Prolegomena zu den spätantiken Konstitutionen

Forscher zum »Codex Theodosianus«, einer Exzerptensammlung römischer Kaisergesetze, machen zwangsläufig Annahmen: Wie sehr wurde beim Exzerpierungsprozess modifiziert? Darf man davon ausgehen, dass die meisten jeweils einschlägigen Gesetze dargeboten sind? Nach welchen Kriterien erfolgte die Auswahl? Galten Gesetze nur für den Reichsteil des erlassenden Kaisers? Oder gar nur für den Amtsbereich des Empfängers? Riedlberger prüft eine neuartige, umfassende und vor allem in sich konsistente Vision der spätantiken Gesetzgebung anhand eines Exempels – der ungewöhnlichen erbrechtlichen Sanktionen – durch. Denn die formulierten Prinzipien müssen den praktischen Test aushalten; umgekehrt kann eine Besprechung von CTh-Fragmenten ohne Grundlegung schnell zu Missverständnissen und Anachronismen führen.

Scholars using the Theodosian Code inevitably make assumptions: how much was changed during the redaction? Is it reasonable to assume that, for a given subject, most of the relevant constitutions can be found there? According to which criteria did the redactors select laws to excerpt? Were laws valid exclusively in the pars imperii of the issuing emperor? Or, actually, only within the jurisdiction of the receiver? Riedlberger offers a novel, comprehensive and consistent vision of late-antique law-making, which is then checked against a sample: the unusual penalties regarding bequeathing and inheriting. Thus, the claimed principles can prove their validity; while conversely, discussing CTh. texts without defining one’s viewpoint to the fundamental questions easily leads to misconceptions.

»In sum, R. has produced a valuable contribution to the study of imperial constitutions, one that cannot be ignored by anyone working with the CTh. The author deserves praise for his willingness to produce this piece of academic slow food, on which he spent 10 years, in the current academic climate. Given his methodical approach, it is to be hoped that we will hear more from R. about imperial law and the CTh. in the future.« Mattijs Wibier, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte

»R.’s writing is clear and should be accessible to foreign scholars with a reading knowledge of German […] His knowledge of Latin is strong, and he has engaged deeply in late Roman law (and the scholarly literature). […] There is much that is useful and provocative within this large volume, and I enjoyed reading it and feel it should be acquired by major university research libraries.« Robert M. Frakes, Scripta Classica