twice the size of the original city, it was about eighty stades in circuit; and this, I think, is not more than ought to be allowed to a city, inferior only by a little to Alexandria and to Rome.

The military population of Antioch, in the reign of Demetrius, B. C. 145 or 144, according to the 1st of Maccabees, amounted to not less than 120,000; which implies a gross population of not less than 480,000. When Antiochus Sidetes was defeated in Upper Asia, by the Parthians, (B. C. 130.) its population seems to be represented at 300,000, and more e.

But in the time of Chrysostom, a contemporary of Libanius, the duos or people of Antioch as such, are plainly stated at 20 myriads, 200,000f: and that this statement is correct, and must be understood of the whole of its free population in his time, appears from other statements, which occur in his works elsewhere; as that the numbers of the church at Antioch were 100,000; the amount of the poor, or of such as stood in need of relief among its inhabitants, was a tenth part of the number, or 20,000 5. In each of these statements, the women and the children would necessarily be included, as well as the men.

Though we might suppose from the highflown and hyperbolical description of the grandeur, opulence, and prosperity of Antioch, which is given in the Oratio Antiochica of Libanius, that its numbers were never greater than in his time, yet I doubt whether there was much difference between them then and in the reign of Augustus. To assume them, therefore, as pretty nearly the same at each of these periods, we may observe how exactly proportionate the size of

d Ch. xi. 45. 47. 106. 1. 10-19.

e Excerpta Diodori, lib. xxxiv. Apud SS. Deperditos, ii. f Operum ii. 597. A. Homilia In S. Ignatium Martyrem, g Operum vii. 810. A. in Matthæum Homilia lxxv. 4: and Ibid. 657. E. 658. A. B. Homilia lxvi. 3.

cap. 4.

Antioch with a free population of 200,000 is to that of Alexandria with one of 300,000, and to that of Rome with one of 320,000, at the same period of time. If such was the actual ratio of their free population, it is no wonder that they were usually reckoned to be almost on a par with each other; and the third of them not much more inferior to the second, than the second was to the first. Making the same allowance for the mixture of slaves and strangers with the free population of Antioch, as we did for that of Alexandria, viz. in the proportion of one or two to one; if we must reckon the free population of Antioch about 200,000, we may estimate the gross population at three or four hundred thousand more; between five and six hundred thousand in all *.

*The above conclusion is not inconsistent with certain facts relative to Antioch and its subsequent history-which occur in Procopius and other authorities. For example, the fact that 300,000 of its inhabitants perished in the earthquake experienced by it in the reign of Justin I: Procopius, De Bello Persico, i. 14. It appears from Evagrius, E. H. iv. 5. 383. C. that this earthquake happened May 29, A. D. 525 or 526, and Marcellinus Comes dates it accordingly A. D. 526, in the eighth of Justin. We can hardly suppose it lost more than half of its population upon that occasion. Antioch was taken by the Persians under Chosroes in the reign of Justinian, A. D. 54°, and burnt by them to the ground. Procopius, De Bello Persico, ii. 5-10. Cf. Evagrius E. H. iv. 25.398. B-D. Perhaps it never recovered its splendour after that catastrophe, though Justinian rebuilt it, and gave it the name

of Theopolis or Theüpolis: see Procopius, De Edificiis, ii. 10. Cf. Evagrius, Ecclesiastica Hist. i. 3. 258, D: though the latter authority indeed tells us it was rebuilt and called by its new name in consequence of a second earthquake, thirty months later than the former, the date of which was Nov. 29, A. D. 528 and consequently coming within the reign of Justinian; for that bears date from August 1, A. D. 527. See Evagrius, iv. 6. 384. B: 9. 387. B. Another earthquake in which 60,000 of the inhabitants of Antioch were reported to have lost their lives, is also recorded by Evagrius, E. H. vi. 8. 450. C. 451, B. sixty one years after the last mentioned, and consequently A. D. 589, in the seventh of the emperor Mauricius: and the number which perished on this occasion being so much smaller in comparison than that of those who perished on the former, it is some argument of the

I shall conclude these observations with some remarks, in the last place, on the probable magnitude of the city of Rome, or the extent of ground covered by it, at the period of time of which we have hitherto been treating.

The form and construction of Rome, in the days of Augustus, and before the fire in U. C. 817, A. D. 64, which destroyed either wholly or in part, ten out of its fourteen Regiones, are described by Tacitus, Ann. xv. 40-44. And that it was rebuilt pretty much the same as before that accident, appears from Pliny, H. N. iii. 9. Publius Victor, Descriptio Urbis Romæ, &c. *

Dionysius of Halicarnassus tells us that the Pomorium of Rome, up to his time, had not been extended beyond the limits fixed to it in the reign of Servius Tullius ; and that the additions subsequently made to the magnitude of the city, consisted in the suburbs, or parts beyond the Pomorium, and unenclosed by a wall. He observes also that the size of the city, in his own time, as collected from its original boundaries, was not much greater than that of Athens, exclusive of the Piræus and Athens, as it might be shewn from various authorities, so restricted, was about 60 stades in circuit k. After the time of Dionysius, however, (who wrote his history about U. C. 747,) the walls were en

gradual decay of the size and population of the city from that time to this. Perhaps no city in the empire ever suffered more at different times from earthquakes, than Antioch. Evagrius, himself a native of Antioch, and an eyewitness of many of these visitations, has been careful to

record them, and to specify the order of their occurrence in the historical series of visitations of

like kind.

