Alfred J. Butler, Egypt, and the Copts, Part II: The Arab Conquest and its Sequels

I'm on vacation. As I have done each year, I have prepared a number of posts on historical and cultural subjects unlikely to be overtaken by events, with at least one appearing daily. Part I of this post appeared Thursday and I had intended for this part to appear Friday, but was delayed.

A.J. Butler

Having introduced A.J. Butler in Part I, and discussed his works on Coptic churches and practices, I want to turn today to the works for which he is best known: his 1902 study of the Arab Conquest of Egypt, and two sequels in which he followed up on the original as new sources became available.

The period of the Arab Conquests of the Middle East in the early Islamic period has notoriously created challenges for historians. Traditional Arab historiography derived its fundamental methodology from hadith criticism, the method devised to determine the practices of the Prophet Muhammad through anecdotal evidence (hadith) documented by a chain of transmission (isnad) of the form "I heard from so-and-so who was taught by so-and-so who heard it from his uncle so-and-so who heard it from the Prophet in person." Recognizing that transmitters might invent these chains, scholars known as mutahaddithun studied biographies and other data to determine if each link in the chain held up (Were they alive at the same time? Were they ever in he same place?) Many modern critics have raised doubts about the method, but Arab historians expanded it to documenting the early years of the faith. Though most of our systematic Arab history dates from a later period, the second and third centuries AH, the traditional chains offer a far more textured and detailed account than is available for, say, Western Europe in the same era.

The problem is that, when an Arab historian encountered seemingly inconsistent or contradictory versions, he simply listed them both, even if they muddled the chronology or the narrative. For the conquest period, the standard and massive work of al-Tabari follows at least two distinct traditional lines (each with their own internal variations). For the conquest of Syria-Palestine, the chronology and command structure and even the dates of battles is very muddled. Nineteenth-century Orientalist scholars such as Michael Jan de Goeje in Mémoire sur la Conquête de la Syrie and Prince Leone Caetani in his meticulous Annali dell'Islam hammered out a sort of "received version" of the chronology and sequence of events, that dominated Western scholarship and influenced Arab scholars,and still does, though these were not the only possible choices. Modern scholars such as Fred Donner, Hugh Kennedy, and the Byzantinist Walter Kaegi (and many others) have challenged some of the conventional account and elaborated upon it.

There is an exception. Most of these modern reworkings either stop before the conquest of Egypt, or generally follow the broad interpretation put forth by Butler between 1902 and 1914.

His major work, The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the Last Thirty Years of the Roman Dominion, appeared  in 1902, the same year Butler received his Ph.D. (Google books version; various other formats at Internet Archive here.) (Let me add that while the full original edition is available digitally online for free, there is a 1978 Second Edition from Cambridge University Press which collects the book and its two sequels and adds an Introduction and extensive "Additional Bibliography" by P.M. Fraser to bring the state of research down to the 1970s.)


That the book is still of value may seem somewhat surprising, since Butler wrote it without access to some of the key sources. He had seen only parts of Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam's Kitab Futuh Misr, the earliest and fullest Muslim work on the subject, and judged that it contained "a good deal romance mingled with history." While that may hold true for the section on the Maghreb and Spain, Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam came from a long line of Egyptian mutahddithun and thus was in possession of solid traditions dating from long before his own ninth century. Butler also lacked a full text of Tabari's massive universal history..

He did recognize that the Christian sources were much earlier than the Muslims', and made full use of the Chronicle of John of Nikiu, who wrote in the late seventh century and my have been a boy at the time of the conquests. (John's Chronicle can be found online here.) 

In the 1902 book, however, Butler made a blunder concerning the value of the other key early source, The History of the Patriarchs. Although seemingly aware of the work he was misled by the attribution to Sawirus (Severus) of Ashmunayn and referred to it as a 10th century work. In fact, Severus was merely the compiler of earlier biographies, and that of the Patriarch Benjamin at the time of the Conquest was written by one George the Archdeacon, who flourished in the late 7th century and may also have been a boy at the time of the Conquest; in any event, he would have been able to speak to eyewitnesses. The section of the History of Patriarchs dealing with the period can be found in Patrologia Orientalis Vol. I, fasc. 4 in Arabic and B.T.A. Evetts' English translation (Google Books version here; various formats from Internet Archive here; English text only here).

