vol. III A p.1570-1583
The ritual at Roman auspices, with almost the same meaning as the term auspicium or auspicia, with the exception that only the act - both the act and things like the right to it - was referred to in this way; in the three places this word is handed down to us (Gell. n. a. V 12, 1, where it was earlier conjectured, is now no longer mentioned in the adnot. crit.), the word happens to only have the latter meaning. <30> Since most of what spectio refers to has already been handled by Wissowa in the articles Augures and Auspicia vol. II p.2330ff. and 2580ff., only a few of the most important relevant summaries, notes, and deviations from Wissowa’s view will be generally brought up here. Although Mommsen - who has produced an explanation of the whole subject of auspices (St.-R.2 73-114) which, though not exhaustive, is certainly very clear and correct for the most part, in my view, <40> because of the very fact that he kept away from interpretations and specifics which would have only been damaging here - in 86, 2 draws a line between spectio and auspicium such that auspicium would refer to the abstract right of an official to observe birds in general, and spectio would refer to this right in specific cases, this interpretation seems to be artificial and doesn’t find any support in tradition, in which spectio even seems to point to a general right. When Cic. Phil. II 81, in his invective speech against Antony because of his objection against Dolabella’s election in the year 44, <50> says nos( augures) nuntiationem solum habemus, consules et reliqui magistratus etiam spectionem, he means that a position of consul would have been able to give somebody more rights than their title as augur in this circumstance; this was because an augur could only offer his report based on randomly observed signs, but the magistrates still had the right to engage in formal auspices (in this case, of course, auspicia oblativa). <60> The same right is certainly also meant in Varro de l. l. VI 82 with the words in auspiciis distributum est, qui habeat spectionem, qui non habeant; this would be about the rights of the magistratus maiores among themselves and in contrast to those of the m. minores (on this, cf. Messalla in Gell. XIII 15 and below), perhaps also the rights of the augurs, who could, after all, in specific cases also take auspices. <page break 1570/1571> We can’t determine for certain what spectio means in the third source that belongs here, because the relevant note of Festus (p. 333) has been handed down without meaning: spectio in auguralibus ponitur pro aspectione; et nuntiato, quia omne ius sacrorum habent, auguribus, spectio dumtaxat, quorum consilio rem gererent magistratus, non ut possent impedire nuntiando quae cum vidisssent; satis spectio sine nuntiatione data est, ut ipsi auspicio rem gererent, non ut alios impedirent nuntiando (printed in the newest edition of Festus by Lindsay with almost the exact same word-order, just split up differently). <10> The edits (published in Valeton Mnemos. XVIII 1890, 455f., Mommsen’s also here 105, 2, cf. also Forcellini’s Lex. s. v. following Scaliger’s conjectures) don’t seem to pay enough attention to the fact that the word spectio must somehow turn up independently in the text, <20> and, unless a direct contradiction with the source from Cicero handled above is being made, spectio must be denied to the augurs and the nuntiatio must remain for the magistrates (Valeton Mnemos. XVII 441, 1 also argues against Mommsen’s conjecture of his ie. magistratibus for satis in the last sentence). Because of this, without claiming to have found the exact original wording of the source, I am allowing myself to make the following suggestion: <30> spectio … aspectione est nuntiatio, quia omne ius sacrorum (sacra = cultus) habent auguribus, spectio dumtaxat, ut signorum consilio rem gererent magistratus, his et ut possent … quaecumque vidissent; privatis (as Valeton) spectio … In this way, the three categories are contrasted one after the other: the augurs in possession of the right of nuntiatio on the basis of randomly (without spectio) observed oblative auspices, the magistrates in possession of spectio for impetrative auspices (positive for them) and obplative auspices (negative against others), <40> and finally the private people, whose spectio had no influence on others. Here, it should once again be stressed that the term spectio refers to both the impetrative and the oblative auspices (Valeton XVII 440 justifiably says spectio enim quae proprie est omnis observatio auspiciorum consulto facta); the main difference is in the fact that the first are requested by the observer to ask for divine agreement in a completely predetermined way (legum dictio), <50> and the others, if they are observed with a specific purpose (since only this can be the case here), are sent by the gods to the one taking the auspices without a specific agreement, and are used negatively, in order to prevent other people’s actions (Serv. Aen. VI 190 auguria aut oblativa sunt, quae non poscuntur, aut impetrativa, quae optata veniunt, VII 259. III 89). In my opinion, Valeton was correct, <60> especially in the difference between auspicia oblativa quaesita (so in spectio = de caelo servare see below) and auspicia fortuito oblata (without spectio, so not to be discussed here); Mommsen 74. 103f. and Wissowa Rel. u. K. d. R.2 431 draw the line for what counts as oblative auspicia by limiting the latter kind too strictly (lead astray here by the incomplete accounts of Servius which also seem to contradict the practice itself). <page break 1571/1572>
