No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
Manuscript Paris, B.N. lat. 7906 could contain the oldest known copy of part of the eighth-century Frankish chronicle, the Liber Historiae Francorum (LHF). The manuscript was an exciting discovery because of its antiquity, and at the same time a challenging one because it does not neatly fit with other known early manuscripts of the work. From folio 81 to 88v, B.N. lat. 7906 contains the first part of the LHF, breaking off abruptly in the course of chapter 17. The break comes in mid-sentence and falls at the end of the last line of a verso. The complete LHF contains 53 chapters, and obviously here, in mid-sentence in chapter 17, is not the place the scribe intended to end his copy. The author took the majority of his first 34 chapters from the Historia of Gregory of Tours. These are chapters of the LHF which are not as valuable historically as the work's later sections, which contain more original material from the author himself. Since the Paris manuscript stops in chapter 17, and since it does not contain any historical information not already known from other early manuscripts of the work, it does not add to the LHF's value as a historical source. It does, however, call into question the now universally held contention that the Liber Historiae Francorum was written in two neatly defined recensions, each with its own known date of composition.
1 Kurth, Godefroid, ‘Etude critique sur le Liber Historiae Francorum,’ Etudes Franques 1 (Paris 1919) 33–38; Wattenbach, W. and Levison, W., Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter I 1 (Weimar 1952) 115; Ewig, Eugen, ‘Zum christlichen Königsgedanken im Frühmittelalter,’ in Mayer, Theodor (ed.), Das Königtum: Seine geistigen und rechtlichen Grundlagen (Vorträge und Forschungen 3; Lindau–Konstanz 1956) 42–43; and Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with its Continuations (London 1960) xxv.Google Scholar
2 MGH, SSRM 2.215–328.Google Scholar
3 Pertz, G., ‘Handschriften der königlichen Bibliothek zu Paris,’ Archiv 7 (1839) 69; and the Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae 3.4 (Paris 1744) 411. (The new B.N. catalogue has not yet reached 7906.)Google Scholar
4 Lowe, E. A., Codices Latini Antiquiores (CLA), Supplement (Oxford 1974) 22, entry 1744.Google Scholar
5 Ibid. Google Scholar
6 Lowe, , ibid. Bischoff, B., ‘Bibliographie — Frühkarolingische Handschriften und ihre Heimat,’ Scriptorium 22 (1968) 311.Google Scholar
7 In the following discussion of palaeographical matters I am deeply indebted to Malcolm Parkes of Keble College, Oxford, and to David Ganz of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, both of whom kindly inspected photostats of the manuscripts and gave me their opinions, along with valuable references.Google Scholar
8 Lowe, CLA 8.8, entry 865.Google Scholar
9 MGH, SSRM 2.220f.Google Scholar
10 Homburger, O., Die illustrierten Handschriften der Burgerbibliothek Bern (Bern 1962) 24–25.Google Scholar
11 Bischoff, B., ‘Panorama der Handschriftenüberlieferung,’ Mittelalterliche Studien 3 (1981) 17 n. 53.Google Scholar
12 Lowe, CLA 1.29, entry 98.Google Scholar
13 See Lindsay, W. M., Notae Latinae (Cambridge 1915; repr. Hildesheim 1963) 481.Google Scholar
14 Lendi, Walter, Untersuchungen zur frühalemannischen Annalistik. Die Murbacher Annalen (Freiburg 1971) 93–94.Google Scholar
15 Bischoff, (above, n. 11) 20 n. 71.Google Scholar
16 Krusch, , MGH, SSRM 2.227–28.Google Scholar
17 Again my thanks to David Ganz.Google Scholar
18 Bischoff, B., Lorsch im Spiegel seiner Handschriften (Munich 1974) 26. The other three MSS he lists are: Vat. Pal. Lat. 211 (fol. 69), Vienna 2147, and Vienna 1556.Google Scholar
19 Ibid. 27.Google Scholar
20 The annotator made the following marginal comments:Google Scholar
21 On fol. 82 (ed. 244 line 10) filio priamo is changed to filium priamo, and on the same folio (ed. 244 line 17) faramundo ipsius filio is changed to faramundum ipsius filium.Google Scholar
22 A few examples. He omits: vel audacia (LHF 2, ed. 243 line 4); In illis diebus (LHF 8, ed. 250 line 9); and et molestus coepit … istius saccolum suum (LHF 11, ed. 255 lines 19–22). In LHF 7, the edition (248 line 21) has dum ab eo and the MS had dare ab eo, which makes no sense. In LHF 8, where the edition (251 line 6) has indeque, the MS has innudens, which makes no sense. And in LHF 10, where the edition (253 line 12) has franciscam eius, the MS has franciscam omnes, which again has no sense.Google Scholar
23 Some examples. LHF 8, edition (250 line 12): maximo exercitu, MS: maximum exercitum; LHF 10, edition (252 line 9): illo urceo, MS: illum urceum; LHF 10, edition (253 line 19): alio exercitu, MS alium exercitum; and LHF 13, edition (259 line 24): consilio, MS: consilium.Google Scholar
24 Examples of this are found on every folio.Google Scholar
25 For example: LHF 7, A regno Francorum in the edition (249 line 21) and A rex francorum in the MS; LHF 7, the MS has concoepit where the edition (250 line 5) has the correct concipiens; LHF 9, the edition (251 line 14) has resedebat (meaning obsedebat) whereas the MS has resedeat; and also in LHF 9, where the edition (251 line 25) has missos, the MS has misso which makes no sense.Google Scholar
26 MGH, SSRM 2.219.Google Scholar
27 There may be one interpolation, but it occurs only a few words before the MS changes recensions. Here (ed. 256 line 27) the A-recension should read fusus and the B effusus. The manuscript has fusus with an e written above.Google Scholar
28 The first choldoveus spelling occurs in the middle of fol. 84v (ed. 254 line 14). The last clear evidence of the A-recension occurs on fol. 85 line 23 (ed. 256 line 27) and the first evidence of the B-recension is found two lines later on the same folio (ed. 256 line 29).Google Scholar
29 My many thanks to Professors Thomas Noble of the University of Virginia and David Ganz of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who kindly read this article in typescript, to its great benefit.Google Scholar