The Relation of the Hrolfs Saga Kraka and the Bjarkarimur to Beowulf Part 2

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, c.u.mberland, 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 ill.u.s.trious 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 "Islaendingasaga" 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 for nordisk Filologi_, vol. XIX, from which it seems desirable to quote some pa.s.sages for the light they throw on the development of this saga in England.

"Tagen som helhed er Sivards saga den maerkelige forening af aeventyrlig og historisk sagastil."

"I dragekampene og i Odinskikkelsen, er der naer tils.l.u.tning til norron tradition; her m de i Nordengland bosatte Nordmaend have gjort sig gaeldende med et berigende og udviklende element. Dette gaelder da ikke blot for Sivards saga, men ogs for Ragnar Lodbroks historie, for s vidt den fra forst er bleven til i England. P den anden side m vi ikke alene regne med, at Nordengland er en aflaegger af norsk sagakultur; den er tillige en banebryder for dens rigere udvikling. Vi har set det med dragekampen, der optages vaesenlig fra engelske forestillinger, og som vistnok ad den vej finder ind i de norsk-islandske aeventyrsagaer 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 _Hrolfssaga_ 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 _Hrolfssaga_ 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 optraeder som knyttet til historiske eller rettere halvhistoriske personer, findes ogs rundt omkring i Europas aeventyr som indledning til fortaellingen om den staerke kaempe, der hentede de bortforte kongedotre tilbage fra troldene." Olrik says further: "Men ogs i den islandske saga-verden har vi tilknytning.

Beorn Beresuns fodsel genfindes som Bodvar Bjarkes. Bodvars foraeldre er den til bjorn omskabte kongeson Bjorn og bondedatteren Bera. Foruden ved navnene robes sammenhaengen ved at bjornen--ligesom i Sakses sagn--bliver jaget og draebt, og sonnen senere tager haevn. Men samtidig er motivet udviklet langt rigere, idet omskabelse og stemoder er blandet ind, og arven efter vilddyret fordeles paa tre sonner: dels bjorneagtigt ydre, dels styrke og 'hamram'-hed, Sledes er de danske og de (norsk-) islandske tilknytninger af forskellig art; de danske giver os de aeventyragtige elementer, hvoraf sagnet opstr. Den islandske _Hrolfssaga_ og _Bjarkarimur_ viser os dets videre udvikling til aeventyrsaga. Selve den nordengelske Sivardssaga str i midten som et maerkeligt mellemled i udviklingen".[43] Here we have the first indication of contact between the Siward saga and the story of Bjarki, in the _Hrolfssaga_.

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 'ing' [i.e., a.s.sembly] 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 circ.u.mstances 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 _Hrolfssaga_ 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 pa.s.sage concerned is based on the old _Skj?ldumgasaga_, 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 G.o.d 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 circ.u.mstances 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 circ.u.mstances 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 _Hrolfssaga's_ story of Hroar and Helgi, considered later.

A feature of the _Hrolfssaga_ 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 _Hrolfssaga_. Ordinarily, there was nothing about Bjarki's person that revealed or suggested that his father was a bear; but he was able to a.s.sume the shape of a bear, which, according to the _Hrolfssaga_, 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 _Hrolfssaga_ 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 lei at jolum, geruz menn okatir. B?varr spyrr H?tt, hverju etta saetti; hann segir honum, at dr eitt hafi ar komit tva vetr i samt, mikit og ogurligt--'ok hefir vaengi a bakinu ok flgr at jafnan; tvau haust hefir at nu hingat vitjat ok gert mikinn skaa; a at bita ekki vapn, en kappar konungs koma ekki heim, eir sem at eru einna mestir.' B?varr maelti: 'ekki er h?llin sva vel skipu, sem ek aetlai, ef eitt dr skal her eya riki og fe konungsins.' H?ttr sagi: 'at er ekki dr, heldr er at hit mesta tr?ll.' Nu kemr jolaaptann; a, maelti konungr: 'nu vil ek, at menn se kyrrir ok hljoir i nott, ok banna ek ?llum minum m?nnum at ganga i n?kkurn haska vi drit, en fe ferr eptir vi sem aunar; menn mina vil ek ekki missa.' Allir heita her gou um, at gera eptir vi, sem konungr bau. B?varr leyndiz i burt um nottina; hann laetr H?tt fara me ser, ok gerir hann at nauugr ok kallai hann ser strt til bana. B?varr segir, at betr mundi til takaz. eir ganga i burt fra h?llinni, ok verr B?varr at bera hann; sva er hann hraeddr. Nu sja eir drit; ok vi naest aepir H?ttr slikt, sem hann ma, ok kva drit mundu gleypa hann. B?varr ba bikkjuna hans egja ok kastar honum nir i mosann, ok ar liggr hann ok eigi me ?llu ohraeddr; eigi orir hann heim at fara heldr. Nu gengr B?varr moti drinu; at haefir honum, at sverit er fast i umgj?rinni, er hann vildi brega vi. B?varr eggjar nu fast sverit ok a bragar i umgj?rinni, ok nu faer hann brugit umgj?rinni, sva, _at_ sverit gengr ur slirunum, ok leggr egar undir baegi drsins ok sva fast, at sto i hjartanu, ok datt a drit til jarar dautt nir. Eptir at ferr hann angat sem H?ttr liggr. B?varr tekr hann upp ok berr angat, sem drit liggr dautt. H?ttr skelfr akaft. B?varr maelti: 'nu skaltu drekka blo drsins.' Hann er lengi tregr, en o orir hann vist eigi annat. B?varr laetr hann drekka tva sopa stora; hann let hann ok eta n?kkut af drshjartanu; eptir etta tekr B?varr til hans, ok attuz eir vi lengi. B?varr maelti: 'helzt ertu nu sterkr orinn, ok ekki vaenti ek, at u hraeiz nu hirmenn Hrolfs konungs.' H?ttr sagi: 'eigi mun ek a hraeaz ok eigi ik upp fra, essu.' 'Vel er a orit, H?ttr felagi; f?ru vit nu til ok reisum upp drit ok buum sva um, at arir aetli at kvikt muni vera.' eir gera nu sva. Eptir at fara eir heim ok hafa kyrt um sik, ok veit engi mar, hvat eir hafa ijat. Konungr spyrr um morguninn, nvat eir viti til drsins, hvart at hafi n?kkut angat vitjat um nottina; honum var sagt, at fe alt vaeri heilt i grindum ok osakat. Konungr ba menn forvitnaz, hvart engi saei likindi til, at at hefi heim komit. Varmenn geru sva ok komu skjott aptr ok sogu konungi, at drit faeri ar ok heldr geyst at borginni. Konungr ba hirmenn vera hrausta ok duga nu hvern eptir vi, sem hann hefi hug til, ok raa af ovaett enna; ok sva var gert, sem konungr bau, at eir bjuggu sik til ess. Konungr horfi a drit ok maelti sian: 'enga se ek f?r a drinu, en hverr vill nu taka kaup einn ok ganga i moti vi?' B?varr maelti: 'at vaeri naesta hrausts manns forvitnisbot. H?ttr felagi, rektu nu af er illmaelit at, at menn lata, sem engi krellr ne dugr muni i er vera; far nu ok drep u drit; mattu sja, at engi er allfuss til annarra.' 'Ja, sagi H?ttr, ek mun til essa raaz.' Konungr maelti: 'ekki veit ek, hvaan essi hreysti er at er komin, H?ttr, ok mikit hefir um ik skipaz a, skammri stundu.' H?ttr maelti: 'gef mer til sverit Gullinhjalta, er u heldr a, ok skal ek a fella drit ea fa bana.' Hrolfr konungr maelti: 'etta sver er ekki beranda nema eim manni, sem baei er gor drengr og hraustr.' H?ttr sagi: 'sva skaltu til aetla, at mer se sva hattat.'

Konungr maelti: 'hvat ma vita, nema fleira hafi skipz um hagi ina, en sja ykkir, en faestir menn ykkjaz ik kenna, at, u ser enn sami mar; nu tak vi sverinu ok njot manna bezt, ef etta er til unnit.'

Sian gengr H?ttr at drinu alldjarfliga ok hggr til ess, a, _er_ hann kemr i h?ggfaeri, ok drit fellr nir dautt. B?varr maelti: 'sjai nu, herra, hvat hann hefir til unnit.' Konungr segir: 'vist hefir hann mikit skipaz, en ekki hefir H?ttr einn drit drepit, heldr hefir u at gert.' B?varr segir: 'vera ma, at sva se.' Konungr segir: 'vissa ek, a _er_ u komt her, at fair mundu inir jafningjar vera, en at ykki mer o itt verk fraegiligast, at u hefir gert her annan kappa, ar _er_ H?ttr er, ok ovaenligr otti til mikillar giptu; ok nu vil ek _at_ hann heiti eigi H?ttr lengr ok skal hann heita Hjalti upp fra essu; skaltu heita eptir sverinu 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 subst.i.tute 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 _Hrolfssaga_. Olrik says: "I en henseende bar Sivard den digres kamp dog noget eget. De almindelige norrone dragekampe lige fra Sigurds drab p Fvne har stadig til ml at vinde dragens guld. For Sivard digre eksisterer dette motiv ikke; han vil frelse de hjemsogte mennesker. Af alle de islandske dragekampe har kun Bjorn Hitdolekaempes noget tilsvarende, og her er det naeppe tilfaeldigt at ogs 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 mult.i.tude of circ.u.mstances, 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 superst.i.tion, 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 ch.o.r.es 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 superst.i.tion. There is no danger, however, so long as one remains in the house.[62]

A story, pertinent in this connection, is told to ill.u.s.trate the difficulties that ministers in the rural districts in Norway have had to contend with on account of the superst.i.tious 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 circ.u.mstances (Hott's cowardice and the common fear of the Christmas troll), Hott's actions, when he is forced to accompany Bjarki and when he sees the monster, are perfectly natural; and to see the matter in any other light is not to understand the story.

Another feature of the first part of the story that should be noticed is the dual nature of the monster. A dragon was as terrible a creature as one could imagine; a troll was also as terrible a creature as one could imagine. But the saga-man has introduced into his story a being that combines the characteristics of both. Hott knew that the monster possessed this dual nature, for it is from him that the author lets the statement proceed, "That is no beast, it is rather the greatest troll."

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

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

But does such a monster as a troll-dragon have any sanction in folk-lore? Yes, it does. It is characteristic of Norse folk-lore to ascribe troll-like qualities to beings about which there seems to be something supernatural, such as invulnerability. In one of Asbjornsen's tales, there is a story about a troll-bird, told by a man named Per Sandaker, who "was supposed to be strong in stories about troll-birds."

In the story referred to, there is a woodgrouse (tiur) which has become known as a fabulous animal (fabeldyr) throughout the whole neighborhood.

"One might just as well shoot at a stone,' said Per, with the greatest conviction"; for he had shot at the bird and made the feathers fly, without being able to injure it. Later, on the hunting-trip on which Per was telling about the bird, he and a companion came across it. "Now he is out again, the old fellow," said Per; "there is no use in the wide world to shoot at him, one might just as well shoot at the clouds." The men maneuvered for a position; and Per's companion, who is telling the story, says, "My gun was raised, and the mighty bird tumbled down head first." Per picked it up and examined it and declared that it was the troll-bird; he could tell it by the beak. On the same trip stories were told about troll-hares that for a time had escaped uninjured but had finally been killed.[64]

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

Finnur Jonsson calls the dragon a hall-attacking monster;[66] but this appellation is hardly correct. The only thing in the saga might fairly suggest it is Bjarki's statement, "The hall isn't so well defended as I thought, if a beast can destroy the domain and property of the king."

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

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

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

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

"Next spring Gudmundur hired another shepherd, named Grimur, who was tall and strong, and boasted of being able to resist anybody.

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

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

"To this woman the farmer at last applied, and offered her a large sum of money if she would allow her son to act as shepherd for him.

Sigurdur was very anxious that his mother should have all this money, and declared himself most willing to undertake the office; so he went with the farmer, and during the summer was most successful in his new situation, and never lost a sheep.

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

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

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

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

"Sigurdur answered, 'Are you cracked? Do you not see how thin I am?

Surely I am not worth your notice. But I have a sheep and fat lamb here which I will give you for your pot this evening.'

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

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