Talk:Dietrich von Bern

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sweden Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dubious:

Didrik in Old Swedish

"Didrik" doesn't sound like Old Swedish. Etymologically 'th' [þ] goes to t in Swedish. 'Theoderik' must have become something like 'tjodrik'/'tjudrik' if being borrowed directly into Swedish. 'Didrik' is more probably a Low German variation of 'Dietrich', that in later times was borrowed into Swedish. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Didrik is most liekly the Low German form. The high german would be Dietrich. Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg postulated, that the old swedish version of the Thirdekssaga is derived from a low german text and therefore has many low german names. Best,--Altaileopard (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Is this about Theoderic or Dietrich?119.92.93.84 (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dietrich. Wikipedia has a bastardize and confuse naming law.2601:806:4301:C100:3D59:1E48:814E:91BD (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be titled "Dietrich von Bern" as it is in German and he is known in English. 210.185.163.29 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, I sort of created most of this article from scratch some years ago, based mostly on Heinzle's Einfuehrung in die mittelhochdeutsche Dietrichepik, but also on other sources I had available at the time. I check up on it from time to time, and a lot of it doesn't include sources at the moment. I've started to add citations from Heinzle since I have it easily at hand, but I don't really have time to chase down other sources (most of which are in German). I suppose I can also use Victor Millet's Germanische Heldendichtung. There are many older sources, however, which mention theories that are no longer taken very seriously in modern scholarship, even if no one has come up with a good alternative explanation. If anyone would care to help, it would be much appreciated! I'll be going through adding citations from Heinzle to each marked section over the next while, I'd say. Maybe after that I'll go through with Millet.

Also, if anyone would care to help me prove that there is a scholarly consensus against the Ritter-Schaumburg/Badenhausen theory, I would much appreciate it.Ermenrich (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also gotten my hand on the English-language book by Haymes and Samples and Gillespie's catalogue. I'm marking places for citations where that material should be useful.Ermenrich (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the same note, I think I'm going to be reducing the plot summaries of each epic to just the essential details. Right now they take up too much space. Probably adding something about the Dietrich poems in general might be in order as well.Ermenrich (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got my hand on Werner Hoffmann's Mittelhochdeutsche Heldendichtung, which should include some information that Heinzle and Millet do not about earlier theories and reconstructions.Ermenrich (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As another editor has pointed out, his works are self-published and thus not reliable sources--this explaining also why no academic has ever bothered to refute him. I intend to remove him from the article, barring someone giving me a reason why he should not be.Ermenrich (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone a head and done this. I'm also going to try and make it clear that Ritter-Schaumburg is not taken seriously. Its a fairly obvious fringe theory and that makes it slightly difficult to disprove, however.Ermenrich (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tymphanus, I've asked you here to the talk page. If you're absolutely insistent we have to include Badenhausen, he certainly does not deserve his own paragraph. At most he should be referred to in a sentence or clause after the discussion of Ritter-Schaumburg but before the fact that no one takes this idea seriously.Ermenrich (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for him being self published, I direct you to the page for his publisher, Monsenstein und Vannerdat, on German wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsenstein_und_Vannerdat:

Das Verlagshaus Monsenstein und Vannerdat war eine 1999 gegründete Verlagsgruppe mit Sitz in Münster. Einzelne Verlage dieser Gruppe betrieben auch Büros in Berlin, Leipzig und München. Daneben trat die Gruppe auch als Self-Publishing-Plattform bzw. digitales Publikationsdienstleistungsunternehmen für selbstpublizierte Medien auf.

The publishing house Monsenstein und Vannerdat was a publishing group founded 1999 with its headquarters in Muenster. Individual publishers of this group also had offices in Berlin, Leipzig, and Munich. The group was also a self-publishing platform or a service for publishing digital material for self-published media.

A more important question is, I think: can you find any scholars who actually discuss Badenhausen or his theories? It seems to me that no one has bothered to refute them specifically because why bother? They are obviously fringe.Ermenrich (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I remarked on my last edit of the article, assertions on self-published books by Rolf Badenhausen are definitely unproven. Academic & institutional publishing of his books, formerly by Monsenstein & Vannerdat, department of high school & university publishing (insolvent since 2017), is based on research funding, as clearly substantiated e.g. at https://www.badenhausen.net/rolf-badenhausen/NibelungenhortXanten.htm.

Badenhausen's book "Die Nibelungen..." has been catalogued in academia, cf. e.g. "Nibelungenlied und Nibelungensage, Kommentierte Bibliographie 1945-2010", https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/214533.

After contacting Rolf Badenhausen on last weekend, who seems less interested in the notoriously removed and re-activated passage which offers the link to his article at https://www.badenhausen.net/harz/svava/MerovingSvava.htm, I received his answer that the pageviews from Wikipedia to his article are significantly less than 10 % by the current statistics, so that he certainly doesn't bother if the passage in question would be removed definitely. But I think, dear Ermenrich, that we should now avoid an edit war, and I also think that Badenhausen's article, which does not contradict the positions of (e. g.) Kemp Malone and some other elder scholarship on a northern literary milieu of Theoderic, deserves at least an external link. Working as a historian of Migration Period at an European university, I have to state that Badenhausen does very remarkably compare eastern history of the early Merovingians with the Thidreks saga. This this is his basic message.

That's all I can say for the moment or forever. --Tympanus (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Tympanus I'd compromise with a mention after Ritter-Schaumburg, but I'd like to see what Kragl actually says about him in the annotated bibliography first. It is certainly not the mainstream theory about the origins of Dietrich von Bern or the Thidrekssaga, and a whole paragraph on him seems undue. I'll be adding more citations to support the mainstream views on Dietrich's origins shortly. As I'm a bit busy at the moment, perhaps we could let this rest for a few days? I would also prefer we provide citations not to his website, but to his published monographs. This would reduce the chance that people could take them for self-published materials. Does that sound fair to you?Ermenrich (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems fair in so far. We should think about an external link at the right time.

Regarding the northern seats of Dietrich von Bern (Verona – Bonn) and the “Niflungen” (in the Eiffel), then their route to Susat (Soest), it is obvious that Ritter follows rather elder German scholarship, as this has been quoted and indicated well by Badenhausen. Thus, I'm absolutely sure that attentive observers would not overrate the research of Ritter who, apart from some other narrative interpretation, just explains the rest of the Thidreks saga’s geonyms! --Tympanus (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Ritter-Schaumburg, there's a review by Werner Hoffmann (" Siegfried 1993. Bemerkungen und Überlegungen zur Forschungsliteratur zu Siegfried im Nibelungenlied aus den Jahren 1978 bis 1992", Mediaevistik, Vol. 6 (1993), pp. 121-151) where he calls R-S's conclusions "ein bloßes Konstrukt jenseits aller literarhistorischen Wahrscheinlichkeit, ja Möglichkeit." Looking in Jstor, ther's not a single review of Badenhausen in a journal, which surely is sign enough that he is not taken seriously. And the funding for his book came from the Ritter-Schaumburg fund, for goodness sake! --Pfold (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got my hands on Kragl's annotated bibliography. He does indeed list both monographs by Badenhausen, however, his characterization is very negative. On the second book: "Ueber z. T. nicht nachvollziehbare Argumentationslinien gelangt B. zu dem Ergebnis, dass die ThS vielmehr Chronik als Heldendichtung ist und darum von der von ihm heftig kritisierten germanistischen Mediaevistik auch nach geschichtswissenschaftlichen Kriterien interpretiert werden muss" (p. 664). On the first book: "Um die Forschungsmeinung ueber diese Urspruenge zu revidieren, stuetzt er sich bes. auf Forschungsarbeiten von R. Wisniewski und H. Ritter-Schaumburg und versucht, sich der 'Wahrheit' ueber die Nibelungen ueber Figurengeschichte, Historiographie, Vergleiche mit der 'Lieder-Edda' sowie ueber toponomysche Studien anzunaehern, wobei die Argumentation nicht immer nachvollziehbar ist" (p. 622). While this may not seem like heavy criticism, this annotated bibliography hardly ever passes judgment on anything it lists, as discussed in the book review by Annette Volfing in the Modern Language Review (2015), 583 (available on JSTOR). This means that the arguments must be real head scratchers. Ritter-Schaumburg fares a little better: "Die von R.-S. gebotenen Erklaerungen zu den einzelnen Sagenfiguren sind vage und lueckenhaft, was sich schon im Vorwort durch R. Wisniewski ankuendigt" (p. 280).

Tympanus, can you name any scholar who cites Badenhausen besides this annotated bibliography, which, by design, includes everything? Please include name of work and page numbers, if possible. I have been unable to find a single article listed by him on Gesta Imperii, the International Medieval Bibliography, or any citations on Google Scholar or JSTOR. He does not appear to have higher degrees in either history or Germanistik based on his personal website. Indeed, I would guess he's been trained as some sort of engineer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermenrich (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ermenrich.

As I found this morning on the web, Rolf Badenhausen is referenced with some textual annotations under "Primärliteratur" in the Diploma Thesis by Alice Vanourková on Germanisches Heldenepos. Das Nibelungenlied - Analyse der Hauptfiguren in den Schlüsselmomenten der Handlung. MASARYK-Universität, Pädagogische Fakultät, Lehrstuhl für Deutsche Sprache und Literatur:

https://is.muni.cz/th/327234/pedf_m/

Preface "Einleitung":

https://is.muni.cz/th/c84lp/DIPLOMOVA_PRACE_7_4_2013.pdf

I found him also quoted in the Diploma Thesis by Jürgen A. Eder, University of Vienna,

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11588668.pdf

He also appears in the Hehl Bibliography of Nibelungen reception:

http://www.nibelungenrezeption.de/bibliographie/bibliographien/Hehl-Nibelungen-Rezeption.pdf

Since I own the book Thidreks Saga by Hans-Jürgen Hube, Humboldt University Berlin, Nordeuropa-Institut, I can quote these passages related to Badenhausen:

p. 402:

Die Thidreks Saga ist, wie erwähnt, seit einigen Jahrzehnten Gegenstand breiter publizistischer Erörterungen geworden, weil Forscher wie Ritter, Schmoeckel oder Badenhausen u. a. sie für Aufsehen erregende Interpretationen auswerteten. Nach ihnen ist die Thidreks Saga nicht im Gefolge südgermanischer Dietrichsepik entstanden, sondern - viel wahrscheinlicher - ein eigener Bericht über Begebenheiten im Norddeutschland des 5. und 6. Jahrhunderts und somit für die Frühgeschichte im Rhein-Weser-Raum sehr wertvoll ...

p. 407:

Die Frage, warum sich die Verfasser der Thidreks Saga auf eine offenbar historisch weniger bedeutende Gestalt als Thederich den Großen beziehen, hat schon K. Simrock gestellt und eigentlich beantwortet. Ein "fränkischer Theoderich" musste seinem ostgotischen Namensvetter irgendwie seine Biographie leihen, denn die – auch heute – weniger bekannten ostgotischen Theoderich-Sagen konnten nicht hinreichend das Wissensbedürfnis rheinischer und nordischer Zuhörer erfüllen. Viel mehr als über reinweg oberitalienische Überlieferungen aus Regionen südlich der Alpen wollte man im Frankenland über Näher liegendes unterrichtet werden. Und so erfüllte die Thidreks Saga als eine Art Hymnus auf ihre Titelgestalt mehr als grundsätzliche Kriterien einer spätantiken "Historia" über rheinfränkische und sächsisch-baltische Ereignisse, wie es Forscher wie Badenhausen sehen [...] Die mittelalterlichen Namenüberlieferungen der Thidreks Saga kann man nicht pauschal als unglaubwürdig abstempeln, auch wenn z.B. W. J. Pfaffs "Geographical and ethnic names" in Bezug auf die Thidreks Saga oft in die Irre führten. Vernica, Verniza oder Vermin(t)za, Vermista kann man durchaus auf heutige Ortsnamen wie Virnich oder Virmenich (jetzt Firmenich) beziehen, auch wenn sie nur in unseren altnorwegischen Handschriften auftreten.

