The Journal of Nova Roman Law

 Home | Latíné | Deutsch | Español | Français | Italiano | Magyar | Português | Română | Русский | English

⚜⚜⚜ Site Index - Key Pages ⚜⚜⚜

Contents 1 Overview 1.1 Who can submit to the JNRL 1.2 Submission process 2 Publication 2.1 Submissions of M. Metello D. Aurelio cos. ‡ MMDCCLXXIX a.u.c. 2.1.1 A post-case analysis of the curator rei informaticae and the ius edicendi

Overview

The Collegium Iurisprudentium Journal of Nova Roman Law (JNRL) is currently the only academic journal in Nova Roma. The journal is sponsored and administered by the review of the membership of the Collegium. The Journal currently publishes as required through the course of the year.

Established under Collegium resolution XV, on a.d. IV Non. Sext. ‡ P. Aurelio C. Flavio cos. ‡ MMDCCLXXVIII a.u.c., the Collegium established this formal, published academic study journal. The JNRL is an important piece to the Advocate and Jurisconsult courses, run by the Collegium, where students are required to submit a final article to this journal. The journal stands as a high-end collection of researched corroborations, analyses, commissioned studies, and opinion pieces by Nova Roman citizens, qualified to provide commentary on Nova Roman law.

The journal sits as a live, "living" document, constantly added to over time. Every new and approved submission is amended as a new catalogued article in the journal. The journal is online-accessible from the Nova Roma Wiki website and via a downloadable PDF. The journal remains free and open to view, but the PDF is only available to download by Collegium members.

The Journal is subdivided into years, where articles that were submitted in that year will be listed in chronological submission order. There is no restriction on how often the journal may be updated with new submissions.

Who can submit to the JNRL

The following citizens are eligible to make submissions to the JNRL:

A. All members of the Collegium Iurisprudentium.

B. All citizens who are serving or who have served as praetor, consul, or censor.

C. Citizens assigned to the Law Revision Committee of Classicists and Latinists.

D. All current Nova Roman senators.

E. Current serving decemviri stlitibus iudicandis.

In all cases, it is implied that authors must be current active citizens in good standing, cives optimo iure, and be tax-paying citizens, assiduus.

Submission process

All submissions are initially assessed by the Magistri for compliance and editorial appropriateness. Under the will of the Magistri, they will bring the submission to the Collegium to be voted on under a resolution. Upon a simple majority voting in favour of the resolution, the submission is to be included in the journal, facilitated by the magistri. If the author(s) of the submission are members of the Collegium, they are entitled to 3 Merit Points as under Article XXIII.I of the Collegium charter. Submissions must follow the following format requirements:

• Submissions must be a minimum of 1000 words, cannot be any larger than 6000 words, with a tolerance of 10 percent. Bibliography, attributions and notes are not included in the word count.

• Submissions must be typed in English, opting for North American spelling, although use of Latin is permitted for ad hoc words, concepts, positions/offices, and short phrases. The text should always be easily discernible to an English reader.

• Submissions must use Chicago NB style referencing, a system of note citation and bibliography reference list. There is no limit to the number of authors, but submissions with an overly large number of authors may be requested to provide a breakdown summary of contributions.

• Submissions must not use Artificial Intelligence (AI). Although the use of AI to guide submission planning and layout is acceptable, AI cannot be used to write any portion of the body of text.

• Submissions may contain a single line for attributions or acknowledgments.

• Images are permitted but must be captioned, numbered, and must contribute to the submission (cannot simply be for decorative illustration). No more than eight images are permitted per submission. Images may contain words but must be part of a broader illustrative point and not used as a means to circumnavigate word limits.

Publication

Submissions of M. Metello D. Aurelio cos. ‡ MMDCCLXXIX a.u.c.

A post-case analysis of the curator rei informaticae and the ius edicendi

INTRODUCTION

The first Constitutional Court case has occurred in Nova Roma under the current legislative framework of the lex Lucilia iudiciaria. The office of the curator rei informaticae was challenged on the use of edicta and the exercising of the ius edicendi. This analysis explores the history of the curator rei informaticae and how the office came to be. It also seeks to understand the timeline of the case in question and the key arguments of both the actor (the litigant) and the reus (the respondent). As this article will show, although the case itself was comprehensive, there were legislative timings that were not considered by either side and a more recent use of the ius edicendi by the curio maximus that was not considered. The handling of the case was not without flaw and certainly offered grounds for appeal. However, what is now clear is that the curator rei informaticae will continue to possess the power to issue edicta in Nova Roma and all past edicta are now unquestionably valid.

