One of Cicero’s lines of argument in his speeches on the tribune Rullus’ agrarian proposal is that “giving away” the Campanian land threatens the food security of Rome. He makes a direct connection between the defeat of the law and the sustainability of the annona. We should understand by the annona the structure set up by the lex terentia et cassia, which made available to some number of Roman citizens 5 modii of grain each month (about 33 kg) at a reduced price, about 2 denarii per 5 modii. The rhetorical tactic sets the hope of self sufficiency against the prospect of impending hunger. A clever, if dastardly, approach to the problem.
He only mentions it once in his speech to the senate:
He brings up the idea three times in his speech before the people. The first time is a direct echo of the passage in the Senatorial speech, using much the same vocabulary:
The following passages drive home the precarious nature of other grain sources and how they cannot be relied upon:
And then the kicker comes at the end of the speech. [Some translators have left out the critical passage in their rendering, so here’s the Latin first, followed by my own modification of the public domain translation]:
I, by the concord which I have established between myself and my colleague, have provided against those men whom I knew to be hostile to my consulship both in their dispositions and actions. I have provided for everything; I’ve taken care of the grain distributions; and I have re-established good faith. I have also given notice to the tribunes of the people, to try no disorderly conduct while I am consul.
There seems to be a none-too-veiled threat here. “If you want to eat, trust me.”
I think this passages are important contextualization of two later developments in the year. First, the choice of Brocchus for Ceres on the obverse of his coin and a ‘law and order’ reverse type, symbolism rather removed from that of the tribunes.
[One might here reflect on the success of Sulla to divorce the plebeian aedileship from its associations with the radical politics of the tribunes.]
Cicero setting the tone at the beginning of the year as one of anxiety over the grain supply, possibly needless anxiety, may also contextualize Cato’s radical proposal and success passing such a proposal at the very end of the year:
If there is a moral in this, perhaps it is that Cicero’s fear mongering might be considered to have backfired on him as it set the landscape for more radical action instead of a preservation of the satis quo.