Chapter IX: Section VI: Hrothulf

Yet, although the Icelandic sources are wrong in representing Froda and Ingeld as Danes, they are not altogether wrong in representing the Danish royal house as divided against itself. Only they fail to place the blame where it really lay. For none of the Scandinavian sources attribute any act of injustice or usurpation to Rolf Kraki. He is the ideal king, and his title to the throne is not supposed to be doubtful.

Yet we saw that, in _Beowulf_, the position of Hrothulf is represented as an ambiguous one[57], he is the king's too powerful nephew, whose claims may prejudice those of his less distinguished young cousins, the king's sons, and the speech of queen Wealhtheow is heavy with foreboding. "I know," she says, "that my gracious Hrothulf will support the young princes in honour, if thou, King of the Scyldings, shouldst leave the world sooner than he. I ween that he will requite our children, if he remembers all which we two have done for his pleasure and honour, being yet a child[58]." Whilst Hrethric and Hrothmund, the sons of King Hrothgar, have to sit with the juniors, the _giogoth_[59], Hrothulf is a man of tried valour, who sits side by side with the king: "where the two good ones sat, uncle and nephew: _as yet_ was there peace between them, and each was true to the other[60]."

Again we have mention of "Hrothgar and Hrothulf. Heorot was filled full of friends: _at that time_ the mighty Scylding folk in no wise worked treachery[61]." Similarly in _Widsith_ the mention of Hrothgar and Hrothulf together seems to stir the poet to dark sayings. "_For a very long time_ did Hrothgar and Hrothulf, uncle and nephew, hold the peace together[62]."

{26}

The statement that "as yet" or "for a very long time" or "at that time" there was peace within the family, necessarily implies that, at last, the peace _was_ broken, that Hrothulf quarrelled with Hrothgar, or strove to set aside his sons[63].

Further evidence is hardly needed; yet further evidence we have: by rather complicated, but quite unforced, fitting together of various Scandinavian authorities, we find that Hrothulf deposed and slew his cousin Hrethric.

Saxo Grammaticus tells us how Roluo (Rolf = O.N. Hrolfr, O.E. Hrothulf) slew a certain Roericus (or Hraerek = O.E. Hrethric) and gave to his own followers all the plunder which he found in the city of Roericus. Saxo is here translating an older authority, the _Bjarkam['a]l_ (now lost), and he did not know who Roericus was: he certainly did not regard him as a son or successor of Roe (Hrothgar) or as a cousin of Roluo (Hrothulf). "Roluo, who laid low Roericus _the son of the covetous Boekus_" is Saxo's phrase (_qui natum Boeki Roericum stravit avari_). This would be a translation of some such phrase in the _Bjarkam['a]l_ as _Hraereks bani hnoeggvanbauga_, "the slayer of Hraerek Hnoggvanbaugi[64]."

But, when we turn to the genealogy of the Danish kings[65], we actually find a _Hraerekr Hnauggvanbaugi_ given as a king of Denmark about the time of Roluo. This _Roericus_ or _Hraerekr_ who was slain by Roluo was then, himself, a king of the Danes, and must, therefore, have preceded Roluo on the throne. But in that case Roericus _must_ be son of Roe, and identical with his namesake Hrethric, the son of Hrothgar, in _Beowulf_. For no one but a son of King Roe could have had such a claim to the throne as to rule between that king and his all powerful nephew Roluo[65].

It is difficult, perhaps, to state this argument in a way which will be convincing to those who are not acquainted with Saxo's method of working. To those who realize how he treats {27} his sources, it will be clear that Roericus is the son of Roe, and is slain by Roluo. Translating the words into their Old English equivalents, Hrethric, son of Hrothgar, is slain by Hrothulf.

The forebodings of Wealhtheow were justified.

