http://www.jstor.orgThe Population of RomeAuthor(s): Whitney J. OatesSource: Classical Philology, Vol. 29, No. 2, (Apr., 1934), pp. 101-116Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/264523Accessed: 24/05/2008 17:53Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.THEPOPULATIONOFROME BYWHITNEYJ.OATES ON NEof theever recurring difficulties whichstudentsofancient civilizationhavetofaceisthewantofstatisticaldatainthe sourcesoftheir study. Ina way thereasonforthisistobe assigned toconventionsofhistorical writinggenerally followed by thoseauthors who setthemselvesthe taskof chronicling theeventsof theirowntimesoroftheir past. Their primary endwasatonceto please and to teach, likethe poets whoachievedtheir purpose, inthe words of Horace, lectoremdelectando pariterque monendo. Consequent- ly we find preserved inour ancienthistoriansacombinationof inter- esting, vividincidentand anelaborationof themoral implications of theeventsthussetdown.Such historical writing enablesthescholar toreconstruct accurately thebroadtrendsof military and political movements, but it leaves the economist and statistician sadly at a loss. Thusitbecomesthelotofthelatterto puttogetherpainstakingly those meager bitsofinformationthatcanbeculled from any ofthe availablesources. Thetaskof determining the population ofRomein antiquity falls definitelyamong thesestatistical problems. Therehavebeenvarious estimatesmadesincetheRenaissancewhich vary from halfa million tofourteenmillionsofinhabitants.Atthe present timethework of Belochlon population in antiquity is probably regarded in general as authoritative.HisestimateforRomeissomewhere inthe neighbor- hoodof eight hundred thousand.Therehavebeenother attempts to dealwiththe problem sincethat time,notably thoseofNissen2 and Friedlinder.3 This latterscholar is of the opinion thatthe population 'K.J. Beloch, Die Bevolkerung der griechisch-romischen Welt (Leipzig: Duncker& Humblot,1886). Thesecondsectionof chap. ix (pp.392-412) deals specifically with the population ofRome. 2 H. Nissen, ItalischeLandeskunde (Berlin:Weidmann,1902),II, 99ff.and523ff. BelochanswersNissenin Klio, III (1903), 471-90. 3 L. Friedlinder, Roman Life andMannersunderthe EarlyEmpire, trans.A.B. Gough(London:Routledge,1913),IV, 17-28.T.RiceHolmes (The Roman Republic [Oxford:Clarendon Press,1923],I,360-63), alsotreatsthe problem. Helevelstwo CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY,XXIX, April,1934]101 WHITNEY J.OATES ofRomeinthetimeof Augustus was somewhatover amillion. My purpose is to review the evidence briefly, to examine the uses towhich thisevidencehasbeen putby theabove-mentioned scholars, andto attempt tocometoamore satisfactory conclusionin regard tothe problem. Belochmaintainsthattherearethreebases uponwhich, inthe wantof more accurate statistical data, one maysuccessfully form an estimateof the population ofancientRome.Theseare: (1) thearea oftheancient city,(2) the figures extantastothenumbersofthose who received the imperial donativeseitherof grain or of money, and (3) theinformationwhichwe possessconcerning thetotalannual grain supply for the city. Beloch argues thatthearea gives usinfor- mationas tothemaximumof population, whereas thenumber of re- cipients of imperiallargesssupplies uswitha minimum, whilethe third servesas acheck on whatwe havederived from theother two. Thesethree bases should be examined carefully.4 Inthe first place, the area of the ancient city can be determined only with a modicum of accuracy, aswe may observefromthe generaldisagreementamong scholars on this point.5 However, even if we were able todiscover the area, we should be facedwiththe difficult problem of population den- sity. Modern analogies help ustoa degree, but certainlypopulation density isavariableofthefirstorder. Beloch, for example, takesa density of650 per hectare,largely on subjectivegrounds. This gives him his resultant figure of eight hundred thousand for the population, butthere was really no sound reason for not taking either a greater or a lesser density. Therefore anycalculation, involving, as this does, an elementwhichvariesatthewillofthe calculator, cannothave any greatweight.Consequently,though thearea doesserveina way to penetrating criticisms against Beloch'scalculations, and on thewholeacceptsthe esti- mateofFriedlander.Therewillbeno attempt here to reproduce thebibliography on this subject. Intheworksalready citedone may find complete references toall the important contributions tothis problem. 4 Intheconsideration ofour problem one point mustbekeptfirmly inmind,viz., that populationcontinually varies.Inthis respect wecanagreethoroughly with Friedlander (op. cit., p. 27) when he criticizes Beloch for his assumption thatthe popula- tion of the imperial city virtually was constantfrom the days of Augustus to Diocletian. Therefore, in dealing withthesources wemustusethemstrictly fordetermining the population of the city for the epoch to which theyrefer, inso far as thisis possible. 