Hube reasonably mentions Reinhard Schmoeckel, whose book Deutsche „Sagenhelden und die historische Wirklichkeit – required reading – represents a 342-pages-review of Ritter with a tremendous amount of quoted sources.

I’m ready to support you with more bibliographical info, pdf and papers from my private archive, so you may refer to my mail address displayed on my German wiki account. I hope it should be accessible, if not you may post here again. --Tympanus (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schmoeckel is not actually a recognized expert in the field in question, the German wikipedia identifies him as a "Privatgelehrte". Hans-Juergen Hube appears to be a legitimate figure, however I would like to look and see for myself how he evaluates Badenhausen beyond the short snippets you've given. Unfortunately his book does not appear to be readily available in North America. It's worth noting that the Marix Verlag that published the book is not exactly known for publishing academic scholarly monographs. I don't believe that Diplom-Arbeiten are really the best source for a scholarly reception of Badenhausen's ideas: dissertations, etc. are not actually peer-reviewed. Who is Hehl? Do you have anything published by an actual academic publishing house like de Gruyter, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, any university presses?

I think we probably ought to copy the format used on the German wiki article and mention Ritter-Schaumburg and his "disciples," none of whom are actually employed at a university. We can possibly mention Simrock and earlier figures as well. We must make clear, however, that this is against the academic consensus. In fact, their central organ itself says they are against the academic consensus: http://www.dietrich-von-bern-forum.de/start.html

"Haben diese „Heldensagen“ aus dem deutschen Frühmittelalter etwas mit der realen Frühgeschichte Deutschlands zu tun ? Literaturwissen-schaftler sagen „Nein“; sie seien hauptsächlich Erzeugnisse mittelalterlicher Dichtkunst.

Wir behaupten jedoch, dass in diesen Sagen Kerne realer Geschichte stecken, so war z. B. Dietrich von Bern ein Kleinkönig von Bonn-Bern am Rhein, keineswegs Theoderich der Große (Anklicken zu: Dietrich von Bern war nicht Theoderich der Große)."

It resembles a sort of "Dietrich von Bern truther" movement, as far as I can figure out. Certainly we should not be linking to any websites - if anything, we should provide references for the monographs in question, most of which are of questionable academic value, but probably notable enough to be worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermenrich (talk • contribs) 14:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hube's book: Badenhausen is only mentioned on the pages being quoted above. Unfortunately, I have no further info about Hehl ... Indeed, Schmoeckel calls himself an author of populärwissenschaftliche Geschichtsdarstellungen. --Tympanus (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the German WP takes you to Thidrekssaga, but it you go to edit the interlanguage links, you'll see that there it says the link is to Dietrich_von_Bern, which is the correct choice because the Thidrekssaga article is just about the Scandinavian material. I've no idea how to fix this. Anyone know? --Pfold (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also unsure how to fix this. I suspect we ought to change the article title here to Dietrich von Bern.Ermenrich (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I tried to fix this last year but quickly found it was too difficult for me to do. If I remember correctly, part of the problem was that there were/are three inter-wiki reference numbers for the two pages Dietrich of Bern and Thidrekssaga, and so different languages didn't always point to the same inter-wiki reference. There should of course be only two, one for each of the two pages. So one of the three needs to be deleted. Yes, and I agree, the name of this page ought to be Dietrich of Bern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.110.93 (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see some rewriting and, particularly, addition of sources. I wonder whether in the longer term it might be worth creating separate articles on the main individual texts, with just a brief outline of each here. This would allow us to add a wider range of material that might be difficult to include in a single article on many texts - things like information on the verse form, the MSS, literature on the individual works, possibly small text samples, links to online editions, links to the individual German WP articles, etc.. The sections we've got already could easily be made the basis of start-class articles. --Pfold (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. This way it also wouldn't be necessary to reduce the summaries quite as much. While I think we should leave (brief) summaries here and an explanation of the forms of the MHG poems (fantastical/historical, etc), something more approaching the German wiki article "Dietrich von Bern" for the rest seems in order.Ermenrich (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be useful to summarize some of the important figures who appear together with Dietrich. Witege, for instance, probably doesn't deserve his own page but is pretty fascinating, as is his companion Heime. Haymes/Samples might be useful for this, as would Gillespie.Ermenrich (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun splitting off the the individual poems, starting with Dietrichs Flucht. Obviously the articles for individual poems will need to be expanded somewhat. I think comparisons to the Thidrekssaga are in order for one thing.Ermenrich (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done

Die Rabenschlacht now too. We don't currently have enough material for Alpharts Tod or Dietrich und Wenezlan. For Alpharts Tod we can certainly put together a full article, but I think Dietrich und Wenezlan will probably have to stay here. We'll need to decide how much summary to keep here. probably under "Historical Dietrichepik" we can give a basic outline of the exile saga. Things get more complicated with the aventiurehafte poems, since they don't have any overall plot.Ermenrich (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I also just did

Das Eckenlied. That's probably it for today, since I haven't added citations to anything else yet.Ermenrich (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Good work. On

Das Eckenlied. I do wonder, though, whethr it's right to use the German article in the page titles, since these are modern descriptions rather than the actual contemporary "titles" of the poems. The Hildebrandslied page is called just that, no "das" - I would certainly do the same for the Eckenlied, not sure about Rabenschlacht. There must be a WP policy on this! --Pfold (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I was wondering about that myself. I'm open to either way, so feel free to move them with a redirect. I kept working and have now done Virginal, I might try and do a few others. Thanks for cleaning things up, I'm just trying to get the pages set up so we can decide what to do about the information here.Ermenrich (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just did the Rosengarten zu Worms. Sorry for the messy citations, I'll need to look into how these templates work.Ermenrich (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also did LaurinErmenrich (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to given Dietrich und Wenezlan its own page after all. I've also done the Wunderer. That leaves: Goldemar, Sigenot, and Alpharts Tod (which will be the most work since there isn't really a summary right now). Once all the poems have their own pages, I think we ought to get rid of the summaries here or reduce them to a couple of sentences. For the historical poems, we can summarize the basic exile saga narrative, and for the fantastical poems we can expand the current section with information on form, etc. What do you think?Ermenrich (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wolfdietrich and Ortnit, which I've been working on recently, for the sorts of things that can be added. On those pages, I still need to flesh out the narrative summary and the "Origins" sections need replacing with a summary of the modern theories. Some analysis of the actual content of the poems is called for too. But still, you can get an idea of what I think a comprehensive article of this sort of poem should look like. --Pfold (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out someone already did Sigenot, so all that's left is Goldemar and Alphart's Tod. There already is a page Goldemar, which seems to be about the dwarf king from the poem, so we'll need to figure out how to manage that.Ermenrich (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new category Category:Dietrich von Bern cycle and added that and some other cats to all (I hope) the relevant pages. --Pfold (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've starting chopping down the info for the poems listed here just to make the page more wieldy to edit. I'm planning to reduce them further (possible to one or two sentences), as stated above. I'd also like to move the Juengeres Hildebrandslied off this page, as it isn't really a Dietrich poem (we can still link it somewhere, of course). It should go at the current page for Hildebrandslied or we could use it to expand Jüngeres Hildebrandslied which is currently a stub.Ermenrich (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a navbox for all the new articles. I'll copy to the other articles shortly. --Pfold (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I've created pages for Goldemar and Ermenrichs Tod. Now there's just Alpharts Tod left to do, plus the expansion of the page for the Jüngeres Hildebrandslied.Ermenrich (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently someone liked this article so much they copied it as their own: http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/%C3%9Ei%C3%B0rekssaga?View=embedded%27%27s%20anatomy#Eckenlied.2FEcken_Ausfahrt_.28The_Song_of_Ecke.2F_Ecke.27s_Quest.29 My page for the Eckenlied was nominated for deletion for this reason. Hopefully the admins figure out who's copying whom. This could make expansion somewhat more difficult if bots keep nominating the new articles for deletion though.Ermenrich (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a page for the Lied von hürnin Seifrid currently on Wikipedia? If not, that's something else that should be created. It should probably be included in the "Related Works" link on the Category: Dietrich von Bern Cycle toolbar.Ermenrich (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for the Nibelungenklage. I'll try and get around to these after I've set everything up with the main poems.Ermenrich (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see you had posted about them, sorry! I'll start a new section here since the old one is getting hard to follow. Those look pretty good, I think we ought to be able to expand all the poems to that extent. We definitely should add editions for these poems, especially since so many of them have gotten new editions in recent years. First I'd like to finish paring down/expanding/removing info from this page though.Ermenrich (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some pretty heavy expansion to the articles Dietrichs Flucht and Goldemar. Let me know what you think is still missing.Ermenrich (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. I would suggest moving the summary to come as the first section after the intro - non-specialist readers probably want to read the story first before getting more detailed info, and that may even be all they want. Anything *really* important from the later sections can be briefly mentioned in the intro anyway. Three things to add, I would say (none of them urgent, certainly compared to fleshing out the text):

• older editions are worth mentioning because many of them are available in their entirety online and some of the modern editions won't be easily accessible to readers - I've added two for Dietrich Flucht, to make a start.
• links to MS facsimiles (at the bottom, under External links)
• an image or two from the MSS/prints, especially if they've got illustrations.--Pfold (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you're right that von der Hagen published an edition of Dietrichs Flucht and Die Rabenschlacht (I think he also named them), but it's not the one that's linked to at the moment in Dietrichs Flucht. That one contains only fantastical poems. Maybe there are multiple volumes? I don't have time to check at the moment.

