Ауспиции римских цензоров

Abstract

This article is dedicated to the problem of roman censors’ possession of auspicia maxima (i. e. the grand auspicies). Thus, if in the european historiography this question was more postulated, than resolved, then in the russian science of history it was set up as soon as in the time of the debate of the report of the prof. V. V. Dementieva on the XI-th Sergheev’s Lections (Moscow State University, jan. 2001). However, at last summer’ conference in the Russian Academy of Science (Moscow, jun. 2001): «The narrative source and modern science of antiquity», was made by prof. V. V. Dementieva (Yaroslavl’) the new report («The ancient narrative tradition: the illusory contradiction of source’ information») in which at whole the censors’ possession of auspicia maxima was rejected in principle (conform the Dementieva’s analysis of A. Gellius’ fr. N.A. XIII. 15). The article of Ya. Melnichuc it is the reply (and refutation) on the Dementieva’s report. The Author, on the analysis of the narrative tradition (and Gellius’ fragment too) makes deduction that the censors were pos¬sessed the auspicia maxima. The following facts speak of this: 1. For many time (untill 351 BC) the plebejans did not to pretend to the appointment of the censors and endeavoured of this, – afterwards, the cooptation in the collegium of decemviri sacris faciundis only, and afterwards, the obtaining the right on the magistrature of censors (367 BC). On the other hand, the question about the consular tribunes (TMCP)’ possessing of auspicia maxima at this time did not resolved neither russian nor the european historiography. 2. During the time of proceedings of the legislative Assemblies the augurs were situated in Villa Publica, the edifition which was built by censors at 435 BC. In according of these, in the fragment of Gellius was wrote most clearly, that the censors were possessed of the auspicia maior; well, the censors belong to the cathegory of «magistratus major». Therefore, the relationship between the censors and the auspicia maxima is undoubted. 3. The augur Messala Rufus writes: «auspicia in duas sunt diuisa potestates», i. e. he defines the auspicia – potestas’ connection, and did not the auspicia – imperium. Therefore, the Dementieva’s objections that auspicia maxima belong to magistrates cum imperio only – is not correct. Well, potestates of consuls, pretors and censors were equal (pares), but not identical. 4. In the Roman Sacral Law which was connected with the Public Law strictly, the possessing of imperium was not defined the position of a magistrate in the «Roman Constitution», but, vice versa, the main meaning have the rank of auspicies and the rank of the comicium of election (Cic. Leg. agr. II. 11. 26). 5. On the benefit to censors’ possessing of auspicia maxima speaks the conduction by the censors the ceremonies of lustrum and census. This lustrum, connected with operation of census carryed out and the secular function, i. e. the constituation of the Roman army (exercitus centuriatus). In the place of the census’ conducting (extra pomoerium) the tribunes of plebs were not a possibility to use the right of veto and ius auxilium. In such of manner, the right of command of the Roman army in the time of the ritual parade on the Campus Martius was connected with auspicia maxima, but not with presence or absence of imperium (Varro, L.L. VI. 87-88, 93). 6. The sources (Liv. XLII. 3. 3; Dionys. IV. 22. 2; Cic. pro Sest. XXV. 55: sanctissimus magistratus; Plut. Cam. II. 2; XIV.1; Paull. XXXVIII; Flam. XVIII; Cato Mai. XVI; Suidas s.v. timetès; Athen. Naucrat. de hypnosoph. XVII. 79 (P. 660 C.); Polyb. VI. 53. 7) directly attested as the censors as «sacral magistrates». The plebejans, possessing a possibility to be elected in the censorship at 351 BC, were not to conduct the ceremony of lustrum until 280 BC. This fact also certify that the censors had the auspicies of the highest rank.