Notes
N o t e s chapter 1 1. on the lex Iulia iudicaria, see gaius Inst. 4.103–5. a significant exception to this overall trend was the opening of the court governing charges of extortion against magistrates to foreign plaintiffs. on this, see Chapter 3 n. 13 and especially ando, “Three revolutions in government,” forthcoming. 2. further actions and formulations that act upon or give expression to this supposition include grants of autonomy in the constitution of a province or restitution of systems of law in the aftermath of surrender (on which processes see ando, “rites of others,” forthcoming), as well as the opposition between grants of roman citizenship and the right “to use one’s own laws” operational in roman narratives of the settlement of italy (on which see, e.g., Chapter 5, pp. 87–88, 107). 3. See appendix passage 2. further texts in the reception history of Cicero’s definition are cited in Chapter 5 nn. 10–11. 4. for a preliminary exploration of metonymy in Latin and what it can reveal narrowly of roman political thought, as well as roman cognition more generally, see ando 2011, “Law and the landscape of empire.” on racialism in athenian law and ideologies of citizenship, see Lape 2010. 5. Sherwin-white 1973, 397–468. 6. nicolet 1982 = idem 1991; ando 2000; and ando 2010, “imperial identities.” 7. for a reading of the jurisdictional rules in the lex de Gallia Cisalpina and the lex Flavia municipalis, see rodger 1996. 8. reasonably detailed evidence for the process called by romans “reduction into the form of a province” exists under the republic for Sicily, achaea, and asia. it can be supplemented by accounts of the settlement of territories not formally annexed, such as macedon after the second macedonian war. on geographic aspects of roman governance, see nicolet 1982 = idem 1991; ando 2006; and idem, The Ambitions of Government, forthcoming . recognition of another legal system could also occur outside this framework, motivated by whatever contingency, such as is attested in the tabula Contrebiensis. 9. on this topic see ando 2010, “imperial identities,” and idem, The Ambitions of Government, forthcoming, as well as Chapter 5, pp. 107–9. 10. See, e.g., Lex de Gallia Cisalpina (rS 28), chapter 20, ll. 7–19 at 15–16: tum 134 Notes to Pages 6–9 mag(istratus) prove mag(istratu) IIvir IIIIvir praefec(tus)ve, quoquomque d(e) e(a) r(e) in ius aditum erit. 11. The likelihood is naturally that these were members of whatever population group had previously inhabited the site where the colony was founded and who were in some fashion integrated into the life of the settlement. one record that explicitly describes such a situation in strikingly similar language is Livy 32.2.6, which is quoted at appendix passage 6B. 12. The so-called lex de imperio Vespasiani is perhaps the most intensively studied of all Latin epigraphic texts. among a vast literature, see mantovani 2005 and the now classic survey of Brunt 1977. 13. on legal fictions at rome the bibliography is more or less limited to two superb essays published in the same year, Thomas 1995 and richardson 1995. 14. on conflict of law theory, see tetley 1999 and Briggs 2008, 1–52. There has been no systematic effort to study ancient private law in light of modern conflicts of law or international private-law theory. perhaps the most suggestive of available studies are Johnston 1987 and rodger 1991. 15. Julian Digest bk. 90 fr. 842 Lenel = Dig. 1.3.11. 16. Julian Digest bk. 15 fr. 259 Lenel = Dig. 1.3.12. See also ulpian Ad edictum aedilium curulium bk. 1 fr. 1757 = Dig. 1.3.13: Nam, ut ait Pedius, quotiens lege aliquid unum vel alterum introductum est, bona occasio est cetera, quae tendunt ad eandem utilitatem, vel interpretatione vel certe iurisdictione suppleri. “for, as pedius says, whenever something or another has been brought within the scope of the law, this is a good opportunity for other things, which further the same interest, to be folded in either by interpretation or a fortiori by judicial decision.” 17. ulpian Ad edictum bk. 15 fr. 518 = Dig. 5.3.20.6d: aptanda igitur nobis singulis verbis senatus consulti congruens interpretatio. 18. Cf. gaius Inst. 1.128, on the fictio legis Corneliae; and gaius Inst. 2.197 on the senatusconsultum Neronianum. 19. gaius Inst. 2.133. Compare gaius Inst. 2.263: there the supplement to the civil law arises...
OR