5 Cf.Friedlander, op. cit., pp. 23-24. 102 THEPOPULATIONOFROME give usamaximum figure forthe population,yet deductionsmade therefromcan inno way befinal. Beloch's second methoddeserves a similar analysis. The number of persons who received imperial donatives naturally does give us a mini- mumforthe population ofthe city. The highest numberevermen- tionedinour sourceswhoreceivedsuch gifts is 320,000.6 Thestock method by which scholars have proceeded to argue is toassume a ratio betweenmaleandfemale among thefree-citizenclassaswellasbe- tweenadult and minor.Here by perfectly arbitrary methods acertain number of women and children are added.7Then they allow for a cer- tainnumberof senators, of knights, andofsoldiersstationedinthe city. And after they havecontinued their computations thus far, they still have todeal with the number of slaves in the city. Beloch handles this problem in the following manner. Galen, in writing of Pergamum of thesecond century after Christ, indicatesthatinthat city atthat timethereexistedaratiooftwofreemento every slave.8Beloch makeshis calculation accordingly, and thisnumber of slavesis added tothetotal.Itisneedlessto point outthattheconditionsin Perga- mumofthesecond century afterChristhavelittleor nothing todo with Rome.Hence we can see thatin two places,(1) in the determina- tionof thenumber ofwomenandchildren and (2) inthedetermina- tion of the number of slaves,any argument from the imperial dole lists standsconvicted. Turning tothethird method whereby we may estimatethe popula- tionofthe city, wehavedatawhichdonotadmitofsuch varying treatment,i.e., the food supply of the city. The number of people who may liveona single unitofarea mayvary; theratioofwomenand children to men, and theratioof free toslave mayvary, buttheone thing which is constant, does not vary, isthe averagefood consumption of ahuman individual.Therefore itseems beyondquestion thatthe 6 Cf.,e.g.,Augustus Res gestae 15. 7According toSuetonius (Augustus 41),boys under ten years of age were included among the recipients ofhis donatives, whichBelochtakesintoaccountwhen arguing from Augustus'figure of 320,000. 8 v.49 (Kiihn). Cf.Seneca DeClementia I.24. 1, where herecords thattheSenate contemplatedgiving a distinctivedress to the slaves, but hesitatedto pass such a decree forfearthattheslaveswould thereby becomeconsciousoftheirown strength and numbers.This passage wouldmilitate decidedlyagainstaccepting Galen'sratioin Pergamum of2:1for Rome. 103 WHITNEY J.OATES only method whereby one may attackthe problem of estimating the population is byway of thefood supply for anygivenepoch. Thewell-known passage fromAureliusVictor9 statesthatinthe timeof Augustus20,000,000 modii of grain were brought from Egypt each year for the food supply of the city. With this statementis tobe coupled a passage in Josephus totheeffectthatAfrica supplied two- thirds of the annual grain supply tothe city of Rome while Egyptsup- plied the remaining third.10 Thusweare abletodeterminethatthe grain supply of the cityduring the reign of Augustus was 60,000,000 modii per year. Atthis point it may be well toindicate just whatwe mean by "the city."Clearly we are ata loss todetermine accurately thenumber of square yards covered by Rome. Consequently when we speak of"the city" we musthaveinmind whatwe in modern times might refer to asthe "metropolitan area." Certainly our sources, AureliusVictor and Josephus, usethewordsurbs andrTKaMrar-V'PC&p.v TrX-0OS, which we mayonlysuppose torefer totheenvirons and tothosewho lived closeor relatively closetothe"Seven Hills," who depended onthe markets, freeor governmentallysupervised, or onthe dole, for their grain supply. In the want of accurate city limits it seems most reason- able torefer toa metropolitan area defined on such termsas we have used. 9 Epitome i.5-6.Friedlander (op. cit., p. 22) has adequately defended the reliability of Aurelius Victor as a source. 10 Bellum Judaeicum ii. 383-86.Friedlander (op. cit., p.22)again furnishes convinc- ingarguments for accepting as authoritativethedatain these paragraphs of Josephus. It may be urged that bycoupling thestatementofAurelius Victor, which refers tothe timeof Augustus, withthatof Josephus, which looks tothe reign of Vespasian, weare controverting the principle laiddownaboveinn.4.We say inanswer that according toFriedlindertheinformationcontainedin Josephus derives ultimately fromthe breviariumtotius imperii of Augustus(cf. Suetonius op. cit. 101; TacitusAnnales i. 11). Therefore, since Augustusmerelyapportioned the grain supply for the city onaone- third-two-thirdsbasis to Egypt and Africa, respectively, the passage of Josephus may be applied to any timebetweenthe reigns of Augustus and Vespasian. Asit happens, Aurelius Victor gives usthe only informationas toactualamountof grain needed for the cityduring those years. Thereforethe passage inTacitus op. cit.vi. 13, which statesthatthe grain supply of the year A.D.32 was greater thanthatunder Augustus, would merely indicatethatthe population of the city had increased inthe intervening years. Itis interesting, in viewof whatwe haveto sayconcerning the uncertain mean- ing of annona(cf. below, p.107), thatTacitusin referring to theincreased grain supply of A.D.32does notuseannona butrei frumentariae copiam. 