241 THE ClXr. BOOK IIL Affiirs nre substantially the same at Rome. The flesigiintion of a consul did not belong to rnon. Tlio will or the cn2)vice of the people could not legitimately create a magistrate. Tliis, therefore, was the manner ill which the consul was chosen. A magistrate in charge — that is to say, a man already in possession of the sacred character and of the auspices — indicated among the dies fasti the one on which the consul ought to be named. During the night which preceded this day, he watched in the open air, his eyes iixed upon the heavens, observing the signs which the gods sent,^whilst he pronounced mentally the name of some candulate for the magistracy,' If the presages were favorable, it Avas because the gods accepted the candi- date. The next day the people assembled in the Cam- pus Murtius ; the same one who had consulted the gods presided at the assembly. He pronounced in a loud voice the names of the candidates concerning whom he had taken the auspices. If among those who and of Demosthenes, the n.amos of siU the citizens were not put in the urn (Ljsias, Orat., de Invnlido, c. 13; in Andncidem, c. 4) : for .1 still stronger reason was this true when the Kupatriils only, or the Pentakosioinedinini could be arclmns. I'assages of Phito show clearly what idea the ancients had of the drawing of lots; the thought wiiich caused it to he employed for niagistratc- priesf like the archons, or for senators charged with holy duties like the prytanes, was a religious idea, and not a notion of equal- ity. It is worthy of remark, that when the democracy gained the upper hand, it reserved the selection by lot for the choice of archons, to whom it left no real power, and gave it up in the choice of strategi, who then had the true authority. So that there was drawing of lots for magistracies which dated from tiie aristocratic age, and election for those that dated from tliu age «f the democracy. ■• Valerius Muximus, I. 1, 3. Plutarch, Marcellus, 5.
