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.

The monster is dead. Hott has partaken of its strength-giving blood and
heart. Bjarki and Hott have wrestled long, so that Bjarki has brought
Hott to a thorough realization of the strength he now possesses, for
that is the significance of the wrestling-match; and what better
assurance could Hott have that he is now very strong than that he is not
put to shame in wrestling with Bjarki who has overawed the king's
warriors and slain the terrible dragon? Finally, the dragon is propped
up and the two retire.

The morning comes and the monster is in view; but some of the terror
that its expected arrival in the darkness had inspired has disappeared
when it is seen in broad daylight. An effort ought really to be made to
destroy it, but the king will not command any one to take the risk
involved in attacking it. He calls for a volunteer, and the fact that no
one volunteers shows what the men think of it. Bjarki sees an
opportunity to continue what he has begun in the night, by having Hott
do what will win him the reputation and place among the king's men to
which, owing to the change that he has undergone, he is now entitled;
and he calls on Hott to show his strength and courage by attacking the
beast. Hott knows that the monster is dead, but this is not the reason
why he accedes to Bjarki's request. He realizes now that Bjarki's
friendship is beyond question and that everything that Bjarki has done
with regard to him, and asked him to do, has been for the best; and
though he feels that he is called upon to engage m a strange proceeding,
loyalty to his friend, who probably is equal to this occasion, as he has
been to every other, impels him to do as requested and assist in playing
the game to the end. So he says to the king, "Give me your sword
Gullinhjalti, which you are bearing, and I will kill the beast or die in
the attempt."

Whether Hott has a sword of his own the saga does not tell, and it is
quite immaterial. That such a coward as Hott has been has no business
carrying a sword, would be sufficient justification for his being
without one. But whether he has a weapon or no, if he is going to
attack the monster he ought to be armed with the best sword available;
and whose would that be but the king's sword? If the king expects any
one to run the risk of attacking the beast, he ought to be willing to do
what he can to assure success in the undertaking. He feels the force of
the argument implied in Hott's request, and hands him his sword; but he
says, "This sword can only be borne by a man who is both brave and
daring." Hott answers, "You shall be convinced that I am such a man." He
then goes up to the beast and knocks it over. But a beast that has shown
itself to be so terrible on former occasions cannot be alive and yet
stand stock still and allow itself to be killed and tumbled over in this
manner. It must have been killed before, and now the king strongly
suspects that the reason why Bjarki has urged Hott to attack it was that
Bjarki, having killed the monster himself, knew that it was dead; and
when he is charged with the deed he does not deny it. Thus Bjarki gets
the credit for his achievement.

It is true, as Müllenhoff,[77] ten Brink,[78] and Olrik[79] have said,
that the main object of the whole story of Bjarki and the dragon is to
motivate Hott's newly acquired courage. Bjarki compels Hott to go with
him when the dragon is to be attacked; he compels him to eat and drink
what will give him strength and courage; he props up the dead dragon in
order that, as the sequel shows, Hott may gain the reputation of being
what he now really is, a brave man; and while, of the two achievements
with which Bjarki is credited, the killing of the dragon is passed over
lightly, his having made a brave man of Hott is strongly emphasized. But
there can be no doubt that the saga-man planned that Bjarki should get
credit for killing the dragon; for Bjarki does get such credit, and it
must be presumed that, what the author permits to occur, he planned
should occur. It is also natural that more emphasis is laid on his
having made a hero of Hott than on his having slain the monster. Now
that the beast is dead, the killing of it proved not to be an impossible
feat, and Bjarki has shown before, that he possesses the qualities
necessary for such a deed. But that he possesses the ability to make a
hero out of the miserable, cowardly wretch, Hott, is a revelation of a
new and uncommon power. He has not only dispatched the king's most
dangerous foe, he has added another brave man to the number of the
king's retainers. This naturally attracts the king's particular
attention, and he gives Bjarki special credit for the achievement.

But when Bjarki is known to have killed the beast, what becomes of
Hott's display of bravery, or even the appearance of bravery? His whole
demeanor, from the moment he accedes to Bjarki's request to attack the
beast, reveals the change in his nature. But the proof of this change
consists, not in knocking over the dragon, but in his ability to wield
the sword which the king himself says can "only be borne by a man who is
both brave and daring." This must be conclusive proof to the king and to
all present. It is not accidental that it is the king's sword that Hott
uses and that it is the king himself who makes the remark about it which
he does. The king, above all men, must be convinced of Hott's bravery,
and in view of the manner in which Hott's bravery is displayed, the king
must, indeed, be satisfied with the proof. Thus this purpose of the
scene is also accomplished. Nor has the saga-man devised an artificial
method of testing strength and courage. It is quite in harmony with
folk-lore. That a strength-giving drink enables one to wield a sword
that an ordinary mortal cannot handle, is a motive employed in a number
of fairy tales. It occurs, for instance, in _Soria Moria Castle_, one of
the best known Norse fairy tales. It is told that Halvor, a typical
good-for-nothing fellow and groveler-in-the-ashes, has arrived at a
castle inhabited by a princess and a three-headed troll. The princess
warns Halvor to beware of the monster, but he decides to await the
troll's arrival. Halvor is hungry and asks for meat to eat. "When Halvor
had eaten his fill, the princess told him to try if he could brandish
the sword that hung against the wall; no, he couldn't brandish it--he
couldn't even lift it up. 'Oh,' said the princess, 'now you must go and
take a pull of that flask that hangs by its side; that's what the troll
does every time he goes out to use the sword.' So Halvor took a pull,
and in a twinkling of an eye he could brandish the sword like
anything".[80] It is apparent, therefore, that the saga-man intend
Hott's ability to wield the king's sword to constitute the proof of his
bravery. Thus the author's third purpose is accomplished, and the king
rewards Hott, not in spite of the deception that been practiced and
revealed, but on account of his bravery, which been proved.[81]

In Saxon, Hjalti has no other name than "Hialto." In the _Hrólfssaga_ he
first has the name "Hott" and this is changed to "Hjalti." The
appropriate time for changing it is, as has been said, when his change
of nature becomes apparent; and his new name is most fittingly derived
from the deed by which he manifests that he has become a different man
from what he was. "Hjalti" means "hilt"; hence, he must get his name
from a hilt; but it should come from the hilt of a sword connected with
his display of courage, and this is the king's sword. It is a fine
conception that, as Hjalti gets his new name from his ability to wield
the wonderful sword of the king, his name is a constant reminder of his
bravery. But the name of the king's sword is Skofnung; hence, as the
word has no suggestion of "hilt" in it, it is not available in this
connection. The form "hjalti" must appear in some way to suggest the
name; and since the name is to come from the king's sword the word
"hjalti" must be used in connection with it. But what kind of hilt would
the king's sword naturally have? A golden hilt, of course. So far as the
words are concerned, "iron hilt," "brass hilt," or "silver hilt" would
have served the purpose just as well, had it been appropriate to use any
of these terms. But the king's sword must have a golden hilt. Hence,
Hott says to the king, "Give me your sword Gullinhjalti, which you are
bearing, and I will kill the beast." And after the king is convinced of
Hott's bravery he says, "And now I wish him called Hott no longer, he
shall from this day be named Hjalti,--thou shalt be called after the
sword Gullinhjalti." Thus Hjalti gets his name from the king's sword;
and this, again, is proof that it is by wielding the king's sword that
Hjalti displays his courage. That "Gullinhjalti" is written as one word
and capitalized may be a late development and signify no more than the
modern treatment by some writers of "gylden hilt" (i.e., writing it
"Gyldenhilt") in _Beowulf_. Even if we assume that the original author
of the word intended "Gullinhjalti" as a proper noun and the name of the
king's sword, it does not necessarily conflict with the idea that the
name of the king's sword is Skofnung. "Gullinhjalti" would then be a
by-name, a pet-name, for Skofnung, derived from its golden hilt. It can
hardly be presumed that when the saga-man in this connection calls the
king's sword "Gullinhjalti," he has for the moment forgotten that the
name of Hrolf's famous sword is Skofnung. Nor is it in conflict with the
description of Skofnung that Gullinhjalti is given a supernatural
quality. Skofnung also has a supernatural quality. It is Skofnung's
nature to utter a loud sound whenever it reaches the bone.[82]

That two swords in two widely separated compositions are identical
requires more proof than that the term "golden hilt" is used in
connection with both of them; and in the two compositions in question
there is nothing else than this term, and the peculiarity of the one
sword that it can be wielded only by a man of unusual strength, of the
other that it can be wielded only by a brave man, on which to base an
identity. The fact of the matter is that it is the requirement of the
plot that has supplied both the name and the unusual quality of the
sword Gullinhjalti in the _Hrólfssaga_. Other requirements would have
produced other results.

But since such stress has been laid on the similarity between "gylden
hilt" (_Beowulf_) and "Gullinhjalti" (_Hrólfssaga_) in the attempt to
identify Bothvar Bjarki with Beowulf, let us turn our attention, before
proceeding further, to the portion of _Beowulf_ where the term "gylden
hilt" occurs.

The text shows clearly that the author of _Beowulf_ did not intend
"gylden hilt" as a proper noun. He never uses the word "hilt" in
connection with the weapon in question to designate the sword as a
whole. "Hilt," both as a simple word and in compounds, is used only to
designate the handle of the sword. The following terms are used for the
sword as a whole: "bil,"[83] "sweord,"[84] "wǣpen,"[85] "mǣl,"[86]
"īrena cyst."[87] The word "hilt" is used seven times. Sarrazin says,
"Es ist bemerkenswert, dass bei jenem Schwert, auch als es noch
vollständig und unversehrt war, regelmässig die hilze, der griff (hilt),
hervorgehoben wurde (ll. 1563, 1574, 1614, 1668, 1677, 1687, 1698)."[88]
But the statements, "Hē gefēīng þā fetel-hilt,"[89] "Wǣpen hafenade
heard be hiltum,"[90] contain the only two instances in which the hilt
is mentioned before the blade melted. It is quite natural for the author
to say, "He then seized the belted hilt," "The strong man raised the
sword by the hilt"; for the hilt is the part of the weapon that is
intended to be held in the hand when a sword is to be used. It is hardly
correct to say that the hilt is here emphasized.

  "Ne nōm hē īn þǣm wīcum, Weder-Gēata lēod,
  māðm-ǣhta mā, þēh hē þǣr monige geseah,
  būton þone hafelan ond þā hilt somod,
  since fāge; sweord ǣr gemealt."[91]

"Hilt" does not here mean "sword," because "sweord ǣr gemealt" and
nothing but the hilt was left to be taken away. The same applies to
"hilt" in the statement, "Ic þæt hilt þanan fēondum ætferede."[92]

  "Þā wæs gylden hilt gamelum rince,
  hārum hild-fruman, on hand gyfen,
  enta ǣr-geweorc."[93]

In this passage, "hilt" cannot refer to the whole sword, because the
blade had melted; only the hilt remained. To say that the hilt was given
to the king, was proper, for (making allowance, of course, for the
fictional nature of the whole story) it was literally true; but to say
that "Gyldenhilt" (the sword) was given to the king, would not be
proper, because the principal part of the sword had disappeared. The
word "gylden" is used in this passage apparently for two reasons: 1.
that the hilt is of gold renders it more appropriate as a gift, to the
king; 2. "gylden" alliterates with "gamelum."

The hilt was remarkable for other qualities than that it was of gold.

  "Hroðgār maðelode, hylt scēawode,
  ealde lāfe, on ðǣm wæs ōr writen
  fyrn-gewinnes, syðþan flōd ofslōh,
  gifen gēotende, gīganta cyn;
  frēcne gefērdon; þæt wæs fremde þēod
  ēcean Dryhtne; him þæs ende-lēan
  þurh wæteres wylm Waldend sealde.
  Swā wæs on ðǣm scennum scīran goldes
  þurh rūn-stafas rihte gemearcod,
  geseted ond gesæd, hwām þæt sweord geworht,
  īrena cyst, ǣrest wǣre,
  wreoþen-hilt ond wyrm-fāh."[94]

"Hylt"[95] cannot mean the whole sword, since Hrothgar could look at
only what was left of the sword. That was the "gylden hilt," which he
held in his hand; and the expression "hylt scēawode" leaves no doubt
that "gylden hilt" is not a designation of the whole sword.
"Wreoþen-hilt"[96] also obviously refers only to the hilt.

In no instance, therefore, in this connection, does the author of
_Beowulf_ use "hilt" to designate the whole sword; consequently, to
write "gylden hilt" as one word and capitalize it is both arbitrary and
illogical. There is, in fact, nothing in the poem to indicate that the
sword had a name.

Furthermore, the author refers to other swords that were distinguished
by being ornamented with gold. When Beowulf left the land of the Danes,
it is said,

  "Hē þǣm bāt-wearde bunden golde
  swurd gesealde."[97]

And when Beowulf returned to the land of the Geats and presented to
Hygelac and Hygd the gifts he had received from Hrothgar,

  "Hēt ðā eorla hlēo in gefetian,
  heaðo-rōf cyning, Hrēðles lāfe
  golde gegyrede; næs mid Gēatum ðā
  sinc-māðþum sēlra on sweordes hād;
  þæt hē on Bīowulfes bearm ālegde."[98]

It is not said that either of these swords had a golden hilt; but it is
plain that it was not unusual to represent a sword that possessed
excellent qualities as being ornamented with gold, and the hilt is the
part of the sword that naturally lends itself to ornamentation. Other
examples of richly ornamented swords are King Arthur's sword, Excalibur,
whose "pommel and haft were all of precious stones";[99] Roland's sword,
Durendal, which had a golden hilt;[100] and the sword of Frothi II,
which also had a golden hilt.[101]

The fact, therefore, that, both in regard to the giant-sword in
_Beowulf_ and King Hrolf's sword in the saga, the hilt is said to be
golden proves nothing as to the identity of these two swords.

And when, both in the term "gylden hilt" and in the word
"Gullinhjalti," the hilt of the sword is made prominent, it is due, in
the one instance, to the fact that nothing but the hilt remains; in the
other, to the fact that the word "hjalti" is just the word that the
author must have in order to explain the origin of Hjalti's name.

A little more ought to be said about the propping-up of the dragon. That
it served an excellent purpose is evident. It provided the occasion for
Hjalti's asking for the king's sword, in the use of which he displayed
his courage and from which he received his new name. Furthermore,
Bjarki's interest in having Hott attack the beast and display his
courage indicated that he knew that the beast was dead and that he had a
special interest in having Hott recognized as a brave man. This, again,
indicated that Bjarki had himself killed the beast and been the cause of
the change in Hott's nature, for both of which he receives due credit.
But it may be asked, when Bjarki propped the dead beast up, how could he
know that events would take the turn they did? He could not know it. He
relied on his resourcefulness to handle the situation, a resourcefulness
on which he had drawn with success before. He was on hand in the morning
to take note of developments, and we can imagine several possibilities
that he might have had in mind. Had the king proposed that no risk
should be taken with the beast, Bjarki could have requested and secured
permission to attack it, taking Hott with him. Had the king himself
proposed to attack the beast, or had he proposed that his warriors
should attack it in a body, Bjarki could have said, "No, the king must
not expose himself," or, "The king must not expose so many of his men at
once; let me go." To which the king could have assented, whereupon
Bjarki could have taken Hott with him and let Hott, at the last, proceed
against the beast alone and knock it over. One can imagine other
possibilities, which it is not necessary to enumerate here. To be sure,
none of them would be so fortunate as the one represented as having
occurred; but they would have enabled Hott to gain the reputation of
being a brave man, and that is all Bjarki contemplated. That all turned
out more fortunately than Bjarki had foreseen or even intended, enhances
the interest of the story and illustrates the skill of the narrator, who
chose to represent, as he had a right to do, that particular possibility
as having actually occurred that produced the most satisfactory results.
That Bjarki had no thought of credit for himself, redounds, in the
estimation of the reader all the more to his credit; and it is a fitting
reward that he gets full credit for all that he has done.

It seems, then, that Bjarki intended to deceive the king. He undoubtedly
did; but the deception was not intended to mislead the king. Hott _was_
brave and strong, and Bjarki knew it; and even if Hott's strength and
bravery should gain recognition through the employment of a ruse that
involved no real test, no harm would be done. The author, however,
planned that all should turn out otherwise. The reader will also
remember the deception practiced by the shepherd boy in the story from
Jón Arnason's collection.[102] The boy, who is there the hero of the
story, as is Bjarki in the _Hrólfssaga_, is represented as deceiving his
master, but likewise without doing him appreciable harm, and furthermore
without raising reflections on the part of the author as to the
rectitude of his conduct.

Panzer says that Hott's explanation that the repeated breaking-in of the
monster is due to the fact that the king's best men do not return home
at that time of the year is a strange explanation.[103] But in regard to
Hott's statement a distinction must be made between fact and opinion. It
is a fact, as the saga immediately afterwards shows, that the king's
berserks are not at home; but it is only Hott's opinion that, if they
were at home, they would be able to put an end to the depredations of
the monster. It was quite natural, however, that he should think so; for
to such an abject coward as he was, it must have seemed that nothing
could resist such warriors as these berserks were. That they were not at
home was due to the fact that they were on one of their regular
expeditions. But why they had not been retained at home to cope with the
dragon is not explained. The first time it appeared, it came entirely
unexpected. The next year there may have been a question as to whether
it would appear or not. The third year it was definitely expected. It
seems, therefore, that preparations would have been made to resist it;
and when the berserks are not retained at home to cope with the monster,
it is due to the exigencies of the story. The berserks might have been
retained at home to cope unsuccessfully with the monster, or avoid
coping with it at all as the king's other men did, and thus place
Bjarki's feat of slaying it in the strongest relief. But by letting the
berserks be absent at Christmas and return later, the author
accomplished more than this. Bjarki slew the monster, which, in any
treatment of the story, he must be represented as doing. He seized one
of the berserks, who demanded that Bjarki recognize him as his superior
as a warrior, and threw him down with great violence. This was a more
spectacular method of showing superiority to the berserks than merely
doing what they dared not attempt to do, or could not do. But it is
especially in the treatment of Hott, that skillful manipulation of the
story is displayed in having the berserks return home and resume their
boastful manner, after Hott has become strong and daring. Compared with
the king's best warriors it is still a question as to how strong and
brave Hott now is. The question is answered when he is requested to
admit his inferiority to the berserks; for he seizes the one who
confronts him and treats him as Bjarki is treating one of the others.
Thus, in the presence of King Hrolf and the court, Hott displays his
superiority to the doughtiest of the king's famous warriors. Finally,
poetic justice is also achieved, for the very men who had made fun of
Hott and thrown bones at him are now compelled to recognize that he is
the master of them all.

Panzer sees a deeper meaning, than evidently is intended, in the
statement that, as Bjarki was about to attack the dragon, his sword
stuck fast in the scabbard.[104] There is no reason, however, for
regarding it as anything more than a melodramatic incident
characteristic of medieval romances. It reminds one of the following
statement by Wilbur L. Cross, which, with the omission of the reference
to "giants" and "Merlin," characterizes the _Hrólfssaga_ quite
accurately and shows how it harmonizes with the spirit of medieval
literature of its kind, "It is true that they [i.e., the Arthurian
romances] sought to interest, and did interest, by a free employment of
the marvellous, fierce encounters of knights, fights with giants and
dragons, swords that would not out of their scabbards, and the
enchantments of Merlin".[105]

_The Stories in the_ BJARKARÍMUR _of Bjarki's Slaying the Wolf and
Hjalti's Slaying the Bear._


But what is the relation of this story to the corresponding stories in
the _Bjarkarímur_? The stories in the _rímur_ are as follows:--

  "Flestir ọmuðu Hetti heldr,
  hann var ekki í máli sneldr,
  einn dag fóru þeir út af họll,
  svó ekki vissi hirðin ọll.

  Hjalti talar er felmtinn fær,
  'fọrum við ekki skógi nær,
  hér er sú ylgr sem etr upp menn,
  okkr drepr hún báða senn.'

  Ylgrin hljóp úr einum runn,
  ógurlig með gapanda munn,
  họrmuligt varð Hjalta viðr,
  á honum skalf bæði leggr og liðr.

  Ótæpt Bjarki að henni gengr,
  ekki dvelr hann við það lengr,
  họggur svó að í hamri stód,
  hljóp úr henni ferligt blóð.

  'Kjóstu Hjalti um kosti tvó,
  kappinn Bọðvar talaði svó,
  drekk nú blóð eða drep eg þig hér,
  dugrinn líz mér engi í þér.'

  Ansar Hjalti af ærnum móð,
  'ekki þori eg að drekka blóð,
  nýtir flest ef nauðigr skal,
  nú er ekki á betra val.'

  Hjalti gjọrir sem Bọðvar biðr,
  að blóði frá eg hann lagðist niðr,
  drekkur síðan drykki þrjá,
  duga mun honum við einn að rjá.

  Hugrinn óx en miklast máttr,
  minst var honum í litlu dráttr,
  raunmjọg sterkr og ramr sem trọll,
  rifnuðu af honum klæðin ọll.

  Svó er hann orðinn harðr i hug,
  hann hræðist ekki járna flug,
  burtu er nú bleyðinafn,
  Bọðvari var hann að hreysti jafn." (IV, 58-66).

  "Hann hefr fengið hjartað snjalt
      af họrðum móði,
  fekk hann huginn og aflið alt
      af ylgjar blóði.

  Í grindur vandist grábjọrn einn
      í garðinn Hleiðar,
  var sá margur vargrinn beinn
      og víða sveiðar.