104 THEPOPULATIONOFROME Ifwe agree that 60,000,000 modiia year istobe accepted asthe proper figure for theannual grain supply of Rome, wenextmustde- termine the average food consumptionper individual, in order toesti- matethe population.Fortunately we haveseveral sources, which are scatteredboth in timeand in provenience, toassistus in reaching our conclusions. Polybius" records thattheRoman infantryman received an allowance of two-thirdsof an Atticmedimnus of wheat per month12 inadditiontohis dailywage of2obols. Cato, inafamous passagel3 dealing withthe familiaecibaria, allows4modii per monthforthe workers on his farm, an amountwhich is raised to 4? during the sum- mer months, while the other more inactivemembers of his staff receive but 3. Further, we discover from a fragment of Sallust14that by a cer- tainlex frumentaria thedole allowanceof grain was5 modii per man, towhichthe speaker inSallustrefers scornfully asnotmuchbetter thanthealimenta of the prison. Seneca15statesthata slavereceives 5 modii, whileanoteofDonatus16 toa passage inTerencefixesthe monthly allowanceof servi at4 modii. Lastly, there are several refer- encesin Egyptian ostrakaand papyril7 whichindicatea monthly al- lowanceof anartaba per man,i.e.,approximately 4 modii. Fromthe foregoing evidencewe may observethattheamountof grain allottedto a man did not vary considerably and that,though our figures range from 3 to5 modii a month, the average seems clearly to be 4.Ifwe use4 modii a monthas our average, we arrive attheesti- mate of 1,250,000 as the population of Rome for the reign of Augustus. Inasmuchas we find thatBelochuses3 modii a month per manas the averageconsumption,l8 wemust justify furtherourcontention that4 modii is a more accurate figure.Certainly withour evidenceas 11vi.39.12-15.14 Historiae iii.48.19. 12 The equivalent of about4modii. 15 Epistulae lxxx.7. 13 De agri cultura 56. 16 Noteon Terence Phormio 43. 17 Forthesoldier's allowance,cf.,e.g., U. Wilcken, Griechische Ostraka (Leipzig: Giesecke& Devrient,1899),II, Nos. 1130,1131,1132,1137, and1140.Allofthese papyri datefromthe earlyyears ofthethird century afterChrist.Forthelaborer's allowance, cf.D. Comparetti andG. Vitelli,PapiriGreco-Egizii(Milano:Ulrico Hoepli,1915), Vol. III, No. 322, Col.V.The papyrusprobably istobedatedinthe middle of thethird century ofour era. 18 Op. cit., p. 412. 105 WHITNEY J.OATES scanty as it is, we must proceed withcaution and notallow any sub- jective elementto creep intoourcalculations.One mayreasonably argue thatchildren andwomendonoteatasmuchas men,particu- larly those engaged in physical labor.Itis on such a basis thatBeloch chooses his figure of 3 modii as the average grain consumption. How- ever, thereare several points tobe urged against this figure. Inthe first place, wehavetheorator inSallust comparing theamountof5 modii tothe alimenta of the prison.19 Second, Cato allows his laborers 4 and 4? modii, which would indicate, from the general parsimonious natureofthefamous censor, that probably theirallottedamount could havebeenincreased withno great dissatisfactionon their part. And,lastly, the only instanceofanallotmentof3modiiisthatof Catotohisstaffnot actuallyengaged inactivelabor.20 Therefore it seemsclear thataman was perfectlycapable of consuming, and nor- mally would do so, 5 modii of grain a month.We can reasonably pre- sumethatafemalewould notneedso much, and verylikely achild still less.Hence if a man consumed 5 modii of grain a month, we may say thatthe average for females mightveryeasily be4andthatof children 3 modii.Such reasoning tendstoconfirm our conclusion that 4modii amonth per individualisthe proper figure for average grain consumption, and not 3, asBelochwould haveit. Thereisanother legitimate method whereby we may checkour figures. Let us assumea city of 1,250,000 inhabitants.Let us further assume that28 per cent of the population are children, as was approxi- mately thecase inNewYork City in1920.21 Letus assumethatthe remaining adults in our hypotheticalcity are divided as to sex, so that themalesconstitutea group 17 per centinexcessofthe females, as Friedlander suggestsmight havebeenthecase inRomeinthe epoch 19 We must add thatthe recipient of the dole allowance of grain may have had others besides himself to support,although thisis not definitely known. 