The Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies which is organised by the International Association for Coptic Studies (Association Internationale d’Études Coptes http://www.copticcongress2012.uniroma1.it/ ) will take place in Rome from Monday 17 to Saturday 22 September 2012. The Congress will be hosted at first at Sapienza University of Rome (Monday, opening session), then, from Tuesday to Thursday, in the Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, and finally, on Friday, in the Vatican Library, near Saint Peter’s Basilica.

Looking at its programme, the variety and richness of the topics cannot be matched. Here is the full programme, thanks to Alin Suciu:

http://alinsuciu.com/2012/09/15/the-tenth-international-congress-of-coptic-studies-programme/

The replacement of the word ”almaniya/secular/ عَلْمَانْيِّة’ by ‘madaniya/civilian/ مَدَنْيِّة’ in Egypt is not a benevolent deception – it is a devious one. Will explain:

- Some say ‘‘almaniya’ was replaced by ‘madaniya’ because many in Egypt have sensitivity towards the word ‘almaniya’ since it is taken by the Islamists to mean anti-Islam; so some liberals do-gooders wanted to ‘deceive’ the simple folk by using a veiled word (madaniya) that they hoped could give the same meaning as ‘’almaniya’.

- In fact, these guys, by accepting to use the word ‘madaniya’ in place of ”almaniya’ are just fooling themselves, since ‘madaniya’ can never give the same meaning as ”almaniya’.

- ‘Madaniya’ means ‘civilian’ which refers to a state that is not run by the military but by civilians; and a civilian state can be either a secular or theocratic state.

- The Islamists, of course, welcomed the intellectual dishonesty of the liberals who replaced ”almaniya’ by ‘madaniya’, and all the way they took ‘madaniya’ to mean something else, Islamist to the core.

- The Islamists refer to the word ‘madaniya’ to mean neither a secular state, and most importantly, nor a civilian state. ‘Madaniya’ in their literature refers to the State of Madina (دولة المدينة) which was inaugurated by Muhammad in Medina (Madinah/Medina), Hejaz, in the period 622-632 AD. That state was religious, led by Muhammad himself, and military, since he and all his follower men were soldiers in the army. It was a theocratic state.

The conclusion is: neither the liberals of Egypt, nor its Islamists, have been honest in this matter. Both have embraced the word ‘madaniya’ while all the time meaning something else than what the word entails. I say, cowardice and intellectual dishonesty are significant factors in Egypt’s current plight.

Tawadros II, the 118th Coptic Patriarch (2012 – )

The Coptic Nationalists have decided to boycott the Islamist referendum on the Islamist constitution for the following reasons:

1. The process of producing the constitution was shameful, exclusive, and arbitrary and has been dominated by Islamists. This is not a constitution made by Egyptians – it was drafted, directed and passed by Islamists. In this sense, it is an Islamist Constitution and not an Egyptian constitution.

2. The content of the constitution is designed to restrain democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms, women rights and Copts rights. It is a constitution made to support the emergence of a fascist Islamist state.

3. The referendum process is not fair or transparent – the timing of the referendum has been forced on the opposition by the Islamists so that they can’t have time to campaign enough against it; the Islamists will have total control of supervision, counting and pronouncing the result; all while the Islamists continue their usual methods of campaigning to intimidate and terrorise the individuals who could vote against them and to deceive the people by religion and the talk on Sharia.

The Coptic Nationalists have no faith whatsoever that their vote will count and that the Islamists will not manipulate the result to their advantage. In these circumstances, participation in the referendum will mean only one thing: to legitimise the Islamist constitution and the referendum process – the Islamists will be able to use participation by the opposition to claim that the “Egyptian people” has voted and said its word.

Let no one think boycotting the referendum is a sign of weakness or fear that the opposition may be exposed as a minority. Let them know that the real size of the Islamists is at its highest 25% of the Egyptian constituency as the first round of the presidential election has shown. Readers must be careful not to take the second round of election as representative of Morsi’s support: the Muslim Brotherhood’s and Salafists’ vote was magnified by those non-Islamist Egyptians who saw at the time that Morsi was the lesser evil compared to Shafiq, who was seen as part of Mubarak’s regime. This situation has now changed: the dictatorial nature of the Islamists has been revealed to millions of Egyptians; their incompetence in managing the affair of the country has been remarkable; and the economic situation is deteriorating while the country is approaching complete collapse. The Islamists’ support today is without doubt well under 50%; and if anyone could guarantee us a fair and transparent referendum we will have no doubt that this fascist constitution will fail – and if such assurance (of a fairness and transparency) is given us we will participate in the referendum.

But we know the Islamists will manipulate and rig the referendum to their advantage whatever the ‘no’ count will be. They will pass this constitution down the people’s throat by hook or by crook. We shall not vote ourselves, our country and people, into slavery by voting in this referendum – we shall boycott the referendum on the Islamist constitution while at the same time continue the resistance against this fascist Islamist government.

The National Salvation Front (NSF) has announced today 3 December 2012 that it will participate in the referendum under two conditions:

1. That the referendum is fair

2. That it is conducted on one day rather than two split days.

As it any of these two conditions will be acceptable to the Islamists! Note that we are only two days away from the 5th December when the referendum will be undertaken. What will the NSF say tomorrow, on the referendum eve, when these two conditions are not met? How is it going to advise its followers?

The NSF has lost a great opportunity (of boycotting the referendum) which could have been used to undermine the constitution and make it be seen as Islamist constitution, made by Islamists and to serve the Islamists only. Now, its participation in the referendum will only be used to legitimise the results of the referendum which will undoubtedly be rigged.

The NSF has revealed its lack of strong and visionary leadership, and a great deal of confusion and fear. This announcement of today will mark the end of this front which we had hoped would lead us during this phase of the revolution.

