Thebes or Memphis. Their situation almost in the centre of the continent was certainly advantageous to commerce; but it is well known that the ancient Egyptians had, during many ages, a superstitious aversion to the sea and a dislike to sea-faring people. No intercourse with Greece had been opened until the time of Pharaoh Psamniticus, about 640 years before the Christian æra; and it is certain that previons to his reign no Egyptain vessel had ever appeared on the Mediterranean. From these circumstances it is evident that not only the whole time that Thebes was the capital, but also during the period in which Memphis was in its most flourishing state, until within about a hundred years of the conquest of the country by the Persian monarch Cambyses, the Egyptians had no concern with maritime affairs. They must, however, have had a considerable trade to procure a supply of such materials as their country did not produce, and especially of metals, an article so requisite for an infinite variety of purposes. In regard to their manufactures we hear only of those of fine linen and embroidery, which are mentioned in the 7th verse of the 27th chapter of Ezekiel, and in several other parts of the scripture. But from the fertility of its soil and the perfection of its agriculture, Egypt undoubtedly furnished a redundancy of indigenous produce to exchange for foreign merchandise. It appears, however, that the commerce of Thebes and Memphis was carried on chiefly by the Arabians. By the constitution of Egypt, all the land in the country was divided into three portions, of which one was allotted to the priests, another to the soldiery, and the third to the king. The sovereign and the military and sacerdotal orders let out their lands to the husbandmen; and none but the king, the priests and the soldiers could have any property in the soil. As the king was always of the sacerdotal order, as a great part of his time was employed in religious duties, and as every action of his life was under the controul of the priests who ruled both the prince and the people with an unlimited sway, it is highly probable that a large proportion of the sacerdotal as well as the military order constantly resided at the seat of government. Denon in speaking of Thebes says, "Notwithstanding all the pains that I took in the research I could find nothing but temples and walls covered with obscure emblems and hieroglyphics, which attested the ascendancy of the priesthood, who still seemed to reign over those mighty ruins, and whose empire constantly haunted my imagination." After the lapse of so many ages however, it is not a matter of wonder that no vestiges of private buildings remain. In a climate like that of Thebes where rain scarcely ever falls, and where frost and snow are unknown, the habitations of the people and even the palaces of the opulent were probably of very slight construction and liable soon to perish. But temples are in all ages and countries calculated for durability; and their massy walls and columns long resist the assaults of time. From the foregoing considerations it appears highly probable that a large proportion of the landed proprietors of Egypt resided for some ages at Thebes, and afterwards at Memphis, a circumstance which must have greatly contributed to the support of a numerous population of domestics, traders and handicraftsmen, as we find it to be the case in Paris, Madrid, and several other European capitals, which by their inland situation are in a great mea sure debarred from foreign commerce. The extent of Thebes was considerably greater, and that of Memphis equal at least to the area of London: the Egyptians were also exceedingly abstemious in their diet; and even the highest ranks were remarked for their temperance. Plutarch, in his treatise on Isis and Osyris, mentions Pharaoh Psamniticus as the first Egyptian king that drank wine; and Diodorus Siculus asserts, that the monarch always had the quantity and the quality of his food regula ted by the priests. As to the inferior classes of the people, it may be pre sumed that their living was poor; and from what Herodotus relates concerning the sums of money expended in purchasing onions, garlic, and radishes for the workmen who raised the great pyramid in the plain of Memphis, it seems that these vegetables constituted the chief part of their food. It is therefore no improbable conjecture, that the usual consumption of a thousand of the populace of London would have sufficed for the maintenance of more than two thousand of the inhabitants of Thebes or Memphis. But after making every allowance for the abstemiousness of the Egyptians, and for all the other circumstances that seem to favour the idea of an immense population, it scarcely seems probable that either Thebes or Memphis was ever equal, or nearly equal to London, in the number of inhabitants. And the known population of ancient Alexandria and modern Cairo favours this conclusion. When Alexandria, in an age of higher civilisation than ever shone upon Thebes or Memphis, was the chief trading city of the world, and not only the emporium of commerce, but the seat of learning, of elegance, and of splendid luxury, when the neighbouring sea was covered with ships, and the canal with boats, when the city was, according to Pliny, 15 miles in circuit, and all, both within and without, displayed a scene of bustle snd activity, the number of its inhabitants was not estimated at more than half a million. And