Volume 131, Issue 3

Word stress in German is usually thought of as following the Germanic stress pattern (main stress on first stem syllable); quasi-monomorphemic words like Forélle or Holúnder suggest, however, that Modern German follows a Latinate stress pattern (last syllable extrametrical; stress on the penultima or the antepenultima, depending on weight of the second-to-last syllable). The change in stress pattern occurred in the 16 th and 17 th century, judging from evidence of metrical texts, due to a heavy influx of Latin and Romance loan words in this period, which followed the Latinate stress pattern and were taken as sample for the stressing of monomorphemic words longer than two syllables.

The story of the hoard in ›Beowulf‹ is not consistent. Different answers are given concerning its origin and its function. This essay is trying to make sense of the contradictory specifications by reading the text structurally: In the context of the first story about the treasure, Beowulf is right to fight the dragon in order to defend his people and gain the treasure for them. After his death, a second story is told revealing the underlying rule that a buried hoard must not be plundered. From then on, Beowulf is seen ambivalent for not observing this rule he had not known before. From this point of view, not only the dragon, but also the treasure is Beowulf's opponent.

Literary criticism regards such objects as the magical concealing cloak ( tarnkappe ) and the Nibelungen hoard as poorly integrated into the ›Nibelungenlied‹. It is generally accepted that these so-called fairy tale motifs in the first part of the narrative should not be taken too seriously. By way of contrast this article argues for the significance of these objects. It suggests establishing objects (»things«) as a historically reflected basic category of text analysis, a category which at present is underestimated or even ignored in narratological theories. Thus a new way of reading the ›Nibelungenlied‹ is presented: The magical cloak and the treasure should never have been separated and taken away from the ›Nibelungenland‹. Breaking this rule inevitably leads to disastrous results for human action.

Dietrich von Bern and his armourer Hildebrand seem inseparable. The article focuses on this phenomenon – which is evident in coeval texts – under two different aspects: In the first place, the relationship between Dietrich and Hildebrand is viewed as the tie between a monarch and his closest advisor according to the rules of medieval politics as they have been drawn up by Gerd Althoff. In this respect, the permanence of their relationship results from the lifelong bond that aligns Hildebrand with his lord Dietrich. Secondly, the teacher-student relationship which is evident throughout the text is focussed. Concerning this, Hildebrand does not manage to make his disciple Dietrich gain independence from his teacher.