url - hitotsubashi university particular, what did edward said read in cavafy’s poem waiting for...

Hitotsubashi University Repository

TitleAlexandria in the Time of Constantine Cavafy (1863-

1933)

Author(s) KATO, Hiroshi; IWASAKI, Erina

Citation Mediterranean world = 地中海論集, 23: 81-122

Issue Date 2017

Type Journal Article

Text Version publisher

URL http://hdl.handle.net/10086/28546

Right

Alexandria in the Time of Constantine Cavafy (1863-1933)

Hiroshi Kato and Erina Iwasaki

Introduction: Why Cavafy?

A newspaper article was published in 2003 in relation to the death of the famous Palestin-ian-American thinker, Edward Said (1935-2003).

In 2003, the funeral of Edward Said was held at Riverside Church in uptown New York in September 25, 2003. In it, Daniel Barenboim, famous Jewish musician and close friend of Said, played Said’s favorite music of Mozart, Bach and Brahms on the piano, and Said’s daughter read Waiting for the Barbarians by the Greek Alexandrine poet Constantine Cavafy. She said that her father loved the poems of Cavafy.

The article reported that at the funeral of Edward Said, Said’s daughter read one of the poems of the Greek Alexandrine poet Constantine Cavafy.1 The beginning and ending of the poem (composed in 1898) are as follows [Cavafy 1992: 18-19]:

Waiting for the BarbariansWhat are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?The barbarians are due here today.Why isn’t anything happening in the senate?Why do the senators sit there without legislating?Because the barbarians are coming today.What laws can the senators make now?Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating.…Why this sudden restlessness, this confusion?(How serious people’s faces have become.)Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,

1 Constantine P. Cavafy (Konstandinos Petru Kavafis, 1863-1933). All the poems of Cavafy are translated into Japanese.

82 H. KATO AND E. IWASAKI

everyone going home so lost in thought?Because night has fallen and the barbarians have not come.And some who have just returned from the border saythere are no barbarians any longer.And now, what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?They were, those people, a kind of solution.

It is interesting to speculate why Said, the writer of Orientalism and a pro-Palestine ac-tivist, was fascinated by this poem. It is probable that he sympathized with the diaspora of Cavafy, although there was a difference between Said and Cavafy as to the nature of their diasporas. The diaspora of Edward Said was forced by the Israeli occupation of the Palestine, whereas the diaspora of Cavafy was freely chosen.

In particular, what did Edward Said read in Cavafy’s poem Waiting for the Barbarians? Who were the “Barbarians” for Cavafy and for Edward Said? It is obvious that Edward Said sympathized with the elegy of the world to which Cavafy felt he belonged, which reflects the atmosphere of the modern Alexandria in which Cavafy lived and wrote.

This paper aims to examine the decadent atmosphere or spirit of modern Alexandria in the time of Cavafy,2 as reflected in his poems; that is, it focuses on Alexandria from the second half of the nineteenth century to the period between the two World Wars of the twentieth cen-tury. It aims to do so by examining the following two subjects: 3 first, the dramatic appearance of Alexandria in the world economy; and second, the identity crisis among the foreign minori-ties, especially the Greeks, to which Cavafy belonged, in modern Alexandria. Before discuss-ing these two themes, we briefly outline the formation of modern Alexandria.

I. The formation of modern Alexandria

It is well known that Egypt has been a centralized society and thus has been characterized by a lack of diversity or variety, at least from a cultural viewpoint. In Egypt, everything has been “Egyptianized”. In this situation, Alexandria cut a brilliant figure in modern Egypt.

Alexandria is a modern city, although its name dates back to the Hellenistic age. When Napoleon Bonaparte landed his troops in 1798, which was the starting point of the moderniza-tion of Egypt, it is said that the population of Alexandria did not exceed 8,000. As shown in Graph 1 and Table 1, the initial stage of population growth in Alexandria would have occurred under the reign of Muhammad Ali (who ruled in 1805-48).

2 Cavafy was born in 1863 during the cotton boom (1861-65) and died in 1933, during the Great Depression (1929-33).

3 This paper aims to expand on the theme of Kato [1998].

ALEXANDRIA IN THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE CAVAFY (1863-1933) 83

Graph 1 Urban population ratio in Egypt and the proportion of Cairo and Alexandria in the urban population (1882-2006)

3

Graph 1 Urban population ratio in Egypt and the proportion of Cairo and Alexandria in the urban population (1882–2006)

Note: No information is available on the urban and rural population in 1882. The population in 1966 is from the

1966 census sample survey. The urban populations in 1897 and 1917 are from the estimations by Panzac

[1977] and those for 1821–26 and 1846–1882 are estimations by Baer [1969: 134–135].

Source: Statistical Yearbook, 2013; 2015, Baer [1969: 134–135].

During the period 1821–46, the population of Alexandria grew rapidly. Alexandria would have been a small town of only 12,528 residents at the start of this period, around 1821–26. By 1846, its population had increased to 164,359. It continued to rise after 1846, reaching more than 300,000 persons in 1897.

The population trends indicate that Alexandria was the driving force behind the urbanization of Egypt in the first half of the nineteenth century. On the other hand, the increase of the urban population in the second half of the nineteenth century was mainly caused by growth in Cairo, which developed as an administrative center after the British occupation of Egypt. The time lag in the development of Alexandria and Cairo reflects their different positions in the political economy of Egypt.4

The time of Cavafy, the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, was the heyday of modern Alexandria as a cosmopolitan city, and it is sometimes referred to as “la Belle Epoque”. Modern Alexandria was a multicultural (religious and ethnical) city, where more than 10% of “foreigners” and “minorities” coexisted with Egyptians and Muslims, as will be discussed in more detail below. The Municipality of Alexandria was established in 1890. After being planned by foreign residents in the first half

4 Obviously, the two cities of Cairo and Alexandria were the major cities experiencing population growth in the twentieth century. As shown in Table 1, in 1897, Cairo (governorate) had only 525,029 residents, comprising 6.5% of the total population and Alexandria had only 315,844 residents, equaling 3.9% of the total population. The population of these two cities grew steadily from this point, except for the period of depression, 1927–1937. The annual population growth reached peaks in Cairo of 4.8% during 1937–1947, and in Alexandria of 3.9% during 1947–1960.

55

38 3943 42

30 28 2932 34 35

3229

27 27

3

24 23 23 22

17 16 16 15 15 15 14 14 13 13

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1821‐ 26

18461882189719071917192719371947196019661976198619962006 Popu

latio

n grow

th in

Alexand

ria an

d Ca

iro

(%)

% Urban

grow

th

Urban % Cairo Alexandria

% P

opul

atio

n gr

owth

% U

rban

gro

wth

Note: No information is available on the urban and rural population in 1882. The population in 1966 is from the 1966 census sample survey. The urban populations in 1897 and 1917 are from the estimations by Panzac [1977] and those for 1821-26 and 1846-82 are estimations by Baer [1969: 134-135].

Source: Statistical Yearbook, 2013; 2015, Baer [1969: 134-135].

During the period 1821-46, the population of Alexandria grew rapidly. Alexandria would have been a small town of only 12,528 residents at the start of this period, around 1821-26. By 1846, its population had increased to 164,359. It continued to rise after 1846, reaching more than 300,000 persons in 1897.

The population trends indicate that Alexandria was the driving force behind the urbaniza-tion of Egypt in the first half of the nineteenth century. On the other hand, the increase of the urban population in the second half of the nineteenth century was mainly caused by growth in Cairo, which developed as an administrative center after the British occupation of Egypt. The time lag in the development of Alexandria and Cairo reflects their different positions in the po-litical economy of Egypt .4

The time of Cavafy, the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, was the heyday of modern Alexandria as a cosmopolitan city, and it is sometimes referred to as “ la Belle Epoque”. Modern Alexandria was a multicultural (religious and ethnical) city, where more than 10% of “foreigners” and “minorities” coexisted with Egyptians and Muslims, as

4 Obviously, the two cities of Cairo and Alexandria were the major cities experiencing population growth in the twentieth century. As shown in Table 1, in 1897, Cairo (governorate) had only 525,029 residents, comprising 6.5% of the total population and Alexandria had only 315,844 residents, equaling 3.9% of the total population. The population of these two cities grew steadily from this point, except for the period of depression, 1927-37. The annual population growth reached peaks in Cairo of 4.8% during 1937-47, and in Alexandria of 3.9% during 1947-60.


will be discussed in more detail below. The Municipality of Alexandria was established in 1890. After being planned by foreign residents in the first half of nineteenth century, the mu-nicipality was initiated by the activity of the Alexandrian merchants.5 It was the first veritable municipality in Egypt and, for a long time, the only one.

Table 1 Population of Cairo, Alexandria, and Egypt (1821-1907)

Population Average annual growth (%)Total Cairo Alexandria Total Cairo Alexandria

1821-26 2,536,400 218,560 12,528 2.21 0.62 10.411846 4,476,439 256,679 164,359 0.63 0.98 0.011872 5,210,287 330,763 164,718 1.15 0.40 0.131877 5,517,627 337,462 165,752 3.98 3.38 7.011882 6,705,825 398,410 232,636 2.45 1.86 2.061897 9,634,752 525,029 315,844 1.51 2.60 1.141907 11,189,978 678,432 353,807 1.29 1.55 2.32

Source: Gouvernement Égyptien [1897: 8-9], Baer [1969: 134-135].

II. Alexandria in the world economy

1. The integration of Egypt into the world economyThe focus of our concern with Alexandria is on its structural change into modern Alex-

andria, which was accompanied by the population growth discussed. The growth of modern Alexandria was deeply linked to its relationship with the outside world, especially Europe.

This point is illustrated by the external trade of the port of Alexandria. Graph 2 shows the values of external trade in modern Egypt, as estimated by Crouchley [1938]. Almost all the values relate to the port of Alexandria.

5 In contrast, the Municipality of Cairo was created only in 1949, when the Capitulation regime in Egypt was finally abolished. Therefore, the Municipality of Cairo would have been established without providing any special positions for foreigners. For more details on this subject, see Kato and Iwasaki [2017].


Graph 2 Estimated values of external trade in modern Egypt (million pounds sterling)

5

Graph 2 Estimated values of external trade in modern Egypt (million pounds sterling)

Source: Crouchley [1938: 137–138].

The graph clearly indicates that there were two turning points in the trends for external trade in Egypt, when the volume of external trade significantly increased. These were the first half of the 1860s, during the cotton boom (1861–1865), which was caused by the American Civil War,6 and the first half of the 1870s, immediately after the opening of the Suez Canal in 1969.

A great deal of literature has been published on the impact of the American Civil War on the international cotton market, including the Egyptian market. However, our concern, given our focus on the modernization of Alexandria, is the gradual growth of the external trade in Egypt in the 1840s and 1850s. This growth was apparently caused by the expansion of the port of Alexandria’s facilities for the embarkation of large ships7

and the organization of the traffic routes by sea and land around Egypt, shown in the timeline below, which is sometimes referred to as a “traffic revolution”.

