Dante Gabriel Rossetti - "The House of Life"

Thomas de Quincey - "Theological Essays and Other Papers v1"

William Shakespeare - "The Comedy of Errors"

Mrs. L.T. Meade - "A Sweet Girl Graduate"

The Nibelungenlied

U >> Unkown >> The Nibelungenlied




Brynhild remains unconvinced, and plans Sigurd's death, and
threatens Gunnar with the loss of dominion and life, if he will
not kill Sigurd. After some hesitation, Gunnar consents, and,
calling Hogni, informs him that he must kill Sigurd, in order to
obtain the treasure of the Rhinegold. Hogni warns him against
breaking his oath to Sigurd, when it occurs to Gunnar, that his
brother Gutthorm had sworn no oath and might do the deed. Both
now proceed to excite the latter's greed, and give him wolf's and
snake meat to eat to make him savage. Twice Gutthorm makes the
attempt, as Sigurd lies in bed, but is deterred by the latter's
penetrating glance. The third time he finds Sigurd asleep, and
pierces him with his sword. Sigurd, awakening at the pain, hurls
his own sword after his murderer, fairly cutting him in two. He
then dies, protesting his innocence and designating Brynhild as
the instigator of his murder. Brynhild at first laughs aloud at
Gudrun's frantic grief, but later her joy turns into sorrow, and
she determines to share Sigurd's death. In vain they try to
dissuade her; donning her gold corselet, she pierces herself with
a sword and begs to be burned on Sigurd's funeral pyre. In dying
she prophesies the future, telling of Gudrun's marriage to "Atli"
and of the death of the many men which will be caused thereby.

After Brynhild's death Gudrun in her sorrow flees to the court of
King "Half" of Denmark, where she remains seven years. Finally
Grimhild learns of the place of her daughter's concealment, and
tries to bring about a reconciliation with Gunnar and Hogni.
They offer her much treasure, if she will marry Atli. At first
she refuses and thinks only of revenge, but finally she consents
and the marriage is celebrated in Atli's land. After a time
Atli, who is envious of Gunnar's riches, for the latter had taken
possession of Sigurd's hoard, invites him to his court. A man
named "Vingi", who was sent with the invitation, changes the
runes of warning, which Gudrun had given him, so that they, too,
read as an invitation. The brothers determine to accept the
invitation, and, though warned by many dreams, they set out for
Atli's court, which they reach in due time. Vingi now breaks
forth into exultations, that he has lured them into a snare, and
is slain by Hogni with a battle axe.

As they ride to the king's hall, Atli and his sons arm themselves
for battle, and demand Sigurd's treasure, which belongs by right
to Gudrun. Gunnar refuses to surrender it, and the fight begins,
after some exchange of taunting words. Gudrun tries at first to
reconcile the combatants, but, failing, arms herself and fights
on the side of her brothers. The battle rages furiously with
great loss on both sides, until nearly all of the Nibelungs are
killed, when Gunnar and Hogni are forced to yield to the power of
numbers and are captured and bound. Gunnar is asked, if he will
purchase his life with the treasure. He replies that he first
wishes to see Hogni's bleeding heart. At first the heart of a
slave is cut out and brought to him, but Gunnar recognizes it at
once as that of a coward. Then they cut out Hogni's heart, who
laughs at the pain. This Gunnar sees is the right one, and is
jubilant, for now Atli shall never obtain the treasure, as Gunnar
alone knows where it is hid. In a rage Atli orders Gunnar to be
thrown to the snakes. Though his hands are bound, Gunnar plays
so sweetly with his toes on the harp, which Gudrun has sent him,
that all the snakes are lulled to sleep, with the exception of an
adder, which stings him to the heart, so that he dies.

Atli now walks triumphantly over the dead bodies, and remarks to
Gudrun that she alone is to blame for what has happened. She
refuses his offers of peace and reconciliation, and towards
evening kills her two sons "Erp" and "Eitil", and serves them at
the banquet, which the king gives for his retainers. When Atli
asks for his sons, he is told that he had drunk their blood mixed
with wine and had eaten their hearts. That night when Atli is
asleep, Gudrun takes Hogni's son "Hniflung", who desires to
avenge his father, and together they enter Atli's room and thrust
a sword through his breast. Atli awakes from the pain, only to
be told by Gudrun that she is his murderess. When he reproaches
her with thus killing her husband, she answers that she cared
only for Sigurd. Atli now asks for a fitting burial, and on
receiving the promise of this, expires. Gudrun carries out her
promise, and burns the castle with Atli and all his dead
retainers. Other Edda songs relate the further adventures of
Gudrun, but they do not concern us here, as the "Nibelungenlied"
stops with the death of the Nibelungs.

