[In the following excerpt, Jochens explores the role of whetters—women whose social reputation was based on their ability to incite men to deeds of violent revenge—focusing on the quarrel between Brynhildr and Gudrun in the Volsunga Saga and earlier Nordic texts.]

Guddrún and Brynhildr, the two heroines in the Nibelung drama, each desired revenge for injustices committed against them. Guðrún used physical acts in her youth but resorted to verbal inciting in later years, whereas Brynhildr was from the beginning the whetter par excellence, a choice that perhaps reflects poets' awareness of women's bodily weakness as well as their mental strength. Unlike the avenger, whose incarnation was limited to Guðrún, the changing persona of the inciter expanded beyond the Continental setting of the Nibelung drama. Remember that before her coalescence with Brynhildr, Sigrdrífa had been poised in the tree Yggdrasill beneath the branches of the mythological realm. Her image here as valkyrja and shield-maiden inspired a host of female warriors in the heroic universe at the level of the trunk as well as at the human world on the ground. Similarly, Brynhildr joined Hervor between the heroic and the human levels. As the military pursuits of the latter had inspired images of maiden kings and other female warriors in human settings, so the inciting words of the former echoed through the prose literature in numerous whetters drawn from all walks of life, ranging from Norwegian queens to Icelandic milkmaids.

THE CONTINENTAL WHETTER IN NORDIC LITERATURE

Germanic and nordic authors demonstrated their growing awareness of the female psyche as they incorporated varying and occasionally contradictory facets in the persona of Brynhildr.¹ Here I concentrate on the oldest of these features, her role as a whetter, a woman whose fame rested on murderous deeds of revenge that she achieved, however, not by direct physical action but indirectly through performative speech-acts of goading and inciting men to execute her purposes immediately.²

Guðrún has already been cast in this role.³ In two of the oldest heroic lays she whets sons from her second marriage to avenge their half-sister, reminding them of Svanhildr's murder and reproaching them for not possessing the valiant spirit of her own brothers. Sharing the initial incitement scene (see Ghv, str. 2-3 and Hm, str. 2-4), the more recent Guðrúnarhvot remains with Guðrún in the rest of the poem as she recollects her life after her sons' departure, while the earlier Hamðismál follows the sons and reports the dire consequences of her goading. The appearance of an incitement scene in a lay as old as Hamðismál and its similarity with the longer version in Guðrúnarhvot permit the assumption of an ancient full-fledged “incitement poem” (hvot; the word is similar to English “whet”), perhaps not associated with Guðrún but with the mother of the men who killed Ermanaric.⁴ The remnant of this poem, as well as Hamðismál and perhaps even Guðrúnarhvot, is older and more complete than any existing script for Brynhildr's inciter role. Given the peripheral and secondary attachment of the Ermanaric legend to the Sigurðr cycle, however, it seems likely that Guðrún's goading role was modeled on ancient lays, now lost, that showed Brynhildr as an inciter. Although the verbal echoes in the existing poetry are mild and the role not well articulated, the effect of Brynhildr's inciting was as dramatic as Guðrún's. Sigurðr was eventually killed and Brynhildr herself committed suicide, events that resulted in the fall of the entire Gjúkung clan.

Based only on the poetic sources, Brynhildr's character is more difficult to grasp than Guðrún's because the central drama of her life—when she met Sigurðr, was married to Gunnarr, understood Sigurðr's deceit, and decided to take revenge—is lost in the lacuna of Codex Regius, for the manuscript breaks off at the end of Sigrdrífumál, the poem that describes the meeting between Sigurðr and Sigrdrífa, the valkyrie on the mountain top who may have been Brynhildr. The lost gathering of the manuscript (the fifth) consisted of eight leaves containing the remaining part of Sigrdrífumál and the first half of “The Old Sigurðr Lay” (Sigurðarkviða in forna; [Forna or Brot; here abbreviated as Brot or Br]).⁵ Between these two remnants were one or several poems of which the longest (perhaps the only) is referred to as “The Long Sigurðr Lay” (Sigurðarkviða in meiri; [Meiri]). Fortunately, from the prose in Volsunga saga (chs. 24-31) it is possible to reconstruct the content of the lost poem or poems.⁶ The poetic manuscript continues with the remnant of Brot that is followed by “The First Guðrún Lay” (Guðrúnarkviða in fyrsta; [Gðl]), “The Short Sigurðr Lay” (Sigurðarkviða in skamma; [Sg]), and eight additional lays.