The curator rei informaticae

The curator rei informaticae (hereafter “curator”) has had a long and evolutionary history in Nova Roma. A unique modern adaptation of the current-day Res Publica. First known in the early foundations of Nova Roma as the “vebsitarius maximus”,¹ the position first established a precedent in L. Equitio Dec. Iunio cos. (2752) under the original lex Vedia de vigintisexviris.² In Cn. Salvio Cn. Equitio cos. (2757) the name would be modified to “magister aranearius”.³ Over the proceeding years, this position would undergo various redefinitions and modifications until a final major rescoping under the enactment of the lex Cornelia de vigintisexviris in L. Sulla (III) cos. sine collega (2766).⁴

The current curator (also called the “chief information technology officer” (CITO) and “chief webmaster” or “manager of information technology affairs”) is responsible to the senate for the planning, implementation, maintenance and development of Information Technology (IT) related aspects of Nova Roma. This includes all things electronic and digital as well as those aspects concerning Nova Roma’s infrastructure in the internet domain. The curator heads the Officium Rei Informaticae, which includes the four aediles and additional appointments by the curator himself or the praefectus rei publicae administrandae.⁵

The ius edicendi

The ius edicendi is first defined under the Nova Roman constitution (the lex Cornelia Domitia de re publica constituenda) in article III.A.1, which simply states it as a right to issue edicta, as a core power of imperium. However, article IV will also further bestow this right to issue edicta to several magistrates. The edict, as a terminology, is defined much earlier, under the first article and takes precedence as official law, behind the authority of senatus consulta of the senate.⁶ The main body of law governing the regulation of edicta is found in just two laws, the lex Vedia de ratione edictorum, first enacted in L. Equitio Dec. Iunio cos. (2752),⁷ and the lex Arria de edictis, so passed in Q. Arrio (III) A. Tullia cos. (2774).⁸

Considering the edictum in ancient Rome, in its most basic form, it was simply any communication from a magistrate to the public. Etymologically, edictum derives from the term ex-dicere, suggesting such communication was at first oral before being published through more visual means.⁹ Various modern-day scholars have argued that ius edicendi was inherent in all magistrates who used it to state announcements or orders to the citizens of Rome. Unbound from any special magistrate’s power, it therefore suggests that the ius edicendi was not linked to the power of imperium.¹⁰ This becomes clearer when we consider the various evidence of edicts by the aediles, like those discovered from inscriptions from the pyramid of Cestius concerning burials.¹¹

Curator’s current use of the ius edicendi

Since the enactment of the legislation establishing the current version of the curator in October of Q. Arrio (II) T. Domitio (III) cos. (2773),¹² the curator has only issued about ten edicta, at the time of this published article. The few edicta that have been issued have concerned managing staff and managing the Nova Roman Twitch channel.¹³ The most prominent edict was one issued in Sex. Lucilio (II) A. Tullia (II) cos. (2775) which itself enacted the lex Arria de censu civium aestimando. Perhaps controversially, the curator was given full power to delay this lex indefinitely until such time as ICT infrastructure was deemed ready by the curator.¹⁴

The ius edicendi of other officers and magistrates

Benchmarking from the time the current curator was established, the use of the ius edicendi has been exercised across all permitted officers of the magistratus ordinarii, being the censors, consuls, praetors, aediles and tribunes.¹⁵ Nova Roman quaestors do not possess the ius edicendi, and understanding their modern-day employment in Nova Roma, this matches much of what we know from ancient Rome. Although some interpretations of the Institutes of Gaius suggest edicts may have been issued by them in the provinces or even managing auctions in Rome, there are no known surviving sources that show quaestors were entitled to the ius edicendi.¹⁶

The praefectus rei publicae administrandae of Nova Roma is also given a perfunctory grant of the ius edicendi under article IV.A.6.d of the constitution. This office has exercised its right predominantly managing the civil workforce of the apparitors.¹⁷ Some governors of Nova Roma too, have used their power, also permitted to them under article V.C.2 of the constitution. Most governors’ edicta seen over the benchmark period concern provincial appointments or municipal management.¹⁸ In a case being questioned by praetors now, the curio maximus was erroneously interpreted to have the powers of ius edicendi in a review of the lex Vedia apparitoria in P. Aurelio C. Flavio cos. (2778).¹⁹ Only one instance of this office proclaiming an edict was recorded on a.d. VII Kal. Feb. ‡ C. Cethego Q. Arrio (IV) cos. (January 26, 2774).²⁰

Case discovery and investigation

The question of the curator possessing the ius edicendi first arose under research conducted by the congregator cursus collegii iurisprudentii (Collegium Iurisprudentium course director) in December of P. Aurelio C. Flavio cos. (2778). The congregator, D. Aurelius Ingeniarius, was developing subject material for a topic related to the use of edicta in Nova Roma. Early discussions directly with the curator and the shared early investigations indicated that there was no explicit article that bestowed the ius edicendi on the curator himself. The two parties amicably agreed that a review through the Constitutional Court system would be beneficial.

