the mistake would not have been unpardonable, for he might have
appealed to the authority of Gregory of Tours, who uses not only
Theodoricus, but also Theodorus, as the same name.

A more serious charge, however, was brought against him for having
used the High-German form Dietrich, instead of the original form
Theodereiks or Theoderic, or even Theodoric. Should I have altered
this? I believe not; for it is clear to me that Kingsley had his
good reasons for preferring Dietrich to Theodoric.

He introduces him first to his hearers as 'Theodoric, known in German
song as Dietrich of Bern.' He had spoken before of the Visi-Gothic
Theodoric, and of him he never speaks as Dietrich. Then, why should
he have adopted this High-German name for the great Theodoric, and
why should he speak of Attila too as Etzel?

One of the greatest of German historians, Johannes von Muller, does
the same. He always calls Theodoric, Dietrich of Bern; and though he
gives no reasons for it, his reasons can easily be guessed. Soon
after Theodoric's death, the influence of the German legends on
history, and of history on the German legends, became so great that
it was impossible for a time to disentangle two characters,
originally totally distinct, viz. Thjodrekr of the Edda, the Dietrich
of the German poetry on one side, and the King of the Goths,
Theodoric, on the other. What had long been said and sung about
Thjodrekr and Dietrich was believed to have happened to King
Theodoric, while at the same time historical and local elements in
the life of Theodoric, residing at Verona, were absorbed by the
legends of Thjodrekr and Dietrich. The names of the legendary hero
and the historical king were probably identical, though even that is