Johannes Fried

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Johannes Fried at the Leipzig Book Fair 2019

Johannes Fried (born May 23, 1942 in Hamburg ) is a German historian who researches the history of the early and high Middle Ages .

Fried held chairs for Medieval History at the Universities of Cologne (1980–1982) and Frankfurt am Main (1983–2009). He is one of the most internationally renowned medievalists in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. In his research, Fried drew on the findings of brain research for historical science and used them for a new interpretation of the walk to Canossa and his biography of Charlemagne . With this historical memory and his research, among other things, on the Northern Italian legal and scholarly tradition, he has made major contributions to the methodical penetration and reorientation of medieval research in the last few decades.

With his representations - Guest in the Middle Ages (2007), The Middle Ages. History and Culture (2008), The World of the Middle Ages. Places of remembrance of a millennium (2011) and Charlemagne. Violence and belief. A biography (2013) - Fried managed to win a broader audience for mediaeval issues. In the book No Death on Golgotha (2019) Fried represents a variant of the apparent death hypotheses on Jesus of Nazareth against historical research on Jesus .

Life

The son of a pastor was born in Hamburg in 1942. A short time later, the city was significantly destroyed by bombing . His mother came from Leipzig, the father from Munich. Fried attended school in Heidelberg. His enthusiasm for bygone eras began during his school days. At the age of 15 Fried held "exhibitions" in his room with finds that he himself had unearthed. From 1964 to 1970 he studied history, German and political science at the University of Heidelberg . In 1968 Fried received a scholarship from the German National Academic Foundation . In the same year he also passed the first state examination for teaching at grammar schools. His main academic teacher was Peter Classen . In Heidelberg, Fried received his doctorate in 1970 with a thesis on the social position and political significance of learned lawyers in Bologna and Modena. From 1970 to 1979 Fried was a research assistant at Heidelberg University. He also completed his habilitation in Heidelberg in 1977 with the work The papal protection for lay princes. The political history of the papal protection privilege for laypeople (11th – 13th centuries).

In the 1980 summer semester, he held a teaching position at the Technical University of Darmstadt . From 1980 to 1982 Fried was Professor ( C 3 ) at the University of Cologne. From 1983 to 2009 he taught medieval history as a professor (C 4) at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main. Fried's most important academic students include Johannes Heil , Michael Rothmann and Barbara Schlieben .

Fried is married to a retired family judge and has two sons and three grandchildren.

Research priorities

Johannes Fried (2009)

Fried's main research interests are the political history as well as the intellectual and intellectual history of the early and high Middle Ages with special consideration of the Carolingian , Ottonian and early Staufer period . Other focal points are the medieval history of education and science, the history of universities and schools in the Middle Ages, the history of papacy and canonical and Roman law in the Middle Ages, cultural and social history, the methodology and theory of historical studies, the history of historical studies, the reception of the Middle Ages in the modern age as well as history in the George circle . From 1999 to 2009 he was the spokesman for the Research College / SFB 435 “Knowledge Culture and Social Change” in Frankfurt . The conference “Knowledge at Courts and Universities: Reception, Transformation, Innovation” in sub-project B2 “Knowledge culture and social change: The royal court as an example” in the context of the SFB 435 resulted in an anthology in October 2001. One focus of the anthology is the reception and processing of Moamin, a hawk medicine transferred from Arabic in 1240/1241 by Theodor of Antioch at the court of Frederick II . Current research focuses are Charlemagne , the school in the Middle Ages and the DFG project on an annotated edition of Ernst Kantorowicz's correspondence . In the early and high Middle Ages, Fried devoted himself to very different topics: the emergence of the legal profession, the papal protection privilege, the beginning of Polish kingship, Frederick II and his book of falcons, the origins of the Germans and Germany up to the 11th century.

Fried designed and conducted several conferences for the Constance Working Group for Medieval History . A conference of the Konstanz working group on the island of Reichenau on the subject of "Schools and Studies in the Social Change of the High and Late Middle Ages", planned and prepared by Peter Classen , was held by Fried after the death of his academic teacher in April 1981 and April 1982. In October 1991 and March 1992, the Konstanz working group held conferences on “Carriers and instruments of peace in the high and late Middle Ages”. In April 1995 he organized the conference of the Konstanz working group on "Heinrich the Lion 1995 - Discussion and Perspectives" together with Otto Gerhard Oexle . In the 40-year history of the working group, this was the first conference on a person without royal dignity. In the dating dispute over the Gospel Book of Henry the Lion, Oexle and Fried took different positions. Oexle advocated “late dating” around 1188, while Fried spoke out “around 1175” for “early dating”. For Oexle, the coronation image served not only as a memoria, but also as a testimony to “a self-assertion and an increase in the emphasis on one's own dignity”. Fried saw the picture as a proclamation of the ruling claims of the Guelphs and almost as a testimony to his "kingly thoughts" Fried was from 1988 to 1991 chairman of the Konstanz working group for medieval history. On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Konstanz working group in 1991, Fried, as chairman at the time, gave a critical appreciation. As a result of the sources evaluated by Fried for the first time, numerous incriminating and previously unknown biographical details about the founder of the working group Theodor Mayer became known. In 2001 Fried gave a lecture on "The Topicality of the Middle Ages" on the 50th anniversary of the Constance Working Group for Medieval History.

The image of the ruler of the Aachen Liuthar Gospel . Aachen Cathedral Treasury , fol. 16r.

In an essay published in 1982 on the concept of the state of the Carolingian era, Fried contradicted the older view, according to which there was already a differentiated concept of the state in the 9th century. Fried interprets the term regnum (empire) in relation to the person and not as the “totality of the political order”. In the sources, which, according to today's expectations, should be about the state, Fried found a broader church thinking or the idea of ​​a “sea of ​​houses”, i.e. a multitude of royal houses and noble houses. "In this 'sea of ​​houses', in the opinion of the 9th century, there was obviously the institutional reality of the people, not in the 'empire' to which, strictly speaking, the noble houses did not belong”. For Fried, the lack of a separate concept of the state was the deeper cause of the decline of the Carolingian Empire at the end of the 9th century. The contemporaries had no concept of permeating the state as “the totality of the political order”. Accordingly, they were unable to perceive the structural causes of the political crisis and react to them. On the other hand, Hans-Werner Goetz identified in a conceptual historical study of the historiography of the 9th century in "all types of sources [...] a fixed concept of the state". According to Goetz, regnum was already a term for the overall context of the political order in the Carolingian era. The contradiction sparked a controversy about the early medieval statehood and the question of whether regnum is transpersonal or related to the rule of the king. Fried stuck to his point of view in the period that followed.

