monster was a dragon, no difficulty would be involved, and so far as the
monster had the nature of a troll, the heart-eating and blood-drinking
would certainly be regarded as imparting strength. In such scenes as
this it is never the intention that one who eats the heart of a dragon
or drinks an animal's blood shall acquire all the characteristics of the
animal; every scene of this kind would then be ridiculous from any point
of view. The eating and drinking are done to gain strength and courage,
as is the case here; and it is not proper to subject this scene to a
more critical judgment than similar scenes in other sagas. The strength
of a troll was certainly not to be despised; and we find this particular
episode sanctioned in a way in the _Bjarkarímur_, where it is said that
after Hjalti had drunk of the blood of the wolf, he became, not as
strong as a wolf, but "as strong as a troll." In view of the fact that
the troll is a troll-dragon, that the eating of its heart associates the
episode very closely with the similar episode in the _Volsungasaga_, and
that the _rímur_ magnify Hjalti's strength by saying that it is equal to
that of a troll, it is hypercritical to say that the saga here contains
an incongruous element. And however insistent one may be in maintaining
that the author has introduced an element that is not recognized
saga-material, it must be admitted that he has so skillfully fused it
with good saga-material that it is not probable, as the _rímur_ show,
that contemporary readers found any fault with the episode.

But does such a monster as a troll-dragon have any sanction in
folk-lore? Yes, it does. It is characteristic of Norse folk-lore to
ascribe troll-like qualities to beings about which there seems to be
something supernatural, such as invulnerability. In one of Asbjörnsen's
tales, there is a story about a troll-bird, told by a man named Per
Sandaker, who "was supposed to be strong in stories about troll-birds."
In the story referred to, there is a woodgrouse (tiur) which has become