Since we are limiting ourselves in what follows to the actual act of observation without considering what prompts it, what happens alongside it, or what follows it, we should consider the people involved in spectiones, its various kinds, and a few peculiarities in the formal religious ritual. Technically, every citizen had the right to ask the gods about their own matters through spectio, <10> unless they had been explicitly forbidden from doing so; however, there were days when it was forbidden for either all people or even all non-officials to observe lightning (de caelo servare or de caelo auspicari. Varro in Nonius p.92 eo die cis Tiberim redeundum est quod de caelo auspicari ius nemini sit praeter magistratum; the ban was only in effect on the relevant day, not in general as Valeton XVII 423. 444, 5. XIX 86 etc. assumes), <20> meaning that it wouldn’t be possible for a popular assembly to be cancelled or interrupted if a sign was reported (Cic. div. II 42 Jove tonante aut fulgurante comitia populi habere nefas; Vatin. 20 Jove fulgente cum populo agi nefas esse; Phil. V 7 Jove tonante cum populo agi non esse fas quis ignorat?). However, private auspices (Cato in Fest. p. 234. Varro in Serv. Aen. 45. Wissowa vol. II p.2581 and Rel. und Kult. 386, 7) fell out of use relatively early (Cic. div. I 28 nihil fere quondam maioris rei nisi auspicato ne privatim quidem gerebatur, quod etiam nunc nuptiarum auspices delcarant, qui re omissa nomen tantum tenent, cf. also Valer. Maxim. II 1, 1), <30> apart from a probably purely superficial presence of nuptiarum auspices at a wedding (“probably as witnesses” Wissowa), and were originally only practiced by the patricians (Liv. VI 41, 6). <40> The fact that the augurs had independent public spectio has been explained above (cf. also Valeton XVIII 445ff., though his evidence is too artificial, as it so often is), although their initiative in this area had an entirely different meaning than that of private individuals. This is because, apart from the fact that people were naturally more inclined to believe their reports of oblative auspices spotted randomly which opposed the relevant actions (Mommsen 107, 2 and Wissowa vol. II p.2335 and Rel. und Kult. 531, 8 don’t seem to me to be justified in limiting the term obnuntiatio to reports from the magistrates, <50> and assuming that in Donat. on Ter. Ad. 547 qui malam rem nuntiat, obnuntiat, qui bonam adnuntiat; nam proprie dicuntur augures, qui aliquid mali ominis scaevumque viderint the verb obnuntiare has been incorrectly used for nuntiare; instead, considering the sense of the preposition, obuntiare refers to a report which is unfavourable, while the basic verb keeps it ambiguous) rather than the reports of regular mortals, <60> the officials probably delegated the impetrative auspices to them sometimes too <page break 1572/1573> (in Cic. de leg. II 20 in the famous legislation for the augurs, unlike Wissowa Rel. u. Kult. 529, 7 who interprets the words quique agent rem duelli quique popularem, auspicium praemomento as impetrative auspices because of the preposition on the verb, I would be inclined to interpret it as the reporting of signa adversa, which were observed in line with protocol in contrast to the randomly spotted divorumque iras in the following; I would probably also place Liv. IV 18, 6 here, since here the consul who finds himself outside of Rome has the divine agreement reported via an augur taking the auspices; moreover cf. Wissowa vol. II p.2337), <10> or tasked them with preventing the action by observing some kind of unfavourable omen (Wissowa Rel. u. Kult. 531), and definitely also had them nearby as helpers and advisers on spectio (Wissowa 531, 7; Valeton XVIII 106ff. is not inclined to consider any augurs as these kinds of helpers, which is unjustified in my opinion, which Wissowa 529, 7 approves of; the decreta or responsa of the college of augurs were independent of this, of course). Alongside this way of practicing their art, which had them as more of an assistant though they could still exploit it politically - <20> since the augurs alone know how to draw the right conclusions from their observations - the augurs also had the probably original and purely religious task of dedicating people, places (so-called templa), or particular festival acts after observing the signs (about these inaugurations, for which you would probably also have been able to speak about spectio, though in a somewhat different sense of the word, cf. Wissowa vol. II p.2325ff. Rel. u. Kult.2 524f. and Valeton XIX 405ff.; <30> here, people mostly spoke not of auspices, but of auguria, cf. Wissowa vol. II p.2580, who however is unjustified in my opinion to limit the signs observed here to auguria caelestia, ie. thunder or lightning, Rel. u. Kult.2 524 and 529). At the political auspices proper, the augurs officially only played a subordinate role, <40> and the task of observing the signs fell to whichever official wanted to carry out the relevant official act, or gain