Mentioned in six of the twelve extant poems devoted to this phase of the Nibelung drama, Brynhildr is consistently portrayed as the whetter.⁷ In Brot, the oldest version, the whetting charge itself is lost in the lacuna, but its object and content can be gauged from her relatives' subsequent reactions, recorded in the surviving conclusion of the poem. Her charge was aimed at Gunnarr, as is clear from the first complete stanza that inscribes his excited words informing his brother that Sigurðr has broken his oaths and betrayed him.⁸ The obvious source for Gunnarr's information is, of course, Brynhildr herself, but since the poem does not include the charge, only verbal echoes can be detected in Hogni's and Guðrún's subsequent reactions, which suggest that Brynhildr's accusation had been phrased in the form of a ritual whetting (hvot). As Hogni tries to calm his brother, he admits that Brynhildr has “urged to enmity / in order to cause grief” (heiptar hvattan, / harm at vinna; str. 3). Addressing Brynhildr after Sigurðr's murder, Guðrún refers to her rival's “great outrage” (miklar firnar) and “mind eager to do hateful deeds” (heiptgjarns hugar; str. 11).

To verify these three reactions in the poetry and probe the events that provoked them, it is necessary to move backward into the prose of Volsunga saga. Exploiting and juggling all three Sigurðr poems, the author of this text distributed the information in ways no longer easy to disentangle. The passage that most likely summarized Brynhildr's charge in Brot is found in an episode in which she responds to Gunnarr's question concerning her grief. She declares that she no longer wishes to live, “because Sigurðr has betrayed me, and you no less, when you let him get into my bed. Now I do not want to have two husbands at the same time in the same hall, and this shall result in Sigurðr's death or yours or mine, because he has told everything to Guðrún and she reproaches me” (77.26-78.5).⁹Brot must have contained stanzas in which Brynhildr alleged to Gunnarr that Sigurðr had slept with her, thereby forgetting his promise of faithfulness (to her as Sigurðr), breaking his oath to Gunnarr to woo her on his behalf, and doubly deceiving her by appearing in Gunnarr's shape. The next task is to determine how Brynhildr becomes aware of this deceit. It is normally assumed that Brot also included the so-called river episode. Convinced that she has married the best man, Brynhildr asserts her superiority over Guðrún by wading further up river when the two women are washing their hair. Guðrún becomes irked and reveals the deceit. Convinced when she recognizes on Guðrún's finger Sigurðr's ring that he—as Gunnarr—had taken from her, Brynhildr returns home and falls silent (69.13-70.7).¹⁰

Of these two passages, the latter (the river episode) suggests a stylized quarrel (senna) that rarely leads to physical violence. (I shall return to this scene.) In the passage in which Brynhildr explains her grief, however, it is difficult to discern a formal hvot (incitement), as Guðrúnarhvot, for example, credited to Guðrún, despite the echoes noticed in the remaining stanzas. In the prose version Brynhildr is in shock over the revelation, and her greatest annoyance is caused by Guðrún's reproach. Not yet able to fathom the immediate consequences, she predicts that Sigurðr, she (Brynhildr), or Gunnarr will die. She sufficiently provokes her husband, however, by accusing Sigurðr of having slept with her during the three nights, withholding until later (Br str. 19) the information that he had placed his sword between them. The conclusion must be that despite the surviving echoes of a hvot, it is impossible to determine whether Brot originally contained a formal incitement. Even if it did, the prose author may have wished to suppress it at this point.

Treating the same episodes, the slightly later Sigurðarkviða has Brynhildr herself admit that she possesses “a mind set on revenge” (af grimmom hug; str. 9). The next stanza refers to formal whetting in general terms.¹¹ If Brynhildr did not perform a ritual hvot in Brot, she may have expected that her lie about Sigurðr would provide Gunnarr with sufficient reason for revenge, thus freeing her from making specific demands at this moment. According to Sigurðarkviða, however, she demands that Gunnarr kill both Sigurðr and his young son. She further warns him that he will lose her, her property, and her love, because—unless he complies—she will return to her father (str. 10-12).¹² Hogni again urges moderation, but the two men agree to persuade the third brother, Gutthormr, to commit the crime because he has not sworn an oath to Sigurðr (str. 19, 20). The author of Volsunga saga straightforwardly repeats this information (78.9-79.14) and spells out the sexual implication of Brynhildr's goading, as she warns that she will refuse her husband her bed until he has executed the plan (79.14-16). Clearer than any poem, the prose author rehearses Brynhildr's allegation and Gunnarr's anger, as the latter declares that it is “clear felony punishable by death (gild banasok) to have taken Brynhildr's maidenhood” (79.17-18).¹³

