Byzantium, the Christian jewel of the Eastern Roman Empire, saw Egypt as a necessary province for political, economic, and spiritual expansion. With Constantinople as the center and Alexandria as its satellite, the region experienced cultural syncretism and exchange among Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians. The arts and intellectual proliferation were easily transmitted in this shared Hellenized reality. Christianity was the driving force of the empire, a kingdom built on the ancient traditions of the early church. Yet, doctrinal debates shaped the relationship between Egypt’s Christians and their overseers – a wall of separation was built, with imperial control on one side and a population with a distinct identity on the other. The growth of the internal pressure impacted the response to what was occurring externally and this resulted in the finale of another era in Egypt.

Political Power

During the Roman period, Egypt was in the hands of Rome after Cleopatra’s and Marc Antony’s defeat by Octavian (30 BC). Byzantine rule began with Diocletian’s reign who tightened control within Egypt’s borders (284 AD). There was a rapid Christianization of the empire and by 313 AD, the Edict of Milan was issued which expanded monotheistic Christian worship. Alexandria was an intellectual center second to Rome, it was a place for theological discourse and study.

Firstly, Diocletian and Constantine I changed Egypt’s administrative system with the separation of civil and military authorities (praeses and dux). The conversion of regions into the metropolis proved to be an efficient system for the Eastern Romans regarding resource extraction and taxation. Secondly, Justinian’s reign in the 6th century resulted in the division of Egypt into five provinces with a governor assigned to each. This hierarchical system preserved the Empire’s cohesion under a central authority, which grew increasingly complex over time.

Domestic Politics

Viceroys were designated as Exarchos, Douk, Katepánō, and Kephalai; their roles were to be the direct representatives for the sitting emperor and as such, they wielded considerable authority. Initially, Egypt was governed by prefects (Roman knight or eques) in the early Byzantine period but the system changed with the advent of exarchates by Emperor Maurice, who sought to grant governors independence over far away territories. Viceroys were responsible for overseeing military affairs, auxiliary cohorts, and internal security over areas under their administration. The themata system and naval administration developed later, but both expanded the power of the military governors while bringing Egypt under the Megas doux, which involved local archons handling maritime taxes. Although far from Constantinople, the imperial oversight of viceroys could be questioned by the emperor and they may be stripped of their positions if deemed unworthy.

Since their rule translated to protection and security of the empire, their resistance to several invasions such as with the Persians and Arabs, determined the future of Egypt’s cultural richness. This system was overall an extension of Constantinople’s hegemonic project in distant provinces, especially for keeping orders in small places with a localized population. The centralization of the Eastern Roman Empire was effective since it mimicked the characteristics of their predecessors. Hellenization was more than cultural, as it was deeply embedded in society along with religious and linguistic change.

The Byzantine Empire struggled with maintaining direct authority over the Egyptian church during this period. Furthermore, the Coptic church’s rejection of dyophysitism during the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) hardened their relationship since a schism weakened the centralization efforts of Eastern Rome. Thus, there was an attempt to force the Egyptian church to accept the Chalcedonian position, and, as a result, a radical reaction by the Copts was fermented to distance themselves from earlier Roman influence. A larger schism occurred between Alexandria and the rest of Egypt, but there was a recognition of a distinctly Christian identity among the Copts that would remain before and after Islamic conquest. Competing demands increased and approval from Byzantine imperial authority was nearly impossible. Constantinople later proved itself unpopular among Egyptian Christians, making Egypt susceptible to the covetous eyes of other foreign conquerors, namely, the Arab conquest by Amr ibn al-As in 639 AD.

Socioeconomic Reality in Rural Egypt

Wealthy landowners during this period had a considerable role regarding political power and influence. The rise of the landed elite began in the late Roman period (4th century) with what was known as “the aristocracy of service” which took advantage of state bureaucratic duties that guaranteed positions in the civil service of the empire. These practices were symptomatic of the ruling families who owned prestigious estates such as the Apion family in Middle Egypt and beyond. The estates involved agricultural laborers were labeled as either coloni adscripticii or enapographoi geôrgoi (registered farmers/cultivators) in addition to the implicit slave labour that was occurring.

