TOWN. We use the term in its general signi fication, so as to embrace any assemblage of in habited human dwellings of larger size than a hamlet or a village, the only way in which we can speak with correctness and advantage.
Towns are a natural result of the aggregative principle in human nature. Necessity led the early races of men to build their towns on lofty spots, where, with the aid of the natural advantages of the ground, they could easily protect themselves against beasts of pr,ey and human foes. A town, and a stronghold or fort, would thus be originally identical. As population increased and agriculture spread, so some degree of security came, which permitted the inhabitants of the castle to diffuse themselves over the hill-side, and take up their abode in the valley, and by the side of the stream that lay nearest their aci opolis ; still the inhabit ants kept at no great distance from the centre of strength, in order not to be deprived of its protec tion. The town, however, would thus be enlarged, and as the necessity for self-defence still existed, so would the place soon be surrounded with walls. Thus would there be outer and inner bulwarks, and in some sort two species of community—the townspeople, who tilled the ground and carried on trade, and the soldiers, whose business it was to afford protection : these two, however, in the earli est stages of civilisation were one, the peasant and tradesman taking arms when the town was put in danger. How early towns were formed cannot be determined by any general principle they- were obviously a work of time. The primary tendency in population was to diffuse itself. Aggregation on particular spots would take place at a later period. When then Cain is said to have built a city (Gen. iv. 17), the first city (Enoch, so called after Cain's son), we have evidence which concurs with other intimations to show that it is only a partial history of the first ages that we possess in thc records of the book of Genesis. In the time of the Patriarchs we find towns existing in Palestine which were originally surrounded with fortifica tions, so as to make them fenced cities.' In these dwelt the agricultural population, who by means of these places of strength defended themselves and their property from the nomad tribes of the neigh bouring desert, who then, as they do now, lived by plunder. Nor were works of any great strength necessary. In Palestine at the present day, while walls are in most parts an indispensable protection, and agriculture can be advantageously prosecuted only so far as sheltered by a fortified town, erections of a very slight nature are found sufficient for the purpose, the rather because the most favourable localities offer themselves on all sides, owing to the natural inequality of the ground. The ensuing ex tract (Travels in Egypt and the Holy Land, etc., by Rev. S. Olin, New York 1843, vol. 423, 424) throws light on the subject :—` Continuing our route over a well-wooded limestone ridge, we came in sight of a large village which occupied a hill directly before us, while farther to the right, and upon a still loftier summit, was a rumous castle of great extent, and, from its commanding position, of very imposing appearance. The in tervening region and that to the right of the castle, was undulating, fertile, and cultivated. We were
nearly an hour in reaching the base of the isolated mount, which we passed to the right through a deep ravine that divides it from another lofty hill on the east, which is also surmounted with what appeared to be a ruined fortress. We passed round the acropolis to the north side, where we obtained a good view of this ancient stronghold. It em braces the entire summit of the mountain within a massive wall, which, as well as the several towers by which it was strengthened, is in a very dilapi dated state. A little further west another summit is occupied by ruinous bulwarks and towers. The large villar, called from the castle Tibinin, or Chibinin, lies in a valley between these two forti fied hills. East of the principal works is another elevation surmounted with ruins, and farther in the same direction, beyond the narrow valley we had just traversed, is a fourth summit, the one I have already referred to as having ruins upon its top.' From this striking passage an illustration may be gathered of the force of our Lord's language when he describes his disciples as a city set on a hill, that cannot he hid (Matt. v. 14). Jesus has been thought to refer in this description to some par ticular city, and the modem Safet has been fixed on and is still traditionally regarded as the place which he had in view. This town, now in a ruin ous state—one of the four cities, Hebron, Ti berias, Jerusalem, Safet, regarded as especially holy—occupies the summit of the highest mountain in Galilee, and one of the highest in the Jewish territories. It is conspicuously seen from a great distance in all directions but the north. The town does not occupy the precise summit of the rounded mountain, but rather the sloping ground immedi ately below it, a military castle or citadel having been erected upon the highest point. The hilly position of towns sometimes caused the dwellings to be curiously placed relatively to each other. Thus, in Safet, the traveller, as he sits on his horse in the midst of the town, finds,,the smoke of a kitchen rise from the earth near him, and by a little survey ascertains that the smoke issues from the mouth of a chimney standing a few inches above the ground at his horse's feet ; that he and his ani mal are in reality on the flat roof of a house ; and that, as the hill-side is nearly perpendicular, the inhabitants have judged it the easiest mode of building to place the houses one upon another.' Of the ancient method of building in towns and cities we have no accurate knowledge, any farther than we may gather information from the ruins which still lie on the soil of Palestine. But these ruins can afford only general notions, as, though they are numerous, and show that the Land of Promise was thickly peopled and highly flourishing in its better days, the actual remains of ancient towns are to be ascribed to different and very dis tant periods of history. The crusades left many strongholds which are now in a state of dilapida tion ; but the crusades are of modem days com pared with the times of the Saviour, which them selves are remote from the proper antiquity of the nation. The law of sameness, however, which prevails so rigidly in Eastern countries, gives us an assurance that a modern town in Palestine may be roughly taken as a type of its ancient prede cessors.