#eckart

You weren't wrong when you said Dietrich von Bern is everywhere, because he is literally the connective tissue for just about all bits of German and Scandinavian folklore. Going through my notes (various sagas and stories stuffed into a word folder), Faithful Eckart (Getreue Eckart) of Frau Holle and Wild Hunt fame is also connected to him. Eckart is a well-known figure in German folklore. Plenty of jokes are attached to him as a censoring moral guardian. Jorg Wickram wrote a farce about him where he goes around lecturing modern people with their lax morals. Ludwig Tieck popularized the story about him guarding the door of the Venusberg. Goethe wrote a play with him as the guide of lost children. In all his appearances, he guards a pair of children, and for his efforts, is rewarded (or punished) with becoming the porter for the Venusberg and the herald of the Wild Hunt. In his earliest appearance HE WAS LINKED WITH DIETRICH, because his "true" origin story is that he was a knight tasked with guarding two of Ermanaric's nephews. During Ermanaric's betrayal of his kinsmen, he first attacks and murders Eckart's proteges, then unjustly exiles Dietrich. Eckart himself ends up fleeing for parts unknown, after which, according to folklore, he ends up serving Frau Holle. Usually, he sits outside the entrance to Venusberg with a sword over his lap, warning people not to enter, but also willing to help desperate people with words of advice that'll get them out of Venusberg with life and sanity intact. He also acts as harbinger for the Wild Hunt, warning people to go home before the Hunt rides through town, and is a protector of children, especially against his more violent comrades in the Hunt.

!male reader was a knight of eckart that was assigned to be derricks personal guard. as the weeks go by they slowly develop feelings for him that are obsession. they get jealous when seeing their master with other men and women to the point they confess to him in front of entire family. derrick respectfully rejects their feelings saying he views them only as a friend. out of angry they decide to kill him because if they can’t have him no one can and they cry holding his dead body.

Nevertheless, in the act of rebellion as we have envisaged it up to now, an abstract ideal is not chosen through lack of feeling and in pursuit of a sterile demand. We insist that the part of man which cannot be reduced to mere ideas should be taken into consideration—the passionate side of his nature that serves no other purpose than to be part of the act of living. Does this imply that no rebellion is motivated by resentment? No, and we know it only too well in this age of malice. But we must consider the idea of rebellion in its widest sense on pain of betraying it; and in its widest sense rebellion goes far beyond resentment. When Heathcliff, in Wuthering Heights, says that he puts his love above God and would willingly go to hell in order to be reunited with the woman he loves, he is prompted not only by youth and humiliation but by the consuming experience of a whole lifetime. The same emotion causes Eckart, in a surprising fit of heresy, to say that he prefers hell with Jesus to heaven without Him. This is the very essence of love. Contrary to Scheler, it would therefore be impossible to overemphasize the passionate affirmation that underlies the act of rebellion and distinguishes it from resentment. Rebellion, though apparently negative, since it creates nothing, is profoundly positive in that it reveals the part of man which must always be defended.