THE MONOPHYSITE RESPONSE TO THE ARAB INVASIONS

Author(s): John Moorhead

Source: Byzantion , 1981, Vol. 51, No. 2 (1981), pp. 579-591
Published by: Peeters Publishers

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/44170709

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Peeters Publishers is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Byzantion

This content downloaded from

85.187.10.30 on Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE MONOPHYSITE RESPONSE
TO THE ARAB INVASIONS

Some two centuries ago Edward Gibbon wrote :

I have already explained the origin and progress of the M
physite controversy, and the persecution of emperors which
verted a sect into a nation and alienated Egypt from their religion
government. The Saracens were received as the deliverers o
Jacobite church (').

It is a position which remains orthodox, and indeed has

extended to encompass the Syrian Monophysites. So, for exa
Ostrogorsky :
... irreconcilable religious differences had raised up a wall of ha
between Constantinople and her eastern provinces, the separat
tendencies of the Syrians and Copts had been strengthened, and
willingness to defend the empire finally undermined (2).

Modern scholars generally accept that during the Arab invasi

Syria, Palestine and Egypt in the 630s and 640s the native pe
supported, or at least failed to oppose, the attackers, and th
was because imperial persecution of Monophysitism had occa
great animosity between these peoples and their Byzantine o
lords (3). Many follow Gibbon further in making a connecti
tween "sect" and "nation". They assert that the flourishing of

(1) Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Em
ed. J. B. Bury, London, 1898, vol. 5, p. 448.
(2) George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, trans. Joan H
Oxford, 1968, p. 1 10 ; cf. p. 60.
(3) See among others R. Thoumin, Histoire de Syrie , Lille, 1929, p. 160
Lewis, Naval Power and Trade in the Mediterranean AD 500-1 100, Princeton,
1951, p. 54 ; B. Spui.er, Geschichte der Islamischen Lander , 1 Der Chalifenzeit
( = Handbuch der Orientalistik, Bd. 6), Leiden, 1 952, p. 25 ; D. and J. Sourdki., La
civilisation de l'Islam classique, Paris, 1968, p. 43 (where taxation is also
mentioned).

This content downloaded from

85.187.10.30 on Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 580 J. MOORHEAD

physitism in the eastern provin

either stimulating or being stim
Syrians and Copts, being aware
and so, defining themselves agai
co-operate with the invaders in th
Byzantine yoke (4). In the pages
however attractive this device m
Arab conquests, it should be rej
Firstly, the assumption that th
thic in their Monophysitism ne

(4) Gaston Weit, L'Egypte musulm

ottomane , Cairo, 1932 ( = Muhammad
vol. 2), pp. 1 13-17 ; Philip K. Hitti, Hi
p. 153 ; André Cocatre-Zilgien, "Amr-
les Arabes", in Annales Africaines , 195
Copts for the Byzantines, p. 210; t
nationale", p. 2 1 7) ; Daniel J. Sahas, Joh
Ishmaelites ", Leiden, 1972, p. 23, n. 2
Century , vol. 3, Amsterdam, 1972, p
indigenous populace for Byzantium"
discounts the role of the Arabs in th
political outcome" of the Christologic
geography of the iconoclastic world",
Iconoclasmi Birmingham, 1977, pp. 21
In the case of Egypt the adoption of
with nationalism : E. R. Hardy, "The
national Christianity", in Church Hist
Egypt : Church and People , New York,
Ramsay MacMuij en, "Nationalism in R
pp. 179-99. The Copts "antiimperiale G
stressed by Heinrich L. Nickel, Die Ko
schen Abhängigkeit und Eigenständig
Studien in der DDR , Halle-Wittenber
If the present study has any antecedants they are to be found in Louis
Duchesne, L ' Église au VIe siècle, Paris, 1925, pp. 426-27 ; A. H. M. Jones, Were
the ancient heresies national or social movements in disguise ?, in Journal of
Theological Studies , n.s. 10, 1959, pp. 280-98 ; and more generally Miriam
Lichtheim, Autonomy versus unity in the Christian East , in Lynn White jnr. (ed.),
The Transformation of the Roman World Gibbon's Problem after Two Centuries ,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1966, pp. 119-46.
(5) See in general W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement ,
Cambridge, 1972.