  Bjarka er kent, að hjarðarhunda
      hafi harm drepna,
  ekki er hónum allvel hent
      við ýta kepna.

  Hrólfur býst og hirð hans ọll
      að húna stýri,
  sá skal mestr í minni họll
      er mætir dýri.

  Beljandi hljóp bjọrninn framm
      úr bóli krukku,
  veifar sínum vónda hramm,
      svó virðar hrukku.

  Hjalti sér og horfir þá á,
      er hafin er róma,
  hafði hann ekki í họndum þá
      nema hnefana tóma.

  Hrólfur fleygði að Hjalta þá
      þeim hildar vendi,
  kappinn móti krummu brá
      og klótið hendi.

  Lagði hann síðan bjọrninn brátt
      við bóginn hægra,
  bessi fell í brúðar átt
      og bar sig lægra.

  Vann hann það til frægða fyst
      og fleira síðar,
  hans var lundin lọngum byst
      í leiki gríðar.

  Hér með fekk hann Hjalta nafn
      hins hjartaprúða,
  Bjarki var eigi betri en jafn
      við býti skrúða."         (V, 4-13).[106]

These stories seem, indeed, at first sight more rational than the story
in the saga, and have features more in harmony with the account in Saxo;
but this does not prove that they are earlier than the version in the
saga. In the first place, by introducing two animals, where the other
versions have only one, the author of the _rímur_ has broken the unity
of the story, a feature in which the story in the _Hrólfssaga_ remains
intact and as a consequence is nearer to the primitive form of the story
as we find it in Saxo. In the second place, the author of the _rímur_
made precisely the changes that were necessary to remove the most
irrational features of the story as we find it in the _Hrólfssaga_. The
troll-dragon, which is an unusual creature, has been supplanted by the
more conventional creatures, a wolf and a bear; and by the employment of
two animals, the necessity of causing a dead animal to be propped up and
be apparently killed again, is avoided. Consistency in the treatment of
Bjarki as the descendant of a bear is also observed to the extent that
he is said to kill a wolf, not a bear; but this consistency has begun to
fade and suffer to the extent that Bjarki accompanies Hrolf on a bear
hunt. It is probable, however, that consistency in the treatment of
Bjarki in this respect is not contemplated, but that when he is said to
kill a wolf it is only that the larger and more dangerous animal may be
reserved as the one on which Hjalti is to show his strength and courage
and in order that an animal worthy of the king's attention may be
reserved for the royal hunt. To eat wolf meat in order to gain strength
has just as good warrant in Old Norse literature as to drink the blood
of a bear;[107] this, in so far, justifies the introduction in the
_rímur_ of the wolf. But when Hjalti is made to _drink the blood_ of the
wolf, it seems to be another instance of the author's keeping in mind
the version of the story in the _Hrólfssaga_, where Hjalti drinks the
blood of the dragon. It is not necessary to go to Saxo's version for
this.

It is said in the _rímur_, "One day they (Bjarki and Hjalti) went out of
the hall, so that the king's men did not know of it." Why did they go
out of the hall so that the king's men did not know of it? No reason is
assigned; the deed is unmotivated. It seems to be a mere harking back to
the statement in the _Hrólfssaga_,[108] that the two men left the hall
secretly. But in the saga there is a reason for their leaving the hall
secretly; the king has forbidden his men to leave the hall and expose
themselves to attack. That, in the _rímur_, the men are said to leave
the hall in the daytime, instead of at night, is a consequence of the
substitution of the wolf for the troll-dragon; a wolf is usually hunted
in the daytime. It might be surmised that their going out secretly is in
imitation of the story as Saxo knew it. But this is not the case; Saxo
does not say that Bjarki and Hjalti went out secretly.[109] The weakness
of this feature of the story in the _rímur_ has been observed by Panzer,
who believes, nevertheless, that the _rímur_ represent an earlier form
of the story than the one in the saga. He says, "Zweifeln möchte man
nur, ob das Motiv des heimlichen Auszugs der beiden nicht in den _Rímur_
fälschlich in den ersten Kampf gesetzt ist, wo es ganz unbegründet
steht, statt in den zweiten, wo es allein motiviert erscheint."[110]
But this is not the correct explanation. The author of the _rímur_ for
some reason, such as a wish to rationalize the story, but which,
however, we can only surmise, decided to make radical changes in it. In
the first instance he substitutes a wolf for the dragon, but otherwise,
considering the material he is going to use in the story of the fight
with the bear, retains as much as he can of the story as it is in the
saga. Thus the idea of Bjarki's and Hjalti's going out secretly is
retained, but without motivation; and if we did not have the story in
the saga for comparison, perhaps this deficiency would not have been
noticed. Even as it is, Panzer is the only one who has called attention
to it.

Referring to the story as Saxo has it, Müllenhoff,[111] ten Brink,[112]
Olrik,[113] and Deutschbein[114] speak of Bjarki's going on a hunt. This
is hardly correct and requires a little attention, for, if, in Saxo's
version, Bjarki went on a hunt, the account given by Saxo is nearer to
the first story in the _rímur_ than if he did not. But Saxo does not say
that Bjarki went on a hunt. He says: "Talibus operum meritis exultanti
nouam de se siluestris fera uictoriam prebuit. Vrsum quippe eximie
magnitudinis obuium sibi inter dumeta factum iaculo confecit, comitemque
suum Ialtonem, quo uiribus maior euaderet, applicato ore egestum belue
cruorem haurire iussit. Creditum namque erat, hoc pocionis genere
corporei roboris incrementa prestari."[115] The circumstances
immediately preceding the slaying of the bear were such, that it is
highly improbable that, at that particular time, he would go on a hunt.
It will be remembered that there was to be a wedding in the royal
residence; that Agnar was to marry the king's sister; that Agnar took
offense at Bjarki's manner of defending Hjalti, whereupon a fight
ensued and Bjarki killed Agnar and his warriors. But if Bjarki did not
go on a hunt for the bear, how did he come to meet it, and in a thicket
at that? The lack of more details, the lack of motivation for going on a
hunt in the midst of, or immediately following, the stirring events just
mentioned, and utter lack of connection with what precedes, show that
Saxo, who, with this story, begins to set the stage, so to speak, for
the last grand act of King Hrolf's life, concluded to insert it at this
juncture as the most appropriate and effective place he had for it, and
then, to add a touch of realism and supply a retreat where the bear
would be unobserved by the men, and unwarned of their approach, until
they were close upon it, said that Bjarki met it in a thicket. The idea
of supplying a motive and observing such consistency as we find in
connection with the corresponding story in the _Hrólfssaga_ never
occurred to him. The author of the _rímur_ may have known of the version
of the story familiar to Saxo, though it is not probable; but the point
here is, that he is not following this version when he represents Bjarki
as having slain an animal for which he has presumably (though the
_rímur_ do not make the matter clear) gone on a hunt.

The author was under no more obligation than Saxo was, to say that
Bjarki and Hjalti went out secretly, and the idea is not contained in
Saxo's account. But the author of the _rímur_, observing what pains the
author of the saga took to motivate the going out secretly, felt that
this feature of the story was so important that it must be retained, and
so he retained it without motivation.

In Saxo, Hjalti shows no fear when the bear is met, and he does not
refuse to drink the animal's blood. But in the _rímur_ there is the same
kind of fear as in the saga. In the saga, however, the author has found
an excellent setting for Hjalti's fear; it is beyond improvement; while
the ferocity of the man-eating wolf, in the _rímur_, is stretched to the
utmost limit, in order to preserve the spirit of the heroic.
Furthermore, when Hjalti had drunk of the blood of the wolf, he had
courage "enough for fighting with one man." How did the author know that
he had just courage "enough for fighting with one man"? According to the
next statement, namely "his courage increased, his strength waxed, he
became very strong, mighty as a troll, all his clothes burst open," he
seemed, in fact, to have gained strength enough for fighting with
several men. Again, "he was equal to Bothvar in courage." How did the
author know it? He knew it from the version of the story in the saga,
where it is said that Hjalti had wrestled long with Bothvar, and, thus
having tried his strength on Bothvar, told him, "nor shall I be afraid
of you henceforth." The saga does not say that Hjalti had courage
"enough for fighting with one man" or "he was equal to Bothvar in
courage." These statements are deductions that the author of the _rímur_
made from the story in the saga, in the light of subsequent events.

In the _rímur_, it is said that Hjalti "became very strong, mighty as a
troll, all his clothes burst open." Why, or whence, this reference to a
troll? Another harking back to the _Hrólfssaga,_ another deduction made
from the story in the saga. The saga does not say that Hott acquired any
of the characteristics of a troll. He is given the desired strength
without any reference to the strength of a troll. But when the _rímur_
say that he became "mighty as a troll," it amounts to saying, "Hjalti is
no longer represented as having drunk the blood of a troll and eaten
some of its heart, as is the case in the _Hrólfssaga_, but let it be
understood, nevertheless, that the strength he has acquired is no less
than that of a troll." The troll-dragon has been eliminated, but so
great, in the _rímur_, has the strength of Hjalti become that it now
equals that of the very monster, the troll, which, in the saga, he
feared to such an extent that it rendered him pitiable in the extreme.
Here again the author of the _rímur_ inserted an element that is wholly
foreign to his story and unsuggested by it, but that is suggested by the
saga, and that he probably never would have thought of, had he not known
of the version of the story that is contained in the saga.

Furthermore, the _rímur_ say, "The folds at Hleidargard were attacked by
a gray bear; many such beasts were there far and wide thereabout. Bjarki
was told that it had killed the herdsmen's dogs; it was not much used to
contending with men." This is still another harking back to the
_Hrólfssaga_, and confirms what has been said on pp. 29 ff., that the
monster in the saga is a cattle-attacking monster, not a hall-attacking
monster. "The folds were attacked," "it had killed the herdsmen's dogs,"
"it was not much used to contending with men."

The fact that dogs are here said to be killed, but not in the saga, need
hardly be mentioned. The idea of dogs is easily associated with that of
cattle, especially when, as here, the dogs are "herdsmen's dogs."

Again, we notice the statement in the _rímur_ that "Hrolf tossed to
Hjalti his sword." Has he been informed since the slaying of the wolf,
that Hjalti is now a courageous man? Perhaps; but nothing is said about
it in the _rímur_. Since Bjarki took pains to go on the wolf hunt
secretly, and since we are not informed that what occurred on that hunt
has become known or that it has become known that Hjalti is now a
courageous man, the presumption is that the king does not know it, and
we are surprised at his unmotivated action in treating Hjalti in this
unexpected manner. And if Hjalti is now known to be such a hero that
Hrolf feels warranted in placing reliance on him to the extent that he
tosses him his sword at this critical juncture, why has Hjalti taken
part in the hunt with "nothing in his hands"? In the saga it is not said
that Hjalti has nothing in his hands; his motive in asking for the
king's sword has no connection with whether he has anything in his hands
or not.[116] But the author of the _rímur_, having apparently missed the
point in the saga, assumes that, when Hjalti asks for the king's sword,
it is because he has no weapon of his own. Hence, without realizing,
apparently, the anomalous situation in which he places Hjalti, who is
now strong and courageous, he represents him as taking part in the bear
hunt empty-handed, though there is no indication that Hjalti thinks that
he can cope with the animal without a weapon.

In the _Hrólfssaga_, it is said that Bjarki killed a dragon by plunging
his sword under its shoulder. In the _rímur_, it is said that Hjalti
killed a bear by plunging his sword into its right shoulder. This is
another harking back to the _Hrólfssaga_. Hjalti has now become as
courageous as Bjarki; he kills a live animal (instead of knocking over a
dead one), and he kills it in just the same way that Bjarki killed the
dragon. It can not be assumed that the author of the _rímur_ and the
author of the saga employed this manner of dispatching the animal
without any knowledge on the part of the one as to what was contained in
the account of the other. In fact, it is taken for granted by all
writers on the subject that the later account is an altered version of
the earlier account. Hence, either this episode in the _rímur_ is
modeled after that in the saga, and Hjalti is made to kill the bear in
the same way that Bjarki killed the dragon, or the episode in the saga
is modeled after that in the _rímur_, and Bjarki is made to kill the
dragon in the same way that Hjalti killed the bear. Is there any doubt
as to what has occurred? The former is natural and to be expected, and
is probably what has taken place, because: 1. in all the versions of the
story Hjalti is represented as having undergone a change that has caused
him to become very much like Bjarki--"equal to Bjarki," as it is stated
in the _rímur_, where he is represented as having killed a ferocious
beast in the same manner that Bjarki, in the saga, killed a winged
monster; 2. it was not unusual to represent dragons as having been
killed by being pierced under the shoulder,[117] since a dragon had to
be pierced where its scales did not prevent the entrance of a weapon
into its body; 3. since there is no special reason why a bear, which is
vulnerable in all parts of the body, should be represented as being
pierced through the shoulder, the manner in which Hjalti is said to have
killed the bear is evidently another unmotivated incident in the _rímur_
that is imitated from a motivated incident in the saga.

What the author of the _rímur_ has done to give the story the form in
which we find it in his composition is quite plain. He noticed that, as
the monster in the saga attacked the folds at Hleidargard, the situation
was very much like that at the beginning of the story about Bothvar in
the saga, where a bear is said to have attacked the cattle of King
Hring, Bothvar's father.[118] But a bear is a real, not an imaginary,
animal, and King Hring took a creditable part in the effort to dispatch
it. Hence, this story was substituted for the story about the
troll-dragon and adapted to the circumstances, King Hrolf himself taking
the lead in the hunt and thus acting in a manner that seemed more to his
credit than the way he acted in regard to the monster in the saga.

This story, namely that the man whose cattle have been killed by a bear
goes with his men and hunts it down and kills it, is the same that we
have in connection with the early life both of Ulf and of Bjarki, where
the bear is represented as being the great-grandfather of the former,
but the father of the latter. The bear-ancestor feature was not
applicable in the connection in which the story is used in the _rímur_;
hence, it was omitted. Now, did this story spring up spontaneously and
independently in all these three instances? No, Bjarki and Ulf got their
reputed ancestry from the Siward story; and this bear hunt story they
got from a common source through contact with each other, or Bjarki got
it from Ulf. The author of the _rímur_, liking it better than the last
part of the dragon story in the saga, as most modern readers also have
done, took it from the version contained in the saga of the early life
of Bjarki and used it for letting Hjalti display his courage. As a
result, he modified the story where it applies to the early life of
Bjarki. He has two sets of three sons each, while the saga has only one
set; and, what is still more suspicious, there is a Bothvar in each set.
This is the same kind of separation or repetition as the _rímur_ later
make with regard to the dragon story, dividing it into a wolf story and
a bear story. Again, as Finnur Jónsson, summarizing the account in the
_rímur_ of the death of Bjarki's father, says, "Björn forfölges, flygter
ud i et skær og dræbes der af jarlens mænd på et skib (en stærk
afvigelse fra sagaen)."[119] This divergence was plainly introduced to
make the story different from the story that, in substance, was replaced
and that was transferred to where Hjalti displays his courage. In the
saga, Bjarki's mother is called Bera (she-bear),[120] not Hildr, as in
the _rímur_; and that the name Bera is the earlier of the two there can
be no doubt.

Furthermore, we find in the _rímur_ another of the characteristic traces
that the author left when he tampered with the dragon story. In the
saga, in connection with Bjarki's early life, it is said that when the
bear was hunted, it killed all the dogs, but was itself soon after
killed by the men. From this the author concluded that it was death on
dogs, but could not contend successfully with men. Hence, he says,
"Bjarki was told that it had killed the herdsmen's dogs;[121] it was not
much used to contending with men." This statement must, therefore, mean,
if it means anything, that the bear was not really dangerous to men or,
at any rate, not as dangerous as one would naturally suppose. Hjalti
must have known this as well as Bjarki, for it was probably he who gave
Bjarki the information about the beast, as he did in the corresponding
situation in the saga and in the story of the slaying of the wolf. If
this was the case, the bravery that Hjalti displays in attacking the
animal suffers considerably. The statement reminds us of the situation
in the _Hrólfssaga_. Just as Hjalti knocked over a dragon that was not
dangerous because it was dead, so, in the _rímur_, he dispatched a bear
that was not particularly dangerous because "it was not much used to
contending with men." In the former instance, however, the feat was not
the real test of his courage; in the latter instance, it was.

In the saga, Bjarki knew that the dragon was harmless, because he had
killed it; and his knowledge of its harmlessness is vital to the latter
part of the dragon story. In the _rímur_, he is informed that the bear
is not so dangerous as one would suppose. But his knowledge of this
circumstance has no bearing on the story whatever; everything would have
proceeded just as it did if he had been without this information. But in
spite of the fact that the bear "was not much used to contending with
men," "the men fled" when it "ran from its lair and shook its baleful
paws." The author is evidently trying to ride two steeds going in
different directions. On the one hand, he has in mind the story of the
bear with which Bjarki's father was identified and which was killed by
the king's men, and the story of the dead propped-up dragon, which was,
of course, not dangerous; on the other hand, he wishes to represent
Hjalti's feat of killing the bear, which, in the _rímur_, the king's men
avoided, as, in the saga, they avoided the dragon, as a notable
achievement.

Finally, "Hrolf and all his men" took part in the hunt; but, as already
stated, when the bear appeared, "the men fled." The statement, "the men
fled;" introduces a feature that is wanting in the account in the
_Hrólfssaga_ of how Bjarki's father, who had been transformed into a
bear by his stepmother, was hunted down and killed. It reminds us of the
situation in the saga where King Hrolf and his men avoid the winged
monster by remaining indoors when it is expected. In the saga, Bjarki,
of course, did not avoid the monster; but whether, in the _rímur_, the
king fled is uncertain. He was, in any event, near enough to Hjalti to
toss Hjalti his sword. Bjarki, however, must have fled; and while that
would be strange under any circumstances, it would be particularly
strange in the present instance, since he knew that the bear "was not
much used to contending with men."

Considering the dragon story in the saga and the corresponding stories
in the _rímur_, it is apparent that there is no comparison between them
as regards skill in composition; and that, while the stories in the
_rímur_ throw no light on the story in the saga, the full significance
of the _rímur_ stories appears only when they are read in the light of
the story in the saga. Therefore, when Finnur Jónsson says, "Spörger vi
om, hvad der er oprindeligst, er der i og for sig næppe tvivl om, at
rimerne her har af ét dyr gjort to (ulvinden og gråbjörnen), så at
sagaen på dette punkt må antages at have bedre bevaret det ægte," he is
undoubtedly right; but when he continues, "Dette bestyrkes kraftig ved,
at dette hallen hjemsögende uhyre intet andet er end et om end ændret og
afbleget minde om Grendel i _Bjovulf_,"[122] he is, as the evidence also
shows, undoubtedly wrong.

The fact of the matter is that the account in the _rímur_ of the killing
of the bear, though brief, is so confused and indefinite that it does
not bear analysis; and this is further evidence of the fact that the
author of the _rímur_ clumsily re-worked material that he found in the
_Hrólfssaga_ version of Bjarki's career, and for the dragon story, which
is a good story, substituted two poor ones, namely the wolf story and
the bear story.

But the troll-dragon having been eliminated and the bear story selected
as the one to be used in connection with Hjalti's display of his newly
acquired bravery, for which purpose it is, indeed, on account of the
presence of the king and his court, more appropriate than for giving
Hjalti an opportunity to imbibe secretly an animal's blood, another
story had to be devised to account for Hjalti's strength and courage.
The wolf was the next fiercest animal available that the author could
think of. He therefore invented a wolf story and placed it first; and,
as the examination of it has shown,[123] a late and very poor invention
it was, bearing manifest traces of the influence of the dragon story in
the saga.


_Conclusion_.

The principal results attained in the foregoing consideration of the
dragon story in the _Hrólfssaga_ and the corresponding stories in the
_Bjarkarímur_ may be stated briefly as follows:--

1. The story in Saxo is the earliest story we have of the slaying of an
animal by Bjarki in order that Hjalti may drink its blood and acquire
strength and courage.

2. Bjarki having acquired a reputed bear-ancestry from the fictitious
story about Siward, the saga consistently takes this into account and
substitutes a dragon, also acquired from the story about Siward, for the
bear, which, in Saxo's version, is the kind of animal that Bjarki slays.

3. To motivate Bjarki's going forth secretly to slay the monster at
night, a well defined type of Christmas-troll story is employed and the
dragon is given the nature of a troll that comes on Christmas Eve and
attacks the cattle of the king, who, on account of the terrible nature
of the monster, commands his men to stay in the house the night it is
expected.

4. That Bjarki may be given credit a) for slaying the monster and b) for
making a brave man of the coward Hott, and that c) Hott's change of
nature may become apparent and d) a suitable opportunity and plausible
reason may be devised for changing his name to Hjalti, the dead dragon
is propped up and, in connection with the discovery of the ruse, the
story is manipulated so that the saga-man realizes his fourfold purpose.

5. It is highly improbable that the sword-name "Gullinhjalti" in the
saga is connected with the words "gylden hilt" in _Beowulf_. The use of
the word "Gullinhjalti" in the saga is not arbitrary or artificial, but
a logical result of the situation; and, as the discussion of the matter
has shown, the attempt to identify Gullinhjalti with the giant-sword in
_Beowulf_ is based on a mere superficial similarity, in which a
substantial foundation is altogether lacking.