Timeline of the “traffic revolution” around Egypt in the mid-nineteenth century

1835 Steamship route between Alexandria and Marseille 1836 Steamship route between Suez and Bombay 1855 Railroad line from Alexandria to Cairo 1858 Railroad line from Cairo to Suez 1869 Suez Canal

6 Table 21 on the volume and direction of Egyptian cotton exports (annual averages, measured in cantars) in Owen [1969: 161] shows that the total volume increased from 473,737 in 1850–4, to 518,632 in 1855–9, 943,829 in 1860–4,706,480 in 1865–9, 1,892,302 in 1870–4, and to 2,229,800 in 1875–9. A cantar (or kantar) is approximately equal to 99 lb or 45 kg. 7 On the expansion of the facilities of the port, see Malaval et al. [1912: 47–62].

0.51.7

2.33.0

8.9 8.8

12.912.2

1.0 1.52.0

2.7

4.1 4.25.3 5.0

0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2

4.7 4.6

7.6 7.1

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

1840 1849 1851‐55 1856‐60 1861‐65 1866‐70 1871‐75 1876‐80

1 million po

unds

Exportion Importation Balance of Trade

Source: Crouchley [1938: 137-138].

The graph clearly indicates that there were two turning points in the trends for external trade in Egypt, when the volume of external trade significantly increased. These were the first half of the 1860s, during the cotton boom (1861-65), which was caused by the American Civil War,6 and the first half of the 1870s, immediately after the opening of the Suez Canal in 1969.

A great deal of literature has been published on the impact of the American Civil War on the international cotton market, including the Egyptian market. However, our concern, given our focus on the modernization of Alexandria, is the gradual growth of the external trade in Egypt in the 1840s and 1850s. This growth was apparently caused by the expansion of the port of Alexandria’s facilities for the embarkation of large ships7 and the organization of the traffic routes by sea and land around Egypt, shown in the timeline below, which is sometimes referred to as a “ traffic revolution”.

Timeline of the “ traffic revolution” around Egypt in the mid-nineteenth century1835 Steamship route between Alexandria and Marseille1836 Steamship route between Suez and Bombay1855 Railroad line from Alexandria to Cairo1858 Railroad line from Cairo to Suez1869 Suez Canal

6 Table 21 on the volume and direction of Egyptian cotton exports (annual averages, measured in cantars) in Owen [1969: 161] shows that the total volume increased from 473,737 in 1850-54, to 518,632 in 1855-59, 943,829 in 1860-64,706,480 in 1865-69, 1,892,302 in 1870-74, and to 2,229,800 in 1875-79. A cantar (or kantar) is approximately equal to 99 lb or 45 kg.

7 On the expansion of the facilities of the port, see Malaval and Jondet [1912: 47-62].


As a result of this traffic revolution, from the 1830s to the 1850s the circumstances of for-eign trade around Egypt were dramatically changed, and Egypt became a nexus linking the sea and land routes from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. In fact, Alexan-dria became one of the large international seaports in the Mediterranean in the latter half of the nineteenth century (refer to Table 2 and Graph 10 (in color page) on the world large ports at the beginning of 20th century).

Graphs 3 and 4 (in color page) show the changes in the international trading circumstances and structure of Alexandria, providing a statistical comparison of the trading partners and trad-ing in external goods at the port of Alexandria between 1831 and 1869.8

Regarding the trading partners in 1831, the top five, for both imports and exports, were Turkey (accounting for 33.2% of exports and 46.8% of imports), Austria (25.2% and 17.5%), Tuscany (11.6% and 17.1%), Britain (13.5% and 8.1%), and France (11.3% and 5.8%).

On the other hand, in the second half of the 1860s, the top five trading partners for imports were Britain (accounting for 42.2% of total values), Turkey (14.8%), France (12.7%), Austria (8.0%), and Syria and Italy (both 6.5%). For exports, the top four trading partners were Britain (accounting for 76.7% of total values), France (12.9%), Austria (6.0%), and Italy and Turkey (both 1.5%).

Regarding the goods traded in 1831, the top two imports were wood and cotton goods, accounting for 42.2% (21.2% for wood and 21.0% for cotton goods) of total import values. Wood was imported from Turkey and Austria. Cotton goods were imported from Tuscany, Austria, and Britain. In relation to exports, cotton wool accounted for 36.5% of the total export value. Almost all cotton was exported to Austria, Britain, and France.

By 1869, the top imports had changed to industrial goods, almost all of which were cotton cloth and cotton thread, which accounted for 34% of import values. For exports, cotton and cotton seeds were the two top trading goods, which accounted for 76.7% of export values.

These data indicate that Egypt was already well established in providing cotton exports to Europe in the 1830s, as cotton already accounted for a considerable portion of export values (36.5%). However, it is instructive that the first import partner was not Britain or France, but Austria. In addition, the second highest export good was cereals (15.6%), with Tuscany, Aus-tria, Malta, and Turkey being the most important import partners, in that order.

Special attention must be paid to the trading of goods between Egypt and Turkey, as the latter was Egypt’s first trading partner. The statistics show that the two most traded goods were wood and cotton products for imports, and rice and linen for exports. We can judge from this fact that the trade between Egypt and Turkey had multiple structures because Egypt and Tur-key exchanged both primary materials and secondary industrial goods with each other .9

8 For more details, see Kato [1998]. We could not find data on trading partners in 1869; only the data for 1865-69 were available.

9 The port of Alexandria was directed toward the Mediterranean. Taking into account the overland


By 1869, we can observe completely different features in the trading structure. The share of the “Great Powers” in Egypt’s foreign trade increased tremendously in 1869, compared with their share in 1831. Britain and France accounted for 54.9% of imports and 89.6% of exports in 1869, compared with 24.8% of imports and 13.9% of exports in 1831. In particular, the share of Britain in exports was overwhelming.

The difference between 1831 and 1869 in the structure of the external trade in Alexandria is decisive. It indicates that Egypt was integrated into the modern world economic system, the center of which was Europe, and had a monocultural economy, which was largely based on the cotton plant.

However, in 1831, as mentioned above, Egypt’s top five trading partners were Turkey, Austria, Tuscany, Britain, and France. Egypt’s next most important trading partners were Mal-ta, Greece, and Sardinia, all located in either the Aegean Sea or the Adriatic Sea. Consequently, we can assume that there was an eastern Mediterranean trading market in 1831 (see Map 1 in color page). Moreover, this market had multiple structures as it involved primary materials and secondary industrial goods being exchanged.

In conclusion, Alexandria changed its location in the world economy in the middle of the nineteenth century, from an important port in the eastern Mediterranean to becoming the colo-nial bridgehead in the modern world system. This indicates that Egypt had been integrated into the world economy before Cavafy was born in 1863.

2. The heyday of the European hegemony in the Mediterranean tradeThe rapid increase of the volume of trade in Egypt in the first half of the 1860s was caused

by the cotton boom (1861-65). However, as mentioned above, the expansion of the facilities of the port of Alexandria and the organization of the sea and land traffic routes around Egypt were more important for the development of Alexandria from a long-term perspective.

The cotton boom determined the basic trade structure of Egypt’s monocultural economy, based on the cotton plant, in the second half of the nineteenth century. The origins of this focus on cotton can be seen in the orientation of the trade structure of Alexandria toward cotton ex-ports in 1831, as mentioned before.

Certainly, the increase in the trade volume of Alexandria stopped immediately after the end of the cotton boom10 in the latter half of the 1860s. However, Alexandria soon experienced a second rapid increase in its trade volume in the first half of the 1870s, this time driven by the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. The opening of the Suez Canal was the final stage of the

trade with Libya, Sudan, and Syria, and the trade passing through the Red Sea toward the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean, it hardly seems an exaggeration to state that Egypt was coming to be regarded as a regional trading power, instead of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, Egypt sought entry into foreign markets and expanded its trading in the Arabian Peninsula, Sudan, Ethiopia, Crete, Cyprus, and Syria [Kato 1998: 106-107].

10 In addition, see note (6).


“ traffic revolution” that occurred in the middle of the nineteenth century, as noted in the time-line on the “ traffic revolution” above.

Then, it is interesting to ask, did the trade structure of Alexandria change after the opening of the Suez Canal? And, if it changed, what kind of change occurred? Graph 5 (in color page) shows the trading partners and the trading goods in Alexandria in 1878, nine years after the opening of the Suez Canal.

The top three trading partners of Alexandria in 1878 in relation to imports were Britain (accounting for 53.0% of total values), France (20.1%), and Austria-Hungary (13.1%). For exports, they were Britain (61.0%), France (12.1%), and Russia (11.9%). The top three trad-ing goods for imports were cotton products (27.9%), coal (7.1%), and ready-made clothes (5.4%);11 for exports, they were cotton (64.5%), cotton seeds (11.6%), and sugar (10.6%).

These statistics indicate that the main trading partners of Alexandria were the European countries, for both imports and exports, and the main traded goods were manufactured items and fuel for imports, and raw materials for exports. In comparison with the trade structure in 1869, shown in Graph 4, the trade structure in 1878 had changed very little. This indicates that the structure of the external trade in Alexandria did not significantly change after the opening of the Suez Canal, despite the literature frequently stating that the Suez Canal had a huge im-pact on the world economy.

Alexandria had an overwhelmingly important place in the external trade of Egypt. After the opening of the Suez Canal, the main ports in Egypt were Alexandria, Damietta, Arish, and Port Said in the Mediterranean, and Suez and Qusair in the Red Sea (see Map 2 in color page). Except for Port Said, these port cities were long established and well known from ancient times. Port Said is located at the north end of the Suez Canal. It was built in 1859 as the base for the building of the Suez Canal and was named after Egyptian ruler of the time, Said Pasha.

Graph 6 (in color page) provides a comparison of the trade volumes in six port cities in 1878. Their shares in the total volume of imports are 82.3% for Alexandria, 0.4% for Dami-etta, close to 0% for Arish, 9.9% for Port Said, 7.4% for Suez, and close to 0% for Qusair. For exports, the shares are 95.5% for Alexandria, 2.5% for Damietta, close to 0% for Arish, 0.5% for Port Said, 1.4% for Suez, and 0.1% for Qusair. The remarkable position of Alexandria in the external trade in Egypt is obvious in 1878.12

11 Interestingly, the mercantile goods for import had more variability than those for export.12 For more detail regarding the trade structures (the trading partners and trading goods) of the six

ports, refer to Hiroshi Kato, “Categorization of Egyptian Port Cities in 1878”, Journal of Asian Network for GIS-based Studies (JANGIS), No. 4 (forthcoming).


Source: Kato [1998: 104-105].

Graph 3b Main goods traded in Alexandria (1831)Import Export

Cotton goods 21.0% Wood 21.2% Various articles 27.3% Others 30.5%

Cotton wool 36.5% Sundries 19.2% Dry 15.6% Others 28.7%

Graph 3a Trading partners of Alexandria (1831) (unit: Egyptian Pound)Import (total: 389,466 E.P.) Export (total: 412,287 E.P.)

Britain 8.1% Malta 3.4% France 5.8% Austria 17.5% Tuscany 17.1% Sardinia 0.4% Greece 0.6% Sweden 0.3% Ottoman Empire 46.8% (Turkey)

Britain 13.5% Malta 2.9% France 11.3% Austria 25.2% Tuscany 11.6% Greece 1.3% Ottoman Empire 33.2%(Turkey) Others 1.0%

Graph 4a Trading partners of Alexandria (1865-69 average) (unit: Sterling Pound)Import (total: 5.21 million pounds) Export (total: 9.25 million pounds)

Britain 42.2% France 12.7% Austria 8.0% Italy 6.5% Ottoman Empire 14.8%(Turkey) Syria 6.5% Others 9.3%

Britain 76.7% France 12.9% Austria 6.0% Italy 1.5% Ottoman Empire 1.5%(Turkey) Syria 0.1% Others 1.3%

Source: Kato [1998: 108].