In a study in 1989, Fried took the picture of Otto III. subjected to an analysis in the Aachen Liuthar Gospels . He narrowed the creation time of the picture to between the spring of 1000 and the beginning of 1002. The crown-wearing people next to Otto III. Fried interpreted not as dukes, but as the kings Bolesław Chrobry and Stephan of Hungary . The process of Bolesław's coronation as a Polish king in 1000 is not recorded by any written source , with the exception of the Chronicle of Gallus Anonymus from the 12th century, which is little considered in research . In the second part of his work Fried therefore devoted himself to the Gnesen act . Fried came to the conclusion that there had been a royal insurrection restricted to the secular act. Church coronation and anointing did not take place. In research, however, this view was particularly criticized by Gerd Althoff . In his 1996 published biography Otto III. Althoff took the view that Bolesław in Gniezno with the putting on of the crown in a particularly honorable way as an amicus as part of a friendship alliance of Otto III. had been awarded. The traditional acts - handing over gifts and demonstrating unity through a feast lasting several days - were common in early medieval amicitiae . Fried's study was translated into Polish in 2000. According to Fried, the oldest Adalbert's vita, contrary to what was previously assumed, was not written in Rome and was not written by Johannes Canaparius , but in Liège in the vicinity of Bishop Notger , perhaps even in Aachen itself. Fried justified his new thesis with text variants of a long-neglected, Manuscripts of Vita Adalberti kept in the Aachen Cathedral Archives.

In 2007, eight articles by Fried appeared in the presentation At Guest in the Middle Ages . The aim of the book is to convey the results of medieval research to a wider audience. The contributions range from the time of Charlemagne to the late Middle Ages . Thematically, the essays are wide-ranging and deal with dinners in the Carolingian era , the king's elevation of Henry I , end-time expectations, Mongols, freedom and the Templar trial . Fried published the work The Middle Ages in 2008 . History and culture. With the presentation Fried intended to make the “cultural evolution” in the millennium from 500 to 1500 tangible for an audience “interested in the past but not blinded by any relevant specialist knowledge”. The book is divided into 12 chapters and focuses on the 12th to 15th centuries. In terms of space, Fried deals with the entire Christian-Latin Europe. In Fried's conclusion, the Middle Ages were “one of the most restless and innovative periods in European history”. Within a very short time, the presentation was given four editions.

In 2016 Fried published a history of ideas about the end of the world from pre-Christian antiquity to the present.

Controversy over Fried's The Path into History

In the last two decades of the 20th century, a large number of presentations on the history of German nationality appeared. In 1994, Fried himself performed The Path into History. The origins of Germany up to 1024 published in the first volume of the “Propylaea History of Germany”. A few years earlier, in a review of the then newly published overview reports on the history of Germany in the Middle Ages, Fried had raised the question of whether the national framework would still be suitable for a modern overall structural-historical presentation. In view of his distrust of Ottonian historiography, he attached greater importance to the documents in The Path to History and tried to extract statements from them that exceeded their factual content. Fried's work The Path into History sparked a controversy with Gerd Althoff about the phantasy in the historian's work process and the character of sources. Althoff questioned the scientific nature of the book itself. Althoff found Fried's style to be “extremely suggestive”. He criticized Fried's "freedom of movement in dealing with source statements", his "tendency to over-pointed evaluation" and to "imaginative decoration". In a book without comments, Althoff expects "a clear mark where the certainties end and the theses or even assumptions begin." As a further weighty objection, Althoff Frieds saw “preference to deduce motives from facts”. Althoff criticized Fried's tendency to "replace problematic or previously incomprehensible source statements with explanations that are not supported by any sources." Fried had violated "a basic condition of scientific nature, the verifiability of the results". Fried's book is not recommended for exam candidates. In his reply, Fried said that Althoff had "torn quotations out of context" in his review. Althoff had given him foreign statements that he had not made. Althoff himself only brings hypotheses and no reliable results. Althoff only allows his own interpretations to apply ("Althoffiana") and does not accept other opinions. There was hardly any criticism of Fried's book from other historians. Peter Moraw , Franz-Reiner Erkens and Arnold Esch paid tribute to Fried's presentation. Hanna Vollrath praised the book as "writing history in the best sense". According to Ingrid Baumgärtner , Fried wrote an “important and stimulating book”. Michael Borgolte judged Fried's book as a "key witness of Medieval Studies at the output of the 20th century" and "the work of modern and postmodern history at the same time" In 1995 he received for his work the way into history the price of the Historical College Munich. In his lecture as the winner of the Historisches Kolleg in November 1995, Fried made it clear that he tells history with “constructive imagination”.

Historical memory

The inaugural lecture given by Hanna Vollrath in Cologne in 1980 on oral tradition in the Middle Ages ( The Middle Ages in the Typics of Oral Societies ) was for Fried Antrieb to familiarize himself with psychology and neuroscience over the next ten years. Fried dealt with the question of the reliability of facts that historians only report in later epochs. In 1993, Fried gave a lecture in Berlin on the “Relationship between memory, orality and tradition formation in the 10th century”. Using the example of Henry I's ascension to the king in 919, Fried wanted to show the framework for historiography in a society that was largely based on orality. The Ottonian histories on Henry's elevation were all written in the 960s. Fried postulated a strong deformation process through historical events. The historical memory "changed incessantly and imperceptibly, even during the lifetime of those involved". For Fried it follows from this that the view of the past that emerged was “never identical with actual history”. From the description of Heinrich's rise to the king by Widukind von Corvey , the most important historian of the Ottonian era, Fried concluded that one was looking at “a construct saturated with errors”. For Fried, Heinrich's elevation to the king was “a prime example of the formation of historical tradition in oral society in the early Middle Ages”, in which there was no “factual control of memories”. Gerd Althoff in particular dealt with Fried's statements . In contrast to Fried, he ascribed Ottonian historiography a high source value. For Althoff, Widukind is a trustworthy “key witness” for many important events in the 10th century. With his Saxon history, Widukind made the imperial daughter Mathilde politically capable. Without this knowledge, Mathilde would not have been able to represent the rule north of the Alps.

