Page:Roman public life (IA romanpubliclife00greeiala).pdf/252

 bribes, the soldier or officer for shirking service or for showing cowardice or disobedience, and the voting citizen for a misuse of his judicial or elective power. Disgraceful conduct in a court of law might also entail the censure. It visited the collusion of a prosecutor with the accused or malicious prosecution in a criminal case (praevaricatio, calumnia), and attended false witness and false oaths. Since there was no secular punishment for perjury, its visitation was peculiarly the work of the censors.

(iv.) The censors sometimes pronounced disqualifications as the result of a judicial sentence. Theft and other private delicts were attended with infamy, and sometimes the censure was independent of the judgment of a court. The censure, which followed a criminal condemnation, might be either one of the censors' own creation or the mere fulfilment of a disqualification already enjoined by law. Of the second kind were the disabilities pronounced by the lex Cassia of 104 or by the ''lex Calpurnia de ambitu'' of 67, the latter of which enjoined perpetual exclusion from the Senate as a result of condemnation.[10]

IV. The effects of the censorian infamia depended partly on the rank of the person disqualified, but were always regulated to some extent by the gravity of the offence. The senator was removed from the list, the knight from the equestrian centuries, the commoner is said tribu moveri or aerarius fieri, or both.[11] "Removal