The Relation of the Hrólfs Saga Kraka and the Bjarkarímur to Beowulf / A Contribution To The History Of Saga Development In England And The / Scandinavian Countries

The University of Chicago.

The Relation of the Hrólfs Saga Kraka and the Bjarkarímur to Beowulf.

A Contribution to the History of Saga Development in England and the
Scandinavian Countries.

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH).

BY

OSCAR LUDVIG OLSON

A Private Edition

Distributed By The University of Chicago Libraries

A Trade Edition Is Published By The Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian Study.

1916

THE RELATION OF THE HRÓLFS SAGA KRAKA AND THE BJARKARÍMUR TO BEOWULF.

A CONTRIBUTION TO THE HISTORY OF SAGA DEVELOPMENT IN ENGLAND AND THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES.

PREFACE

It was at the suggestion of Professor John M. Manly that I took up the study which has resulted in the following dissertation, and from him I have received much encouragement and valuable assistance on numerous occasions. I have profited by suggestions received from Professor Tom Peete Cross and Professor James R. Hulbert; and Professor Chester N. Gould has been unstinting in his kindness in permitting me to draw on his knowledge of the Old Norse language and literature. In addition to the aid received from these gentlemen, professors in the University of Chicago, I have received bibliographical information and helpful suggestions from Professor Frederick Klaeber, of the University of Minnesota; I have been aided in various ways by Professor George T. Flom, of the University of Illinois, particularly in preparing the manuscript for the press; and from others I have had assistance in reading proof. To all these gentlemen I am very grateful, and I take this opportunity to extend to them my sincere thanks.

INTRODUCTORY.

The following pages are the result of an investigation that has grown out of a study of Beowulf. The investigation has been prosecuted mainly with a view to ascertaining as definitely as possible the relationship between the Anglo-Saxon poem and the Hrólfs Saga Kraka, and has involved special consideration of two portions of the saga, namely, the Bọðvarsþáttr, and the Fróðaþáttr, and such portions of the early literature in England and the Scandinavian countries as seem to bear some relationship to the stories contained in these two portions of the saga. Some of the results achieved may seem to be outside the limits of the main theme. But they are not without value in this connection, for they throw light on the manner in which the Hrólfssaga and some of the other compositions in question came to assume the form in which we now find them. Thus these results assist us in determining the extent to which the saga and the Bjarkarímur are related to Beowulf.

As the field under consideration has been the object of investigation by a number of scholars, much that otherwise would need to be explained to prepare the way for what is to be presented lies ready at hand, and this is used as a foundation on which to build further.

In order to give the reader who is interested in the subject, but has not made a special study of it, an idea of the problems involved, and the solutions that have been offered, the discussion is preceded by a brief summary of the principal conclusions reached by various scholars.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS

Aarb.—Aarböger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, 1894.

Ark.—Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi.

Ang.—Anglia.

Ant. Tid.—Antiquarisk Tidsskrift.

Beow.—Beowulf. The line numbering used is that of A.J. Wyatt's edition.

Beow., Child—Beowulf and the Finnesburh Fragment, translated by C.G. Child, 1904.

Beow. Stud.—Beowulf-Studien, by Gregor Sarrazin, 1888.

Beow. Unt.—Beowulf, Untersuchungen, by Bernhard ten Brink, 1888.

Beow. Unt. Ang.—Beowulf, Untersuchungen über das angelsächsische Epos und die älteste Geschichte der germanischen Seevölker, by Karl Müllenhoff, 1889.

Camb. Hist. Lit.—The Cambridge History of English Literature.

Chron.—Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland, by Raphael Holinshed, edition of 1808.

Helt.—Danmarks Heltedigtning, by Axel Otrik, vol. I, 1903; vol. II, 1910.

Dan. Nor. Rig.—Danske og norske Riger paa de britiske Öer i Danevældens Tidsalder, by Johannes C.H. Steenstrup, 1882.

Eng. Nov.—The Development of the English Novel, by Wilbur L. Cross, 1914.

Dictionary of National Biography.

Eng. Stud.—Englische Studien.

Ext. Ch. Rol.—Extraits de la Chanson de Roland, by Gaston Paris, 1912.

Gest. Dan.—Gesta Danorum, by Saxo Grammaticus, edited by A. Holder, 1886.

Elton's Saxo—The First Nine Books of the Danish History of Saxo Grammaticus, translated by Oliver Elton, 1894.

Gesch. Alteng. Lit.—Geschichte der altenglischen Litteratur, by Alois Brandl (Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie, 1908).

Heimsk.—Heimskringla, eller Norges Kongesagaer, by Snorre Sturlasson, edited by C.R. Unger, 1868.

Hist. Reg. Wald.—Historia Regis Waldei, by Johannes Bramis, edited by R. Imelmann, 1912.

Hist. Mer.—Historia Meriadoci, edited by J.D. Bruce, 1913.

Hrs. Bjark.—Hrólfs Saga Kraka og Bjarkarímur, edited by Finnur Jónsson. 1904.

Icel. Leg.—Icelandic Legends, collected by Jón Arnason, translated by George E. Powell and Eiríkur Magnússon, 1864.

Mort. d'Arth.—Morte d'Arthur, by Sir Thomas Malory, Globe edition, 1871.

Norroen Fornkvæði, edited by Sophus Bugge, 1867.

Nor. Tales—Norse Fairy Tales, selected and adapted from the translations of Sir George Webbe Dasent, 1910.

Folk. Huld. Even.—Norske Folke-og Huldre-Eventyr i Udvalg, by P. Chr. Asbjörnsen, revised edition by Moltke Moe, 1910.

Event. Sagn—Norske Folkeeventyr og Sagn, by O.T. Olsen, 1912.

Nor. Hist.—Det norske Folks Historie, by P.A. Munch, 1852.

Sagn—Norske Sagn, Christiania, 1902.

Notes, Beow.—Notes on Beowulf, by Thomas Arnold, 1898.

Oldn. Lit. Hist.—Den oldnorske og oldislandske Litteraturs Historie, by Finnur Jónsson.

Grundr.—Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie.

P. B. B.—Paul and Braune's Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Litteratur.

Pop. Tales—Popular Tales from the North, by George Webbe Dasent, 1859.

P. M. L. A.—Publications of the Modern Language Association of America.

Grettis.—The Saga of Grettir the Strong, Everyman's Library.

Sc. Folkl.—Scandinavian Folk-lore, by William A. Craigie, 1896.

Sc. Rer. Dan.—Scriptores Rerum Danicarum, edited by Jakob Langebek, 1772.

Macb.—Shakespeare's Tragedy of Macbeth, edited by William J. Rolfe, 1905.

_Skjs.—_Skjọldungasaga (Aarböger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, 1894).

Sn. Ed.—Snorri Sturluson, Edda, edited by Finnur Jónsson, 1900.

St. germ. Sag.—Studien zur germanischen Sagengeschichte; I Beowulf, by Friedrich Panzer, 1910.

St. Sag. Eng—Studien zur Sagengeschichte Englands; I Teil, Die Wikingersagen, by Max Deutschbein, 1906.

Vọlsungasaga (Fornaldarsogur Norðrlanda, edited by Valdimar Asmundarson, vol. I, 1891).

Widsith (The Oldest English Epic—Beowulf, Widsith, etc.—translated by Francis B. Gummere, 1909).

Yel. Fair. Bk.—The Yellow Fairy Book, by Andrew Lang.

CONTENTS.

Preface I

Introductory 1

Bibliography and Abbreviations 3

The Relation of the Hrólfs Saga Kraka and the Bjarkarímur to Beowulf

I Bọðvarsþáttr 7

II Fróðaþáttr 61

III General Summary 98

THE RELATION OF THE HRÓLFS SAGA KRAKA AND THE BJARKARÍMUR TO BEOWULF.