6. The _Bjarkarímur_ are a later composition than the _Hrólfssaga_.[124]
The author of the _rímur_ has discarded the story of the troll-dragon,
has substituted for it the story of the bear hunt connected with the
account of Bjarki's early life, has invented a new story about Bjarki's
early life, and has invented the story about the wolf hunt to give an
opportunity for the introduction of the blood-drinking episode. In the
stories of the wolf hunt and the bear hunt, the _rímur_ contain several
unmotivated statements that are plainly based on the story as we have it
in the saga; and, on the whole, the two stories in the _rímur_ represent
such decidedly poor workmanship in the art of narration that recourse
must be had to the story in the saga for a realization of the
significance of some of the incidents contained in the _rímur_. The
_rímur_ must therefore be left entirely out of account in any attempt to
identify Bjarki with Beowulf, or in attempting to connect Bjarki's deeds
with those of other heroes, as, for instance, that of Hereward in _Gesta
Herwardi_.[125]

In regard to some particulars, these conclusions differ from the
conclusions at which others have arrived; in regard to others, they
agree with them. This, however, is a mere matter of chance; for, where
some have affirmed and others have denied, it is impossible to avoid
agreeing with one party or the other, whatever conclusion an
investigation may lead to. Nor should there be any desire to strive for
what is new, merely for its own sake. The merit of the foregoing
discussion, if it has any, lies in the explanation of the story about
Bjarki and the dragon in the _Hrólfssaga_ and the explanation of the
relation between this story and the corresponding stories in the
_Bjarkarímur_. This explanation is new, and the writer believes that he
has given sufficient reasons to prove that it is correct. If it is
correct, it shows that the stories in the _rímur_ are less admirable
compositions than they are usually held to be; it shows that the dragon
story in the saga is a better composition than it is usually taken to
be; and, finally, it establishes the fact that the dragon story in the
_Hrólfssaga_ has no connection whatever with the Grendel story or the
dragon story in _Beowulf_.[126]



II

FRÓÐAÞÁTTR


The first appearance of Hroar (Hrothgar) in literature is in _Widsith_
and _Beowulf_, where we become acquainted with him as the famous King of
the Danes. Helgi (Halga) appears first in _Beowulf_, where he is
scarcely more than mentioned. Hroar and Helgi belong to the most famous
group of ancient kings in Denmark and appear repeatedly in old
Scandinavian literature. The account of them in the _Fróðaþáttr_ which
introduces the _Hrólfssaga_, is, briefly summarized, as follows.

Halfdan and Frothi were brothers, the sons of a king, and each was the
ruler of a kingdom. Halfdan had two sons, Hroar and Helgi, and a
daughter, Signy, the oldest of the three children, who was married to
Earl Sævil while her brothers were still young. The boys' foster-father
was Regin. Near Halfdan's capital was a wooded island, on which lived an
old man, Vifil, a friend of Halfdan. Vifil had two dogs, called Hopp and
Ho, and was skilled in soothsaying.

Frothi, envying his brother the crown of Denmark, attacked his capital
with a large army, reduced it to ashes, and took Halfdan captive and put
him to death. Regin took his foster-sons, Hroar and Helgi, to the island
and placed them in the care of Vifil, in order that they might not fall
into the hands of Frothi. Vifil took them to a cave (earth-hut), where
they usually stayed at night; but in the daytime they sported in the
grove. Frothi made every effort to locate them and make away with them,
calling in witches and wise men from all over the land to tell him where
they were, but in vain. Then he called in soothsayers, who told him the
boys were not on the mainland, nor far from the court. The king
mentioned Vifil's island, and they told him to look for the boys there.
Twice he sent men to search for them, but the men failed to find them.
Then the king went himself. Vifil, who knew the king was coming, met him
on the strand as if by chance, pretending to be looking after his sheep;
and when the king bade his men seize Vifil, the old man said, "Do not
detain me, or the wolves will destroy my sheep," and cried out, "Hopp
and Ho, guard my sheep." The king asked him to whom he was calling; he
said, to his dogs. But he had told the boys before, that, when he called
out the names of his dogs, they should hide in the cave. The king failed
to find the boys and returned; but Vifil told the boys that it was not
safe for them to remain on the island and sent them to their
brother-in-law, Sævil, saying that they would some day be famous,
unless, perchance, something prevented it.

Hroar was now twelve years old and Helgi ten. The boys returned to
Sævil, but, calling themselves Hrani and Hamur, did not tell him who
they were; and as they always wore masks, their identity remained
unknown to him.

Frothi invited Sævil to a feast. Hroar and Helgi expressed a wish to
join him; but Sævil commanded them to remain at home. Nevertheless, when
Sævil and his retinue had started off, Helgi got an untamed colt, and
mounting it with his face toward the horse's tail, set out, acting all
the while very foolishly. Hroar also mounted a colt, and joined him; and
the two overtook the company. They galloped back and forth beside
Sævil's retinue, until finally Helgi's mask fell off, and then Signy
recognized him. She began to weep, and when Sævil asked her the cause of
her distress, she informed him of her discovery. Sævil tried to get the
boys to return home; but, though they now were on foot and remained in
the rear, they persisted in accompanying him on his visit to Frothi.

When they arrived at Frothi's, Frothi began to hunt for the boys, and
bade a witch, who had come to the hall, to try her skill in finding
them. She told him that they were in the hall. Then Signy threw her a
gold ring, and the witch said that what she had just stated was false.
Frothi threatened to torture her if she did not tell the truth; and she
said that unless he soon prevented it, which he would not do, the boys
would be his death. But the boys, terrified, fled to the wood. The king
ordered his men to seize them; but Regin put out the lights in the hall,
and, in the confusion that followed, those who were friendly to the boys
used the opportunity to obstruct those who would pursue them. Frothi
vowed that he would take vengeance at a more suitable time on those who
had assisted the boys, but added, "Let us now drink and feast"; and this
they did till the men lay in a drunken stupor in a heap on the floor.

Regin rode out to where the boy's were, but would not return their
salutation. In fact, he pretended to be angry. They wondered what this
meant, and followed him. Helgi thought that Regin wanted to help them,
but without violating his oath to the king. Then Regin said to himself,
so that the boys heard it, "If I had a matter to settle with the king, I
would burn this grove." They took the hint and started a fire. Sævil
came out with all his men and bade them aid the boys, and Regin took
measures to get all his men and relatives out of the hall. The king
awoke from a dream, in which the goddess of the nether world was
summoning him. He discovered the fire, and learning who had set it,
offered the boys peace on their own terms; but terms of peace were
denied. Frothi then retired from the door of the hall, hoping to escape
by an underground passage; but at the entrance stood Regin, who blocked
his progress, and he returned into the hall and perished in the flames.
His wife, Sigrith (now mentioned for the first time), the mother of
Hroar and Helgi, refused to leave the hall and perished also.

The boys thanked their brother-in-law, Sævil, and their foster-father,
Regin, and all the others who had helped them, and gave the men rich
gifts. The boys subdued the whole land and seized the late king's
possessions; and for a while the time passed without the occurrence of
anything worthy of special mention.

At this time there was a king by the name of Northri, who ruled over a
part of England. Hroar often passed long intervals at the court of
Northri, supporting him against his enemies and defending his land.
Hroar married Ögn, the daughter of Northri, shared the royal power with
his father-in-law, and after Northri's death succeeded to the throne of
Northumberland. Helgi remained at home, and, by agreement with Hroar,
became sole King of Denmark.

In Saxo's seventh book, there is another version of the same story. The
features in which it chiefly varies from the version in the _Hrólfssaga_
are as follows.

Halfdan's name has become Harald; Hroar's and Helgi's names have become
Harald and Halfdan; Earl Sævil has become Siward, King of Sweden; Signy
has become a daughter of Karl, governor of Gautland, and wife of Harald
(Frothi's brother). Envy and the quarrelsomeness of Frothi's wife and
Harald's wife cause Frothi to engage men to murder Harald. Frothi tries
to avoid suspicion of being the author of the crime, but in vain; the
people believe he is guilty. When he seeks the boys of the murdered
king, to put them out of the way, their foster-parents bind the claws of
wolves under the boys' feet and let them run about and fill a
neighboring morass and the snow-covered ground with their tracks,
whereupon the children of bond-women are put to death and the children's
bodies torn to pieces and strewn about. This is done to give the
impression that the boys have been torn to pieces by wolves. Then the
boys are concealed in a large hollow oak, where food is brought them
under the pretence that they are dogs. Dogs' names are also applied to
them. The episode with the witch is present, but other men and women
with superhuman power are not introduced. The whereabouts of the boys
begins to be bruited about, and Ragnar, their foster-father, flees with
them to Fyen. He is captured and admits that he has the boys in his
protection; but he begs the king not to injure them, calls attention to
the foulness of doing them harm, and promises, in case they make any
disturbance in the kingdom, to report the matter to the king. Frothi,
whose severity Ragnar thus transforms into mildness, spares the boys,
and for many years they live in security. When they are grown up, they
go to Seeland. Their friends urge them to avenge their father's death,
and this they promise to do. Ragnar, when he hears of this, reports it
to the king in accordance with his promise, whereupon the king proceeds
against them with an army. In desperation, the boys pretend insanity;
and, as it is considered shameful to attack people who are insane, the
king again spares them. But in the night the boys set fire to his hall,
after having stoned the queen to death; and Frothi, having hid himself
in a secret underground passage, perishes from the effects of smoke and
gas. The boys share the crown, ruling the kingdom by turns.

Before proceeding further, it would be well to have a summary of the
relations of the Danish kings concerned, up to the last stage of
development, the stage with which we are dealing; and this summary is
best supplied by quoting the following from Olrik's _Danmarks
Heltedigtning:[127]--

     "Der er en fortælling, som bar banet Skjoldungsagnene vej til
     manges hjærter, i vort århundrede ikke mindre end på selve
     sagafortællingens tid: sagnene om de to unge kongesönner Hroar og
     Helge, der må skjule sig for deres faders morder og tronraner,
     farbroderen Frode, men som efter en række æventyrlige oplevelser på
     den enlige holm og i selve kongsgården ser lejlighed til at
     fuldföre hævnen og hæve sig på, tronen. En strålende begyndelse på
     den navnkundige kongeæts mange skæbner! Det er denne fortællings
     udspring, vi nu skal söge.

     "Tidligst foreligger den i en norsk saga fra 12te årh., der åbner
     Sakses 7de bog; men smukkest er den islandske _Hrólfssaga_. Desuden
     foreligger den kort og krönikeagtig i den islandske
     _Skjọldungasaga_, som lader brodermorderen hedde Ingjald og ikke
     Frode.

     "Med disse kilder når vi dog kun til det egenlige sagamands-område,
     Norge og Island. I Danmark er fortællingen ukendt; og Sakse og
     Svend Ågesön er enige on den lige modsatte overlevering: det er
     Halvdan, der slår sin broder Frode eller begge sine brödre ihjel
     for at vinde herredömmet alene. Det er ikke rimeligt, at den danske
     overlevering skulde have dels forvansket, dels tabt den mere ægte
     norske; ti fortællingen om de forfulgte kongesönner er så let at
     huske som et æventyr og vil vanskelig gå i glemme, naar den först
     er hört.

     "Også den ældste sagnform, Beovulfkvadets, kender kampen om
     herredömmet imellem Halvdan og Frode; men der er den forskel, at
     den ene er konge over Danerne, den anden over Had-Barderne, og det
     er imellem disse to folkestammer, striden udkæmpes. Det synes
     snarest, som om Frode er falden i kampen (flere forskere opfatter
     stedet således); i hvert fald tillader sammenhængen næppe, at
     Halvdan kan være falden imod Frode. For så vidt står denne ældste
     form nærmest ved den senere danske overlevering, fjærnere fra den
     norske.

     "Som Halvdans broderdrab fortælles hos Sakse og Svend Ågesön, står
     det lösrevet, vi kan godt sige meningslöst. Det över ingen episk
     indflydelse på, Skjoldungernes liv, og der rammer heller ikke
     Halvdan eller hans æt nogen moralsk gengældelse. Med god grund
     undrer Sakse sig over denne livsskæbne, at den grumme drabsmand kan
     dö en fredelig död i sin alderdom; ti det er ganske mod
     heltedigtningens ånd. Forklaringen derpå har vi til dels i den
     ældre sagnform: broderkampen er opstået af den gamle folkekamp,
     hvor Had-Barderne lå, under for Danerne; men tillige må der være
     bristet en episk sammenknytning. I næste slægtled af Skjoldungætten
     er det et ret gammelt sagnmotiv, at Hrörik overfalder og fælder
     Hroar; ban har sikkert været opfattet som Frodes sön og hævner,
     ikke blot i norsk men også i gammel dansk overlevering.

     "Den særlig norske form er da bleven til, ved at man vendte
     broderdrabet om. Det er en sagndannelse af ganske samme art som
     den, der gjorde Hrörik til Hroars drabsmand; helteætten kom til at
     stå skyldfri. Det næste trin var at udvikle denne ny situation med
     Halvdansönnernes fredlöshed og deres faderhævn. Vi har en gammel
     kilde, der viser, at udviklingen virkelig er gået i disse to trin.
     _Grottesangen_ slutter med spådom on, at 'Yrsas sön [Rolf] skal
     hævne Halvdans drab på, Frode.' Da kvadet synes digtet af en
     Nordmand i 10de årh., har vi i alt fire tidsfæstede udviklingstrin
     af sagnet:

     "1. Danekongen Halvdan kæmper med Hadbardekongen Frode og bar
     formodenlig fældet ham (_Beovulf_).

     "2. Skjoldungen Halvdan kæmper med sin broder Frode on riget og
     fælder ham (danske sagn).

     "3. Skjoldungen Frode dræber (sin broder) Halvdan, sönnesonnen Rolf
     hævner det (_Grottesangen_, 10de årh., norsk).

     "4. Skjoldungen Frode overfalder sin broder Halvdan og dræber ham;
     sönnerne Hroar og Helge redder livet og hævner siden deres faders
     död (norsk og islandsk saga, 12te, 13de, 14de årh.).

     "Ifölge dette må sagaen om Helges og Hroars barndom være opstået
     mellem år 1000 (950) og år 1100, snarest nær ved den förste
     tid.[128]

     "Langt vigtigere end tidspunktet er dog _arten af denne
     omdannelse_. Vi står her foran det störste skel, der forekommer i
     heltedigtningens levnedslöb: overgangen fra den löse skare af
     småsagn, der slutter sig forklarende og udfyldende omkring kvadene,
     til _sagaen_, der selvstændig og i löbende sammenhæng gör rede for
     heltenes liv. Netop ved Skjoldungsagnene måtte denne overgang blive
     afgörende. Når Halvdans mord var det förste punkt i slægtens
     historie, kunde man umulig unddrage sig fra klart og alsidig at
     belyse dets fölger. Det var selvfölgeligt, at Frode også stræbte at
     rydde Halvdans to sönner af vejen; således fremkom sagnene om
     fosterfædre og venner, der sögte at skjule dem. For Helge og Hroar
     måtte den eneste vej til deres fædrene trone gå gennem kamp; deraf
     opstod da sagnet on hævn over Frode.

     "Enkeite træk i denne digtning bar sagamanden natürligvis hentet
     fra den overleverede rigdom af sagn. Det er allerede forlængst
     indset, at væsenlige træk skyldes lån fra sagnet on _Amled_, den
     unge kongesön, der redder sit liv ved foregivet vanvid, da hans
     farbroder bar hævet sig på tronen ved mord på hans fader."

The chapter from which the above is taken contains about a page more.
Olrik says, "Sagnet om Helge og Hroar er dog som helhed noget ganske
andet end den specielle Amledtype." He refers by way of comparison to
the life of Sigurd the Volsung, to the myth of Romulus and Remus, and
the corresponding myth of the Greek twins of Thebes, Thessaly, and
Arcadia; and concludes thus: "Er der fremmed indflydelse ved dens födsel
[i.e., the story of Hroar's and Helgi's childhood], må den være svag og
let strejfende. Snarere må man opfatte sagnet således, at dette æmne har
en livskraft til stadig at födes på ny, hver gang den unge belt vokser
op efter faderens drab. Motivet er så nærliggende, så ubetinget
heltegyldigt, at da Skjoldungsagaerne voksede frem på folkemunde, måtte
de åbnes med denne digtning; den var stadig--så at sige--lige nödvendig
for at stemple den store helteskikkelse."

The story about the Scylding kings in its various phases (except the
first, in _Beowulf_) is found in Denmark and in the Old Norse. Among the
Danes and Norwegians (including Icelanders), therefore, we must look for
an explanation of this last stage of development. But in the north of
England were many Danes and Norwegians, and, as has already been pointed
out, the story about Bothvar Bjarki was known in England and acquired
distinct features there.[129] To England, then, we turn for an
explanation of the main features of the Hroar-Helgi story.

Furthermore, the story is due to a combination of influences. Evidence
of this is the fact that it shows unmistakable influence of the Hamlet
story, which, however, does not furnish an explanation of the story as a
whole. And the fact that the story about Hroar and Helgi was not a
native product of England and had no roots in the soil of the country,
so to speak, which tended to hold it within bounds, but was an imported
story circulating rather loosely, far from the scene of the supposed
events related, would make it peculiarly susceptible to extraneous
influences adapted to aid in its development.

The first influence to which the Hroar-Helgi story was subjected was
plainly the "exile-return" type of story, whose general characteristics
are stated by Deutschbein as follows:--

     "Das Reich eines Königs, der nur einen jungen unerwachsenen Sohn
     hat, wird eines Tages vom Feinde überfallen. Der Vater fällt im
     blutigen Kampfe. Die Rettung des jungen Thronerben ist mit
     Schwierigkeiten verbunden--häufig steht dem jungen Fürstensohn in
     der äussersten Not ein getreuer Eckhart zur Seite, eine
     feststehende Figur in unserm Typus. Der Königssohn wird in
     Sicherheit gebracht, in der Fremde zunächst in niedriger Stellung,
     meist unter angenommenem Namen, wächst er zu einem tüchtigen Recken
     heran, bis zuletzt die Zeit der Heimkehr gekommen ist. Er nimmt
     furchtbare Rache an den Mördern seines Vaters und gewinnt sein Erbe
     zurück; wesentliche Dienste leistet ihm dabei ein oder mehrere
     treue Anhänger seines Vaters, die in der Heimat zurückgeblieben
     sind.

     "Eine Abart dieses Typus weist einen anderen Eingang auf: statt
     äusserer Feinde sind es nahe Verwandte (Oheim, Stiefvater,
     Stiefbrüder), die den jungen Prinzen seines Vaters berauben und ihm
     selbst nachstellen. Diese Form bezeichnen wir mit B, die Hauptform
     mit A."[130]

The Hroar-Helgi story has two young princes; otherwise, it conforms
exactly to type B.

Frothi, Halfdan's brother (_Hrólfssaga_ version), attacks him with an
army and defeats and slays him. The boys are taken by Regin, their
foster-father, to a neighboring island for safety (this, however, is
being sent abroad with a limited application of the term), where they
live with a shepherd in a cave, responding, when necessary, to the names
of dogs. There they remain until they are twelve and ten years old
respectively, when they return to their sister and brother-in-law, who,
together with Regin, render the boys valuable assistance. They take
frightful vengeance on their father's slayer by setting fire to his hall
and forcing him to perish in the flames.

The third stage having been reached in the development of the
Hroar-Helgi story, in which the brother who is slain is avenged by one
of his descendants, it was easy and natural for it to fall in with the
"exile-return" type. The type is not an artificial type, it is founded
on human nature. The guileless and weak must yield to the designing and
strong. History teems with illustrations of the fact that he wears the
crown who can win it and hold it. Where a kingdom is the prize, a man is
under a mighty temptation when he sees that he can seize it by brushing
aside a weak ruler and a still weaker heir, or, the ruler being out of
the way, the young heir only. And it is natural that, the young heir
surviving, he should avenge a murdered parent, regain the crown, and not
permit the usurper to enjoy the fruits of his crime unmolested. Friends
each party would also have, actuated, if by nothing else, by
self-interest, which is bound up in the success of their chief. What the
Hroar-Helgi story in its third stage of development may have been we do
not know. We are only told that "Yrsa's son will avenge Frothi's murder
of Halfdan." But the story was well prepared for the type it was to
assume.

That the story was clearly regarded as one of this type is evident from
the fact that in Johannes Bramis' _Historia Regis Waldei_ Frodas is the
usurper of the throne which by right belongs to Waldef.[131] It is not
necessary to repeat the story; it has all the characteristics of the
"exile-return" type. As a whole, it has no connection with the
Hroar-Helgi story; and it contains the only instance known of the use of
Frothi outside the story where he originally belongs. But he is so
typically the same person, with the same unlovable characteristics, that
he can be none other than the Frothi who plays such a conspicuous part
in the history of the Scylding kings.

The use of Frothi as a typical usurper in the English Waldef story is
also a very strong indication that the story in which he has his proper
setting was current in England; otherwise, by what channel did he get
into the Waldef story?[132]

Our next question is, What stories of the "exile-return" type were
current in the portions of England in which the Hroar-Helgi story would
naturally circulate? We think, of course, immediately of _Havelok the
Dane_. Deutschbein has shown that _Havelok_ is founded on historical
events that occurred in the first half of the tenth century.[133] The
gist of the story is that an heir to the Danish throne is deprived of
his heritage, suffers deep humiliation, but finally regains his heritage
and, through marriage, the crown of Norfolk in England in addition. The
story was of a nature to make a strong appeal to the Scandinavians,
especially the Danes, in England. It achieved, in fiction, the ambition
which the Danes realized under Swen and Canute, when these sovereigns
governed both Denmark and England. It was a Danish story; it was
developed after 950, which was about the time the third stage in the
development of the Hroar-Helgi story had been reached; and it was a
creation of the Scandinavians in England, among whom the story
circulated.

