Talk:Till Eulenspiegel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The version of Bote's story would have been on the brink of Middle Low German and New Low German. And it is less confusing to just write Low German.

translation from

Till Eulenspiegel (niederdeutsche Schreibweisen: Ulenspegel, Ulenspiegel) war ein Schalksnarr (Gaukler) und Titelheld eines mittelniederdeutschen Volksbuches --


Till Eulenspiegel (low-german spelling : Ulenspegel, Ulenspiegel) was a Joker (Gaukler) and the title hero of a middle low german folkloric book.

minor edit Till Eulenspiegel , IPA: [ˈtɪl ˈɔʏlənˌʃpiːgəl] Low Saxon version: Dyl Ulenspegel , was a Joker and Jester who originated in the Middle Saxon (middle lower german) oral tradition of folklore. Guss 11:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Placing Moelln near Lueneburg is misleading at best.[edit]

The major cities closest to Moelln are Luebeck, Schwerin and Hamburg; Lueneburg is about as much of a major city as Schwerin (which isn't) and is over twice as far removed from Moelln as these. Check it out on a map, please. As it stands right now, one could just as well place Munich in Austria. And that would actually be closer, geographically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 4.[edit]

I don't know who translated the text but the translation is wrong! = Disen Stein sol niemand erhaben. Hie stat Ulenspegel begraben. Anno domini MCCCL jar” (Diesen Stein soll nieman erhaben, hie stat Ulenspiegel begraben). This would translate as "No one must lift this stone, Eulenspiegel stands buried here" Thats because of an occation that happened during the burial of Eulenspiegel. When the coffin has being lured into the grave one of the persons at the end of the coffing where the feet were sliped and fell and the coffing fell down and then was vertical in the grave not horizontal as intended. The spectators then said: "Just leave it this way. He was odd in live, now it's olny fair that he's odd in death too!" Source: Project Gutenberg, Eulenspiegel, 96. Historie [1] --Ragoro (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Origin and Tradition Section--copyright issues?[edit]

Do we have copyright problems in this section? Lines like "Ultimately, Eulenspiegel's pranks are not primarily about the exposure of human weaknesses and malice but the implicit breaking up and sublation of a given status of consciousness by means of negation itself (animus) as that which Eulenspiegel embodies" sound suspiciously as if they derive directly from some textbook or academic study. Unfortunately, I have no access to the cited source and therefore can only urge that someone with better resources double check. Drhoehl (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, regardless of copyright, that text is incoherent and (if it's NOT copied from some book) is unsourced POV pushing. It appears to be Hegelian rhetoric, but my Google-fu failed at finding the source. I'm going to be bold and remove it until it can be justified and/or sourced.Msalt (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
That paragraph cites only two sources: presumably one of them is the source of that jargon. Till Eulenspiegel: His Adventures by Anon., translated by Paul Oppenheimer. Publisher: Routledge; 4 edition (August 8, 2001) ISBN 0415937639; and Bote, Hermann, Eulenspiegel, 2009.
As much as it sounds like a copyvio, it can't be one, because I have witnessed that paragraph morph and grow spontaneously from a single sentence over the past couple of years, from contributions by numerous editors. Every couple of months or so, someone else would come along and add another flowery sentence, or re-arrange the existing wording. It makes for a fascinating article history study. So, what you have actually done is been bold and removed a sourced paragraph of information that was not a copyvio, but probably could have been written more encyclopedically. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The original incarnation of that text was added 1 December 2009 by User:Rflukner; it was only four sentences, but grew to seven by the time it was removed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Gigantic un-cited paragraph (and a half) that reads like lit-crit[edit]

"...And it is not the exception that communication gives rise to complications; rather, it is the rule. As a model of communication, Till Eulenspiegel is the inherent, unpredictable factor of complication that can throw any communication, whether with oneself or others, into disarray. These irritations, amounting to conflicts, have the potential of effecting mental paradigm changes and increases in the level of consciousness, and in the end, of leading to truth. Although craftsmen are featured as the principal victims of his pranks, neither the nobility nor the pope are exempt from being fooled by him.

In the end, Eulenspiegel's pranks are not so much about the exposure of human weaknesses and malice, as much as the animus he embodies — the implicit breaking up and sublimation of a given status of consciousness, by means of its negation. A common theme to these stories is that of turning the prevailing mental horizon upside down, and unseating it with a higher one.[citation needed]"

Verifiable or not, it's just not... good. Find a source & edit, or just delete it, please. (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Long passage without relevance[edit]

The article wrote: "General opinion now tends to regard Till Eulenspiegel as an entirely imaginary figure around whose name was gathered a cycle of tales popular in the Middle Ages," Ruth Michaelis-Jena observes.[1] "Yet legendary figures need a definite background to make them memorable and Till needed the reality of the Braunschweig landscape and real towns to which he could travel – Cologne, Rostock, Bremen and Marburg among them – and whose burghers become the victims of his pranks."

Rudolf Steiner writes of the philosophical implications of the legend in extenso in a published 1918 lecture. As part of a stream of consciousness put in the mouth of the character Isis, he observes, for example: "What modern humanity should take as the true remedy for its abstract spirit is depicted on a tombstone in Moelln in the Lauenberg district... Scholars — and scholars are indeed very learned today and take everything with extraordinary gravity and significance — have naturally discovered — oh! they have discovered various things, for example, that Homer didn't really exist. The scholars have naturally also discovered that there was never a Till Eulenspiegel. One of the chief reasons why the actual bones of the actual Till Eulenspiegel (who was supposedly merely the representative of his age) are not supposed to lie beneath the tombstone in Lauenberg on which is depicted the owl with the looking glass, was that another tombstone had been found in Belgium upon which there was an owl with a mirror. Now these learned ones naturally have said — for it is logical, isn't it? (and if they are anything it is logical) — how does it go again in Shakespeare? For they are all honorable men, all, all, all! Logical they all are! — anyway, so they said: If the same sign is found in Lauenberg and in Belgium, then naturally Eulenspiegel never existed at all."[2]

This runs pretty much against contomporary research which assumes that the stories started with a historical figure. See the German wikipedia entry for more. -- Zz (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Till Eulenspiegel/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.


Last edited at 08:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

German focus[edit]

The article makes him into a solely German literary figure, ignoring the role he had in Flanders during the war with Spain. I also see no mention of the fact that the first book on him was published in 1512 in Antwerpen by Michiel van Hoochstraten as Ulenspieghel, Van Ulenspieghels leven ende schimpelijcke wercken, en de wonderlijcke avontueren die hij hadde want hij en liet hem geen boeverie verdrieten. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there any scientific work on this, especially its dating? And what language is it (blushing here, because I am not sure if I can tell Saxonian dialects from Frankish ones)? The text places him neatly into Saxony and mentions Ampleben. The woodcuts are familiar, too, so this would boil down to a question of priority. One part says 1526, the other 1512. I could not find anything on Google that pointed to a scientific source for the latter claim.
By the way, since Eulenspiel is usually dated from 1300 to 1350, I do not see the connection to the war with Spain. Are they contained in that edition? -- Zz (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • ^ Ruth Michaelis-Jena, "Eulenspiegel and Münchhausen: Two German Folk Heroes", Folklore 97.1 (1986:101-108) p. 102.
    • ^ Rudolf Steiner, "Lecture Three: 6 January 1918", published in Ancient Myths and the New Isis Mystery.