Fried advocated the inclusion of neurosciences in history. As chairman of the Association of Historians , Fried ensured that the brain researcher Wolf Singer gave the opening lecture of the German Historians' Day in Aachen in 2000 . In his own closing lecture, Fried dealt with the central phenomenon of remembering. For the 50th anniversary of the Constance Working Group for Medieval History , Fried gave the lecture on October 5, 2001, The Current Issues of the Middle Ages. Against the arrogance of our knowledge society . Fried pursued the question of what sense it makes to deal with medieval history in the 21st century in view of the increasingly scarce financial resources. In his lecture, he pleaded for greater integration of the findings from brain research. Fried saw the perspectives of historical science as "cognitive and life science". In this way, the separation between the humanities and natural sciences that has existed since the 19th century can be overcome.

In 1994, Fried spoke of the historian's “double theory”. The view of the medieval horizons of interpretation is always guided by our own ways of thinking. Events tangible in tradition are prematurely generalized and regularities are derived from them. In the years that followed, Fried further developed this insight into a memory-critical method. In his more recent work on the interpretation of historical sources Fried processed the results of psychology, brain research and anthropology ("historical memory"). Fried presented this research in 2004 in his work The Veil of Memory . Historical memory makes the performance of human memory the starting point for reflections on historical knowledge and historiographical sources. In his book, Fried advocated a reorientation of medieval studies as a "neuro-cultural history". Fried's theses met with criticism in historical studies, but were not rejected. Fried's theses were frequently taken up in the following years. In his book The Veil of Memory , Fried also questioned the credibility of the life of Benedict of Nursia because only one source passed on his life. Benedict is possibly an invented figure, a “product of an edifying story”. Fried's assumption could not prevail. According to the current state of research, the historicity of Benedict can be assumed. Fried, on the other hand, stuck to the fictional nature of Benedict.

With the help of the “memory” method he developed, Fried reinterpreted the events in Canossa in 2008. Fried saw the events of Canossa as "a prime example of the difficulties in dealing with memory data". Fried re-weighted the sources on the basis of the “memoric” method he had developed. The early report by Arnulf of Milan , which has so far been neglected in research, and the so-called Königsberg fragment would be of greater importance than the well-known descriptions of Lampert von Hersfeld , Bertholds von Reichenau and Brunos von Merseburg . After the king was released from the church ban, the Salian rulers Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII concluded a peace treaty in Canossa. In this perspective, the events in Canossa do not appear to be a humiliation, but rather a great success for the Salian king, even though the anti-reform bishops in northern Italy and, above all, the opposition in Germany, which was determined to elect a king, destroyed the agreement after a few months. Fried had published a short version of his new views for a wider audience in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . With his reinterpretation, Fried met with almost unanimous rejection in the professional world. In view of the theses of a “Pact of Canossa” published in 2008, a lecture series was held at the University of Cologne in the winter of 2010/11. Only Stefan Weinfurter commented on Fried's theses and considered the idea of ​​a fundamental agreement between Pope and Emperor to be incompatible with the most important historical sources as early as autumn 1076. In 2012, Fried presented his arguments again in detail in a book. Fried's extensive argumentation also received a large number of negative voices from research on the Middle Ages. Wilfried Hartmann judged Fried's reinterpretation as "completely absurd". The report by Arnulf of Milan, which Fried referred to, was regarded by Hartmann as too imprecise. In addition, Arnulf was not an eyewitness to the events in Canossa. It remains unclear whether Fried's calculations of the travel speeds are correct. Gregory VII's letters to the German princes at the end of January 1077 did not mention any peace pact between the Pope and the King. In 2014 Gerd Althoff again contradicted Fried's acceptance of a political peace alliance in Canossa. Even Patrick Bahners commented in September 2015 the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung critical to Fried's reinterpretation of Canossa. Fried responded to his critics Althoff and Bahners with a reply in November 2015. On the basis of philological source studies, Ernst-Dieter Hehl expressed himself critical of Fried's new interpretation in his 2019 study . With his reinterpretation, Fried wanted to relativize the events around the events of Canossa, stylized by older research as a turning point. However, research on polemic pamphlets or contemporary historiography before Fried has already made this plausible.

Charlemagne

Fried dealt with Charlemagne for decades. In 2013, at the age of seventy, he presented a comprehensive biography of the Franconian ruler with the subtitle Violence and Faith . Fried's biography saw several editions within a very short time and became one of the best-selling medieval books in German. For Fried, the search for "the core of the personality and the impulses of action from the circumstances of their time" is in the foreground. The rise of the empire was achieved through successful wars and conquests. Fried works out his faith as a leitmotif for Karl's actions. “Karl's main concern was the Christian faith and the Church. She also permeated his deeds ”. The end times expectation around 800 is of great importance in people's thoughts and actions. For Fried, Charlemagne is not an ideal statesman or first European, but a warrior of faith. The Karls biography was highly recognized in the professional world. According to Rudolf Schieffer , Fried's biography is “a representative presentation of today's possibilities in our field”.

Apparent death hypothesis

With his book No Death on Golgotha , published in 2019 , Fried left his field as a medieval historian. Following a medical doctor, he represents a variant of the apparent death hypotheses relating to Jesus of Nazareth . He takes the verse Joh 19,34  EU against the NT research as a historical note and interprets the lance stab in Jesus' side as a pleura puncture . New Testament scholar Thomas Söding , professor of New Testament exegesis in Bochum, assessed the experiment as "nonsense" and as "an airy construction that does not stand up to any scientific test". The cultural journalist Robert Braunmüller considered Fried's thesis and methodology to be a pseudo-scientific speculation. Fried himself admits that his argumentation is a purely hypothetical “set of circumstantial evidence”. He puts his book close to fictional literature : "I have considered writing a detective novel from the material." He later made it clear that only the second part of the book, from the abandoned grave, was based on evidence. Fried regards the first part as "not hypothetical, but rather a correct and convincing and factually irrefutable interpretation of the Gospel of John ."

