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.