The country will have to wait for another Saad Zaghlul.

We have studied the definition of a nation in a previous article in some detail:

http://copticliterature.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/what-is-a-nation

Here it is in short:

A nation is a group of people who possess all or some of the objective criteria of nationhood, which could include commonality of race, language, religion, culture, history, territorial contiguity, and economic interests, and which help inculcate in the mental constitution of that people a unique situation that creates in them common feelings of belonging and pride, and a will to live together for the future in order to enjoy their special way of life and be able to defend themselves, and their way of life, against threats and aggressive behaviour of outsiders.

أغنية صغيرة للغة القبطية

بتقولى
تين آسبى ماتت؟
يآخى فال إبشويس ولا فالك٠

مين قالك
عين إفنوتى نامت؟
أو نيل كيمى جفّ ويبسّ؟ مش ممكن٠ ده كله محالك٠

دى صبايا الأمة فى تنانزيب
زيّك مش خانت
ودوام بتغنى وبتنادى: ميشى! إمبر أتشوتب!  فهيهاتك٠

مش ماتت ومش ممكن
ما دام روحى مش فاضت
وما دام فى الأمة رجالة وتى آجيا ماريا ومارتيريا؛ وما دامت كوبتيا ولادة٠ فبعدانك٠

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
شرح الكلمات

 تين آسبي : قبطى : لغتنا
إبشويس : قبطى : الرب

 إفنوتى : قبطى : الله
كيمى : قبطي : مصر

 تنانزيب : قبطى : مدرستنا
ميشى : قبطى : قاتل
إمبر إتشوتب : قبطى : لا تستسلم؛ لا تنهزم

تى آجيا ماريا : قبطى : القديسة مريم
مارتيريا : قبطى : الشهادة
كوبتيا : كلمة مستحدثة تعنى الأمة القبطية

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
ملحوظة
كتبت يوم الأحد ، ١٣ إبريل ٢٠٠٨ ، بواسطة أحد القوميين الأقباط على أثر حوارٍ مع أحد اللغويين الأقباط الذى أصرَّ على أن اللغة القبطية ميتة منتهية٠

All Coptic sacred space, whether churches, monasteries, schools or social services organisations, should have their names displayed in Coptic

The Copts’ neglect of their language is a sad story. At no place do we find that tragically demonstrated as in our churches. No one seems to have given heed to Samuel of Kalamoun in his Apocalypse: Arabic has replaced Coptic even in the sacred Coptic Church prayers, and we now see the beautiful liturgies of St. Basil, St. Cyril and St. Gregory being sung by priests, bishops and popes in Arabic. What a sad situation!

The neglect we see in our churches cannot be attributed to the clergy alone – the lay people take a large blame for it too. This shared neglect is best seen in the church plaques that display the names we give to our churches. Churches nowadays seem to be displaying their names in Arabic and rarely in Coptic; and even in the Coptic Diaspora, in Europe, Australia, Canada and the US, Coptic churches’ plaques often carry their names in the national language of the country, such as English, German or French, and in Arabic, as if Arabic is our national language.

 The Coptic Church of the Virgin May in Meyrin, Geneva

The plaque at the Church of the Virgin Mary, displaying its name in Arabic

The name of the church dislayed in French

Just one Example I use here:[1] The Coptic Orthodox Church of the Virgin Mary in Meyrin, Geneva, Switzerland (Eglise Copte Orthodoxe de la Vierge Marie de la Suisse Romande – Genève Rue Virginio-Malnati 35, 1217 Meyrin, Switzerland). When you visit that church you will find that its name has been displayed on its plaque in French and Arabic with no use of Coptic. How can our children in the Diaspora know their national language or manage to keep their Coptic identity if their sacred places do not show pride in their language?

The Coptic church at Meyrin, Geneva, is not the only Coptic church that shows its neglect of our sacred language so shamelessly. Look at your local church, whether in Egypt or outside it, and see if your sacred place displays its name in Coptic first, if at all, or in Arabic, and then go and ask your local priest and the church’s lay committee why that is the case.

We recommend this: all Coptic sacred places, whether churches or monasteries or schools or social services organisations, have their names displayed in plaques first in Coptic, which is our national language, and then in the official language used in the country they exist in. So, in Egypt let us use Coptic and Arabic (plus English where tourists visit); in English-speaking countries, Coptic and English; in Germany, Coptic and Deutsch; in France, Coptic and French; in Holland, Coptic and Dutch; in Italy, Coptic and Italian; etc. There is no convincing argument for using Arabic in displaying the name of our sacred spaces in any country that does not have Arabic as official language – and even where Arabic is the official language of the country, such as in Egypt, Sudan, Syria, etc., the name in Arabic should come second to the name in Coptic.

But, for that to happen, both Coptic clergy and laity should understand the national and ecclesiastical significance of our sacred language and be cooperative and willing to rectify matters.

 Patrie is a French word which means the homeland, fatherland, motherland, native country.

The Coptic patrie means in short the Coptic homeland and State.

In a previous article we coined the word “Coptia”, where, we said, the word means the Copts’ physical space, Coptic community and Coptic nation.

We had aimed to revolutionise the concept of our understanding of ourselves: previously, we looked at ourselves as a Church (i.e. ecclesia or the group of people who follow the Coptic Church), people and sometimes, with a lot of hesitation, nation. We never saw ourselves tied to a land of ours – Egypt was our physical space even though we never had full or partial control of it, and when others ruled us and decided for us what would become of that physical space, and more importantly, what would become of us.

The novelty that the word has introduced is its association with a “Coptic” physical space – the Copts’ spiritual and temporal space. Any part of Coptia, wherever it is, will become a national property of all the Copts; and their collective space, here, there and everywhere, will assume a patrie-like quality. This is the real revolutionary novelty about the word.

