¹ Livy 4. 8. 2. Bibliography of works with special relevance to this article: Mommsen, Th., Römisches Staatsrecht (1887–1888) II ³, esp. 375 ff., 418 ff.Google Scholar; Nowak, M., Die Strafverhängungen der Censoren (1909)Google Scholar; Schmähling, E., Die Sittenaufsicht der Censoren, Würzburger Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft 12 (1938)Google Scholar; Pieri, G., L'Histoire du cens jusqu'à la fin de la république romaine (1968), 99 ff.Google Scholar Also Greenidge, A. H. J., Roman Public Life (1901), 216 ff.Google Scholar; Suolahti, J., The Roman Censors (1963), 47 ff.Google Scholar; Nicolet, C., The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome (1980), esp. 73 ff.Google Scholar; Astin, A. E., Cato the Censor (1978), ch. 5Google Scholar; id., ‘Censorships in the Late Republic’, Historia 34 (1985), 175–90.

² e.g. Cic., Pro Cluent. 119; 129; Ad Farm. 76 (3. 13). 2; De Prov. Cons. 46; In Pis. 9.

³ Pseudascon. 189 St., commenting on Cic., Div. in Caec. 8.

⁴ Cato: ORE ⁴ frs 93 and 94; Astin, Cato the Censor, 83; Scipio Aemilianus: ORF ⁴ frs 13–15; Astin, Scipio Aemilianus (1967), 116, 119, 253–4; Metellus Macedonicus: ORF ⁴, frs 4–7.

⁵ Restrictions upon actors or dramatic performances in 115: Cassiod., Chron., under coss. of 115. Teachers of Latin rhetoric expelled in 92: Cic., De Orat. 3. 93–4; Gell. 15. 11. 2; Suet., Rhet. 1. 1; Tac., Dial. 35. In 89 prohibition on sale of exotic ointments and maximum price prescribed for Greek and some high quality Italian wine: Pliny, NH 13. 24; 14. 95. Serving of dormice and some other luxury foods at banquets prohibited: Pliny, NH 8. 223; 36. 4 (no date given; there is a textual problem, but if ‘leges censoriae Claudianae’ is read in 36. 4, the censors of 169 or 136 could be considered; for the latter, Schmähling, Die Sittenaufsicht, 63 n. 79).

₆ Plut., Cato Mai. 18. 2–3; Livy 39. 44. 1–3; Nepos, , Cato 2. 3Google Scholar.

⁷ Val. Max. 2. 9. 1; Plut., Cam. 2. 4; cf. also Cic., De Leg. 3. 7.

⁸ Livy 43. 16. 3–5; Cato, ORF ⁴ frs 99–105.

⁹ Cic., De Rep. 4. 6. A possible exception is that the investigation of M. Aemilius Lepidus Porcina by the censors of 92 (Vell. 1. 10. 6) seems to have led on to a conviction and fine in a trial before the populus (Val. Max. 8. 1. d. 7), but the procedure and other details are obscure in this case.

¹⁰ Mommsen, Röm. Staats. II³, 375 ff., though he emphasizes the unfettered discretion of the censors in determining the grounds for action, appears to imply that a cura morum was a formal addition by legislative act to the duties of the censorship, since he suggests that it was added very shortly after the office was created. It is perhaps possible in principle that the censors were instructed mores regere without further definition, and the other arguments of this article would not be impaired if that were so; but in that case it would still be surprising that the only sanctions are those associated with the census itself. De Martino, F., Storia della costituzione romana II (1960), 226–8,Google Scholar believes that only at the end of the fourth century did the censors acquire the cura morum, which he sees as an instrument of control in the hands of the newly emerged patrician-plebeian nobility and supposes to have been created for that purpose.

¹¹ Dumézil, G., Servius et la fortune ² (1943), 173–5Google Scholar; Schmähling, , Die Sittenaufsicht, esp. 1–13Google Scholar; Pieri, , L'Histoire du cens, 101–13Google Scholar; Suolahti, , The Roman Censors, 48Google Scholar. For the views of Mommsen and De Martino, both of whom favour a later origin, see previous note.

¹² Livy 4. 24. 7. The censors of 434, indignant because Mamercus Aemilius had successfully proposed limitation of their tenure to eighteen months, are said to have moved him from his tribe, assessed him at an eightfold census, and made him an aerarius; but the details of such an early episode must be treated with considerable caution.

¹³ Pseudascon. 189 St. Cf. Zon. 7. 19; Lydus, De Mag. 1. 43. Being made an aerarius was frequently accompanied by transfer to an inferior tribe: e.g. Livy 24. 18. 8; 42. 10. 4; 44. 16. 8; 45. 15. 8.