This content downloaded from

85.187.10.30 on Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE MONOPHYSITE RESPONSE TO THE ARAB INVASIONS 581

Egypt was strongly for the Monophysite cause, yet the letters of
Pope Gregory the Great to Eulogius, the Chalcedonian Patriarch of
Alexandria, indicate that the orthodox Christians were making
gains (6). The patriarchate of the Chalcedonian John the Almoner
(611-19) seems to have been a period of advance for the orthodox,
for his biographer states that he was able to increase the number of
churches where the orthodox liturgy was maintained from seven to
70 (7), and we are also told that during his patriarchate a pair of
debaters, John and Sophronius, "delivered many villages, very
many churches, and many monasteries too" (8). Nor did the
Chalcedonians wither after the Arab conquest. During the
patriarchate of John III (677-86) "the people of Agharwah and the
people of the Xoite nome", formerly Chalcedonians, became
Monophysites (9). It could be argued on the strength of his
biography that there was a substantial Chalcedonian population as
late as the time of John's successor, the Coptic patriarch Isaac (686-
89), for it is possible that George, his rival for the patriarchal see,
was a Chalcedonian (10), while the many heretics Isaac converted to
the "orthodox faith" may have included Chalcedonians (u).
Palestine, occasionally overlooked in discussions of this problem,
remained overwhelmingly orthodox. Traditionally it had been
impervious to Egyptian influence, and Monophysite ideas radiating
from the north in the sixth century appear to have made little

(6) Gregorii I. Registrum ed. P. Ewald and L. M. Hartmann, Monumenta

Germaniae Historka Epistulae , 1, VIII, 29 ("sanctitatis vestrae scripta ... de
conversione hereticorum"), XIII, 44 (Eulogius "tam muitos hereticos ad fidem
catholicam revocat"), XIII, 45 ("et inminutos ore vestro hostes ecclesiae et
multiplicatos greges dominicos agnovi") ; cf. XII, 16 on the possible taking over
by Chalcedonians of a Monophysite monastery. These letters all fall within the
period 598-602.
(7) Life of John the Almsgiver , in Three Byzantine saints , ed. and trans. E.
Dawes and N. Baines, Oxford, 1948. ch. 5, p. 201.
(8) Ibid., supp. ch. 32, pp. 242-43.
(9) Severus of Asmounein, History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of
Alexandria , ed. and trans. B. Evetts, PfatrologiaJ OlrientalisJ, 5, pp. 18-19.
(10) Histoire du Patriarche copte Isaac, ed. and trans. E. Améi.ineau, Paris,
1890, pp. 44-49 + p. XXVII.
(11) Ibid., p. 52 ; see too the puzzling reference to a "pseudobishop", p. 64.
Amélineau s note 2 is not helpful.

This content downloaded from

85.187.10.30 on Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 582 J. MOORHEAD

headway 02). Syria is poorly docu

homelies of Antiochus Monachus would seem to indicate orthodox
strength in Antioch early in the seventh century 03).
But let us grant that the majority of citizens in the eastern
provinces were Monophysite. This does not necessarily mean that
they were hostile to imperial policy. During the Persian wars
Heraclius came to accept the formula "one operation" (ßia èvépyeia)
as accurately describing Christ (u). It was an attempt to find ground
which Chalcedonians and Monophysites could share, and as a piece
of imperial statesmanship stands in the line of Zeno s Henotikon and
Justinian's flirtation with Theopaschism, and subsequent condem-
nation of the Three Chapters. Its reception in the East is instructive.
In Egypt, all the moderate Monophysite clergy ("Theodosians"),
men distinguished in the civil offices and the army, and thousands of
common people, entered into communion with the Chalcedonian
patriarch Cyrus on the basis of common acceptance of "one
operation". Cyrus excitedly wrote to Sergius, the patriarch of
Constantinople :
There was rejoicing at the peace of the holy churches in all the
Christ-loving city of the Alexandrians and its surroundings as far as
the clouds, and beyond these among the heavenly orders C5).

