sealed, and that he be left there to die of hunger.

But blessed Theodore was nourished by the Holy Spirit. Moreover that same night there appeared to him the Lord, saying, “Take courage, my servant Theodore, because I am with you. So do not accept either food or drink from those men; for there is everlasting food for you in heaven.” And when he had said these things he left him. And when the Lord had ascended away from him blessed Theodore began to rejoice and sing psalms to the Lord. Moreover there were many people listening to him. When the prison-guards heard these things and saw that the door was closed and the seal intact, they looked through the window and saw a great crowd dressed in white singing together with Saint Theodore. They went away in fear and reported these things to the judge. And when he heard these things the judge rose and ran with haste. He reached the door of the prison, saw the prison was indeed locked, and heard the voices of those singing with blessed Theodore. When he had heard these, the governor ordered that armed soldiers stand on guard in a circuit outside the prison, thinking that some Christians were inside with blessed Theodore. He opened it up, went inside and found no one except only the holy servant of God Theodore pushed down on the wooden [floor]. And great fear seized him and those who were with him. They went out bewildered and locking the prison again departed. Then the governor ordered that a loaf of bread and a cup of water be given daily to blessed Theodore. But Christ’s faithful martyr, in accordance with scripture that the just man lives on faith, did so and did not accept any food from them, but only said to himself, “Christ, My Lord and King, nourishes me.”

When it was morning the governor ordered blessed Theodore to be brought to him, and said to him, “Acquiesce, Theodore, save yourself from the tortures and offer sacrifice to the gods, so that I may quickly write to the emperors, lords of the world, that Theodore has become a priest, receives great honours from us and will be our companion.” Blessed Theodore, looking up at Heaven and crossing himself, said to the governor, “Even if you burn my flesh with fire, inflict various punishments and surrender me to the sword until I breathe out my last, I will not deny My Lord.” Thus the governor, when he had heard these things and taken counsel with the praepositus, ordered the torturers to hang him up on a wooden frame and scrape his sides with iron claws. These scraped him to such an extent that his ribs were laid bare. However blessed Theodore made no answer to the governor, but recited the psalms, saying, “I will bless the Lord for all time, his praise will be upon my lips always.” The governor, amazed at such great endurance by the blessed martyr, said to him, “Are you not ashamed, you most wretched of all men, to hope in a man who is called Christ, and who died so badly? Are you surrendering yourself in this way, without reason, to such punishments and tortures?” But the holy martyr said, “This madness of mine is that of all who call upon the name of My Lord Jesus Christ.” The crowds were shouting to take him down because he had already been killed, and then the governor interrogated him through a herald, saying, “Are you willing to offer sacrifice or do you want to be tortured still further by me?” In reply blessed Theodore said confidently to the governor, “O you most wicked man, filled with every evil, you son of the devil, truly worthy of Satan’s work, do you not fear the Lord who gave you this power, through whom kings rule and tyrants obtain land, but compel me to desert the living God and worship lifeless stones ?” Then the judge, with much shuffling of [papers], said to the holy martyr, “What do you want? To be with us or with your Christ?” To which the holy martyr replied with great joy, “I have been, am, and shall be with my Christ.”

Seeing that he could not overcome the endurance of the holy martyr through tortures [the governor] passed sentence against him, speaking thus, “I order that Theodore, who does not obey the command of the victorious emperors and the power of the gods, who believes in Jesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as I hear from the Jews, be surrendered to fire.” Immediately as he passed sentence the instruction was performed simultaneously with his command. The torturers, who had been continuously gathering wood from the traders and the baths, led him to the place which had been prepared. When fire had been kindled, laying aside his clothes and unloosing his belt, he wished also to undo his shoes, and each of the faithful was hurrying to be the first to touch his perspiration. They were all coming and touching him before his passion. They brought to him immediately those necessities which had been gathered for the fire. To those who wished to pierce him the blessed martyr said, “Support me; he who has given me endurance in my punishments will himself grant also that I endure untouched the force of the fire.” They did not pierce him then, but only tied him up and went away. But the holy martyr, speaking the words of the sign of the cross, with his hands tied behind his back, like a ram chosen from a great flock readied and accepted as a holocaust to God, looked up to heaven and said, “Lord God Almighty, Father of your blessed Son Jesus Christ through whom we received knowledge of you, God of virtues and of every creature and every nation of just men who live in your presence, I bless you because you have made me worthy of this day and hour that I may receive a part with the holy martyrs before Christ the Saviour at the resurrection, and eternal life of body and soul through the preserving gift of the Holy Spirit. I will be taken up among the martyrs into your sight today as a rich and acceptable sacrifice which you have beforehand tested, tried and discovered to be without fault. For you are the true God, and I praise you accordingly, asking and beseeching you through Our Lord Jesus Christ, your beloved Son. Grant also, Lord, that those who have been detained with me will reach this palm.”

