Fredegar's Wendish account
Tuesday, 10. July 2007, 06:46:02
Until recently, the prevailing view was that the Chronicle of Fredegar
was the product of three di¡erent authors, the last of whom was respon-
sible for the Wendish account,"å but Go¡art and Kusternig have rejuve-
nated Baudot's theory of single authorship."æ Although Fredegar's book
IV ends with events that could be dated to åãá, there are indications of a
terminus post quem in at least åäð. Fredegar knows, for instance, that
after being elected king by the Wends, Samo `ruled them well for thirty-
¢ve years,' which, according to his chronology, may indicate the year åäð
for the death of the Wendish king."ð Krusch argued that his author C,
who may be seen as responsible for the Wendish account, must have
written around ååò,"ñ an argument later used by supporters of single
authorship, who claimed that Fredegar's chronicle was written in its
entirety after, or in the vicinity of the latest date alluded to in its pages.áò
Fredegar shows a most erratic attitude to chronology in Book IV, and
usually post-dates events by one or two years.á" But Fredegar's motivation
for a loose chronology may reside not in his inability to cope with a
universal chronological system, but in his interest in matters other than
exact dates. He knows that Samo went to the Slavs `in the fortieth year of
Chlothar's reign' and that he ruled them for thirty-¢ve years.áá But all
subsequent dates referring to Slavs are given in Dagobert's regnal
years.áâ It could be argued that Fredegar simply employs here a system
based on regnal years of Frankish kings, in order to control his
narrative, but this very narrative may indicate another solution.
Although Fredegar describes Dagobert's con£ict with the Wends in his
chapter åð, closely followed by references to their raids in chapters æá,
æã, æä and ææ, the `Wendish theme' is carefully introduced in advance in
chapter ãð.áã We are told how Samo came to theWends and how he was
elected their king, but nothing is said about Dagobert, introduced for the
¢rst time in the preceding chapter (ãæ). There are twenty chapters
(seventeen pages in Wallace-Hadrill's edition)áä separating the two parts
of theWendish account, with apparently no relation between them. But a
closer look at the structure of the narrative shows that this is no
mistake.
Based as it is on Frankish a¡airs, the chronicle divides large sections
by introducing what might be called `foreign a¡airs' occurring at the
time of Frankish events. Chapter ãð is the ¢rst part of a large intro-
duction to the beginnings of Dagobert's reign, dealing with a¡airs in the
east (the Slavs) and the south (the Lombards, chapters ãñ^ä"). Chapter
åð, in turn, is preceded by another survey of foreign a¡airs, which, again,
begins in the east, with chapters åâ^ä dealing with Heraclius and his
Persian war, then describes the `race of Hagar' (the Saracens) in chapter
åå. Then a short chapter (åæ) informs us that at the death of his brother
Charibert, Dagobert has taken control of the entire kingdom of
Aquitaine. After chapter åð, with its account of the Wendish^Frankish
con£ict, Fredegar turns to the south and to the east, dealing with
Lombard (chapters åñ^æ"), Avar (chapter æá), and Spanish (chapter æâ)
a¡airs. What follows this survey is then a full description of how
Dagobert, alienated from his Austrasian followers, gradually lost control
over his kingdom. The Wends (but neither Lombards nor Avars) are
involved in almost every episode of this process of fragmentation, in
Thuringia as well as in Austrasia (chapters æã, æä and ææ). If Fritze is
right in interpreting Dagobert's defeat at Wogastisburg as causing both
the Austrasians' dementacio and Duke Radulf of Thuringia's procla-
mation of independence,áå then we must see Fredegar's use of Dagobert's
regnal years for dating Wendish a¡airs as a narrative strategy for empha-
sizing Samo's role in the decline of the Merovingian kingdom.
But why was Fredegar so much concerned with Dagobert's confron-
tation with the Wendish king? It has long been recognized that the
chronicle itself provides enough evidence for identifying its author(s) as a
partisan of the Austrasian aristocracy, in particular of the Pippinid family.
