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.