Articulated for both Guðrún and Brynhildr, the poetic sources envisioned a well-defined female role of whetting in which a woman—injured by an injustice for which revenge was beyond her capability—addressed a male relative(s), explained the crime's effect on him, reproached him for not having acted sooner, specified the requirements, and threatened dire consequences for noncompliance. Almost in the manner of a performative speech-act but distributed on two persons, the hvot merged verbal and physical activity, as female words produced immediate results in male deeds.

Although goading was associated with Brynhildr from the earliest lays, it is worth noticing that some of the later versions suppress or replace the role. A reading of the chapters in Volsunga saga (24-31) based on the poem or poems lost in the lacuna indicates that at least one author saw her revenge as being at first unfocused and suggested that she envisioned options other than inciting. I concentrate here on the long passage in the saga framed within the two fragments deduced from Brot, the river episode and Brynhildr's charge to Gunnarr (Vls 70.7-77.26), for whereas it is easy to assign these two passages to Brot, the distribution of the seven intervening pages among nonexisting poems is difficult at best, as critics have duly noted.¹⁴ Even if certainty were possible, it would not be obvious how the prose author had reworked his poetic sources. I content myself, therefore, with pointing to certain features in Brynhildr's character in the prose version that are not found in the existing poetic sources, without determining whether they originate in Meiri, other non-extant and nameless poems, the lost half of Brot, or the prose author's imagination. I should add, however, that the existence of a third lay (Meiri)—in addition to Brot and Sigurðarkviða—devoted to Sigurðr is assured by str. 25, quoted in Volsunga saga and prefaced with the remark, “as it says in Sigurðarkviða” (77.13-14).

In this part of the story Brynhildr eschews indirect action through whetting and wishes to act directly on her own. Conversing with Guðrún the morning after the river episode, she makes clear her determination for revenge. She tells Guðrún about the oath she and Sigurðr had sworn to each other and claims that “you knew about it, and you deceived me, and this shall be revenged” (71.2-4). With pronoun and verb in the plural in this case, Brynhildr might be addressing both Sigurðr (not present) and Guðrún, but her frequent shifts in the dialogue between singular and plural indicate that Guðrún, was the prime object of her revenge.¹⁵

A confrontation between Brynhildr and Gunnarr follows this episode. Having compared her husband with Sigurðr, Brynhildr proceeds to blame Gunnarr for forcing her to break her promise to herself to obtain the best man as husband. She ends a long tirade by announcing that “for this I shall bring about your death.” She later states that her greatest desire is to kill her husband, but her unspecified attempt is prevented by Hogni, who places her in fetters (73.26-28). Wishing to take vengeance into her own hands, Brynhildr's object in this episode is clearly Gunnarr. Eventually, however, she turns to her first love. At an early point Sigurðr himself understands that Brynhildr will bring about his death, relating to Guðrún that he has a premonition of Brynhildr's and his own death “because she has great plans (stórræði) for the two of us” (75.1). After Brynhildr has remained in bed for seven days, refusing food, drink, and visitors, Sigurðr goes to see her. She tells him at length that her greatest grief is her inability to wield a sword that would be reddened with his blood (76.5-7). Desiring his death but unable to perform the deed herself, she does not allude to inciting. Brynhildr is not portrayed as an inciter in this crucial passage based on lost poetry for the simple reason that she has not yet decided on the object of her revenge. Her inability to focus and articulate is also suggested by her violence and body language, as she tears up her embroidery and orders the door opened so that her lamentations (harmtolur) can be heard far and wide (74.1-10). As Brynhildr casts about to decide the object for revenge, she prefers to perform the act herself, but she is more determined against Gunnarr than Sigurðr.