I've started work on Die Rabenschlacht now. I'll try to create the page for Alphart's Tod over the weekend probably, maybe as a stub like the others to start.Ermenrich (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out with von der Hagen, never mind. His book is just organized in a confusing way.Ermenrich (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm basically done with the text for

Die Rabenschlacht now. They could probably use a bit of tweaking still of course, and maybe the summaries should be expanded. My next targets will be Dietrich und Wenezlan and then the Eckenlied. On the weekend I'll create a page for Alpharts Tod and then I'll rearrange the material on this page a bit more.Ermenrich (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll have a look through them in the next few days and come back with any comments. No doubt I'll add a few more editions, etc.--Pfold (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Dietrich und Wenezlan and the Eckenlied are also more or less "done" now.Ermenrich (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's an English translation of Jiriczek's Die deutsche Heldensage as "Northern Hero Legends" from 1903 that can be found for free on google books: https://books.google.com/books/about/Northern_Hero_Legends.html?id=OVMmAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false Should we link to it, given that it's in English? It's obviously extremely outdated and probably filled with all sorts of strange theories. But the Haymes/Samples book is honestly not all that good either, mostly for reasons of brevity.Ermenrich (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see the harm in listing it - there's so little in English anyway.--Pfold (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also recently found this, from 1906: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101073300194;view=1up;seq=5 I actually remember running into this book in my school library back in the day. We could also add a number of retellings, some translated, such as Ruth Sawyer: Dietrich of Berne and the dwarf king Laurin; hero tales of the Austrian Tirol. I'm trying to get my hands on that book, as well as on one by Katherine Margret Buck: The Wayland-Dietrich saga: The saga of Dietrich of Bern and his companions, preceded by that of Wayland Smith; their deeds in the 4th and 5th centuries, A.D., as told from the 10th to the 13th century. Collected, set in order, and retold in verse in the 20th century. --Ermenrich (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The individual texts are so hard to get hold of in English that I think it makes sense to include retellings. It's not as if the text themselves weren't retellings of a wider cycle of legends.--Pfold (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage offered by the article is already pretty comprehensive, so I don't there are any matters needing urgent attention, but here are a few suggestions for further developments:

• Now that we have good articles on the individual poems, I think the sections on the individual fantastic works could be trimmed. What do people need here? A brief description of the story (what it's about rather than lots of plot), any feature or theme that's notable, anything particularly important about the manuscripts/prints. I've put "main article" links for all the works listed, so really the job of these sections is to provide orientation.
• We don't want a lot of detail here about verse forms — that's for the individual poem pages — but a brief section with general remarks would be good, I think.
• One important area which could be covered is the issue of who these texts were for, both in patronage and readership. I'm not sure how much this is covered in the handbooks and how easy it will be to compile the info, so it will, I dare say, be a matter of finding suitable sources.
• The whole question of the many other references to the Dietrich material. Not sure how easy it would be to make a coherent section on this, but worth considering, and it also relates to the written/oral transmission and readership questions. I've added Grimms Die Deutsche Heldensage and Lienert's recent book to the sources.
• Finally, there's the issue of the reception of the Dietrich material after the last printed Heldenbuch, which Heinzle's "Nachleben" chapter covers. --Pfold (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking we could list some of the motifs that are common to the aventiurehafte poems (as they are the most numerous): zagheit, Herausforderungsschema, etc. It should be pretty easy to trim the individual poems down to a sentence or two after that.
• I think given that the "Berner Ton" is common to four poems, it should at least be mentioned here, but it's true, readers can also just read about it in the individual poems, provided the sections are cross-listed properly. We could also just have a section on metrical forms that is neither in the aventiurehafte or historical poems sections.
• I believe that Heinzle and Millet have some information on who read these: they connect them with adliges Selbstverstaednis, etc. So we can certainly put that in it. I think patrons are slightly murkier. I remember a reference somewhere to a nobleman who wrote (possibly lost) Dietrich poems, maybe its in Lienert's list of attestations. Certainly the notion that this was peasants poetry should be mentioned as debunked.
• Nachleben is very important - is that what that article about "Dietrich von Bern as Literary Symbol" is about? As the whole nonsense with Ritter-Schaumburg and Badenhausen shows, there are clearly people today for whom Dietrich von Bern is very important, even if they aren't very many. Ermenrich (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we change the section "Earliest Mentions" to "Attestations of an oral tradition" and continue it past the Verschriftlichung of the poems, it should accommodate the post-1200 references to Dietrich material outside of the poems. We just have to make clear that the oral tradition proceeds the creation of written poems and continues alongside it. This is something a surprising number of scholars working on the MHG poems tend to forget. That section could use some rewriting anyway - I already moved the Nibelungenlied out of it to the "Middle High German Dietrich poems" section. Ermenrich (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the Alpharts Tod page is more or less done as far as the text is concerned. I've been working on the page for Sigenot as well, after that I'll probably do Laurin and the Rosengarten. Ermenrich (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to say that the only Dietrich poem proper left to expand on is now the Wunderer. Once I do that, I'll try to expand and improve the Juengeres Hildebrandslied stub, then create a page for Biterolf und Dietleib, followed by Huernin Seyfried and possibly the Nibelungenklage.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the Jüngeres Hildebrandslied article now. It still could use some more work on the modern and early modern reception and I didn't have a good list of the five MS copies, unfortunately. Next goal is Biterolf und Dietleib, then Hürnin Seyfried (it's really amazing no article exists for that!)--Ermenrich (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a secondary issue, but I recently discovered that

I'm wondering if it might make sense to move the summary of the contents of the Heldenbuch-Prosa to the Heldenbuch page, integrating it into the summary already there. Probably we ought to create a redirect link directly to that section too, so that the current links from "Heldenbuchprosa" or "Heldenbuch-Prosa" that currently just link to "Heldenbuch" could take interested users directly there. Any thoughts?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've gradually been expanding the Heldenbuch article over the last few weeks and had been thinking it would make sense to combine them, but not got further than that thought. The German WP actually has a separate "Heldenbuch-Prosa" article but I'm not sure that's necessary. --Pfold (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In order to bring in Ortnit and Wolfdietrich, which are MHG but aren't "later" , I'm going to re-organize a bit. See what you think. --Pfold (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Ermenrichs Tod is Low German not High, but can we live with that? A bit more general text on the Heldenbücher wouldn't do any harm.--Pfold (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should leave Ermenrichs Tod there, I can't see where else it would go. Having it under related works makes sense. Actually, if it were still later works probably we would want to move the Wunderer there, so having it just "Related Works" makes more sense. Maybe we should organize a section "Early Germanic Literature" for the Hildebrandslied and the three old English poems where Dietrich is mentioned? Then we can separate out the oral tradition/extra-literary attestations. More on the Heldenbücher is certainly in order.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under Scandinavian material: we ought to add something about the one or two Eddic poems were Dietrich makes an appearance. Is there some way we can get someone who actually is knowledgeable about Old Norse to lend a hand? It's a bit beyond my expertise.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does Millet not have anything on this, given his Gmc rather than German focus? Perhaps worth looking at Lienert's Testimonien book, but it's not something I can consult immediately.--Pfold (talk)

Both he and Heinzle have a page or two about it. Should be enough for a start.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heinzle lists a short article by Curschmann on the issue of Dietrich showing up in the Edda specifically, so I've ordered it and will be having a look. I'm hoping for an explanation of the different form of his name from the Thidrekssaga—interference from pre-existing Norse tradition? It matches the Rök stone after all. Or it could just be East Norse vs. West Norse.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit more about connections between Dietrich and Wolfdietrich, including the hypothesis that they were originally the same hero (which I don't believe is generally held, but Millet still gives it some credence). Wisniewski, in her largely discredited "Mittelhochdeutsche Dietrichepik" argues that Ortnit is actually Dietrich as well-I'm tempted to cite her just to have the idea presented, but given the fact that the book is so thoroughly discredited, I'm reluctant to.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I've gone ahead and begun to make these changes-the redesigned sections will need fleshing out. I renamed the first section "Development of the Legend" instead of the current "Theoderic the Great vs. Dietrich von Bern," this way we can talk more about how the differences came to be rather than listing them. It should also provide us with a way to discuss the Ritter-Schaumburg conspiracy theory without making it seem plausible.

Yes, that's a better heading.--Pfold (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know Lienert had written an intro to Heldendichtung, I've gone ahead and ordered it. It will assuredly contain summaries of newer scholarly positions, something for which Millet is ok but already somewhat outdated. I'd say the great flowering of work on Dietrichepik has been only in the last few years.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Came across it only recently. My copy has just arrived. No mention of Ritter-Schaumburg ;-) --Pfold (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: do we include Maximilian under legacy or leave them in their current location?--Ermenrich (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AH is part of the continuing tradition that goes to the end of the 16th C, so I think it stays where is is.--Pfold (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I ask because Heinlze and Millet are both a bit uncertain what to do about him. Maybe we should move the Heldenbuch section to after the Scandinavian material so it's right in front of Legacy, etc? A bit part of the reception is the early modern printings.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the MS Heldenbücher overlap with and feed into the printed ones, I would prefer to treat all the compilations together as a continuation of the medieval tradition — there is clearly a continuity of readership, which ceases in 1600 or so, with a completely new readership from the 1700s. Also, the German stuff pre-1600 can be treated as part of the German section, while the reception after 1700 is Germanic-wide, so it makes sense to have it after the medieval Scandinavian stuff. Incidentally, I've found refs to some earlier 18th-C reception than is already mentioned in the Heldenbuch article.

One thing not covered yet here are the early printed editions outside the Heldenbücher. There's a good, though no doubt outdated (1956!), list in the article by King in the bibliog. of the Heldenbuch page, with year and town. There must be a more recent listing somewhere! --Pfold (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following volume ought to be useful for the older reception of Dietrich: https://books.google.com/books/about/Dietrich_von_Bern_in_der_neueren_Literat.html?id=tjQStAEACAAJ It's unfortunately not available freely online, but I have access through my university library on Hathi Trust. It lists pretty much every poem about Dietrich von Bern from the 18th and 19th centuries. I had noticed there's a bit about reception in the Heldenbuch article, that should be useful for building up the last section here.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An aspect I hadn't been aware of and we've not covered is discussed in Jones's article "Dietrich von Bern as a Literary Symbol": the clergy's dislike of the Dietrich poems. I guess that would fit in s section on the contemporary reception. --Pfold (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to include a bit on it in the attestations outside the poems sections - it's mixed with attacks like the Kaiserchronik's, Jakob Twinger's von Koenighofen's, etc, but also Luther's attack on the poems.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun rewriting the section on the development of the oral tradition. I'll try to finish that in the next few days. Feel free to add anything relevant that might be in Lienert. My copy won't get here for a while.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it perhaps make sense, as more sources are added to the page, to separate the different sources according to subject matter? So "General References" "References on the Development of the Saga" "References on Reception"? Something like that. I've found a few more sources that should be useful for the late medieval and early modern reception by John L Flood. Luther, for instance, refers to Dietrich numerous times, sometimes disapprovingly, sometimes to illustrate some point. I already mentioned the use of Eckehart by reformation pamphleteers on Talk:Heldenbuch. It would probably make sense to split the section on Reception into: medieval, early modern, and after 1800 or something like that. We could include Church criticism of the saga/poems in a medieval reception section, as well as info on readership.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the table of contents is extremely long, largely because each poem gets its own section. Would it make sense to list them maybe just as bolded titles instead to cut down on the length?--Ermenrich (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking exactly the same thing. --Pfold (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the brief nature of Dietrich/Theoderic's appearance in the early Germanic works, would it perhaps make more sense to just discuss them in the oral tradition section in relation to what they tell us about the development of Dietrich's legend?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So yesterday I found a few academic sources claiming the Grimms initially questioned the identification of Dietrich with Theoderic, but by "Deutsche Heldensage" had come around to it. I cannot, however, find any primary source evidence for this claim. "Deutsche Mythologie" has a wacky section about the Wild Hunt where they try to derive "Dietrich von Bern" from "Bärendietrich" and thus a berserker or possibly demigod though. German Wikipedia also discusses Karl Simrock and some other guy I've never heard of. I suspect that the inclusion of these views there is largely meant to legitimize the Ritter-Schaumburg theory, as it's obvious its partisans are very active on German Wikipedia as well as here (although Rolf Badenhausen never made it onto German Wikipedia). Hence Tympanus's constant insistence that other scholars have said similar things. Should any of this information be shared in the article?

