The So-Called Ansbert, his ‘Historia de expeditione’ and Related Sources as a Research Problem *

Abstract The article dealing with the so-called Ansbert, his ‘Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris’ and related sources offers a research overview and analysis of the topic as it has evolved over the past 200 years and presents a new and more productive way to approach the narrative – the most important source documenting Frederick Barbarossa’s crusade ( 1188–1190 ). Firstly, the circumstances of the source’s reappearance in 1826 are explained, showing the troubled fate of the Strahov manuscript, where the narrative is extant in its fullest form. Secondly, the course of the academic discussion is traced, the main protagonist being Anton Chroust, the author of an edition used to this day. The main characteristics of the source are explained and the historiographical debate on the ‘Tageno-Ansbert-Frage’ is analysed, demonstrating that in almost desperate attempts to solve the question of authorship, the interconnectedness of sources and the exact manner of composition, research has gone up a blind alley, hindering more result-yielding questions from even being asked, which has not been remedied even by crusading studies that have bloomed in the past 100 years. Finally, a fresh approach to the topic is introduced: the narrative may be researched more viably through the lens of the functions and aims the source may have followed and the role the crusading idea may have played in it. Rediscovery of the ‘Historia’, p. 362. – The ‘Tageno-Ansbert-Frage’, p. 363. – Anton Chroust Enters the Scene, p. 365. – Karl Zimmert Disagrees, p. 367. – Towards the Modern Edition, p. 368. – The Edition, p. 371. – Reactions and Aftermath, p. 375. – The So-Called Ansbert in Crusading Studies and Barbarossa’s Biographies?, p. 377. – ‘Historia de Expeditione’ and its Modern Translations, p. 380. – New Horizons?, p. 385.