Cairo, which stands nearly opposite to the scite of ancient Memphis, in all probability has at this day a greater trade than was ever possessed by either that city or Thebes; but about 300,000 is supposed to be the whole amount of its population. Athens is celebrated in classical history, and as the cradle of literature, science, and art, will enjoy a permanent renown as long as learning shall be cultivated, or any memorial of antiquity remain. Its venerable and magnificent ruins excite the enthusiastic admiration of travellers, and although not so extensive as those of Thebes, display far more of the perfection of art. Its magnitude, however, did not correspond with the fame which it has acquired as the seat of letters, and the nursery of genius. Its circuit was about 23, or according to some writers, 27 miles; but this space included the pyreum or harbour, with all the road between it and the original city, a distance of not less than five miles, which was in process of time inclosed within the walls, and comprised a long but narrow assemblage of buildings. Athens was somewhat closely built, with narrow and crooked streets, being in this respect the very reverse of Babylon. But as a great part of its extent was occupied by the road leading to the pyreum, the area of the city could not be very large, and by what we can gather from ancient writers, its population never exceeded 400,000. Of these, not a much greater number than 30,000 were citizens, the remainder was composed of foreigners or slaves. It was not therefore from her extent, her wealth, or her population, but from being the seat of learning and the arts, that Athens has derived a lasting celebrity. Rome, when in its most flourishing state was inferior to Nineveh, Babylon, and perhaps also to Thebes in extent; but in population and wealth, it undoubtedly surpassed every city of the ancient, and perhaps of the modern world. For notwithstanding the apparently exaggerated and almost incredible accounts that are given of Pekin, which is said to contain two millions of inhabitants, Major Rennel considers it as highly improbable that the population of the capital of China should equal that of the British metropolis; and indeed it is not impossible that Staunton and Barrow, although they adduce very plausible arguments in support of their opinion, may, as well as other travellers, have been imposed on by the vanity of the Chinese, who always endeavour to magnify every thing relating to their nation. Rome, in the time of the emperor Aurelian, had attained to its greatest extent, and probably to its highest degree of population. Long before that time, Pliny had noticed the continual and rapid extension of its limits, using the emphatical expression, "expatiantia tecta multas addidere urbes." The extension of buildings had made an addition of several cities. In the time of Aurelian, when an attack from the Allemanni was apprehended, those extensive and populous suburbs were inclosed within the new walls that were built for the defence of the city. Rome was then 21 miles in circuit, and its form being according to Vitruvius nearly circular, its area must have been about 36 miles. The mode of building was also calculated for an immense population. Ground for building being excessively dear, and often difficult to obtain at any price, the inhabitants of Rome carried their houses to an extraordinary height. In the reigns of Augustus and Nero it was enacted, that private houses should not exceed the height of 70 feet; but it appears from the concurrent testimonies of different writers that these laws were soon neglected. The streets also were narrow, and although they were considerably widened when the city was rebuilt after the conflagration in the time of Nero, they might still be considered as far from being spacious. From these circumstances it is evident that although the public buildings occupied a large space, ancient Rome was calculated to comprise a very numerous population. It is somewhat wonderful that a people who paid such attention to most things relating to civil economy as the Romans, should have left no account of the population of the city, a matter so intimately connected with the grandeur of their state. We have accounts of the census as taken at different periods; but these enumerations included only Roman citizens wherever they resided, and had no reference to the inhabitants of the city of Rome. It seems however that the census has been sometimes misunderstood, and bothTM the extent and population of the city have consequently been greatly exaggerated. The circuit of the city has, in popular accounts, been magnified from twenty one to fifty miles; and the error seems to have been adopted by Lipsius and Vossius, who have also made extravagant estimates of the popula tion. That intelligent and investigating historian, Mr. Gibbon, estimates the popu lation of ancient Rome at not less than 1,200,000; and it may probably have amounted to a still greater number. The state of society in Rome was pecuItar, and extremely different from any thing known in the other cities here above mentioned. As the Roman citizens were prohibited from following any other profession than those of agriculture and arms, many of them were poor; and ancient as well as modern Rome was a mixed scene of magnifi cence and misery. But the poor citizens had a sure resource for their main tenance in the corn, wine &c., sent as tributes from the conquered provinces and of which