the gods’ approval for them entering their role. How tightly the right of spectio was linked with the power of officials can be seen from the formula auspicium imperiumque, the epitome of authoritarian power. Only the magistrate in the possession of the imperium had the auspices as a right, not the one actually leading it - in situations where someone was acting as a representative -, <50> although the one leading it would actually have exercised this right; accordingly, we often encounter phrases like ob res a[ut a me aut per legatos] meos auspiciis meis … gestas (Augustus mon. Ancyr. I 24), partim ductu, partim auspiciis suis (Suet. Aug. 21), ductu Germanici auspiciis Tiberii (Tac. ann. I 41). Just as we separate higher and lower officials among the curulian officials, one group of officials: interrex, dictator, consul, praetor, censor (on the tribunes, see below) had the auspicia maxima, <60> the others: quaestor and aedile had the auspicia minora (an explicit reference from Messalla’s book de auspiciis in Gell. XIII 15 and probably also in Fest. p. 15f; cf. also Cic. de leg. agr. II 12, 3 on the right to stop pullarii and Mommsen 88ff.). Auspices could conflict in two ways, the first being when two officials of the same or different rights take auspices about different things, <page break 1573/1574> and the observation of lightning by one of them - which was a favourable sign for their own purposes - made it impossible for the other to hold a popular assembly; it seems that lightning, as an auspicium maximum (alongside the categorisation listed above, there was another way of categorising auspices according to the hierarchy of the signs, cf. Serv. Ecl. IX 13), <10> even allowed the magistratus minoris auspicii to obnuntiate it to the higher official for the popular assemblies (Cic. de leg. III 27 omnibus magistratibus auspicia … dantur … ut multos inutiles comitiatus probabiles impedirent morae, cf. Mommsen 110), however, in practice there was a way to prevent this happening: the consuls forbade ne quis magistratus minor de caelo servasse velit (Gell. loc. cit.). In another case, officials of the same right to spectio (collegae) could ask the gods about the same matter, and get different answers; <20> here, the auspicium of a dictator would win over that of a consul, a consul’s over a praetor’s (a useful example is the decision over the praetor Valerius’ claim against the consul Catulus after the battle in the Aegean islands in Val. Max. II 8, 2); although they also held auspicia maxima, the censors did not stand on the same level as the other officials here (Gell. loc. cit.); <30> if the two observers had the exact same office, the auspices of the one who was in charge on that particular day were taken as valid (examples in Mommsen 92, 1-3, though in Gellius’ sentence neque censores consulibus aut praetoribus turbant aut retinent; at censores inter se rursus praetores consulesque inter se et vitiant et obtinent, he seems to me to incorrectly translate the verbs retinent and obtinent with ‘win out’ [‘besiegen’]; instead, they probably mean ‘support’ [‘aufrecht halten’], and, both times relating to their own auspicium, they stand in contrast to turbant and vitiant; cf. Valeton Mnemos. XVIII 424). <40> Even when they were leading wars independently, pro-magistrates don’t seem to have held any auspices of their own - at the very least, Cicero complains that in his day, when consuls and praetors were first allowed to take on foreign command after their time in office had ended, it had been made impossible to make use of auspices in the field (Cic. div. II 76, de nat. deor. II 9; although Mommsen 97f. recognises this, he still attributes pro-magistrates their own spectio previously in 88f.). <50> Previously, it had not been determined when the right to spectio was granted to the tribunes of the plebs, who originally didn’t have the right to auspices just like all plebeians (Liv. VI 41, 5f.) and who were also elected into the tribunate comitia without taking auspices later, unlike all patrician officials (Liv. loc. cit. Cass. Dio IX 49. Dionys. X 4); <60> however, following Zonaras’ account on the year 449 (VII 19 p.348 C) οἱ εὐπατρίδαι … καὶ τοὺς δημάρχους οἰωνοσκοπίᾳ ἐν συλλόγοις χρῆσθαι δεδώκασιν. ὃ λόγῳ μὲν τιμὴν αὐτοῖς ἔφερε καὶ ἀξίωμα, μόνοις γὰρ τοῦτο ἐκ τοῦ πάνυ ἀρχαίου τοῖς εὐπατρίδαις ἐπετέτραπτο, ἔργῳ δὲ κώλυμα ἦν, ἵνα μὴ ῥᾳδίως οἱ δήμαρχοι καὶ τὸ πλῆθος ὅσα βούλοιντο πράττοιεν, ἀλλὰ προφάσει τῆς οἰωνοσκοπίως ἐστὶν οὗ ἐμποδίζοιντο, <page break 1574/1575> people seem to have used it to come to the right conclusions about when this power was extended and the right was recognised for their own purposes (cf. Valeton XIX 90ff.; else Mommsen Röm. Forsch. I2 165); accordingly, the tribunes only received the right to prevent other peoples’ actions by observing unfavourable oblative auspices, <10> but they were not allowed to ask the gods about their own activities (on this, Mommsen Röm. Forsch. I2 195ff.; since he and Wissowa only seem to recognise a spectio at impetrative auspices, in loc. cit. and vol. II p.2585 they deny the tribunes any right of this kind, but Wissowa seems to be incorrect when p.2584 he thinks that it was impossible for them to be banned de caelo servare; they would definitely have been subject to such a ban, just like the other officials). On the use of the observation of lighting and obnuntiation by the tribunes cf. Mommsen 109, 3. 