Honors and memberships

Fried was awarded numerous scientific honors and memberships for his research. Fried turned down offers to the University of Konstanz , the University of Heidelberg and the position of director of the German Historical Institute in Rome . Fried was a scholarship holder at the Historical College in Munich (1990/1991). Fried is also a member of the Central Directorate of Monumenta Germaniae Historica (1989), member of the Konstanz Working Group for Medieval History (1983), member of the Frankfurt Historical Commission , member of the Commission for Research into the History of Frankfurt Jews (1993), Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (1995/1996), corresponding member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna (1997), corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen (1997), full member of the Academy of Sciences and Literature Mainz (1997), member the Historical Commission at the Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1986), corresponding member of the "Centrum medievistických studií" of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (2001), member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Historical Journal (1990) and honorary member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences ten in Budapest .

From 1996 to 2000 he was chairman of the Association of Historians in Germany and from 2001 to 2013 he was chairman of the German commission for the processing of the Regesta Imperii at the Academy of Sciences and Literature in Mainz; from 1998 to 2005 also chairman of the sponsoring association of the German Study Center in Venice . Fried has been co-editor of the historical journal , probably the most important historical specialist journal in the German-speaking area , since 1990 . From 1994 with Rudolf Schieffer until the publication of issue 68/2 (2012) he was long-standing editor of the German Archive for Research into the Middle Ages , one of the most respected mediaeval journals. In 1995 he received the Prize of the Historisches Kolleg (German Historian Prize). In 2006 he was awarded the Sigmund Freud Prize for scientific prose by the German Academy for Language and Poetry . At the beginning of 2009, Fried was awarded an honorary doctorate from the Philosophical Faculty at the Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen (RWTH) . In December 2012 a colloquium was held in honor of Johannes Fried. The contributions were published in an anthology in 2017. In May 2015 he received the Carl Friedrich Gauß Medal for his "groundbreaking work on the transformation of human memory and its deposition in historical sources".

Fonts (selection)

Monographs

  • The emergence of the legal profession in the 12th century. On the social and political significance of learned lawyers in Bologna and Modena (= research on the recent history of private law. Vol. 21). Böhlau, Cologne et al. 1974, ISBN 3-412-85373-9 (Partly also: Heidelberg, University, dissertation, 1970).
  • Papal protection for lay princes. The political history of the papal protection privilege for laypeople (11th – 13th centuries) (= treatises of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences. Philosophical-Historical Class, born 1980, Abh. 1). Winter, Heidelberg 1980 (at the same time: Heidelberg, University, habilitation paper, 1977).
  • Otto III. and Boleslaw Chrobry. The dedication image of the Aachen Gospel, the "Act of Gniezno" and the early Polish and Hungarian royalty. An image analysis and its historical consequences (= Frankfurter Historische Abhandlungen. Vol. 30). Steiner, Stuttgart 1989; 2nd revised and expanded edition. Stuttgart 2001.
  • The formation of Europe 840-1046 (= Oldenbourg outline of history . Vol. 6). Oldenbourg, Munich 1991, ISBN 3-486-49703-0 ; 3rd, revised edition. Munich 2008.
  • The way in history. The origins of Germany up to 1024 (= Propylaea history of Germany. Vol. 1). Propylaea, Berlin 1994, ISBN 3-549-05811-X .
  • Emperor Friedrich II. As a hunter or a second falcon book of Emperor Friedrich II.? (= News of the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen. Philological-Historical Class, year 1996, No. 4). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1996.
  • Rise from doom. Apocalyptic thinking and the emergence of modern science in the Middle Ages. Beck, Munich 2001, ISBN 3-406-48209-0 .
  • The topicality of the Middle Ages. Against the arrogance of our knowledge society. Thorbecke, Stuttgart 2002, ISBN 3-7995-8301-7 .
  • History and brain. Irritations of historical science through memory criticism (= treatises of the humanities and social science class, Academy of Sciences and Literature . 2003, No. 7). Steiner, Stuttgart 2003, ISBN 3-515-08434-7 .
  • The veil of memory. Principles of a historical memory. Beck, Munich 2004, ISBN 3-406-52211-4 .
  • A guest in the Middle Ages. Beck, Munich 2007, ISBN 978-3-406-56215-0 .
  • The middle age. History and culture. 4th edition. Beck, Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-406-57829-8 .
  • Canossa: Unmasking a legend. A polemic. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 2012, ISBN 3-05-005683-5 .
  • Charlemagne. Violence and belief. A biography. Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-65289-9 ; 5th edition. Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-65289-9 .
  • Dies irae. A story of the end of the world. Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68985-7 .
  • No death on Golgotha. In search of the surviving Jesus. Beck, Munich 2019, ISBN 978-3-406-73141-9 .

Editorships

  • Dialectics and rhetoric in the early and high Middle Ages. Reception, tradition and social impact of ancient learning mainly in the 9th and 12th centuries (= writings of the Historisches Kolleg. Colloquia. Vol. 27). Oldenbourg, Munich 1997, ISBN 3-486-56028-X ( digitized ).
  • with Otto Gerhard Oexle : Heinrich the Lion. Dominion and representation (= lectures and research. Vol. 57). Thorbecke, Ostfildern 2003, ISBN 3-7995-6657-0 ( digitized version ).
  • with Johannes Süssmann : Revolutions of Knowledge. From the stone age to the modern age. Beck, Munich 2001, ISBN 3-406-47576-0 .
  • with Olaf B. Rader : The world of the Middle Ages. Places of remembrance from a millennium. Beck, Munich 2011, ISBN 3-406-62214-3 .
  • with Moritz Epple , Raphael Gross and Janus Gudian: “Politicization of Science”. Jewish scientists and their opponents at the University of Frankfurt am Main before and after 1933 (= series of publications of the Frankfurt University Archives. Vol. 5). Wallstein, Göttingen 2016, ISBN 978-3-8353-1438-2 .