The amplification of Brynhildr's role as a shield-maiden is best illustrated from the same pages of Volsunga saga I have been analyzing here.¹⁶ It seems reasonable that a woman who recently had been a maiden warrior would think of executing her own vengeance. Scholars are generally agreed that Brot is older than Sigurðarkviða, which in turn probably is slightly older than Meiri. Moreover, the formal goading was better developed in Sigurðarkviða than in Brot. If it is accepted that chapters 29-31 of Volsunga saga are drawn largely from Meiri, one can argue that this poem disregarded the inciting feature in favor of physical revenge, which was enhanced by a simultaneous stress on Brynhildr's shield-maiden career. Familiar with the inciting theme from older poems, the Meiri poet may have considered this feature to be old-fashioned and not suitable for a heroine whom he wished to recast in the current (albeit romantic and anachronistic) role of a female warrior and endow with the modern notion of love for a man.¹⁷ In other words, in the later Eddic poetry both Guðrún and Brynhildr were credited with feelings of love for a man—either a dead husband or a lost lover.

THE QUEENS' QUARREL

Before leaving Brynhildr, I wish to look more closely at the crucial quarrel between the two queens mentioned earlier, particularly because its five versions further illuminate the heroine's inciting behavior.¹⁸ This episode is the central axis on which the complete Nibelung tale turns, for it enables Brynhildr to understand Sigurðr's and Gunnarr's unwitting deceit of her. As Brynhildr enjoys her position as King Gunnarr's wife, convinced that he has wooed and conquered her in a daring exploit that rivals Sigurðr's earlier deeds, she naturally asserts superiority over Guðrún by taking precedence over her in the river episode told both in Volsunga saga (69.13-70.5; this scene originates in the lost part of Brot) and Snorri's Edda, (Ed 50.130:37-131:20), in the seating ceremony in the hall (þiðreks saga [þr], 2.343:466-56), and in the procession entering a church (Nibelungenlied [Nl], âventiure 14). Underlying the queens' precedence is the relative merit of their husbands, also debated by the two women in these four scenes. Without referring to the river episode or to the question of precedence, the two wives also discuss their husbands' merit “in their room” (í skemmu sinni) in the fifth version of the quarrel, a long scene in Volsunga saga (70.5-72.15).

In the four scenes containing the precedence motif, Brynhildr demonstrates her superiority by wading further upstream (Vls, Ed) and by inquiring why Grímhildr (Guðrún) does not rise from her seat in her presence (þr) or by arriving first at the church (Nl). After lengthy repartee, the discussion ends by Guðrún revealing the deceit.¹⁹ These scenes belong to the literary genres of quarrel (senna) or comparison of men (mannjafnaðr).²⁰ In contrast to the hvot, which consists of verbal incitement by a woman resulting in immediate action by a man, most senna and mannjafnaðr scenes end peacefully because the tension has been released through verbal exchange. Initially, this is also the case in the versions of the queens' quarrel, but the revelation of the deceit increases Brynhildr's brittleness, and, inevitably, she must eventually seek revenge on the person she considers guilty. Despite the peaceful endings of these sennur, then, they have in the long run, the same effect—physical action—as the hvot. The quarrel becomes the necessary precondition for Brynhildr's later inciting of Gunnarr that results in Sigurð's murder—thus freeing Guðrún for the marriage with Atli and eventually leading to the downfall not only of the Nibelung clan but also of the Huns. Described by one scholar as ein ragender Felsblock (a towering boulder), the episode is generally considered the oldest part of the legend.²¹ Its fascination is not diminished by an almost identical story—presumably historical—told by Procopius (Gothica 7.1), which involves a quarrel between a queen and a noblewoman in the bath with similar disastrous consequences.²²

Unfortunately, not a single Old Norse lay treating the Nibelung incident has survived, but three prose versions based on lost poems exist, two in Volsunga saga (as mentioned, one each with [69.13-70.5] and without the precedence motif [70.6-72.15]) and one in Snorri's Edda. Among these, Snorri's is normally considered the oldest. It has the greatest artistic merit and deserves to be quoted in full:

It happened on one occasion that Brynhildr and Guðrún went down to the water to wash their hair. When they arrived at the river, Brynhildr waded out away from the bank and said that she did not want to pour over her head the water that ran out of Guðrún's hair, since she had the more valiant husband. Then Guðrún followed her, saying she had the right to wash her hair higher up in the river, because she was married to the man to whom neither Gunnarr nor anyone else in the world was the equal in valor, as he had killed Fáfnir and Reginn and taken inheritance from both.

Then Brynhildr replies: “It was a greater achievement when Gunnarr rode the flickering flame while Sigurðr did not dare.”

