The Unification of , Population, Territorial Imbalances. Some Data and Remarks on Southern Italian Population in the Italian Context (1760-1880)

Idamaria Fusco CNR-ISSM (-Italy)

Key words: Population; Italy; ; Unification of Italy.

1. Introduction This paper, which summarizes the first results of a wider research of mine, can be considered one of a series of studies and congresses, taking place in Italy in this last year, to celebrate the anniversary of the Unification of Italy (1861). The focus of my research is on Southern Italian population. In particular, in this paper I tend to give some new data and remarks on the population of Southern Italy (Sicily and Sardinia islands excepted) during more than a century, from the second half of the XVIIIth to the second half of the XIXth century. Entering more into details, I tend to plot a graph on Southern Italian population in this period, to calculate the natural growth rate every year and the density of population and to give some references to the typology of Southern Italian settlements. To conclude, although Southern Italy is the focus of my research, in my paper it will be considered part of a larger country (Italy) and it will be compared with other parts of Italy.

2. The Southern Italian Population’s Growth (1765-1881) To begin, let us construct a graph of Southern Italian population from 1765 to 1881. To plot the graph, I started from some known figures and then I made some annual interpolations to determine the trend. The result is summarized in the following Graph 1.

Graph 1. Southern Italian Population (1765-1881) - Thousands

8000 7500 7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 1770 1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880

As you can see in this graph, from 1765 to 1881 the trend of Southern Italian population is generally growing, with periods of increasing growth and periods of slowdown in growth. After the crisis in agriculture between 1764 and 1765 (P. Malanima), which is not indicated in this grapf, you can notice periods of a little decline in the growth between 1805 and 1810 and from 1833 to 1838.

1 Regarding the period 1805-1810, these years are part of the so called “Decennio francese” (“French Decade”) (1806-1815) and were said to be “some of the most horrifying and dramatic years” in the history of Southern Italy (P. Villani). Besides, as Paolo Malanima noticed, the years between 1800 and 1816 are distingushed by high prices in agriculture, which may have affected negatively on the population’s growth. Regarding the period 1833-1838, also these years were difficult and distingushed by a series of poor harvests in agriculture between 1829 and 1832, which generally have negative effects on economic conditions of population (A. Scirocco). The widespread poverty, combined with poor hygienic conditions, favored the emergence of epidemics: for example, apart from some epidemics of less importance, which broke out in these years, the cholera epidemic in 1836-37, "notorious for the high percentage of victims” (A. Scirocco). The cholera broke out in Naples between October and December 1836, then spread to Apulia and to other parts of Southern Italy and broke out again in April 1837. Apart fron the cholera, in these years you can think of the earthquake in Calabria in April 1836 and the one in Basilicata in November 1836. Finally, in 1838 there were bad harvests of wheat in some Southern Italian (Storchi). Certainly, however, compared with the other various causes cited the cholera epidemic must have had the most negative effect on the slow growth in these years. However, even in the just described periods of slowdown in growth, you can consider a total loss ranging from a minimum of about 12,000 to a maximum of about 220,000 people: a loss, this one, not so important considering that Southern Italian inhabitants were about 5-6 million, and hence an easily filled up loss. In any case, from 1839 to the last year considered (1881) the situation of Southern Italian population appears to be stabilized and a long phase of continuous growth can be noticed.

3. The Natural Growth Rate Every Year Let us analyse the natural growth rate every year of Southern Italian population. I have considered only some years, even though I have tryed to give a reconstruction not only for Southern Italy as a whole, but also by province (see Table 1).

Table 1. The Natural Growth Rate Every Year

PROVINCES 1765-1775 1775-17881788-1793 1793-1814 1814-1832 1832-1840 1840-1871 Terra di Lavoro 0,8 0,94 0,3 -0,18 0,88 -0,09 0,42 Principato Citra 1,54 1,11 -0,84 -0,5 0,89 0,54 0,17 Principato Ultra 1,39 1,21 -0,35 0,49 0,68 0,32 -0,04 Capitanata 0,92 0,43 0,16 Contado di 0,47 0,33 0,22 Basilicata 1,58 1,41 -0,06 0,54 0,69 0,82 0,14 Calabria Citra 1,38 1,12 0,9 -0,62 1,08 0,78 0,23 Calabria Ultra 0,95 -0,42 1,51 0,54 0,99 1,2 0,56 Terra d'Otranto 0,87 0,55 0,4 0,12 0,86 1,09 0,76 Terra di Bari 1,89 0,22 2,73 0,18 1,17 1,02 0,87 Abruzzo Citra 1,87 0,89 -1,3 0,92 -0,67 3,03 0,52 Abruzzo Ultra 1,1 0,56 0,96 0,43 TOTAL 1,27 0,85 0,18 0,22 0,78 0,68 0,39