I

BỌÐVARSÞÁTTR.

The question whether Saxo Grammaticus' account of Biarco's fight with a bear or the account in the Hrólfssaga of Bjarki's fight with a winged monster is the earlier version of the story has been the subject of much discussion, as has also the possible identity of Bjarki's (Biarco's) exploit with one or both of Beowulf's exploits (his slaying of Grendel and the dragon). The latter problem is still further complicated by the introduction of two beasts in the Bjarkarímur where Saxo and the Hrólfssaga have only one, and the introduction in Beowulf of Grendel's mother, who makes her appearance in order to defend her offspring and also is slain.

In this dissertation an attempt will not be made to clear up the whole of this complicated matter. But an attempt will be made to solve some of the problems involved. It will be shown that the stories in the Bjarkarímur of the slaying of the wolf and the bear at the court of Hrolf Kraki[1] are based on the story in the Hrólfssaga of the slaying of the winged[2] monster. The explanation of the origin of the dragon and the interpretation of the whole dragon story in the Hrólfssaga, both of which have hitherto been wanting, will be given. From this it will be seen that this story in the Hrólfssaga is based on the story, related in the second book of Saxo's Gesta Danorum[3], of Bjarki's slaying the bear.

Earlier Opinions in Regard to the BỌÐVARSÞÁTTR, the BJARKARÍMUR, and Related Matters.

Gisli Brynjulfsson, the first writer, apparently, to call attention to the similarity between Beowulf's combat with Grendel and Bjarki's combat with the winged monster, identified the story in the Hrólfssaga of Bjarki's fight with the winged monster with the story in Beowulf of Beowulf's fight with Grendel. That it was a sea-monster (havjætte) that caused the trouble in Denmark, while it was a mountain-troll that caused the trouble in Norway, he thought was as characteristic as anything could be.[4]

Gregor Sarrazin would identify Bjarki with Beowulf. He calls attention to striking similarities between the stories about the two men and attempts to identify the word "Bọðvar," etymologically, with the word "Beowulf." The translator, as he calls the author of Beowulf, may, through misconception, have regarded "var," the second part of the name "Bọðvar," as "vargr" and translated it faithfully into AS. "wulf." This, combined with other changes, which he discusses and illustrates, that might have taken place in the name in its passage from very early Danish to Anglo-Saxon, could have caused the Scandinavian name "Bọðvar" to be rendered "Bēowulf" in Anglo-Saxon.[5]

Sophus Bugge thought that saga-characteristics earlier ascribed to Beowulf had been transferred, in Danish tradition, to Bjarki. The story of Bjarki's fight with the winged monster he regarded as acquired from contact with the story of Beowulf's fight with the dragon. He showed that the words "Bọðvar" and "Bēowulf" are not etymologically related, but that "Bọðvar" is the genitive of "bọð," meaning "battle," so that "Bọðvar Bjarki" means "Battle Bjarki." He called attention to the fact that Saxo regarded Bothvar's real name as Bjarki (Lat. Biarco), that the Bjarkamál was called after that name, and, furthermore, that Saxo ascribed to Bjarki the words "belligeri cepi cognomen".[6]

Sarrazin regards the story of Bjarki's journey from Sweden to Denmark and subsequent exploit there, with which he identifies the corresponding journey and exploit of Beowulf, as an embodiment of the Balder and Frey cult. He thinks it may be interpreted as the southward journey of the sun in the autumn and its contest with frost and mists when it reaches its southern limit (i.e., Denmark, according to the ancient conception of the people of the Scandinavian peninsula); or it may be interpreted as the introduction of the Balder-cult from Sweden into Denmark.[7]

Bernhard ten Brink agreed with Karl Müllenhoff,[8] that, on the one hand, there is really no similarity between the Beowulf story and Saxo's account of Bjarki, in which the blood-drinking episode is the main point, and, on the other, between Saxo's account and that in the Hrólfssaga, which has too much the nature of a fairy tale to be ancient tradition. He agreed with Bugge, that Bjarik's combat with the winged monster shows contact with the story of Beowulf's fight with the dragon.[9]

Sarrazin, replying to ten Brink, scouts the idea that a poem, such as Beowulf, which was completely unknown in England after the eleventh century, should, after this time, be well known in Scandinavian countries and exert a notable influence there.[10]

G. Binz does not think that Sarrazin's attempt to identify Bjarki with Beowulf is sufficiently substantiated and shows by a list of names,[11] dating from the twelfth century and found in the Northumbrian Liber Vitae, that the story about Bjarki was probably known at an early date in northern England.[12]

Sarrazin thinks that perhaps Beowulf married Freawaru, Hrothgar's daughter, as, similarly, Bjarki, according to the Hrólfssaga, married Drifa, the daughter of Hrothgar's nephew, Hrolf Kraki; that the troll which supports Hrolf Kraki's enemies in Hrolf's last battle is a reminiscence of the dragon in Beowulf; and that, owing to the change of taste and other causes that occurred in the course of time, the Beowulf story developed into the form in which it is found in the Bjarki story in the Hrólfssaga.[13]

Thomas Arnold concedes that there may be a faint connection between the Bjarki story and the Beowulf story, but he rejects Sarrazin's theory that the Anglo-Saxon poem is a translation from the Scandinavian (see p. 8).[14]

B. Symons takes the story of Bjarki's fight with the winged monster to be a fusion of the story of Beowulf's fight with Grendel and that of his fight with the dragon.[15]

R.C. Boer identifies Bjarki with Beaw. In the West-Saxon line of kings, Beaw succeeded Scyld; in the poem Beowulf, Beowulf, the Danish king, succeeded Scyld; in Saxo's account, Frothi I succeeded Scyld. Frothi is represented as having killed a dragon.

According to the Hrólfssaga, Bjarki killed a dragon. As Beaw in one account occupies the same position in the royal line as Frothi in another and Beowulf, the Dane, in a third, Boer thinks that Bjarki's exploit and Frothi's exploit are the same one and that to Beowulf, the Dane, the same exploit was also once attributed. In Saxo's account, Bjarki is a king's retainer; and Boer thinks his exploit has been differentiated from that of Frothi, who is a king. In Beowulf, he thinks, the exploit has been transferred from Beowulf, the Danish king, to Beowulf, the Geat, and that the differentiation of the deed into two exploits has been retained—Beowulf, as a king's retainer, slaying Grendel, and later, as a king, killing a dragon. This identifies Bjarki's slaying of the winged monster with Beowulf's slaying of Grendel. In Saxo's account of Bjarki, Boer thinks that the dragon has been stripped of its wings and changed to a bear.[16]

Finnur Jónsson regards the story in the Hrólfssaga of Bjarki's slaying the winged monster as a reflection, though a feeble one, of the Grendel story in Beowulf.[17]

Axel Olrik, who, more extensively than any other writer, has entered into the whole matter, of which the problems here under consideration form a part, does not think there is any connection between Beowulf and the Hrólfssaga.[18] He regards the stories in the Bjarkarímur of Bjarki's slaying the wolf and Hjalti's slaying the bear as earlier compositions than the corresponding story in the Hrólfssaga.[19] The addition of "Bothvar" to Bjarki's name he thinks was acquired among the Scandinavians in the north of England,[20] where the Bjarki story, by contact with the story of Siward, Earl of Northumberland, acquired the further addition of Bjarki's reputed bear-ancestry.[21] The stories in the Grettissaga, Flateyjarbók, and Egilssaga to which counterparts are found in Beowulf, he believes to have been acquired by contact either with the Beowulf legend or, perhaps, with the Anglo-Saxon epic itself.[22]