Then Guðrún laughed and said: “Do you think Gunnarr rode the flickering flame? I think that the one who went to bed with you was the one who gave me this gold ring. As for the gold ring you are wearing and which you received as a morning gift, that is known as Andvari's present, and I think it was not Gunnarr who won it on Gnítaheiðr.”²³

This is the classic senna, a genre closely connected with the mannjafnaðr, both included under the English term flyting. Perhaps originating as briefs in legal contests, the senna may have been used to prove guilt and the mannjafnaðr to assess the value of a slain person. A woman often was one of the contenders in such encounters, but only the queens' senna has two female contestants.²⁴ It is noteworthy that the two most celebrated heroines of Germanic legend can assert themselves, not by recalling their own accomplishments, but only through reference to their husbands' deeds. In Volsunga saga (69.15-18; the passage building on Br) Brynhildr included a reference to her father. If these scenes represent fleeting glimpses of “Frauenvergleich,” such a genre would still define women in relation to men.²⁵ In addition to the wives' precedence, the husbands' distinction, and the revelation of the deceit of Brynhildr, a further common trait among these four versions displays Brynhildr's pride, assertiveness, and arrogance.²⁶ Since the senna form restrained immediate violence, however, and Brynhildr needed psychological time to prepare her next step, the delay allows her to plan her later revenge. Readers and listeners are keenly aware of her smoldering anger before it later bursts into the full flame of goading.

The fifth version of the quarrel (Vls 70.18-72.15) does not include the deceit because the author had already revealed it at the end of the river episode (69.13-70.5).²⁷ For this reason, perhaps, the author takes up the theme again, but with interesting changes in form and content. The following morning the queens meet “in their room” (í skemmu sinni). Trying to rouse Brynhildr from silence, Guðrún engages her in lengthy conversation (aside from Nl, the longest of the five quarrels). Consisting of twelve volleys of repartee interrupted in the precise middle by a stanza (str. 24) from an unnamed poem quoted by Brynhildr, the dialogue seems, at first sight, a senna similar to the other four scenes. On closer inspection, however, form and content do not agree. Rather than combining charges and countercharges as the senna demands, the first half of this conversation consists of Brynhildr's allegations followed by Guðrún's attempts to placate and mollify her. Berating Guðrún's character, Brynhildr warns her that she shall pay for being married to Sigurðr, and she declares that she cannot tolerate the thought that her rival is enjoying “him and his great gold treasure.” Guðrún defends herself by declaring that she did not know about Brynhildr's and Sigurðr's previous arrangement, allowing herself merely the remark that her father did not have to consult with Brynhildr before arranging her marriage. Nonetheless, Brynhildr accuses her of betraying her and Sigurðr, whom she praises as the better man, while at the same time she denigrates her own husband. Instead of a counterattack, Guðrún responds by pointing out the advantages of Brynhildr's life, including a spirited defense of Gunnarr. Brynhildr states that she would put up with the marriage except for the fact that Guðrún has obtained the better (gofgari) man.

In the middle of the dialogue stands the stanza in which Brynhildr praises Sigurðr for having killed the dragon while “your brother” did not dare ride her flame wall.²⁸ In the second half Brynhildr continues her attack on Guðrún's mother and Guðrún herself, against which Guðrún at first offers merely a vague defense. The unusual features of this senna are demonstrated by the fact that in the end Brynhildr suggests calling off the quarrel, having gained in words some release for her grief, which she admits to having kept hidden, but by this time Guðrún is visibly upset. She is roused enough to accuse Brynhildr of using “wrong words and great lies.” In response, high-handedly and relying on her prophetic wisdom, Brynhildr says she will allow Guðrún to enjoy (njóta) Sigurðr as if she had not betrayed her, although she considers their union improper (ómakligr), but she is convinced that “things will go for you as I think.” Guðrún immediately retorts that she will “enjoy” Sigurðr much more than Brynhildr would like her to, and she adds the snide remark that nobody has ever suggested that she and Sigurðr had been too intimate. Catching the sexual overtones in this expression, Brynhildr accuses Guðrún of having employed “words of hatred” (heiptyrði).²⁹ Despite her self-assertion, at the end Guðrún is clearly disturbed by Brynhildr's prophecy, admitting that “your mind sees far beyond the present.”