( 1 2) Cf. the refections of Derwas J. Chitty, The Desert a City , Oxford, 1 966, p.
144. Even during their period of splendour when Severus was patriarch of
Antioch (5 1 2-5 1 8), there were only two Monophysite bishops south of Damascus
(cf. E. Honigmann, Évèques et évèchés monophysites d'Asie antérieurs au VIe
siècle, Louvain, 1 95 1 ( = Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium , Subsidia
2), map 2).
(13) Antiochus Monachus, Homilia, CXXX, De regno caelorum Pfatrologia]
G[raeca], 100, col. 1844. See too Georges Tchaienko, Villages antiques de la
Syrie du nord, vol. 3. Paris, 1958 ( = Institut français d'archéologie de Beyrouth,
Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, vol. 50) appendice III, Couvents
antiques, I. Les couvents du Massif Calcaire dans quatre lettres monophysites du
vie siècle (par André Caquot), pp. 63-85. Unfortunately the surviving sources,
while allowing scholars to determine the balance of Chalcedonians and
Monophysites at stages of the sixth century, do not permit us to do the same for
the period of the Arab invasion ; cf. Honigmann, op. cit. and Robert Divrcfssk, Le
Patriarchat d 'A ntioche depuis la paix de I Église fusqu a la conquête arabe, Paris,
1945.
(14) Short discussion in H. -G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im
Byzantinischen Reich , Munich, 1959, pp. 292-95, 430-33.
(15) J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Amplissima Collectio , 1 1 , col. 561-64 ;

This content downloaded from

85.187.10.30 on Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE MONOPHYSITE RESPONSE TO THE ARAB INVASIONS 583

One is tempted to discount such an enthusiastic report, but the

Monophysite biographer of the Coptic patriarch Benjamin admits
that "a countless number" of Monophysites became reconciled with
those who adhered to the Council of Chalcedon, and names the
bishops Cyrus of Nikiu and Victor of the Faiyùm (16). Of course
many Monophysites remained outside the union, chief among them
the Patriarch Benjamin, but considerable progress had been made.
The same was true in Syria. Heraclius approached the
Monophysite patriarch Athanasius of Antioch, who responded with
a long better explaining why the Council of Chalcedon was not
acceptable C7). A meeting, lasting twelve days, was subsequently
held at Mabboug between Heraclius, Athanasius and twelve
bishops. The lengthy discussions failed and Heraclius resorted to
persecution, but many monks came to accept the Council of
Chalcedon, and Michael the Syrian mentions three important
monasteries in this regard 08).
Heraclius' proposal, then, made headway among the Monophy-
site communities of both Egypt and Syria. The strongest opposition
came from the other side, being led by the strongly Chalcedonian
Sophronius (monk and Patriarch of Jerusalem, probably to be
identified with the Sophronius who had earlier preached in
Egypt on behalf of Chalcedon, above p. 581) and Maximus the
Confessor (19). In short the very people who, according to the theory

the formula of union follows immediately. There is a helpful discussion in C. J.

Hefeif. and H. Leci.ercq, Histoire des conciles, 3, 1, Paris, 1909, pp. 339-42. See
too Theophanes, Chronographia (ed. Ch. de Boor, Leipzig, 1883) anno mundi
6121, who quotes moderate Monophysites as saying it was not so much a case of
their entering into communion with Chalcedon, as Chalcedon entering into
communion with them.
(16) Severus, History ..., P.O., 1, p. 491.
(17) Michel i E Syrien, Chronique, ed. and trans. J.-B. Chabot, Paris, 1 899-
1924, vol. 2, pp. 405-8.
(18) ibid., p. 412.
(19) Consult Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur on Sophronius and
Maximus, pp. 434 ff. Sophronius' career is discussed by H. Chadwic k, "John
Moschus and his friend Sophronius the Sophist", in Journal of Theological
Studies, n. 8, 25, 1974, pp. 41-74. The ardour of these apologists can be
contrasted with the response of Pope Honorius to Monoenergism : Georg
Kreuzer, Die Honoriuslfrage im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit, Stuttgart, 1975.

