DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.13855#0059
AUGUR.
51
AUGUR.
Campus Martins, when the eomitia 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 there should be no interruption
of an}' kind whatsoever (silentium), and hence
the word silentium was used in a more ex-
tended sense to signify the absence of every
thing that was faulty. Every thing, on the
contrary, that rendered the auspices invalid
was called vitium; and hence we constantly
read in Livy and other writers of vitio magis-
t rat us creati, vitio lex lata, &c. The watch-
ing1 for the auspices was called spectio or
servare de coelo, the declaration of what was
observed nuntiatio, or, if they were unfavour-
able, obnuntiatio. In the latter case, the
person who took the auspices seems usually
to have said alio die, by which the business
in hand, whether the holding of the eomitia
or any thing else, was entirely stopped.—In
ancient times no one but a patrician could
take the auspices. Hence the possession of
the auspices [habere aaspieia) is one of the
most distinguished prerogatives of the patri-
cians ; they are said to be penes patrum, and
are called auspicia patrum. It would further
appear that every patrician might take the
auspices ; but here a distinction is to be ob-
served between the auspicia privata and aus-
picia publica. One of the most frequent
occasions on which the auspicia privata were
taken, was in case of a marriage : and this
was one great argument used by the patri-
cians against connubium between themselves
and the plebeians, as it would occasion, they
urged, perturbationem auspiciorum publico-
rum privatorumque. In taking these private
auspices, it would appear that any patrician
was employed who knew how to form templa
and was acquainted with the art of augury.
The case, however, was very different with
respect to the auspicia publica, generally
called auspicia simply, or those which con-
cerned the state. 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 aus-
pices, yet it was only the magistrates who
were in actual possession of them. In case,
however, there was no patrician magistrate,
the auspices became vested in the whole body
of the patricians [auspicia ad patres rcdeunt),
who had recourse to an interregnum for the
renewal of them, and for handing them over
in a perfect state to the new magistrates :
hence we find the expressions repetere de in-
tegro auspicia, and renovare per interregnum
auspicia.—The distinction between the duties
of the magistrates and the augurs in taking
the auspices is one of the most difficult points
connected with this subject, but perhaps a
satisfactory solution of these difficulties may
be found by taking an historical view of the
question. We are told not only that the
kings were in possession of the auspices, but
that they themselves were acquainted with
the art and practised it. Romulus is stated
to have appointed three augurs, but only as
his assistants in taking the auspices, a fact
which it is important to bear in mind. Their
dignity gradually increased in consequence of
their being 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 col-
legium, they handed down to their successors
the various rules of the science, while the
kings, and subsequently the magistrates of
the republic, were liable to change. Their
duties thus became twofold, to assist the ma-
gistrates in taking the auspices, and to pre-
serve a scientific knowledge of the art. As
the augurs were therefore merely the assist-
ants of the magistrates, they could not take
the auspices without the latter, though the
magistrates on the contrary could dispense
with their assistance. At the same time it
must be borne in mind, that as the augurs
were the interpreters of the science, they
possessed the right of declaring whether the
auspices were valid or invalid. They thus
possessed in reality a veto upon every im-
portant public transaction; and they fre-
quently exercised this power as a political
engine to vitiate the election of each parties
as were unfavourable to the enclusive privi.
leges of the patricians. But although the
augurs could declare that there was some
fault in the auspices, yet, on the other hand,
they could not, by virtue of their office, de-
clare thai 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. This
spectio was of two kinds, one more extensive
and the other more limited. In the one case
the person who exercised it could put a stop
to the proceedings of any other magistrate by
his obnuntiatio : this was called spectio et
nuntiatio (perhaps also spectio cum nuntia-
tione), and belonged only to the highest ma-
gistrates, the consuls, dictators, interreges,
and, with some modifications, to the praetors.
In the other case, the person who took the
auspices only exercised the spectio in refer-
ence to the duties of his own office, and could
not interfere with any other magistrate : this
was called spectio sine nuntiatione, and be-
longed to the other magistrates, the censors,
aediles and quaestors. Now as the augurs
e 2
51
AUGUR.
