[705] Cic. Red. in Sen. 5. 11: “Legem tribunus pl. tulit, ne auspiciis obtemperaretur, ne obnuntiare concilio aut comitiis, ne intercedere liceret, ut lex Aelia et Fufia ne valeret;” Har. Resp. 27. 58; Sest. 15. 33; Prov. Cons. 19. 46; Pis. 4. 9; 5. 11; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13. 5 f.; 14. 2; Ascon. 9; Schol. Bob. 319 f.
[706] Cic. Att. iv. 3. 4; 16. 5; Phil. ii. 32. 81; cf. Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 84; Drumann-Gröbe, Gesch. Roms, ii. 204 f.
[707] VIII. 23. 13 ff.
[708] Polyb. vi. 56. 6 ff.
[709] The former view was taken by Appius Claudius Pulcher, consul in 54 and author of a work De disciplina augurali (Fest. 298. 26), and the latter by C. Claudius Marcellus, consul in 50, and by Cicero—all three being public augurs; Cic. Div. i. 47. 105; ii. 18. 42; 33. 70; 35. 75; Leg. ii. 13. 32 f.; N. D. i. 42. 118; in general Div. ii. At that time auspices were a mere pretence; the chicken omens were forced, and the celestial signs were not seen; Cic. Div. ii. 33 f., 71 f.; Dion. Hal. ii. 6. On the decline of augury and the auspices, see Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 2315, 2333.
[710] Probably the jurist of that name who lived under Hadrian, and who is mentioned by Paulus, in Dig. v. 4. 3.
[711] XV. 27. 4: “Is qui non universum populum, sed partem aliquam adesse iubet, non comitia, sed concilium edicere debet.”
[712] For the purpose of the present discussion the plebeian assembly—that is, the assembly which convened under the tribunes of the plebs and which issued plebiscita—is assumed to be a gathering of only a part of the people. If it admitted patricians (p. 300), and if therefore there was no assembly comprised exclusively of plebeians, no argument would be needed to prove the error of the conventional distinction between comitia and concilium.
[713] In Livy iii. 16. 6, this meeting is called a concilium.
[714] P. 341.