20 WeshouldcitehereL.Mitteis, Chrestomathie (Leipzig:Teubner,1912),p.351, where he publishes a testamentarypapyrus(dated A.D. 155) which gives toa widow as long assheremainsunmarried anallowanceofsix-tenthsofanartaba ofwheat per month.Thisisthelowest figure which we have, and indicatesthatweare justified in assuming a lower food consumptionby women than by men.There is no reason, how- ever, onthebasis of this papyrus to modify our average consumption figure for Rome. All we might say is thatour average tends to be generous, and consequently our popula- tionestimateconservative. 21 U.S.Census of1920, Population,II,295, 304 ff. 106 THE POPULATIONOF ROME107 of Augustus.22 Ifthe population ofour supposedcity werethusdi- vided, weshouldobtainthe followingfigures: Men ...................... 491,800 Women.................... 408,200 Children ................ 350,000 If the average grain consumption for the men is 5 modii per month, for women 4, and for children 3, the hypotheticalcity wouldconsume in one year the following amountof grain: Men ..................... 29,508,000 modii Women ................... 19,593,600 Children.................. 12,600,000 Total .............. 61,701,600 Thuswe havea further confirmation for the average figure of 4 modii per month per individual, sincethe hypotheticalcity,reasonably di- vided in sex and age, with each division consuming grain at a different rate, wouldneed 61,700,600 modii in one year, an amount very close, indeed, tothenumber of modii which was brought annually toRome inthe reign of Augustus,i.e.,60,000,000 modii. Beloch, in arriving athis estimatefor the population of the city on the basis of the food supply, has summarily rejected the evidence from Josephus andAureliusVictor upon whichwehavebuiltour argu- ment.23 Insteadhe has employed a figure found in thelife of Septimi- usSeverusinthe Scriptores historiae Augustae.24 The passage isas follows: "[sc. Severus] moriens septem annorum canonem, ita ut cotti- diana septuagintaquinque miliamodium expendipossent,reliquit." Belochtakesthistomean thatthetotalfood consumption of the city atthattimewasattherateof 75,000 modiia day, or annually 27,375,000 modii. Allowing anannual consumption of36modii per individual, he estimatesthe population on this basisat approximately 760,000. In order to bolster up this position, Beloch takes a statement of thescholiastto Lucan, who says, "Roma volebatomni die LXXX milliamodiorumannonae."25 Atarateof 80,000 modiitheannual amountwould be 29,200,000modii, atotalsufficient for a population 22 Op.cit.,p.18.Dio (liv.16),supports toacertainextentthis theory,though he merely asserts thatofthe nobility there were more males thanfemales. 23 Op.cit., p. 411. 24 23.2. 25 Scholion toLucan Pharsaliai.319. WHITNEY J.OATES of 810,000 if one uses 36 modii a year as the average consumptionper individual.ThusBelochconcludesonthebasisof food consumption thatthe population ofRomewas 760,000-810,000. One mayreasonablyobject tothis argument. Inthefirst place, Belochhasusedtwo sources, onetocheckthe other, whichrefer to widely different times.Thatis to say, the scholion toLucan is dealing with Pompey's controlofthe annona, whereas theother source from the Scriptores isevidencefor thesituationsometwoandahalfcen- turieslater.The combining of twosuch sources isinviolationof the caveat laiddown above,26 and, of course, wouldbevalid only onthe hypothesis thatthe population of Rome did not vary with the passage of years. Sucha hypothesis, on thefaceof it, isuntenable.Further- more, the argument restson the presumption thattheannona ofthe scholionandthecanon fromthelifeofSeverusbothmeanthetotal grain supply of Rome.In myopinion there is no warrant for such an assumption. Letusfirst consider whatinformation thescholiasttoLucan may give us.If our calculations as to average food consumption be correct, an annona of 80,000 modii a day would be sufficient for approximately 608,000people. Butwhat justification havewefor accepting thisas anestimateofthe population ofthe city in Pompey's time?Inthe first place, theword annona varies inits significance. One couldnot feelsafein accepting ittomeanthetotal grain supply.Second, the scholion has reference to a very confused epoch, namely, the turbulent days of theend of the republic, immediatelyprior tothecivil war be- tweenCaesar and Pompey. Statistics having todowiththat period are much less likely tobeaccurate thanthosewhich derive from the highly organized reign of Augustus, as is the case with our figures from Aurelius Victor and Josephus. Scholars cannot argue for the reliability of the scholiast to Lucan as Friedlander has, for example, for the worth ofthecombined testimony ofVictorand Josephus.27 Thereforewe mustconclude that, sincethe meaning oftheword annona isuncer- tain, we cannot use the testimony of the scholiast to Lucan as evidence upon which toestimatethe population of the city. Ifwe accept itas reliable, our only factwouldbethat Pompey as praefectus annonae supervised a quantity of grain thatwould support aboutsix hundred 26 Cf.n.4. 