So far we have been dealing with stories which have been distorted—apparently in quite late times—either by mistaken identifications or by an erroneous interpretation of some title or incident. The lapse of time in itself will account for some of these changes, especially if we bear in mind the influence of Stage III (cf. p. [94] ff.), through which the stories have passed both in Germany and in the North. Fiction of a type however, especially the tendency towards combination, is certainly not wanting. In the medieval German poems indeed it is widely used and on a scale far more ambitious than what we have observed in Widsith. Here however we have to take into account the influence of romantic poetry. The nature of the use of fiction in the North is not so clear. If it could be proved that such stories as those of Oddrún and the ordeal of Guðrún originated in the North we should certainly have to grant that it was of a fairly advanced type.
Now we must consider certain cases which seem to have originated in much earlier times. As an instance we may take the Norse story that Atli was murdered by Guðrún. Now this story conflicts with what appear to be the true facts in two distinct points: (i) that Attila was murdered at all; (ii) that the person who was present with him when he died was anyone whom we can identify with Guðrún. The story that Attila was murdered by a woman is, as we have seen, one of great antiquity; but there is nothing to show that this woman was Guðrún. It is true that Norse and German tradition agree in stating that Attila married a sister of Guthhere. This is a statement which cannot be proved, though there is nothing intrinsically improbable in such a marriage. But both traditions represent Attila and his Burgundian wife as married for a number of years, and both speak of their children. Yet there can be little doubt that according to the original story Attila was murdered by his bride (Ildico) on the night of the wedding. Hence we must surely trace the origin of the Norse story to a combination between two much earlier traditions: (1) that Attila married a sister of Guthhere; (2) that Attila was murdered by his wife. In view of the story of Guthhere's death—which is common to both traditions and undoubtedly ancient—it required but little poetic imagination to identify the two women and to represent the murder as an act of vengeance. I see no ground for supposing that this combination took place before the Viking Age. The other story is of course much older; but the evidence seems to me to point to an origin in common report rather than in poetic fiction.
The story of Hamðir and Sörli is a somewhat different case. Here again, as we have already seen, Guthhere's sister was drawn into the story only in the Norse version and probably quite late. But even before this time it contained features which cannot be regarded as historical. In the Danish (Saxo's) version also Svanhildr appears as the wife of Iörmunrekr; but there is no satisfactory evidence for this except in the North, and it is clearly contrary to Jordanes' account. Again, the North German form of the story[230] agreed with the Northern versions in stating that the king lost both his hands and both his feet in the encounter. Consequently this feature may be regarded as at least comparatively ancient; but it seems not to be known to Jordanes. As in the last case, therefore, we can trace the gradual development of the story more or less clearly. In its earliest known form, as given by Jordanes, Svanhildr is said to have been the wife of a man (apparently the prince of a dependent tribe) who deserted Eormenric (perhaps by joining the Huns). To punish his disloyalty the king had her tied to wild horses and thus torn to pieces. In an attempt to avenge this outrage her brothers gave him a serious wound, which was partly the cause of his death[231]. In the last point Jordanes may have been trying to combine the tradition with another account of Eormenric's death which he knew from historical sources. Otherwise the story contains nothing incredible[232]. Yet the element of fiction was probably present from the beginning. In the earlier stages its influence may be detected at least in the elaboration of the incident and in exaggeration of its effects, whereas in later times it shows itself in the invention of relationships and in false combinations.
Next we will take the story of Beowulf's death, which has the great advantage of being preserved in an early form. This story may be regarded in a sense as pure fiction. Strictly speaking however it consists of at least three distinct elements: (i) Beowulf's encounter with the dragon, (ii) the hero's funeral, (iii) incidental references to the past history of the Geatas. The last element is in part, and probably to a very large extent, founded on fact; so we will confine our attention to the other two. The account of the hero's funeral is a good illustration of Aristotle's dictum as to the true function of poetry—to express the universal rather than the particular. We have no reason for supposing that the poet had any information regarding Beowulf's real funeral. The description which he composed is that of such a funeral as might reasonably be expected for a man of Beowulf's rank and reputation. But the same remark is largely true also of the first element. Grant that the latter part of Beowulf's career was really unknown and that, through confusion with an earlier hero, it had come to be said that he perished in an encounter with a dragon—nearly all the rest[233] can be attributed to the same faculty for elaboration which we find in the funeral scene. More imagination perhaps was required in this case; but it must not be supposed that our author was the first to describe an encounter of this kind. Far more probably he was working upon a theme which in his time was already well worn.
We have now seen that fiction in early times shows itself especially in the way of elaboration, or perhaps we may say in the structure of the story[234]. The subject itself (the μῦθος) may be based upon fact or upon common report or rumour which was clearly false or even totally incredible, as in the last instance. But I know of no story, dealing with historical characters, which can be shown to be the product of deliberate and conscious invention. We have still however to consider the most important question of all. Did the use of fiction include the invention of characters?
It is not safe to assume this. We know that some of the characters are historical in most of the heroic stories. On the other hand it is not obvious that a single one of the characters mentioned in the primary authorities is fictitious[235]. This being so it is unreasonable to take the view that characters should be regarded as fictitious, unless they can be proved to be historical[236]. On the contrary, until the use of fictitious characters is proved there is a decided presumption in favour of believing any given character to be historical—unless of course his name or some other special circumstance gives clear ground for suspicion.