LORD CROMER ON THE COPTS I: ON THE RELIGION AND MANNERS OF THE COPTS

Lord Cromer (1841 – 1917)

Lord Cromer (1841 – 1917) was a British politician and colonial administrator. He was the 1^st Consul-General of Egypt in Egypt (1883 – 1907) after the British Occupation in 1882. In 1908, he published his book, Modern Egypt, and he allocated Chapter XXXVI to the Christians of Egypt, in which he spoke mainly about the Copts, but also about the Syrians and Armenians in Egypt.[1] Lord Cromer was not a friend of the Copts: he looked at the Copts as Orientals, and his views can be seen as those of supremacist as those of many in Victorian Britain. We shall discuss his prejudiced views in three parts:

1. Lord Cromer on the religion and manners of the Copts;
2. Lord Cromer on the character of the Copts;
3. Lord Cromer on the attitude of the Copts towards the “English reformer”.

Cromer starts his talk about the Copts in the following way:

The Egyptian native Christians may be divided into three categories, viz. (1) the Copts; (2) the Syrians; and (3) the Armenians. Of these, the most important in point of numbers are the Copts. The census of 1897 showed that there were at that time 608,000 Copts in Egypt. Of these, some few are Catholics and some Protestants, but by far the greater number belong to what is termed the Orthodox Church.[2]

Taking the Coptic Church as an Eastern Church, he describes it as a fossilised church inferior to Western churches, particularly that of the Protestant variety:

Beyond mentioning that the Orthodox Copts are Monophysites, and that they separated from the main body of the Christian Church subsequent to the Council of Chalcedon in a.d. 451, it is needless to dwell on the special tenets of the Coptic creed. One point in connection with the religion of the Copts should, however, be mentioned, inasmuch as it is intimately connected with an understanding of the general characteristics of the Coptic community. The Christianity of the Copt has been as conservative as the Islamism of the Moslem. “The Eastern Church,” Dean Stanley says, “was, like the East, stationary and immutable; the Western, like the West, progressive and flexible. . . . The theology of the East has undergone no systematising process. The doctrines remain in the same rigid yet undefined state as that in which they were left by Constantine and Justinian.” If a religious belief cannot adapt itself to the requirements which are constantly cropping up as the world grows older, one of two things will probably happen. Either society advances and the religious belief is stranded and eventually forgotten, or the creed holds society in its grip and bars the way to advancement. It is the proud boast of the Christian religion, and more especially of the Protestant variety of that religion, that it is not obliged to choose between either of these alternatives. It possesses sufficient elasticity to adapt itself to modern requirements.[3]

The Dean Stanley he quotes (he does not provide a reference) is Arthur Penrhyn Stanly (1815 – 1881), who was Dean of Westminster from 1864 to 1881, and had visited Egypt in 1852-1853 and again in 1862. He delivered lectures on the Eastern Church in 1861, and were later published in 1910 in Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church.[4] I have reason to think that Cromer did not understand properly what Dean Stanley had to say. The Dean in his Lecture I: The Eastern Church, writes about “the characteristics which, more or less, are common to all the parts [of the Eastern Churches] alike, and which distinguish them all from the portion of Christendom to which we ourselves belong, whether we give it the narrower name of the Latin, or the truer and more comprehensive title of the Western Church.”[5]  He mentions seven differences between the two groups of Christendom; and under the characteristic, being stationary and immutable, from which Cromer takes his quote, Stanley talks about things like the primitive posture of standing in prayer, the lack of organs and musical instruments, the Jewish ordinances in the Ethiopian Church, the retention of the Julian calendar (in the Coptic Church this would be the Coptic calendar), baptism by immersion, the anointing of the sick with sacred oil, and the offering of the Eucharist to infants. On mentioning these differences, Stanley actually does not denigrate the Eastern Churches, the Coptic Church included, but just shows differences that the “peculiar genius of each of the two Churches [Eastern and Western] displayed itself”.[6] On the administration of the Eucharist to children, for instance, he says: “The Oriental Churches, in conformity with ancient usage, still administer the Eucharist to children. In the Coptic Church it may even happen that an infant is the only recipient. The Latin Church, on the other hand, in deference to modern feeling, has not only abandoned, but actually forbidden, a practice which, as far as antiquity is concerned, might insist on unconditional retention.”[7] Again, on the baptism by immersion, which is followed in Eastern Churches, including the Coptic, “The Latin Church, on the other hand, doubtless in deference to the requirements of a northern climate, to the change of manners, to the convenience of custom, has wholly altered the mode, preferring, as it would fairly say, mercy to sacrifice; and (with the two exceptions of the cathedral of Milan, and the sect of the Baptists) a few drops of water are now the Western substitute for the threefold plunge into the rushing rivers or the wide baptisteries of the East.”[8] Hence, even some Westerners, who are presumably not stationary or immutable, do follow the custom of the Coptic Church; and those who preferred the sprinkling of water at baptism do that mainly “in deference to that requirements of the northern climate”. Well, the Coptic Church does not have the same challenge, since the hot or warm climate its followers live in does not expose the children or adults to the cold bite. There was no good reason for the Copts to abandon a tradition which they received from St. Mark the Evangelist just to be seen as “elastic”.