Closely connected with the Havelok story is the Meriadoc story, the
first part of which, as Deutschbein has shown,[134] and in regard to
which J.D. Bruce agrees with him,[135] is based on the Havelok story.
These stories Deutschbein calls "cymrisch-skandinavische Sage" and says,
"Wir sehen, dass den Cymren und den Skandinaviern in England der
wesentliche Anteil an der Entwicklung unserer Sage zukommt."[136]

It is evident that in the Havelok and Meriadoc stories we have every
condition present for contact between them and the Hroar-Helgi story,
namely: time (after 950); place (England); people among whom all the
stories would circulate (Scandinavians, coming in contact with the
Welsh); and, in the case of the Havelok and Hroar-Helgi stories, a
popular theme dealing with Danish princes who regain a lost kingdom. The
theme would be all the more popular as the time when the Havelok story
was developed was a period of struggle on the part of the Scandinavians
in the British Isles to gain and maintain supremacy.[137] Again, the
nature of the Hroar-Helgi story was such that its development depended
wholly on invention or on contact with other stories.

The first part of the Meriadoc story, with which a comparison will be
made, is summarized by J.D. Bruce as follows:--

     "In the time of Uther Pendragon, Caradoc ruled over Wales. He had a
     son and a daughter by his wife, a princess of Ireland, which
     country he had conquered. As old age approaches, he turns over the
     government of his kingdom to his brother Griffith and devotes
     himself to hunting and amusement. Wicked men persuade Griffith to
     slay his brother and seize the throne. Despite the warning of a
     dream, Caradoc goes hunting and is slain by hired assassins in the
     forest.

     "The queen dies of grief, and, to turn suspicion from himself,
     Griffith has the assassins put to death. Before their execution,
     however, they revealed Griffith's guilt. Caradoc's friends among
     the nobles wish to get out of Griffith's power their late master's
     children, who had been committed to the charge of Ivor and Morwen,
     the royal huntsman and his wife. Griffith determines to kill the
     children, but, touched in a measure by their appeal, does not have
     them executed on the spot. He has them taken to the forest of
     Arglud, where they are to be hanged. The executioners, however,
     feel compassion and tie them by a slender rope, easily broken, so
     that they may fall to the ground unharmed. Hearing of the
     children's disappearance, Ivor sets out for the forest, accompanied
     by his wife and his dog, Dolfin. To frighten the executioners away,
     he kindles fires in the four quarters of the forest and throws
     flesh into these fires to attract the wolves. He then hides himself
     in a tree. The wolves gather and the men, afraid, conceal
     themselves in the hollow of the tree to which the children had been
     hanged. Ivor drives away the wolves and then begins to smoke out
     the men. They promise to give up the children, if he will let them
     come forth. He consents, but kills them one by one, as they are
     crawling out.

     "He delivers the children, who have been suspended for half a day,
     and flies with them and his wife and dog to the Fleventanean
     forest. Here he takes refuge in a caverned rock, called Eagle Rock,
     because there were built on it the nests of four eagles who
     constantly faced the four points of the compass. How Ivor and his
     wife struck fire from flint, and the peculiar way in which they
     cooked their food is described. One day Urien, King of Scotland,
     passing through the forest, carries off the girl from her
     companion, Morwen. Similarly Kay, Arthur's seneschal, carries off
     the boy from Ivor. Morwen goes to Scotland to seek Orwen, the
     girl; Ivor to Arthur's court to seek Meriadoc, the boy.

     "The day Morwen reached Scotland, Urien and Orwen are to be
     married. The latter recognizes Morwen in the throng by the wayside
     and has her brought to the palace. Ivor comes with a dead stag to
     Arthur's court and offers it to Kay. Meriadoc recognizes his
     foster-father and springs clear over the table to greet him. Kay
     receives Ivor among his attendants. Kay visits Urien and takes Ivor
     and Meriadoc with him. Mutual recognitions and rejoicings.

     "Arthur and Urien determine to take vengeance on Griffith, who
     fortifies himself at Mount Snowdon. After a long siege he succumbs
     to famine, surrenders and is executed. Meriadoc succeeds him, but
     resolves to leave Urien in charge of the kingdom and go forth in
     search of adventure."[138]

According to Saxo's version of the Hroar-Helgi story, the usurper
procures the assassination of his brother and, to avoid suspicion, has
the assassins put out of the way. In this the Meriadoc story agrees. In
_Meriadoc_, the queen dies of sorrow. No mention is made of the queen in
Saxo's version. In the Hamlet story, the brother slays the king with his
own hand, but secretly, to avoid suspicion. He marries the king's widow.
In the _Hrólfssaga_, the brother attacks the king with an army and slays
him. In _Havelok_, Arthur, likewise, attacks the king with an army and
slays him.[139] The widow is rescued. In the _Hrólfssaga_, as appears at
the end of the story, the widow is not only rescued, but, as in the
Hamlet story, marries the usurper.

In _Meriadoc_, the murdered king's adherents try to rescue the young
prince and princess. This feature is common to both the _Hrólfssaga_ and
Saxo's version of the Hroar-Helgi story. In _Meriadoc_, the usurper gets
the children into his power, but, being appealed to, saves them for the
time being. This feature is found in Saxo's version, where the usurper
agrees to spare the children during good behavior. It is lacking in the
_Hrólfssaga_. In _Meriadoc_, the usurper plans to have the children
hanged in a forest. In Saxo's version, the children having violated the
condition on which they are to be spared, the usurper gathers an army to
attack them. In the _Hrólfssaga_, there is a continuous effort on the
part of the usurper to make away with the children.

In _Havelok_, Grim, a fisherman, rescues the prince, who lives as a
fisherman's son, under the name of Cuaran. In _Meriadoc_, the royal
huntsman, Ivor, rescues the children and they live in a cave in the
woods as a huntsman's children; Ivor is accompanied by his wife and his
dog, Dolfin. In the _Hrólfssaga_, the children live in a cave in the
woods as a shepherd's (Vifil's) children, responding, when necessary, to
the names of dogs. In Saxo's version of the Hroar-Helgi story, the
children are concealed in a hollow tree, food being brought to them
under the pretence that they are dogs, and dogs' names are applied to
them. In the Hamlet story, the rescue is supplied by the insanity
motive, but friends at court are not wanting.

There is no insanity in _Meriadoc_ or _Havelok_; but it is present in
the _Hrólfssaga_ and Saxo's version of the story about the two boys. In
the _Hrólfssaga_, the boys, especially Helgi, cut crazy capers while on
the way with Sævil when he goes to Frothi's hall in response to an
invitation. Helgi rides horseback with his face to the horse's tail,
just as Hamlet does; and the horse is an untamed colt, the idea coming
from the fact that, when Hamlet is thus riding, a wolf appears and one
of the men, to test his sanity, calls the wolf a colt. It would, indeed,
be an untamed colt. In Saxo's version, better use is made of the
insanity motive. Pretended insanity is the only resort left the boys to
save themselves. In the _Hrólfssaga_, it serves no other purpose than to
attract attention to the boys and reveal their identity to Signy and
Sævil.

In _Havelok_, the prince returns home, and, with the aid of a faithful
friend, Sigar, who has remained at court, the usurper is overthrown and
the crown regained. In _Meriadoc_, Arthur and Urien besiege the usurper,
starve him out, and execute him. Meriadoc becomes king. In the Hamlet
story, the prince returns from England, whither the usurper has sent him
in order to get rid of him, sets fire to the hall in which the usurper's
men lie drunk after a feast, and goes to the usurper's chamber and slays
him. Nothing is said about the queen, though the presumption is that she
perishes also. In the _Hrólfssaga_, the boys, aided by their
foster-father and brother-in-law, trusty friends, set fire to the hall
in which the usurper's men lie drunk after a feast; and the usurper's
egress through an underground passage having been blocked, he perishes
in the flames. The queen, the boys' mother, refusing to leave the hall,
perishes also. In Saxo's version, the boys attack the usurper in his
hall and set fire to the building; he hides himself in a secret
underground passage and perishes of smoke and gas.

It is told of Ivor that when he rescues the children he is accompanied
by his dog. Not only that, but the dog's name is given. This looks as if
some use is to be made of the dog; otherwise there is no point in the
statement that a dog is present, whose name is Dolfin. Bruce says, "It
is to be remembered that even this Welsh version, no doubt, passed
through the hands of a French romancer before reaching the author of our
Latin text";[140] and there is reason to suspect that this is one of the
places where the story has suffered. Both Saxo's version of the
Hroar-Helgi story, and the _Hrólfssaga_, show to what use a dog's name
could be put; and this specific reference to the dog in _Meriadac_, and
the use that might have been made of him in an earlier version of the
story, arouse a strong suspicion that here is the source of the
suggestion of using dogs' names in the Hroar-Helgi story to aid in
saving the boys. Even if no such use was ever made of the dog in the
Meriadoc story, such specific reference to him is in itself very
suggestive. That the Hroar-Helgi story employs two dogs' name's is, of
course, due to the fact that there are two boys to which they are to be
applied, although, so far as the plot is concerned, the matter could
have been managed with the use of one dog's name; and the fact that the
dogs' names, in the _Hrólfssaga_, are Hopp and Ho, and that the boys'
later assumed names are Hrani and Hamur, is due to a desire to preserve
the initial letter, "H," of their names, which is in accordance with
Scylding nomenclature.[141]

Furthermore, in the _Hrólfssaga_ it is said that Vifil concealed the
boys in a cave in the woods. Likewise, in _Meriadoc_, Ivor concealed the
boy and the girl in a cave in the forest. But in Saxo's version of the
Hroar-Helgi story, the boys are concealed in a hollow tree. This also
must be an adaptation from _Meriadoc_. The men who were to execute the
prince and princess hanged them on the branch of a large oak-tree
(quercus) and concealed themselves inside the tree, which was hollow.
Ivor, in an attempt to rescue the children,

     "Quatuor igitur ingentes focos e quatuor partibus ipsius saltus
     accendit, accensisque plurimas quas secum attulerat carnes passim
     iniecit ilicemque uicinam cum coniuge et cane ascendens delituit.
     Fumo autem ignium per nemoris latitudinem diffuso, ubi lupi in
     confinio degentes--quorum inibi ingens habebatur copia--odorem
     perceperunt carnium, illo contendere et confluere ilico
     coeperunt."[142]

Here we have the idea of a hollow oak with people in it, wolves in the
vicinity, and children at hand who have been hanged, and therefore
presumably dead. Had the cord broken by which they were hanged, they
would certainly have been torn to pieces by the wolves. But especially
striking is the statement that Ivor's dog is concealed in a tree; and
this tree is called "ilex" (holly-oak), the very word used by Saxo to
designate the kind of hollow tree that Hroar and Helgi (he calls them
Harald and Halfdan, as has been stated) are concealed in, under the
pretence that they are dogs. Also, pieces of meat are thrown into the
fires; and Ivor, as soon as the men in the hollow tree beg for mercy,
shoots four wolves and "ceteri omnes lupi in eos qui uulnera pertulerant
irruerunt eosque membratim dilacerantes discerpserunt."[143] Here is
again the idea of meat for wolves and the bodies of animals torn
asunder. The idea of dismembered bodies of children is indeed absent;
but the whole passage in _Meriadoc_ is so suggestive of what we find in
Saxo, even to the hiding of a dog, whose name is given, in an "ilex,"
that it would be remarkable if there was no connection between Saxo's
story and _Meriadoc_.

Again, as has already been stated, Saxo says that Frothi perished in an
underground passage, of smoke and gas. The men who, in _Meriadoc_, were
to execute the prince and princess concealed themselves in a hollow
tree, which had an entrance that was so formed that "depressis humeris,
illam necesse erat subire,"[144] which is suggestive of the stooping
that would probably be necessary in entering an underground passage. But
what is noteworthy in this connection is that, at the entrance to the
tree, Ivor starts a fire "cuius calore fumique uapore inclusos pene
extinxit."[145] Saxo says that Frothi "Vbi dum clausus delitescit,
uapore et fumo strangulatus interiit."[146] Here is the idea of
concealment again, but particularly noteworthy is the suffocation by
"uapore et fumo," the same words that are used in _Meriadoc_. In the
_Hrólfssaga_, the account of the events immediately preceding Frothi's
death resembles more the account of the corresponding events in the
Hamlet story than does Saxo's account; but in the _Hrólfssaga_ also,
Frothi attempts to escape by an underground passage.

The use of wolves' claws and the dismembered bodies of children to
mislead those who might seek to get possession of the boys is the
employment, as Deutschbein has observed, of a form of deceit similar to
that practiced by Joseph's brethren.[147]

In regard to the manner in which the children are saved, it is difficult
to correlate the Hroar-Helgi story with the Meriadoc story as definitely
and simply as one would wish, but the explanation probably lies in the
following idea expressed by Bruce, "In conclusion, as to this division
there seems to be a certain confusion of _motifs_ in the first part of
the _Historia Meriadoci_ with regard to the manner in which the children
are saved from execution."[148] The statement, for instance, that the
children were suspended for half a day is out of all harmony with the
statement that they were to be suspended by slender ropes, easily
broken, that would permit them to fall to the ground unharmed. But
Bruce's statement quoted above, "This Welsh version, no doubt, passed
through the hands of a French romancer before reaching the author of our
Latin text," would account for the "confusion of _motifs_"; and the fact
that we have not now that form of the story with which the Hroar-Helgi
story came in contact would obscure some of the points of relationship
between the two. But the hiding of a dog, whose name is given, in an oak
tree of a particular species (ilex) is so definite and unique a point of
identification that there is no mistaking it.

But even if we had the Meriadoc story in its original form, we should
not expect to find it exactly reproduced in the Hroar-Helgi story.
Various causes would operate to introduce changes. Such features as
mountain-rocks with their eagle-nests would be modified to bring the
topography more into harmony with that of Denmark, so that the caverned
rock would naturally become an earth-cave. Characteristics of
Scandinavian life and history would supplant what was peculiarly Welsh.
Thus the shrewd old shepherd, Vifil, naturally takes the place of the
royal huntsman, Ivor; and Saxo, quite naturally, gives the story a
marked Danish geographical and historical setting, which he does by
introducing such names as Fyen and Seeland, and by connecting the Danish
royal family in the beginning of the story with those of Sweden and
Gautland.

Allowance must also be made for two lines of oral transmission, one
going to Iceland, and the other to Norway and thence to Denmark. This
would result in the modification of details in the two versions, such as
details connected with the insanity motive and the concealment of the
boys, and the omission, in one version, of the dogs' names supposed to
be applied to the boys and the insertion of the names in the other.

But this would not explain why Hroar, Helgi, and their father are given
other names in Saxo's version, and why such a radical change has been
made in the family relationship of Siward and Signy. This, however, as
will be explained later,[149] is due to arbitrary action on the part of
Saxo, in order to conceal the fact that he twice includes the same group
of men in his line of Danish kings.

If the foregoing is substantially correct, much in the Hroar-Helgi story
is accounted for, besides some striking differences between the two
versions. But it is possible to account for more. We have seen how the
Siward story exerted marked influence on the story about Bothvar Bjarki;
hence, we might expect it to have exerted some influence on the
Hroar-Helgi story, which is also a part of the _Hrólfssaga_. And this it
has done. Siward was historically closely associated with the events of
the Macbeth story; but the Macbeth story is of a type that, in one
noteworthy particular at least, resembles the Hroar-Helgi story more
than do any of the stories thus far considered, and that is in the fact
that Duncan has two sons, who flee when their father is murdered. In the
Macbeth story, as in the Hamlet story, it may be said that we have not,
under a strict interpretation of the term, an instance of the
"exile-return" type of story; but Hamlet goes to England and immediately
upon his return avenges his father's murder, and, still nearer the type,
Malcolm and Donaldbane flee and Malcolm returns and avenges his father's
murder. But the matter of type is, in this connection, unessential.
There is no doubt that the Hamlet story exerted an influence on the
Hroar-Helgi story, nor can there be any doubt that the Macbeth story did
the same.

First, attention is called to the fact that in the _Hrólfssaga_ Siward
himself is retained in the story under the name of Sævil.[150] In Saxo's
version of the story about Hroar and Helgi, he is called Siward, but
there his proper relationship to the other characters is obscured.
Siward was related to Duncan by marriage, some versions, Holinshed's for
instance, having it that Duncan was married to Siward's daughter;[151]
similarly, Sævil was married to Halfdan's daughter. Siward aided
Duncan's sons (Donaldbane, however, not being present to take part in
the expedition against Macbeth); similarly, Sævil aided Halfdan's sons,
not by an armed expedition against Frothi, the usurper, but proceeding
against him in such manner as the plot of the story permits. It is said
of Donaldbane, that he fled to Ireland "where he was tenderlie cherished
by the king of that land";[152] similarly, Hroar went to Northumberland,
where he received a hearty welcome and later married King Northri's
daughter, Ögn.[153] Siward was first an earl in Denmark; similarly,
Sævil was an earl in Denmark. Sævil did not, however, become Earl of
Northumberland, as Siward did; but Hroar took his place, so to speak, in
this respect, and, as Siward had done, married the earl's (king's)
daughter[154] and became King of Northumberland.

In the Hroar-Helgi story, the usurper is represented as consulting a
witch in regard to the whereabouts of the young princes. This feature
must also be due to the influence of the Macbeth story; for, though the
purpose for which Frothi and Macbeth consult the witch, or witches, is
not exactly the same, it is the possible future disposition of the
throne that in both instances causes anxiety; and while at first, in
both instances, a prediction, or information, is given that is
favorable, a prediction in both instances is given in conclusion that
is unfavorable. The witches are so conspicuous a feature of the Macbeth
story that they would, of course, attract the attention of the saga-man;
and we naturally expect this feature of the story to leave its impress
on the Hroar-Helgi story. It is a special feature, not found in any of
the other stories considered in this connection, and there can be no
doubt as to whence the Hroar-Helgi story acquired it. The witch in the
saga is called a "seiðkona." Concerning the kind of witchcraft practised
by a "seiðkona," P.A. Munch has the following: "Som den virksomste, men
og som den skjendigste, af al Troldom ansaa vore Forfædre den saakaldte
_Seid_. Hvorledes den udövedes, er ikke ret klart fremstillet ...; den
var forbunden med sang ... Men dette slags Troldom ansaaes ogsaa en Mand
uværdigt, og udövedes derfor sædvanligviis af Kvinder, ligesom dette
ogsaa stedse synes at have gaaet ud paa noget ondt."[155] Thus the
"seiðkona" is exactly the same kind of creature as the witches in the
Macbeth story. Consider, for instance, the disgusting practice in which
Shakespeare represents them as engaging, as they go round the cauldron,
chanting the refrain, "Double, double toil and trouble," etc. W.J. Rolfe
refers to the witches in _Macbeth_ as follows: "Macbeth and his fellow
captain Banquo have performed prodigies of valour in the battle, and are
on their way home from the field when they are met by the three witches,
as Shakespeare calls them, and as they are called in the old chronicle
from which he took the main incidents of his plot. They appear simply to
be the witches of superstition--hags who have gained a measure of
superhuman knowledge and power by a league with Satan, to whom they have
sold their souls and pledged their service."[156] The statements at an
earlier stage of the story in the _Hrólfssaga_, while the boys are still
on the island, that soothsayers and wise men are called in from all over
the land to tell where the boys are, and that wizards, who are also
summoned, warn Frothi to beware of the old man Vifil on the island,
remind us of the statement by Holinshed that Macbeth "had learned of
certeine wizzards, in whose words he put great confidence ... how that
he ought to take heed of Macduffe."[157]

Still another feature may have been acquired from the Macbeth story. It
is said that Hroar and Helgi were transferred to a neighboring island.
Holinshed says that Donaldbane fled to Ireland. The Macbeth story has
been treated by a number of chroniclers, who, though they agree in the
main, occasionally disagree in regard to details. Thus Johannes Fordun
says, "Hi a Machabeo rege expulsi, Donaldus insulas, Malcolmus Cumbriam
adibant."[168] This is evidently one version and would supply the hint
for transferring the young princes to a neighboring island, which would
be a convenient disposition to make of them till the time of their
return to regain their heritage. It would also harmonize topographically
with the coast of Denmark, where there were many islands covered with
trees, the idea of woods as a hiding-place for the boys having been
abundantly supplied by the Meriadoc story.

It may be said that this introduces a conflict with the statement that
Donaldbane fled to Ireland. It is not possible to know, in a case like
this, which variant has influenced the saga, or whether, indeed, both
have not been utilized. But there was ample warrant for transferring
Hroar to Northumberland without such a suggestion as lay in Donaldbane's
flight to Ireland. In any event, imitation of Donaldbane's flight has
not been a necessary consideration in making Hroar King of
Northumberland. A suggestion of the same nature lay in Hamlet's going to
England, where he married the king's daughter; but chiefly, the
Scandinavians were numerous in the north of England and regarded
themselves as the rightful possessors of that part of the country. The
mastery of Northumberland was long an object of contest between
Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians, and this was the chief point at issue in
the famous battle at Brunanburh, 937. Since Helgi, whom the _Hrólfssaga_
represents as the more forward of the two boys, was made King of
Denmark, no more honorable disposition could be made of Hroar than to
place him on the throne of Northumberland, and events show that he
himself was perfectly satisfied. He thus also became ruler of the land
once governed by Siward, who must have made a powerful impression on his
countrymen in England; and with one of the two princes reigning in
Denmark and the other in England, the glory of the Danes when Canute was
king of both countries would be revived in story, as it was in _Havelok
the Dane_, where Havelok, likewise, reigned both in England and
Denmark.

