Chapter 4

Whether Hott has a sword of his own the saga does not tell, and it is quite immaterial. That such a coward as Hott has been has no business carrying a sword, would be sufficient justification for his being without one. But whether he has a weapon or no, if he is going to attack the monster he ought to be armed with the best sword available; and whose would that be but the king's sword? If the king expects any one to run the risk of attacking the beast, he ought to be willing to do what he can to assure success in the undertaking. He feels the force of the argument implied in Hott's request, and hands him his sword; but he says, "This sword can only be borne by a man who is both brave and daring." Hott answers, "You shall be convinced that I am such a man." He then goes up to the beast and knocks it over. But a beast that has shown itself to be so terrible on former occasions cannot be alive and yet stand stock still and allow itself to be killed and tumbled over in this manner. It must have been killed before, and now the king strongly suspects that the reason why Bjarki has urged Hott to attack it was that Bjarki, having killed the monster himself, knew that it was dead; and when he is charged with the deed he does not deny it. Thus Bjarki gets the credit for his achievement.

It is true, as Müllenhoff,[77] ten Brink,[78] and Olrik[79] have said, that the main object of the whole story of Bjarki and the dragon is to motivate Hott's newly acquired courage. Bjarki compels Hott to go with him when the dragon is to be attacked; he compels him to eat and drink what will give him strength and courage; he props up the dead dragon in order that, as the sequel shows, Hott may gain the reputation of being what he now really is, a brave man; and while, of the two achievements with which Bjarki is credited, the killing of the dragon is passed over lightly, his having made a brave man of Hott is strongly emphasized. But there can be no doubt that the saga-man planned that Bjarki should get credit for killing the dragon; for Bjarki does get such credit, and it must be presumed that, what the author permits to occur, he planned should occur. It is also natural that more emphasis is laid on his having made a hero of Hott than on his having slain the monster. Now that the beast is dead, the killing of it proved not to be an impossible feat, and Bjarki has shown before, that he possesses the qualities necessary for such a deed. But that he possesses the ability to make a hero out of the miserable, cowardly wretch, Hott, is a revelation of a new and uncommon power. He has not only dispatched the king's most dangerous foe, he has added another brave man to the number of the king's retainers. This naturally attracts the king's particular attention, and he gives Bjarki special credit for the achievement.

But when Bjarki is known to have killed the beast, what becomes of Hott's display of bravery, or even the appearance of bravery? His whole demeanor, from the moment he accedes to Bjarki's request to attack the beast, reveals the change in his nature. But the proof of this change consists, not in knocking over the dragon, but in his ability to wield the sword which the king himself says can "only be borne by a man who is both brave and daring." This must be conclusive proof to the king and to all present. It is not accidental that it is the king's sword that Hott uses and that it is the king himself who makes the remark about it which he does. The king, above all men, must be convinced of Hott's bravery, and in view of the manner in which Hott's bravery is displayed, the king must, indeed, be satisfied with the proof. Thus this purpose of the scene is also accomplished. Nor has the saga-man devised an artificial method of testing strength and courage. It is quite in harmony with folk-lore. That a strength-giving drink enables one to wield a sword that an ordinary mortal cannot handle, is a motive employed in a number of fairy tales. It occurs, for instance, in _Soria Moria Castle_, one of the best known Norse fairy tales. It is told that Halvor, a typical good-for-nothing fellow and groveler-in-the-ashes, has arrived at a castle inhabited by a princess and a three-headed troll. The princess warns Halvor to beware of the monster, but he decides to await the troll's arrival. Halvor is hungry and asks for meat to eat. "When Halvor had eaten his fill, the princess told him to try if he could brandish the sword that hung against the wall; no, he couldn't brandish it--he couldn't even lift it up. 'Oh,' said the princess, 'now you must go and take a pull of that flask that hangs by its side; that's what the troll does every time he goes out to use the sword.' So Halvor took a pull, and in a twinkling of an eye he could brandish the sword like anything".[80] It is apparent, therefore, that the saga-man intend Hott's ability to wield the king's sword to constitute the proof of his bravery. Thus the author's third purpose is accomplished, and the king rewards Hott, not in spite of the deception that been practiced and revealed, but on account of his bravery, which been proved.[81]