And watching with his eyes he saw Cleonicus, who had been conscripted with him, standing and weeping in the crowd, and crying-out he said, “Cleonicus, I await you. Hurry and join me. For we did not desert each other in this earthly life and let us not be separated from each other in the heavenly life.” And when he had finished talking he prayed, saying, “Lord Jesus Christ, Mediator between God and men, you who have shown me worthy to win this contest, I thank and praise and glorify the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit throughout the ages. Amen.” And when he had finished praying the servants of the devil lit the great fire. But while a great flame flickered we to whom it was granted to see saw a miracle, and we were preserved in order to report to others the things which occurred. For the flame took the shape of an arched roof, like a ship’s sail filled by the wind, and surrounded the body of the holy martyr. And it was not so much like a corpse burning but like bread being baked. The Holy Spirit arrived, and the holy martyr, without harm in the midst of the flame, praised and glorified God, and returned his spirit to Christ. He was taken into the heavens on 9 November.[8] We were all filled with the most pleasant fragrance. Moreover a voice came down to him from the heavens, saying “Come, my beloved, Theodore, enter into the joy of your Lord because you have faithfully completed the course of your struggle.” We who were standing about saw and heard all these things, and we also saw the heavens opened above him.

A certain woman of noble birth by the name of Eusebia came and sought the body of the holy martyr Theodore. Embalming his holy body with wine and precious ointments she wrapped it in clean cloth, placed it in a casket, and took it to her estate which was one day’s journey distant from the city of Amasea, into an area called Euchaita. She decided to turn her estate into a church. She made her house there perfect and holy. And she celebrated everyday there the commemoration of the blessed martyr Theodore. In that place many were cleansed of evil spirits and various infirmities through him, even to the present day, to the praise and glory of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit who lives and reigns now and forever and until the end of time. Amen.
_____________________

[1] See: E. Amelineau, la géographie de l egypte à l époque copte.

[2] Otto F.A. Meinardus, Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity, p. 322.

[3] Synaxarium (20 Apip).

[4] E. O. Winstedt, Coptic Texts on Saint Theodore the General (London-Oxford, 1910).

[5] Winstedt gives the title, The Passion of St. Theodore the General and St. Theodore the Eastern. I prefer to use only “Saint Theodore the General”.

[6] There is no mention of this saint and martyr in the Arabo-Coptic Synaxarium.

[7] This was clearly before Theodore the Eastern converted to Christianity. We know from other sources that Straticia remained pagan until at least Theodore was a man.

[8] This date is wrong as St. Theodore the General was martyred on 20 Apip, which is equivalent to 14 July on the Julian calendar and the 27 July on the Gregorian calendar of today.

The Copto-Arabic Synaxarium[1] that was published with a French translation was taken from two manuscripts; the earlier was from the late 14^th century,[2] which is close to the time the Synaxarium was first compiled.

It contains the story of the martyrdom of Saint Theodore the Eastern (Oriental, Anatolian) under 12 Tuba. With him, but not on the same day, were martyred his two associates, Leontius the Arab (22 Apip) and Panigerus the Persian (5 Tuba).

Associated with the story of St. Theodore the Eastern also is the family of Yustus (or Justus) the son of Emperor Numerianus (r. 273 – 274). Yustus was sent with his wife, Theokleia, and his son, Apolli, to Egypt to be tortured there, and if they insist on not renouncing Christ, to be killed. Justus was beheaded in Antinopolis (Antinoë, in Upper Egypt (Synaxarium: 10 Amshir); Theokleia was beheaded in Sais, in the Western Nile Delta on the Canopic branch of the Nile. (Synaxarium: 11 Pashons); Apolli was beheaded in Bubastis, in the eastern part of the Nile Delta (Synaxarium: 1 Mesouri). Yustus, the son of the King, is mentioned again in the Coptic Synaxarium under 17 Misouri in the feast of the Egyptian martyrs, Yacobos and the Elderly Man, who were beheaded in the same year, as one would conclude, Yustus was martyred.

Saint Theodore the General (of Shwtp) is often associated with Saint Theodore the Eastern. One find his mention in Synaxarium: 12 Apip and 5 Hathor.

