but this does not prove that they are earlier than the version in the
saga. In the first place, by introducing two animals, where the other
versions have only one, the author of the _rímur_ has broken the unity
of the story, a feature in which the story in the _Hrólfssaga_ remains
intact and as a consequence is nearer to the primitive form of the story
as we find it in Saxo. In the second place, the author of the _rímur_
made precisely the changes that were necessary to remove the most
irrational features of the story as we find it in the _Hrólfssaga_. The
troll-dragon, which is an unusual creature, has been supplanted by the
more conventional creatures, a wolf and a bear; and by the employment of
two animals, the necessity of causing a dead animal to be propped up and
be apparently killed again, is avoided. Consistency in the treatment of
Bjarki as the descendant of a bear is also observed to the extent that
he is said to kill a wolf, not a bear; but this consistency has begun to
fade and suffer to the extent that Bjarki accompanies Hrolf on a bear
hunt. It is probable, however, that consistency in the treatment of
Bjarki in this respect is not contemplated, but that when he is said to
kill a wolf it is only that the larger and more dangerous animal may be
reserved as the one on which Hjalti is to show his strength and courage
and in order that an animal worthy of the king's attention may be
reserved for the royal hunt. To eat wolf meat in order to gain strength
has just as good warrant in Old Norse literature as to drink the blood
of a bear;[107] this, in so far, justifies the introduction in the
_rímur_ of the wolf. But when Hjalti is made to _drink the blood_ of the
wolf, it seems to be another instance of the author's keeping in mind
the version of the story in the _Hrólfssaga_, where Hjalti drinks the
blood of the dragon. It is not necessary to go to Saxo's version for
this.

It is said in the _rímur_, "One day they (Bjarki and Hjalti) went out of