Thanks First of all I would like to express my greatest thanks to the Department of History of the František Palacký University in Olomouc. I am also very grateful to Father Justin Berka, O. Cist., Prior of the monastery of Vyšší Brod, for giving me access to the manuscript XXVIII kept in the Library of the monastery and to Mrs Lucie Ó Súilleabháin Špalková, BcA., conservator of the historical library of the monastery of Vyšší Brod, for her help before, during and after my venue at the monastery. Finally, my thanks go also to Mr Stanisław Rosik, Pr. Hist, from the University of Wrocław, for his methodological remarks on the conception of the present study and to Jiři Petrašek, Dr. Hist., from the Center of Medieval Studies of Prague, for his precious help in gathering documentation.
Hi!
Annales Magdeburgenses Brevissimi The Short Annals of Magdeburg and their significance in the discussion on the genesis of Czech and Polish annalistic productions
Adrien QuĂŠret Podesta
Olomouc 2016
Reviewed by Mgr. Josef Šrámek, Ph.D. prof. Wojciech Mrozowicz
Edition Historie, Vol. 5 Edition managed by doc. Mgr. Jan Stejskal, M.A., Ph.D.
Making and publishing of this book was enabled by financial support granted in 2016 by Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, CZE, under the Institutional Development Plan to Faculty of Arts, Palacký University Olomouc. / Zpracování a vydání publikace bylo umožněno díky finanční podpoře, udělené roku 2016 Ministerstvem školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy ČR v rámci Institucionálního rozvojového plánu, Filozofické fakultě Univerzity Palackého v Olomouci. Unauthorized use of this work amounts to copyright infringement and may result in civil, administrative or criminal liability.
1st edition © Adrien Quéret-Podesta, 2016 © Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2016 ISBN 978-80-87895-61-0
Hi!
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION
9
CHAPTER 1: FOREIGN ANNALS USED FOR THE CREATION OF POLISH AND CZECH ANNALISTIC MATERIAL AND THEIR MUTUAL RELATIONSHIP 1.1 1.2 1.3
Foreign notes in Polish sources Foreign notes in Czech sources Foreign notes shared by the Czech and Polish sources
CHAPTER 2: PRESENTATION OF THE SHORT ANNALS OF MAGDEBURG 2.1 Presentation of the manuscript 2.2 Presentation of the annals (number of notes, structure) CHAPTER 3: THE SOURCES OF THE SHORT ANNALS OF MAGDEBURG AND THEIR GENESIS 3.1
Type of sources in the Annales Magdeburgenses Brevissimi 3.2 The Corveyan notes
5
23 24 42 69
73 73 89
97
98 107
Hi! 3.2.1 Comparative analysis 3.2.2 An attempt of reconstruction and dating of the Excerptum Corbeiense 3.3 The other notes from the 10th century and their relationship to Czech and Polish sources 3.4 The “Magdeburgian notes” 3.5 The genesis of The Short Annals of Magdeburg CHAPTER 4: THE GENESIS OF THE SHORT ANNALS OF MAGDEBURG AND THE DISCUSSION ON THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CZECH AND POLISH ANNALISTIC PRODUCTIONS The circulation of Corveyan notes between the three sources in Central Europe: an attempt at synthesis 4.2 The genesis of foreign compilations and the incorporation of the Corveyan notes 4.2.1 The genesis of the Czech foreign compilation and the incorporation of the Corveyan notes 4.2.2 The genesis of the Polish foreign compilation and the incorporation of the Corveyan notes 4.3 The significance of the results in the context of the discussion on the relationship between Czech and Polish annalistic productions 4.4 The significance of the results in the context of research on the beginnings of Czech annalistic production
107 120
126 142 143
147
4.1
6
148 149
150
151
155
169
Hi! 4.5 The significance of the results in the context of the research on the beginnings of Polish annalistic production 173 4.6 Conclusion: the significance of the results in the context of research on the beginnings of Central European annalistic production 175 CONCLUSION
179
LIST OF SOURCES AND SECONDARY LITERATURE
187
Sources Other sources Secondary literature
187 188 191
LIST OF TABLES AND STEMMAE
195
SUMMARY: “THE SO-CALLED ANNALES MAGDEBURGENSES BREVISSIMI AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE IN THE DISCUSSION ON THE GENESIS OF CZECH AND POLISH ANNALISTIC PRODUCTIONS”
197
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS FREQUENTLY USED IN THE PRESENT STUDY
199
INDEX LOCORUM
201
INDEX NOMINUM
203
INDEX RERUM
207
7
Hi!
