|
Salvete,
Let´s learn from Ancient.
Vale bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP
***
Articles on Roman Government - XIII - Censor
This text is provided here with cultural and educational purposes
only. The text is copyright of its owner.
Censor
(timêtês). One of the officials whose duty it was (after B.C. 444) to
take the place of the consuls in superintending the quinquennial
census. The office was one of the higher magistracies, and could only
be held once by the same person. It was at first confined to the
patricians; but in B.C. 351 was thrown open to the plebeians, and
after 339 one of the censors was obliged by law to be a plebeian. On
the occasion of a census, the censors were elected soon after the
accession to office of the new consuls, who presided over the
assembly. They were usually chosen from the number of consulares, or
persons who had been consuls. Accordingly the censorship was
regarded, if not as the highest office of State, at least as the
highest step in the ladder of promotion. The newly elected censors
entered immediately, after due summons, upon their office. Its
duration was fixed in B.C. 433 to eighteen months, but it could be
extended for certain purposes. For the object of carrying out their
proper duties--the census and the solemn purification (lustrum) that
concluded it--they had the power of summoning the people to the
Campus Martius, where, after B.C. 434, they had an official residence
in the Villa Publica. The tribunes had no right of veto as against
their proceedings in taking the census; indeed, so far as this part
of their duties was concerned, they were irresponsible, being bound
only in conscience by the oath which they took on entering upon and
laying down their office. Having no executive powers, they had no
lictors, but only messengers (viatores) and heralds (praecones).
Their insignia were the sella curulis and a purple toga. The
collegiate character of the office was so pronounced that, if one
censor died the other abdicated. From the simple act of taking the
census and putting up the new list of citizens, their functions were
in course of time extended, so as to include a number of very
important duties. Among these must be mentioned in particular a
general superintendence of conduct (regimen morum). In virtue of this
they had the power of setting a stigma upon any citizen, regardless
of his position, for any conceivable offence for which there was no
legal punishment. Such offences were neglect of one's property,
celibacy, dissolution of marriage, bad training or bad treatment of
children, undue severity to slaves and clients, irregular life, abuse
of power in office, impiety, perjury, and the like. The offender
might be punished with degradation--that is, the censors could expel
a man from the Senate or the ordo equester; [p. 315] or they could
transfer him from a country tribe into one of the less respectable
city tribes, and thus curtail his right of voting; or, again, they
could expel him from the tribes altogether, and thus completely
deprive him of the right of voting. This last penalty might be
accompanied by a fine in the shape of additional taxation. The
censors had also the power of issuing edicts against practices which
threatened the simplicity of ancient Roman manners--for instance,
against luxury. These edicts had not the force of law, but their
transgression might be punished by the next censors. The effect of
the censorial stigma and punishment lasted until the next census. The
consent of both censors was required to ratify it, and it directly
affected men only, not women. The censors exercised a special
superintendence over the equites and the Senate. They had the lectio
Senatus, or power of ejecting unworthy members and of passing over
new candidates for the senatorial rank--as, for instance, those who
had held curule offices. The equites had to pass singly, each leading
his horse, before the censors in the Forum, after the completion of
the general census. (See Travectio.) An honourable dismissal was then
given to the superannuated or the infirm; if an eques was now found,
or had previously been found, unworthy of his order (as for
neglecting to care for his horse), he was expelled from it. The
vacant places were filled up from the number of such individuals as
appeared from the general census to be suitable. (See Equites.) There
were certain other duties attached to the censorship, for the due
performance of which they were responsible to the people, and subject
to the authority of the Senate and the veto of the tribunes. (1) The
letting of the public domain lands and taxes to the highest bidder.
(2) The acceptance of tenders from the lowest bidder for works to be
paid for by the State. In both these cases the period was limited to
five years.
(3) Superintendence of the construction and maintenance of public
buildings and grounds, temples, bridges, sewers, aqueducts, streets,
monuments, and the like.
After B.C. 167, Roman citizens were freed from all taxation; and
after the time of Marius, the liability to military service was made
general. The censorship was now a superfluous office, for its
original object, the census, was hardly necessary. Sulla disliked the
censors for their power of meddling in matters of private conduct,
and accordingly, in his constitution of B.C. 81, the office was, if
not formally abolished, practically superseded. It was restored in
B.C. 70, in the consulship of Pompey and Crassus, and continued to
exist for a long time, until under the Empire it disappeared as a
separate office. The emperor kept in his own hands the right of
taking the census. He took over also the other functions of the
censor, especially the supervision of morals, a proceeding in which
he had Caesar's example to support him. The care of public buildings,
however, he committed to a special body.