In Saxon, Hjalti has no other name than "Hialto." In the _Hrólfssaga_ he first has the name "Hott" and this is changed to "Hjalti." The appropriate time for changing it is, as has been said, when his change of nature becomes apparent; and his new name is most fittingly derived from the deed by which he manifests that he has become a different man from what he was. "Hjalti" means "hilt"; hence, he must get his name from a hilt; but it should come from the hilt of a sword connected with his display of courage, and this is the king's sword. It is a fine conception that, as Hjalti gets his new name from his ability to wield the wonderful sword of the king, his name is a constant reminder of his bravery. But the name of the king's sword is Skofnung; hence, as the word has no suggestion of "hilt" in it, it is not available in this connection. The form "hjalti" must appear in some way to suggest the name; and since the name is to come from the king's sword the word "hjalti" must be used in connection with it. But what kind of hilt would the king's sword naturally have? A golden hilt, of course. So far as the words are concerned, "iron hilt," "brass hilt," or "silver hilt" would have served the purpose just as well, had it been appropriate to use any of these terms. But the king's sword must have a golden hilt. Hence, Hott says to the king, "Give me your sword Gullinhjalti, which you are bearing, and I will kill the beast." And after the king is convinced of Hott's bravery he says, "And now I wish him called Hott no longer, he shall from this day be named Hjalti,--thou shalt be called after the sword Gullinhjalti." Thus Hjalti gets his name from the king's sword; and this, again, is proof that it is by wielding the king's sword that Hjalti displays his courage. That "Gullinhjalti" is written as one word and capitalized may be a late development and signify no more than the modern treatment by some writers of "gylden hilt" (i.e., writing it "Gyldenhilt") in _Beowulf_. Even if we assume that the original author of the word intended "Gullinhjalti" as a proper noun and the name of the king's sword, it does not necessarily conflict with the idea that the name of the king's sword is Skofnung. "Gullinhjalti" would then be a by-name, a pet-name, for Skofnung, derived from its golden hilt. It can hardly be presumed that when the saga-man in this connection calls the king's sword "Gullinhjalti," he has for the moment forgotten that the name of Hrolf's famous sword is Skofnung. Nor is it in conflict with the description of Skofnung that Gullinhjalti is given a supernatural quality. Skofnung also has a supernatural quality. It is Skofnung's nature to utter a loud sound whenever it reaches the bone.[82]

That two swords in two widely separated compositions are identical requires more proof than that the term "golden hilt" is used in connection with both of them; and in the two compositions in question there is nothing else than this term, and the peculiarity of the one sword that it can be wielded only by a man of unusual strength, of the other that it can be wielded only by a brave man, on which to base an identity. The fact of the matter is that it is the requirement of the plot that has supplied both the name and the unusual quality of the sword Gullinhjalti in the _Hrólfssaga_. Other requirements would have produced other results.

But since such stress has been laid on the similarity between "gylden hilt" (_Beowulf_) and "Gullinhjalti" (_Hrólfssaga_) in the attempt to identify Bothvar Bjarki with Beowulf, let us turn our attention, before proceeding further, to the portion of _Beowulf_ where the term "gylden hilt" occurs.

The text shows clearly that the author of _Beowulf_ did not intend "gylden hilt" as a proper noun. He never uses the word "hilt" in connection with the weapon in question to designate the sword as a whole. "Hilt," both as a simple word and in compounds, is used only to designate the handle of the sword. The following terms are used for the sword as a whole: "bil,"[83] "sweord,"[84] "wǣpen,"[85] "mǣl,"[86] "īrena cyst."[87] The word "hilt" is used seven times. Sarrazin says, "Es ist bemerkenswert, dass bei jenem Schwert, auch als es noch vollständig und unversehrt war, regelmässig die hilze, der griff (hilt), hervorgehoben wurde (ll. 1563, 1574, 1614, 1668, 1677, 1687, 1698)."[88] But the statements, "Hē gefēīng þā fetel-hilt,"[89] "Wǣpen hafenade heard be hiltum,"[90] contain the only two instances in which the hilt is mentioned before the blade melted. It is quite natural for the author to say, "He then seized the belted hilt," "The strong man raised the sword by the hilt"; for the hilt is the part of the weapon that is intended to be held in the hand when a sword is to be used. It is hardly correct to say that the hilt is here emphasized.