Hrethric is then almost certainly an actual historic prince who was thrust from the throne by Hrothulf. Of Hrothmund[66], his brother, Scandinavian authorities seem to know nothing. He is very likely a poetical fiction, a duplicate of Hrethric. For it is very natural that in story the princes whose lives are threatened by powerful usurpers should go in pairs. Hrethric and Hrothmund go together like Malcolm and Donalbain. Their helplessness is thus emphasized over against the one mighty figure, Rolf or Macbeth, threatening them[67].

Yet this does not prove Hrothmund unhistoric. On the contrary it may well happen that the facts of history will coincide with the demands of well-ordered narrative, as was the case when Richard of Gloucester murdered _two_ young princes in the Tower.

Two other characters, who meet us in _Beowulf_, seem to have some part to play in this tragedy.

It was a maxim of the old Teutonic poetry, as it is of the British Constitution, that the king could do no wrong: the real fault lay with the adviser. If Ermanaric the Goth slew his wife and his son, or if Irminfrid the Thuringian unwisely challenged Theodoric the Frank to battle, this was never supposed to be due solely to the recklessness of the monarch himself--it was the work of an evil counsellor--a Bikki or an Iring. Now we have seen that there is mischief brewing in Heorot--and we are introduced to a counsellor Unferth, the _thyle_ or official spokesman and adviser of King Hrothgar. And Unferth is evil. His jealous temper is shown by the hostile and inhospitable reception which he gives to Beowulf. And Beowulf's reply gives us a hint of some darker stain: "though {28} thou hast been the slayer of thine own brethren--thy flesh and blood: for that thou shalt suffer damnation in hell, good though thy wit may be[68]." One might perhaps think that Beowulf in these words was only giving the "countercheck quarrelsome," and indulging in mere reckless abuse, just as Sinfjotli (the Fitela of _Beowulf_) in the _First Helgi Lay_ hurls at his foes all kinds of outrageous charges assuredly not meant to be taken literally. But, as we learn from the _Helgi Lay_ itself, the uttering of such unfounded taunts was not considered good form; whilst it seems pretty clear that the speech of Beowulf to Unferth is intended as an example of justifiable and spirited self-defence, not, like the speech of Sinfjotli, as a storehouse of things which a well-mannered warrior should _not_ say.

Besides, the taunt of Beowulf is confirmed, although but darkly, by the poet himself, in the same passage in which he has recorded the fears of Wealhtheow lest perhaps Hrothulf should not be loyal to Hrothgar and his issue: "Likewise there Unferth the counsellor sat at the foot of the lord of the Scyldingas: each of them [i.e. both Hrothgar and Hrothulf] trusted to his spirit: that his courage was great, _though he had not done his duty by his kinsmen at the sword-play_[69]."

But, granting that Unferth has really been the cause of the death of his kinsmen, some scholars have doubted whether we are to suppose that he literally slew them himself. For, had that been the case, they urge, he could not be occupying a place of trust with the almost ideal king Hrothgar. But the record of the historians makes it quite clear that murder of kin did happen, and that constantly[70]. Amid the tragic complexities of heroic life it often could not be avoided. The _comitatus_-system, by which a man was expected to give unflinching support to any chief whose service he had entered, must often have resulted in slaughter between men united by very close bonds of kin or friendship. Turning from history to saga, we find some of the greatest heroes not free from the stain. Sigmund, {29} Gunnar, Hogni, Atli, Hrothulf, Heoroweard, Hnaef, Eadgils, Haethcyn, Ermanaric and Hildebrand were all marred with this taint, and indeed were, in many cases, rather to be pitied than blamed. I doubt, therefore, whether we need try and save Unferth's character by suggesting that the stern words of the poet mean only that he had indirectly caused the death of his brethren by failing them, in battle, at some critical moment[71]. I suspect that this, involving cowardice or incompetence, would have been held the more unpardonable offence, and _would_ have resulted in Unferth's disgrace. But a man might well have slain his kin under circumstances which, while leaving a blot on his record, did not necessitate his banishment from good society. All the same, the poet evidently thinks it a weakness on the part of Hrothgar and Hrothulf that, after what has happened, they still put their trust in Unferth.

