Introducing the Notitia of the 14 Regions of the City to Students

This is the second of the two blogs I am writing in relation to the how Roman’s mapped Rome discussion I ran with students last night. This blog ties in closely with my previous blog, Translating the Notitia Regionum XIV (or how to fail at being a lazy historian. Discussions on how I chose to translate particular technical terms and a link to my translation of the text can be found there. The first blog looking at the Severan Marble Plan and Roman Topography studies can be found here: The Severan Plan and an Introduction to Roman Topographical Studies.

This blog will cover other elements of the discussion: the date of the text, its nature, and why it is problematic but so tempting. In addition, it will look at some of the more interesting entries in the catalogue. I stated in my first blog that I might put together a commentary on this text, and I likely will, but later in the year.

The Nature and Date of the Notitia of the 14 Regions of the City.

The Notitia, like its slightly later textual cousin, Curiosum of the City’s 14 Regions, is an example of the popular late antique list genre. Most of the studies of this text look at both of these Regionary Catalogues together because they probably evolved from the same “parent text.” 

The nature and date of this text are intimately intertwined. If we look for just the latest possible date in relation to entries, we would date it to after Constantine’s death in 337 CE because the Arch of Constantine is referred to as Arcum divi Constantini (Notitia, Regio 11). However, a closer examination of the text shows anachronisms which are important for understanding its date and nature. The anachronisms include entries for the following sites: the barracks of the praetorian guard castra praetoria (Notitia, Region 6) and the barracks of the horse-guard castra equitum singulariorum (Notitia, Horum Breviarum).  These military units were disbanded by Constantine following the 312 CE Battle of Milvian Bridge; the horse-guards’ barracks were turned over by Constantine for the creation of the Basilica of St. John in Lateran; the praetorian guard were disbanded and their barracks torn down except those parts incorporated into the Aurelian walls. Yet despite this text including features that date to after Constantine’s death, they include features Constantine destroyed. An explanation for this is that the Regionary Catalogues were living documents which were progressively added to over time.

Scholars have decided to instead look for an earlier date for the “parent text.” The current leading argument is for the reign of emperor Aurelian (ruled 270-275 CE) prior to the construction of the Aurelian walls (which were built between 271 and 275 CE. The reason for this dating is because the walls are not mentioned, but the text hints at Aurelian beginnings with various inclusions:

• Forum suarium (literally a swine forum) in Regio 7: Aurelian added a pork ration tothe food stuffs given to citizens;
• An account of bakeries in each region: Aurelian changed the so-called “grain-dole” to bread to prevent food hoarding in the city;
• The mention of oil stalls at the end of the Horum Breviarum might be included becauseolive oil was added to the distribution of bread;
• The building of a Temple of Sol (likely Palmyrene Ba’al) next to some barracks (likely those of the urban cohort) in Regio 7 was likely that built by Aurelian after his 273 CE triumph over the Palmyrene empire. It is also worth noting that both the praetorian guard and the horse-guards fought with Aurelian at Palmyra.

The idea that the Regionary Catalogues started as a list which might have aided in the work of the administration of the city (possibly the urban prefect) is a popular explanation for its existence. Over time, features were added, especially newly built landmarks, such as the aforementioned Arch of Constantine. Curiously however, the Regionary Catalogues include no Christian monuments or churches. Some argument has been made that the origins of this document was the office of the urban prefect, the room in the Temple of Peace which housed the Severan Marble Plan.

The Problems With the Regionary Catalogues 

There have been a lot of academic arguments about whether the Regionary Catalogues can be trusted and therefore be a useful resource to historians. Many of these arguments relate to known errors and the questionable nature of numbers in ancient sources. 

Some of these queries to accuracy relate most tempting material in the Regionary Catalogues: the listed numbers of vici and shrines, insulae, houses, warehouses, bath-houses, fountains or cisterns, and bakeries each region had. The Horum Breviarum at the end of the text includes city-wide numbers for these services and buildings. When you total up the numbers from each region and compare them to the city-wide numbers, they do not match (see Table 1).

Table 1: Comparison between the totalled numbers for the 14 regions and the city-wide numbers as recorded in the Notitia.

A lack of consistency within the text is a significant blow to its perceived accuracy. It might be unfair to make this direct comparison as it has been argued that the Horum Breviarum is a later compilation (Storey, 2002, p.420, n. 48).

Another problem is its description of the sizes of public entertainment venues. While I remember reading some arguments about how loca should be understood, I can’t recall their details and they seemed rather specious. *No, I’m not going to try find some articles I read 23 years ago.* When the word loca is used in relation to places like a theatre, it means spaces or seats. Well, according to the Notitia (Regio 9), the Theatre of Marcellus contained 20,500 seats while the Theatre of Pompey had 17,580. Unfortunately, we know that the Theatre of Pompey was bigger than the Theatre of Marcellus. That said, Frank Sear suggests that perhaps a section of the Theatre of Pompey had fallen into disuse and therefore lowered its capacity (Sear, 2006, p. 27. n. 22)  In addition to this, it describes the Circus Maximus as containing 485,000 seats whereas most scholars now consider it to have fit between 150,000 and 250,000 people. Again, in relation to the Colosseum (Flavian Amphitheatre), 87,000 seats is written, whereas most scholars now suggest 50,000. So again, there is reason to potentially question the veracity of the text.