¹⁴ Livy 29. 37. 13–15.

¹⁵ Livy 24. 18. 7–8; 27. 11. 15.

¹⁶ Cic., De Rep. 4. 10; cf. Livy 7. 2. 12; Cassiod., Chron., under coss. of 115.

¹⁷ Cic., De Orat. 2. 272; Pro Cluent. 162.

¹⁸ Livy 24. 18. 7.

¹⁹ Cic., De Leg. 3. 28; 3. 7; Astin, , ‘Cicero and the Censorship’, CPh 80 (1985), 233–9Google Scholar.

²⁰ Dion. Hal. 4. 15. 6.

²¹ Tabula Heracleensis, FIRA ² 1, no. 13, 11. 142–58. Brunt, P. A., Italian Manpower 225 B.C.–A.D. 14 (1971), 36–42 and 519–23,Google Scholar rightly suggests that the procedures set out in this document probably had antecedents before the first century.

²² Some persons did make declarations in the immediate presence of the censors themselves, as is shown by stories of censors responding. Nevertheless, it is not possible that every declaration in turn was made to the censors personally. By the later third and early second centuries there were at least a quarter of a million adult male citizens recorded in the census (despite a temporary drop in number caused by the Hannibalic War). Not all made declarations, but if it be supposed for the sake of argument that only 60,000 of these were suiiuris, and if it be supposed further that the average time for a declaration was one minute, with no additional allowance for breaks or pauses, 1,000 hours would have been required. If the censors in person presided over all these and sat for 7 hours per day (net of interruptions), that would have occupied 143 days. If the total was 90,000, 214 days would have been required; and if the average time for a declaration were 2½ minutes, the number of days needed for 90,000 would almost exactly have equalled the censors' entire term of office. Obviously all these figures are arbitrary, but no plausible adjustment will eliminate the practical problem they illustrate; more probably they underestimate it. Aside from any arrangements for devolution to municipal officials, for the procedure at Rome it was an obvious solution to have a number of iuratores receiving declarations simultaneously, all in the presence of the censors but mostly not with their direct participation. Cf. Livy 39. 44. 2; Plaut., Trin. 878; also references to scribae: Livy 4. 8. 4; Varro, Ling. Lat. 6. 87; Val. Max. 4. 1. 10.

²³ Mommsen, Röm. Staats. II³, 377–82; Nowak, Die Strafverhängungen der Censoren; Greenidge, , Roman Public Life, 219 ff.Google Scholar, esp. 226–8; cf. Nicolet, , The World of the Citizen, 73–81Google Scholar; Suolahti, , The Roman Censors, 51 f.Google Scholar

²⁴ Zon. 7. 19.

²⁵ It was common and perhaps usual for a censor to indicate briefly the objectionable conduct which had led him to take action; in the case of a senator this took the form of a subscriptio to the nota placed against the individual's name. Ascon. 84C may reproduce the actual subscriptio written by the censors of 70 B.C. concerning Antonius Hybrida. Censors questioned some of those involved and may frequently have given them an opportunity to rebut the accusations (e.g. Gell. 4. 20. 11), though this was at their discretion and was not always done. Complaints against equites were not necessarily recorded formally: Cicero's story in De Orat. 2. 287 implies that the grounds of complaint against M. Antistius had not been stated or set down in writing. From 58 to 52—which in practice means in the censorship of 55–54—some extra formality was imposed by the Lex Clodia, which apparently required a formal hearing of complaints against a senator, conducted in judicial form in the presence of both censors: Ascon. 8C; Dio 38. 12. 2, cf. 40. 57. 1–3. Even so the change was by no means as far-reaching as Cicero frequently claimed (always in broad, imprecise terms). And none of this goes beyond a requirement to state the conduct which was held to be objectionable; censors were not obliged to explain the rationale for acting against any particular form of conduct.

²⁶ Livy, Per. 18; Val. Max. 2. 9. 7; Frontin., Strat. 4. 1. 22.

²⁷ ORF ⁴, Cato, frs 78 ( = Gell. 6. 22. 1 ff.), 79 and 80 (the latter two do not name Veturius but are almost certainly assigned to this speech correctly).

²⁸ Val. Max. 2. 7. 5; Frontin., Strat. 4. 1. 32; n.b. Livy 41. 27. 2; Veil. 1. 10. 6. There is considerable confusion about the names and careers of various Fulvii, including this man: MRR 1, 391 n. 3.

²⁹ Cic., De Orat. 2. 272.

³⁰ Dion. Hal. 20. 13. 3; Cic., De Off. 3. 111.

³¹ ORF ⁴, Cato, frs. 72, 73, 74, 76; cf. 77.

³² Livy 24. 18. 5–6; Val. Max. 2. 9. 8; Cic., De Off. 1. 40; 3. 115; Gell. 6. 18. 10.

³³ Livy 41. 27. 2; cf. 41. 15. 10.

³⁴ Cic., Pro Cluent. 134; Val. Max. 4. 1. 10; ‘Plut.’, Apophth. Scip. Min. 12; Quint., Inst. 5. 11. 13.

³⁵ Plut., Mar. 5. 3–5. An accusation that false evidence had been given was also among the mutual recriminations of the censors of 204: Livy 29. 37. 11.

³⁶ Cic., Pro Cluent. 117–35.

³⁷ Livy 39. 42. 5–43. 5; Plut., Cato Mai. 17. 1 ff. and Flam. 18–19; Cic., De Sen. 42; ‘Victor’, De vir. ill. 47. 4; Val. Max. 2. 9. 3; 4. 5. 1. Astin, Cato the Censor, 79 f., esp. no. 6.

³⁸ Antonius: Ascon. 84C; cf. Cic., Comm. Pet. 8. Ateius: Cic., De Div. 1. 29. Lucilius: 5. 41. 2 and 42. 2 v.d.H; Dondin, M., ‘Pour une identification du censeur de 64’, REL 57 (1979), 126–44,Google Scholar argues for 64 as the date, but this is not certain. Gaius Gracchus: Plut., C. Graec. 2. 6–16; ORF ⁴, C. Grac., frs 23–5. The censorial nota was the mark by which a censor indicated his wish to omit a name from the revised list which was in preparation.

³⁹ Lex Acilia repetundarum, FIRA ² I, p. 84, 1. 28.

⁴⁰ Gell. 4. 20. 1–11; Cic., De Orat. 2. 260.

⁴¹ Pliny, NH 18. 11; Gell. 4. 12. 1–3.

⁴² Cic., De Orat. 2. 283.

⁴³ Cato: Plut., Cato Mai. 8. 11; 21. 8; cf. ORF ⁴, fr. 246. Scipio: Gell. 6. 11. 9 = ORF ⁴, fr. 19. Censors of 70: Ascon. 84C. Claudius: Cic., Ad Fam. 97 (8. 14). 4. Augustus: Macrob., Sat. 2. 4. 25.

⁴⁴ Cic., Pro Cluent. 141; De Orat. 2. 220–6 (= ORF ⁴ L. Licinius Crassus, frs 45 and 46).

⁴⁵ Dig. 27. 10. 1. pr. (Ulpian); Epit. Ulp. 12. 2–3. Watson, A., Rome of the XII Tables (1975), 78–80Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Pauli Sent. 3. 4a. 7.

⁴⁷ Cf. Anthony Trollope, Framley Parsonage, ch. XXVII: ‘But to have squandered the acres which have descended from generation to generation; to be the member of one's family that has ruined that family; to have swallowed up in one's own maw all that should have graced one's children and one's grandchildren! It seems to me that the misfortunes of this world can hardly go beyond that!’ Nicolet, , The World of the Citizen, 78Google Scholar, rightly points out that censors would be interested in the practical question of whether a man retained sufficient wealth to continue in his status; but attitudes were clearly more deeply rooted than this alone,

⁴⁸ MRR I, 196 for numerous references.

⁴⁹ Pliny, NH 18. 32. Crassus: Aelian, Hist. Anim. 8. 4; Macrob., Sat. 3. 15. Cato: Plut., Cato Mai. 16. 7.

⁵⁰ Gell. 6. 11. g = ORF ⁴, fr. 19. Other instances: Polyb. 31. 25a; Plut., Cato Mai. 8. 11; Cic., De Orat. 2. 283 (Antistius); Pliny, NH 18. 32 (Lucullus); Cic., Ad Fam. 97 (8. 14). 4; cf. Ad Att. 123 (6. 9). 5 (preoccupaions of Appius Claudius as censor in 50).

⁵¹ Astin, , Cato the Censor, 93Google Scholar; see esp. Gell. 2. 24. 1 ff.; Macrob., Sat. 3. 17. 2 ff.

⁵² See n. 25.

⁵³ Cato and the edicts: above, p. 15–16, with nn. 5 and 6. Gracchus: Plut., Ti. Grac. 4. 4. Scipio: ‘Plut.’, Apophth. Scipio Min. II. Servilius and Cassius: Vell. 2. 10. 1; Val. Max. 8. 1. d. 7. Claudius: Cic., Ad Fam. 97 (8. 14). 4; cf. Ad Att. 123 (6. 9). 5.

