astin, censorships in the late republic

8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 1/17

Censorships in the Late Republic

Author(s): Alan E. AstinSource: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 34, No. 2 (2nd Qtr., 1985), pp. 175-190Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435920 .

Accessed: 08/04/2011 11:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:

Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435920?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435920?origin=JSTOR-pdf




CENSORSHIPS IN THE LATE REPUBLIC

The censorships of the second century B. C. exhibit - at least in some

respects - a remarkableregularity and orderliness. Examination of detail does

reveal some modifications of practice and emphasis over the years, but in

broad terms the judgement stands: from 209 to 97 censors were appointed

regularly; the established five-year interval was adhered to except on a very

few occasions when it was exceeded by one year, on in one case two years; andapart from 109 when the death of a censor in office automatically terminated

proceedings, every pair of censors completed its work and concluded its term

of office with the ritual of the lustrum. Not until the eve of the Social Waris

there a major break in the pattern, when the censors elected in 92 abdicated

with their work incomplete - probably because they had quarrelledviolently

about matters relating to their responsibility to supervise the moresof Roman

society. For the purposes of this study it matters little whether that episode is

interpreted as an aberrationor as a hint of changing attitudes, for immediately

afterwards the established pattern was shattered in the dark and disorderlyyears which followed: the years filled with the turmoil of the Social Warand

its consequences, with the Sullan and Marian seizures of power, with the

ferocious civil war which followed Sulla's return from the East, and finally

with the Sullan regime itself.

It is usually supposed that these events, and more especially some of the

constitutional and administrative arrangements effected by Sulla, initiated a

rapid decline in the censorship, and that already, in the late Republic the

censorship was of little real significance, either in a practical sense or in terms

ofthe esteem in which it was held; that some of its functions were obsolete,

while those which were not could be carried out through other agencies, and

often were. Thus for a decade after Sulla's reforms Rome managed without

censors; and when in 70 censors were again appointed, they were the last

under the Republic to complete their work. Thereaftercensors were elected in

65, 64, 61, 55 and 50, but those of 65 and 64 achieved nothing, and while at

least two of the remaindermade progress with some of their tasks all left office

without performing the lustrum. To explain such an unprecedented sequence

of incomplete censorships, two of them totally ineffective, it is tempting to

infer that the censorship was perhaps not the focus of attention it had once

been, that although the force of tradition led to the appointment of censors, it

was no longer essential that they should complete their work (some of which

could be done by others, while some simply did not matter), with the

Historia, Band XXXIV/2 (1985) ? Franz Steiner VerlagWiesbaden GmbH, Stuttgart



176 ALAN E. ASTIN

consequence hat other considerationswere allowedto overrideandfrustrateit.,

Although it will be arguedbelow that several of these conclusionsare

overstatedand thatimportantqualificationsmustbe made,thereareundeni-

ably particulareaturesof the censorshipn the lateRepublicwhichdo accord

with the type of assessmentoutlinedabove.The census of citizensandtheir

categorizationby wealthwas no longerrelevant o militaryrecruitingand it

had not been relevant o directtaxation or a century,asno tributumhadbeen

collectedfrom citizens since 167. In the lectio senatus he selectionof new

memberswas now to a considerabledegreepredetermined y the very close

association between tenure of a junior magistracy and membership of the

Senate,greatlyreducing he scope of the censors'discretion; ndeedCicerocould envisagethis as a wholly automaticprocess,dispensingwith censorialco-option (though not with the censors' power to exclude unworthymembers).2As for public contracts, it was possible for them to be let by

magistrates therthancensors;and n theyearsprior o 70,andprobablyagainin the mid-60s,presumablycontractscustomarilyarrangedby censorsweredealtwith in this way in the absenceof censorsthemselves. ndeed those aretwo quiteconsiderable pans of timeduringwhich Romehad to find waysof

managingher affairs n generalwithoutbenefit of censorialaction.Furthermore,houghthe evidence or the individual ensorships s uneven

andsparse,certainevents can be construedascompatiblewith thehypothesisthat extraneousconsiderationsand personaldisputeswere being allowedto

l Sources in MRR. No reason is recordedfor the abdication of the censors of 92, but a famous

altercatio between them seems to have centred upon mutual accusations of luxury and

extravagance. For the censorship in general see esp. Th. Mommsen, Romisches StaatsrechtII3

(Leipzig, 1887-8) pp. 331 ff.; W. Kubitschek, RE s. v. 'Censores' (1), 1902 ff.; J. Suolahti, The

Roman Censors (Helsinki, 1963); C. Nicolet, The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome(London, 1980); G. Pieri, L'Histoire du censjusqu'a la fin de la Republique romaine (Paris, 1968)is especially concerned with origins and early development. P. A. Brunt, Italian Manpower 225

B. C. - A. D. 14 (Oxford, 1971) has many valuable observations on the censorship. For the

Ciceronian period, T. P. Wiseman, 'The Census in the First Century B. C.', JRS 59 (1969) pp.59 ff.; also G. Tibiletti, 'The 'Comitia' during the Decline of the Roman Republic', SDHI 25

