• This essay will show, however, that the text is not linked to diplomas, but belonged to an African version of Prosper’s chronicle. I will propose a new edition, which will put the text back in its original context. Rather than looking for ‘good’ and ‘bad’ texts according to 19th-century categories, I will try to analyze the specific character of each manuscript.
    The attempt to compare the more narrative Reichenau version with other sources shows that the text is embedded in the tradition of chronicles and historiographical texts dealing with Vandal Africa. The narrative of Huneric’s cruel death is related to the Passio and the final sequence of Victor of Vita. Also Victor of Tunnuna’s chronicle must have been used by the scribe (or the scribes) compiling the text. The great persecution of Huneric is Victor of Vitas’ story, but even the sentence related to these events is nearer to Victor of Tunnunas chronicle entry. The facts concerning the restitution of ecclesiastical rights by King Hilderic appear to be a short version of Victor of Tunnuna’s text as the Reichenau version’s entry on Gelimer. The return of bishop Eusebius, the story of St. Agileus’ shrine and the period the catholic churches were closed are only mentioned in the Reichenau version. Why Thrasamund’s reign was not discussed can not be told by certain. It is however highly responsible that the reason for this was the carolingian compilator who did not finish his work.