Graph 4b Goods traded in Alexandria (1869) (unit: Sterling Pound)Import (total: 5.17 million pounds) Export (total: 8.31 million pounds)

Industrial goods 34.0% Groceries 6.0% Building stone 5.2% Coal 5.0% Others 49.9%

Cotton 69.9% Cotton seeds 6.7% Sugar 4.5% Sugar cane 0.7% Others 18.2%

Source: Kato [1998: 108].


Map 1 East Mediterranean trade networks in 1831

Graph 5a Main trading partners of Alexandria (1878) (unit: Egyptian Piastre)Import (total: 398,856,927 E.P.) Export (total: 773,510,638 E.P.)

Britain 53.0% France 20.1% Austria-Hungary 13.1% Others 13.8%

Britain 61.0% France 12.1% Russia 11.9% Others 15.0%

Source: Ministère de l’Intérieur [1879: 124-125, 145-146].

Graph 5b Main goods traded in Alexandria (1878)Import Export

Cotton products 27.9% Coal 7.1% Ready-made clothes 5.4% Others 59.6%

Cotton 64.5% Cotton seeds 12.0% Sugar 10.6% Others 12.9%

①

②③

④ ⑤

⑥

① Cagliari (Sardigna)② Livorno③ Venice④ Valletta (Malta)⑤ Athens⑥ Istanbul⑦ Alexandria

⑦


Map 2 Six main ports in modern Egypt

Graph 6 Volume of trade in the six main ports (1878) (unit: Egyptian Piastre)Import (total: 484,434,195 E.P.) Export (total: 809,727,704 E.P.)

Source: Ministère de l’Intérieur [1879: 124-125].

Alexandria 82.3% Damietta 0.4% Port Said 9.9% Arish almost 0.0% Suez 7.4% Qusair almost 0.0%

Alexandria 95.5% Damietta 2.5% Port Said 0.5% Arish 0.0% Suez 1.4% Qusair 0.1%

Graph 9 Number of ship flags for entry in Alexandria (Old Port) by type of ship (1871)Sailing boat (total: 1,838 ships) Steamship (total: 330 ships)

Source: De Régny [1872: 22-25].

① Alexandria

② Damietta

③ Port Said

④ Arish

⑤ Suez

⑥ Qusair

①②

③ ④

⑤

⑥

Britain 94.3% France 1.8% Belgium 1.2% Germany 0.3% Denmark 0.3% Russia 0.3% Sweden 0.3% Ottoman Empire 1.2% Tunisia 0.3%

Britain 19.5% France 0.3% Austria 5.7% Italy 4.0% Germany 1.2% Greece 8.1% Russia 3.3% Sweden-Norway 1.4% Ottoman Empire 55.0% Others 1.5%


Graph 10 Large ports in the world economy at the beginning of the twentieth century (1905-10) (unit: ton)

Source: See Table 2

Table 2 Large ports in the world economy at the beginning of the twentieth century (1905-10) (unit: ton)

Ports Year TonnageHong Kong 1906 19,904,880 London 1906 19,053,929 Antwerp 1906 18,177,296 New York 1906 17,936,114 Hamburg 1906 16,694,792 Liverpool 1906 15,499,618 Rotterdam 1906 13,579,629 Cardiff 1906 13,119,156 Shanghai 1906 12,342,536 Singapore 1906 12,004,919 Marseille 1908 7,803,793 Genova 1908 7,015,113 Alexandria 1908 4,015,185 Alexandria 1909 3,743,717 Alexandria 1910 3,504,353 Rouen 1908 4,094,161 Bordeaux 1908 3,853,156 Le Havre 1908 3,643,462 Dunkirk 1908 3,200,777 Alger 1909 2,774,005 Barcelona 1905 2,101,557 Naples 1907 2,000,000 Nantes 1908 1,590,655

Source: Malaval and Jondet [1912: 87].

16

Source: See Table 2

2-3 The shaking of the European hegemony in the Mediterranean trade

By the middle of the nineteenth century, Egypt had just begun to be integrated into the world economy. From then on, however, Egypt, and especially the ports of Alexandria and Port Said, was rapidly and deeply integrated into the world economy as a crossroads of international trade. As a result, the ports of Alexandria and especially Port Said were in a position where they acted as a kind of mirror, minutely reflecting the changes of the world political economies.

The period from the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 to the beginning of the twentieth century was the heyday of the European countries in the Mediterranean trade. In fact, at the beginning of twentieth century, the hegemony of the European countries, especially Britain,13 in foreign trade with Egypt seemed to be steadfast.

However, after the First World War, their hegemony was shaken. Graphs 10 11 and 11 12 illustrate the volume of trade in Port Said, which was regarded as a purely international port, sensitively reflecting the changes in the world trade trends. Britain is excluded from the graphs because of its comparatively large volume of trade, but we note that the share of Britain in total trade volume in Port Said was gradually decreasing, from 80% in 1916 down to 50% in 1938.

13 The British concern with the Suez Canal intensified after the 1880s as, in 1876, Britain bought the stocks of the Suez Canal Company possessed by the Egyptian government when the Egyptian government went bankrupt. See Disraeli [1876] for more details.

0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000Hong Kong

LondonAntwerp

New YorkHamburgLiverpool

RotterdamCardiff

ShanghaiSingaporeMarseille

GenovaAlexandria (1908)Alexandria (1909)Alexandria (1910)

RouenBordeauxLe HavreDunkirk

AlgerBarcelona

NaplesNantes

書式変更: フォント : (日) ＭＳ明朝, (言語1) 日本語

NantesNaples

BarcelonaAlger

DunkirkLe HavreBordeaux

RouenAlexandria (1910)Alexandria (1909)Alexandria (1908)

GenovaMarseille

SingaporeShanghai

CardiffRotterdamLiverpoolHamburg

New YorkAntwerpLondon

Hong Kong


Alexandria continued to grow as a major international seaport in the Mediterranean after the 1880s, as indicated in Graphs 7 and 8 below. Graph 7 shows the traffic volume of entry and exit by ships, as well as the traffic volume of entry and exit by type of ship (sailing boat and steamship), in Alexandria for 1880-1910. Graph 8 shows the number of ships for entry and exit by kind of ship, in Alexandria for 1880-1910.

Graph 7 Traffic volumes by ships (tonnage of entry and exit) in Alexandria (1880-1910) (unit: Turkish ton)

13

Graph 7 Traffic volumes by ships (tonnage of entry and exit) in Alexandria, 1880–1910 (unit: Turkish ton)

Note: The Turkish ton is the standard unit of weight (net tonnage, NT) that was agreed on 18 December, 1873 in the

international conference held in Constantinople. A turkish ton is roughly equivalent to, but slightly less than,

a standard tonIts weight was a little less than the usual ton.

Source: Malaval et al. [1912: 91, 92].

Graph 8 Number of ships (entry and exit) for Alexandria by kind of ship, 1880–1910


0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

5,000,000

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910

Turk

ish

tons

Sailing boat Steam ship

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910


書式変更: フォントの色 : 自動

Note: The Turkish ton is the standard unit of weight (net tonnage, NT) that was agreed on 18 December, 1873 in the international conference held in Constantinople. A turkish ton is roughly equivalent to, but slightly less than, a standard ton.

Source: Malaval and Jondet [1912: 91, 92].


Graph 8 Number of ships (entry and exit) for Alexandria by kind of ship (1880-1910)

13

Graph 7 Traffic volumes by ships (tonnage of entry and exit) in Alexandria, 1880–1910 (unit: Turkish ton)

Note: The Turkish ton is the standard unit of weight (net tonnage, NT) that was agreed on 18 December, 1873 in the

international conference held in Constantinople. A turkish ton is roughly equivalent to, but slightly less than,

a standard tonIts weight was a little less than the usual ton.


Graph 8 Number of ships (entry and exit) for Alexandria by kind of ship, 1880–1910


0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

5,000,000

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910

Turk

ish

tons


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

Ent

ryE

xit

1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910


書式変更: フォントの色 : 自動

Source: Malaval and Jondet [1912: 91, 92].

We can deduce three important points from these graphs. First, the traffic volume by ships (tonnage of entry and exit) was gradually increasing from 1880. Second, however, in regard to types of ships, the number of sailing boats rapidly increased from 1903, whereas the number of steamships increased only a little during the period concerned. Third, accordingly, the in-crease in trade volume after 1880 was almost entirely caused by the increasing tonnage carried by individual steamships.

These results indicate that the increase in trade volume in Alexandria at the beginning of the twentieth century was driven by an increase in the size of steamships. Significantly, as shown in Graph 9 (in color page), in 1871, the number of ship flags for entry in Alexandria (Old Port) by type of ship show that almost all the steamships were flying the flags of the Eu-ropean countries, especially Britain (94.3%), whereas the majority of sailing boats were trans-porting goods under the flag of the Ottoman Empire (55%).

Alexandria was one of the largest international seaports in the Mediterranean at the begin-ning of the twentieth century, as shown in Table 2 and Graph 10 (in color page) which com-pare the large ports in the world economy at that time. According to Malaval, Alexandria was equal to Marseilles, Genoa, Algiers, and Trieste. Alexandria was the third largest port in terms of the value of trade and the number of passengers, after Marseille and Trieste, and equaling Genoa [Malaval 1911: 34-35].


3. The shaking of the European hegemony in the Mediterranean tradeBy the middle of the nineteenth century, Egypt had just begun to be integrated into the

world economy. From then on, however, Egypt, and especially the ports of Alexandria and Port Said, was rapidly and deeply integrated into the world economy as a crossroads of inter-national trade. As a result, the ports of Alexandria and especially Port Said were in a position where they acted as a kind of mirror, minutely reflecting the changes of the world political economies.

The period from the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 to the beginning of the twentieth century was the heyday of the European countries in the Mediterranean trade. In fact, at the beginning of twentieth century, the hegemony of the European countries, especially Britain,13 in foreign trade with Egypt seemed to be steadfast.

However, after the First World War, their hegemony was shaken. Graphs 11 and 12 (in color page) illustrate the volume of trade in Port Said, which was regarded as a purely inter-national port, sensitively reflecting the changes in the world trade trends. Britain is excluded from the graphs because of its comparatively large volume of trade, but we note that the share of Britain in total trade volume in Port Said was gradually decreasing, from 80% in 1916 down to 50% in 1938.

One of the notable trends in the data is the emergence of the late-coming capitalist states, including Germany, America, Japan, and the Netherlands. The volumes of trade of these coun-tries fluctuated because of their changing political situations, including the outbreak of the First World War. The rise of Japan in particular is notable as it was forecast to the shake the European hegemony in the Mediterranean trade.

After the opening of Suez Canal in 1869, the Japanese visited the European countries via the Suez Canal. Thus, the Japanese authorities (governmental, military, and commercial) were well aware of the importance of Port Said as the gate to the Mediterranean Sea. After the Rus-so-Japanese War (1904-05), the Japanese authorities had strong interests in the Mediterranean world (The Near East, the Balkans, and Africa).

