Chapter V: Constantine

The remarkable situation of the city of Constantine has pointed it out from the earliest times as an important fortress, and as one of the natural capitals of a country which has been the scene of perpetual wars and revolutions.

It formerly bore the name of _Cirta_ or _Kirta_, a word which in the Numidian dialect signified an isolated rock.

It was the capital of Syphax, who according to Livy possessed a splendid palace here; of Masinissa and Micipsa, the last of whom, as stated by Strabo, adorned it with many fine buildings, and it was the scene of some of the most stirring events of the second and third Punic wars. Here the fair Sophonisba, wife of Syphax, was taken by Masinissa, who himself married her, and on her being claimed by Scipio, as the prisoner of the State, he sent her a cup of poison, which she instantly drank, merely remarking that she would have died with more honour had she not wedded at her funeral.

It was erected into a colony by Julius Cæsar, under the government of Sallust, to recompense the partisans of Publius Sittius Nucerinus, who had rendered him important services, and was called _Cirta Sittianorum_ or _Cirta Julia_ till the fourth century, when it received the name of Constantina, which it ever afterwards retained.

Owing partly to its natural strength, and partly to the fact of its bishop being a Donatist, it escaped destruction when Genseric and his Vandals overran the country; and Belisarius, when he drove out the barbarians, found the Roman buildings still intact.

After the Arab invasion, in the 7th century, it fell into decay, and during the successive sieges which it had to withstand, and the centuries of Arab and Turkish misrule which succeeded, its ancient monuments were destroyed; but it was not till after the French occupation that these entirely disappeared, to make room for inevitable ‘municipal improvements.’

Constantine occupies the summit of a plateau of rock, nearly quadrilateral in shape, the faces corresponding to the cardinal points, and its surface sloping from north to south. Its sides rise perpendicularly nearly 1,000 feet from the bed of the river Roumel, the ancient Ampsaga, which surrounds it on the north and east, and it is connected on the west side only, by an isthmus, with the mainland.

The deep ravine through which the river flows varies in breadth from about 200 feet on the south-east side to nearly double that distance opposite the Kasbah, and it is spanned on the north-east side by four natural arches of rock, about 200 feet above the stream, one of which served as the foundation for the bridge of El-Kantara. Four other bridges spanned it in the time of the Romans, of which the traces are still visible, but the most important, and the only one remaining in modern times, was that just mentioned.

An excellent description of this arch has been left by El-Bekri, the Arab geographer of the eleventh century, who says:—

‘This bridge is of a remarkable structure, its height above the level of the water being about 100 cubits; it is one of the remains of Roman architecture; it is composed of five upper and lower arches, which span the valley. Three of these, namely those to the west, have two storeys, as we have said; they are intended for the passage of water, while the upper ones form a communication between the two sides of the ravine. Regarding the others, they abut against the mountain. These arches are supported by piers, which break the violence of the torrent, and are pierced at their summit by small openings. When there are extraordinary floods, which sometimes take place, the water which rises above the top of the piers escapes by means of these orifices. This is, we repeat, one of the most remarkable buildings ever seen.’[27]

Peyssonnel, who visited it in 1724, describes it as ‘a very fine structure, with three rows of arcades, and a height of about 250 feet, but rather narrow, having fallen.’

Shaw thus describes the bridge in 1728:—‘The gate towards the S.E. is in the same fashion and design, though much smaller, and lyeth open to the bridge that I have mentioned to have been built over this part of the valley. The bridge was a masterpiece of its kind, having had the gallery and the columns of the arches adorned with cornishes and festoons, axe-heads and garlands; the key-stones likewise of the arches are charged with _caducei_ and other figures. Betwixt the two principal arches we see, in strong relief, well executed, the figure of a lady treading upon two elephants, with a large escallop shell for her canopy. The elephants, turned towards each other, twist their trunks together; and the lady, who appears dressed in her hair, with a close-bodied garment like the riding-habit of our times, raiseth up her petticoats with her right hand, and looks scornfully upon the city.’[28]

J. LEITCH &. Co. Sc.

EL-KANTARA OF CONSTANTINE IN 1765

BEFORE ITS RECONSTRUCTION BY SALAH BEY, IN 1792

FAC-SIMILE OF INDIAN INK DRAWING BY BRUCE.

HENRY S. KING Co. LONDON.]

This curious piece of sculpture is still visible in the foundations of the old bridge, though time has worn out the look of scorn in the good lady’s face.

Bruce was the next traveller who describes it, and his is the most interesting of all, because it is pictorial. He has left two drawings—one (Pl. IV.), a beautiful and artistic sketch in Indian ink, which I have chosen for reproduction, and the other, a highly-finished drawing with figures by Balugani, intended, no doubt, for presentation to the King. He says:—

The view of it is in the King’s collection; a band of robbers, the figures which _adorn_ it, is a composition from imagination, all the rest is perfectly real.

There can be no doubt whatever of the extreme accuracy of Bruce’s drawings when _unadorned_ by Balugani. This one, therefore, has an exceptional interest, as it shows the condition of the bridge before its restoration by Salah Bey; it is the only sketch extant of the ancient structure.

In 1792, Salah Bey caused it to be restored by Don Bartolomeo, an architect from Port Mahon, in the Balearic Islands, who rebuilt the upper part, the two lower arches and the three piers which sustained them being in a perfectly sound condition.