No attempt has been made to point out all the respects in which the
Hroar-Helgi story resembles the Macbeth story. The Macbeth story has
most of the characteristics of the "exile-return" type, and striking
resemblances that fall in with features of the stories already mentioned
might have been added, but will suggest themselves to the reader. Only
such things as point to special influence exerted by the Macbeth story
on the Hroar-Helgi story have been mentioned.

It may be urged that some of the material, such as the "seiðkona," said
in the foregoing to be derived from foreign sources, is recognized
saga-material. The point, however, is that it is not the material
itself, but the suggestion for the use of it, that in such an instance
is said to be derived from a foreign source.


_The Hroar-Helgi Story in the _SKJỌLDUNGASAGA_ and the _BJARKARÍMUR.

Thus far nothing has been said about the "short and chronicle-like form
in the Icelandic _Skjọldungasaga_, where the fratricide is called
Ingjald, not Frothi."[159] The story is, in substance, as follows.

Fridleif, King of Denmark, abducted Hilda, daughter of Ali, King of the
Uplands in Norway, and by her had a son who was named Ali; by another
woman he had a son who was named Frothi.

Frothi inherited his father's kingdom; but Ali, his half-brother, who
was a great warrior, conquered Sweden. Frothi's men feared Ali and
persuaded Frothi to try to have him put to death. Frothi yielded to
their entreaties, and Starkad, the famous warrior, was dispatched to
perform the deed. When an opportunity presented itself, he stabbed Ali
to death. "My brother has caused this," said Ali, and died laughing.

Later, Frothi defeated Jorund, King of Sweden, and made him a tributary
prince. He also defeated Swelling, a Swedish duke, and treated him in
the same manner. Frothi abducted Jorund's daughter, by whom he had a son
who was called Halfdan. But taking another woman to wife, a legitimate
heir was born to him, and this son was called Ingjald.

Starkad, however, was so filled with remorse for having killed Ali that
he did not wish to remain with Frothi. He went, therefore, soon after to
Russia and later to Sweden, but, disgusted with the idolatry of the
Swedes, returned to Frothi. Ingjald, son of Frothi, had in the meantime
married the daughter of Swerting, thus, as it seemed to all, effecting a
reconciliation with him.

Jorund and Swerting, however, formed a conspiracy against Frothi, and he
was slain one night while sacrificing to the gods. In the meantime,
Starkad was absent in Sweden, where, under the guise of friendship, he
was detained by gifts, in order that the plot against Frothi might be
the more easily executed.

Swerting placated Ingjald, Frothi's son and Swerting's son-in-law; but
Halfdan, Ingjald's half-brother, conquered Skåne and avenged his
father's murder by putting to death Swerting's twelve sons, who had
slain Frothi. At the instigation of Starkad, Ingjald put his wife,
Swerting's daughter, aside. He also granted Halfdan a third of the
kingdom. Swerting's daughter later bore Ingjald a son (Agnar); and by
his wife, Sigrith, Halfdan had a daughter, Signy, and two sons, Hroar
and Helgi.

Ingjald, however, desiring to rule over the whole kingdom, fell upon
Halfdan unexpectedly with an army and slew him. He married Halfdan's
widow, and by her had two sons, Hrörik and Frothi. Signy grew up under
her mother's care, and later Ingjald gave her in marriage to Sævil, an
earl in Seeland. But Hroar and Helgi hid from the king on an island near
Skåne, and when they had arrived at the proper age they slew Ingjald and
thus avenged their father's death.

Hroar and Helgi now became Kings of Denmark. Later Hroar married the
daughter of the King of England. Hrolf, nicknamed Kraki, who was eight
years old when his father, Helgi, died, succeeded him on the throne.
Hroar was soon after slain by his half-brothers, Hrörik and Frothi.
Hrolf then became sole King of Denmark.[160]

The story in the _Bjarkarímur_ is substantially the same as the story
in the _Skjọldungasaga_. Both are plainly based on the same account,
and, within certain limits, are identical with the corresponding story
in the _Hrólfssaga_. Skåne, mentioned in the _Skjọldungasaga_ in the
phrase "in insula quadam Scaniæ," is not mentioned in the
_Hrólfssaga_. Its insertion in the _Skjọldungasaga_ is due to the fact
that Halfdan, the father of Hroar and Helgi, is said to have conquered
Skåne, and, as a result, would be regarded as having ruled there. But
its presence in one account and omission in the other involve no
contradiction. In all that belongs peculiarly to the story about
Hroar and Helgi, the account in the _Skjọldungasaga_ is identical with
the account in the _Hrólfssaga_. According to both sources, the name
of the boys' mother was Sigrith; their father's name was Halfdan; he
was slain by his brother, who fell upon him unexpectedly with an army;
the fratricide married the murdered man's widow; Signy was the sister
of Hroar and Helgi; she married Sævil, an earl in Denmark; Hroar and
Helgi had to conceal themselves on an island to save their lives
(according to the _Bjarkarímur_, they were brought up by the old man
Vifil, a circumstance omitted in the _Skjọldungasaga_, but contained
in the _Hrólfssaga_); when they had arrived at the proper age, they
slew (according to the _Hrólfssaga_ and the _rímur_, "burnt-in") their
father's murderer and thus avenged their father's death; Hroar and
Helgi then became Kings of Denmark; Hroar married the daughter of the
King of England; Helgi's son was Hrolf, who later became sole King of
Denmark.

The essential difference between the story as it is in the
_Skjọldungasaga_ and as it is in the _Hrólfssaga_ is that, in the
_Skjọldungasaga_, Ingjald is said to be the brother of Halfdan; while in
the _Hrólfssaga_, Frothi is Halfdan's brother. The _Hrólfssaga_ has,
however, preserved the earlier account. The _Skjọldungasaga_ dates from
about the year 1200.[161] About the year 950, Frothi is said to be the
slayer of Halfdan;[162] and in _Historia Regis Waldei_, Frothi is made
the typical villain in a Hroar-Helgi type of story[163] (the
"exile-return" type), so that, in the version of the story that was
current in England, Frothi must have been the slayer of his brother. The
conflicting statement that it was Ingjald who slew Halfdan requires,
therefore, an explanation.

In Saxo's _Gesta Danorum_, the story about Hroar and Helgi is told
twice. It is first told in the second book, where we find the version
with which is connected the story about Hrolf Kraki, Yrsa, Athils, and
Ingjald and his son Agnar, whom Bjarki slew; it is told a second time in
the seventh book, where Hroar and Helgi are called Harald and Halfdan,
and where the story about them is another version of the same story that
we have in the _Hrólfssaga_. Not only do Hroar and Helgi appear
(disguised under different names), but Frothi and Ingjald again appear.

A comparison of the line of Danish kings as Saxo has it, with the line
of the same kings in the _Skjọldungasaga_,[164] shows that the
_Skjọldungasaga_ has the story about Hroar and Helgi just where Saxo's
second story about them (i.e., in his seventh book) puts in its
appearance. These lines of kings are as follows:--

      SAXO:                 SKJỌLDUNGASAGA:

    Humblus I
    Dan I
    Humblus II
    Lotherus
    Scioldus                  Scioldus
    Gram
    Swibdagerus
    Guthormus
    Hadingus
    Frotho I
    Haldanus, Roe, Scatus
    Roe, Helgo
    Roluo Krage
    Hiartwarus
    Hotherus
    Balderus
    Roricus
    Vigletus
    Wermundus
    Uffo
    Dan II
    Hugletus
    Frotho II
    Dan III
    Fridleus I                Fridleifus I[165]
    Frotho III[166]           Frotho I[166]
                              Herleifus
                              Havardus
                              Leifus
                              Herleifus[167]
                              Hunleifus[167]
                              Aleifus[167]
                              Oddleifus[167]
                              Geirleifus[167]
                              Gunnleifus[167]
                              Frotho II
                              Vermundus
                              Dan I
                              Dan II[168]
    Hiarnus[169]              Frotho III
    Fridleus II[170]          Fridleifus II
    Frotho IV                 Frotho IV
    Ingellus                  Ingjaldus,            Halfdanus
    Olauus[171]
    Frotho V, Haraldus[172]   Agnerus, Roericus,    Roas or Roe, Helgo
      Haraldus,[173] Haldanus,[174]   Frotho (V)[175]      Rolpho Krag

A comparison of the two lines of kings shows that, beginning with the
first Fridleus in Saxo's account and the first Fridleifus in the
_Skjọldungasaga's_ account, there are important correspondences.
Fridleus I (Saxo) = Fridleifus I (_Skjs._). Frotho III, son of Fridleus
I (Saxo) = Frotho I, son of Fridleifus I (_Skjs._). Fridleus II, son of
Frotho III (Saxo) = Fridleifus II, son of Frotho III (_Skjs._). Frotho
IV (Saxo) = Frotho IV (_Skjs._); and in both sources Frotho IV is the
Danish king in whose career Swerting plays such a prominent part. By
omitting all of Saxo's kings between Scioldus and Fridleifus I, among
whom are also the Hroar-Helgi group, the _Skjọldungasaga_ has avoided
the difficulty of having to deal with Hroar, Helgi, and Hrolf Kraki
where they first occur in Saxo's history.

The paralleling of the two lines of kings also furnishes the key to the
explanation of how the different names and a different setting for the
Hroar-Helgi story, from those found in other versions, got into Saxo's
version. Since the Hroar-Helgi story appears in the same place in his
line of kings as in that of the _Skjọldungasaga_, he must also have
known the names that really belonged to the story. But he had told the
story about Halfdan, Hroar, Helgi, and Hrolf Kraki (in its second stage
of development, see p. 66) once before, and therefore could not
consistently tell a different story about the same men. The story was,
however, in existence and was too good to be discarded, so he retained
it, but disguised it by making arbitrary changes. This explains the
loss, which otherwise would be very strange, of such well known names as
Hroar, Helgi, and Hrolf Kraki. The only incentive any one could have to
change the names would be just that which Saxo had, namely that he had
used them before in another connection. He retained the name Frothi,
which appears so often in the Danish line of kings that its reappearance
would cause no difficulty; and his retention of Frothi as the slayer of
his brother is additional evidence that to him, not to Ingjald, was this
unenviable rôle first assigned. Ingjald, whom he has in his story about
Hrolf Kraki, he also retained, but in a different relationship from that
in his second book. It will be observed that Saxo merely shifted the
name Halfdan from father to son, and that Harald, almost a conventional
name, he employed twice. Finally, he introduced a strange person, Olaf,
about whom, he says, nothing, practically, was known.

But since Saxo has the Hroar-Helgi story substantially as it is in the
_Hrólfssaga_, except for the changed names, the author of the
_Skjọldungasaga_, or its source, whose version of the story occurs in
the same place in the line of Danish kings as Saxo's, must also have
known the story in the same version. This we shall find was actually the
case, and that the story as it appears in the _Skjọldungasaga_ is an
attempt at reconciling conflicting elements in ancient tradition.

As already stated, according to the _Grottasọngr_ (from about 950),
Frothi is the brother of Halfdan and slays him. But according to an
equally old tradition, the story on which the Ingjald lay in Saxo's
sixth book is based, Frothi is Ingjald's father and is himself slain.
The events that gave rise to this lay are also narrated in Saxo's sixth
book and are as follows.

In Saxony were two kings, both of whom paid tribute to Frothi. They
planned to throw off the foreign yoke. Hanef made the attempt first, but
Frothi defeated and slew him. Swerting made the attempt later and slew
Frothi, but met his own death at the same time. Swerting's sons, fearing
that Ingjald would avenge his father's death, gave him their sister in
marriage. Thus a reconciliation was effected, and Ingjald thenceforth
devoted himself to pleasure. Starkad, the famous warrior, who was in
Sweden, had been one of Frothi's men and had later been Ingjald's
foster-father. When Starkad learned that Ingjald, instead of seeking
revenge, had made friends with his enemies and had taken Swerting's
daughter to wife and with her was leading a life of luxury, the old
warrior hastened back to Denmark. When Starkad returned, Ingjald's wife,
not knowing him on account of his shabby appearance, insulted him.
Ingjald was away on a hunt at the time; but when he returned, he
recognized Starkad and told his wife who the old man was. In the evening
Ingjald sat down to a luxurious meal with Swerting's sons; and his wife
did all she could to appease Starkad, who was also present. But Starkad
could not forget the insult he had suffered, and became more and more
angry with the effeminate way of living that Ingjald and his wife had
introduced from Germany. In burning words, which are reproduced in the
Ingjald lay, he condemned Ingjald's neglect of duty, his luxurious mode
of life, and his living in friendship with those on whom he should have
avenged his father's death. Ingjald was finally aroused, and he drew his
sword and killed all of Swerting's sons. In regard to his future
relation to his wife Saxo says nothing; but as Starkad advised him to
drive the impudent woman (as he called her) from the land, the
presumption is that Ingjald did so.

The Ingjald lay has its roots in _Beowulf_. Its relationship to the
corresponding episode in the Anglo-Saxon poem is explained in the
following by Olrik:--

     "Kun et eneste af Starkad-digtningens mange optrin kan fölges til
     ældre kilde end de nordiske. Det er den scene, hvor den gamle
     kriger opægger Ingjald til hævn og dermed afbryder forsoningen
     imellem de to fjendtlige slægter. I _Béowulf_ findes dette optrin
     for förste gang, ganske afvigende i den politiske stilling, men med
     kendeligt slægtskab i det digterske indhold.

     "Digtet fortæller on det forsög der blev gjort på at stille den
     lange fejde, der var fört mellem Danernes folk og Hadbardernes, af
     Halvdan og Hrodgar imod Frode og Ingeld. Forsoningen skulde
     frembringes ved bryllup mellem Ingeld og Hrodgars datter Freyvar
     (Fréaware). 'Hun blev lovet, ung og guldsmykt, til Frodes hulde
     sön; det bar tyktes Skjoldungers ven så, rigets vogter (i.e.,
     Hrodgar) har fundet det rådeligt, at ved den viv skulde tvisten og
     dödsfejden stilles. Ofte, ej sjælden, hviler dog dödsspyddet kun
     föje tid efter mandefald, hvor gæv så bruden er. Da må det mistykke
     Hadbardernes drot og hver thegn af det folk, når ban går med
     jomfruen i hallen, at en hirdsvend af Danerne skænked for skaren;
     ti på ham stråler fædrenes eje, hårdt og ringlagt, Hadbardernes
     klenodier, sålænge de ejede de våben (indtil de misted i
     skjoldelegen de kære fæller og deres eget liv). Da mæler ved öllet
     en gammel spydkæmpe, der ser skatten, og mindes al mændenes
     undergang; grum er hans hu. Fuld af harm begynder ban at friste en
     ung kæmpes hu med hvad der bor i hans bryst: "Kender du, min ven,
     denne klinge, som din fader bar til sværdstævnet sidste gang--dette
     kostelige jærn--dengang Danerne slog ham; de beholdt valpladsen, de
     raske Skjoldunger; siden kom der aldrig oprejsning efter kæmpernes
     fald. Nu går her afkom af de banemænd her i hallen, pralende af
     skattene, bryster sig af drabet, bærer det klenodie som du med ret
     skulde eje!"--Således maner og minder han atter og atter med
     sårende ord, indtil den stund kommer, at jomfruens svend segner
     blodig ned for klingens bid, skilt ved livet for sin faders dåd;
     men den anden (i.e., drabsmanden) undflyr levende, han kender vel
     landet. Da brydes fra begge sider ædlingernes edspagt; i Ingeld
     koger dödshadet, men kærligheden til hans viv kölnes efter den
     harm. Derfor kalder jeg ikke Hadbardernes trofasthed, deres del i
     folkefreden, svigelös mod Danerne, deres venskab ikke fast.'[176]

     "Trods den antydende stil i digtets fremstilling, således som den
     lægges helten Beovulf i munden, er handlingens sammenhæng
     nogenlunde tydelig. Der bar været gammel fejde mellem Daner og
     Hadbarder; hvis man kan tro betydningen af et ikke helt sikkert
     ord, er også Hadbardernes konge (Frode) falden i striden. Ingeld,
     Frodes sön, slutter fred med Danernes konge Hrodgar og holder
     bryllup med hans datter. Under selve bryllupet blusser kampen op,
     idet en af brudesvendene bliver dræbt af en af Hadbarderne, som en
     gammel kæmpe bar ægget op til at hævne sin faders död. Bryllupet
     (og drabet) foregår--efter digtets fremstilling--snarest i
     Hadbardernes kongehal; ti det hedder, at drabsmanden undslap fordi
     ban kendte landet. Ingelds rolle er indskrasnket til at hans
     kærlighed til kongedatteren 'kölnes'; at hun er bleven forskudt
     eller selv er vendt hjem, fremgår deraf, at hun i digtet går i den
     danske kongehal som ugift og skænker for kæmperne.

     "Kampen nævnes en gang til, i _Béowulfs_ begyndelse, dær hvor det
     hedder on den danske kongehal Hjort: 'den opleved fjendske
     ildbölger, hærjende lue; det var ikke længe efter at kamphadet
     vågned efter [gammelt] dödsfjendskab mellem svigersön og
     svigerfader.'[177] Disse ord--der næppe stammer fra den egenlige
     Béowulfdigter--indeholder en afvigende fremstilling: bryllupskampen
     står i den danske kongehal, og synes at være opfattet som större og
     voldsommere end en enkelt mands mord og hans banemands undslipning.
     At sagnet vakler med hensyn til stedet, er ikke så underligt.
     Historiske forhold viser, at bryllup snart er holdt i
     svigersönnens, snart i svigerfaderens hjem.

     "Også Wîdsîð-kvadet taler on en kamp 'i Hjort' (ät Heorote), hvor
     Ingeld og hans Hadbarder skal have lidt et nederlag mod Hrodgar og
     hans brodersön Hrodulf. Det er rimeligst, at også dette er
     hentydning til det blodige bryllup, opfattet på lignende måde og
     henlagt til samme skueplads som i den nysnævnte antydning.

       *       *       *       *       *

     "Handlingen foregår i Ingelds kongehal, og indholdet er at en
     gammel kæmpe bevæger en ung til i selve hallen at dræbe sönnen af
     sin faders banemand, herved blusser det gamle fjendskab mellem
     folkene op, og Ingeld forskyder sin udenlandske hustru.

     "Forskellen er den, at i _Béowulf_ er faderhævneren en fra Ingeld
     forskellig person. Dette er sikkert det ældre, og Ingjaldskvadets
     det yngre. Det gælder som en lov for episk udvikling, at man
     arbejder sig hen imod det enklere; hvis to personer udförer
     beslægtede handlinger, vil den ene af dem forsvinde; og i kraft af
     digtningens midtpunktsögen, vil bifiguren gå ud af spillet, hans
     rolle vil enten blive til intet eller overtages af hovedpersonen.
     Digtningen har gjort et stort skridt frem i episk tætning, da
     Ingeld blev både faderhævner og den der forsköd sin hustru; det
     hele drama udspilles nu imellem den unge konge og den gamle
     stridsmand.

       *       *       *       *       *

     "Episk er omdannelsen naturlig nok; nationalt er den meget
     mærkeligere. Det er ikke så underligt, at den ældre form handler om
     Daner og Hadbarder, den yngre om Daner og Sakser. Men det
     overraskende er, at Hadbardernes parti göres til 'Daner' og de
     tidligere Daner til 'Saksere'; den danske heltetradition er her
     ganske vildfarende i, hvem der er folkets egne forfædre, og hvem
     der er dets bitreste fjender. Dog også dette bliver episk
     forklarligt. Bevidstheden om Hadbarderne, der engang havde fyldt
     Danerne med rædsel, svandt efterhånden bort, fordi Östersöegnenes
     hele ætniske stilling forandredes. Ikke en eneste gang er deres
     navn overleveret i samtlige den nordiske literatur! Men hvor
     synskres og navne glemmes, drages personer og optrin nærmere til.
     Efter Vendernes indvandring til Östersökysten bliver alle dens
     gamle sagnhelte opfattede som Danske: Anglernes Offa, Hadbardernes
     Ingeld, Holmrygernes Hagena. Senere i tiden flytter også andre af
     den gotiske verdens store sagnskikkelser nordpå: minder om
     Hunnerslaget overföres på Danmarks sydgrænse (Dan, Fredfrode);
     Volsunger, Nibelunger, Didrikskæmper--alle blev til en eller anden
     tid gjorte til vore landsmænd, efter ganske samme nærhedslov,
     hvormed Nordmændene gjorde danske kæmper som Starkad og Bjarke til
     norske helte. I og for sig er der intet mærkeligere i, at Ingeld og
     den opæggende gamle spydkæmpe göres til Daner. Som _Bjarkemål_ blev
     udgangspunkt for ganske uhistoriske forestillinger on
     Skjoldungætten, sker det også her--i endnu större målestok.
     Ingjaldsk vadet bar bortkastet alt det historiske stof, undtagen
     den gamle kæmpes harmtale, og det skaber en ny episk sammenhæng,
     som det gennemförer paa glimrende måde.

     "Nu forstaar vi Ingelds nationalitetsskifte. Det mærkelige er blot,
     at de oprindelige Daner blev gjorte til Saksere. Men også, dette
     fölger af den episke udvikling. Når den gamle kæmpe er det punkt
     der tiltrækkes (fordi han er det poetiske tyngdepunkt), må hans
     modparti frastödes og göres til Danefolkets fjender. Nogen
     selvstændig betydning ejer denne part jo ikke.

