The Heroic Age

by H. Munro Chadwick

Of all the stories of the Heroic Age probably none has been more frequently referred to a mythical origin than that which deals with Sigurðr (Siegfried). It is held by the great majority of scholars that the Nibelungenlied and the corresponding Edda poems—or rather the earlier poems or legends on which both were based—came into existence through the amalgamation of an essentially mythical story with historical traditions of Attila and the fall of the Burgundian kingdom[211]. The original elements of the former are believed to have been as follows: A young prince is brought up by a cunning smith in a forest, away from his father's home. On reaching manhood he gains an immense treasure by killing a dragon; also he releases a maiden by overcoming difficulties and dangers, by fire or water, which were insurmountable to any other person. These two adventures are connected by many scholars. Later, the hero falls into the hands of foes, who slay him and take for themselves his wife and treasure.

It is held that this story was originally a myth of light and darkness—applying however to the course of the year as well as to that of the day. Sigurðr himself is a 'light-hero' and Brynhildr a 'sun-maiden' whom he releases at the dawn, while the treasure represents the blossoms of summer which the light-hero likewise wins by destroying the dragon of winter. Then, in the evening or autumn, he has to yield to the powers of darkness or winter. The original name of these powers was Niflungar or Nibelunge, a name connected with Old Norse nifl, 'mist,' Niflheimr, 'Hades.' Their chief representative is Högni or Hagen, who, like Sigurðr and Brynhildr, belongs to the mythical elements of the story. Many scholars also hold that the powers which destroyed the hero and appropriated his wife and treasure were originally identical with those from which he had won them at the beginning; and this view seems to be more or less involved by the interpretation given above, since day and night, winter and summer are constantly alternating with one another.

Now it will be obvious at once that the story as thus reconstructed differs greatly from both the forms in which it has come down to us. Indeed the only original feature preserved in both versions is the slaying of the dragon by Sigurðr. But it is only in the Norse version that the hero gains the treasure thereby; in the Nibelungenlied this is obtained by a different encounter, with two princes named Schilbung and Nibelung, while in the Seyfridslied it really belonged to certain dwarfs, the sons of Nybling[212]. Again, only the Norse version records that Sigurðr released Brynhildr—from a perpetual sleep with which she had been punished; the incident is not connected with the dragon adventure. The Seyfridslied does relate that the hero rescued a maiden from a dragon; but here the maiden is Kriemhild, whom the dragon has carried off from her home. Further, it is only in the German version that Hagen kills the hero. In the Norse version the actual perpetrator of the deed is Gutthormr, but the instigator is Brynhildr herself. Lastly, neither version of the story makes Brynhildr or the treasure return to their former owners, although—in the German version only—the first owners of the treasure bear the same name as those into whose possession it comes after the hero's death.

It appears then that the original form of this story has been greatly obscured in both versions. The explanation given is that, through confusion with a historical tradition, the Burgundian kings, Gunnarr (Gunther) and his brothers, have taken the place (as well as the name) of the Niflungar. Hence, in order to form a just estimate of the theory it is necessary to examine the various mythical characters separately. These are—in addition to the dragon—Brynhildr, Sigurðr and the Niflungar, including Högni.

The evidence for believing that Brynhildr was originally a mythical character lies chiefly[213] in the identification of her with the valkyrie Sigrdrífa (cf. p. [13]), who is mentioned only in the Norse version. The identity of the two characters is clearly recognised in the Helreið Brynhildar and also in the prose authorities. On the other hand it is not recognised in Grípisspá, which is supposed to be a late work, while the other poems leave it uncertain. The evidence therefore on the whole is not very strong.

In the case of Sigurðr the evidence, apart from the valkyrie incident, rests upon his being the slayer of the dragon. But it is agreed that this part of the story must be connected with the similar adventure attributed by Beowulf to Sigemund (Sigmundr); so that the question at issue is whether the exploit was first related of the father or the son. We have already seen (p. [123]) that the argument in favour of the latter based on the agreement of the Norse and German authorities is in reality misleading. Hence the balance of probability is in favour of believing that the incident has been transferred to Sigurðr from Sigemund.

In the case of the Niflungar the evidence depends upon the interpretation of the name. The use of the name is certainly somewhat curious. In the Seyfridslied (Part II) the dwarfs are called sons of Nybling. In the first half of the Nibelungenlied Nibelung is the name of one of the brothers slain by Siegfried in his youth, while the people who become subject to him, together with the treasure, on the death of the brothers, are collectively called Nibelunge. In the latter half of the poem however the same name is applied to the Burgundians. In the Norse version Niflungar always means Gunnarr and his people (i.e. the Burgundians), except perhaps in the expressions arfi Niflunga, hodd Niflunga (in Atlakviða), by which the prose authorities at all events understood the treasure which Sigurðr had taken from Fáfnir. The explanation given for this double use of the name is as follows. Originally it belonged to the mythical enemies of Sigurðr, i.e. Högni and his people—whether these were identical with the former owners of the treasure or not. Later, when Högni became associated with the historical Burgundian kings (Gunnarr etc.), the use of the term was extended so as to embrace them also. But it is to be observed that the interpretation of the name Niflungar as 'children of mist' or 'darkness' is not free from difficulty. In the Edda it is twice written Hniflung-[214], and on both occasions the H- alliterates, whereas alliteration with n- is never found. This fact suggests that the original form of the name was Hniflungar and that the form without H- is due to later influence—presumably on the part of scribes—from German sources, where of course the H- (before -n-) would regularly be lost at a much earlier date. If so the name cannot originally have had any connection with O. Norse nifl, etc.

In all these three cases then the evidence for the mythological interpretation of the story seems to be at best inconclusive. But we have yet to consider the case of Högni; and here it must be remarked that the demonic character of Högni is quite essential to the mythological theory. In the Norse version Gutthormr is a mere instrument and the person really responsible for the murder is Brynhildr herself—a feature obviously incompatible with the interpretation which we are discussing. Högni's mythical origin is as necessary for this interpretation as that of Sigurðr or Brynhildr. In order to maintain the theory the mythical character must be vindicated in all three cases alike.

Now it has been remarked that Hagen (Haguno, Hagano etc.) is not uncommon as a personal name even in quite early times. This is a curious fact if the name had such associations[215]. But there is a much more serious difficulty. It is altogether contrary to reason or probability to separate Hagen the vassal of Gunther in the Nibelungenlied from Hagen the vassal of the same Gunther in the story of Waldhere. His character in the two cases is certainly quite different. He is brave in both; but in the former he is both faithless and cruel, whereas in the latter he is an honourable man who is reluctantly drawn by circumstances into a course of action of which he heartily disapproves. But this is precisely the character borne by Högni in the Norse version of the story of Sigurðr—a fact which is the more remarkable since this type of character is extremely rare in heroic poetry. The agreement between the story of Waldhere and the Norse version seem to me to render it overwhelmingly probable that the character which they ascribe to Högni was that which he originally bore.