[1136] XXI. 63. 5 ff.
[1137] Fest. 347. 14; p. 336 below.
[1138] Cf. Livy xxii. 1. 5 ff.
[1139] Nissen, ibid., supposes, too, that Appius Claudius, consul in 179, went to the army without a curiate law and for that reason the soldiers refused to obey him; Livy xli. 10. Livy mentions the neglect of other formalities, but makes no reference to the curiate act.
[1140] Livy xxv. 37. 5 f.; cf. xxvi. 2. 1.
[1141] Ibid. xxvi. 2. 2.
[1142] Dio Cass. xli. 43. In this instance the senate had conferred dictatorial power upon the magistrates by its supreme decree (Caesar, B. C. i. 5); that they were constitutionally in command, whereas the general direction of affairs by Pompey, however autocratic, was only informal, is expressly stated by Dio Cass. xl. 43. 5. What Nissen, Beitr. z. röm. Staatsr. 53 f., says of these magistrates’ lack of military imperium is therefore baseless.
[1143] Cic. Att. iv. 18. 4; Q. Fr. iii. 4. 6; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 47; xxxix. 65. The praetor was Ser. Sulpicius Galba.
[1144] Cic. Fam. i. 9. 25; cf. Q. Fr. iii. 2. 3; p. 417 below.
[1145] Cic. Fam. i. 9. 25: “Appius ... dixit ... legem curiatam consuli ferri opus esse, necesse non esse.”