     "Udtalt i jævnere ord vil dette sige, at man i vikingetiden tog et
     gammelt sagnstof og deri fandt udtryk for sin tids store oplevelse,
     sammenstödet mellem Danmark og et mægtigt 'saksisk' rige.[178]

     "Det eneste nye navn, vi möder, er betegnelsen 'Svertings sönner.'
     I ældre digtning (_Béowulf_) er 'Svertings ætling' Geaternes konge;
     men da bevidstheden on 'Geaterne' blegnede, er navnet vel sprunget
     over og er knyttet til en kendt folkestamme, Sakserne. Grunden
     dertil er muligvis kun, at det danner bogstavrim med Sakser, og at
     det sproglig har en biklang af sort, i.e., ond og listig, der
     gjorde det egnet til at bruges om Danernes fjender."[179]

The significance of this is, first, that in the Ingjald lay we are
dealing with old material; secondly, that the account of the
relationship in the _Skjọldungasaga_ between Frothi and Swerting and
their families is based on the Ingjald lay; thirdly, that when the
nationality of Swerting and those associated with him is changed from
Saxon to Swedish, it is merely another stage in the development of the
story, quite in line with earlier changes made to keep the story in
harmony with changing conditions.

Thus we have two stories, based on the same events (events first related
in _Beowulf_ and _Widsith_), that come down to posterity by two
independent lines of transmission and suffer changes in the course of
time that bring them into absolute conflict with each other. According
to both stories, Frothi has become a Danish king. But in the story
connected with the Ingjald lay, Frothi is slain, and is avenged by his
son, Ingjald; while in the _Hrólfssaga_, Frothi is his brother's slayer,
on whom vengeance is taken by the sons (Hroar and Helgi) of his victim
(Halfdan). In the _Skjọldungasaga_, the conflict is obviated. It is done
very deftly and with only such disturbances of the genealogical
relations involved as seemed necessary to secure the desired result. As
a consequence, the changes that have been made, for which, in most
instances, the reasons are quite apparent, can be traced step by step.
The story as we have it in the _Skjọldungasaga_ is, therefore, plainly
an artificial amalgamation designed principally to harmonize conflicting
stories about Frothi.

The genealogy in the _Skjọldungasaga_ is as follows:--

  Swerting   Frothi                                       Jorund
      |       |  |                                          |
      |       |  |                                      daughter
      |       |  |__________________________________________|
      |       |                                           |
  daughter   Ingjald           Sigrith                   Halfdan
      |        |  |             |  |                         |
      |________|  |_____________|  |_________________________|
        |          |     |                 |         |     |
        |          |     |                 |[180]    |     |
       Agnar   Hrörik  Frothi  Eng. Lady Hroar    Helgi   Signy  Sævil
                                  |        |         |      |     |
                                  |________|         |      |_____|
                                                     |
                                                Hrolf Kraki

Below is the same genealogy with the portions enclosed that, on the one
hand, are taken from the Ingjald lay (Frothi, Swerting, etc.) and, on
the other, from the _Hrólfssaga_ (Halfdan, Sigrith, etc.). The names in
italics are found in the _Hrólfssaga_, but, with the exception of Ögn,
whose name is omitted altogether, are employed in another connection in
the _Skjọldungasaga_ (see the foregoing table):--

  .-------------------.
  ¦Swerting   Frothi  ¦                                    Jorund
  ¦    |       |  |   ¦                                      |
  ¦    |       |  |   ¦                                  daughter
  ¦    |       |  |___¦______________________________________|
  ¦    |       |      ¦                                    |
  ¦    |       |      ¦        .--------------------------------------.
  ¦    |       |      ¦        ¦                           |          ¦
  ¦daughter   Ingjald ¦        ¦Sigrith   _Frothi_[181]   Halfdan     ¦
  ¦    |        |  |  ¦        ¦ |  | |____|                  |       ¦
  ¦    |________|  |__¦________¦_|  |_________________________|       ¦
  ¦      |          | ¦   |    ¦            |       |       |         ¦
  '-------------------'   |    ¦            |       |       |         ¦
         |          |     |    ¦            |       |       |         ¦
        Agnar   Hrörik  Frothi ¦Eng. Lady Hroar   Helgi   Signy  Sævil¦
                               ¦ (_Ögn_)    |       |        |     |  ¦
                               ¦   |________|       |        |_____|  ¦
                               ¦       |            |            |    ¦
                               ¦       |            |            |    ¦
                               ¦     _Agnar_   Hrolf Kraki     _Hrok_ ¦
                               '--------------------------------------'

It will be observed that the following changes have been made to produce
the family relationship as we find it in the _Skjọldungasaga_. Frothi is
removed as Halfdan's brother and becomes his father, a change suggested,
probably, by the tradition related in Saxo's second book that Frothi was
Halfdan's father, and facilitated by the fact that, in the _Hrólfssaga_,
the father of Halfdan and Frothi is not mentioned, and, as a result,
presents no impediment to the change. But to explain how Halfdan has
become Frothi's son, a new relationship has to be invented, so Frothi is
said to have the son Halfdan by the daughter of Jorund. According to the
_Hrólfssaga_, Halfdan is slain by his brother. This idea, in the
abstract, is retained. But, according to the new arrangement, Ingjald,
Frothi's son, has become Halfdan's brother, i.e., half-brother; hence,
Ingjald slays Halfdan. According to the _Hrólfssaga_, Halfdan's brother
and slayer marries his widow, Sigrith.[182] This idea is also retained.
In the _Hrólfssaga_, it is Frothi who slays his brother, Halfdan, and
marries his widow, Sigrith. But, according to the new arrangement,
Ingjald is Halfdan's brother and slayer; hence, it is now he who marries
Sigrith. According to the _Hrólfssaga_, Agnar is Hroar's son; but this,
apparently, is not according to current tradition. According to Saxo's
second book, he is Ingjald's son and is slain by Bjarki. This conception
of him occurs in the _Hrólfssaga_ also, but towards the close, where
Bjarki, in recounting his own achievements, mentions his having slain
Agnar. This Agnar is not Hroar's son, but the Agnar of the
_Skjọldungasaga_ and of Saxo's second book. The _Skjọldungasaga_,
therefore, properly retains him as Ingjald's son and omits him as
Hroar's son. Hrok and Hrörik are the same person. According to the
_Hrólfssaga_, he is the son of Sævil and Signy. Olrik has about a page
of comment on him,[183] in which he shows that he (Hrethric, Hrothgar's
son, in _Beowulf_) was originally regarded as Hroar's son, but, for
reasons that need not here be rehearsed, became a fluctuating character.
The _Skjọldungasaga_ has made him the son of Ingjald. In the
_Hrólfssaga_, Hroar is said to have married an English lady named Ögn.
The _Skjọldungasaga_ also says that Hroar married an English lady, but
omits her name. Finally, Ingjald is given another son, Frothi. He
corresponds to Frothi V in Saxo. In Saxo, however, Frothi is the slayer
of his brother and corresponds to the Frothi who appears in the
_Hrólfssaga_ as the slayer of Halfdan. As the Frothi who appears in the
_Hrólfssaga_ becomes, in the _Skjọldungasaga_, the father of Halfdan,
and Ingjald becomes Halfdan's slayer, Frothi, Ingjald's son, is, as a
consequence, assigned the rôle of joining his brother Hrörik in slaying
his half-brother Hroar. Thus the idea of Frothi (corresponding to Frothi
V in Saxo) as a fratricide is retained. But as Ingjald is succeeded on
the throne by Halfdan's sons, Hroar and Helgi, there is no opportunity
for Ingjald's son Frothi to become king. It will also be remembered that
Frothi IV in the _Skjọldungasaga_, who, like Frothi IV in Saxo, was
slain by Swerting (or his sons), was himself a fratricide, having caused
the death of his brother Ali. Frothi IV in the _Skjọldungasaga_
corresponds to the Frothi mentioned in the _Hrólfssaga_. Thus, as a
fratricide, Frothi IV in the _Skjọldungasaga_ corresponds to the Frothi
in the _Hrólfssaga_, and as the victim of Swerting, he corresponds to
Frothi IV in Saxo; while the account of Frothi, Ingjald's son, as the
slayer of his half-brother Hroar, preserves the idea that Frothi V (in
Saxo) is his brother's slayer. The _Skjọldungasaga_ has, therefore,
amply retained the idea of Frothi as a fratricide, and contains an
account that, in a way, embraces the essential features of the treatment
of the same period in the _Hrólfssaga_, on the one hand, and in Saxo, on
the other. The relationship in the _Skjọldungasaga_ of Frothi (Ingjald's
father), Swerting, Ingjald, and Swerting's daughter is identical with
that in the Ingjald lay.

Thus we see how, at the most conspicuous and interesting juncture of the
Danish royal line, the _Skjọldungasaga_ harmonizes conflicting
traditions.[184] This involves a train of consequences, among which are
the following:--

1. "The short and chronicle-like form [i.e., of the Hroar-Helgi story]
in the _Skjọldungasaga_, where the murderer is called Ingjald, not
Frothi," is taken from the account that appears in the _Hrólfssaga_;
this account must therefore be earlier than the corresponding account in
the _Skjọldungasaga_.

2. As the story about Frothi, Halfdan, etc., in the _Bjarkarímur_ is
substantially the same as in the _Skjọldungasaga_, it must be derived
from the same source as the story in the _Skjọldungasaga_. The
_Bjarkarímur_ are, therefore, at this point a later composition than the
corresponding portion of the _Hrólfssaga_; and this fact affords further
corroboration of the idea that the stories in the _rímur_ of Bjarki's
slaying the wolf and Hjalti's slaying the bear are later than the
_Hrólfssaga's_ account of Bjarki's slaying the winged monster.

3. When the _Skjọldungasaga_ says that Hrolf Kraki met Hrani-Odin on the
expedition to Sweden, though nothing is said about such a meeting in
_Snorri's Edda_, the idea is probably taken from a version of the story
essentially as we have it in the _Hrólfssaga_.[185]

4. Though the _Hrólfssaga_ is made up of elements of varying degrees of
antiquity and merit, it contains features worthy of more consideration
than has generally been accorded them.

5. In discussing the genealogy of the Danish kings in _Beowulf_ and
comparing it with that of other documents,[186] it is to be remembered
that the _Skjọldungasaga_ has no independent value as an authority in
this connection; its value lies in its recognition of a conflict between
the Ingjald lay and the story in the _Hrólfssaga_, and its attempt to
harmonize the two.

6. On the whole, as Olrik says, "Hvor værdifuld den islandske
_Skjọldungasaga_ end er, den er selvfölgelig ikke på alle punkter at
foretrække for enhver anden kilde."[187] When it disagrees with other
documents, its statements should be scanned with care.

A little ought to be said about Saxo's treatment of the problem, the
solution of which in the _Skjọldungasaga_ has just been considered. The
solution in the saga is based on the recognition of the fact that Frothi
as a king who was slain (i.e., by Swerting) and later avenged by his son
is irreconcilable with the idea that he slew his brother, whose sons
later put Frothi to death and thus avenged their father's murder. Saxo
solved the problem by employing two Frothi's,--namely Frothi IV,
Ingjald's father, who was slain by Swerting and was avenged by his son,
and Frothi V, Ingjald's successor, who slew his brother, Harald (i.e.,
Halfdan in the _Hrólfssaga_), and later was put to death by Harald's
sons.

On the whole, Saxo's story presents something of an attempt to harmonize
Danish and Old Norse tradition. The Danish tradition about the
Hroar-Helgi group of kings Saxo preserves in his second book. The Old
Norse tradition about them he utilizes in his seventh book, at a point
where, in the line of Danish kings, it occurs according to the Old Norse
conception of the matter.[188] In the latter connection he repeats
certain features of the story as it appears in his second book. Ingjald
who appears in the sixth book is really the same Ingjald (second book)
whose son Agnar is slain by Bjarki; and Helgi (here called Halfdan)
takes to sea, just as he does in the second book. All that concerns
Hrolf Kraki, Yrsa, Bjarki, etc., Saxo omits from the seventh book; but
he gives Halfdan (Helgi) a career in Sweden, something like Helgi's
(second book). Halfdan dies, however, without leaving an heir to the
Danish throne; and this solves another problem, for thus the necessity
of introducing Hrolf Kraki, Helgi's son, again, or some substitute for
him, is obviated, and the story of this royal family is brought to an
end.


_Conclusion._

We have, therefore, only two versions of the Hroar-Helgi story (Saxo's
version and the one in the _Hrólfssaga_), and these have been subjected
to a variety of influences and manipulations. The two versions do not,
however, always employ the same features in just the same way, as is
exemplified in the treatment of the insanity motive; nor have they
always retained the same features present in the source of influence, as
where the place of concealment of the boys in one instance is a cave and
in the other a hollow tree. But the possession of the two versions is
valuable in this respect, that they afford a double confirmation of the
source of influence, as in the instances just cited and in Frothi's
consulting the witch.

It is a great transformation that has taken place in the fortunes of
Hrothgar (Hroar) from the time we become acquainted with him as the
famous King of the Danes in _Beowulf_ till we finally see him in the
_Hrólfssaga_ sitting on the throne of Northumberland in England. But the
conception of him that excludes him from the list of ancient kings of
Denmark seems to have been shared by Snorri Sturlason; for in Snorri's
_Ynglingasaga_, where Frothi, Halfdan, Helgi, Hrolf Kraki, and other
early Danish kings are mentioned, and where one would expect something
to be said about Hroar also, his name does not occur and there is no
reference to him whatever.

The foregoing explanation of how Hroar came to be regarded as King of
Northumberland has a bearing on _Beowulf_-criticism. The name of Hroar's
wife is given as Ögn. In _Beowulf_, Hrothgar's wife, Wealhtheow, is
called a Helming and is supposed to be an English lady. In support of
this idea, Sarrazin[189] and, following him, Thomas Arnold[190] have
stated that perhaps we have a reminiscence of her nationality in that of
Ögn. But, as we have seen, there is no connection between the two
women.

Finally, let it be stated that not all has been said about the
Hroar-Helgi story that one would like to say. One would like to be able
to trace still more in detail the development of the story and account
for all the variations between the two versions. Such knowledge is,
however, vouchsafed in very few instances. But if what has been said is
substantially correct, a little has been added to what was known before
about this interesting story.



III

_GENERAL SUMMARY._


From what has been said, it will be seen that the origin of the dragon
in the _Bọðvarsþáttr_ of the _Hrólfssaga_ has hitherto been
unperceived and the story of Bjarki's fight with the dragon has not
been understood. Neither of the two has any connection with _Beowulf_.
The _Bjarkarímur_ throw no light on the _Beowulf_ problem, for the
story of Bjarki's slaying the wolf and that of Hjalti's slaying the
bear are later than the story of Bjarki's slaying the dragon and were
written by one who had the story of Bjarki's fight with the dragon in
mind. Moreover, the story told in the _rímur_ in connection with
Hjalti's slaying the bear is merely an adaptation of the story told in
the _Hrólfssaga_ about Bjarki's father.

The _Fróðaþáttr_ of the _Hrólfssaga_ embodies an earlier form of the
Hroar-Helgi story than is found in the _Skjọldungasaga_ and the
_Bjarkarímur_; and this confirms the idea that the story in the
_Hrólfssaga_ of Bjarki's fight with the winged monster is earlier than
the corresponding stories in the _Bjarkarímur_. Aside from the influence
exerted by the Hamlet story, the _Fróðaþáttr_ version and Saxo's version
of the Hroar-Helgi story are the result of influences emanating from the
"exile-return" type of story in England, and, nore particularly, the
Meriadoc story and the Macbeth story, which were well known to
Scandinavians in Great Britain.

The version of the Hroar-Helgi story which we find in the
_Skjọldungasaga_ and the _Bjarkarímur_ is the result of an attempt to
harmonize conflicting traditions emanating from events about which we
now find the first account in _Beowulf_ and _Widsith_, as is also Saxo's
treatment of the same matter in his sixth and seventh books.

The change of names in Saxo's version of the Hroar-Helgi story is the
result of arbitrary action on his part in order to conceal the fact
that he introduces into his history the Hroar-Helgi group of kings a
second time, namely in his seventh book, and gives an account of them
that conflicts with the account already given of them in his second
book.



INDEX


  Ågesön, Svend, 65.

  abbreviations, 5, 6.

  Agnar, 17, 51, 52, 82, 83, 93, 96.

  Ali, 81, 94.

  "Angler," 90.

  Anglo-Saxons, 80.

  Arcadia, 67.

  Arglud, 71.

  Arngrim, 92, 95.

  Arthur, King, 43, 71-73.

  Arthurian romances, 46.

  Athils, 83.


  Balder-cult, 8.

  "Baldersagn," 66.

  Banquo, 79.

  bear, 13, 16, 20, 23, 35, 49, 50, 55, 57.

  bear in _Bjark._, 7, 10-12, 47-55, 57, 58, 60, 95, 98.

  bear in _Gest. Dan._, bk. two, 7, 10, 19, 51, 52, 59, 60.

  bear in _Hrs._, 55, 59.

  bear-ancestry, 10, 14, 16, 19, 20, 56, 59.

  Beaw, 9, 10.

  Beorn, 14, 16.

  Beowulf, 7-12, 30, 41, 43, 60, 89.

  Beowulf (Danish king), 9, 10.

 _Beowulf_, 3, 7-12, 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 43, 58, 59, 61, 65-67, 88-91,
            94, 96-98.

  Bera, 16, 56.

  Beresun, 14, 16.

  Berki, 9.

  Bern, 13.

  Bernicia, 13, 78.

  Biár, 11.

  bibliography, 5, 6.

  Biörn, 13.

  _Bjarkarímur_, 3, 7, 10-12, 16, 28, 35, 47, 49-60, 81-83, 94, 95, 98.

  Bjarki, 7-12, 16-20, 23, 24, 27-31, 33-39, 41, 44-60, 67, 77, 83, 90,
          93, 95, 96, 98.

  Bjarki and the dragon in _Hrs._, Story of, 20 ff.

  Bjarki and the wolf in _Bjark._, Story of, 47 ff.

  Björkman, 69.

  Björn, 16, 56.

  blood-drinking, 8, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 34, 49-52, 58-60.

  Boduwar, 9.

  Bothvar, 8, 10-12, 16, 19, 22, 23, 33, 41, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56, 67, 77.

  "Bọðvar," 8, 20-22, 47.

  _Bọðvarsþáttr,_ 3, 7, 98.

  British Isles, 70.

  Bromton, 13.

  Brunanburh, 80.


  Canute, 13, 70, 80.

  Caradoc, 71.

  cattle-attacking monster, 30, 53.

  Christianity, 26.

  Christmas, 27, 46.

  Christmas Eve, 25, 26, 31-35, 59.

  Cuaran, 73.

  Cumberland, 14.

  Cumbria, 13, 80.

  "Cymren," 70.

  "cymrisch-skandinavische Sage," 70.


  Dan, 90.

  Danes, 13, 16, 43, 61, 65, 67, 70, 80, 88-91, 97.

  Deira, 13.

  Denmark, 7, 8, 14, 18, 19, 61, 63, 65, 67, 70, 76-78, 80-83, 87,
           90-92, 97.

  "Didrikskæmper," 90.

  Diere, 14.

  Digera, 13.

  dogs, herdsmen's, 48, 53, 54, 56.

  dog's name in _Hist. Mer._, 74.

  dogs' names in _Gest. Dan._, bk. seven, 64, 73, 74, 77.

  dogs' names in _Hrs._, 61, 67, 73, 74, 77.

  Dolfin, 71, 73, 74.

  Donaldbane, 77, 78, 80.

  dragon, 9, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 46, 55.

  dragon in _Beow._, 7-10, 34, 60.

  dragon in _Hrs._, 7, 10, 19, 20, 24, 27,
    28, 30, 33, 34, 36-39, 44-46, 50,
    51, 54-60, 98.

  Drifa, 9.

  Duncan, 13, 77, 78.

  Dundee, 15.

  Dunewal, 15.

  Durendal, 43.


  Eadwulf Cutel, 13.

  Eagle Rock, 71.

  Ealdred, 13, 78.

  Ebbe, 25.

  Eckhart, 68.

  Edward the Confessor, 13, 14, 17.

  Elgfrothi, 18.

  England, 3, 9, 10, 13-16, 63, 67, 69, 70, 73, 77, 80, 82, 83, 97, 98.

  Excalibur, 43.

  "exile-return" story, 68, 69, 77, 81, 83, 98.


  Favnir, 23, 28.

  Firth of Clyde, 13.

  Firth of Forth, 13.

  Fleventanean forest, 71.

  Florencius, 69.

  folk-lore, 24, 28, 38.

  Fordun, Johannes, 80.

  "fornaldarsaga," 15.

  Freawaru, 9, 88.

  Frey-cult, 8.

  Fridleif, 81, 86.

  Fridleus, 86.

  Frodas, 69.

  Frothi, 9, 10, 43, 61-66, 68, 69, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81-97.

  _Froðaþáttr_, 3, 61, 94, 98.

  Fyen, 64.


  Gaimar, Geffrei, 72.

  Gautland, 63, 77.

  Geats, 43, 91.

  genealogy of Danish kings in _Gest. Dan._, 84, 85.

  genealogy of Danish kings in _Hrs._, 92.

  genealogy of Danish kings in _Skjs._, 84, 85, 92.

  Germany, 87.

  giants, 25, 26, 42, 46.

  giant-sword in _Beow._, 11, 38.

  Godwin, 13.

  Great Britain, 98.

  Grendel, 7, 9-12, 34, 35, 38, 58, 60.

  Grendel's mother, 7, 11.

  Grettir, 35.

  Griffith, 71, 72.

  Grim, 73.

