(L. J. S.)
COPPICE,orCopse(from an O. Fr.copeisorcoupeis, from Late Lat.colpare, to cut with a blow;colpas, the Late Lat. for “blow,” is a shortened form ofcolapusorcolaphus, adapted from the Gr.κόλαφος), a small plantation or thicket of planted or self-sown trees, which are cut periodically for use or sale, before the trees grow into large timber. Whether naturally or artificially grown the produce is looked on by the English law asfructus industrialis. The tenant for life or years may appropriate this produce (seeDashwoodv.Magniac, 1891, 3 Ch. 306).
COPRA(a Spanish and Portuguese adaptation of the Malaykopperah, and Hindustanikhopra, the coco-nut), the dried broken kernel of the coco-nut from which coco-nut oil is extracted by boiling and pressing. Copra is the form in which the product of the coco-nut is exported for commercial purposes (seeCoconut Palm).
COPROLITES(from Gr.κόπρος, dung, andλίθος, stone), the fossilized excrements of extinct animals. The discovery of their true nature was made by Dr William Buckland, who observed that certain convoluted bodies occurring in the Lias of Gloucestershire had the form which would have been produced by their passage in the soft state through the intestines of reptiles or fishes. These bodies had long been known as “fossil fir cones” and “bezoar stones.” Buckland’s conjecture that they were of faecal origin, and similar to thealbum grecumor excrement of hyaenas, was confirmed by Dr W. Prout, who on analysis found they consisted essentially of calcium phosphate and carbonate, and not infrequently contained fragments of unaltered bone. The name “coprolites” was accordingly given to them by Buckland, who subsequently expressed his belief that they might be found useful in agriculture on account of the calcium phosphate they contained. The Liassic coprolites are described by Buckland as resembling oblong pebbles, or kidney-potatoes; they are mostly 2 to 4 in. long, and from 1 to 2 in. in diameter, but those of the larger ichthyosauri are of much greater dimensions. In colour they vary from ash-grey to black, and their fracture is conchoidal. Internally they are found to consist of a lamina twisted upon itself, and externally they generally exhibit a tortuous structure, produced, before the cloaca was reached, by the spiral valve of a compressed small intestine (as in skates, sharks and dog-fishes); the surface shows also vascular impressions and corrugations due to the same cause. Often the bones, teeth and scales of fishes are tobe found dispersed through the coprolites, and sometimes the bones of small ichthyosauri, which were apparently a prey to the larger marine saurians. Coprolites have been found at Lyme Regis, enclosed by the ribs of ichthyosauri, and in the remains of several species of fish; also in the abdominal cavities of a species of fossil fish,Macropoma Mantelli, from the chalk of Lewes. Professor T. Jäger has described coprolites from the alum-slate of Gaildorf in Württemberg; the fish-coprolites of Burdiehouse and of Newcastle-under-Lyme are of Carboniferous age. The so-called “beetle-stones” of the coal-formation of Newhaven, near Leith, which have mostly a coprolite nucleus, have been applied to various ornamental purposes by lapidaries. The name “cololites” (from the Greekκῷλον, the large intestine,λίθος, stone) was given by Agassiz to fossil wormlike bodies, found in the lithographic slate of Solenhofen, which he determined to be either the petrified intestines or contents of the intestines of fishes. The bone-bed of Axmouth in Devonshire and Westbury and Aust in Gloucestershire, in the Penarth or Rhaetic series of strata, contains the scales, teeth and bones of saurians and fishes, together with abundance of coprolites; but neither there nor at Lyme Regis is there a sufficient quantity of phosphatic material to render the working of it for agricultural purposes remunerative.
The term coprolites has been made to include all kinds of phosphatic nodules employed as manures, such, for example, as those obtained from the Coralline and the Red Crag of Suffolk. At the base of the Red Crag in that county is a bed, 3 to 18 in. thick, containing rolled fossil bones, cetacean and fish teeth, and shells of the Crag period, with nodules or pebbles of phosphatic matter derived from the London Clay, and often investing fossils from that formation. These are distinguishable from the grey Chalk coprolites by their brownish ferruginous colour and smooth appearance. When ground they give a yellowish-red powder. These nodules were at first taken by Professor J. S. Henslow for coprolites; they were afterwards termed by Buckland “pseudo-coprolites.” “The nodules, having been imbued with phosphatic matter from their matrix in the London Clay, were dislodged,” says Buckland, “by the waters of the seas of the first period, and accumulated by myriads at the bottom of those shallow seas where is now the coast of Suffolk. Here they were long rolled together with the bones of large mammalia, fishes, and with the shells of molluscous creatures that lived in shells. From the bottom of this sea they have been raised to form the dry lands along the shores of Suffolk, whence they are now extracted as articles of commercial value, being ground to powder in the mills of Mr [afterwards Sir John] Lawes, at Deptford, to supply our farms with a valuable substitute for guano, under the accepted name of coprolite manure.” The phosphatic nodules occurring throughout the Red Crag of Suffolk are regarded as derived from the Coralline Crag. The Suffolk beds have been worked since 1846; and immense quantities of coprolite have also been obtained from Essex, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. The Cambridgeshire coprolites are believed to be derived from deposits of Gault age; they are obtained by washing from a stratum about a foot thick, resting on the Gault, at the base of the Chalk Marl, and probably homotaxeous with the Chloritic Marl. An acre used to yield on an average 300 tons of phosphatic nodules, value £750. About £140 per acre was paid for the lease of the land, which after two years was restored to its owners re-soiled and levelled. Plicatulae have been found attached to these coprolites, showing that they were already hard bodies when lying at the bottom of the Chalk ocean. The Cambridgeshire coprolites are either amorphous or finger-shaped; the coprolites from the Greensand are of a black or dark-brown colour; while those from the Gault are greenish-white on the surface, brownish-black internally. Samples of Cambridgeshire and Suffolk coprolite have been found by A. Voelcker to give on analysis phosphoric acid equivalent to about 55 and 52.5% of tribasic calcium phosphate respectively (Journ. R. Agric. Soc. Eng., 1860, xxi. 358). The following analysis of a saurio-coprolite from Lyme Regis is given by T. J. Herapath (ibid. xii. 91):—
An ichthyo-coprolite from Tenby was found to contain 15.4% of phosphoric anhydride. The pseudo-coprolites of the Suffolk Crag have been estimated by Herapath to be as rich in phosphates as the true ichthyo-coprolites and saurio-coprolites of other formations, the proportion of P2O5contained varying between 12.5 and 37.25%, the average proportion, however, being 32 or 33%.
Coprolite is reduced to powder by powerful mills of peculiar construction, furnished with granite and buhrstones, before being treated with concentrated sulphuric acid. The acid renders it available as a manure by converting the calcium phosphate, Ca3P2O8, that it contains into the soluble monocalcium salt, CaH4P2O8, or “superphosphate.” The phosphate thus produced forms an efficacious turnip manure, and is quite equal in value to that produced from any other source. The Chloritic Marl in the Wealden district furnishes much phosphatic material, which has been extensively worked at Froyle. In the vicinity of Farnham it contains a bed of “coprolites” of considerable extent and 2 to 15 ft. in thickness. Specimens of these from the Dippen Hall pits, analysed by Messrs J. M. Paine and J. T. Way, showed the presence of phosphates equivalent to 55.96 of bone-earth (Journ. R. Agric. Soc. Eng.ix. 56). Phosphatic nodules occur also in the Chloritic Marl of the Isle of Wight and Dorsetshire, and at Wroughton, near Swindon. They are found in the Lower Greensand, or Upper Neocomian series, in the Atherfield Clay at Stopham, near Pulborough; occasionally at the junction of the Hythe and Sandgate beds; and in the Folkeston beds, at Farnham. At Woburn, Leighton, Ampthill, Sandy, Upware, Wicken and Potton, near the base of Upper Neocomian iron-sands, there is a band between 6 in. and 2 ft. in thickness containing “coprolites”; these consist of phosphatized wood, bones, casts of shells, and shapeless lumps. The coprolitic stratum of the Speeton Clay, on the coast to the north of Flamborough Head, is included by Professor Judd with the Portland beds of that formation. In 1864 two phosphatic deposits, a limestone 3 ft. thick, with beds of calcium phosphate, and a shale of half that thickness, were discovered by Hope Jones in the neighbourhood of Cwmgynen, about 16 m. from Oswestry. They are at a depth of about 12 ft., in slaty shale containing Llandeilo fossils and contemporaneous felspathic ash and scoriae. A specimen of the phosphatic limestone analysed by A. Voelcker yielded 34.92% tricalcium phosphate, a specimen of the shale 52.15% (Report of Brit. Assoc., 1865). Phosphatic beds, supposed to have had a coprolitic origin, are found in the Lower Silurian rocks of Canada.
See T. J. Herapath,Chem. Gaz., 1849, p. 449; W. Buckland,Geology and Mineralogy(4th ed., 1869); O. Fisher,Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1873, p. 52; J. J. H. Teall,On the Potton and Wicken Phosphatic Deposits(Sedgwick Prize Essay for 1873) (1875) and “The Natural History of Phosphatic Deposits,”Proc. Geol. Assoc.xvi. (1900); L. W. Collet,Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin.xxv. pt. 10, p. 862; T. G. Bonney,Cambridgeshire Geology(1875); L. Gruner,Bull. soc. géol. franc.xxviii. (2nd series), p. 62; J. Martin, ibid. iii. (3rd series), p. 273.
See T. J. Herapath,Chem. Gaz., 1849, p. 449; W. Buckland,Geology and Mineralogy(4th ed., 1869); O. Fisher,Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1873, p. 52; J. J. H. Teall,On the Potton and Wicken Phosphatic Deposits(Sedgwick Prize Essay for 1873) (1875) and “The Natural History of Phosphatic Deposits,”Proc. Geol. Assoc.xvi. (1900); L. W. Collet,Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin.xxv. pt. 10, p. 862; T. G. Bonney,Cambridgeshire Geology(1875); L. Gruner,Bull. soc. géol. franc.xxviii. (2nd series), p. 62; J. Martin, ibid. iii. (3rd series), p. 273.
COPTOS(EgyptianKeft,Kebto), the modernķuft(a village with railway station a short distance from the west bank of the Nile about 25 m. north-east of Thebes), an ancient city, capital of the fifth nome of Upper Egypt, and the starting-point of several roads to the Red Sea, of which that which passes along the valley running due east to Kosseir past the ancient quarries of Hammāmāt was the most frequented, until the foundation of Berenice (q.v.) by Ptolemy Philadelphus made an even more important line of traffic to the south-west. The growth of trade with Arabiaand India thereafter raised Coptos to great commercial prosperity; but inA.D.292 its share in the rebellion against Diocletian led to an almost total devastation. It again appears, however, as a place of importance, and as the seat of a considerable Christian community, though the stream of traffic turned aside to the neighbouring ķūş. During part of the 7th century it was called Justinianopolis in honour of the emperor Justinian.
The local god of Coptos, as of Khemmis (Akhmīm,q.v.), was the ithyphallic Min; but in late times Isis was of equal importance in the city. Min was especially the god of the desert routes. Petrie’s excavations on the site of the temple brought to light remains of all periods, the most remarkable objects being three very primitive limestone statues of the god with figures of an elephant, swords of sword-fish, sea-shells, &c., engraved upon them: there were also found some very peculiar terra-cottas of the Old Kingdom, and the decree of an Antef belonging to the latter part of the Middle Kingdom, deposing the monarch for siding with the king’s enemy.
COPTS,the early native Christians of Egypt and their successors of the Monophysite sect, now racially the purest representatives of the ancient Egyptians. The name is a Europeanized form, dating perhaps from the 14th century, of the Arabic ķibt (or ķubt), which, in turn, is derived from the GreekΑἰγύπτιοι, “Egyptians” (the Copts in the Coptic language likewise style themselves, “people of Egypt,” “Egyptians”).
The limited application of the name is explained by the circumstances of the time when Mahomet sent forth his challenge to the world and ’Amr conquered Egypt (A.D.627-641). At that time the population of Egypt was wholly Christian (except for a sprinkling of Jews, &c.), divided into two fiercely hostile sects, the Monophysites and the Melkites. The division was in great measure racial. The Melkites, adherents of the orthodox or court religion sanctioned by the council of Chalcedon, were mainly of foreign extraction, from the various Hellenistic races which peopled the Eastern Roman empire, while the bulk of the population, the true Egyptians, were Monophysite. Amongst the latter political aspirations, apart from religion, may be said not to have existed. It has generally been held that the Copts invited and aided the Moslems to seize the country in order that at all costs they might be freed from the yoke of the state religion imposed by the Eastern Roman Empire; but Dr A. J. Butler has shown this view to be untenable, while admitting that the religious feuds of the Christians made the task of the Arabs easy. The mysterious Muķauķis, who treacherously handed over Alexandria, impregnable as it was for Arab warriors, and then capitulated, was none other than Cyrus, the Melkite patriarch and governor of Egypt; the native Monophysite party, however, smarting under the persecution of the Emperor Heraclius, seemed to have most to gain by a change of masters. The prophet Mahomet himself had prescribed indulgence to the Copts before his death, and ’Amr was mercifully disposed to them. Although they offered resistance in some places, after the Roman forces had been destroyed or had abandoned Egypt they generally acquiesced in the inevitable; and when in 646 a Roman fleet and army recaptured Alexandria and harried the Delta, the Copts helped the Moslems to cast out the Christian invaders. Some of the Copts embraced Islam at once, but as yet they formed practically a solid Christian nation under the protection of the conquering Arabs, and the religious and political distinction between the “true believers” and the Christians was so sharp that a native Christian turning Moslem was no longer a Copt,i.e.Egyptian; he practically changed his nationality.
The beginnings of Christianity in Egypt are obscure; the existence of it among the natives (as opposed to the mixed “Greek” population of Egypt and Alexandria which produced so many leading figures and originated leading doctrines in the early church) can be traced back as far as the Decian persecution (A.D.249-251) in the purely Egyptian names of several martyrs. St Anthony (c.A.D.270) was a Copt; so also was Pachomius, the founder of Egyptian monasticism at the beginning of the 4th century. The scriptures were translated into Coptic not later than the 4th century. A religion founded on morality and with a clear doctrine of life after death was especially congenial to the Egyptians; thus the lower orders in the country embraced Christianity fervently, while the Alexandrian pagans were lost in philosophical speculation and Neoplatonism was spread amongst the rich “Greek” landowners; these last, partly out of religious enthusiasm, partly from greed, annoyed and oppressed their Christian peasantry. Egypt was then terribly impoverished; the upper country was constantly overrun by raiders from Nubia and the desert; and the authority of the imperial government was too weak to interfere actively on behalf of the Christians. The monasteries, however, were refuges that could bid defiance to the most powerful of the pagan aristocracy as well as to barbarian hordes, and became centres of united action that, at the summons of Shenoute, the organizer of the national church, swept away the idols of the oppressors in riot and bloodshed. In the course of the 5th century the Christians reached a position in which they were able to treat the pagans mercifully as a feeble remnant.
The Copts had little interest in theology; they were content to take their doctrine as prepared for them by the subtler minds of their Greek leaders at Alexandria, choosing the simplest form when disputes arose. In 325 their elected patriarch, Athanasius, and his following of Greeks and Copts, triumphed at the council of Nicaea against Arius; but in 451 the banishment of Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, by the council of Chalcedon created a great schism, the Egyptian church holding to his Monophysite tenets (seeCoptic Church, below), while the Catholic and imperial party at Constantinople ever sought to further the “Melkite” cause in Egypt at the expense of the native church. Thenceforward there were generally two patriarchs, belonging to the rival communities, and the Copts were oppressed by the Melkites; Heraclius, in 638 after the repulse of the Persians, endeavoured to unite the churches, but, failing in that, he persecuted the Monophysites more severely than ever before, until ‘Amr brought Egypt under the Moslem rule of ’Omar, as has been related above. Under the persecution many Copts had gone over to the Melkites, but now it was the turn of the Melkites, as supporters of the emperor of Constantinople, to suffer, and they almost entirely disappeared from Egypt, though a remnant headed by a patriarch of Alexandria of the Orthodox Christians has survived to this day.
But after a few years of the mild rule of ‘Amr the Egyptians began to be squeezed for the benefit of the Moslem exchequer and persecuted for their religion. Many of the more thoughtful and sober Christians must long have been disgusted with religious strife, and had already embraced the simple and congenial doctrines of Islam; others went over for the sake of material gain. Conflicts arose from time to time between the Mahommedan minority and the Christians. The Copts were excellent scribes and accountants and were continued in their posts under the Arab rule; the government offices were full of them; sometimes even the wazirate (vizierate) was held by a Copt, and that too in a time of persecution of the Christians. The pride of the Copts, still seen in the objection which the poorest among them have to engaging in any mean work or trade, was a serious danger, perhaps even a chief source of their troubles, in earlier days; devout Moslems on more than one occasion stirred the mob to fury when they saw Christians lording it over “true believers.” The lower orders of the Copts were continually oppressed. Thus there was every inducement amongst the Christians to turn Mahommedan. Arab tribes, too, were encouraged to settle in Egypt until the Mahommedans exceeded the Copts in numbers.
The history of the Copts consists on the one hand of the record of religious strife, of growing scandals in the church, such as simony, and attempted reforms; and on the other hand of persecutions at the hands of the Moslems. As examples of the severity of the persecutions, it may be noted that, in the 8th century, the monks not only were compelled to pay a capitation tax, but were branded with name and number, civilians were oppressed with heavy taxation, churches demolished, pictures and crosses destroyed (722-723). Degrading dresses were imposed upon the Christians (849-850); later, under Hakim (997), theywere compelled to wear heavy crosses and black turbans as an ignominious distinction. Salaheddin (Saladin) in 1171 reenforced these statutes and defiled the churches. In 1301, the blue turban was introduced, but many Copts preferred a change of religion to the adoption of this head-dress. In 1348 a religious war, attended by the destruction of churches and mosques and great loss of life, raged at Cairo between the Copts and Mahommedans, and large numbers of the former embraced Islam. Their oppression practically ceased under Mehemet Ali (1811).
There have been very few cases of conversion from Mahommedanism to Christianity; and, as intermarriage of Christians with Mahommedans implied conversion to Islam, the Copts have undoubtedly preserved the race of the Egyptians as it existed at the time of the Arab conquest in remarkable purity. The Coptic agricultural population (fellahīn) in the villages of Upper Egypt and elsewhere are not markedly different from the Mahommedan fellahīn, who, of course, are of the same stock, but mixed with Arab blood. The Copts in the towns, who have always been engaged in sedentary occupations, as scribes and handicraftsmen, have a more delicate frame and complexion, and may have mingled with Syrian and Armenian Christians.
According to the 1907 census, there were 667,036 orthodox Copts in Egypt, or less than1⁄14th of the total population, this being the same proportion as in 1830, when, according to Lane, they numbered about 150,000. The number of churches and monasteries at the same time had risen from 146 to 450, not including Protestant chapels nor Coptic Catholic churches. At the 1907 census the total number of Christians in Egypt described as Copts was 706,322; among them there were 24,710 Protestants and 14,576 Roman Catholics.
Monogamy is strict among the Copts, and divorce is granted only for adultery. Circumcision of both sexes is common before baptism. In regard to dress, at present only the clergy retain the old distinctive costume and black turban. The rest of the Copts dress exactly like their Moslem brethren, from whom they can be distinguished only by the cross which many of them still have tattooed just below the palm of the right hand. Since the British occupation of the country there has been a tendency amongst the Coptic women to give up the veil, which they had borrowed from the Mahommedans; this is especially noticeable at places like Assiût, where, thanks to the efforts of American missionaries, female education has made much progress.
In trades and professions, so long as the Copts had no foreign competition to contend against, they maintained their supremacy over the rest of the population. They filled government offices; in towns and villages they monopolized trades and professions requiring care and skill. They were the accountants, the architects, the goldsmiths, the carpenters, the land-surveyors, the bonesetters, &c. But, with the extension of railways and agricultural roads and the increased facilities of communication and prosperity, there has been a great influx of Italian, Greek, Armenian and other Levantine workmen, who, with their better tools, are undoubtedly superior to the Copts, and have proved most formidable rivals. Furthermore, the importation of cheap European wares of every description is slowly killing all native industry. Lastly, since the British, as the dominant race, have filled most posts of responsibility in the government, the Moslems, in general, are obliged to content themselves with the subordinate posts which in the past they left to the Copts. Some Copts have attained high office, and in 1908 a Copt became prime minister. Moreover, the Copts have to a certain extent made up for the ground they lose elsewhere by engaging in agriculture and banking, and there are now to be found many rich Coptic landowners and farmers, especially in Upper Egypt.
Language.—The language spoken by the Copts was of various dialects, named Sahidic, Akhmimic, Fayumic, &c., descended from the ancient Egyptian with more or less admixture of Greek (for the Coptic dialects seeEgypt:Language). Coptic, however, has been entirely extinct as a spoken language for over 200 years, having been supplanted by Arabic; in the 13th century it was already so much decayed that Arabic translations of the liturgies were necessary. The Gospels, however, are still read in the churches in the Bohairic dialect. This dialect appears in literature later than the others, having become of importance only with the extinction of Greek in Lower Egypt; for a time it shared the field with Sahidic, after the disappearance of Akhmimic and Fayumic, but eventually displaced it in the churches, where it now survives alone.
Coptic literature is almost entirely religious, and consists mainly of translations from the Greek. Such was the enthusiasm for Christianity amongst the lower classes in Egypt that translations of the Bible were made into three of the dialects of Coptic before the council of Chalcedon; they probably date back at least as early as the middle of the 4th century. For the dwellers in the Delta the Greek version was probably sufficient, until the break with the Greek (Melkite) Church in the 5th century induced them to make a separate translation in their own native northern or Bohairic dialect. The Gnostic heresy, otherwise known only through the works of its opponents, is illustrated in some Coptic MSS. of the 4th century, the so-calledPistis Sophiaor Askew Codex, and the Bruce Codex, respectively in the British Museum and Bodleian Libraries. According to Schmidt and Harnack, they are translations dating from the 3rd century and belong to an ascetic or encratitic sect of the Gnostics which arose in Egypt itself. There is abundance of apocryphal works, of apocalypses, of patristic writings from Athanasius to the council of Chalcedon, homilies, lives of saints and anecdotes of holy men, acts of martyrs extending from the persecution of Diocletian to that of the Persians in the 7th century, and lives of later ascetics and martyrs reaching down to the 14th century. Unless some of the Egyptianacta sanctorum et martyrumshould prove to have been originally written in Coptic, almost the only original works in that language of any importance are the numerous sermons and letters of Shenoute, a monk of Atrēpe near Akhmīm, written in the Sahidic dialect in the 4th century. After the Arab conquest, as a defence to the threatened church, language and nationality, versifications of the Proverbs, of Solomon’s Song and of various legends were composed, with other religious songs. They are mostly antiphonal, a number of stresses in a line marking the rhythm. There is no musical notation in the MSS., but traditional church tunes are generally referred to or prescribed for the songs. Of secular literature strangely little existed or at least has survived: only a few magical texts, fragments of a medical treatise, of the story of Alexander, and of a story of the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, are known, apart from numerous legal and business documents.
Coptic was occasionally employed for literary purposes as late as the 14th century, but from the 10th century onward the Copts wrote mostly in Arabic. Severus of Eshmunain (c. 950), who wrote a history of the patriarchs of Alexandria, was one of the first to employ Arabic; Cyril ibn Laklak and others in the 13th and 14th centuries translated much of the older literature from Coptic into Arabic and Ethiopic for the use of the Egyptian and Abyssinian churches. From this period also date the native Coptic grammars and lexicons of Ibn ’Assal and others. At the present time literature among the Copts is represented by Claudius Labīb, an enthusiast for the revival of the Coptic tongue, Marcus Simaika, a leader of the progressive movement, and others.
(F. Ll. G.)
The Coptic Church.—Up to the 5th century the church of Alexandria played a part in the Christian world scarcely second to that of Rome: the names of Origen, Athanasius and Cyril bear witness to her greatness. But in the time of the patriarch Dioscorus the church, always fond of speculation, was rent asunder by the controversy concerning the single or twofold nature of our Lord, as stated by Eutyches. The Eutychian doctrine, approved by the council of Ephesus, was condemned by that of Chalcedon in 451. But to this decision, though given by 636 bishops, the Copts refused assent—a refusal which profoundly affected both the religious and the political history of their country. From that moment they were treated as heretics. The emperor appointed a new bishop of Alexandria, whose adherents the Copts styled Melkites or Imperialists, while theCopts are distinguished as Monophysites and Jacobites. The court party and the native party each maintained its own line of patriarchs, and each treated the other with bitter hostility. For nearly two centuries strife and persecution continued. The well-meant ecthesis of Heraclius was a failure and was followed by repression, till in 640 the Copts were released from the Roman dominion by the Saracen invasion. But it was only after prolonged resistance to the Arabs that the Copts accepted a change of masters, which gave them for a while religious freedom. The orthodox or Melkite party, consisting mostly of Byzantine Greeks, was swept away, and the double succession of patriarchs practically ceased. True, even now there is an orthodox patriarch of Alexandria living in Cairo, but he has only a few Greeks for followers, and scarcely a nominal succession has been maintained. But the Coptic succession has been continuous and real.
The distinctive Monophysite doctrine of the Copts is not easy to state intelligibly, and yet they cling to it with something of the tenacity which has marked their whole history. They repudiate the heresy of Eutyches as stronglyDoctrine.as that of Nestorius, and claim to stand between the two doctrines teaching that Christ was one person with one nature which was made up by the indissoluble union of a divine and a human nature, but that notwithstanding this absolute union the two natures remained after union distinct, unconfounded and uncommingled, separate though inseparable. The creed thus savours of paradox, not to say contradiction. It is set forth in the Liturgy and recited at every Coptic mass in the following words:—“I believe that this is the life-giving flesh which thine only Son took from the ... Holy Mary. He united it with His Divinity without mingling and without confusion and without alteration.... I believe that His Divinity was not separated from His Manhood for one moment or for the twinkling of an eye.” On all other points of dogma, including the single procession of the Holy Ghost, the Copts agree with the Greek Church.
“The most holy pope and patriarch of the great city of Alexandria and of all the land of Egypt, of Jerusalem the holy city, of Nubia, Abyssinia and Pentapolis, and all the preaching of St Mark,” as he is still called, had originallyHierarchy.jurisdiction over all the places named. Jurisdiction over Abyssinia remains, but from Nubia and Pentapolis Christianity has disappeared. The ancient rule is that no bishop is eligible for the patriarchate. The requirement of a period of desert life has so far prevailed that no one but a monk from one of the desert monasteries is now qualified. This rule, harmless perhaps when the monasteries were the great schools of learning and devotion, now puts a premium on ignorance, and is disastrous to the church; more particularly as even bishops must be chosen from the monks. The patriarch is elected by an assembly of bishops and elders. The candidate is brought in chains from the desert, and, if only in monk’s orders, is passed through the higher grades except that of bishop. The patriarch’s seat was transferred some time after the Arab conquest from Alexandria to the fortress town of Babylon (Old Cairo), and in modern times it was shifted to Cairo proper. The other orders and offices in the church are metropolitan, bishop, chief priest, priest, archdeacon, deacon, reader and monk. The number of bishoprics in ancient times was very large—Athanasius says nearly 100. At present there remain ten in Egypt, one at Khartum and three in Abyssinia.
The numerous remaining churches in Egypt but faintly represent the vast number standing in ancient times. Rufinus says that he found 10,000 monks in the one region of Arsinoe. Later, in 616, the Persians are describedBuildings.as destroying 600 monasteries near Alexandria. Abū Sālih (12th century) gives a list of churches surviving in his day, and their number is astonishing. The earliest were cut out of rocks and caverns. In the days of Constantine and Justinian basilicas of great splendour were built, such as the church of St Mark at Alexandria and the Red Monastery in Upper Egypt. This type of architecture permanently influenced Coptic builders, but there prevailed also a type, probably native in origin, though possessing Byzantine features, such as the domed roofing. There is no church now standing which bears any trace of the fine glass mosaics which once adorned the basilicas, nor is there any example of a well-defined cruciform ground-plan. But the use of the dome by Coptic architects is almost universal, and nearly every church has at least three domes overshadowing the three altars. The domes are sometimes lighted by small windows; but the walls are windowless, and the churches consequently gloomy. Among the most interesting churches are those of Old Cairo, those in the Wadi Natron, and the Red and White Monasteries (Der el-AbiadandDer el-Ahmar) near Suhag in Upper Egypt.
Every church has three altars at the eastern end in three contiguous chapels. The central division is called thehaikalor sanctuary, which is always divided from the choir by a fixed partition or screen with a small archedChurch fittings.doorway closed by double doors. This resembles the Greek iconostasis, the screen on which the “icons” or sacred pictures are placed.Haikalscreen and choir screen are often sumptuously carved and inlaid. A marble basin for the mandatum in the nave, and an epiphany tank at the west are common features. The altar is usually built of brick or stone, hollow within, and having an opening to the interior. A wooden altar-slab covered with crosses, &c., lies in a rectangular depression on the surface, and it is used in case of need as a portable altar. Chalice and paten, ewer and basin, crewet and chrismatory, are found as in the Western churches. The aster consists of two crossed half-hoops of silver and is used to place over the wafer. The flabellum is used, though now rarely made of precious metal. Some examples of silver-cased textus now remaining are very fine. Every church possesses thuribles—the use of incense being universal and frequent—and diadems for the marriage service. The use of church bells is forbidden by the Moslems, except in the desert, and church music consists merely of cymbals and triangles which accompany the chanting.
The sacramental wine is usually made from raisins, but the juice must be fermented. Churches even in Cairo have a press for crushing the raisins. The eucharistic bread is baked in an oven built near the sanctuary. The wafer isRites and ceremonies.a small loaf about 3 inches in diameter and 1 inch thick, stamped with the trisagion and with crosses. Communion must be received fasting. Confession is required, but has somewhat fallen into disuse. Laymen receive in both kinds. The wafer being broken into the chalice, crumbs or “pearls” are taken out in a spoon and so administered, as in the Greek rite. Reservation is uncanonical. Renaudot states that it was permitted in cases of great extremity, when the host remained upon the altar with lamps burning and a priest watching, but it is not now practised, and there is no evidence of any such vessel as a pyx in Coptic ritual. Small benedictional crosses belong to each altar, and processional crosses are common. The crucifix is unknown, for while paintings and frescoes abound, graven images are absolutely forbidden. The liturgy was read exclusively in the extinct Coptic language till the end of the 19th century, but parts are now read in Arabic, while the lessons have long been read in Arabic as well as in Coptic. The services are still excessively long, that of Good Friday lasting eleven hours; but benches are now provided in the newer churches. Seven sacraments are recognized—baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, orders, matrimony, and unction of the sick. The chief fasts are those of Advent, of Nineveh, of Heraclius, Lent and Pentecost. Pilgrimage to Jerusalem is a duty and sometimes a penance.
The Coptic ritual deserves much fuller study than it has received. Since the 7th century the church has been so isolated as to be little influenced by changes affecting other communions. Consequently it remains in many respects the most ancient monument of primitive rites and ceremonies in Christendom. But centuries of subjection to Moslem rule have much weakened it. For the liturgical dress seeVestments;Chasuble, &c.
The British occupation of Egypt profoundly modified Copticreligious life. Before it the Copts lived in their own semi-fortified quarters in Cairo or Old Cairo or in country or desertPresent state of the church.Dairs (Ders). Walls and gates were now thrown down or disused: the Copts began to mix and live freely among the Moslems, their children to frequent the same schools, and the people to abandon their distinctively Christian dress, names, customs and even religion. Freedom and prosperity threatened to injure the Church more than centuries of persecution. Many of the younger generation of Copts began openly to boast their indifference and even scepticism: in the large towns churches came to be too often frequented only by the old or the uneducated, confession and fasts fell into neglect and the number of communicants diminished; while the facility of divorce granted by Islam occasioned many perversions from among the Copts to that religion. On the other hand the necessity of resistance to these tendencies and of reform from within was strongly realized. Unfortunately, the institution of a lay council of eminent churchmen, which has been formed for the patriarch and for every bishop in his own diocese, has led to prolonged struggles and on one occasion to a serious crisis, in which the patriarch and the metropolitan of Alexandria were for a while banished to the desert. A principal object of these lay councils is to control the financial and legal powers vested in patriarch and bishops—powers which have often been greatly abused. Other objects are (1) to provide Christian religious education in all Coptic schools and to raise these schools to a high standard in secular matters; (2) to promote the education of women; (3) to apply church revenues to the maintenance of churches and schools and to the better payment of the clergy, who are now often compelled to live on charity; (4) to ensure prompt administration of justice in ecclesiastical causes such as divorce, inheritance, &c.; and (5) to establish colleges for the efficient training of the clergy. Educated Copts remember the time when the church of Alexandria was as famous for learning as for zeal. They desire also to resist the serious encroachments of Roman Catholic, American Presbyterian, and other foreign missions upon their ancient faith.
(A. J. B.)
Authorities.—(1)History and Religion: Johann Michael Wansleben (Vansleb), a Dominican and learned orientalist (1635-1679),Hist. de l’église d’Alexandrie(Paris, 1677), written at Cairo in 1672 and 1673 mainly from original native sources, andNouvelle Relation ... d’un voyage fait en Égypte, &c.(Paris, 1677 and 1698, Eng. trans., London, 1678); Eusèbe Renaudot the younger (1646-1720),Historia Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum(Paris, 1713); Abū Dakn (Josephus Abudacnus),Historia Jacobitarum(Oxford, 1675, Eng. trans. by Sir E. Sadleir, London, 1693); S. C. Malan,Original Documents of the Coptic Church(London, 1874); Denzinger,Ritus Orientalium(Würzburg, 1863); Hon. Robert Curzon,Visits to Monasteries in the Levant(London, 1849); J. M. Neale,Hist. of the Patriarchate of Alexandria(2 vols., ib., 1847), in theHist. of the Holy Eastern Church, coloured by the writer’s Anglo-Catholic point of view; A. J. Butler,Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt(Oxford, 1884); B. T. A. Evetts and Butler,Churches and Monasteries of Egypt, by Abū Sāleh (Oxford, 1895); E. Amélineau,Monuments pour servir à l’histoire de l’Égypte chrétienne aux IVeet Vesiècles, Coptic and Arabic documents published and translated for the first time, inMém. de la mission archéolog. franç. au Caire, t. iv. (Paris, 1888), andMonuments ... au IVesièclein theAnnales du musée Guimet, t. xvii. (Paris, 1889); P. Rohrbach,Die alexandrinischen Patriarchen(Berlin, 1891); Jullien,L’Égypte: souvenirs bibliques et chrétiens(Lille, 1891); Macaire,Histoire de l’église d’Alexandrie(Cairo, 1894); Porphyrius,The Christian East: Alexandrian Patriarchate(St Petersburg, 1898; in Russian); Strzygowski,Orient oder Rom?(Leipzig, 1901); De Bock,Matériaux pour servir à l’archéologie de l’Égypte chrétienne(St Petersburg, 1901); Kitab alHulājī al Muķaddas(Cairo, 1902); A. Gayet, “Les Monuments coptes du musée de Boulaq,” in theMém. miss. archéolog. franç. au Caire, t. iii. (Paris, 1889); id., L’Art copte (Paris, 1902); Horner,The Statutes of the Apostles(London, 1904);Egypt Exploration Fund Reports, section “Christian Egypt”; W. E. Crum, article “Koptische Kirche” inRealencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 3. Aufl.; J. M. Fuller’s article “Coptic Church” in Smith’sDictionary of Biography; A. J. Butler,The Arab Conquest of Egypt(Oxford, 1902); J. Leipoldt,Schenute von Atripe und die Entstehung des national-ägyptischen Christentums(Leipzig, 1903),Die Entstehung der koptischen Kirche(a valuable essay printed as the introduction to R. Haupt’sKatalog5, Halle, 1905); B. T. A. Evetts, “The Patriarchal History of Severus” in Graffin’sPatrologia orientalis(Paris); J. Milne,A History of Egypt under Roman Rule(1898).Literature.—See Crum’s article above referred to, hisCatalogue of Coptic MSS. in the British Museum, and his annual reviews in theArchaeological Reportof the Egypt Exploration Fund; J. Leipoldt inGeschichte der christlichen Literaturen des Orients(Leipzig, 1907); H. Junker,Koptische Poesie des zehnten Jahrhunderts, 1. Teil (Berlin, 1908); Archdeacon Dowling,The Egyptian Church(London, 1909).Modern People.—E. W. Lane’s description of the Copts in hisModern Egyptiansis interesting, but founded on imperfect information, and, moreover, coloured by prejudices in favour of the Moslems whom he studied with so much sympathy. See Klunzinger,Upper Egypt, pp. 61 et sqq.; also the last chapter ofThe Story of the Church of Egypt, by Mrs E. L. Butcher (1897), on the social life and customs.
Authorities.—(1)History and Religion: Johann Michael Wansleben (Vansleb), a Dominican and learned orientalist (1635-1679),Hist. de l’église d’Alexandrie(Paris, 1677), written at Cairo in 1672 and 1673 mainly from original native sources, andNouvelle Relation ... d’un voyage fait en Égypte, &c.(Paris, 1677 and 1698, Eng. trans., London, 1678); Eusèbe Renaudot the younger (1646-1720),Historia Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum(Paris, 1713); Abū Dakn (Josephus Abudacnus),Historia Jacobitarum(Oxford, 1675, Eng. trans. by Sir E. Sadleir, London, 1693); S. C. Malan,Original Documents of the Coptic Church(London, 1874); Denzinger,Ritus Orientalium(Würzburg, 1863); Hon. Robert Curzon,Visits to Monasteries in the Levant(London, 1849); J. M. Neale,Hist. of the Patriarchate of Alexandria(2 vols., ib., 1847), in theHist. of the Holy Eastern Church, coloured by the writer’s Anglo-Catholic point of view; A. J. Butler,Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt(Oxford, 1884); B. T. A. Evetts and Butler,Churches and Monasteries of Egypt, by Abū Sāleh (Oxford, 1895); E. Amélineau,Monuments pour servir à l’histoire de l’Égypte chrétienne aux IVeet Vesiècles, Coptic and Arabic documents published and translated for the first time, inMém. de la mission archéolog. franç. au Caire, t. iv. (Paris, 1888), andMonuments ... au IVesièclein theAnnales du musée Guimet, t. xvii. (Paris, 1889); P. Rohrbach,Die alexandrinischen Patriarchen(Berlin, 1891); Jullien,L’Égypte: souvenirs bibliques et chrétiens(Lille, 1891); Macaire,Histoire de l’église d’Alexandrie(Cairo, 1894); Porphyrius,The Christian East: Alexandrian Patriarchate(St Petersburg, 1898; in Russian); Strzygowski,Orient oder Rom?(Leipzig, 1901); De Bock,Matériaux pour servir à l’archéologie de l’Égypte chrétienne(St Petersburg, 1901); Kitab alHulājī al Muķaddas(Cairo, 1902); A. Gayet, “Les Monuments coptes du musée de Boulaq,” in theMém. miss. archéolog. franç. au Caire, t. iii. (Paris, 1889); id., L’Art copte (Paris, 1902); Horner,The Statutes of the Apostles(London, 1904);Egypt Exploration Fund Reports, section “Christian Egypt”; W. E. Crum, article “Koptische Kirche” inRealencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 3. Aufl.; J. M. Fuller’s article “Coptic Church” in Smith’sDictionary of Biography; A. J. Butler,The Arab Conquest of Egypt(Oxford, 1902); J. Leipoldt,Schenute von Atripe und die Entstehung des national-ägyptischen Christentums(Leipzig, 1903),Die Entstehung der koptischen Kirche(a valuable essay printed as the introduction to R. Haupt’sKatalog5, Halle, 1905); B. T. A. Evetts, “The Patriarchal History of Severus” in Graffin’sPatrologia orientalis(Paris); J. Milne,A History of Egypt under Roman Rule(1898).
Literature.—See Crum’s article above referred to, hisCatalogue of Coptic MSS. in the British Museum, and his annual reviews in theArchaeological Reportof the Egypt Exploration Fund; J. Leipoldt inGeschichte der christlichen Literaturen des Orients(Leipzig, 1907); H. Junker,Koptische Poesie des zehnten Jahrhunderts, 1. Teil (Berlin, 1908); Archdeacon Dowling,The Egyptian Church(London, 1909).
Modern People.—E. W. Lane’s description of the Copts in hisModern Egyptiansis interesting, but founded on imperfect information, and, moreover, coloured by prejudices in favour of the Moslems whom he studied with so much sympathy. See Klunzinger,Upper Egypt, pp. 61 et sqq.; also the last chapter ofThe Story of the Church of Egypt, by Mrs E. L. Butcher (1897), on the social life and customs.
COPYHOLD,in English law, an ancient form of land tenure, legally defined as a “holding at the will of the lord according to the custom of the manor.” Though nowadays of diminishing practical importance, its incidents are historically interesting. Its origin is to be found in the occupation by villani, or non-freemen, of portions of land belonging to the manor of a feudal lord. In the time of the Domesday survey the manor was in part granted to free tenants, in part reserved by the lord himself for his own uses. The estate of the free tenants is the freehold estate of English law; as tenants of the same manor they assembled together in manorial court or court baron, of which they were the judges. The portion of the manor reserved for the lord (thedemesne, or domain) was cultivated by labourers who were bound to the land (adscripti glebae). They could not leave the manor, and their service was obligatory. These villani, however, were allowed by the lord to cultivate portions of land for their own use. It was a mere occupation at the pleasure of the lord, but in course of time it grew into an occupation by right, recognized first of all by custom and afterwards by law. This kind of tenure is called by the lawyersvillenagium, and it probably marks a great advance in the general recognition of the right when the name is applied to lands held on the same conditions not by villeins but by free men. The tenants in villenage were not, like the freeholders, members of the court baron, but they appear to have attended in a humbler capacity, and to have solicited the succession to the land occupied by a deceased father, or the admission of a new tenant who had purchased the goodwill, as it might be called, of the holding, paying for such favours certain customary fines or dues. In relation to the tenants in villenage, the court baron was called the customary court. The records of the court constituted the title of the villein tenant, held by copy of the court roll (whence the term “copyhold”); and the customs of the manor therein recorded formed the real property law applicable to his case.
Copyhold had long been established in practice before it was formally recognized by the law. At first it was in fact, as it is now in the fictitious theory of the law, a tenancy at will, for which none of the legal remedies of a freeholder were available. In the reign of Edward IV., however, it was held that a tenant in villenage had an action of trespass against the lord. In this way a species of tenant-right, depending on and strongly supported by popular opinion, was changed into a legal right. But it retained many incidents characteristic of its historical origin. The life of copyhold assurance, it is said, is custom. Copyhold is necessarily parcel of a manor, and the freehold is said to be in the lord of the manor. The court roll of the manor is the evidence of title and the record of the special laws as to fines, quit rents, heriots, &c., prevailing in the manor. When copyhold land is conveyed from one person to another, it is surrendered by the owner to the lord, who by his payment of the customary fine makes a new grant of it to the purchaser. The lord must admit the vendor’s nominee, but the form of the conveyance is still that of surrender and re-grant. The lord, as legal owner of the fee-simple of the lands, has a right to all the mines and minerals and to all the growing timber, although the tenant may have planted it himself. Hence it appears that the existence of copyhold tenures may sometimes be traced by the total absence of timber from such lands, while on freehold lands it grows in abundance. Hence also the popular saying that the “oak grows not except on free land.” The copyholder must not commit waste either by cuttingdown timber, &c., or by neglecting to repair buildings. In such respects the law treats him as a mere lessee,—the real owner being supposed to be the lord. On the other hand, the lord may not enter the land to cut his own timber or open his mines. The limitations of estates usual in respect of other lands, as found in copyhold, become subject of course to the operations of its peculiar conditions as to the relation of lord and tenant. An estate for life, orpour autre vie(i.e.for another’s life), an estate entail, or in fee-simple, may be carved out of copyhold.
A species of tenure resembling copyhold is what is known ascustomary freehold. The land is held by copy of court-roll, but not by will of the lord. The question has been raised whether the freehold of such lands is in the lord of the manor or in the tenant, and the courts of law have decided in favour of the former. In some instances copyhold for lives alone is recognized, and in such cases the lord of the manor may ultimately, when all the lives have dropped, get back the land into his own hands.
The feudal obligations attaching to copyhold tenure have been found to cause much inconvenience to the tenants, while they are of no great value to the lord. One of the most vexatious of these is theheriot, under which name the lord is entitled to seize the tenant’s best beast or other chattel in the event of the tenant’s death. The custom dates from the time when all the copyholder’s property, including the copyholder himself, belonged to the lord, and is supposed to have been fixed by way of analogy to the custom which gave a military tenant’s habiliments to his lord in order to equip his successor. Instances have occurred of articles of great value being seized as heriots for the copyhold tenements of their owners. A race horse worth £2000 or £3000 was thus seized. The fine payable on the admission of a new tenant, whether by alienation or succession, is to a certain extent arbitrary, but the courts long ago laid down the rule that it must be reasonable, and anything beyond two years’ improved value of the lands they disallowed.
The inconvenience caused by these feudal incidents of the tenure led to a series of statutes, having for their object the conversion of copyhold into freehold. The first Copyhold Act, that of 1841, was consolidated by the Copyhold Act 1894. Owing to the incidents attaching to land “holden by copy of court roll according to the custom of the manor” in the shape of fines and heriots, the inability to grant a lease for a term exceeding a year, and to the peculiar rules as to descent, waste, dower, curtesy, alienation, and other matters, varying often from manor to manor and widely differing from the uniform law applicable to land in general, enfranchisement, or the conversion of land held by copyhold tenure into freehold, is often desired. This could and may still be effected at common law, but only by agreement on the part of both the lord and the tenant. Moreover, it was subject to other disadvantages. The cost fell on the tenant, and the land when enfranchised was subject to the encumbrances attaching to the manor, and so an investigation into the lord’s title was necessary. In 1841 an act was passed to provide a statutory method of enfranchisement, removing some of the barriers existing at common law; but the machinery created was only available where both lord and tenant were in agreement. The Copyhold Act 1852 went further, and for the first time introduced the principle of compulsory enfranchisement on the part of either party. By the Copyhold Act 1894, which now governs statutory enfranchisement, the former Copyhold Acts 1841-1887, were repealed, and the law was consolidated and improved. Enfranchisement is now effected under this act, though in certain cases it is also to be obtained under special acts, such as the Land Clauses Consolidation Act 1848; and the old common law method with all its disadvantages is still open. The Copyhold Act 1894 deals both with compulsory and with voluntary enfranchisement. In either case the sanction of the Board of Agriculture must be obtained; and powers are bestowed on it to decide questions arising on enfranchisement, with an appeal to the High Court. The actual enfranchisement, where it is compelled by one of the parties, is effected by an award made by the board; in the case of a voluntary enfranchisement it is completed by deed. Under the act it is open to both lord and tenant to compel enfranchisement, though the expenses are to be borne by the party requiring it. The compensation to the lord, in the absence of an agreement, is ascertained under the direction of the board on a valuation made by a valuer or valuers appointed by the lord and tenant; and may be paid either in a gross sum or by way of an annual rent charge issuing out of the land enfranchised, and equivalent to interest at the rate of 4% on the amount fixed upon as compensation. This rent charge is redeemable on six months’ notice at twenty-five times its annual amount. The tenant, even if he is the compelling party, may elect either method; but the lord has not the same option, and where the enfranchisement is at his instance, unless there is either an agreement to the contrary or a notice on the part of the tenant to exercise his option, the compensation is a rent charge. Power is conferred on the lord to purchase the tenant’s interest where a change in the condition of the land by enfranchisement would prejudice his mansion house, park or gardens; while on the other hand, in the interest of the public or the other tenants, the board is authorized to continue conditions of user for their benefit.
So far the provisions relating to compulsory enfranchisement have been dealt with; but even in the case of a voluntary agreement the lord and tenant are only entitled to accept enfranchisement with the consent of the Board of Agriculture. The consideration in addition to a gross sum or a rent charge may consist of a conveyance of land, or of a right to mines or minerals, or of a right to waste in lands belonging to the manor, or partly in one way and partly in another. The effect of enfranchisement, whether it be voluntary or compulsory, is that the land becomes of freehold tenure subject to the same laws relating to descent, dower and curtesy as are applicable to freeholds, and so freed from Borough English, Gavelkind (save in Kent), and other customary modes of descent, and from any custom relating to dower or free-bench or tenancy by curtesy. Nevertheless, the lord is entitled to escheat in the event of failure of heirs, just as if the land had not been enfranchised. The land is held under the same title as that under which it was held at the date at which the enfranchisement takes effect; but it is not subject to any estate right, charge, or interest affecting the manor. Every mortgage of copyhold estate in the land enfranchised becomes a mortgage of the freehold, though subject to the priority of the rent charge paid in compensation under the act. All rights and interests of any person in the land and all leases remain binding in the same manner. On the other hand the tenant’s rights of common still continue attached to the freehold; and, without express consent in writing of the lord or tenant respectively, the right of either in mines or minerals shall not be affected by the change. No creation of new copyholds by granting land out of the waste is permissible, save with the consent of the Board of Agriculture; and the act enacts that a valid admittance of a new copyholder may be made without holding a court.
Under the earlier acts, machinery to free the land from the burden of the old rents, fines and heriots was set up, commuting them into a rent charge or a fine. Commutation, however, is never compulsory, and differs from enfranchisement in that, whereas by enfranchisement the land in question is converted into freehold, by commutation it still continued parcel of the manor, though subject to a rent charge or a fine, as might have been agreed. The ordinary laws of descent, dower, and curtesy were, however, substituted for the customs in relation to these matters incidental to the land in question before commutation, and the timber became the tenant’s.