TRAVELS IN THE FOOTSTEPS
OF BRUCE IN ALGERIA
AND TUNIS

CONTENTS.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

INTRODUCTORY.

Thus, then, we see that according to Bruce’s own account the drawings were made by himself, with the aid of the camera obscura, and with such assistance as he could obtain from his young artist, Luigi Balugani. That they were done on the spot admits of no doubt whatever. During our late expedition my companion, the Earl of Kingston, took most successful photographs of every building drawn by Bruce throughout Tunis, with the single exception of Hydra; and though time, and the more destructive hand of man, have dealt hardly with some of the ancient monuments, others are almost unchanged, and a comparison of the original drawing and the photograph must satisfy the most sceptical on this point.

One of the most striking instances of accuracy of detail is in the case of the triumphal arch giving access to the Hieron of the three temples at Spaitla (Plate XIV.). In the attic of this building the first course of stones is entire; in the second only four stones are represented as remaining; two of these are in place, and two others have fallen on their sides, and are projecting beyond the surface of the façade. In our photograph these four stones now occupy exactly the same position as in Bruce’s sketch.

The drawings themselves furnish abundant proof, that two people worked simultaneously at delineating the ruins. Nearly every monument is drawn in duplicate, but no two sketches are ever from the same point of view. In some instances the difference of angle is very slight, as if the two companions had chosen positions sufficiently close to be able to converse together. A glance at the itinerary (page 21) will show that they never remained long enough in one place for either of them to have repeated his view of the object designed. Most of the measurements are written in Italian, as if Bruce had taken the actual dimensions and called them out to Balugani, who had recorded them. At the same time Bruce wrote Italian with as much facility as English, and many remarks in the former language occur in his own handwriting.

Sometimes, instead of only two copies of the same monument, there are several; but the same difference is always observable.

One of these sketches, or sets of sketches, is done with the most perfect accuracy and good taste. Generally there is no attempt at accessories of any kind, but where such are inevitable they are always true to nature. The other, as far as its architecture is concerned, is also accurate, but it is marred by the introduction of grotesque figures and impossible landscapes, such as it was the custom of that age to consider, and which Bruce himself has described, as ‘that agreeable ornament to design.’ My impression is that the former are the production of Bruce himself, the latter perhaps in part his sketches, but finished up and ‘agreeably ornamented’ by Luigi Balugani.

There is still a third class of illustrations, finished architectural drawings done to scale; plans, sections, and elevations, with elaborate details of sculpture, columnation, &c. These could manifestly have been done better at home than abroad, and they are executed so beautifully, and with such a profound knowledge of architectural design that it is difficult to believe that they are the unaided work of Bruce himself. They were done during the retirement of the traveller at Kinnaird with a view to his intended publication, and it is just possible that he may have been aided by a professional draughtsman. It may be in allusion to this that he wrote to his friend the Hon. Daines Barrington, ‘You and Dr. Douglas will both testify how willingly I seek, and thankfully and openly I embrace, every assistance. This I think doing justice to the public and to posterity.’

These drawings were exhibited to the Institute of British Architects by Major Cumming Bruce, M.P., in 1837, and the following letter was addressed to him by Mr. Donaldson, their honorary secretary, under date May 17, 1837:—

‘By a special resolution passed at the ordinary meeting, held on Monday last, I am directed to convey to you the grateful acknowledgments of the members for the rich treat with which you favoured them on that occasion, by laying before them the highly interesting series of drawings prepared by Bruce, the traveller, in illustration of the antiquities existing in Northern Africa. The members were struck with that profusion of important edifices which embellished the provinces of the Romans; and they admired the perseverance and skill which enabled Bruce to procure such minute and highly wrought details of these monuments.

‘The members hope that these documents may ere long be published, and thus add another to the long list of obligations which not only this country, but all Europe, owes to his spirit of enterprise and research. These drawings prove that he added the acquirements of the naturalist, the geographer, and the philosopher, to those of the antiquarian, the scholar, and the artist.’

They were also shown at the Graphic Society about the same period, and the following is an extract from their proceedings, dated May 10.

‘Distinguished as Bruce is for his researches in Abyssinia, these drawings furnish ground for an honourable and lasting reputation from a very distinct source. It has been said among some to whom their existence was known that they were not Bruce’s, but the work of a young Italian artist named Balugani, who was sent to him by Lumsden, the author of “Roman Antiquities.”

‘But among the drawings shown at the Graphic Society were some of Pæstum made by Bruce when he was alone, prior to his visit to Africa, where Balugani first joined him. The execution of these prove the same hand as appears in the greater part, and best, of those of the African cities,’—that is, according to my theory, of all those which were not ‘agreeably ornamented’ by Balugani.