27 Cf.n.9. 108 THE POPULATIONOF ROME thousand people forone year. Thereisno justification for holding thatnumber tobethe population ofRomeatthattime. Our primary concern hasbeentodeterminethe population ofthe city under Augustus,uponwhich, wemust admit, thescholiastto Lucanbears but slightly. Ifwewere abletoilluminatethe meaning of annona, thissource might be useful, butunderthecircumstances we are forced toturn from the testimony of thescholiasttotheinfor- mationcontainedin thelife of Septimius Severus.There is, I believe, a possibility of determining more accurately than at present the mean- ing ofthewordcanon.Ifwecando that, we may beabletoderive from thissource inthe Scriptores informationas tothe population of the imperialcity atthetimeofSeverus.Itseemstobecertainthat onemisusestheevidenceathis disposal ifhe applies the testimony given for the end of the second century of our era tothe early days of the principate. We have argued toshow thatthe population of Rome at the time of Augustus was 1,250,000, yet Beloch rejected outof hand the evidence upon which wehavebasedour argument. Thereasons why hedid so are clear.Inthefirst place, heassumedthattherewasno change in the population forthreecenturies.Inthesecond place, heassumed thatthewriter of thelifeof Septimius Severusmeantthetotal grain supply ofthe city whenhewrotetheword canon.An averagegrain allotmentof 75,000 modii per day would account for a population of 60 per centof 1,250,000.28 For Beloch, on the hypothesis thatthe popu- lationdidnot change, therewas only one way outofthe dilemma, viz., thatone of the sources be dropped, and consequently he disposes of Aurelius Victor and Josephus.However, if we takeall our evidence atitsface value, andatthesametimedonotset up theuntenable proposition of anyunvaryingpopulation, we are stillfaced withwhat appears tobeaconflictof testimony. As there is no reason apparent to impugn our figure of 1,250,000, we must accept itasour best possible information. Then, turning tothe figure from the Scriptores, we havetwo possibilities of interpretation. ThefirstisthatthesizeofRomediminished considerably fromthe timesof Augustus tothoseof SeptimiusSeverus,namely, from 28 I.e.,using Beloch's averageconsumption of36 modii a yearper individual. 109 WHITNEY J.OATES 1,250,000 to 570,000.29 On thefaceof it, thisseems impossible. De- spite the fact thatin the reign of Severus the most glorious days of the Empire were over, and thatthe city had suffered severely from disease and pestilence, we haveno warrant toconclude thatthe city hadde- creased in size by over more than half.We are forced, therefore, to re- ject such an interpretation. The other alternativewhich may afford us a solution to the problem isthatthecanon mentionedinthe biography ofSeverusdoesnot mean the total grain supply of the city but only some fraction thereof. The key to our difficulty lies in the word canon itself. Upon consulting the Thesaurus, onediscoversthatitisalate word,having several varietiesof meaning overandaboveitsecclesiasticalconnotations. The word occurs in by far the majority of instances in the Theodosian andtheJustinianCodices.A complete examinationoftheseCodices reveals that, of the several meanings, a very common one, for example, is theamount due as fee or rent on a specific piece of land.30 We need not go intothis meaning orsimilar ones, but only intothosecases which may serve toilluminatetheuseof canon in thelifeof Severus, i.e., intocanon withdirect reference to frumentum, of which there are buttwo. Before we go into the question of the canon frumentarius, we should confirm ourcontentionthatcanon assuchdoesnotmeanthetotal grainsupply ofthe city. Friedlander31 quotes inthisconnectionC. Rodbertus concerning thecanon of Severus, totheeffectthatithad nothing todowiththe population. Friedlander reports Rodbertus' words as follows:"It [i.e., the canon] was not the general grain supply of Rome, butthe regular budgetaryfigure oftheState grain-quan- tum, which was kept in viewandfixed atRomefor frumentarian re- quirements(marketdepartment,pauperdepartment,institutions)." Iwould thoroughlyagree withRodbertussofarashe goes, andbe- lievethatitis possible to give a modicum of proof tohis theory. Per- haps, asa result, themore exactnatureofthecanon mayemerge. Thismodicum of proof lies in a statementmade by the scholiast to 29 I.e.,using 48 modii annuallyper individualasthe average consumption. 30 Cf.,e.g., CodexTheodosianusv.12.2. 1-3; 14.34. 2; 15. 17; vi.3.4.2.Theseare only afewofthe many instancesofthewordinthis meaning. 31Op.cit.,p. 26. 