  Grímur, 31.

  Gudmundur, 31-33.

  Gullinhjalti, 11, 12, 22-24, 35, 36, 39-41, 44, 59.

  Gyldenhilt, 11, 40, 42.

  "gylden hilt," 11, 12, 35, 40-44, 59.

  "Hadbarder," 65, 88-90.

  Hagena, 90.

  Halfdan, 61, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 75, 78, 81-84, 86-88, 91-97.

  Halga, 61.

  hall-attacking monster, 29-31, 34, 53.

  Halvor, 38.

  Hamlet, 67, 73, 80.

  Hamlet story, 67, 72, 73, 76, 77, 98.

  Hamur, 62, 74.

  Hanef, 87.

  Harald, 63, 75, 83, 86, 87, 96.

  Hardecanute, 13.

  Havelok, 80.

  Heiðr, 66.

  Helgi, 19, 61-64, 66, 67, 69, 73, 75, 77, 78, 80, 82-84, 86, 91, 92,
         94, 96, 97, 99.

  Helming, 97.

  Heorot, 89.

  Hereward, 60.

  Hilda, 81.

  Hildr, 56.

  "Hitdölekæmpe," 24.

  Hjalti, 10-12, 22, 24, 28, 35, 39, 40, 44, 47-59, 95, 98.

  Hjalti and the bear in _Bjark._, Story of, 47 ff.

  "Hjort," 89.

  Hleidargard, 48, 49, 53, 55.

  Ho, 61, 74.

  "Holmryger," 90.

  Hondscio, 12.

  Hopp, 61, 74.

  Hott, 11, 12, 20-25, 27-30, 34, 36-40, 44-46, 53.

  Hrani, 62, 74, 95.

  Hrethel, 43.

  Hrethric, 93.

  Hring, 17, 55.

  Hroar, 19, 61-67, 69, 75, 77, 78, 80, 82-84, 86, 91-94, 96, 97, 99.

  Hroar-Helgi story, 61, 67-70, 72-74, 76-79, 81-84, 86, 87, 94, 95, 97,
                     98.

  Hrok, 93.

  Hrolf Kraki, 7, 9, 17-23, 27, 33, 35, 39, 40, 43, 46, 48-50, 52, 54,
               55, 57, 66, 82-84, 86, 92, 95-97.

 _Hrólfssaga_, 3, 7, 9-12, 16-20, 23, 33, 35, 39-41, 45, 46, 49, 50,
               52-54, 57-60, 63, 65, 68, 72-74, 76-80, 82, 83, 87, 91-98.

  Hrossþjófr, 66.

  Hrothgar, 9, 42, 43, 88, 89, 93, 96, 97.

  Hrothulf, 89.

  Hrunting, 11.

  Hrörik, 65, 82, 93, 94.

  "Hunnerslaget," 90.

  Huntingdon, 13, 14.

  Hygd, 43.

  Hygelac, 43.


  Iceland, 26, 65, 77, 84.

  Icelanders, 67.

  "ilex," 75, 76.

  Ingjald, 81-84, 86-91, 93-96.

  Ingjald lay, 87-92, 94, 96.

  insanity in _Gest. Dan._, bk. seven, 64, 73, 77, 97.

  insanity in Hamlet story, 67, 73.

  insanity in _Hrs._, 73, 77, 97.

  invulnerability, 29.

  Ireland, 71, 78, 80.

  "islændingasaga," 15.

  Ivor, 71-75, 77.


  Jorund, 81, 82, 93, 95.

  Joseph, 76.


  Karl, governor of Gautland, 63.

  Kay, 71, 72.


  Leofric, 13.

  London, 14.

  Lonkentus, 39.


  Macbeth, 13, 78-80.

  Macbeth story, 77-81, 98.

  Macduffe, 79.

  Malcolm, 13, 77, 80.

  Margaret, 33.

  Meriadoc, 72, 73.

  Meriadoc story, 70-76, 78, 80, 98.

  Merlin, 46.

  Morwen, 71, 72.


  New Year, 32.

  "Niebelunger," 90.

  "Nordmænd," 15, 90.

  Norfolk, 70.

  Northri, 63, 78.

  Northumberland, 10, 13-15, 18, 63, 78, 80, 97.

  Northumbria, 13, 78.

  Norway, 7, 25, 26, 65, 77, 81.

  Norwegians, 14, 16, 67.


  Odin, 15, 17-19, 26, 95.

  Offa, 90.

  Olaf, 85, 87.

  Orkney Islands, 14, 17-19.

  Orwen, 72, 78.

  Osbeorn, 13, 18.

  Osbernum, 15.

  Osbertum Bulax, 15.


  Per Bakken, 25.

  Per Gynt, 35.

  Per Sandager, 29.


  "quercus," 74.


  Ragnar, 64.

  Ragnar Lodbrok, 15.

  Ravenlandeye, 14, 18.

  Regin, 61-63, 68.

  Remus, 67.

  Roland, 43.

  Romulus, 67.

  Russia, 81.


  "Sakser," 90, 91.

  Scandinavians, 10, 70, 80, 98.

  "Scania," 82.

  Scioldus, 86.

  Scotland, 13, 17, 71, 72, 78.

  Scots, 13, 15.

  Scyld, 9.

  Scylding kings, 67, 69.

  Seeland, 64, 77, 82.

  "seid," 79.

  "seiðkona," 79, 81.

  Sigar, 73.

  Signy, 61-63, 73, 77, 82, 83, 93, 95.

  Sigrith, 63, 82, 83, 92, 93, 95.

  Sigurd, 23, 28, 67.

  Sigurdur, 31-33.

  Silfrúnarstadir, 31.

  Siward, 10, 13-20, 23, 24, 56, 59, 63, 77, 78, 80.

  Sjávarborg, 31.

  Skåne, 82.

  Skagafjördur, 31.

  _Skjọldungasaga_, 18, 65, 81-84, 86, 87, 91-96, 98.

  "Skjoldunger," 65, 88.

  "Skjoldungsagaer," 67.

  "Skjoldungsagn," 64, 66.

  "Skjoldungslægt," 84.

  "Skjoldungæt," 65, 90.

  Skofnung, 39, 40.

  Sleipnir, 19.

  Snowdon, Mount, 72.

  soothsayers, 61, 79.

  Spratlingus, 14.

  Starkad, 81, 82, 87, 88, 90.

  Sweden, 8, 17-19, 63, 77, 81, 82, 87, 95, 97.

  Swedes, 81.

  Swerting, 81, 82, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94-96.

  Sævar, 78.

  Sævil, 61-63, 73, 78, 82, 83, 93, 95.

  Thames, 14.

  Thebes, 67.

  Thessaly, 67.

  Tosti, 14, 17.

  troll, 7, 9, 11, 16, 21, 22, 24-28, 30-35, 38, 52, 53, 59.

  troll-animal, 29.

  troll-bird, 29.

  troll-dragon, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 49, 50, 53, 55, 58, 59.

  troll-hare, 29.

  troll-wife, 35, 66.


  Ulf, 16, 55, 56.

  Ulfius, 14.

  Ulsius, 14.

  Uplands in Norway, 81.

  Urien, 71-73.

  Ursus, 14.

  Uther Pendragon, 71.


  Valhalla, 19.

  Valsleit, 17.

  "Vender," 90.

  Vifil, 61, 62, 73, 74, 76, 79.

  Vitholphus, 66.

  Viðolfi, 66.

  "Volsunger," 90.

  Waldar, 92, 93.

  Waldef story, 69.

  Wales, 71.

  Wealhtheow, 97.

  Weder-Geats, 41.

  Welsh, 70.

  werewolf myth, 12.

  Westminster, 14.

  Westmoreland, 14.

  Widsith, 61, 89, 91, 98.

  winged monster in _Hrs._, 7-12, 20-22, 25, 55, 95, 98.

  witch, 26, 61, 62, 64, 78, 79, 97.

  wizard, 26, 79.

  wolf in _Bjark._, 7, 10-12, 28, 47, 49-52, 54, 57, 58, 60, 95, 98.

  wolves in _Gest. Dan._, bk. seven, 63, 64.

  wolves in _Hist. Mer._, 71, 75, 76.

  Worcestershire, 13.


  York, 13.

  Young Siward, 13.

  Yrsa, 66, 69, 83, 96.

  Yule, 25.

  Yule Eve, 22, 25, 30.

  Yule-feast, 22, 25.

  Yule-tide, 27.

  Ælflæd, 13, 78.

  Æsir, 26.

  Ögn, 63, 78, 92, 94, 97.

  "Östersöen," 90.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: For these portions of the _Bjarkarímur_, see pp. 47-48.]

[Footnote 2: For the story of Bjarki's fight with the winged monster,
see pp. 20-22.]

[Footnote 3: See p. 51.]

[Footnote 4: _Ant. Tid._, 1852-54, p. 130.]

[Footnote 5: _Ang._, 1886, IX, pp. 198-201.]

[Footnote 6: _P.B.B._, 1887, XII, pp. 55-57.]

[Footnote 7: _Beow. Stud._, 1888, pp. 62-63.]

[Footnote 8: _Beow. Unt. Ang._, 1889, p. 55.]

[Footnote 9: _Beow. Unt._, 1888, pp. 185-88.]

[Footnote 10: _Eng. Stud._, 1892, XVI, p. 80.]

[Footnote 11: The list is "Osbern Thruwin Aeskitil Riculf Aeskyl Rikui
Boduwar Berki Esel Petre Osbern."]

[Footnote 12: _P. B. B._, 1895, XX, pp. 157-58.]

[Footnote 13: _Eng. Stud._, 1897, XXIII, pp. 243-46.]

[Footnote 14: _Notes, Beow._, 1898, p. 96.]

[Footnote 15: _Grundr._, 1898, III, p. 649.]

[Footnote 16: _Ark._, 1903 (the article is dated 1901), XIX, pp. 19 ff.]

[Footnote 17: _Oldn. Lit. Hist._, II, 1901, p. 832.]

[Footnote 18: _Helt._, I, 1903, pp. 135-36.]

[Footnote 19: _Helt._, I, p. 135.]

[Footnote 20: _Helt._, I, pp. 139-41.]

[Footnote 21: _Helt._, pp. 215-17.]

[Footnote 22: _Helt._, I, p. 248.]

[Footnote 23: _Hrs. Bjark._, 1904, Introd., p. 22.]

[Footnote 24: _Eng. Stud._, 1905, XXXV, pp. 19 ff. The similarity
between "Gullinhjalti," in the _Hrólfssaga_, and "gylden hilt," in
_Beowulf_, was first pointed out by Friedrich Kluge in _Englische
Studien_, 1896, XXII, p. 145. Sarrazin would write "gylden hilt," the
form in which the words appear in _Beowulf_, in one word and capitalize
it (i.e., Gyldenhilt). This manner of writing the words brings them
nearer in form to "Gullinhjalti," as this word is written in the
_Hrólfssaga_. Holthausen in his latest edition (1909) of _Beowulf_ also
uses the form "Gyldenhilt." Lawrence, likewise, identifies "gylden hilt"
with Gullinhjalti (see p. 12), as does also Panzer (see p. 12).]

[Footnote 25: _St. Sag. Eng._, 1906, pp. 249 ff.]

[Footnote 26: _Camb. Hist. Lit._, I, 1907, pp. 29-30.]

[Footnote 27: _Gesch. Alteng. Lit._, 1908, p. 993.]

[Footnote 28: _P. M. L. A._, 1909, XXIV, p. 237.]

[Footnote 29: _P. M. L. A._, XXIV, p. 239.]

[Footnote 30: _P. M. L. A._, XXIV, p. 231.]

[Footnote 31: _P. M. L. A._, XXIV, p. 231.]

[Footnote 32: _P. M. L. A._, XXIV, p. 224.]

[Footnote 33: _P. M. L. A._, XXIV, p. 223.]

[Footnote 34: _P. M. L. A._, XXIV, p. 224.]

[Footnote 35: _St. germ. Sag._, 1910, pp. 366 ff.]

[Footnote 36: _St. germ. Sag._, pp. 372-73.]

[Footnote 37: _St. germ. Sag._, p. 383.]

[Footnote 38: XVIII, pp. 318-19.]

[Footnote 39: See the legendary life of Siward in the following.]

[Footnote 40: _Ark._, XIX, p. 199.]

[Footnote 41: Olrik, _Ark._, XIX, p. 205.]

[Footnote 42: _Ark._, XIX, pp. 212-13.]

[Footnote 43: _Ark._, XIX, pp. 205-07. See also _Helt._, I, pp. 215-17.
In his _St. germ. Sag._, p. 378, n., Panzer calls in question the
connection that Olrik makes between Bjarki's bear-ancestry and that of
Siward. But Olrik's theory furnishes the only satisfactory explanation
of all the phenomena involved, and is so extremely probable that it must
be regarded as correct.]

[Footnote 44: _Hrs. Bjark._, pp. 59-60.]

[Footnote 45: _Sn. Ed._, pp. 107-10.]

[Footnote 46: See p. 95, 3 and note.]

[Footnote 47: _Ark._, XIX, p. 211]

[Footnote 48: _Helt._, I, p. 136.]

[Footnote 49: _St. germ. Sag._, p. 367.]

[Footnote 50: _P. M. L. A._, XXIV, p. 239.]

[Footnote 51: _Hrs. Bjark._, pp. 68-71. Lawrence's translation of the
above is as follows:--

     "And as the Yule-feast approached, the men grew depressed. Bothvar
     asked Hott the reason; he told him that a beast had already come
     two successive winters, a great and terrible one,--'and it has
     wings on its back and flies about continually; two autumns it has
     already sought us here, and it does great damage; no weapon wounds
     it, but the king's champions, the best warriors of all, don't come
     home at this time.' Bothvar said, 'The hall isn't so well defended
     as I thought, if a beast can destroy the domain and property of the
     king.' Hott answered, 'That is no beast, it is rather the greatest
     of monsters.' (þat er ekki dýr, heldr er þat hit mesta trọll). Now
     came the Yule-even; and the king said, 'Now I desire that 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
     (sem auðnar); my men I do not wish to lose.' All promised to act as
     the king commanded. But Bothvar crept secretly out in the night; he
     made Hott go with him, but Hott only went because he was forced to,
     crying out that it would surely be the death of him. Bothvar told
     him it would turn out better. They went out of the hall, and
     Bothvar had to carry him, so full of fear was he. Now they saw the
     beast, and Hott shrieked as loud as he could, and cried that the
     beast was going to swallow him. Bothvar commanded the dog (bikkjuna
     hans, i.e. Hott) to keep still, and threw him down in the moss, and
     there he lay in unspeakable terror, and didn't even dare to run
     home. Then Bothvar attacked the beast, but it chanced that the
     sword stuck in the sheath when he wanted to draw it; then he pulled
     so hard at the sword that it flew out of the sheath, and he plunged
     (leggr) it immediately with such force under the shoulder of the
     beast that it penetrated the heart, and hard and heavily fell the
     beast down on the ground dead. Then Bothvar went over to where Hott
     was lying. He took him up and carried him over to the place where
     the beast lay dead. Hott trembled frightfully. Bothvar said, 'Now
     you must drink the blood of the beast.' For a long time he was loth
     to do this, but he finally didn't dare to do otherwise. Bothvar
     made him drink two big gulps, and eat some of the beast's heart;
     then Bothvar grappled with him, and they struggled long with each
     other. Bothvar said, 'Now you have become very strong, and I don't
     believe that you will be afraid of the troop of King Hrolf any
     longer.' Hott answered, 'I shall not fear them any more, nor shall
     I be afraid of you henceforth.' 'That is well, comrade Hott,' [said
     Bothvar] 'and now will we set up the beast, and arrange it so that
     the others will think it alive.' They did so. Then they went in and
     were quiet; no one knew what they had done.

     "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 king
     bade his men see if they couldn't find any indication that it had
     come thither. The warders obeyed, came quickly back again and told
     the king that the beast was advancing rapidly to attack the town
     (borginn). The king bade his men be courageous, [and said] each one
     should help, according as he had courage for it, and proceed
     against this monster. It was done as the king commanded; they made
     themselves ready for it. The king looked at the beast and said, 'I
     don't see that the beast moves; but who will undertake the task and
     attack it?' Bothvar answered, 'A brave man might be able to satisfy
     his curiosity about this! (þat væri næsta hrausts manns
     forvitnisbót.) Comrade Hott, destroy this evil talk about you,--men
     say that there is neither strength nor courage in you; go up and
     kill the beast!--you see nobody else wants to.' 'Yes,' said Hott,'I
     will undertake it.' The king said. 'I don't know whence this
     courage has come to you, Hott, you have changed marvellously in a
     short time.' Hott said, 'Give me your sword Gullinhjalti, which you
     are bearing, and I will kill the beast or die in the attempt.' King
     Hrolf said, 'This sword can only be borne by a man who is both
     brave and daring.' Hott answered, 'You shall be convinced that I am
     such a man.' The king said, 'Who knows whether your character
     hasn't changed more than appearances show? Take the sword and may
     you have good fortune!' Then Hott attacked the beast and struck at
     it as soon as he was near enough so that he could hit it, and the
     beast fell down dead. Bothvar said, 'Look, lord, what he has done!'
     The king replied, 'Truly he has changed much, but Hott alone didn't
     kill the beast, you were the man who did it.' Bothvar said, 'It may
     be so.' The king said, 'I knew as soon as you came here that only
     few men could compare with you, but this seems to me your most
     illustrious deed, that you have made a warrior out of Hott, who
     appeared little born to great good fortune. And now I wish him
     called Hott no longer, he shall from this day be named
     Hjalti,--thou shalt be called after the sword
     Gullinhjalti.'"--P. M. L. A., XXIV, pp. 226-27.]

[Footnote 52: _Ark._, XIX, pp. 207-08.]

[Footnote 53: See p. 7.]

[Footnote 54: _Gratis_., p. 92.]

[Footnote 55: _Sc. Folkl._., p. 65.]

[Footnote 56: _Sc. Folkl._., p. 66.]

[Footnote 57: _Sc. Folkl._., p. 108.]

[Footnote 58: _Sagn._, p. 34.]

[Footnote 59: _Event. Sagn._., p. 10.]

[Footnote 60: _Event. Sagn._., pp. 52-53.]

[Footnote 61: "Ebbe svarede, at trolde kæmpede ved nar."--_Helt._., I,
p. 126. The sunlight is represented as being invariably fatal to
trolls.]

[Footnote 62: George Webbe Dasent says (_Pop. Tales_, Introd., pp.
57-58): "The trolls, or, the other hand [i.e., in comparison with the
Giants], with whom mankind had more to do, were supposed to be less easy
tempered, and more systematically malignant, than the Giants, and with
the term were bound up notions of sorcery and unholy power.... But when
Christianity came in, and heathendom fell; when the godlike race of Æsir
became evil demons instead of good genial powers, then all the objects
of the old popular belief, whether Æsir, Giants, or Trolls, were mingled
together in one superstition, as 'no canny.' They were all trolls; all
malignant; and thus it is that, in these tales, the traditions about
Odin and his underlings, about the Frost Giants, and about sorcerers and
wizards, are confused and garbled; and all supernatural agency that
plots man's ill is the work of Trolls, whether the agent be the arch
enemy himself, or giant, or witch, or wizard."

It is quite impossible to characterize trolls in detail with unqualified
words or phrases. They are usually malignant, though there are instances
of their doing men a good turn. They are always very powerful, and are
usually very large. It is told of one troll that, had she not made a
misstep, she would have succeeded in wading from Norway to Iceland; and
of another, that the thumb of his glove held four bushels, good measure.
In some instances, however, it is possible for many trolls to enter one
room of an ordinary dwelling house. There are trolls with three heads,
with six heads, with nine heads, and with twelve heads. Sometimes they
are one-eyed, and sometimes they have other characteristics that
differentiate them from human beings. In fact, anything with
supernatural qualities is apt to be called a troll. As a rule, it is
impossible for human beings to cope with trolls except by outwitting
them, which often is done. They are inimical to Christianity; and,
though their depredations may occur on any day of the year, between
sunset and sunrise, adventures with trolls, as stated above, are
frequently represented as occurring Christmas Eve; and that is the time
when particular precaution must be taken to avoid them. Usually it is
taken for granted that trolls will not attack the inmates of a house,
and people feel perfectly safe so long as they do not venture out. In
another type of troll story, however, people expect trolls to invade the
house Christmas Eve and attack them; and to avoid injury, the inmates
vacate the house for the night, before sunset. Illustrations of these
statements are found in such well known collections of fairy tales as
_Sc. Folkl._, _Nor. Tales_, _Folk. Huld. Even._, _Event. Sagn_.]

[Footnote 63: This story is in print and was related to the present
writer by one who had read it; and, though diligent search has failed to
locate it again, the writer ventures to reproduce it, for he is certain
that it is in existence.]

[Footnote 64: _Folk. Huld. Even._, Pt. I, pp. 66ff.]

[Footnote 65: _St. germ. Sag._, pp. 367-68.]

[Footnote 66: "Dette hallen hjemsögende uhyre."--_Hrs. Bjark._, Introd.,
p. 22.]

[Footnote 67: _Icel. Leg._, pp. 140 ff.]

[Footnote 68: That it was the cattle of King Hrolf that the dragon
attacked has been recognized by others, Müllenhoff (_Beow. Unt. Ang._,
p. 55) and Chadwick (_Camb. Hist. Lit._, I, p. 29), for instance; but
they make no more of the matter than to state it correctly.]

[Footnote 69: _Grettis._, pp 92 ff.]