CENSOR
CENSOR (timêtês), the name of two magistrates of high rank in the
Roman republic. Their office was called Censura (timêteia or
timêtia). The Census, which was a register of Roman citizens and of
their property, was first established by Servius Tullius, the fifth
king of Rome. After the expulsion of the kings it was taken by the
consuls; and special magistrates were not appointed for the purpose
of taking it [p. 398] till the year B.C. 443. Livy (iv. 8, 5) assigns
as the reason of this alteration the appointment in the preceding
year of tribuni militum with consular power in place of the consuls;
as these tribunes might be plebeians, the patricians were unwilling
that the right of taking the census and performing the formal
sacrifice of purification should pass into their hands. This
explanation is very doubtful, considering the comparative
unimportance of the office at this time. It is more probable that it
had been found to be inconvenient that the chief magistrates should
be detained at home by duties necessarily discharged at Rome, when
their presence might be required in the field, and this view is
confirmed by the fact that no lustrum was held for at least sixteen
years before the appointment of censors. The office was at first
restricted to patricians, but was probably thrown open to plebeians
by the Licinian laws of B.C. 367, and in B.C. 351 C. Marcius Rutilus
was the first plebeian censor (Liv. vii. 22). Twelve years
afterwards, B.C. 339, it was provided by one of the Publilian laws,
that one of the censors must necessarily be a plebeian, and that both
might be plebeians (Liv. viii. 12), but it was not till B.C. 280 that
a plebeian censor performed the solemn purification of the people
(lustrum condidit, Liv. Epit. 13). In B.C. 131 the two censors were
for the first time plebeians.
There were always two censors, because the two consuls had previously
taken the census together. If one of the censors died during the time
of his office, another had at first to be chosen in his stead, as in
the case of the consuls. This, however, happened only once, namely,
in B.C. 393; because the capture of Rome by the Gauls in this lustrum
excited religious fears against the practice (Liv. v. 31). From this
time, if one of the censors died, his colleague resigned, and two new
censors were chosen. (Liv. vi. 27, ix. 34, xxiv. 43, xxvii. 6.)
The censors were elected in the comitia centuriata held under the
presidency of a consul. (Gell. xiii. 15; Liv. xl. 45.) It was
necessary that both censors should be elected on the same day; and
accordingly, if the voting for the second was not finished, the
election of the first went for nothing, and new comitia had to be
held. (Liv. ix. 34.) The comitia for the election of the censors were
held under different auspices from those at the election of the
consuls and praetors; and the censors were accordingly not regarded
as their colleagues, although they likewise possessed the maxima
auspicia (Gell. xiii. 15). The comitia were held by the consuls of
the year very soon after they had entered upon their office (Liv.
xxiv. 10, xxxix. 41); and the censors, as soon as they were elected
and the censorial power had been granted to them by a lex centuriata,
were fully installed in their office. (Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 1. 1,
26; Liv. xl. 45.) As a general rule the only persons chosen for the
office were those who had previously been consuls; but a few
exceptions occur. At first there was no law to prevent a person being
censor a second time; but the only person who was twice elected to
the office was C. Marcius Rutilus in B.C. 265, who received in
consequence the surname of Censorinus (Plut. Coriol. 1; Val. Max. iv.
1, § 3). A law was shortly after-wards passed enacting that no one
should be chosen censor a second time (Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. i.2
502, note 2).
The censorship is distinguished from all other Roman magistracies by
the fact that it was not conferred for a definite period. The censors
were appointed to discharge a special duty, i.e. ut conderent
lustrum; and although in theory this duty was performed once in every
four years (quinto quoque anno), in practice the interval varied
considerably, partly owing to accidental irregularities, and partly
from a later interpretation of the language employed, which made the
interval one of five, not four years (cf. Mommsen, Stcatsr. ii. 331).
The period during which the lustra were held with the greatest
regularity is the half-century following the outbreak of the Second
Punic War; before this time there are numerous irregularities, and
after it they occur occasionally. According to Livy (iv. 24; cf. ix.
33), the censors were required by a law of the dictator Mam. Aemilius
to resign office within eighteen months of their appointment; but it
is a probable conjecture of Mommsen's that this limitation was
introduced from the first, and that they were allowed eighteen months
from the time of their election for a duty which the consuls had been
required to complete within a year. The censors also held a very
peculiar position with respect to rank and dignity. No imperium was
bestowed upon them, and accordingly they had no lictors. (Zonar. vii.
19.) The jus censurae was granted to them by a lex centuriata, and
not by the curiae, and in official precedence they ranked below the
consuls and praetors, and even below the magister equitum. (Mommsen,
Röm. Staatsr. i. 543, note 3.) But notwithstanding this, the
censorship was regarded as, in some respects, the highest dignity in
the state, with the exception of the dictatorship; it was a hiera
archê, a sanctus magistratus, to which the deepest reverence was due.