Here then is the situation. The king has a counsellor: that counsellor is evil. Both the king and his nephew trust the evil counsellor. A bitter feud springs up between the king and his nephew. That the feud was due to the machinations of the evil adviser can hardly be doubted by those who have studied the ways of the old Germanic heroic story. But it is only an inference: positive proof we have none.

Lastly, there is Heoroweard. Of him we are told in _Beowulf_ very little. He is son of Heorogar (or Heregar), Hrothgar's elder brother, who was apparently king before him, but died young[72]. It is quite natural, as we have seen, that, if Heoroweard was too young for the responsibility when his father died, he should not have succeeded to the throne. What is not so natural is that he does not inherit his father's arms, which one might reasonably have supposed Hrothgar would have preserved, to give to him when he came of age. Instead, Hrothgar gives them to Beowulf[73]. Does Hrothgar deliberately avoid doing honour to Heoroweard, because he fears that any distinction conferred upon him would strengthen a rival {30} whose claims to the throne might endanger those of his own sons? However this may be, in any future struggle for the throne Heoroweard may reasonably be expected to play some part.

Turning now to Saxo, and to the _Saga of Rolf Kraki_, we find that Rolf owed his death to the treachery of one whose name corresponds exactly to that of Heoroweard--Hiarwarus (Saxo), Hj[o,]rvarthr (_Saga_). Neither Saxo nor the _Saga_ thinks of Hiarwarus as the cousin of Rolf Kraki: they do not make it really clear _what_ the cause of his enmity was. But they tell us that, after a banquet, he and his men treacherously rose upon Rolf and his warriors. The defence which Rolf and his men put up in their burning hall: the loyalty and defiance of Rolf's champions, invincible in death--these were amongst the most famous things of the North; they were told in the _Bjarkam['a]l_, now unfortunately extant in Saxo's paraphrase only.

But the triumph of Hiarwarus was brief. Rolf's men all fell around him, save the young Wiggo, who had previously, in the confidence of youth, boasted that, should Rolf fall, he would avenge him. Astonished at the loyalty of Rolf's champions, Hiarwarus expressed regret that none had taken quarter, declaring that he would gladly accept the service of such men. Whereupon Wiggo came from the hiding-place where he had taken refuge, and offered to do homage to Hiarwarus, by placing his hand on the hilt of his new lord's sword: but in doing so he drove the point through Hiarwarus, and rejoiced as he received his death from the attendants of the foe he had slain. It shows how entirely the duty of vengeance was felt to outweigh all other considerations, that this treacherous act of Wiggo is always spoken of with the highest praise.

For the story of the fall of Rolf and his men see Saxo, Book II (ed.
Holder, pp. 55-68): _Saga of Rolf Kraki_, caps. 32-34: _Skjoldunga
Saga_ (ed. Olrik, 1894, 36-7 [118-9]).

How the feud between the different members of the Danish family forms
the background to _Beowulf_ was first explained in full detail by
Ludvig Schroeder (_Om Bjovulfs-drapen. Efter en raekke foredrag p[oa]
folke-hoejskolen i Askov_, Kjoebenhavn, 1875). Schroeder showed how the
bad character of Unferth has its part to play: "It is a _weakness_ in
Hrothgar that he entrusts important office to such a man--a {31}
weakness which will carry its punishment." Independently the domestic
feud was demonstrated again by Sarrazin (_Rolf Krake und sein vetter im
Beowulfliede_: _Engl. Stud._ XXIV, 144-5). The story has been fully
worked out by Olrik (_Heltedigtning_, 1903, I, 11-18 _etc._).

These views have been disputed by Miss Clarke (_Sidelights_, 102), who
seems to regard as "hypotheses" of Olrik data which have been
ascertained facts for more than a generation. Miss Clarke's
contentions, however, appear to me to be based upon a misunderstanding
of Olrik.

* * * * *