In her biography of Mohammed Ali, Afaf Lutfi al-Sayyid Marsot presents a near-native Egyptian leader who cared deeply about the future of his beloved proto-independent nation by pursuing enlightened economic and political policies. As part of a massive mercantilist program he undertook agricultural reforms, built up internal infrastructure, and imposed protective tariffs on foreign imports. Additionally he launched a wide reaching military campaign which aimed to raise Egypt to the same level as other European empires of the time. Marsot claims that these reforms were motivated by genuine concern for Egypt and the pasha pursued them without interference from Europe. She acknowledges the historical fact that hundreds, if not thousands, of Europeans assisted in these reforms—many of whom would become the mutamassirun of the early twentieth century. Marsot, like other Egyptian nationalist historians, frames her concept of Egyptian nationalism as an unchanging, timeless characteristic of the Egyptian people and she attributes Egypt’s initial foray into modernization and nationalism to the dynamic personality and inspired leadership of
Mohammed Ali, who provided the spark to end the dormant Egyptian spirit—in fact, she says, it was Mohammed Ali and his administration who “inevitably put Egypt on the path of independent statehood and self-recognition.”5 For nationalist historians, Egyptians, not Europeans, were the agents of change.
5. Afaf Lutfi al-Sayyid Marsot, Egypt in the Reign of Muhammed Ali (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 264.
Paradoxically, however, Mohammed Ali was hardly an “Egyptian” by even Marsot’s standards. The wali himself was a foreigner—an Albanian who was commissioned by the Sublime Porte in Istanbul to govern Egypt. He spoke little Arabic and most likely had no real connection to “regular” lower-class Egyptians, whose dormant Egyptian nationalist flame he would supposedly ignite. Marsot does make an attempt to excuse the wali’s shortcomings as a non-Egyptian foreigner: she claims that he used European counsellors merely as advisors and had them sent home after implementing their recommendations.6 Additionally, Marsot attempts to excuse Mohammed Ali’s foreignness, to little success; as Ehud Toledano has humorously pointed out, “Marsot’s Mehmet Ali indeed had the well-being of Egypt and the Egyptians at the top of his priorities. So much so, that he even desired to become an Egyptian, but alas, psychologically he simply could not, pauvre Pasha.”7While other historiographic paradigms have proven the large distance between the Ottoman-speaking Egyptian throne and the lower class, Arabic-speaking population, Marsot papers over the linguistic and cultural divide in order to ascribe the origins of Egyptian nationalism to Mohammed Ali’s dynasty. Marsot’s European-inspired concept of modern nationalism needed a hero. Mohammed Ali, with his foreignness hidden by creative historiographic acrobatics, could fill that role.
By extension, this school of modern nationalist historiography attributes the development of modern Egypt in part to Europeans and the mutamassirun.
6. Marsot, 194–95.
7. Ehud R. Toledano, “Mehmet Ali Paşa or Muhammad Ali Basha? An Historiographic Appraisal in the Wake of a Recent Book,” Middle Eastern Studies 21, no. 4 (Oct. 1985): 141–159, 156.
While Marsot vehemently repudiates the Europeanness or foreignness of the khedival throne, other scholars have historically embraced the influence of the
mutamassirun in Egyptian nationalist history. This historiographic trend was
unsurprisingly adopted by the Europeans and Egyptians who worked within the khedival bureaucracy. Rifaʿa Rafiʿ al-Tahtawi, one of the most prominent khedival advisors who led educational missions to Europe as part of Mohammed Ali’s programs of modernization, encouraged the throne to support the immigration of foreigners “so that they could pass on skills to Egyptians in return for being treated as Egyptians themselves.” He justified his position by citing Ancient Egyptian history, indicating that in the sixth century BC, pharaoh Psammetichos I encouraged Greek settlement in Egypt, which in turn reinforced diplomatic and cultural ties with Greece and mutually strengthened the two empires.8
Royalist historiography differs from the modern nationalist in that, rather than excuse or ignore European involvement in Egyptian society, royalists
fully acknowledge the heavy European presence in the khedival bureaucracy. According to royalists, the mutamassirun were directly connected to the
Egyptian government by virtue of the numerous economic and legal advantages guaranteed them by the Capitulations. Royalist historians were members of scientific and academic institutes such as the Institut d’Égypte and the Royal Geographical Society, which were often funded by the throne, and wrote glowingly of the foreign contributions to the Egyptian economy and political system.9 Royalist scholarship viewed the mutamassirun as part of a larger
8. Anthony Gorman, Historians, State And Politics In Twentieth Century Egypt:
Contesting the Nation (London: Routledge, 2003), 177.
9. Ibid., 177.
mission to modernize Egypt and bring it up European standards of governance, industry, and intellect, and emphasized the deep integration of these resident foreigners in Egyptian society. Mutamassir integration in certain levels of Egyptian society was indeed far-reaching—beyond the government bureaucracy
mutamassirun were involved in construction, dock loading, printing presses,
cafés, and dozens of other sectors of the economy. After the first Aswan Dam was completed in 1902, the builders installed a commemorative plaque that highlights the multi-ethnic character of the Egyptian economy at the time:
This dam was designed and built by British engineers Egyptians assisted by Greeks excavated
To the rock foundations and Built the rubble masonry
Skilled Italian workmen dressed and built The granite ashlar10
The construction of the dam was truly an international endeavor—Italian laborers were brought in to excavate some of the hardest granite with
dynamite,11 and the bulk of the project was led by British and other European engineers and contractors. The question of whether or not the mutamassir workers saw the project as contributing to the rising glory of modern Egypt, or simply just another construction job, is inconsequential to the royalists. For royalists the mutamassirun were part of Egypt’s cosmopolitan golden age and contributed greatly to the development of modern Egypt; without foreign aid Egypt would have failed to achieve modernity.
10. Gorman, 195.
11. Federico Cresti, “Comunità proletarie italiane nell’Africa mediterranea tra XIX secolo e periodo fascista,” Mediterranea 5 (2008): 189–214, 201.