Cromer seizes on Stanley’s observations to denigrate the Copts, and uses Stanley’s words to expand on his own agenda, implying matters that Stanley never intended. And his agenda is to portray the Copts as rigid, backward and barbarian in all walks of life: their stagnation, their immutability, he says, in a contradictory note, is not due to their religion but to the fact that they are, a. Oriental (here we are close to a racial theory), and b. because their religion, which allows progress, is surrounded by associations that are antagonistic to progress:

It is true that the Coptic Christian has remained stagnant, but there is this notable difference between the stagnation of the Moslem and that of the Copt. The Moslem stands in everything on the ancient ways because he is a Moslem, because the customs which are interwoven with his religion, forbid him to change. “Swathed in the bands of the Koran, the Moslem faith, unlike the Christian, is powerless to adapt itself to varying time and place, keep pace with the march of humanity, direct and purify the social life, or elevate mankind.”[9] The Copt, on the other hand, has remained immutable, or nearly so, not because he is a Copt, but because he is an Oriental, and because his religion, which admits of progress, has been surrounded by associations antagonistic to progress. In the case of the Copt, it is not necessary, as in that of the Moslem, to strike off any religious shackles before he can proceed along the path of political and social advancement. The reformer in temporal matters does not at every turn find himself face to face with the priest, who in the name of religion or religious custom bars the way to progress. From the point of view of principle, the difference is immense. From the point of view of practice, the difference has so far been slight.[10]

What are these associations that surround the Copts’ religion which are antagonistic to progress?

In spite of his religion which, as the history of the world has shown, admits of progress, the Copt has been arrested by barriers very similar to those which have applied in the case of the Moslem. It is, indeed, natural that such should have been the case. The minority must of necessity submit to the influence of the majority. In India, the Moslems have to a certain extent become Brahminised. In spite of the unbending tenets of their creed, custom and association have been too strong for them. The Hindoos, being in a majority of five to one, have copied nothing from the Moslems. The Moslems, on the other hand, have insensibly assimilated certain Hindoo ideas, notably the idea of caste. The Indian Moslem will not eat with the Christian, although there is nothing in his religious code which forbids him to do so, and although his brother -Moslem, who is not exposed to Hindoo association, does so willingly. The same principle has applied in the case of the Egyptian Copts. The Moslem has in no way become Christianised. The Copt, on the other hand, has, without knowing it, assimilated himself to the Moslem.[11]

Even though Cromer understands the force of assimilation that works on suppressed peoples by occupiers who have all political, economic and social power in their hands, and that “minorities must by necessity submit to the influence of the majority”, his understanding is bereft of sympathy, and as an imperialist who sees himself separate, and above, Orientals, who are all to him uncivilised and inferior, he paints the Copts with a cruel brush quoting C. B. Klunzinger (1834 – 1914):

 “The modern Copt has become from head to foot, in manners, language, and spirit, a Moslem, however unwilling he may be to recognise the fact.”[12]

Then he immediately adds:

Coptic women are almost as secluded as Moslems. Coptic children are generally circumcised. The marriage customs and funeral ceremonies of the Copts are very similar to those of Moslems.[13]

This decides the fate of the Copts – they are uncivilised. One wonders what any other people, including the British, would have done had they been in our circumstances of relentless oppression and persecution. Yes, the Copts have assimilated to the Muslim society to protect themselves: they wore like them, secluded their children so as not to be molested on the streets, circumcised their children, and follow other customs of the Muslim dominated country. Cromer must have known that the Copts were even at his time of writing were already abandoning some of the customs that they had taken from the Muslims to avoid persecution. But, even though much has changed since 1908, some aspects of assimilation still linger: We don’t like it, we hate it, and we work against it. And we would appreciate others who have not been in our boots, if they can’t sympathise with us and understand our suffering, at least not to condemn us.

_________________________

[1] The Earl of Cromer, Modern Egypt, Volume 2 (London, 1908), Chapter XXXVI. The reader can find the section about the Copts in pp. 201-213.

[2] Ibid, p. 201.

[3] Ibid. pp. 201-2.

[4] Arthur Penrhyn Stanley. Lectures on the History of the Easter Church (London, 1910).

[5] Ibid, p. 70.

[6] Ibid, p. 79.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid, pp. 77-8.

[9] A quote which Cromer takes from The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline, and Fall by Sir William Muir (London, 1891), p. 594.

[10] Modern Egypt, pp. 202-3.

[11] Ibid, p. 203.

[12] Ibid. The quote is from: Karl Benjamin Klunzinger: Upper Egypt: its people and its products: a descriptive account of the manners, customs, superstitions, and occupations of the people of the Nile Valley, the desert, and the Red Sea coast; with sketches of the natural history and geology (New York, 1878), p. 89.

[13] Ibid.