The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun

different question.

§ II Sigmund, Sigurd and the Nibelungs

As the story of the Burgundians evolved it became intertwined with a legend (or legends) distinct in nature and origin: the dragon-slayer and his golden hoard, and the mysterious Nibelungs (German Nibelungen, Norse Niflungar). When that conjunction and combination took place cannot be said, but it seems plain that it was made in Germany, and not in Scandinavia.

This is a matter that raises many questions that cannot be certainly resolved, and its study has been marked by severe disagreements. My father took a deep interest in it; but in his lectures at Oxford he approached it primarily from his desire to convey an idea of the largely vanished heroic poetry of ancient England. Since in this book my object is to present his poems expressly in terms of his own beliefs and opinions, it seems best to introduce this sketch of the subject in the same way, with the same question: what can be learned of it from the scraps and fragmentary references of Old English poetry?

In fact, there is only one text from which to look for an answer to that question, namely, a passage in Beowulf. I give this passage here in my father’s translation of the poem, which he made, I incline to think, at some time not far distant from that in which he wrote the Lay of the Volsungs and the Lay of Gudrun.

Returning from their riding from the hall of Heorot to see the mere into which Grendel had plunged dying, the knights were entertained by a minstrel of the king.

At whiles a servant of the king, a man laden with proud memories who had lays in mind and recalled a host and multitude of tales of old – word followed word, each truly linked to each – this man in his turn began with skill to treat in poetry the quest of Beowulf and in flowing verse to utter his ready tale, interweaving words.

He recounted all that he had heard tell concerning Sigemund’s works of prowess, many a strange tale, the arduous deeds of the W?lsing and his adventures far and wide, deeds of vengeance and of enmity, things that the children of men knew not fully, save only Fitela who was with him. In those days he was wont to tell something of such matters to his sister’s child, even as they ever were comrades in need in every desperate strait – many and many of the giant race had they laid low with swords. For Sigemund was noised afar after his dying day no little fame, since he, staunch in battle, had slain the serpent, the guardian of the Hoard. Yea he, the son of noble house, beneath the hoar rock alone did dare the perilous deed. Fitela was not with him; nonetheless it was his fortune that the sword pierced through the serpent of strange shape and stood fixed in the wall, goodly blade of iron; the dragon died a cruel death. The fierce slayer had achieved by his valour that he might at his own will enjoy that hoard of rings; the boat upon the sea he laded and bore to the bosom of his ship the bright treasures, the offspring of W?ls was he. The serpent melted in its heat.

He was far and wide of adventurers the most renowned throughout the people of mankind for his works of prowess, that prince of warriors – thereby did he aforetime prosper – after the valour and might of Heremod, his might and prowess, had failed...

The remainder of the passage concerns the Danish king Heremod and does not bear on the question at issue here. In a lecture on the subject my father set down what he called ‘preliminary points’ – considerations arising from the Old English evidences alone, without looking further afield. In what follows I give them in abbreviated form but almost entirely in his own words.

There cannot be any serious doubt that the reference in Beowulf is to a story related to the Volsung and Nibelung legends of other lands. The names Sigemund, W?lsing, Fitela (and his relation nefa to eam [nephew to uncle] of Sigemund), and the dragon with his hoard, must on grounds of philology and legend be ultimately the same as Old Norse Sigmundr son of Volsung, with his sister-son Sin-fjotli. This remains true in spite of the serious discrepancies: e.g. that Sigemund (not his son: no hint of whose existence is given) slew the dragon; or that a boat, not a horse, is the vehicle for the treasure.

The Burgundians are not referred to at all in Beowulf. Neither are many, certainly renowned, figures of Germanic story. The argument from silence is peculiarly perilous in dealing with remnants so haphazard and tattered as those we possess of Old English heroic traditions; and might seem absurd when applied to Beowulf, which is a poem, not a catalogue. Yet it actually has some point in this case. The Burgundian names were known to Old English, and the subjects of verse and tale. We cannot be certain that such a connexion was not present to the mind of the author of Beowulf. But it does not look like it.

The Burgundians are indeed known. But where we meet them in Old English, we find an exact reversal of the case in Beowulf. No reference, at any rate, is made to their connexion with Sigemund W?lsing. The very early poem Widsith reveals a wide-flung interest in a huge nexus of legend: admittedly, specially devoted to the Goths or the northern sea-peoples, but it is not silent on more southern Germanic topics. It refers to Gu?here and to Gifica. It does not refer at all to Sigemund, or W?lsing, or Fitela, or the dragon. (Widsith has indeed a specially historical tendency.)

Certain reference to the ‘W?lsingas’ is indeed in Old English literature confined to Beowulf. [My father added ‘literature’ on account of the place-name Walsingham in Norfolk.] If we add to this the absence in nomenclature of the special names peculiar to this story in its full-grown form (Gu?run, Grimhild, Brynhild) we shall be forced at the outset to conclude that it is probable:

that Sigemund W?lsing had no pre-eminent place in Old English traditions, in spite of the words wreccena m?rost used of him in Beowulf [in the translation given above ‘of adventurers the most renowned’], which may be no more than poetic for ‘a famous adventurer’;

that his tale from the earliest times was of the more mythical-legendary kind – not one of the historical- legendary traditions;

that it was not concerned with Burgundians, who certainly were originally figures of history, but with the dark background of the story that in High German had practically faded out of memory: the part that in Old Norse (though remodelled and drastically altered) concerns the mysterious Odinic Volsungs before the advent of Sigurd. The names are Sigemund, Fitela, W?lsing: these we can find trace of (even outside Beowulf ). The names – women’s names especially – which mark the vital connexion with the Burgundians and their fall cannot be discovered in Old English times in Old English form.

These are only probable considerations. But they are important even so. For the tone, manner, and details of the Old English references are peculiarly important. In general we are likely to get in Old English allusions to an earlier state in legendary development, before the confusion or combinations of later days in other lands. It is therefore vital to note that the most reasonable interpretation of Old English material is that the Sigemund story was originally of an older more mythical type; that it co-existed with the Burgundian legend, but was not yet connected with it.

The major problem raised by the passage in Beowulf in its relation to the Norse story as it appears in the Volsunga Saga is of course the fact that in Beowulf Sigemund is famed for his slaying of a dragon and the gaining of its treasure hoard, whereas in Norse Sigmund has nothing to do with any dragon, and it is Sigmund’s son Sigurd who is the famous dragon-slayer. Some scholars have held that