PEACE WITHOUT HONOUR
The months succeeding the suppression of the revolt were months of
peace though scarcely of honour, and certainly not of content. The
people were no longer harassed by daily innovations or angered by
daily arrests and executions, and looking forward to the early coming
of a Turkish army as certain to sooner or later bring them relief,
they submitted passively to the presence of the French. The Dewan,
which had been suspended from the time of the revolt, was at the end
of the year re-formed, and Bonaparte took the opportunity to issue a
proclamation in which he had the foolish arrogance to claim to be
inspired. This, addressed to Mahomedans, was a gross mistake, and is
yet another proof of his inability to learn from experience or to
comprehend the task he was so blunderingly pursuing. The Egyptians
received the proclamation with the ridicule it deserved, but they were
careful to keep their opinion of it to themselves, having learned very
thoroughly the exact value of the "liberty, equality, and fraternity"
of which they had heard so much, and knew perfectly well that
"liberty" must by no means be taken to include the liberty of
criticising the French. As to "equality," Bonaparte did certainly show
some impartiality--at all events in matters not directly affecting the
French. Thus some native Christians, who had been too bold in availing
themselves of their new-found liberty to insult the Moslems, were
summarily punished, not so much probably for the offence as to
discourage their provoking reprisals from which the French might
suffer. Some soldiers too, who had been captured after raiding the
house of a Moslem and outraging the women in it, were executed, this
being a serious offence against discipline. These matters were
referred to by the General in his proclamation as evidence of his
friendship for and desire to do justice to the people. But the people
put their own construction upon these acts and his allusion to them.
The whole tenor of the system under which they were so unwillingly
living was, in their opinion, utterly opposed to justice and reason,
and they could not bring themselves to conceive these incidents as
anything more than mere concessions made to mislead them. They had
always been accustomed to receive in their private affairs a certain
amount of justice under the Beys. This was indeed usually of a very
rough and ready kind. Thus one of the Beys one day passing through the
town meeting a citizen who had just bought some meat from a butcher in
the market, took it into his head to see whether the seller had given
his customer full weight, and finding that he had not done so at once
ordered the deficiency to be supplied from the butcher's own body.
French justice was less fantastic and impulsive than this, whether it
was more effective is not so certain, but it had to the Egyptian mind
the great defect of being in general less amenable to the pleadings of
mercy, and was, like the Beys', so often misdirected as to become
injustice. Thus Bonaparte gained but little from his good intentions
in this respect. As to "Fraternity," the cannon of the revolt had been
the stormy requiem of all possibility of that. The battered houses of
the town were infinitely more eloquent to the people than all that
Bonaparte could say, and he could have but little assistance in
preaching or enforcing his ideas on this subject, for the French
generally, though quite loyal, were scarcely enthusiastic in their
efforts to realise his wishes in this direction, and could in any case
do but little, while the native Christians who could have done much,
unable to rise above the pettiness of their own vindictive feelings,
so far from seeking to promote friendship between the French and the
Moslems, lost no opportunity of exciting the one against the other. So
poor Fraternity lay neglected in the tomb that Bonaparte's blundering
had so speedily and so unnecessarily dug for it.