literature

  • Patrick Bahners : Criticism and Crisis. Definitely cheeky. To the historian Johannes Fried on his sixtieth birthday. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine , May 23, 2002, No. 117, p. 41.
  • Arnold Esch : Laudation to Johannes Fried. In: Historische Zeitschrift Vol. 263 (1996), pp. 281-289.
  • Entry Johannes Fried . In: Jürgen Petersohn (Ed.): The Constance Working Group for Medieval History. The members and their work. A bio-bibliographical documentation (= publications of the Constance Working Group for Medieval History on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary 1951–2001. Vol. 2). Thorbecke, Stuttgart 2001, ISBN 3-7995-6906-5 , pp. 143-148 ( online )
  • Fried, Johannes. In: Kürschner's German Scholars Calendar. Bio-bibliographical directory of contemporary German-speaking scientists. Vol. 1: A - G. 25th edition. de Gruyter, Berlin et al. 2013, ISBN 978-3-11-027421-9 , p. 1015.
  • Hans-Werner Goetz : Modern Medieval Studies. Status and perspectives of medieval research. Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 1999, ISBN 3-534-14121-0 .
  • Johannes Heil , Janus Gudian, Michael Rothmann and Felicitas Schmieder (eds.): Paths of memory. Colloquium in honor of Johannes Fried (= Frankfurter Historische Abhandlungen. Vol. 49). Steiner, Stuttgart 2017, ISBN 978-3-515-11831-6 .
  • Horst Fuhrmann : Imagination as creative power. Laudation to Johannes Fried. In: German Academy for Language and Poetry. Yearbook 2006 (2006), pp. 181-186 ( online ).
  • Jürgen Kaube: Johannes Fried. Critic of Memory. The Frankfurt Medievalist is always good for a controversy because he has a sense for the invisible. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , May 21, 2012, No. 117, p. 30.
  • Gustav Seibt : The seeds of doubt. Very stimulating: On the 70th birthday of the historian Johannes Fried. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , May 23, 2012, p. 12.
  • Prize of the Historical College. Fifth award on November 17, 1995 [in it: laudation by Arnold Esch on Johannes Fried and the speech “Science and Fantasy. The example of history ”by Johannes Fried]. [Munich 1995] ( digitized version ).
  • Inaugural speech by Mr. Johannes Fried. In: Yearbook of the Academy of Sciences and Literature 1998, 49th year, pp. 93–95.
  • Sascha Zoske: Bologna and other catastrophes. The historian Johannes Fried is one of the best experts on the Middle Ages. But you can also talk to him about university politics, Albert Speer's life lies and super volcanoes. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung , June 28, 2015, No. 26, p. R3.

