Talk:Cura annonae

Why the name?

I'm wondering why we've given this article a Latin name as the link Grain supply to Rome is a perfectly descriptive title and is in English. It should be the reverse in my opinion. Grain Supply to Rome should be the title and Cura Annonae should link to it. Smallchief (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. I've decided to revise the summary to make it clearer what the article is about. Smallchief (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Smallchief. It seems you were right the first time. The term and office of cura annonae aren't used until the early Imperial era; I've had to add a sourced note to the effect that most uses of annona in inscriptions (rovincial Gaul and elsewhere) refer to local and provincial grain trading, and have nothing to do with the grain consumed by citizens residing in the city of Rome. Nor (presumably, but needs further evidence) Constantinople. I know it's rather late in the day, but could we reverse the status quo, title-wise, exactly as you suggested above? Sincere regrds, Haploidavey (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with it if you want to change the title. As noted above, my inclination was to use the English title. Cheers! Smallchief (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a nobody, but I'd prefer if it'd remain in latin. Specific terminology is best. But it should be a bit clearer, whether "Cura Annonae" refers to:

A) all grain import into Rome, including for grain dole,

B) state subsidized import into Rome (to lower market prices), including for grain dole,

C) only the import meant for grain dole?

A sentence in the first paragraph implies A or B: "This included recipients of the grain dole or corn dole [...] ." But the structure of the article seems like C. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, MrThe1AndOnly, all good points. A, B, and C. This is why some of us would rather not use the Latin term; it would likely have meant different things at different times. The structure of the article is rather lop-sided, maybe even back-to-front. It starts (as it should) with historic state responses to grain shortage, up to and beyond the end of the Republic (in a succession of laws requiring the distribution of grain - frumentationes - to qualifying Romans). Cura annonae was an imperial administrative office, a permanent institution that had to respond effectively to some extreme changes. The cura had to take a controlling interest in Rome's grain economy - the whole of it, at different times and places, including military needs and manipulations of the "open" market. How all this worked is still far from clear. But I think we can describe the cura Annonae as a kind of imperial lex frumentaria. Haploidavey (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should change the name to "Grain Supply for Ancient Rome" or something similar as you and I have both semi-proposed. The subject of the article would be clearer and we wouldn't have to explain Cura Annonae. Are you persuaded MrThe1And0nly? Smallchief (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

(I think "Grain supply in ancient Rome" would do nicely, along with some essential changes to the introduction, of course. Haploidavey (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC))

Personally I would just rename the "History of the grain dole" paragraph to "Grain dole." And maybe move it a little further down in the article, but that's not strictly necessary. I think renaming it so makes it clear, that the grain dole is only a subset of the whole Cura Annonae. I still like the latin sound of it :) MrThe1And0nly (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, and wherever possible, article names should be in common English and be self-explanatory. This is the basis of Smallchief's objection to the current article title, at the very beginning of this page. Very few readers coming to this article will be Latinists, or even have encountered the relevant Latin terms. Thus "Grain supply in ancient Rome" or similar, not "Cura Annonae" or "Frumentaria" or any other (technical) Latin term whose origin and meaning are far from certain. Regardless of personal preferences! Most of the sources used in the article simply refer to "grain supply" or "grain dole" or "subsidised grain". We use Latin, Greek or other "foreign" languages only when we must - when no common English translations exist. We assume our readers are not familiar with the Latin terminology, and so we explain or translate it as we go. It's a service to readers; nothing to do with personal preference. See Wikipedia:Article titles. Haploidavey (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I only know there's quite a few other subjects, where the latin termin is handy (eg limes Germanicus, lex Julia, Pax Romana). I'll leave it up for you to decide. I'm not really knowledgeable enough on how widespread "Cura Annonae" is as a termin in the lingo around Ancient Rome. Heck, I may have even stumbled on it first on this very article in the first place! MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments, anybody, regarding change of article's name to "Grain supply in ancient Rome"? Smallchief (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Strongly opposed. It's possible there's a more common name in recent scholarship for the free/subsidized provision of grain in ancient Rome than Cura Annonae—off the top of my head possibly grain dole which is so commonly applied specifically to ancient Rome's that it already links here—but "grain supply in ancient Rome" isn't even grammatical, let alone properly descriptive of this topic, let alone that more common name.

Even more strongly opposed if your idea is that "we wouldn't have to explain Cura Annonae". Wikipedia exists precisely to explain these ideas and this article in whatever form should describe all the main English and Latin names of the grain dole that someone might find in scholarship on the topic. — LlywelynII 15:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Solid article

but, if this is our only article on the recipients, then we should have links from plebs frumentaria (or whatever their actual common names are) and we should have a section specifically on them and what we know of their size, qualifications, and changes over time in a clearer format. At minimum, we should have something about "we just don't know" instead of repeated vague generalities that create an illusion of information without much/any substance. I would assume slaves weren't eligible but that isn't discussed. I would assume Plebeians, Proletariat, or some similar article might provide a section we could link to instead but, nope, can't seem to find anything on them or even the concept of the Roman mob.

Almost as importantly, the current article might not be wrong that the dole recipients were a "small, low status but privileged group"... but it should do a better job of explaining all the self-contradiction involved. If it was a large group, fine. A mob can be a powerful force. If it was a small but influential group, fine too, but how can a small group specifically defined by its poverty be influential except by religious privilege? How can they be low status but privileged at all? &c. The usual idea—the massive amount of urban poor in Rome needed bread and circuses to keep from rioting—might be wrong but that should be explained, along with what the groups' actual source of power was if it were really so small. That idea should also be made to square with other sections of this article and the People of Rome section of Rome's article that use the dole as a rough proxy for the majority of the city's population. — LlywelynII 15:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)