INTRODUCTION I Although the first quarter of the 12th century clearly marks the birth of the first great historiographic output in Central Europe—that is to say the Chronica et Gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum of the Gallus anonymus, the Chronica Boemorum written by Cosmas of Prague, and probably the lost precursor of Hungarian chronicle production 1—it should be underscored that those works did not appear ex nihilo, but obviously used older sources which are lost to us today, but whose existence can be deduced from the global structure of Central European medieval historiography. The analysis of Polish medieval annals clearly shows, for instance, the existence of a common basis, a fact which has led scholars to affirm that the development of Polish annalistic production can be compared to a tree-like structure at the trunk of which is a lost source written in the 11th century, called Annales Regni Polonorum deperditi (ARPd) by specialists of Polish medieval historiography. An overview of the Czech annalistic corpus and 1 — Although there is no space in the present study for a detailed presentation of the history of the scholarly discussion on that topic, it should be noted that currently the most popular theory regards a redaction of this source during the reign of King Coloman. See Dániel Bagi, “Problematik der ältesten Schichten der ungarischen Chronikkomposition des 14. Jahrhunderts im Lichte der ungarischen Geschichtsforschung der letzten Jahrzehnte - Einige ausgewählte Problemstellen”, Quaestiones medii aevi novae, volume 12, 2007, pp. 105–127.
9 — OBSAH
Hi!
the oldest Czech chronicles, especially the Chronicle of Cosmas of Prague, also proves the use of a common source possessing an annalistic structure and created before 1125, as lost. The disparities between Polish and Czech archetypes constitute the main problem facing the study of the beginnings of historiographical production in these countries, as the attempts to reconstruct it from later sources can give only hypothetical results and are unable to provide a satisfactory answer to fundamental questions concerning the origin of the first monumental records of the past of both countries. However, the comparison of Czech and Polish annalistic corpora clearly shows the existence of a certain number of notes which are similar, and even identical a few cases: a small part of these notes are related to the history of the German rulers, whereas the majority are concerned with the Czech saints Wenceslas and Adalbert, or events which happened in Poland in the second half of the 10th century and the beginning of the 11th century. The presence of those concurrences thus proves the existence of a relationship between both annalistic productions, but its exact nature remains difficult to determine. A very quick overview of the scholarly discussion indeed shows that the scholars of both countries generally ascribe a greater antiquity to the annalistic tradition of their own country, and treat this tradition as the ancestor of the neighbouring country’s annalistic production, although some exceptions to this tendency also exist. In this context, the analysis of notes concerning the history of German rulers and more specifically those contained in the Annals of the Cracow Chapter and in the Annals of Prague, as those two sources are considered to be the closest to the lost archetypes, possesses a capital significe: during approximately one and a half century, scholars tried to determine the origin of those notes and to identify their sources in order to reconstruct their circulation in Central Europe, and to draw a more precise picture of the links existing between Polish and Czech annalistics. 10 — OBSAH
Hi!
