Salvete

This is a little lengthy, and maybe repetitive, but I think I should explain further my earlier statement that the the story of Bibulus trying to block Caesar's legislation by manipulating the auspices is really insignificant. Political historians place far too much importance on what is really meaningless in this matter.

In the first place, Bibulus never announced he had seen any ill omens. He simply sent messengers saying that he was watching the skies and that alone could not forestall a comitia in its proceedings. He never reported any auspices that would have affected the assembly of a comitia. Therefore the idea that Caesar ignored the auspices is absolutely false. Undue attention to this event is due to a misunderstanding of augural procedures.

In order to have prevented a comitia from assembling, or to close a session of a comitia once begun, would require a magistrate or augur to issue an obnuntatio. This Bibulus never did, and it is even questionable that he could. Also to present an obnuntatio would require he do so in person, not by messenger. Bibulus never appeared at the site where the comitia was meeting, and therefore he could not issue an obnuntatio.

Secondly is the matter of what auspices could end a comitia session once begun. There was one and only such auspice that could close a comitia. "The only sign to vitiate comitia is lightning, as among all signs that we have that is the best, and then if on the left (Cicero Div. 2.18.43)." There were five categories of signs, of which there was a hierarchical order in which some took precedence over others. Lightning was the highest auspice. To close a comitia therefore a lightning bolt sent by Jupiter, and no other deity, would have to appear in the west; that is, on the right. It could not be just any lightning bolt either. There were several categories of lightning bolts (see Seneca Naturales Questiones 2.39; 2.49, after Caecina). The particular type needed was a peremptalia, a form of "lightning that Gracchus asserted was superior to other lightning or portents, which preempted all other signs (Festus 214b)." That alone would not necessarily close a comitia if the auspice was contested. There would need to be then an attestantia lightning bolt. "They called lightning attestantia when it came a second time, as it was easy to see it confirming a previous sign. (Festus Ep. 12; also Caecina at Seneca N. Q.2.49.2)." The comitia in question was called by Caesar, therefore under his auspices, and therefore could not be prevented from assembling by any auspices taken by Bibulus. Only by announcing through an obnuntatio that he had witnessed a peremptalia could Bibulus cancel a comitia from meeting or vitiate anything the comitia passed while in session, and obviously this was a sign would that would have been easily observed by others as well. Obviously no peremptalia, none could be attested, and so there was no auspice for Caesar to ignore as political historians claim.

Finally, a comitia had to meet inside a templum. Sometimes comitia would meet inside a templum that was already established. Such was the case of the comitia plebis meeting inside the Capitolium templum. Even in such a case of an established templum the magistrate who called the assembly would have to reestablish the templum in which to take the auspices that allowed the comitia to assemble. Only from such a terrestrial templum could he then establish the celestial templum in which the auspices were to be observed. Note in the case of consul Gracchus holding consular elections that the terrestrial templum had to be located at a sight on the same side of a river as the comitia would meet (Cicero Nat. Deor. 2.4, 10-11; Val. Max. 1.1.3). An assembly of the comitia Centuriata in the Campus Martius required that a new and temporary templum be established each time, as there was not a pre-established templum in this field. [There were nearby templa such as held the Temple of Mars, but that was not where the comitia met.] First, Bibulus had cloistered himself inside his house where auspices could not be taken. Secondly, if he did go outside to observe the sky as he claimed he would have to establish a templum. There is no mention that he had or had not. But, thirdly, the location of his templum would be critical. No privately established templum would apply for matters of the State. The only place where auspices could be taken that would directly pertain to the assembly of the comitia was at the same location in which the comitia met. Bibulus never appeared at the comitia. There were two established auguricala that a magistrate with imperium could use for taking auspices that would oversee all affairs of the State, not just the assembly of a comitia. The one on the Quirinal would not apply in this case as he needed to receive auspices from Jupiter. The other was at the Arx on the Capitoline Hill. The Arx was used only for special occasions: in times of crisis, the inauguration of consules, or at an annual augury performed by the augures regarding the year's produce of grain fields and orchards (Cicero De Legibus 2.21.1). Probably this last case was conducted at the same time as the inauguration of consules. Bibulus could not very well claim that the State was facing any crisis by a consul legally calling a comitia to assemble. It was not a time when annual auspices were taken. And at any rate he never went to the Arx. So any auspices he might have seen, had he seen any, would not have conducted in a propertemplum and therefore would not have applied to the comitia anyway.

No ill omens seen, no ill auspices pertaining to the comitia assembling, no obnuntatio reporting preemptive auspices, and never a proper templum established to take such auspices, therefore there is absolutely no truth to the claim that Caesar ignored Bibulus' auspices or proceeded with the assembly against augural proscriptions.