^{page 43 note 1} I attach no value in this connexion to Dio's statement (54, I) that censors were appointed in 22 B.C. The step was apparently takeb by Augustus as a protest against the suggenstion that he should himself become censor for life. Not only did nothing come of this aborative appointment, but the date stands in no symmetrical relation to any other census lectio senatus, an objection which a consideration of the Augustan method in these matters will show to be fatal.

^{page 43 note 2} As an example, we may cite the case of the censors of 64 B.C., who, according to Dio (37, 9), were obstructed in the lectio senatus by tribunes and then resigned. If however they had been allowed to complete the lectio, it would presumably have held good, even though the census was not held.

^{page 45 note 1} The fact that Claudius as censor held a lectio and a census together may well be explained by his antiquarian proclivities.

^{page 45 note 2} I cannot agree either with Pelham or Shuck-burgh in their explanation of the words duabus lectionibus. The former makes them refer to 28 and 18 B.C., but (a) there is no evidence that Agrippa acted with Augustus in the latter lectio, and (b) the words ipsorum arbitratu, etc., do not cover the expulsion of 140 senators in 28. Shuckburgh believes that Suetonius has reversed the order of the lectiones of 28 and 18 B.C. But (a) such a reversal, especially in the face of the burgh emphatic prima and secunda, is improbable, and (b) the words ipsorum arbitratu, etc., do not suit the lectio of 18 B.C., when the scheme of selection by lot-appointed committees of five was found and unworkable.

^{page 46 note 1} Dio records both points under 18 B.C. (54, 12): πρ⋯τον μ⋯ν αύτ⋯ς π⋯ντε τ⋯ς προςτασ⋯ας ⋯τη, ⋯πειδήπερ ⋯ δεκ⋯της χρ⋯νος ⋯ξ⋯κων ἠν προς⋯θετο, …ἔπειτα δ⋯ κα⋯ τῷ Ἀγρ⋯ππᾳ ἄλλα τε ⋯ξ ῐσον ⋯αντῷ κα⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯ξονσ⋯αν τ⋯ν δημαρχικ⋯τ ⋯ς τ⋯ν αὐτ⋯ν χρ⋯νον ἔδωκε.

^{page 47 note 1} It is curious that Dio does not mention this census, but it is worth notice that it is always a lectio senatus which he is most careful to record. Thus under 28 and 18 B.C. and 4 A.D., while making the briefest mention of a census, he dilates on the lectio. In the present case I imagine that, finding no notice of a lectio in his authorities, he thought it unnecessary to record the census.