__________________

[1] René Basset, Synaxaire arabe-jacobite (rédaction copte) in the Patrologia Orientalis (Paris, 1904 – 1929).

[2] The second dates to the 17^th century.

In the Coptic Synaxarium published by Réne Basset (1848-1924), Synaxaire Arabe-Jacobite,^[1] we find a very interesting story of a group of forty Coptic nuns from the Mountain of Asyut who in Muslim times preferred to commit mass suicide rather than submit to Muslim soldiers who were intent on capturing and defiling them.^[2] The story is commemorated on the 6^th of Baramhat, the seventh month in the Coptic calendar. The date corresponds to the 2^nd of March in the Julian calendar and the 25^th of March in the Gregorian calendar.

The Synaxaire Arabe-Jacobite includes the original Arabic text and a French translation by Basset. I include below both of them.[3]

The Arabic of the original manuscript of the synaxarium is generally very poor, with lots of spelling and grammatical mistakes that often alter the meaning intended or make it incomprehensible altogether. I believe the poor Arabic reflects that of the original authors but the copyists added their usual mistakes to make it even worse. The lingual defects in the above text concerning the nuns of Asyut are an example; and they start from the beginning. For instance, the first line in the Arabic text reads, “اعلموا يا اخوة ان فى مثل هذا اليوم ملكوا الحبش الغريب الديار المصرية”. This is uncritically mirrored in Basset’s translation: “Sachez, mes frères, qu’a pareil jour, les Éthiopiens (El- Ḥahach) s’emparèrent de l’onuest de l’Égypte [ed-diâr el-miṣriyah)”.[4] Even Otto F.E. Meinardus falls for the obvious mistake; and, so, in his Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity, he includes in the calendar of the Coptic Church, under 6 Baramhat, “Occupation of the western part of Egypt by the Ethiopians”[5]. This does not make sense: the Ethiopians have never seized the western part of Egypt since the 25^th Dynasty (746 – 653 BC), let alone during the Islamic period when this story occurred. The original text (through a copyist mistake) and its translation, therefore, are historically wrong and have led to the incomprehension of the story of the nuns of Asyut; possibly contributing to readers ignoring the interesting story altogether. The author’s original text must have been, “اعلموا يا اخوة ان فى مثل هذا اليوم ملكوا الجنس الغريب الديار المصرية”, which translates into “Know my brethren that on this day, the foreign race occupied the Egyptian Lands”. This fits in well with the rest of the story and puts sense back into it. I include my own English translation[6] of the full Arabic text below:

 Know my brethren that on this day, the foreign race occupied the Egyptian Lands; and they chased the Christians everywhere. There was in the Mount of Asyut a convent where thirty nine virgins and their abbess, forty in total, lived; and they were engaged in many prayers, constant watchfulness, fasting, and prostrations; entreating God for salvation and mercy. And God had given them the gift of healing; and any woman with an illness who visited them was cured through their pure prayers.

And the Ghuzz heard about them and came to the convent. And the virgin nuns were scared, and beseeched God to save them from temptations and misfortunes, saying to Him that the Ghuzz had come to the convent to take them, go to their countries with them, and treat them as slave girls.[7]

And the old abbess said to the virgins: “My children, seek [for yourselves] the salvation of your souls from these unjust and evil people; and see how you could save yourselves [from them].” And there was at that time great wailing because the soldiers had surrounded the convent from all sides, and knocked at the door of the gate with great noise. And a young nun in the convent said to the abbess: “My mistress, listen to what I say to you: lay each one of us on a straw mat, and set the mats on fire, so that we may go to the Lord like pure korban (offering/sacrifice).”

And when the rest of the virgins heard what the girl had to say, they said to the abbess: “Oh, blessed, hurry up with what this blessed sister has said.” And the abbess quickly wound a straw mat around each of the virgins, and prayed: “My Lord, may thou accept this korban; for those people have come from their lands seeking to frustrate the salvation of these virgins. The death [of the nuns] in this way is better than them being assaulted by those offenders. Oh, Lord, do not hold this sin against me.” She then set them on fire; and their smoke ascended to heaven.

And when the soldiers entered the convent, they found that the fire had consumed all the virgins; and they were wroth with the abbess, and said to her: “No one has done this except you.” The abbess [after she had set the virgins on fire], got to the convent’s keep.[8] The soldiers said to her: “Come down. We shall not do anything to you.” But she threw herself down from the top of the keep to the ground, and gave up her soul into the hands of God, the Lord.