Now, we want to be even more specific: Coptia is the Coptic nation and the potential Coptic patrie (homeland, fatherland, motherland, native country, Coptic state). We do not shift in our conviction that the Copts constitute a nation, a cultural one presently. Does it necessarily need to convert into a political nation with its nation-state? We don’t know yet. As we have said, we are unionist by first choice, but all depends on the Muslims of Egypt – if they deny us equal status and freedom, we do not have any doubt that Egypt will partition in the future. While the concept of Coptia as patrie is not a political fact, it helps to imagine it and be prepared if we are pushed by the fascist Islamists to look for other options.

Figure 1: The contracted form of the Coptic word ‘Ephnuti’, which means God.

            The Arabisation of the Copts – which is the process and phenomenon by which Egyptians (Copts) stopped talking in their own Egyptian (Coptic) language, and adopted Arabic as their main daily language – is a lamentable national disaster of Himalayan magnitude. This process is believed to have originated in the Coptic middle-class in the Cairo environ, mainly within Coptic clerks in the Muslim administration, starting from the late Fatimid period and accelerated in the Ayyubid period – that is in the late 11^th – 13^th centuries.

Copts started talking Arabic in their daily life and neglected teaching their children Coptic at their schools. Clerks learned classical Arabic and excelled in it. It was the way to get secure jobs and promotion. The Church found that the Copts in Cairo, and other larger centres of Muslim administration, had forgotten their language, and this impacted in their understanding of the liturgy and ecclesiastical sermons, and so it embarked, since the days of Patriarch Gabriel II (1131 – 1145), in Arabising the Church’s sacred books and services.

This process of ecclesiastical Arabisation of the Copts (i.e., Arabisation of their Church), which followed on the heels of the temporal Arabisation of their middle-class, seems to have been poorly thought after, rushed and crudely executed. It has been a disaster by all means on our national identity and religion. The Copts at the beginning of this process did not translate Coptic sacred scripture to Arabic – rather, they embarked on borrowing translated scripture into Arabic from Aramaic, Syriac or Greek by the Syrian and Chaldean Christians, who were first to get Arabised.

This resulted in a wholesale, non-selective, Arabisation sometimes with far reaching consequencies. The loss of control on this translation exercise is best demonstrated by the vanishing of the word Ephnuti (or Abnudi)[1] from our daily vocabulary as we adopted the Arabic word Allah in its place to mean the ‘Supreme Being’ or ‘God’.

The Ancient Egyptians despite their polytheism had always retained a belief in a Supreme Being, God Almighty, which they gave the name ‘Neter’. As E. A. Wallis Budge says:

    A study of ancient Egyptian religious texts will convince the reader that the Egyptians believed in One God, who was self-existent, immortal, invisible, eternal, omniscient, almighty, and inscrutable; the maker of the heavens, earth, and underworld; the creator of the sky and the sea, men and women, animals and birds, fish and creeping things, trees and plants, and the incorporeal beings who were the messengers that fulfilled his wish and word. It is necessary to place this definition of the first part of the belief of the Egyptian at the beginning of the first chapter of this brief account of the principal religious ideas which he held, for the whole of his theology and religion was based upon it; and it is also necessary to add that, however far back we follow his literature, we never seem to approach a time when he was without this remarkable belief. It is true that he also developed polytheistic ideas and beliefs, and that he cultivated them at certain periods of his history with diligence, and to such a degree that the nations around, and even the stranger in his country, were misled by his actions, and described him as a polytheistic idolater. But notwithstanding all such departures from observances, the keeping of which befitted those who believed in God and his unity, this sublime idea was never lost sight of; on the contrary, it is reproduced in the religious literature of all periods.[2]

This word Neter was retained in the Coptic language as Nuti, the letter r having dropped out in Coptic through phonetic decay.[3] When Christianity came to Egypt in the 1^st century it was transmitted to Egyptians first in the Greek tongue, which used Theos for God. Later, when the Egyptians translate the Holy Scripture from Greek to Coptic, Theos was replaced by Ephnuti.

Here is an example in which the word Theos is in the Greek Bible is replaced by the word Ephnuti in the Coptic Bible: John 1: 1-2.[4]

Figure 2: The Holy Gospel According to John (1:1-2) in Greek with English translation. God in Greek is Theos.[5]

Figure 3: The Coptic version of John 1:1-2, in the Bohairic form. Translated from Greek, Theos is replaced by the Ancient Egyptian word for the Almighty God, Ephnuti.[6]

The word Ephnuti continued to be used by the Copts to donate God. Ephnuti encapsulated not just the ancient Egyptian understanding of God as the Supreme Being but the whole concept of God as envisaged in Christian theology. To mention the word Ephnuti must have brought to the mind of the Copt all the attributes and actions of God that had been described in the Bible. That God – that Ephnuti – could not have been confused with any other god, such as the many deities worshipped by neighbouring peoples whose religions did not rest on the Judeo-Christian tradition.

But, when the Copts of the Middle Ages adopted Arabic and borrowed Arabic religious scriptures from the Syrians and others, they borrowed them with the word Allah standing for the Supreme God and, thereby, replacing Ephnuti! The Arabic version of John 1:1-2 reads as thus:

The word Allah is of course not a Muslim invention: it existed in Aramaic, Syriac and ancient Arabic (Sabaean), and simply meant God. The pre-Islam Meccans had Allah as one of their gods. It is, however, Islam which publicised the name more widely – Allah became the Muslim God; and in that sense he was coloured by Islamic theology and Muslims’ concept of the Deity, which was different from the understanding of God in Christian theology. The use of the word Allah, when speaking about different deities of different peoples, even those who use cognates of the name Allah, could be very misleading without qualification: the Islamic Allah is different from the pagan Meccans’, Aramaic and Syriac Allahs.