The First World War gave the Japanese authorities a great chance to advance into the Mediterranean world. The Japanese traders found attractive markets there and Japanese au-thorities began to establish diplomatic and commercial footholds in Egypt and Turkey.14 The trade expansion of Japan in the Middle East accelerated fears of the “Yellow Peril” and caused a European movement against the dumping of Japanese goods in Europe [Shimizu 1986].

13 The British concern with the Suez Canal intensified after the 1880s as, in 1876, Britain bought the stocks of the Suez Canal Company possessed by the Egyptian government when the Egyptian government went bankrupt. See Disraeli [1876] for more details.

14 Acting on information from the diplomats and military attaches, the Japanese authorities first established Japanese diplomatic centers, then established commercial museums. See the paper by Nobuo Misawa in this volume of Mediterranean World, entitled “The Relationship between Greece and Japan in the Post-WWI Period: the Japanese Policy to Advance to the Mediterranean World”.


III. “Minorities” in modern Alexandria

1. Who were the “foreigners”?Who were the foreigners in Alexandria? It is easy to answer this question in relation to

the end of nineteenth century. They were the people of non-Egyptian nationality, especially Europeans. As will be mentioned below, because the “foreigners” were about 15% of the total population, Alexandria appeared to be a kind of European city at the end of the nineteenth cen-tury. However, the situation was quite different in the first half of the nineteenth century.

As mentioned above, in the first half of the nineteenth century, an eastern Mediterranean trading market existed. In these trading circumstances, the “Europeans” in Alexandria, es-pecially at the level of daily life, were the inhabitants of the eastern Mediterranean regions, rather than the people who came from the Europe beyond the Alps, such as the British and the French.

The picture becomes clearer upon an examination of the names of the trading partners in the trade statistics for Alexandria in 1831. We find the names of Turkey, Austria, and Tuscany as trading partners in the statistics. Turkey is equivalent to the Ottoman Empire, but we cannot readily assume that Austria and Tuscany are the same as present-day Austria and the Tuscany region in present-day Italy, respectively.

According to residence documents from 1833 [Philipp 1985: 63], almost all of the foreign residents registered as Austrian at that time were Italians who probably came from the area around Venice, which was then part of the Hapsburg Empire, the capital of which was Vienna. Most of the persons registered as Tuscans were Jews from Livorno, which from the Middle Ages was licensed as a free economic zone and served as a seaport for Florence.15

In the middle of the nineteenth century, most of the European countries were in the process of nation building, except for the most developed countries, including England and France. Accordingly, it is senseless to categorize the inhabitants in Alexandria by nationality until the middle of the nineteenth century.

In traditional Muslim society in pre-modern times, it was the custom that people were cat-egorized and ruled not by nationality or language, but by religion or religious sect. The major-ity of people identified themselves by religion or religious sect, regardless of nationality and language. In these circumstances, the majority of the Alexandrian population was composed of Muslims, and any other groups were minorities. In nineteenth century Alexandria, the so-called “foreigners” were among the minorities.

In population censuses conducted since 1882,16 “foreigners” in Egypt were categorized by

15 See Kato [1998] for more detail on this subject.16 The 1882 Population Census was a preliminary or practice one, and the 1897 Population Census

is considered to be the first population census in Egypt.


Graph 11 Transit volume (imports) by flag of ship in Port Said (1884-1952) (unit: thousand tons)

Source: Delatour [1953: Table no. 11]. See Appendix 1) (3-2)

Graph 12 Transit volume of merchandise and number of passengers in Port Said (1870-1952)

Source: Delatour [1953: Table no. 11].

050

100150200250300

German American North European French

Hellenic Italian Japanese

18

Graph 11 12 Transit volume of merchandise and number of passengers in Port Said (1870 – 1952)

Source: Delatour [1953: Table no.11].

One of the notable trends in the data is the emergence of the late-coming capitalist states, including Germany, America, Japan, and the Netherlands. The volumes of trade of these countries fluctuated because of their changing political situations, including the outbreak of the First World War. The rise of Japan in particular is notable as it was forecast to the shake the European hegemony in the Mediterranean trade.

After the opening of Suez Canal in 1869, the Japanese visited the European countries via the Suez Canal. Thus, the Japanese authorities (governmental, military, and commercial) were well aware of the importance of

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Num

ber

of p

asse

nger

s

Num

ber

of b

oats

Number of passengers

Number passing the canal

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

90,000,000

100,000,000

Num

ber

of b

oats

Tonn

age

Tonnage taxed (+)

Number passing the canal

Number of passengers

Number of boats and ships passing the canal

Tonnage taxed (+)

Number of boats and ships passing the canal


Graph 13 Percentage of students in Alexandria by religion (1907)

Note: In total, there were 22,536 students in Alexandria in 1907.Source: Kato and Iwasaki [2006: 352].

Muslim 35% Copt 5% Catholic 24% Protestant 1% Orthodox 21% Jewish 14% Other 0%

Graph 14 Percentage of students in Alexandria by nationality (1907)

Source: Kato and Iwasaki [2006: 351].

Egyptian 55% British 4% Austrian 2% French 3% German 1% Greek 18% Italian 14% Other 3%

Graph 15 Percentage of students by language of instruction in Alexandria (1907)

Source: Kato and Iwasaki [2006: 350].

Arabic 36% Arabic & English 5% Arabic & Armenian 2% English 3% French 26% Italian 12% German 2% Greek 14%


nationality and religion. For example, in the 1897 Population Census, people were divided into Egyptians and foreigners,17 and then foreigners were categorized by nationality, as the English, the French, the Greeks, the Italians, the Syrian-Palestinians, the Turks, and others. Further, people were divided by religion into the Muslims, the Christians, the Jews, and others; and for the Christian religion, they were further classified into the Copts, the Orthodox, the Catholics, the Protestants, and others.

2. The Greeks in modern AlexandriaAt the end of the nineteenth century, the Greeks were the largest foreign community in Al-

exandria, as shown in Table 3, among the foreign inhabitants of Alexandria in 1897.

Table 3 Foreign residents in Alexandria (1897)

Alexandria Cairo Total population 319,766 534,677 Foreigners 46,118 35,385

% 14.4 6.6Greece 15,182 9,869Italy 11,743 8,670France 5,221 5,124Great Britain 8,301 6,727Germany 472 487Russia 523 561Austria-Hungary 3,197 2,262Other country 1,479 1,685

Source: 1897 Population Census.

Alexandria was a cosmopolitan city from a demographic viewpoint. According to the 1897 Population Census, the foreign nationalities accounted for 1.2% of the total population in Egypt, and 40% of these foreign nationals were Greek. However, the foreigners accounted for 14.4% of the population in Alexandria and 6.6% of the population in Cairo, excluding the cit-ies along the Suez Canal where the foreigners were the dominant residents [Kato 1998: 116]. The Greeks accounted for 33% of the people of foreign nationality in Alexandria (see Table 4).

In the twentieth century, the foreign population continued to increase in Alexandria. The reason for this was the immigration of the Greeks to Alexandria. Table 5 shows the proportion of immigrants (those born outside the governorate) to the total population of the governor-ate from 1907 to 1937. From 1927, the immigration from abroad slowed down, but continued steadily. In Alexandria, immigration remained at the same volume until 1937, thanks to immi-

17 In the 1897 census, “foreigners” were categorized as such if they were subject to (administered by) authorities other than the Egyptian and Ottoman authorities. The “Egyptians” were categorized as such if they were “real indigenous” Egyptians, or originally from other Ottoman areas, or if they were Bedouins (see the Note to Table 4).


gration from Greece. By 1937, 15,954 persons in Alexandria were born in Greece.18

In the urban governorates, Alexandria, Port Said, Ismailiya, and Suez, in particular, those born outside Egypt accounted for around 20% of the population. The majority of these foreign-ers came from Greece, followed by Italy, Turkey, and Syria, which means that the migration was Mediterranean in nature.19

Table 4 Birth places of those born abroad in Cairo and Alexandria

Alexandria Cairo1897 1907 1937 1897 1907 1937

Total population 319,766 332,246 685,736 534,677 654476 1,312,096 Number of foreigners 46,118 60,496 57,717 35,385 75,221 65,760 % 14.4 18.2 8.4 7.0 11.5 5.0 Greece 15,182 16,721 15,954 9,869 14,605 7,953Italy 11,743 9,345 6,912 8,670 6,642 5,511France 5,221 1,728 1,251 5,124 2,654 2,333British Isles 8,301 3,269 2,019 6,727 5,747 3,569Germany 472 482 499 487 626 894Russia 523 755 584 561 807 690Austria 3,197 1,869 434 2,262 1,781 518Syria 8,899 5,159 13,311 10,640Turkey (in Asia) 8,378 6,283 9,678 6,386Turkey (in Europe) 3,678 4,864Sudan 4,205 3,564 13,357 10,640Other countries 1,479 4,845 11,380 1,685 6,013 11,762

Note: In 1897, Syria, Turkey, and Sudan do not appear in the nationalities category. Instead, the Syrian and the Turk-ish appear to be classified as Egyptians. The category of “Egyptian” in the 1897 Census comprised the “Fixed indigenes”, the people “originally from other areas of Ottoman Empire”, and the “Bedouins”.

Source: Population Censuses 1897, 1907, 1937.

18 In Cairo, on the other hand, immigration from Greece fell substantially, reaching 7,953 persons in 1937.

19 In comparison, Cairo had fewer foreign immigrants compared to its population size, but retained a large presence of foreigners. The number of those born abroad and living in Cairo amounted to 81,835 persons, among which the largest number were those born in Europe, with 41,524 persons in 1927. The next largest groups of migrants were those from Syria (14,462), Sudan (11,258), and Turkey in Europe (10,465), followed by Greece (10,236). For more detail on the subject of immigration from abroad to Alexandria and Cairo, see Kato and Iwasaki [2017].