In spite of a relatively greater use of rhetorical ¢gures in the last forty-
eight chapters of book IV,áæ Fredegar shows a good knowledge of juridical
and administrative formulaic language,áð of relationships between
polities,áñ treaties and territorial partitions,âò and even of what might
have been the o¤cial language of the Byzantine court.â" He may therefore
have been close to or even involved in the activity of the chancery.âá
On the other hand, Fredegar's purpose seems to have been to
entertain his audience,ââ which could explain the epic style of his stories
about Aetius, Theodoric, Justinian, or Belisarius.âã It has also been
observed that Fredegar, like Paul the Deacon, alternated tales with
`historical reports', inviting his audience to pause and listen closely.âä
Both the structure of the chronicle and the legends included in it are
appropriate to the needs or wishes of Fredegar's audience.âå His anti-
Merovingian attitude and declared hostility toward Brunhild and her
attempts at centralization of power also show Fredegar as a partisan of
the Austrasian aristocracy.âæ Fredegar has only accolades for Pippin,
Dagobert's mayor.âð We know that in åáñ Dagobert moved the centre of
activities from Austrasia to Paris, probably in order to escape the uncom-
fortable in£uence of the Austrasian nobility.âñ Fredegar tells us that
consensus prevailed only until the king went to Paris.ãò Just before
Dagobert's campaign against Samo, an open con£ict emerged between
the king and the Austrasian aristocracy. According to Fredegar, the
latter's dementacio caused the victory of theWends over the Franks, since
the Austrasians now `saw themselves hated and regularly despoiled by
Dagobert.'ã" It is only after Dagobert placed his two-year-old son
Sigebert on the throne of Austrasia and con¢rmed the gifts he had made
by separate charters, that the Austrasians agreed to defend bravely `their
frontier and the Frankish kingdom against theWends' (my italics).ãá
What follows from this analysis is that in Fredegar's eyes, the Wends
and their king were an essential ingredient in the dissolution of
Dagobert's power, at least in Austrasia. It is because of their role in the
Frankish king's failure to control his eastern domains that all dates about
theWends are given in Dagobert's regnal years.
Assigning Fredegar to a speci¢c aristocratic milieu might also be
important for the problem of his sources. Fredegar, writing as he does in
the late åäòs or the early ååòs, is surprisingly well informed about the
con£ict that led to Dagobert's expedition. He even criticizes Dagobert's
envoy, Sicharius, for his attitude toward theWendish king. According to
Fredegar, Samo did not reject the idea of punishing those who had
`killed and robbed a great number of Frankish merchants', but `simply
stated his intention to hold an investigation so that justice could be done
in this dispute, as well as in others that had arisen between them in the
meantime.'ãâ Samo thus rejected Dagobert's claims that criminals should
be sent to him. On the other hand, Sicharius, sicut stultus legatus,ãã
reminded Samo that he and his people owed fealty to Dagobert. In other
words, he claimed that since they were all under the king's dicio,
Dagobert was entitled to have the ultimate word in that case.ãä At this
crucial point of the story, Fredegar's narrative approaches the `rhetoric of
the scene' described by Pizarro. Samo's state of mind is marked by
standard phrases, as Fredegar makes him reply `by now weary' to
Sicharius' threats.ãå As if talking with a fool, Samo restrained his anger
and proposed instead friendly relations with Dagobert. But amicitia, as
Fritze has shown, would have again implied equal rights and obliga-
tions.ãæ Sicharius maintained his position, although, as Fredegar points
out, `he had no authority'. Fredegar's criticism appears to be based on the
assumption that Sicharius had no right to bring into discussion the
seruitium that Samo presumably owed to Dagobert. This criticism is later
extended to Dagobert, who, when learning about the outcome of
Sicharius' mission, `con¢dently ordered the raising of a force throughout
his kingdom of Austrasia to proceed against Samo and the Wends' (my
italics).ãð Sicharius' foolishness in threatening the Wendish king has its
counterpart in Dagobert's imprudent con¢dence.ãñ
But where did Fredegar ¢nd information about these events? Baudot
proposed that he had obtained it all from Sicharius' mouth.äò Go¡art
believed Sicharius' episode to be a too vivid a story ^ in other words, a
tale ^ to be reconciled with the idea of sober contemporary infor-
mation.ä" But as shown above, Fredegar's detailed knowledge of the
juridical background of the con£ict contradicts this interpretation.
Fredegar was certainly not a contemporary, but nor can his account be
classi¢ed as legend. Much more important is the argument of Fredegar's
critical position towards both Sicharius and Dagobert. His account
sounds, again, more like a political commentary of an Austrasian, such
as one of the survivors of the debacle at Wogastisburg. This is further
substantiated by another piece of evidence of theWendish account.
