Talk:Pied Piper of Hamelin

"It's been 100 years since our children left."

I looked up the source for this excerpt (9th citation). I found the passage in question in google books preview and it says (on page 89): "No written account appears in the town chronicles until a 1384 entry that read: 'It is 10 years since our children left.'" Also, it says on the wikipage that "Also, Hamelin town records start with this event" telling the reader that Hamelin's historical record opens with the pied piper, but the source for the citation may only be referring to the first reference to the event of when "our children left" specifically. The reader of Harty's essay mightn't conclude that's how the town's records begin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.68.165 (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually I think this claim (and anything else from the same source) should be removed entirely. The article it's cited from is from a book on business management, with a whopping two paragraphs of (totally uncited) Pied Piper information serving solely as a lead-in for an extended analogy about business. Somehow I doubt the author made the journey to the Hamelin municipal archives for that purpose. So she's either just repeating some story she heard, or she managed to find an earlier source for this claim that has eluded the rest of us. Given the context, I think the former is a lot more likely, but either way, this claim doesn't belong here with a source of this quality. (It's nowhere to be found in the German version of the article either, for what it's worth.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok I've looked into this some more and it's a real mess. User:Lisapollison first added this quote and citation way back in 2008. At that point, it said 10 years, as it does now. Two years later an IP user changed 10 to 100 without comment, presumably because 100 fit the timeline as given in the rest of the article much better than 10, and he assumed it was a typo. And so it remained for nine years until you finally noticed and changed it back.

In the meantime, the "100 years" version spread through the Internet like wildfire, to the point that it seems at first glance to be well-established fact. But none of the results I checked cited anything more specific than "the town chronicle," and they all seemed like places that might easily have just cribbed the info from Wikipedia.

So it seems what we have here is this: in 1994, some business consultant gives a brief, vague recap of the Pied Piper story as the opening to an otherwise-unrelated article. She includes a quotation from the town chronicle that she found...somewhere...which doesn't even line up with the other dates in her own article. A Wikipedian stumbles upon this article in 2008 and duly adds the information even though it doesn't really make sense. Two years later, someone else notices that it doesn't, and "fixes" it. The "fixed" version seems plausible, is still (mis-)cited to a book, and has a sort of hauntingly evocative air, so it gets repeated all over, even being used as the title of a podcast about the mystery. At this point it's probably so ingrained as part of the story that we'll have people trying to add it back forever.

It's not quite Seigenthaler, but I'd say we got a pretty big collective egg on our face on this one. That is, unless someone shows up with a scan of the town chronicle or something and redeems it all! But I'm not holding my breath here. -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you 222.152.68.165 for raising it and big thank you Elmer Clark for the extremely thorough and well-researched response. I had a quick look online and although there is some reference to it the German is slightly obscure (to me!) and it absolutely does not nail it to either 10 or 100 years in anything I have yet found. I agree that the source doesn't seem like it can possibly be an RS for Hamelin no matter how great it is on education funding or whateverthehell it's about. My instinct (which has no role to play here!) is that the shorter period is probably more likely but really, if it is that well-established at any time period, 10 or 100 or three weeks, surely it is documented somewhere so we don't have to make stuff up or rely on ludicrously tenuous references? So I agree that right now it should be removed. If any of us can do further research we can always revisit this, and it is all here on the Talk page (which needs archiving by the way) and in the history. But for now I think we should move to take it out, and soon. In this present form it's just too flimsy for an encyclopaedia. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Important COI notice: I once played in a very good children's opera called Koppelberg and am therefore a major international expert on this topic. Unfortunately the show was set at the time of the events, not later, and no-one even had a line saying I must make a note to write all this up in the town chronicles in ten years, ermmm, or do I mean a hundred? Has anyone got a pencil please? Chiz sa Molesworth. Best to all. DBaK (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