4, <20> on the limitation of this right in the elections of plebeian officials Valeton XIX 256f., who, however, is not justified to base his view - which is supported already by Appian. I 14 (reelection of the tribune Ti. Gracchus in the year 33) and Liv. III 55, 14 (law of M. Duillius from the year 449 qui plebem sine tribunis reliquisset, tergo ac capite puniretur) and which seems to me to be correct - on Mommsen 273, 3, since here, he is only speaking about intercession. <30> Finally, it only remains to make reference to the few cases where, because of a lack of high officials elected or serving rite, the leadership of the state and with it the auspices transferred to an interrex (the sources brought up by Wissowa vol. II p.2582 should be supplemented by Liv. V 17, 3; VI 1, 5. IX 7, 14. VIII 7, 4, and especially important is Cic. de dom. 38 auspicia populi Romani, si magistratus patricii creati non sint, intereant necesse est, cum interrex nullut sit; cf. Mommsen 87f.). <40>
On the various kinds of auspices, we have the account Fest. p. 260 quinque genera signorum observant augures publici: ex caelo, ex avibus, ex tripudiis, ex quadripedibus, ex diris. Asking the gods questions by observing the birds is surely the oldest, which can be concluded from the name (auspicium = avispicium) and from the tradition that Romulus introduced the auspices after his auspicium inclutissimum at the founding of Rome (story in Liv. I 7, cf. I 18, 6; cf. also Cic. de republ. II 16; de divin. I 3). <50> We can tell how common this auspicium ex avibus was in earlier ages from the fact that it was universally done to call back generals (ubi aves admisissent Fest. p.241), to begin battles (Liv. IV 18, 6 from the year 437), as well as to appoint dicators (ave sinistra Cic. de leg. III 9), <60> cf. also Liv. I 36, 6 (Attius Navius and Tarquinius Priscus) auguriis certe sacerdotioque augurum tantus honos accessit, ut nihil belli domique postea nisi auspicato gereretur, concilia populi, exercitus vocati, summa rerum, ubi aves non admisissent, dirimerentur. However, we don’t know when the auspicia ex avibus were used in relation to the others, especially the auspicia caelestia (weather phenomena) (nothing forces us to agree with Wissowa’s assumption Rel. u. Kult. 526, 6 and 530, that originally the signa ex caelo were used for the augural rituals, and auspicia ex avibus for magistratorial auspication); <page break 1575/1576> we only know for certain that the observation of birds had as good as disappeared by Cicero’s time, and only the signa caelestia, the chickens eating, and the observation of intestines (as auspices or haruspices, see below) were in use (Cic. div. I 28. II 71; on the isolated observation of birds at Octavian’s first consulship, cf. Mommsen 76, 1). <10> It is well known that, for observing birds, attention was paid to the direction of their flight, the kind of birds which appeared, and then either the call or flight and all of these in connection with each other, and eventually the observation would be shared with the augurs to be assessed, <20> but this no longer belongs to the actual fundamentals of spectio and will therefore be left out here (cf. Wissowa vol. II p.2332f. Rel. u. Kult. 430, 3); accordingly, the good fortune of aves sinistrae will be handled in templum.
The observation of the signa caelestia, ie. of thunder and lighting (Fest. p. 64, the latter being especially important), later became the most common application of auspices and seemingly the usual one for state auspication (Civ. div. I 71. Mommsen 78, 2. Wissowa Rel. u. K. 532). <30> These signs were also traced back to a pre-Roman time, with reference to the lighting which was bestowed upon Anchises and his family at his prayer (Verg. Aen. II 692, cf. VII 141. IX 630); also, in contrast to the rest of tradition, Dionys. II 5 have Romulus receive the agreement of the gods via lightning, when he is taking auspices before he assumes office. It was the highest and most decisive sign, <40> people spoke of the auspicium maximum or optimum (Cic. div. II 74. Cass. Dio XXXVIII 13. Serv. Aen. II 693), its effect extended to the whole day and made other signs irrelevant (Cass. Dio loc. cit.), and it also prevented any proceedings with the common people for this day (Iove tonante fulgurante comitia populi habere nefas Cic. div. II 42, cf. II 74. Cass. Dio loc. cit. and other evidence in Mommsen 77, 4 and Wissowa 533, 1). <50> It was primarily this last point which made the observation of lightning a sign of untruthfulness and an instrument of political intrigue, meaning that Cicero was justified when he called these auspices only silhouettes (simulacra) of them (loc. cit. 71). <60> Indeed, any official with the right to spectio could make it impossible for another official to carry out their official duties, if said duties involved holding a popular assembly, by reporting to have seen lightning (in this case, such a report was also mandatory on the part of a private individual or augur, if it appeared after the assembly began and was a lightning strike seen randomly right at this time, ie. an auspicium fortuito oblatum; cf. Valeton XVIII 448f. XIX 77ff.), <page break 1576/1577> and this was even more the case because the observation of the sky (de caelo servare) was considered to be synonymous with perceiving the desired sign in the sky (on how this should be understood, cf. Mommsen 79, 1): (augures) negant fas esse agi cum populo, cum de caelo servatum sit Cic. dom. 39, cf. 40; in Vatin. 