The censors

As a result of the reforms which Roman tradition attributes to King Servius Tullius property became the basis of Rome's military and political organisation. This necessitated the registration of the whole citizen body at regular periods so that both the age and property of the citizens would be recorded as required for the purpose of determining the amount of property tax {tributum) which each citizen had to pay and the class (and hence the century in the assembly of the centuries) to which he belonged.

Like the consuls and the praetors, the censors were elected by the assembly of the centuries {comitia centuriata), which was summoned for that purpose by the consuls.^[269] Unlike other magistrates, whose term in office was fixed to one year, the censors were elected originally for a five- year term, as the census was traditionally taken every five years {lustrum). But in 434 BC the duration of the censors' term in office was limited to eighteen months by the lex Aemilia. The introduction of this law had probably been motivated by the fear that political freedom might be endangered if the same individual exercised the extensive powers of the censorship for a long period of time.

As has been noted, the chief duty of the censors was the registration of the Roman citizens and their property and the determination of the class and century to which each citizen belonged and the amount of tax which each citizen had to pay. The registration was preceded by a special edict of the censor by which he announced the rules governing the registration process {lex censoria)?^[270] When carrying out the census the censors relied upon declarations {professiones censualis) submitted under oath by the citizens who were summoned for that purpose {censendi causa) by tribes. A declaration included the name and age of the person concerned, his family status and the amount of property in his possession.^[271] [272] Moreover, a person had to state if he was a free-born Roman citizen (ingenuus) or a freedman {libertinus)?¹ One should note here, however, that only those who were legally independent and in full control of their own affairs {sui iuris) were included in the censors' lists {ius censendi). Thus, a son under the control of his father {in patria potestate), or a wife under the control of her husband {in manu mariti) were not enrolled independently but together with the persons to whose power they were subject.

In the course of time the censors acquired the right to look into the public and private conduct of citizens, when carrying out the census, and to single out those whose behaviour violated generally accepted moral norms. Thus the censors came to be recognised as supervisors of public morals and upholders of the moral standards of society (regimen morum, cura morum). With respect to matters of public morality, they exercised quasi-judicial functions and could stigmatise those found guilty of morally reprehensible acts, irrespective of whether these acts amounted to legal offences or not. Conduct likely to incur the censors' disapprobation included, for example, maltreating one's family members or clients, neglecting one's religious duties, acting against good faith in private transactions or being engaged in a disreputable trade. Likewise, abuses of power by magistrates, the taking of bribes by judges or jurors and cowardice in battle were subject to censure. The censor's disapproval was expressed in the form of a note added next to the culprit's name in the register (nota censoria).^[273] [274] The censors were under no obligation to conduct a formal investigation before passing judgement but, if in doubt, they could give the person whose character was in question an opportunity to defend himself.^[275] [276] It was required, however, that the reason for the nota censoria must always be stated (subscriptio censoria) and that both censors must have agreed in affixing it. A person whose conduct was stigmatised by a censor (notatus) was branded with ignominy or infamy (ignominia, infamia) and, as a result, was deprived of certain political rights and privileges or fell from a position of honour.

A further duty entrusted to the censors was the collection of the Roman public revenues (publica). These came mainly from taxes paid by Roman citizens and provincials and the exploitation of lands, mines and other property belonging to the state. The public revenues were not collected by the state directly, but were let or leased to contractors - tax­farmers (publican!) and collectors of other public revenues - who undertook, at their own risk and cost, to levy the dues and to pay a fixed sum annually into the Roman public treasury. The job of the censors was to lay down the framework of these contracts, or leases, by setting out the conditions under which these were granted, and to let them out to the highest bidder.^[278] In connection with this task the censors exercised a form of quasi jurisdiction when disputes arose between the state and collectors of public revenues, when the demarcation lines between public and private lands were called into question, and in cases involving the unlawful occupation of public lands by private individuals. In the latter cases they could order the expulsion of persons who illegally occupied property belonging to the state.

In the last century of the Republic the office of censor was stripped of most of its powers and, during the civil wars that mark the end of this period, appears to have fallen in abeyance. Augustus' attempt to revive the censorship was met with little success and the office, in its original form, finally disappeared by the close of the first century BC. As we will see later, during the imperial era both the supervision of public morals and the selection of senators were undertaken by the emperors, while the other functions of the censors were divided among other state officials.