(Plut. Cat. Maj. 16, Flamin. 18, Camill. 2, 14, Aemil. Paul. 38; Cic.
ad Fans. iii. 10, 11.) The high rank and dignity, which the
censorship obtained, was owing to the various important duties
gradually entrusted to it, and especially to its possessing the
regimens morum, or general control over the conduct and morals of the
citizens; in the exercise of which power they were regulated solely
by their own views of duty, and were not responsible to any other
power in the state. (Dionys. Excerpt. xx. 13, Kiessling; Liv. iv. 24,
xxix. 37; Val. Max. vii. 2, § 6.) The censors possessed of course the
sella curulis (Liv. xl. 45), and during their term of office wore the
toga praetexta (Zonar. vii. 19; Athen. xiv. p. 660 c), but were
honoured at burial with the toga purpurea (cf. Polyb. vi. 53, and
Mommsen, Staatsr. i. 425, note 3). The funeral of a censor was always
conducted with great pomp and splendour, and hence a funus censorium
was voted even to the emperors (Tac. Ann. iv. 15; xiii. 2).
The censorship continued in existence for 421 years, namely, from
B.C. 443 to B.C. 22; but during this period many lustra passed by
without any censor being chosen at all. According to one statement,
the office was abolished by Sulla (Schol. Gronov. ad Cic. Div. in
Caecil. 3, p. 384, ed. Orelli), but the authority on which this
statement rests is not of much weight, and [p. 399] the fact itself
is not probable (cf. Cic. in Pis. 5, 10); for although there was no
census during the two lustra which elapsed from Sulla's dictatorship
to the first consulship of Pompeius (B.C. 82-70), there is no
reference to any law restoring it, and censors reappear in B.C. 70.
Its power was limited by one of the laws of the tribune Clodius (B.C.
58), which prescribed certain regular forms of proceeding before the
censors in expelling a person from the senate, and the concurrence of
both censors in inflicting this degradation. (Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13;
Cic. pro Sest. 25, 55, de Prov. Cons. 19, 46.) This law, however, was
repealed in the third consulship of Pompey (B.C. 52), on the
proposition of his colleague Caecilius Metellus Scipio (Dio Cass. xl.
57), but the censorship never recovered its former power and
influence. During the civil wars which followed soon afterwards no
censors were elected; and it was only after a long interval that they
were again appointed, namely in B.C. 22, when Augustus caused L.
Munatius Plancus and Paullus Aemilius Lepidus to fill the office.
(Suet. Aug. 37, Claud. 16; Dio Cass. liv. 2.) This was the last time
that such magistrates were appointed; the emperors in future
discharged the duties of their office under the name of Praefectura
Morum. Some of the emperors sometimes took the name of censor when
they actually held a census of the Roman people, as was the case with
Claudius, who appointed the elder Vitellius as his colleague (Suet.
Claud. 16; Tac. Ann. xii. 4, Hist. i. 9), and with Vespasian, who
likewise had a colleague in his son Titus. (Suet. Vesp. 8, Tit. 6.)
Domitian assumed the title of censor perpetuus (Dio Cass. liii. 18),
but this example was not imitated by succeeding emperors. In the
reign of Decius we find the elder Valerian nominated to the
censorship without a colleague (Trebell. Pollio, Valer. 1, 2); and
towards the end of the fourth century it was proposed to revive the
censorship (Symmach. Ep. iv. 29, v. 9), but this design was never
carried into effect.
The duties of the censors may be divided into three classes, all of
which were however closely connected with one another: I. The Census,
or register of the citizens and of their property, in which were
included the lectio senatus, and the recognitio equitum; II. The
Regimen Morum; and III. The administration of the finances of the
state, including also the superintendence of the public buildings and
the erection of all new public works. The original business of the
censorship was at first of a much more limited kind, and was
restricted almost entirely to taking the census (Liv. iv. 8); but the
possession of this power gradually brought with it fresh power and
new duties, as is shown below. A general view of these duties is
briefly expressed in the following passage of Cicero (de Leg. iii. 3,
7):--Censores populi aevitates, suboles, familias pecuniasque
censento: urbis templa, vias, aquas, aerari [so Mommsen: MSS.
aerarium] vectigalia tuento: populique partes in tribus discribunto:
exin pecunias, aevitates, ordines partiunto: equitum, peditumque
prolem describunto: caelibes esse prohibento: mores populi regunto:
probrum in senatu ne relinquunto.