2 Before analysing Table 1, two clarifications are needed. The first one concerns the figures of Terra di Lavoro, which include also the capital (Naples). The second one: as you can see in Table 1, I have aggregated some provincial data. In particular, the ones of the three provinces of Principato Ultra, Capitanata and Contado di Molise up to 1814 and the ones of the two provinces of Abruzzo up to 1793. In the case of Principato Ultra, Capitanata and Contado di Molise, I have aggregated the data because in the first period (1765-1814) there are no disaggregated data for the province of Contado di Molise, which is administratively part either of Principato Ultra or of Capitanata. In particular, the figures of Contado di Molise are included in the ones of Principato Ultra in 1765 and in the ones of Capitanata in 1775 (in fact, since 1771 Contado di Molise is officially joined together Capitanata). The situation, then, changes in the following years: in fact, in 1801 the data of Contado di Molise are aggregated to the ones of Principato Ultra once again. In the case of the two Abruzzi, I have considered the two provinces joined together, because there is only one overall figure for the two provinces in the year 1788. Let us go to more general considerations regarding the whole Southern Italy. As you can see in Table 1, except for the initial period (1765-1775), the natural growth rate every year remains fairly low, below 1%. Within this overall figure, you have to consider each province. The period of the greatest instability, with decreasing rates (negative rates), is particularly between 1788 and 1814, period which corresponds to a period of political changes. After 1814 the situation appears to be stabilized until after the Unification of Italy (basically, with the Restauration).

4. Southern Itay in the Wider Italian Context Let us consider Southern Italy in the Italian context. In this case, some overall remarks provided by Athos Bellettini are particularly useful. Bellettini, who relies on Karl Julius Beloch’s and Carlo Maria Cipolla’s works, notes that, compared to the previous century, in 1700 Italian population was in a phase of growth, thanks both to demographic changes (better hygiene and disappearance of plague epidemics) and to changes in the political and economic fields. In particular, referring to the Aachen Treaties, which marked the end of the Spanish control over Italy, Bellettini notes that a long period of peace followed these treaties, peace that favored a better integration of Italian country in the European context, which was living a process of economic growth. This stimulated also the increase of population. However, in these years, the picture of Italian population was quite heterogeneous and contradictory, the various Italian territories not presenting the same levels of increase of population. In particular, in Bellettini’s opinion, slow levels of growth can be found in the case of Southern Italy; these levels were the result of the regional imbalances in the Italian peninsula and, more generally, would have affected the Italian population’s growth. This growth would have been lower than the corresponding European population’s growth.

Table 2. Percentage Estimates. 1750-1881 – Italy and Southern Italy Years Absolute figures (thousands) Percentage figures (%) Italy Southern Italy Italy Southern Italy 1750 15.500 3.771 100,0 24,3 1800 18.100 4.950 100,0 27,3 1820 20.400 5.271 100,0 25,8 1840 23.300 6.143 100,0 26,4 1871 27.899 7.175 100,0 25,7 1881 29.791 7.585 100,0 25,5

Let us provide some quantitative data. According to Bellettini, the Italian population rose from 13,400,000 inhabitants in 1700 to 15,500,000 inhabitants in 1750 and to 18,100,000 inhabitants in 1800 (Table 2). In the national context, in the mid-1700 Southern Italian population (islands excluded) was just over 24% of the total population (considering 3,771,244 inhabitants in 1765),

3 while in the early XIXth century it was increased to more than 27% (considering 4,950,000 inhabitants in 1801). Moving on the XIXth century, during the Napoleonic period (Bellettini notes) there was not a “population’s great growth in Italy” (and even more this can be said in the case of Southern Italy, especially if you look at the graph on the population and at the growth rates after 1793 and at least until the Restauration, as I said before). Only after the Restauration, especially after 1820, Bellettini notes the beginning of “an acceleration of Southern Italian population’s growth rates”: in fact, Southern Italian population would be increased from 20.4 million in 1820 to 23.3 million in 1840. This growth continued after the Unification of Italy, Italian population being of 27,899,000 people in 1871 and of 29,791,000 inhabitants in 1881. Also Southern Italian population went on growing after the Restauration and the Unification of Italy, but its growth was less rapid. In general, compared to Italian population, Southern Italian population’s weight on total data tends to decrease, albeit slowly, Southern Italian population being nearly 26% of Italian population in 1820, just over 26% in 1840, 25.7% in 1871 and only 25.5% in 1881: these percentages are smaller than the one of 27%, before considered for the early XIXth century. It is possible to deduce this less rapid growth in Southern Italy compared to Italy also from the natural growth rate every year (Table 3).