II It must be emphasized that from its beginning to the present day, the scholarly discussion is historically marked by a great lack of consensus. The Polish medievalist Gerard Labuda even wrote that “literally everything is a matter of controversy” in research regarding Polish annalistics.2 However, it appears to be clear that the origin of the foreign notes and the question of the mutual relationship between the oldest Czech and Polish annalistic materials belong among the most disputed aspects of the topic as a whole, and we shall therefore briefly summarize the evolution of the discussion on those two points. The edition of the oldest known Polish annals by Richard Roeppel and Wilhelm Arndt—in the 19th volume of the Scriptores series of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, and in the 11th volume of the Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi series in 1866—is usually considered to be the first milestone in this discussion. In their introduction to the annals, the two German scholars stated that the source of the notes, those concerning imperial history in the Polish Annals, belonged to the same family as the Annals of Hersfeld and was first transferred to Prague, where some notes were added before the text continued on its way to Poland, more precisely to Cracow.3 The theories of Roeppel and Arndt were also used by Bielowski in his edition of the Annals for the second volume of the Monumenta Poloniae Historica, in 1872.4 2 — Gerard Labuda, “Główne linie rowoju rocznikartswa polskiego w wiekach średnich”, Kwartalnik Historyczny, n° 78, Poznań, 1971, p. 805. 3 — See for instance “Praefatio”, ed. Richard Röppel, Wilhelm Arndt, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi, Volume 11, red. Georg Heinrich Pertz, Hannover, 1866, p. X. 4 — August Bielowski “Roczniki Polskie”, Monumenta Poloniae Historica, ed. August Bielowski, Volume II, Lviv, 1872, p. 759.
11 — OBSAH
Hi!
One year later, Georg Waitz published his own results in a short article titled The Lost Annals from Mainz, in which he stated that the foreign source used by the oldest annalistic was a compilation of notes from the Annals of Hersfeld, the Annals of Reichenau and The Annals of Corvey created in Mainz. According to Waitz this compilation was thereby transferred first to Prague and then from Prague to Poland.5 The German scholar also noticed that, unlike The Annals of the Cracow Chapter, the Czech annals do not indicate any trace of usage of the Annals of Reichenau, but he did not attempt to explain this fact. If Waitz’s conclusions were accepted by Stanisław Smolka, they were however rejected by Tadeusz Wojciechowski, who asserted that the foreign source was compiled in Corvey around 974, being first transferred to Poland and only afterwards to Bohemia.6 Almost two decades later, Wojciech Kętrzyński reaffirmed the existence of a strong link between the Polish annals and their counterparts of Hersfeld and Reichenau;7 however, the most characteristic element of Kętrzyński’s vision of the oldest Polish annalistics was his hypothesis of the creation of archetypal Polish annalistics from a compilation of different older Polish annals. The same year, Julius Reinhard Dietrich published a study on the historiographical sources associated with Reichenau,8 in which he used the theory of the compilation of Mainz submitted by Waitz, but gave this source the name of “The Compilation of Fulda”, which was also used by Max Perlbach in the following years.9 Attributing
5 — Georg Waitz, “Verlorene Mainzer Annalen”, Nachrichten von der kaiserlicher Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts Universität, 1873, pp. 388–391. 6 — Tadeusz Wojciechowski, “O rocznikach polskich”, Pamiętnik Akademii Umiejętności, IV, 1880, p. 157 and following. 7 — Wojciech Kętrzyński, “O rocznikach polskich”, Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności, 34, Cracow, 1897, p. 167 and following. 8 — Julius Reinhard Dietrich, Die Geschichstsquellen des Klosters Reichenau bis zur Mitte der elften Jahrhunderts, Giessen, 1897. 9 — See for Instance Max Perlbach, “Die Anfänge der polnischen Annalistik”, Neues Archiv der Geselschafft für ältere Geschichtskunde, 24, 1899.