(1959) pp. 94 ff. Brunt, op. cit. pp. 104 ff. and 700 ff., advances arguments against Wiseman's

central thesis that nobiles repeatedly prevented completion of the census in order to prevent the

registrationof large numbers of new citizens whose votes could not easily be controlled; in so well

documented a period the absence of any explicit reference to so contentious an issue is itself

virtually decisive. I arnnot convinced by some points in the argument of M. Dondin, 'Pour une

identification du censeur de 64,' REL 57 (1979) pp. 126-144, that the 'missing' censor of 64 wasM'. Acilius Glabrio, cos. 67, that the censors of 64 at least completed the lectio senatus, and that

Dio's statement that they achieved nothing is unreliable. Brunt, op. cit. pp. 710 ff., argues from

Cic. Flacc. 72 ff. that these censors did set in motion the machinery of the census, but he accepts

that they made little progress.2 De Leg. 3.27; cf. 3.7.



Censorshipsn the Late Republic 177

override he activitiesof thecensorship tself;and someseemactuallyo point

towardsthatinterpretation.According o Dio the censorsof 65, Crassusand

Catulus,quarrelled bout the Transpadanesone wishing themto be granted

Romancitizenship, he othernot) and nconsequence erformed oneof their

censorial asks.Plutarch,n theonlyotheraccountof thiscensorship, imilarly

saysthat nothingwas achievedandattributeshis to a quarrel,houghhestates

that the subjectof the quarrelwasa planby Crassus o makeEgypttributary

to Rome.Thereareindicationshatbothof thesewere issueswhichhad arisen

also in othercontextsat aboutthis time; so whicheverwas the subjectof the

quarrel(or if both were), the episode could be interpreted o mean that

disagreement etweenthe censorsaboutcurrentpolitical ssuesoverrode heir

senseof obligation o cooperate n the work of the censorship.3

Dio goes on immediatelyo mentionthe censorsof 64, sayingthat'forthis

reason xaL6CtaTouTo) theirsuccessorsoo didnothing nthefollowingyear.'4

One interpretation f Dio's connectingphrase s that the quarrelabout the

Transpadanes as carried orward,5houghperhapsmoreprobably t means

simplythat these censorsalsoquarrelled.EitherwayDio appearso besaying

that the quarrel toppedthemworkingtogether n the censorship, houghhe

also says that they were hinderedby the tribunes,who were afraidof being

removed rom the rollof the Senate n the lectio.Thatcould be taken o meanthat they were preparedto sacrifice the work of the censorshipto their

personal nterestsand did not fear the practical r politicalconsequences.

In connexionwith the censorshipsof 61 and 55 thereareadditionaltems

which could be linked to this same line of interpretation, ut thereareno

detailswhichparticularly oint to it; andunfortunatelyhere s no statement

aboutwhy eitherof thesecensorshipswas not completed. Thecensorship f

50 was of courseovertakenby the outbreakof civilwar).SinceDio saysthat

the censors of 61 enrolled all ex-magistrates in the Senate even though they

exceeded he stated total, it is probable hat an issuesimilar o thatof 64 hadarisen;but this timeit wasresolved,did not bringall censorialwork to ahalt,

and cannotbe the causeof the lustrumnotbeingcelebrated.6 s forthecensus

of 55-54, at an early stage Cicero, who was not in Rome, askedwhether

3 Dio 37.9.3; Plut. Crass. 13; cf. Suet. Jul. 8,9 and II. The episode is mentioned in many

modern studies: see esp. E. G. Hardy, 'The TranspadaneQuestion and the Alien Act of 65 or 64

B. C.,' JRS 6 (1916) pp. 63 ff. = Some Problems in Roman History (Oxford, 1924) pp. 43 ff.;

Wiseman, op. cit. p. 65; E. S. Gruen, The Last Generationof the Roman Republic(Berkeley 1974)

pp. 410 f.; A. M. Ward, Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic (Columbia, Missouri,1977), pp. 128 ff.

4 Dio 37.9.4.

So Hardy, op. cit.

6 Dio 37.46.4 In letters of Januaryand (probably) June 60 Cicero indicates that work was still

in progress: ad Att. 18 (1.18).8; 21 (2.1).11.



178 ALAN E. ASTIN

tribuneswere impeding he censusby vitiatingdays forbusiness,but he makes

no mention of motives and we do not know whether the disruption, f it

occurred at all, was serious, let alone whether it ultimatelyaffected the

lustrum. At a later stage he possibly impliesa connexionbetween judicial

disputesarisingout of a lex Clodiaandthe fact that the lustrumwasdespairedof; but detailsarelackingand the connexion s not certain.7