This in brief is the story of Siegfried, as it has been handed
down to us in the Skandinavian sources. It is universally
acknowledged that this version, though more original than the
Gorman tradition, does not represent the simplest and most
original form of the tale; but what the original form was, has
long been and still is a matter of dispute. Two distinctly
opposite views are held, the one seeing in the story the
personification of the forces of nature, the other, scouting the
possibility of a mythological interpretation, seeks a purely
human origin for the tale, namely, a quarrel among relatives for
the possession of treasure. The former view is the older, and
obtained almost exclusively at one time. The latter has been
gaining ground of recent years, and is held by many of the
younger students of the legend. According to the mythological
view, the maiden slumbering upon the lonely heights is the sun,
the wall of flames surrounding her the morning red
("Morgenrote"). Siegfried is the youthful day who is destined to
rouse the sun from her slumber. At the appointed time he
ascends, and before his splendor the morning red disappears. He
awakens the maiden; radiantly the sun rises from its couch and
joyously greets the world of nature. But light and shade are
indissolubly connected; day changes of itself into night. When
at evening the sun sinks to rest and surrounds herself once more
with a wall of flames, the day again approaches, but no longer in
the youthful form of the morning to arouse her from her slumber,
but in the sombre shape of Gunther, to rest at her side. Day has
turned into night; this is the meaning of the change of forms.
The wall of flame vanishes, day and sun descend into the realm of
darkness. Under this aspect the Siegfried story is a day myth;
but under another it is a myth of the year. The dragon is the
symbol of winter, the dwarfs of darkness. Siegfried denotes the
bright summer, his sword the sunbeams. The youthful year grows
up in the dark days of winder. When its time has come, it goes
forth triumphantly and destroys the darkness and the cold of
winter. Through the symbolization the abstractions gain form and
become persons; the saga is thus not a mere allegory, but a
personification of nature's forces. The treasure may have
entered the saga through the widespread idea of the dragon as the
guardian of treasure, or it may represent the beauty of nature
which unfolds when the season has conquered. In the last act of
the saga, Siegfried's death, Wilmanns, the best exponent of this
view, sees again a symbolic representation of a process of
nature. According to him it signifies the death of the god of
the year in winter. In the spring he kills the dragon, in the
winter he goes weary to his rest and is foully slain by the
hostile powers of darkness. Later, when this act was connected
with the story of Gunther's wooing Brunhild, the real meaning was
forgotten, and Siegfried's death was attributed to the grief and
jealousy of the insulted queen.