Table 5 Inter-governorate emigration and immigration (1907-37) (% of total population of the governorate)

Emigration Immigration (domestic) Immigration (from abroad)1907 1917 1927 1937 1907 1917 1927 1937 1907 1917 1927 1937

Cairo 9.0 12.9 9.7 8.4 25.7 32.3 34.3 33.0 11.5 7.7 5.0Alexandria 12.7 11.7 9.1 9.7 15.5 22.2 23.2 23.1 18.2 13.6 8.4Port Said 12.4 14.4 10.6 9.2 40.7 46.4 40.0 34.5 18.9 10.2 6.8Ismailiya 31.9 41.4 19.4Arish 18.9 3.5 2.0Suez 16.6 26.6 14.8 13.5 14.2 44.8 40.7 40.4 14.9 11.6 5.0Sinai 40.2 31.1 20.9 14.8 16.4 46.9 33.7 26.9 4.0 3.9 3.2Southern Desert 15.9 15.0 3.3 1.8 2.2 0.1 0.1Western Desert 12.9 15.2 11.2 6.2 7.3 3.7 4.4Damietta 48.0 44.4 37.0 5.3 9.0 9.4 0.3 0.2Buheira 4.2 4.7 4.1 4.8 7.5 7.9 6.1 5.9 1.2 0.3 0.2Daqhaliya 6.7 5.8 6.1 7.2 3.3 4.8 3.1 2.4 0.6 0.3 0.2Gharbiya 4.4 4.8 4.9 5.0 4.4 5.2 3.7 3.4 0.7 0.3 0.2Menufiya 5.2 6.2 8.9 10.6 3.1 3.0 1.6 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.0Qalyubiya 8.4 6.9 8.2 7.7 6.6 7.2 4.8 4.1 0.4 0.3 0.2Sharqiya 3.7 4.6 5.0 5.1 6.4 6.2 4.3 3.9 0.8 0.4 0.2Aswan 7.9 11.2 14.2 13.8 3.7 7.8 8.6 9.4 1.9 1.3 0.5Assiut 8.7 8.5 8.8 7.6 3.1 2.6 1.6 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.1Beni Suef 8.4 5.8 4.9 4.3 6.4 6.6 4.4 3.7 0.4 0.2 0.1Fayum 5.2 4.4 3.2 3.1 4.2 3.8 2.6 2.0 0.3 0.2 0.1Girga 7.7 8.9 9.4 8.3 1.6 1.6 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.0Giza 9.5 11.0 10.0 7.7 4.9 6.6 6.9 6.4 0.4 0.5 0.3Minya 5.2 4.2 3.6 3.0 5.2 5.3 3.6 3.0 0.3 0.2 0.1Qena 3.5 5.0 6.5 6.8 2.9 2.6 1.3 1.1 0.5 0.2 0.1Red Sea 8.3 10.6 58.1 60.1 5.8 4.7Total 6 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.2 7.3 7.0 6.9 1.8 1.5 1.0Total migrants 688,771 876,775 990,829 1,263,970 688,771 876,775 990,829 1,099,197 205,445 212,887 159,067Total migrants & non-migrants 10,978,458 12,431,389 13,942,943 15,755,921 11,183,903 12,431,389 14,155,830 15,914,988 11,183,903 14,155,830 15,914,988Ill-defined 6,075 26,572 6,075 26,572 22,034 5,706 6,075 22,034 5,706Grand total 12,457,961 14,177,864 15,920,694 11,189,978 12,457,961 14,177,864 15,920,694 11,189,978 14,177,864 15,920,694

Note: Statistics on birthplaces in the 1917 Census are provided only for those Egyptians who are “ local born popula-tion”, and are not provided for foreign nationalities or Egyptians born outside Egypt.

Source: Population Censuses 1907: 36-87, 1917: 574-575, 1927: 34-41, 1937: 64-71.

3. The Greeks: “Foreigners” or “Minorities”?In the modern age, people are categorized by nationality. Indeed, it seems that people can-

not conceive of life without the concept of nationality. No people of Greek nationality were in Egypt, at least officially, until 1830. As we will discuss in some detail, in 1830 the Greeks achieved independence from the Ottoman Empire. Until then, the Greeks did not exist, only the Greek Orthodox, for, as mentioned, people were identified not by nationality but by reli-gion under the ruling system of the Ottoman Empire, including in Egypt .20

20 Historically, the Islamic ruling system involved indirect control over the people, based on the dhimma (protection) system, which protected the freedom of religious faith and the preservation of life and property for the believers of non-Islamic religions, on the condition that they agree with the sovereignty of Muslim rulers and fulfill their tax obligations. The so-called milla in Arabic (millet in Turkish), which refers to the non-Islamic religious community, was the system established in the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century, according to this Islamic tradition, to rule the people within a framework of religious or sectional units. The Greek Orthodox Church was one of the milla in the Ottoman Empire. In principle, people were supposed to be under the supervision of the patriarch in Istanbul (Constantinople). In reality, they were controlled by local patriarchs, adjusting themselves to


Another complicated problem now arises in determining who the Greeks were in Alex-andria in the nineteenth century. At a glance, whether people were of Greek nationality or were Greek Orthodox may seem merely to be a problem of terminology regarding the same social group. However, in reality, there was a profound problem concerning the identity of the Greeks. This problem was caused by the emergence of nationalism.

Until 1830, the Greek Orthodox community was composed of different social groups from a linguistic or ethnic point of view, although these groups belonged to the same religious com-munity, called milla; that is, the Greek Orthodox Church. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Greeks were formally categorized as Orthodox Christians or Greeks.

It is impossible to obtain information on the multi-identification of the population in Al-exandria as a whole at that time. However, Graphs 13, 14, and 15 (in color page), which are based on the 1907 Census educational data,21 give us some idea of the multi-identification of the Greeks, as they show the different percentages of students in Alexandria by religion, na-tionality, and language.

The eastern Mediterranean has long been a maritime area for the Greeks to frequently move. Since ancient times, Greeks had come to visit Egypt and to settle there. In modern Egypt, the Greeks began to take firm root as a community from the age of Muhammad Ali (who ruled 1805-48), when a wave of Greek migration to Egypt was observed. Under the reign of Muhammad Ali, the Albanian founder of modern Egypt who energetically centralized pow-er around him, the development of the local economy, as well as the expansion of foreign trade with European countries, was promoted. As mentioned above, the Greeks, who had a good knowledge of the eastern Mediterranean regions, were expected to take a role as transmitters of new technologies and as mediators between local and European merchants.

The Greeks formed the commercial networks in the eastern Mediterranean regions. One of their most important economic activities was the trade of tobacco. Tobacco was a special market good in modern Egypt. It is said that Muhammad Ali himself was the son of a tobacco merchant in an eastern Mediterranean city, Kavalla,22 now in Greece. The economic activities of the Greeks in Egypt extended beyond the large cities such as Cairo and Alexandria to rural Egypt.

For example, in historical documents in the middle of the nineteenth century, we find the terms buza and hamamir [Kato 1986, 1987, 1989]. Buza means a drink like beer that was pro-duced from barley, and hamamir is the plural of hamr, whose meaning is wine. It is supposed

local customs.21 The education census of 1907 indicated that 45% of students in Alexandria were of foreign

nationalities, whereas in Cairo, the proportion was 19% [Kato 2006: 351].22 It was the Greeks who founded the tobacco industry in Egypt in the nineteenth century, when

the Greek Kyriazi brothers established a factory for the manufacturing of tobacco in Cairo in 1873. Subsequently, the tobacco called “Kyriazi Frères” (Kyriazi Brothers) won fame in Europe as a brand of Egyptian tobacco.


that buza means a kind of bar where people could drink buza, and the hamamir signifies the “tavern” restaurants managed by the Greeks, regardless of whether people could drink wine or not. Not only buza but also thamamir existed in local towns in rural Egypt. This shows that the Greeks expanded their economic activities to rural areas in the middle of the nineteenth cen-tury.

In these circumstances, a wave of nationalism emerged in both Greece and Egypt in the nineteenth century, the age of nationalism. The Hellenic nationalism movement achieved the independence of Greece from the Ottoman Empire in 1830. The Arab nationalism movement came to the fore in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Nationalism appealed to the inhab-itants of Egypt, who placed value on their ethnicity beyond the religious differences.

The exaltation of nationalism in the nineteenth century had a decisive effect on the Greek Orthodox Church community in Egyptian society. The two most eminent two groups of this community in the Arab world, including Egypt, were the Greek-speaking Orthodox commu-nity and the Arabic-speaking Orthodox community. Until 1830, all the members of the Greek Orthodox Church in Egypt had been the subjects of the Ottoman Empire, at least formally.

However, from 1830, a crack became apparent among the members of the Greek Ortho-dox Church. They were confronted with an identity problem, as they had to choose whether to identify with their religious community or with their ethnic community. The sway between religion and ethnicity at the individual level among the believers was manifested in the politi-cal opposition between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Greek Society, each seeking hege-mony of control over the believers at the collective level [Kitroeff 1989: 227ff.].23

In this situation, the Church represented the traditional Islamic customs, whose ruling unit was the millet, and the community advocated the modern European rule, whose political unit was the nation. Behind the Church and the community, Egyptian local customs and the “nation-state” of Greece existed, respectively.24 The atmosphere of the time was favorable to nationalism but nationalism weakened the authority of the Church.

The first Greek Society was founded in Alexandria in 1843. Subsequently, it was succes-

23 In modern times, the group of the Greek Orthodox Church came to lose its unity as a religious community. In 1724, a group of the Church formed another independent Church, responding to the Unitarian movement, that is the religious movement energetically promoted by the Roman Catholic Church from the seventeenth century, calling for the unification of the Western and Eastern churches. The new independent church, called the Greek Catholic Church, was recognized as a millet by the Ottoman Empire in 1848.

24 We should not forget that this opposition was not at all between the “Western”—for example, the Roman Catholic Church—and the “Eastern”—for example, the Greek-speaking Orthodox group and the Greek Catholic Church. Opposition also occurred between the “Western” and the “Oriental”—for example, the Arabic-speaking Orthodox group. The “Oriental” category can be obtained only after the segregation of the category “Eastern”. To distinguish “Oriental” from “Eastern” is the most important point to understand the multi-cultural situation in the Middle East. The dichotomy between “Western” and “Eastern” is the view of Orientalism in the term of Edward Said. See MECC [1982, 1986]. In the modern situation, the “Eastern” often keeps step with the “Western” ahead of the “Oriental”.


sively founded in 1856 in Cairo, in 1860 in Mansura, in 1870 in Port Said and Zagazig, in 1880 in Tanta in Lower Egypt, and in 1862 in Minya in Upper Egypt. As a result, the Greek-speaking believers solidified their consciousness of being Greeks while, at the same time, the Arabic-speaking believers were becoming increasingly aware of being Arabs.

It is not a problem in itself that the unit with which the people identified themselves shifted from the religious community to the ethnic community. However, it was a real problem that this shift happened in the modern political situation and was connected with the formation of “nation-states”. One of the expected consequences of this problem was the emergence of the nation as a majority, with minority groups rejecting their total integration into the nation. There is no doubt that the problem of minorities is a very modern problem, which emerged at the time of, and was deeply connected with, the political idea of “nation-state”.25

Table 6 provides some explanation of the complicated picture regarding the multi-identifi-cation of the Greek residents in the middle of the nineteenth century. The Greeks in Alexandria in 1848 were registered depending on whether they were an “Ottoman subject” or a “European subject or protected”, in other words, whether they were “Egyptian” or “Greek”.

Table 6 Population in Alexandria not subject to Egypt (1848)

Othman subjects NumberSubjects of or persons

protected by European countries

Number

Armenians 402 England 1,471Greeks 1,153 Sardinia 151Turkish 2,786 Naples 152Syrians 1,227 Ottoman subjects 651Maghrebins 1,386 Austria 412

France 672Greece (Hellenistic) 1,128Russia 120Other 187

Total 6,954 Total 4,944% of total population 6.7 4.7

Source: Alleaume [2012: 187].

In 1854, Greece concluded its commercial treaty with the Ottoman Empire and obtained the privileges, including the extraterritorial rights, permitted to the Great Powers by the trea-ties of the same kind. This means that the Greek state, which had struggled with the Ottoman Empire for independence only a quarter of a century earlier, now joined the list of Great Pow-ers that had forced their national interests upon the Ottoman Empire .26

25 Such an identity problem was not unique to the Greeks, but was also found among other “minorities”, and even among the “majority”, that is the Muslims. See Kato [1996] for more detail.

