Narration in Transition: The Herzog Adelger Episode of the Kaiserchronik
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stands among the early works of Middle High German literature that began to appear from the mid-eleventh century after a hiatus of roughly 150 years during which written literature in the vernacular died out. The prologue of the suggests that its author takes a conservative, critical attitude towards the new vernacular developments. The purpose of the text, the audience is told, is to respond to contemporary distortions (Kaiserchronik 27-31)1by providing a historically accurate record of the past that describes the popes and kings who have ruled the Roman Empire (15-23). However, neither the claim to historical veracity nor the program of illustrating the ideal relationship between Church and Empire is pursued consistently throughout the text. Basic details such as the sequence of emperors and the duration of their reigns are inaccurate, and in a number of episodes Church and Emperor are overshadowed by embedded material that is secular and more akin to fiction than historical fact. The Herzog Adelger section (6622-7135) is an example of such an episode. Retold in the Grimms' Deutsche Sagen (no. 491,549-55), 2 it describes two disputes between Adelger, a Bavarian duke, and Severus, the Roman Emperor. Severus is finally defeated after he fails to understand a warning given by Adelger's former adviser in the form of a fable about an arrogant stag. After describing the literary and historical context in which the Adelger episode was written and received, this article shows that the narrative's meaning lies in its internal form rather than in the external factors of history or religious allegory, and that the episode reflects the interaction of orality and literacy in contemporary culture. Abbot Kuno of Siegburg probably brought the Annolied, the source of the Caesar section of the (267-602), to Regensburg when he was appointed bishop there in 1126 (Nellmann, Kaiserchronik cols. 952-53). This
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".