--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:

>
>
> > One problem with including the dwarf story is the having to

identify the 'þriú níðingsverk' of the dwarves' curse later in the
story. The idea seems like a standard motive introduced for
classicism's sake, as the three works are hardly clear from the
story, even if we allow for the extra killings in U or H.

>
> Yes, although of all the potential anomalies, that's the one I'd

find easiest to cope with, either because I can't count ;) or
because there might be some doubt for readers about what counts as
a 'níðingsverk'. If the story of acquiring the sword from the
dwarves is included from H or U, as it stands, then we'd need to
follow the U-H version of subsequent events where Arngrímr kills the
king. But in U-H, he just arrives as an invader--in which case, by
the morality of this story, it may be that the king is fair game!
On the other hand, in the R version he's the king's trusted
general. So if he killed the king in R, where no níðingsverk are
mentioned, presumably that *would* be a níðingsverk; except that in
R he doesn't kill the king at all--and doesn't have any need to: the
king gives him his daughter, then retires, then Arngrímr goes home
and retires.

I wonder, though, is just leaving the incident out, as in R,
wouldn't be wise? Still undecided here...

> When trying to think of a hypothetical ideal logical composite, my

first thought was to use the trusted general status from R and
combine it with the killing from H-U, so then it's a traitorous
act. But it felt arbitrary and not well motivated. Also--on a
purely aesthetic level--it seemed to me to spoil the drama of later
battles to have this rather plodding by-the-numbers description of a
battle so early on. It would break the magnificant rhythm of R.
Which is what led me to the thought of modifying the curse slightly,
so the king doesn't have to come to a bad end.

I really like rhythm of R, too.

> Another thought I had about the curse that the sword would kill

someone everytime it's drawn: Maybe the pike incident marks a change
in the story from magical time, where curses apply, to historical
time where it's no longer just a story of personal vendettas but
about the whole fate of nations, and where the gods and other
mythical beings no longer appear in person. Like Passolini's film
of Medea, where the centaur later appears in fully human form. So
the moment the curse fails to work seems quite innocuous but really
it signals the end of an era. But I guess it's more likely just
forgetfulness, or confusion caused by combining elements from
different sources.

I think so.

> Then again, Völsunga saga shows a progression from its wild and

mythical opening to a more historical/courtly/human world.

Yes, but many of the courtly refernces, for example the 23 chapt.
description of Sigurðr, are later interpolations. One only needs to
claim so many times in a story about a man that he was the greatest
and most famous, etc..;)

> I remember years ago there was a production of Wagner shown on

British television where they progressed the costumes from ancient
to modern over the course of the operas, to symbolise that process.

In these old stories, most of the apparent time change revolves
around 1000-1200 (the influence of christianity, imported clothes,
translations of foreign stories, travel, changes in culture, etc.
etc.). It adds to the problem, as the gap bewteen, for example,
Heiþrekr and his viking age story-teller is already large. Making
the story-teller himself obsolete, along with his culture, just
makes things worse, making it more like a man from one culture
telling a story that he learned, and changed, from a man from a
second culture about a man from a third culture, who the middle man
was interpreting, or something like that.

> Or if the pike was a person, maybe she's some kind of protective

spirit who prevents enemies from invading Reiðgotaland.

>
> > Who is Fróðmarr?

More later.

Regards,
Konrad