The dissemination of divination in roman republican times

The auspicium ex tripudio was a technique used by the commanders of armies in the field.
It was used to determine whether the army should attack or not.
Technique Very little is known about the precise procedure of the auspicium ex tripudio,
but the general outline of what took place is reasonably clear. It seems that it was performed
during the night/early morning (Liv.10.40.2). Other stories indicate that it could be performed
at the ocean (Suet.Tib.2). It was performed by the magistrate with an assistant (pullarius). It
had an overall similarity with the auspicium ex caelo and ex avibus (Liv.10.40.2-5,
Cic.Div.2.72). Also here it was necessary to establish silentio (Cic.Div.2.72).
Probably, since the proceeding mimicked that of the auspicium ex caelo, a question was
posed explicitly as part of a prayer. Chickens (pulli) were kept in a cage for taking the
auspicium ex tripudio. The assistant (pullarius) brought them forth (Cic.Div.2.72). Maybe
they were led into the tabernaculum. 130 They were given a pellet of flour (Cic.Div.1.27). Then
the magistrate asked the assistant whether they fed (dicito, si pascuntur), and the assistant
should answer that they did (pascuntur) (Cic.Div.2.72; Liv.9.14.4). If the birds ate and
dropped something on the floor it was a good sign which was called solistimum (Fest.386 L,
Cic.Div.2.72). If not, as in the case that they did not eat at all, it was a bad sign. Another less
frequent variant is sonivium tripudium, which is when the food could be heard falling to the
floor (Fest.370 L). It was also a good sign (cf. Valeton 1890: 212)
Ritualization The ritualization is established by a question being posed either explicitly or
implicitly, and food given to the birds. The birds were not thought to be able to communicate
in any way with humans, nor the operator able to influence their behavior. This creates a
deficiency in the intentional structure of the action.
This technique has often been taken as a key example of how Roman divination was
insincere and manipulative (e.g. Latte 1960: 266; Liebeschuetz 1979: 25). The first comes
from the second book of De divinatione. Cicero here writes that the birds are starved, and
consequently will inevitably eat and drop something when offered food (Cic.Div.2.73). This
observation is told in the context of a critique of contemporary divinatory practices. 131 Thus
130 This is the indication of a late Veronese Scholion mentioned by Mommsen (Mommsen 1952: I, 84 n.5). It
is consistent with the description given by Livy in 10.40.
131 The De divinatione by Cicero is difficult to interpret because Cicero uses himself as a literary character in
the dialogue (Beard 1986). It cannot be taken for granted that the views expressed in book 2 under his name
are really his. It does seem that Cicero believed that the state was best run by the aid of divination
(Cic.Leg.2.31). For a masterful analysis of these intricacies see Jerzy Linderski's article Cicero and Roman
154