A-dictionary-of-greek-and-roman-antiquities-william-smith

173 AUGUR.
AUGUR
nuntiafio (perhaps also spectio cum nuntiaHom), and sors and praetors. The quaestors and the enrule
belonged only to the highest magistrates, the con aediles, on the contrary, had only the auspicia
suls, dictators, interreges, and, with some modifica minora, because they received them from the con
tions, to the praetors. In the other case, the person suls and praetors of the year, and their auspices
who took the causes only exercised the spectio in were derived from the majora of the higher ma
reference to the duties of his own office, and could gistrates. (Messalla, op. GelL xiiL 15.)
not interfere with any other magistrate : this was It remains to trace the history of the college of
called spectio sine nuntiafione, and belonged to the augurs. We have already seen that it was a com
other magistrates, the censors, aediles, and quaes mon opinion in antiquity that the augurship owed
tors. Now as the augurs did not possess the its origin to the first king of Rome, and it is ac
auspices, they consequently could not possess the cordingly stated, that a college of three augurs was
spectio {habere spectionem) ; but as the augurs were appointed by Romulus, answering to the number
constantly employed by the magistrates to take the of the early tribes, the Ramnes, Tities, and Lucerenses.
This is the account of Cicero (de Rep.
auspices, they exercised the spectio, though they
did not possess it in virtue of their office. When ii. 9), who supposed Numa to have added two
they were employed by the magistrates in taking more (it 14), without, however, stating in what
the auspices, they possessed the right of the nuntiafio,
and thus had the power, by the declaration the other side stand different statements of Livy,
way these latter corresponded to the tribes. On
of unfavourable signs (obnuntiatio), to put a stop first, one (iv. 4) which is probably an error, in
to all important public transactions (Cic. de Leg.
it. 12). In this way we are able to understand
the assertion of Cicero (PkUipp. ii 32), that the
augurs possessed the nuntiafio, the consuls and the
other (higher) magistrates both the spectio and
nuntiafio ; though it must, at the same time, be
borne hi mind that this right of nuntiafio only be
longed to them in consequence of their being em
ployed by the magistrates. (Respecting the passage
of Festus, s. v. spectio, which seems to teach a dif
ferent doctrine, see Rubino, p. 58.)
2. As to the manner in which the magistrates
received the auspices, there is no reason to suppose,
as many modern writers have done, that they were
conferred upon them in any special manner. It
was the act of their election which made 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 office.
There are two circumstances which have given
rise to the opinion that the magistrates received
the auspices by some special act. The first is. that
the new magistrate, immediately after the midnight
on which his office began, was accustomed to observe
the heavens in order to obtain a happy sign for
the commencement of his duties (Dionvs. ii. 6).
Rut he did not do 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 (Li v. i. 18). But this inauguration
had reference simply to the priestly office of the
king, and, therefore, did not take 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 magis
trates 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 like
wise to the extraordinary magistrates, the dictators,
interreges, and consular tribunes. When the con
suls were deprived in course of time of part of their
duties, and separate magistrates were created to
discharge them, they naturally received the auspi
cia majora also : this was the case with the cen
which the first institution of augurs is attributed
to Numa, seemingly on the theory that all the
Roman religion was derived from the second king:
secondly, a statement of far more importance (x. 6),
that at the passing of the Ogulnian law the augurs
were but 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. p.
352), who thinks the third tribe was excluded
from the college of augurs, and that the four,
therefore, represented the Ramnes and Tities only.
It is hard to suppose, however, that this supe
riority of the Ramnes and Tities over the third
tribe could have continued down to the time of
the Ogulnian law (ac. 300): moreover, as two
augurs apiece were appointed from each of the two
first tribes, and the remaining five from the plebs,
it does not appear how the Luceres could ever have
obtained the privilege. A different mode of re
conciling the contradictory numbers four and three
is sought for in another statement of Cicero (de
Div. i. 40), 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
one of the many cases in early Roman history in
which the only conclusion we can come to is, that
the theory of what ought to have been according
to antiquarians of a later age differed from what
actually tea* according to the earliest accounts to
which Livy had recourse.
The Ogulnian law (b.c.300), which increased
the number of pontiffs to eight, by the addition of
four plebeians, and that of the augurs to nine by
the addition of five plebeians, may be considered a
sort of aera in Roman history. The religions dis
tinction between the two orders which had been so
often insisted upon was now at an end, and it was
no longer possible to use the auspices as a political
instrument against the plebeians. The number of
nine augurs which this law fixed, lasted down to
the dictatorship of Sylla, who increased them to
fifteen, a multiple of the original three, probably
with a reference to the early tribes. (Liv. JBpit.
89.) A sixteenth number was added by Julius
Caesar after his return from Egypt (Dion Cass,
xlii. 51.)
The members of the college of augurs possessed
self-election (cooptatx). At first they were ap
pointed by the king, but as the king himself was