Despite these latter uncertaintiest is apparenthatthe surviving nforma-

tion about the censorshipsof 65-55 does include temswhichcan be takenas

compatiblewith - and in some cases positivelyto encourage the type of

assessmentof the censorship n the late Republicwhich has been outlined

above: in summary, that changeswere renderingseveralof the censor'straditional oles less necessary han they had oncebeen;that the office as such

was therefore ess necessary o the satisfactoryunctioningof the Romanstate

andsociety;and thatthiscanbe characterizeds adeclinewhich the historical

observercan see to be an ongoing process.This is, however, an assessmentwhich cannot stand without important

qualifications. n what follows it will be argued hat the factualrecordof the

late Republicancensorships s open to alternativenterpretationswhich, at

least in some cases, are preferable o those set out above; that alternative

mechanisms or performing ensorial unctions, n so far as they were devised,cannot be assumed o have beenjudgedpreferable y contemporaries;hatin

severalareasof activity the censorshipcontinuedto be the preferred r only

mechanism; hat severalof these areaswere perceivedby contemporaries s

important,and that the censorshipas an office continued to be regardedas

importantand to be held in high esteem.Mostfundamentally,he perceptionof a historian, speciallya historianwhose attention s directed owardschangeand underlying trends, may differ considerablyfrom the perception of

contemporaries.

That the censorshipcontinuedto be held in highesteem s attested irst bythe standingof those who secured election. The erratic characterof theevidence eavesus ignorantof threeof the names onefor 64 and both for 61),but the remainder rethese:8

70 Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus (cos. 72).

L. Gellius Poplicola (cos. 72).

65 Q. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 78).

M. Licinius Crassus Dives (cos. 70).

7 Cic. ad Att. 85 (4.9).1; 89 (4.16).8. For Wiseman's explanation of the failure to complete

censorships see above, n. 1.

8 Evidence in MRR. M. Dondin, 'Pour une identification du censeur de 64,' REL 57 (1979) pp.

126-144, has attempted to demonstrate that the 'missing' censor of 64 was M'. Acilius Glabrio,

cos. 67. C. Scribonius Curio has sometimes been suggested as one of the censors of 61.



Censorshipsn the Late Republic 179

64. L. Aurelius Cotta (cos. 65).

61 (two)

55 M. Valerius Messala (cos. 61).

P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (cos. 79).

50 Ap. Claudius Pulcher (cos. 54).

L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (cos. 58).

Outstanding among these were Crassus himself, Catulus, one of the most

distinguished and influential of the optimate leaders, and Servilius Vatia,

distinguished soldier and triumphator. But all had been active and prominent

in public life, all but one were almost certainlydescended from former consuls

and from families which had enjoyed a long tradition of public distinction. It is

a list which is not out of keeping with the list of censors in the previous

century. Significantly, at the very end is the name of Ap. Claudius Pulcher- a

thrusting, ambitious man who was a patrician from one of the most ancient,

enduring and continuously eminent families of the Republic, and who threw

himself with great vigour into the work of the censorship.9There is no reason

here to suppose that the censorship was losing its appeal, that it was perceived

as carrying less esteem or as conferring less prestige upon its holders.In the second place it is probably misleading to say that for ten years after

Sulla Rome managedwithout censors. It may ratherbe said that by the end of a

decade it was found desirable to appoint censors. Possibly this was in part a

political gesture engineered by Pompey - to symbolize order, stability and

traditional government; but it is also possible that the tasks normally

associated with the censorship were not being performed satisfactorilythrough

other agencies and that unresolved problems were accumulating. For this was

no token or superficial censorship. Nearly a million citizens were registered,

the recognitio equitum and no doubt all other tasks were carriedthrough, thelustrum was completed; and in the lectio senatus 64 senators, perhaps around

10% of the entire membership, among them a consul of the previous year,

were removed from the roll.10Even though the explanation for such extensive

action in the lectio may lie partly in a technicality, it is scarcely surprisingthat

the Epitome of Livy termed it harsh (aspera censura).The attempt of a tribune

to coerce one of the censors (by confiscating his property and threateningto

throw him from the Tarpeian Rock) is a further indication that this census

9 Dio 40. 63-64; Cic. ad. Fam. 97 (8.14).4.10 Esp. Livy Per. 98; Plut. Pomp. 22.4-6; Cic. 17.1; 'Plut.' Apophth. Pomp. 6; Dio 37.30. For

more details, Cic. Pro Cluent. 117-135; Comm. Pet. 8; Ascon. p. 84 C.; Sall. Cat. 23.1; App. B. C.

2.3.

Cic. De Domo 123-124.



180 ALANE. ASTIN

was not a mere political show but was a serious andvigorous operation

-anoperation, moreover, which was brought to a successful conclusion.

The vigour and effectiveness of the censorship of 70, which must have been

regarded as a signal success, make it implausible to attribute the failure to

complete the subsequent censorships to a decline in the sense of purpose and

value. It would be more plausible to conjecture the opposite, that they were

impeded by controversies precisely because in certain respects the work of

censors was of real moment. However that may be, there is little doubt that it

continued to be considered important to have a censorship. The repeated

appointments of censors, especially the early appointment of new censors in 64

and 61 in manifest response to the preceding failures, point not to a disinterest

and a declining sense of purpose but to a strong belief that a censorship was

urgently needed. This interpretation finds some support in the fact that

whereas there were early replacements for the censors of 65 and 64, who had

achieved little or nothing, this was not done for the censors of 61 and 55; for

although the latter pairs also failed to complete the lustrurm,both remained in

office long enough to complete much of their work, at least some of which will

not have been dependent upon the lustrum for its validity. 2

Then there is Cicero, in whose writings numerous references to the

censorship afford at least a glimpse into a well-placed contemporary's

perception of the office. The passages (which are studied in detail elsewhere) 3

betray no hint whatsoever that Cicero looked upon the censorship as a

declining institution. On the contrary he regarded it with the greatest respect,

as an office of eminence which conferred great prestige upon its holders, and as

a potentially powerful instrument for the achievement of order and stability.