12 — OBSAH
Hi!
a Fuldian origin to a large number of notes contained in the Annals of Cracow, Perlbach stated that there was a direct filiation between the oldest Polish annals and the Annals of Saint Benigne of Dijon; according to him, the young Kazmierz would have studied in that very same monastery from which the foreign annalistic compilation would be brought to Poland. It should also be noted that Dietrich and Perlbach additionally stated that the parallels between Polish and Czech annals came from the use of a second source which would have been of Czech provenance but would have also contained information from Germany, through the composition of the oldest Polish annalistic work. However, Dietrich stated that the source was compiled in Sazava with notes written in Břevnov and notes from the Annals of Quedlinburg, whereas Perlbach attributed foreign notes of Corveyan provenance to the source and linked it to Thiedag, the third bishop of Prague (998–1017), who was previously a monk in Corvey. A quarter of century later, Evgenij Perfeckij shows that the notes concerning German history in The Continuation of the Chronical of Cosmas by the Monk of Sázava present strong similarities with the Annals of Quedlinburg and the Annals of Hildesheim.10 Perlbach’s conclusions were accepted by Pierre David 11 but rejected by Stanisław Zajączkowski in his recension of David’s work: the Polish medievalist clearly states the anteriority of the Polish annalistics align with the Czech, and affirmed that the so called Annals of Gaudentius, written in Poland around 1000, were taken to Prague in 1038, during the plundering of Gniezno by the Czechs. Two decades later, Gerard Labuda also came out in favour of the existence of some annalistic compilation which would have received foreign notes around the year 1000 and been taken to
10 — Evgenij Perfeckij, “Die deutschen Quellen der Sazaver Chronik”, Archiv für slavische Philologie, 1925, pp. 43–70. 11 — Pierre David, Recherches sur l’annalistique polonaise du XIe au XVIème siècle, Paris 1932 et Les sources de l’histoire de Pologne à l’époque des Piasts (963–1386), Paris, 1934.
13 — OBSAH
Hi!
Prague in 1038. However, Labuda believes that this compilation contained notes from Hersfeld and Corvey up til the years 970 and was continued first by Jordan, the first Polish bishop, and by Gaudentius, brother of Saint Adalbert and first archbishop of Gniezno: the medievalist from Poznań therefore gave to this annalistic compilation the name of The Annals of Jordan and Gaudentius. Labuda adds that a second annalistic compilation containing notes from Reichenau and Cologne, and whose last notes concerned the years 1002, 1009, and 1012, came to Poland with Richeza (the spouse of Mieszko II), which led him to give them the name of The Annals of Richeza. Those annals would have travelled with her at the beginning of the 1030s and would thus have escaped the plundering of 1038, after which they returned to Poland with Kazimierz the Restorer at the end of the decade.12 The next year, Zofia Budkowa also affirmed that the notes shared between the Polish and the Czech annals came from The Annals of Gaudentius, which were taken to Prague in 1038.13 She attributed the similarities between the The Annals of Corvey, The Annals of Prague and The Annals of the Cracow Chapter to the use of a Corveyan compilation in the oldest Czech and Polish annalistic works; Zofia Budkowa added that this compilation probably travelled from Prague to Poland, although she did not totally exclude the possibility that this work came first to Poland and only arrived to Bohemia in 1038. The Polish scholar also rejected Perlbach’s hypothesis concerning a direct relationship between The Annals of Saint Benigne of Dijon and the oldest Polish Annals: she considered, however, that a compilation containing notes of German origin, and among them a significant amount of notes coming from a source close to the one used in The Annals of Saint Benigne of Dijon, came to Poland with Richeza in 1013. As Labuda later emphasized, Budkowa’s depiction of the beginnings 12 — Gerard Labuda “Gdzie napisano najdawniejsze roczniki polskie?”, Roczniki historickie, 23, 1957, page 94 and following. 13 — Zofia Budkowa “Początki polskiego rocznikarstwa”, Studia Źródłoznawcze, 2, 1958.
