On this page, I will discuss the reception of Ritter's theory by the scientific world.
As far as I know, only three articles have been written on Ritter's theory:
Janota's criticism consists mainly of an attack on Ritter's person, followed by some remarks implying that everyone knows Ritter to talk complete nonsense, so it is not necessary to prove it.
For instance, Ritter states that the number of Nibelungen given by the
Thidrekssaga (one thousand) is more likely to be near the truth than
the number given by the Nibelungenlied (twenty thousand).
Janota accuses Ritter of believing the number of Nibelungen to be exactly
one thousand. This of course disproves his entire theory.
In his reaction, Den Besten clearly shows that Janota has completely missed the point. Even if Ritter's theory is incorrect, his discovery of the Duna should be explained, not swept away in virulent rhetoric.
Beck's reaction to Ritter is most interesting, not only for what he says, but even more for what he tacitly assumes.
First, Beck explains it is not worthwile to respond to Ritter's theory in length, weil sie eine totale Revolution herrschender wissenschaftlicher Positionen anbahnten.
Despite this, Beck thinks Ritter may be right with his topographical identifications: the Thidrekssaga may actually believe Dietrich and the Nibelungen to have lived in the Rhineland.
However, Beck explains Ritter's findings by saying that the writer of the saga has moved all action to the Rhineland, his homeland, for the purpose of making the saga more interesting for a local audience.
Finally, he reiterates the orthodox creed that Dietrich von Bern is in fact Theodoric the Great, unfortunately without mentioning any evidence.
Beck's explanation of Ritter's theory is interesting. Indeed, it is quite probable that a professional writer would have slightly altered the story to conform to the taste of his audience. If wealthy princes are interested only in local heroes, a writer should give them what they want (and earn some badly needed money).
This is an excellent explanation of the fact that the Thidrekssaga
reflects the wrong topography.
The question is, however:
At first sight, the answer appears simple: Because the Thidrekssaga
does not reflect the right topography.
How do we know?
The Thidrekssaga has a topography vastly differing from the most reliable source. Therefore, it is wrong.
And here we come to the crux of the matter. It is generally agreed that
the poet of the Nibelungenlied lived somewhere on the Danube, possibly
in Passau.
In the Nibelungenlied the Nibelungen travel along the
Danube, stopping in Passau to be lavishly entertained by its bishop.
Incidentally,this is one of the arguments for placing the poet in Passau.
Can we not assume it was the writer of the Nibelungenlied who changed his topography to conform to the taste of his audience?
Then the Nibelungenlied reflects the wrong topography, making it at least possible that the Thidrekssaga reflects the right one.
Unfortunately, there are arguments against this assumption, since the Nibelungenlied seems to conform to known fifth century sources. Nonetheless, this conformity is not as solid as it appears.
Therefore, we have reached a stalemate. Since Thidrekssaga and Nibelungenlied differ in their topography, it is quite likely that one of them has changed it for the sake of the audience. But which one? We cannot answer this question from topography (and fifth century sources) alone.
Nonetheless, the axioma that the Nibelungenlied is topograhpically (and historically) the most reliable source is not tenable any longer.
The possibility exists, but if scholars want to use this possibility for building new theories, they should make some effort to find some evidence outside the Nibelungenlied.
In the near future, I will discuss the Lex Burgundionum and its worth for identifying the Nibelungen.
Return to the Homepage.