This is all that the hiftory of Afia affords for, this time with refpect to agriculture. As to the Egyptians, the reign of Sefoftris ought to be looked upon as the most remarkable epocha for the attention of thefe people to try every thing that could contribute to increase the value of their grounds. The reader will not have forgot, that from the first ages the Egyptian monarchs applied themselves to draw great ad vantages from the overflowings of the Nile. They had made and preferved divers canals to receive and difperfe at pleafure the waters of the river ". Sefoftris augmented the number confiderably. We must attribute to these works, the prodigious fertility which historians fay Egypt anciently enjoyed. By means of multiplied canals, they carried the water over all the lands. Each inhabitant could procure it eafily. They had only the trouble of opening a trench each time they wanted water. Thus Egypt found itself watered in the parts the most remote from the Nile P. The extreme fertility which this country anciently enjoyed, is fo generally attefted, that we ought to put this fact among thofe which cannot be doubted. In the most remote ages Egypt was able to give to other people a certain affiftance in times of fcarcity. Under the Roman Emperors they called it the granary of Italy. It was the fame under the Greck Emperors. They drew from Alexandria all the corn they confumed at Conftantinople. Yet thefe facts fo certain and well attested, however, form a problem which it is not easy to refolve. Egypt is a country of fmall extent. All the grounds could never produce the fame quantity, even in the best of times: laftly, they must always have left in the country the quantity of corn neceffary to fupport the inhabitants; and that quantity muft formerly have been very confiderable, confidering that Egypt was then extraordinarily peopled. How See part 1. book 2. chap. 1. • Herod. 1.2. n. 108. & 109.; Diod. 1. 1. p. 66.; Strabo, l. 17. p. 1156.& 11570 Herod. 1. 2. n. 19. & 108. 9 See part 1. book 2. chap. 1. Biblioth. anc. & mod. t. 4. p. 123. Ibid t. 1. p. 215 M ·can can we perfuade ourselves after these reflections, that fuch • a country could ever furnish fuch immenfe provifions as the ancients mention? The queftion becomes yet more difficult to decide, when we compare the recitals of different authors as well ancient as modern, and when we form, from their recitals, an exact idea of the fertility of Egypt. Pliny compares the foil of Egypt to that of the Leontines, looked upon formerly as one of the moft fertile diftricts of Sicily. He pretends, that in that country the bufhel of corn gave an hundred for one. But if we give credit to the teftimony of Cicero, nothing is more exaggerated than this fact advanced by Pliny. Cicero says in plain terms, that in the territory of the Leontines, the highest produce was ten for one, and that very feldom. Commonly it was not above eight, and they found themfelves then well done to ". The orator from whom we have this account ought to have been well inftructed. He had been queftor in Sicily; befides, he pleaded before the Roman people the cause of the inhabitants of that province against Verres. Thus, on comparing, after Pliny, the fertility of Egypt to the territory of the Leontines, we fhall find, that in Egypt the bufhel did not give above ten for one. This eftimation agrees exactly with that which Granger gives us of the fertility of this country, author of an account of Egypt, which, on many accounts, is much to be esteemed *. He fays, that the lands the nearest to the Nile, thofe on which, at the time of the inundation, the water refts forty days, do not give, in the best years, above ten for one; and with respect to lands where the water does not remain above five days, it is much if they get four for one *. The fame traveller pretends, that they fow now as much land in Egypt, as they fowed anciently; leaving none ་ L. 18. fect. 21. p. 111. "In Verrem, actio 2. 1. 3. n. 47. t. 4. p. 304• * The greatest part of this work has been reviewed and corrected by M. Pignon, who had been seventeen years conful at Cairo. I had this from himself. * Voyage en Egypte par le Sieur Granger, p. 8. & 9. See alfo Maillet, defcript. de l'Egypte, lettr. 9. p. 4. & 5. unbroke unbroke up that will bear corn. Yet, adds he, if the inha bitants, which at present are few in comparifon of what they were faid to be formerly, eat commonly wheat bread; Egypt, with its great crops, would fcarce produce what would fupport them. He obferves, lastly, that the foil of Egypt is fo barren, that it is very uncommon to meet with plants or shrubs : the earth is clayey and of a dark colour. It is nothing, to fpeak properly, but a compofition of falt and duft z. The feeds and the trees which they plant, do not increase or fhoot but by the force of water. It is for this reason, that in Egypt they have neither wood for firing nor building. With respect to the overflowings of the Nile, it is, fays he, an error, to believe that the waters of that river, at the time of its waxing, bring with it a mud that enriches the lands. When the Nile is at eighteen feet high, it comes to the reddish earth of which its borders are compofed, in the higher Egypt. The water being rapid, molders and carries away its borders, and ftains it of a colour which appears about the confiftence of milk; but it brings no mud properly fo called *. Granger concludes from all thefe obfervations, that Egypt, so far from having fupplied other countries with provifions, was not in a ftate to find a maintenance for the infinite number of inhabitants with which they pretend it was formerly peopled. The other travellers do not speak of Egypt in a way so difadvantageous as Granger. They agree, it is true, as to the aridity of this country; but they do not look upon this defect as an obftacle to its fruitfulness. Among many travellers, whofe evidence I might bring, I fhall content y Granger, p. 4. 