Vox Nova At The Library: The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún
The good news: J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún is a very good book. Very, very good. The bad news: you might not appreciate how good it is. This depends upon what one is looking for in the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. Are you a fan of his hobbit tales, but not The Silmarillion? Are you looking for another hobbit-like tale? Then this book is not for you. If you are a fan of The Silmarillion, you might appreciate The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún, but then again, you might not – it depends upon what you liked about The Silmarillion. But if you, like Tolkien, like Lewis, like Morris, and like myself, are interested in Northern myths, if you like dark tales of betrayal and woe, and if you can appreciate the way such tales are properly told, then you will be fascinated by this new volume of writings from Tolkien. You will be able to enjoy his creative interpretation and retelling of stories from the Sagas, where he engages philological and historical debates and uses his answers to them to provide his own take on the stories surrounding Sigurd and Gudrún. Central to the book are two connected tales, The Lay of the Völsungs and The Lay of Gudrún. But there is far more to this book than these tales (important as they will be for Tolkien scholarship in the future). For in it, not only do we get Tolkien’s tales, we get: an introduction to the Sagas based upon a lecture Tolkien gave, Christopher’s comprehensive and helpful commentaries to his father’s stories, and a few surprising gems at the end (the Prophecy of the Sibyl and the Fragments of a Heroic Poem of Atilla in Old English).
As this book gives to us a texts which Tolkien wrote when he was younger, and just starting out his teaching career, there is something fresh here, but yet, unlike many of the other works this era, they are also complete. This is not to say they were ever put down in a finalized form (was there ever a text which Tolkien didn’t want to go back and fix?), but rather, that what we do have serves as complete stories, and Tolkien could have published them as is – if he thought of doing it. And, more interesting to the Tolkien scholar, we see that we was able to do with the Sagas what he originally wanted to do with Kullervo from the Kalevala: he wrote out his own take of the story which felt as if it belonged with the source material. And, unlike with his work with Kullervo, he didn’t get lost in his own developing mythology and convert the story to fit his own subcreated world. Instead, he was able to keep the stories so that they would fit with the Sagas, and not The Silmarillion. Nonetheless, this does not mean one can’t see elements of his myths within these stories. One does get a sense of the commonality between the Nordic gods and Tolkien’s Valar, indeed, Tolkien has changed some of the characteristics of the gods to fit his own sensibilities (Christopher even notes this, such as on pg. 186 where he points out that the Ódin in The Lay of the Völsungs is “more like” Manwë than the god of legend). And the great curse associated with Andvari’s Gold, the curse which works as an important unifying element to the two lays, has more than a little similarity with the kind of power and influence one finds Sauron’s ring is to have in Middle Earth (although, of course, Tolkien would develop the ring in ways which make it independent of the story surrounding Andvari’s Gold).
For the Tolkien scholar interested in Tolkien’s academic work and writing, this book offers important material for us to consider, because we do get to read through, in edited form, one of his lectures. We also get glimpses, albeit very little, of his other academic work; hopefully even more of Tolkien’s lectures will be published like this in the future – the few lectures which have been published have been more than a little interesting, to be sure, and what we see here shows they could contain material which would interest even the less-than-scholarly-minded as well. We can also hope that Tolkien’s commentary and translation of Beowulf, a text which Christopher does refer to in his own notes, will one day soon see the light of day. But, with what we have in here, we do get a sense here at how early he took on the notion, found in his famous Beowulf lecture, that the most interesting part of scholarship should be on the story itself, and not on how one can break it apart and discern how it was created: “But intriguing all of this questioning is, we may end on the note we struck before: it is not of the first importance. Far more important than the names of the figures, or the origins of the details of the story (except where this helps us to understand what is unintelligible or to rescue a text from corruption) is the atmosphere, colouring, style” (pg 31). Many working within Biblical criticism, interestingly enough, have recently taken on this approach to the Bible, and it has produced some interesting, and important, work (after all, deconstructing the Bible might tell us how it was created, and help us interpret difficult passages if we do so, but we must also realize this should be an aid and not a hindrance to looking at what the Bible means in its finalized form).