Web links

Remarks

  1. ^ Inaugural address by Mr. Johannes Fried. In: Yearbook of the Academy of Sciences and Literature , 49th year, 1998, pp. 93–95, here: p. 93.
  2. ↑ Sascha Zoske: Frankfurt faces. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , June 24, 2006, No. 144, p. 72.
  3. ↑ Johannes Fried: The emergence of the legal profession in the 12th century. On the social and political importance of learned lawyers in Bologna and Modena. Cologne et al. 1974.
  4. ↑ Sascha Zoske: Bologna and other disasters. The historian Johannes Fried is one of the best experts on the Middle Ages. But you can also talk to him about university politics, Albert Speer's life lies and super volcanoes. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung , June 28, 2015, No. 26, p. R3.
  5. ↑ Gundula Grebner, Johannes Fried (ed.): Culture transfer and court society in the Middle Ages. Knowledge culture at the Sicilian and Castilian courts in the 13th century. Berlin 2008.
  6. ↑ Johannes Fried (ed.): Schools and studies in the social change of the high and late Middle Ages. Sigmaringen 1986.
  7. ↑ Johannes Fried, Otto Gerhard Oexle: Heinrich the lion. Domination and representation. Ostfildern 2003.
  8. ↑ Otto Gerhard Oexle: The Gospel Book of Heinrich the Lion as a historical monument. In: Dietrich Kötzsche (ed.): The Gospel Book of Heinrich the Lion. Commentary on the facsimile. Frankfurt am Main 1989, pp. 9-27, here: p. 25.
  9. ↑ See Johannes Fried: "The gold-shining book". Henry the Lion, his Gospel Book, his self-image. Comments on a new release. In: Göttingische Gelehre Anzeige 242 (1990), pp. 34-79. Against Fried's temporal classification Otto Gerhard Oexle: To the criticism of new research on the Gospel of Henry the Lion. In: Göttingische Gelehre Anzeige 245 (1993) pp. 70-109, here: pp. 98-103.
  10. ↑ Johannes Fried: Public lecture on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Konstanz working group on October 3, 1991. In: Johannes Fried (Hrsg.): Forty years Konstanz working group for medieval history. Sigmaringen 1991, pp. 11–28 ( online ) Cf. Reto Heinzel: Theodor Mayer. A medieval historian under the spell of "Volkstum" 1920–1960. Paderborn 2016, p. 20 f .; Anne Christine Nagel: In the shadow of the Third Reich. Medieval research in the Federal Republic of Germany 1945–1970. Göttingen 2005, p. 157.
  11. ↑ Johannes Fried: The actuality of the Middle Ages. Against the arrogance of our knowledge society. 2nd edition, Stuttgart 2002.
  12. ↑ Johannes Fried: The Carolingian rulership association in the 9th century between "church" and "royal house". In: Historische Zeitschrift , Vol. 235 (1982), pp. 1-43.
  13. ↑ Johannes Fried: The Carolingian rulership association in the 9th century between "church" and "royal house". In: Historische Zeitschrift , Vol. 235 (1982), pp. 1-43, here: p. 39.
  14. ↑ Johannes Fried: The Carolingian rulership association in the 9th century between "church" and "royal house". In: Historische Zeitschrift , Vol. 235 (1982), pp. 1-43, here: pp. 38f.
  15. ↑ Johannes Fried: The Carolingian rulership association in the 9th century between "church" and "royal house". In: Historische Zeitschrift , Vol. 235 (1982), pp. 1-43, here: pp. 42f.
  16. ^ Hans-Werner Goetz: Regnum. On the political thinking of the Carolingian era. In: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History. Germanistische Abtheilung , Vol. 104 (1987), pp. 110-189, here: p. 189.
  17. ↑ A summary of the controversy in Jörg Jarnut: Comments on the state of the early Middle Ages. The controversy between Johannes Fried and Hans-Werner Goetz. In: Dieter Hägermann , Wolfgang Haubrichs , Jörg Jarnut with the assistance of Claudia Giefers (Ed.): Acculturation. Problems of a Germanic-Romanesque cultural synthesis in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages. Berlin 2004, pp. 504-509.
  18. ↑ Johannes Fried: Gens and regnum. Categories of perception and interpretation of political change in the early Middle Ages. Remarks on the historian's double theory binding. In: Jürgen Miethke, Klaus Schreiner (ed.): Social change in the Middle Ages. Forms of perception, explanatory models, regulatory mechanisms. Sigmaringen 1994, pp. 73-104; Johannes Fried: Why the Franconian Empire didn't exist. In: Bernhard Jussen (ed.): The power of the king. Rule in Europe from the early Middle Ages to modern times. Munich 2005, pp. 83-89.
  19. ↑ Johannes Fried: Otto III. and Boleslaw. The dedication image of the Aachen Gospel, the "Act of Gniezno" and the early Polish and Hungarian royalty. An image analysis and its historical consequences. Wiesbaden 1989, pp. 123-125.
  20. ^ Gerd Althoff: Otto III. Darmstadt 1996, pp. 144ff.
  21. ↑ Gerd Althoff, Hagen Keller: Late Antiquity to the End of the Middle Ages. The time of the late Carolingians and Ottonians. Crises and Consolidations 888–1024. (= Gebhardt - Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte , 10th, completely revised edition), Stuttgart 2008, p. 315.
  22. ^ Johannes Fried: Otton III i Bolesław Chrobry. Miniatura dedykacyjna z Ewangeliarza z Akwizgranu, zjazd gnieźnieński a królestwa polskie i węgierskie , translated by Elżbieta Kaźmierczak and Witold Leder, Warszawa 2000.
  23. ^ Johannes Fried: Gnesen - Aachen - Rome. Otto III. and the cult of St. Adalbert. Observations on the older Adalbert life. In: Michael Borgolte (ed.): Poland and Germany 1000 years ago. The Berlin conference on the "Gnesen Act". Berlin 2002, pp. 235-280.
  24. ↑ Johannes Fried: The Middle Ages. History and culture. Munich 2008, p. 9.
  25. ↑ Johannes Fried: The Middle Ages. History and culture. Munich 2008, p. 558.
  26. ↑ Johannes Fried: Dies irae. A story of the end of the world. Munich 2016.
  27. ↑ Johannes Fried: German history in the early and high Middle Ages. Comments on some new overall representations. In: Historische Zeitschrift , Vol. 245 (1987), pp. 625-659. Hans-Werner Goetz: Modern Medieval Studies. Status and perspectives of medieval research. Darmstadt 1999, p. 373.
  28. ↑ See Wolfgang Giese : Heinrich I. Founder of the Ottonian rule. Darmstadt 2008, p. 32.
  29. ↑ Gerd Althoff: From facts to motifs. Johannes Fried's description of the origins of Germany. In: Historische Zeitschrift , Vol. 260 (1995), pp. 107-117. The reply to this Johannes Fried: About the writing of historical works and reviews. A reply. In: Historische Zeitschrift , Vol. 260 (1995), pp. 119-130. Cf. also Lothar Kolmer: How Historians Argue: Some Comments on the Fried-Althoff Controversy. In: Gerhard Ammerer et al. (Ed.): Tradition and change. Contributions to church, social and cultural history. Festschrift for Heinz Dopsch. Munich 2001, pp. 80-96.
  30. ↑ Gerd Althoff: From facts to motifs. Johannes Fried's description of the origins of Germany. In: Historische Zeitschrift , Vol. 260 (1995), pp. 107–117, here: pp. 111 and 116.