Finnur Jónsson thinks that the stories in the Bjarkarímur of Bjarki's slaying the wolf and Hjalti's slaying the bear are later compositions than the story in the Hrólfssaga of Bjarki's slaying the winged monster, and supports this opinion by maintaining that the monster in the saga is a reminiscence, though altered and faded, of Grendel in Beowulf.[23]

Sarrazin regards the cowardly, useless Hott, Bjarki's companion, as a personification of the sword Hrunting, which fails Beowulf in his fight with Grendel's mother. But Hjalti, as Hott is called after he has become brave and strong, he regards as a personification of the giant-sword with which Beowulf dispatches Grendel's mother. Sarrazin would also identify the giant-sword, which is said to have a golden hilt (gylden hilt), with the sword Gullinhjalti in the Hrólfssaga.[24]

Max Deutschbein sees a connection between the Bjarki story and the Gesta Herwardi that would tend to establish the story in the Bjarkarímur as earlier than the corresponding story in the Hrólfssaga.[25]

H. Munro Chadwick, basing his opinion on the similarity between the career of Bjarki and that of Beowulf, thinks there is good reason for believing that Beowulf was the same person as Bothvar Bjarki.[26]

Alois Brandl does not think that Beowulf and Bjarki were the same person. He calls attention to the difficulty involved in the fact, which, he says, Olrik has emphasized, that "Bjarki" is etymologically unrelated to "Biár"; and of troll fights, he says, there are many in Scandinavian literature.[27]

William Witherle Lawrence thinks that "we may have to do with late influence of Beowulf upon the Hrólfssaga".[28] He identifies "gylden hilt" with Gullinhjalti.[29] He regards the stories in the Bjarkarímur of Bjarki's slaying the wolf and Hjalti's slaying the bear as earlier compositions than the story in the Hrólfssaga of Bjarki's slaying the winged monster,[30] which, in agreement with Olrik, he regards as "a special late elaboration peculiar to the Hrólfssaga." He regards Saxo's story as earlier than the stories in the Bjarkarímur.[31] He refers to Mogk as believing that the Bjarki story in the saga is a werewolf myth into which the Grendel motive is woven.[32] He quotes a passage from Heusler, in which Heusler states that he regards the story in the Bjarkarímur of the fight with the bear as earlier than the story in the saga of the fight with the winged monster and that, furthermore, Beowulf's fight with Grendel has been transferred to Bjarki.[33] Lawrence also calls attention to the fact that Gering thinks there is unmistakable similarity between the Grendel story and the story of Bjarki's fight with the winged monster.[34]

Friedrich Panzer identifies Bjarki with Beowulf and regards the story in question in the Hrólfssaga as a later composition than the corresponding stories in the Bjarkarímur, which he identifies with the Grendel story.[35] "Gylden hilt" he identifies with Gullinhjalti;[36] and Hott-Hjalti, whom Sarrazin regards as a personification of swords in Beowulf, he identifies with Hondscio, Beowulf's companion who is devoured by Grendel.[37]

The Story in the HRÓLFSSAGA of Bjarki's Slaying the Winged Monster.

It appears to the writer that the key to the explanation of much that has been the subject of dispute, or has remained unexplained, in the story about Bothvar Bjarki in the Hrólfssaga is the influence of the fictitious (in part, also historical) life of Siward, Earl of Northumberland under Canute the Great and succeeding kings.

The life of Siward, briefly summarized from the Dictionary of National
Biography,[38] is as follows.

Siward, Earl of Northumberland, called Digera, or the strong, a Dane, is said to have been the son of a Danish jarl named Biörn. According to legend he was descended from a white bear and a lady, etc.[39] As a matter of fact, he probably came to England with Canute and received the earldom of Deira after the death of Eadwulf Cutel, the Earl of Northumbria, when the Northumbrian earldom appears to have been divided. He married Ælflæd, daughter of Ealdred, Earl of Bernicia, the nephew of Eadwulf Cutel. In 1041 he was employed by Hardecanute, along with Earls Godwin and Leofric, to ravage Worcestershire. Later he became Earl of Northumberland and probably also of Huntingdon.

He upheld Edward the Confessor in his quarrels with Godwin in 1051. In pursuance of the king's command, Siward invaded Scotland both by sea and land with a large force in 1054. The King of Scotland was Macbeth, who had slain his predecessor, Duncan I, the husband of a sister or cousin of the earl, and Siward's invasion was evidently undertaken on behalf of Duncan's son Malcolm. A fierce battle took place on July 27th; the Scots were routed, Macbeth fled, and Malcolm appears to have been established as King of Cumbria in the district south of the Firths of Forth and Clyde. Siward died at York in 1055. Siward and his son Osbeorn, called by Shakespeare "Young Siward," appear in Macbeth.

The legendary life of Siward is found in two Latin versions in Langebek's Scriptores Rerum Danicarum, vol. III. These two versions Olrik designates as A (anonymous; p. 288) and B (Bromton; p. 300).[40] According to B, an earl of royal descent in the kingdom of the Danes had an only daughter, who went with her maidens for a walk in a neighboring wood. They met a bear, whereupon the maidens fled and the daughter was seized by the bear and carried off. In the course of time she gave birth to a son, whose name was Bern and who bore marks, in the shape of a bear's ears, of his paternity. Bern had a son, whose name was Siward. According to A, Siward is removed by three generations more from his bear-ancestor, the line of descent being Ursus (the bear), Spratlingus, Ulsius (should be Ulfius), Beorn (with the cognomen Beresun), Siward.

According to A, where the account is a little more detailed than in B, Siward, who was given the cognomen Diere (large), was a brave and powerful man, who, disdaining the succession to his father's earldom in Denmark, set sail with one vessel and fifty chosen companions, and arrived at the Orkney Islands. On one of the islands was a dragon that had done much damage by killing men and cattle. To show his strength and bravery, Siward entered into a combat with the dragon and drove it from the island. Thence he set sail for Northumberland, and there, he heard, there was another dragon. During the search for this dragon, he met an old man sitting on a hill. He inquired of the man as to the whereabouts of the dragon. But the man, calling him by name, told him that he sought the dragon in vain, and directed him to continue his journey and proceed till he came to a river called Thames, on whose bank was situated a city by the name of London. "And there," he said, "you will find the king of that region, who will enlist you in his service and in a short time bestow land upon you." As a token of the trustworthiness of his prediction, the old man drew from the folds of his garment a banner, called Ravenlandeye, and presented it to Siward.

Siward accepted the banner and proceeded to London, where he was summoned by King Edward to meet him at Westminster. Siward obeyed the summons and was enlisted in the service of the king, who promised him the first position of honor to become vacant in the kingdom. On this visit to the king, he slew Tosti in order to avenge an imagined insult and demanded and received Tosti's earldom of Huntingdon, which had thus become vacant. Some time after he also received the earldoms of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland.

Later the Norwegians made war on the king; but Siward defeated them and avenged many fold the insults and injuries sustained by the king, thus fulfilling the prophecy "that Divine Providence would permit to be born from the union of a rational with an irrational creature, i.e., from the union of a woman with a bear, a man who would wreak vengeance on the enemies of the illustrious and glorious King of England."

In the course of time, Dunewal, King of the Scots, was ejected from his kingdom. He sought the aid of Siward, who gathered an army and proceeded as far as Dundee, when news was brought him that his subjects in Northumberland had risen in insurrection and slain his son Osbertum (Osbernum) Bulax. Compelled to return he was roused to such anger that he sank his sword into a rock leaving a mark that could be seen, the author says, in his day. Siward restored to the king the territory seized by the rebels, and returned home and inflicted severe punishment on his enemies.

B has some variations from the account in A, but none of these variations are of present significance.