Although a senna in form, in content this dialogue contains only one half of the formalized quarrel. When Brynhildr charges, Guðrún neither counterattacks nor defends her husband, but instead praises Brynhildr's spouse. The effect is to make the reader more aware of Brynhildr's smoldering anger. Furthermore, the author delays the inciting theme in this section by keeping Brynhildr unsure of the object of her revenge and allowing her to consider other means. Consonant with this process of delay, the author now has Guðrún placate Brynhildr to prevent her anger from exploding before he was ready to introduce the inciting theme. Further preparing Brynhildr's potential for verbal violence, the author uses words normally found in incitement scenes, here placed in Guðrún's mouth though originating in Brynhildr.³⁰

To recapitulate, the potential violence defused in most senna scenes through verbal interchange is retained in four of the versions when Brynhildr's deceit is revealed, which, in due course, produces violence through inciting. In the fifth version, found in Volsunga saga, in which the deception has been revealed earlier and the incitement is postponed, the author enhances the growing intensity of Brynhildr's anger by reworking the senna form. In Brynhildr he retains the usual role of attacking the opponent, but he creates a new role for Guðrún as she defends her attacker. This analysis of Brynhildr's literary character reveals that inciting is her most constant feature. Originating in the poetic texts, it becomes her defining trait when the author of Volsunga saga expands her revengeful phase by allowing her to cast about for the object, pursue direct physical options, and voice her grievance in words and gestures before she arrives at the ultimate conclusion that her husband must be goaded to kill her former lover. Thus the act of whetting is enhanced with more details than the prose author ever found in the poetry.

THE WHETTER IN CONTINENTAL HISTORY

With little doubt, the whetting role was ancient among the Germanic tribes. It was originally not limited to women, for men whetted as well, especially when they had become too old to participate in war, as in Beowulf (lines 2041-61) and in Saxo (Starkather's inciting of Ingeld; Bk. 6). Unfortunately, these texts do not help to identify a possible historical basis for the inciting figure. Gregory of Tours provides firmer ground and is of special interest because his few cases of inciters are limited to women and in the Norse tradition the whetting role became a female specialty.³¹

The connection between the Nibelung story and the history of the Burgundians and the Huns prompts inquiry into the possible historicity of Brynhildr and the figure of the whetting woman. Although the events surrounding Guðrún's life can be shown to be historical, her own historicity, as well as the evidence for her revenging role—the original part of her image—is more doubtful. Ildico, the Germanic woman present at Attila's deathbed, was merely a frightened girl uninvolved in the shocking event. Nowhere do the historical sources suggest that she would become the revengeful sister of the Burgundian prince previously killed by Attila. Historians of the fourth and fifth centuries, in fact, have little to say about powerful women. It is not even certain that the oldest poetic account of the death of the Burgundian Gunther contained a female revenger. At some point, however, a woman named Guðrún was cast in this role in the Old Norse texts.³²

The appearance of the whetter may, however, be related to the emergence of a new type of aristocratic and royal woman that surfaced in the late sixth century throughout Europe in primitive monarchies. Emerging kings, as yet unencumbered by an elaborate government, fell under the influence of wives and mistresses. Of even greater social importance than the few cases of Germanic female warriors was the political role of the queens and consorts discernible in Frankish society from the sixth century.³³ As settled conditions no longer required women to participate in warfare even on exceptional occasions, prominent women exerted power by using their sexuality, reproductive capabilities, and verbal whetting. Sexuality and goading could be combined, but while the effectiveness of the former dimmed with age, the latter increased with experience. Older women inciting younger men undoubtedly became a frequent phenomenon.

In the relatively settled conditions after the invasions, such privileged women had lived close to the center of important and wealthy chieftain families as girls in their fathers' houses. They were sought as brides and consorts by the next generation of leaders, now with hereditary royal titles, when the virilocal marriage pattern became established. As wives equipped with their own dowries and emblematic of their husband's new political and diplomatic connections with their fathers, they possessed economic and political power. Their influence was enhanced when they were placed in control of the large households that spawned the incipient royal administration. Royal mistresses also knew power: the demands and wishes of these women were not to be contravened. Although normally under the aegis of husbands or lovers, during crises devolving from deaths of grown men and minority of children, women wielded great influence, particularly over the succession. Beginning with the Langobardian Rosimund of the mid-sixth century as described by Paul the Deacon, the phenomenon lasted into the tenth century—“the century of women,” in the words of Pauline Stafford—and provided an impressive gallery of powerful queens and royal consorts occupying the length and breadth of Europe.³⁴ Women's power was curtailed only when bureaucracy became institutionalized and monogamy and primogeniture prevailed, leaving men in control of the government and the monogamously married queen with the task of producing the next ruler.

