It is universally assumed that the peregrine praetor from the outset had jurisdiction (a) in lawsuits between peregrines, and (b) in lawsuits between a peregrine and a citizen. This view is indeed supported by Pomponius, provided we regard him as saying that the second praetor was called peregrine ‘because his jurisdiction was mostly between peregrines’, i.e. mostly in case (a). On this rendering the author would imply that the praetor in question always had jurisdiction in case (b) as well. However, for one thing, the words ‘quod plerumque inter peregrinos ius dicebat’ conceivably mean:‘because his main business was jurisdiction between peregrines ‘—sc, though he was often used by the Senate for entirely different purposes.
1 Digest 1, 2, 2, 28.
2 Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht 2, pt. 13, 210, n. 5. The only exception was the year 208.
3 o.c., 197, n. 2.
4 o.c, 196, n. 2; 215, n. 1.
5 o.c, 196, n. 4.
6 o c, 197, n. 1.
7 o.c, 197, n. 2.
8 o.c., 197, n. 1.
9 o.c., 221, n. 1.
10 o.c., 224. n. 1.
11 JRS XXVII (1937), 37 ffGoogle Scholar.
12 Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht 722, n. 4.
13 Römisches Privatrecht 124, n. 45.
14 Staatsrecht 2, pt. 13, 200, n. 1; Strafrecht 205, n. 4.
15 In or. in tog. cand. p. 84, Clark.
16 Strafrecht 711, n. 5; 722.
17 Staatsrecht 2, pt. 13, 220, n. 2.
18 Caesar 4, 1.
19 o.c, 43.
20 Staatsrecht 2, pt. 13, 215, n. 1, referring to 220, n. 2, where Asconius is quoted.
21 ibid. 197, n. 2; cf. 221, n. 2, at the end.