We have had a renaissance in Tolkien scholars of late, in part because books like this are now being published. Some important books, such as the lengthier editions of On Fairy Stories and Smith of Wootton Major have shamefully not been printed in the United States. Christopher’s edited story, The Children of Hurin disappointed because it really didn’t give much for those who have his History of Middle Earth series. But here at last is one of many books which should have been published years ago. Hopefully someone will convince Christopher to publish Tolkien’s incomplete Death of Arthur cycle sometime soon?
10/10 for the Tolkien scholar.
7/10 for the fan of The Silmarillion.
6/10 for the fan of the hobbit tales alone.
Comments are closed.
Thanks for reviewing this book; I’ve been wondering about it since I saw it listed on Amazon a couple months ago. It took me by suprise.
I was going to ask what about how it compares to the Saga of the Volsungs, but now I see on Amazon his chief source was the Poetic Edda. Is the style like that of the sagas, with short chapters detailing specific incidents, and with a very informal style? I personnally love sagas (particularly Egil’s Saga and Njal’s Saga), but they can be difficult of people to get into, especially the Saga of the Volsungs.
Is the Prophecy of the Sybel a translation of the Voluspa by Tolkien? If so, does he include the Catalogue of the Dwarves, which includes almost all the dwarf names from the Hobbit (and Gandalf!)? My version of the Poetic Edda (Hollander) takes that out as an interpolation.
It looks like the picture on the cover is one of the carvings of Sigurd from outside a Norwegian stave church. I find the occurance of such carvings to be fascinating. The version of the Saga of the Volsungs I have (from Penguin) has another of the carvings.
Zak,
You are welcome. As a “Tolkien scholar” of sorts (I’ve given one academic presentation on Tolkien so far, so I guess it puts me in that category, or at least the beginning stages of it), I wanted to make some mention of it as soon as possible.
The style is of epic poetry, similar to Tolkien’s other verse (although I would say more refined, because it is going through less “translation” as his M.E. verse).
The Prophecy of the Sibyl is his own work, based upon Voluspa; Christopher wasn’t sure when it was written, but he thought it was from the 1930s. And no, it doesn’t have the dwarves — it’s really a short piece.
As a side point, Sigmund in here is hiding out as a dwarf blacksmith, which seems to be an adaptation of an idea from Morris’ rendition of the tale, when he took over the house which was once owned by a dwarf. I really need to do some work to compare Tolkien’s tale to Morris, but that will be sometime in the future — I wanted to first do a read through just to enjoy the text itself, because I work on the more detailed analysis.
Still, there are many other texts of Tolkien which I hope will be shown the light of day. I hear we will be seeing an extended edition of his Letters by the end of the year (I am looking forward to that), but I think his academic work has been long neglected. I wish I knew why Christopher stopped the publication of his Beowulf material– I only hope it means Christopher plans to do something with it soon.
Thanks again! I too very much want to see Tolkien’s Beowulf.
What was your presentation on Tolkien?
Zak,
It was, “J.R.R. Tolkien: A Catholicized William Morris?” which was an edited version of a long essay I wrote relating the two together (which should, of course, explain why this book was of tremendous interest to me).
I presented it at the Mid-Atlantic AAR meeting this year.
Zak
BTW, in case you had not seen it, although outdated, this is a good list of things which have not seen the light of day:
http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/9902/unpub.html
Thanks for the list. I don’t know much about William Morris. I encountered the name a few years ago, but I have subsequently forgotten whatever I knew then.
Zak
The list isn’t complete (it is out of date, but even then, there were a few things not mentioned in it which we know exist), but it does show most of Tolkien’s writings many of us want to see one day released.
Now if only someone could convince Christopher to release his criticism of Lewis. That I think would open up many avenues in understanding Tolkien and what happened between him and Lewis at the end.
Excellent review, Henry. I just receieved a review copy of S&G last night myself, and have only just begun reading it. Like you (and Tolkien, Lewis, Morris, et al.), I have a great interest in northern Germanic lit. and lang. The very opposite of the “horror borealis” to which Tolkien refers, tongue in cheek, in The Notion Club Papers.
One very small correction for you: Tolkien’s unpublished poem dealing with the Matter of Britain is “The Fall of Arthur” (not “Death”). And unlike the two poems in S&G, this one has been quoted from. Carpenter gives a few lines in his biography. I too would love to see it, along with the Beowulf material.
Jason
I’ve referenced it as “Death of Arthur” not meaning it was the actual title — I didn’t look it up at the time, and just was remembering that it is assumed to be based upon his death, so I thought I would use it to reference what it was about. It’s been a few years since I read Carpenter, so I didn’t remember he put in a couple of the lines — which is good.