All through the occupation the worst friends that the French had were
the Christians of the country. Divided among themselves, they were at
one, though not united, in the feelings with which they quickly
learned to regard the French. There was no open disunion nor apparent
discord, but the bitterness of sectarian animosities that prevailed
among them was of the keenest. The Franks being Christians of the
"Orthodox" or Greek Church held the Copts as heretics, and these
looked upon those as infidels. Nor were they less divided by their
political and social ideas and habits, and, as such rival sects always
are, were more strongly moved by their mutual distrust than by their
common Christianity. This, indeed, served them as a bond only for evil
in their common hatred for the Moslems. These, though they had for
centuries to endure more oppression, injustice, and tyranny than
either of the two Christian peoples had ever suffered from, were
conscious of and showed a dignity and self-respect that was galling
and offensive to the others. Our friends the historians lose no
opportunity of condemning the Moslems for this characteristic,
denouncing it as "arrogant pride," "fanatical conceit," and I know not
what else. But though the Moslem too often renders himself liable to
criticism on this point, his fault in no way abrogates the truth that
the self-respect that is in varying degrees the birthright of all men
is to him alone justified by his religion, for Islam alone of all
religions, while teaching the frailty of man's nature, teaches also
the doctrine that man is naturally inclined to good, and that his sins
and his follies are the result not of a corrupt nature but of
ignorance and false teaching--a nobler and truer conception than the
degrading superstition that it is their nature to do evil. The Moslem,
unlike those Methodists whose sole anxiety in life is for the
salvation of their own miserable souls, has no salvation to seek. As a
Moslem he is assured of eternal happiness. It is inevitable,
therefore, that he should respect himself, even as the Christian who
has but a jot of belief in the teaching of his religion cannot look
upon himself as other than a "child of wrath," by nature evil and a
lover of evil. Truly a grovelling, debasing creed. And it is with
creeds as with ideals. That they should influence the whole life and
nature of a man it is by no means necessary that he should be
conscious of their influence, much less that he should analyse or even
be capable of analysing it. Whence no degradation, no tyranny, no
misery can deprive the Moslem of the self-respect that is his
inheritance--a self-respect no other religion permits, and one that no
follower of any other religion can by any possibility enjoy, since he
who has it must be a believer in the essential doctrines of Islam and
thus, though he know it not, a Moslem. This is an essential difference
that must for ever hold all Moslem peoples apart from all others. I
have shown already how not the Moslem only, but all Easterns measure
life by a standard irreconcilable with that of the European, and when
we put the influence of these two causes together we get a current of
thought, native to the Moslem wherever he is found, no outside
influence or power can stem or divert. And this being so, apart from
all considerations of their respective political relations, it is
evident that the Moslems and Christians of Egypt as of other countries
could not be otherwise than opposed to each other, and that the very
causes that made them so served to sever both alike from the French.
As Orientals the native Christians had, in spite of their differences,
many thoughts and many habits and customs that they shared with the
Moslems, but which were wholly unacceptable to the French. Nor were
the French less disappointed by the attitude of the Moslems to them
than were the Christians by that of the French towards them. They had
expected from the French a preference they did not get, and a
patronage that was withheld, while the openly professed friendship of
Bonaparte for the Moslems and their religion was to them the act of a
traitor and a renegade, and none the less so that they, like the
Moslems, were by no means misled as to the real nature of the
friendship or of its object.
Great as was the hatred of the Christians for the Moslems it was not,
as we have seen, sufficient to prevent their joining these in their
protest against a French reform that touched their own prejudices; but
though that incident might have taught them that it would be to their
own interests to conciliate Moslem feeling, so far from attempting
anything of the kind they hastened to avail themselves of the collapse
of the revolt to indulge in language and acts offensive to the
Mahomedans. Believing that the permanency of French rule was now
assured, they abandoned all the restraints they had been compelled to
submit to in the time of the Beys, and which they had been more or
less chary of neglecting under the early pro-Moslem policy of their
successors. Having suffered but little from the event that had proved
so disastrous to the Moslems, they had ample funds to enable them to
follow their own inclinations, and, throwing aside the simple
costumes and habits prescribed for them by the old law, went abroad
clad in gold-embroidered garments, carrying weapons and mounted upon
horses--all luxuries that had long been forbidden to them--and did not
fail to flaunt their new-born liberty in the eyes of the Moslems, and
openly exult in the discomfiture that had overtaken these.
Meanwhile a party of the French army was in constant pursuit of the
fugitive Mamaluks, and small parties were being sent from Cairo to
punish raiding Bedouins or villages that obstinately refused to pay
the taxes imposed upon them. These latter always returned to Cairo
with such booty of flocks and herds and other property as they had
been able to obtain, all of which was appropriated to the use of the
French. However excusable or even necessary this continuation of
military operations may have been, it had a most disastrous effect
upon the trade and commerce of the country. The small foreign trade
that the country still possessed at the time of the invasion had
ceased altogether, and the disturbed condition of the country had been
almost equally fatal to local trade. Communications between Cairo and
distant towns, even Alexandria and Damietta, were rare and uncertain,
and the attempts of the French to maintain a postal service between
the scattered portions of the army had almost completely failed. As a
consequence of the general disorder thus prevailing, the merchants and
dealers of Cairo suffered so heavily that large numbers of them were
reduced to indigency and compelled to seek a livelihood by any means
that offered. Some who had contrived to save a small amount from the
wreck of their business opened restaurants or coffee-houses, or took
to the sale of fruits and cakes and other small articles that were in
demand among the French, while yet others gained a living by hiring
the donkeys they had once themselves ridden in state to the soldiers,
who had taken to donkey-riding and racing as one of their chief
amusements.
