If the story is fictitious—i.e. if Sigurðr, Brynhildr, Högni, Guðrún (Kriemhild) and all their doings are creations of fancy—one conclusion at all events must, I think, be accepted. Such a story must be the product of the brain of one gifted poet; it cannot be the result of a fortuitous concourse of lays by different authors. The analysis shows that the strength of the story lies chiefly in that element which is common to both versions. Here we have the character-studies of Brynhildr and Högni; for even in the Nibelungenlied, greatly defaced as they are, the original outlines can still be traced. The plot too conforms to the highest standard of tragic art. It has complete unity in itself[248]; all the characters are more or less sympathetic; and the hero's downfall is due not to any villainy (μοχθηρία) on his own part, but to a great error (ἁμαρτία). Lastly, whatever view may be taken as to the fate of Brynhildr—a point in which the versions differ—nothing could be more tragic than the grief of Guðrún (Kriemhild), which is common to both. For the creation of a story possessing all these features—a story too which lived in different parts of Europe for many centuries under somewhat unfavourable conditions—we must surely assume not only a talented poet but also a poem of some considerable length.
I do not of course regard this as a conclusive argument for believing that the story is based on fact. For even in that case its presentation would require epic form, as well as poetic talent. The decision between the two interpretations rests ultimately on the question whether such a story is more likely to have been invented or drawn from life. It seems probable that some of the characters added in the Norse version are products of fiction. But here we have to deal with a period removed by many ages from the times to which the story relates, and with a people who had developed the cultivation of imaginative poetry to a very high standard. The origin of the story however must surely date from a period when Guthhere and the Burgundian kingdom on the Rhine were still remembered. In that period we have no positive evidence for the composition of fiction at all, much less for fiction of this extremely elaborate type. On the other hand we have in Procopius' account of Irmingisl and Radiger (cf. p. [97] ff.), written within six or seven years of the events, practically all the materials for the composition of an epic poem on a very similar subject. Indeed they can hardly be called merely crude materials; for certain incidents are depicted, in poetic fashion, rather than related, and even the supernatural element is not wanting. The evidence of this passage seems to me to tell decidedly in favour of the view that the story of Sigurðr is founded on fact[249].
In the course of this chapter we have examined a number of heroic stories with a view to determining how and to what extent fiction has been employed in their composition. We have seen that in early times its influence was shown chiefly in the imaginative presentation or structure of stories, some of which were founded on fact, others on popular report or rumour which frequently introduced elements from folk-tales, occasionally even from myth. All such cases however may be included among the 'things that may have happened,' if we take into account the spirit of the times. On the other hand for the composition of wholly fictitious narratives—narratives which the author himself knew to be fictitious—and more especially for the deliberate invention of characters there seems to be no conclusive evidence in the stories which we have considered; and I am not aware of any others for which a stronger case could be made out. I am not prepared of course to state dogmatically that such fiction was not known. The case is far too uncertain for such a statement as that; there is no question here of such gross improbabilities as those which beset the hypothesis of 'rationalised myth.' One is certainly entitled to doubt whether all the characters even in early poems, such as Beowulf, are taken from life. But if we grant, as I think we must, the existence of earlier poems dealing with the Danish court, there is nothing incredible in the supposition.
These remarks apply of course only to poems belonging to Stage I and Stage II. The effect of Stage III was to disintegrate the stories and to introduce unhistorical elements of all kinds Hence in poems of Stage IV we meet with numerous situations which are quite incompatible either with history or with the older forms of the traditions. In the same period we find also many fictitious characters, not only in the German poems, where they may be ascribed to romantic influence, but also probably in those of the North.
There is one type of fiction which we have not taken into account in our discussion. Various scholars from time to time have put forward the theory that some of the chief characters of the Heroic Age are really well-known historical persons under fictitious names. Thus Sigurðr has been identified with a number of famous princes from Arminius to Sigebert. It cannot be said that any one of these identifications is of a nature to carry conviction; in no case indeed have they gained wide acceptance. But I cannot help thinking that an error in principle underlies the whole theory. It was scarcely through the greatness of their power, much less through the effects of their achievements on after generations, that the characters of the Heroic Age acquired celebrity; it was far more through the impression made upon their neighbours and contemporaries by their magnificence and generosity, by their personality, and perhaps above all by the adventures and vicissitudes of fortune which fell to their lot. This is a question to which we shall have to return in a later chapter.
FOOTNOTES:
[221] Aristotle, Poet. IX: ὁ γὰρ ἱστορικὸς καὶ ὁ ποιητὴς ... διαφέρουσιν ... τῷ τὸν μὲν τὰ γενόμενα λέγειν, τὸν δὲ οἷα ἂν γένοιτο. διὸ καὶ φιλοσοφώτερον καὶ σπουδαιότερον ποίησις ἱστορίας ἐστίν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ποίησις μᾶλλον τὰ καθόλου, ἡ δ' ἱστορία τὰ καθ' ἕκαστον λέγει.
[222] In Wids., v. 112 ff. we find a list of Gothic heroes belonging to various ages introduced by the expression innweorud Earmanrices ('Eormenric's household-troop'); but this expression need not be interpreted literally with reference to the whole list.
[223] Frotho I and Frotho III were no doubt originally identical; but the confusion extends also (especially in Skiöldunga Saga) to Frotho IV (the Froda of Beowulf), who cannot reasonably be connected with the others (cf. p. [124], note).