out more fortunately than Bjarki had foreseen or even intended, enhances
the interest of the story and illustrates the skill of the narrator, who
chose to represent, as he had a right to do, that particular possibility
as having actually occurred that produced the most satisfactory results.
That Bjarki had no thought of credit for himself, redounds, in the
estimation of the reader all the more to his credit; and it is a fitting
reward that he gets full credit for all that he has done.

It seems, then, that Bjarki intended to deceive the king. He undoubtedly
did; but the deception was not intended to mislead the king. Hott _was_
brave and strong, and Bjarki knew it; and even if Hott's strength and
bravery should gain recognition through the employment of a ruse that
involved no real test, no harm would be done. The author, however,
planned that all should turn out otherwise. The reader will also
remember the deception practiced by the shepherd boy in the story from
Jón Arnason's collection.[102] The boy, who is there the hero of the
story, as is Bjarki in the _Hrólfssaga_, is represented as deceiving his
master, but likewise without doing him appreciable harm, and furthermore
without raising reflections on the part of the author as to the
rectitude of his conduct.

Panzer says that Hott's explanation that the repeated breaking-in of the
monster is due to the fact that the king's best men do not return home
at that time of the year is a strange explanation.[103] But in regard to
Hott's statement a distinction must be made between fact and opinion. It
is a fact, as the saga immediately afterwards shows, that the king's
berserks are not at home; but it is only Hott's opinion that, if they
were at home, they would be able to put an end to the depredations of
the monster. It was quite natural, however, that he should think so; for
to such an abject coward as he was, it must have seemed that nothing