* Cf. the description of Rome as it is given by Ammianus Marcellinus, xvi. 10. at the time of the visit paid it by Constantius, A. D. 356.

h Ant. Rom. iv. 13. Yet both Sylla and Julius Cæsar enlarged the Pomorium more or less before the time of Dionysius. Cf. A. Gellius, xiii. 14. Dio, xliii. 50. (U. C. 710.) Tacitus, Annales, xii. 23, 24. i Ibid. iv. 13: ix. 68: Cf. Dionysius Halic. Epitome, xii. 21: Ant. Rom. ii. 54. k Thucydides, ii. 13. and Schol. in loc. Cf. Dio Chrysostom, Oratio vi. 199. §. 25; xxv. 521. §. 45; Aristides, Oratio xiii. 305. §. 5.

larged, so as at the time of the census, U. C. 826, in the reign of Vespasian, to embrace a compass of 13 Roman miles at least. Cf. Pliny, H. N. iii. 9. p. 611.

The suburbs of Rome, notwithstanding, extended at all times much beyond the limits of its walls. Were we to construe literally a passage in Aristides1, we should conclude that when he was writing, viz. in the reign of Antoninus Pius, a wall of 20 parasangs, or 600 stades in extent, that is, 75 Roman miles, would have been requisite to compass the whole about. But there is no doubt that he is speaking of a figurative not a literal wall.

The suburbs were actually enclosed, A. D. 271, in the reign of Aurelian m*, by a wall of nearly 50 Roman miles in circumference: and we are further informed upon the authority of Olympiodorus, that just before the capture of the city by the Goths, A. D. 410, the diáoτnua, or distance of the walls, being measured by the geometrician Ammon, was found to be 21 Roman miles". The shape of ancient Rome was semicircular, the circumference of the semicircle being formed by its

* Jerome, in Chronico, dates this fact in the fourth of Aurelian, A. D. 274. and Vopiscus gives some countenance to the statement. The truth appears to be, that the enlargement of the walls was begun, A. D. 271, but not finished until the Pomorium was advanced forwards A. D. 274, after Aurelian's successful expeditions in the East. Cf. Aurelius Victor, and the Epitome, in Aureliano. Zosimus, i. p. 43 : ἐτειχίσθη δὲ τότε ἡ Ρώμη, πρότερον ἀτείχιστος οὖσα. καὶ λαβὸν τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐξ Αὐρηλιανοῦ, συνεπλη

ρώθη βασιλεύοντος Πρόβου τὸ τεῖxos: sometime between A. D. 270 and 276. The Fasti Idatiani, p. 29, date the commencement of the work, Coss. Aureliano et Basso, A. D. 271. Aurelius Victor, De Antonino (Caracalla) speaks of a great accession as made to the city in his reign by the addition of the Via Nova; and De Aureliano, mentions that the distribution of pork to the Plebs Romana began to bear date from his reign downwards. Cf. the Epitome, and Zosimus, ii. p. 79.

Vopiscus, Aurelianus, 21.

1 Ρώμης Εγκώμιον, Oratio xiv. 355. 3. 356. 2. 39: Eckhel, vii. 479. n Photius, Codex 80. pag. 63. 1. 27. sqq. Olympiodori Historica. De Olympiodoro, see the introduction of the article by Photius, and Zosimus, v. p. 332. He was a native of Thebes in Egypt.

wall, the diameter by the Tiber; upon which both ends of the wall rested *. If the distance here alluded to is meant of the diameter of the semicircle, it implies that the circumference was about half as much more in extent as that; viz. 31 Roman miles. If it expresses the radius of the semicircle, or the distance of the extreme point at the centre of the circumference from the middle of the diameter, it implies that the entire circumference of the semicircle was about three of these radii, that is, 60 Roman miles. And this, I should consider, was the meaning of Olympiodorus ; because it is more agreeable to the statement of the circuit of the wall, from the time of Aurelian to his own, as attested by Vopiscus. If that circuit was 50 Roman miles, A. D. 271-300, it might be 60, A. D. 410: but if it was only 30, A. D. 410, it is scarcely conceivable that it could have been 50, A. D. 271.

It must be confessed, however, that there are other particulars relating to the magnitude of Rome, in the same passage of Olympiodorus, which are so extraordinary as to throw discredit upon his testimony. For example; the fact that in a short time after the capture of the city by the Goths, when it was only beginning to recover itself from the shock given to its prosperity by that calamity, Albinus, the governor of Rome, wrote to the emperor to inform him that the usual allowance of corn to the people was no longer sufficient for the increase daily taking place in their numbers. As a proof of which he mentioned that

* That Rome lay principally, if not entirely, on one side of the Tiber, appears from the observation of Zosimus, ii. 86: with reference to the bridge built over it by Maxentius, A. D. 312, against the approach of

Constantine: un ovvávas mãσav συνάψας πᾶσαν ἀπὸ τῆς ὄχθης τῆς πρὸς τῇ πόλει, μέχρι τῆς ἄλλης. Cf. Procopius' account of the siege of Rome, A. D. 537. De Bello Gotthico, i. 19. p. 93. l. 18. sqq.