26 As has been shown, the history of the Greek Orthodox in modern times was complicated.


As a result, almost all the Greek-speaking Orthodox community became citizens of the Greek state. The Arabic-speaking Orthodox community, who had retained their legal status as subjects of the Ottoman Empire after the independence of Greece, also gradually left the Otto-man Empire, as the autonomy of the Arab world grew.

Conclusion: What was Cavafy’s lost world?

Modern Alexandria was a cosmopolitan city, with two distinct “ faces” as a result of its historical background: it was both a European city and a Mediterranean city. When Cavafy commenced living in Alexandria, it was largely a European city, or a colonial bridgehead in the world economy. Alexandria as a European city is reflected in the words of Lawrence Dur-rell (1912-90), the novelist, who let the poet Cavafy popular .27 In his love story, “The Alexan-dria Quartet”, the setting of which is Alexandria between the two World Wars, his characters repeatedly express sentiments such as the following:

The women of the foreign communities here are more beautiful than elsewhere. Fear, insecurity dominates them. They have the illusion of foundering in the ocean of black-ness all around. This city has been built like a dyke to hold back the flood of African darkness; but the soft-footed blacks have already started leaking into the European quarters [Durrell 1983: 59].

The Egypt of rags and sores, of beauty and desperation. Alexandria was still Europe—the capital of Asiatic Europe, if such a thing could exist. It could never be like Cairo where his whole life had an Egyptian cast, where he spoke ample Arabic [Durrell 1983: 509].

You know, we all know, that our days are numbered since the French and the British have lost control in the Middle East. We, the foreign communities, with all we have built up, are being gradually engulfed by the Arab tide, the Moslem tide. Some of us are trying to work against it [Durrell 1983: 552].

In Durrell’s characters’ words, Alexandria was “still Europe—the capital of Asiatic Eu-

However, the Greek Catholics, who had been separated from the Greek Orthodox Church and formed their own independent church, experienced more complicated vicissitudes than that of the Greek Orthodox. This is true especially for the Arabic-speaking Greek Orthodox, who elected not to be the “Arabs”, but to be “Protégés” under the consulate jurisdiction of the Great Powers, such as France. In other words, they chose, of their own will, the legal status of minority in the political system of the nation-state.

27 Another English novelist who let Cavafy popular is E. M. Forster (1879-1970).


rope, if such a thing could exist”, and this world was threatened by the non-Europeans such as the Africans, the Egyptians, the Arabs, and the Muslims. The Asians, perceived as the “Yel-low Peril”, as mentioned above, were included in ranks of the non-Europeans who threatened Alexandria as a European city. Further, the hegemony of the European powers began to de-cline during the period between the two World Wars.

In this paper, Cavafy’s time refers to the period from the 1880s to the 1920s, when he was aged between his 20s and his 50s. Thus, it may seem likely that Cavafy shared the views of Durrell, because he was also a “foreigner” who lived under the atmosphere of modern Al-exandria at the beginning of the twentieth century. However, the image of Alexandria that is reflected in the poems of Cavafy is different from that of Durrell.

The Alexandria that Cavafy describes is Alexandria not as a European city, but as a Medi-terranean city. Cavafy belonged to the Greek community, which was the biggest minority group in modern Alexandria. Thus, his image of Alexandria is the viewpoint of a member of one of the “minorities” of modern Alexandria. The melancholic atmosphere in the poems of Cavafy reflects the spirit of this image of modern Alexandria. In particular, the following two poems are important in relation to indicating this viewpoint: “The City” (composed in 1910) and “In Church” (composed in 1912) [Cavafy 1992: 28, 44].

The CityYou said: “I’ll go to another country, go to another shore,find another city better than this one.Whatever I try to do is fated to turn out wrongand my heart lies buried as though it were something dead.How long can I let my mind molder in this place?Wherever I turn, wherever I happen to look,I see the black ruins of my life, here,where I’ve spent so many years, wasted them, destroyed them totally.”You won’t find a new country, won’t find another shore.This city will always pursue you. You will walkthe same streets, grow old in the same neighborhoods,will turn gray in these same houses.You will always end up in this city. Don’t hope for things elsewhere:there is no ship for you, there is no road.As you’ve wasted your life here, in this small corner,you’ve destroyed it everywhere else in the world.


In ChurchI love the church: its labara,its silver vessels, its candleholders,the lights, the ikons, the pulpit.Whenever I go there, into a church of the Greeks,with its aroma of incense,its liturgical chanting and harmony,the majestic presence of the priests,dazzling in their ornate vestments,the solemn rhythm of their gestures—my thoughts turn to the great glories of our race,to the splendor of our Byzantine heritage.

Then, we ask, where is Cavafy’s “country” in the poem of The City? And, what is his “race” in the poem of In Church? After examining the history and social features of modern Alexandria in this paper, it is easy to answer these questions. His “country” is Alexandria as a Mediterranean city, which Cavafy imaged as the place in which he was destined to live. And his “race” is the “Byzantines”; that is, the Hellenic Greeks.

Hellenism was not a historical legacy, but a present civilization for Cavafy. This sense or feeling was raised by the historical space of the eastern Mediterranean. The Greeks who lived in cosmopolitan Alexandria were the political minority, but they were not “deracinated”.

Needless to say, I do not insist that Cavafy did not identify himself as being “Greek”. In the nationalistic way of thinking, the identity problem is to answer whether identity is based on nation or not. However, Cavafy was a cosmopolitan above the nation. It is no wonder that he had a plural identity of religion and nation that went against the nationalistic wave.28

It is apparent that the atmosphere produced by the poems of Cavafy contrasts sharply with the atmosphere created by the actions of Lord Byron (1788-1824), who joined the Greek inde-pendence war as a volunteer, or the paintings of Ferdinand V. E. Delacroix (1798-1863), which expressed sympathy with the patriotism or nationalism in this war. Lawrence Durrell shared the same nationalistic view as Byron and Delacroix, when he expressed his opinion in the lit-erature mentioned above.

By what was possessed Cavafy? The answer is simple. It was the patriotism or national-ism, with which Byron, Delacroix, and Durrell sympathized. Obviously, he denied it and es-caped from it. Then, to where did he escape? The answer is, to his own world; that is, to “the great glories of our race”.

28 Such an identity problem was not unique to Cavafy or the Greeks of Alexandria, but was found among other “minorities” and even among the “majority”, that is, the Muslims.


BibliographyStatistical dataCentral Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS), Statistical Yearbook 2013,

CAPMAS, CairoCentral Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS), Statistical Yearbook 2015,

CAPMAS, CairoDelatour, Robert 1953 Le port de Port-Said, GrenobleDe Régny, E. 1870, 1871, 1872 Statistique de l’Egypte, 1re, 2me, 3me Année, Imprimerie

Française Mourès & Ce, AlexandriaDirection Générale des Douanes Égyptiennes 1910 Le Commerce Extérieur de l’Egypte,

Pendant l’Année 1909, AlexandriaÉgypte. Direction Générale de la Statistique. Ministère de l’Intérieur. Bureau de la Statistique

1897 Essai de Statistique Générale de l’Egypte. Années 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877. Le Typographie de l’État-Major Général Égyptien, Cairo

Government of Egypt various years Population CensusGouvernement Égyptien 1898 Recensement général de l’Egypte, 1er juin 1897: 1er moharrem

1315, Imprimerie nationale, 3 vols., CairoJondet, M. Gaston 1919 Le port de Suez, Mémoires présentés à la Société Sultanieh de

Géographie, tome 1Malaval, B. and Jondet, G. 1912 Le port d’Alexandrie, Imprimerie Nationale, CairoMinistère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Statistique, Le commerce extérieur de l’Egypte

pendant les années 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, CairoMinistry of Finance 1921 Egyptian Customs Administration Annual Statement of the Foreign

Trade of Egypt during 1909, Government Press, Cairo

Books and articlesAba Ìyana, Fathi n.d. Jighrafiyat sukkan al-iskandariya. dirasat dimughrafiyat minhajiya,

AlexandriaAlleaume, Ghislaine 2012 “Les techniciens européens dans l’Égypte de Muhammad ‘Alî

(1805-1848)”, Cahiers de la Méditerranée URL: http://cdlm.revues.org/6439Ashmawi, Sayyid 1997 al-Yunaniyun fi misr, 1805-1956, Ein for Human and Social Studies,

CairoAzbawi, Àbd-allah Muhammad 1986 al-Shawwam fl misr fl al-qarnayin al-thamin àshar wa

al-tasi` ‘ashar, CairoBaduel, P.-R. ed. 1987 Alexandrie entre deux mondes, Edisud, Aix-en-ProvenceBaer, Gabriel 1969 Studies in the Social History of Modern Egypt, The University of Chicago

PressBaker, D. Pasha 1944 The European Police Constable in Egypt, Alexandria d’Erlanger, Baron


Harry 1936 The Last Plague of Egypt, LondonCavafy, C.P. 1992 Collected Poems (Translated by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard),

Savidis, George ed., Revised Edition, Princeton University PressÇelik, Zeynep 1992 Displaying the Orient. Architecture of Islam at Nineteenth-Century

World’s Fairs, University of California Press, Berkeley · Los Angeles · OxfordCrouchley, A.E. 1938 Economic Development of Modern Egypt, LondonDisraeli 1876 Disraeli’s speech on the acquisition of the Suez Canal Shares: 21 February 1876,

Hansard CCXXVII [3d Ser.], pp. 652-61Durrell, Lawrence 1983 The Alexandria Quartet. Justine Balthazar Mountolive Clea, Faber

and Faber, LondonForster, E.M. 1982 Alexandria: A History and a Guide (Introduction by Lawrence Durrell)

Michael Haag Limited, LondonForster, E.M. 1983 Pharos and Pharillon, Michael Haag Limited, LondonHaag, Michael 2008 Vintage Alexandria. Photographs of the City, 1860-1960, The American

University in Cairo Press, CairoIlbert, Robert et Yannakakis, Ilios ed. 1992 Alexandrie 1860-1960. Un modèle éphémère de

convivialité: Communautés et identité cosmopolite, Les Editions Autrement, ParisIshida, Susumu 1974 Egyptian Economy under the Imperialism: Analysis on the Process of the

Colonization of Egypt in the 19th Century, (in Japanese), Ochanomizu-shobou, TokyoKato, Hiroshi 1988 “Liquidity and Publicity in Urban Society in the Middle of Nineteenth

Century in Egypt: As Reflected in Some Unpublished Documents in Relation to the Rent Tax on Real Properties”, Mediterranean Studies Research Group ed., Studies in the Mediterranean World. Past and Present XI, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo

Kato, Hiroshi 1989 “Urban and Rural Societies in Mid-19th Century Egypt: As Reflected in Some Unpublished Documents Relating to Taxation Systems”, The Proceedings of International Conference on Urbanism in Islam, vol. 3, Middle Eastern Culture Center, Tokyo

Kato, Hiroshi 1998 “Alexandrian Melancholy: The Light and Shadow of the Modern Mediterranean World”, Mediterranean Studies Group ed., Mediterranean World XV, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo

Kato, Hiroshi and Iwasaki, Erina 2006 “Cairo and Alexandria at the Beginning of the 20th Century: An Analysis Based on Population and Education Censuses for 1907/8”, Mediterranean Studies Group ed., Mediterranean World XVIII, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo

Kato, Hiroshi and Iwasaki, Erina 2016 “The Social Transformation of Modern Cairo compared with Modern Alexandria, Focusing on Migration”, in Hidemitsu Kuroki ed. Human Mobility and Multiethnic Coexistence in Middle Eastern Urban Societies 2, Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of


Foreign Studies, TokyoKing, Francis 1978 EM. Forster, Thames and Hudson, LondonKitroeff, Alexander 1989 The Greeks in Egypt, 1919-1937: Ethnicity and Class, Ithaca Press,

LondonLiddell, Robert 1974 Cavafy: A Biograph, Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, London (Japanese

tranl. by Mogi, T. and Nakai, H., Misuzu-Shobou, Tokyo, 2008)Malaval, B. 1911 “Le Port Alexandrie”. Conférence faite le 3 juin 1911. L’Université Populaire

Libre d’Alexandrie sous le patronage de L’Alliance Française, AlexandrieMECC (Middle East Council of Churches) 1982, 1986 “The Middle Eastern Churches”, “Arab

Christians in Relation to Their Muslim Co-Citizens and Neighbours, and Other Essays”, Newsletter, No. 8 (Nov.) and MECC Perspectives, No. 6/7 (Oct.)