  31. ↑ Gerd Althoff: From facts to motifs. Johannes Fried's description of the origins of Germany. In: Historische Zeitschrift , Vol. 260 (1995), pp. 107-117, here: pp. 111f.
  32. ↑ Gerd Althoff: From facts to motifs. Johannes Fried's description of the origins of Germany. In: Historische Zeitschrift , Vol. 260 (1995), pp. 107–117, here: p. 113.
  33. ↑ Gerd Althoff: From facts to motifs. Johannes Fried's description of the origins of Germany. In: Historische Zeitschrift , Vol. 260 (1995), pp. 107–117, here: p. 115.
  34. ↑ Johannes Fried: About the writing of historical works and reviews. A reply. In: Historische Zeitschrift , Vol. 260 (1995), pp. 119–130, here: 122.
  35. ↑ Johannes Fried: About the writing of historical works and reviews. A reply. In: Historische Zeitschrift , Vol. 260 (1995), pp. 119-130, here: pp. 126f.
  36. ↑ Johannes Fried: About the writing of historical works and reviews. A reply. In: Historische Zeitschrift , Vol. 260 (1995), pp. 119–130, here: p. 129.
  37. ↑ Friedrich Prinz : National history without people. In: Die Zeit , No. 27 of July 1, 1994, p. 62. ( online ).
  38. ↑ Lothar Kolmer: How Historians Argue: Some Notes on the Fried-Althoff Controversy. In: Gerhard Ammerer et al. (Ed.): Tradition and change. Contributions to church, social and cultural history. Festschrift for Heinz Dopsch. Munich 2001, pp. 80–96, here: p. 95.
  39. ^ Hanna Vollrath: History and history writing. For the discussion about the book "The Path in History" by Johannes Fried. In: Zeitschrift für Geschichtswwissenschaft , Vol. 43 (1995), pp. 451–459, here: p. 459.
  40. ↑ See the review by Ingrid Baumgärtner in: Historisches Jahrbuch 117 (1997), pp. 470–471, here: p. 471.
  41. ↑ Michael Borgolte: An anthropology of the beginnings of Germany. In: Göttingische Gelehre Werbung , Vol. 247 (1995), pp. 88-102, here p. 100.
  42. ^ Michael Borgolte: Medieval Research and Postmodernism. Aspects of a Challenge. In: Zeitschrift für Geschichtswwissenschaft , Vol. 43 (1995), pp. 615–627, here p. 627.
  43. ↑ Johannes Fried: Science and Imagination. The Example of History [Prize of the Historical College, Fifth Award on November 17, 1995]. In: Yearbook of the Historical College 1996, pp. 23–47, here: p. 44. ( online )
  44. ↑ Sascha Zoske: Bologna and other disasters. The historian Johannes Fried is one of the best experts on the Middle Ages. But you can also talk to him about university politics, Albert Speer's life lies and super volcanoes. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung , June 28, 2015, No. 26, p. R3.
  45. ↑ This lecture was printed in two versions: Johannes Fried: The art of updating in the oral society. In: History in Science and Education , Vol. 44 (1993), pp. 493–503 represents the speech given in Berlin. Ders .: The King's Elevation of Henry I. Memory, Orality and Formation of Tradition in the 10th Century. In: Michael Borgolte (Ed.): Medieval research after the turn. Munich 1995, pp. 267-318. Brief summary of Fried's position: Gerd Althoff: Historiography in an oral society. In: Bernd Schneidmüller / Stefan Weinfurter (eds.): Ottonian new beginnings. Symposium on the exhibition "Otto the Great, Magdeburg and Europe". Mainz 2001, pp. 151-169, here: pp. 151f. Ders .: Staged rule. Historiography and Political Action in the Middle Ages. Darmstadt 2003, pp. 105–125, here: pp. 106f.
  46. ↑ Johannes Fried: The Ascension of Henry I as King. Memory, Orality and Formation of Tradition in the 10th Century. In: Michael Borgolte (Ed.): Medieval research after the turn. Munich 1995, pp. 267-318, here: p. 273.
  47. ↑ Johannes Fried: The Ascension of Henry I as King. Memory, Orality and Formation of Tradition in the 10th Century. In: Michael Borgolte (Ed.): Medieval research after the turn. Munich 1995, pp. 267-318, here: p. 277.
  48. ↑ Johannes Fried: The Ascension of Henry I as King. Memory, Orality and Formation of Tradition in the 10th Century. In: Michael Borgolte (Ed.): Medieval research after the turn. Munich 1995, pp. 267-318, here: p. 303.
  49. ↑ Johannes Fried: The Ascension of Henry I as King. Memory, Orality and Formation of Tradition in the 10th Century. In: Michael Borgolte (Ed.): Medieval research after the turn. Munich 1995, pp. 267-318, here: p. 271.
  50. ↑ Johannes Fried: Law and Constitution in the field of tension between orality and collective memory. The marriage and the elevation of Heinrich I to the king. In: Albrecht Cordes, Joachim Rückert, Reiner Schulze (eds.): City - community - cooperative. Festschrift for Gerhard Dilcher on his 70th birthday. Berlin 2003, pp. 293-320, here: p. 312.
  51. ↑ Gerd Althoff: Widukind von Corvey. Key witness and challenge. In: Gerd Althoff: Staged rule. Historiography and Political Action in the Middle Ages. Darmstadt 2003, pp. 78-104. (First published in: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 27, 1993, pp. 253-272).
  52. ↑ Wolf Singer: Perceiving, Remembering, Forgetting. In: Max Kerner (Ed.): One World - One Story? 43rd German Historians' Day in Aachen. Reporting tape. Munich 2001, pp. 18-27; Johannes Fried: Remembering and forgetting. The present creates the unity of the past. ibid. pp. 381-394.
  53. ↑ Johannes Fried: The actuality of the Middle Ages. Against the arrogance of our knowledge society. Stuttgart 2002, pp. 54-78.
  54. ↑ Johannes Fried: The actuality of the Middle Ages. Against the arrogance of our knowledge society. Stuttgart 2002, p. 56.
  55. ↑ Johannes Fried: Gens and regnum. Categories of perception and interpretation of political change in the early Middle Ages. Remarks on the historian's double theory binding. In: Jürgen Miethke, Klaus Schreiner (ed.): Social change in the Middle Ages. Forms of perception, explanatory models, regulatory mechanisms. Sigmaringen pp. 73-104.
  56. ↑ Johannes Fried: The veil of memory. Principles of a historical memory. Munich 2004, p. 393.
  57. ^ Criticism and continuation of the approach Dieter Langewiesche, Niels Birbaumer: Neuropsychology and History - Attempting an Empirical Approach. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and sociopathy in Austria. In: Geschichte und Gesellschaft 32 (2006), pp. 153–175, here 154–159. Marcel Müllerburg: Cracks in the veil of memory. On the criticism of historical memory. In: Zeitschrift für Geschichtswwissenschaft 58 (2010), pp. 201–221.
  58. ↑ See the list of 12 reviews on Fried's Memorik on the Frankfurt University website . Examples of studies that refer to Fried's theses are: Mathias Berek: Collective memory and the social construction of reality. Wiesbaden 2009; Sandra Hübenthal: The Gospel of Mark as a collective memory. Göttingen 2014; Olaf Schneider: Archbishop Hinkmar and the consequences. Berlin / New York 2010; Kerstin Schulmeyer-Ahl: The beginning of the end of the Ottonians. Berlin 2009.
  59. ↑ Johannes Fried: The veil of memory. Principles of a historical memory. Munich 2004, p. 356.
