'They Shall Speak the Arabic Language and Take Pride in it': reconsidering the fate of Coptic after the Arab Conquest

The complaints on the adoption of Arabic by the Copts that are voiced by the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Samuel have often been quoted as the expiring words of the dying Coptic language. This article seeks to show that they are not to be taken so literally, and that they should rather be inserted in the context of a rift within the medieval Coptic church over the question of language choice, and beyond this, over that of accommodation with the Muslims. The use of Arabic by the episcopal church of Miṣr and by some prominent figures around it, which was linked to their proximity to the Fatimid court, was resented and denounced by more traditional circles, centred on the Patriarchate and on some important monasteries such as the one at Qalamūn where the Apocalypse was written. The suggestion is also made that the text is contemporary with the beginning of Coptic literary production in Arabic and with the introduction of Egyptian Christians at the caliphal court, namely in the last quarter of the tenth century, at the time of Severus ibn al-Muqqafa‘.

Gender, childhood and children’s literature: the CIRCL approach

This paper explores the unique approach to childhood and children’s literature of the research and teaching of the ‘Graduate Centre for International Research in Childhood: Literature, Culture, Media (CIRCL)’. CIRCL follows in its work the arguments of UK critical theorist Jacqueline Rose in her seminal 1984 book The case of Peter Pan or the impossibility of children’s fiction. Rose’s work has been widely and routinely referenced in Children’s Literature studies particularly, but CIRCL interprets her arguments as having quite different implications than those usually assumed. Rose is generally attributed with having pointed out that ‘childhood’ is not one, homogenous category, but that childhood is divided by gender, race, and ethnic, political and religious (and so on) identities. But for CIRCL this is only a first step in Rose’s arguments and certainly one not unique to her work anyway: the perception of various cultural and historical childhoods is widely held. Instead, my paper explores how Rose’s arguments are centrally about how ‘childhood’ itself cannot be maintained in the face of division, a division, moreover, which operates inevitably at every level, and which derives from Rose’s interpretation of psychoanalysis as formulated by Sigmund Freud, which Rose derives in turn from her readings of the interpretations of Freud by French analyst Jacques Lacan and French critical theorist Jacques Derrida. Finally, my paper argues how Rose’s position is about any ‘identity’, including gender and that this allies her work closely to that of the famous gender theorist Judith Butler, whose arguments are often (mis) understood in the same ways as those of Rose.