Since Egypt was home for the landed aristocracy, they were situated as a sort of mediator who cooperated with the imperial rulership of the Byzantines and strengthened their local power. However, the weight of this influence and control was challenged by emperors like Basil II (976-1025) who wanted to decrease land concentration by favoring small farmers. “The main advance came from the reinvigorated power of small land-owning peasantry that has been gradually expropriated by the magnates over the previous two centuries” (Milanovic, 2006). With the realization of the size and richness of the land, the Eastern Roman government sought for its privatization and offered lower tax rates for private owners. The wealth gap continued to increase and it reflected the state of the local peasantry. 

While there was a presence of the peasantry and urban poor during this age, the position of tenants and sharecroppers gradually worsened, coming to its height in the sixth century. Furthermore, landlessness was a common issue and even large estates were dependent on temporary workers for labouring needs. 

“Now…villages (komai) were run by a small circle of the leading village families who described themselves as ktetros…the term most often used for small middling landowners who stood between the aristocracy and the mass of the more humble peasantry, regardless of whether they were urban or village based.” (Banaji, 1999)

What defined the urban poor was their vulnerability and lived existence as impoverished migrants who lost their farms. The fiscal policies of the Eastern Roman Empire was a primary factor for this poverty, with their heavy taxation. It was categorically divided (hearth, cash, pasture, population, etc) and enforced on rural areas.

Religious Environment

Alexandria was a center for the development of a formalized Christianity. It was a powerful civilizational center that bred intellectualism, but it was home to Church fathers such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Now, among the christological controversies that occurred at the time, the Nicene Creed became a public declaration of the Orthodox faith and its tenets. However, the debate over Christ’s nature during the Council of Chalcedon (451) made for a schism that inspired Byzantium’s imperial, dominating nature. Two schools of thought were defined by this single split; the Alexandrian theological approach which emphasized the unification of Christ’s divine and human nature per Cyril of Alexandria in contrast with the Antiochene perspective that highlighted Christ’s two natures and their distinction. Although not held in Alexandria, the third council of Constantinople (680-681) addressed a series of theological problems that can be traced to former Alexandrian debates. Monoenergism and monothelitism were condemned as heretical positions, reinforcing Christ’s two energies and two wills as divine and human.

“Adherents of the doctrinal stance that the incarnate Christ had one energy, or operation, have been referred to as Monenergists and the controversy surrounding Monoenergism eventually turned into a controversy about Monothelitism, the doctrine that the incarnate Christ had one will.” (Tannous, 2014)

Paganism & Christianity

The gradual shift from Egyptian polytheism to Christianity was a complex transition. Even though the Christian Logos appealed to many Egyptians, there was a political and social struggle. While the polytheistic traditions did not align with the monotheism of Christianity, cultural syncretism was possible, and this was perhaps because of Greece’s role as a center for early Christian development. As Christianity was rapidly spread in the 5th century, there was a revival of polytheism in Panopolis, defying the strict adherence to monotheistic worship. This paganism persisted with magical ritual practices remaining among the lower classes. Egyptian religion was still ongoing in the 6th century but remained in the countryside and Siwa Oasis, remnants of this can still be identified today.

The closure of pagan temples was the final reinforcement of Egyptian polytheism coming to inevitable decline. This was influenced by earlier restrictions outside of Egypt, including that of Constantius II, the son of emperor Constantine, who took the strong position of restricting pagan sacrifices, idol worship, and the closure of all temples. Justinian’s reign however, marked a more rigid enforcement on the ban of pagan practices throughout the empire. The intensification of this position continued during the reign of Gratian who removed the legitimacy of pagan priests (382 AD) and later, Theodosius II who restricted pagan worshipers from legal and military life. The closure of the Isis temple at Philae highlighted the leveling of pagan Egyptian worship. Egyptian polytheists lost their nearby connection to their deities and Christianity triumphed. This change is what made Christianity inseparable from the formation of a Coptic identity, being a Copt directly translated to being a Christian Egyptian. 

Cultural Dynamics

Egypt became inseparable from hellenization and the Roman cultural traditions even after the Roman conquest in 30 BC. Egyptian lands continued to serve as an economic powerhouse for trade and production during Diocletian’s reforms and the usage of the Greek language throughout administrative organization lasted into the Byzantine period. Greek continued to be the tongue and written language of the ruling elite until the 10th century. Property ownership was still linked with public service per Roman legal procedures. Religious and cultural syncretism was common in Roman Egypt and movements like the cult of Isis that spread beyond Egyptian borders. Alexandria was the Egyptian Greco-Roman cultural hub symbolized by the library of Alexandria since the Ptolemaic period.

Because of the schism, the Coptic Church expressed and made for themselves a distinct identity that resisted the overarching power of the Byzantines. This required a visible divide between those who were extremely Hellenized and others that were drawn to a more traditional, Egyptian state of religion. The Egyptian-Byzantine era was marked by religious contentions, as previously mentioned, but also by political conflict that impacted the native population. Byzantine emperors sought control over the capital's food supply, which only deepened the strife between Constantinople and the Coptic church. While this was occurring, a subtle process of Egyptianization was to prove its prominence and influence over Mediterranean immigrants living in Egypt. The traditions remained:

“Coptic Christians…continued many of the funerary customs of their pagan ancestors and mostly with the toleration of the church…Pagan wisdom, in the form of alchemy, had its own persistence; the surviving handbooks on Papyrus were copied in the fourth Christian century.” (Parsons, 1987)

Yet the continuity of an Egyptian identity was only a portion of the cultural syncretism that occurred in the Ptolemaic period and later, Roman Egypt. Although there was a lived struggle and reaction to Byzantine rule, Coptic identity was realized during and after the Arab conquest because it was incompatible with the Logos of Islamic Arabia.

Artistic Expression

Coptic identity has been historically expressed through artistic design and architecture. The shift in architectural landscaping looked to create an atmosphere synonymous with Egyptian christianity, monasteries, and shrines upon entrance. Ancient Egyptian temples were marked with the Crucifix, and structures were often repurposed as houses for Christian worship. Sophisticated designs like the Triconch sanctuary (Red & White Monasteries, Sohag) were based on decorative, semi-circular apses, in addition to domed structures that covered the internal features of the churches.

The necropolis of El Bagawat (Kharga Oasis) contains tombs and chapels from both the pre-Christian and Christian period, the geometrical designs and paintings such as that of the Chapel of Peace reflect earlier styles adopted from the Byzantines.

The iconostasis of the Egyptians blended Byzantine styles and resembled a screen decorated with iconography that separated the nave from the sanctuary. Furthermore, Christian symbols were integrated with different textiles. It was a cultural Christianity that was inseparable from one’s sense of self. However, there was still a hint of ancient tradition that carried into this new culture, as mummification burials persisted and the dead (often being elites) were covered in decorative textiles with mythological motifs.

Elaborate art forms progressed, with complicated geometrical patterns increasing in the Islamic age since the use of iconography decreased. The Byzantine predecessors allowed for physical expression of Biblical imagery because this was integral to the orthodox Christian life. Although the dogmatic differences were apparent, the traditional similarities of Christian practice gradually shifted post-Byzantine period from Rome to Arabia.

