ISSN 2413-1032

PHILOSOPHY AND PHILOLOGY

THE IMAGE OF DIETRICH VON BERN IN MEDIEVAL

GERMAN EPOS “DAS NIBELUNGENLIED”
1
Sarakaeva Elina
2
Lebedeva Irena
3
Frolova Yulia
1
Hainan University, The college of Foreign Languages,
the Russian Language department, Lecturer;
2
Caspian Institute of Sea & River Transport, associated professor;
3
Caspian 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:

30 № 4(4), Vol.3, December 2015 WORLD SCIENCE

 ISSN 2413-1032

“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” (“trôst”) 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?

WORLD SCIENCE № 4(4), Vol.3, December 2015 31

 ISSN 2413-1032

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 sult eß niht versprechen, sprach aber Dietrich.
Gunther unde Hagene, jâ habt ir beide mich
sô sêre beswæret, daß herze und ouch den muot,
und welt 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 mære niht wol ze sagene,
daß sich iu ergæben zwên alsô küene man.
nu siht man bî iu niemen wan eine Hildebrande stân [2, с 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, с 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.

32 № 4(4), Vol.3, December 2015 WORLD SCIENCE

 ISSN 2413-1032

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. Êre // 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.

WORLD SCIENCE № 4(4), Vol.3, December 2015 33