This content downloaded from

85.187.10.30 on Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 584 J. MOORHEAD

outlined at the beginning of this

be in step with the dictates of Co
vehemently objected to imperial
From this I conclude that the M
theology, were not of their natu
further indicated by the treatme
site authors writing after the Arab
write as they pleased of their for
anonymům ad annum 724 pert
reasonably detailed coverage of R
Council of Chalcedon, in which I
per se. The author s view is nuan
but praise is heaped on the good.
"gave his heart to God, and God
above the kingdoms, and delivere
Similarly, the Egyptian writer J
as "the beloved of God, glorious a
he became great before God wh
subsequent to Chalcedon are judge
and so Monophysite authors te
Chalcedonian writers : John of Nikiu states that "after the blessed
God-loving orthodox emperor Anastasius went to his rest, Justin the
terrible, the consort of the empress Euphemia, ascended the
throne" (22X Sometimes this reversal reaches truly surprising
proportions, as when we read in the twelfth century account of
Michael the Syrian that the empress Theodora was the daughter of a
priest who lived in piety and chastity until her marriage to
Justinian (").
It would seem, therefore, that the Monophysites were by no
means unvaryingly hostile to the Byzantines. It is true that some
later authors make apparently blanket condemnations of the

(20) Chronicon miscellaneum ad annum Domini 724 pertinens , trans. J.-B.

Chabot, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Scriptores Syri , 4,
p. 102 ; cf. the discussion of Theodosius I, pp. 105-6.
(21) The Chronicle of John bishop of Nikiu, trans. R. H. Charles, London,
1916, 77, 42-43 ; the encomium continues till 77, 104.
(22) ibid., 90, 1.
(23) Michel le Syrien, Chronique, vol. 2, pp. 419-20.

This content downloaded from

85.187.10.30 on Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE MONOPHYSITE RESPONSE TO THE ARAB INVASIONS 585

Byzantines in connection with the Arab victories, but these

condemnations merely reflect hostility to what was remembered of
Heraclius' persecution immediately prior to the conquest, seen in the
light of the relative liberty the Monophysites enjoyed under Islam.
An example is afforded by a famous passage in Michael the Syrian :
The God of vengeance ... raised up from the south the children of
Ishmael to deliver us from the hands of the Romans ... It was no light
benefit for us to be freed from the cruelty of the Romans, their
wickedness, anger and ardent cruelty towards us, and to find
ourselves in peace (24).

Seen in context these words merely refer to specific hardships

undergone by some Monophysites shortly before the Arab invasion.
It was unfortunate for the subsequent reputation of the Byzantines
in the east that such judgements were, so to speak, snap-frozen at
that time.
Yet the liberty offered by the Muslims provided the setting for the
long decline of Coptic and Syriac culture. Hand in hand with this
decline went the slow decay of Monophysite Christianity (25). It is
hard to point to a single original Monophysite thinker after the Arab
conquest, and despite what many have seemed a promising
beginning under Islam the Monophysite churches went steadily
downhill (26). This raises problems for those who hold that these
churches in some way encapsulated national awareness. If this were
so one would have expected them to show more life, if only by way
of reaction against the alien Arabs. The contrast with Persia is

(24) Ibid., pp. 412-12.

(25) See in general Bertold Spuler, "Die west-syrische (monophysitische)
Kirche unter dem Islam", Saeculuni, 9, 1958, pp. 322-44 ; Idem, Die Morgen-
ländischen Kirchen, Leiden, 1964 ; A. A. Atiya. /1 History of Eastern Christianity,
London, 1968. Pierre du Bourguet, L 'art Copte pendant les cinq premiers siècles
de l'hégire , in Christentum am Nil, ed. Klaus Wessel, Recklinghausen, 1964,
argues for a survival of Coptic art as late as the eleventh or twelfth centuries, but
the survival would seem to have been mainly one of technical principles. See too
Ernest J. Grube, Studies in the survival and continuity of pre-Muslim traditions in
Egyptian Islamic Art, in Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, 1,
1962, pp. 75-93. The decline in Syriac literature is indicated by R. Duvai., La
littérature syriaque, 3rd ed., Paris, 1907.
(26) Frend, Monophysite Movement, pp. 357-59.