Despite missing some key sources, Butler was able to offer a chronology of the conquest which still stands, and to put forward an interpretation of the figure known in the Arabic sources as "al-Muqawqis," identified by Butler as the Chalcedonian Patriarch Cyrus. Both of these interpretations still largely stand, though there have always been dissenters on the identification of al-Muqawqis. Still, most scholars accept Butler's view as largely correct. (Al-Muqawqis may be a post for another day.)

As Fraser points out in the 1978 edition and Additional Bibliography, the earlier parts of Butler, on Late Byzantine Egypt and the Persian  occupation, do not hold up as well due to new sources, and the discovery of administrative papyri from the early Islamic period also renders his account of administration outdated. But the basic conquest narrative still largely stands, especially if read with Butler's two subsequent monographs.

For in fact Butler soon gained access to the sources he had missed, and wrote two updates, now usually reprinted together with The Arab Conquest. These were his 1913 The Treaty of Misr in Tabari: An Essay in Historical Criticism (various formats at Internet Archive) and his 1914 Babylon of Egypt: A Study in the History of Old Cairo (various formats at Internet Archive). The three works together remain the essential starting point for any historical research on the conquest period.

Alfred J. Butler, Egypt, and the Copts: Part I

I'm on vacation. As I have done each year, I have prepared a number of posts on historical and cultural subjects unlikely to be overtaken by events, with at least one appearing daily.

Alfred Joshua Butler (1850-1936) seems, at first glance, a typical donnish sort of 19th century Englishman. He certainly looked the part (photo at left) and his Who's Who entry (below) seems stereotypical: son of an Anglican clergyman, "the late Rev. A.S Butler, Rector of Markfield, Leicestershire"; married "1882, Constance Mary, d[aughter] of Col. Heywood, of Ocle Court, Herefordshire"; Scholar of Trinity College, Oxford; Fellow of the wonderfully-named Brasenose College at Oxford, Visitor of the Ashmolean museum, winner of poetry and other prizes, and of course, "Recreations: shooting, fishing, boating, whist, chess. Club: Royal Societies." Just your typical late Victorian and Edwardian donnish dilettante scholar, at first glance.

And then you notice, "Tutor to the Khedive of Egypt, 1879-81," and the string of publications that followed. For in fact, Butler was a pioneering Orientalist in the study of Egypt, with two main and overlapping specializations: the Coptic Church, its history and its ancient churches and monasteries, and the period of the Arab Conquest of Egypt. More than a century after the publication of most of his major works, they are still of value, and none can be said to have been completely superseded despite  a century of subsequent research.

His works on the Copts earned him his own entry in The Coptic Encyclopedia.

This blog  has often provided profiles of those who have made contributions to the study of Egypt, from Egyptians like ‘Ali Pasha Mubarak and Prince Omar Toussoun, to Western scholars from Edward William Lane, through Sir K.A.C. Creswell, to the recently deceased George T. Scanlon. Butler also deserves to be mentioned in such company.

As I said, his works, except for a memoir of his service as a tutor at the Court of Khedive Tawfiq, fall into two broad categories: the Copts, particularly their ancient churches, and the period of the Arab Conquest. In this post I plan to deal with the memoir and the works on the Copts; and tomorrow address the works on the conquest. 

Because his entire body of work was published before 1923, it is out of copyright and is available in digital form. As a result in addition to summarizing his work I am able to link you to the full texts.

Although not his first book in terms of publication date, thematically one should probably begin with his memoir of his work as a tutor to the sons of Khedive Tawfiq, a job for which he was recruited in January, 1880. He traveled up and down the Nile, but with the stirrings of the ‘Urabi revolt, left the job, "for reasons, which I need not here record," but note that he married the year after his return.