The transformation of Siward from an historical character, in regard to whom we have authentic information, into the hero of a saga the first part of which is of the "fornaldarsaga" type, the latter part of the "Islændingasaga" type,[41] is quite remarkable. He must have made a deep impression on the minds of his contemporaries and remained a hero in oral tradition long after the historical events of his life had been forgotten.

Olrik, who has done work of great importance in this field, offers a discussion of the legendary life of Siward in the Arkiv för nordisk Filologi, vol. XIX, from which it seems desirable to quote some passages for the light they throw on the development of this saga in England.

"Tagen som helhed er Sivards saga den mærkelige forening af æventyrlig og historisk sagastil."

* * * * *

"I dragekampene og i Odinskikkelsen, er der nær tilslutning til norrön tradition; her må de i Nordengland bosatte Nordmænd have gjort sig gældende med et berigende og udviklende element. Dette gælder da ikke blot for Sivards saga, men også for Ragnar Lodbroks historie, for så vidt den fra först er bleven til i England. På den anden side må vi ikke alene regne med, at Nordengland er en aflægger af norsk sagakultur; den er tillige en banebryder for dens rigere udvikling. Vi har set det med dragekampen, der optages væsenlig fra engelske forestillinger, og som vistnok ad den vej finder ind i de norsk-islandske æventyrsagaer og historiske traditioner".[42]

With the situation thus before us—namely: 1. the numerical strength of the Danes and Norwegians in the north of England, which had become a second home of Norwegian saga-culture; 2. the fact that the Hrólfssaga was known in England, where Bjarki received the addition "Bothvar" to his name; and 3. the fact that the Siward saga as we find it in Langebek was developed in the same locality—it is evident that it was not only possible, but practically inevitable, that the Hrólfssaga and the Siward saga should come in contact with each other. And this was, indeed, the case. That a popular hero is said to have descended from a bear is a very widespread motive, not at all confined to the territory in which the Bjarki story was known; but the similarities in the genealogies of Siward, Bothvar Bjarki, and Ulf (Gest. Dan., tenth book) are so great that the casual reader immediately concludes that these genealogies must in some way be related. Olrik has unraveled the skein and shown that the bear-ancestry belonged originally to Siward and from him was transferred to Ulf and Bjarki.

Olrik dwells on the fact that, "Det sagn, der her optræder som knyttet til historiske eller rettere halvhistoriske personer, findes også rundt omkring i Europas æventyr som indledning til fortællingen om den stærke kæmpe, der hentede de bortförte kongedötre tilbage fra troldene." Olrik says further: "Men også i den islandske saga-verden har vi tilknytning. Beorn Beresuns födsel genfindes som Bödvar Bjarkes. Bödvars forældre er den til björn omskabte kongesön Björn og bondedatteren Bera. Foruden ved navnene röbes sammenhængen ved at björnen—ligesom i Sakses sagn—bliver jaget og dræbt, og sönnen senere tager hævn. Men samtidig er motivet udviklet langt rigere, idet omskabelse og stemoder er blandet ind, og arven efter vilddyret fordeles paa tre sönner: dels björneagtigt ydre, dels styrke og 'hamram'-hed, Således er de danske og de (norsk-) islandske tilknytninger af forskellig art; de danske giver os de æventyragtige elementer, hvoraf sagnet opstår. Den islandske Hrólfssaga og Bjarkarímur viser os dets videre udvikling til æventyrsaga. Selve den nordengelske Sivardssaga står i midten som et mærkeligt mellemled i udviklingen".[43] Here we have the first indication of contact between the Siward saga and the story of Bjarki, in the Hrólfssaga.

There is much in the main features of the lives of Siward and Bjarki that is similar. Both were men of extraordinary prowess and bravery; both gave up a great heritage at home (Siward, an earldom; Bjarki, a kingdom); both left their native land to enter the service of a foreign monarch (Siward entering the service of Edward the Confessor; Bjarki, that of Hrolf Kraki); both slew a ferocious monster; both paused in another land (Siward, on the Orkney Islands; Bjarki, in Sweden) before reaching what was to be their destination; both displayed their warlike qualities by slaying a man of great prominence who was closely connected with the king (Siward slaying Tosti, and Bjarki slaying Agnar); both were the king's chief support in his wars against his enemies; and both invaded a foreign land (Siward making an expedition to Scotland, and Bjarki accompanying Hrolf on his expedition to Sweden).

Certain features of the life of Bjarki mentioned above, such as his bravery, strength, his being in the service of Hrolf Kraki, his killing a fierce beast, and slaying Agnar, the saga-man found ready to his hand; but not the renunciation of his kingdom. Earldoms and kingdoms are not renounced "for light and transient causes." As regards Siward, who renounced his earldom, he seemed to be destined for a greater career, as subsequent events show and as is indicated by the fact that Odin (for the old man on the hill whom Siward met was none other than Odin) took a hand in directing his course. But when Bjarki renounced his kingdom, it was altogether unmotivated. The saga says: "Soon afterwards [i.e., after Bjarki's revenge on his evil stepmother] King Hring fell sick and died, whereupon Bothvar succeeded to the throne and was for a time satisfied. Later, he called his subjects together to a 'þing' [i.e., assembly] and said he wished to leave the country, married his mother to a man named Valsleit, who had been an earl, celebrated their wedding, and departed".[44] He became Hrolf's most noted warrior, but neither sought nor attained to any other distinction. The renunciation of a kingdom for the fate of a man who appears among strangers and gets what his own right arm can win for him is a rare occurrence; and when the saga-man lets Bjarki become a king and then, without reason, renounce this highest of all earthly dignities, it can only be in servile imitation of the corresponding feature of the Siward saga.

Besides those already mentioned, the two stories have other features in common. It is said of Siward, that when he learned that his son Osbeorn had fallen in battle, he became so angry that he sank his sword into a rock. It is said of Elgfrothi, Bjarki's brother, that he swung his sword against a rock with such force that it sank in to the hilt. But Elgfrothi's feat was performed under such widely different circumstances that the author may, or may not, have had Siward's feat in mind in recording the incident. However, suggestions received from one story are often employed in another quite as the author sees fit, so that, although one is not inclined to attach much importance to this incident, it is, nevertheless, worth noting.

Somewhat more noteworthy than the incident just mentioned is the introduction of Odin in both stories in the disguise of an old man. In the Siward story he appears on a hill as Siward reaches Northumberland on his journey from the Orkney Islands, and tells Siward what course to pursue, presents him the banner Ravenlandeye, which is accepted, and predicts for him a brilliant future. In the Hrólfssaga Odin appears as a one-eyed old man living in a hut in Sweden. Hrolf and his men seek a night's entertainment of him while on their way to the Swedish court, and the old man tests their endurance and instructs Hrolf in regard to the measures he must take to accomplish his purpose. Odin also appears to the men as they return on their way to Denmark, when he offers Hrolf a sword, shield, and armor. Hrolf declines the preferred gift, whereupon Odin tells Hrolf that he is not as wise as he thinks he is, and Hrolf soon, but too late, realizes that the rejection of the gift augurs ill fortune. There is nothing unusual in the appearance of Odin as a one-eyed old man, for it is a common characteristic of saga literature. But though Hrolf's expedition to Sweden is mentioned in Snorri's Edda,[45] where the passage concerned is based on the old Skjọldumgasaga, the oldest authority in regard to the matter, but unfortunately now lost, no mention of Odin is made in this connection.[46] Furthermore, Odin again appears in the saga (at the close), where Bjarki vows that if he could get his eye on the god he would use him roughly for permitting the enemy to gain the victory in the battle that is being fought and that is going against Hrolf and his men. In the latter instance, Odin belongs originally to the story (Gest. Dan., second book, where Odin is represented as riding his steed Sleipnir and being invisibly present at the battle to take the dead to Valhalla). The two conceptions of Odin—on the one hand as appearing in the disguise of an old man; on the other, as riding his horse, Sleipnir, and taking those fallen in battle to Valhalla—are quite different, the former being distinctly Norwegian, one of the circumstances that Olrik uses to show that the Siward saga originated under strong Norwegian influence, while the latter was the conception of Odin current in Denmark and Sweden.[47] As already stated the introduction of Odin as an old man is a motive that occurs frequently in saga literature. It cannot, therefore, be stated definitely that his appearance in the Siward saga suggested the use of him in the Bjarki story. But the two stories were current in the same locality; they were formed under similar conceptions of saga literature; in both stories Odin directs the hero in question as to the most advisable course to pursue and offers him a present; the Bjarki story already contained an instance, of another mintage, of the Odin motive; as stated above, the oldest authority in regard to the matter says nothing about Odin's appearing to Hrolf on the expedition to Sweden; and, as we know, the one has acquired important features (Bjarki's bear-ancestry and his renunciation of his kingdom) from the other. These circumstances render it highly probable that this is another of the Bjarki story's acquisitions from contact with the Siward saga. Incidents of this kind need not necessarily be used in one story as they are in another; saga literature abounds in evidence of this fact, as, for instance, Saxo's and the Hrólfssaga's story of Hroar and Helgi, considered later.

