Papers by Peter Riedlberger
Eos, 2020
The present article contains a critical edition of the Fragmenta quattuor ad Manichaeum renuntian... more The present article contains a critical edition of the Fragmenta quattuor ad Manichaeum renuntiandum pertinentia (including the so-called Testimonium de Manichaeis sectatoribus), and of Augustine, Epistula 79. Contrary to currently available editions, the text offered in the article is based on several mediaeval manuscripts. Apart from a discussion of the manuscripts in question, this article further comprises a detailed analysis of the second part of the Fragmenta quattuor, namely Cresconius's subscription and Felix's testimony.
Roman Legal Tradition, 2021
The present article contains a full transcription plus an
English translation of Mommsen’s and Kr... more The present article contains a full transcription plus an
English translation of Mommsen’s and Krüger’s correspondence
regarding the Theodosian Code edition, as far as it is extant. This
so far largely unpublished material shows that the gloomy picture
of Mommsen robbing Krüger of his work and due honors (painted
by Matthews and others) has little to do With reality. In a nutshell,
Krüger’s complaint was not that Mommsen appropriated and used
his material, but rather that Mommsen rejected it and preferred to
start from scratch.
Nor is it convincing to call Krüger’s later edition — into which
he conjecturally incorporated material from the Justinian Code —
“nearer to the original Theodosian Code.” This woefully downplays
the fact that such additions may only inform us about some further
topics which were treated in the original Theodosian Code. The
legal rule itself, however, could be modified, possibly to its exact
opposite, and since we know that the Justinian Code compilers
created a structure quite independent from their Theodosian
predecessors, the position assigned to a given Justinian Code
fragment is rarely more than mere guesswork.
Conversely, the real merits of Krüger’s edition have mostly
gone unnoticed. When it comes to readings of R or completion of
lost hits of T, Mommsen was often overconfident, and it certainly
makes sense to check Krüger’s alternative ideas.
Books by Peter Riedlberger
Book Reviews by Peter Riedlberger
Drafts by Peter Riedlberger
Titivillus is a freeware tool which adds Latin and Ancient Greek spellchecking to Microsoft Word ... more Titivillus is a freeware tool which adds Latin and Ancient Greek spellchecking to Microsoft Word on Microsoft Windows. This PDF contains the instructions. The application itself can be downloaded from www.riedlberger.de/titivillus
Uploads
Papers by Peter Riedlberger
English translation of Mommsen’s and Krüger’s correspondence
regarding the Theodosian Code edition, as far as it is extant. This
so far largely unpublished material shows that the gloomy picture
of Mommsen robbing Krüger of his work and due honors (painted
by Matthews and others) has little to do With reality. In a nutshell,
Krüger’s complaint was not that Mommsen appropriated and used
his material, but rather that Mommsen rejected it and preferred to
start from scratch.
Nor is it convincing to call Krüger’s later edition — into which
he conjecturally incorporated material from the Justinian Code —
“nearer to the original Theodosian Code.” This woefully downplays
the fact that such additions may only inform us about some further
topics which were treated in the original Theodosian Code. The
legal rule itself, however, could be modified, possibly to its exact
opposite, and since we know that the Justinian Code compilers
created a structure quite independent from their Theodosian
predecessors, the position assigned to a given Justinian Code
fragment is rarely more than mere guesswork.
Conversely, the real merits of Krüger’s edition have mostly
gone unnoticed. When it comes to readings of R or completion of
lost hits of T, Mommsen was often overconfident, and it certainly
makes sense to check Krüger’s alternative ideas.
Books by Peter Riedlberger
Book Reviews by Peter Riedlberger
Drafts by Peter Riedlberger
English translation of Mommsen’s and Krüger’s correspondence
regarding the Theodosian Code edition, as far as it is extant. This
so far largely unpublished material shows that the gloomy picture
of Mommsen robbing Krüger of his work and due honors (painted
by Matthews and others) has little to do With reality. In a nutshell,
Krüger’s complaint was not that Mommsen appropriated and used
his material, but rather that Mommsen rejected it and preferred to
start from scratch.
Nor is it convincing to call Krüger’s later edition — into which
he conjecturally incorporated material from the Justinian Code —
“nearer to the original Theodosian Code.” This woefully downplays
the fact that such additions may only inform us about some further
topics which were treated in the original Theodosian Code. The
legal rule itself, however, could be modified, possibly to its exact
opposite, and since we know that the Justinian Code compilers
created a structure quite independent from their Theodosian
predecessors, the position assigned to a given Justinian Code
fragment is rarely more than mere guesswork.
Conversely, the real merits of Krüger’s edition have mostly
gone unnoticed. When it comes to readings of R or completion of
lost hits of T, Mommsen was often overconfident, and it certainly
makes sense to check Krüger’s alternative ideas.