So it appearsalso in the model laws of his De Legibus, in which he assigned to

it all its actual duties (except the selection of new senators) and proposed

enhanced conditions of tenure, namely that the term of office should be five

years, and that there should be continuity between successive censors.14

In the light of this it is necessary to look again at the implications of those

details of the censorships of 65-55 which were examined above and seen to be

compatible with the hypothesis of a perceived decline of the censorship - and

some of which could be interpreted as pointers toward that hypothesis. In fact

it was seen that details relating to 61 and 55, though not imcompatible with the

hypothesis, leave much uncertainty and ambiguity; indeed there is nothing

12

For 61-60 see Dio 37.46.4; Cic. ad Att. 17(1.17).9; 18 (1.18).8; 21 (2.1).11. For 55-54 seeCic. ad Att. 89 (4.16).8 (July, 54). Neither the lectio senatus nor contracts let by censors depended

upon the lustrumfor validation: Mommsen, op. cit. II3pp. 419 and 425. For a more controversial

question relating to the lustrum and validation see further below.

13 A. E. Astin, 'Cicero and the Censorship,' CPh (forthcoming).

14 De Leg. 3.7 and 27.



Censorships n the LateRepublic 181

incompatible with the alternative hypothesis that the censorship retained

esteem and importance. There is however a further point to be made about

Dio's comment upon the censors of 61, that they enrolled ex-magistratesin the

Senate even 'beyond the number. 5 This strongly suggests that something

more than merely personal interests may have been involved both then and

previously in the tribunician intervention of 64, when the tribunes feared that

they would not be enrolled. There is a clear implication in Dio's phrase that the

censors did have regard to the notional total for membership of the Senate,

which since Sulla had been 600.16 If that figure was exceeded significantly by

the combined total of survivors from the previous lectio and those who had

subsequently acquiredthe ius sententiae dicendae,'7 the censors will have been

faced with a problem of technical origin which was likely to raise important

issues of principle about the rights of those with the ius sententiae dicendae,

with which considerations of self-interest will no doubt have become

entangled. The wider implications of this require separate study, but enough

has been said to show that it may have been no petty matter which led the

tribunes of 64 to hinder the censors.

As for the two subjects of dispute ascribed to the censors of 65 (proposals to

grant citizenship to the Transpadanesand to make Egypt tributary), it cannot

be assumed without question that these were wholly extraneous to the work of

the censorship itself. It is noticeable that both were in fields closely related to

major responsibilities of the censors. The censors did not have the authority to

grant Roman citizenship, but they were responsible for the registrationof all

citizens, including any newly enfranchised by law, and for enrolling them in

tribes. They did not determine that territories should be annexed, but in a

number of instances they arranged the contracts under which revenues were

collected from provinces. Whether in 65 there was an attempt to anticipateand

thereby encourage the passage of legislation, whether legal ambiguities and

rival interpretations came into question, we can never know; but it is clearlypossible that one or both of these issues, whatever their wider connotations,

raised substantial questions of procedure and principle in the conduct of the

censorship itself. That is not to deny the possibility mentioned earlier: that the

censors simply blocked each other's censorial work in an attempt to exert

leverage in disputes extraneous to the censorship itself. Even if that were the

case this episode would not be sufficient to override the considerable

15 37.46.4: xca 'xte tQ vatQVoL(L6V GEayQaWav.16 Nowhere stated explicitly to have been so but beyond reasonable doubt: Mommsen, op. cit.

III pp. 847 f.; for discussion of steps leading to this see E. Gabba, 'Ilceto equestre e il Senato di

Silla,' Atbenaeum 34 (1956) pp. 124 ff.

17 Mommsen, op. cit. II3 pp. 420 ff. and III pp. 458 ff. The dates at which this ius was extended

to tribunes and quaestors have been the subject of controversy but are no later than Sulla.



182 ALAN E. ASN

indications set out above that for contemporarieshe censorshipdid retain

both esteemandpractical mportance;but in fact it is not necessarilyhecase,

and the very subject-matter f the disputesraisesa suspicionthatthey may

have become connectedmore directlywith the operationsof the censorship

itself.

There is thereforeno reason to find a conflict between details of the

individual ensorships ndthe conclusion hat,whateverunderlying rendmay

be discernedby the historian, n the eyes of contemporarieshe censorship

continued to have both esteem and practicalsignificance;but this broad

conclusionrequires urtheranalysis.