A feature of the Hrólfssaga that is much more noteworthy in this connection and that has certainly been acquired from the Siward saga is that concerning the kind of monster slain by Bjarki at the court of Hrolf Kraki. When Siward's bear-ancestry had been transferred to Bothvar Bjarki, it followed as a matter of course that Bjarki must no longer be represented as killing a bear. Siward had driven a dragon, which had killed men and cattle in great numbers, from one of the Orkney Islands; and it is in imitation of this exploit that Bjarki is represented as having slain a winged monster (dragon). This would be only another instance, in addition to those already mentioned, of the influence exerted by the story of Siward on the Hrólfssaga. Ordinarily, there was nothing about Bjarki's person that revealed or suggested that his father was a bear; but he was able to assume the shape of a bear, which, according to the Hrólfssaga, he did with terrible effect in the last battle of Hrolf and his warriors. Since he sustained such near relationship to the bear-family, it would be inappropriate to represent him as showing his prowess by killing a bear, for his sentiments toward that animal would, as a result of his own ancestry and the treatment his father had received, be those of sympathy rather than antipathy. His mother had told him the whole story of his ancestry and the maltreatment of his father, and it had aroused him to take most dire revenge. Consequently, he must be represented as having killed some other kind of ferocious beast, or monster, than a bear, and this naturally became the same kind of monster that Siward had overcome, namely a dragon. The fact that it was not uncommon at the time the saga was composed for a popular hero to be represented as having slain a dragon made it all the easier for the author of the Hrólfssaga to imitate this feature of the Siward saga. It may be said that this is attributing too much consistency in one particular to a story that otherwise is a piece of patch-work. But the story of Bjarki's fight with the winged monster is not patch-work; it does not represent the poorest and latest form of the Bjarki legends, as Olrik says;[48] it is not an impossible story, as Panzer says;[49] nor is it "inconsequent and absurd," as Lawrence says.[50] Considering the time at which it was written, it is a well considered, well constructed narrative, in which the material at hand and the machinery that was regarded as permissible and appropriate in saga-writing at the time is employed with great skill to produce the intended effect. The story is as follows:—

"Ok sem leið at jólum, gerðuz menn ókátir. Bọðvarr spyrr Họtt, hverju þetta sætti; hann segir honum, at dýr eitt hafi þar komit tvá vetr í samt, mikit og ógurligt—'ok hefir vængi á bakinu ok flýgr þat jafnan; tvau haust hefir þat nú hingat vitjat ok gert mikinn skaða; á þat bíta ekki vápn, en kappar konungs koma ekki heim, þeir sem at eru einna mestir.' Bọðvarr mælti: 'ekki er họllin svá vel skipuð, sem ek ætlaði, ef eitt dýr skal hér eyða ríki og fé konungsins.' Họttr sagði: 'þat er ekki dýr, heldr er þat hit mesta trọll.' Nú kemr jólaaptann; þá, mælti konungr: 'nú vil ek, at menn sé kyrrir ok hljóðir í nótt, ok banna ek ọllum mínum mọnnum at ganga í nọkkurn háska við dýrit, en fé ferr eptir því sem auðnar; menn mína vil ek ekki missa.' Allir heita hér góðu um, at gera eptir því, sem konungr bauð. Bọðvarr leyndiz í burt um nóttina; hann lætr Họtt fara með sér, ok gerir hann þat nauðugr ok kallaði hann sér stýrt til bana. Bọðvarr segir, at betr mundi til takaz. Þeir ganga í burt frá họllinni, ok verðr Bọðvarr at bera hann; svá er hann hræddr. Nú sjá þeir dýrit; ok því næst æpir Họttr slíkt, sem hann má, ok kvað dýrit mundu gleypa hann. Bọðvarr bað bikkjuna hans þegja ok kastar honum niðr í mosann, ok þar liggr hann ok eigi með ọllu óhræddr; eigi þorir hann heim at fara heldr. Nú gengr Bọðvarr móti dýrinu; þat hæfir honum, at sverðit er fast í umgjọrðinni, er hann vildi bregða því. Bọðvarr eggjar nú fast sverðit ok þá bragðar í umgjọrðinni, ok nú fær hann brugðit umgjọrðinni, svá, at sverðit gengr úr sliðrunum, ok leggr þegar undir bægi dýrsins ok svá fast, at stóð í hjartanu, ok datt þá dýrit til jarðar dautt niðr. Eptir þat ferr hann þangat sem Họttr liggr. Bọðvarr tekr hann upp ok berr þangat, sem dýrit liggr dautt. Họttr skelfr ákaft. Bọðvarr mælti: 'nú skaltu drekka blóð dýrsins.' Hann er lengi tregr, en þó þorir hann víst eigi annat. Bọðvarr lætr hann drekka tvá sopa stóra; hann lét hann ok eta nọkkut af dýrshjartanu; eptir þetta tekr Bọðvarr til hans, ok áttuz þeir við lengi. Bọðvarr mælti: 'helzt ertu nú sterkr orðinn, ok ekki vænti ek, at þú hræðiz nú hirðmenn Hrólfs konungs.' Họttr sagði: 'eigi mun ek þá hræðaz ok eigi þik upp frá, þessu.' 'Vel er þá orðit, Họttr félagi; fọru vit nú til ok reisum upp dýrit ok búum svá um, at aðrir ætli at kvikt muni vera.' Þeir gera nú svá. Eptir þat fara þeir heim ok hafa kyrt um sik, ok veit engi maðr, hvat þeir hafa iðjat. Konungr spyrr um morguninn, nvat þeir viti til dýrsins, hvárt þat hafi nọkkut þangat vitjat um nóttina; honum var sagt, at fé alt væri heilt í grindum ok ósakat. Konungr bað menn forvitnaz, hvárt engi sæi líkindi til, at þat hefði heim komit. Varðmenn gerðu svá ok kómu skjótt aptr ok sogðu konungi, at dýrit færi þar ok heldr geyst at borginni. Konungr bað hirðmenn vera hrausta ok duga nú hvern eptir því, sem hann hefði hug til, ok ráða af óvætt þenna; ok svá var gert, sem konungr bauð, at þeir bjuggu sik til þess. Konungr horfði á dýrit ok mælti síðan: 'enga sé ek fọr á dýrinu, en hverr vill nú taka kaup einn ok ganga í móti því?' Bọðvarr mælti: 'þat væri næsta hrausts manns forvitnisbót. Họttr félagi, rektu nú af þer illmælit þat, at menn láta, sem engi krellr né dugr muni í þér vera; far nú ok drep þú dýrit; máttu sjá, at engi er allfúss til annarra.' 'Já, sagði Họttr, ek mun til þessa ráðaz.' Konungr mælti: 'ekki veit ek, hvaðan þessi hreysti er at þér komin, Họttr, ok mikit hefir um þik skipaz á, skammri stundu.' Họttr mælti: 'gef mér til sverðit Gullinhjalta, er þú heldr á, ok skal ek þá fella dýrit eða fá bana.' Hrólfr konungr mælti: 'þetta sverð er ekki beranda nema þeim manni, sem bæði er góðr drengr og hraustr.' Họttr sagði: 'svá skaltu til ætla, at mér sé svá háttat.' Konungr mælti: 'hvat má vita, nema fleira hafi skipz um hagi þína, en sjá þykkir, en fæstir menn þykkjaz þik kenna, at, þú sér enn sami maðr; nú tak við sverðinu ok njót manna bezt, ef þetta er til unnit.' Síðan gengr Họttr at dýrinu alldjarfliga ok høggr til þess, þá, er hann kemr í họggfæri, ok dýrit fellr niðr dautt. Bọðvarr mælti: 'sjáið nú, herra, hvat hann hefir til unnit.' Konungr segir: 'víst hefir hann mikit skipaz, en ekki hefir Họttr einn dýrit drepit, heldr hefir þú þat gert.' Bọðvarr segir: 'vera má, at svá sé.' Konungr segir: 'vissa ek, þá er þú komt hér, at fáir mundu þínir jafningjar vera, en þat þykki mér þó þitt verk frægiligast, at þú hefir gert hér annan kappa, þar er Họttr er, ok óvænligr þótti til mikillar giptu; ok nú vil ek at hann heiti eigi Họttr lengr ok skal hann heita Hjalti upp frá þessu; skaltu heita eptir sverðinu Gullinhjalta'".[51]

The consistency observed in displacing the bear, as the animal killed by Bjarki has been noted, as has also the reason why the dragon was introduced as a substitute for the bear. It will be observed that the account of the dragon in the Siward story suggested the further development of the story in the Hrólfssaga. Olrik says: "I én henseende bar Sivard den digres kamp dog noget eget. De almindelige norröne dragekampe lige fra Sigurds drab på Fåvne har stadig til mål at vinde dragens guld. For Sivard digre eksisterer dette motiv ikke; han vil frelse de hjemsögte mennesker. Af alle de islandske dragekampe har kun Björn Hitdölekæmpes noget tilsvarende, og her er det næppe tilfældigt at også den er henlagt til de engelske farvande. Det er det engelske dragekamps-motiv".[52] Olrik further calls attention to the fact that in English tales the object is not to kill the dragon, but to drive it away, as Siward did. But to fit the dragon into the Bjarki story, it had to be killed in order that the blood-drinking episode might be introduced. This involved no difficulty, however; for the killing of the dragon was in harmony with Scandinavian saga-usage. But it should be observed how, in essence, the conception of the dragon in the Bjarki story harmonizes accurately with that in the Siward story. The king and his court are afflicted by the visitations of a dragon; and Bjarki puts an end to this affliction by killing the dragon, as Siward, in the corresponding situation, does by driving it away.

Not less terrible than dragons, but much more common, were trolls; and this fact led Brynjulfsson to remark that the introduction of a troll in this connection was as characteristic as anything could be.[53] The introduction of the troll is quite in harmony with the genius of Old Norse folk-lore. The saga-man did not, however, characterize the dragon as a troll merely because he would thus be employing good saga-material, but because the depredations ascribed to the dragon in the Siward story, which were quite foreign to the accounts of dragons in Scandinavian folk-lore, were very suggestive of the depredations ascribed to trolls, and because a troll story would enable him to work out his plot with admirable effect. The statement in the saga, "As the Yule-feast approached, the men grew depressed," is a characteristic beginning of a troll story; for, while trolls commit their depredations at all times of the year and under a multitude of circumstances, many of the stories about them begin with such expressions as: "Yule was approaching. On the eve the shepherd went with his sheep";[54] "In old days no one could stay over Christmas Eve";[55] "It happened once late on a Yule Eve";[56] "Formerly every Christmas Eve";[57] "I gamle dage var det en julenat";[58] "Juleaften gik Per Bakken til kvernhuset";[59] "Nogen av selskapet kom til at tale on Hammertrollet, som det nu kaltes, og de mente, at skulde de nogengang vente ulempe av det arrige troll, saa maatte det vel vasre saadan i julegryet".[60]

Thus, as we see, the statement that the winged monster appears late Christmas Eve,[61] is exactly in harmony with the belief, still current in some parts of Norway, that on Christmas Eve, after sunset, but never earlier in the day, an adventure with a troll is to be expected unless proper precaution be taken to avoid it. It is a part of the superstition, that if any one ventures into, or near, the stable or other outbuildings late in the evening, he is in the greatest danger of being attacked by one of these malignant beings; and people are in mortal terror of falling into the clutches of a troll. As a result, there is great haste to get the chores done up early on Christmas Eve. In fact, the fear that Hott shows before leaving the hall, when he knows he must go out, and the extreme fear that he shows later, can be duplicated from the tales that are told in connection with the superstition. There is no danger, however, so long as one remains in the house.[62]

A story, pertinent in this connection, is told to illustrate the difficulties that ministers in the rural districts in Norway have had to contend with on account of the superstitious belief in trolls. A minister had exerted himself to root out of the people in his parish the belief in trolls. Among those whom he had endeavored to enlighten was a boy. But so ingrained had this belief become in the boy that, when Christmas Eve arrived and he was requested to go to one of the outbuildings on an errand, he was seized with fright. He went on the errand, however, and performed it without seeing a troll; but on his return he was so overcome with the fear that a troll was pursuing him that he fell to the ground, and had to be met by people from the house and escorted back.[63] The story is supposed to be true, and there is no reason to doubt it. But whether it is true or not is immaterial in this connection; in any event, it shows what kind of story we are dealing with in the saga, and it shows to what admirable use the story enabled the saga-man to put the inordinate fear and cowardice of Hott. In view of the circumstances (Hott's cowardice and the common fear of the Christmas troll), Hott's actions, when he is forced to accompany Bjarki and when he sees the monster, are perfectly natural; and to see the matter in any other light is not to understand the story.

Another feature of the first part of the story that should be noticed is the dual nature of the monster. A dragon was as terrible a creature as one could imagine; a troll was also as terrible a creature as one could imagine. But the saga-man has introduced into his story a being that combines the characteristics of both. Hott knew that the monster possessed this dual nature, for it is from him that the author lets the statement proceed, "That is no beast, it is rather the greatest troll." This makes it still more natural for him to display ridiculous fear. It also explains the king's fear of the monster, and removes the odium that might seem to attach to the king and his warriors in withdrawing from a combat with such a creature and allowing it, unopposed, to perform its Yule-tide depredations and depart. The saga-man did not intend to be-little Hrolf Kraki; he intended to magnify Bjarki by introducing a monster for him to overcome that it was no shame for other mortals to avoid. Nor is it accidental that the reader is informed of the troll-nature of the dragon in a statement made by Hott to Bjarki. It serves to make it plain that Bjarki also knew what kind of monster the dragon was. This places in the strongest relief his courage in undertaking voluntarily, nay against the express command of the king, to attack the beast, and his prowess in felling it without difficulty. What single feat could he have performed, or in what manner could he have performed it, to reflect greater credit on himself? The cowardly Hott he had to have with him also, in order that the blood-drinking episode might be introduced; but Hott's childish actions encumbered him at a time when they would be very provoking and it might be necessary for Bjarki to have command of all his resources to gain a victory.

In the scene that follows the slaying of the dragon, it seems at first sight that an incongruous element has been introduced. That Hott is compelled to eat some of the dragon's heart is good saga-material, as is evident from the similar episode in the Volsungasaga (i.e., Sigurd's eating some of Favnir's heart); but the dragon is also a troll, and there is no sanction in saga-literature for eating a troll's heart and drinking a troll's blood to gain strength and courage. Trolls have always been regarded as detestable beings; and in drinking the blood of a troll, it might seem that one would acquire detestable qualities. But, on the one hand, the difficulty, if indeed story-tellers of the time regarded the matter as presenting a difficulty, was unavoidable without a reconstruction of the whole story; on the other hand, so far as the monster was a dragon, no difficulty would be involved, and so far as the monster had the nature of a troll, the heart-eating and blood-drinking would certainly be regarded as imparting strength. In such scenes as this it is never the intention that one who eats the heart of a dragon or drinks an animal's blood shall acquire all the characteristics of the animal; every scene of this kind would then be ridiculous from any point of view. The eating and drinking are done to gain strength and courage, as is the case here; and it is not proper to subject this scene to a more critical judgment than similar scenes in other sagas. The strength of a troll was certainly not to be despised; and we find this particular episode sanctioned in a way in the Bjarkarímur, where it is said that after Hjalti had drunk of the blood of the wolf, he became, not as strong as a wolf, but "as strong as a troll." In view of the fact that the troll is a troll-dragon, that the eating of its heart associates the episode very closely with the similar episode in the Volsungasaga, and that the rímur magnify Hjalti's strength by saying that it is equal to that of a troll, it is hypercritical to say that the saga here contains an incongruous element. And however insistent one may be in maintaining that the author has introduced an element that is not recognized saga-material, it must be admitted that he has so skillfully fused it with good saga-material that it is not probable, as the rímur show, that contemporary readers found any fault with the episode.

But does such a monster as a troll-dragon have any sanction in folk-lore? Yes, it does. It is characteristic of Norse folk-lore to ascribe troll-like qualities to beings about which there seems to be something supernatural, such as invulnerability. In one of Asbjörnsen's tales, there is a story about a troll-bird, told by a man named Per Sandaker, who "was supposed to be strong in stories about troll-birds." In the story referred to, there is a woodgrouse (tiur) which has become known as a fabulous animal (fabeldyr) throughout the whole neighborhood. "One might just as well shoot at a stone,' said Per, with the greatest conviction"; for he had shot at the bird and made the feathers fly, without being able to injure it. Later, on the hunting-trip on which Per was telling about the bird, he and a companion came across it. "Now he is out again, the old fellow," said Per; "there is no use in the wide world to shoot at him, one might just as well shoot at the clouds." The men maneuvered for a position; and Per's companion, who is telling the story, says, "My gun was raised, and the mighty bird tumbled down head first." Per picked it up and examined it and declared that it was the troll-bird; he could tell it by the beak. On the same trip stories were told about troll-hares that for a time had escaped uninjured but had finally been killed.[64]

Panzer[65] and others have called attention to the discrepancy between the statement that the monster in the saga is said to be invulnerable, and that it is nevertheless killed. In the story from Asbjörnsen's tales we have the explanation. The troll-animal seems to be invulnerable until some one appears who has the requisite skill or strength, or a combination of both, to dispatch it; and it might be observed that Bjarki paid no more attention to Hott's statement about the invulnerability of the troll-dragon than Per's companion paid to Per's statement about the invulnerability of the troll-bird.

Finnur Jónsson calls the dragon a hall-attacking monster;[66] but this appellation is hardly correct. The only thing in the saga might fairly suggest it is Bjarki's statement, "The hall isn't so well defended as I thought, if a beast can destroy the domain and property of the king." But Hott has not said that the monster had attached the hall; and if it be insisted that it is the author who has presented Bjarki as making the statement and has not paused to weigh nicely the dramatic proprieties, the reply may be made that Bjarki thinks of how weakly the king's hall is defended when a monster can regularly defy his men and come off without injury. He does not imply that the hall has been attacked; he refers to the destruction of "the domain and property of the king." In any event, the saga does not represent the monster as attacking the hall. To continue immediately after the statement just quoted: Hott answered, 'That is no beast, it is rather the greatest troll.' Now came the Yule-even; and the king said, 'Now I desire that all the men be still and quiet in the night, and I forbid them all to run any risk on account of the beast; let the cattle fare as fate wills; my men I do not wish to lose'. The king expects the cattle to fare ill, but wishes to run no risk of losing his men; however, if they remain in the hall in the night, there will be no risk of losing them, because (such is the necessary conclusion) the hall and the men in the hall will not be attacked. Hence, the monster cannot be called a hall-attacking monster; it is a cattle-attacking monster. Again, Bjarki did not expect the monster to attack the hall. If he had, he would probably have done as Beowulf did under similar circumstances—awaited its arrival. And the king's men did not expect the monster to attack the hall, for they seem to have gone to sleep; this is implied in the statement telling about Bjarki's and Hott's return to the hall, "Then they went in and were quiet; no one knew what they had done." If the men had been on guard for the monster, which was the only rational thing for them to do if they expected the hall to be attacked, the opportunity for Bjarki and Hott to sneak out, remain some length of time, and return, all unobserved, would have been cut off. Later, after Bjarki had crept out at night and killed the dragon, compelling Hott to go with him, etc., the saga continues, "The king asked in the morning whether they knew anything of the beast; whether it had showed itself anywhere in the night; they told him the cattle were all safe and sound in the folds." From this it follows that the dragon might have appeared and killed all the cattle, so far as the king knew; he had paid no attention to the matter in the night; he had apparently been asleep. The question was not whether the monster had attacked the hall; it was not expected to attack the hall; and the fact that it had not attacked the hall signified nothing as to whether it had made its appearance. The question was whether the cattle had suffered; and when the king asked if the beast "had showed itself anywhere in the night," the answer was that "the cattle were all safe and sound in the folds." The extreme danger to which the cattle were exposed, and the entire safety of the men if they remained in the hall during the night, show again that this was no hall-attacking monster, but "et kongsgården hjemsögende uhyre," a troll that destroyed cattle and did not endanger the men unless they left the hall in the night and exposed themselves to attack.

Among the Icelandic legends collected by Jón Arnason is a story which, in certain important particulars, is very much like the story about Bjarki's fight with the troll-dragon. A portion of it is as follows:—

"A man named Gudmundur lived once upon a time at a farm called Silfrúnarstadir, in the bay of Skagafjördur. He was very rich in flocks, and looked upon by his neighbours as a man of high esteem and respectability. He was married, but had no children.

"It happened one Christmas Eve, at Silfrúnarstadir, that the herdsman did not return home at night, and, as he was not found at the sheep-pens, the farmer caused a diligent search to be made for him all over the country, but quite in vain.

"Next spring Gudmundur hired another shepherd, named Grímur, who was tall and strong, and boasted of being able to resist anybody. But the farmer, in spite of the man's boldness and strength, warned him to be careful how he ran risks, and on Christmas Eve bade him drive the sheep early into the pens, and come home to the farm while it was still daylight. But in the evening Grímur did not come, and though search was made far and near for him, was never found. People made all sorts of guesses about the cause of his disappearance, but the farmer was full of grief, and after this could not get any one to act as shepherd for him.

"At this time there lived a poor widow at Sjávarborg, who had several children, of whom the eldest, aged fourteen years, was named Sigurdur.

"To this woman the farmer at last applied, and offered her a large sum of money if she would allow her son to act as shepherd for him. Sigurdur was very anxious that his mother should have all this money, and declared himself most willing to undertake the office; so he went with the farmer, and during the summer was most successful in his new situation, and never lost a sheep.