And while we're at it, I linked the Dietrich von Bern-Forum after "amateur saga-researchers." I'm not entirely sure it's approprirate though.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where can we still improve the article? Possibly more could be said about modern reception. The "Early Germanic Literature" section also needs to be rewritten slightly or else folded into the section on the development of the oral tradition. Is there anything else?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty comprehensive now, and I don't think there's really any need to add more. If anything I would condense the two longest sections, Development of an oral tradition about Theoderic the Great, and the MHG intro. And 150 words on Ritter-Schaumburg is way too much ;-) --Pfold (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking someone should really rework Germanic Heroic Age, which at the moment is absurdly out of date—perhaps I can move a bit of the "formation of the oral tradition there." Otherwise, you're right, the article could probably use some editing down, especially to remove redundencies.

I tried to explain Ritter-Schaumburg's theory so that everyone would see how ridiculous it is, but maybe it could be cut a little.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is certainly no longer "start class". How can we upgrade it?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be named Dietrich von Bern. Most scientists would agree that the Theoderic the Great is indeed the origin of Dietrich von Bern, but this is not proven. People like Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg postulated, that the Saga of Dietrich is based on a local ruler of the migration period in Germany. This hypothesis were discussed decades ago. Even if Heinz Ritter Schaumburg was wrong, I think the articles lemma should not interfere in this discussion. Cheers--Altaileopard (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There might be an argument for renaming this article, but that argument isn't helped by citing Ritter-Schaumburg, who is just an unqualified non-expert with fringe views which are rejected by serious scholars. On no account should his views influence this article in any way —

WP:FRINGE. --Pfold (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

As Pfold says, Ritter-Schaumburg and his ilk are fringe. The universal academic consensus is that Dietrich von Bern is Theodoric the Great, something which dates back to the earliest medieval mentions of his legends. This doesn’t have to be “proven” any more than the fact that Homer’s descriptions of Troy being inaccurate requires us to postulate that a different city of Troy existed, but in Italy, despite what the Greeks themselves said about it (the basic equivalent of R-S’s “Bonn not Verona” move”). Oral tradition changes historical figures and events. The only real argument for naming the page Dietrich von Bern might be brevity.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ritter-Schaumburg is still fringe (sadly I think). But Dietrich von Bern is definitely not Theodoric the Great! However, you are right, most serios scientists would agree, that the Saga of Dietrich von Bern is mainly based on Theoderic the great. But actually Heinz Ritter Schaumburg is not alone in his opinion. Already

Karl Simrock believed, that there are two Diertichs, who influenced the Saga, one german/frankish and one italian/gothic king. So I think, there is every reason to rename the article. Best regards--Altaileopard (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Simrock believed a lot of things (as did most people in the 19th century): would you use him as evidence for the existence of

Lemuria

? Science has moved on. Frutolf was trying to figure out why the two figures were so different, that isn't an endorsement of him actually thinking there were two Dietrichs. The go to position for hundreds of years was that the oral tradition was a "lie", but the fact that this was constantly repeated only shows the strength of the identification. People said Homer lied too - but as I said, no one thinks there was "another Troy" somewhere else. And R-S is not "still" fringe, he will always be fringe. To quote one reviewer of his book:

Ritter's work smacks of dilettantism at every turn. The author has apparently not consulted the voluminous scholarly literature on the Thidreks saga, the Nibelungenlied and the Dietrichepen, not even William J. Paff, The Geographical and Ethnic Names in the pibriks saga (Cambridge, 1959). He is so naive as to believe that tales that have come down for hundreds of years in oral tradition would contain reliable details with regard to time and distance. He cites the most unreliable manuscript of the saga, the Swedish version. He calls the work realistic, ignoring all the dragons, giants, dwarfs and impossible events that are depicted. He does not seem to realize that the armor and castles described are thirteenth-century armor and castles, and that the work shows a strong influence of chivalric literature. He identifies Bertangaland with Bardengau, ignoring the fact that King Arthur is associated with it, so that it is obviously Brittany, and shows the influence of the Tristrams saga and other chivalric literature. He interprets Niflungaland as "Neffel-gau-land," although the -ga- is obviously the genitive plural ending of the suffix -ungr. He interprets the runes on the Soest fibula according to their shape rather than in accord with the traditional concepts they bear, not scrupling to distort his drawing of the n-rune to make it look more like an I-rune, and thus furnish the reading atalo instead of atano.

This is not going to become respectable any time soon.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying, Frutolf, Simrock and Ritter were right, but I think the lemma of the article is not well chosen. Best, --Altaileopard (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a lot of (intermittent) thought about this over the years, I think the article should be moved Dietrich von Bern per

Support - Can't say I feel strongly either way, but I'm certainly not opposed to the move.--Pfold (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly, but Dietrich von Bern is more concise and covers the same ground pretty much precisely. I have yet to see any encyclopedia entry with this title anywhere else or any books with a title like this. "Legends about Theodoric the Great" is accurate but wordy. The fact that the people who want to move it usually support some sort of "truther" theory about a secret Dietrich who's being covered up by scholars does give me pause though.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I am guilty of making Dietrich von Bern into a redirect to Theodoric the Great, and later it was made into a redirect to this article. The present redirect Dietrich of Bern has a lot of editing history, where there could be good material, and moving over would delete all that. Maybe I can move the present redirect to a "Dietrich von Bern (old)" and then move this article to "Dietrich von Bern"?--Berig (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS, having checked the edit histories, I see that his article was created after Dietrich von Bern became a redirect. IIRC, administrators can merge edit histories. If this is voted to be moved to Dietrich von Bern, I will try that.--Berig (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging edit histories is probably the best solution, Berig - when I created this article as an IP in 2010 I wasn't really aware of how Wikipedia was supposed to work and no one else was editing this area so no one stopped me from creating an article with this title instead of making the redirect an article or something.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Ermenrich, I have long wanted to try to merge edit histories. If no one opposes during the next few days, I will have a go.--Berig (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Berig, do go ahead. --11:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I have merged the edit histories of the articles and the talkpages. You can go back and see what the article looked like in 2007 and see if there's anything that can be useful.--Berig (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Berig. I had a look, I don't think we'll need to take anything over from there. This article was expanded and rewritten pretty extensively by me and Pfold about two or three years ago. If anything, some parts might need some trimming and maybe some reworking for encyclopedic tone. I think the lead may be too short as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have done an amazing job with this article!--Berig (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Altaileopard: Heinzle, Einführung, p. 21 does not say anything about "doubts." He mentions that several chroniclers noted problem with the chronology of Dietrich and Etzel and used it to attack the veracity of the oral tradition. I note that your ideas were already refuted once before (see above under "What's left to do" on this talkpage). "Doubts" is deliberately being used to push the fringe theory that Dietrich von Bern does not originate in the figure of Theodoric the Great.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the quote from Heinzle: Frutolf [von Michelsberg] begnügt sich aber nicht damit, Jordanes auszuschreiben, der Ermanarich, Attila und Theoderich zeitlich korrekt, also nicht als Zeitgenossen, einordnet. Er fügt die abweichende Erkärung von Dietrichs Flucht an, wie er sie in der ‚Würzburger Chronik‘ lesen konnte, und bemerkt ausdrücklich, daß diese Version nicht nur in der mündlichen Tradition – ‚volkssprachigem Erzählen und Gesang von Liedern‘ (vulgari fabulatione et cantilenarum modulatione) – verbreitet sei, sondern sich auch in gewissen Chroniken (in quibusdam cronicis) finde. Er kann den Widerspruch nicht auflösen und beschränkt sich darauf, Erklärungsmöglichkeiten zu notieren: entweder irre Jordanes oder die Sage oder diese meine einen anderen Ermanarich und einen anderen Theoderich. Frutolf ist also grundsätzlich bereit, die Sage für glaubwürdig zu halten, aber er hat mit seiner Beobachtung zur Chronologie den Anstoß zu ihrer Abwertung gegeben: spätere Historiker haben die Beobachtung aufgegriffen, um die Sage für irrig zu erklären und gegen sie zu polemisieren.

This text does not support the notion that there were "doubts" - unless you mean "doubts" that the oral tradition was accurate.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed — this matter is settled, no merit in resurrecting it.--Pfold (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

current inccorect! passage in the article: "it was never questioned throughout the entire Middle Ages that the two were the same figure"

Frutolf of Michelsberg († 1103) according to Heinzle (1999), page 21: "either Jordanes is wrong or the Saga is wrong or the latter is about another Ermanarich and another Theoderich"

another Theoderich of course means another than Theoderich the Great.--Altaileopard (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, not incorrect. The information is cited to Lienert. You can look it up there, I don't have the book on hand at the moment. Frutolf makes three suggestions, only one of which is that there might have been another Dietrich and Ermanarich. It does not take great analytical ability to see that this is not a particularly serious suggestion (If Abraham Lincoln, JFK, George Washington didn't live at the same time, one of my sources is wrong or there was a different JFK and Abe Lincoln is not a serious way of resolving sources), nor does Heinzle treat as such, nor did the medieval scholars following Frutolf. In particular the use of the word "doubts" is highly suggestive and not supported by Heinzle's text.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Lienert is obviously wrong as the current article is. There is no reason to assume, Frutolf was not serious. --Altaileopard (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We following

WP:RS here - we don't get to correct sources. Despite your claims, Frutolf fundamentally assumes that the two Theodorics are the same--otherwise he would not try to reconcile them. Similar events happen over and over again with other figures in medieval chronicles without it changing the fact that they were fundamentally seen as the same person. Sources were garbled. Anyway, Heinzle does not support your wording.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, we don't do that. But we should not use obviously wrong sources, which are disproven beyond any doubt. This discussion is really exhausting and I do not see, why it is so difficult here to do such a minor correction. I think we are at a standstill and should add the topic tomorrow to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Goodnight...--Altaileopard (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has been concerned in the past to remove marginal theories from this page, I'm with Ermenrich on this. I've no idea how many editors have this page on their Watchlist, but no one has piped up to support you, Altaileopard, so I don't see the need for a further referee, since you've been outvoted by two editors who have contributed to the article and are familiar with the literature. --Pfold (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While for whatever reason the "Dietrich von Bern-truthers" seem to have been able to hijack the German Wikipedia articles on this topic (in the typical fashion of de.wiki without following or citing sources very closely and doing lots of

WP:OR), we can't allow that to happen here.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I am starting to understand, why you insist so much on your point. Perhaps there are POV things going on in the german article. But then please help to improve it, instead of insisting here on wrong statements. Optimally both articles should reflect the common interpreation and mention other opinions, which recieved significant resonance. And ideally the reader could get enough knowledge from the article, to understand, why the common interpreation is as it is, and what speaks for it and what against it. Unfortunately I think I can not add the topic to Wikipedia:third opinion, since there are 2 against one here. However I have the feeling this discussion is not really fair. And it is sad, that not a single user reads the two sentences, which I posted above and leaves a short comment. It is so obvious, that the article is wrong here, I can hardly believe that this has to be discussed. --Altaileopard (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest trying to find a compromise. To say that it was never questioned through the entire Middle Ages seems too much to me; Wikipedia can't read the minds of every person who lived in that time period. On the other hand, the other proposed edit might also have problems. See what statements you can all agree on. Meanwhile, if 2 editors agree, the opposing 1 editor should not re-revert, but only discuss on the talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest instead of "it was never questioned throughout the entire Middle Ages that the two were the same figure." to say "scholars throughout the Middle Ages treated the two as the same figure". This avoids making an exceptional claim that would require more sources in my opinion.

I suggest that if someone makes a new edit and it gets reverted, to leave that part of the article in its original state (or perhaps edit in a compromise, if it's likely to be accepted) while discussion takes place on the talk page, rather than re-inserting the challenged edit. When consensus is reached on the talk page (whether to accept the new edit, or a compromise, or keep the original version) then put the edit into the article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I saw this from a

formal dispute resolution. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much for your opinion, Coppertwig. I post here my original edit, which was reverted, that future readers can follow the discussion.

Here is the main sentence, I have changed.

"Although the lives of Dietrich von Bern and Theodoric the Great have many important differences, it was never questioned throughout the entire Middle Ages that the two were the same figure."

By reading it again, I realized, that there is actually another big mistake in the sentence. In fact there is not one! similarity between the live of Dietrich von Bern und that of Theodric the Great, except they were both kings. At least, I can not think of one. But please corect me, if I am wrong.

The only striking similarities, I am aware of are 1) the name of the father, 2) the fact, that both are called Amlaler/Amelungen, 3) the fact that they seemingly both rule over Italy (Bern/Verona and Rome) and 4) they share the same enemy Odoaker (only in the Hildebrandslied).

I think also, the formulation about the entire middle ages is not correct. We just do not know, what people thought during the 7th and 8th.. centuries about them...

In my opinion, it would be sad, to delete Frutolfs thoughts about the tale, but I can live with that. Therefore I suggest the following sentece as a compromise:

"Although the legendary Dietrich von Bern and the historic Theodoric the Great in fact share only a few similarities, both were treated since the Middle Ages as the same figure."

Best,--Altaileopard (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't write the

WP:RS

say that the identification was not an issue, despite the differences. This is what Lienert says:

Die Identifikation des Sagenhelden mit dem Ostgotenkönig, Dietrichs von Bern mit Theoderich dem Großen, steht in den Zeugnissen nie in Frage, auch wenn bisweilen Fehler vorkommen, Verwechslungen oder auch absichtliche Gleichsetzungen mit anderen Trägern des Namens, insbesondere mit dem Westgotenkönig Theuderich I., Attilas Gegner in der Schlacht auf den Katalaunischen Feldern.

The identification of the legendary hero with the Ostrogothic King, Dietrich von Bern with Theodoric the Great, is never in question in the attestations, even if sometimes mistakes occur, confusion or even purposeful conflation with other bearers of the name, especially with the Visigothic King Theuderic I, Attila's opponent in the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields.

Given that this is what Lienert says, I see no reason to change the wording in the text based on speculations about how we can't really know what everyone thought or based on our own interpretation of Frutolf von Michelsberg, rather than what Heinzle actually is using him to do.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange text passage, to choose a source. The sentence actually contradicts itself. Or can you explain what "a purposeful conflation with other bearers of the name", should be, if it is not the questioning of identity between Theoderic the Great and Dietrich von Bern. There is no reason, why we should folllow just one source here, especially one sentence of one Person. I am not seeing that the discussion is leading somewhere and I am not seeing some cooperation in repairing the clearly wrong text passage. Do you have a proposal for the sentence? Well, I think we need the formal dispute resolution.--Altaileopard (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need formal dispute resolution: No one has come along to support your position and you've been outvoted. That should be sufficient. --Pfold (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coppetwig supported my point and the article is still wrong.--Altaileopard (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to User:Coppertwig, from his profile it seems unlikely that he is familiar with the literature. You need Germanists/Medievalists on your side. Please move on! --Pfold (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our background or knowlegde as Users does not matter here. As it was pointed out above, it is all about sources. And every 8 year old child, who will read Frutolf of Michelbergs statement (posted above), will agree (if honest) that the current sentence is just wrong. Sorry. And of course i will go on;-). Until it is corrected.--Altaileopard (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've quite reasonably made a concerted effort to get what you see as a mistake corrected. Your attemnpt has repeatedly rejected by two other editors who work on this page. MOVE ON! --Pfold (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it is a bit funny (it would be if it would be not so sad) but we had a similar stupid discussion about one year ago. In Talk:Dietrich von Bern#What's left to do?, I proposed to shift the article to Dietrich von Bern. Two weeks later Talk:Dietrich von Bern#Move to Dietrich von Bern User:Ermenrich proposed to move the article. Well, it seems there is hope. You are obviously not stupid... perhaps a bit stubborn.--Altaileopard (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think, it's funny, that with Ermenrich and Cethegus two "people" that play a role in the story of Dietrich von Bern and on the other hand Theodoric the Great meet each other in a discussion on Wikipedia. My suggestion for a compromise: "scholars tended to treat DvB and TthG as the same ..." My argument follows when I have more time. --Cethegus (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is short: Lienert says "Identifikation [...] Dietrichs von Bern mit Theoderich dem Großen, steht [...]nie in Frage (identification of Dietrichs von Bern wlth Theodric the Great never questioned) and "absichtliche Gleichsetzungen mit anderen Trägern des Namens"(a purposeful conflation with other bearers of the name). - I think there is a contradiction in his argument.- Ermenrich tells us "Frutolf fundamentally assumes that the two Theodorics are the same- -otherwise he would not try to reconcile them." - I understand, that he sees two persons and tries to understand them as one. - The same person is unquestioned? -

But as one tries to find out the truth one should trust in a real person, as Ermanaric was and not in Cethegus who is obviously only an invention of Felix Dahn in his novel A Struggle for Rome. --Cethegus (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That it indeed a little bit funny. Perhaps we could have asked User:Attila the Hun about his opinion... ;-) . Well that was just a sock puppet... back to the topic: I am fine with the proposed sentence of User:Cethegus. Best,--Altaileopard (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm trying to keep up with this discussion. Are Lienert and Heinzle two different secondary sources both saying similar things? In the Lienert quote above, what does "in the attestations" mean? Could something be added to the Wikipedia sentence to convey this meaning? That's what I was getting at by using the word "scholars". Is Frutolf a primary source? Is that the reason for rejecting Atailleopard's argument, or is there more? (Sorry if I missed it; you can direct me to a specific comment in the above discussion.) I think WP:RS allows use of primary sources in some circumstances; this looks like that kind of circumstance - not placing a heavy weight on it, but using it to motivate moderating the wording in the article somewhat. I weakly support Cethegus' suggested wording for now. Please, no editwarring. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coppertwig, Frutolf of Michelsberg is a medieval chronicler. Lienert and Heinzle both say similar things and are secondary sources.

At some point I will respond more thoroughly.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I just re-read the Frutolf quote that Atailleopard had tried to put into the article, and it now seems to me that Frutolf may not have been saying that Dietrich and Theodorich were two different people. It's as if I said "It's unrealistic when Flintstone is portrayed as coexisting with dinosaurs" and someone quoted me and said "Coppertwig is saying that Fred and Flintstone are two different people!" No, I didn't say anything about two different people and didn't even mention the name Fred.

Another problem: a sentence in the lead seems to contradict the contested sentence. I think we just need to tweak the wording a little and try to find a wording that everyone can agree on. In the lead it says "Differences between Dietrich and Theodoric were already noted in the Early Middle Ages and led to a long-standing criticism of the oral tradition as false." OK, that's fine; now let's try to find a wording of the later sentence that flows smoothly from that. Also, the contested sentence could be reworded to fit better with the rest of its paragraph, which is about differences between the two and about fantastical stories about Dietrich (e.g. breathing fire).

Others can also suggest wordings. How about: "In the Middle Ages, Dietrich von Bern and Theodoric the Great were accepted unquestioningly as one and the same, in spite of many differences between the legendary and historic figures." (Note: this doesn't say it was "never" questioned, but seems to me to be a reasonable representation of what Lienert says.) This leads better into the rest of the paragraph than the current sentence does and does not appear to me to contradict the sentence in the lead, as the current sentence does.

The Wikipedia sentence should not be a stronger statement than what the source says. Lienert does not say that it was never in question. Lienert says it was never in question in the attestations. Therefore, in my opinion, the current sentence is not verified by the source Lienert. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or better: "In the Middle Ages, Theodoric the Great and Dietrich von Bern were accepted unquestioningly as the same figure, although there were many differences between the historic and legendary accounts." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:Ermenrich, Heinzle is not saying that. Heinzle by no means writes anywhere, that "it was never questioned throughout the entire Middle Ages that the two were the same figure".

And of course, Frutolf of Michelsberg was not saying, that Dietrich and Theodorich were two different people. Coppertwig, you are changing Frutolfs words too much. And you would have to know, that Theoderich, Dietrich Theuderich, Didrik, Thidrek .... are different forms of the same name. Frutolf of Michelsberg († 1103) says according to Heinzle (1999), page 21: "either Jordanes is wrong or the Saga is wrong or the latter is about another Ermanarich and another Theoderich".

So you would have to say the folowing about Fred: "either the fossil history is wrong or the movie is wrong or the latter is about another Fred (perhaps a prehistoric mammal species called Fred?) and other Dinosaurs." If I would post then: ""it was never questioned that the two (the jurrassic mammal Fred and Fred Flintstone from the movie) were the same figure".. that would be just wrong, because you clearly gave this possibility as a potential explanation... and therefore,the word unquestioningly would be wrong in the proposed sentence above. "generally" would fit.

Cethegus pointed out, that there is a contradiction in Lienerts argument and I agree with that. And yes, you are right, the "Wikipedia sentence should not be a stronger statement than what the source says". I do not understand, why we should base this fundamental statement on a single one reference, which is obviously wrong in this point and contradicts itself in the same sentence. This discussion is so weired. And it is so sad for all this time. I should just leave the sentence as it is. But I can't. I have to fix wrong things;-) Cheers,--Altaileopard (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC) "in the attestions" means in the sources (german: Zeugnisse).--Altaileopard (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yes Others can also suggest wordings., even Ermenrich.--Altaileopard (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we might have consensus to change the current sentence ("Although the lives of Dietrich von Bern and Theodoric the Great have many important differences, it was never questioned throughout the entire Middle Ages that the two were the same figure.") to Cethegus' suggestion": "scholars tended to treat DvB and TthG as the same ..." which could mean more precisely "Scholars through the Middle Ages tended to treat Dietrich von Bern and Theodoric the Great as the same figure, although their lives have many important differences." (Sorry if that's not what Cethegus meant; there are other ways to arrange the sentence.) Perhaps we could wait a couple more days to see if there are any comments and if no objection, then edit it in. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atailleopard: "a purposeful conflation with other bearers of the name": This doesn't have to mean a conflation of Theodoric and Dietrich. I thought I saw somewhere in this discussion a name like Theudoric or something. I got the impression there were other kings with similar names. Real, historic kings. Anyway, if someone is purposely conflating two things, it wouldn't be appropriate to say that the person is "questioning" whether they are the same. To say someone is "questioning" would imply that the person is saying things like "Hey, wait a minute, aren't those two different people?" Someone who is purposely conflating two things would not say that.

For most of this discussion, I thought Dietrich and Theodorich were two completely different names. Then a day or two before you pointed it out, I noticed that they're phonetically similar and therefore likely linguistically related, but I didn't think that changed the discussion at all. Now I'm thinking that you're interpreting "the same name" to mean both those names, considering them as essentially the same thing as each other. I don't interpret the quote like that. I interpret it as meaning conflation with other real kings with names beginning with Th (not D). Legendary characters automatically do fantastic things so they don't need as much to be conflated -- they're already automatically conflated.

This discussion can get rather confusing. It's like saying are the two sides of the equation 7 = 3 + 4 both the same thing? But if they're the same thing, why did I use the word "two" to refer to them? Or the plural pronoun "they", for that matter? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dietrich is the further phonetic development of the name Theodoric. They are the same name.

Altaileopard is trying to make this change because he supports a fringe theory by a non-academic scholar named Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg. We have a source that says that the identification was not a problem. This was not an issue of "scholars" either, this is the Middle Ages we're talking about. People simply knew that Dietrich von Bern was Theodoric the Great, in the same way that we "know" that it was George Washington who chopped down a cherry tree (even though he didn't). The quote deals with periodic conflations with other figures named Theodoric (and variants).--Ermenrich (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@coppertwig: I did not quite understand, what you mean with your statements about conflation. The fundamental question is, whether Dietrich von Bern was primarely based on Theoderic the Great, or on another king (Theuderic I or one of the many nowadays unknown warlords of these days). I love to discuss the origin of the germanic heroic legends, but we should do this under a seperate topic..not here. This topic should be just about the wrong text passage.

@Ermenrich: I personally think, there are a lot of things, which speak in favor of Heinz Ritter-Schaumburgs Hypothesis. But of course, the article should be based on the current opinion and should reflect side opinions only, if they received a greater public attention. Since Ritter-Schaumburgs Hypothesis gaind great attention in Germany, he should be mentioned and his hypothesis explained to some degree. I have the feeling, that the english article (before you changed it) was too much in favor of Schaumburgs hypothesis (also I did not read it carefully in these days). There were perhaps also side hypothesis beyond Ritter-Schaumburgin the article, which I think did not recieve greater attention even in Germany. I am happy, that you fixed that and that you canged the article to a more neutral state. I am also happy, that you "guard" the article. However, I think you went too far. I have the feeling, you want to eradicate every doubt about the identity of TtG and DvB up to the middle ages. At least two of your passages in the article, are clearly wrong. That should be fixed.--Altaileopard (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So back to the topic: Ermenrich wrote in the discussion:"We have a source that says that the identification was not a problem."... what does that mean? And honestly, what should that argument say (again Ermenrich): "People simply knew that Dietrich von Bern was Theodoric the Great" ..so a person from the 13th century reading Dietrich von Bern just "knew", that it was Theoderic the Great from the 5th century, because all of them lived in the middle ages: Please come back to real arguments and references and don't try to distrect us with personal opinions. Your text passage is based on one single reference, which contradicts itself in the same sentence. This view is not supported by Heinzle and also not by Reichert. Please correct the sentence.--Altaileopard (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ermenrich: Thanks for your comments. I hope you don't mind: I've inserted a sentence in the lead about the names being connected, to help other readers like myself for whom this isn't obvious. I'm sorry but it's not clear to me from your comments which of the proposed versions of the sentence you're OK with. Would you please state that clearly? (Perhaps we should assign numbers to the various proposals.) In particular, are you OK with the version suggested by Cethegus, about which a consensus seems to be developing? If not, would you please explain why not, specifically referring to the particular words you're uncomfortable with? Also, if not OK with that version, would you please suggest another alternative version of the sentence that attempts to address some or all of the various concerns that have been raised in this discussion? Thanks. You said "This is not an issue of "scholars" either". In that case, what does "in the attestations" mean? What would be appropriate wording to express that in the article? (If we just put "in the attestations" in the article, readers might be bewildered.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I forgot: Cethegus' suggestion uses the word "Scholars". Ermenrich, since you oppose this word, what would you suggest instead? Would "Medieval chroniclers" make sense? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before changing now again without asking.... This sentence is wrong in my opinion:

The change of Dietrich from invader to conqueror is usually explained as following well-known motifs of oral tradition.

What is the difference between invader and conquerer? I guess, it should mean refugee or something instead of conqueror, right? Best, --Altaileopard (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that the difference is meant between the invader of 1066 and William the Conqueror. But at the moment wie hope that the invader does not become the conqueror. --Cethegus (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the opposite of what (probably I) meant to say. Theodoric the Great invaded but Dietrich von Bern is the rightful ruler. I'll fix accordingly.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks. But do not forget the discussion above. Two independent users have agreed with my view, that the current sentence is wrong. Do not ignore that please.--Altaileopard (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not there's a war in Europe right now. I'll look at when I have the mental energy to think about something else.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allright. Take your time. Best,--Altaileopard (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again a mistake:

"The anonymous author of the German Kaiserchronik (c.1150) vehemently attacks this chronological impossibility as a lie. His insistence is perhaps a reflection of the popularity of these stories among his target audience"

Here is a wrong citation of Heinzle et al., 1999. Heinzle does nut suggest, that the vehement attacks of the chronological impossibility, "is perhaps a reflection of the popularity of these stories..". He suggests, the audience had a strong believe, that the stories were telling real things.--Altaileopard (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, did you see that Ermenrich?--Altaileopard (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Eremnrich and Pfold have disappeared. I will wait two more days and do than some corrections. But please do not revert again.--Altaileopard (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no response, I fixed it.--Altaileopard (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kaiserchronik states that there were some ignorant people that thought Dietrich von Bern and Theoderic the Great were the same. And he clarified that they were indeed NOT the same. He goes on to describe Theoderic. Yet in another entry, he describes the figure of Dietrich. They were both historical figures. Though not the same person, as this article erroneously states. "Dietrich von Bern is the name of a character in Germanic heroic legend who originated as a legendary version of the Ostrogothic king Theodoric the Great. " This is a false statement and needs to be removed. 79.106.203.16 (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coppertwig, you reverted my correction to the Skaldic project link. Since I never get into edit conflicts on pages I haven't already been working on, this ball is now in your court. But you can't in all conscience leave it like that. First of all, the information is so mangled that you can't read it, with unpaired parentheses right at the beginning. Second, the page flashes up a template error every time you save an edit. Thirdly, this is in any case the wrong template, since the item being referenced is not a journal. Fourthly, I think the name given is wrong: Tarrin Wills would appear to be the webmaster of the site, and he is nowhere called "editor". (His name was the only information lost in my edit, btw, and that was deliberate.) And fifthly, I cannot find the translation on that site anyway - maybe I am missing it, but the link should go straight to the cited material, not to the frontpage. In short, this reference is not "imperfect" - it's a disaster. Nichts für ungut, --Doric Loon (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the wrong place. Please move the topic to the respective page. --Altaileopard (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Altaileopard, it refers to the most recent two edits on Dietrich von Bern.--Doric Loon (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it about this edit?--Altaileopard (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Here's where it had been edited previously, probably introducing the error: [1] I think you deleted more than the name Tarrin Wills; I think you deleted a title, which could be important if the link ever becomes stale. Also the "via" field, but I don't know what that is. Maybe there were earlier versions that were better? Feel free to re-revert or otherwise edit it. I'll probably come back later and try to improve it somewhat if nobody else has (I can probably at least fix it so it's not an error). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now fixed this - to everyone's satisfaction, I hope. --Pfold (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Doric Loon (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ermenrich. You are back again. And you were ....very quick. here you made some changes. Apparently you just refuse the discussion. Not very nice but anyway. You postet, that the lives of Dietrich von Bern and Theodoric the Great have several important differences. I would be fine with that, but I would like to know at least two similarities between the lives of TtG and DvB. Well,they were both kings.. so one significant similartiy between the lives would be fine for me.--Altaileopard (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest, guys. This really is pointless, not remotely constructive use of anyone's time. Of course the development of the stories about a legendary figure will tend to diverge from contemporary historical sources - that's so obvious it shouldn't need saying. Plus the futher obvious fact that legendary figures readily attract features and narrative from later similar figures. In the case of Dietrich the stories were originally Gothic, adopted by the Lombards and then passed to the Bavarians and the Franks, each of whom would have remodelled in their own way. --Pfold (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think we improved the article a lot already. We fixed quite some mistakes so far.

• "Of course the development of the stories about a legendary figure will tend to diverge from contemporary historical sources."

That is not the point. Assuming that DvB was directly derived from TdG (without any influence of other unknown kings of the same name), it is striking, that there is actualy hardly one important aspect, shared by the lives of Dietrich von Bern and Theoderic the Great. Therefore others (not only Frutolf) before Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg suggested, that there might have been another Thidrek, who influenced the legends. And the same is true for other figures of the legend.

• "Plus the further obvious fact that legendary figures, readily attract features and narrative from later similar figures."

Well this is an assumption (probably believed by many scientists in the field) not a fact in my opinion .--Altaileopard (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to change the article in a way that supports the fringe theories of Ritter-Schaumburg. Second what Pfold said: why are you not focusing on how the historical Gundaharius was different from Gunter or the historical Attila is different from Etzel? There is not any question that these are the same figures, and many more examples from other cultures can be found of similar changes.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not. But I tink it should not contain obviously wrong passages, just because they could speak in favour of him. By the way. I was correcting the german article recently in away that speaks against Heinz Ritter Schaumburg. To your second point: Did you read the Thidrekssaga or one of Heinz Ritter Schaumburgs books. He proposed, that the Attila in the heroic legends was a frisian king, who conquered Soest. As the Thidrekssaga tells it.--Altaileopard (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up this topic. I will not insist in the change here, despite I think the current article is still wrong in this point. (or could you name two significant similarties between the lives of these two figures). However I think a change here would be close to original research and based a lot on primary sources. Optimally, you could add a reference, which supports the current sentence. So far I did not find a statment from a secondary source, which specifically supports the current version. But also none, which specifically supports my version.--Altaileopard (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quit editwarring please. This is clearly part of the same ongoing dispute. I suggest: don't make any edits to the article related to this dispute, unless either there is consensus, or you're reverting to the original, longstanding version from before the dispute began (and are not editwarring about which of two versions counts as the original). I was disappointed to see edits adding mention of Frutolf; and the word "scholar"; etc. to the article, when these have clearly been objected to and there is no consensus for them. A reasonable argument against the word "scholar" was raised, there are plenty of other possible words and please get consensus before making changes. I like this edit [2] which I feel addresses many of the points that were raised on the talk page and could reasonably be argued to have consensus. I'd like to remove the word "lives" which makes it sound as if there were two human beings (and a mystery as to which was which). "accounts" or "legends vs. historical accounts" would be better IMO. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This section is a continuation of a discussion at section Edits by Altaileopard above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities between Dietrich von Bern and Theodoric the Great: Both male. Both lived in Europe. Had two eyes. Fought in battles.

