Abstract

The Histories of Gregory of Tours are among the most important literary testimonies for the transition period from Late Antiquity to the early Middle Ages. The verdict on the Latin literature and language of the first centuries of the Frankish Empire has often been very negative. Krusch and Levison, who published today’s still authoritative critical edition of the Histories, also assumed that Gregory’s original text could only have been written in poor Merovingian Latin. This paper presents arguments for a new edition of the Histories from different perspectives. Gregory’s testimonies in which he addresses his own linguistic and grammatical deficiencies or the necessity of writing in a simple language, have to be viewed and evaluated within the larger tradition of statements of this kind in (Late) Antiquity. They should, thus, not be read as evidence for the argument that Gregory’s Histories were written in poor and incorrect Latin. An assumption of this kind, however, has influenced Krusch’s and Levison’s evaluation of the manuscripts of Gregory’s Histories and is thus reflected in their reconstructed text, even though quite a few manuscripts offer a much better text. This approach has repeatedly been criticised by different scholars; my paper joins this criticism. In assessing the various manuscripts of Gregory’s Histories, the editors have to make a decision regarding the presumed quality and state of Gregory’s Latin. My paper, therefore, also offers a case-study of Gregory’s stylistic and rhythmic arrangement of his text. The analysis of the so-called prose rhythm provides important evidence in favour of a positive assessment of Gregory’s level of education and thus of his linguistic and grammatical proficiency. This can also be viewed as an argument for a new and appropriate edition.