14 — OBSAH
Hi!
of Polish annalistics would postulate the existence of no less than three annalistics in Poland before 1038: the “Corveyan compilation”, the “Annals of Gaudentius”, and the Annals brought by Richeza. The next Polish researcher to express his opinion on the matter was Jan Dąbrowski, who addressed the question in his monumental presentation of Polish medieval historiography.14 Unlike Budkowa and Labuda, he postulates the existence of only one foreign compilation containing notes from Reichenau, Corvey and Hersfeld, which would have come directly from Germany to Poland before 1016, as The Annals of the Cracow Chapter indicates not only the birth of Kazimierz the Restorer in this year, but also the precise day of birth, which suggests that this note was written down just after the event. At the beginning of the 1970s, Labuda wrote another study about medieval Polish annalistics, in which he presented once again his model of the genesis of Polish and Czech annals based on the existence of The Annals of Jordan-Gaudentius and The Annals of Richeza.15 This theory, based on the use of two German annalistic compilations in Poland, had a great influence on the scholarly discussion: a significant numbers of scholars, mainly from Poland, praised this model, and some medievalists still uphold it today as the most coherent scenario of the genesis of Polish and Czech annalistics, whereas other researchers from Czech Republic and Poland rejected it and proposed other scenarios of development for the oldest Polish and Czech annals. One of Labuda’s main opponents was the Czech medievalist Dušan Třeštík, who published a long article on the beginnings of Czech annalistics in the late 1970s.16 In this study, Třeštík 14 — Jan Dąbrowski, Dawne dziejopisarstwo polskie (do 1480 roku), Wrocław, Warsaw, Cracow, 1964. 15 — Gerard Labuda, “Główne linie rowoju rocznikartswa polskiego w wiekach średnich”, Kwartalnik Historyczny, n° 78, Poznań, 1971, pp. 804–839. 16 — Dušan Třeštík, “Anfänge der Böhmische Geschichtsschreibung. Die altesten Prager Annalen”, Studia Źródłoznawcze, 23, 1978, pp. 1–35.
15 — OBSAH
Hi!
affirms that the oldest Czech annalistic notes were compiled with notes from Herfeldian and Corveyan origins, but also with The Continuation of the Chronicle of Regino; for the Czech scholar, this work would have been the ancestor of Czech narratives sources and also of Polish annalistics. Dušan Třeštík suggests that some of the oldest Czech annalistics notes might have been written in Břevnov. Another opponent to Labuda was the Polish researcher Tadeusz Wasilewski,17 who came back to the Kętrzyńki’s hypothesis that archetypal Polish annalistics originated from a compilation of different shorter annals; Wasilewski also shared Třeštík’s view that the mutually shared notes between Polish and Czech annals, mainly the ones concerning Saint Adalbert, were written in Bohemia and then transferred to Poland. However, the most discussed alternative proposition to Labuda’s model was that of Tomasz Jasiński, who first expressed his views in an article published in 2000.18 The Poznań scholar states that the only main source of foreign notes in Polish and Czech annalistics was a compilation of notes which came from a Hersfeldian source, as well as The Annals of Reichenau, and from a catalogue of the Archbishop of Mainz. According to him, this compilation was made in the beginning of the 970s in Mainz and was then transferred first to the newly elected bishop of Prague and from there to Cracow, which belonged to the episcopal seat of Olomouc at that time; in Cracow this compilation would have received the addition of local notes, such as the wedding of the future king, Boleslas, who ruled Lesser Poland at that time, in the year 984. Jasiński also states that the notes of Corveyan origin came to Prague at the time of Bishop Thiedag and were transferred to Poland in the middle of the 11th century along with 17 — Tadeusz Wasilewski, “Pochodzenie Emnildy trzeciej żony Bolesława Chrobrego a geneza polskiego władztwa nad Morawami”, Kwartalnik Historiczny, XCIV, n° 2, 1988, pp. 29–47. 18 — See for instance Tomasz Jasiński, “Początki polskiej annalystki”, Jerzy Strzelczyk (dir.), Nihil superfluum esse. Prace z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Profesor Jadwidze Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań, 2000.