His 1887 book Court Life in Egypt (Google Books version; multiple formats at Internet Archive) is a narrative of his experiences and impressions; there are some anecdotes about the Khedivial family and a lot of impressions of Egypt by an observer who, apparently, had no previous experience of it.

It was, however, during that stay that he began, in what he described as his leisure time, his study of Coptic churches.He would later admit that at the time he began his researches he lacked the training in architecture and ecclesiology necessary, and that the lack of access to scholarly works meant his researches had to be supplemented on his return to Europe. He later mentions that he was just learning Arabic at the time,and it is not clear if he knew any Coptic then, though that was not uncommon for an Oxford scholar due to its importance in Biblical studies.

On that first period of living in Egypt, he was also unable to visit the monasteries of the Wadi Natrun, the center of Coptic monasticism, due to Bedouin unrest in the region.

Soon however, able to return to Egypt to complete his researches, referring to a stay of seven months. In 1884 he published the two volumes of The Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt. (Volume I: Google Books version; multiple formats at Internet Archive; Volume II: Google Books version; multiple formats at Internet Archive).

He explains the purpose of the work in the Preface to Volume I , sounding very much the Victorian Orientalist and clergyman's son:

The aim of this book is to make a systematic beginning upon a great subject-the Christian antiquities of Egypt. Few subjects of equal importance have been so singularly neglected. One writer admits that the Coptic Church is still 'the most remarkable monument of primitive Christianity'; another that it is 'the only living representative of the most venerable nation of all antiquity'; yet even the strength of this double claim has been powerless to create any working interest in the matter. No doubt the attention of more travellers has been bewitched and fascinated by the colossal remains of pagan times, by the temples and pyramids which still glow in eternal sunshine, while the Christian churches lie buried in the gloom of fortress walls, or encircled and masked by almost impassable deserts. Yet the Copts of to-day, whose very name is an echo of the word Egypt, trace back their lineage to the ancient Egyptians who built the pyramids, and the ancient tongue is spoken at every Coptic mass: tlie Copts were among the first to welcome the tidings of the gospel, to make a rule of life and worship, and to erect religious buildings : they have upheld the cross un-waveringly through ages of desperate persecution : and their ritual now is less changed than that of any other community in Christendom. All this surely is reason enough to recommend the subject to churchman, historian, or antiquarian.

The two-volume illustrated work is a treasure-house of information, including floor plans and descriptions of churches no  longer standing. Volume I begins with a chapter on the structure of Coptic churches in general, including layout and decoration. Then he begins his systematic tour: first with the major and minor churches of Old Cairo, then with the old churches in other parts of the city. Then he proceeds to the Wadi Natrun and the churches of Upper Egypt.

Volume II begins with n extensive description of the Coptic altar and the various liturgical vessels, two chapters on priestly vestments, and an extensive discussion of the legends of the Coptic saints. Despite his apologies, it is a tour de force, though it is limited to the ancient, or at least pre-modern, churches. The sections on liturgical vessels and vestments, however, are still largely valid.

Butler continued his researches and studies and in 1895 made another contribution to the field of study of ancient churches and monasteries: providing annotations to a book translated by B.T.A. Evetts, The Churches and Monasteries of Egypt and Some Neighbouring Countries, attributed to Abu Salih, the Armenian (Google Books version; various formats at Internet Archive). It is now known that the attribution to "Abu Salih al-Armani" was in error; the manuscript Evetts worked from had been owned by a man of that name, and it was the only name on the title page. The work was in fact written by a Coptic priest known as Abu al-Makarim, writing in the late 12th/early 13th century AD. Butler added many notes to Evetts' translation, based on his familiarity with the sites described in the older work.

Butler also wrote the entries on the Coptic and Ethiopian churches in the 10th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Butler continued his studies (he would receive his Ph.D. in 1902, the same year his work on the Arab Conquest appeared; and that work is even better-known than his studies on the Copts.

Tomorrow: Butler and the Arab conquest.