110 THEPOPULATIONOFROME theVerrine Orations of Cicero, which constitutesan entirely new arti- cle of evidenceon the problem. The passage in Cicero upon which the commentismaderunsthus: "quando illa [i.e.,Sicilia] frumentum quod deberet non ad diem dedit?"32 To this the scholiast adds the fol- lowing remark:"omne genus pensitationis in hoc capitepositum est: canonis,oblationis, indictionis."Scholarsdatethescholiastinthe fifth century after Christ,33 withsome uncertainty,although there is nodoubtthathewrote in later antiquity.Certainly thethreewords canon, oblatio, andindictio are late.Atall events, from this passage of pseudo-Asconius wefindthatinthemindsofhis contemporaries the word canon connoted nota total grain supply, but only one part of it. Pseudo-Asconius,roughly a contemporary ofthe biographer of Severus, gives usa check on the meaning of the seven-year canon left by that emperor on his death.Therefore we may reasonably conclude thatthecanon frumentarius ofSeverusdidnotconstitutethetotal grain supply of the city. There is another point of evidencefor the conclusion thatthe canon didnotmeanallthe grain consumed by the city inone year. The writer of the life of Elagabalus34 records thatthe princeps ordered the canon for one year tobe given tothe meretrices, the lenones, andthe exoleti who were intramurani, while a likeamountwas promised tothe extramurani. The biographer addsthat owing tothe foresight of SeverusandBassianus35 acanon frumentarius forseven years was available, andhencesucha gift couldbemade.Nowwhateverwild idea Elagabalusmay have had, or howeverinaccurate his biographer may have been, orhowever prone toretailscandalousitemsinhis writings, thefactremainsthatthis passage is completely andabso- lutelyincomprehensible if the canon frumentarius amountedtothe to- tal grain supply of the entire year for Rome.One must admit thatthe passage is saved from being totalnonsense only by the theory thatthe canon involved represents only a part of thattotal. If, then, the figure of 75,000 modii a day, or 27,375,000 modii a year, does not give us any foundation for estimatingdirectly the population 32 InVerrem: Actio IIii.2.5. 33 Cf.W. S. Teuffels Geschichteder romischen Literatur, ed.Kroll and Skutsch (Leip- zig:Teubner,1910), Vol. II6, par. 295.3. 34 27.7.3O. Hirschfeld's emendation. 111 WHITNEY J.OATES ofthe city, wemustdiscard Beloch'scalculationswhichrestonthis source. However, we can say that 27,375,000 modii a year would sup- port about 570,000 people.If,then, we could determine roughly what fraction of the totalthis canon represents, we should be able to gain an estimateof the population ofRomefor thetimeof Severus.There is evidence, in myopinion, for hazarding a conjecture as tothe nature of the canon, from which we maygain perhaps our desired conclusion. Firstwemust go backtoCicero'sSecond Action againstVerres, where weare informed oftheseveral categories of frumentum which went from the province of Sicily to Rome.Cicero refers36to three cate- gories:(1) the decumanum, (2) thealterum decumanum, and (3) the frumentum imperatum. The decumanum, of course, wasthe regular tribute which the province sent toRome.From this passage in Cicero welearnthateach yearduring Verres' praetorship the government authorizedhimto purchase anadditionalamountof grain,equal to the decumanum, ata price of3sesterces per modius.This grain was calledthealterum decumanum. Inadditiontothesetwoclassesof grain wasthe frumentum imperatum, whichwastobe purchasedby the government at a price of 3? sesterces per modius.Cicero goes on to say thateach year ofVerres' incumbency,11,800,000 sesterceswere allottedforthe purchase of grain, ofwhich 2,800,000 wentforthe frumentum imperatum whilethe remaining 9,000,000 wasdevotedto thealterumdecumanum. The accompanyingtabulation,then, ex- presses the amountsof grain which should havecome from Sicily each year: decumanum................. 3,000,000 modii alterumdecumanum.......... 3,000,000 frumentumimperatum........800,000 Total .................. 6,800,000 Thuswecanseethatabout56 per centofthe grainbrought from Sicily was purchasedby the government-or wastohave been, at anyrate-during these years. Although weare facedwithalackof evidence, wecanatleastbe sure thatnotall of the grain which came toRomewas tribute in kind paidby the provinces. Takethe 60,000,000modii, theannualcon- 36 Op. cit. iii.70.163. 