Opposed now to the mythological interpretation is the other view
already spoken of, which denies the possibility of mythological
features, and does not seek to trace the legend beyond the heroic
stage. The best exponent of this view is R. C. Boer, who has
made a remarkable attempt to resolve the story into its simplest
constituents. According to him the nucleus of the legend is an
old story of the murder of relatives ("Verwandienmord"), the
original form being perhaps as follows. Attila (i.e., the enemy
of Hagen under any name)is married to Hagen's sister Grimhild or
Gudrun. He invites his brother-in-law to his house, attacks him
in the hope of obtaining his treasure, and kills him. According
to this view Hagen was originally the king, but later sinks to a
subordinate position through the subsequent connection of the
story with the Burgundians. It is of course useless to hunt for
the date of such an episode in history. Such a murder could have
frequently occurred, and can be localized anywhere. Very early
we find this Hagen story united with the Siegfried legend. If
the latter is mythological, then we have a heterogeneous
combination, a mythical legend grafted on a purely human one.
This Boer thinks unlikely, and presents a number of arguments to
disprove the mythical character of the Siegfried story, into
which we cannot enter here. He comes, however, to the
conclusion, that the Siegfried tale is likewise purely human, and
consisted originally of the murder of relatives, that is, a
repetition of the Hagen title. Siegfried is married to Hagen's
sister, and is killed by his brother-in-law because of his
treasure. The kernel of the legend is, therefore, the enmity
between relatives, which exists in two forms, the one in which
the son-in-law kills his father-in-law, as in the "Helgi" saga,
the other in which Hagen kills his son-in-law and is killed by
him, too, as in the "Hilde" saga. The German tradition tries to
combine the two by introducing the new feature, that Kriemhild
causes the death of her relatives, in order to avenge her first
husband. Boer is of the opinion that both the Norse and the
German versions have forgotten the original connection between
the two stories, and that this connection was nothing more nor
less than the common motive of the treasure. The same treasure,
which causes Hagen to murder Siegfried, causes his own death in
turn through the greed of Attila. There was originally,
according to Boer, no question of revenge, except the revenge of
fate, the retribution which overtakes the criminal. This feeling
for the irony of fate was lost when the motive, that Hagen kills
Siegfried because of his treasure, was replaced by the one that
he does it at the request of Brunhild. This leads Boer to the
conclusion, that Brunhild did not originally belong to the
Siegfried story, but to the well-known fairy tale of Sleeping
Beauty ("Erlosungsmurchen"), which occurs in a variety of forms.
The type is that of a hero who rescues a maiden from a magic
charm, which may take the form of a deep sleep, as in the case of
Sleeping Beauty, or of being sewed into a garment, as in No. 111
of Grimm's fairy tales. By the union of the two stories, i.e.,
the Hagen-Siegfried saga with the Sleeping Beauty tale, Siegfried
stands in relation to two women; on the one hand his relation to
Sigrdrifa-Brynhild, the maiden whom he rescues on the rock, on
the other his marriage with Grimhild-Gudrun and his consequent
death. This twofold relation had to be disposed of, and since
his connection with Grimhild was decisive for his fate, his
relation to Brunhild had to be changed. It could not be entirely
ignored, for it was too well known, therefore it was given a
different interpretation. Siegfried still rescues a maiden from
the rock, not for himself, however, but for another. The
exchange of forms on the part of Siegfried and Gunther is a
reminiscence of the older form. It gives the impression, that
Siegfried, and yet not Siegfried, won the bride. This alteration
probably took place when the Burgundians were introduced into the
legend. With this introduction an unlocalized saga of unknown
heroes of ancient times became one of events of world-wide
importance; the fall of a mighty race was depicted as the result
of Siegfried's death. To render this plausible, it was necessary
on the one hand to idealize the hero, so that his death should
appear as a deed of horror demanding fearful vengeance, and on
the other, to make the king of the Burgundians an active
participator in Siegfried's death, for otherwise it would not
seem natural, that the whole race should be exterminated for a
crime committed by the king's brother or vassal. As the role of
Brunhild's husband had become vacant, and as Gunther had no
special role, it was natural that it should be given to him.
Boer traces very ingeniously the gradual development of this
exchange of roles through the various sources.

Another method of explaining away Siegfried's relation to two
women is to identify them, and this has been done by the Seyfrid
ballad. Here the hero rescues Kriemhild from the power of the
dragon, marries her, and then is later killed by her brothers
through envy and hatred. As Brunhild and Kriemhild are here
united in one person, there is no need of a wooing for the king,
nor of vengeance on the part of Brunhild, accordingly the old
motive of greed (here envy) reappears.

As to the fight with the dragon, Boer believes that it did not
originally belong to the saga, for in none of the sources except
the popular ballad is the fight with the dragon connected with
the release of Brunhild. If the Siegfried-Hagen story is purely
human, then the dragon cannot have originally belonged to it, but
was later introduced, because of the widespread belief in the
dragon as the guardian of treasure, and in order to answer the
question as to the provenience of the hoard. This is, however,
only one answer to the question. Another, widespread in German
legends, is that the treasure comes from the Nibelungs, that is,
from the dwarfs. Many identify the dwarfs and the dragon, but
this finds no support in the sources, for here the dwarfs and
Fafnir are never confused. The "Nibelungenlied" describes an
adventure with each, but the treasure is only connected with the
dwarfs. The "Thidreksaga" knows only the dragon fight but not
the dwarfs, as is likewise the case with the Seyfrid ballad.
Only in the Norse sources do we find a contamination. The story
of Hreithmar and his sons, who quarrel about the treasure,
resembles that of Schilbung and Nibelung in the "Nibelungenlied",
and probably has the same source. One of the sons, because of
his guarding the treasure, is identified with the dragon, and so
we read that Fafnir becomes a dragon, after gaining the treasure.
Originally, however, he was not a dragon, but a dwarf. These two
independent forms can be geographically localized. The dwarf
legend is the more southern; it is told in detail in the
"Nibelungenlied". The dragon legend probably originated in the
Cimbrian peninsula, where the "Beowulf" saga, in which the dragon
fight plays such an important part, likewise arose.