Obviously theesteem n which the censorshipwas heldwas in thefirstplacean inheritedperception,derived rom thelonganddistinguished re-eminence

of the office. Undeniably changes in inherited perceptions tend to lag

somewhatbehindchanges n the realitiesof what is perceived;but in thiscase

morewas involved hanthe meresurvival f valueswhich drewtheirsubstance

from another age. In the eyes of contemporaries he censorshipalso had

practical mportance.No doubtthe relative aluewhichthey placeduponeach

individual unctionof the office differed rom that of an earlierage- for as the

needsof Romansociety changedovertheyears so also musthavethepractical

significanceand the relative mportanceof variouscensorial asks.But thatthey did attachconsiderable mportance o some of these tasks is clear from

their persistencewith the office, and especially rom their efforts to have a

censorship n the 60s. It is reflected n the attitudeof Cicero; andin 50 it is

dramatized y Appius Claudius,whosevigouratthe endof thesequence, ike

thatof Lentulusand Gelliusat the beginning,shows that his concernwas by

no meansonly with the cachetof havingbeen censor.

Three functions of the censorshipwhich had at one time been of great

importancewere no longer so and require no discussion here. The actual

census had been the basis both for the recruiting f armiesandfor the raisingof revenue,but, ashas beenobservedalready,by the late Republic his was no

longer the case. And the substantial nvolvementwhich the censorshad once

hadin contracting or majornew public works had dwindledas the iriitiative

andresponsibilitypassed nto other hands; only one majorproject (work on

the banksof the Tiber)is knownto havebeenhandledby the censorsof thelateRepublic. 8

It is not so simple, however, to assess contemporaryvaluations of the

censors'role in relation o the many other contractswhichthey,'customarily

arranged.They handled, or example,contracts or the maintenancend repairof public buildings, for the provision of numerous public services,for the

18 ILLRP 1.2 no. 496 and note. Dio 39.61.1-2 mentions floods which probably gave rise to this

work.



Censorships n the LateRepublic 183

leasing of public properties and lands, for the collection of rentals, monopoly

dues and various taxes (e. g. portoria), and increasingly since the time of Gaius

Gracchus for the collection of great amounts of direct taxation from certain

provinces. But although the censors had become very closely identified with a

vast mass of such contracts, their role and responsibilities had never become

exclusive. Other magistrates could and did let contracts, sometimes in similar

fields and with no detectable legal or constitutional differentiation from those

let by censors: aediles, for example, commonly let contracts for the main-

tenance and repair of public buildings. Thus alternative mechanisms to

censorial action did exist, and at certain periods in the late Republic - prior to

70 and again prior to 61 - must have been used.19The historian, asking how

essential in this field censors are likely to have seemed to contemporaries, will

conclude that there must have been some awareness that the work could be

done without censors; and therefore that in terms of underlying trends the

way was being prepared for a movement away from the censors in this field.

On the other hand it does not follow at all that such a change was regarded

as desirable or that it was felt to be a matter of indifference whether the work

was performed by censors or by others. It is extremely improbable that

contemporaries were carefully analysing the duties of the censorship and

asking themselves how necessary the office of censor was for the performance

of each; but they will certainly have looked upon this particularareaof activity

as extremely important in the life of the state. The contracts provided for a

multitude of features which were built into the accepted structureof life, and

above all they embraced vast revenues. Furthermore, given the longstanding

practices of the Roman Republic in this field, for a great body of contracts it

will have been assumed without question that censors were the accepted and

proper officials to handle the business, as was Cicero's attitude.20Nor is there

any reason to suppose that alternativemechanisms, when they had been used

through force of circumstances, seemed preferable. On the contrary, the adhoc nature of the arrangements may well have made them appear less

convenient and less efficient. For all we know, dissatisfaction in this areamay

have contributed to the holding of the censorship in 70 and to the urgency of

the attempts to hold one in the 60s; and conversely although the censors of 61

and 55 did not complete the lustrum, the fact that there were no early

replacements for either pair could be linked to their relative success in

completing much of their work, including the letting of contracts2'(which did

19

Contracts let by the consuls of 75, mentioned in Cic. Verr.2.3.18, were probably in thiscategory; those mentioned in Verr. 2.1.130 may have been, but are of a kind which might have

been let by other magistrates even without a hiatus in the censorship.20 Astin, 'Cicero and the censorship' CPh (forthcoming).

21 In 61 the contract for Asia is attested: Cic. adAtt. 17 (1.17). 9; in 55 the work on the Tiber

was contracted: ILLRP 12 no. 496 and note.



184 ALAN E. ASTIN

not require a lustrum for their validity). Such connexions are entirely

speculative, but their plausibility is a warning against the assumption that

arrangements for handling the business without censors were judged to have

been satisfactory.