Thank God Almighty the Copts had a word for Him, Ephnuti, which the Christian believer could use without running the hazard of confusing his understanding of God with the Islamic concept of God.   The two words are not interchangeable: they give two different concepts of the Deity.

And yet, when the Copts got Arabised, they abandoned even this very sacred, very special word which encapsulated their cultural concept of God, and used the word Allah instead to denote their God – that God which is different from the Allah of the Islam.

One of the defences for the Arabisation of the Church’s scripture and services is that the people had forgotten their national language and that led them to be disconnected from Christian heritage which was stored and read in Coptic. By using Arabic, instead of Coptic, it was hoped that the Copts would at least retain their Christian faith even though they had lost their national language. Well, many Copts in the past and present see this as a false argument. Rather than leading to the preservation of our religion, Arabisation has actually caused the weakening of our faith.[7] The replacement of Ephnouti in Coptic daily life dialogue by Allah – which must have caused a lot of confusion in the minds of the simple Coptic folks of the Middle Ages, and affected their understanding of the Supreme Being – is a clear example of how that weakening could have been achieved by Arabisation.  With the loss of Ephnuti, that beautiful Coptic word, I believe, many things have been lost.

How, I think, John 1: 1-2 should have been translated into Arabic, retaining the word Ephnuti.

The Guardian Angel (From a German postcard, 1900. The artist is probably Fridolin Leiber).

The Catholics,[1] and to a lesser degree, I suppose, the Eastern Orthodox Christians, display in their art frequent manifestations of the Guardian Angel, indicating a palpable belief in the presence of a protective angel appointed by God for each soul. The Coptic Church, however, does not show that interest in the Guardian Angel in its art, such as in the holy icons. In fact, there isn’t much in Coptic literature to lead us to conclude that the Coptic Church ever believed in this lovely angelic concept; or is it? I must admit that I formerly thought the Guardian Angel concept was a late development and had no origin in early Christianity, and, therefore, has not featured in Coptic art or ecclesiastical teaching. My belief, however, has been changed by a chance finding, thanks to Orthodox in the District, which, under the heading “Saint Anthony the Great on guardian angels”, quoted a passage from St. Anthony’s “Counsels on the Character of Men and on the Virtuous Life”:

. . . When you close the doors to your dwelling and you are alone you should know that there is present with you the angel whom God has appointed for each man. . . This angel, who is sleepless and cannot be deceived, is always present with you; he sees all things and is not hindered by darkness. You should know, too, that with him is God, who is in every place; for there is no place and nothing material in which God is not, since He is greater than all things and holds all men in His hand.[2]

Saint Anthony the Great, of course, is the Egyptian famous hermit who lived in the period 251-356 AD, and is very much venerated by the Coptic Church. It seems then that St. Anthony did believe in the Guardian Angel. This is not surprising, since in the Bible one finds: “For he hath given his angels charge over thee; to keep thee in all thy ways” (Psalm 90:11). Why, then, has that belief weakened in our Church and does not anymore feature strong in it? I don’t know; but it will be good to revive this beautiful concept in the minds of our children, and it will be fantastic to see Coptic artists using the theme of the Guardian Angel in their art.

Figure 1: His Grace, Anba Moussa, General Bishop for Youth in the Coptic Church

I have been hesitant to talk about this issue because of the deep respect we, Coptic nationalists, hold for the Coptic Church and its clergy. As we have said before, our admiration for our Church does not stem only from its great spiritual position but also for its central and crucial role in preserving our identity as Copts. But we must expose bad political statements issued by some of the Church’s clergy when such statements can potentially damage our nation and its struggle against Islamism and its oppression, and in pursuit of freedom and equal rights in a secular democratic Egypt.

In 2011, following the Village of Sole incident on March 5, 2011, when a church was set on fire by a group of Muslim men angry that a Muslim woman was romantically involved with a Christian man and the Copts of the village intimidated and bullied, a video surfaced in the social media in which His Grace, Anba Moussa, Coptic Church General Bishop for Youth, was featured talking about the “love” and “justice” of Islam, which Islam marched on with, and which “we have witnessed”. He then goes on to praise the “absolute love and wisdom” of Umar ibn al-Khattab (634 – 644 AD), the Second Caliph of Islam who occupied Egypt and is considered to be one of the most anti-Christian of all caliphs; Amr ibn al-Assi (641 – 642; 658 – 664 AD), the Arab general who invaded and subdued Egypt; and Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin; 1171 – 1193 AD), who persecuted the Copts and destroyed their monasteries and churches. Additionally, he talks about “us standing together” against the French, English and Crusaders, which is not only inaccurate historically but also economical with honesty when one focuses on “Christian invaders” and ignores all “Muslim invaders” of Egypt. The reader can watch the video and judge for himself:[1]

This video was met with much shock within the Coptic communities across the world. Many got confused and many were outraged, but most preferred to hide it away quietly and forget about it in honour of the beloved bishop. It was hoped it would be a one-off.

And now, on the Coptic Christmas of 2013, Anba Moussa repeats the same mistake. Here is his new video in an interview with a journalist from OnTV:

Here we have a strange praise of the Islamist president Mohammad Morsi, who is received with opposition not just from Copts but millions of liberal Muslims because of his policies that are anti-democratic, anti-women, anti-Copts, anti-freedoms and anti-human rights. Anba Moussa tells us, against all evidence, that “the Copts are not afraid of Islamic rule”; that “on the contrary, Islamic rule will be better for us than any other rule (it will warm us more, is the phrase he uses/حيدَفْدِفْ علينا أكتر)”.

