§ 17. The only other two sources whence any further light can be thrown upon our subject are the traditions of Denmark and Grimsby. A letter addressed by Sir F. Madden to Professor Rask elicited a reply which was equivalent to saying that next to nothing is known about it in Denmark. This seems to be the right place to mention a small book of 80 pages, published at Copenhagen in the present year (1868), and entitled “Sagnet om Havelok Danske; fortalt af Kristian Köster.” It contains (1) a version, in Danish prose, of the English poem; (2) a version of the same story, following the French texts of the Arundel and Royal MSS.; and (3) some elucidations of the legend. The author proposes a theory that Havelok is really the Danish king Amlet, i.e. Hamlet; but I have not space here to state all his arguments. As far as I follow them, some of the chief ones are these; that Havelok ought to be found in the list of Danish kings;[16] that Hamlet’s simulation of folly or madness is paralleled by Havelok’s behaviour, as expressed in ll. 945-954 of our poem; and that both Hamlet and Havelok succeeded in fulfilling the revenge which they had long cherished secretly. But I am not much persuaded by these considerations, for, even granting some resemblance in the names,[17] the resemblance in the stories is very slight. But I must refer the reader to the book itself. [Footnote 16: So then ought Hamlet; but the editor of Saxo Grammaticus says, “in antiquioribus regum Daniæ genealogiis Amlethus non occurrit.” See Saxo Gram. ed. Müller, Havniæ, 1839; end of lib. iii. and beginning of lib. iv.; also the note on p. 132 of the Notæ Uberiores. The idea that Havelock is Amlet is to be found in Grundtvig, North. Myth. 1832, p. 565.] [Footnote 17: Havelok [_or_ Hanelock, as it is sometimes read] is quite as like Anlaf, whence the blunder noticed in note 1, p. xviii. In the form Hablok, it is not unlike _Blecca_, who was a great man in _Lindesey_ soon after the days of _Æthelberht_ of Kent; see Saxon Chronicle, An. DCXXVII.] § 18. Turning however to local traditions, we find that Camden briefly alludes to the story in a contemptuous manner (p. 353; ed. 8vo, Lond. 1587); but Gervase Holles is far from being disposed to regard it as fabulous. In his MSS. collections for Lincolnshire, preserved in MS. Harl. 6829, he thus speaks of the story we are examining.[18]