{page 13}
later versions (e.g. in the Thidrekssaga and the so-called Younger Hildebrandslied of the fourteenth century) the father conquers and spares his son, these have a character entirely different from that of the Old High German poem. The tone of the latter is tragic throughout, and it is now generally accepted that it must have ended with the death of the son.

The poem concerns us here, however, only in so far as it helps us to trace the development of the Dietrich saga. The date of the original composition of the Hildebrandslied is very uncertain, but it is generally ascribed to the commencement of the eighth century, some two hundred years after Theoderic's death. In these two hundred years the story has become almost unrecognisable, all that remains of historical fact being the struggle between Theoderic and Odoacer and, presumably, the defeat of the latter.

It is easy to understand that Zeno's name should have disappeared from the story, and that Dietrich should consequently be represented as acting entirely on his own behalf. Much more difficult to account for is the conception that the hero of the saga had been first driven from his possessions by Odoacer and had lived for thirty years in exile at Attila's court. But it must be remembered that the development of this form
{page 14}
of the saga was due not to the Ostrogoths themselves -- they had ceased to exist as a nation within thirty years of Theoderic's death -- but to other Germanic races. To them Theoderic was the hero of epic songs, and nothing more; in Ostrogothic history they had little or no and such isolated facts as chanced to be remembered would be connected with the developing saga in whatever way seemed most suitable, interest, and without much regard to chronology. We should therefore naturally expect to find the saga considerably at variance with history. The fact that it became a story of expulsion, exile, and return -- a theme common enough in hero-saga -- may be ascribed, with much probability, to a vague recollection of at least three historical facts: (1) Odoacer's deposition of the last Western Emperor; (2) the tributary relationship of the Ostrogoths to the Huns until Attila's death; (3) the interval of thirty years between Theoderic's departure from home to the Byzantine court and his acquisition of a kingdom by his final victory over Odoacer at Ravenna.

Of these three historical facts the last two may have suggested the idea and determined the place (Attila's court) and the duration of Dietrich's exile, and the duration of Dietrich's exile, while the first offers a possible explanation of the growth of a tradition of expulsion followed by a period of exile and eventually
{page 15}
by Dietrich's victorious return. The emperor deposed by Odoacer was a mere boy, otherwise unknown to history. We may assume, therefore, that he was soon forgotten, and that the one fact remembered was that Odoacer had gained his throne by usurpation. As the epic songs narrating Theoderic's struggle with Odoacer spread from the Ostrogoths to other tribes, nothing would be more likely than that Theoderic should have been identified with the victim of Odoacer's usurpation and looked upon as eventually recovering what was rightfully his own. Possibly, too, the general belief in the correctness of this version of the cause of enmity between Theoderic and Odoacer was strengthened by the tradition of a previous Gothic settlement in Italy (based on Alaric's invasion early in the fifth century). In view of this tradition the idea that Odoacer had dispossessed not a Roman, but a Gothic ruler, would readily meet with acceptance.

Whether the above is the true explanation of the early development of the Dietrich saga, or whether that development was due partly or entirely to a tendency to adjust new hero-sagas to already existing types, it seems quite clear that Theoderic and Dietrich are identical, and further evidence in favour of this view will appear as we continue to follow out the growth of the saga. Their identity has, however, been
{page 16}
disputed by some scholars, and a short digression must here be made to notice the views of one of them, J. G. von Hahn.

Some of the earlier investigators of Germanic hero-saga, such as von der Hagen and Trautvette, were led by the striking lives of Theoderic and other historical character and the fortunes of their counterparts in saga to favour a mythical or astronomical rather than a historical origin. Following in their footsteps, Hahn in his Sagwissenschaftliche Studien (Jena, 1876) went so far as to deny the existence of any historical basis whatever either for the Dietrich or for any other saga. In his view Dietrich was only in name identical with the great Theoderic, whose actual history was entirely forgotten, and to whom were attributed the deeds of an ancient mythical sun-hero. The saga itself he held to represent a nature myth, the flight of the summer sun before the dark powers of winter, and its eventual return in spring.

Starting with the assumption that all sagas represent nature myths originating in the prehistoric period before the Indo-European peoples left their common home, Hahn proceeded to compare the Greek, Roman, Germanic, Persian, and Indian saga with a view to establishing their common origin. He arranged the individual
{page 17}
sagas in groups according to the features they had in common, and thus arrived at "Fortune" containing the main features of the original myth. The Dietrich saga he grouped along with eleven others (e.g. the stories of Romulus and Remus, and of Theseus) under what he termed the "Aryan Formula of Exposure and Return," the main features of which were:

I. Birth. ? The hero illegitimate, his mother a princess, his father a god or a stranger.
II. Youth. ? It is prophesied that the hero will supplant his mother's father, hence his exposure; he is suckled by wild beasts, brought up by childless peasants, becomes unmanageable, and goes out into the world to seek service among strangers.
III. Return. ? He enters his mother's country as victor, but is driven out again; on the death of his enemy he secures the throne and frees his mother; he founds a city, and finally dies and extraordinary death.
IV. Subsidiary Characters -- A youth is falsely accused of adultery and put to death; a wronged servant secures his revenge; the younger brother of the hero is murdered.

Unshaken, then, in our belief in the historical origin of the Dietrich saga, we can now resume our study of its development from the simple form recognisable as the background of the Hildebrandslied.

That this form was at an early date widely known is attested by the Anglo-Saxon poem Deor's Lament, in which and allusion is made to Dietrich's thirty years of exile and subsequent return; but it is impossible to say with any certainty to which of the Germanic tribes we owe the development of the saga to this stage. Judging, however, from its further development, it seems to have been more especially among the Alamans on the northern side of the Alps that Dietrich became as favourite hero. Their special interest in the saga would be due partly to the fact that they were the neighbours -- of ten the allies -- of the Ostrogoths during Theoderic's reign and until the reconquest of Italy by Belisarius; and partly, perhaps, to the fact that Dietrich formed a contrast to and earlier Ostrogothic king, Ermanaric, the central figure of another saga, which, though also widely known,
{page 20}
owed its development more particularly to the Alamans. The historical Ermanaric, compared by some Roman historians with Alexander the Great, was a very different character from the Ermanaric of saga. After building up a mighty Gothic empire which extended from the Black Sea to the Gulf of Bothnia, he was in his old age attacked by the Huns on their first appearance in Europe. Unable to induce his subjects to offer any effectual resistance to the se fierce and terrible foes, he committed suicide in 375 A.D.

Tradition, however, assigned him a different end. As early as the sixth century the historian Jordanes¹, himself a Goth, relates rather obscurely that Ermanaric, otherwise the noblest of the Amelungs, avenged the treason of one of his vassals by having his wife Sunilda torn asunder by wild horses. She was in her turn avenged by her brothers, who inflicted on the king a wound that contributed to his death.

Gradually the Ermanaric of saga became the type of cruelty and tyranny, and with him was associated an evil counsellor, Bikka, who, to avenge the death of relatives of his own, incited his master to further atrocities, among them the execution of his only son. According to some of the Norse
-------------------------
¹Jordanis Getica (chap. xxiv.), edited by Mommsen in vol. v., part I., of the Monumenta Germaniæ Historica.