After Cromer has assailed the Coptic religion, manners and character, which I have talked about in Part I and Part II of this series, he goes on to continue his anti-Coptic tripe. In this article I shall focus on what Cromer has to say about the interaction of the Copts with what he describes as the British reformer.
Cromer asks the question: “What, however, was the attitude of the Copts towards the English reformer?” and tells us that the question is of “some interest and importance”:
… for although the Englishman, strong in the righteousness of his cause, was confident of the ultimate result, at the same time, looking to all the obstacles in his path, to the inertia of the mass of the population whom he wished to befriend, and to the activity of various hostile elements of Egyptian society, who would assuredly never cease from harrying him, he would have been glad to welcome the most humble allies. And where would the Englishman more probably find allies than amongst a body of persons who were bound to him by a general community of religion, who had suffered from the oppression of the Moslem and notably from that of the Moslem Pasha, and who possessed various humble aptitudes, which it would be in the interest of the Englishman to turn to account, and in that of the Copt to display to the best advantage in the presence of the Englishman?[1]
The English were strong enough not to require allies in Egypt, Cromer says, but in view of the obstacles on their path, they “would have been glad to welcome the most humble allies (the Copts)”, for the Copts share with the English in one religion; they had suffered oppression by the Muslims; and because of their humble attitudes. But allies they were not for they were “animated by no very friendly feelings towards the English reformer.” It is the Copts – parts of the “illogical East” – who have to be blamed for
The premises of this argument [of the naturalness of an alliance between the Copts and English] were seemingly correct; the inference was plausible; but, as we are dealing with the illogical East, we need not be surprised to find that it was erroneous. For, in fact, the Copt was, in the first instance at all events, animated by no very friendly feelings towards the English reformer.[2]
Cromer is really being unfair. I do not accept that the Copts were anti-British, particularly following the Arabi Revolt in 1882, which was accompanied by anti-Christian propaganda and attacks, and then the resumption of peace, security and stability by the British Occupation. Cromer tries to defend his unfair characterisation of the Copts as being illogically anti-British by using two examples.
In the first example he tries to portray the Copts as expecting the English to give them unfair preferential treatment at the expense of the Muslims of Egypt because of the community of religion that unites them with the English:
The principles of strict impartiality on which the Englishman proceeded were foreign to the nature of the Copt. When the British occupation took place, certain hopes began to dawn in his mind. I, said the Copt to himself, am a Christian; if I had the power to do so, I would favour Christians at the expense of Moslems; the English are Christians; therefore — and it was here that the Copt was guilty of a sad ignoratio elenchi — as the English have the power, they will assuredly favour Christians at the expense of Moslems. When the Copt found that this process of reasoning was fallacious, and that the conduct of the Englishman was guided by motives which he had left out of account, and which he could not understand, he was disappointed, and his disappointment deepened into resentment. He thought that the Englishman’s justice to the Moslem involved injustice to himself, for he was apt, perhaps unconsciously, to hold that injustice and absence of favouritism to Copts were well-nigh synonymous terms.[3]
The Copt did not show resentment to the English for the latter showing justice to the Muslim but for showing no justice to the Copt. All the Copt wanted was to be treated with understanding, dignity and some sympathy, and to be treated no less than Muslims were treated – to have no less rights than Muslims had. But the Copt only found Cromer’s racial and anti-Coptic attitude, and many in his administration followed his example: The English saw that the Copts were despised minority, powerless , seen by the Muslims as kaffir; and the Englishman was keen not to associate himself with a despised minority, or to be seen as favouring it on account of their shared religion. The Copts were actually seen by Cromer as a liability – he was keen to distance himself and the Occupation from them in order to avoid raising the suspicions and animosity of the Muslims in Egypt. And that position often prevented the administration from delivering justice to the Copts. Having considered the Copts as a powerless and weak minority – their share with the English in one religion being a liability to the latter rather than as a ground for alliance – the English naturally took care not to upset the more powerful Muslims of Egypt, who formed the majority of the population, by allying themselves to the Copts.
In view of their lack of political power and the liability they confer on association with them, the Copts must not be seen as associated in any way with the English: they could, however, be made use of sometimes. Cromer acknowledges the usefulness of the Copts in keeping the accounts of the administration, and sees the Coptic system of accounts has served the purposes of the preceding administrations for over 1200 years. Cromer was right to say that it was archaic and that it was difficult to be understood except by the Copts. He was also right that it did not serve the purposes of a modern state. However, the way Cromer went about to address this problem was wrong and lacking in understanding. And here we come to the second example he uses to show how the Copts were illogically unfriendly to the British reformer:
The Copt, moreover, had another cause of complaint against the English reformer. Not only was he disappointed that no special favours were accorded to him, but he saw with dismay that, under British auspices, he was in danger of being supplanted by his rival, the Syrian Christian.