For the moment, I have marked it as needing a better source, and have "corrected" it back to 10, which is supported, however weakly, by the only source we currently have. I'd be delighted if someone took action on this, or if it still needs doing next time I get a chance, I could. The discussion seems to have gone quiet but I suppose we could argue silence=consent? Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to follow up a little on this, albeit after a gap (sorry). Because of Elmer Clark's very useful work above I did, on 19 May 2019, order the Education And The Market Place book. I carefully read the Pied Piper bits and then I threw the book away as I do not need a massively out-of-date book on that topic. I can confirm that there is nothing useful in this book for our article – nothing that hints for a moment that we should treat it as an RS. Harty does not quote reliable sources for this: she just states stuff. I am sure she is or was great on Education And The Market Place but, as Elmer says, the PP stuff is serving solely as a lead-in for an extended analogy about business. So, if she had talked about dogs or piccolo trumpets or Boeing aircraft then again it might have helped illustrate her point, but would be most unlikely to be stuff we needed to quote in encyclopaedia articles on those topics. It has no place at all here, and I have therefore removed the reference to her, and the side-mention of her in another ref. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I had hoped I would have to have something relevant to add here, but my findings have been inconclusive. I can, however, add what I found. The double dating appears to have been a real thing: BeatriceCastle (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

"The oldest city book of the city of Hameln – the first dated entry is from the year 1311 – is a Bergamentcoder and mainly contains statues of the council, but also copies of original finds that were probably entered at the same time as the original copy. To conclude several such original finds and a dated statute, all from the 14th century, are now, strangely enough, double dated. The first gives the date and year of issue of the relevant certificate and is from written in the same hand as the whole original find; the second reads in two places: “post exitum puerorum” so and so many years and is, as can be clearly seen, from one hand first half of the 16th century added to the first year been joined. This second year, however, is always different, partly corrected and sometimes correct bringing dating into any relationship. One sees but also on the indistinct pages and etchings that the writer has tried in vain to find one of his coins to bring about the corresponding number. Bielmore loved it. He was mainly interested in saying “our children left” to insert into official documents." Der historische Kern der Hameler Rattenfängerfage (1882) by Dr. O. Meinardus, p. 263-264 BeatriceCastle (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Another source, however, places the statues book to 1375: BeatriceCastle (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

"The alternative dating to 1350 refers to a much-discussed entry in the Hamelin statutes book of 1375 called “Donat”, according to which the obscure addition “post exitum puerorum… cc ° lxxxiij” to the date 1351 refers to the number of days after the move ; see Werner Ueffing, “The Hamelin Rattenfängersage and their historical background”, in: Geschichte undgeschichte , ed. by N. Humburg, Hildesheim 1985, p. 185 ff .; based on: Hans Dobbertin, source collection, Göttingen 1970, p. 12 f." BeatriceCastle (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, all of these sources seem now to have disappeared(!?): The Pied Piper of Hamelin by Eliza Gutch in Folklore (1892) BeatriceCastle (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not so eager to dismiss that this was a real thing, especially as the Lüneburg Manuscript from between c.1370–1450 mentions this tradition. This source had not been discovered yet when Dr. O. Meinardus wrote in 1882 or Eliza Gutch wrote in 1892. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that the documents disappeared in those precise ten years between their writings, meaning that Dr. Meinardus could not have possibly seen them himself. As to the other expert cited by Eliza Gutch, "Herr Sebastian Spilker, Junior Councillor of Hameln (1654?)", I am wary to trust any one opinion, and to quote Agatha Christie, "I am not a handwriting expert—I cannot pronounce definitely (and for that matter, I have never found two handwriting experts who agree on any point." BeatriceCastle (talk)

Oh, and the Latin phrase to look for is: Anno post exitum puerorum nostrorum. BeatriceCastle (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I have after a perusal of the different versions of the Chronica Ecclesiae Hamelensis not been able to find that phrase in there. I cannot, however, conclusively rule out that it could be hiding somewhere in the text, easily overlooked with even a moment’s inattention from the reader. Especially since it appears that the original manuscript yet again is missing (seriously, what is with documents – amongst other things – vanishing mysteriously without a trace from Hamelin? Did the rats return to eat them all?), and what remains are three MSS. (Handwritten copies). BeatriceCastle (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

In the three published versions I looked at, I did however observe something interesting. In the earliest version, the one from 1688, it said:

Anno Domini MCCCLXXXIIII. post oppidemiam quartam ego Joannes de Polda

In the one from 1710, it said:

Anno Domini MCCCLXXXIIII . ( a ) Poft Oppidemiam ( b ) quartam ego Joannes de Polda

While footnote ( a ) is about a mild squabble of whether or not it is supposed to be 1384 or 1374 (very discreet and positively cordial for academia), footnote ( b ) points out that this word is actually supposed to be epidemiam. BeatriceCastle (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