The approach of the second year of the occupation brought no change in
the condition of affairs, but rumours of the coming of a Turkish army
were growing not only more frequent but more consistent, and
Bonaparte, believing that it would be better for him to assume the
offensive than to await an attack, began to hasten the carrying out of
preparations for the conquest of Syria. The prospect of active service
was hailed with pleasure by the troops, but the native Christians were
dismayed at the idea of any large body of the French army leaving the
immediate vicinity of the town, fearing that the Moslems would seize
the opportunity to avenge themselves for the insults and injuries they
had been bearing at their hands. Urged by this fear and with the idea
of inducing Bonaparte to postpone his departure if not to abandon it
altogether, some Syrians went to him and told him that the Moslems
were preparing a new revolt. Fortunately for the Moslems these
mischief-makers, in the excess of their cunning and anxiety to
influence the French, gave a number of alleged details which Bonaparte
at once saw afforded him a possibility of testing the truth of the
information given. Some precautions were taken, but it was soon
evident that the Moslems had no intention whatever of modifying in any
way the pacific attitude they had assumed. Enraged at the attempt to
mislead him, Bonaparte not only had the offenders arrested but issued
an order that all the Syrians in the town were to resume the
distinctive costume and be subjected to the other restrictions that
had formerly been imposed upon them by the Beys. The annual fast of
the month of Ramadan, during which the Moslems abstain from eating,
drinking, and smoking from early dawn until sunset, beginning about
this time, a proclamation was issued forbidding all non-Moslems to
eat, drink, or smoke in the streets, or in sight of those who were
fasting, and a Christian who was caught smoking was promptly arrested
and bastinadoed. These and other concessions that were made to Moslem
sentiment were not altogether unappreciated by them, but coming as
they did at a time when, as they were well aware, the French had more
than usual interest in gaining their goodwill, they could not but
regard these things as the husks of the corn that the French were to
eat, and saw, therefore, but little reason to be grateful for them,
but they at least returned them in kind by according the French the
passive submission they were so anxious for, and so, satisfied by the
conduct of the people that he could safely withdraw the bulk of his
army, Bonaparte started for Syria.
With the story of this ill-fated expedition we have nothing to do, for
though usually given at great length in the histories of the country
it forms no part of its history, the Egyptians having no further
interest in it than that arising from their sympathy with the people
attacked. They heard with pleasure of the difficulties and privations
the army had to encounter and endure, with regret of its successes,
and with sincere rejoicing of its ultimate discomfiture. It was in
vain that Bonaparte sent them the most rose-coloured reports; no one
accepted or believed them. The cold-blooded butchery of six thousand
disarmed prisoners at Jaffa was an incident of the expedition which
historians in vain try to gloss over or excuse, but with all the
fawning fallacies with which they seek to save the honour of their
hero, the massacre was one of the most brutal and inexcusable
atrocities of all those that sully the pages of history. No sophisms
can defend it, for not only was there not the slightest ground for a
plea of justification, but the measure was a stupid and impolitic
blunder. The soldiers, we are told, carried out their revolting task
of shooting down the bound and helpless victims with the greatest
reluctance. It was a notable example of the power of discipline, the
immediate, unquestioning obedience of the soldier; but such discipline
as this! When we think of the men on the fast-sinking _Birkenhead_
falling into rank and standing to order as the doomed vessel made her
final plunge one feels that discipline may be great and glorious--but
the discipline that stained the sands of Jaffa with the blood of six
thousand unarmed, pinioned men!
