The Merovingians in Historiographical Tradition: From the Sixth to the Sixteenth Centuries. By YanivFox. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024. 1 + 331 pp. £85. ISBN 9781009285018.

The book opens with an extract of Primat the monk's Roman des Rois, in which the Merovingian king, Childeric I, bore witness to three separate visions of noble, rapacious, and lecherous beasts. Each category of beasts, according to the king's new wife, Basina, was a parable for the fate of their heirs and the Merovingian dynasty. These categories (Lions and Unicorns, Bears and Wolves, and Dogs and Lesser Beasts) provide the structure for Fox's three-part investigation into the Frankish and later French reception and transmission of Merovingian storylines in historiographical tradition. Over the course of five chapters, Fox draws on an extensive but not exhaustive range of sources, including histories, chronicles, and hagiographies produced from the sixth to the sixteenth centuries, to explore the historiographical depiction of the ‘ascent’, ‘stasis’, and ‘decline’ of the Merovingian dynasty. Broader themes of periodization, genre, and storytelling are addressed in an opening discussion of historiography's nature and qualifying characteristics. Here, Fox's selection of sources based on their ‘bestseller’ status, regulation of the passage of time, and ability to coherently cover the Merovingian era using a syntactic approach, affords considerable analytic scope while simultaneously imposing boundaries designed to keep the book manageable. Part 1 on ‘Lions and Unicorns’ handles the origins and rise of the Merovingian dynasty. Chapter 1 provides a protracted but intricate analysis of the origin stories created to frame and legitimize Merovingian rule from Gregory of Tours to Primat of Saint-Denis. The millennium timespan and breadth of material are considerately handled, with Fox adopting a chronological approach to show how a combination of varying authorial agendas and ‘pick n mix’ approaches to previous accounts helped contemporaries to define and redefine notions of the Merovingians and their origins. Fox's suggestion that Childeric could have served as Gregory of Tours’ Diocletian is a point that merits further consideration, particularly given its novelty and contribution to his wider argument that Gregory can be distinguished from later historiographers through his desire to base the Merovingians’ origins and arrival into Gaul in a wholly Christian rather than mythological context. Chapter 2 shifts the focus from origins to ascent. Here, the Merovingians’ greatest monarch, Clovis I, takes centre stage. Sidestepping the Carolingian and post-Carolingian portrayals of Clovis, Fox instead chooses to compare and contrast the historical Clovis of Gregory of Tours with that of the humanist historian, Paolo Emilio. Carefully unpeeling the various ways in which Emilio unpicked Gregory's narrative fabrications to create a ‘chessboard of history’ with ‘rational actors’ (p. 109), Chapter 2 offers a masterclass in illustrating the artifice that is history and the gap that exists between it and the past. Fox's separation of the real Clovis from the Clovis of Gregory and Emilio serves as a timely reminder that the past belongs to those who lived it while history belongs to those who forge it. The Merovingian dynasty's reputation and influence lies not only in continuous historiographical engagement but in the hands of those whose choices determine which aspects are carried forward, rejected, or reshaped. This same message also filters through in Chapter 5, the only chapter of part 3 on ‘Dogs and Lesser Beasts’ which sees Fox bypass the temptation to focus on rehabilitating the final Merovingians’ reputation in favour of assessing the extent of the damage that the Carolingians’ propagandist material wrought on later historiographical depictions of them. Fox's bid to avoid superfluous repetition here leads him to perform a close comparative reading of the historical works of Sigebert of Gembloux and Yosef Ha-Kohen. The analysis here provides a timely reminder of the subjective, supple nature of Merovingian history that Fox first references in the introduction. Part 2, the middle part covering the ‘Bears and Wolves’ or middle Merovingians, spans the period 511 to 639. Chapter 3 delves into the obvious yet remarkably under-appreciated question of why, when rulers from Clovis to Dagobert I could boast so many laudable attributes, did chroniclers and historians only prioritize the problems? Here, Fox's reliance on Frechulf of Lisieux's ninth-century Histories and Ado of Vienne's Chronicle constitutes an unexpected yet effective approach for facilitating a dual exploration of the factors that drove the contemporary fascination with the Merovingians’ internal struggles together with Carolingian notions of periodization. While Fox is cognizant of his unusual source base, his sacrifice of Merovingian authors does leave questions pertaining to differences in Carolingian and Merovingian historiographical notions of era unanswered. Nevertheless, Fox's meticulous evaluation of Frechulf and Ado's historiographical goals successfully brings to light hitherto unexplored lines of literary transmission and ensures that there is thematic continuity between parts 1 and 2. This cohesion is maintained in Chapter 4 where the solitary focus on the reign and characterization of Dagobert mirrors the earlier spotlight on Clovis. Overall, this book will be of particular interest to scholars and students of the Merovingians and the history of History. Researchers of the impact of Gregory's Histories will find nuggets of gold dotted throughout the various chapters. Fox's consistent highlighting of the contemporary use of hagiographies as sources for history means that this book also continues the line of questioning, most recently addressed by Tamar Rotman, regarding hagiographical/historiographical divides. Yet, for this reader, the true power of Fox's book lies in its exclusively literary and narrative focus. This is not just a study of the writing of Merovingian history but a book about the growth of history as a discipline. Its continuous illustration of contemporaries’ critical discernment and handling of their sources means that it serves as a useful aid for those seeking to understand the role that history has played in shaping current and past perceptions of the Merovingians. In a climate that is seeking to encourage the employment of multi-, trans-, and interdisciplinary approaches with increasing fervour, Fox's ‘traditional’ history provides a refreshing reminder of the critical and artistic value of History itself.