"At the end of a certain time the farmer gave Sigurdur a wether, a ewe, and a lamb as a present, with which the youth was much pleased.

"Gudmundur became much attached to him, and on Christmas Eve begged him to come home from his sheep before sunset.

"All day long the boy watched the sheep, and when evening approached, he heard the sound of heavy footsteps on the mountains Turning around he saw coming towards him a gigantic and terrible troll.

"She addressed him, saying, 'Good evening, my Sigurdur. I am come to put you into my bag.'

"Sigurdur answered, 'Are you cracked? Do you not see how thin I am? Surely I am not worth your notice. But I have a sheep and fat lamb here which I will give you for your pot this evening.'

"So he gave her the sheep and the lamb, which she threw on her shoulder, and carried off up the mountain again. Then Sigurdur went home, and right glad was the farmer to see him safe, and asked him whether he had seen anything.

"'Nothing whatever, out of the common,' replied the boy.

"After New Year's day the farmer visited the flock, and, on looking them over, missed the sheep and lamb which he had given the youth, and asked him what had become of them. The boy answered that a fox had killed the lamb, and that the wether had fallen into a bog; adding, 'I fancy I shall not be very lucky with my sheep.'

"When he heard this, the farmer gave him one ewe and two wethers, and asked him to remain another year in his service. Sigurdur consented to do so.

     "Next Christmas Eve, Gudmundur begged Sigurdur to be cautious, and
     not run any risks, for he loved him as his own son.

     "But the boy answered, 'You need not fear, there are no risks to
     run.'"

The troll appeared again, and Sigurdur gave her two old and two young sheep. When he returned to the farm he declared that he had seen nothing unusual. Next year the troll appeared as usual, and took four sheep, which Sigurdur offered her, and himself besides. When she arrived at her cave, she bade Sigurdur kill them, and then bade him sharpen an axe, for she was going kill him. He did so, but she spared him.

From this point, the story becomes more of a common fairy tale. By following the troll's advice, Sigurdur won Margaret, the dean's daughter.[67]

This is another story about a troll that comes on Christmas Eve and harms people only when they expose themselves after sunset. Particularly noteworthy are the statements: "Gudmundur became attached to him, and on Christmas Eve begged him to come home from his sheep before sunset";—"Next Christmas Eve, Gudmundur begged Sigurdur to be cautious, and not run any risks, for he loved him as his own son";—and, "The farmer … asked him whether he had seen anything. 'Nothing whatever, out of the common,' replied the boy." They bear a striking resemblance to the corresponding statements in the Hrólfssaga: "The king said, 'Now I desire that all the men be still and quiet in the night, and I forbid them all to run any risk on account of the beast; let the cattle fare as fate wills; my men I do not wish to lose'";—and, "The king asked in the morning whether they knew anything of the beast; whether it had showed itself anywhere in the night; they told him the cattle were all safe and sound in the folds."

The purpose of calling attention to the story in Arnason's collection is that it may aid in showing what kind of story the dragon story in the saga really is. That the most terrible kind of troll attacks the cattle[68] of the famous King Hrolf Kraki and is dispatched by the noted hero Bothvar Bjarki does not alter the nature of the story.

A possible objection remains, which should be removed. When the warders in the morning saw the dead propped-up dragon, they said "that the beast was advancing rapidly to attack the town." And "the king bade his men be courageous, [and said] each one should help, according as he had courage for it, and proceed against the monster." But it is plain that, since the beast was apparently coming in the morning, in broad daylight, instead of at night, it seemed to have changed its tactics, and no one could tell what it intended to do. It was the part of wisdom to prepare for the worst. Besides, the men would have better prospects of success, or at least of avoiding injury, in an encounter with it in daylight when its maneuvers could be watched and guarded against. That the warders in a state of excitement said that "the beast was advancing rapidly to attack the town," is of no significance. They merely expressed the thought that came to their minds; and they were palpably wrong when they said that it "was advancing rapidly." But it is an exquisite touch on the part of the saga-man to have the warders utter these words. They got one view of the monster and hastened back. Of course, the beast was advancing and advancing rapidly; it would never occur to them, unless they had paused to take note of it, which they did not do, that the monster was standing still.

It may seem that too much attention is devoted to this feature of the story. But it is important to establish, if possible, the type of story we have before us in this much discussed tale about Bjarki and the troll-dragon. Regardless of where the author got the idea of the dragon, he has made use of the popular story about the troll that comes Christmas Eve and attacks those who venture out into the open after dark. And when the saga-man transformed the story into one of this type, he did it with the conscious purpose of providing a story that would enable him to let Bjarki take Hott out secretly at night, kill the dragon, compel Hott to eat of its heart and drink of its blood, put Hott's newly acquired strength to the test, prop the dead dragon up in a living posture, thus paving the way for further developments, and then return to the hall—all unseen and without arousing a breath of suspicion. The type of story is adapted precisely to the requirements of the author's plan. That the propping-up of an animal that has been slain is good saga-material, or has the sanction of earlier usage, is admitted, and need not be dwelt upon here.

The type to which the dragon story belongs has a bearing on its relationship to the Grendel story. Grendel is a hall-attacking monster; the troll-dragon is not a hall-attacking monster. If the dragon story in the saga is a modification of the Grendel story in Beowulf, or if it is a modification even of the story about the fire-spewing dragon, there has been a change, not only in the details of the story and the nature of the monster, but it has been transferred from one well-defined type of story to another. There is, indeed, a type of troll story in which the troll comes Christmas Eve and attacks the inmates of the house, not the cattle in the stable or in the folds. To this type belongs the story in the Grettissaga in which the troll-wife attacks the man of the house[69] and which is often compared with the Grendel story. Another story of the same type is that about Per Gynt, who, having been informed that a certain house is invaded by trolls every Christmas Eve so that the inmates must seek refuge elsewhere, decides to ask for lodging there overnight next Christmas Eve in order that he may put an end to the depredations of the trolls. The trolls make their appearance as usual, and with the aid of a tame polar bear Per Gynt puts them to flight.[70] But these stories must be sharply differentiated from the Bjarki story and others of its type; so that while the Grettir story and the Grendel story are essentially of the same type, the story about the winged monster in the Hrólfssaga and the Grendel story are not of the same type.

The last episode in the story about Bjarki and the winged monster has met with more criticism than any other portion of it. Olrik says that the story should have given us a real test of Hjalti's manhood;[71] Lawrence says, "The beast-propping episode spoils the courage-scene";[72] and Panzer says that this part of the story is impossible, because Hjalti is represented as killing a dead monster, and Hrolf, although he perceives the deception that has been practiced, nevertheless gives the swindler the heroic name Hjalti.[73] Panzer is also inclined to make much of Hjalti's asking for, and receiving, the king's sword, as he mentions the matter twice. Once he says, "Warum er des Königs Schwert verlangt, gibt die Saga nicht an, er 'tötet' damit das (tote) Tier wie in den Rímur";[74] and again, "Man sieht nicht, warum und wozu Hjalti des Königs Schwert zu seiner Scheintat erbittet und erhält".[75] Furthermore, Kluge, Sarrazin, Holthausen, Lawrence, and Panzer[76] would identify "gylden hilt" in Beowulf with Gullinhjalti in the saga.

In considering this portion of the story it should be observed that the saga-man had a fourfold purpose in view. Bjarki must receive credit for his great achievement in killing the troll-dragon; he must receive credit for having made a brave man of the cow Hott; Hott must give proof of his newly acquired courage; his change of name must also be made, and, as is most appropriate, it must result, and result naturally, from the deed by which his courage is displayed. But before proceeding to an explanation of how the author manipulates the scene so as to accomplish his purpose, let us see how he has prepared for it.