astin, censorships in the late republic
TRANSCRIPT
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
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 2/17
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
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 3/17
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.
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 4/17
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.
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 5/17
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.
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 6/17
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.
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 7/17
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.
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 8/17
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.
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 9/17
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.
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 10/17
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.
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 11/17
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.
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 12/17
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.
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 13/17
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 14/17
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.
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 15/17
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.
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 16/17
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.
8/12/2019 ASTIN, Censorships in the Late Republic
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/astin-censorships-in-the-late-republic 17/17
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.