Fredegar ¢rst introduced the Wendish theme in chapter ãð in order
to explain how it was possible for the Wends and their king to become
such an important power at the eastern border of the Frankish
kingdom.äá In this chapter, the chronicler combines two narratives,
namely Samo's story and what I would call the `ethnogenetic myth' of the
Wends. According to Fredegar, the Wends emerged from a particular
union of Avar warriors and Slavic women:
Every year, the Huns wintered with the Slavs, sleeping with their
wives and daughters, and in addition the Slavs paid tribute and
endured many other burdens. The sons born to the Huns by the
Slavs' wives and daughters eventually found this shameful oppression
intolerable; and so, as I said, they refused to obey their lords and
started to rise in rebellion.äâ
The Slavs paid tribute to the Avars and `endured many other burdens'.
Fredegar also records that the Slavs have long since been subjected to the
Avars, `who used them as Befulci'.äã Much has been said about befulci, to
the extent that the term was ultimately derived from the name of the
bu¡alo in several (modern) Slavic languages, which led scholars such as
Wallace-Hadrill to an odd conclusion: the Slavs were forced to drive the
Avars' bu¡alo-wagons on campaigns or look after their herds of bu¡alo.ää
But Fredegar provides a di¡erent explanation: `The Wends were called
Befulci by the Huns, because they advanced twice to the attack in their
war bands, and so covered the Huns.'äå As SchÏtz has shown, befulci is
cognate with fulcfree, a term occurring in the Edict of the Lombard king
Rothari. Both words derive from the Old German felhan, falh, fulgum
(hence the Middle German bevelhen), meaning `to entrust to, to give
someone in guard'.äæ TheWends may therefore be seen as special military
units of the Avar army, as Fredegar carefully explains. There are several
other sources, both Greek and Latin, that indirectly support this inter-
pretation.äð Fredegar certainly had knowledge about the speci¢c way in
which theWends were organized as special units of the Avar army.äñ The
term befulci and its usage further suggest that Fredegar aims here at
(re)interpreting what might have been a `native', presumably Wendish
account. It has long been noted that this passage strikingly resembles
the story of the Dulebians in the Russian Primary Chronicle:
The Avars, who attacked Heraclius the Emperor, nearly capturing
him, also lived at this time. They made war upon the Slavs and
harassed the Dulebians, who were themselves Slavs (primuchisha
Dule by, sushchaia Sloveny). They even did violence to the Dulebian
women (i nasil'e tvoriakhu zhenam' Dule p'skim'). When an Avar made
a journey, he did not cause either a horse or a steer to be harnessed,
but gave command instead that three or four or ¢ve women should be
yoked to his cart and be made to draw him. Even thus they harassed
the Dulebians.åò
A direct relation between the two chronicles is naturally out of
question. However, Shakhmatov, the ¢rst historian to claim a western
origin for Nestor's account of the early Slavs, believed that a lost
Moravian source of the late ninth and early tenth century may have been
used by the Russian Primary Chronicle, an idea further developed by
Jakobson and Zasterova¨ .å" The insistence of the twelfth-century
chronicler that Dulebians `were themselves Slavs' may indicate his
awareness that the story ¢rst applied to Pannonian Dulebians and his
intention to adapt it to the case of those of Rus'. It is also not impossible
that the story, as rendered by Fredegar, survived in a slightly modi¢ed
form until the late ninth century. The fact that the dissemination of
Fredegar's chronicle began with an abundance of ninth-century copies
may have contributed to this.åá It is less important to the present study
whether or not we can bridge the gap between a seventh-century
chronicle in Latin and its twelfth-century counterpart in Old Slavonic
than that both recorded a story, that might have possibly circulated via
manuscript copies and translations for almost three hundred years. This
story may have been ¢rst `invented' by Fredegar, who probably used a
`native' version of the con£ict between Avars and Slavs. His use of such
technical terms as befulci betrays Fredegar's attempts at adapting this
version to the Procustean bed of his narrative, which, as we have seen,
seems to have been tailored to suit his audience's expectations. The
`ethnogenetic myth' of the Wends, just like Fredegar's loose chronology,
may thus be viewed as a narrative strategy for explaining the disinte-
gration of Merovingian power. In order to illustrate how Samo and the
Wends contributed to the decline of the Merovingian regnum, Fredegar
needed to explain ¢rst how the gens emerged, which would later play an
instrumental role in the history of the Frankish gens. Thus he may have
chosen a story that would have suited the speci¢c forma mentis of his
audience. He stressed that the Wendish gens was the outgrowth of a
military con£ict, much like the Langobardic one.åâ If, asWood observed,
one of the major themes of the chronicle is female power used for good
or for ill,åã then it might not be an accident that in both Wendish and
Langobardic cases, women play such an important role. It is through the
long-su¡ering uxores Sclavorum et ¢lias that the befulci turned into a
fully-£edged gens. (I shall return later to the role assigned to gentes in
Fredegar's concept of history.) It is, however, already evident that in the
general economy of the chronicle, the story of how a Wendish gens was
created operates as a counterpart to other equivalent stories, such as that
of the Trojan origin of the Franks or that of chapter åä of book III, signif-
icantly entitled De Langobardorum gente et eorum origine et nomine. If
the re-interpretation of the Warchonite myth of the Avars by Fredegar's
contemporary, Theophylact Simocatta, may be seen as an example of
interpretatio Romana, then Fredegar's `ethnogenetic myth' of the Wends
may have been a case of interpretatio Francica, speci¢cally designed to
play the role of the saga in a period and within a historiographic genre
obsessed with origo gentis.åä A quick glimps at Fredegar's ethnic termi-
nology may strengthen the argument.