15, 17; de harusp. resp. 48 etc. Something of this kind was seen as universally common, a false claim made knowingly or unknowingly was not seen as a lie; when Cicero accuses Antony (Phil. II 88 and III 9) to have made the election of Dolabella ‘vitious’ ementitis auspiciis as augur, <10> he either means that Antony declared he had seen lightning, without actually seeing it, and said that it was a warning sign offered to him randomly (auspicium fortuito oblatum) (this is certainly the case with the auspicium ementitum mentioned by Cic. div. I 29f. with regards to App. Claudius acting against the tribune of the plebs C. Ateius, which Valeton XVIII 441 explains in a much too complicated manner), <20> or he means (and this is Valeton’s opinion) that, although he wanted people to believe that he had nuntioed as an augur, he had still dared to de caelo servare against augural law (Phil. II 81ff.). People did, after all, even go so far as to declare beforehand that they would observe the sky on this or that day, to scare their opponents away from calling a popular assembly on that day (on the practical consequences of this matter cf. Valeton XIX 102ff.). <30> The actions of Antony should be interpreted in this way, since he had already declared long before the consular elections that se Dolabellae comitia aut prohibiturum auspiciis aut id facturum esse, quod fecit (ie. vitiare = make void) loc. cit., but you would only be able to do this if you intended (as a magistrate) to carry out the spectio: quisquamne divinare potest, quid vitii in auspiciis futurum sit, nisi qui de caelo servare constituit? (on this cf. Mommsen 79, 4): <40> cf. further Cass. Dio XXXVIII 13 and the way the consul Bibulus acted in the year 59 (Cass. Dio XXXVIII 6. Cic. dom. 39, 40; de harusp. resp. 48; ad Att. II 16, 2. Suet. Caes. 20) as well as the tribune of the plebs Milo in 57 (Cic. ad Att. IV 3, 3). In order to protect against this kind of sabotage, it could be declared that on a specific day, nobody would observe the sky (Gell. XIII 15, 1. Cic. Sest. 129. Valeton XIX 232ff. not quite right), <50> however, by the law proposed by Clodius in 58 who wanted to allow himself to act freely against his opponents, Cicero above all, the Leges Aeila et Fufia (on these, as well as L. Langes Abh. 1861, aufg. i. Kl. Schriften I 274ff. cf. Mommsen 107, 4. Valeton XIX 233ff. and Bouché-Leclerq Dict. d. ant. I 582) were rescinded (Ascon. in Pis. p. 9 obnuntiatio, qua perniciosis legibus resistebatur, quam Aelia lex confirmaverat, erat sublata - Cicero, who considered those laws a useful barrier against reckless and inflammatory proposals, deeply lamented its removal, cf. in Vatin. 18: post redit. i. sen. 11; de leg. III 27), <60>and observing lighting on a day in which there would be any popular assembly was banned (Ascon. loc. cit. ne quis per eos dies, quibus cum populo agi liceret, de caelo servaret; the individual sources from Cicero’s speeches on what the Lex Clodia declared have been collected in Valeton XIX 244, 2, whose opinion is in 244ff.). <page break 1577/1578> This is also how Cicero’s words Phil. II 81 quod (de caelo servare, which Antony did actually do) neque licet comitiis per leges should be interpreted, ie. comitiis means ‘if comitia would take place’, not like Valeton XVIII 449, 2 ‘during the comitia’, <10> ie. after they began (since this is in the second half of the sentence et si quis servavit, non habitis comitiis, sed priusquam habeantur debet nuntiare, ie. a report because of the spectio of an official must take place before the assemblies began). Just as the spectio signorum caelestium was negatively misused to get in other people’s way, so too, since the lightning sign had been made into an auspicium impetrativum from an oblativum (Mommsen 78. Wissowa 533), <20> this sign, as one bringing good fortune, was regularly reported to the observing official as having been seen on the left in a clear sky: very characteristically Cic. div. II 74 iam de caelo servare non ipsos censes solitos qui auspicabantur? nunc imperant pullario: ille renuntiat. (The latter here means a report in the desired way; Mommsen’s suggestion 78, 1 to connect this phrase to fulmen sinistrum from what follows it as an object to renuntiat, and therefore to place the relative quod behind auspicium optimum, has found no agreement except in Valeton XIII 289, 2); <30> moreover Dionys. II 6. Because of this, Cicero was justified when he said that the auspices at his time had been stripped of their religious importance, frozen to a hollow shell, and only used to further political agendas, retinetur autem et ad opinionem vulgi et ad magnas utilitates rei publicae mos, religio, disciplina, ius augurium, collegii auctoritas Cic. div. II 70. <40> Dionys. II 6. Cic. de leg. II 23; de nat. deor. II 9 sed neglegentia nobilitatis augurii disciplina omissa, veritas auspiciorum spreta est, species tantum retenta, cf. also div. 105. Those who despised the auspices sapienter aiebant ad opinionem imperitorum esse fictas religiones.