This version may have been put in as editwarring: "Dietrich Bern and Theoderic the great were usually treated as the same figure by medieval sholars. However, the lives of Dietrich von Bern and Theodoric the Great share in fact surprisingly few similarities." Please, avoid editwarring. Put your proposed wording on the talk page for other editors to discuss. There are several problems with this version: (1) Uses the word "scholars", which an editor already objected to earlier in the discussion, when there is no need as there are lots of other possible words. (2) misspells "scholars". (3) Too repetitive. (4) The word "usually" goes overboard in putting too much weight on an idea not presented in secondary sources. The secondary sources say emphatically e.g. "never in question" and some editors feel (as I understand it) that it's important to convey that emphasis.

I also oppose what it was changed to here: [3] "Dietrich von Bern and Theoderic the great were usually treated as the same figure throughout the Middle Ages. However, the lives of Dietrich von Bern and Theodoric the Great share have several important differences." By removing the subject and putting it in the passive voice, it goes against a concern I had raised in the discussion. It also leaves in some of the problems of the previous edit.

I suggest something like: "Throughout the Middle Ages, commentators treated Dietrich von Bern and Theodoric the Great as the same figure, while at the same time the legendary portrayal of the one differed markedly from the historic accounts of the other, and sometimes admixed accounts of other rulers of the same name." or perhaps leaving off the part beginning "and", or inserting "consistently" before "treated". What do others think of that version?

If there are objections to that, I suggest returning to Doric Loon's "paragraph cohesion" version, which stayed in for about a week and which I think satisfies many of the concerns raised in this discussion, so I think it's a good one to consider to be the (new) longstanding original version to go back to in case of editwarring (though if my suggesting this causes editwarring between different longstanding versions then I withdraw my suggestion): "Although medieval commentators never questioned that the two were the same figure, the lives of Dietrich von Bern and Theodoric the Great have many important differences." [4] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it will lay the issue to rest, I will support your proposal.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a consensus for this, I'm not going to oppose it. But I would like mto put on record my view that it is utterly pointless to make a statement pointing out the divergence of legendary figure from his historical origin. Gott im Himmel, folks, it's a legend - what exactly were you expecting?! Sorry, this has been a complete waste of time in my view, and has made no improvement whatsoever to the article. And it could all have been avoided if editors would simply accept an informed consensus against them and move on. --Pfold (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I agree with Pfold. This issue was laid to rest but the change is being forced by one editor who refuses to drop the stick and some other well-meaning editors who don’t seem to understand what’s going on.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pfold that it's a legend, etc. and I don't want the article to look as if it's setting up a question as to whether two human beings were both the same human being or not. What version or versions are supported by Pfold's statement that it's a legend? What do you think about my suggestion about taking out the word "lives", perhaps replacing it with "accounts" or something? Pfold, what do you think the sentence should say, or are you suggesting just deleting that sentence entirely? What's your suggestion?

A mention of Frutolf has been inserted into another part of the article. It seems to me that this is part of this same discussion, goes against objections that had already been raised and therefore shouldn't have been put in, and may violate WP:SYNTH. Am I mistaken?

This issue didn't have to go to WP:30. It was already two against one, so that should have ended it. I've put a message on Altaileopard's talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following from Pfold's observation that it's a legend: I don't like the subsection heading "Differences between Dietrich and Theodoric". I think it tends to bring to mind the idea that there's a question as to whether these two were the same person or not, as if that's a mystery or contended question. I suggest either renaming the subsection, or deleting that whole subsection. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is that known? I read Jordanes, but I do not think, that I found legends about TtG there. But I may be wrong. Best,--Altaileopard (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article's statement obviously refers to the equation of Theodoric the Great at hand of his historical accounts (!) with (!) Dietrich of Bern. See esp. Lienert's publication Dietrich-Testimonien des 6. bis 16. Jahrhunderts; cf. e.g. via google with search syntax: "Dietrich-Testimonien des 6. bis 16. Jahrhunderts [PDF] [3qar0if6u10g]". 87.151.65.245 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dietrich-Testimonien book is published by De Gruyter, which means it's available for download via the

Wikipedia Library

if you've signed up for that. --19:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Allright. ..."are first reported"...., is than clearly wrong. It sounds as if there are still existing legends about Theoderic the Great or at least contemporary reports about those. That sentece should be deleted or fixed in my opinion.--Altaileopard (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence certainly requires clarification. According to Lienert (et al.), Dietrich was a disposable figure for heroic tradition, which, consequently, could be more or less far away from the basic points in the life of Theodoric the Great. Text research has already shown sufficient examples, see for Dietrich's milieu in the Imperial Staufer period (e.g.) Norbert Voorwinden, Laurenz Lersch, Karl Droege et al.

Turning to Ritter it seems clear that the article may not serve for any internal research about the original figure of or for Dietrich von Bern. Editing Ritters article last week, I had chosen for its footnotes even such sources which directly suggest his copying from them:

• Franz Mone, cf. the Niflungen origin, Bern = Verona = Bonn – but nowhere mentioned in all his books,
• William J. Pfaff considering also (!) a northern Niflungen route via Bakalar near the Rhine, Dortmund = Thorta, Soest = Susat – but reviewed as nicht brauchbar for Thidrekssaga research, see Ritter’s Sigfrid ohne Tarnkappe, Munich 1990, p. 197,
• Ferdinand Holthausen mentioning Attila’s geographical background and conquest of Susat – but reviewed with some malice as a clueless researcher (as above, pp. 191–192).

With that, however, Ritter could combine rather effortlessly the Westphalian Dhünn as Duna and Trier’s medieval pseudonym Roma secunda as the eminent major points and declare all this as his great discovery. Needless to say that his historical allocation of a nowhere attested historical Dietrich could hardly convince anyone up to now.

Besides, the article actually deserves an expansion with the Wolfdietrich epics, cf. Miklautsch 2005 with essential scholarly identifications of at least two historical figures for (Wolf)-Dietrich and those transtextual relationships esp. with the Thidrekssaga. 84.161.80.80 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit [5] at first glance the original looks better to me, but possibly some of the changes are supported by the above discussion. I'm not sure. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you tink so? I am not too happy with the whole passage either, but to my knowledge, there are no Legends about Theodoric reported shortly after his death in 526. I also got no response. So I just repaired (again) a wrong sentence. --Altaileopard (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article speaks of Frutolf of Michelsberg's Würzburg Chronicle. However, Frutolf did not write a chronicle of Würzburg. I presume this is a confused reference (possibly from very old scholarship) to the Chronicon Wirziburgense, which is printed immediately before Frutolf's universal chronicle in the MGH edition by Waitz (see here). It was formerly believed to have been written by Ekkehard of Aura, who revised Frutolf, hence the MGH editing them in a single volume. Now I don't have Dietrich literature to hand, so I can't tell if the passage being referenced is in Frutolf or in the Würzburg Chronicle, but it certainly ain't both. Can somebody please look at this again and get reliable information? Otherwise I will delete the sentences about Frutolf altogether. (A friendly wave from Würzburg, BTW!) --Doric Loon (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, Doric Loon. Contextually, this Chronicon Wirziburgense was expanded with a continuation until 1099, which, however, is physically missing, but can be inferred by its use by the authors of the Chronicon universale (Frutolf), Annales S. Albani Moguntini, Annales Rosenveldenses; as provided at

http://www.geschichtsquellen.de/werk/1227 (Encyclopedic site of the Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften). So we can only state that Frutolf had obviously used this chronicle, resp. its continuation.

Lienert writes – Die ‹historische› Dietrichepik – p. 36:

Wirkungsmächtig wird Frutolfs Sagenkritik: Er verweist als erster auf chronologische Widersprüche zwischen der Darstellung des Jordanes und sagenhafter Überlieferung, wie sie auch manche Chroniken bestimme; Ermanarich, Attila und Theoderich würden dort als Zeitgenossen dargestellt, was mit Jordanes’ Bericht unvereinbar sei. Vorsichtig erwägt Frutolf allerdings auch, dass Jordanes sich irren könne oder dass es sich (wie das später die ‹Kaiserchronik› realisiert, siehe unten) um unterschiedliche Personen gleichen Namens handeln könne.(49): Frutolf, ‹Chronicon universale› (WAITZ 1844, LV Nr. 38), bes. S. 130f. (...)

"Frutolf's saga criticism becomes powerful: he is the first to point out chronological contradictions between the account of Jordanes and legendary tradition, as it also ordains some chronicles; Ermanarich, Attila and Theoderich are depicted there as contemporaries, which is intolerable with Jordanes' account. However, Frutolf also cautiously considers that Jordanes could be mistaken or that they could be different persons with the same name (as later realized by the 'Kaiserchronik', see below)."

She actually refers to p. 130 of MGH SS 6 which ascribes Frutolf's work to the edition of Ekkehard of Aura: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_6/index.htm#page/130/mode/1up (spaced writing). Greetings, 87.151.65.245 (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very helpful. I know Elisabeth Lienert - she's very reliable. And that reference to p.130 is the important one - the passage is right there in lines 50-60. So it is Frutolf/Ekkehard we are talking about, not Chronicon Wirziburgense, which should be removed from our article. Doric Loon (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this seems plausible for the time being. I have checked meanwhile the original mss. of both the Chronicon Wirziburgense at https://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/download/pdf/1163727 and Frutolf's chronicle (dated from 1057 to 1102) at https://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/download/pdf/1163729 . Nonetheless, I could not encounter the text-critical passage we are referring to. The former provides Attila, Ermenric, Theodericus and Odoacer on (PDF-) pp. 17–18 — thus apparently in compliance with the elder Low German Annales Quedlinburgenses. Nonetheless, I couldn't encounter that very passage in the latter ms. presented by the BLB Karlsruhe. 87.151.65.245 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the name of the page actually in german? I personally was also speaking in favour of changing the name of the article into Dietrich von Bern, but the more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion, that the better name would be Thidrek of Bern. Other wikipedias call him in the respective language and Dietrich was not a german hero. And if he was actually living in what is now Germany, (which would be the case if Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg would be right), than he should be rather named in Low German, therefore Didrik. What do you think?--Altaileopard (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We follow

WP:COMMONNAME here - scholars refer to this figure as Dietrich von Bern. There is exactly one primary source using the name "Thidrek", the Old Norse (not Low German) Thidrekssaga.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Its really a pity, that every comment ends up in a fight with Ermenrich. But allright. I can fight: First of all: leave this "We follow ..nonsense...." Of course we do that". But we also use names in the language of the respective wikipedia if possible and if there are good references using the same name......And I did not say, that the Thidrekssaga is low german, that was just a sidekick, but I guess my english written humor is not my strongest quality. To clearify the background: the names of the swedish Verison of the Thidrekssaga are close or identical to the German names, in fact proabably low german (Didrik instead of Dietrich, Hillebrand instead of Hildebrand, Wideke instead of Wittich). Assuming the origin of the Thidrekssaga is in northwestern Germany (as Ritter-Schaumburg proposed), it was most likely written in low german, whereas Dietrich is proabably the high german form....