112 THEPOPULATIONOFROME sumption ofRome during thetimeof Augustus. Someofthatwas doubtlesstribute frumentum, butalso someof itmusthavebeen pur- chased by the government ata low price, for the purpose of being re- distributedin the city ata correspondingly reduced figure. Then also there musthavebeena certain amountof grain available in the open market, tobe bought andsoldata price determined bygeneral eco- nomic conditions.This latteramountcould nothave been very great, inasmuchasthe problem ofthe grain supply for the city was always acute, astheelaborate system of governmentsupervisionadequately attests. Of course, wecannot apply too directly evidencederived from the story of Verres' governorship of Sicily tothetimesof Septimius Seve- rusand the later imperial canon frumentarius.However, thereisevi- dence thatin the Empire the government did buy grain in addition to whatitreceived in tribute.37 Withthe passage in Cicero and thislat- ter evidencein mind, one is tempted to conjecture thatthe canon fru- mentarius may havereferencetothe grain whichthe government bought. This conjecture is not susceptible ofclear proof, yet there is nothing, so far as I know, in thesources which would tendtocontro- vert it, whilethere ismuchwhich can be explained on such a theory. One might argue, for example, thatan emperor like Septimius Severus, inorder toestablishasufficient grain reservefora period of years, would nothavetodeal primarily withthe tribute grain, but with that which would be needed to supplement thetribute grain, for which the government would haveto appropriate money. The canon of Severus, explained insuch terms, becomesmuchmore understandable.38 Letusreturn tothetwo passagesdealing withthecanon frumen- tarius whichasearch of theCodices disclosed.Thesectionunder the rubric "Decanone frumentario urbis Romae"intheCodex Theodosi- 37 Cf. e.g., Monumentum Ancyranum 15;Scriptores historiae Augustae:Alexander Severus 21.9.For Egypt wehavereferencestothe rvposOavvayopaurtK6Or. Cf.K. Thunell,Sitologen-Papyri ausdem Berliner Museum (Uppsala:Almquist & Wiksells, 1924),p. 81. 38 One shouldmentionhere the passage inthe biography of Elagabalus(cf. n. 34). The gift ofone year's canontothose relatively humblemembersof society, insane though it is, ismore comprehensible onthe theory thatthe imperialtreasury orthe government was footing thebill.For the emperor to play fastand loosewiththefree tributeof grain,merely to gratify amad whim, doesnotcontaineventheremotest vestige of reason. 113 WHITNEY J.OATES anus39 containsonebitofevidencefor the theory thatthecanon in- volved grain tobe bought and sold.Thefirst edict quoted directs the officials to sell to the bakers 200,000 modii of good quality at a reduced price. Also perhaps we can seeanotherindication in favor of the theo- ry inthesection"Defrumentourbis Constantinopolitanae," where occurs the phrase, sed integer canon mancipibus consignetur.40 These two passages can be explained easily on the hypothesis thatthecanon was the grain with which the government had todeal in a purely busi- ness way,involving the problems of purchase and sale. Furthermore, though an argumentum ex silentio is dangerous, at leastin cases where evidence is lacking, itcan be legitimatelyadduced, and in our problem certainly no occurrence of theword canon, either in theCodex or else- where, furnishes any evidencetocontradictour theory.41 Ifour theory be correct, wehaveinthe figure given us by thebi- ographer of Severus some evidencewherewith toestimatethe popula- tionofRomeattheendofthesecond century ofour era.Itisclear thatthecanon represents a portion of the grain supply. Ifthecanon were the frumentum purchased by the government, and if we suppose, for thesake of example, thatthecanon were aboutthesame percent- age of the whole as was the purchased grain of the whole amount from Sicily,viz., 56 percent, thetotal supply ofthe city underSeverus wouldbe annually about 48,884,000 modii.42 This supply wouldbe sufficient fora population ofabout 1,018,500 inhabitants.Ofcourse this figure is based upon a hypothesis which cannot be demonstrated, yet the figure thusreachedis veryreasonable, sinceit represents a slight diminutioninthe population fromthetimeof Augustus. We should expect such a decline, inviewof themore unsettledeconomic conditionsunder Severus, andofthesevere plagues whichthe city sustained,particularly the epidemic inthe reign ofMarcusAurelius. Our conclusions thenwould be: (1) thatthe population of the city 39 xiv.15. 40 CodexTheodosianusxiv.16.2. 41 In myopinion itwouldbe dangerous to argue from thescholiontotheVerrine Orations quoted above (cf. p. 111) either as to the nature of thecanon or as to what frac- tion of thetotal itconstituted. Superficially, however, one cannot refrain from suggest- ing the followingparallels: canon toalterum decumanum, oblatio todecumanum, and indictio to frumentum imperatum. 42 We are forced in this calculation to disregard the amount of grain which was avail- able in the open market (cf.p.113). 114 THEPOPULATIONOFROME115 in the time of Augustus was approximately1,250,000 ;43(2) that it may have increased slightlyduring the days of the earlier Julio-Claudians;44 and (3) that it may very well have diminished somewhat by the time of Septimius Severus.Butthere is need of one further remark in order to put all of the foregoing argument in perspective. If we have been able in some way tofix the population of the city in thetimeof Augustus, wecan appreciate farbetteralatesourcewhichrecords thevisitof 43 Thereareseveralotherbitsofevidencefromwhichone might concludethatRome wasa city ofconsiderable size, butwhichdonotallowustoform any accurateestimate ofthe population. 