Later on, the most common act of spectio in the field was the chickens eating (tripudium = terripavium, the same etymology in Cic. div. II 72. Fest. p. 363. 244), <50> an act particularly popular under difficult circumstances because of its simplicity and clear nature (Cic. div. II 71. Fest. p. 363 in castris usurpatur. Sil. Pun. V 59 priscum populis de more Latinis auspicium, cum bella parant - famous cases from Roman history: P. Claudius, consul of 249 Cic. de nat. deor. II 7. Serv. Aen. VI 198. Flaminius, consul of 215 Cic. div. I 77 etc. in Mommsen 81, 5). <60> Here, they would observe whether the holy chickens brought along in a cage ate, and, where possible (originally this seems to have been necessary, cf. Mommsen 811 and Wissowa Rel. u. Kult. 532, 4), if part of the food they had eaten fell out of their beak again (Cic. div. I 28. II 72. Liv. X 40, 4, in the latter case people mention a tripudium solistimum Fest. p. 298 or even a tripudium sonivium Serv. Aen. III 90). <page break 1578/1579> We are informed about what happened at such a tripudium by the Veronese Scholia to Verg. Aen. X 241, whose mangled text Mommsen 81, 5 tries to fix, and Cic. div. II 72. From these accounts, we learn how this custom had also already become farcical at Cicero’s time, since in every case the chicken-keeper pullarius (this later also meant a helper when observing lightning Cic. 74, cf. also Cic. ep. fam. X 12, 3 and Wissowa 532, 7) reported that the chickens had eaten, in line with the official’s will, and as well as this the chickens would have been caged up and left hungry, so when they tore into the porridge-like food (puls Fest. p. 244) brought to them, some of the food they were devouring would naturally have fallen to the ground; because of this, Cicero calls this act an auspicium coactum et expressum (loc. cit. 28 and 73). <20> The fact that this auspicium, was also later practiced in the civic sphere, though rarely, is reported to us by the note Serv. Aen. VI 198 Romani moris erat et in comitiis agendis et in bellis gerendis pullaria captare auguria (cf. Mommsen 82, 2).
Here, we can consider the animal signs named fourth (auspicia ex quadrupedibus or pedestria Fest. p. 244, cf. Plin. n. h. VIII 84 from wolves) as being rarely consulted, and the dirae as excluded from spectio (Mommsen 75 is unjustified to equate them to the auguria oblativa), leave them to one side, and only briefly go into one more kind of divine sign here, the observation of which generally fell to a specific group of priests, the Etruscan haruspices, though, despite not being observed by these people themselves, they should still be considered as auspices and seem to have fallen under the area of spectio: the inspection of entrails (the duty of the haruspices was never called spectio, instead it was called extispicium). <40> Valeton in particular (Mnemos. XVII 446f.) puts forward the opinion that even before the introduction of the relevant disciplina Etrusca (roughly around the time of the Second Punic War), inspecting entrails was still a Roman custom, which he offers many examples from Livy for, as well as other authors (loc. cit. 447, 7). <50> Also, even Cic. div. I 28 and Valer. Maxim. I 1, 1 seem to reference official auspicia ex extis, and it is also possible to interpret the note Fest. p. 244 pestifera auspicia esse dicebant, cum cor in extis aut caput in iocinore non fuisset in this way, though Mommsen 85 denies that observing sacrifices was not a Roman discipline, and only considers what Festus says above as the observation of exceptional abnormalities in terms of dirae (cf. Wissowa Rel. u. Kult.2 418). <60> However, Valeton, who considers the separation between hostiae consultatoriae and honorariae (loc. cit. 430 he names the latter, which are called animales in Serv. Aen. IV 56. II 119. III 231. V 483) to belong to the Roman sacral discipline (else Wissowa 419, 1 and Thulin Die etruskische Disziplin II 11ff.), is surely wrong when loc. cit. 430, 2, <page break 1579/1580> with reference to the story that Caesar consulted the entrails before the fatal meeting of the senate on the day of his murder (though the stories in Plut. Caes. 63. Brut. 15. Flor. II 13. Suet. Caes. 81 do not mention haruspices, they must have been involved), thinks that the gods were always consulted in this way before meeting of the senate and that the term auspices in the relevant reports (Varro in Gell. IV 7, 9. Cic. ep. fam. X 12, 3. Serv. Aen. I 446. Appian. bell. civ. II 116 οἰωνίζεσθαι) should refer to the inspection of entrails. <10> Out of the various details of the act of spectio (on this, see Wissowa vol. II p.2586f. and in Marquardt’s Handbuch III 401ff. Mommsen 101f.), I would only like to deal with a controversial matter which has been discussed often: that of the templum. Regarding the templum (area of observation) for the augurs’ rituals and for the auspication of magistrates, <20> ever since the problem was first handled by K. O. Müller in his book on the Etruscans and by H. Nissen in his work on temples, there