CC BY
55PHILOSOPHY AND PHILOLOGY
THE IMAGE OF DIETRICH VON BERN IN MEDIEVAL GERMAN EPOS "DAS NIBELUNGENLIED"
1Sarakaeva Elina 2Lebedeva Irena 3Frolova Yulia
1Hainan University, The college of Foreign Languages, the Russian Language department, Lecturer;
2Caspian Institute of Sea & River Transport, associated professor;
3Caspian Institute of Sea & River Transport, professor
Abstract. The authors of the article compare interpretations by the leading modern medievalists of the image of Dietrich von Bern in the medieval German heroic epic "The Nnibelungenlied" ("The Lay of the nibelungs") and offer a number of our own reflections based on the content analysis and the etymological analysis of the text of the poem. The authors try to show that unlike widespread understanding of the image of Dietrich as the only positive character of "The Nnibelungenlied", a representative of new (Christian) ideology, the anonymous author of the poem doesn't depict the hero as a carrier of the highest morals and doesn't put him over other characters in axiological or ethical perspective.
Keywords: "The Nnibelungenlied", Dietrich von Bern, Hagen von Tronege, Kriemhild, Etzel, honor, prestige, social status
The surface reading of the poem "Das Nibelungenlied" would leave the reader with the impression that Dietrich von Bern is an unconditionally attractive figure: in the world that has gone mad, he is the only one to preserve soberness and composure. It is no wonder that many researchers of the poem view Dietrich as the only positive character, allotted by all merits and having no flaws. Bert Nagel calls the victory of Dietrich over Hagen in the finale of poem "the celebration of the highest morals", and Dietrich himself - a representative of knightly Christianity [7, 262]. Gottfried Weber sees in Dietrich the embodiment of "new spirit", which comes to replace the obsolete heathen heroism [10,170].
Hugo Bekker, the author of a number of articles and a book about the poem compares the images of Dietrich and Rüdiger. The basic difference between these characters he sees in what place in their life and mentality is given to fröide - "merriment"[1]. From his point of view, margrave Rüdiger is simply obsessed by merriment, he actually sees it as his raison d'être, which proves to be an erroneous vital strategy - the character ultimately gives himself up to self-deception, ignoring the facts of reality in pursuit of "merriment" which finally leads to his downfall. While Dietrich, as Becker assumes, occupies a more balanced position - he also aims at "merriment", but not to satisfy his own emotional needs, but as an effective tool to maintain the social balance [1, 246].
When the Burgundians ignore his danger warning, Dietrich "shuts down" and stays away for all the subsequent scenes. This alienation results, as Bekkers believes, from the previous experience of the exile king. After surviving sufferings and losses, Dietrich becomes a stoic, not inclined to turn to the royal court for comforts and entertainment. He sees his mission in fulfilling his duty, in rendering hospitality, in giving gifts, but he does not believe in "merriment" and therefore keeps away from people and events [1, 251].
David Tinsley sees in Dietrich an archetype of a "reluctant hero", who at first deviates from exploits and adventures - a motive, described in a number of works on the mythology and cultural anthropology. Tinsley adds to this archetype a specific interpretation: he emphasizes that Dietrich is a king in exile, a stranger in the barbarous lands - the status, which in the medieval German literature was always connected with desperation, grief and solitude. An exile such as Dietrich, in Tinsley's opinion, stays away from the developing drama precisely because of his status of landless stranger combined with personal grief. And only death of his men-at-arms -the Amelungs, exiles like himself, awakens Dietrich from his passiveness, and turns a "reluctant hero" into a "super-hero" whose exploits determine the outcome of the conflict [8, 45].
Perhaps, the only researcher, who refuses to see in Dietrich a sort of "a ray of sunlight in the darkness" is an American scholar Winder McConnell, who in his monograph decisively declares:
"Dietrich is no more a representative of "Christian knighthood" than is Hagen. His main concern is to establish a new empire with his Amelungs, and thus he is primarily self-oriented. Dietrich doesn't embody any "new spirit" or does he represent a sign of hope for the future.. ..he is a victim of fate, not its master [6, 57]. The authors of this work completely agree with this point of view, and set ourselves a task of discussing it in more detail, adding our own arguments and relying on the text of the poem.