Finale

The legacy of religious and intellectual contributions throughout Byzantine Egypt has left a permanent imprint on the Christian world. Theological consistency was a primary concern as conjectures such as that of Arius were stumbling blocks to a more dogmatic Christianity, and Athanasius of Alexandria passionately defended orthodoxy against heresy: 

The Alexandrian scholars, Clement and Origen, made a contribution of the first importance toward the absorption of the Greek intellectual tradition into Christian theology, and when Arianism, early in the fourth century, raised the question of how the true nature of Christ was to be defined in terms of humanity and divinity, and coexistence with the Father, it was Athanasius of Alexandria who led the defense of the orthodox faith. (Downey, 1958).

Greek Christian scholarship was defined by the integration of the Alexandrian and Antiochene theological schools. The monastic traditions of the Desert Fathers brought individuals across the Mediterranean, with monasteries being the ideal setting for ascetic practices. As for art, Coptic iconography also blended Greek mythological motifs with its own artistic style that can be traced to the Pharaonic periods, Christianizing what once was pagan. Christianity spread its roots to every part of Egyptian life.

Furthermore, Byzantine Egypt was a formal body for the preservation and transmission of classical knowledge which influenced the Islamic world and later, the Italian Renaissance. In addition, the works of great philosophers and theologians such as Philo of Alexandria and Origen were inspired here.  Even the reputation of Aristotelian metaphysics analyzed by John Philoponus influenced the later Western sciences like that of Galileo. The intellectual reality of Byzantine Egypt was a cross-cultural development that influenced neighboring societies and future movements. Byzantine citizens and authorities recognized the importance of Egypt as a cultural center, and this was also true for their predecessors. Eventually, the open line of communication between Constantinople and Alexandria was severed.

Among Egypt’s cyclical periods of invasions, the Persian army, who had already conquered Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia, focused on Alexandria as its next target (617/618 AD). Eventually, Alexandria fell and Egypt was under Persian control by 621, but the Byzantines retook what once was theirs by 629, however, they let their exhaustion (among additional factors) become their weakness. Post-Islamic conquest, there was a final attempt by Emperor Constans II to retake Egypt before being permanently expelled. This conclusion was representative of an unknown future for Egyptians.

The Islamic conquest (7th century) brought historic societal transformations that changed significant aspects of political, cultural, and religious life for Egyptians. The capture of Alexandria was the objective for Islamic forces, and it was captured after Byzantine forces were defeated at Kirayun. What elevated the Islamic conquest’s success in capturing Egypt was the internal divisions already present between Byzantine rulers and Coptic Christians, as there was not a remaining inclination to support Constantinople’s rule, thus, the large army of ibn Al-As dominated.

On the other hand, the Copts in Egypt and the Armenians in the Caucasus did not accept the “Byzantine” imperial orthodoxy of the first six ecumenical councils. By the middle of the seventh century, already three of the five patriarchates of the Roman Christians, plus the Persian seat of the ‘Church of the East,’ had come under the rule of the Muslims. (Asfour, 2012).

As Islamic governance sought to expand Arab cultural practices and their language, a newfound form of demands were implemented, which resulted in another historical transformation of the Coptic people and their culture.

References

Asfour, W. M. (2012). The development of the Coptic perceptions of the Muslim conquest of Egypt. American University in Cairo. AUC Knowledge Fountain.

Banaji, J. (1999). Agrarian History and the Labour Organisation of Byzantine Large Estates. In A. K. Bowman & E. Rogan (Eds.), Agriculture in Egypt, From Pharaonic to Modern Times.

Downey, G. (1958). Coptic Culture in the Byzantine World: Nationalism and Religious Independence. Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies, 1, 119-135.

Milanovic, B. (2006). An estimate of average income and inequality in Byzantium around the year 1000. The Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality.

P. J. Parsons. (1987). Roman and Byzantine Egypt [Review of Das Römisch-Byzantinische Ägypten. Akten des internationalen Symposions 26-30 September 1978 in Trier, by G. Grimm, H. Heinen, & E. Winter]. The Classical Review, 37(1), 85–87.

Tannous, J. (2014). In Search of Monothelitism. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 68, 29–67