We now approach historic ground. _Egil Auniff_, the next king of the Goths, is, beyond all doubt, Egil, the son of Aun, whose exploits we have recorded in a former page of this chapter.[150] Those exploits are the same, both in the narration of Snorro, and in that of later historians of the country: the cause and the result were the same. Egil, therefore, was king of the Goths and the Swedes. The _Gothar_ of the Swedish writers, the successor of Egil, is also the _Ottar_ of Snorro: the circumstances of their lives are identical.[151] _Adel_ is the _Adils_, _Ostan_ the _Eystein_, of the Heimskringla: in both histories, as the former was killed by the fall of his horse, so the latter was burned to death.[152] The only difference in the relation is the circumstance that led to the death of Eystein; the Norwegian authority attributing it to Solve, a Jutish pirate; the Swedish, to the rebellion of a Gothland chief. The _Ingvar_ of the Swedish writers is indisputably the _Yngvar_ of Snorro; and the _Asmund_ of the former is the _Onund_, or _Braut-Onund_ of the latter. In this latter reign, we perceive the same encouragement of industry; but the death of the king is variously related. Snorro, as we have before related, attributes it to an avalanche[153]; but the Swedish writers make him fall in battle against a body of rebels. Of the two next rulers mentioned by the Swedish writers—_Siward_ and _Hirvt_—we have no mention in the annals of the Ynglings. The reason is, that they were kings of Gothland only, and, probably, dependent on the monarchs of Upsal: the latter, indeed, is expressly called the king of the Goths. _Ingel_, the next sovereign in the Swedish annals, is, beyond all doubt, the Ingiald Illrada of Snorro Sturleson, who was king of the Goths and the Swedes: his exploits, and tragical death, are the same.[154] We have thus brought down the contemporary monarchy of the Goths, from the century before Christ to the conquest of Sweden by Ivar Vidfadme, in or about the year 623. By regarding these dynasties as separate, and endeavouring to distinguish kings whom all preceding historians have confounded, we have made the subject intelligible to the reader. The path, in which we have been the first to venture, will, we have no doubt, be traversed by other writers, until it is as well known as any other part of ancient Scandinavian history. It is yet a dark one; and criticism, aided by an extensive use of manuscript authorities, can alone enlighten it. [Sidenote: 623 to 794.]