Table 3. Natural Growth Rate Every Year (%) Years Italy Southern Italy 1840-1871 0,58 0,39 1871-1881 0,66 0,56

Generally, moving from the different pre-unification Italian territories to unified Italy (from 1840 to 1871), this rate is 0.39% in the case of mainland Southern Italy and 0.58% in the case of Italy, confirming that Southern Italy grew more slowly than Italy as a whole. This trend is confirmed by the data from 1871 to 1881, when Southern Italian population grew less (0.56%) than the overall Italian population (0.66%) (although there was a slight recovery!). In general, however, the trend is similar for both Italy and Southern Italy. These considerations are graphically confirmed by a Paolo Malanima’s work, as you can see in the following Graph.

4 Graph 2. Population. Italy, Central-Northen Italy and Southern Italy (1800-1861)

30.000

25.000

20.000 CN Italia 15.000 S 10.000

5.000

0 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860

In Graph 2 I have revised some Malanima’s data concerning Italy as a whole and Central- Northen Italy; besides, I have inserted a curve, plotted thanks to the available data concerning mainland Southern Italy. As you can see, Southern Italian population’s growth trend is similar to the one regarding Italian population as a whole. The graph, for its size, does not allow a perfect view of where the trend of Southern Italy deviates from the one of Italy. In fact, you can note that since 1820 Italian population began to grow fairly constantly until the period after the Unification of Italy; in the national context, Southern Italian population, albeit with minor variations, followed the national trend, but deviated clearly from it in two periods: from 1838 to 1843 and from 1851 to 1861. In particular, from 1838 to 1843 Southern Italian population grew proportionately more than the Italian one; from 1843 to 1851 the two curves shows a similar trend again and then the one detaches from the other from 1851 to 1861 (and beyond), when the Italian population continued its upward trend unlike the Southern Italian one, which, on the contrary, showed a steadier trend.

5. The Typology of Southern Italian Settlements Let us consider now the settlements in Southern Italy and then evaluate the density of population. As Gabriele De Sanctis noted in 1840, the population of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (Southern Italy, Sicily included), “on account of its topography and soil fertility”, was widely dispersed in small villages, subject to constant administrative changes. In short, soil fertility allowed a dispersed settlement on Southern Italian territory and certainly did not encourage clustering in specific areas, richer than others. Obviously, if you analyze each province, the situation changes depending on the area. And of course flat areas were more densely populated than the mountainous ones, as well as in the Adriatic area Terra di Bari, on account of its very active economy that had taken shape through the centuries, had the greatest urban settlements of the whole territory of Apulia. The data I have concern the year 1840 (De Sanctis) and are summarized in the following Table 4, which shows a certain administrative fragmentation at micro-territorial level, albeit with numerous villages and little towns.

5 Table 4. Administrative Division of Southern Italy (1840) Provinces Districts “Circondari” Villages (smaller districts) 4 40 46 Terra di Lavoro 5 49 221 Principato Citeriore 4 45 155 Principato Ulteriore 3 34 135 Contado di Molise 3 33 132 Abruzzo Ulteriore II 4 31 108 Abruzzo Ulteriore I 2 17 72 Abruzzo Citeriore 3 25 122 Capitanata 3 30 61 Terra di Bari 3 37 53 Terra d’Otranto 4 45 117 Basilicata 4 42 120 Calabria Citeriore 4 43 143 Calabria Ulteriore II 4 37 150 Calabria Ulteriore I 3 22 104 TOTAL 53 530 2.189

In 1840, in Southern Italy there were 53 districts, 530 “circondari” and 2,189 villages. Of the 40 “circondari” in the province of Naples, as many as 12 belonged to the capital (Naples), that was the largest city of Southern Italy. Certainly, the area around Naples was the most densely populated area. On the contrary, the most depopulated provinces were two (Domenico Pandullo noted in 1838, using the same data by De Sanctis): Principato Citeriore, though – he wrote – very fertile, and Capitanata, which would have been very fertile too “if almost every part of it had not been gazed because of old traditions”. These traditions had played an important part in depopulating the province: in fact, “in spite of its vast extent, today (1838) no more than 272,000 inhabitans live in it”. The extreme administrative fragmentation of the villages and also the large number of villages in Southern Italy are clear even if, putting aside the data, you read what Gabriele De Sanctis wrote. In 1840 he noted that in Sothern Italy there were 3,333 villages overall. Of these villages De Sanctis called only 2,189 villages (the ones indicated also in Table 4) “comuni”, that is to say centres “where there were municipal authorities”, while he preferred to define the remaining 1,144 villages “villaggi” “united to the first ones” (that is to say to the “comuni”). These “villaggi” were called “rioni” in Calabria Citeriore, “ville” in Abruzzo, “casali” in the area around Salerno and Naples and “borghi” or “suborghi” in the other parts of Southern Italy. De Sanctis noted also that there was a greater number of these “villaggi” in Abruzzo Ultra, in the districts of Salerno and Vallo (in Principato Citeriore), in various “circondari” of Cape of Leuca (in Terra d’Otranto), in the valley of Crati (near Cosenza), in the marine areas of the districts of Nicastro and Monteleone (in Calabria Ultra II), in the Southern coast of the Reggio area and in the marine area of the province of Messina (in Calabria Ultra I). Differently, there was not this administrative fragmentation in the province of Terra di Bari, whose population – Pandullo wrote in 1838 – “lives in towns, the one close to another, more than scattered in little villages”. Apart from several small villages, in Southern Italy there was also a town of considerable size: Naples, densely inhabited from the XVIth-XVIIth centuries. In 1859 Naples was counted among the eight biggest Italian cities (with more than 100,000 inhabitants) together with Palermo, , Florence, Venice, Milan, Turin and Genoa. In 1861 Naples had 447,065 inhabitants, almost twice the population of Milan in 1859, more than double the population of Turin and almost four times the population of Genoa. 6 6. The Density of Population in Southern Italy Leaving aside now every single settlement, let us evaluate the density of population in Southern Italy. To evaluate the density, I compared the data, province by province, in 1793 with the ones in 1871, as shown by the following histogram.

Graph 3. Density (Pop/SKm). Years 1793 and 1871

250

200

150 1793 1871 100

50

0

a to ri tra ta r tra voro an Ultra r i Ba nata Ci ica d a La to Ul sil ia i Molise o br d'Ot rra Ba a a e Capit rra di al rr T incipa Calabria CitC Abruzz Abruzzo Ultra Te PrincipatoPr Citra Te Contado d

The vertical columns in yellow correspond to the density of the population in 1793 (ratio of population and square kilometres), while the ones in purple to the population in 1871. The two dotted lines that cut the graph horizontally, instead, represent the average density of Southern Italy in 1871 (the top one) and in 1793 (the lowest one). As you can see in the graph, the density increased from 1793 to 1871. Terra di Lavoro was the most densely populated province, well above the average of Southern Italy in both analysed years. In 1793, the two Principati Citra and Ultra and Abruzzo Citra were above average, while Terra di Bari barely touches the line of the average of Southern Italy. In 1871, in addition to the two Principati and to Abruzzo Citra, also Terra di Bari has crossed the line that indicates the average density of Southern Italy. The other provinces are below and in 1871 some of them, such as Basilicata and Capitanata, do not even succeed in touching the average of Southern Italy in 1793, showing a very low density of population. Let us compare now the density of population in Southern Italy with the one in other Italian and European territories. I have used some data provided by Mario Luigi Rotondo regarding 1834. As the following Table 5 shows, mainland Southern Italy had a higher density than the one of all the here considered countries: a density much closer only to England.

7 Table 5. Density (Pop/SKm). Year 1834 Countries Area (square Population People each kilometres) square kilometre Mainland Southern Italy 85.925 5.818.136 68

England 126.560 8.480.000 67 Kingdom of Sardinia 72.261 4.500.000 62 Grand Duchy of Tuscany 21.751 1.280.000 59 Papal States 44.733 2.600.000 58 Kingdom of Bavaria 75.702 4.000.000 53 Kingdom of Prussia 275.280 12.727.000 46 Empire of Austria 667.554 30.000.000 45 Ireland 79.212 3.000.000 38 Scotland 82.563 1.600.000 19

7. The Population’s Growth in Southern Italy: a Good or a Bad Thing? These remarks about the density of population is linked to the subject of peopling in Southern Italy and, therefore, to the question, particularly strong in the past, especially among economists and writers living in the XIXth century, whether the population’s growth was a good or bad thing for the economic growth and the development of a country. This is one of the issues addressed, for example, in the Thirties by Mario Luigi Rotondo, who, also thanks to the support of quantitative data, attempted to confute the opinion of the scholars who argued that the population’s growth would have been a bad thing for a country as it would have caused the lack of job for everyone. Recalling Adam Smith’s opinion, according to whom “the increase of population is the most conclusive proof of the prosperity of a country”, and actually praising the Bourbon monarchy in force, Rotondo said that “it is incontestable that this gradual increase of population (in Southern Italy) is entirely due to the perfection of our politicies and of our public institutions and to the improvement of our economy”. In support of his ideas, Rotondo assessed whether agricultural lands were sufficient for the population, thus providing a series of data, which I consider interesting to calculate Southern Italian population and the division of Southern Italian lands. These data are summarized in the following Table 6:

8 Table 6. The Population’s Growth: a Good or a Bad Thing? Extents of the areas of lands Provinces cultivated cultivated lands with lands with Neapolitan Hectares lands lands forests forests bushels (bushels) (hectares) (bushels) (hectares) Terra di Lavoro 2.312.877 786.311 1.524.457 518.271 258.316 87.820

Principato Citeriore 1.690.374 574.678 1.105.996 376.006 131.086 44.565

Basilicata 3.172.235 1.078.467 1.632.172 554.891 528.242 179.587

Principato Ulteriore 1.076.981 366.142 707.275 240.453 97.625 33.190

Capitanata 2.387.780 811.776 1.199.794 407.895 369.305 125.553

Terra di Bari 1.764.264 599.798 958.806 325.966 177.459 60.331

Terra di Otranto 2.534.549 861.673 1.516.781 515.661 81.366 27.662

Calabria Citeriore 2.186.352 743.296 1.194.058 405.945 278.594 94.714

Calabria Ulteriore 2.941.453 1.000.008 1.692.819 575.509 278.093 94.544

Molise 1.439.348 489.336 832.534 283.037 276.983 94.166

Abruzzo Citeriore 850.248 289.060 502.810 170.941 91.902 31.244

Abruzzo Ulteriore 2.919.184 992.437 1.421.212 483.171 262.313 89.179

TOTAL 25.275.645 8.592.982 14.288.714 4.857.746 2.831.284 962.555

Rotondo started from the fact that in Southern Italy there was a population of 5,818,136 people in 1832. So, on the basis of the just indicated data, you can consider that every person in Southern Italy should have had 4.34 bushels (25,275,645 bushels divided by the population) and 1.48 hectares (8,592,982 hectares divided by the population) (considering the total area). However, if you consider only the cultivated lands, the bushels for every person would reduce to 2.46 and the hectares to 0.83. In both cases, according to Rotondo, the amount of bushels for each person would have been more than sufficient for every single person’s survival. And this derives mainly from the fact that Rotondo recalled Giuseppe Maria Galanti’s opinion, who considered “optimal” for Southern Italian population’s survival the ratio of 4.44 bushels for each person (that is to say about 1 hectare and a half). This ratio was calculated on the basis of Southern Italian total area and does not differ a lot from 4.34 bushels resulting from the calculations made thanks to the data provided

9 by Rotondo. This means that in 1834 certainly Southern Italy was not considered a depopulated country; however, it was desirable that population increased more.

8. Conclusion In this paper I have tried to collect, revise and make available some data on population of Southern Italy from 1760 to 1880. As I said at the beginning of this work, these are just some early results of a research still in progress. Nevertheless, it is possible to provide some initial conclusions on the subject. As you enter in the XIXth century, the Italian population began to grow more constantly, even if it reflected diversities and imbalances inside the Italian peninsula; imbalances that corresponded to the different political and economic history of the various territories of a country, Italy, which reached the Unification very late (only around 1861), later than other European countries such as, for example, France, England or Spain. In the Italian context, Southern Italy was perhaps one of the weakest areas in terms of population. However, especially since the Forties of the XIXth century, also the situation of Southern Italian population appeared to stabilize and live a long phase of continuous growth. Thus, although with some variations, since about mid-XIXth century the trend of population’s growth follows the national trend. Obviously the situation changed from province to province: in fact, it was mainly at the micro-territorial level – I believe – that the deepest differences emerged. Because Southern Italy did not exist in itself; there were, indeed, different “Southern Italies”, in some way still visible. Several demographic, economic and social “Southern Italies”. And then if in 1834 Southern Italy, with a density of population very close to the economically active England, was not considered certainly depopulated, although in those years scholars wished a further increase of its population, perhaps, for the purpose of an overall assessment of Southern Italian population, one should never lose sight of its deep internal diversity.

10