  60. ↑ See Joachim Wollasch : Benedikt von Nursia. Person of the story or fictional ideal figure? In: Studies and communications on the history of the Benedictine order and its branches 118, 2007, pp. 7–30; Christoph Dartmann : The Benedictines. From the beginning to the end of the Middle Ages. Stuttgart 2018, pp. 27–31.
  61. ↑ Christian Staas: Saint or Legend? Benedict didn't exist. The "Father of the West" is just a fictional character from the Middle Ages. This is what the Frankfurt historian Johannes Fried claims. In: Die Zeit , April 15, 2010; Johannes Fried: What did not happen. Implants in the collective memory - a challenge for the science of history. In: Millennium. Yearbook on the culture and history of the first millennium AD. 5 (2008), pp. 1-36.
  62. ↑ Johannes Fried: The Pact of Canossa. Steps to Reality through Memory Analysis. In: Wilfried Hartmann, Klaus Herbers (Hrsg.): The fascination of the papal history. New approaches to the early and high Middle Ages. Cologne et al. 2008, pp. 133–197, here: p. 144.
  63. ↑ Johannes Fried: We should go to Canossa and forget the legend. King Henry on his knees before the Pope? A key event in European history? The moment when state and church parted? All wrong. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , January 28, 2009, No. 23, p. N4.
  64. ↑ See the critical statements by Steffen Patzold: Gregors Hirn. On more recent perspectives on research during the Salier period. In: geschichte für heute 4 (2011), pp. 5–19; Stefan Weinfurter: Canossa. In: Christoph Markschies, Hubert Wolf (Hrsg.): Memories of Christianity. Munich 2010, pp. 221–246. Gerd Althoff: No going to Canossa? In: Damals 41 (2009), pp. 59–61.
  65. ↑ Wolfgang Hasberg, Hermann-Josef Scheidgen (Ed.): Canossa. Aspects of a turning point. Regensburg 2012.
  66. ^ Stefan Weinfurter: Canossa as a cipher. On the possibilities of historical interpretation. In: Wolfgang Hasberg, Hermann-Josef Scheidgen (Ed.): Canossa. Aspects of a turning point. Regensburg 2012, pp. 124–140.
  67. ↑ Johannes Fried: Canossa: Unmasking a legend. A polemic. Berlin 2012.
  68. ↑ See the reviews of Christian Schwaderer: Canossa and Gedächtniskritik. In: LISA, the knowledge portal of the Gerda Henkel Foundation, December 4, 2012, ( online ); Kathleen G. Cushing in: German Historical Institute London Bulletin 35 (2013), pp. 94-98 ( online ); Canossa - no turning point? Multiple discussion by Fried, Canossa by Matthias Becher, Hans-Werner Goetz, Ludger Körntgen and Claudia Zey in: sehepunkte 13, 2013, No. 1, January 15, 2013, ( online ); Wilfried Hartmann in: Historische Zeitschrift 298 (2014), p. 472 f.
  69. ↑ Review by Wilfried Hartmann in: Historische Zeitschrift 298, (2014), p. 472 f.
  70. ^ Gerd Althoff: Gregory VII's understanding of office and the new thesis of the peace pact in Canossa. In: Early Medieval Studies 48, 2014, pp. 261–276.
  71. ↑ Patrick Bahners We're going back to Canossa. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , September 2, 2015, No. 203, p. N3.
  72. ↑ Johannes Fried: Canossa again. Notes instead of a reply to Patrick Bahners . Frankfurt, November 18, 2015.
  73. ^ Ernst-Dieter Hehl: Gregor VII. And Heinrich IV. In Canossa 1077. Paenitentia - absolutio - honor. Wiesbaden 2019.
  74. ^ Claudia Zey: The Investiture Controversy - Newer Perspectives of Research. In: Thomas Kohl (ed.): Conflict and change around 1100. Europe in the age of feudal society and investiture dispute. Berlin / Boston 2020, pp. 13–31, here: p. 18.
  75. ^ Johannes Fried: Charlemagne. Violence and belief. A biography. Munich 2013.
  76. ↑ Karl Ubl : Charlemagne and the return of the God's state. Narrative of heroization for the year 2014. In: Historische Zeitschrift. 301, 2015, pp. 374-390, here: p. 377.
  77. ↑ See the review by Michael Borgolte in: Zeitschrift für Geschichtswwissenschaft 62, 2014, Issue 3, pp. 264–266, here: p. 264.
  78. ^ Johannes Fried: Charlemagne. Violence and belief. A biography. Munich 2013, p. 593.
  79. ↑ Karl Ubl: Charlemagne and the return of the God's state. Narrative of heroization for the year 2014. In: Historische Zeitschrift. 301, 2015, pp. 374-390, here: p. 378.
  80. ^ Rudolf Schieffer: Charlemagne after 1200 years. In: German Archive for Research into the Middle Ages 70, 2014, pp. 637–653, here: p. 637 ( online ); Karl Ubl: Charlemagne and the return of the God state. Narrative of heroization for the year 2014. In: Historische Zeitschrift. 301, 2015, pp. 374-390, here: p. 379; Review by Michael Borgolte in: Zeitschrift für Geschichtswwissenschaft 62, 2014, issue 3, pp. 264–266; Steffen Patzold: New non-fiction books. The warlord as the renewer of knowledge and learning. Ruling in the service of God: The Frankfurt historian Johannes Fried brings the early Middle Ages to glamorous life with his biography of Charlemagne. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , January 28, 2014, No. 23, p. 26. ( online ).
  81. ^ Rudolf Schieffer: Charlemagne after 1200 years. In: German Archive for Research into the Middle Ages 70, 2014, pp. 637–653, here: p. 637 ( online ).
  82. ↑ Peter Gemeinhardt : Did the heretic Jesus descend from the cross? Where there is no dead person, there is no resurrection: the medievalist Johannes Fried advocates a very radical thesis on the history of Christian theology. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , March 13, 2019, No. 61, p. 10; Rudolf Neumaier: You can also breathe with a lung. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , February 11, 2019, p. 9 ( online ).
  83. ↑ Andreas Öhler: What if Jesus was never gone? In: Zeit Online , April 18, 2019.
  84. ^ Rudolf Neumaier: You can also breathe with a lung. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , February 11, 2019, p. 9 ( online ).
  85. ^ Robert Braunmüller: New book by Johannes Fried. But “No death on Golgotha”? In: Abendzeitung Munich , January 28, 2019.
  86. ↑ Andreas Öhler: What if Jesus was never gone? In: Zeit Online , April 18, 2019.
  87. ↑ The surviving Jesus? “No death on Golgotha” Johannes Fried is a historian. He says: There was indeed a crucifixion of Jesus, but no dead person. Jesus survived the cross and continued to preach. "I apologize if my reflections offend my religious feelings," said Johannes Fried in the Dlf. Johannes Fried in conversation with Andreas Main. In: Deutschlandradio , May 13, 2019.
  88. ^ Member entry by Johannes Fried at the Academy of Sciences and Literature Mainz .
  89. ↑ Johannes Heil, Janus Gudian, Michael Rothmann and Felicitas Schmieder (eds.): Paths of memory. Colloquium in honor of Johannes Fried. Stuttgart 2017.
  90. ^ Press release from the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main: Carl Friedrich Gauß Medal for Prof. Johannes Fried. The Frankfurt Medievalist is honored for his work on the effects of brain research on history.
personal data
SURNAME Fried, Johannes
BRIEF DESCRIPTION German historian
DATE OF BIRTH May 23, 1942
PLACE OF BIRTH Hamburg