Interestingly enough, even Christopher doesn’t get all of his father’s works right (or remember them). In the 70s, Clyde Kilby talked about The Debate between Finrod and Andreth and Christopher apparently didn’t know about it until soon before publishing Morgoth’s Ring. Tolkien would have been disappointed (he intended it as an appendix, I think).
Hi Henry. That’s a good point about Kilby. His little book was, for a good while, the best and really the only information we had on The Silmarillion. It has been widely assumed that the publication of the latter took all the usefulness out of Kilby’s book, but there are some great nuggets of information in it for those still willing to read it.
And you’re right, I think, that Tolkien would have liked to see the Athrabeth attached to The Silmarillion. Are you aware of Doug Kane’s new book, Arda Reconstructed: The Creation of the Published Silmarillion? I think it might be right up your street.
Jason
I’ve seen it listed but have not gone through it. I’m sure I will have to sometime. I admit I have several different interests in my Tolkien research, but one I really find is my most important is the Tolkien/Morris connection, because I think it is one side which has been way overlooked (it’s been realized it is there, but looking through Morris, and finding out things which might have influenced Tolkien, might not have, is difficult). Nonetheless, I think looking at Tolkien through the lens of Morris explains many otherwise curious features of Tolkien’s work (and some of it appears, in my view, as a creative answer to Morris, similar to how he does his own creative answer to philological challenges in his works).
And I do think Kilby’s book is way too overlooked, not just because of some nuggets you get in it that you don’t get elsewhere, but also the tone and source of Kilby’s information is helpful in ways other works further removed from Tolkien do not, and cannot have.
You’re right about the need to look deeper into the relationship between Tolkien and Morris. Likewise, the somewhat analogous relationship between the Inklings and the PRB more generally. As you say, some work has been done, though not nearly enough. And not only as regards the influence of Morris’s creative writing on Tolkien’s own, but also the influence of Morris’s translations from the Old Norse. The appearance this week of Tolkien’s Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún, of course, will open this door a little wider — which brings us back to your thoughtful post (above).
Henry,
I’m not sure if I agree with you about “Ulsterior Motive.” It seems to me that if Tolkien didn’t want it released, it shouldn’t be. Of course, he didn’t destroy it, so maybe he wouldn’t mind its later release, but we all write things in anger sometimes (now releasing them instantaneously into cyberspace, too often) that we would subsequently not want others to see.
I agree with you, Zak. And I think it’s very doubtful it will be published, at least not for decades, perhaps generations — if ever. The same might be said of Tolkien’s private diaries. Yes, he set them down to survive on paper, and yes, he didn’t destroy them, but this doesn’t mean he ever intended anyone else to read them.
Zak
Of course, that could also be said for The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún or much of the other material Christopher has decided to publish or let be published. On the other hand, often what an author doesn’t want published, gets published, and sometimes becomes a major part of their legacy — and, I do not know if Tolkien explicitly didn’t want “The Ulsterior Motive” unpublished. His diaries, to be sure, are an issue like his letters, though, we do have both from Lewis, and I am thankful we do.
Jason: right about the PRB. And I think some of the material from Tolkien’s youth would be useful here (and a reprint of A Spring Harvest would be nice).
Isn’t it astonishing the volume of Lewis’s letters we have, as compared to Tolkien’s?! Something like 4,000 pages versus 450. And do we have CSL’s diaries? I know Warnie’s have been published, but I wasn’t aware that Jack’s had been.
A reprint of A Spring Harvest is a desideratum, to be sure, though remember the poetry is not Tolkien’s — though some of it must show some influence of the TCBS friendships.
Jason
Yes, Lewis’ letters are great, though originally all we had was one volume a bit larger than the Tolkien volume. It was only recently Hooper went through and put them all together — with a great amount of indexing. As for diaries, I have what has been printed of Warnie’s and Jack’s. Jack’s has some famous lines in it (like his first impressions of JRRT). It’s titled, “All My Road Before Me.” Hooper really has made sure Lewis’ complete legacy is out and in the open (even if there are some debates as to his choices at times).
True, the poetry isn’t Tolkien’s, but the interest is in the TCBS, and, of course, the kinds of things Tolkien would also choose for the book itself should be telling.