5. 11. a lbid. p. 12. & 13. z Ibid. p. 12. & 26. b Ibid. p. 20. *He told me, that he was certain, from repeated experiments, that there was nineteen times lefs mud in the waters of the Nile than in those of the Seine. See alfo Shaw's travels, t. 2. p. 188. * Granger, p. 4. Pietro d'ella Valle, lettr. 11. p. 218.; Maillet, defcript. de l'Egypte, lettr. 9. p. 3. myself with that of Maillet, who, by the long ftay he made in Egypt, could acquire an exact knowledge of that country. Egypt, fays he, to speak properly, is nothing but an huge and folid rock. As foon as you dig a little in the ground, or you rake in the fand, you meet with the rock, except in the Delta, which, he thinks, has been formed by the mud of the Nile. Yet Maillet will have it, that you now find a foil in Egypt, which, if cultivated, would produce abundantly*: for he is far from thinking, that they fow at prefent the fame quantity of land as formerly. Indeed they cultivate as much as the real state of Egypt will permit; but that space is not nearly so extenfive as formerly. The bad policy of the Turks is the caufe of this difference. The government has thought proper to forbid the exportation of corn; therefore they have fowed no more than the fields bordering on the Nile. For the fame reafon they have given over watching and maintaining the banks and the canals with the fame attention they did formerly. It is not therefore astonishing, that Egypt does not now produce the fame quantity of corn it did in ancient times. This account is very oppofite to that of M. Granger. The only fact in which thefe two travellers agree, is, that. at this time there is no corn exported from Egypt; but for what reafons, that is what they do not agree in. Let us endeavour to propofe fome conjectures on a question at thistime fo difficult to determine. e It is very certain, that, for want of care and atention, Defcript. de l'Egypte, lettr. 1. p. 18. & 19.. Maillet does not feem to have much agreement with himself. In his ninth letter, p. 4. & 5. he fays, that, at prefent, in Egypt, the lands produce commonly ten for one: and he adds afterwards, that a grain of wheat commonly produces from twenty-five to thirty ears. This fecond fact contradicts the former, and the contradiction is manifeft. There is certainly an error in one or other of the calculations. For, according to the laft account, the lands in Egypt should produce at this time at least three hundred for one. But as M. Maillet did not digeft and publish his memoirs, we do not know whether to impute to him or his editor, the contradictions we fo frequently meet with in this work. f Maillet, lettr. 1 p. 3. & 31. lettr. 9. p. 2. a a great part of the canals, which ferved heretofore to fertilize Egypt, are filled up. The Romans afterwards knew well their importance. They were very attentive to have them cleanfed. The Mahometans have neglected to keep up thefe works. We ought not therefore to fay, that they fow as much now as they fowed formerly, fince the Nile no longer waters the fame quantity. But allowing a very great difference between the actual state of Egypt and its ancient state, I am always furprised that that country could ever be faid to have furnished such immenfe quantities of provisions as hiftorians mention. We cannot justify their accounts, but by comparing the ancient produce of Egypt with that of certain districts whofe fertility is so very extraordinary. Herodotus affirms, that in Babylon, the ground produced two, and fometimes three hundred to They bring every year a prodigious quantity of corn from Chili, a country extremely barren, and where we do not fee lands in tillage but only in fome valleys. But thefe lands produce fixty, eighty, and an hundred for one, while our beft lands in France do not produce above ten or twelve to one at most *. Thus the crop which they have in Chili from one acre, is at least equal to what we have from ten in our provinces the most fruitful in corn. The fertility is ftill greater in fome provin ces of Peru. There they gather from four to five hundred for one of all forts of grain. But we are convinced, by many experiments, that one may make the earth bear and yield much more than it commonly does. This fecret depends on the manner of cultivation and tillage. Can we not then attribute this prodigious fecundity, which the ancients fay Egypt enjoyed, 8 See Sueton. in Auguft. c. 18.; Aurel. Victor. epitom. c. I. L.1. n. 193. This is nearly the calculation of Theophraftus. Hift. plant. 1. 8. c. 7. p. 162. 1 Voyage de Frezier, p. 70. & 106. * Journ. des fcav. Aout, 1750. p. 538. 1 Voyage de Frezier, p. 137.; Hift. des Incas, t. 2. p. 335.; Conqu. du Perou, t. I. p. 46. & 47. Mem. de Trev. Juillet 1753. p. 1565. & 1566. to |