regular distributions were made to those who applied for a share. Rome also, being mistress of the civilised world, possessed the means of draw. ing supplies not only from every part of Italy but also from all the fertile countries around the Mediterranean; so that almost all imaginable circumstances physical and moral, concurred to render the population of Rome greater than that of any other city of the ancient world. Her trade was indeed far inferior to that of London: but Rome was the capital of an immense empire, and the residence of the richest citizens whose numerous slaves administered to their luxuries, and carried on for their profit all sorts of trades and manufactures. The wealth of ancient Rome must have been prodigious, as the spoils of so many conquered countries were accumulated within her walls; and tributes continually flowed in from her provinces. But whether ancient Rome was superior or equal to modern London in opulence may be considered as a question of difficult solution. Rome was enriched by war and rapine-London by an unparalleled commerce; and to bring the wealth of these two famous cities within any point of comparison would require a long dissertation. The opulence and splendor displayed by the ancient Romans would appear incredible, were they not attested by historians of unquestionable authenticity; and the stupendous remains of the city are lasting memorials of its former magnificence. It must however, be acknowledged, that public magnificence is not always a proof of proportionate wealth. The ruins of Athens exhibit the noblest works of art; but Athens never was remarkable for her riches. And Rome, when mistress of the world, could never boast of a structure equal in magnificence to the present church of St. Peter; and in regard to wealth and population, modern Rome is only the shadow of the ancient city. Constantinople succeeded Rome, as the capital of the empire. After the subversion of the western it became the mteropolis of the eastern or Greek empire, and during the Gothic ages, was the seat of letters and arts, as well as the great emporium of commerce. When it was taken and plundered by the French and Venetian crusaders, A. D. 1204, Villeharduin says, that so rich a booty had never been found in any other city whatever; but, perhaps, he had scarcely ever heard of the sack of Rome by Alaric. M. Le Beau, in his "Histoire du Bas Empire," supposes that Constantinople, when in its most flourishing state, under the Greek emperors, might contain a million of inhabitants; but the population of large cities, when not ascertained by positive documents, is generally too high. Some travellers have estimated the population of Constantinople, in the present age, at 600,000, and others at 800,000; but Mr. Dallaway reduces it to 400,000, in his computation, including the suburbs, Pera, Galata, and Scutari. It is certain that Constantinople never equalled ancient Rome, either in wealth or in the number of inhabitants: it may also be fairly presumed, that it was inferior to London in opulence; and whether its population was ever equal to that of the British metropolis is at least problematical. A critical enquiry into all the circumstances which might either promote or impede the wealth and population of the cities most celebrated in history would require a long dissertation, and afford matter for a large volume. But it would certainly lead to the conclusion, that not one of them, except ancient Rome, ever equalled London in wealth, or surpassed it in population. This cursory sketch, however, may perhaps not be unacceptable to the readers of the Northern Star. The antiquary carefully examines the spot where some petty chieftain in past times exercised a barbarous sway over a small district; it cannot therefore be unentertaining to direct a share of our attention to those places which were once the seats of the highest human power and magnificence, and have left imperishable memorials on the pages of history. J. B. CONVERSATION RENEWED. Mrs. Mortimer.-You are welcome home, my dear: I little expected when our conversation was interrupted at your last visit, that it would be a month before we met again. Miss Willis.-Nor did I, my dear Madam; still less was I aware that I should spend that period in London; it is one, however, which I cannot regret, for there is so much to see in London, it furnishes so much to remember and speak of, that one can never repent giving it a portion of one's time, although I should by no means like to live in it. Mrs. M.-Very true, my dear; and I am impatient to hear your account, of what you "saw, felt, heard, and understood," as the grammar says; pray oblige me by putting the first last and the last first, by telling me if you saw the royal wedding. Miss W.-I did, and was much gratified by it, not merely as a grand spectacle, (which it certainly was on a confined scale,) but because it brought me as it were into a personal knowledge of the parties, by enabling me to see and hear them perfectly. Mrs. M.-Well, child, what did you think of them? how did they look ? how did they behave ? Miss. W.-I found the Queen (though certainly a plain woman), yet for a person so far advanced in life, possessing a very agreeable countenance, and by no means of a dark complexion, as I expected; her hand and arm are very beautiful, but her person is all of a lump as it were, and she moves with difficulty, but when seated and at ease, is by no means devoid of grace; VOL. II. Ꮓ Ꮓ |