Talk:Dietrich von Bern

Didrik / Tjudrik

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)

Moved from Legends about Theodoric the Great

This is in accord with the change of Theoderic the Great. -- spin|^control 19:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Name

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

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

Improving this article with Citations

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)

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)

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)

Rolf Badenhausen

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)