Case timeline

On the a.d. XVI Kal. Mar. ‡ M. Metello D. Aurelio cos. (February 14, 2779), the formal petitio actionis was sent to the praetors. The submission was made by the appointed advocatus, L. Aurelius Lepidus, quaestor, who would go on to represent the litigant (hereafter “actor”), D. Aurelius Ingeniarius, now elected consul. The petition was acknowledged two days later by D. Claudius Aquilinus, praetor. A summary judgment was issued by L. Calpurnius Bestia, on behalf of both praetors, on a.d. X Kal. Mar. ‡ M. Metello D. Aurelio cos. (February 20, 2779) and issued:

… [to] refer the matter to the Senate for a definitive Senatus Consultus [sic] on the matter. That vote in the Senate, which should take place no longer than in 3 months from today if agreement is reached among the parties, would consist of the following agenda item: "Should the curator rei informaticae be explicitly granted ius edicendi and should this also apply retroactively?" Until the result of that Senate vote is announced, the status quo prevails and the curator rei informaticae could issue edicta if, on face value, it seems necessary to fulfill his mandate.²¹

Both the actor and the respondent (hereafter “reus”), Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, rejected the summary judgment soon after the issuance. The case commenced late, with the appointed Constitutional Court chair of the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis (judicial magistrates), Q. Arrius Nauta, not commencing the case until pr. Kal. Mai. ‡ M. Metello D. Aurelio cos. (April 30, 2779).²² Under the lex Salvia iudiciaria, the case was required to be presented to the court within a trinundinum (24 days).²³ The debate was closed by the chair on a.d. XVI Kal. Iun. (May 17) and the final verdict of the court was issued a.d. VIII Kal. Iun. (May 25).²⁴

CASE ANALYSIS

Difficulty regarding magisterial impartiality

One of the critical issues even before the case began was the perceived conflict-of-interest due to the composition of the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis and the existing relationship many already had with the reus. Out of the ten sitting decemviri, some were even direct family member of the reus. Nearly all the other magistrates were direct citizens under the governorship of the reus and often either personal acquaintances or close colleagues. Based on the current population of Nova Roma, and acknowledging how heavily involved the reus is in its administration, such a circumstance is almost unavoidable. This analysis found that there is no law prohibiting this scenario and it also makes clear that there was no misconduct by the decemviri. The lex Salvia iudiciaria does offer a system of dismissing up to three “iuduces” and appointing more from the album iudicum.²⁵ However, it is not clear if this translates to a court of the decemviri in the constitutional court, nor has it been considered under the current legal system. No participants raised this procedure or the impartiality publicly during the trial.

The perceived biased of the formulae

Upon declaring the opening of the case, the chair only presented three possible formulae to the court:

I. Decretum decemvirorum de iudicio iuris edicendi curatoris rei informaticae: The curator rei informaticae possesses the ius edicendi based on customary law, inherited from the magister aranearius, and based on several newer laws referring to the capacity of the curator to issue edicts.

II. Decretum decemvirorum de iudicio edictorum curatoris rei informaticae validandorum: The curator rei informaticae does not possess the ius edicendi, all edicts issued by the curator are legally invalid, but due to the necessity of these edicts to be valid, and based on costumary [sic] law, since in practice these edicts were always considered valid, hereby through this present decree of the decemviri, the invalid edicts are recognized as valid retroactively by the force of this present decree, and this decree calls the Senate to issue a senatus consultum granting the ius edicendi to te [sic] curator, otherwise no more edicts may be issued by the curator until their ius edicendi is legally granted.

III. Decretum decemvirorum de iudicio edictorum curatoris rei informaticae invalidorum: The curator rei informaticae does not possess the ius edicendi, and all edicts issued by the curator are legally invalid, their effects shall be reversed and rescinded immediately where possible. This decree calls the Senate to issue a senatus consultum if it wishes the curator to have ius edicendi, and the curator is then invited to issue those edicts they think necessary.²⁶

In an announcement to the court on a.d. XV Kal. Apr. (March 18),²⁷ the praetors had actually offered preparatory guidance to develop the formulae. The praetors’ proposal was simple, a four-part list that considered all combinations of: 1) whether there was established basis in law and, 2) the ongoing validity of edicta. The guidance also made reference to the inclusion of applicable dates (to be defined), suggesting the court should consider the timing of establishing legislation relative to edicta proclaimed by the curator. Besides the public summary judgment, no other official submissions were presented to the court beforehand, so the chair had made assumptions about the strengths of key arguments before evidence was even presented. The three formulae, when presented in combination, already favored the outcome in favor of the reus.