There thus stand sharply opposed to each other two theories, one
seeing in the Siegfried saga a personification of natural forces,
the other tracing it back to a purely human story of murder
through greed. It may be, that the true form of the original
saga lies half way between these two views. The story of the
fall of the Nibelungs, that is, their killing at Etzel's court,
may go back to the tale of the murder of relatives for money. On
the other hand it is hard to believe that the Siegfried saga is
nothing but a repetition of the Attila motive, for this is too
brief a formula to which to reduce the long legend of Siegfried,
with its many deeds. Even if we discard the mythological
interpretation, it is the tale of a daring hero, who is brought
up in the woods by a cunning dwarf. He kills a dragon and takes
possession of his hoard, then rescues a maiden, imprisoned upon a
mountain, as in the older Norse version and the popular ballad,
or in a tower, as in the "Thidreksaga", and surrounded either by
a wall of fire, as in the Norse, or by a large body of water, as
in the "Nibelungenlied". After betrothing himself to the maiden,
he sets forth in search of further adventures, and falls into the
power of an evil race, who by their magic arts lure him to them,
cause his destruction, and then obtain his treasure and the
maiden for themselves. By her very name Sigrdrifa belongs to
Siegfried, just as Gunther and Gudrun-Grimhild belong together,
and it seems hardly possible that she should have entered the
story later, as Boer would have us believe. After all, it is
largely a matter of belief, for it is impossible to prove
positively that mythical elements did or did not exist in the
original.

To the combined Siegfried-Nibelung story various historical
elements were added during the fifth century. At the beginning
of this period the Franks were located on the left bank of the
Rhine from Coblenz downward. Further up the river, that is, to
the south, the Burgundians had established a kingdom in what is
now the Rhenish Palatinate, their capital being Worms and their
king "Gundahar", or "Gundicarius", as the Romans called him. For
twenty years the Burgundians lived on good terms with the
surrounding nations. Then, growing bolder, they suddenly rose
against the Romans in the year 436, but the rebellion was quietly
suppressed by the Roman general Aetius. Though defeated, the
Burgundians were not subdued, and the very next year they broke
their oaths and again sought to throw off the Roman yoke. This
time the Romans called to their aid the hordes of Huns, who had
been growing rapidly in power and were already pressing hard upon
the German nations from the east. Only too glad for an excuse,
the Huns poured into the land in great numbers and practically
swept the Burgundian people from the face of the earth.
According to the Roman historians, twenty thousand Burgundians
were slain in this great battle of the Catalaunian Fields.
Naturally this catastrophe, in which a whole German nation fell
before the hordes of invading barbarians, produced a profound
impression upon the Teutonic world. The King Gundahar, the
Gunther of the "Nibelungenlied", who also fell in the battle,
became the central figure of a new legend, namely, the story of
the fall of the Burgundians.

Attila is not thought to have taken part in the invasion, still,
after his death in 454, his name gradually came to be associated
with the slaughter of the Burgundians, for a legend operates
mainly with types, and as Attila was a Hun and throughout the
Middle Ages was looked upon as the type of a cruel tyrant, greedy
for conquest, it was but natural for him to play the role
assigned to him in the legend. Quite plausible is Boer's
explanation of the entrance of Attila into the legend. The
"Thidreksaga" locates him in Seest in Westphalia. Now this
province once bore the haute of "Hunaland", and by a natural
confusion, because of the similarity of the names, "Huna" and
"Huns", Attila, who is the chief representative of Hunnish power,
was connected with the legend and located at Seest. This would
show that the original extension of the legend was slight, as
Xanten, the home of Hagen, is but seventy miles from Seest. The
original form would then be that Hagen was slain by a king of
"Hunaland", then because history relates that the Burgundians
were slain by the Huns, the similarity of the names led to the
introduction of Attila and the identification of the Nibelungs
with the Burgundians. The fact, too, that the Franks rapidly
took possession of the district depopulated by the crushing
defeat of the Burgundians likewise aided the confusion, and thus
the Franks became the natural heirs of the legend concerning the
death of Gunther, and so we read of the fall of the Nibelungs, a
name that is wholly Frankish in character. This identification
led also to Attila's being considered the avenger of Siegfried's
death. Poetic justice, however, demands that the slaughter of
the Burgundians at the hands of Attila be also avenged. The
rumor, that Attila's death was not natural, but that he had been
murdered by his wife Ildico ("Hildiko"), gave the necessary
features to round out the story. As Kriemhild was the sister of
the Burgundian kings, it was but natural to explain her killing
of Attila, as described in the Norse versions, by her desire to
avenge her brothers.