In the one from 1849 (by our friend Dr. Meinardus), it said:

Anno domini 1384 post epydimea (!) quinto ego Johannes de Polde

The exclamation mark is not typical of 14th century texts and must have been added by Dr. Meinardus. Now, translated, this sentence means: "In the year of Our Lord after the fourth epidemic, I, Johannes de Polde" ... Here, precisely after Anno Domini and the year is where one might expect to find the "It is 100 years since our children left". It is not there in any of these three published versions. However, what Johannes de Polde has written instead is interesting because it does not appear to be usual, either. Heinrich Meibom, who in 1688 has transcribed handwritten manuscipt after handwritten manuscript into one densely written, massive tome, does not even appear to have figured out what the word is supposed to be. Dr. Meinardus has marked it with an explanation point. Since Johannes de Polde does not mention the events of 1284 (and everything speaks for it having been an historic event), the omission is probably due to not wishing to annoy some powerful person or another, who, for whatever reason, did not wish to be reminded of them/have them recorded. This is purely speculation, but as we are on the talk page I trust that is permitted amongst ourselves. For the same reason he could therefore have felt forced to omit the traditional Anno post exitum puerorum nostrorum, but unable to break himself of the habit completely, he simply put post-something different. Compare Anno post exitum puerorum nostrorum to post epidemiam quartam. You will often see this in people, especially as they grow older, that when changing over to a different system, they will keep some habit from the old, which actually causes them slightly more work, but which works for them because it feels as if they are doing things right because that is how it has been for so long. BeatriceCastle (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

My second, somewhat amusing observation from Chronica Ecclesiea Hamelensis is that deacon Johannes de Lüde shows up there, too. I now have this image in my mind of him as that archetypical old guy from work with a coffee cup in hand who talks to everybody. BeatriceCastle (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Archive

I would like to archive this ludicrously long and boring and repetitive and repetitive and boring and long and repetitive Talk page and set up some unaggressive auto-archiving for the future. Any dissent, flowers, chocolate, an ting? Please advise. Thanks DBaK (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Go for it! :) -sche (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Now in and working. Let it not be said that it ever takes me more than two years to get round to doing things! Ha. Best to all DBaK (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

To check out

'Locations'

To the east of Hamelin was a gallows where criminals were hung. A 1622 image of the city can be seen here: https://www.dewezet.de/region/hintergrund/hintergrund-seite_artikel,-aberglaube-am-galgenberg-_arid,2504090.html It is today occupied by Galgenberg (literally "gallows hill") a street located at: 52.105078, 9.381509

"Calvary" is another name for golgotha, the place where Jesus was crucified. When the early text says "Calvary", it is possible that the place they were mentioning is the gallows to the east of Hamelin. This means the hill/koppen is the Basberg / Morgenstern hill immediately to the east of the gallows.

'Dancing'

Tarantism was a form of Dancing mania, and was often performed on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, which was the same day the children disappeared from Hamelin.

It may be that the midsummer celebrations in Hamelin 1284 were accompanied by entertainers from outside who were able to get the children to do a dancing craze, which led them out of Hamelin past the gallows area and the hill. There they kidnapped them and the children were then forcibly emigrated elsewhere.

--One Salient Oversight (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Greatly in need of more recent scholarship

The overall tone of this entry is very amateurish. It is based on two unsupported assumptions:

• All myths are garbled accounts of actual historical events.
• People in former times were incapable of remembering things as they actually occurred, and were compelled to recall them via some unexplained dream-like process.

These are the twin assumptions of positivist scholarship which has been out-of-date for generations. Advances in structural anthropology and myth analysis have rendered this kind of thinking obsolete.

It is in one way extremely patronising towards other cultures, making them out to be uncomprehending children incapable of understanding their own experiences.

It is also just unconvincing. Chroniclers of the time seem to have been perfectly capable of recording all sorts of traumatic contemporary events such as plagues, regicides, fire, and earthquakes, but when modern readers encounter an aspect of a culture they have difficulty understanding, they immediately assume the explanation must be that the culture is cognitively defective in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.127.126.38 (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. We are still looking forward to your help editing the article to improve it. DBaK (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Need photograph

Hi, In two places this article talk about some old written evidence about 1824, one on piped piper's house and at the town's gate. If you live in Hemlin, Germany, you have access 9f these places, I want you to add photographs of these evidences, so readers can read it.Success think (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)