The Relation of the Hrolfs Saga Kraka and the Bjarkarimur to Beowulf Part 4

Hjalti talar er felmtinn faer, 'f?rum vi ekki skogi naer, her er su ylgr sem etr upp menn, okkr drepr hun baa senn.'

Ylgrin hljop ur einum runn, ogurlig me gapanda munn, h?rmuligt var Hjalta vir, a honum skalf baei leggr og lir.

otaept Bjarki a henni gengr, ekki dvelr hann vi a lengr, h?ggur svo a i hamri stod, hljop ur henni ferligt blo.

'Kjostu Hjalti um kosti tvo, kappinn B?var talai svo, drekk nu blo ea drep eg ig her, dugrinn liz mer engi i er.'

Ansar Hjalti af aernum mo, 'ekki ori eg a drekka blo, ntir flest ef nauigr skal, nu er ekki a betra val.'

Hjalti gj?rir sem B?var bir, a bloi fra eg hann lagist nir, drekkur sian drykki rja, duga mun honum vi einn a rja.

Hugrinn ox en miklast mattr, minst var honum i litlu drattr, raunmj?g sterkr og ramr sem tr?ll, rifnuu af honum klaein ?ll.

Svo er hann orinn harr i hug, hann hraeist ekki jarna flug, burtu er nu bleyinafn, B?vari var hann a hreysti jafn." (IV, 58-66).

"Hann hefr fengi hjarta snjalt af h?rum moi, fekk hann huginn og afli alt af ylgjar bloi.

i grindur vandist grabj?rn einn i garinn Hleiar, var sa margur vargrinn beinn og via sveiar.

Bjarka er kent, a hjararhunda hafi harm drepna, ekki er honum allvel hent vi ta kepna.

Hrolfur bst og hir hans ?ll a huna stri, sa skal mestr i minni h?ll er maetir dri.

Beljandi hljop bj?rninn framm ur boli krukku, veifar sinum vonda hramm, svo virar hrukku.

Hjalti ser og horfir a a, er hafin er roma, hafi hann ekki i h?ndum a nema hnefana toma.

Hrolfur fleygi a Hjalta a eim hildar vendi, kappinn moti krummu bra og kloti hendi.

Lagi hann sian bj?rninn bratt vi boginn haegra, bessi fell i bruar att og bar sig laegra.

Vann hann a til fraega fyst og fleira siar, hans var lundin l?ngum byst i leiki griar.

Her me fekk hann Hjalta nafn hins hjartaprua, Bjarki var eigi betri en jafn vi bti skrua." (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 _rimur_ has broken the unity of the story, a feature in which the story in the _Hrolfssaga_ 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 _rimur_ made precisely the changes that were necessary to remove the most irrational features of the story as we find it in the _Hrolfssaga_. 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 _rimur_ 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 _Hrolfssaga_, where Hjalti drinks the blood of the dragon. It is not necessary to go to Saxo's version for this.

It is said in the _rimur_, "One day they (Bjarki and Hjalti) went out of the hall, so that the king's men did not know of it." Why did they go out of the hall so that the king's men did not know of it? No reason is a.s.signed; the deed is unmotivated. It seems to be a mere harking back to the statement in the _Hrolfssaga_,[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 _rimur_, the men are said to leave the hall in the daytime, instead of at night, is a consequence of the subst.i.tution 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 _rimur_ has been observed by Panzer, who believes, nevertheless, that the _rimur_ represent an earlier form of the story than the one in the saga. He says, "Zweifeln mochte man nur, ob das Motiv des heimlichen Auszugs der beiden nicht in den _Rimur_ falschlich in den ersten Kampf gesetzt ist, wo es ganz unbegrundet steht, statt in den zweiten, wo es allein motiviert erscheint."[110]

But this is not the correct explanation. The author of the _rimur_ 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 subst.i.tutes 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, Mullenhoff,[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 _rimur_ 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 circ.u.mstances 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 un.o.bserved 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 _Hrolfssaga_ never occurred to him. The author of the _rimur_ 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 _rimur_ 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 _rimur_, 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 _rimur_ 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 _rimur_, 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 _rimur_ made from the story in the saga, in the light of subsequent events.

In the _rimur_, 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 _Hrolfssaga,_ 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 _rimur_ 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 _Hrolfssaga_, 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 _rimur_, 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 _rimur_ 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 _rimur_ 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 _Hrolfssaga_, 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 a.s.sociated with that of cattle, especially when, as here, the dogs are "herdsmen's dogs."

Again, we notice the statement in the _rimur_ 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 _rimur_. 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 _rimur_, having apparently missed the point in the saga, a.s.sumes 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 _Hrolfssaga_, it is said that Bjarki killed a dragon by plunging his sword under its shoulder. In the _rimur_, it is said that Hjalti killed a bear by plunging his sword into its right shoulder. This is another harking back to the _Hrolfssaga_. 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 a.s.sumed that the author of the _rimur_ 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 _rimur_ 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 _rimur_, 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 _rimur_, 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 _rimur_ that is imitated from a motivated incident in the saga.

What the author of the _rimur_ 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 subst.i.tuted for the story about the troll-dragon and adapted to the circ.u.mstances, 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 _rimur_; 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 _rimur_, 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 repet.i.tion as the _rimur_ later make with regard to the dragon story, dividing it into a wolf story and a bear story. Again, as Finnur Jonsson, summarizing the account in the _rimur_ of the death of Bjarki's father, says, "Bjorn forfolges, flygter ud i et skaer og draebes der af jarlens maend p et skib (en staerk 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 _rimur_; and that the name Bera is the earlier of the two there can be no doubt.

Furthermore, we find in the _rimur_ 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 _Hrolfssaga_. Just as Hjalti knocked over a dragon that was not dangerous because it was dead, so, in the _rimur_, 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 _rimur_, he is informed that the bear is not so dangerous as one would suppose. But his knowledge of this circ.u.mstance 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 _rimur_, 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 _Hrolfssaga_ 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 _rimur_, 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 _rimur_, it is apparent that there is no comparison between them as regards skill in composition; and that, while the stories in the _rimur_ throw no light on the story in the saga, the full significance of the _rimur_ stories appears only when they are read in the light of the story in the saga. Therefore, when Finnur Jonsson says, "Sporger vi om, hvad der er oprindeligst, er der i og for sig naeppe tvivl om, at rimerne her har af et dyr gjort to (ulvinden og grbjornen), s at sagaen p dette punkt m antages at have bedre bevaret det aegte," he is undoubtedly right; but when he continues, "Dette bestyrkes kraftig ved, at dette hallen hjemsogende uhyre intet andet er end et om end aendret 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 _rimur_ of the killing of the bear, though brief, is so confused and indefinite that it does not bear a.n.a.lysis; and this is further evidence of the fact that the author of the _rimur_ clumsily re-worked material that he found in the _Hrolfssaga_ version of Bjarki's career, and for the dragon story, which is a good story, subst.i.tuted 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 princ.i.p.al results attained in the foregoing consideration of the dragon story in the _Hrolfssaga_ and the corresponding stories in the _Bjarkarimur_ 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 fict.i.tious story about Siward, the saga consistently takes this into account and subst.i.tutes 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 _Bjarkarimur_ are a later composition than the _Hrolfssaga_.[124]

The author of the _rimur_ has discarded the story of the troll-dragon, has subst.i.tuted 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 _rimur_ 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 _rimur_ 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 _rimur_. The _rimur_ 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 _Hrolfssaga_ and the explanation of the relation between this story and the corresponding stories in the _Bjarkarimur_. 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 _rimur_ 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 _Hrolfssaga_ has no connection whatever with the Grendel story or the dragon story in _Beowulf_.[126]