Augury in Ancient Rome Was the Art of Foretelling the Future by Studying What?

 p174 Augur, Augurium

Unsigned article on pp174‑179 of

William Smith, D.C.Fifty., LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875.

AUGUR, AUGU′RIUM; AUSPEX, AUSPI′CIUM. Augur or auspex meant a diviner by birds, just came in course of time, like the Greek οἰωνός, to be applied in a more extended sense: his fine art was called augurium or auspicium. Plutarch relates that the augures were originally termed auspices (Quaest. Rom. c. 72), and at that place seems no reason to dubiety this statement every bit Hartung does (Die Religion der Römer, vol.I p99), on the authority of Servius (ad Virg. Aen. I.402, III.20). The dominance of Plutarch is farther supported by the fact, that in Roman marriages the person who represented the augur of aboriginal times, was chosen auspex and not augur (Cic.de Div.I.16). Rubino (Römisch. Verfassung, p45) draws a stardom between the meaning of the words auspex and augur, though he believes that they were used to betoken the aforementioned person, the sometime referring just to the ascertainment of the signs, and the latter to the interpretation of them. This view is certainly supported by the significant of the verbs auspicari and augurari, and the aforementioned stardom seems to prevail between the words auspicium and augurium, when they are used together (Cic. de Div.I.48, de Nat. Deor. Ii.3), though they are ofttimes practical to the same signs. The discussion auspex was supplanted by diviner, but the scientific term for the observation continued on the contrary to be auspicium and not augurium. The etymology of auspex is clear plenty (from avis, and the root spec or spic), but that of augur is non so certain. The ancient grammarians derived it from avis and gero (Festus, s.v.diviner; Serv. advertizement Virg. Aen. V.523), while some mod writers suppose the root to exist aug, signifying "to see," and the same as the Sanscrit akshi, the Latin oculus, and the German auge, and ur to be a termination; the give-and-take would thus stand for to the English seer. Others again believe the word to be of Etruscan origin, which is not incompatible with the assumption, as we shall prove below, that the auspices were of Latin or Sabine origin, since the give-and-take augur may thus have been introduced forth with the Etruscan rites, and thus have superseded the original term auspex. There is, all the same, no certainty on this point; and, although the first mentioned etymology seems improbable, yet from the analogy of au-spex and au-ceps, we are inclined to believe that the sometime function of the word is of the same root every bit avis, and the latter may be connected with gero, more than peculiarly as Priscian (I.vi §36) gives auger and augeratus, as the more ancient forms of augur and auguratus. By Greek writers on Roman diplomacy, the augurs are called οἰωνοπόλοι, οἰωνοσκόποι, οἰωνισταί, οἱ ἐπ' οἰωνοῖς ἱερεῖς. The augurs formed a collegium at Rome, but their history, functions, and duties will be better explained after we have obtained a clear idea of what the auspices were, and who had the power of taking them.

An associate with this bailiwick is ane of chief importance to every educatee of Roman history and antiquities. In the near ancient times, no transaction took identify, either of a private or a public nature, without consulting the auspices, and hence we find the question asked in a well-known passage of Livy (VI.41),º "Auspiciis hanc urbem conditam esse, auspiciis bello ac footstep, domo militiaeque omnia geri, quis est, qui ignoret?" An outline of the nigh of import facts connected with the auspices, which is all that our limits will allow, therefore, claims our attentive consideration.