There is one other type of construction were a direct comparison between what the Notitia records and what exists: the spiral columns. The column of Trajan (Regio 8) is described as containing 45 windows when it contains 43, whereas the column of Marcus Aurelius (Regio 9) is described as having 203 steps when most scholarship says 200 (there seems to be some uncertainty as it has not been safe to climb the internal staircase for some time). So these discrepancies can be argued to illustrate that perhaps we should not trust this source.

What Kind of Information Do The Regionary Catalogues Provide?

If we are to believe the numbers these texts present they can provide a wealth of insight into the nature of the city of Rome in the late 3rd and 4th Centuries CE. 

While a lot of research has been published on the use of the numbers statistically and use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) modelling (see Storey 2002), I prefer a simpler approach which uses the data provided within the Notitia in comparison with each other alone. I am not claiming this idea is original, but I haven’t seen it elsewhere within my limited research. My idea in using this data this way is to get a comparative idea of how the Regiones compared to each other (see table 2). 

Table 2: Comparing the buildings and services recorded in the Notitia.

Just by looking at Table 2 you can see that Regio 14 has the largest number of insulae, a figure that seems to reflect a larger area, but I did not think to make comparisons with the recorded circumference of each regio, until I just started typing this up. I might follow up with that idea at a later date. Looking at the sites recorded in the Catalogue of Regio 14 and the area it covers, it seems logical. The inclusion of a bracketed number for the cisterns (laci) in Regio 11 is because of a significant manuscript variation. While Jordan’s principle manuscript gives the number 20, a second manuscript which dates to the 10th Century gives 88, a number more similar to the number of public water resources in the other Regiones.

The other way I have used the figures to get a sense of life within Rome at this time is to compare the availability of services between Regiones. To do this, I used Storey’s interpretation of insula as an “architectural residential unit,” added the number of insulae to the number of houses to get a total number of residences per Regio. I then too that number to create an average of how many residences used each service: compitum shrine, bath-house, cistern or fountain, and bakery (see Table 3).

Table 3: How many residences were serviced by each compitum shrine, bath-house, cistern, and bakery.

Such an analysis suggests a that there is no major standout for the best or worst serviced Regio. When it comes to water-based services, Regio 11 stands out in stark contrast. While the use of 88 from the 10th Century manuscript would provide a number comparative to the other Regiones, 31.1 instead of 134.5 residences per cistern, it still leaves the number of bath-houses significantly low. If we leave the original numbers in place, this might suggest a paucity of water coming into Regio 11 which could be an avenue for further research.

Some Interesting Points Discussed

I didn’t have time to go through all of the entries in the Notitia, but we did go through some of the highlights. Here are some points I and students raised:

• Plenty of the entries are named after local statues or other artworks. This is not so different to modern practice in Rome if you consider the naming of Piazza della Bocca della Verità which is named for the “Mouth of Truth Mask”. Some of the interesting ones include Elephas herbarium, (Notitia, Regio 8) which seems most likely to have been a statue of an elephant, and  “Pomegranate” (Notitia, Regio 6) likely related in some way to a representation of either the fruit or tree.
• Students were disappointed that a quick google search destroyed the possibility that ciconias nixas, storks and maybe women in childbirth, (Notitia, Regio 9), did not relate to the iconography of storks bringing babies. I was shocked that I hadn’t thought of the connection before.
• Jupiter Protector of Trees (Notitia, Rego 11): students considered whether this might relate to tree in general, or might relate to Zeus at Dodona.

This is just a touch of some of things discussed.

Should the Regionary Catalogues Be Used?

Personally, I am all for using the Regionary Catalogues, so long as you recognise that there are potential problems. Sure, maybe the numbers are wrong, but even my simple analysis above show that with the exception of some water supply issues coming into Regio 11, there was no slum area of Rome, something which our other sources support. So use this material, but acknowledge there might be issues.

In addition to the data analysis possibilities, I think the Regionary Catalogues are also useful for providing insights into what was considered of important to Romans at the time it was written. The Notitia records places which no other source mentions, but it also shows the importance of sites dating from Romes mythic past, such as the Lupercal (the small cave in which the wold suckled Romulus and Remus) and the Hut of Romulus (yes hut, not house), through to monuments raised by Constantine, thus recording over a thousand years of history as perceived by Romans at the time it was finalised. I personally think a reflection on what was considered for inclusion might reflect something of the character of Roman views of the past at that time. The historical truth of the events tied to these places are irrelevant in such a study.

Bibliography 

Sear, Frank, 2006. Roman Theatres: An Architectural Study, Oxford University Press.

Storey, Glenn R. “Regionaries-Type Insulae 2: Architectural/Resident Units at Rome,” American Journal of Archaeology, July, 2002, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 411-434 (Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4126281)