In our "Nibelungenlied", however, it is no longer Attila, but
Kriemhild, who is the central figure of the tragedy. Etzel, as
he is called here, has sunk to the insignificant role of a stage
king, a perfectly passive observer of the fight raging around
him. This change was brought about perhaps by the introduction
of Dietrich of Berne, the most imposing figure of all Germanic
heroic lore. The necessity of providing him with a role
corresponding to his importance, coupled with a growing
repugnance on the part of the proud Franks to acknowledge defeat
at the hands of the Huns, caused the person of Attila to dwindle
in importance. Gradually, too, the role played by Kriemhild was
totally changed. Instead of being the avenger of her brothers,
as depicted in the Norse versions, she herself becomes the cause
of their destruction. Etzel is not only innocent of any desire
to harm the Nibelungs, but is even ignorant of the revenge
planned by his wife. This change in her role was probably due to
the feeling that it was incumbent upon her to avenge the murder
of Siegfried.

Our "Nibelungenlied" knows but little of the adventures of
Siegfried's youth as depicted in the Norse versions. The theme
of the poem is no longer the love of Sigurd, the homeless
wanderer, for the majestic Valkyrie Brunhild, but the love idyll
of Siegfried, the son of the king of the Netherlands, and the
dainty Burgundian princess Kriemhild. The poem has forgotten
Siegfried's connection with Brunhild; it knows nothing of his
penetrating the wall of flames to awake and rescue her, nothing
of the betrothal of the two. In our poem Siegfried is carefully
reared at his father's court in the Netherlands, and sets out
with great pomp for the court of the Burgundians. In the Norse
version he naturally remains at Gunther's court after his
marriage, but in our poem he returns to the Netherlands with his
bride. This necessitates the introduction of several new scenes
to depict his arrival home, the invitation to the feast at Worms,
and the reception of the guests on the part of the Burgundians.

In the "Nibelungenlied" the athletic sports, as an obstacle to
the winning of Brunhild, take the place of the wall of flames of
the older Norse versions. Siegfried and Gunther no longer change
forms, but Siegfried dons the "Tarnkappe", which renders him
invisible, so that while Gunther makes the motions, Siegfried
really does the work, a thing which is rather difficult to
imagine. The quarrel of the two queens is likewise very
differently depicted in the "Nibelungenlied" from what it is in
the Norse version. In the latter it takes place while the ladies
are bathing in the river, and is brought on by the arrogance of
Brunhild, who refuses to stand lower down the stream and bathe in
the water flowing from Gudrun to her. In the "Thidreksaga" it
occurs in the seclusion of the ladies' apartments, but in our
poem it culminates in front of the cathedral before the assembled
court, and requires as its background all the pomp and splendor
of medieval chivalry. With a master hand and a wonderful
knowledge of female character, the author depicts the gradual
progress of the quarrel until it terminates in a magnificent
scene of wounded pride and malignant hatred. Kriemhild, as
usual, plays the more important part, and, while standing up for
her rights, tries in every way to conciliate Brunhild and not to
hurt her feelings. At last, however, stung by the taunts of the
latter, she in turn loses her patience, bursts out with the whole
story of the twofold deception to which Brunhild has been
subjected, and then triumphantly sweeps into the church, leaving
her rival stunned and humiliated by the news she has heard. In
the Norse tradition the scene serves merely to enlighten Brunhild
as to the deception played upon her. In the "Nibelungenlied" it
becomes the real cause of Siegfried's death, for Brunhild plans
to kill Siegfried to avenge the public slight done to her. She
has no other reason, as Siegfried swears that there had been no
deception. Brunhild appeals to us much less in the
"Nibelungenlied" than in the Norse version. In the latter she
feels herself deeply wronged by Siegfried's faithlessness, and
resolves on his death because she will not be the wife of two
men. In our poem she has no reason for wishing his death except
her wounded pride. In the "Nibelungenlied", too, she disappears
from view after Siegfried's death, whereas in the Norse tradition
she ascends his funeral pyre and dies at his side.

The circumstances of Siegfried's death are likewise totally
different in the two versions. In the Norse, as we have seen, he
is murdered while asleep in bed, by Gunnar's younger brother
Gutthorm. In our poem he is killed by Hagen, while bending over
a spring to drink. This is preceded by a scene in which Hagen
treacherously induces Kriemhild to mark the one vulnerable spot
on Siegfried's body, on the plea of protecting him. This deepens
the tragedy, and renders Kriemhild's misery and self-reproaches
the greater. After Siegfried's burial his father, who had also
come to Worms with his son, vainly endeavors to persuade
Kriemhild to return with him to the Netherlands. Her refusal is
unnatural in the extreme, for she had reigned there ten years or
more with Siegfried, and had left her little son behind, and yet
she relinquishes all this and remains with her brothers, whom she
knows to be the murderers of her husband. This is evidently a
reminiscence of an earlier form in which Siegfried was a homeless
adventurer, as in the "Thidreksaga".

Copyright (c) 2007. topbookz.net. All rights reserved.