From the very beginning, Fredegar introduces two apparently
Although he employs a similar construction for the Avars (`contra Avaris
coinomento Chunis'), it might be that the Slavs were not the same as
Wends.åæ The latter's name is usually interpreted as deriving from
Jordanes' Venethi.åð While being traditionally regarded, at least in Polish
historiography, as forefathers of the western Slavs, and therefore
successors of the Veneti mentioned by Pliny, Tacitus or Claudius Ptole-
maeus,åñ recent studies argue that the name may have not been a self-
designation. By calling the Slavs `Wends', German-speaking groups may
have alluded to a pre-Slavic population. It is, however, not clear how an
ancient terminology came to be used in the case of the early medieval
Slavs.æò Moreover, there is no evidence that Fredegar ever read Jordanes.
He most probably took his ethnic terminology from another source. He
is not alone in applying the name `Wends' to the eastern neighbours of
the Franks. The Life of St Columbanus applies to them the same pair of
names (Veneti/Sclavi).
Fredegar shows an apparently unpredictable use of both ethnic
names. He has variants for Sclaui, such as Esclavi or Sclavini, but also
for Winidi, such as Winodi, Winedi, or Venedi. This may further indicate
di¡erent sources for his Wendish account, especially for chapters ãð and
åð, where the two terms, along with their variants, appear together. It is
interesting to note, however, that `Wends' occur particularly in political
contexts: the Wends, not the Slavs, made Samo their king.æ" There is a
Wendish gens, but not a Slavic one.æá In contrast, Sclavini are a mere
genus.æâ Elected by the Wends, Samo is nevertheless rex Sclauinorum.æã
After those chapters in which he explained how a Wendish polity had
emerged (ãð and åð), Fredegar refers exclusively to Wends (chapters æá,
æã, æä and ææ). This further suggests that there is a meaning behind Frede-
gar's presumably inconsistent ethnic vocabulary. Perhaps `Wends' and
`Sclavenes' are meant to denote a speci¢c social and political con¢g-
uration, in which such concepts as `state' or `ethnicity' are relevant, while
`Slavs' is a more general term, used in a territorial rather than an ethnic
sense; Samo as a merchant went in Sclauos to do business, those gentes
eager to receive Dagobert with open hands lived circa limitem Auarorum
et Sclauorum, and Lombards made a hostile attack in Sclauos.æä
That Fredegar's terminology is not erratic is also proved by a similar
pair of ethnic names used in Jonas of Bobbio's Life of St Columbanus,
written sometime between åâñ and åãâ.æå According to Jonas, Colum-
banus had once thought to go preaching to theWends who are also called
Slavs (Venetiorum qui et Sclavi dicuntur), but gave up this mission of
evangelization, because those people's eyes were not yet open for the
light of the scriptures.ææ This parallel is substantiated by the citation in
Fredegar's chronicle of a long passage directly from V|ta Columbani.æð
Amandus, a contemporary of Jonas of Bobbio, is also known for
attempting to convert the Slavs. His Life, written about thirty years after
Amandus' death in åæä, describes how the saint heard that `the Slavs,
sunk in great error, were caught in the devil's snares'. `Greatly hoping he
might gain the palm of martyrdom', Amandus crossed the Danube in
c. åâò and, `journeying round, freely preached the Gospel of Christ to
the people.' The Slavs were not very attracted by Amandus' mission and
he soon returned `to his own £ock, and caring for them, led them by
preaching to the heavenly kingdom.'æñ
Despite his failure to convert the Slavs, Amandus seems to have been
the ¢rst to preach to pagans outside the former Roman provinces.ðò It is
