Fruits of Empire: Grain in the Roman Republic

Abstract

The leges frumentariae (grain laws) are usually categorised as the slightly less controversial cousin of land distributions. When they do attract attention the traditional view interprets them as part of the general popularis program. This version regularly jumps directly from Gaius Gracchus’ law of 123 to Clodius’ reform in 58 with little consideration of the history in between, except, perhaps, for a discussion of Saturninus’ failed proposal of 103. The subject of public grain is not separated from the other popularis issues of the time and is cited as yet another area in which the “conservative” senatorial establishment failed to meet the needs of its community. A closer examination of the history and the politics of this period reveals this cannot be the case. In fact, most known grain laws were passed by non-popularis politicians. This fact alone reveals that the issue must be more complex than previously thought. Similarly, there was strong opposition to any proposals that suggested handing out land, but the grain distribution system, once it was put in place, was largely left untouched, operating year after year. Finally, claims that Gaius Gracchus replaced the previous system of sporadic, extraordinary distributions with something more systematic and so prevented magistrates from claiming credit for their actions need to be tested as there is no noticeable decrease in the number of extraordinary distributions after Gracchus’ law. This thesis will show that while the grain distribution system might have begun as a popularis policy, Gracchus’ reform was not a revolution but evolved out of an existing tradition of providing grain to the people. It was then adopted by the establishment as the stability that it offered made the task of governance easier and less vulnerable to crisis. The management of Rome’s food supply rose above partisan politics. It became seen as a crucial problem to be managed by the government of the day, irrespective of political ideology.