of the Emirate and the political system that then prevailed in Mount Lebanon in such a way as to suggest a timeless, disciplined, and orderly organization of the Maronites, under the governance of their own legitimate princes, throughout the entire Mountain range. The historical role of the Maronites and the Druzes in the Emirate were totally reversed. His account of the history of the Emirate gives the impression that the Maronites had always been politically and demographically preeminent in the Mountain. All the princely and shaykhly families cited by name were Maronites, although Murad conceded that “some of these Druzes, as a price for their services to the Shihabi family, have had conferred upon them the title of shaykh.”61 The religion of the Ma'ans, as well as that of the Shihabs and the recent conversion of prominent members of the latter family to the Maronite rite, was totally obscured, conveying thus the view that the these two dynasties, who had ruled over Lebanon “for six hundred years,” were really fervent Catholics. Finally, the Maronites were represented as an industrious people, educated and familiar with all the trades practiced in Europe or, in short, “civilized.” In contrast, the Druzes were depicted as marginal intruders in Mount Lebanon. It was only in the fourteenth century that, according to Murad, they decided to settle in this Mountain, where the governing princes “tolerated their residence”62 following some services that they had extended to them. Their population was implausibly reduced to 18,000, compared to the 482,000 Maronites. The historical hegemony of the Druzes over large parts of Mount Lebanon, as well as their central role in initiating and developing the so-called Lebanese Emirate, which they had dominated until quite recently, was obscured. Furthermore, to preclude totally any possibility of attributing some importance to them, the Druzes were represented as ignorant, illiterate, immoral, idolatrous, lazy, only capable of agricultural work, and ignorant of any other occupations. In short, Murad implied, without the Maronites, the Druzes would have been unable to manage on their own.63
According to Murad, this Emirate survived in the midst of the Ottoman Empire for nearly five hundred years in total independence, and it was only a hundred years earlier that the princes of Lebanon began to pay a symbolic tribute to the Ottomans in order to ward off the torments and vexations of the wali of Sayda. However, this did not impair at all the independence and sovereignty of the Shihabi prince, whose authority and power remained absolute over his subjects.64
The entity claimed by the Maronite clergy thus gained with Murad a complete legitimizing history. Most of the events and figures presented had been altered, twisted, and revised in order to form a coherent composite. The timid claim of the Patriarch to the Porte soliciting a confirmation of the rule of a Maronite governor in 1840, “in accordance with ancient custom,” had acquired much more substance. In Murad's representation, Mount Lebanon had survived virtually independently since the establishment of the Maronites in the seventh century. Moreover, this independence was substantiated and institutionalized through uninterrupted rule of the Ma'an and Shihabi princes for the past six hundred years. Finally, the Maronites were legitimately entitled to this Emirate because they represented the overwhelming majority of the population and because they had always lived there and constituted themselves into a self-governing and sovereign political society, ruled by their own princes, that had managed to preserve and defend its independence in a hostile environment. The central thesis of Murad, namely the uninterrupted existence of an independent polity in the whole of Mount Lebanon since the days of the Ma'ans, was to become a main tenet of Lebanism. It developed into the main legitimizing core of this nascent ideal. However, the insistence of Murad on the virtually exclusive Maronite character of the Emirate evolved with time to include many variations. Its principal incongruity lay not only in the fact that it did not agree with historical facts, but that it often contradicted contemporary reality and prospective objectives and had therefore to be toned down in order to allow more vital historical space to “Others.” Hence, later historians or activists aiming to associate other communities to the national Lebanese project were compelled to alter accordingly the history of the Lebanese Emirate and to insist more on the coexistence of diverse communities in Mount Lebanon.
Why then had this entity perished? And why did Murad ask for the help of the French to restore this independent Christian entity? It is because, Murad explained, this valiant nation had been overwhelmed by a deceitful Ottoman plan to occupy Lebanon. This design had finally succeeded when the Ottomans, realizing that they could only achieve their aim by excluding the Shihabs, took advantage of the reestablishment of their rule in 1840 to dismiss Bashir II. Since then, the poor Christians of these regions were suffering all kind of torments and persecutions under Ottoman rule: “What change has been wrought in this land in just the last four years! Insulted daily by the infidel, tormented by the cruellest abuse, the most disgusting humiliations, deprived of her princely protectors, for whose return she continually pleads, the Maronite nation thought that those times of persecution, of sad, horrible memories, had returned; many of those sons, snatched from their country, are moaning amid the infidels, in oppression and slavery, happy if, in their pain and suffering, they remain loyal to the true faith, the religion of their brothers!”65 This image of persecuted Christians appealed to Catholic circles in France and probably matched their own views and fantasies. But Murad was not only seeking to preach to the converted. He was seeking an effective French intervention, and he elaborated a full argument to substantiate his appeal for official French help, which he indirectly presented as an unfulfilled French commitment.
The French and the Maronites, in Murad's account, had maintained strong relations since the time of the Crusades and had helped each other in times of need. Hence, for instance, the Maronites had welcomed among them the last Crusaders of the region of Antioch, when that town was conquered by the Mamluks.66 These links between the French and the Maronites had evolved into an effective “moral alliance, [my italics] the recollection of which has remained profoundly engraved on the spirit of these populations,” since the Crusade of St. Louis.67 When the latter landed in Cyprus, Murad wrote, he recruited Maronites who advised him to land in Beirut and conquer Syria instead of Egypt and thus benefit from their support. Instead, Louis IX chose to attack Egypt and met disastrous consequences. When he finally managed to reach Acre, “the prince of Lebanon send to King Louis . . . twenty five thousand men . . . led by one of his sons, laden with all kinds of presents and provisions.”68 In recognition of his gratitude, the august king sent a letter to the Emir of Mount Lebanon and to the bishops of his nation promising henceforth the protection of the Maronites by the French monarchs.69 More so, the French king even adopted the Maronites, assimilating them to the French nation itself: “We are convinced that that nation, established under the name of Saint Maron, is part of the French nation, for its friendship for the French people resembles the friendship that French people feel for one another. It is therefore just that you and all the Maronites should enjoy the same protection that the French enjoy near us, and that you should be accepted into employment as they are themselves.”70 It is necessary here to make a brief digression to examine more closely the issue of this letter of protection from St. Louis to the Maronites, which is today generally recognized as apocryphal.71 Murad asserted in a footnote of his Notice that “this letter is from a very old Arabic manuscript in the Maronite archives; the manuscript's author claims to have translated it from Latin to Arabic.” 72 However, no copy of the Latin original was presented or has ever been found.73
The absence of documentary evidence raises some questions about the role of Murad in initiating the “St. Louis legend,” which was long considered as an established fact reproduced by many eminent historians and publicists, and which merits some further examination. A study of other letters by Murad to King Louis Philippe reveals that in an earlier petition dated February 1840, Murad, soliciting French intervention in favor of the Maronites of Aleppo, reminded the king of the traditional protection of his community by the French monarchs, according to “traditions based on authentic documents.” Murad then textually quoted the letters of Louis XIV and Louis XV without any mention of a letter by St. Louis.74
It is only in a letter dated April 30, 1844, and addressed to the French king, that Murad mentioned for the first time the letter of St. Louis that, according to him, “our historians found in our archives.”75 Hence, it seems