Although no direct connection can be established between this type of historical woman and Guðrún in the poetry, tantalizing but inconclusive suggestions do emerge for Brynhildr. Her name of course recalls the Visigothic Princess Brunhild, who in 565 was married to the Merovingian King Sigibert and whose life is described in detail by Gregory of Tours and Fredegar.³⁵ Andreas Heusler has denied any similarities between the historical princess and her poetic namesake, but others have attempted to establish a relationship.³⁶ Despite many similarities, however, it must be admitted that the fit is not perfect. The problem is compounded by a fusion of two different Brynhildr figures, the valkyrie and the princess, or in Heuslerian terms, of the merging of the Erweckungssage and the Werbungssage evident in Volsunga saga.³⁷ It is of interest, however, to notice that the identification of the sleeping shield-maiden (valkyrie) with Princess Brynhildr, as well as the narrative itself, surfaced in Germany at the middle of the eleventh century. Around 1043 Archbishop Bardo of Mainz noted in a charter the existence of a parish with a mountaintop commonly known as lectulus Brunihilde (Brynhildr's bed).³⁸ Much of the historical Brynhildr's life can more readily be adapted not to her poetic namesake but to her poetic rival, Guðrún, particularly in her later Norse incarnation (in Atlamál) and in the German versions as Grímhildr in Þiðreks saga and Kriemhild in Nibelungenlied. In Hermann Schneider's words, “a Merovingian atmosphere permeates” the entire Nibelungen cycle.³⁹

Notes

1. For a full analysis of the literary sources, see Andersson 1980.

2. The near simultaneity between female words and male action allows me to apply Austin's term in this connection; see Austin 1962.

3. Related to inciting is nagging, a role attributed to Guðrún in Am. The second half of this lay (str. 47-103) consists of a bitter confrontation between Guðrún and Atli, each of its three acts started by a violent physical action by Guðrún. Atli's reproaches followed by Guðrún's responses constitute a savage bickering dialogue without parallel in medieval literature. See Dronke 1969, 103.

4. See Dronke 1969, 151, 180-84; Sprenger 1992, 120-48.

5. In this chapter it would be desirable to follow Andersson and abbreviate this poem as Forna and Sigurðarkviða en skamma as Skamma, but for the sake of consistency I shall use the standard abbreviations of Brot (Br) and Sigurðarkviða (Sg).

6. The most important works on this problem are Heusler (1902) 1969 and Andersson 1981, “The Lays in the Lacuna of Codex Regius.” 6-26. Andersson provides a summary of Heusler's reconstruction and summarized his own views in Andersson 1980. His argument that Heusler's *Falkenlied and *Traumlied were part of Meiri is convincing.

7. Gð2 merely included her name when Guðrún referred to Atli as “Brynhildr's brother” (str. 27).

8. Mér hefir Sigurðr / selda eiða, / eiða selda, / alla logna; / þá vélti hann mik, / er hann vera skyldi / allra eiða / einn fulltrúi (To me Sigurðr swore oaths / oaths he swore / all of them false; / he betrayed me / when he promised / that he would remain / faithful to me).

9. Both Heusler and Andersson assign this passage to Br. In the following, the passages from Vls will be referred to by page and line in the SUGNL edition (Volsunga saga 1906-8) and normalized from Wilken's text.

10. For a convenient outline of the reconstructed Br and the issue of the ring motif in the various sources, see Andersson 1981, 14-15. That the two passages from Vls had been connected in the lost part of Br is suggested by the theme of Brynhildr staying in bed. Going home and “not saying a word that night” (70.6-7), she undoubtedly went to bed. This is not mentioned by the Vls author, however, because he next shows Guðrún and Sigurðr in bed. After the queens' conversation the next morning, Brynhildr does go to bed (72.16) and receives several visits. Seven days later Sigurðr tries to get her to rise, but she remains in bed during their long conversation, and she is apparently still there when Gunnarr comes for the visit reported from Br. In other words, knowing from Br that Brynhildr went to bed but wanting to avoid too many bed scenes, the author of Vls delayed this information, spread her prone position over several episodes, and retained it for Gunnarr's visit taken from Br. See also Andersson 1980, 56.

