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.