All the nations of artifact were impressed with the house conventionalities, that the will of the gods and future events were revealed to men by certain signs, which were sent by the gods as marks of their favour to their sincere worshippers. Hence, the arguments of the Stoics that if in that location are gods,  p175they care for men, and that if they intendance for men they must ship them signs of their volition (Cic. de Leg.Ii.thirteen), expressed and so completely the popular belief, that whoever questioned it, would have been looked upon in no other low-cal than an atheist. But while all nations sought to become acquainted with the will of the gods by various modes, which gave ascension to innumerable kinds of divination, there arose in each separate nation a sort of national belief that the detail gods, who watched over them, revealed the hereafter to them in a distinct and peculiar manner. Hence, each people possessed a national μαντική or divinatio, which was supported past the laws and institutions of the country, and was guarded from mixture with foreign elements by stringent enactments. Thus, the Romans looked upon astrology and the whole prophetic art of the Chaldaeans every bit a dangerous innovation; they paid little attention to dreams, and inappreciably any to inspired prophets and seers. They had on the contrary learnt from the Etruscans to attach much importance to extraordinary appearances in nature — Prodigia; in common with other neighbouring nations they endeavoured to larn the time to come, especially in war, by consulting the entrails of victims; they laid great stress upon favourable or unfavourable omina, and in times of danger and difficulty were accepted to consult the Sibylline books, which they had received from the Greeks; but the mode of divination, which was peculiar to them, and substantially national, consisted in those signs included under the proper name of auspicia. The observation of the auspices was, according to the unanimous testimony of the ancient writers, more ancient even than Rome itself, which is constantly represented every bit founded under the sanction of the auspices, and the employ of them is therefore associated with the Latins, or the earliest inhabitants of the city. In that location seems therefore no reason to assign to them an Etruscan origin, as many modernistic writers are inclined to practice, while at that place are several facts pointing to an opposite determination. Cicero, who was himself an diviner, in his piece of work De Divinatione, constantly appeals to the striking departure between the auspicia and the Etruscan organization of divination; and, while he frequently mentions other nations which paid attending to the flight of birds equally intimations of the divine will, he never once mentions this practice every bit in being amid the Etruscans (Cic. de Div. I.41, Two.35, 38; de Nat. Deor. II.4). The belief that the flight of birds gave some intimation of the will of the gods seems to accept been prevalent among many nations of antiquity, and was common to the Greeks, likewise every bit the Romans; only information technology was only amid the latter people that it was reduced to a complete arrangement, governed by fixed rules, and handed down from generation to generation. In Greece, the oracles supplanted the birds, and the time to come was learnt from Apollo and other gods, rarely from Zeus, who possessed very few oracles in Hellenic republic. The contrary was the instance at Rome: it was from Jupiter that the futurity was learnt, and the birds were regarded equally his messengers (Aves internuntiae Jovis, Cic. de Divin. Ii.34; Interpretes Jovis optimi maximi publici augures, Cic. de Leg.Ii.8). It must be remarked in general, that the Roman auspices were essentially of a practical nature; they gave no information respecting the course of future events, they did not inform men what was to happen, just merely taught them what they were to practice, or not to do; they assigned no reason for the determination of Jupiter, — they simply appear, yes or no.

The words augurium and auspicium came to exist used in course of time to signify the observation of various kinds of signs. They were divided into five sorts: ex caelo, ex avibus, ex tripudiis, ex quadrupedibus, ex diris. Of these, the last three formed no part of the ancient auspices. The ascertainment of signs in the heavens, such as lightning, was naturally connected with observing the heavens in order to watch the birds; and therefore, must in early times have formed part of the auspices; for in an early stage of lodge, lightning and similar phenomena have been e'er looked upon as sent by the gods. A few words must exist said on each of these five kinds of auspice.

1. Ex caelo. This included the ascertainment of the various kinds of thunder and lightning, and was regarded every bit the well-nigh important, maximum auspicium (Serv. advert Virg. Aen. II.693; Cic.de Div.Ii.18, &c.; Festus, due south.v.Coelestia ). The interpretation of these phenomena was rather Etruscan than Roman; and the only bespeak connected with them which deserves mention hither, is, that whenever it was reported by a person authorised to take the auspices, that Jupiter thundered or lightened, the comitia could not be held (Cic.de Div.2.xiv, Philipp. 5.3).

2. Ex avibus. It was only a few birds which could give auguries among the Romans (Cic.de Div.II.34). They were divided into two classes: Oscines, those which gave auguries by singing, or their vox, and Alites, those which gave auguries past their flight (Festus, s.v.Oscines ). To the erstwhile class, belonged the raven (corvus) and the crow (cornix), the offset of these giving a favourable omen (auspicium ratum) when information technology appeared on the right, the latter, on the contrary, when it was seen on the left (Plaut. Asin.II.ane.12; Cic.de Div.I.39); as well the owl (noctua, Festus, southward.5.Oscines ), and the hen (gallina, Cic.de Div.II.26). To the aves alites belonged beginning of all the hawkeye (aquila), who is called pre-eminently the bird of Jupiter (Jovis ales), and next the vulture (vultur), and with these two the avis sanqualis, also called ossifraga, and the immussulus or immusculus are probably also to be classed (cf. Virg.Aen.I.394; Liv.I. 7, 34; Festus, s.v.sanqualis ; Plin.H. N.X.7). Some birds were included both among the oscines and the alites: such were the Picus Martius, and Feronius, and the Parrha (Plin.H. Northward.X.eighteen, southward.20; Hor. Carm.3.27.15; Festus, s.v.Oscinum tripudium ). These were the principal birds consulted in the auspices. Every audio and motion of each bird had a dissimilar meaning, according to the dissimilar circumstances, or times of the twelvemonth when information technology was observed, but the particulars do not deserve further notice here. When the birds favoured an undertaking, they were said addicere, admittere or secundare, and were then called addictivae, admissivae, secundae, or praepetes: when unfavourable they were said abdicere, arcere, refragari, &c., and were then called adversae or alterae. The birds which gave unfavourable omens were termed funebres, inhibitae, lugubres, malae, &c., and such auspices were called clivia and clamatoria.

