Considering the dragon story in the saga and the corresponding stories
in the _rímur_, it is apparent that there is no comparison between them
as regards skill in composition; and that, while the stories in the
_rímur_ throw no light on the story in the saga, the full significance
of the _rímur_ stories appears only when they are read in the light of
the story in the saga. Therefore, when Finnur Jónsson says, "Spörger vi
om, hvad der er oprindeligst, er der i og for sig næppe tvivl om, at
rimerne her har af ét dyr gjort to (ulvinden og gråbjörnen), så at
sagaen på dette punkt må antages at have bedre bevaret det ægte," he is
undoubtedly right; but when he continues, "Dette bestyrkes kraftig ved,
at dette hallen hjemsögende uhyre intet andet er end et om end ændret og
afbleget minde om Grendel i _Bjovulf_,"[122] he is, as the evidence also
shows, undoubtedly wrong.

The fact of the matter is that the account in the _rímur_ of the killing
of the bear, though brief, is so confused and indefinite that it does
not bear analysis; and this is further evidence of the fact that the
author of the _rímur_ clumsily re-worked material that he found in the
_Hrólfssaga_ version of Bjarki's career, and for the dragon story, which
is a good story, substituted two poor ones, namely the wolf story and
the bear story.

But the troll-dragon having been eliminated and the bear story selected
as the one to be used in connection with Hjalti's display of his newly
acquired bravery, for which purpose it is, indeed, on account of the
presence of the king and his court, more appropriate than for giving
Hjalti an opportunity to imbibe secretly an animal's blood, another
story had to be devised to account for Hjalti's strength and courage.
The wolf was the next fiercest animal available that the author could