I. THE CENSUS, the first and principal duty of the censors, for which
the proper expression is censum agere (Liv. iii. 3, 22, iv. 8), was
always held in the Campus Martius; like all public acts concerning
the Roman people, viewed as an exercitus: and from the year B.C. 435
a special building called Villa Publica, which was erected for that
purpose by the second pair of censors, C. Furius Pacilus and M.
Geganius Macerinus (Liv. iv. 22; Varr. R. R. iii. 2), was used as the
censor's office, the actual census, however, being conducted in the
open air. But all other business of the censors, including the
recognitio equitum, was transacted in the forum. An account of the
formalities with which the census was opened is given in a fragment
of the Tabulae Censoriae, preserved by Varro (L. L. vi. 86, 87, ed.
Müller). After the auspicia had been taken, the citizens were
summoned by a public crier (praeco) to appear before the censors.
Each tribe was called up separately (Dionys. v. 75); and the names in
each tribe were probably taken according to the lists previously made
out on the basis of the latest census by the curatores of the tribes.
Every paterfamilias had to appear in person before the censors, who
were seated in their curule chairs; and those names were taken first
which were considered to be of good omen, such as Valerius, Salvius,
Statorius, &c. (Festus, s. v. Lacus Lucrinus; Schol. Bob. ad Cic. pro
Scaur. p. 374, ed. Orelli.) The censors do not appear to have
considered themselves responsible for determining whether a man
claiming to be enrolled was really entitled to the franchise; hence
the occurrence of a name on the censor's roll was evidence merely
that the franchise had been claimed, not that there was any
justification for the claim (Cic. pro Arch. 5, 11). The census was
conducted ad arbitrium censoris; but the censors laid down certain
rules (Liv. iv. 8, xxix. 15), sometimes called leges censui censendo
(Liv. xliii. 14), in which mention was made of the different kinds of
property subject to the census, and the way in which their value was
to be estimated. According to these rules, each citizen had to give
an account of himself, of his family, and of his property upon oath,
ex animi sententia. (Dionys. iv. 15; Liv. xliii. 14.) First he had to
give his full name (praenomen, nomen, and cognomen) and that of his
father, or if he were a freedman that of his patron, and he was
likewise obliged to state his age. He was then asked, Tu, ex animi
tui sententia, uxorem babes? and if married he had to give the name
of his wife, and likewise the number, names, and ages of his
children, if any. (Gell. iv. 20; Cic. de Orat. ii. 64, 260; Tab.
Heracl. 142 (68); Dig. 50, tit. 15, s. 3.) Single women who were sui
iuris (viduae) and orphans (orbi orbaeque) were represented by their
tutores; their names were entered in separate lists, and they were
not included in the sum total of capita. (Comp. Liv. iii. 3, Epit.
59.) After a citizen had stated his name, age, family, &c., he then
had to give an account of all his property, so far as it was subject
to the census. In making this statement he was said dedicare or
deferre in censum, or sometimes censere or censeri, as a deponent, to
value or estimate himself, or as a passive, to be valued or
estimated: the censor, who received the statement, was also said
(censui censendo) as were property ex jure Quiritium. At first each
citizen appears to have merely given the value of his whole property
in general without entering into details (Dionys. iv. 15; Cic. de
Leg. iii. 3, 7 ; Festus, s. v. Censores); but it soon became the
practice to give a minute specification of each article, as well as
the general value of the whole. (Comp. Cic pro Flacc. 32, 79; Gell.
vii. 11; Plut. Cat, Maj. 18.) Land formed the most important article
in the census; but public land, the possessio of which only belonged
to a citizen, was excluded as not being Quiritarian property. If we
may judge from the practice of the imperial period, it was the custom
to give a most minute specification of all such land as a citizen
held ex jure Quiritium. He had to state the name and situation of the
land, and to specify what portion of it was arable, what meadow, what
vineyard, and what olive-ground; and to the land thus minutely
described he had to affix his own valuation. (Dig. 50, tit. 15, s.
4.) Slaves and cattle formed the next most important item, as
constituting along with the land the necessaries of agriculture, and
being res mancipi (=res censui censendo, Cic. pro Flacc. 32, 79). The
censors also possessed the right of calling for a return of such
objects as had not usually been given in, such as clothing, jewels,
and carriages. (Liv. xxxix. 44; Plut. Cat. Maj. 18.) They undoubtedly
possessed the power of setting a higher valuation on the property
than the citizens themselves had put. It is in fact expressly stated
that on one occasion they made an extravagant surcharge on articles
of luxury (Liv. xxxix. 44; Plut. Cat. Maj. 18); and even if they did
not enter in their books the property of a person at a higher value
than he returned it, they accomplished the same end by compelling him
to pay down the tax upon the property at a higher rate than others.