3. Ex Tripudiis. These auspices were taken from the feeding of chickens, and were particularly employed on military expeditions. It was the doctrine of the augurs that any bird could give a tripudium (Cic.de Div.2.34); but it became  p176the practice in later times to employ only chickens (pulli) for this purpose. They were kept in a cage, nether care of a person chosen the pullarius; and when the auspices were to be taken, the pullarius opened the cage and threw to the chickens pulse or a kind of soft block. If they refused to come out or to swallow, or uttered a cry (occinerent), or shell their wings, or flew away, the signs were considered unfavourable (Liv.X.40; Val. Max.I.4 §three). On the reverse, if they ate greedily, and then that something vicious from their oral fissure and struck the world, it was called tripudium solistimum, (tripudium quasi terripavium, solistimum, from solum, according to the ancient writers, Cic.de Div.II.34), and was held a favourable sign. 2 other kinds of tripudia are mentioned by Festus, the tripudium oscinum, from the weep of birds, and sonivium, from the audio of the pulse falling to the ground: in what respects the latter differed from the tripudium solistimum, we are not informed (Cic. ad Fam.VI.6; see besides Festus, due south.vv. puls, tripudium, oscinum tripudium ).

4. Ex quadrupedibus. Auguries could also be taken from four-footed animals; merely these formed no part of the original scientific discipline of the augurs, and were never employed by them in taking auspices on behalf of the state, or in the exercise of their fine art properly so called. They must be looked upon simply as a manner of individual divination, which was naturally brought under the detect of the augurs, and seems by them to have been reduced to a kind of system. Thus, nosotros are told that when a fox, a wolf, a equus caballus, a dog, or whatsoever of the kind of quadruped ran across a person's path or appeared in an unusual place, it formed an auspice (See e.g. Hor. Carm.Iii.27). The juge auspicium belonged to this class of auguries (Cic.de Div.II.36; Fest. s.v.juges auspicium; Serv. advertisement Virg. Aen. Three.537).

5. Ex diris, sc. signis. Under this head was included every kind of augury, which does not autumn nether any of the iv classes mentioned in a higher place, such equally sneezing, stumbling, and other accidental things (cf. Serv. ad Virg. Aen. IV.453). There was an important augury of this kind connected with the army, which was called ex acuminibus, that is, the flames appearing at the points of spears or other weapons (Cic.de Div.II.36, de Nat. Deor. Two.3; Dionys.5.46).

The ordinary manner of taking the auspices, properly so chosen (i.eastward.ex caelo and ex avibus), was every bit follows: The person who was to have them first marked out with a wand (lituus) a division in the heavens chosen templum or tescum, inside which he intended to make his observations. The station where he was to take the auspices was likewise separated by a solemn formula from the rest of the land, and was likewise called templum or tescum. He then proceeded to pitch a tent in it (tabernaculum capere), and this tent again was as well called templum, or, more accurately, templum minus [Templum.] Inside the walls of Rome, or, more properly speaking, within the pomoerium, in that location was no occasion to select a spot and pitch a tent on it, equally there was a place on the Arx on the summit of the Capitoline hill, called Auguraculum, which had been consecrated one time for all for this purpose (Festus, s.v.Auguraculum; cf. Liv. I.18, IV.eighteen; Cic. de Off.III.sixteen). In like manner there was in every Roman campsite a place chosen augurale (Tac.Ann. II.13, 15.30), which answered the same purpose; but on all other occasions a place had to be consecrated, and a tent to be pitched, equally, for instance, in the Campus Martius, when the comitia centuriata were to be held. The person who was then taking the auspices waited for the favourable signs to appear; but it was necessary during this time that at that place should be no intermission of whatever kind whatsoever (silentium), and hence the give-and-take silentium was used in a more extended sense to signify the absence of every thing that was faulty. Every thing, on the contrary, that rendered the auspices invalid was called vitium (Cic.de Div.II.34; Festus, s.5.silentio surgere ); and hence we constantly read in Livy and other writers of vitio magistratus creati, vitio lex lata, &c. The watching for the auspices was called spectio or servare de caelo, the declaration of what was observed nuntiatio, or, if they were unfavourable, obnuntiatio. In the latter example, the person who took the auspices seems usually to have said alio die, past which the business in hand, whether the holding of the comitia or any thing else, was entirely stopped (Cic. de Leg.II.12).

Having explained what the auspices were and how they were taken, we take now to make up one's mind who had the ability of taking them. In the beginning identify it is certain that in ancient times no one only a patrician could take the auspices, and that a plebeian had no power of doing then. The gods of the Roman state were the gods of the patricians lone, and it was consequently regarded as an act of profanation for any plebeian to attempt to interpret the will of these gods. Hence the possession of the auspices (habere auspicia) is one of the well-nigh distinguished prerogatives of the patricians: they are said to be penes patrum, and are called auspicia patrum (Liv. VI.41, X.eight​i, cf.IV.six). It would further appear that every patrician might take the auspices; only here a distinction is to be observed. It has already been remarked that in the virtually aboriginal times no transaction, whether private or public, was performed without consulting the auspices (nisi auspicato, Cic.de Div.I.16; Val. Max.Two.1 §1); and hence arose the stardom of auspicia privata and auspicia publica. I of the most frequent occasions on which the auspicia privata were taken, was in example of a marriage (Cic., Val. Max. ll. cc.); and hence after private auspices had become entirely disused, the Romans, in accord with their usual dear of preserving ancient forms, were accustomed in after times to apply auspices in marriages, who, notwithstanding, acted just equally friends of the benedict, to witness the payment of the dowry and to superintend the various rites of the spousal relationship (Plaut. Cas. prol. 85; Suet. Claud. 26; Tac.Ann.XI.27). The employment of the auspices at marriages was one great argument used past the patricians confronting connubium betwixt themselves and the plebeians, as information technology would occasion, they urged, perturbationem auspiciorum publicorum privatorumque (Liv.IV.2). The possession of these private auspicia is expressed in another passage of Livy by privatim auspicia habere (Liv.Half-dozen.41). In taking these individual auspices, information technology would appear that whatsoever patrician  p177was employed, who knew how to course templa and was acquainted with the art of augury, and was therefore called auspex or augur: it does not appear to have been necessary nor usual in such cases to have recourse to the public augurs, the members of the collegium, who are therefore oft called augures publici, to distinguish them from the private augurs (Cic. de Leg.II.8, ad Fam.VI.6; Festus, south.5.quinque genera ). The example, all the same, was very unlike with respect to the auspicia publica, generally called auspicia simply, or those which concerned the country. The latter could only be taken by the persons who represented the state, and who acted as mediators between the gods and the state; for though all the patricians were eligible for taking the auspices, yet it was only the magistrates who were in actual possession of them. As long as there were any patrician magistrates, the auspices were exclusively in their hands; on their entrance upon part, they received the auspices (accipiebant auspicia, Cic.de Div.2.36); while their office lasted, they were in possession of them (habebant or erant eorum auspicia, Gell.Xiii.15); and at the expiration of their role, they laid them down (ponebant or deponebant auspicia, Cic. de Nat. Deor. II.3). In case, even so, there was no patrician magistrate, the auspices became vested in the whole body of the patricians, which was expressed by the words auspicia advertizement patres redeunt (Cic. Brut. v, de Nat. Deor. Ii.3). This happened in the kingly menstruum on the demise of a king, and the patricians then chose an interrex, who was therefore invested by them with the right of taking the auspices, and was thus enabled to mediate betwixt the gods and the state in the election of a new king. In like manner in the republican period, when it was believed that there had been something faulty (vitium) in the auspices in the election of the consuls, and they were obliged in upshot to resign their role, the auspices returned to the whole body of the patricians, who had recourse to an interregnum for the renewal of the auspices, and for handing them over in a perfect state to the new magistrates: hence we notice the expressions repetere de integro auspicia and renovare per interregnum auspicia (Liv.V.17, 31, Six.1).

Information technology will be seen from what has been said that the Roman state was a species of theocracy, that the gods were its rulers, and that it was by means of the auspices that they intimated their will to the representatives of the people, that is, the magistrates. It follows from this, as has already been remarked, that no public human action could be performed without consulting the auspices, no election could be held, no police passed, no war waged; for a neglect of the auspices would take been equivalent to a declaration that the gods had ceased to rule the Roman state.

In that location still remain three points in connectedness with the auspices which require notice:

1. The relation of the magistrates to the augurs in taking the auspices.
2. The manner in which the magistrates received the auspices.
3. The relation of the unlike magistrates to one another with respect to the auspices.

We can merely make a few brief remarks upon each of these important matters, and must refer out readers for fuller information to the masterly discussion of Rubino (Röm. Verfassung, p48, &c.), to whom we are indebted for a great part of the nowadays article.

1. The distinction between the duties of the magistrates and the augurs in taking the auspices is i of the well-nigh difficult points connected with this subject field, but possibly a satisfactory solution of these difficulties may be found by taking an historical view of the question. Nosotros are told non only that the kings were in possession of the auspices, but that they themselves were acquainted with the art and practised it. Romulus is represented to have been the best of augurs, and from him all succeeding augurs received the chief mark of their role, the lituus, with which that male monarch exercised his calling (Cic.de Div.I.ii, II.17; LIV. 1.x). He is farther stated to accept appointed 3 augurs, simply only every bit his assistants in taking the auspices, a fact which is of import to bear in heed (Cic. de Rep. Ii.9). Their dignity gradually increased in effect of their existence employed at the inauguration of the kings, and also in consequence of their becoming the preservers and depositaries of the science of augury. Formed into a collegium, they handed down to their successors the various rules of the science, while the kings, and subsequently the magistrates of the democracy, were liable to change. Their duties thus became twofold, to assist the magistrates in taking the auspices, and to preserve a scientific knowledge of the fine art. They were not in possession of the auspices themselves, though they understood them better than the magistrates; the lightning and the birds were not sent to them but to the magistrates; they discharged no independent functions either political or ecclesiastical, and are therefore described by Cicero as privati (De Divin. I.40). Every bit the augurs were therefore only the assistants of the magistrates, they could non take the auspices without the latter, though the magistrates on the opposite could dispense with their aid, as must oft have happened in the appointment of a dictator past the consul on military expeditions at a distance from the city. At the aforementioned time it must be borne in mind, that as the augurs were the interpreters of the science, they possessed the correct of declaring whether the auspices were valid or invalid, and that too whether they were present or not at the time of taking them; and whoever questioned their determination was liable to astringent penalization (Cic. de Leg.II.eight). They thus possessed in reality a veto upon every important public transaction. Information technology was this power which made the role an object of ambition to the near distinguished men at Rome, and which led Cicero, himself an diviner, to describe information technology every bit the highest nobility in the country (de Leg.II.12). The augurs frequently employed this power as a political engine to vitiate the election of such parties as were unfavourable to the exclusive privileges of the patricians (Liv. 6.27, 8.23).

   But although the augurs could declare that there was some fault in the auspices, yet, on the other hand, they could non, in favour of their part, declare that any unfavourable sign had appeared to them, since it was not to them that the auspices were sent. Thus we are told that the augurs did not possess the spectio, that is, the right of taking the state-auspices. This spectio, of which we accept already briefly spoken, was of 2 kinds, i more extensive and the other more limited. In the one example the person, who exercised it, could put a stop to the proceedings of whatsoever other magistrate by his obnuntiatio: this was called spectio et  p178nuntiatio (perhaps also spectio cum nuntiatione), and belonged only to the highest magistrates, the consuls, dictators, interreges, and, with some modifications, to the praetors. In the other example, the person who took the causes only exercised the spectio in reference to the duties of his own function, and could not interfere with whatever other magistrate: this was chosen spectio sine nuntiatione, and belonged to the other magistrates, the censors, aediles, and quaestors. At present as the augurs did not possess the auspices, they consequently could not possess the spectio (habere spectionem); but as the augurs were constantly employed by the magistrates to have the auspices, they exercised the spectio, though they did not possess it in virtue of their office. When they were employed by the magistrates in taking the auspices, they possessed the right of nuntiatio, and thus had the power, by the declaration of unfavourable signs (obnuntiatio), to put a cease to all of import public transactions (Cic. de Leg.2.12). In this mode we are able to understand the assertion of Cicero (Philipp. 2.32), that the augurs possessed the nuntiatio, the consuls and other (higher) magistrates both the spectio and nuntiatio; though it must, at the same fourth dimension, be borne in heed that this correct of nuntiatio but belonged to them in issue of their existence employed by the magistrates. (Respecting the passage of Festus, s.5.spectio , which seems to teach a different doctrine, encounter Rubino, p58).

2. As to the manner in which the magistrates received the auspices, there is no reason to suppose, equally many mod writers have done, that they were conferred upon them in whatsoever special way. Information technology was the deed of their election which fabricated them the recipients of the auspices, since the comitia, in which they were appointed to their office, were held auspicato, and consequently their appointment was regarded as ratified by the gods. The auspices, therefore, passed immediately into their hands upon the abdication of their predecessors in function. There are two circumstances which have given rise to the opinion that the magistrates received the auspices past some special act. The showtime is, that the new magistrate, immediately later on the midnight on which his office began, was accustomed to discover the heavens in lodge to obtain a happy sign for the commencement of his duties (Dionys.II.6). But he did not exercise this in order to obtain the auspices; he already possessed them, and it was in virtue of his possession of them, that he was able to observe the heavens. The second circumstance to which we have been alluding, was the inauguratio of the kings on the Arx after their election in the comitia (Liv.I.18). But this inauguration had reference simply to the priestly office of the king, and, therefore, did not have place in the case of the republican magistrates, though it continued in use in the appointment of the rex sacrorum and the other priests.

3. The auspices belonging to the different magistrates were divided into two classes, called auspicia maxima or majora and minora. The former, which belonged originally to the kings, passed over to the consuls on the institution of the republic, and likewise to the extraordinary magistrates, the dictators, interreges, and consular tribunes. When the consuls were deprived in course of time of part of their duties, and split magistrates were created to discharge them, they naturally received the auspicia majora also; this was the case with the censors and praetors. The quaestors and the curule aediles, on the contrary, had only the auspicia minora, because they received them from the consuls and praetors of the twelvemonth, and their auspices were derived from the majora of the higher magistrates (Messalla, ap.Gell. 13.fifteen).

It remains to trace the history of the college of augurs. We have already seen that information technology was a mutual opinion in antiquity that the augurship owed its origin to the first male monarch of Rome, and it is accordingly stated, that a college of 3 augurs was appointed by Romulus, answering to the number of the early tribes, the Ramnes, Tities, and Lucerenses. This is the business relationship of Cicero (de Rep. II.ix), who supposed Numa to accept added two more (Ii.14), without, however, stating in what fashion these latter corresponded to the tribes. On the other side stand up unlike statements of Livy, kickoff, one (IV.four) which is probably an error, in which the showtime institution of augurs is attributed to Numa, seemingly on the theory that all the Roman religion was derived from the second rex; secondly, a statement of far more than importance (X.6), that at the passing of the Ogulnian police force the augurs were simply four in number, which Livy himself, who recognised the principle of the number of augurs corresponding to that of the tribes, supposes to have been accidental. This is improbable, as Niebuhr has shown (Hist. of Rome, vol.III p352), who thinks the third tribe was excluded from the college of augurs, and that the four, therefore, represented the Ramnes and Tities just. Information technology is hard to suppose, however, that this superiority of the Ramnes and Tities over the third tribe could have connected down to the fourth dimension of the Ogulnian law (B.C. 300): moreover, equally 2 augurs apiece were appointed from each of the two first tribes, and the remaining five from the plebs, information technology does non appear how the Luceres could have e'er obtained the privilege. A different style of reconciling the contradictory numbers four and 3 is sought for in another statement of Cicero (de Div.I.forty), that the kings were augurs, so that after their expulsion another augur may have been added instead of them to the original number which represented the tribes. Probably this is ane of the many cases in early Roman history in which the only conclusion nosotros can come to is, that the theory of what ought to have been according to antiquarians of a later historic period differed from what actually was co-ordinate to the primeval accounts to which Livy had recourse.

The Ogulnian police (B.C. 300), which increased the number of pontiffs to eight, by the addition of iv plebeians, and that of the augurs to ix by the add-on of five plebeians, may be considered a sort of aera in Roman history. The religious distinction between the two orders which had been and so frequently insisted upon was now at an terminate, and it was no longer possible to utilize the auspices as a political instrument against the plebeians. The number of 9 augurs which this constabulary stock-still, lasted down to the dictatorship of Sylla, who increased them to 15, a multiple of the original three, probably with a reference to the early tribes (Liv.Epit. 89). A sixteenth memberº was added by Julius Caesar after his return from Arab republic of egypt (Dion Cass. XLII.51).

The members of the higher of augurs possessed self-election (cooptati). At kickoff they were appointed by the king, simply as the male monarch himself was an augur,  p179their appointment by him was not considered contrary to this principle (Romulus cooptavit augures, de Rep. II.9). They retained the right of co-optation untilB.C. 103, the year of the Domitian law. Past this constabulary it was enacted that vacancies in the priestly colleges should exist filled up by the votes of a minority of the tribes, i.eastward. seventeen out of thirty-5 called by lot (Cic. de Leg. Agr. II.7; Vell. Pat.II.12; Suet. Ner. 2). The Domitian law was repealed by SullaB.C. 81 (Pseudo-Ascon. in Cic. Div. p102, ed. Orelli) , merely again restoredB.C. 63, during the consulship of Cicero, by the tribune T. Annius Labienus, with the support of Caesar (Dion Cass. XXXVII.37). Information technology was a second fourth dimension abrogated by AntonyB.C. 44 (Dion Cass. XLIV.53); whether again restored past Hirtius and Pansa in their full general annulment of the acts of Antony, seems uncertain. The emperors possessed the right of electing augurs at pleasure.

The augurs were elected for life, and even if capitally convicted, never lost their sacred character (Plin.Ep.Iv.8). When a vacancy occurred, the candidate was nominated by two of the elder members of the higher (Cic.Phil.Ii.2), the electors were sworn, and the new member was so solemnly inaugurated (Cic. Brut. 1). On such occasion there was always a splendid banquet given, at which all the augurs were expected to be present (Cic. ad Fam.VII.26, advert Att.XII. thirteen , 14 , 15 ). The just distinction in the college was ane of historic period; an elder augur always voted earlier a younger, even if the latter filled one of the higher offices of the state (Cic. de Sen. 18). The head of the college was called magister collegii. It was expected that all the augurs should alive on friendly terms with one another, and it was a dominion that no one was to be elected to the role, who was known to be an enemy to whatever of the college (Cic. ad Fam.III.10). The augur, who had inaugurated a younger fellow member, was ever to be regarded by the latter in the light of a parent (in parentis eum loco colere, Cic. Brut. i).

As insignia of their office the augurs wore the trabea, or public dress (Serv. ad Aen. 7.612), and carried in their paw the lituus or curved wand [Lituus]. On the coins of the Romans, who filled the office of augur, we constantly discover the lituus, and forth with information technology, not unfrequently, the capis, an earthen vessel which was used by them in sacrifices (Liv.Ten.7; Varr. Fifty. L.5.121, ed. Müller). Both of these instruments are seen in the annexed coin of Lentulus.

The science of the augurs was called jus augurum and jus augurium, and was preserved in books (libri augurales), which are often mentioned in the ancient writers. The expression for consulting the augurs was referre ad augures, and their answers were called decreta or responsa augurum. The science of augury had profoundly declined in the time of Cicero; and although he frequently deplores its neglect in his De Divinatione, notwithstanding neither he nor any of the educated classes appears to have had any faith in information technology. What a farce information technology had become a few years later is evident from the statement of Dionysius (II.six), who informs us that a new magistrate, who took the auspices upon the get-go day of his office, was accustomed to have an augur on his side, who told him that lightning had appeared on his left, which was regarded every bit a proficient omen, and although cypher of the kind had happened, this proclamation was considered sufficient. (Mascov, De Jure Auspicii apud Romanos, Lips. 1721; Werther, De Auguriis Romanis, Lemgo, 1835; Creuzer, Symbolik, vo.II p935, &c.; Müller, Etrusker, vol.2 p110, &c.; Hartung, Die Religion der Römer, vol. 1 p98, &c.; Göttling, Geschichte der Röm. Staatsverf. p198, &c.; Becker, Röm. Alterth. vol.II partI. p304; only above all Rubino, Röm. Verfassung, p34, &c.)

---

The Author'southward Note:

1 In that location can be no reasonable dubiety that past patres in these passages the whole body of the patricians is meant, and non the senators, equally Rubino asserts (cf. Becker, Röm. Alterth. vol.Ii roleI p304, &c.)

wrightbrime1958.blogspot.com

Source: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA%2A/Augurium.html