The first formulae, option I, introduced both concepts of “customary” law and “newer” laws, laws that were not defined in the formula. Option I also failed to consider any case where there was a discontinuity of the claimed inherited rights of the curator. Although favored by the actor, option III was also going to be highly unlikely, primarily as the remedy was so extraordinary. Courts are generally very reluctant to invalidate years of official acts or reverse administrative decisions, which could create institutional chaos. Option II can also claim significant merit as a valid choice, but the inclusion to instruct the senate to grant the ius edicendi fails to consider subsequent laws that already did this. This is in complete contradiction to the formulae of option I.

What emphasizes the skewed bias of the formulae is the absence of a fourth option (or more). There was no middle ground between option I and option II. No option that took into account any break in the continuity of law providing the ius edicendi to the curator, but also acknowledged a custom of precedence, to latter points in law, where it was rectified (as this analysis will demonstrate). Ideally, and particularly in complex cases like this one, the court would have benefited from something akin to a preliminary hearing where the court can understand the overall case and even establish agreed facts. Otherwise, a provision in court procedures that enables new updated, or delayed development of the formulae based on the cases presented. Despite the findings of this analysis, the chair’s decisions were perfectly legal under Nova Roman law and he did act within his remit.

The constitutional perspective

The actor initially made an argument about the exclusivity of the ius edicendi in the constitution, the lex Cornelia Domitia de re publica constituenda. Citing that the constitution exhaustively listed all those magistrates that possessed the right. The actor claimed that without an explicit law defining such power, issuing edicts remained only within the scope of the magistrates. Interestingly, the actor noted a reference in article IV.E which specifies appointments can be made by “legal instruments” other than edicta. This would later be an important consideration as this would challenge a precedent in Nova Roma where all apparitor appointments could only occur under an edict.²⁸

The reus would accept the claim by the actor that the curator was not mentioned in the constitution explicitly. However, the core defense of the curator would be presented through article IV.D whereby the senate “can grant any rights and powers of any magistrates”. Derived from the senatus consultum ultimum de curatoribus publicis (enacted October 2773), the reus affirmed that the curator inherits their powers from the magister aranearius. The reus also drew attention to the concept that appointments in Nova Roma are only made via an edict and citing that the senatus consultum granted the ability to appoint officers, the curator must therefore have the ius edicendi. The reus would also cite recent laws like the lex Arria de censu civium aestimando (enacted December 2773) as further evidence, noting the law was written as if the curator always had the power to issue edicta.²⁹

Putting aside the inherence of rights from a previous office, this analysis can affirm both that the senate can confer the ius edicendi power and that the office of the curator was defined with sufficient grounds to possess the power. Article IV.D of the constitution allows the senate to appoint officers, and more importantly, grant any and all powers to that appointment. The article expressly states that these appointments are known as “commissioners”.³⁰ The actor would also counter the defense of the reus, citing the line in the article that states, “…the Senate can […] grant any […] powers of any magistrates to special extraordinary commissioners to complete specific tasks.”³¹ Here the actor implied the powers could only be granted under a limited basis. However, as a proceeding sentence to the core established article on commissioners, the distinct absence of the word “only” must imply this line is in addition to the standard appointments, not a limiting caveat.

On customary law

After leading with constitutional restrictions, the actor would seek to preemptively challenge the reus on the historical inherence of the rights from the magister aranearius. The actor would claim that the only law granting powers of edicta was the lex Equitia de vigintisexviris (enacted October 7, 2757). However, this analysis showed that, in fact, the lex Vedia de vigintisexviris (enacted August 12, 2752) is what granted explicit powers to the early predecessor of the curator.³³ The actor would state that any predecessor law was repealed, thus severing the right to the power of the ius edicendi. Referencing the modern establishing legislation of the curator, the senatus consultum ultimum de curatoribus publicis (enacted October 7, 2773), the actor would emphasize article 1.b in that, “All legal documents previously referring to the […] magister aranearius of Nova Roma are hereby suspended.”³³