Let us begin from the analysis of our hero's social status of. Dietrich - is a Gothic king in exile, who found patronage with the court of Etzel, king of Huns. Dietrich enjoys respect of all the royal court and is a king's favourite- it is evident from the episodes, where he walks by Eztel's side or sits during the ceremonies next to Etzel. He is supported by his retainers the Amelungs - his personal combat guard, consisting of knights, who followed him to exile. By accurate service to Huns Dietrich hopes to earn military support and to return to himself his throne in Italy (Bern is modern Verona). Dietrich appears before the reader as an imposing figure - a powerful warrior, famous in wars and enjoying moral authority. He knows everyone around and everyone knows him, he is loved by the king and feared by the queen.
When the Burgundians arrive in Gran, Dietrich is the first to meet them and he warns them about the trap laid out for them by Kriemhild. It is remarkable, that in contrast to the cinematographic and dramaturgical variants of the poem by German directors and writers, in the original text of the poem Dietrich does not call Hagen and his lords "murderers" - the death of Siegfried is long forgotten, Dietrich voices no moral censure, but addresses Hagen as an old friend, takes him by the hand, walks with him, calls him "the protector of the Nibelungs" ("trdsf) and again and again warns him about the danger, so all attempts of the scholars to speak about "moral triumph" of Dietrich over the Burgundians do not find support in the text of the poem.
If the Burgundians and their leader Hagen enjoy Dietrich's sympathy, the insidious plot of Kriemhild's, on the contrary, causes his indignation. Dietrich calls his lady and queen «valandine» - "she-devil" into her very face. But the question nevertheless arises before the attentive reader: why Dietrich, informed about Kriemhild's plans, did not undertake any more decisive steps in order to avoid the slaughter? Why didn't he simply inform king Etzel? After all, to warn the Burgundians didn't help much -they practically could do nothing to avoid the catastrophe, apart from holding tight to their weapons, whereas Etzel who hadn't planed to unleash war with Burgundy, could have saved his guests with his single word. But Dietrich, after yielding to impulse, immediately holds back - he doesn't rise to protect the Burgundians, does not attempt to open king Etzel's eyes, his angry remark addressed to Kriemhild remains no more than an emotional flash, which only aggravated the situation [6,55-56] .
It seems to us that after becoming a witness of the first skirmish between Kriemhild and Hagen, Dietrich suddenly realizes how high the stakes are. He observes these two embracing each other in the deathly tango, notes how furiously both of them long for the fight, and realizes that neither reconciliation, nor negotiation is possible here - a storm is coming. And he should stay from the epicentre of this storm as far as possible, because he can only be in the loss here. Actually, had Dietrich begun to directly intercede for the Burgundians, he would have immediately brought onto himself the hostility of the queen, and furthermore it is possible that in the unleashing conflict king Etzel would support his beloved wife. However, to join Kriemhild would mean reputation losses, and without the sanction of the king it could hardly bring many dividends.
The position of neutrality allows Dietrich to avoid human losses without damages to his own glory and reputation, to keep his private army and his high status, and to enjoy respect of both parties. And therefore while confrontation between the queen and her brothers passes into a phase of active military operations, Dietrich loudly declares his intention to remain out of fight and right there receives desirable immunity from both the Burgundians and Etzel. Using the inviolability received from Gunter, he brings the Hun royal couple out of the hall, scoring himself points from this party too, and disappears from the narration until the penultimate chapter of the poem when the death of his own men compels him to engage the Burgundians in a fight.
It should be noted that neither the reserved manners of the hero, nor respect shown to him by the other characters of the poem would gain for Dietrich the unanimous love of critics and the name of a "truly Christian knight", if it were not for his famous duel with Hagen and Gunter. Right before the fight Dietrich suggests two heroes should give themselves prisoners and promises them his protection - he even undertakes to personally bring them back to Burgundy. When Hagen proudly refuses, Dietrich engages with him in a fight and takes him prisoner alive, then captivates king Gunter and hands them both out to Kriemhild on condition that she will spare their lives. In this entire episode Dietrich might seem to display truly Christian humanity and mercy to his opponents - at least many readers and critics believe so. But is this episode really as unambiguous as it seems?