1.C.Herschel (The TwoBooksontheWater Supplyof the Cityof Rome of Sextus JuliusFrontinus [Boston:Estes,1899],pp.240-41), estimatesthewater supply ofRome as 38,000,000gallons a day onthe average. He goes onto saythat,supposing the population tobe 1,000,000, 38 gallonsperdayper individualwouldbe"stilla verylarge figure, whenuse alone, not waste, istakenintoaccount."Herschelhasbasedhiscalcu- lations, of course, ondataobtainedfrom Frontinus, whichwould applystrictly toRome inA.D.97.Herschelstatesfurtherthathis average38,000,000gallons could vary either up ordown by20,000,000gallons,depending, of course,upon how many ofthe aque- ductswerein operation. M.H. Morgan ("RemarksontheWater Supply ofAncient Rome,"TAPA, XXXIII [1902],30-37) contendsthattheexactwater supply cannot beknown accurately, becauseofthevariablecharacterofFrontinus' unit, the quinaria, butthatHerschel'sresultsarethebestavailable. Morganthinksthatthe averageof 38,000,000gallons istoo low, thatHerschelhasdeductedfor leakageandtheftfrom datainFrontinuswhichhad already takenthosefactorsinto account,andthat84,- 000,000gallons isabetter averagefigure. Atall events, itseemscertainthatthewater supply ofancientRomewassufficientfora city ofwelloveramillion.Morgan(p.35) hasatable givingpercapitadaily water consumption forseveralcitiesintheUnited States, which range from80.7to211.9 gallons. Morerecent averagesarefrom18to20 gallons inasmall Englishvillage to128 gallons insomeAmericancities.Itisinteresting tonotethatthe average for Liverpool in1927was34.7 gallons.(Theselatterfiguresare takenfromthearticleon"Water Supply" inthe EncyclopaediaBritannica[14th ed.].) 2.The seatingcapacity oftheCircusMaximusisanotherindicationthatthepopu- lationofRomewas large.Estimates range from 140,000to385,000(cf. S.B.Platner, The Topography andMonuments of AncientRome [2ded.;Boston:Allyn&Bacon, 1911],p.408). Itwouldtakea population ofsome proportionstojustifytheexistence ofso large astadium. 3.Ifwewerein possession of anyevidenceofthedeath-rateofthecity,wewould haveanothermethod whereby tocheckour populationestimate.Oursituationisallthe moreunfortunatesincetherecanbelittledoubtthatsuchrecordsdidexist,asthe several references,e.g., tothe temple ofLibitina clearlyindicate (cf. S.B.Platnerand T. Ashby, A TopographicalDictionaryof AncientRome [Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,1929],p.319).However,wedohavetworeferencestothenumberofpeoplewho diedin plagues inthe city. Suetonius(Nero 39) recordsthatintheautumnofA.D.65, 30,000people werecarriedoff by the pestilence.Jerome,inhisChronicle,underthe year A.D.77makesthe following statement:"luesingensRomaefactaitautpermultos diesinefemeridemdecemmiliafermemortuorumreferrentur."(Thisplagueinall probability isthatofA.D. 79,whichisreferredtobySuetoniusTitus8andCassiusDio [Footnote continuedon page116] 44 Cf.n.10. WHITNEY J.OATES TheodorictoRome.45 Initwefindthesewords"donavit [sc. rex Theodoricus]populo Romanoet pauperibus annonas singulisannis, centum viginti miliamodios."Thisamountof grain would support for one year twenty-five hundred people. This probably does not rep- resent the entire population, yet there is no doubtas totheenormous decrease insizeoftheformer capital. Inthefinal analysis the point seemstobe thatinRomewe havean example of whatwas generally happeningthroughout theancient world, a gradualprocess ofdeur- banization.Andindeedinthis process weare abletoseeoneofthe great andfundamentaldifferences betweenancientcultureandthat which immediately followedit.TheurbanizedRoman Empire was transformedintothedeurbanized Europe oftheMiddle Ages. The study ofthe population and populationchanges ofRome goes far to demonstratethiscontention. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY lxvi. 23.) Thedeath-rateofthe plague ofA.D.65thenwouldbe approximately10,000 permonth, whilethe epidemic ofA.D.79musthavebeenmuchmoresevere,although wehavenoinformationastohowlong it raged.However, ineithercaseadeath-rateof such proportions couldoccur only ina city of great size.Inthisinstanceitis legitimate to compare these figures withthoseofLondon during the plague of1664-65.Ancient Romeandseventeenth-century Londonareroughlycomparable onthegroundsofsani- taryconditions,perhaps withan edge infavorofRome.At anyrate, inLondoninthat fearful epidemic a totalof 68,596 deathswereattributedtothediseaseforthe year 1665. The population ofthe city atthattimewas 460,000. Ifthedeath-rate givenby Jerome continuedforseven days inRomeinA.D. 79, morefatalitieswouldhaveoccurredthan thetotalforthewhole year intheLondon plague. Thissituationcanbe explainedonly byassuming thatRomewasa farmore populouscity thanLondonin1665. (Thefigures ontheLondon epidemic weretakenfromthearticleon"Plague" intheEncyclopaedia Britannica[14thed.].) 45 Excerpta Valesiana67. 116