[257]. [It has been assumed that the Roman basilicas were taken possession of by the early Christians for their own religious services, but as Mr. G. G. Scott points out in his ‘Essay on the History of English Church Architecture,’ “there is no well-authenticated instance of the conversion of any Pagan basilica into a Christian church, whilst there are abundant examples of Pagan temples converted into Christian sanctuaries” (see Texier and Pullan’s ‘Byzantine Architecture,’ pp. 75, 103). Indeed, it is, as Mr. Scott observes, “on the face of it improbable, if we reflect that the conversion of the government to Christianity had no tendency to render the existing basilicas less necessary for legal business, after the peace of the church, than they had been before that event. Christianity, unfortunately, could not abolish the litigious instincts of our nature, and after fifteen centuries of the gospel the legal profession still flourishes.” The buildings which were rendered useless by the official recognition of the new faith were not the basilicas but the temples, the fact being that the class of building known as a basilica (a term never used by either the writers or architects of Byzantine times), with its wide central nave and aisles with galleries over them lighted by clerestory or side windows, and covered with a timber roof, constituted the simplest and most economical building of large size which could be constructed to hold a vast assembly of worshippers; especially as the only features which can be looked upon as having any architectural pretensions, viz., the columns and their capitals, could be taken wholesale from temples and other Roman buildings. The semicircular apse, which alone in the Roman basilica served as a court of law, became the tribune for the bishop and presbyters.
Mr. Scott is even inclined to assign an earlier and more independent origin for the basilican form. According to his theory the germ of the Christian basilica was a simple oblong aisleless room divided by a cross arch, beyond which lay an altar detached from the wall. This germ was developed by the addition of side aisles, and sometimes an aisle returned across the entrance, and over these upper aisles were next constructed and transepts added, together with the oratories or chapels in various parts of the building. Mr. Butler, in his work on ‘The Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt,’ accepts this theory, as the churches of Egypt are rich in evidence that favours it. At the same time, the first great basilica erected by Constantine, viz., the Vatican (St. Peter’s), and the Lateran, (St. John Lateran), are of too great importance to warrant the suggestion that their origin should be sought for in the very small though possibly earlier examples in Egypt or the East.—Ed.]
[258]. This probably refers to its foundation, for M. Cattaneo, in his work ‘L’architecture en Italie, 1890,’ judging by its ornamental detail, places the church in the second half of the seventh century.
[259]. ‘Antiquités,’ vol. i. pl. 97.
[260]. Eodem, vol. iv. pl. 67.
[261]. Mr. Alfred J. Butler’s work, already referred to, has thrown considerable light on the subject, though, as he was unable to visit any of the Coptic churches up the Nile, we are still left in doubt as to the age of the convent near Siout and other buildings. From comparison of the plans and descriptions given in Denon, Curzon and Pococke of these buildings, with those in Cairo and Old Cairo, Mr. Butler ascribes them to the fourth century, that which in fact is claimed for them as having been founded by Sta. Helena. On this subject he says, p. 365: “Were there no more of evidence besides to determine the truth of this tradition, the plan of the Haikal (the central of the three chapels in a Coptic church) would decide it beyond question. The persistence with which certain churches are ascribed to Sta. Helena by a people utterly ignorant of history and architecture is in itself remarkable, and it is still more remarkable to find that these churches are always marked by a particular form of Haikal. Indeed, so regular is the coincidence, that a deep apsidal haikal with recesses all round it and columns close against the wall may be almost infallibly dated from the age of Sta. Helena.”
[262]. The older church has been so altered and ruined by the subsequent rebuildings that it is extremely difficult to make out its history. It seems, however, to have been built originally above the site of an old Mithraic temple, which has recently been cleared out, and probably before the time of Gregory the Great. It was apparently rebuilt, or nearly so, by Adrian I., 772, and burnt by Robert Guiscard, 1084. The upper church seems to have been erected by Paschal, 1099-1118. The question is, to what age do the frescoes found on the walls of the older church belong? Some of the heads and single figures may, I fancy, be anterior even to the time of Adrian; but the bulk of the paintings seem certainly to have been added between his age and 1084, and nearer the latter than the former date. If it had not been entirely ruined in 1084 Paschal would not have so completely obliterated it a century afterwards. A considerable quantity of the materials of the old church were used in the new, which tends further to confuse the chronology.
[263]. Gutensohn and Knapp, ‘Die Basiliken des Christlichen Roms.’
[264]. Cicero de Legg., ii. 24; Festus, s. v.; Smith’s ‘Dictionary of Classical Antiquities.’
[265]. The dates here given generally refer to the building now existing or known, and not always to the original foundation.