This content downloaded from

85.187.10.30 on Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 586 J. MOORHEAD
V

interesting, for there the Nestorian church seems to have flourished

during the early centuries of Muslim overlordship. According to an
inscription discovered at Si-ngan-fu in China, the Persian missio-
nary bishop Alopen ( = Abraham ?) met the emperor Tai-tsung in
635, and judging by the forms of the names at the end of the
inscription the Persian church was continuing to send large
numbers of men to China two and a half centuries later (27). As late
as the eleventh century the Keraith people of central Asia were
converted to Nestorian Christianity (28). Doubtless the Persian
Nestorians were in a better position than the Monophysite churches
to engage in missionary activity by simple reason of geography ;
nevertheless the contrast with the apparently moribund churches of
Syria and Egypt is clear. Even in its secular life Persia preserved
such aspects of its pre-Arabic culture as its language and art far
more successfully than Syria or Egypt, and indeed the strength of its
surviving traditions was such as to exercise an important role in the
development of Arabic civilization (29), which would seem to
indicate that the historian seeking evidence for national culture and
identity in the conquered Monophysite areas is searching in the
wrong place.
Finally, before turning to the Arab wars of conquest themselves,
a few words are necessary on the Byzantine attitude to the former
eastern provinces after they had been lost. Writing in the early ninth
century Theophanes, our chief Byzantine authority, told the story of
the conquests as simply a case of Saracens winning a series of
victories in the field of battle (30). Presumably if the provincials had
engaged in treachery the Byzantines would have noted this, if only
to explain away the embarrassing speed and scale of their losses, but
there is no indication that they were aware of any treachery or even

(27) L. E. Browne, The Eclipse of Christianity in Asia , Cambridge, 1933,

pp. 93-108 ; Yoshiro Saeki, The Nestorian Documents and Relics in Chinas 2nd
ed., Tokyo, 1951.
(28) Gregory Barhebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum , ed. and trans. J. B.
Abbeioos and T. J. Lamy, Louvain and Paris, 1873-77, translation col. 280.
(29) Hence the ambiguity of the phrase "the Persian conquest of Islam", used
as the title of the last chapter in Richard N. Frye, The Heritage of Persia ,
Cleveland and New York, 1963.
(30) Chronographia annis mundi , 6126, 6127, 6129, 6130.

This content downloaded from

85.187.10.30 on Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE MONOPHYSITE RESPONSE TO THE ARAB INVASIONS 587

disappointingly lukewarm support on the part of discontented

elements. After the Monophysite provinces were lost the Byzantines
by no means regarded them as gone for ever, for not only did they
engage in military activities designed to bring about their reconquest
but they tried to keep the doors of ecclesiastical reconciliation open
as late as 680. It was only then that the Sixth Ecumenical Council
(Constantinople III) condemned the teachings of one operation and
one will in Christ, which had been designed to bring the
Monophysites back into communion with the followers of
Chalcedon (31). The tardiness of this condemnation had implications
concerning the Byzantine perception of loss which we need not go
into here ; but given the problems the failure to condemn these
formulations caused Constantinople in its dealings with Rome, and
the speed with which emperors could move in this area (evidenced
by Justin's prompt settlement of the Acacian schism), the slowness
to act would point to a lingering Byzantine desire for reconciliation,
something which known nationalistic animosity on the part of the
provincials would presumably have excluded.
Let us conclude by examining the wars of conquest themselves.
Unfortunately we are badly informed on the conquest of Syria.
Greek and Syriac authors are laconic, while the works of Arabic
authors are late, and it is difficult to know how to interpret the
information they provide. For example, the ninth century author al-
Balādhuri tells a famous story of the capture of Damascus. He states
that when the city was besieged the bishop offered the Arab general
Khālid gifts and homage, and apparently came to an agreement with
him over a covenant (32). During the second siege the bishop
prevailed on Khālid to make terms for the city, and with the aid of
information passed on by "a friend of the bishop" the Arabs entered
the city ("). Could it be shown that the bishop was Monophysite or
Chalcedonian the story would be useful evidence respectively for or

