soon, however, when High-German became the more prevalent language
in Germany, German historians knew both of the old legendary hero and of
the Ost-gothic king, by one and the same name, the High-German
_Dietrich_.
If therefore Johannes von Muller spoke of Theodoric of Verona as Dietrich
von Bern, he simply intended to carry on the historical tradition. He
meant to remind his readers of the popular name which they all knew, and
to tell them,--This Dietrich with whom you are all acquainted from your
childhood, this Dietrich of whom so much is said and sung in your
legendary stories and poems, the famous Dietrich of Bern, this is really
the Theoderic, the first German who ruled Italy for thirty-three years,
more gloriously than any Roman Emperor before or after. I see no harm in
this, as long as it is done on purpose, and as long as the purpose which
Johannes von Muller had in his mind, was attained.
No doubt the best plan for an historian to follow is to call every man by
the name by which he called himself. Theodoric, we know, could not
write, but he had a gold plate {6} made in which the first four letters
of his name were incised, and when it was fixed on the paper, the King
drew his pen through the intervals. Those four letters were [Greek
text], and though we should expect that, as a Goth, he would have spelt
his name _Thiudereik_, yet we have no right to doubt, that the vowels
were _eo_, and not _iu_. But again and again historians spell proper
names, not as they were written by the people themselves, but as they
appear in the historical documents through which they became chiefly
known. We speak of Plato, because we have Roman literature between us
and Greece. American names are accepted in history through a Spanish,
Indian names through an English medium. The strictly Old High-German
form of Carolus Magnus would be Charal, A. S. Carl; yet even in the Oaths
of Strassburg (842) the name appears as Karlus and as Karl, and has
remained so ever since {7}. In the same document we find Ludher for
Lothar, Ludhuwig and Lodhuvig for Ludovicus, the oldest form being
Chlodowich: and who would lay down the law, which of these forms shall be
used for historical purposes?
I have little doubt that Kingsley's object in retaining the name Dietrich
for the Ost-gothic king was much the same as Johannes von Muller's. You
know, he meant to say, of Dietrich of Bern, of all the wonderful things
told of him in the Nibelun
|