dictator, etc.) Roman writers attempted to show a connection between these institutions and Rome, seeing that in most cases no such connection could exist. The proposed explanation of this use of concilium becomes actually absurd when it is extended to foreign comitia; Mommsen certainly would not say that the resolutions of the Syracusan comitia, mentioned by Livy, were binding on Rome. His last and most difficult case is Livy vi. 20. 11—the concilium populi which condemned Marcus Manlius, example (6), p. 121. Evidently this was the centuriate assembly, which alone had the right to try capital cases, and which alone had to meet outside the pomerium. Various feeble explanations have been proposed; but Mommsen, with others, prefers to consider the word wrongly used. It is true that if we accept the juristic definition, we must conclude that Livy is guilty of error not only in this case but wherever he applies the term concilium to an assembly of all the people, Roman or foreign; but as we shall proceed by induction, we must, at least provisionally, consider all the cases correct, and frame our definitions accordingly. We have now reviewed a number of passages in Livy in which concilium includes all the Romans. There remains a large group of passages which refer to foreign assemblies. In considering these cases we are to bear in mind that the Romans apply to foreign institutions in general the Latin terms with which they are familiar, and in the same sense in which these terms are used of Roman institutions; in this way only could they make themselves understood. Concilium populi and concilia populorum are frequent (e.g. Livy vii. 25. 5; x. 10. 11; 14. 3; xxi. 14. 1; xxiv. 37. 11), and most of the assemblies of foreign states designated as concilia are known to have admitted both nobles and commons.