"Ne nōm hē īn þǣm wīcum, Weder-Gēata lēod, māðm-ǣhta mā, þēh hē þǣr monige geseah, būton þone hafelan ond þā hilt somod, since fāge; sweord ǣr gemealt."[91]

"Hilt" does not here mean "sword," because "sweord ǣr gemealt" and nothing but the hilt was left to be taken away. The same applies to "hilt" in the statement, "Ic þæt hilt þanan fēondum ætferede."[92]

"Þā wæs gylden hilt gamelum rince, hārum hild-fruman, on hand gyfen, enta ǣr-geweorc."[93]

In this passage, "hilt" cannot refer to the whole sword, because the blade had melted; only the hilt remained. To say that the hilt was given to the king, was proper, for (making allowance, of course, for the fictional nature of the whole story) it was literally true; but to say that "Gyldenhilt" (the sword) was given to the king, would not be proper, because the principal part of the sword had disappeared. The word "gylden" is used in this passage apparently for two reasons: 1. that the hilt is of gold renders it more appropriate as a gift, to the king; 2. "gylden" alliterates with "gamelum."

The hilt was remarkable for other qualities than that it was of gold.

"Hroðgār maðelode, hylt scēawode, ealde lāfe, on ðǣm wæs ōr writen fyrn-gewinnes, syðþan flōd ofslōh, gifen gēotende, gīganta cyn; frēcne gefērdon; þæt wæs fremde þēod ēcean Dryhtne; him þæs ende-lēan þurh wæteres wylm Waldend sealde. Swā wæs on ðǣm scennum scīran goldes þurh rūn-stafas rihte gemearcod, geseted ond gesæd, hwām þæt sweord geworht, īrena cyst, ǣrest wǣre, wreoþen-hilt ond wyrm-fāh."[94]

"Hylt"[95] cannot mean the whole sword, since Hrothgar could look at only what was left of the sword. That was the "gylden hilt," which he held in his hand; and the expression "hylt scēawode" leaves no doubt that "gylden hilt" is not a designation of the whole sword. "Wreoþen-hilt"[96] also obviously refers only to the hilt.

In no instance, therefore, in this connection, does the author of _Beowulf_ use "hilt" to designate the whole sword; consequently, to write "gylden hilt" as one word and capitalize it is both arbitrary and illogical. There is, in fact, nothing in the poem to indicate that the sword had a name.

Furthermore, the author refers to other swords that were distinguished by being ornamented with gold. When Beowulf left the land of the Danes, it is said,

"Hē þǣm bāt-wearde bunden golde swurd gesealde."[97]

And when Beowulf returned to the land of the Geats and presented to Hygelac and Hygd the gifts he had received from Hrothgar,

"Hēt ðā eorla hlēo in gefetian, heaðo-rōf cyning, Hrēðles lāfe golde gegyrede; næs mid Gēatum ðā sinc-māðþum sēlra on sweordes hād; þæt hē on Bīowulfes bearm ālegde."[98]

It is not said that either of these swords had a golden hilt; but it is plain that it was not unusual to represent a sword that possessed excellent qualities as being ornamented with gold, and the hilt is the part of the sword that naturally lends itself to ornamentation. Other examples of richly ornamented swords are King Arthur's sword, Excalibur, whose "pommel and haft were all of precious stones";[99] Roland's sword, Durendal, which had a golden hilt;[100] and the sword of Frothi II, which also had a golden hilt.[101]

The fact, therefore, that, both in regard to the giant-sword in _Beowulf_ and King Hrolf's sword in the saga, the hilt is said to be golden proves nothing as to the identity of these two swords.

And when, both in the term "gylden hilt" and in the word "Gullinhjalti," the hilt of the sword is made prominent, it is due, in the one instance, to the fact that nothing but the hilt remains; in the other, to the fact that the word "hjalti" is just the word that the author must have in order to explain the origin of Hjalti's name.