The tax (tributum) was usually one per thousand upon the property
entered in the books of the censors; but on one occasion the censors,
as a punishment, compelled a person to pay eight per thousand
(octuplicato censu, Liv. iv. 24). The censors were aided by certain
assessors (in consilio vocati) and iuratores (Liv. xxxix. 44; Plaut,
Trin. 878, Poen. prol. 56), who administered the oath, i. e. asked
the formal questions.
A person who voluntarily absented himself from the census, and thus
became incensus, was subject to the severest punishment. Servius
Tullius is said to have threatened the incensus with imprisonment and
death (Liv. i. 44); and in the republican period he might be sold by
the state as a slave (Cic. pro Caecin. 34, 99). In the later times of
the republic a person who was absent from the census might be
represented by another, and thus be registered by the censors (Varr.
L. L, vi. 86). Whether the soldiers who were absent on service had to
appoint a representative, may be questioned. In ancient times the
sudden breaking out of a war prevented the census from being taken
(Liv. vi. 31), because a large number of the citizens would
necessarily be absent. It is supposed from a passage in Livy (xxix.
37), that in later times the censors sent commissioners into the
provinces with full powers to take the census of the Roman soldiers
there; but this seems to have been only a special case. It is, on the
contrary, probable from the way in which Cicero pleads the absence of
Archias from Rome with the army under Lucullus, as a sufficient
reason for his not having been enrolled in the census (pro Arch, 5,
11), that service in the army was a valid excuse for absence. Before
the Social War the census of the allies was taken in their own towns:
and this practice seems to have continued after they had been
admitted to the franchise (Cic, pro Cluent. 14, 41).
After the censors had received the names of all the citizens with the
amount of their property, they then had to make out the lists of the
tribes, and also of the classes and centuries; for by the legislation
of Servius Tullius the position of each citizen in the state was
determined by the amount of his property. [COMITIA. CENTURIATA.]
These lists formed a most important part of the Tabulae Censoriae,
under which name were included all the documents connected in any way
with the discharge of the censors' duties. (Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 7;
Liv. xxiv. 18; Plut. Cat. Maj. 16; Cic. de Leg. Agr. i. 2) These
lists, as far at least as they were connected with the finances of
the state, were deposited in the aerarium, which was the temple of
Saturn (Liv. xxix, 37); but the regular depository for all the
archives of the censors was in earlier times the Atrium Libertatis,
near the Villa publica (Liv. xliii. 16, xlv. 15), and in later times
the temple of the Nymphs (Cic. pro Mil. 27, 73), which has recently
been discovered in camps (Ephem. Epigr. i. 35).
Besides the arrangement of the citizens into tribes, centuries, and
classes, the censors had also to make out the lists of the senators
for the ensuing lustrum, or till new censors were appointed; striking
out the names of such as they considered unworthy, and making
additions to the body from those who were qualified. This important
part of their duties is explained under SENATUS. In the same manner
they held a review of the equites equo publico and added and removed
names as they judged proper. [EQUITES]
After the lists had been completed, the number of citizens was
counted up, and the sum total announced; and accordingly we find
that, in the account of a census, the number of citizens is likewise
usually given. They are in such cases spoken of as capita, sometimes
with the addition of the word civium, and sometimes not; and hence to
be registered in the census was the same thing as caput habere.
[CAPUT]
II. REGIMEN MORUM. This was the most important branch of the censors'
duties, and the one which caused their office to be the most revered
and the most dreaded in the Roman state. It is not mentioned in
connexion with the institution of the censorship (Liv. iv. 8), but it
appears in the account of the second lustrum (ib. iv. 24). Its main
purpose was to determine how far each citizen fulfilled his duty
towards the state; but the limits of the inquiry were defined only by
the discretion of the censors. In this manner the censors gradually
became possessed of a complete superintendence over the whole public
and private life of every citizen. They were constituted the
conservators of [p. 401] public and private virtue and morality; they
were not simply to prevent crime or particular acts of immorality,
but their great object was to maintain the old Roman character and
habits, the mos majorum. The proper expression for this branch of
their power was regimen morum (Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 7; Liv. iv. 8,
xxiv. 18, xl. 46, xli. 27, xlii. 3; Suet. Aug. 27), which was called
in the times of the empire cura or praefcctura morum. The punishment
inflicted by the censors in the exercise of this branch of their
duties was called Nota or Notatio, or Animadversio Censoria. In
inflicting it they were guided only by their conscientious
convictions of duty; they had to take an oath that they would act
neither through partiality nor favour; and, in addition to this, they
were bound in every case to state in their lists, opposite the name
of the guilty citizen, the cause of the punishment inflicted on him,--
Subscriptio censoria. (Liv. xxxix. 42; Cic. pro Cluent. 6, 42-48;
Gell. iv. 20.) A citizen was usually required to appear before the
censors in his own defence, when threatened with the nota; and
in .some cases a censor required the appearance of a prosecutor,
before he would take any action (Cic. pro Cluent. 48, 133; cf. Val.