Whether contemporaries would have considered the letting of contracts

sufficient reason in itself for making strenuous efforts to appoint censors is

probably a meaningless question, since the issue is unlikely to have presented

itself in that form. Yet, taken in conjunction with other functions which were

still felt to be important and properly or necessarily to be performed by

censors, the contracts generated such a volume of business, impinged on so

many aspects of Roman society, were in some cases of such magnitude, and

collectively embraced such substantial revenues that there is every reason to

suppose them to have been, at the least, a powerful reinforcing factor to the

value placed on the censorship and the esteem attached to it and its holders.

Somewhat similar considerations apply to the census proper, which, as the

original basic responsibility of the censors, is particularly likely to have been

viewed through the preconceptions of tradition and to have been assumed

uncritically to be a necessary task, properly to be performed by censors - or at

any rate to have been so assumed for as long as any plausible semblance of

purpose remained. At a basic level, in a world where Roman citizenship was

very much a privileged status, yet a status which had already been conferred on

most free persons in Italy and a few beyond, the desirability of continuing to

update the list of citizens was perhaps taken for granted.The census, however,

also involved registration by tribe and wealth. Although this procedure had

long since lost its central role in relation to the recruiting of armies and the

levying of taxation, in principle it remained the basis for the voting units - the

tribes and centuries - in the Roman assemblies. Amid all the political disorder

of the late Republic, almost to the eve of civil war, the assemblies still met and

still mattered: legislation was approved or rejected, elections were held, thevotes of supporters were solicited and mobilized, even from distant parts.Thus

in principle a census was relevant, and there is direct evidence that the work of

conducting it was at least begun by the censors both of 61 and 55.22

Once again however, it is necessary to face the question whether the

experiences of these years may have undermined the importance of the

censorship; whether difficulties and failures in the conduct of the census may

22 Cic. ad Att. 18(1.18).8 and 21(2.1).11, concerning Atticus' plans for making his declarationin 60. In 55 Cic. ad Att. 85 (4.9).1 refers specifically to the census. Brunt, Italian Manpower pp.

700 ff., believes that there is evidence that the censors of 64 also made a beginning on the census,

though they made little progress. For Wiseman's suggestion that the registrationof new voters was

the central issue which caused the whole sequence of censorships which were left incomplete, see

above, n. 1.



Censorshipsn the LateRepublic 185

not have led to the creation of ways through which the Romansfound

themselvesncreasingly bleto managewithout t. Eventhecensusof 70 wasatleast five years overdue, which ought to imply that a great many more

vacancies than normal had accumulated n the equestrianorder and the

centuries,andhad lainunfilled or longer especially ignificantn thesmaller

and more influentialcenturiesof the wealthy.After70 the processoughttohave been even more striking, since no lustrum was completedand it is

generallybelieved hat a lustrumwas essential o thevalidityandimplementa-tion of the new lists preparedby the censors.

Plainly,however, this cannot have gone on for so long a periodwithout

somethingbeing done to ameliorate he consequences.Quite apart romthe

practical nd technicalproblems ikelyto havearisen romshrinking enturies,it is impossible o believethatthose for whom theright o vote still hadvalue

the wealthy and perhaps many of the inhabitants of Rome itself - would have

borne without protest prolonged exclusion from the registers,tantalized all the

more by the recurring failures to complete the lustrum. Yet in an unusually

well documented period of Roman history there is no hint of complaint or

protest at such exclusion. Some method was found to incorporate fresh

members.

Unfortunately no source tells us what that method was. In essence there are

two possibilities, each of which has been championed. One is that there was

resort to an ad hoc device outside the normal proceduresof the census, e. g. by

permitting sons to vote in the tribes and centuries of their fathers 23 though for

such an arrangementthere appearsto be no positive evidence. The other is that

when the censors did carry through a substantial part of the census, as they

probably did in 61-60 and 55-54, the results of their work were used by

magistrates presiding at the assemblies even though the lustrumhad not been

completed; indeed it has even been conjectured that whether the lustrum was

legally necessary for validation of the censors' acts had been the subject ofdebate and that by the Ciceronian age the question had been effectively

resolved in the negative.24This last conjecture probably goes too far, but if

magistrates were prepared to make use of informal and incomplete censorial

23 Tibiletti, 'The 'Comitia' during the Decline of the Roman Republic,' SDHI 25 (1959)

pp. 103 f.; Wiseman, 'The Census in the First Century B. C.' JRS 59 (1969) pp. 59 ff., esp. 69 f.

24 Brunt, Italian Manpower pp. 104 ff., 700 ff. Whether the lustrum was legally necessary for

the validity of censorial acts is a controversial issue, linked especially with the question of

manumission by censors. It is possible that the controversy to which Cicero refers in De Orat. t.183 (see also Frag. Dos. 17) concerned not absolute validation but retrospective validity, from the

date of the act ratherthan the lustrum;and it is far from clear that the issue had been settled. If it

was being argued explicitly that all censorial acts were valid irrespective of the lustrum, and if

magistrateswere conducting elections on that basis, it is surprisingthat no more is heard about it. I

hope to consider this question further in another context.



Censorshipsn the LateRepublic 187

shall conducta censusof thepeople,recording heirages,offspring, lavesandwealth. '2

It is not the census, however, but the lectio senatus which is the most

commonlymentioned eature n the recordof the lateRepublican ensorships- almostto thepoint of constitutingarecurringheme.Partlybecause ome of

the evidence s contemporary, nd partlybecauseof the natureof someof the

events,it canconfidentlybe said that this prominence s not misleading.The

lectio was clearlyregarded sa central unctionof the censorsandbecame hefocusof much attentionand several ontroversies.This is seen especiallywhen

the relevantevents (mostof which havebeenmentionedalready)are istedin

sequence:

(i) The censors of 70 excluded no less than 64 existing senators rom their

revised list, among them a consul of the previous year. One tribune who was

excluded reacted by declaring the property of one of the censors to be

consecrated and perhaps also threatening to throw him from the Tarpeian

rock.28

(ii) The censors of 64 were directly obstructed by tribunes in their attempt to

revise the Senate; the tribunes are said to have feared that they themselves

would be expelled.29

(iii) The censors of 61 are reported to have enrolled in the Senate all ex-

magistrates, even though they thereby exceeded the normal total membership.

Such an action almost certainly results from controversy, and probably has

some relationship to the dispute in 64.30

(iv) Ilree years later, in 58, Clodius as tribune carried a law which placed

some restriction upon the freedom of censors to expel senators. The principal

feature was probably that a formal hearing of the complaints against an

individual, conducted in judicial form, should be held before both censors and

that a senator could not be omitted from the list unless the two censors

concurred in their findings.3'

(v) Towards the end of the censorship of 55-54 Cicero in a letter to Atticus

referredto iudicia which were taking place and which arose from a lex Clodia.

Since this is bracketed with a mention that the lustrum was now despaired of, it

is likely that the iudicia were linked to the censorial work and were hearings

27 De Leg. 3.7. See further Astin, 'Cicero and the Censorship', CPh forthcoming.

28 Livy Per. 98; Plut. Cic. 17.1; Dio 37.30; Cic. De Domo 123-124; Pro Cluent. 117-135;

Comm. Pet. 8; Ascon. p. 84C; Sall. Cat. 23.1; App. B. C. 2.3.29 Dio 37.9.4.

30 Dio 37.46.4.31 Ascon. p. 8C; Dio 38.13.2, cf. 40.57.1-3. Cicero frequently criticized the law in extravagant

terms in his efforts to discredit Clodius: Pro Sest. 55; De Domo 130; De Har. Resp. 58, De Prov.

Cons. 46; In Pis. 9-10.



188 ALAN E. ASTN

arising Out of Clodius' law concerning the lectio.32 There may well be an

implication (which to Atticus would have been unequivocal) that excessive

prolongation of the lectio by these hearings was expected to prevent

completion of the work in time for the lustrum to be celebrated.

(vi) The lex Clodia was repealed in 52 enabling the censors of 50 to revert to

traditional procedure.33Appius Claudius conducted a vigorous lectio, expell-

ing numerous senators, including all who were freedmen and a number of

others, among them Sallust. Although the initiative seems to have been taken

entirely by Appius, his colleague L. Calpurnius Piso acquiesced in all of the

cases except that of Curio, whereupon Appius nevertheless made public in the

Senate his opinion of Curio.34

The aspect of the lectiowhich principally engages attention in these episodes

is the expulsion of existing senators. Although the censors still had the formal

power to co-opt new members into the Senate, since tribunes and quaestors

had been granted virtually automatic entry, and since Sulla had increased the

number of quaestors, their choice was to a very considerable degree pre-

determined. Nevertheless this does not mean that the lectio was becoming

redundant, either in practice or in contemporary perception. For co-option

and expulsion alike a key formal step was the publication of the new list of

members of the Senate - which indeed was the essence of the lectio. Within the

lectio interest was shifting from the act of inclusion to the act of exclusion, but

the lectio as such remained the focus of great interest and concern.

An important reason for the special interest in this aspect of the censorship

was no doubt that this was the activity most likely to impinge in a personal

way on members of the governing elite themselves; but that does not explain

why it was expected that the censors would be very active in the lectio or why

this should have been the cause of recurring controversy. A priori an

explanation might be sought in conjecture that censors were attempting to

exercise their power in a partisan manner against political opponents, butexcept possibly in the case of Curio this does not seem to have been a major

factor; at any rate, from an age of peculiarly partisan and unscrupulous politics

the record is singularly free from accusations of that kind. As has been seen

already, for the events of 64 and 61 there may be a special explanation arising

from a technical problem of numbers; and in this connexion it is conceivable

that the censors of 70, who expelled 64 members, applied particularly strict

standards in order to keep the total membership of the Senate to its official

maximum. But this consideration cannot have applied after 61 and it is clearly

32 Cic. ad Att. 89 (4.16).8. Val. Max. 6.2.8 must refer to this censorship andprobably efersoone of these hearings.

33 Dio 40.57.1-3.

34 Dio 40.63-64; Cic. ad Fain. 97 (8.14).4; De Div. 1.29.



Censorships n the Late Republic 189

not the whole explanation.Very probablya good deal s to be attributedo the

expectationsinculcatedby tradition and sustainedby a more widespread

concernwith mores han the more cynicalinterpretations f this agewould

lead us to suppose.The regimenmorumwas a traditional esponsibility f the

censorswhich in the mainthey dischargednot as a separateask butthrough

certainof their other activities,above all throughthe recognitio quitumand

the lectio senatus.It was taken as a matterof coursethat in the lectiothey

would concernthemselveswith standardsof conduct and that they would

removefrom the list senatorswho wereguilty of seriousmisconductor were

otherwiseunfittedfor membership. t looksvery muchas if the censorsof 70

and especially Appius Claudius in 50 took this responsibilityseriously;

