[Prose]. Some editors place all or part of this prose passage after stanza 35. Following-spirits: the “fylgja” was a female guardian spirit whose appearance generally betokened death. The belief was common throughout the North, and has come down to recent times in Scottish and Irish folk-lore. Individuals and sometimes whole families had these following-spirits, but it was most unusual for a person to have more than one of them. Alf: son of the Hrothmar who killed Helgi’s grandfather, and [[287]]who was in turn later killed by Helgi. Sigarsvoll (“Sigar’s Field”): cf. stanza 8 and note; the Sigar in question may be the man who appears as Helgi’s messenger in stanzas 36–39.
[36]. Sigar (“The Victorious”): cf. the foregoing note. [[288]]
[39]. Frekastein (“Wolf-Crag”): the name appears several times in the Helgi lays applied to battlefields; cf. Helgakvitha Hundingsbana I, 46 and 55, and II, 18 and 24. Need: i.e., Alf deserves no credit for the victory, which was due to the troll-woman’s magic. [[289]]
[41]. One or two editors ascribe this stanza to Hethin.
[43]. A few editions make the extraordinary blunder of ascribing this speech to the dying Helgi. The point, of course, is that Hethin will satisfy Svava’s vow by becoming famous as the slayer of Alf. Rogheim (“Home of Battle”) and Rothulsfjoll (“Sun-Mountain”): nowhere else mentioned; Hethin means simply that he will not come back to Svava till he has won fame.
[Prose]. Regarding this extraordinary bit see the prose note at the end of Helgakvitha Hundingsbana II. Gering thinks the reborn Helgi Hjorvarthsson was Helgi Hundingsbane, while Svava, according to the annotator himself, became Sigrun. The point seems to be simply that there were so many Helgi stories current, and the hero died in so many irreconcilable ways, that tradition had to have him born over again, not once only but several times, to accommodate his many deaths, and to avoid splitting him up into several Helgis. Needless to say, the poems themselves know nothing of this rebirth, and we owe the suggestion entirely to the annotator, who probably got it from current tradition. [[290]]