(31) Erich Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums , vol. 2, Tübingen, 1933, pp. 587-
619; Johannes Hai.i.er, Das Papsttum Idee und Wirklichkeit y vol. 1, 1950,
pp. 333-35. Continuing Byzantine interest in the lost provinces is also indicated by
the care with which Theophanes noted the occurrences of natural disasters :
Chronographia annis mundi , 6164, 6168, 6176.
(32) ai.-Bai.ādhuri, The Origins of the Islamic State, trans. P. K. Hitti, New
York, 1916, p. 172.
(33) Ibid., p. 187.

This content downloaded from

85.187.10.30 on Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 588 J. MOORHEAD

against the religious-national hyp

speaks with a divided voice on his
be no way of definitely establishi
near contemporary al-Tabari tells a
Damascus. According to him, it oc
told of a party being held to cel
Byzantine general in command o
mention of a bishop. Of course it
two accounts, but this would not s
authors writing at such a remove
elements in a story to this extent
either of them is reliable.
A story told by a Syriac source is equally difficult to evaluate. We
are told that in Byzantine Mesopotamia the Arabs killed Monophy-
site monks (36). This would seem to tell against the religious-national
thesis, but would a band of Arab troops have necessarily known the
differences between Monophysite and Chalcedonian monks ? Could
one safely draw any conclusion from one act by one part of a
notoriously unco-ordinated army ? And in any case, Mesopotamia
is not Syria. In short, the sketchy nature of the evidence does not
allow us to test this thesis for Syria or Palestine (").
The position with regard to Egypt is totally different, as we have
an excellent early source, the Chronicle of the Coptic bishop John of
Nikiu, which was written towards the end of the seventh century.
Nowhere does John indicate that the Monophysite Copts supported
the invaders. Indeed, he refers to all the inhabitants of Egypt fleeing
in panic to Alexandria, leaving behind all their goods, wealth and
cattle (38). John is explicit as to the misbehaviour of the Arabs (39),

(34) That he was Monophysite: Alain Ducei.i.ier, Le miroir de l'Islam:

Musulmans et Chrétiens d'orient au moyen âge (VIIe -XIe siècles), Paris, 1971,
p. 48. That he was Chalcedonian : Sahas. John of Damascus (cit. n. 1), pp. 17-19.
(35) ai.-Tabari, Chronique de Tabari , trans. Hermann Zotenberg, vol. 3, Paris,
1871, p. 363.
(36) Chronicon miscellaneum ... (cit. n. 21), p. 114.
(37) A story told by al-Balādhuri ( Origins .... p. 230) of a monk capitulating on
behalf of the people at Cyrrhus is similarly difficult to evaluate.
(38) Chronicle , 1 13, 6 ; cf. 120, 28 ("the Egyptians who, through fear of the
Moslem, had fled and taken refuge in the city of Alexandria").
(39) Ibid., 113, 4, 118, 10.

This content downloaded from

85.187.10.30 on Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE MONOPHYSITE RESPONSE TO THE ARAB INVASIONS 589

and the fear they inspired in the native people remains a theme until
the end of his work (40). On some occasions the Copts seem to have
been more inclined to resist than were the Byzantine officials : at
Antinoe the prefect John refused the request of the people to concert
measures to attack the Arabs (41), while the people in Alexandria
tried to stone the Byzantine commander Cyrus when they learned
that he had made peace with the Arabs (42). John mentions two
Coptic defectors to the Arabs only to record their speedy return to
the Byzantine side (43). His narrative never suggests that the Arabs
were aware of any distinction between the Copts and other
Christians ; they merely warred "against the Christians" (44), and
when some of the people of lower Egypt wished to join the Arabs
"the Moslem distrusted them" (45). After the conquest many "false
Christians" became Muslim, but unfortunately for the thesis which
argues that the Monophysites accepted the Arabs the only one
named by John is a Chalcedonian monk (46). In short, John gives no
grounds for asserting that the Copts welcomed the Arabs, and his
silence is all the more striking in that he himself was a Copt.
The locus classicus for the religious-national thesis applied to
Egypt is John's statement that "people began to help the
Moslem" (47). However, when this phrase is taken in context it
becomes clear that the help rendered was forced, not voluntary (48),
and the use of other sources in support of the notion that the Copts
helped the Arabs is not convincing. The Arab historian Makrizi

(40) Ibid., 120, 29-31.