certainlythe commentson Appius' activitymade by Caeliusin a letter to

Ciceroaremostnaturallyaken o indicate hatthe censorwas interpretinghis

part of his duties both literally and zealously.35 Furthermore t is the

applicationof the regimenmorumthrough the lectio which is the most

prominent and significantfeature of the censorship in the writings and

thoughtsof Cicero.It is much the most common motif n his allusions o the

office andis givena role of particularmportance monghis suggestionsn the

De Legibus.36

Whatevermayhavebeen the true balancebetweenthese variousparticularfactors in determiningattitudes, the importanceof the lectio senatus in

contemporaryperceptionsof the censorships manifest,alongwiththe active

realityof the censors'powerto exclude rom theSenate, venatthe level of an

ex-consul.It was a powernot challenged venby Clodius'law,which seems

only to haverequiredhe censors o follow certainproceduresbut not to have

attempted o override heirjudgement. t is no surprise hatthe office which

gaveaccess o such a powercontinued o enjoy prestigeandto beperceived s

important.That valuation can only have been reinforcedby the similar

continuingsense of the importance f the censors'responsibilitiesor publiccontracts and for the census itself.

For it cannotbe emphasized oo stronglythatalthough or conveniencen

discussion t has been necessaryhere to examineseparately arious unctions

of the censorship, that is not how they will normally have presented

themselvesto the minds of contemporaries.Contemporaries reunlikelyto

havereviewed he functionsone by one and askedthemselveswhich stillhad

an importantrole to play and which did not. They will have started rom

receivedassumptions, hat the censorshipwas an officeof greateminenceand

that it afforded he normalandpropermeansof carrying ut a groupof taskswhich were important o the well-beingof the respublica.They will have

35 Ad. Fam. 97 (8.14).4.

36 De Leg. 7,11,27 f., 46 f.; Astin, 'Cicero and the Censorship', CPh forthcoming.



190 ALAN E. ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic

tendedto retainthose assumptions o long as a substantialproportionof the

taskscontinued o be perceivedas important nd withoutthe alternative f an

obviously more satisfactorymechanism.Their attention will have been

directednot towards hose functionswhichnow matteredess or not at all but

towards those which they perceivedas having continuing importance or

them; and these are less likely to have been perceived as primarilyan

accumulation f separate unctionsthanas variousfacetsof an entity.There

will have been no necessity to question the high value and great esteem

conferredupon thatentity by tradition.

Most historians are interestedin change in human societies and human

institutions.It is naturaland proper or themto givetheir attentionespeciallyto the detectionof change, ncipientchange, he causesof change sometimes

includingchangewhich in its immediate ontextcanproperlybe describedas

decline. Quite rightly, they identify in the censorshipof the late Republic

certain changeswhich had occurred,and possibly even some symptomsof

furtherchange.Examination f the evidence,however,suggests wo important

qualifications o this. While the historian is quick to identify change, the

primaryawareness f contemporariess aslikelyto be of elementsof tradition

and continuity;and the fragmentedbut variedevidencepoints to this as the

dominantperceptionof the censorship n the late Republic.Consequently fwe attempt to interpret the actions and conjecturethe motives of those

contemporaries s if they perceiveda decline n the censorship, he resultsare

likely to be seriouslymisconceived.

Second,theview thatin the Ciceronianperiod hepractical ndpsychologi-

cal importance f thecensorshipwas beingundermined y resort o alternative

mechanismss verymuchopento question.For someof the tasks t is doubtful

whetherpracticalalternatives eally were available. f and when alternatives

were employed, the extent to which they were perceivedas satisfactoryor

unsatisfactory s a matter about which we are almost entirely ignorant-though it has been seen that the pattern of censorshipsand attempted

censorshipsfits well with the hypothesisthat therewas dissatisfactionwith

alternatives. t was not the changes and the disordersof the late Republic

which destroyed the censorshipas a significant nstitution or rather hey

destroyed t only by destroying he Republic tself.Despite the practicaland

politicalexploitationof the censorshipby Augustus, ts true destroyerswere

the Principateandits founder.3

TheInstitute orAdvancedStudy,Princeton Alan E. AstinThe Queen'sUniversityof Belfast

37 I wish to place on record my warm thanks for the hospitality of the Institute for Advanced

Study at Princeton, where this study was undertaken, and for assistance from funds received by

the Institute from the Stiftung Volkswagenwerk.

astin, censorships in the late republic

Documents