Campus Martins, when the eomitia 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 there should be no interruption
of an}' kind whatsoever (silentium), and hence
the word silentium was used in a more ex-
tended sense to signify the absence of every
thing that was faulty. Every thing, on the
contrary, that rendered the auspices invalid
was called vitium; and hence we constantly
read in Livy and other writers of vitio magis-
t rat us creati, vitio lex lata, &c. The watch-
ing1 for the auspices was called spectio or
servare de coelo, the declaration of what was
observed nuntiatio, or, if they were unfavour-
able, obnuntiatio. In the latter case, the
person who took the auspices seems usually
to have said alio die, by which the business
in hand, whether the holding of the eomitia
or any thing else, was entirely stopped.—In
ancient times no one but a patrician could
take the auspices. Hence the possession of
the auspices [habere aaspieia) is one of the
most distinguished prerogatives of the patri-
cians ; they are said to be penes patrum, and
are called auspicia patrum. It would further
appear that every patrician might take the
auspices ; but here a distinction is to be ob-
served between the auspicia privata and aus-
picia publica. One of the most frequent
occasions on which the auspicia privata were
taken, was in case of a marriage : and this
was one great argument used by the patri-
cians against connubium between themselves
and the plebeians, as it would occasion, they
urged, perturbationem auspiciorum publico-
rum privatorumque. In taking these private
auspices, it would appear that any patrician
was employed who knew how to form templa
and was acquainted with the art of augury.
The case, however, was very different with
respect to the auspicia publica, generally
called auspicia simply, or those which con-
cerned the state. 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 aus-
pices, yet it was only the magistrates who
were in actual possession of them. In case,
however, there was no patrician magistrate,
the auspices became vested in the whole body
of the patricians [auspicia ad patres rcdeunt),
who had recourse to an interregnum for the
renewal of them, and for handing them over
in a perfect state to the new magistrates :
hence we find the expressions repetere de in-
tegro auspicia, and renovare per interregnum
auspicia.—The distinction between the duties
of the magistrates and the augurs in taking
the auspices is one of the most difficult points
connected with this subject, but perhaps a
satisfactory solution of these difficulties may
be found by taking an historical view of the
question. We are told not only that the
kings were in possession of the auspices, but
that they themselves were acquainted with
the art and practised it. Romulus is stated
to have appointed three augurs, but only as
his assistants in taking the auspices, a fact
which it is important to bear in mind. Their
dignity gradually increased in consequence of
their being 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 col-
legium, they handed down to their successors
the various rules of the science, while the
kings, and subsequently the magistrates of
the republic, were liable to change. Their
duties thus became twofold, to assist the ma-
gistrates in taking the auspices, and to pre-
serve a scientific knowledge of the art. As
the augurs were therefore merely the assist-
ants of the magistrates, they could not take
the auspices without the latter, though the
magistrates on the contrary could dispense
with their assistance. At the same time it
must be borne in mind, that as the augurs
were the interpreters of the science, they
possessed the right of declaring whether the
auspices were valid or invalid. They thus
possessed in reality a veto upon every im-
portant public transaction; and they fre-
quently exercised this power as a political
engine to vitiate the election of each parties
as were unfavourable to the enclusive privi.
leges of the patricians. But although the
augurs could declare that there was some
fault in the auspices, yet, on the other hand,
they could not, by virtue of their office, de-
clare thai 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. This
spectio was of two kinds, one more extensive
and the other more limited. In the one case
the person who exercised it could put a stop
to the proceedings of any other magistrate by
his obnuntiatio : this was called spectio et
nuntiatio (perhaps also spectio cum nuntia-
tione), and belonged only to the highest ma-
gistrates, the consuls, dictators, interreges,
and, with some modifications, to the praetors.
In the other case, the person who took the
auspices only exercised the spectio in refer-
ence to the duties of his own office, and could
not interfere with any other magistrate : this
was called spectio sine nuntiatione, and be-
longed to the other magistrates, the censors,
aediles and quaestors. Now as the augurs
e 2