teenth century, the distinctive appellation being derived from the number of patten-makers formerly living in the parish. What Mr. Sladen terms "canopied pews" Mr. Birch describes as "the churchwardens' seats, which have a kind of tester or canopy over them in oak."
George Godwin, F.S.A., in his 'Churches of London' (1839), in giving the history of this particular one, remarks:
"Stow says the lane in which it stands was called St. Margaret Pattens, because, of old time, pattens were usually made there and sold."
Mr. Francis Bond in his 'Screens and Galleries' (1908), p. 22, says:—
"At Lavenham, Suffolk, two sets of late screens have been taken down and put together round family pews. At Wolborough, Devon, parclose screens are shown fencing a family pew."
There are two of these pews in the old church on Cartmel Fell; and Mr. Francis Bond, in a circular relating to the volume on 'Ecclesiastical Woodwork' which he is now preparing, gives a list of similar pews at Lavenham, Ryecote, Selworthy, Whalley, Kedington, and Stillingfleet.
Population of Ancient Rome (10 S. xi. 187).—The population of ancient Rome at its highest has been very variously estimated. Lipsius ('De Magnitudine Romana,' lib. iii. cap. 3) reckoned the inhabitants of
Rome and its suburbs ("circa earn") at four million, and the conjectures of some have reached even higher figures than this.
Gibbon in his thirty-first chapter was satisfied with 1,200,000. The matter is discussed at some length by Friedländer in the fifth appendix to Part I. of his invaluable 'Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms' (ed. 1888, pp. 58-70), where views of other writers will be found, in addition to the chief data which have served as a basis for calculation. Friedländer himself considers it probable that the population of Rome at the beginning of the Empire was over a million, and that it continued to increase until the time of Trajan, when it may possibly have exceeded a million and a half.
It need hardly be said that the problem is complicated in more than one way, and that "with the existing evidence no solution can be more than approximate.
According to Baedeker's 'Central Italy,' Rome "was inhabited during the imperial epoch by three quarters to one million souls."
John B. Wainewright.
It is very difficult to obtain an accurate estimate of the population of ancient Rome; but, when it was largest, in the second century of the Empire, it probably amounted to somewhat more than a million of free persons and nearly a million of slaves, making about two millions in all.
Very various opinions have been given on this point. Merivale ('Romans under the Empire,' chap, xl.) estimates the number, in the time of Augustus, at 700,000. Gibbon (chap. xxxi.) estimates the number, in the latter part of the fourth century A.D., "at twelve hundred thousand"; but Dr. William Smith, in a note following Gibbon's 73rd note in the same chapter, reckons the population, in the time of Augustus, as not far short of 2,000,000. Merivale and
Gibbon give references to many other estimates, ranging from 562,000 to 14,000,000. Hume, in his essay 'Of the Populousness of Ancient Nations,' discusses this subject at some length, but comes to no conclusion, though he disapproves of the "exaggerated calculations" of modern writers.
In the reign of Tiberius the population of Rome was probably between a million and a half and two million souls. See Tacitus, 'Annals,' vol. i., ed. by Furneaux, Introduction, p. 106. See also Bury's 'Gibbon,' vol. iii., p. 308, and note 74. Gibbon estimates the numbers in the reign of Theodosius (d. 450 A.D.) at 1,200,000. Bury adds:—
"This computation does not differ much from that of Bunsen, for the age of Augustus (1,300,000 ), and that of von Wietersheim (1,350,000). Gregorovius puts the population of Rome at the beginning of the fifth century as low as 300,000; Mr. Hodgkin at about 1,000,000, cp. 'Italy and her Invaders,' i. p. 814."
For the numbers in the fourteenth, sixteenth, and eighteenth centuries see Gibbon, vol. vii. pp. 264 and 324. Alex. Russell.
Devonshire Miniaturists (10 S. xi. 209).—Is Mr. Cann-Hughes acquainted with Mr. George Pycroft's 'Art in Devonshire,' reprinted with additions from the Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature, and Art