Mubarak ‘Ali 1887-88 al-khitat al-tawfiqtia al-jadida li-misr al-qahira, 7 vols., Bulaq, EgyptMunicipalité d’Alexandrie 1934 Lois, décrets, arrêtés et règlements intéressant la municipalité

d’alexandrie, 1890-1934, AlexandrieNakaoka, San-eki 1991 Modern and Contemporary History of the Arab Countries: Society and

Economy, (in Japanese), Iwanami-shoten, TokyoOwen, Edward Roger John 1969 Cotton and the Egyptian Economy 1820-1914, Oxford

University PressPanzac, Daniel 1977 “Chapitre VII. La population de l’Égypte à l’époque contemporaine”

in: L’Égypte d’aujourd’hui: Permanence et changements, 1805-1976. Aix-en-Provence: Institut de recherches et d’études sur le monde arabe et musulman. <http://books.openedition.org/iremam/800>.

Philipp, Thomas 1985 The Syrians in Egypt 1725-1975, Steiner-Verlag, StuttgartReimer, Michael J. 1997 Colonial Bridgehead. Government and Society in Alexandria, 1807-

1882, The American University in Cairo Press, CairoSaid, Mahmoud 1997 al-Dhikra al-mi’wiya al-ula li-milad-hu, Wizarat al-Thaqafa, CairoSemidei Bey, H. 1925 Mémoire sur les communautés catholiques et grecques orthodoxes en

égypte, Le CaireShimizu, Hiroshi 1986 Anglo-Japanese Trade Rivalry in the Middle East in the Inter-war

Period, Ithaca Press, London


Appendix 1) Some statistics on the external trade in modern Egypt(1) External trade of Egypt (1884-1920) (unit: Egyptian Pound)

Imports Goods in transit Exports Goods reexported Value (1884=100)Goods and cigarettes

Specie (gold or silver)

Goods and cigarettes

Specie (gold or silver) Imports Exports

1884 8,182,792 2,172,596 726,228 12,553,313 389,768 130,353 100 100

1885 8,989,042 3,914,767 659,026 11,454,487 1,293,660 288,577 110 91

1886 7,848,231 1,838,797 528,137 10,198,573 2,972,520 295,584 96 81

1887 8,137,054 3,066,740 599,718 10,964,573 1,898,062 360,315 99 87

1888 7,738,343 2,038,956 698,992 10,529,946 2,642,900 228,503 95 84

1889 7,020,961 1,900,418 749,568 12,066,499 1,963,699 203,176 86 96

1890 8,081,297 2,971,461 887,935 12,004,251 2,085,455 204,646 90 96

1891 9,201,390 2,824,861 1,002,696 14,020,370 1,523,950 159,392 112 112

1892 9,091,481 3,826,393 901,972 13,505,796 2,048,474 177,076 111 108

1893 8,718,735 2,946,674 613,027 12,954,352 3,517,152 157,845 107 103

1894 9,266,116 1,995,676 707,908 12,078,381 1,816,256 142,064 113 96

1895 8,389,933 4,319,265 558,574 12,816,597 2,322,190 132,113 103 102

1896 9,828,604 4,720,425 564,302 13,422,279 1,826,160 194,913 120 107

1897 10,603,672 3,921,722 605,737 12,552,639 2,369,160 209,617 130 100

1898 11,033,219 2,730,116 711,908 12,070,012 1,891,513 247,966 135 96

1899 11,441,802 4,515,917 886,786 15,658,956 1,502,485 232,947 140 125

1900 14,112,370 4,114,612 1,022,726 17,124,114 2,602,790 220,213 172 136

1901 15,244,938 3,085,678 1,221,538 16,153,964 2,432,172 247,326 186 129

1902 14,814,684 4,779,266 831,181 18,046,939 1,834,457 266,921 181 144

1903 16,753,190 6,431,569 852,594 19,539,524 1,785,933 272,448 205 156

1904 20,559,588 7,606,864 913,096 20,811,040 2,730,890 276,050 251 166

1905 21,564,076 4,782,215 793,676 20,360,285 3,869,939 317,480 264 162

1906 24,010,795 9,077,402 844,702 24,877,280 2,067,706 439,428 293 198

1907 26,120,783 7,768,190 1,311,801 28,013,185 4,736,189 444,065 319 223

1908 25,100,397 4,205,083 1,138,567 21,315,673 4,671,206 378,045 307 170

1909 22,230,499 7,010,195 1,267,931 26,076,239 6,457,588 416,453 272 208

1910 23,552,826 12,964,245 1,299,544 28,944,461 7,046,151 447,094 288 231

1911 27,227,118 7,242,496 1,673,555 28,598,991 7,132,059 382,382 333 228

1912 25,907,759 11,546,439 1,789,198 34,574,321 7,476,282 448,665 317 275

1913 27,865,195 9,791,188 2,072,574 31,662,065 11,137,932 578,251 340 252

1914 21,724,606 1,780,244 2,216,727 24,091,796 6,368,497 447,012 265 192

1915 19,364,712 721,705 3,681,953 27,046,872 132,659 527,464 237 215

1916 31,136,752 1,370,142 7,261,134 37,461,763 133,155 563,427 380 298

1917 33,175,139 1,239,549 8,247,487 41,060,612 44,300 529,799 405 327

1918 51,155,306 611,009 14,419,125 45,370,020 5,500 1,378,732 625 361

1919 47,409,717 183,513 8,911,846 75,888,321 3,174 4,307,401 579 605

1920 101,880,963 399,039 12,811,874 85,467,061 12,249 2,551,894 1,245 681

Source: Ministry of Finance 1921: Tableau I


(2-1) Comparative table on the trade values of imported merchandise and tobacco in Egypt by nation (1884-1909)

1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909

England 378 378 367 398 371 362 372 373 337 308 344 315 311 334 351 379 376 365 368 353 340 321 327 325 329 303English poss. in Mediterranean

15 15 24 15 14 16 13 17 15 14 12 15 11 11 9 7 10 9 7 8 12 10 8 8 11 8

English poss. in Far-East 56 50 62 56 64 68 69 58 67 68 53 59 53 47 53 53 49 58 54 49 47 41 41 42 40 44

Germany 5 5 3 3 6 7 8 16 20 22 25 26 29 28 29 31 34 35 39 44 50 44 55 53 45 51

America 17 13 8 11 4 8 5 2 4 4 5 6 8 11 30 20 21 21 13 14 14 23 25 22 22 25Austria-Hungary 122 122 116 94 97 94 96 93 86 83 81 76 71 71 68 64 64 69 79 73 71 69 72 79 65 64

Belgium 8 8 11 15 16 11 14 28 40 26 40 40 47 47 49 55 35 33 32 31 36 38 51 39 29 31China and Far East 1 3 1 2 2 3 4 10 9 10 10 7 8 9 8 7 9 9 8 13 15 18 12 10 18 24

France 112 111 109 109 103 97 96 96 94 103 96 111 131 114 95 91 91 90 89 98 93 106 114 121 116 130

Greece 9 7 11 10 13 14 15 13 4 6 6 7 9 9 9 9 9 10 14 13 13 13 13 13 15 17

Italy 38 37 34 30 32 31 29 31 31 38 36 36 34 40 45 49 47 53 54 53 57 53 51 52 47 45

Romania 1 2 2 2 4 8 7 6 6 2 1 5 6 5 4 5 4 4 8 8 10 10 10 21 19

Russia 28 44 57 48 51 50 40 38 38 44 40 43 38 36 43 38 43 40 37 36 36 34 22 26 39 34Sweden and Norway 4 5 6 5 8 6 6 7 9 14 17 21 8 13 14 14 12 15 17 17 20 24 19 23 20 21

Switzerland 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 6 5 6 8 5 5

Turkey 194 187 169 181 194 204 203 183 209 220 196 199 202 187 154 144 157 147 138 140 137 143 127 114 127 119

Other countries 13 14 14 16 16 15 13 19 19 18 20 19 17 16 14 12 12 14 16 19 18 19 17 20 23 26

Clois-Postaux 6 5 7 10 9 9 11 15 16 17 16 18 20 20 22 25 27 26 27 29 30 35 28 34

Total 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Source: Direction Générale des Douanes Égyptiennes 1910: Tableau II

(2-2) Comparative table on the trade values of exported merchandise and tobacco in Egypt by nation (1884-1909)

1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909

England 667 604 630 633 626 646 646 643 585 563 544 575 523 477 463 530 538 502 516 520 528 522 539 544 523 502English poss. in Far-East 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 5 6 9 7 7 5 6 13 12 9 13 10 13 4 4 7 4

Germany 2 2 2 1 2 5 27 35 27 35 30 40 48 45 62 58 75 79 87 85 82 81 87 95

America 3 2 2 1 2 2 6 13 19 27 37 69 78 73 86 61 63 66 48 33 62 62 75 54 74Austria-Hungary 53 59 59 56 64 83 70 46 42 37 42 42 46 38 36 38 39 41 41 47 45 49 51 47 48 50

Belgium 2 6 6 6 6 4 6 10 7 10 4 2 2 3 4 8 6 7 8 10 5 7 3 4 3China and Far East 2 1 1 3 4 7 10 8 11 12 11 11 9 13 17 18

Spain 14 19 5 5 10 6 8 8 12 19 21 19 22 22 17 22 22 28 25 24 24 19 18 18 19 13

France 89 80 81 81 85 75 78 78 80 68 74 81 91 90 94 88 84 78 77 86 78 84 86 73 79 88

Italy 61 79 75 75 60 68 64 52 46 46 49 35 28 34 30 29 35 34 35 37 46 31 31 28 33 28

Russia 53 111 85 85 91 70 85 116 128 138 151 98 110 138 154 80 70 108 82 64 64 51 56 57 65 58

Switzerland 2 7 16 12 31 35 32 30 34 34 37 33 40 37 38 32 35 34 32

Turkey 38 34 36 36 39 29 31 30 35 35 28 27 29 29 32 22 17 19 18 17 19 21 14 12 18 19

Other countries 13 10 18 18 15 10 8 8 12 12 7 6 7 10 11 9 7 6 5 5 8 9 9 10 12 16

Total 990 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Source: Direction Générale des Douanes Égyptiennes 1910: Tableau III