have been differences in opinion about the various kinds, their use, and above all their orientation. A templum (from τέμνειν = to cut, incorrectly Varro de l. l. VII 7 a tuendo and similarly Isid. orig. XV 14, 7) is any area marked out by an augur in a formal way for sacred purposes, <30> the enclosed space in the open air in the sky or on the earth, and the area of observation marked out for the purpose of spectio. Purely in terms of area, the zone on the earth is identical to the zone in the air or in the sky directly above (correctly in my view, Marquardt loc. cit. 402), and in his scholarly chapter on templa (de. l. l. VII 5-10), <40> Varro seems to me to have made absolutely no official distinctions when he starts making his new declarations (neither three kinds, as P. Regell thinks in his work Jahrb. f. Philol. CXXIII 1881, 539ff. which is particularly fundamental though probably too dogmatic, nor five kinds, as Valeton XVII 278ff. assumes, with § 7 adding in a fourth group), but instead he only made purely practical, obvious, and superficial differentiations prompted by etymology (like the sky, the earth, the underworld), <50> and this is why I am not inclined to believe in the complicated categories proposed by both scholars, templum, caeleste, aërium, terrestre. It is universally recognised that inside the templum on earth, which was also called templum minus (Fest. p. 157. Serv. Aen. IV 200, like the interpretations in Wissowa Rel. u. K.2 527, 4 and Mommsen 101, 4, else Valeton XX 375), the auspex always carried out the observation from a so-called watching-tent (tabernaculum, Mommsen 101, 3), <60> in contrast to the corresponding air- or sky- region (Varro loc. cit. 8. Serv. Aen. I 92) (on the other ceremonies and technical terms like locum liberare et efflare etc. as well as demarcating a templum outside Rome, see vol. II p.2327ff. 2586 and Wissowa Rel. u. Kult.2 528f.) It only seems to me to be certain that the augur was always the one to carry out this kind of demarcation and separation, <page break 1580/1581> in line with the system of limitatio with cardo, decumanus and decussis (on this cf. Fabricius vol. XIII p.672ff.) and using the staff (lituus), from both the templa used to worship the gods (and here after repeating the auspices, as we have to conclude with Valeton XXIII 355ff. from sources like Cic. Catil. I 33 tu Iuppiter qui eisdem quibus haec urbs auspiciis a Romulo es constitutus, Tac. hist. III 72. Serv. Aen. XI 235, <10> perhaps also Varro de l. l. VII 6 templum in terra ab auspiciis esse [although here ab auspiciis could also refer to what had to be performed from the templum out], although cf. Wissowa vol. II p.2326, who however probably misunderstands Valeton’s opinion here and has the watching-templa in mind, see below), which were first made into templa in this way in contrast to the non-inaugurated aedes sacrae <20> (Serv. Aen. I 446. Varro de l. l. VII 10. Gell. XIV 7, 7 non omnes aedes sacra templa esse et ne aedem quidem Vestae templum esse, similarly Serv. Aen. VII 153 - on the other hand, there must have been templa in the rest of the everyday places like the comitium, rostra, and every place where the senate met; on the latter, cf. Varro de l. l. VII 10. Liv. I 30, 2. Cass. Dio. LV 3. Serv. Aen. I 446. VII 153. 174. XI 235. XII 120, in general Valeton XXIII 26ff.) and from which they could practice a spectio, as well as from the so-called watching-templa, <30> for which Wissowa - in my opinion - was unjustified to assume only one set of boundaries in terra during auspication done by magistrates, while he only attributes a set of boundaries in caelo to augural rituals which involved the caelestia signa (vol. II p.2343, Rel. u. Kult.2 530; caelique fulgura regionibus ratis temperanto Cic. de leg. II 2 is only said as an example or a parte potiore). There is a very large difference in opinion about the orientation of this temple with regards to the sky. <40> We are told about a southerly orientation (Varro de l. l. VII 7, isd. in Fest. p. 339. Paul. p. 22) as well as an easterly one (Liv. I 18, 7. Serv. Aen. II 693. Isid. orig. XV 4, 7. Dionys. II 5, 2), and accordingly, the terms for the temporary regions of the sky - partes antica, postica, dextra, sinistra (Liv. loc. cit.) - are distributed across the constant regions of the sky from the perspective of the observer <50> (in any case, there were four sides, and Valeton’s view, who XVII 268 identifies dextra with antica and sinistra with postica through his misunderstanding of the account Serv. Ecl. IX 14 and by using an account given in confusion Fest. p. 220 - an opinion which Thulin Die etruskische Disziplin I 20 Anm. amazingly also assumes as true - should be decidedly rejected). Now, it very unlikely that, as Wissowa vol. II p.2343 and Rel. u. Kult.2 524 assumes, <60> the augur, who would also have prepared the templum for the official taking the auspices, had essentially free pick when determining the regions of the sky, and these regions were determined through the so-called