(41) Ibid., 115, 10.
(42) Ibid., 120, 26 ; Cyrus' secrecy is significant.
(43) Ibid., 114, 6-7, 114, 9-11.
(44) Ibid., 115, 1.
(45) Ibid., 119, 1-2.
(46) Ibid., 121, 1 1 . 1 would not, however, place much weight on this, as John,
a staunch Monophysite, may have included this one case as reflecting badly on
the Chalcedonians.
(47) Ibid., 113, 2.
(48) A. J. Buti.er, The Arab Conguest of Egypt, Oxford, 1902, p. 236 made this
quite clear, but modern scholars not only continue to assert that the Copts began
to help the Arabs, but also state that they fought on their side : Ralf-Johannes
Lii.ie, Die byzantinische Reaktion auf die A usbreitung der A raber, Munich, 1 976
(= Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia, vol. 22), p. 49.

This content downloaded from

85.187.10.30 on Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 590 J. MOORHEAD

states that the Arabs approach

crowd of Copts who prepared the
helped the Muslims in all their
Makrizi lived in the fourteenth and
seem to have no status as a prim
states that the Coptic bishop of A
offer no resistance to the Arabs (50
century, and it is therefore erron
earliest surviving account of the
belongs to John of Nikiu, who ma
issued by the Coptic patriarch. Ne
of the Coptic patriarchs, in his ac
during the Arab conquest, altho
conquest the Arab general 'Amr
prayers (").
We may therefore conclude that the Arab conquests of Syria,
Palestine and Egypt were not aided by the discontent of the local
peoples. It would indeed have been surprising had these peoples co-
operated with invaders from the desert, traditionally figures such as
to inspire terror among settled peoples ("). Neither would abandon-
ment of the theory of Monophysite support for the Arabs entail any
problem for modern historical scholarschip, which has been by no
means reluctant to advance other reasons for the early rise of Islam.

(49) Makrizi, Description topographique et historique de I Egypte, trans. U.

Bouriant, vol. 2, Paris, 1900, p. 467.
(50) Cited in Hitti, History (cit. n. 4), p. 165. Inability to read Arabic has
prevented my consulting the original text.
(51) Ibid ., loc. cit.
(52) Severus, History ..., P.O.. 1 , pp. 496-97. Note, however, that the Christian
Arab author Eutychius, writing in the early tenth century, seems to imply that the
Copts welcomed the Arabs : Annales , in P. G., 1 1 1, col. 1 105. A survey of opinion
among Arab historians on Coptic and Syrian collaboration during the conquest
would be interesting ; I suspect it would show considerable development.
(53) The apparent indifference of provincials in the face of barbarian
onslaughts against the declining western Roman empire has been discussed by A.
H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 282-602 , Oxford, 1964, pp. 1060 ff. Note
Jones' comment : 'The Roman empire never seems to have evoked any active
patriotism from the vast majority of its citizens" (p. 1062). The same seems to
have been true of the eastern Monophysites, and a lack of patriotism falls a long
way short of active discontent, let alone discontent with nationalist undertones.

This content downloaded from

85.187.10.30 on Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE MONOPHYSITE RESPONSE TO THE ARAB INVASIONS 591

The exhaustion of Byzantium and Persia after their drawn-out wars,

specific areas of Arab military superiority, the Arabian political
situation, the religious force animating the earliest Muslims, bad
economic conditions in Arabia, psychological and even racial
factors have all been invoked (54). Abandonment of the national-
religious hypothesis would simply remove one possible explanation
for an event for which there is no shortage of other possible
explanations.

The University of Queensland, John Moorhead.

Australia.

(54) I hope to discuss elsewhere implications of the confusion evidenced in

modern scholarship on this point.

This content downloaded from

85.187.10.30 on Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms