4 Church Building & Alexandria

It is beyond all doubts, that Egypt played a vital role in the life of the Early Church. Its capital then, Alexandria, was one of most distinguished cities of the Roman Empire, a reputable center of the Greek (Hellenistic) culture, and a resort of poets, philosophers and mathematicians from all over the world[1]. More than any other city , whether in the East or in the West, Alexandria provided the adequate potential for the contact between Christianity and Hellenism, and due to its Theological School was able to attract philosophers to the new faith and create great Fathers to the Christendom.

In parallel with that, the sand of Egypt also witnessed the birth of the monastic movement, with all its types, which was spread in no time to both the East and the West. Thus at the very time when the world accepted Christianity as the official religion, and the rulers began to interfere with church affairs, the angelic life of the simple Egyptian monks appealed to many philosophers and imperial members.

Even till our present day, sayings and writings of the Early Egyptian Fathers, whether they were bishops , abbots, monks or teachers, are of literal interest to theologians and patrologists.

It represents a rich source of knowledge about the theology, doctrines, dogmas and attitudes of the Early Church.

Now we are bound to query the role which the Christian Egypt had played towards church architecture.

In great sorrow, we must admit that additional efforts are in a pressing need to be spent in that field, since a good deal of Coptic monuments are yet to be discovered. To that effect Dr. Aziz Atya states[2] "Though many ancient Coptic monuments suffered greatly from hosti le incursions and many more fell Into disuse and were ruined, a representative number of monastic and church structures have survived in their early original forms. Consequently, the archaeologist has been able to construct a fair picture of the essentials of Coptic architecture. Literature on this interesting facet of Coptic history has been growing steadily, but much remains to be done on the sites and mounds which fill the length and breadth of the Nile valley. Some of these are known, but unexcavated, while innumerable others are still undiscovered and untouched.".

It is noteworthy that church buildings in Egypt were exposed to a number of successive waves of demolition, destruction and burning, sometimes by pagans and others by rulers as the Romans, Melickens, Mamelukes, Turks.... etc. Not a single church in the whole of Alexandria could be related to the first three centuries. Even the ancient churches of Old Cairo, and other monuments of Upper and Lower Egypt are known to be built sometime after the third century.

However, despite the above facts, architects confirm that Egypt must have possessed a good collection of large and valuable churches, and distinctly influenced the architecture and arts of the Early Church.

To that meaning. A. Hamilton[3] says, "Alexandria, a great and flourishing city, had long before exercised a powerful sway of the formation of Christian art, and must have had numerous churches of great size and beauty. All have disappeared.

Egypt must have had splendid churches, but most of the extant ones are small and of poor materials ".

Rykwart also says[4], "The contribution of Alexandria to the general development of church architecture is very difficult to estimate ; Alexandrian churches unlike those of Constantinople were not simply altered by the modern invaders to suit their use but were mostly destroyed or rendered unrecognizable, we know much more about the Alexandrian element in Christian art, particularly the Alexandrian contribution to the course of Western painting... , we also know that the miniature and land scope painters of Alexandria had far - reaching effects on the imperial ateliers in Constantinople.

"CHURCH BUILDING" IN EGYPT.

As we touch on this subject, the name Anianius immediately lend itself to our memories, being the first man to embrace the Christian faith by the preaching of ST. Mark at Alexandria. His little house became the first house - church formed in Egypt. Where meetings were held between ST. Mark and Christians.

Due to the rising in tension with the pagans, and under the tremendous pressure from believers, ST. Mark left Alexandria for a while. Upon his return he cooed with joy to find that the number of brethren has so multiplied that they were able to 5 build a respectable church at the suburban district of Baucalis[5] That lead to the tragedy which took place on the Easter eve of 68 A. D. where the pagans were so agitated to find that their great temple of Serapis was deserted, while the church at Baucalis was very alive. They rushed into the church and seized ST. Mark to kill him.

Now we may raise the question: What was the style of this church and other churches built in Egypt? Or in other words, what was the Style of the Coptic Architecture?.

In order to answer this question we ought to discuss the relationship between the Coptic Architecture and other churches.

1. COPTIC CHURCH ARCHITECTURE & HELLENISTIC CULTURE.

The book 'Origin and development of the Church Architecture' by Davies, regards Alexandria as a great Hellenistic city in the East, a center of culture and trade, and directly representing the Greek sensations, arts and architecture. [6]However, it is not right to assume that our architecture had copied the Hellenistic style, for the following reasons:

1. The Greek trends, as described by Dr. Atya, were essentially aristocratic in character, and accordingly were centered around some suburbs of the capital, Alexandria, and other Greek towns in the Delta and Fayoum Oasis. [7].
2. The Copt's pride with their Pharaohs culture made them act in such a way as to oppose the various Invaders cultures. Thus, in spite of the fact that the invaders, whether they were Greek, Romans, Persians, Byzantine... , left their marks on the Egyptian culture , it would be a grave error to assume that Egyptian art followed any of these at any time.
3. COPTIC ARCHITECTURE & ROMAN BASILICA.