How do you explain that? Is it ignorance? Is it naivety? Is it cowardice? I don’t know, but I think it is absolutely irresponsible for a senior Coptic Church figure to come up with such statements that are at odd with the mainstream views of the Coptic Church and with the Coptic public opinion at large.

One would like to believe that Anba Moussa is using a common tactic in Egyptian culture, of praising evil in hope of getting out some good out of it. Such tactic is whimsical and only a testament to how oppressive Egyptian society is. Those who use this tactic do not try to confront the root causes of oppression head on but hope to benefit from it through hypocrisy and the praise of that which could not possibly be praised.

One friend has suggested that it is Stockholm syndrome, and he is possibly right when one looks at its definition:

Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy, sympathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.

Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.” One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual’s response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they no longer become a threat.[2]

How can we avoid such statements? I think the Coptic Church needs to be better organised and learn from the Roman Catholic Church on this. There must be a spokesperson for the Church, and the Coptic Holy Synod needs to take a stronger position on formulating public statements and deciding who should say what.

This must not be regarded as an attack on His Grace, Anba Moussa, who is much loved by Copts, and is regarded as leading a saintly life, but a criticism, and a justified one, since his statements could be potentially injurious to the Coptic Church; to the Copts, both spiritually and politically; and to Egypt’s chances for a real democracy where Islam and the Islamists do not decide rights and wrongs.

While researching for an article on Christian late antique shrouds from Antinopolis (Antinoe), I stumbled upon a very captivating French documentary Le mystère des momies coptes d’Antinoé (The Mystery of the Coptic Mummies of Antinoe), which was produced by ARTE France, Cargo Films, in 2012, and directed by Jackie Bastide. The occasion was the opening of the Louvre new rooms that have been devoted to the Eastern Mediterranean in the Roman Empire.

At the end of the 19th century many mummies and a collection of Coptic textiles and delicate objects were discovered by the French Archaeologist Albert Gayet (1856 – 1916) at Antinoe, in Egypt. Antinoe (Antinopolis)[1] was an Egyptian city founded by the Roman Emperor Hadrian around 130 AD. It was called by the Copts Ansena. As Christianity spread in Egypt this city became mainly Christian and a famous cathedral was built in it. Emperor Diocletian, the great persecutor of the Copts, made Antinoe the capital of Upper Egypt, and the governor of that part used to reside there. Coptic martyriologies from that era mention Ansena several times as Christians were taken to the Upper Egyptian capital to stand trial before the court of the notorious Roman Governor Arianus. The city was a prosperous magnificent city that survived until the Arab invasion in the 7^th century when it went into oblivion.

When Gayet began his exploration in Antinoe’s necropolis in 1896, he recovered thousands[2] of mummies from different periods during the five hundred centuries life-time of the city, and collected hundreds of tapestry fragments and shrouds and other highly interesting objects. When he transported the mummies to Paris, they mesmerised Europe and America and created what was described as “Coptic Craze”. The Coptic textiles influenced artists such as Matisse and Renoir and inspired leading Paris fashion designers. But after a while the interest waned and Gayet’s discoveries were stored away and neglected. Today out of the thousands mummies only 39 have survived, dispersed in various French museums. This treasure is now the subject of a scientific study led by the Louvre.

Through the study of the mysterious treasure of Antinoe’s mummies and tapestries, the film studies history and architecture of the rich city, its people, early Egyptian Christianity, Coptic churches and monasteries in the area, Coptic burial customs and Coptic textiles – a fascinating civilisation rooted in ancient Egyptian civilisation and a continuation to it.

Unfortunately the documentary is not English subtitled. The reader can watch below first a trailer with English subtitles and then the whole 52 minutes French documentary:

Figure 1: Albert Gayet during his work at the Coptic necropolis in Antinopolis.

__________

ALBERT GAYET, THE FRENCH ARCHEOLOGIST OF ANTINOPOLIS CAUSED COPTOMANIA IN EUROPE AND AMERICA AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 2oth CENTURY WHEN HE EXIBITED HIS TREASURE OF COPTIC FINDINGS AT ANTINOPOLIS (ANTINOE), THE DESIGNATED POMEI OF EGYPT

__________

I have tried to find detailed biography of the French archeologist, Albert Gayet, who discovered the fascinating Coptic mummies and their attachments at the Coptic necropolis in Antinoplis (Antinoe/Coptic Ensena/ Sheikh ‘Ibada village now), which he started excavating since 1896. Unfortunately, I could not find any in the English language, not even on Wikipedia. The only biography I found on Wikipedia is in the French, which I pull my courage to translate to English for the benefit of my readers.[1] Albert Gayet is simply a very important figure in the study of Coptic culture and cannot be ignored – and his discoveries, which have not been studied properly, yet, are essential tool in rediscovering the brilliant Coptic civilisation. Thanks to the Louvre, Albert Gayet’s Coptic treasure, which caused Western Coptomania (Coptomanie) when it was exhibited at the beginning of the 20^th century, is being restudied using the most advanced research. One would hope it will reignite Western interest in our great, hitherto ignored civilisation.[2] At the end, I reproduce a paragraph from the Wikipedia’s article on Antinopolis,[3] in which there is some detail about Albert Gayet.

Albert Gayet (born in Dijon[4] on September 17, 1856 and died in Paris on May 9, 1916) was a French Egyptologist and director of excavations at Antinoe from 1895 to 1911.

His full name was Jean Philippe Marie Albert Gayet, son of Antoine Gayet, skins merchant, and Claudine Emélie Flessière.

When Augustus Mariette created in 1858 the Department of Egyptian Antiquities in Cairo, Egypt, Roman and Coptic objects were not on the list of his priorities. He accepted, however, sending Albert Gayet, who was then a young student and researcher with Gaston Maspero at the School of Advanced Studies, 300 miles south of Cairo to Antinoe, a city in Middle Egypt founded by the Roman Emperor Hadrian in 130AD. This mission was funded by Émile Guimet (1836-1918), a wealthy industrialist from Lyon, who was an archeology enthusiast, through the Chamber of Commerce of Lyon and the French Society of Archeological Excavations.

Antinoe, the Egyptian Pompei

For fifteen years Albert Gayet searched in the area, clearing the temple of Ramses II in 1896 and uncovering the Coptic necropolis, while Jean Clédat, another student of Maspero, discovered the monasteries of Saint John at Saqqara and Bawit in Middle Egypt. The two scientists rediscovered the beauty of Coptic art; and the most beautiful objects were shared between the Cairo Museum and the Louvre.

Coptomania in Europe

In 1902, Albert Gayet wrote the first book ever written on Coptic art. His enthusiasm induced the Russian Vladimir de Bock (1850-1899) to follow on his footsteps and study stelae, carved doorsand fabrics and brought them to the Pushkin Museum in Moscow and the State Hermitage in St. Petersburg. In 1900, the Coptic textiles were shown at the Universal Exhibition in Paris causing a real Coptomania (Coptomanie) in Europe. In the 1930s, the Venetian painter and fabrics designer, Mariano Fortuny Y Madrazo resurrected the Coptic patterns of embroidery and shape of garments.

Albert Gayet died at his home in Paris in 1916 and bequeathed his collections to his sister Mary. On the death of Miss Gayet in 1924, these collections were donated to the city of Dijon, and so the Musée des Beaux-Arts[5] in Dijon came to possess collections of Coptic textiles (450 pieces), fragments of clothing and woven and decorated linen.

A street has been named after him in Dijon.

Albert Gayet

Albert Gayet was known as the “archaeologist of Antinopolis” and without his extensive research and documentation of the site, very little would be known about this Greco-Roman city. Though there is much data of Antinopolis recorded from the Napoleon Commission, Albert Gayet’s report sheds a greater light on the ancient city. As Christianity began to spread through the Roman Empire, Antinopolis became a place of worship. Centuries after the city of Antinous was established by the Roman emperor, Christianity became the way of life. The city was home to many nuns and monks and sanctuaries were popping up everywhere. Many came to worship saints, such as Claudius and Colluthus, and monasteries were abundant (Donadoni, 1991). Albert Gayet’s findings confirm the widespread of Christianity. Gayet’s excavations have revealed mummies, grave goods, and thousands of fabrics at the site of Antinopolis and he uncovered a large cemetery, the burial place of numerous Coptic Christians. Mummification was prohibited by law in the fourth century A.D., therefore the remains of deceased Christians were dressed in tunics and swaddled with other textiles before being buried (Hoskins, 2007). Gayet’s findings give researchers a better understanding of early Christian burial practices and his preservation of artistic textiles found at the site show off the Coptic style that was evolving. The transformation of style, creating the Coptic style, was the canonical art of ancient Egypt infused with Classical and then Christian art (“Textiles,” 2003). The findings of Albert Gayet have provided researchers with great evidence of change throughout Antinopolis in the ancient world.

This post shows beautiful photos by Mary Yostos of a visit to the Monastery of St Mary and St Moses in Texas, US. The article use these photos to show how the Copts transfer their culture to the Diaspora with them; how Copts interact with each other, laity and clergy, women and men; how our sacred space is full of life; how the Copts lead happy lives full of fun within their sacred space.

The American Coptic photographer Mary Yostos has a rich and brilliant photostream. Recently, in January 2013, Mary with a group of Coptic youth from New York visited the Coptic monastery of St. Mary and St. Moses in Abbey Sandia, Texas, for a spiritual retreat, a matter which Copts, young and old, do regularly by visiting their spiritual centres in Egypt and in the Coptic Diaspora across the world. The photographs are artistic and speak for themselves. With the authorisation of Miss Yostos, I publish below some of these photographs(taken using NIKON D600) that show part of Coptia in America. For the reader who is not familiar with the term Coptic, please find detailed definition here and here; but I use the term Coptia in this article to mean specifically Coptic sacred space and Coptic communities wherever they are. The reader will find that the Copts, wherever they move, take with them their culture that centres on Coptic Christianity – a way of life that is rooted in the Coptic Church and its sacred space; where Copts in cities, towns and villages have a lovely relationship with their clergy and ascetics that is not authoritarian but is based on friendliness and trust and is full of fun and humour; where Christian saints, patriarchs, ascetics and martyrs are in direct relationship with ordinary Copts; and where the temporal is not separated from the spiritual world by a thick firmament.  In this Coptic way of life men and women are equal to each other and show each other mutual respect; they take equal pride in their history, culture, heritage and Church; and they participate in Church and community life where there is no oppression of women. These all form characteristic features of Coptia.

These beautiful pictures will hopefully show part of that life to the reader. One can look at this Texas monastery and church and see reflected in them the Egyptian Coptia – the Copts even build their sacred places in the Diaspora on the same architectural and decoration model. Here one can see Coptic domes, spirals, arched doors, crosses, icons, vestments, pews, ostrich eggs. Even palm trees are implanted to remind them of Egypt!

Enjoy the photos by scrolling down:

Figure 1: A rare photo from 1923 of the Coptic Cathedral in Khartoum (source unknown).