When the English took Egyptian affairs in hand, the accountants in the employment of the Egyptian Government were almost exclusively Copts. Their system of accounts was archaic. Moreover, it was well-nigh incomprehensible to any but themselves. All tendencies in the direction of reform were resisted, partly from conservatism, and partly from instincts of self-preservation, for it was clear that if the system were simplified to such an extent as to be comprehensible to the uninitiated, the monopoly, which the Copts had heretofore enjoyed, would be endangered. Finding that he could not untie the knot, the Englishman, with characteristic energy, cut it. The Coptic system of accounts had manifestly to be abolished, and as the Copts either could not or would not assist in the work of abolition, they had to give way to other agents. In the early days of the English occupation a good many Syrians, therefore, took the places of Copts. The reform was necessary, but it naturally caused much dissatisfaction amongst the Coptic community.[4]
The Coptic reaction to the project to modernise the system of accounting was understandable in my opinion. It threatened, to say by the way Cromer went about it, their livelihood and whatever power and prestige the Copts had in Egypt. What was not understandable is the way Cromer went about his project: he took no notice of the Coptic accountants’ welfare and could not understand the apprehensions of these “unworthy Orientals”. Let us compare what he did with what Patriarch Cyril IV (1854 – 1861) had done before him (by the way, Cromer never mentions Cyril IV or his great works): Cyril IV modernised Coptic education. Before his patriarchate, Coptic children were educated in kuttabs (archaic, traditional primary schools) where they learned some arithmetic, Coptic, Arabic and the Psalms together with some prayers. The pupils were taught by poorly educated ‘uraffa (traditional teachers). Cyril IV was resolved to change that, and to build modern schools for boys and girls, getting them to learn modern subjects together with the old ones that were taught by trained teachers. The ‘Uraffa posed resistance, but Cyril IV did not dismiss them: he appointed them in the schools as assistants and encouraged them to raise their educational standards.
Cromer did nothing of the kind; and with the slightest opposition from Coptic accountants, he treated them with a heavy hand. Cromer’s answer was to place the Catholic Syrians, who were recent immigrants to Egypt, in place of the native Copts who had held most of the accounting positions in Egypt for thousands of years, and used a system that endured for a long time and served the purposes of successive dynasties and governments very well. Cromer was of the opinion that the Syrian, though, “equally with the Copt, has to a certain extent developed ‘the vices of servitude’”, stood “on a distinctly high level.” The Syrian, in Cromer’s opinion was probably superior to the Copt.[5] Appointing the Syrian, whom he preferred, in place of the Copt, was his “cutting of the knot”.
The Copts, as Cromer tells us, despite their opposition, were not overtly unfriendly to the English, and resorted, instead, to intrigue: the Copt, he says, is “an accomplished trimmer”[6]. He does not tell us how they intrigued, though:
The English, therefore, found that the Copts were, during the early days of the occupation, generally unfriendly, but they did not show their unfriendliness in any very overt form, for there is one quality in which the Copt excelled. He was an accomplished trimmer. He wished to pose both as Anglophobe and as an Anglophile according to the requirements of his audience, and according to the part which for the moment appeared to be most in harmony with his personal interests. His remarkable powers of intrigue, which were developed in the days of Moslem oppression, here came to his assistance.[7]
The Copts, nonetheless, as Cromer himself admits, were up to the challenge:
I should add that, as the occupation was prolonged, the benefits derived from the British administration of Egypt were gradually more and more recognised by the Copts.
They began to understand that they had to rely mainly on their own efforts, and those efforts were often crowned with success. Many of the Copts now in the Government service are very capable men. A Copt of marked ability (Boutros Pasha Ghali[8]) has occupied for a long time, and with great credit to himself, the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs.[9]
Cromer observes the changes in the Coptic community by the Coptic youth who called for reform. He attributes this change to education provided by the schools of the American missionaries, completely ignoring the effect of the modern primary and secondary schools that had been established by the Copts themselves in the 1850s, and which had the maximum effect on raising Coptic educational standards:
Before leaving this branch of the subject, it should be mentioned that for many years past a large number of Copts have been educated in the excellent schools established throughout Egypt by the American missionaries. Many of the younger generation speak English, and show a tendency to develop moral and intellectual qualities greatly superior to those of their fathers, to whom the description given above mainly applies. This process of education has produced its natural result.