11. Sg str. 10: Nam af þeim heiptom / hvetiaz at vígi (driven by rage / she whetted to revenge).

12. In this poem Sigurðr himself is also aware of Brynhildr's role. Dying from a wound inflicted by Gutthormr, he admits that “Brynhildr has caused all the disasters” (ein veldr Brynhildr / ollo bolsi; str. 27). Men also engaged in egging, apparently, for presumably Guthormr's two brothers eggja him to kill Sigurðr (str. 21).

13. Clearly, Brynhildr has not told her husband about her previous relationship with Sigurðr. To the poetic manifestations of Brynhildr's inciting should be added the portrayal in Hlr. Although she talks only about her warrior role, the giant (gýgr) to whom the poem is addressed, blames her for the downfall of the Gjúkung clan, an event directly related to her incitement of Gunnarr (str. 4). The late poem Grípisspá also accepts the inciter role; see str. 27, 45, 50. See note 24 for Brynhildr's inciting role in Gðl.

14. See Franz Baüml's review of Andersson 1980. See also Baldwin 1985.

15. It will be recalled that in the passage attributed to Br Brynhildr's immediate irritation was caused by Guðrún's reproach.

16. See Chapter 5. The three passages are 60.5-12, 68.11-13, and 72.26-28. The first is assigned by Heusler to his *Falkenlied and by Andersson to Meiri, the second by both scholars to Br, and the third to Meiri.

17. For an analysis of the unique character of Meiri, see Andersson 1980, 36-77 and 1986, 1-11.

18. For the best analysis of these texts, see Andersson 1980, 186-94.

19. In Nl a discussion of relative merit preceded and continued after the show-down at the church.

20. For brief surveys, see “Senna” in KLNM 15: 149-52, “Mannjevning” in KLNM 11:325-26, MSE 571-73, See 1964, 226-35. For longer treatment, see Clover 1980, Parks 1990, and Swenson 1991.

21. The quote is from Schneider 1962, 1:175. See Heusler (1902) 1942-69, 263-67. Recently See has expressed an opposing point of view; see his “Die Werbung um Brünhild,” See 1981, 194-213, and “Freierprobe und Königinnenzank in der Sigfridsage,” See 1981, 214-223, but it has not found acceptance in the scholarship.

22. Huss 1923.

23. Translation (modified) from Faulkes 1987, 103. See the analysis in Wolf 1965, 184-87. Originating in Br, the Vls version is condensed to 16 lines.

24. Gðl, str. 21-25, contains the suggestion of a three-way female senna between Brynhildr, Guðrún and her sister Gullrond.

25. See Wolf 1965, 182. One saga contains a suggestion that Icelandic men compared women on the basis of female merits (Dþl 11.3:144-45).

26. For an analysis of þr and Nl, see Andersson 1980, 191-96.

27. Containing only one statement from each of the queens, it is the briefest of the five quarrels; see above note 23.

28. On the curious problems presented by this stanza, see Andersson 1980, 57, note 52, and 189-91.

29. Byock's translation does not convey this nuance (Byock 1990, 84).

30. They include hæla (boast; 70.27); reki (take revenge; 70.28); ofsi (overbearing; 71.5); frýja (challenge; 71.23); ámæla (blame; 71.25).

31. In Gregory's writings, see, for example, his History of the Franks, 3.4 (Gregory of Tours 1974, 164-65) for Amalberg's symbolic use of a deficient meal to arouse her husband to greater martial deeds, a stratagem also used by Icelandic housewives, as shown in the following chapter.

32. Wais 1953, 40, argues that the essential part of the original story was Gunther's death, while Attila's burning was a secondary feature.

33. For the appearance of this female type in the chansons de geste, see Gold 1985, 1-18.

34. Stafford 1983, 141. To her list should be added Queen Gunnhildr of Norway, co-ruler with her husband Eiríkr blóðøx and regent for their sons after her husband's death in midcentury; she is treated in Chapter 8. See also Wemple 1981, 1-123; Jochens 1987b. On Rosimund, see Chapter 6, note 72.

35. On the historical Brunhild, see Nelson 1978.

36. Heusler 1965, 9. The most successful attempt is Hugo Kuhn, “Brunhild und das Krimhildlied,” published as introduction to Wais 1953. See also Boor 1961.

37. See Andersson 1980, 236-49, Harris in ONIL, 91-92, and Swenson 1991, 106-10.

38. See Braune 1898. Panzer 1951 does not think that the term refers to the Nibelung legend.

39. Schneider 1962, 1:187.