16 — OBSAH
Hi!
notes concerning Saint Adalbert, which would have been written in Břevnov or Prague. He also clearly linked the beginnings of Polish annalistics with Cracow, but states that the archetype of Polish annalistics was never written at the court of the Piast rulers. Tomasz Jasiński also energetically denied the hypothesis concerning the existence of the so-called Annals of Richeza, one of the main points of Labuda’s argumentation. Labuda’s response came one year later, in an article entitled One or Two German Annals at the Origin of Polish Annalistics? .19 In this article, he rallied once more for the validity of his model based on the transfer of two foreign annalistics to Poland: the first one which he named The Annals of Jordan and Gaudentius would have contained Hersfeldian and Corveyan notes and would have been continued in Greater Poland, whereas the second one which he named the Annals of Richeza would have contained notes from Reichenau and Cologne and would have come to Poland in 1013. Labuda also underlined a lesser known fact in the discussion on the beginnings of Polish and Czech annalistics, namely the existence of important similarities between the oldest Czech annals and The Annales Magdeburgenses Brevissimi (The Shorts Annals of Magdeburg), which contain a significant amount of notes of Corveyan provenance. This source had already been quoted earlier by Labuda in two short contributions about Czech annalistics. 20 In those texts, the Polish scholar specified that those annals are present in only one manuscript, which belonged to the Cistercian abbey of Vyšší Brod (Latin Altum Vadum, German Hohenfurth), and stated that they might have been written in Prague around 1070. Finally, 19 — Gerard Labuda, “Jeden czy dwa roczniki niemieckie u podstaw polskiego rocznikarstwa?”, Studia Źródłoznawcze/ Commentationes, n° 39, 2001, pp. 7–27. 20 — Gerard Labuda, “Roczniki czeskie”, Słownik starożytności słowiańskich: encyklopedyczny zarys kultury Słowian od czasów najdawniejszych, Volume 4, Part 2, 1972, p. 508, and http://www.uni-leipzig.de/gwzo/ wissensdatenbank/artikel.php?ArtikelID=136.3000.
17 — OBSAH
Hi!
Labuda also adds that those annals should be rather called Annales Altovadenses. The Annales Magdeburgensis Brevissimi were also studied by Marzena Matla-Kozłowska in two articles published in 2005:21 she states that the notes of Corveyan origin in those annals came from the oldest Annals of Prague and adds that the Corveyan notes present in the oldest Polish annalistic compilations came from Bohemia. We can thus see that the Annales Magdeburgenses Brevissimi played a more significant role in the discussion on Polish and Czech annalistics in the later decades, but it must also be noted that they are used as evidence by scholars supporting opposite theories. It seems interesting then to focus once more on those annals, as they could provide precious guidance not only in the discussion on the circulation of Corveyan notes in the oldest Central European annalistic material but also in the fierce debate on the origin of foreign compilations used by the first Czech and Polish annalistics productions and on the nature of their relationship.
III Despite being challenged by Labuda, the name Annales Magdeburgenses Brevissimi given to the annals by its first editors describes them rather well. The annalistic character of this source is obvious and justifies the use of the term Annales, whereas the adjective Brevissimi underlines quite properly its rather short length, as it contains less than thirty notes and occupies the equivalent of
21 — Marzena Matla-Kozłowska, “Źródła ‘Annales Magdeburgenses Brevissimi’ w kontekście zapisek ‘obcych’ polskiego i czeskiego rocznikarstwa”. Studia Historyczne, 48, 2, (2005) pp. 135–150 and “Zapiski korbejskie w zaginiony Roczniku praskim w świetle Annales Magdeburgenses brevissimi. Powiązania czeskiego i polskiego rocznikarstwa”. Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica, 10, (2005) pp. 71–88.
