[130]
But we all understand that in these notes of the censors the real object was to catch at
some breeze of popular favour. The matter had been brought forward in the assembly by a
factious tribune; without any investigation into the business, his conduct was approved by the
multitude; no one was allowed to say a word on the other side; indeed, no one showed the least
anxiety to espouse the other side of the question. Moreover, those judges had already become
exceedingly unpopular. A few months afterwards there was a fresh and very great odium excited
with respect to the courts of justice, arising out of the affair of marking the balloting
balls. The disgrace into which the courts were fallen appeared quite impossible to be
overlooked or treated with indifference by the censors. So they chose to brand those men whom
they saw were infamous for other vices, and for generally disgraceful lives, with their
animadversion and special note also; and so much the more, because at that very time, during
their censorship, the right of sitting as judges was divided with the equestrian body, in
order that they might seem to have reproved those tribunals by their authority, through the
ignominy inflicted on deserving men.
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.