I know now that whenever I hear of medieval battle I shall always remember that it is merely a hacking of helmets. It was very interesting to me to see the words that were repeated over and over again in the Nibelungenlied. Of armor it was mostly helmets and shields that were discussed. "Numberless helmets" that gleam and stream with blood (39) and "countless shields" that are often pierced through and through. And I also always enjoy a good sharp and keen sword which has been laid about with so well.
For me these words and recurring descriptions are pretty funny and seem in such good blatant cheer that I can't help but enjoy them. But I also think they are indicative of the trend so far to be very showy and upfront. It produces in the story a forcible nature that seems to be driving ahead to its goal. And again I think this is linked and in a way mirrors the actions and character of Siegfried. His brashness and almost complete disregard for anyone else's desires seem in tune with he tone of the novel and remind me of another such character.
Of all the other characters we've read so far, Siegfried actually reminds me most of Roland. They cut a similar figure. They both are loyal to their friends, magnificent in battle and similarly are invincible in battle. As it stands so far I can not see Siegfried being defeated in combat. It seems that, in fact, he must fall victim to some other nefarious plot, much as Roland does, for Roland does not die of wounds in battle but of self-inflicted wounds in response to treachery. The are both brash as well, Roland declaring they will fight a futile fight and win, and Siegfried entering Worms acting as though he owned it.
Annie has said in a previous post that Siegfried is a fairly monstrous character, at least more monstrous than othered. In response, I think that Siegfried is actually less monstrous in this story. I think he is much more of a Roland figure instead. His super protection by dragon's blood may be considered demonic, but I think that the story is very clear that the blood is a separate entity in relation to Siegfried. I agree that the act of the blood bath is in a sense monstrous, but I feel that in Siegfried's view it is like putting on a permanent coat of armor, and of course this armor has one flaw. It is also similar to the cloak that he uses to multiply his strength and turn invisible. The text is very clear to separate the cloak and Siegfried in terms of whose strength is whose. It makes sure to state that without the cloak Siegfried can not stand up to the monstrous devil character of Brunhild: "But for the magic cloak they would have died there and then. Blood spurted from Siegfried's mouth" (67). In my opinion, Siegfried is othered by his use of these instruments and his own prowess that becomes enhanced by them, but he is not monstrous in the use of them. Again in my parallel to Roland, Roland is also in procession of a sword that is comprised of holy relics that appear to enhance his power.
I would also like to discuss the cloak's power in minute detail. It provides him with the abilities of strength and invisibility. The two powers do not seem to match in this story's world. Power is respected and glorified, but if one can not see the person doing the powerful deed then there is a lessening of the glory and power itself, since part of the power is in the respect garnered by the viewing. Siegfried would never be able to overcome Brunhild on his own. He would be forced to remove his cape during the festivities, and in doing so lose the physical power with which to compete with the monstrous queen. I find this combination to be thoroughly intriguing and I wonder how others feel about it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I understand your feeling against the monstrousness of Siegfried. I felt my posting would have a mixed response (makes for interesting blogging;).
I wanted to write a little on your idea of the power in the invisibility cloak. His lack of acknowledgement of the victory over Brunhild gives him the power over the greater events. Even Siegfried states bluntly on p. 59, "I undertake to do this not so much from affection for you as for the sake of your beautiul daughter." Though Siegfried is not given public glory for his aid in the challenge, he is given something more important - a strong relationship with Gunter and ability to marry Kriemhild.
I felt that Siegfried could have defeated Brunhild himself. However, since he needed to make sure Gunter looked like he was fighting, Siegfried needed the cloak to fight and protect the king. Siegfried seems to be the only warrior who could give Brunhild that first blow with the back end of the spear and the lines state, "Siegmund's son put such lusty strength into his throw that, for all her might, she failed to keep her feet under its impact - an exploit, I swear, which King Gunter would never have accomplished" (67). We see here that Siegfried is the only one who has the power to actually do damage to Brunhild and potentially overcome her. Not to mention the sexual connotation this line proves in a phallic symbol penetrating Brunhild (but that's for another posting...)
I also want to point out that everything Siegfried does with his cloak is unethical and gives Gunther unfair advantages over Brunhild. Despite the fact, or perhaps because of the fact, he works in the interest of his lord/friend, he can wield his power in a sinister way. Presumably, Brunhild and Gunther are evenly matched in battle (since the narrator indicates Gunther would not have been able to counter Siegfried's attack on p.67) until Siegfried intervenes and tips the scale in favor of Gunther. In acts his loyalty, Siegfried is able to act in an immoral manner.
While I consider Siegfried's actions amoral, perhaps it speaks more to the nature of his elevated morality, not only that he has a magical advantage, such as his powerful cloak, but that he uses it in defense of Gunther.
Except that Brunhild is not actually penetrated because the spear is reversed - the metaphorical and prefigural deflowering is only a show or a gesture, not genuine. This will become very important later on, since the quarrel which will result in Siegfried's death breaks out over the issue of who actually took Brunhild's virginity after her marriage, Gunther or Siegfried. As is foreshadowed here, Siegfried does not perform the act but possesses and, via Kriemhild, displays all the symbolism of having done so, which is what ends up getting him killed.
Second note: I agree with the alignment of Siegfried and Roland. Not only in characterization but in tone and style (that uncomplicated, almost juvenile delight in battle of which Kelsey makes mention), we are definitely back in Roland-ish territory. The main, extremely obvious but nevertheless important difference is the total absence of religion here. Apart from Hagen's repeated invocations of the Devil as an analogue for Brunhild, which don't really seem to count, the only character whom I can find using religious language after a quick flip through today's reading is Uote in the opening chapter. Men and women go to church solely to display themselves to one another.
This bears on the question of Siegfried's monstrosity. Roland's invulnerability and superhuman strength, it seems, sprang from divine assistance, either directly or as channelled through the holy relics in his sword. The parallel attributes in Siegfried's case are either unexplained (his strength) or attributed to his contact and commingling with monsters (invulnerability from the bath in Fafnir's blood, the cloak of invisibility from the "kobold" Alberich). His magical, as opposed to divine, impenetrability connects him with nobody so much as with Grendel, a juxtaposition further borne out, however vaguely and distantly, by his truculent and threatening arrival at Gunther's court (echoes of the Green Knight here as well).
On the other hand, the narrative explication of these monstrous elements occurs not directly but through the mouth of Hagen, and his account raises more questions than it answers: how did the Nibelungs know Siegfried's identity? Why were they dividing their treasure and why did they appoint him to do it? What did he do during the process to "enrage" them? Etc, etc. The sequence that most effectively constructs Siegfried's monstrousness (certainly otherness) on a direct narrative level is his excursion to Nibelungenland to summon troops while the others are with Brunhild, which is a peculiar sequence insofar as none of his ostensible subjects recognize him. While this episode further establishes Siegfried as Brunhild's counterpart, it also tweaks his monstrous character and our sense of where he belongs. Siegfried has to fight his way into both the human and the monstrous worlds, Worms and Nibelungenland - or at least seems to think that he does.
Furthermore, none of this seems to fit with the account of his upbringing in the Netherlands, where he lives the life of an aristocratic dilettante, "never allowed to go riding without escort" (20). Our poet does not seem to know what to do with Siegfried or where to insert him. Having only managed to more thoroughly confuse myself, I will end here...
Post a Comment