If you are curious, here is what I’ve got indexed of the books I own about or by members of the Inklings (not all my books are properly indexed yet); some might be surprises… I got one of the rare copies of The Ancrene Riwle for example: http://www.librarything.com/catalog/HornOrSilk&tag=Inklings
I wasn’t aware of All My Road Before Me, though I see it only covers five years, early in his life. You have a nice collection, comparable to mine (though we each have volumes the other does not — and my emphasis runs especially to Tolkien). I was especially surprised to see the Tangye Lean volume, Neoplatonists. How is it?
Jack, from all that I remember, stopped writing in his diary when he re-converted to his faith, which is why it stops so early. I don’t think he ever got back to it later (or if he did, only in brief spurts). Yet it shows him in his formative years, and it is quite impressive because of it.
I’ve got to say the Lean is interesting, in part because it tried to read the present era in relation to the Napoleanists of the past — but it is a large volume, and all I’ve been able to do is go through sections of it to date (so many books, so little time, and this is lower on my list of books). As for Tolkien — I really would say he is my favorite Inkling, and the one who is most important to me personally, but — well, one always has limited funds (and libraries do help). The pdfs from his journal writings also help (and I don’t include them here, for obvious reasons). I do look forward to the second Hilary volume when it is released.
I’m also pleased to say my Old King Coel and Sprightly Running are signed editions; I would prefer a signed Tolkien or Lewis, but this had to do for now (far, far, cheaper).
I think there is a distinction between literary or academic work (like Sigurd and Gudrun) and a criticism of one’s friend.
Zak,
While there is a distinction, we do have copies of other bits of criticism from both Tolkien and Lewis, be it in their letters, in their recollections, or sometimes, a manuscript here and there. And Christopher has let a few people look at (and use, even print a line or two of) “The Ulsterior Motive” so it is not entirely off limits. I also think it would be one of the better records of Tolkien’s religious faith.
There’s no denying “The Ulsterior Motive” could be illuminating, but as I said, I don’t see it being published. The letters, too, were published only very selectively, generally omitting most of the early and familial ones in favor of those discussing Tolkien’s writings. Even the rare scholars who get to see the stuff in “the back room” at the Bodley often aren’t permitted to quote from or sometimes even to describe what they’ve seen.
Funny, I misread Napoleanists as Neoplatonists (see my comment above). They’re almost anagrams, now I look at both words. :)
When the legacy moves beyond Christopher, I’m not sure what will happen. I think some of the younger Tolkiens have a different view and might open things up (Ulsterior Motive far more likely than the diary, of course). I know the material surrounding Hilary will open up more of the familial aspects of Tolkien’s life. I do wonder what the extended edition of the Letters will include — and I wonder how extended it will be. That I think might give us insight as to what to expect in the future.
That’s true about the Napoleanists/Neoplatonists, and it is easy to see how, in dealing with the Inklings, the two could be confused.
I don’t believe any extended edition of the letters is actually in the works. Many of us wish for such a thing, but the last I spoke to Wayne Hammond about it, he indicated that while they would like to do one, the publisher has so far never been interested in the idea. That being said, Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull have quoted from many unpublished letters in their various works, so that’s something.
Jason,
When I first heard the news of the release of Legend, I remember reading a side story about a press, I think in Italy, releasing a new edition of the Letters, and it would be an extended edition and talks are in place for an edition being published in the UK afterward. But I don’t remember where I first read it.
Now that you mention Italy, I think I did see something about that, but I’m not sure an extended edition of Letters is the right characterization. I’m going to have to hunt for that now.
I seem to remember the blurb saying it would have new [ed correcting the typo] material (letters, either adding stuff edited out from what we had, or new letters), and a contribution from Priscilla. But I can’t find it anymore, so I wonder, am I remembering an April Fools and I was fooled?
Yes, that sounds familiar, but like you, I can’t find it now. I suspect it was probably not the case. I was skeptical even when I first read it, and the fact that I can’t find it again now may be telling. The Tolkien Estate would have something to say about any unpublished letters appearing in print, and I would think it would be wider news (e.g., as with Black and White Ogre Country) if anything new appeared. Ditto, any contribution from Priscilla. Hmm.
I was surprised but thought it possible — since I suspect there were more letters which could be considered “safe” which were not published (because it was thought no one would be interested). Still, if I find out more, or find out where I saw it, I will let you know.