Max. iv. 1, 10). In fact, a kind of trial was held, but one not
fettered by the ordinary legal forms of procedure.
This part of the censors' office invested them with a peculiar kind
of jurisdiction, which in many respects resembled the exercise of
public opinion in modern times; for there are innumerable actions
which, though acknowledged by every one to be prejudicial and
immoral, still do not come within the reach of the positive laws of a
country. Even in cases of real crimes, the positive laws frequently
punish only the particular offence, while in public opinion the
offender, even after he has undergone punishment, is still
incapacitated for certain honours and distinctions which are granted
only to persons of unblemished character. Hence the Roman censors
might brand a man with their nota censoria in case he had been
convicted of a crime in an ordinary court of justice, and had already
suffered punishment for it. The consequence of such a nota was only
ignominia and not infamia (Cic. de Rep. iv. 6, 6) [INFAMIA], and the
censorial verdict was not a judicium or res judicata (Cic. pro
Cluent. 42, 117), for its effects were not lasting, but might be
removed by the following censors, or by a lex. A nota censoria was
moreover not valid, unless both censors agreed. The ignominia was
thus only a transitory capitis deminutio, which does not even appear
to have deprived a magistrate of his office (Liv. xxiv. 18), and
certainly did not disqualify persons labouring under it for obtaining
a magistracy, for being appointed as judices by the praetor, or for
serving in the Roman armies. Mam. Aemilius was thus, notwithstanding
the animadversio censoria, made dictator. (Liv. iv. 31.)
A person might be branded with a censorial nota in a variety of
cases, which it would be impossible to specify, as in a great many
instances it depended upon the discretion of the censors and the view
they took of a case; and sometimes even one set of censors would
overlook an offence which was severely chastised by their successors.
(Cic. de Senect. 12, 42.) But the offences which are recorded to have
been punished by the censors are of a threefold nature.
1. Such as occurred in the private life of individuals, e. g. (a) The
dissolution of matrimony or betrothment in an improper way, or for
insufficient reasons. (Val. Max. ii. 9, § 2.) (b) The obligation of
marrying was frequently impressed upon the citizens by the censors,
and the refusal to fulfil it was punished with a fine [AES UXORIUM].
But celibacy in itself can hardly have been visited with a nota; for,
however undesirable, it cannot have been regarded as a probrum. (c)
Improper conduct towards one's wife or children, as well as harshness
or too great indulgence towards children, and disobedience of the
latter towards their parents. (Plut. Cat. Maj. 17 ; compare Cic. de
Rep. iv. 6, 16; Dionys. xx. 3.) (d) Inordinate and luxurious mode of
living, or an extravagant expenditure of money. A great many
instances of this kind are recorded. (Liv. Epit. 14, xxxix. 44; Plut.
Cat. Maj. 18; Gellius, iv. 8, xvii. 21, 39; Vell. ii. 10; Val. Max.
ii. 9, § 4.) At a later times the leges sumptuariae were made to
check the growing love of luxuries. (e) Neglect and carelessness in
cultivating one's fields. (Gell. iv. 12; Plin. H. N. xviii. § 11.)
(f) Cruelty towards slaves or clients. (Dionys. xx. 3.) (g) The
carrying on of a disreputable trade or occupation (Dionys. l. c.),
such as acting in theatres. (Liv. vii. 2.) (h) Legacy-hunting,
defrauding orphans, &c.
2. Offences committed in public life, either in the capacity of a
public officer or against magistrates. (a) If a magistrate acted in a
manner not befitting his dignity as an officer, if he was accessible
to bribes, or forged auspices. (Cic. de Senect. 12, 42; Liv. xxxix.
42; Val. Max. ii. 9, § 3; Plut. Cat. Maj. 17; Cic. de Div. i. 1. 6,
29.) (b) Improper conduct towards a magistrate, or the attempt to
limit his power or to abrogate a law which the censors thought
necessary. (Liv. iv. 24; Cic. de Orat. ii. 64, 260; Val. Max. ii. 9,
§ 5; Gellius, iv. 20.) (c) Perjury. (Cic. de Off. i. 1. 3; Liv. xxiv.
18; Gell. vii. 18.) (d) Neglect, disobedience, and cowardice of
soldiers in the army. (Val. Max. ii. 9, § 7; Liv. xxiv. 18, xxvii.