A little more ought to be said about the propping-up of the dragon. That it served an excellent purpose is evident. It provided the occasion for Hjalti's asking for the king's sword, in the use of which he displayed his courage and from which he received his new name. Furthermore, Bjarki's interest in having Hott attack the beast and display his courage indicated that he knew that the beast was dead and that he had a special interest in having Hott recognized as a brave man. This, again, indicated that Bjarki had himself killed the beast and been the cause of the change in Hott's nature, for both of which he receives due credit. But it may be asked, when Bjarki propped the dead beast up, how could he know that events would take the turn they did? He could not know it. He relied on his resourcefulness to handle the situation, a resourcefulness on which he had drawn with success before. He was on hand in the morning to take note of developments, and we can imagine several possibilities that he might have had in mind. Had the king proposed that no risk should be taken with the beast, Bjarki could have requested and secured permission to attack it, taking Hott with him. Had the king himself proposed to attack the beast, or had he proposed that his warriors should attack it in a body, Bjarki could have said, "No, the king must not expose himself," or, "The king must not expose so many of his men at once; let me go." To which the king could have assented, whereupon Bjarki could have taken Hott with him and let Hott, at the last, proceed against the beast alone and knock it over. One can imagine other possibilities, which it is not necessary to enumerate here. To be sure, none of them would be so fortunate as the one represented as having occurred; but they would have enabled Hott to gain the reputation of being a brave man, and that is all Bjarki contemplated. That all turned out more fortunately than Bjarki had foreseen or even intended, enhances the interest of the story and illustrates the skill of the narrator, who chose to represent, as he had a right to do, that particular possibility as having actually occurred that produced the most satisfactory results. That Bjarki had no thought of credit for himself, redounds, in the estimation of the reader all the more to his credit; and it is a fitting reward that he gets full credit for all that he has done.

It seems, then, that Bjarki intended to deceive the king. He undoubtedly did; but the deception was not intended to mislead the king. Hott _was_ brave and strong, and Bjarki knew it; and even if Hott's strength and bravery should gain recognition through the employment of a ruse that involved no real test, no harm would be done. The author, however, planned that all should turn out otherwise. The reader will also remember the deception practiced by the shepherd boy in the story from Jón Arnason's collection.[102] The boy, who is there the hero of the story, as is Bjarki in the _Hrólfssaga_, is represented as deceiving his master, but likewise without doing him appreciable harm, and furthermore without raising reflections on the part of the author as to the rectitude of his conduct.

Panzer says that Hott's explanation that the repeated breaking-in of the monster is due to the fact that the king's best men do not return home at that time of the year is a strange explanation.[103] But in regard to Hott's statement a distinction must be made between fact and opinion. It is a fact, as the saga immediately afterwards shows, that the king's berserks are not at home; but it is only Hott's opinion that, if they were at home, they would be able to put an end to the depredations of the monster. It was quite natural, however, that he should think so; for to such an abject coward as he was, it must have seemed that nothing could resist such warriors as these berserks were. That they were not at home was due to the fact that they were on one of their regular expeditions. But why they had not been retained at home to cope with the dragon is not explained. The first time it appeared, it came entirely unexpected. The next year there may have been a question as to whether it would appear or not. The third year it was definitely expected. It seems, therefore, that preparations would have been made to resist it; and when the berserks are not retained at home to cope with the monster, it is due to the exigencies of the story. The berserks might have been retained at home to cope unsuccessfully with the monster, or avoid coping with it at all as the king's other men did, and thus place Bjarki's feat of slaying it in the strongest relief. But by letting the berserks be absent at Christmas and return later, the author accomplished more than this. Bjarki slew the monster, which, in any treatment of the story, he must be represented as doing. He seized one of the berserks, who demanded that Bjarki recognize him as his superior as a warrior, and threw him down with great violence. This was a more spectacular method of showing superiority to the berserks than merely doing what they dared not attempt to do, or could not do. But it is especially in the treatment of Hott, that skillful manipulation of the story is displayed in having the berserks return home and resume their boastful manner, after Hott has become strong and daring. Compared with the king's best warriors it is still a question as to how strong and brave Hott now is. The question is answered when he is requested to admit his inferiority to the berserks; for he seizes the one who confronts him and treats him as Bjarki is treating one of the others. Thus, in the presence of King Hrolf and the court, Hott displays his superiority to the doughtiest of the king's famous warriors. Finally, poetic justice is also achieved, for the very men who had made fun of Hott and thrown bones at him are now compelled to recognize that he is the master of them all.

Panzer sees a deeper meaning, than evidently is intended, in the statement that, as Bjarki was about to attack the dragon, his sword stuck fast in the scabbard.[104] There is no reason, however, for regarding it as anything more than a melodramatic incident characteristic of medieval romances. It reminds one of the following statement by Wilbur L. Cross, which, with the omission of the reference to "giants" and "Merlin," characterizes the _Hrólfssaga_ quite accurately and shows how it harmonizes with the spirit of medieval literature of its kind, "It is true that they [i.e., the Arthurian romances] sought to interest, and did interest, by a free employment of the marvellous, fierce encounters of knights, fights with giants and dragons, swords that would not out of their scabbards, and the enchantments of Merlin".[105]

_The Stories in the_ BJARKARÍMUR _of Bjarki's Slaying the Wolf and Hjalti's Slaying the Bear._

But what is the relation of this story to the corresponding stories in the _Bjarkarímur_? The stories in the _rímur_ are as follows:--

"Flestir ọmuðu Hetti heldr, hann var ekki í máli sneldr, einn dag fóru þeir út af họll, svó ekki vissi hirðin ọll.

Hjalti talar er felmtinn fær, 'fọrum við ekki skógi nær, hér er sú ylgr sem etr upp menn, okkr drepr hún báða senn.'

Ylgrin hljóp úr einum runn, ógurlig með gapanda munn, họrmuligt varð Hjalta viðr, á honum skalf bæði leggr og liðr.

Ótæpt Bjarki að henni gengr, ekki dvelr hann við það lengr, họggur svó að í hamri stód, hljóp úr henni ferligt blóð.

'Kjóstu Hjalti um kosti tvó, kappinn Bọðvar talaði svó, drekk nú blóð eða drep eg þig hér, dugrinn líz mér engi í þér.'

Ansar Hjalti af ærnum móð, 'ekki þori eg að drekka blóð, nýtir flest ef nauðigr skal, nú er ekki á betra val.'

Hjalti gjọrir sem Bọðvar biðr, að blóði frá eg hann lagðist niðr, drekkur síðan drykki þrjá, duga mun honum við einn að rjá.

Hugrinn óx en miklast máttr, minst var honum í litlu dráttr, raunmjọg sterkr og ramr sem trọll, rifnuðu af honum klæðin ọll.

Svó er hann orðinn harðr i hug, hann hræðist ekki járna flug, burtu er nú bleyðinafn, Bọðvari var hann að hreysti jafn." (IV, 58-66).

"Hann hefr fengið hjartað snjalt af họrðum móði, fekk hann huginn og aflið alt af ylgjar blóði.

Í grindur vandist grábjọrn einn í garðinn Hleiðar, var sá margur vargrinn beinn og víða sveiðar.

Bjarka er kent, að hjarðarhunda hafi harm drepna, ekki er hónum allvel hent við ýta kepna.

Hrólfur býst og hirð hans ọll að húna stýri, sá skal mestr í minni họll er mætir dýri.

Beljandi hljóp bjọrninn framm úr bóli krukku, veifar sínum vónda hramm, svó virðar hrukku.

Hjalti sér og horfir þá á, er hafin er róma, hafði hann ekki í họndum þá nema hnefana tóma.

Hrólfur fleygði að Hjalta þá þeim hildar vendi, kappinn móti krummu brá og klótið hendi.

Lagði hann síðan bjọrninn brátt við bóginn hægra, bessi fell í brúðar átt og bar sig lægra.

Vann hann það til frægða fyst og fleira síðar, hans var lundin lọngum byst í leiki gríðar.

Hér með fekk hann Hjalta nafn hins hjartaprúða, Bjarki var eigi betri en jafn við býti skrúða." (V, 4-13).[106]