SOURCE: H. H. Scullard, "Cato's Censorship," in Roman Politics: 220-150 B.C., Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1973, pp. 153-64.

In the excerpt that follows, Scullard explains Cato's position in Roman politics, describing both his historical influence and the bureaucratic context in which a censor functioned.

Cato's censorship is remarkable less for any positive reforms than for the spirit in which it was conducted and the impression which it made upon Roman tradition. Censors had more arbitrary and personal influence than other regular magistrates, because they did not have to account for their acts; since they were not appointed strictly to administer¹ the law,² they had far greater latitude than, for instance, praetors, who were limited by the edictum perpetuum. On entering office immediately after the elections, normally held in April, they held a contio in the Campus Martius preparatory to the census proper, or registration of the citizens...