The young Copts see that, unless they wish to be left behind in the race of life, they must bestir themselves. Once having eaten of the tree of knowledge, they begin to recognise the decrepitude of their antique hierarchical and educational systems, and they are stimulated in the acquirement of this knowledge by the fact that the Syrian, by reason of his superior intellectual attainments, is taking away the birthright of the Copts. The young Copt, starting with Christianity developed by Western education in his favour, has sufficient versatility to draw from this fact the conclusion at which the slow-thinking Moslem, weighted by his leaden creed, arrives more tardily. If I am to outstrip the Syrian, the young Copt says, it is of no use simply cursing him; I must abandon my ancient ways, and strive to be his equal. So a movement has been developed, the object of which is to apply Coptic religious endowments to useful purposes; to question the necessity of devoting funds, drawn from the general body of the community, exclusively to the maintenance of a number of priestly sinecures ; to establish seminaries, where those who wish to enter holy orders may learn something more than how to mumble a few set formulae expressed in an archaic language, which has been dead for the last two centuries; to devote any surplus funds to secular education; and, generally, to instill life into a body which has been stagnant since its earliest creation. The movement naturally meets with resistance from the hierarchy. At first, it appeared as if this resistance would be at once overcome. The crisis happened to take place at the moment when Abbas II[10] succeeded to Tewfik I[11]. An enlightened Prime Minister (Mustapha Pasha Fehmi[12]), acting in general conformity with English ideas, favoured the views of the Coptic reformers. The Coptic Patriarch[13], who was the incarnation of the most stolid form of conservatism, was sent to one of those desert monasteries, where in the early days of Christianity the misguided anchorites of Egypt tortured their bodies in the belief that they were doing God service. But a turn in the political wheel brought about a different order of things. Riaz Pasha[14], who was a conservative Moslem, succeeded to power. Moslem opinion was adverse to the cause of the Coptic reformers. This opposition was based on two grounds. In the first place, the staid Moslem was shocked at rebellion against legitimate hierarchical authority, neither did he care to inquire whether that authority was wisely or unwisely exercised. In the second place, the Moslem, conscious of his own defects, was alarmed at the appearance of a new rival in the shape of a Coptic progressionist. These influences being in the ascendant, the Patriarch was recalled from his eremitic retreat.[15]
Above, Cromer describes the conflict between what are called Coptic Reformers and the Patriarch Cyril V (1892 – 1914). Both wanted to serve the nation, but the conflict, which rested on who would control Coptic endowments and other ecclesiastical funds, resulted in sad and bitter disagreements and extreme actions by some of the Reformers, who unwisely used the British and Muslim authorities to achieve their ends. The British authority – that’s Cromer’s – was encouraging the “Reformers” behind the scenes to be aggressive towards the Coptic Church’s Head. We cannot really believe that the “British diplomatist” stood neutral in the issue:
The British diplomatist, who alone could have prevented this consummation, stood aside. However much he might sympathise with the cause of Coptic reform, his worldly knowledge told him that he would act unwisely in thrusting himself into the midst of a quarrel between the temporal and spiritual authorities of a creed which was not his own.[16]
At the end, we must note that Cromer never helped any Coptic institution, whether schools, libraries, churches, charities, or else, neither financially nor morally, such as by paying visits to them or praising their efforts. Cromer, who pretends to be interested in Coptic progress, stood aloof and distant. In fact, he couldn’t care less.
__________________________
[1] Cromer, The Earl of., Modern Egypt, Volume 2 (New York: Macmillan, 1908), pp. 208-9.
[2] Ibid, p. 209.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid, pp. 209-10.
[5] Ibid, p. 629.
[6] A trimmer is a person who adapts their views to the prevailing political trends for personal advancement – Oxford Dictionary of English.
[7] Modern Egypt, p. 210.
[8] When Cromer wrote his book in 1908, Boutros Pasha Ghali had been in the post of Foreign Minster since 1894. Before that he served as Finance Minister in 1893. Ghali was to become Prime Minster in 1908. He held that post until he was assassinated in 1910.
[9] Modern Egypt, pp. 210-11.
[10] Khedive Abbas II (1892 – 1914).
[11] Khedive Tawfik (1879 – 1892).
[12] He was Prime Minster twice: 1891 – 1893 and 1893 – 1908. Cromer refers to his first premiership.
[13] Cromer means Patriarch Cyril V (1874 – 1927).
[14] He was thrice Prime Minster: 1879 – 1881, 1888 – 1891 and 1893 – 1894). Cromer means his third premiership.
[15] Modern Egypt, pp. 211-13.
[16] Ibid, p. 213.