Allright. Back to the topic: I am not sure, if we should base the name entirely on primary sources. Secondary english sources call him Thidrek of Bern (see: King Arthur in the Thidrekssaga, English Translation of the Thidrekssaga). I am personally fine with the name. As germans, we are probably all fine with a german name. But I could imagine, that english people might prefer an englsih name, at least one, which is not so difficult to pronounce.--Altaileopard (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could I put in a plea for Derek of Verona - these are, after all, the correct modern English forms of the two components? --Pfold (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would indeed fit best;-) I just think it might be too much original reasearch;-) Well, let´s leave the German name until someone complains.--Altaileopard (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Altaileopard - why do you feel you have to "fight" Ermenrich? He made a perfectly reasonable point about WP:COMMONNAME; it wasn't exactly fighting talk. You can disagree with him, of course, if you have a different view of what the common name is, but that needn't involve fighting. I just came to this article, and have no intention of reading through the old talk, so I'm making no judgments, but there's obviously a history of aggro here, and that's a shame. Because if you can just get along with one another, you would be able to go for a GA nomination pretty soon. But it won't pass GA review if the reviewer sees in-fighting.

For what it's worth, I think that since you have just had a name change, it's maybe a bit soon for another one? Doric Loon (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Ermenrich's point was reasonable. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the German Wikipedia Altaileopard was awarded "First Class Hero". He should not let him shrink. 217.82.240.53 (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doric Loon: Sorry, but in my view it sounded attacking. I just asked a reasonable question and got a "we follow here" as response. May be I am too thin-skinned, but I experienced nicer discussions before.. --Altaileopard (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Altaileopard - Maybe I've been living in Germany for too long ☺, but I didn't get that feeling. The main thing is to assume good faith and concentrate on working together to write a great article. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Wikipedia is based mainly on secondary sources, so I think it's more important what name the secondary sources usually use, than what the primary sources usually use.

I don't see anything wrong with saying "we follow here"; that sounds like civil disagreement to me, the kind of thing we're supposed to be saying. If there's something about that particular wording that bothers you perhaps you could explain what it is. On the other hand, bringing in the word "fight" seems unnecessarily polarizing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also understand "common name" to mean what is most common in recent English-language scholarship. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The passage in the article was edited by three users within 24 hours. So I felt motivated to consult William J. Pfaff's Geographical and ethnic names in the Thidrekssaga. Regarding the battle on the Moselle, he points out that Ermanaric's army leaving Rome had to cross a mountain range (= fiall) which both Icelandic manuscripts A/B call Mundiu – thus meaning the Alps. See on this Pfaff pp. 127–129 quoting Henrik Bertelsen II,232 with the transcription of ch. 374 = Mb 325. With all this the former notes well that the venue is north of the Alps. Interestingly, even the Rhine – to mention just only one example – flows into two "seas", first into the

That's Paff's attempt to explain the reference - the saga is clear that the Moselle flows into the ocean; perhaps the Norwegian sagaman may have misinterpreted an original German tale, as Paff seems to believe, but that's not really something we should talk about in this article. The Thidrekssaga is full of inaccurate geography. For the ocean/sea reference, see Heinzle, Einführung, p. 78 (which citation I will add to that section).--Ermenrich (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since Heinzle actually states that "at Gronsport on the Moselle, the armies meet and face each other on the two banks", we might be satisfied with this citation for the time being. 217.82.240.53 (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What if anything do reliable sources say about the existence/nonexistence of the Moselle in the context of this saga? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A good question, but for the moment I know of none material. But I'll keep at it! I asked about the use of sjó, sio – with its form "sióinn" in the passage at Bertelsen II,248 – a former colleague of mine who had done some research in the 80's at the University of Bergen. I got his answer this afternoon, and he wrote me that he had encountered in Old Norse poetry and epical literature sjó, sio used both for "ocean" and large (or perceived large) inland lakes. The saga's passage may thus refer to a temporarily existing inland lake of the Moselle. With this Heinzle is invalid! 217.82.240.53 (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the page I gave you. Heinzle clearly says that the Moselle goes “ins Meer” (into the sea): [Thidrek] sieht [Widga] und verfolgt ihn stromabwärts die Mosel entlang. Widga rettet sich, indem er an der Mündung des Flusses ins Meer (!) hinein reitet. "Thidrek sees Widga and pursues him downriver down the Moselle. Widga saves himself by riding into the sea (!) at the mouth of the river." Not a lake. The "(!)" is the equivalent of "sic" - the Moselle doesn't go to the sea in real life, but it does in the Thidrekssaga. —Ermenrich (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As being quoted above: In Old Norse poetry and epical literature sjó, sio is used both for "ocean" and large (or perceived large) inland lakes.

Thus, an attempt to restrict any interpretation/translation solely to "Ocean" is not permissible! Heinzle maybe a meritorious scholar who studied and lectured Ältere Deutsche Sprache und Literatur, but is nowhere known to have studied Nordic or Scandinavian literature, culture or language.

I urgently recommend the edit of that passage left by user:Doric Loon. 84.161.85.179 (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my edit to that sentence was only correcting grammar. Please don't cite me as taking a side on a content dispute there. Incidentally, are the two IP users contributing here the same people who are also contributing under usernames? If so, please remember to log in. If not, I would recommend getting an account if you want to contribute regularly. It helps a lot in following the debates.--Doric Loon (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. Yes, I intend to get an account, and I'm about to collecting and preparing personal info for my user page. 84.161.85.179 (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The saga is clear that it is the ocean, as are RS. The Moselle doesn't flow into a lake regardless, so arguing about alternative meanings of sjø is neither here nor there.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No,the IP is not me, if you meant that, Doric loon. Sjö can mean lake or sea, as in German. A vanished lake (or a wide, slow moving part of the river) at the Moselle mouth might be possible. The swedish version does not mention a lake or the sea, when telling about the battle at the Moselle, only at a legendary (and with a quite different style written) chapter at the very end (Sv 383).--Altaileopard (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Altaileopard. It must also be noted well that the writer of the passage does not mean the Reno, which flows into the Adriatic Sea north of Ravenna, Italy. The scene is north of the Alps on the Moselle. Neither "Ravenna" nor the Reno is mentioned in all manuscripts of the Thidrekssaga, cf. Hernik Bertelsen's comprehensive index (Vol. II, p. 400f.). Neither a lake nor an ocean is mentioned as the mouth of the Moselle in the Old Swedish transmission of the Thidrekssaga. Rather, we can understand this observation as an early medieval textual emendation. Moreover, it hardly makes sense to put a "nonexistent" in front of geographical and hydronymic names in retellings of sagas and fabulating heroic poetry. Or would you really prefer a "(nonexistent) Susat of Attila", "(nonexistent) Rome of Ermanaric" (etc.) for style and readability of content rendering? As already said, the correct phrasing for that passage must consider "lake" according to correct Old Norse translation of epic literature. 84.161.85.33 (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to "Ravenna": We actually have a "Rauennam" in the mss (see Bertelsen II,220), but we also have a cartographic "Rauenthal" on the Moselle just before its conflation with the Rhine. 84.161.85.33 (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter what the much later and heavily altered Swedish version says? When scholars discuss “the Thidrekssaga” they mean the Norwegian original. The fact is that the Moselle in real life does not empty into the ocean or a lake, and without mentioning this, readers could think it did based on the inaccurate geography of the saga.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very happy with the current sentence either, because I think people, who are not familiar with the topic, might get easily confused. But I also don´t know how to to it better, except by adding an additional text passage, which explains that the Thidrekssaga is full of (Heinz Ritter would say apparently) inaccurate geography.

And to answer your question: It is very interesting, that the swedish version does not mention a lake or sea. Perhaps it was altered, because the writer knew, that there is no lake at the moselle. But why did he leave it in chapter at the end. Did he miss it here? I would have to check, if the Membrane has that part at the end or if it was introduced just into the swedish version. And how on earth did Soest and the Moselle came into the Saga anyway, if it was a story about Theodric coming from Attila the hun (in Hungary) to fight a battle at Ravenna? But let´s assume Heinz Ritter was right and the Rome of the legend is Trier and the swedish version is the oldest (despite having the youngest text). If there was a king attaccking Trier from Soest, than a batttle at the Moselle mouth makes completely sense. Than the Thidrekssaga would be absolutely not inaccurate in geography. Everything fits so well, that it is actually hard to believe, that could be just coincidence. But even if we assume that Ritters hypothesis is right, it would remain unclear, how the lake or the sea came into the story. Either there was once really a lake (or something similar) at the mouth of the Moselle or it was introduced into the saga because the writers of the Thidrekssaga heared or read that Witege sank in a large water, but they knew there was no larger River close to Ravenna (the Uniti is a modern creation of two very little rivers). In the wrong believe Didrik iis Theoderic the Great, they might have introduced the sea/lake as an explanation in all versions except the (in this case older) swedish one. I think we will never be able to entirely proof or disproof any of the possibilities, except perhapss the nonexistent? lake at the Moselle mouth. --Altaileopard (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He states (1999, pp. 79–80):

Es ist ausgeschlossen, daß der Verfasser der ,Heldenbuch-Prosa‘ Zugang zur ,Thidrekssaga‘ hatte: Saga und Prosa müssen unabhängig voneinander aus der gleichen, alten Erzähltradition geschöpft haben.

Coppertwig's (re-)revert is reliable!--217.82.242.238 (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article states:

"In the 1980s, Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg proposed that Dietrich von Bern and Theodoric the Great were in fact two distinct historical figures: he argued that Dietrich was an unattested Frankish petty king based at Bonn. However, Ritter-Schaumburg was not a specialist in the field, and his theory has been rejected by mainstream scholarship."

Firstly, he is literally an expert in the field, being a university professor as well as having over 100,000 editions published in his name.

Secondly, EVERYONE held this to be true for 1,500 years, until only a few years ago. Why the change, I am uncertain. But what is stated in the article is very silly. 79.106.209.171 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) No he isn't. Writing a lot of books is usually a sign of quackery in academia, not a plus. He was never a university professor. 2) No one thought that was true except a few people in the 19th century. Dietrich and Theodoric have been held to be the same by almost everyone since the middle ages.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Literally NO ONE considers the two to be the same, except for the illiterate. Even the Kaiserchronik states that there were some ignorant people that thought Dietrich von Bern and Theoderic the Great were the same, but those people are obviously wrong. And he clarified that they were indeed NOT the same. He goes on to describe Theoderic. Yet in another entry, he describes the figure of Dietrich. They were both historical figures. But with different names, different locations, different families, different companions, completely different lives. I see your name a lot on here. But you clearly know nothing about these topics. Your intrusive behaviour is tantamount to trolling and vandalism. I suggest you cease and desist immediately, before you are forced to do so! Be lucky you encountered a generous person like myself to warn you, and not someone else. 79.106.203.16 (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful who you call a troll. Someone who insists on supporting the views of a self-published non-academic against the overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed scholarship ought to be ''very careful'' about what they say here about other editors

In any case, in WP terms it's quite a simple matter: you're out-voted. --Pfold (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R-S was not a university professor, but a "Privatgelehrter". It seems clear that most if not all of his work on this topic was not peer-reviewed but published by small, non-academic presses. Your comment about "silliness" suggests that you are insuffcieintly well-informed on this matter, otherwise you would know that the observation that "his theory has been rejected by mainstream scholarship" is completely correct. --Pfold (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to

Song of Roland" should be urgently renamed. For instance, "Lay of Roland" would be more appropriate! But I don't think I'm likely to find any support for this suggestion on Roland's talk page! --80.187.72.165 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]