possible that Fredegar's Wendish account is based on missionary reports,
such as those presumably given by Amandus.ð" This interpretation
dovetails with his explanation of Samo's behaviour: `as is the way with
pagans and men of wicked pride'.ðá It may also explain Sicharius' attitude,
especially his bold reply to theWendish king: `It is impossible for Chris-
tians and servants of the Lord to live in terms of friendship with dogs.'ðâ
This metaphor reminds one of the answer given by Caesara, the wife of
the Persian emperor, to the envoys that her husband had sent to seek for
her: `I shall not address these fellows. They live dogs' lives. I will answer
them only if they will do as I have done, and become Christians' (my
italics).ðã Sicharius may thus be viewed as a good example of a member
of that Frankish aristocracy described by Geary, to which Columbanus
and his monastic tradition had provided `a common ground around
which networks of northern aristocrats could unite, ¢nding a religious
basis for their social and political standing.'ðä As for Fredegar, he might
have put £esh on the skeleton of his narrative about theWends using the
perspective, if not the accounts, of the missionaries. If the latter may
have been responsible for the transmission of the `native' version of the
`ethnogenetic myth', it may thus have provided Fredegar with useful
material for explaining the extraordinary success of Samo against
Dagobert and his Austrasian army.
Notes
" For Eastern Europe, as an historiographical concept, see R. Okey, `Central Europe/Eastern
Europe: Behind the De¢nitions', Past and Present "âæ ("ññá), pp. "òá^ââ, esp. p. "òå; J.W. Sedlar,
East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, "òòò^"äòò (Seattle and London, "ññã), pp. ix^x; J.
Kl/oczowski, East Central Europe in the Historiography of the Countries of the Region
(Lublin, "ññä).
á J. Fried, `Auf der Suche nach der Wirklichkeit. Die Mongolen und die europÌischen Erfahr-
ungswissenschaften im "â. Jahrhundert', Historische Zeitschrift áãâ ("ñðå), pp. áðæ^ââá.
â J. Reisinger and G. Sowa, [Das] Ethnikon [Sclavi in den lateinischen Quellen bis zum Jahr
ñòò], Glossar zur frÏhmittelalterlichen Geschichte im Îstlichen Europa, Beiheft Nr. å
(Stuttgart, "ññò), pp. "ð^áò.
ã F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: the Social Organisation of Culture and Di¡er-
ences (Bergen and London, "ñåñ); cf. M. Banks, Ethnicity: Anthropological Constructions
(London and New York, "ññå).
ä The concept of ethnie is that of A.D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford and
Cambridge, "ñðå), p. âá, and idem, `National Identities: Modern and Medieval?', in S. Forde, L.
Johnson and A.V. Murray (eds) Concepts of National Identity [in the Middle Ages] (Leeds,
"ññä), pp. á"^ãå, esp. p. áñ.
å E. Breisach, Historiography, Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, ánd edn (Chicago, "ññã), p. ñã.
æ Fredegar IV. ãð, ed. J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with
its Continuations (London, "ñåò), p. âñ. See D.A. Tirr, `The attitude [of the West towards the
Avars]', Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae áð ("ñæå), pp. """^á"
ð I. Whitaker, `Late Classical and Early Medieval Accounts of the Lapps (Sami)', Classica et
Mediaevalia âã ("ñðâ), pp. áðâ^âòâ, esp. pp. áñæ^ð.
ñ F.M. Pelzel, `Abhandlung Ïber Samo, KÎnig der Slaven' in Abhandlungen einer Privatge-
sellschaft der Wissenschaften in BÎhmen, vol. " (Prague, "ææä), pp. ááâ^å. See O. Kl|¨ma, `Samo:
[`natione Francos'?]', inW. Sundermann, J. Duchesne-Guillemin and F. Vahman (eds) A Green
Leaf. Papers in Honour of Professor Jes P. Asmussen (Leiden, "ñðð), pp. ãðñ^ñá, esp. p. ãñò.