The reus would cite recent legislation as evidence that the senate and the comitia of Nova Roma saw a customary continuation for the curator to possess the power to issue edicta. In particular, the amended lex Arria de censu civium aestimando (enacted by comitia on December 19, 2773), which famously required the curator himself to activate this law using an edict. This analysis would see a similar scope of edict powers bestowed to the curator under further amendments by the lex Lucilia Tullia de rebus publicis ordinandis (enacted December 31, 2775). Importantly, the reus referenced the constitutional fallback that states that if the law is “ambiguous” then ancient Roman law and legal convention shall be used as guide.³⁴

As Orakhelashvili³⁵ explores, customary law has been argued to have aspects of both consent of a body or state, and the belief that the body or state finds the customary law itself as binding. Certainly, as the Nova Roma constitution calls for, explicitly calling to ancient Roman law and by extension, customary law itself. Ancient Roman law began with custom. Eventually, in 449 BCE, the Twelve Tables were presented as the first written codified law of the Roman Republic, but customary law continued. The reus points to a historical precedence and then recent laws that enforce an ongoing understanding, that is, a consent that the curator still has the ius edicendi. Referencing the 2773 senatus consultum, he argued that the actor’s notion that the decree voided all powers not explicitly mentioned is a false dichotomy. He stated that the senatus consultum enhanced the curator’s powers, only suspending previous limitations.

What this analysis discovered, not raised by the actor, were the impacts of the lex Cornelia de vigintisexviris (enacted June 22, 2766). This lex repealed the statutory law that expressly gave the vigintisexviri the powers of the ius edicendi. The curator was now also removed from the vigintisexviri and made a senate appointment, which started under reforms of the lex Apula de magistro araneario (enacted December 31, 2758) – also now repealed under the lex Cornelia.³⁶ The continuing explicit powers of the ius edicendi were lost much earlier in 2766 under the lex Cornelia, and seven years would go by before the curator was redefined under the senatus consultum, which again did not explicitly regrant the powers. If the case were to have been brought to the court after 2766 but before the various reforms from 2773 onwards, the argument would have been much different and the outcome potentially different as well.

Much of the language in statutory law through the evolution of the curator office detailed the ability for the office “to appoint” staff, scribes or apparitors. Interestingly though, it rarely, if at all, used the language of “shall possess the ius edicendi” or, “may pass edicts”. It seems to imply that appointment or supervisory power in Nova Roma does not imply ius edicendi. Although early edict law was magistrate-centered, as under lex Arminia de ratione edictorum (enacted November 24, 2755),³⁷ it was only the lex Arria de edictis (enacted December 26, 2774) that broadened the definition to include “…any officer with the ius edicendi...” outside the constitutional magistrates. Even at this time, the legal system appreciated that Nova Roma could have officers, who could manage staff that did not possess the ius edicendi, as demonstrated in the provisions of the lex Arria de decuriis apparitorum (enacted December 26, 2774). Here, it states that the praefectus rei publicae administrandae could issue edicta on behalf of officers who do not have the power.³⁸

IMPACT OF THE CASE OUTCOME

With the passing of the decretum decemvirorum de iudicio iuris edicendi curatoris rei informaticae by the court, it resolves any remaining doubt about the viability of the curator possessing the ius edicendi. Agree with the outcome or not, it provides both a validation of all past curator edicta, as well as acknowledging the continuing authority of the curator to issue edicta in the future. Although an appeal of the result is permitted under the lex Lucilia iudiciaria,³⁹ the actor consciously chose not to pursue an appeal. Although, as this analysis has shown, the outcome in any appeal may still favor the reus, the motive of the actor can also be claimed to be simply a clarification of the law. The subsequent in-depth analysis by both the actor and the reus, with a determination of the court, has been able to reveal many if not all elements of law that determined the final ruling.

Rulings by the Constitutional Court have considerable weight on the legislative system of Nova Roma. They are, by extension, a will of the people, as the judicial magistrates who sit on the court are elected by the citizens of the comitia.⁴⁰ Besides the obvious effects, such as, the curator being permitted to continue to issue edicta, the court ruling also raises the question about the impacts to other areas of legislation. This was the first of such cases, under the current legislative framework, that the whole process was exercised in earnest. It revealed issues of judicial biases and potential conflicts-of-interest. Although the current law is absent on even considering this. It also highlighted potential issues of the adherence to procedural court timings and what the law says, or doesn’t, concerning the absence or any number of judicial magistrates.

The court ruling also raised questions to the effect of another case of a Nova Roman officer possessing or using the ius edicendi, the curio maximus. The curio maximus was first defined under the decretum pontificum de curiis (enacted in December 2775).⁴¹ Subsequent authorities were granted under the decretum pontificum de comitiis curiatis (enacted in December 2775).⁴² Together, these two decrees of the Collegium Pontificum granted considerable responsibilities upon the curio maximus but they did not explicitly attempt to grant the ius edicendi, nor imply the ability to appoint staff, through edicta or otherwise. They enabled presiding over curiate leadership, administering the Curiae forum, and even convening the Comitia Curiata in certain circumstances. The decrees support the proposition that a citizen can have extensive authority without possessing the ius edicendi.

There is one single record of the curio maximus passing an apparent edict, that at the time, was not challenged (edictum curionis maximi de comitiis curiatis convocandis, enacted in January 2776). In 2778, the then praetor, D. Aurelius Ingeniarius, attempted to resolve issues of apparitors not receiving evaluations by assuming the curio maximus could issue evaluation edicta for those apparitors working under the implied authority of the curio maximus. Perhaps considering the authority granted under the collegium decrees, as well as taking the unchallenged curio maximus edict as custom, the praetor formally interpreted that the curio maximus can and does issue edicta. Of particular importance is that, unlike the curator, where multiple whole comitia laws strengthen a customary inherence of the ius edicendi, the curio maximus lacks this precedence.

CONCLUSION

It is now, without question, that the curator rei informaticae in Nova Roma, possesses the power of the ius edicendi, as so defined under the constitution. The Constitutional Court of Nova Roma has made a ruling under the decretum decemvirorum de iudicio iuris edicendi curatoris rei informaticae that both recognizes the past edicta of the curator, as well as confirming that the curator maintains the power to issue edicta into the future. With the absence of any appeal by any stakeholder in this case, the result is unchallenged and forms an irreversible decision on the powers of this office. However, the determined results were not without question and should this case have been raised between a key period between 2766 and reforms of the office in 2773, there is a considerably weaker argument to justify the curator possessing the power to issue edicta. It is only through recent laws of the comitia that have reinforced a customary continuation of the powers. It also still leaves open questions as to the constitutional method to enable the appointment of apparitors (or staff) and whether the ius edicendi is the only means to do so.

The analysis has revealed, and even recommends, that the Nova Roman authorities should consider refinements to the procedural court process. The seated court was shown to have significant conflicts-of-interest that would favor of an outcome to the reus. The law does not clearly indicate a process to consider conflicts-of-interest in the constitutional court. There were also questions raised as to the timings of the process, where law defines key activities required to occur under certain timeframes. It was also discussed that the law does not reveal clearly what is to occur when all judicial magistrates of the decemviri are not present. This analysis also tested the effects of the case outcome against the use of edicta by the office of the curio maximus and tested the interpretation of the praetors. It was found that, unlike in the case of the curator, the curio maximus does not have the legislative precedence (and therefore custom), and the interpretation by the praetor in 2778 may not be founded. This may likely result in legislative authorities reviewing the actions of the curio maximus and potentially reversing the interpretation by the praetor.

---

¹“Magister aranearius (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, last modified July 22, 2023, 16:25, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Magister_aranearius_(Nova_Roma); “Fasti magistrorum araneariorum (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, last modified February 26, 2024, at 21:07, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Fasti_magistrorum_araneariorum_(Nova_Roma).
²“Lex Vedia de vigintisexviris (Nova Roma), Nova Roma, last modified June 14, 2022, 16:27, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Vedia_de_vigintisexviris_(Nova_Roma).
³“Lex Equitia de mutandis appellationibus duorum magistratuum minorum (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, last modified October 12, 2020, 06:51, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Equitia_de_mutandis_appellationibus_duorum_magistratuum_minorum_(Nova_Roma).
⁴“Lex Cornelia de vigintisexviris (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, last modified June 14, 2022, 17:57, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Cornelia_de_vigintisexviris_(Nova_Roma).
⁵“Senatus consultum ultimum de curatoribus publicis”, Nova Roma, last modified November 25, 2020, 11:43, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Senatus_consultum_ultimum_de_curatoribus_publicis.
⁶“Lex Cornelia Domitia de re publica constituenda (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, article 1.B., last modified January 7, 2023, 03:15, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Cornelia_Domitia_de_re_publica_constituenda_(Nova_Roma).
⁷“Lex Vedia de ratione edictorum (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, last modified December 29, 2022, 07:09, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Vedia_de_ratione_edictorum_(Nova_Roma).
⁸“Lex Arria de edictis (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, last modified December 29, 2022, 01:40, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Arria_de_edictis_(Nova_Roma).
⁹Jean-François Gerkens, Introduction to Roman Law (First part) (Luiss Guido Carli, 2024), chap. 2, 24, https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/335354/1/Principles%20of%20Roman%20Law%20Orbi.pdf.
¹⁰Thibaud Lanfranchi, “Edicts and Decrees during the Republic: A Reappraisal”, Journal of the Savigny-Stiftung Foundation for Legal History, Vol. 136, (2019): 49, Degruyter Berlin.
¹¹Lanfranchi, “Edicts and Decrees during the Republic”, 56.
¹²“Senatus consultum ultimum de curatoribus publicis”, Nova Roma, last modified November 25, 2020, 11:43, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Senatus_consultum_ultimum_de_curatoribus_publicis.
¹³“Curator rei informaticae (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, last modified January 3, 2026, 20:34, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Curator_rei_informaticae_(Nova_Roma).
¹⁴“Lex Arria de censu civium aestimando (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, article V, last modified January 1, 2023, 06:10, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Arria_de_censu_civium_aestimando_(Nova_Roma).
¹⁵“Edicta of the Magistratus Ordinarii”, Nova Roma, last modified May 20, 2026, 10:49, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Category:Edicta_(Nova_Roma)#Edicta_of_the_Magistratus_Ordinarii.
¹⁶Anna Tarwacka, “Law-making in republican Rome. The problem of ius edicendi”, The Polish and Anglo-American Constitutional Tradition in the 16th–18th Centuries, Eds. J.P. Higgins, M. Kuź, D. Makiłła, Warsaw, Pp. 223-237, (2024): 236, https://www.academia.edu/125022983/Law_making_in_republican_Rome_The_problem_of_ius_edicendi.
¹⁷“Praefectus rei publicae administrandae (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, last modified January 3, 2026, 20:31, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Praefectus_rei_publicae_administrandae_(Nova_Roma).
¹⁸“Edicta of Provincial Governors”, Category:Edicta (Nova Roma), Nova Roma, last modified 20 May 20, 2026, 10:49, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Category:Edicta_(Nova_Roma)#Edicta_of_Provincial_Governors.
¹⁹“Edictum Praetorium de Lictoribus Curiatis Pullariisque”, Edicta MMDCCLXXVIII, Nova Roma, last modified January 3, 2026, 20:51, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Edicta_MMDCCLXXVIII#Edictum_Paetorium_de_Lictoribus_Curiatis_Pullariisque.
²⁰“Edictum curionis maximi de comitiis curiatis convocandis”, Forum Novum Romanum (Groups.io), January 26, 2023, 12:23, https://groups.io/g/TheForumRomanum/message/99207.
²¹“Summary judgment of the Praetors”, Forum Novum Romanum (Groups.io), Feb 20, 20:16, https://groups.io/g/TheForumRomanum/message/102319.
²²“Case #1 of the Constitutional Court of Nova Roma”, Forum Novum Romanum (Groups.io), Apr 30, 21:45, https://groups.io/g/Curia-Constitutionis-Novam-Romanam/message/8.
²³“Lex Salvia iudiciaria (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, last modified January 1, 2023, 06:47, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Salicia_iudiciaria_(Nova_Roma).
²⁴“Official Sentence of the Decemviral Court”, Curia Constitutionis Novam Romanam (Groups.io), May 25, 2026, 15:37, https://groups.io/g/Curia-Constitutionis-Novam-Romanam/message/26.
²⁵Lex Salvia iudiciaria (Nova Roma), Nova Roma, last modified January 1, 2023, 06:47, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Salvia_iudiciaria_(Nova_Roma).
²⁶“Case #1 of the Constitutional Court of Nova Roma”, Curia Constitutionis Novam Romanam (Groups.io), Apr 30, 2026, 21:45, https://groups.io/g/Curia-Constitutionis-Novam-Romanam/message/8.
²⁷“Case #1 of the Constitutional Court of Nova Roma”, Curia Constitutionis Novam Romanam (Groups.io), Mar 18, 2026, 22:19, https://groups.io/g/Curia-Constitutionis-Novam-Romanam/message/2.
²⁸“Case #1 of the Constitutional Court of Nova Roma”, Curia Constitutionis Novam Romanam (Groups.io), May 2, 2026, 14:42, https://groups.io/g/Curia-Constitutionis-Novam-Romanam/message/9.
²⁹“Pro iure edicendi suo - In Defense of his right to edict”, Curia Constitutionis Novam Romanam (Groups.io), May 15, 2026, 23:00, https://groups.io/g/Curia-Constitutionis-Novam-Romanam/message/11.
³⁰Lex Cornelia Domitia, article IV.D., last modified January 7, 2023.
³¹“Further Submission on the Erroneous Constitutional Assumption Underlying the Claimed Ius Edicendi”, Curia Constitutionis Novam Romanam (Groups.io), May 16, 2026, 16:14, https://groups.io/g/Curia-Constitutionis-Novam-Romanam/message/12.
³²“Lex Vedia de vigintisexviris (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, last modified June 14, 2022, 16:27, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Vedia_de_vigintisexviris_(Nova_Roma).
³³“Further Submission on the Erroneous Constitutional Assumption”, May 16, 2026.
³⁴“Further Submission on the Erroneous Constitutional Assumption Underlying the Claimed Ius Edicendi”, Curia Constitutionis Novam Romanam (Groups.io), May 16, 2026, 21:24, https://groups.io/g/Curia-Constitutionis-Novam-Romanam/message/13.
³⁵Alexander Orakhelashvili, “Natural Law and Customary Law”, ZaöRV 68 (2008): 83, https://www.zaoerv.de/68_2008/68_2008_1_a_69_110.pdf.
³⁶“Lex Cornelia de vigintisexviris (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, last modified June 14, 2022, 17:57, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Cornelia_de_vigintisexviris_(Nova_Roma).
³⁷“Lex Arminia de ratione edictorum (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, last modified December 28, 2021, 07:54, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Arminia_de_ratione_edictorum_(Nova_Roma).
³⁸“Lex Arria de decuriis apparitorum (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, last modified December 28, 2021, 04:59, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Arria_de_decuriis_apparitorum_(Nova_Roma).
³⁹“Lex Lucilia iudiciaria (Nova Roma)”, article II.B.2, Nova Roma, last modified November 7, 2023, 14:57, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Lucilia_iudiciaria_(Nova_Roma).
⁴⁰“Lex Lucilia de vigintiviris (Nova Roma)”, article I, Nova Roma, last modified November 7, 2023, 14:56, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Lucilia_de_vigintiviris_(Nova_Roma).
⁴¹“Decretum pontificum de curiis (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, last modified December 28, 2022, 17:38, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Decretum_pontificum_de_curiis_(Nova_Roma).
⁴²“Decretum pontificum de comitiis curiatis (Nova Roma)”, Nova Roma, last modified December 29, 2022, 00:01. http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Decretum_pontificum_de_comitiis_curiatis_(Nova_Roma).
⁴³“EDICTUM CURIONIS MAXIMI DE COMITIIS CURIATIS CONVOCANDIS”, Forum Novum Romanum (Groups.io), posted January 26, 2023, 22:23, https://groups.io/g/TheForumRomanum/message/99207.
⁴⁴“Edictum praetorium de lictoribus curiatis pullariisque”, Nova Roma, last modified January 3, 2026, 20:51, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Edicta_MMDCCLXXVIII#Edictum_Paetorium_de_Lictoribus_Curiatis_Pullariisque.

---

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lanfranchi, Thibaud. “Edicts and Decrees during the Republic: A Reappraisal”, Journal of the Savigny-Stiftung Foundation for Legal History, Vol. 136, (2019): 47-83, Degruyter Berlin. Nova Roma. “Curia Constitutionis Novam Romanam” (Groups.io), accessed June 20, 2026, https://groups.io/g/Curia-Constitutionis-Novam-Romanam.

Nova Roma. “Forum Novum Romanum” (Groups.io), accessed June 20, 2026, https://groups.io/g/TheForumRomanum.

Nova Roma. “NOVA ROMA - Dedicated to the restoration of classical Roman religion, culture and virtues”, accessed June 20, 2026, http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page.

Orakhelashvili, Alexander, “Natural Law and Customary Law”, ZaöRV 68 (2008): 69-110, https://www.zaoerv.de/68_2008/68_2008_1_a_69_110.pdf.

Tarwacka, Anna. “Law-making in republican Rome. The problem of ius edicendi”, The Polish and Anglo-American Constitutional Tradition in the 16th–18th Centuries, Eds. J.P. Higgins, M. Kuź, D. Makiłła, Warsaw, (2024): 223-237, https://www.academia.edu/125022983/Law_making_in_republican_Rome_The_problem_of_ius_edicendi.

Keywords: curator rei informaticae, magister aranearius, editor commentariorum, vigintisexvir editor commentariorum, official webmaster, chief information officer, curator differum, curator araneum, vebsitarius maximus.

Word Count: 4349.

Return to 2026 articles