Meanwhile the Ramadan having come to an end, the people of Cairo
celebrated the Eed, or feast with which they return to the ordinary
routine of life, in much the same way but with much less feasting and
rejoicing than usual. According to the regular custom in all Mahomedan
towns and villages, the people assembled on the first day of the feast
to celebrate it with special prayers and thanksgivings, and we get a
curious insight into their manner of regarding the ceremonies of their
religion from an incident that occurred on this occasion. By some
strange forgetfulness the Imam, or official leader of the prayers,
omitted to recite the Fatiha, the prayer which is in Islam that which
the "Lord's Prayer" is in the Christian Church, with the addition that
it is always recited as the opening prayer whenever and wherever
Moslems worship. Under all ordinary circumstances the Moslem idea of
propriety in a mosque or place of prayer is such as prevails in the
churches of Europe, but the reverent attention that is customarily
given to the Imam will not stand any great strain and so, reminded by
a storm of protests from the thousands of worshippers present, the
Imam on this occasion had to recommence the service! Let the reader
try and imagine the congregation at some great festival in St. Paul's
or St. Peter's roaring at his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, or
his Holiness the Pope that he had omitted the collect for the day, and
peremptorily ordering him to recommence the service!
Two months later, in May, 1799, the great Eed, or day of sacrifice,
was kept, but in this as in all things the shadow of the French
occupation overhung the people and embittered their feelings. Sheep,
which for several reasons are the animals generally chosen for
sacrifice, could not be had, partly because the flocks of the
neighbouring villages had been almost wholly consumed by the French
and partly because the restless condition of the country prevented
those of more distant places being sent into the town. So the salvos
of artillery with which according to custom the occasion was
celebrated were listened to by the people but failed to awaken the
usual enthusiasm, and, fired as they were by the unorthodox hands of
the French gunners, were to the Moslems little better than a mockery.
Early in the year when the plague had first appeared rigorous police
regulations had been issued for the protection of the French, who
suffered from the dread of epidemics so universal in Christian Europe,
but which, as readers of Kinglake's "Eothen" will remember, so
slightly disturb the Oriental mind. As the year had advanced the
plague had shown no signs of disappearing, and new and more stringent
orders were issued in the hope of restricting it. Dire penalties were
therefore imposed for concealing a case or a death, or for neglecting
the prescribed sanitary precautions, and some idea of the frantic
terror that possessed the compilers of these regulations may be
gathered from the fact that death was the punishment proclaimed for
any one sick of the plague who should dare enter any other house than
his own dwelling.
Thus the first year of the French occupation and the year of the
Moslem calendar came to an end within a few days of each other, and
Gabarty winds up his long and yet all too brief record of the woes and
tribulations of the twelve months by saying that it had been full of
"unheard-of events, the most important being that the people of Egypt
had been unable to make the pilgrimage to Mecca!"
A very notable conclusion of the year's story--a conclusion that tells
us much of the people and their most extraordinary and irrational way,
as you no doubt think it, of looking upon the affairs of life. The
coming of the French, the terrible sufferings of the panic-stricken
town, the gathering of that wild storm of revolt, its bursting,
collapse, the long-delayed hope of relief, the daily outraging of the
most cherished prejudices of the people--all these, the great flood of
evil and sorrow that was the one recollection of that miserable time
for all the people--all this was of less importance than the fact that
a few hundred individuals had been unable to perform the dangerous
journey to Mecca!
Death, want, misfortune and misery of every kind had filled the record
of the year for one and all of the people, but this one thing in which
but a few of them only could have any direct personal interest, this
was "the most important event of the year!"
Is it any wonder that the people refused to fall down and worship the
golden calf of the French Republic that Bonaparte and his Staff were
so vainly trying to exalt!
That the reader may the more justly appreciate Gabarty's comment on
the history of the year he must recall two facts with reference to the
composition of his history--first that it was written at the time. It
is not a record compiled in after years when the feelings, emotions,
and thoughts of the moment had been forgotten or blurred, It was
rather a diary scribbled down from day to day, and one written, too,
with no special object other than that of recording the principal
occurrences of the time. A mere narrative, not written in support of a
theory, nor as a study of men or things, nor as a text for the
exposition of the author's views, but simply in the plainest and most
literal sense a mere narrative. Secondly, it is not as an opinion but
as a fact that he puts this failure of the pilgrimage down as the most
important event of that disastrous year. And he puts it down as a fact
in terms that show clearly that he believes that as a matter of
opinion it is one no one who may ever read his history will for a
moment think of questioning or doubting in any way.
If the reader can by any possibility bring himself to comprehend in
the faintest degree the true purport of this summing up of the year's
history he will have got a long, a very long, way on the road to a
clear comprehension of the Egyptian as he was in 1798, and as he still
is.
It may help the reader somewhat to form some idea of his own on this
subject if I turn aside for a moment to tell him what this pilgrimage
to Mecca is, and how it is regarded by the Moslems of Egypt and other
countries.
Itself surrounded by the hills of the desert district of the Hegaz,
the city of Mecca has grown around and encircles a great rectangular
open but cloister-bounded space, in the centre of which rises a
flat-roofed building occupying a mere spot in the vast courtyard, and
which, but for its height, might be termed a cube, clothed on all
sides by a hanging cloth of the deepest black, relieved only by a band
of Arabic lettering wrought in gold. Nature herself has produced no
more impressive sight than that presented by this small building thus
strangely garbed and hid away in the wastes of the desert. In size, in
form, in all things save its sable garment gently swaying to the
slightest breeze, the building is one that would never draw from the
stranger a second glance, but as it is, once seen it dwells upon the
mind for ever with a vividness of detail no other sight can produce.
This is the _Beit Allah_, the "House of God" of Islam, first erected,
as Moslem tradition relates, by the Prophet Abrahim, and ever since a
place of pilgrimage for all true worshippers of God. Hither while yet
Christianity and Islam were yet unknown, in the "days of ignorance,"
when the Arabs still worshipped idols of stone, they came from all
parts of the Arab-speaking world as pilgrims, counting all the many
dangers of the road as nought compared to the rich rewards awaiting in
the future those who should accomplish this duty. Enjoined upon the
Moslems as one of the five great obligations of their creed, the
pilgrimage to-day draws Moslems from the most distant parts of the
world by long and tedious journeys through the wildest and
least-civilised parts of the earth, heedless of dangers and
difficulties, counting it a gain to suffer by the way, and content to
die once their eyes have fallen upon the sacred building. And of all
Moslems the Egyptian, and most especially the Cairene, has a special
and peculiar interest in the pilgrimage since it is the privilege of
Cairo to supply from year to year the new _Kiswa_, or clothing for the
_Beit Allah_.
Here, then, we have a partial clue to the importance attached to the
failure of the pilgrimage by the Cairenes, but, as I have said, the
failure was one that directly affected but a few hundreds of the
people--those who under more favourable circumstances would have taken
part in the pilgrimage. But these, from the point of view of their own
pilgrimage, would accept the impossibility of performing it in that
year as a matter of destiny, and would have regarded the
impoverishment of their resources caused by the endless exactions of
the French as a greater evil, as one not only preventing their making
the pilgrimage in that year, but possibly also in future years, since
the expenses of the journey are such that to the ordinary pilgrim they
are only to be met by the economy of years.
There was, therefore, some other reason why the failure of the
pilgrimage should be looked upon as so great a calamity, and if the
reader will recall the incident of the omitted prayer at the festival
of the Eed, it may assist in guiding him to the solution of the
problem, for in that incident we get an aid to the understanding of
the Egyptian's attitude towards his religion and his interpretation of
its duties. This and other matters that I have had occasion to speak
of may perhaps enable the reader to understand at least this
much--that this people has a standard of good and evil very different
to his own, and that no scale of weal and woe that he could draw out
would be at all likely to commend itself to their acceptance. He who
has grasped this fact will have gained a position from which he may
hope to pursue his study of the Egyptians and their history, with at
least one solid, indisputable fact to guide him--a fact that, almost
impossible as one would think it to be, the ordinary historian of the
country seems quite unable to realise. It is true that in so many set
words or phrases they tell their readers that the Egyptian does not
reason or think as other men do, but having said so much they describe
and criticise their actions and thoughts without the least reference
to this fundamental and controlling fact. Nor is it the historians
alone who make this crass mistake. Men living in the country, nay,
even those born and reared in it, and living in the closest intimacy
with Egyptians, are no wiser, and hence, whenever Egyptian thought or
opinion run counter to their own, they all agree in attributing the
difference to "stupidity" or "fanaticism." And what is still less
realised is that this difference is not limited to the Moslems, but is
shared by the Christians of the country. Severed from each other as
the Moslem and Eastern Christian are in thought and aspiration, they
are, though not wholly one, strongly sympathetic in their estimates of
European civilisation as it is commonly presented to them. The active
effect of their sympathy is partly nullified by the interest the
Christian has in seeing the predominant power in the hands of his
coreligionists, and it was this interest, and this interest alone, and
not any sympathy with French views or French ideals, that gained from
the Christians of Egypt whatever of support they gave the French. In
all books on the East it is tacitly assumed by the writers that were
the East Christianised it would be in full sympathy with European
thought. No greater error is conceivable. The Coptic or the Syrian
clerk in the service of the Egyptian Government of to-day, compelled
as he is by the official regulations, attends his office in European
dress, but goes home to throw that off at the first possible moment to
resume the garb of the country, the loose, flowing garments that good
sense and experience alike tell him are not only the most comfortable
but the most healthy in a climate such as that of Egypt. And as in
this so in other things. Like the Moslem, he accepts many of the
comforts and conventions of European life, but like him he rejects not
a few of these that north of the Mediterranean are deemed
indispensable.
These were things that the French did not and perhaps could not see.
And there was yet another obstacle they had to surmount, but of the
presence of which they seem to have been oblivious. The civilisation
that the French wished to plant in Egypt had not been the growth of a
day, but the fruit of centuries of slow and halting progress. Had it
been possible for a foreign power to have attempted to introduce that
civilisation into France, say in the ninth or tenth century, what
manner of reception would it have had? Think you that the French
people of that time would have hailed the innovations forced upon them
with rapturous delight? that they would at once have appreciated
every little detail, and hastened to abandon all their time-honoured
habits and customs to adopt those of their new teachers? How did our
Hereward the Wake look upon the innovations of the Norman Conqueror?
Was it with an ecstasy of admiration that Gurth the swineherd thought
of the Norman civilisation of his day? Was it enthusiasm for the
benefits advancing civilisation was bestowing upon them that led the
Luddites in their machine-wrecking riots? The parallels are not
perfect I admit, yet there is in them a sufficient resemblance of
circumstance and fact to justify the comparison, and more than enough
to discredit the conclusions that so many authors have drawn from the
attitude of the people of Egypt towards the French.
We have not reached the pleasant lands of our modern civilisation
wafted by a gentle breeze on a smoothly gliding bark, but have won our
way through storm and tempest by paths bedewed with blood and tears,
and withal our progress has been less a striving for good than a
flight from evil, and though we are not perhaps all sensible of it,
our appreciation of our civilisation is largely our appreciation of
our triumph over evils and difficulties. The ignorant and thoughtless,
whether of the "Smart Set" or of the slums, do not see this. They and
all of their class take life, as do their cats and dogs and the beasts
of the field, as they find it. Yet he who can and will think must
admit that it is so, and, admitting this, will see that in addition to
the other causes that prevented the Egyptians accepting the French and
their reforms there was this very important one, that they could not
in any way appreciate them as reforms, seeing that they were not yet
conscious of the existence of the evils they were intended to remedy.
To the Egyptian, as I have said before, the life he had been living
under the Mamaluks needed but little to make it perfect. Moderate
taxation and the abolition of the erratic tyranny from which the
people suffered were the two things wanted to make his life wholly
desirable and pleasant. These evils, so far from being abolished by
the French, were, in the opinion of the Egyptian, increased a
hundredfold. And to these the French added a host of minor evils:
worrying and wearisome regulations, cramping the liberty and freedom
the people had always enjoyed, thwarting their natural instincts and
burthening them with a sense of control they had never before
experienced.
Again, I ask, what wonder was it that they did not fall down and
worship the golden calf of the Republic?