"ò F. Palacky, `Ûber den Chronisten Fredegar und seine Nachrichten von Samo', JahrbÏcher des
bÎhmischen Museums fÏr Natur- und LÌnderkunde. Geschichte, Kunst und Literatur " ("ðáæ),
pp. âðæ^ã"â.
"" G. Labuda, Pierwsze [pan¨ stwo sl¨ owian¨ skie. Pan¨ stwo Samona] (Poznan¨, "ñãñ), p. áðå. Contra:
O. Pritsak, `The Slavs [and the Avars]', in Gli Slavi occidentali e meridionale nell'alto
Medioevo, vol. " (Spoleto, "ñðâ), pp. âäâ^ãâä, esp. p. âðð.
"á See W. Pohl, Die Awaren[. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa äåæ^ðáá n. Chr.] (Munich, "ñðð),
pp. áäå^æ. For a critique of these views, see H. Kunstmann, `Noch einmal [Samo und Wogas-
tisburg]', DieWelt der Slawen áð ("ñðâ), no. á, pp. âäã^åâ.
"â For Paul's treatment of legends, see W. Go¡art, [The] Narrators [of Barbarian History (A.D.
ääò^ðòò). Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon] (Princeton, "ñðð), p. ãáð.
"ã M. Kos, `K poroc ilom [Pavla Diakona o Slovencih'], Cí asopis za zgodovino in narodopisje áå
("ñâ"), pp. áòá^"å, esp. p. á"â. For the use of Paul's account for reconstructing the Slavic
expansion to Italy, see more recently O.R. Borodin, `Slaviane [v Italii i Istrii v VI^VIII vv.]',
Vizantiiskii Vremennik ãã ("ñðâ), pp. ãð^äñ.
"ä See, however, F. Curta, `The Changing Image of the Early Slavs in the Rumanian Historio-
graphy and Archaeological Literature. A Critical Survey', SÏdost-Forschungen äâ ("ññã),
pp. ááä^â"ò.
"å See B. Krusch, `Die Chronicae des sogenannten Fredegar', Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fÏr
Ìltere deutsche Geschichtskunde æ ("ððá), pp. áãæ^âä" and ãá"^ä"å; idem, `Chronicarum [quae
dicuntur Fredegarii scholastici libri IV cum continuationibus]' (introduction), in B. Krusch
(ed.) Fedegarii et aliorum chronica. Vitae sanctorum (Hanover, "ððð), pp. "^"ð. For a detailed
discussion of the multiple authorship thesis, seeW. Go¡art, `[The] Fredegar Problem [Recon-
sidered]', Speculum "ð ("ñåâ), pp. áòå^ã". For author C as the possible author of theWendish
account, see M. Manitius, Geschichte [der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, vol. "
(Munich, "ñ""), p. ááã.
"æ M. Baudot, `La question [du Pseudo-Fre¨ de¨ gaire]', Le Moyen Aè ge áñ ("ñáð), pp. "áñ^æò; cf.
Go¡art, `Fredegar Problem'; A. Kusternig, `Einleitung', in H. Wolfram (ed.) Quellen zur
Geschichte des æ. und ð, Jahrhunderts (Darmstadt, "ñðá), pp. â^ãâ, esp. p. "á. See also I.N.
Wood, `Fredegar's Fables', in A. Scharer and G. Scheibelreiter (eds) Historiographie im frÏhen
Mittelalter (Vienna and Munich, "ññã), pp. âäñ^åå, esp. p. âäñ.
"ð Fredegar IV. ãð, p. ãò
"ñ Krusch, `Chronicarum', pp. á^â; Manitius, Geschichte, p. ááã; see also F. BrunhÎlzl, Histoire
de la litte¨ rature latine du Moyen Aê ge, vol. " (Louvain-la-Neuve, "ññò), p. "âð.
áò Labuda, Pierwsze, pp. ñò^á; Go¡art, `Fredegar Problem', p. áâñ; Kusternig, `Einleitung', pp. ä
and "á.
á" K.H.J. Gardiner, `Notes on the chronology of Fredegar Book IV', Parergon áò ("ñæð), pp. ãò^
ã, esp. pp. ãò and ãã.
áá Fredegar IV. ãð, pp. âñ^ãò.
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññæ Early Medieval Europe "ññæ å (á)
WIDGETIZE
How to use Quote function: