Salvete collegae
No takers?
Well, let's try a few hints. Recall the example give, the caw of a crow on the left, the flight of a flock of thrity crows from the left, circling then flying off to the left once more, finally a solitary crow flying from right to left.
First, it must be noted that in each case the birds involved were crows, recognized as birds of augury (Festus 197a; Plautus Asin. 2, 1.11). Not all birds are regarded as auspices. There were certain birds recognized as auspices in augury and the public auspices, the praepetes, while other birds might be found in private auspices that were avis inferas. The praepetes we are told did not include swans or pigeons in the commentaries of public augures, but might be found among private auspices (Servius Aen. 1, 398). Each family kept their own books on omens and auspices and there may have been many differences between the traditions of different families (Gellius 7, 6; Servius Aen. 1, 398).
Second would be to consider whether a bird is one of the oscines, alites, or both. Certain birds, called oscines, were considered auspices when they called out, but not by their flight. Alites were auspices by their flight, but not by their calls. In the flight of birds, those that were swift were considered alites, or else if they flew above all other birds, such as eagles, hawks, and vultures. Festus 197a includes crows among the oscines, does not mention them among the alites, and says that woodpeckers and a certain kind of owl is regarded among both oscines and alites. Livy mentions an incident where a crow flies towards a Roman general from his front and then calls out when above his head. The mere flight of the crow is considered to be auspicious in this case, but it is his calling out while directly over the general's head that is most significant. Plautus does mention a crow taken as auspicious because of the direction of his flight rather than his call, in this case in private auspices (Asin. 2,1.11). In the example given above, crows are both oscines and alites, for the reason given below.
There is a difference between augury and public auspices, then between the public auspices and private auspices. For an augury to be made the auspices must be taken on the traditional lands of Rome (Varro L. L. 5, 53), in places "consecrated" by the pontifices and not just proclaimed solemn by augures such as a templum (the distinction made by Servius Aen. 1, 446 and elsewhere). They must be addressed to the celestial gods and most specifically to Jupiter Optimus Maximus (Festus ep. 64; Cicero Legg. 2.18.20, Div. 2.34). Also they can only be in regard to certain questions involving the destiny of Rome (Servius Aen. 3.20, 3.89). If taken outside Rome's traditional lands, as were held in the Regal period, such as in another part of Latium like Praeneste, then it is an auspice and not an augury. Auspices taken in Britain would fall under "foreign lands" as with any place once part of the Roman empire, while border lands external to the empire were "hostile lands," and since I was in the US at the time, it would fall under Varro's category of "unknown lands." Since there is no longer a Roman state, the special relationship between the gods and the Roman state having been broken, auguries cannot be made today. Nothing, in fact, can be held sacred today, only religious (Gaius Institutiones Iustiniana 2. 1-11), all national centers were polluted and thus reverted to their previous state (Servius Aen. 2, 178), and therefore the sacred centers where auguries had to be made no longer exist (Servius Aen. 3.20). Any signs taken today must be considered as inferes not praepetes, made for auspices not auguries, must be of a religious nature not sacred, private not public, and therefore sent by the Di Manes (Festus 157b) or Di Inferes and not by Jupiter. Note that there are gradations of Jupiter and therefore a terrestial Jupiter who may send signs, but in private auspices other gods may send signs as well (Nonnius Marcius 528). The example given must be regarded with private auspices, and thus crows are taken as both oscines and alites in the example. Following Nigidius Figulus, the direction from which they come would have the opposite meaning in private auspices from public auspices (Gellius 7,6).
Third, the flight of a flock of birds is less significant than the flight of a solitary bird (Servius Aen. 4.462). Thus in this case the flight of the solitary crow takes precedence over the flight of the flock of crows.
Fourth, circling birds, called circanea, are less significant than when birds fly swiftly in a straight path. Again the solitary crow takes precedence over the circling flock (Festus ep 43). The flock of birds and their circling flight can assist in describing some details, but would not determine the outcome
Fifth, when conflicting signs are given, a priority of some signs is held over others. Certain signs that are specifically named as being sought, the imperitiva, would take precedent over any other unnamed signs, except for thunder and lightning that can end the auspices. But even among the imperitiva there are gradations of signs that take precedent over others (Servius Buc. 9.13; Aen. 12.183). If signs of equal importance conflict, the last sign given takes precedent over all previous signs (Livy I.6.4-7.2; Servius Aen. 3.374; 2.691).
Finally, for any auspices taken, to be considered valid there must be a consensus of different signs that confirm previous signs (Servius Aen. 2.691; 3.90).
How then might the series of signs as stated in the given example be interpreted?
Valete optime
Moravius Piscinus