I would like to present my readers here with a rare photograph of the Coptic Cathedral of the Virgin St. Mary in Khartoum, Sudan. Unfortunately the photographer and publication are not known but the picture appeared on eBay recently, and gives the date of 1923 to the photo. The seller says the photo is an original 1923 black and white halftone print of “The Coptic Church at Khartum (Khartoum), in The Sudan in Africa”.[1]

Underneath the print is the comment:

Services at the Coptic Church at Khartum sometimes last five hours, while the worshippers stand barefooted on the cold floors. The Copts, direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, have been Christians since St. Mark preached at Alexandria.

This beautiful Coptic church was built after Sudan was reconquered by Britain in 1898. Copts resided in Sudan for a long time before that. When Muhammad Ali (1805 – 1948) conquered Sudan in 1821, he sent many Copts to Sudan to work as clerks and accountants in his administration. Many Copts from Upper Egypt were also trading with Sudan. The Coptic Pope Peter VII (1810 – 1852) ordained a bishop for the Sudan to look after the growing Coptic community. When the Islamic Mahdist revolution broke out in Sudan in 1881, Coptic churches in Sudan were sacked, many Copts were enslaved or killed, some were forced to convert to Islam, but some, including the bishop of the time, managed to escape to Egypt just before the Mahdi stormed Khartoum in 1885.

With the return of religious freedom to Sudan at the hands of the British, the Copts were quick in rebuilding their churches and on a bigger scale. Churches were constructed in Omdurman and Wadi Halfa (1900), Khartoum (1905), Ad Damir (1011), Khartoum North and El Obeid (1913).[2] Pope Cyril V (1874 – 1927) consecrated the St. Mary Coptic church in Khartoum; and the church became the residence of the Coptic bishop for Khartoum, South of Sudan and Uganda. Another bishop was ordained for Omdurman and Atbara.

This 1923 photo shows a beautiful architecture which combines both Coptic and English influences. I do not know who the architect was but he must have been the same architect who built the Gordon Memorial College (later Khartoum University) in 1902 as there are similar architectural features between the two.

The Coptic Cathedral in Khartoum still exists but although it still retains the same plan, its exterior, and possible interior, has experienced many changes, not to the better, one must say. The reader can see for himself the changes, which have affected not the building but the garden and surrounding structures, by examining this recent photo from 2009 by the Czech photographer, Petrus Adamus:[3]

 Figure 2: Holy Virgin Mary Coptic Orthodox Cathedral in Khartoum in 2009 (Photo by Petrus Adamus, Czech Republic).

UPDATE:

The photo of the Coptic Cathedral in Khartoum, I found, was actually taken by the American travel writer Frank G. Carpenter, who published it in 1923 in his book Cairo to Kisumu: Egypt-Sudan-Kenya Colony (published by the Garden City, New York, firm of Doubleday, Page & Company). You can learn about both Carpenter and his interesting book by reading my article THE COPTS IN FRANK G. CARPENTER’S CAIRO TO KISUMU here. The photograph was published in p. 179 of the book under the title “Where worshippers stand barefooted for hours”!

Figure 1: The writer on the great Aswan Dam “The dam serves also as a bridge over the Nile. I crossed on a car, my motive power being two Arab boys who trotted behind.”

Frank G. Carpenter (1855 – 1924) was an American traveller and photographer who toured the world and wrote several very interesting and popular series of books called Carpenter’s World Travels between 1915 and 1930. One of his much interesting books is Cairo to Kisumu: Egypt-Sudan-Kenya Colony, which was published in 1923 by the Garden City, New York, firm of Doubleday, Page & Company. The book is “not an account of a single journey, but a composite based on the notes Carpenter made on several trips to Africa over many years. Included are chapters on Egypt, Sudan, the Suez Canal, transport on the Red Sea, Aden (in present-day Yemen), the port of Mombasa, the Uganda Railway, Nairobi, big-game hunting, the British role in East Africa, and the African peoples, including the Kikuyu and the Masai.”[1] “Carpenter’s books reflected the prejudices and preconceptions of his day, but they brought knowledge of the wider world to many Americans.”[2] The book has recently been digitalised by the World Digital Library.

Figure 2: Frank G. Carpenter’s book: Cairo to Kisumu: Egypt-Sudan-Kenya Colony.

Cairo to Kisumu, which is all fascinating, has a few chapters which are relevant to the Copts. The reader may find these two chapters interesting:

CHAPTER XIII: The American College at Asyut (pp. 106 – 111).

CHAPTER IXX: The Christian Copts (pp. 112 – 116).

Some of Frank G. Gardner’s account on the Copts is defective and inaccurate but there are a few points which are good.

Here are some relevant photos (the reader may have already seen the photo of the Coptic Cathedral in Khartoum in our previous article “The Coptic Cathedral in Khartoum in 1923”):

Figure 3: The American College at Asyut. Asyut was a great Coptic centre at the time (p. 103).

Figure 4: Some of the students at the American College, most probably Copts. The College had many Copts but there were Muslim students too (p. 102).

Figure 5: More students at the American College (p. 103).

For a long time readers who are interested in Egyptology and Coptology have been waiting for a good online edition of Description of Egypt (Description de l’Egypte). Now, thanks to World Digital Library, a good digital edition has been made available (Description of Egypt has been digitalised before but this one surpasses all, in my opinion)! I simply put up links to the 21 volumes that form part of the Royal Edition that came out between 1821 and 1829. Once you clink on the link, it takes you to an introductory about the volume : to read the volume click on the icon « Open » under the picture on your left hand side. Enjoy !

