[image ALT: Much of my site will be useless to you if you've got the images turned off!]
Bill Thayer

[image ALT: Faire clic ici pour une adaptation de cette page en français.]

[image ALT: Cliccare qui per una pagina di aiuto in Italiano.]

[Link to a series of help pages]
[Link to the next level up]
[Link to my homepage]

 p260  Censor

Unsigned article on pp260‑266 of

William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875.

CENSOR (τιμητής), the name of two magistrates of high rank in the Roman republic. Their office was called Censura (τιμητεία or τιμητία). 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 till the year B.C. 443. The reason of this alteration was owing to the appointment in the preceding year of tribuni militum with consular power in place of the consuls; and as these tribunes might be plebeians, the patricians deprived the consuls  p261 and consequently their representatives, the tribunes, of the right of taking the census, and entrusted it to two magistrates, called Censores, who were to be chosen exclusively from the patricians. The magistracy continued to be a patrician one till B.C. 351, when 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 (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 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). Niebuhr supposes that they were at first elected by the comitia curiata, and that their election was confirmed by the centuries; but there is no authority for this supposition, and the truth of it depends entirely upon the correctness of his views respecting the election of the consuls. [Consul.] 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.11; Liv. XL.45). As a general principle the only persons eligible to 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; and he brought forward a law in this year, enacting that no one should be chosen censor a second time, and received in consequence the surname of Censorinus (Plut. Coriol. 1; Val. Max. IV.1 §3).

The censor­ship is distinguished from all other Roman magistracies by the length of time during which it was held. The censors were originally chosen for a whole lustrum, that is, a period of five years; but their office was limited to eighteen months, as early as ten years after its institution (B.C. 433), by a law of the dictator Mam. Aemilius Mamercinus (Liv. IV.24, IX.33). 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 that respect they were inferior in power to the consuls and praetors (Cic. de Leg. Agr. II.11). But notwithstanding this, the censor­ship was regarded as the highest dignity in the state, with the exception of the dictator­ship; it was an ἱερὰ ἀρχή, a sanctus magistratus, to which the deepest reverence was due (Plut. Cat. Maj. 16, Flamin. 18, Camill. 2, 14, Aemil. Paul. 38; Cic. ad Fam. III.10). 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 regimen morum, or general control over the conduct and the 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. in Mai, Nova Coll. vol. II p516; Liv. IV.24, XXIX.37; Val. Max. VII.2 §6). The censors possessed of course the sella curulis (Liv. XL.45), but with respect to their official dress there is some doubt. From a well-known passage of Polybius (VI.53), describing the use of the imagines at funerals, we may conclude that a consul or praetor wore the praetexta, one who triumphed the toga picta, and the censor a purple toga peculiar to him; but other writers speak of their official dress as the same as that of the other higher magistrates (Zonar. VII.19; Athen. XIV p660C). 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, p384, ed. Orelli), and although the authority, on which this statement rests, is not of much weight, the fact itself is probable; for there was no census during the two lustra which elapsed from Sulla's dictator­ship of Pompey (B.C. 82‑70), and any strict regimen morum would have been found very inconvenient to the aristocracy in whose favour Sulla legislated. If the censor­ship was done away with by Sulla, it was at any rate restored in the consul­ship of Pompey and Crassus. 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 (Dion Cass. XXXVIII.13; Cic. pro Sext. 25, de Prov. Cons. 15). This law, however, was repealed in the third consul­ship of Pompey (B.C. 52), on the proposition of his colleague Caecilius Metellus Scipio (Dion 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 Paulus Aemilius Lepidus to fill the office (Suet. Aug. 37, Claud. 16; Dion Cass. LIV.2). This was the last time that such magistrates were appointed;  p262 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 (Dion 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 (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 however were 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, under which were classed 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. II.3):— "Censores populi aevitates, soboles, familias pecuniasque censento: urbis templa, vias, aquas, aerarium, vectigalia tuento: populique partes in tribus distribunto: exin pecunias, aevitates, ordines patiunto: equitum, peditumque prolem describunto: caelibes esse prohibento: mores populi regunto: probrum in senatu ne relinquunto."