11.) (e) The keeping of the equus publicus in bad condition. [EQUITES]
3. A variety of actions or pursuits which were thought to be
injurious to public morality might be forbidden by the censors by an
edict (Gellius, xv. 11), and those who acted contrary to such edicts
were branded with the nota and degraded. For an enumeration of the
offences that might be punished by the censors with ignominia, see
Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 364-368.
The consequence of the censor's nota was the removal of the citizen
thus censured from the tribe to which he belonged, and his
degradation to the aerarii. The former act was the main one, and
therefore in exact language is always mentioned first ( tribu movere
et aerarium facere: Liv. iv. 24, 7; xxiv. 43, 3; xliv. 16, 8; xlv.
15. 8), though sometimes the order is reversed. In the earlier times,
when the tribes represented the freeholders [TRIBUS], this
degradation brought with it the serious disadvantage that the
degraded citizen paid taxes on [p. 402] the whole of his property,
and not merely on his landed estate. But after the changes introduced
by Appius Claudius, by which the aerarii were included in the tribus
urbanae, and the distinction between aerarii and tribules thus ceased
to exist, the phrase tribu movere, or what was now the same thing in
aerarios referre, came to mean the removal from the country to the
less respectable city tribes. In the case of a senator this
degradation involved the loss of his place in the senate, which could
however be recovered by subsequent election to a curule office. (Cic.
pro Cluent. 42, 117.) In the case of an eques, it accompanied the
ademptio equi. Women, as not included among the tributes, did not
come at all under the control of the censors.
III. THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FINANCES OF THE STATE was another part
of the censors' office. In the first place the tributum, or property-
tax, had to be paid by each citizen according to the amount of his
property registered in the census, and, accordingly, the regulation
of this tax naturally fell under the jurisdiction of the censors.
(Comp. Liv. xxxix. 44.) [TRIBUTUM.] They also had the superintendence
of all the other revenues of the state, the vectigalia, such as the
tithes paid for the public lands, the salt works, the mines, the
customs, &c. [VECTIGALIA] All these branches of the revenue the
censors were accustomed to let out to the highest bidder for the
space of a lustrum or five years. The act of letting was called
venditio or locatio (cf. Fest. p. 376, venditiones dicebantur olim
censorum locationes), and seems to have taken place in the month of
March (Macrob. Sat. i. 12), in a public place in Rome (Cic. de Leg.
Agr. i. 3. 7; ii. 21, 55). The terms on which they were let, together
with the rights and duties of the purchasers, were all specified in
the leges censoriae, which the censors published in every case before
the bidding commenced. (Cic. ad Qu. Fr. i. 1, § 12, Verr. iii. 7, 18,
de Vat. Deor. iii. 19, 49; Varr. de Re Rust. ii. 1.) For further
particulars see PUBLICANI The censors also possessed the right,
though probably not without the concurrence of the senate, of
imposing new vectigalia (Liv. xxix. 37, xl. 51), and even of selling
the land belonging to the state (Liv. xxxii. 7). It would thus appear
that it was the duty of the censors to bring forward a budget for a
lustrum, and to take care that the income of the state was sufficient
for its expenditure during that time. So far their duties resembled
those of a modern minister of finance. The censors, however, did not
receive the revenues of the state. All the public money was paid into
the aerarium, which was entirely under the jurisdiction of the
senate; and all disbursements were made by order of this body, which
employed the quaestors as its officers. [AERARIUM; SENATUS.]
In one important department the censors were entrusted with the
expenditure of the public money; though the actual payments were no
doubt made by the quaestors. The censors had the general
superintendence of all the public buildings and works (opera
publica) ; and to meet the expenses connected with this part of their
duties, the senate voted them a certain sum of money or certain
revenues, to which they were restricted, but which they might at the
same time employ according to their discretion. (Polyb. vi. 13; Liv.
xl. 46, xliv. 16.) They had to see that the temples and all other
public buildings were in a good. state of repair (aedes sacras tueri
and sarta tecta exigere, Liv. xxiv. 18, xxix. 37, xlii. 3 [where
Madvig rightly emends locare tuenda for loca tuenda], xlv. 15), that
no public places were encroached upon by the occupation of private
persons (Liv. xliii. 16), and that the aqueducts,. roads, drains, &c.
were properly attended to. [AQUAEDUCTUS; VIAE; CLOACA.] The repairs
of the public works and the keeping of them in proper condition were
let out by the censors by public auction to the lowest bidder, just
as the vectigalia were let out to the highest bidder. These expenses
were called ultro tributa,--a remarkable phrase, probably intended to
imply the complete discretion which the senate desired to reserve to
itself in conceding or refusing the application of a magistrate for
the usual grants; and hence we frequently find vectigalia and ultro
tributa contrasted with one another. (Liv. xxxix. 44, xliii. 16; cf.