IN the book ' Ancient Churches of Egypt ' by Butler,[8] the writer confirms that in spite of the similarity that may seem apparent between our churches and the Basilica style, it is beyond all doubts that Coptic architecture have its own independent origin. It really had nothing to do with Basilica, nor copied any of the Roman Basilica features. He assures that our churches are rich with evidences to support Gilbert Scott theory that Christian Basilica style is not an extension of the Roman one.

1. COPTIC ARCHITECTURE & BYZANTINE STYLE.

The mere fact that our churches are decorated with domes has lead some architects to the belief that Coptic architecture is just another version of the Byzantine character. They base their argument on the correlation that existed between Alexandria and Byzantium (Constantinople) when the later became the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire.

In fact, Alexandria knew 'domes' before Christianity, and as Butler said[9], 'domes' were originated in the East, and it is more probable that Byzantium borrowed them from Alexandria than the other way around.

In addition, ancient Coptic Church buildings never knew the cruciform design, which was the most preferred Byzantine Architecture style.

1. COPTIC ARCHITECTURE & PHARAOS ARCHITECTURE.

Recent trends in the history of architecture are now beginning to reject the well - established ideas that our architecture was only another branch or another form of the Basilica or Byzantine architecture, or a mixture of the two. To that effect Hamilton affirms that Egyptian churches could be categorized as a distinct entity, i. e. The 'Coptic Architecture'. Its character was dictated by its liturgical and ecclesiastical traditions, and its structure bears the mark of its national feelings.

Now we move on to discuss the factors that influenced the Coptic architecture with respect to its parent architecture; the Pharaohs architecture. Dr. Aziz S. Atya talks about such a close relationship by saying: [10].

"It is not inconceivable, however, that the oldest forms of Coptic churches were derived from their ancestral places of worship , that is , the ancient Egyptian temples. In fact, the spread of the earliest Christianity In Egypt resulted at first in the conversion of the pagan temples into churches. Moreover, numerous Instances are reported of Christian ascetics who sought seclusion by living in ancient tombs and funerary shrines1 \Later when the Copts began to erect their own chapels independently, it was normal for their architects to copy the existing temple models of the master builders of antiquity, more especially as these seemed to fulfil the requirement of the new faith during the first four centuries of transition between paganism and Christianity.

The topography of the ancient Egyptian temple had already been shown to have consisted of three main divisions:

First, the outer gate led into an open court surrounded by two rows of columns with a narrow stone roofing.

Secondly, beyond that huge quadrangle devoted to general worshippers, the hypostyle hall followed. This space was filled with crowded columns in close rows supporting a massive stone roof and reserved for the royal family and the aristocracy.

The third section of the temple, at the end, was a closed and rather dimly lit small chamber, wrapped in great mystery. This constituted the inner shrine, the 'sanctum sanctorum' or holy of holies, where the deity resided, and which was accessible onle to the high priest or Pharaoh.

The primitive Coptic churches appear to have retained this triple division which may still be witnessed in some of the chapels of the ancient monasteries. The innermost part behind the iconostasis was the sanctuary (haikal) where the priests and deacons alone were admitted to officiate the mystery of the Holy Sacrament. Outside the sanctuary, the central part of the church was reserved for baptized Christians, while a third section at the narthex or entrance was left open for the unbaptized Catechumens...

At unknown date, the distinction between the baptized Christian and the Catechumen began to disappear, and with it the divisions of the church gave way to the perpendicular triple sections of nave and aisles. Id this way, the Basilica style began to assert itself in Coptic ecclesiastical architecture. ST. Mena's cathedral built by Arcadius (395 - 408) in the district of Mareotis near the Delta, the ruins of the magnificent cathedral at Ashmunaln , and the Red and White Monasteries of ST. Shenute at Suhag are fourth and fifth - century examples of that imminent change. On the other hand, the irregularity of church forms in Old Cairo indicates that the basilica style was only slowly adopted as the accepted standard. ".

In the light of the above, we can claim that our architecture possess the authentic Egyptian feelings. However, by comparison, our churches are far awaj? From being exotic as the Pharaohs temples. It is nowhere as large or as decorated as someone would expect. The following factors could explain such discrepancy:

1. The unbroken series of persecution against the Copts and their churches since the first century, prevented them from erecting glorious buildings as those of the Pharaohs.
2. The diversity of the way of thinking between the Pharaohs and the Christians. The first believed in preserving their bodies till the return of their souls. Consequently huge pyramids, temples and hidden catacombs were essential for this kind of eschatological attitude. On the other hand, however, this same attitude caused their descendants to sell everything, practice their worship in small churches. Their overwhelming objective was to seek the glorious heavenly temple, New Jerusalem!
3. The rising of the monastic movement in Egypt had effected the priorities of church leaders. Instead of concentrating on fabulous church buildings, their heart was drawn towards the desert and wilderness. As a result, they encouraged believers to choose the better angelic life of praying. They rejoiced to sec thousands of their sons desert earthly fantasies for the sake of the one aim, that is the fellowship with their Savior.

1. We cannot ignore the cautiousness of the ent ire Christendom towards arts during the first two centuries. It reminded them as a way back for returning to paganism!!! [11].
2. The immense struggle that took place at Alexandria between the philosophical School and the Christian School obliged the Alexandrian leaders to devote a good deal of their time in defending the new faith and attracting philosophers to Christianity. In other words, the church's great concern was to worship discuss and preach more than to build...