A. 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, and from the year B.C. 435 in 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). 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 cryer (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 by the tribunes 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. p374, ed. Orelli). 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 in what way their value was to be estimated. According to these laws 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 habes? 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; Tab. Heracl. 142 (68); Dig. 50 tit. 15 s3). Single women (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 (cf. 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 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 censere, as well as accipere censum (cf.  Cic. pro Flacc. 32; Liv. XXXIX.15). Only such things were liable to the census (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; 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 (cf.  Cic. pro Flacc. 32; Gell. VI.11;º 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 s4). Slaves and cattle formed the next most important item. 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). It has been doubted by some modern writers whether the censors possessed the power of setting a higher valuation on the property than the citizens themselves had put; but when we recollect the discretionary nature of the censors' powers, and the necessity almost that existed, in order to prevent fraud, that the right of making a surcharge should be vested in somebody's hands, we can hardly doubt that the censors had this power. It is moreover 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  p263 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).

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). 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), that service in the army was a valid excuse for absence.

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; 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 depositary 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).

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 naturally grew out of the right which they possessed of excluding unworthy persons from the lists of citizens; for, as has been well remarked, "they would, in the first place, be the sole judges of many questions of fact, such as whether a citizen had the qualifications required by law or custom for the rank which he claimed, or whether he had ever incurred any judicial sentence, which rendered him infamous: but from thence the transition was easy, according to Roman notions, to the decisions of questions of right; such as whether a citizen was really worthy of retaining his rank, whether he had not committed some act as justly degrading as those which incurred the sentence of the law." 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 public 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; 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 praefectura 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. 42‑48; Gell. IV.20).

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) [Infamia], and the censorial verdict was not a judicium or res judicata (Cic. pro Cluent. 42), 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 diminutio, 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  p264 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). 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) Living in celibacy at a time when a person ought to be married to provide the state with citizens (Val. Max. II.9 §1). 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]. (b) The dissolution of matrimony or betrothment in an improper way, or for insufficient reasons (Val. Max. II.9 §2). (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; cf. Cic. de Rep. IV.6; 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.4; Plut. Cat. Maj. 18; Gellius, IV.8; Val. Max. II.9 §4). At a later time the leges sumtuariae 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.3). (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.

3. A variety of actions or pursuits which were thought to be injurious to public morality, might be forbidden 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 Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, vol. II p399, &c.

The punishments inflicted by the censors generally differed according to the station which a man occupied, though sometimes a person of the highest rank might suffer all the punishments at once, by being degraded to the lowest class of citizens. But they are generally divided into four classes:—

1. Motio or ejectio e senatu, or the exclusion of a man from the number of senators. This punishment might either be a simple exclusion from list of senators, or the person might at the same time be excluded from the tribes and degraded to the rank of an aerarian (Liv. XXIV.18). The latter course seems to have been seldom adopted; the ordinary mode of inflicting the punishment was simply this: the censors in their new lists omitted the names of such senators as they wished to exclude, and in reading these new lists in public, passed over the names of those who were no longer to be senators. Hence the expression praeteriti senatores is equivalent to e senatu ejecti (Liv. XXXVIII.28, XXVII.11, XXXIV.44; Festus, s.v. Praeteriti). In some cases, however, the censors did not acquiesce in this simple mode of proceeding, but addressed the senator whom they had noted, and publicly reprimanded him for his conduct (Liv. XXIV.18). As, however, in ordinary cases an ex-senator was not disqualified by his ignominia for holding any of the magistracies which opened the way to the senate, he might at the next census again become a senator (Cic. pro Cluent. 42, Plut. Cic. 17).

