The comparison of antient and modern prices of grain is a difficult subject, and the results hitherto obtained are not satis factory. It is also necessary to be careful in considering the circumstances when any prices are mentioned. P. Scipio on one occasion (ac. 200) sent a great quantity of corn from Africa, which was sold to the people at four asses the modius (Livy, xxxi. 4). In the same book of Livy (c. 50) another sale is mentioned at the rate of two asses the modius. But on these, as on many other occasions, these prices were not the market prices at which wheat would have sold, but they were the lower prices at which the State sold the grain in order to relieve the citizens. Rome, both under the Republic and the early Empire, suffered occasion ally from scarcity or from high prices of grain. It is possible that a supply might have readily been procured from foreign parts if there had been a body of consumers in Rome to pay for it. But the export of grain to Rome was not a regular trade ; it was, as above explained, a system by which the Romans drew from their provinces a contribution of corn for the consumption of the capital, and it was not regulated by the steady demand of an industrious class who could pay for it. The reign of Tiberius appears to have been a period of scarcity ; the complaints were loud, and the emperor fixed the price of corn in Rome, and he promised to give the merchants a bounty of two sesterces on the modius. This seems to mean that the emperor fixed the prices for all grain, including whatever private merchants might have ; but to make them amends for any loss, he paid them part of their prices out of the trea sury. After the fire at Rome, in the time of Nero, Tacitus speaks of the price of corn being lowered to three sesterces the modius. Under the reign of Diocletian, the emperor, by an edict, fixed the prices of all articles through the Roman Empire. The reason for this measure is stated, in the preamble to the edict, to be the high market price of provisions, which is attributed to the avarice of the dealers, and was not limited even when there was abundance (Inscription of Stratoniceia ; see an Edict of Diocletian, fixing a maxi mum of prices throughout the Roman Empire, A.D. 303, by Colonel Leake, London, 1826, 8vo.).
It does not appear whether the grain which was brought to Rome from the pro vinces was brought in public ships, or in private ships, by persons who contracted to carry it. There seems, however, to be no doubt that there was also importation of corn by private persons, and that there were no restrictions on the trade, for the object was to get a full supply. A consti tution of Valentinian and Valens (De Canon Prumeutario Urbis Romse, Cod. xi. tit. 23), declares that merchants (nau tici) were to make a declaration of the grain which they imported before the governors (of provinces) and the magis trates, and that they had only good corn on board ; and it was the business of the anthorities to see that the grain was good. The provisioning of Constantinople, Alex andria, and probably other great cities, under the later Empire, was subject to regulations similar to those of Rome, and there were public granaries in those cities.
It is almost impossible to collect from the scattered notices in the Roman writers a just notion of the nature of the trade in grain. So far as concerns Rome, we can hardly suppose that there was a regular trade in our sense of the term. The chief supply of grain was provided by the State. That which is best left to private enter prise was undertaken by the government. It is true that the condition of Rome was peculiar under the late Republic and the Empire. The city was full of paupers, who required to be fed by occasional allowances of corn. The effect, however, of the State purchasing for the people was not a certain supply, but occasional • scarcity. Whether a State undertakes to buy for the people what they may want for their consumption, or regulates the trade by interfering with the supply, is immaterial as to the result. In either case the people may expect to be starved whenever corn is scarce. The Roman system vas to import all that could be got into Rome, but it was not left to private enterprise. There was no exclu sion of foreign grain in order to favour the Italian farmer ; nor can it be said that the Italian farmer suffered because foreign grain was brought into Rome and other parts of Italy ; he could employ much of his land better than in growing corn for Rome and sending it there. Corn came from countries which were better adapted to corn-growing than many parts of Italy ; and besides this, the transport of grain from many foreign parts to Rome, such as Sardinia, Sicily, and the province of Africa, would be as cheap as the transport of grain by sea from the remote parts of Italy, and much cheaper than the transport by land. The English foreign corn-trade is regulated with the avowed purpose of giv ing the English wheat-grower a high or what is considered a sufficient price, with out any consideration of the pecuniary re sources of those who have to buy corn. By interfering with the free trade in grain, the English system keeps the price unsettled, and exposes the people in times of scarcity to the danger of &mine ; for when a bad harvest occurs in England, the deficiency must be made up from abroad, and the price must be paid for it, whatever that price may be, which must always be paid for an article that is suddenly in demand, and is not an article of regular supply. The two systems were equally bad, but bad in a different way. The Roman system was founded on ignorance of the true nature of trade, and it was closely connected with the vices of the political constitution. The English system is founded partly on ignorance, and partly on the wish of the landowners, who pos sess a preponderating political power, to keep up their rents, which are derived from the lands which their tenants cul tivate.
The essay of Durean de la Malle, ' De l'Economie Politique des Romaine,' and the treatise of Vincentius Contarenns, ' De Frumentaria Romauorum Largitione,' in Grieving, Antiq. Rom. Thesaurus, vol. viii., contain most of the facts relating to the supply of corn to Rome ; and both have been used for this article.