Let's see how the narration in the poem develops. Having appeared before the Burgundians, Dietrich starts reproaching them with the death of his men and demands compensation for the loss. It is remarkable that nothing is said at this moment of Siegfried's death, of Kreimhild's revenge or of the interests of king Etzel. Dietrich speaks exclusively about the damage which the Burgundians caused him and demands from them to compensate for his loss. Having killed all of Dietrich's vassals they according to his words, turned him into "armer Dietrich" - "a misfortunate, a poor one".
The Middle German word "arm" - "deprived of the power and provisions" - indicated a crucial falling of the status, but not material deprivations [4, 142], and this falling of prestige the Burgundians, according to Dietrich, have to compensate by an act which will restore the lost prestige - to give themselves in captivity. The text of the poem doesn't leave doubts that such is the motivation of Dietrich's peace proposals:
Irn suit eß niht versprechen, sprach aber Dietrich.
Gunther unde Hagene, jâ habt ir beide mich
sô sêre beswœret, daß herze und ouch den muot,
und weit ir michs ergetzen, daß irß vil billîchen tuot. [2, 299]
Dietrich does everything possible to persuade the Burgundians to yield themselves prisoners, he is even ready to personally see them off to Burgundy and thus to refuse his services to the king of Huns (to be fair, king Etzel who by that moment has lost all of his human resources hardly can offer his noble vassal many prospects). Instead of gratitude for such generous offer Hagen von Tronege answers with cold indignation:
Nu enmuotet sîn niht mêre,' sprach aber Hagene.
von uns enzimt daß mœre niht wol ze sagene,
daß sich iu ergœben zwên alsô küene man.
nu siht man bî iu niemen wan eine Hildebrande stân [2, c 300].
The duel starts and Dietrich manages to inflict on Hagen a deep wound. He decides to take his opponent prisoner, unexpectedly breaks off the distance, rushes into a hand-to-hand fight, overturns Hagen onto the ground and binds him. Dietrich explains the reason of his decision in such words:
Do gedâht der hêrre Dieterîch: du bist in nôt erwigen;
ich hâns lützel êre, soltu nu tôt geligen.
ich wil eß sus versuochen, ob ich entwingen kan
dich mir zeinem gîsel. daß wart mit sorgen getân [6, c 300]
A modern reader might think that in these stanzas Dietrich argues that to kill a wounded opponent would bring him dishonour. However in the original lines "ich hâns lützel êre, soltu nu tôt geligen" ("I would have little honour, if you lie dead at my feet") we find the word "êre" meaning a complex of external indicators of a noble-born warrior, such as prestige, glory, wealth and other attributes of aristocracy [5, 149].
We see that Dietrich is concerned with the same question of his own prestige: without having received from the Burgundians compensation in a prestigious equivalent, he looks for a way to restore his reputation. So far as he hasn't succeeded in it by becoming a patron of the captured king, Dietrich resorts to option "B" and captures mighty warriors alive, scoring points for his own reputation ("no one has hitherto taken such notable captives" - he emphasizes in conversation with Kriemhild). Dietrich perfectly knows what it would mean for Hagen and Gunter, he can't possibly fail to realize: for them to be taken prisoners alive means disgrace, tortures and death. Note that it was no one else but Dietrich who had warned the Burgundians about the queen's plans, he knows better than others that no reconciliation is possible between Kriemhild and her adversaries. Therefore his entreaty to spare Hagen sounds like nothing more than a bribe of his own conscience: Dô sprach der hêrre Dieterîch:ir sult in lân genesen, vil edeliu küneginne. eß mac vil wol noch wesen, daß iuch sîn dienst ergetzet, daß er iu hât getân: er sol des niht enkelten, daß irn gebunden sehet stân [2, 301].
This entreaty seems even more pathetic because 1) firstly, the whole military power was in the hands of Dietrich, and if he really wanted to save lives nobody could prevent him 2) secondly, no person in their right mind could believe that Hagen would want to atone for his guilt to Kriemhild by loyal service or that Kriemhild would accept such atonement. The absurdity of such arguments shows that Dietrich undertakes nothing more than an attempt to save face, to throw up a chivalrous veil on reality. Kriemhild without hesitation agrees to his pleading: she is not going to fulfil her promise and knows that no one expects it from her for real.
Dietrich is left to shed his tears and to watch the queen killing his captives one by one: she beheads her own brother, slays the bounded Hagen with her own hands and finally, is herself hacked into pieces by indignant Hildebrand. Together with king Etzel, Dietrich again doesn't interfere in any way - he stands aside and sheds his tears.
Dietrich's namesake, the hero of Medieval Norwegian "Thidreks saga" the important part of which is the same story about the death of Burgundians, behaves differently. In "Saga" Dietrich doesn't humiliate Hagen with the offer to surrender, but starts the duel at once. He takes his opponent prisoner not because he wants to multiply his glory but because wounded Hagen isn't able to resist any more, and Dietrich doesn't want to kill the friend. But the most surprising twist of the plot comes next - Dietrich from "Saga" refuses flatly to give out the captive to Kriemhild! Knowing what Hagen might expect if he were to fall into the queen's hands, Dietrich takes Hagen to his house and nurses his wounds [9, 202]. In "Saga" the hero out of knightly friendship and humanity neglects his personal interests - refusing to give out to the queen her terrible enemy, he, in fact, loses protection of the Hun crown, loses hopes to restore with Huns' help his throne of Bern and even risks his own life. If anyone is worthy of a name of a "truly Christian knight", this is the protagonist of the adventure novel" Thidreks saga", not the sad Dietrich from "Das Nibelungenlied".
It should be noted that neither the author of the poem nor the characters condemn Dietrich for his behaviour and his motives. Altruism is not very inherent in the characters of the poem - each of them acts out of considerations of their own benefit, honour, prestige, glory, satisfaction of their ambitions or emotional needs. Dietrich, in our interpretation, although is not an unambiguously positive and irreproachable hero, is not outlined as a villain. He is no better and no worse than the others. Like the rest of them, he pursues his own purposes, like the rest of them, he gets dragged into the funnel of disastrous hostilities and uncontrolled violence, like the rest of them, he is carried along by the unleashed and unlimited chaos, and although Dietrich succeeds in surviving in the fray, he is a victim like the rest of them - the author of poem does not see him as a hope for future, likewise, he sees in future generally nothing but destruction and death.
REFERENCES
1. Bekker Hugo. The Nibelungenlied: Rüdiger von Bechlaren and Dietrich von Bern // Monatshefte, Vol 66 No 3 (Fall 1974): University of Wisconsin Press. Pp 239-253.
2. Das Nibelungenlied. Ed. Helmut de Boor // Deutsche Klassikerd es Mittelalters, 17th ed. -Wiesbaden, 1963
3. Finch R.G. Rudiger and Dietrich //Trivium Vol. 12 (1977), Pp 39-57
4. Gentry Francis. Arm // The Nibelungen Tradition. An Encyclopedea. - NY and London: Routledge, 2002 ^
5. Gentry Francis. Ere // The Nibelungen Tradition. An Encyclopedea. - NY and London: Routledge, 2002, Pp 149-150
6. McConnell Winder. The Nibelungenlied. -Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1984.
7. Nagel Bert. Das Dietrichbild des Nibelungenliedes // ZdPh Vol. 78 (1959), Pp 250-272
8. Tinsley David. The Face of the Foreigner in Medieval German Courtly Literature // Meeting the Foreign in the Middle Ages. -NY and London: Routledge, 2002.
9. The Saga of Thidrek of Bern. Translated by Edward R. Haymes. - NY: Garland, 1988.
10. Weber Gottfried. Das Nibelungenlied: Problem und Idee. - Stuttgart: Metzler, 1963.