He commenced to obtain his stone from Mahon, but that proving too costly, he made use of such as he found on the plateau of Mansourah, and especially of the triumphal arch, which the Arabs called Kasr el-Ghoula, _the fortress of the Ogress_, a name familiar to every reader of ‘The Thousand and One Nights.’

Admirably executed illustrations of the bridge thus restored, as it existed after the conquest of Constantine, are given by MM. Ravoisier and De la Marre.[29]

A curious document was found by Monsieur Feraud amongst the papers of the family of Kadi Si Moustafa ben Djelloul, one of whose ancestors was secretary to Salah Bey, relative to the restoration of the bridge by Don Bartolomeo.[30] The translation is as follows:—

‘The Christian who came to Constantine, with workmen of his nation, to construct the bridge formerly called _El-Mechebka_, and situated at the gate of _El-Kantara_, told His Highness Salah Bey, who repeated it to us, that the date of the construction of the ancient bridge, carved on the stone in ancient characters, was the 335th year of the era of Our Lord Jesus, on whom be prayer and peace! From the time of Our Lord Jesus to the present date, the end of Djemad eth-Thani, 1206 (February, A.D. 1792), 1792 years have passed, according to the calculation which has been made to us.

‘Written this Friday, the 20th of Djemad eth-Thani, 1206, the very day on which we have heard this statement.’

If this be correct, it must have been Constantine the Great who caused this bridge to be built, two years before his death, and one before his partition of the Empire.

On the 18th of March, 1857, only 65 years after it was rebuilt, at half-past seven A.M., one of the upper piers of the bridge, that nearest the town, gave way, carrying with it the two arches which it supported, also 24 yards of the aqueduct which supplied the city. After this accident it was found necessary to destroy the bridge altogether, which was done by means of artillery, on March 30 following. It was replaced by an iron structure in 1863, under the direction of the Department of _Ponts et Chaussées_. It is higher than the old one, and its axis, instead of passing by the natural vault where the remains of the Roman bridge are still visible, passes higher up the ravine.[31]

Bruce arrived at Constantine, from Tebessa, on November 30, 1765. The following is the only record he has left of his visit:—

I arrived just as the Bey went out to the camp. He had left orders to have everything ready for my reception. We were lodged in his own palace, and treated with the utmost magnificence, as well as the greatest attention, and six chosen Moorish horsemen, well acquainted with the language and the country, for the language is in many places difficult, appointed to accompany me wherever I intended to go.

It is situated on a rock, everywhere surrounded by a dreadful precipice, except on the south, where is the principal gate. The river Rummel runs below, in a very rocky channel, and near the bridge passes under an arch of natural rock, as it afterwards does through two others, the highest of which is about 120 feet high. A little to the westward of this the Rummel falls in a large cascade of above 100 feet, under the precipice on which stands the citadel, which is on the north side of the town, from whence they precipitate criminals, and is in height 434½ feet.

Dr. Shaw is much mistaken in the description of Cirta. The ports of the town are in a very bad state, so is Cassir Goulah, all of the time of Constantine. The aqueduct is very inconsiderable, and of no height, and was never otherwise, the water from Physgeah being chiefly carried along the mountains.

I made a drawing of the precipice on which the town stands, and whence a torrent falls.

This, unfortunately, is not extant.

The _Kasr el-Ghoula_ here alluded to was thus described by Shaw:—

‘Among the ruins to the S.W. of the bridge, upon the narrow strip of land just now described, is the Cassir Goulah, or Castle (as they interpret it) _of the Giant_, consisting of three arches, the middlemost whereof is the most spacious. All the mouldings and friezes are curiously embellished with the figures of flowers, battle-axes, and other ornaments. The Corinthian pilasters erected on each side of the grand arch, are pannelled like the side-posts of the gates of the city, in a _gusto_, as far as I have observed, peculiar to Cirta; but the pillars of the stone order, which supported the pediment, are broken down and defaced.’[32]

This was also described by Peyssonnel, who says: ‘On the other side of the ravine is a small plain on a level with the town, where is a triumphal arch in a very good state of preservation. It is formed of three large gates; that in the middle is 25 feet wide; the others are proportionally smaller. After this arch a great wall is seen, which sustained some considerable building.’[33]

When Constantine was taken by the French, the remains of this building were discovered on the plateau of Mansourah, overlooking the ravine. They consisted of several foundations in cut stone, and two fragments of cornice of an elegant and severe design,[34] but these have all disappeared. The French have done great things for Algeria, and the world owes them a deep debt of gratitude for having converted a nest of pirates and robbers into one of the most charming countries in the Mediterranean: but it is devoutly to be wished that they would do a little more for archæology, or rather establish a strict conservancy of all their venerable ruins, which otherwise will soon disappear everywhere as completely and as unnecessarily as they have done at Cherchel and Constantine.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 27: Ravoisier, _Expl. Sc. de l’Alg., Beaux Arts_, i. p. 10.]

[Footnote 28: Shaw, p. 127.]

[Footnote 29: _Expl. Scien. de l’Alg., Beaux Arts_, vol. i. plates 4 and 5; _Archeol._, plates 114-118.]

[Footnote 30: Fer. _Rev. Afr._, vol. xii. p. 131.]

[Footnote 31: Vaysettes, _Ann. Arch. Const._ vol. xii. p. 368.]

[Footnote 32: Shaw, p. 128.]

[Footnote 33: Peyssonnel, ap. D. de la Malle, i. p. 303.]

[Footnote 34: Ravoisier, _Exp. Sc. de l’Alg., Beaux Arts_, i. p. 10.]