Lex Municip. 1. 73: publiceis vectigalibus, ultrove tributeis. ) The
persons who undertook the contract were called conductores, mancipes,
redemptores, susceptores, &c. ; and the duties they had to discharge
were specified in the Leges Censoriae. The censors had also to
superintend the expenses connected with the worship of the gods, even
for instance the feeding of the sacred geese in the Capitol, the
contract for which was always the first given out. (Plut. Quaest.
Rom. 98 ; Plin. H. N. x. § 51; Cic. pro Rose. Am. 20, 57.) Besides
keeping existing public works--in a proper state of repair, the
censors also constructed new ones, either for ornament or utility,
both in Rome and in other parts of Italy, such as temples, basilicae,
theatres, porticoes, fora, walls of towns, aqueducts, harbours,
bridges, cloacae, roads, &c. These works were either performed by
them jointly, or they divided between them the money which had been
granted to them by the senate. (Liv. xl. 51, xliv. 16.) They were let
out to contractors, like the other works mentioned above ; and when
they were completed, the censors had to see that the work was
performed in accordance with the contract: this was called opus
probare or in acceptum referre. (Cic. Verr. i. 5. 7, 149; Liv. iv.
22, xlv. 15; Lex Puteol. in C. I. L. i. 163.) When there were no
censors in office, their financial duties lapsed to the consuls, who
often appear as giving out contracts for buildings, &c.
The aediles had likewise a superintendence over the public buildings;
and it is not easy to define with accuracy the respective duties of
the censors and aediles: but it may be remarked in general that the
superintendence of the aediles had more of a police character, while
that of the censors had reference to all financial matters.
After the censors had performed their various duties and taken the
census, the lustrum or solemn purification of the people followed.
When the censors entered upon their office, they drew lots to see
which of them should perform this purification (lustrum facere or
condere, Varr. L. L. vi. 86; Liv. xxix. 37, xxxv. 9, xxxviii. 36,
xlii. 10); but both censors were obliged of course to be present at
the ceremony. [LUSTRUM] [p. 403]
In the Roman and Latin colonies and in the municipia there were
censors, who likewise bore the name of quinquennales. They are spoken
of under COLONIA
A census was usually taken in the provinces, even under the republic
(Cic. Verr. ii. 5. 3, 131; 56, 139); but there seems to be no single
instance of a general census under the empire, with the exception of
that mentioned by St. Luke (ii. 2) in the time of Augustus: on which
see Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 412, and Meyer, ad loc. (Cf. Joseph. Ant.
Jud. xvii. 13, § 5; xviii. 1, § 1; 2, § 1.) As a rule the census of
the various provinces was taken quite independently, often called
censitores, sometimes by persons of equestrian rank, charged with the
census of particular communities or groups of communities, sometimes
by imperial legati pro praetore appointed for whole provinces (Tac.
Ann. ii. 6; vi. 41; xiv. 46), sometimes by officials of still higher
rank for several provinces together. It was quite in accordance with
the principles of imperial government that while the lists, upon
which taxation and levies were based, should be kept with great
accuracy, and regularly transmitted to Rome, no public or general
statement should be made as to the results so obtained (cf. Mommsen,
Staatsr. ii. 410-413). At Rome the census still continued to be taken
under the empire, but the old ceremonies connected with it were no
longer continued, and the ceremony of the lustration was not
performed after the time of Vespasian. The two great jurists, Paulus
and Ulpian, each wrote works on the census in the imperial period;
and several extracts from these works are given in a chapter in the
Digest (50, tit. 15), to which we must refer our readers for further
details respecting the imperial census.
The word census, besides the meaning of valuation of a person's
estate, has other significations, which must be briefly mentioned: 1.
It signified the amount of a person's property, and hence we read of
census senatorius, the estate of a senator; census equestris, the
estate of an eques. 2. The lists of the censors. 3. The tax which
depended upon the valuation in the census. The Lexicons will supply
examples of these meanings.
(Becker, Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer, vol. ii. part ii. pp.
191-247, with additions and corrections by Mommsen, Staatsrecht, vol.
ii. pp. 319-461. Compare Niebuhr, History of Rome, vol. ii. p. 397;
Arnold, History of Rome, vol. i. p. 346, &c.; Göttling, Römische
Staatsverfassung, p. 328, &c.; Gerlach, Die römische Censur in ihrem
Verhaitnisse zur Verfassung, Basel, 1842; Lange, Röm. Alterthümer, i.
667-690; Dureau de la Malle, Économie Politique des Romains, vol. i.
p. 159, &c.) [W. S.] [A. S. W.]
This text is based on the following book(s):
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. William Smith, LLD.
William Wayte. G. E. Marindin. Albemarle Street, London. John Murray.
1890.
|