In treating of the distinction between comitia and concilium most of scholars have invariably begun with the definition, quoted by Aulus Gellius(Noctes Attiaae, XV. 27. 4), of Laelius Felix, a jurist who wrote during the time of Hadrian, $quot;He who orders not all the people but some part of it to assemble should announce not comitia but concilium.$quot; According to the interpretation of this definition given by Mommsen, on one hand the voters under the presidency of a consul or praetor were populus, and the assemblies were properly called comitia curiata, centuriata and comitia tributa (populi)~ tin the other hand the voters in the tribes under the presidency of a tribune were known as plebs, and the assembly properly the concilium plebis tributum, or concilia plebis tributa. But in a definition of the comitia, preserved by (`~ellius(NA, XV. 27. 5) Laelius only distinguishes between comitia curiata, comitia centuriata and comitia tributa according to the voting units without the distinction between populus and pleb. Moreover, as Botsford and Farrell have shown, the expressions `concilium plebis tributum, or concilia plebis tributa` are never found in the principal extant literature --nnainly Cicero and Livius- of Republic and Augustan age. Therefore the aim of this paper is tti interpret afresh Laelius` two definitions and to distinguish between comitia and concilium more properly, and so to reconsider the comitia Comitia$F ConciliumeI ~53~ Camitia Tribute 215 tnauta. How are we to interpret Laelius` first definitione First of all Laelius` second definition conforms to the fact that there exist a number of passages in which Roman authors refer to plebeian assemblies as comitia (tribute) as well as concilium (plebis), though such assemblies --generally those convoked by a tribune-- continued to exclude patricians throughout the Republic and Augustan age. Therefore I think that Laelius` first definition can be interpreted as follows: `In order to distinguish some part of all the people, id est plebs, from all the people(populus) only in relation to the membership of an assembly, particularly, to summoning of plebeian assemblies, hca who orders not all the people but some part of it to assemble should(debet) announce not comitia but concilium.` Historically speaking, After the creation of comitia tribute, in other words, assemblies of plebs in 471 B.C., even if patrician magistrates, or consuls summoned populus in order to employ comitia tribute, or assemblies of populus, Romans would not have been designate the former as concilium pleis tributum, and the latter as comitia tribute populi just as Mommsen did. Because, first, Laelius himself only distinguishes between comitia curiata, comitia centuriata and comitia tribute according to the voting units without indicating plainly the membership of an assembly. Next, as Botsford and Farrell have shown, the expressions `concilium plebis tributum, or concilia plebis tribute` are never found in the principal extant literature --mainly Cicero and Livius-- of Republic and Augustan age. Finally, as Farrell have shown. the word `concilium` only takes modifiers related to the membership of an assembly rather than to its structure $lt;ar purpose. Then, couldn`t patrician magistrates announce concilium in order to summon populus, excepting announcement of the word `comitia`e In view of a number of passages in which Caesar and Livius express assemblies of populus, whether Roman or foreign, as concilium or concilium populi, in my opinion, assemblies of populus which patrician magistrates summoned may also be designated as concilium or concilium populi. And I think Festus 44 L. to be sufficient evidence that supports my opinion.