• Description of Egypt: Antiquities, Volume One (Plates): Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army. Second Edition
• Description of Egypt: Antiquities, Volume Two (Plates): Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army. Second Edition
• Description of Egypt: Antiquities, Volume Three (Plates): Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army. Second Edition
• Description of Egypt: Antiquities, Volume Four (Plates): Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army. Second Edition
• Description of Egypt: Antiquities, Volume Five (Plates): Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army. Second Edition

•  Description of Egypt: Atlas of Egypt and Parts of Bordering Lands (Plates): Created During the Expedition of the French Army

• Description of Egypt: Modern State, Volume One (Plates): Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army. Second Edition
• Description of Egypt: Modern State, Volume Two (Plates): Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army. Second Edition

• Description of Egypt: Natural History, Volume One (Plates): Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army. Second Edition
• Description of Egypt: Natural History, Volume Two (Plates): Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army. Second Edition
• Description of Egypt: Natural History, Volume Two (Additional) (Plates): Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army. Second Edition

• Description of Egypt: Antiquities, Descriptions, Volume One: Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army
• Description of Egypt: Antiquities, Descriptions, Volume Two: Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army

• Description of Egypt: Antiquities, Essays, Volume One: Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army
• Description of Egypt: Antiquities, Essays, Volume Two: Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army

• Description of Egypt: Modern State, Volume One: Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army
• Description of Egypt: Modern State, Volume Two: Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army
• Description of Egypt: Modern State, Volume Two (Additional): Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army

• Description of Egypt: Natural History, Volume One: Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army
• Description of Egypt: Natural History, Volume Two: Or, Collection of Observations and Research Conducted in Egypt During the Expedition of the French Army

• Description of Egypt: Index: Followed by a Bibliography on Bonaparte’s French Expedition

__________

The name of our 118^th Coptic Patriarch should, in our opinion, be written as “تاودوروس” in Arabic and as “Tawudoros” in English, and not as “تاوضروس” or “Tawadros”.

__________

 On 18 November 2012 Tawadros II was consecrated at St. Mark Coptic Cathedral in Cairo to become the 118^th Coptic Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St, Mark. In the Coptic Church his name has been written in Arabic as تاوضروس while in English it is written as Tawadros. Since the election of Pope Tawadros II, a fortnight before his ordaining, several, inside and outside Egypt, have wondered about the etymology and history of his name in the Coptic Church.

The Coptic Church has known the name amongst its patriarchs when Pope Tawadros I (730 – 742) was consecrated 45^th Coptic Patriarch during Egypt’s Umayyad Period (658 – 750). B. Evetts[1] who translated the Arabic version of Ta’rikh Batarikat al-Kanisah al-Misriyah as History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria in the early 20^th century,[2] gives this Pope the name Theodore. The Arabic manuscript from which he made his translation gives the name as تاودوروس, which can be transliterated to Tawudoros.  So, what is the origin of the name and why is it written differently in Arabic, once as تاودوروس and another as تاوضروس? Which is better and more accurate? And why should the English transliteration not be Tawudoros, which seems to be more accurate, rather than Tawadros?

It is important to remember that Ta’rikh Batarikat al-Kanisah al-Misriyah was not written originally in Arabic language but in Greek and Coptic. It was translated in the Middle Ages from Coptic to Arabic between 1088 and 1094 by Mawhub ibn Muffarij et al,[3] as a result of increasing the Arabisation of the Copts.[4] Before that Copts spoke and wrote Coptic and Greek. B. Evetts is right in rendering the name تاودوروس into Theodore for this is indeed the English version of the Greek and Coptic name which the 45^th Coptic patriarch carried.

Unlike the very Egyptian name Shenouda,[5] which Pope Shenouda III (1971 – 2012) carried,[6] the name of Pope Tawadros II is originally Greek Θεοδωρος (Latinised, Theodoros). It is a name from ancient Greece[7] and means “gift of god” from Greek Θεός (theos) “god” and δωρον (doron) “gift”. This name spread in Egypt after Alexander the Great conquered Egypt in 332 BC. One of the most revered equestrian (warrior) saints by the Copts is St. Theodore,[8] who has many churches in Egypt bearing his name, and many wall paintings and icons depict him. When the Arab invaded Egypt in 640 AD, the Imperial army was led by General Theodore.[9]

In order to study the different forms under which the Greek name Θεοδωρος appeared in Coptic, and also the equivalent Arabic forms (with English transliteration), which help to reveal the phonetics and phonology of the Bohairic dialect, one cannot find better than the study by Emile Maher Ishak in his D.Phil thesis “The phonetics and phonology of the Bohairic dialect of Coptic and the survival of Coptic words in the colloquial and Classical Arabic of Egypt and of Coptic grammatical constructions in colloquial Egyptian Arabic”[10]

Figure 1: From p. 438 of Emile Maher Ishak’s invaluable D.Phil thesis.

One can see the different forms of the name in Coptic and the confusion which the equivalent Arabic forms, for each Coptic form, have cast on the right pronunciation of Coptic. This matter is further complicated by the conflict between those who support what is called the Old Bohairic Pronunciation, such as Emile Maher Ishak, and the Reformed Pronunciation (Greco-Bohairic or Neo-Bohairic), which was introduced into the Coptic Church since the 1850s.

It seems that the commonest form used in Coptic manuscript is Θεοδωρος, which is similar to the Greek spelling. We can see from the excerpt from Emile Maher Ishak’s thesis that eight Arabic forms exist in manuscripts where Arabic transliteration is given to the Coptic name, including تاودوروس and تاوضروس . Nonetheless, it seems that the commonest transliteration into Arabic is تاودوروس, which the Arabic text of the History of the Patriarchs agrees with.

I, therefore, think that our new Pope’s name “Θεοδωρος” should be written in English as “Tawudoros” and in Arabic as “تاودوروس”, for this is most probably how we pronounced it, not as Theodoros (as Greeks had it)[11] or Tawadros or تاوضروس (as is a corrupt and inaccurate pronunciation). The Arabic letter “ض (Ḍād)” is specifically foreign to Coptic language,[12] and sounds odd being used in names of Greek and Coptic origin.