My God have mercy on us through their prayers.

The historical backdrop to the story of the nuns of Asyut, which starts with the “foreign race occup[ying] Egyptian Lands”, is the struggle between the Ayyubids and the Fatimids over Egypt. Egypt was then ruled by the comparatively tolerant Ismaili-Shiite Fatimids (969 – 1171); while Syria, with its capital Damascus, was recently seized by the fanatic Sunni Ayyubids, headed by Nur al-Din Zengi (1146 – 1174), who was intent on occupying Egypt, taking it away from the Fatimids, whom he considered as heretics. Between 1164 and 1169, Nur al-Din dispatched his army to Egypt, in three major campaigns, led by his ablest generals, Shirkuh, and accompanied by his nephew, Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (the famous Saladin).[9] It was during the second campaign, in 1167, that the story of the nuns of Asyut occurred. During that campaign the Ayyubid army, or a large chunk of it, marched into Upper Egypt, pillaging cities and villages on both banks of the Nile; and killing and enslaving, as the story says, “chasing the Christians everywhere”. The brutality of the Ayyubids during these years and the first few years of their rule in Egypt (they were practically in control of Egypt from 1169, when Shirkuh became vizier to the last Fatimid Caliph, al-‘Aḍid [1149 – 1171]) is well documented in Coptic sources [10] Most of the Ayyubid army was composed of Kurds. In Coptic sources of the period, the Kurds are called Ghuzz (غُزْ) – a word derived from the Oguz, which was a Turkish tribe originally from Central Asia. The Coptic convent in the Mount of Asyut that is mentioned in the story was attacked by these Ghuzz.

Asyut (Lycopolis during the Ptolemaic-Roman-Byzantine period) was, and still is, though to a lesser degree, a large Coptic centre. It lies some 320 km (200 miles) south of Cairo, on the western bank of the Nile. Mount Asyut is located 10 km to the west of Asyut. In the past, it was awash with monasteries and convents, since it was considered a holy place. Today, only one monastery remains in it, that of the Virgin Mary (also called Monastery of Dronka after the adjacent village); and it houses both monks and nuns. It has a cave chapel that dates from the first century; and is believed to have been the resting place of the Holy Family before it took the boat on its way back to Nazareth in Palestine, after it had remained in Egypt for three and a half years to escape the threat of Herod the Great. It is conceivable that the convent in the story, where the forty nuns sacrificed their bodies, was the same as today’s Monastery of Dronka.

___________________

[1] Synaxaire Arabe-Jacobite was published, in Paris, in five volumes of Patrologia Orientalis (PO), from 1907 to 1923: tomes I, III, XI, XVI, and XVII, and covered the 13 Coptic months. In 1999, the late Anba Samuel, bishop of Shabin al-Qanatir^[1] (r. 1992 – 2003), published the Arabic text as it appeared in Basset’s publication in P.O. under the title السنكسار القبطى اليعقوبى لرينيه باسيه in three volumes; and he included the story of the nuns of Asyut under ٦ برمهات.^[1] Samuel’s publication, although it is sold at ecclesiastical outlets, is, however, not regarded as an official Church copy.

[2] Synaxaire Arabe-Jacobite, ed. Réne Basset. P.O., Tome XVI (Paris, 1922), pp. 206-207 [848-849].

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid, p. 206 [848].

[5] Otto F. A. Meinardus, Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity (Cairo, AUP, 2002), p. 298

[6] I could not find any existing English translation of the story.

[7] The original says, “ليتزوجوهم” (to marry them). This, in my opinion, reflects the writer/s poor Arabic rather than anything. It is clear from the text that the nuns knew that the intention of the Ghuzz was not marriage. I believe the Arabic should have read, “ليتخذوهن سرايا”; that is, to be taken saraya (‘saraya’ is plural of sariya, which is a woman captured in war, enslaved and used for service and sex.

[8] Keep or qasr (castle) is a fortress-like building that was used by monks and nuns when they were attacked by Berbers, Arabs, etc., to protect them. In it was kept sufficient supply of food and water. Keeps have drawbridges that connect the keep to the roof of a church or other buildings; and once the ascetics cross the drawbridge to the safety of the keep, it is lifted up or drawn.

[9] Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2 Kingdom of Jerusalem, pp. 362-400.

[10] One can review the History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church attributed to Severus of Ashmunein; and The churches and monasteries of Egypt and some neighbouring countries Abu al-Makarim (wrongly attributed to Abu Salih al-Armani; translated by B. T. A. Evetts.