They were submitted to several other eminent archæologists and architects of the day; amongst others to Mr. C. M. Cockerell, who, writing under date June 9, 1837, thus alludes to them:—

‘In an antiquarian point of view I consider them of the utmost importance . . . in a practical point of view they offer to the professor of architecture many motives of composition and ornament entirely new; and if not equal to the choicest remains of Greece are, perhaps, of more frequent use, and on both these grounds it is exceedingly to be regretted that they have been so long withheld from the public.’

Mr. W. Hamilton, the celebrated archæologist and diplomatist, who was one of the founders and first presidents of the Royal Geographical Society, and to whom we are indebted for the discovery of the Rosetta stone on board a French transport, writing on the same date, thus expresses himself: ‘They are indeed most interesting documents of his ability, fidelity, and perseverance. . . . I was particularly struck by his correct selection, amongst the many monuments he saw, of those only which were of a good time, and certainly they give a most favourable notion of the state of the arts under the first two centuries of the Roman Empire. We must not, of course, look to that quarter of the world for genuine specimens of Greek art, but these drawings afford the most convincing proofs that taste and judgment prevailed in these distant and flourishing colonies to at least as late a period as they did in Rome itself.’

No man is a better judge of architectural drawings than my esteemed friend Monsieur César Daly. I submitted two of them only for his inspection, and these by no means the most remarkable of the series—the Triumphal Arch and the Capitol of Timegad, which we had visited together. His opinion is worthy of being recorded:—‘The architectural conscience of Bruce exceeds that of most of the best architectural draughtsmen of his time, which nevertheless was rich in talent of this nature. You may remember with what care I myself designed the triumphal arch at Timegad. I intended to publish this drawing of a monument now accessible to everyone, and having, as director of the Revue générale de l’Architecture, a reputation to keep up, my conscience as an artist was most particularly stimulated. Well, I have compared Bruce’s design with mine, and I repeat that I am much struck with his extreme exactness and the great conscientiousness of the man, so rigorous towards himself, regarding the design of a monument which in all probability none of his contemporaries would ever be called upon to verify.

‘During the thirty-five years that I have directed the Revue d’Architecture, that I have visited exhibitions of architecture, inspected the portfolios of architects, &c., &c., I have seen so much inexactness, which has inspired me with the most profound disgust, that I give, or rather I offer with eagerness, the tribute of my sympathy and respect wherever I find talent joined to honesty. I admired Bruce as a brave and intelligent traveller; now I love him as a serious and honest artist. I thank you once more. You will certainly find a means of publishing these treasures; they belong to science; they honour England in Bruce, and will serve most happily to teach us that which existed here and there in our Algeria, and which unfortunately exists no longer, or only in a state of débris.’

Bruce makes frequent allusion to drawings of his being ‘in the King’s collection,’ and in one place he remarks: ‘They composed three large volumes folio, two of which I presented to the King; one, not being then finished, remains in my custody to this day.’

These two volumes of drawings were exhibited by Her Majesty the Queen, through Mr. Woodward, the late Librarian at Windsor, to the Society of Antiquaries of London, on March 27, 1862.[8] I have not had an opportunity of inspecting these, and I am not aware of what the contents of the volumes in question may be: it is to be hoped that they contain drawings of the interesting monuments of which no sketches sufficiently finished to admit of reproduction exist in the Kinnaird collection, namely, the Amphitheatre of El-Djem and the Triumphal Arch of Diana Veteranorum.

All the relics and documents of this traveller have been preserved with scrupulous care; but I cannot resist expressing an opinion that his drawings, of which the Barbary sketches form only a portion, should not be allowed to remain in any private hands, but should be religiously enshrined in our national collection.

To reproduce the entire series would be a work of great magnitude and expense; nor is it necessary, either from an architectural or an archæological point of view. In Bruce’s own days they could only have been published by the costly process of engraving. Photographic processes have now greatly facilitated the publication of such drawings, and permit us to lay them before the public as actual fac-similes.

In making my selection, I have as a rule preferred such drawings as I believe to have been done by Bruce himself on the spot; but I have included some of the more finished sketches to show the share that Balugani had in them, and specimens of those that I believe to have been subsequently executed in Scotland.

A few words are still necessary as to the manuscripts, which the traveller has left, and which are of the most fragmentary and unsatisfactory description.

They consist of the following documents:—

1. A carefully-written autobiography, intended for the Hon. Daines Barrington, Bruce’s intimate friend, after the publication of his travels. It is fantastically, perhaps conceitedly, entitled, ‘Memoirs of One Unknown.’ It alludes with some asperity to the reception his book met with, and professes great contempt of the doubts thrown on his veracity. It extends to about 86 pages of long folio, and bears date April 14, 1788.

2. A rough note-book of Arab manufacture, in which entries were evidently made from day to day immediately after each halt. On the first page is this memorandum:—