18 — OBSAH
Hi!
roughly one folio on a relatively small-sized manuscript. Concerning the use of the adjective Magdeburgenses, which dates back to the first description of the manuscript in the late 19th century, to describe these annals, Gerard Labuda—as it was mentioned earlier—believed that the annals were written in Bohemia, most probably in Prague, and clearly appealed for a name change. However, it should also be emphasized that almost one quarter of the notes of the annals relate to the deaths of the first archbishops of Magdeburg and that two thirds of the manuscript containing the annals is occupied by a Martyrologium which was clearly composed in the area of Magdeburg. As already mentioned above, there is only one copy of these annals, which is contained in the last two folios of an 11th century manuscript belonging to the Cistercian abbey of Vyšší Brod. This manuscript was described twice: the first description appears in an inventory of manuscripts of Vyšší Brod by the librarian of this monastery, 22 whereas the second description is shorter and contains the introduction to the first edition of the annals. 23 This first edition of the Annales Magdeburgenses Brevissimi was created from a first draft made by Oswald Holder-Egger, however it was S. Steinherz who did the final corrections as Holder-Egger died in 1911; the edition was published in the volume 30/2 of the Scriptores series of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, which was printed in Hannover in 1934;24 the edition of the Annales was followed by an edition of some of the necrological notes 22 — Raphael Pavel, “Beschreibung der im Stifte Hohenfurt befindlichen Handschriften”, Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Cistercienser-Stifte der oesterreichisch-ungarischen Ordensprovinz, II, Xenia Bernardina, 2/2, Vienna, 1891, p. 176. 23 — Oswald Holder-Egger, introduction to the “Annales Magdeburgenses brevissimi”, M.G.H., Scriptores, volume XXX/2, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, Hannover, 1934, p. 748. 24 — “Annales Magdeburgenses brevissimi”, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger M.G.H., série Scriptores, Volume XXX/2, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, Hannover, 1934, p. 749.
19 — OBSAH
Hi!
written in the manuscript and gathered under the title Notae Necrologicae Magdeburgenses. 25 The edition of the Annales in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica were used a few years by Albin Gombos, who published some of its notes in his catalogue on sources concerning Hungary,26 as three notes of the Annales relate events linked to the Hungarian raids in Germany. Until the works of Labuda and Matla-Kozłowska, the Annales Magdeburgenses Brevissimi received rather little attention by scholars: mainly mentioned in brief quotations by Wilhelm Wattenbach and Holtzmann in their monumental work on German medieval sources, 27 by Marie Bláhová in a presentation of the historical sources contained in the oldest Czech libraries,28 and by Klaus Nass in his work on the annalist Saxo and Saxonian historiography in the 12th century.29 However, those annals do not appear in the source, influenced by the Annals of Corvey, the monumental work dedicated to them by Joseph Prinz;30 The Annals of the Cracow Chapter do not appear either, but the author dedicates two short paragraphs to the relationships with The Annals of Corvey and The Annals of Prague.31 In the second of those paragraphs, Prinz 25 — “Notae necrologicae Magdeburgenses”, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger M.G.H., série Scriptores, volume XXX/2, red. Georg Heinrich Pertz, Hannover, 1934, pp. 749–750. 26 — Albin Gombos, Catalogus fontium historiae Hungariae aevo ducum et regum ex stirpe Arpad descendentium ab anno Christi DCCC usque ad annum MCCXI, Volume I, Budapest, 1937, p. 150. 27 — Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter; Deutsche Kaizerzeit, eds. Wilhelm Wattenbach, Robert Holtzmann, Volume I, Part 1, 185, 1938, p. 66. 28 — Marie Bláhová, “Historická literatura v českých knihovnách přemyslovského období”, M. Svatoš (red.), Historia docet. Sborník prací k poctě šedesátých narozenin prof. Ph Dr. Ivana Hlaváčka CSc, Prague, 1992, p. 14. 29 — Klaus Nass, Die Reichschronik des Annalista Saxo und die sächsische Geschichtsschreibung im 12. Jahrhundert, M.G.H., Schriften, 41, Hannover, 1996, p. 240, p. 346. 30 — Die Corveyer Annalen, ed. Joseph Prinz, Münster, 1982. 31 — Die Corveyer Annalen, p. 67.
20 — OBSAH