legum dictio (this determining of regions, cf. Serv. Aen. III 89, should surely be interpreted in the broader sense which Wissowa assumes in the first print of his book 334 with Mommsen 74, 7, though he assumes differently in the second print 525, 6); <page break 1581/1582> the relevant sources, which Thulin loc. cit. correctly notes, declare too decisively that it means one thing or the other. On the other hand, though Regell argues that there were two kinds of templa, one ‘earth’ one for watching birdes, facing east and always set up again each time (the last one named by Varro de l. l. VII 8, where he says concipitur verbis non isdem usquequaque), <10> and a consistent ‘sky’ one (templum caeleste) facing south for observing lightnight (Regell 607), which later fell out of use (loc. cit. 612), this idea of his has no support in tradition and is justifiably rejected by Valeton XVII 276ff. In my opinion - and this is where I agree completely with Valeton and Thulin - the eastern orientation is better supported in tradition as well as in the general portrayal of ancient religion because of the sacred meaning of this orientation of the sky (cf. Vitruv. IV 5), and for my part, I believe that the southerly orientation only persisted in literary tradition, without perhaps ever having actually been practiced (Varro and Festus also only say that the relevant orientations are named this or that). But where did this second idea come from? Valeton XVII 290 derives it from the position of the gods, which in his opinion is fundamental here, <30> and he finds support for it in Varro’s words Fest. p. 339 Varro lib. V epist. quaest. ait ‘a deorum sede cum in meridiem spectes, quod ad sinistram sunt partes mundi exorientes, ad dexteram occidentes, factum arbitror, ut sinistra meliora auspicia quam dextera esse existimentur’ idem fere sentiunt Sinnius Capito et Cincius; and so (when looking south), the east side would be on the left, and would therefore be the one associated with good fortune. Since bringing the position of the gods doesn’t seem to me to be enough to break apart a natural scheme, and indeed the only scheme that was common, <40> I would like to suggest another interpretation: The east and everything which came from the east was always considered a sign of good fortune (Varro in Fest. loc. cit. and Plin. n. h. II 142 laeva fulgura prospera existimantur quoniam laeva parte mundi ortus est). The signs that came from there were signa sinentia, or as people also said at the time, signa sinistra, which has nothing to do with the left in this sense, <50> but instead only meant ‘granting assurance’, ie. ‘favourable’ (Fest. p. 339 sinistrae aves sinistrumque sive (sic Mueller est cod.) sinistimum auspicum id quod sinat fieri, Fest. p. 351 sinistrum in auspicando significare ait Ateius Capito laetum et prosperum auspicium, … at sinistrum hortari quoque auspicia ad agendum quod animo quis proposuerit. Serv. Aen. II 693 sinistrum a sinendo dictum quantum ad auguria pertinet, quod nos agere aliquid sinat, <60> and very characteristically Cic. de div. II 82: haud ignoro, quae bona sint, sinistra nos dicere, etiamsi dextra sint - here, of course, what he says is only to do with the ancients’ interpretation, not about the actual etymologies, on this cf. Brugmann Rh. Mus. XLIII 1888, 399ff.). However, since sinister means left, <page break 1582/1583> people didn’t only attribute the same sense of good fortune to the left direction and to laevus which meant the same thing (Schol. Verg. Georg. IV 7 laeva prospera, Enn. Ann. frg. 91. et simul ex alto longe pulcherrima praepes laeva volavit avis, simul aureus exoritur sol; this idea was Roman in contrast to the Greek: Cic. div. II 82 continuing [see above] sed certe nostri sinistrum nominaverunt externique dextrum, quia plerumque id melius videbatur, but it was in no way the only dominant idea to begin with; on the meaning of ‘right’ as bringing good fortune, cf. Valeton 310ff.), <10> but they also constructed a direction as a field of view, from which the east is on the left, and this was the south. Only afterwards was the idea of the gods looking towards the south brought up, perhaps strengthened by the belief that the seat of the gods was found in the north of the sky (Serv. Aen. II 693), and by the Etruscan idea that the first four of their 16 regions of the sky were more favourable, <20> ie. the north-eastern ones (Plin. n. h. II 143f. Mart. Cap. de nupt. Philol. et Merc. I 45 and Valeton 290f. Thulin I 16ff.). To sum up, however, it should be noted that spectio is a genuine Roman (or general Italian, since it is also mentioned in the Iguvine tablets of the Umbrians, cf. also Cic. div. I 94 and vol. II p.2342) sacred discipline based on a generally Indo-Germanic foundation, which finds parallels in Greek religion (the most famous example: Il. XII 239f. Valeton 301ff.), <30> and was influenced by Etruscan beliefs in many of its ideas and developments.
[Marbach.]
Previous article: P. Sestius Capitolinus Vaticanus (9)
Next article: Tainaron (1)