A story, pertinent in this connection, is told to illustrate the
difficulties that ministers in the rural districts in Norway have had to
contend with on account of the superstitious belief in trolls. A
minister had exerted himself to root out of the people in his parish the
belief in trolls. Among those whom he had endeavored to enlighten was a
boy. But so ingrained had this belief become in the boy that, when
Christmas Eve arrived and he was requested to go to one of the
outbuildings on an errand, he was seized with fright. He went on the
errand, however, and performed it without seeing a troll; but on his
return he was so overcome with the fear that a troll was pursuing him
that he fell to the ground, and had to be met by people from the house
and escorted back.[63] The story is supposed to be true, and there is no
reason to doubt it. But whether it is true or not is immaterial in this
connection; in any event, it shows what kind of story we are dealing
with in the saga, and it shows to what admirable use the story enabled
the saga-man to put the inordinate fear and cowardice of Hott. In view
of the circumstances (Hott's cowardice and the common fear of the
Christmas troll), Hott's actions, when he is forced to accompany Bjarki
and when he sees the monster, are perfectly natural; and to see the
matter in any other light is not to understand the story.

Another feature of the first part of the story that should be noticed is
the dual nature of the monster. A dragon was as terrible a creature as
one could imagine; a troll was also as terrible a creature as one could
imagine. But the saga-man has introduced into his story a being that
combines the characteristics of both. Hott knew that the monster
possessed this dual nature, for it is from him that the author lets the
statement proceed, "That is no beast, it is rather the greatest troll."
This makes it still more natural for him to display ridiculous fear. It
also explains the king's fear of the monster, and removes the odium that