(3-1) Number of ships crossing Suez Canal, tonnage taxed, and number of passengers in Port Said (1870-1952)

Year Number of crossings of canal Tonnage taxed Number of passengers1870 486 436,609 26,7581880 2,026 3,057,422 101,5511890 3,389 6,890,094 161,3531900 3,441 9,738,152 282,5111905 4,116 13,134,105 252,6911910 4,533 16,581,898 234,3201911 4,969 18,324,794 275,2591912 5,373 20,275,120 266,4031913 5,085 20,033,834 282,2351914 4,802 19,409,495 391,7721915 3,708 15,266,155 210,5301916 3,110 12,325,347 283,0301917 2,353 8,368,918 142,3131918 2,522 9,251,601 105,9141919 3,986 16,013,802 527,5021920 4,009 17,574,657 500,1471921 3,975 18,118,999 295,1991922 4,345 20,743,245 275,0311923 4,621 22,730,162 246,3311924 5,122 25,109,832 263,8691925 5,337 26,761,935 269,5221926 4,980 26,060,377 286,4321927 5,545 28,962,048 340,3181928 6,084 31,905,902 317,7181929 6,274 33,466,014 325,8551930 5,761 31,668,759 305,2021931 5,366 30,027,966 270,6571932 5,032 28,340,290 261,7741933 5,423 30,676,672 253,9401934 5,663 31,750,802 262,1221935 5,992 32,810,968 625,4651936 5,877 32,378,883 781,9291937 6,635 36,491,332 739,6241938 6,171 34,418,187 479,8021939 5,277 29,573,394 410,5231940 2,589 13,535,712 167,8051941 1,804 8,262,841 14,1241942 1,646 7,027,763 5901943 2,262 11,273,802 173,2691944 3,320 18,124,952 418,8321945 4,206 25,064,966 983,9371946 5,057 32,731,631 932,0071947 5,972 36,576,581 587,1351948 8,686 55,080,866 454,8641949 10,420 68,811,016 610,4861950 11,751 81,795,523 664,2841951 11,694 80,356,448 588,9471952 12,168 86,137,037 571,416

Note: After 1874, the tonnages taxed of ships passing Suez Canal was measured by the Turkish ton. The Turkish ton is the standard unit of weight (net tonnage, NT) that was agreed on 18 December, 1873 in the international conference held in Constantinople (la Commission Internationale de Constantinople). A Turkish ton is roughly equivalent to, but slightly less than, a standard ton.

Source: Delatour 1953: 107


(3-2) Distribution of flags of net tonnage passed in Port Said (1870-1952)

Year German American British Danish French Hellenic Italian Japanese Dutch Norwegian Swedish Other flags1870-1880 12 1 761 4 83 a 27 a 41 4 1 661881-1890 36 a 780 a 70 a 27 1 38 6 421891-1900 95 2 700 2 63 a 19 10 43 10 a 561901-1910 156 3 623 6 60 1 14 16 47 6 2 66

1911 152 a 640 6 45 1 11 20 53 3 5 641912 149 a 634 7 39 1 18 16 61 5 7 631913 167 a 602 9 47 3 15 17 64 5 6 651914 109 a 665 8 41 7 19 18 72 5 7 491915 a 763 11 44 6 24 37 87 9 9 101916 3 794 12 63 4 36 4 52 14 9 91917 3 737 4 69 43 93 19 15 8 4 51918 1 795 5 41 29 52 54 a 9 5 91919 10 709 20 30 6 20 91 47 16 10 411920 a 41 617 13 44 7 35 91 81 10 13 481921 9 37 629 13 54 3 52 58 112 14 11 81922 36 32 645 13 48 2 41 45 104 15 12 71923 54 27 628 13 57 3 46 44 96 15 12 51924 66 32 597 14 60 5 59 35 99 15 11 71925 67 30 599 13 61 6 53 40 101 14 10 61926 83 27 574 13 67 3 52 36 110 19 10 61927 96 24 571 10 62 7 52 32 105 23 11 71928 103 23 568 11 60 9 52 30 104 22 10 81929 103 21 521 12 65 6 46 29 106 21 11 91930 107 21 556 14 63 3 47 30 105 30 11 131931 110 21 554 12 69 2 47 38 95 25 13 141932 88 19 555 15 72 3 57 51 83 30 15 121933 90 16 546 14 68 9 57 45 78 47 17 131934 94 17 543 13 62 18 66 39 81 49 14 41935 82 16 480 13 54 14 185 25 71 42 12 61936 89 15 465 13 51 18 202 26 70 39 9 31937 91 15 473 18 50 24 161 26 77 45 9 111938 91 11 504 14 51 23 134 20 88 43 9 121939 70 15 514 16 55 19 144 18 83 43 8 151940 18 550 9 52 50 131 16 77 63 5 291941 682 a 120 66 91 14 271942 47 651 a 110 49 100 4 391943 197 595 10 51 a 50 70 2 251944 271 571 11 25 3 45 59 1 141945 222 634 3 20 25 3 45 31 4 131946 182 626 9 27 8 9 61 52 13 131947 200 472 16 39 9 39 65 73 16 711948 151 376 18 63 19 73 58 93 24 1251949 a 129 353 20 77 18 64 55 117 28 1391950 2 102 325 21 77 16 65 55 141 26 1701951 5 98 335 30 82 18 61 47 141 34 1591952 8 73 333 29 90 12 54 3 45 157 30 176

Note: (a) Smaller proportion than 1 per 1,000 tonnage rate.Source: Delatour 1953: 109


Appendix 2) Historical maps of modern Alexandria

1840

“FO 925/3003: The City of Alexandria. The Harbour and Environs, 1840, with MS Additions and Notes on Fortifications, Etc, 1850.” Nineteenth Century Collections Online, tinyurl. galegroup.com.

1888

1855 1868

1800 (from Description de l’Egypte Reimer 1997: 33)

“ Itinéraire de l’Orient. Egypte, Alexandrie, dessiné par L. Thuillier; d’après Mahmoud bey, 1888 ”. gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France.

“Plan d’Alexandrie comprenant toutes ses fortifications rues et édifices principales par Charles Muller 1855”. gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France.

“Plan d’Alexandrie et ses environs dessiné par L. Barreau, 1868”.


1905

1940

1914

“Alexandrie. Plan de la ville ancienne et moderne”. E. Braccia 1914. Municipalite d’Alexandrie. Alexandrea ad Aegyptum, guide de la ville ancienne et moderne et du musée gréco-romain.

Source: The Survey of Egypt, 1:25,000 scale maps


Appendix 3) Maps and photos related to Constantine CavafyConstantine P. Cavafy

(Konstandinos Petru Kavafis, 1863-1933)

Left is the Sherif Pasha Street (the Rue Cherif Pasha) in the 1870s. It is flanked on the right by the side of the Bourse. Cavafy was born in this street in 1863 (Haag 2008: 18). Right is the Sherif Pasha Street today.

Historical photos are from (Haag 2008). This is an excellent photo collection with interesting explanations, which can vividly remind us of the atmosphere of Alexandria in the time of Constantine Cavafy.Right is the death musk in the former Cavafy’s flat and the present museum of Cavafy.Left is the photo of Cavafy taken in 1900. He continued to use it as a visiting card for at least another twenty years (Haag 2008: 49).

Map of Alexandria and Ramleh in the 1910s and 1920s (Haag 2008: viii). Flat of Cavafy was located in red circle.


Map of Alexandria in the 1930s and 1940s (Haag 2008: ix). Flat of Cavafy was located in blue circle.Right is the entrance of the former Cavafy’s flat. Its address is 6 Sharm El Sheikh St. Off Istanbul St. Raml Station.

Left is the map on the distribution of Christians by qism (District), and right is the map on the distribution of Orthodox by qism in 1927. Flat of Cavafy was located in red circle.

2.7 2.8-6.5 6.6-7.9 8.0-26.0 26.1-29.1 29.2-44.0

Left is the map on the distribution of foreigners by qism (District), and right is the map on the distribution of the Greek inhabitants by qism in 1927. Flat of Cavafy was located in blue circle.

2.7 2.8-6.5 6.6-7.9 8.0-26.0 26.1-29.1 29.2-44.0

1.5 1.6-6.1 6.2-19.7 19.8-25.9 26.0-43.2

1.5 1.6-6.1 6.2-19.7 19.8-25.9 26.0-43.2


Left is the entrance of the former flat of Cavafy. Right is the desk of Cavafy in the former flat of Cavafy.

Left is the view of St. Saba Church from a window of the former flat of Cavafy. Right is St. Saba Church.

Inside of St. Saba Church


Left is the Bourse in 1944 when it was about a century old. It housed the largest stock exchange outside Europe and America, and the second largest cotton exchange in the world after Liverpool’s. In 1956 Nasser stood on the balcony of the Bourse to announce the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company (Haag 2008: 14). Today’s Bourse is the building on the left, and the building on the right is the Cecil Hotel, opened in 1929. The Cecil features prominently in the pages of Lawrence Durrell’s Alexandria Quartet (Haag 2008: 34).

Left is the Italian Consulate, completed in 1917, and the new Ramleh terminus on the right. Beyond was the Eastern Harbor. This was taken in about 1919. On the corner is Athineos, one of Cavafy’s favorite cafes; it is now the Trianon. Cavafy worked upstairs in the Third Circle of Irrigation, now part of the Metropole Hotel (Haag 2008: 30). Right is today’s Italian Consulate.

Left is the Boulevard Saad Zaghloul, as the Rue de la Gare de Ramleh was renamed in the late 1920s. The Trianon, formerly Athineos, was on the right (Haag 2008: 30). Right is today’s Metropole Hotel.


Left is the Ramleh tram terminus in 1924. On the right is the Italian Consulate and beyond is the Eastern Harbor (Haag 2008: 31). Right is today’s view of the Ramleh Station from a window of the Metropole Hotel.

Left above is the Corniche of the Eastern Harbor under construction in 1906 (Haag 2008: 26).Left below is the Corniche in 1944, when the war was over and the lights were turned back on (Haag 2008: 128). Right is the painting titled ‟Alexandria at night ” in 1944, from the picture collection of Mahmoud Said Bey (1897-1964), Alexandrian judge and painter who knew the atmosphere of the time of Cavafy (Said 1997).

Above left is the sign of Greek (Orthodox) Church Street. Above right is the photo of Egyptian workers in a Greek tobacco factory (Haag 2008: 68). Tobacco industry was one of most important Greek economic activities. Below is the photo of the Greek community of Alexandria that celebrated the centenary of an independent Greece in the Municipal Stadium in 1930 (Haag 2008: 59).


Left is the photo of the guests at a Greek fancy dress ball in Alexandria in the 1920s (Haag 2008: 52). Right is the painting titled ‟ In dance hall” in 1934, from the picture collection of Mahmoud Said Bey (Said 1997).

Left is the photo on the shore of Alexandria in 1932 (Haag 2008: 114). Right is the painting titled ‟Floating girls” in 1934 from the picture collection of Mahmoud Said Bey (Said 1997).

Two English novelists, who let the poet Cavafy popular: E. M. Forster (1879-1970) on the left (Haag 2008: 23) and Lawrence Durrell (1912-1990) on the right (Haag 2008: 124).