The Work of Gregory of Tours in the Light of Modern Research

Abstract

It is now three years since Wilhelm Levison, one of the last of the great Monumenta editors, died at Durham. Among the tasks he left unfinished were two of major importance to those whose concern is with Frankish studies. The first, a much-needed edition of the Lex Salica, he seems to have brought no nearer completion than had his predecessor, Bruno Krusch, or any other of the long line of Monumenta scholars who broke their hearts in the attempt to unravel it. The second, the completion of the new Monumenta edition of the Historia Francorum of Gregory of Tours, to supersede that of Arndt and Krusch, was a good deal further advanced. In fact, the text itself had already appeared in print under the name of Bruno Krusch alone, although it was an open secret that a great part of the burden of editing had fallen on Levison's shoulders. What remained—and still remains—to be published is the critical introduction, w*here Levison is under-stood to have developed views on the manuscript tradition that owed less to Krusch than to Krusch's own master, Wilhelm Arndt. While this introduction remains unpublished it is hazardous for others to proceed very far with work based on the text of the Historia Francorum. My own intention here is to do no more than to present an interim report on some of the ways in which historians have been using Gregory in the twenty years since the publication of Dill's and Dalton's books; for they were the last English scholars to whom Frankish studies seemed important for themselves. My debt to them is great.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 74 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.