The Relation of the Hrólfs Saga Kraka and the Bjarkarímur to Beowulf: A Contribution To The History Of Saga Development In England And The; Scandinavian Countries — John Shaqi
The Relation of the Hrólfs Saga Kraka and the Bjarkarímur to Beowulf: A Contribution To The History Of Saga Development In England And The; Scandinavian CountriesOlson, Oscar Ludvig
History
The Relation of the Hrólfs Saga Kraka and the Bjarkarímur to Beowulf: A Contribution To The History Of Saga Development In England And The; Scandinavian Countries
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]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account