It’s not that there aren’t more “safe” letters, it’s that the Tolkien Estate would have to bless any such publication, and I had not seen any mention of them in whatever it was I read. Like you, it struck me as possible — just not particularly likely. Furthermore, any extended edition of Letters, I thought (reasonably), would be given to Tolkien’s British publisher, HarperCollins, and be published in English. An extended edition published in Italian by an Italian press seemed extremely unlikely to me (though again, not impossible).
Do let me know if you find the source of this story.
So nice to hear references to Morris and Sigurd the Volsung, a tale I have been re-reading for more than thirty years. Readers are often intimidated by the length of the Morris poem, however it moves speedily through the tale, so much so that it invites re-reading (only the Anvari section is a bit slow). Sigurd’s assent of Hindfell is quite erotic; the sword actually throbs! The forging of the sword which precedes this would thrill any reader of Tolkien who loved this motif in LOR. Best of all is the section in which Sigurd seems Brinhild as she walks into the Niblung hall and has a kind of inner paroxysm regarding his previous relationship with her. He gets on the famous horse and in a semi-concious state rides the landscape not fully aware of his loss (such dramatic irony). It’s almost gothic, yet heartrending as no piece of literature I’ve read.
Morris seems to have intended his work to be comprehensible, even to readers who did not know the legend. He is sometimes considered archaic, but this will not be a problem–this is a great read. The Tolkien version is archaic in an odd way. It assumes that the reader, like the reader of the Edda is already familiar with the tale and is listening for the purpose of enjoying the redaction. I enjoyed the new work immensely, but then again–as I said–I’ve enjoyed this tale for years thanks to Morris.
I’m surprised that more Tolkien readers don’t read about Morris and more Morris scholars don’t pay too much attention to Sigurd and the later romances. This will surely change. There is a lot of gold here–and it bears no curse.
Kurt,
I’m glad to see another fan of William Morris. You are right, I’m surprised how few Tolkien readers go through Morris. It’s clear Morris is the closest author to being like Tolkien. Sure, he can be archaic at times (his Beowulf translation is infamous here), but as a whole, one can really see the influence on Tolkien all over the place. And I would even say sometimes Morris is the superior writer, sometimes Tolkien. But both are important. I can understand why less Morris scholars would study Tolkien, but as you said, they should.
Henry, I’m thrilled to hear you say “sometimes Morris is the superior writer.” The fact that you said “sometimes” is important. More important is to see the distinctions that make both writers important to readers. Morris had no idea that he was a pioneer of a genre. He thought he was writing romances in a heroic tradition and the fact that he started inventing landscapes did not strike him as being revolutionary. I read an essay that did suggest that Morris understood that the aesthetic qualtity of at least The Wood Beyond the World was modern. He spoke to his publisher saying that he had used a lot of ink writing “lies.” This is an echo of Wilde’s assertion that writers should not bow to the tyranny of facts. Morris may have been somewhat aware that he was creating pure artifice. He claimed that Wood Beyond the World had no political message or significance. Of course Morris was Morris and some leakage would seem inevitable, and it can be seen in The Well at the World’s End. Tolkien, on the other hand, does seem to have created something that is less “artificial.” As many have pointed out, there is an implicit Christian message in LOR. Others argue that there is an environmental message, however I tend to think that the association of Elves, for example, with a healthy ecology seems to me to be the use of traditional edenic imagery, while the association of Sauron/Saruman with a sick environment is demonic. Consider Denmark as a sick garden in Hamlet. Morris, it should be noted, was keenly aware of the environmental degradation of his own time, but he doesn’t demonstrate this in the romances.
An important similarity between Morris and Tolkien is the theme of fellowship. In Morris this is clearly seen in the opening poem to the Earthly Paradise (not a romance). Fellowship, Morriss’s view is more important than romantic love, love of country, etc. This may be due to his difficulties with romantic relationships and his idealistic view of socialism. In LOR fellowship is important as the glue that creates alliance; it’s more important than economy, ethnic identification or martial prowess. So there are many reasons to love both authors and I applaud your use of the word “sometimes” when describing Morriss’s occasional literary superiority because it underscores my own point: though there is a lineage in the evolution of heroic fantasy and the study of the roots of this genre (e.g. Sigurd and Gudrun) there are also differences. How splendid for us that we have both of them to admire.