[Footnote 70: _Folk. Huld. Even._, Pt. II, pp. 53 ff.]

[Footnote 71: _Helt._, I, pp. 117-18.]

[Footnote 72: _P. M. L. A._, XXIV, p. 239.]

[Footnote 73: _St. germ. Sag._, p. 366.]

[Footnote 74: _St. germ. Sag._, p. 368.]

[Footnote 75: _St. germ. Sag._, p. 372.]

[Footnote 76: See pp. 11-12.]

[Footnote 77: _Beow. Unt. Ang._, p. 55.]

[Footnote 78: _Beow. Unt._, p. 187.]

[Footnote 79: _Helt._, I, p. 135.]

[Footnote 80: _Nor. Tales_, p. 366. The sword here in question is just
like the sword in Grendel's cave in _Beowulf_, except that it is not
said to have a golden hilt.]

[Footnote 81: Other tales which contain the motive that a
strength-giving drink enables one to wield a sword that has supernatural
qualities are: _The Big Bird Dan_ and _The Seven Foals_ (_Nor. Tales_,
pp. 266 and 449); _The Three Brothers_ (Polish, _Yel. Fair. Bk._, p.
144); and _Lonkenlus_ (_Event. Sagn_, p. 268). It may be urged that in
all these instances the drinking imparts strength, not bravery. But the
two qualities are closely related; and the saga-man makes it plain that,
by means of the drink, Hott has acquired both. Bothvar says, "Now you
have become very strong, and I don't believe that you will be afraid of
the troop of King Hrolf any longer." Hott answers, "I shall not fear
them any more." Later Bothvar says, referring to the proposed attack on
the propped-up dragon, "A brave man might be able to satisfy his
curiosity about this! Comrade Hott, destroy this evil talk about
you,--men say that there is neither strength nor courage in you; go up
and kill the beast!" "Yes," says Hott, "I will undertake it." The king
says, "I don't know whence this courage has come to you, Hott, you have
changed marvellously in a short time." From the foregoing and what is
said about Hott's wrestling with Bothvar, it is plain that the author
has taken particular pains to emphasize the fact that, by partaking of
the heart and blood of the dragon, Hott has acquired great strength, the
lack of which seems to have been the cause of his cowardice. It seems
equally plain that when Hott knocks over the dead propped-up dragon by
means of the sword Gullinhjalti, which the king explicitly says "can
only be borne by a man who is both brave and daring," the purpose is to
call particular attention to the fact that it is by wielding the sword
that Hott gives proof of the change that has come over him. Regardless
of the deceit that has been practiced in connection with the dead
dragon, the king is compelled, if he believes what he has said about
Gullinhjalti, to recognize that Hott has demonstrated by his ability to
wield the sword that he is now "a man who is both brave and daring." And
the king does recognize it, for he says to Bothvar, "You have made a
warrior out of Hott."]

[Footnote 82: _Hrs. Bjark._, p. 100.]

[Footnote 83: Ll. 1557, 1567, 1607, 1666.]

[Footnote 84: Ll. 1558, 1569, 1605, 1615, 1663, 1696.]

[Footnote 85: Ll. 1559, 1573.]

[Footnote 86: Ll. 1564, 1616, 1667.]

[Footnote 87: L. 1697.]

[Footnote 88: _Eng. Stud._, XXXV, p. 22.]

[Footnote 89: L. 1697.]

[Footnote 90: Ll. 1573-74.]

[Footnote 91: "The chief of the Weder-Geats took no more of the
treasure-holdings in the dwelling, though he saw many there, but only
the head, and with it, the sword's hilt, brave with gold; the sword had
already melted" (ll. 1612-15).--_Beow._, Child.]

[Footnote 92: "I bore the hilt thence away from my enemies" (ll.
1668-69).]

[Footnote 93: "Then the golden hilt, the work of giants long ago, was
given into the hand of the old prince, the white-haired battle-leader"
(ll. 1677-79).--_Beow._, Child.]

[Footnote 94: "Hrothgar spake, looked on the hilt, the old heirloom, on
which was written the beginning of that far-off strife, when the flood,
the streaming ocean slew the giant kind--they had borne themselves
lawlessly. The people were estranged from the Eternal Lord; the Wielder,
therefore, gave them their requital through the whelming of the waters.
So was it duly lined in rimed staves on the guard of gleaming gold, set
down and told for them for whom that sword was wrought, choicest of
blades, with twisted hilt and decked with dragon-shapes." (LI.
1687-93).--_Beow._, Child.]

[Footnote 95: L. 1687.]

[Footnote 96: L. 1698.]

[Footnote 97: "He gave the guardian of the boat a sword ornamented with
gold" (ll. 1900-1901).]

[Footnote 98: "Then the shield of earls, the king stout in battle, bade
fetch Hrethel's sword, mounted in gold; there was not then among the
Geats a better treasure in the like of a sword. He laid it on Beowulf's
lap." (ll. 2190-94).--_Beow._, Child.]

[Footnote 99: _Mort. d'Arth._, p. 480.]

[Footnote 100: "En l'orie pont assez i at reliques."--_Ext. Ch. Rol._,
p. 103.]

[Footnote 101: "Preditum auro capulum."--_Gest. Dan._, p. 118.]

[Footnote 102: See pp. 31 ff.]

[Footnote 103: _St. germ. Sag._, p. 370.]

[Footnote 104: _St. germ. Sag._, p. 372.]

[Footnote 105: _Eng. Nov._, p. 2.]

[Footnote 106: _Hrs. Bjark._, pp. 139-40 and 141-42. Lawrence's
translation of the above selections from the _rímur_ is as follows:--

     "Most of the men insulted Hjalti; he was not clever in speech. One
     day they (Bjarki and Hjalti) went out of the hall, so that the
     king's men did not know of it. Hjalti was afraid, and cried, 'Let
     us not go near this wood; there is a she-wolf here, which eats men;
     she will soon kill us both.' The she-wolf burst out of a thicket,
     frightful, with gaping jaws. Hjalti thought this terrible; his legs
     and all his limbs trembled. Undaunted Bjarki advanced upon her,
     struck deep with his axe; fearful blood streamed from the she-wolf.
     'Between two things,' said Bothvar, 'shall you choose,
     Hjalti,--drink this blood, or I will kill you, no courage seems to
     be in you.' Angrily answered Hjalti, 'I don t dare to drink blood;
     (but) it is best to do it if I must; now I have no better choice.'
     He lay down to drink the blood; then he drank three
     swallows,--enough for fighting with one man! His courage increased,
     his strength waxed, he became very strong, mighty as a troll, all
     his clothes burst open. So he became courageous at heart, he feared
     not the flight of steel, the name of coward he feared no more, he
     was equal to Bothvar in courage." (IV, 58-66.)

     "He (Hjalti) has gained a brave heart and a courageous disposition;
     he has got strength and valor from the blood of the she-wolf. The
     folds at Hleidargard were attacked by a gray bear; many such beasts
     were there far and wide thereabout. Bjarki was told that it had
     killed the herdmen's dogs; it was not much used to contending with
     men. Hrolf and all his men prepared to hunt the bear--'he shall be
     greatest in my hall, who faces the beast!' Roaring the bear ran
     from its lair and shook its baleful paws, so that the men fled.
     Hjalti looked on when the combat began; he had nothing in his
     hands. Hrolf tossed to Hjalti his sword; the warrior stretched
     forth his hand and grasped it. Then he plunged it into the bear's
     right shoulder, and the bear fell down dead. That was his first
     heroic deed, many others followed; his heart was ever brave in the
     battle. From this exploit he got the name of Hjalti the brave, and
     was the equal of Bjarki." (V, 4-13.)--_P. M. L. A._, XXIV, pp.
     229-30.]

[Footnote 107: _Helt._, I, p. 118.]

[Footnote 108: When, here and elsewhere in this discussion, the
_Hrólfssaga_ is referred to as an earlier composition than the
_Bjarkarímur_, the implication is not intended that the version of the
saga which we now have was earlier committed to writing.]

[Footnote 109: See p. 51.]

[Footnote 110: _St. germ. Sag._, p. 367.]

[Footnote 111: _Beow. Unt. Ang._, p. 55.]

[Footnote 112: _Beow. Unt._, p. 186.]

[Footnote 113: _Helt._, I, p. 116.]

[Footnote 114: _St. Sag. Eng._, p. 250.]

[Footnote 115: _Gest. Dan._, p. 56. Elton's translation of the passage
is as follows: "When he was triumphing in these deeds of prowess, a
beast of the forest furnished him fresh laurels. For he met a huge bear
in a thicket, and slew it with a javelin; and then bade his companion
Hjalti put his lips to the beast and drink the blood that came out, that
he might be the stronger afterwards. For it was believed that a draught
of this sort caused an increase of bodily strength."--_Elton's Saxo_, p.
69.]

[Footnote 116: See pp. 36 ff.]

[Footnote 117: See, for instance, _Sc. Folkl._, p. 253, where dragons
are said to have been pierced "under their shoulders to the heart."]

[Footnote 118: Finnur Jónsson has also been struck by the similarity
between the story connected with Bjarki's birth and the second story in
the _rímur_, in which Hjalti slays a bear. He says, "I rimerne (V, 5-14)
er der endnu tale om en 'gråbjörn.'"--_Hrs. Bjark._, Introd., p. 22.]

[Footnote 119: _Hrs. Bjark._, Introd., p. 18.]

[Footnote 120: See p. 16.]

[Footnote 121: The dogs are here said to be the herdsmen's dogs, in
conformity with the spirit of the story in its new setting and to
differentiate the story from what it is in the place whence the author
of the _rímur_ took it.]

[Footnote 122: _Hrs. Bjark._, Introd., p. 22.]

[Footnote 123: See pp. 50 ff.]

[Footnote 124: For further proof of this, see pp. 81 ff.]

[Footnote 125: See p. 11.]

[Footnote 126: In the foregoing no implication is intended as to the
identity of the story of Beowulf's fight with Grendel and Saxo's story
of Bjarki's slaying the bear. The result, however, of the discussion is
to establish the priority of Saxo's story to that in the _Hrólfssaga_;
hence, an attempt to identify Bjarki's exploit with Beowulf's exploit
must consist principally in an attempt to identify the Grendel story
with Saxo's version of the corresponding story told about Bjarki.]

[Footnote 127: I, pp. 175-78.]

[Footnote 128: "Det ældste vidnesbyrd om sagnet bar vi i den såkaldte
_Vọluspá in skamma_; det hedder her: 'eru vọlur allar frá Viðolfi.'
Denne troldkvindernes stamfader er identisk med troldmanden Vit[h]olphus
i Sakses norske saga; og når vi ser, hvorledes digtets troldmandsremser
nævner kendte sagnfigurer--Heiðr i _Voluspå_; Hrossþjófr i Sakses norske
Baldersagn--, tör vi også i Viðolfr se hentydning til en bestemt
digtning, i.e., til dette norske Skjoldungsagn. Desværre kendes digtets
alder ikke videre nöje; det er efterhedensk og er digtet som et tillæg
til _Voluspå_, sikkert efter at dette digt var blevet udvidet med
dværgremserne. (F. Jónsson, _Oldn. lit. hist._, I, 204, gör det til
islandsk og sætter det til 2. halvdel af 12te årh.)."--Olrik's note.]

[Footnote 129: See pp. 9, 15, 24.]

[Footnote 130: _St. Sag. Eng._, pp. 120-21.]

[Footnote 131: See R. Imelmann's edition, pp. 45 ff.]

[Footnote 132: "_Hroarr-Helgi_. Frodas, der Florencius gegenübersteht
und Waldeus zu beseitigen sucht, hat zwar als Usurpator in einem ganzen
Typus seine Verwandten, aber eine in formeller Hinsicht auffallende in
der nordischen Sage von Hroarr und Helgi. Hier stellt Froði zwei Neffen
nach, die aber durch ihren Erzieher in Sicherheit gebracht werden. Sie
rächen sich später an dem Usurpator in seiner Halle. Bei seinen
Nachstellungen lässt Froði sich täuschen. Für diese Züge bietet der
Waldeus eine genaue parallele (S. 45-60). Seine Vorlage konnte die Sage
kennen, da sie in England entstanden und beliebt war; und ihre Benutzung
müsste angenommen werden, sobald man die Namensgleichheit Froði--Froda
(Frode) für nicht zufällig hält. Der Name Froði scheint in England sonst
zu fehlen; er steht nicht bei Björkman."--_Hist. Reg. Wald._, Introd.,
p. 52.]

[Footnote 133: _St. Sag. Eng._, pp. 103 ff.]

[Footnote 134: _St. Sag. Eng._, p. 134.]

[Footnote 135: _Hist. Mer._, Introd., p. 30.]

[Footnote 136: _St. Sag. Eng._, p. 139.]

[Footnote 137: See, for instance, _Dan. Nor. Rig._]

[Footnote 138: _Hist. Mer._, Introd., pp. 65-67.]

[Footnote 139: The version of the Havelok story here referred to is that
contained in Geffrei Gaimar's _Estorie des Engles_ and summarized in
_St. Sag. Eng._, pp. 98-100.]

[Footnote 140: _Hist. Mer._, Introd., p. 30, n.]

[Footnote 141: See _Helt._, I, pp. 22-23.]

[Footnote 142: _Hist. Mer._, p. 8.]

[Footnote 143: _Hist. Mer._, p. 9.]

[Footnote 144: _Hist. Mer._, p. 8.]

[Footnote 145: _Hist. Mer._, p. 9.]

[Footnote 146: _Gest. Dan._, p. 218.]

[Footnote 147: _St. Sag. Eng._, p. 129.]

[Footnote 148: _Hist. Mer._, Introd., p. 31.]

[Footnote 149: See pp. 86 ff.]

[Footnote 150: A variant of "Sævil" in the manuscripts is "Sævar." See
_Hrs. Bjark._, pp. 3, n. and 5, n.]

[Footnote 151: _Chron._, V, p. 269.]

[Footnote 152: _Chron._, V, p. 269.]

[Footnote 153: There is something similar to this in _Meriadoc_. Orwen,
the princess, marries the King of Scotland. This feature of _Meriadoc_,
besides being in line with Hroar's marrying Northri's daughter, points
toward Scotland also.]

[Footnote 154: Siward married Ælflæd, daughter of Ealdred, Earl of
Bernicia in Northumbria (see p. 13).]

[Footnote 155: _Nor. Hist._, I, pp. 180-81.]

[Footnote 156: _Macb._, Introd., p. 15.]

[Footnote 157: _Chron._, V, p. 274.]

[Footnote 168: Quoted by Langebek in _Sc. Rer. Dan._, III. p. 291, n.]

[Footnote 159: Olrik; see p. 65.]

[Footnote 160: _Skjs._ (_Aarb._, pp. 110 ff.).]

[Footnote 161: _Oldn. Lit. Hist._, II, p. 665.]

[Footnote 162: See pp. 64 ff., where Olrik's explanation of the
development in the relations between Frothi and Halfdan, from the
earliest to the latest account, is given in full.]

[Footnote 163: See p. 69.]

[Footnote 164: "Vi finder _Skjoldungasagas_ kongerække bekræftet i de
andre skrifter. _Langfeðgatal_ stemmer helt igennem i kongersekken
og--på et enkelt punkt nær--også i slægstskabs-forholdene. Rolv krakes
saga stemmer ligeledes; kun gör den sin konge Frode til Halvdans broder,
ikke til hans brodersön som de to andre kilder. _Hervararsaga_ bar
forvansket nogle af de mindre vigtige konge-og dronningnavne, men har i
det hele samme bygning af Skjoldungslægten. De på Island bevarede
oldkvad (_Grottesangen_, _Bjarkemål_, _Bråvallakvadet_ og _Hyndluljóð_)
stemmer belt med prosaskrifterne."--Olrik, _Aarb._, p. 157.]

[Footnote 165: Son and successor of Scioldus.]

[Footnote 166: Said to have been king when Christ was born.]

[Footnote 167: Brothers, sons of Leifus.]

[Footnote 168: Married to Olafa, daughter of Vermundus.]

[Footnote 169: Chosen king upon the death of Frotho III, when Fridleus
II was absent from the kingdom.]

[Footnote 170: Son and successor of Frotho III. He defeated Hiarnus and
later slew him.]

[Footnote 171: Olaf appears here in a disturbing manner; but that Saxo
had no clear conception of him is plain from the way he introduces his
seventh book. He says: "Ingello quatuor filios fuisse, ex iisdemque,
tribus bello consumptis, Olauum solum post patrem regnasse, perita rerum
prodit antiquitas: quem quidam Ingelli sorore editum incerto opinionis
arbitrio perhibent. Huius actus uetustatis squalore conspersos parum
iusta noticia posteritatis apprehendit; extremum duntaxat prudencie eius
monitum memoria uendicauit. Quippe cum supremis fati uiribus arctaretur,
Frothoni et Haraldo filiis consulturus, alterum terris, alterum aquis
regia dicione preesse, eamque potestatis differenciam non diutina
usurpacione, sed annua uicissitudine sortini iubet."--_Gest. Dan._, p.
216.]

[Footnote 172: Son of Ingjald, but not his successor on the throne.]

[Footnote 173: Halfdan in _Hrs._ and _Skjs._]

[Footnote 174: Hroar in _Hrs._ and _Skjs._]

[Footnote 175: Helgi in _Hrs._ and _Skjs._]

[Footnote 176: _Beow._, ll. 2024-69.]

[Footnote 177: _Beow._, ll. 82-85.]

[Footnote 178: "Dette forhold, at det egenlige vikingeliv ligger forud for
digtet, förer os hen til 10de årh. som dets tilblivelsestid."--_Helt._,
II, p. 36.]

[Footnote 179: _Helt._, II, pp. 37-41. Olrik's notes, of which there are
a number, have been omitted.]

[Footnote 180: Later, the statement is made that Hroar had a son called
Waldar; but the statement causes no difficulty in this connection.
First, we observe that when Hroar, who is older than Helgi, is slain,
Helgi's son, Hrolf Kraki, becomes sole King of Denmark with no
competitor for the throne. Secondly, Arngrim says: "Roas. Hujus posteros
etsi non repperi in compendio unde Regum Daniæ Fragmenta descripsi;
tamen genealogiam hanc alibi sic oblatam integre ut sequitur visum est
contexere. Valderus cogn. munificus, Roæ prædicti filius."--_Aarb._, p.
139, n.]

[Footnote 181: Halfdan's brother, who, after Halfdan's death, married
his widow, Sigrith.]

[Footnote 182: This is not expressly stated; but her appearance and
action in the last scene admit of no other conclusion. This is Finnur
Jónsson's opinion also; see p. 95, n.]

[Footnote 183: _Helt._, I, pp. 173-74.]

[Footnote 184: Finnur Jónsson, in his comment on the _Fróðaþáttr_,
regards the version of the Hroar-Helgi story contained in the
_Skjọldungasaga_ and the _Bjarkarímur_ as earlier than the version
contained in the _Hrólfssaga_. His most significant statements bearing
on the matter are as follows: "I _Skjọldungasaga_, der blandt de
islandske kilder har störst betydning, har vi herfor [i.e., instead of
Halfdan and Frothi] Hálfdan og Ingjaldr, der er halvbrödre, bægge sönner
af kong Fróði froekni; Halvdans moder er en datter af kong Jörund i
Sverrig, Ingjalds moder er en datter af Sverting og Frodes virkelige
hustru; herom ved vor saga altså intet. Halvdan er ifg. _Skj._ gift med
en Sigríðr (således også i _Hrs._, hvor hun pludselig dukker op). Deres
börn er de samme som i sagaen; også her er Signý gift med Sævil. Ingjald
dræber sin broder Halvdan og gifter sig med hans enke (heri finder vi
motivet til at hun lader sig indebrænde med Frode i _Hrs._, hvilket dér
står ganske umotiveret)."--_Hrs. Bjark._, Introd., p. 9.

The _Skjọldungasaga_ does not, however, say that Ingjald's mother was a
daughter of Swerting. It says, "Postea ducta alia, Ingialldum filium
legitimum hæredem suscepit" (_Aarb._, p. 111). And later it says that
Ingjald married Swerting's daughter. The words of the saga are,
"Ingialldus Frodonis filius Svertingi baronis paulo ante commemorati
filiam in uxorem accepit firmioris gratiæ, ut omnibus visum, conciliandæ
ergo" (_Aarb._, p. 112). This would indicate that Ingjald was not the
son of a daughter of Swerting.]

[Footnote 185: "Arngrim tilföjer, at natten efter var de hos en bonde,
i.e., Hrane, hvis gaver de afslog. (Footnote. Her træffer vi sikkert det
oprindelige forhold, kun ét mode med Odin.) Hvorledes Rolv rejste
videre, siges ikke i nogen af kilderne. Det er klart heraf, at Arngrims
fremstilling står sagaen nærmere end _Skj._, hvilket næppe kommer af, at
Snorre skulde have udeladt det som Arngrim har; det har været den yngre
bearbejdelse af _Skj._, som A. Olrik vistnok med rette har ment at kunne
påvise, som Arngrims fremstilling beror på."--Finnur Jónsson, _Hrs.
Bjark._, Introd., p. 25.]

[Footnote 186: See, for instance, Sarrazin's _König Hrodhgeirr und seine
familie_; _Eng. Stud._, XXIII, pp. 221 ff.]

[Footnote 187: _Aarb._, pp. 164.]

[Footnote 188: See p. 85.]

[Footnote 189: _Beow.-Stud._, pp. 41 ff., and _Eng. Stud._, XXIII, p.
228.]

[Footnote 190: _Notes, Beow._, pp. 43.]