⁵⁴ Pliny, NH 17. 1–4; 36. 7; Val. Max. 9. 1. 4; Aelian, Hist. Anim. 8. 4; Macrob., Sat. 3. 15. ORF ⁴, L. Licinius Crassus, frs 34–40; MRR II, 17.

⁵⁵ Dion. Hal. 20. 13. 3; Plut., Cato Mai. 16. 1–3.

⁵⁶ Sulpicius: Gell. 6. 12. 4–5. Annius: Val. Max. 2. 9. 2. Manlius: Plut., Cato Mai. 17. 7, also Coniug. praec. 13.

⁵⁷ Cic., De Orat. 2. 260; Dion. Hal. 2. 25. 7; Gell. 4. 3. 1–2; 4. 20. 1–6; 17. 21. 44.

⁵⁸ Val. Max. 2. 9. 1; Plut., Cam. 2. 4; Cic., De Leg. 3. 7; ORF ⁴, Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, frs 4–7.

⁵⁹ For 312: Diod. 20. 36. 5. For 252: Val. Max. 2. 9. 7; Frontin., Strat. 4. 1. 22.

⁶⁰ Livy, Per. 18.

⁶¹ Livy 34. 44. 5; 38. 28. 2; 41. 27. 13; 43. 16. 1; 44. 16. 8; 45. 15. 8; Plut., Aem. 38. 9.

⁶² Size of the Senate: RE, s.v. senatus (Supp. VI), col. 686; total nowhere stated explicitly to have been raised to 600 by Sulla, but beyond reasonable doubt: Mommsen, Röm. Staats. III, 847 f.; cf. Gabba, E., ‘Il ceto equestre e il Senato di Silla’, Athenaeum 34 (1956), 124Google Scholar ff. For an interesting but questionable comment on he proportion of senator expelled see Hopkins, K., Death and Renewal (1983), 75 n. 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶³ Livy 40. 51. 1.

⁶⁴ Astin, , Cato the Censor, 79 f.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ A considerable stir was probably caused when Cato in 184 deprived L. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus of his horse, but he did not expel him from the Senate and, formally at least, the reason is likely to have been Scipio's physical infirmity. Livy 39. 44. 1; Plut., Cato Mai. 18. 1; ‘Victor’, De vir. ill. 53. 1–2; Astin, , Cato the Censor, 81Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ The critical office is the praetorship, since most curule aediles soon went on to that office and most consuls were former praetors. In the late third and early second centuries the number of praetors was increased from two to four and then to six. Since the total size of the Senate almost certainly remained approximately the same (three hundred), this increase will have affected the proportion of former curule magistrates significantly by the middle of the second century.

⁶⁷ Ascon. 84C.

⁶⁸ Cic., Ad Fam. 97 (8. 14). 4.

⁶⁹ Astin, , ‘Cicero and the Censorship’, CPh 80 (1985), 233–9Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Cic., Pro Cluent. 117–35, esp. 130.

⁷¹ For 142: Dio 22. 76. For 136: Dio fr. 81. For 131 see n. 3 to Table 1, above, and refs. collected in MRR I, 500.

⁷² Dio 37. 46. 4.

⁷³ The special lectio of 2:6 is important evidence, since the dictator appointed to conduct it was concerned to adhere closely to established convention: Livy 23. 23. 1–7. Cf. the story of Licinius Crassus, who in 150 was assumed by Q. Fabius Maximus to be a senator because he had been quaestor three years before (Val. Max. 2. 2. 1); also the tribune Cn. Tremellius who in 168 protested because he had not been made a senator (Livy 45. 15. 9).

⁷⁴ See esp. Gell. 3. 18. 5–7; Festus, s.v. senatores, 454 Willems, L. P., Le Sénat de la république romaine (1883–1885), I ², 859Google Scholar; RE, s.v. senatus (Supp. VI), col. 688; Gabba, E., ‘Notee Appianee’, Athenaeum 33 (1955), 219Google Scholar f.

⁷⁵ The ius is usually believed to have been extended to tribunes in the later second century and to quaestors by Sulla (so Mommsen, Röm. Staats. II², 420 ff. and III, 858 ff.); Gabba, loc. cit., argues that this occurred much earlier, but his arguments are not secure at every point.

⁷⁶ Astin, , ‘Censorships in the Late Republic’, Historia 34 (1985), 187–8;Google Scholar and above, n. 25.

⁷⁷ Livy 41. 27. 2; Val. Max. 2. 75; Vell. 1. 10. 6; Frontin., Strat. 4. 1. 32. See also MRR 1, 391.

⁷⁸ Schmähling, , Die Sittenaufsicht, esp. 128 ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Cic., De Rep. 4. 6.