2. The ademptio equi, or the taking away the equus publicus from an eques. This punishment might likewise be simple, or combined with the exclusion from the tribes and the degradation to the rank of an aerarian (Liv. XXIV.18, 43, XXVII.11, XXIX.37, XLIII.16). [Equites.]

3. The motio e tribu, or the exclusion of a person from his tribe. This punishment and the degradation to the rank of an aerarian were originally the same; but when in the course of time a distinction was made between the tribus rusticae the tribus urbanae, the motio e tribu transferred a person from the rustic tribes to the less respectable city tribes, and if the further degradation to the rank of an aerarian was combined with the motio e tribu, it was always expressly stated (Liv. XLV.15, Plin. H. N. XVIII.3).

4. The fourth punishment was called referre in aerarios (Liv. XXIV.18; Cic. pro Cluent. 43) or facere aliquem aerarium (Liv. XLIII.43), and might be inflicted on any person who was thought by the censors to deserve it [Aerarii.] This degradation, properly speaking, included all the other punishments, for an eques could not be made an aerarius unless he was previously deprived of his horse, nor could a member of a rustic tribe be made an aerarius unless he was previously excluded from it (Liv. IV.24, XXIV.18, &c.).

A person who had been branded with a nota censoria, might, if he considered himself wronged, endeavour to prove his innocence to the censors (causam agere apud censores, Varr. de Re Rust. I.7), and if he did not succeed, he might try to gain the protection of one of the censors, that he might intercede on his behalf.

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 (cf. 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  p265 to the highest bidder for the space of a lustrum or five years. The act of letting was called venditio or locatio, 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, II.21). 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, de Nat. Deor. III.19, 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, XLV.15), that no public places were encroached upon by the occupation of private persons (loca tueri, Liv. XLII.3, XLIII.16), and that the aquaeducts, roads, drains, &c. were properly attended to. [Aquaeductus; Viae; Cloacae.] 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 ultrotributa; and hence we frequently find vectigalia and ultrotributa contrasted with one another (Liv. XXXIX.44, XLIII.16). 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, which were also let out on contract (Plut. Quaest. Rom. 98; Plin. H. N. X.22; Cic. pro Rosc. Am. 20). 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.57; Liv. IV.22, XLV.15; Lex Puteol. p73, Spang.).

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.]

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 sometimes taken in the provinces, even under the republic (Cic. Verr. II.53, 56); but there seems to have been no general census taken in the provinces till the time of Augustus. This emperor caused an accurate account to be taken of all persons in the Roman dominion, together with the amount of their property (Ev. Lucae, ii.1, 2; Joseph. Ant. Jud. XVII.13 §5, XVIII.1 §1, 2 §1); and a similar census was taken from time to time by succeeding emperors, at first every ten, and subsequently every fifteen years (Savigny, Römische Steuerverfassung, in Zeitschrift, vol. VI pp375‑383). The emperor sent into the provinces especial officers to take the census, who were called Censitores (Dig. 50 tit. 15 s4 § 1; Cassiod. Var. IX.11; Orelli, Inscr. No. 3652); but the duty was sometimes discharged by the imperial legati (Tac. Ann. I.31, II.6). The Censitores were assisted by subordinate officers, called Censuales, who made out the lists, &c. (Capitol. Gordian. 12; Symmach. Ep. X.43; Cod. Theod. 8 tit. 2). 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 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.

(A considerable portion of the preceding article has been taken from Becker's excellent account  p266 of the censor­ship in his Handbuch der Römischen Alterthümer, vol. II part II p191, &c. Compare Niebuhr, History of Rome, vol. II p397; Arnold, History of Rome, vol. I p346, &c.; Göttling, Römische Staatsverfassung, p328, &c.; Gerlach, Die Römische Censur in ihrem Verhältnisse zur Verfassung, Basel, 1842; Dureau de la Malle, Economie Politique des Romains, vol. I p159, &c.).

For a much simpler summary, see this good page at Livius.Org.

[image ALT: Valid HTML 4.01.]

Page updated: 18 Oct 14