Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown

After the fall of Lethra recounted in Saxo's version of Bjarkamál, Hiarthwarus sits triumphant at the victory feast. Reflecting on the loyalty of Roluo's warriors who all chose to die for their lord, he remarks that it is a shame that none of Roluo's retainers remained whose allegiance could be directed to Hiarthwarus. He is overjoyed when Wiggo, one of Roluo's retainers, presents himself to him. This Wiggo had earlier vowed to exact vengeance on the murderers if Roluo should ever be slain. Chekhov's Gun fires, and Wiggo slays Hiarthwarus, turning the banquet into a funeral, before being immediately cut down by Hiarthwarus' men. Thus, Saxo concludes, Fortune takes revenge savagely like this for cunning, underhand achievements. It is a dramatic and well crafted story, widely regarded as a high point of Gesta Danorum. However, some feel that the ending ruins the story and shows Saxo to be a naive and uncritical admirer of the royalty:

       "In this way Saxo turns a heroic tale into a vague allegory on the themes of generosity and meanness
        and their rewards. This appears to have been Saxo's rhetorical purpose in Book II, though the moral
        of this fable looks specious and not very clearly worked out. [...] That in Beowulf, at least, ultimate
        human power is shown to be a burden, is perhaps the expressed view of an insider who knew politics
        too well. Saxo's view of monarchy, on the other hand, is that of an outsider - the least or furthest out
        of a bishop's comites - who admired it beyond doubt."
        (Richard North, "Saxo and the Swedish Wars in Beowulf", p. 179 & 188)

First let us consider: was Saxo an outsider? North certainly seems to think so, taking Saxo's characterization of himself as the least of archbishop Absalon's entourage at face value, apparently not knowing that this is nothing more than customary expression of humility often found in prefaces. Saxo was the third generation of a family serving the king, a canon of the cathedral chapter in Lund, a magister, and Absalon's secretary. Absalon himself was a member of the highest tier of society, his family being extremely wealthy and owing huge tracts of land. His court at Lund was the ecclesiastical centre of Denmark, and as one of the king's closest counsellors, his court was also a centre of secular power. Lund was also a regular station of the itinerant royal court, and the king owned a residence there. Saxo's career guaranteed him access to the highest strata of society, and personal acquaintance with the king is entirely plausible. Acquantiance is not a vaccine against naive admiration though, so let's consider not just the episode, but the context of Gesta Danorum.

It is true that the themes of avaritas and liberalitas and their consequences for kingship are introduced in book two. Contrary to North, I see nothing vague, specious or ill-digested in this. It's part of an ongoing thematization of (royal) virtues necessary for kingship in Gesta Danorum (see Kurt Johannesson - Saxo Grammaticus: Komposition och världsbild i Gesta Danorum, 1978 & André Muceniecks - Saxo Grammaticus. Hierocratical Conceptions and Danish Hegemony in the Thirteenth Century, 2017). The position of Saxo's Bjarkamál on generous vs. miserly kings is crystal clear; The generous king Roluo is contrasted with the miserly Røricus, who was too cheap to even employ warriors. The outcome is obvious: Røricus was deprived of both his treasures and his life, with no one to fight for him or avenge him. Roluo, always sharing the spoils of war, dies a heroic death, surrounded by faithful and illustrious retainers who laid down their lives for him, and is avenged by Wiggo. The generousity of the king ensures fame and loyalty beyond death. There is nothing vague about this, it's a theme that has been repeatedly expounded upon ever since Tacitus' Germania, while princely virtues in general is a mainstay of Classical literature.  

Saxo's willingness to draw exempla stems from his extensive use of the first century Latin author Valerius Maximus' Facta et Dicta Memorabilia, a moralizing collection of historical exempla. North seems to have felt that this was an aesthetic affront, cheapening the characterization. There are of course many aesthetic and ideological layers in Saxo's rendition of Bjarkamál that North doesn't touch upon, such as the careful modelling on the Aeneid's Nyctomachia. One wonders if those are rendered null and void due to exempla too. Whatever the case, it's worth examining the wider, local textual context of kingship, and not just that particular instance. It is widely recognized that Saxo introduced many characters, events and themes in the first books that echo throughout the entire work, being brought up again and again in an ongoing thematization. Let us therefore turn to book one, to the second generation of kings:

        "After the death of his father, Humlus was made king by his compatrious through this new rite, but
        due to the malice of his later fortune passed from king to private citizen. After being captured in
        war by Lotherus, he traded his life for his abdication from the throne, since this was the only
        option given to him guaranteeing his safety in defeat. Compelled to abdicate by his brother's
        injustice, he gave a lesson to mankind, that though possessing more splendor, there was less safety
        to be found in palaces than cottages. Yet he so patiently bore the injustice that people believed that
        he rejoiced in dishonour as if it were a favor. I hold him to have sagaciously contemplated the
        conditions of royalty."

Oh look, an exemplum. Readers might recognize Hlöðr and Humli and the civil war from Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks, a connection first pointed out by Niels Matthias Petersen in 1834. Saxo adapted several elements from the saga like the holmgang on Samsey, the battle between the Goths and the Huns, and the material concerning Guðmundr. Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks is not the only text used by Saxo to inform this passage. The work of a certain moralizing Roman author was utilized too. Yes, it is of course Valerius Maximus' Facta et Dicta Memorabilia, from the book concerning happiness:

        "King Gyges was conceited about his kingdom of Lydia due to its abundance of wealth and
        military power. He came to Pythian Apollo to inquire whether any mortal was more fortunate than
        he. Speaking out from the hidden cave of his shrine, the god put Aglaus of Phosis before him. This
        Aglaus was the poorest man in Arcadia, by then grown old, and had never gone beyond the
        boundaries of his small piece of land, content with the produce of his farm. The sagacity of
        Apollo's oracle defined the true goal of a happy life, and not the illusory, and therefore gave that
        answer to one that insolently gloried in the splendour of his fortune, that he preferred a cottage in
        the calm security of content, rather than the troubles and anxieties of a gloomy palace. A small
        property without any fear rather than all the fertile fields of Lydia filled with dread. One or two
        pairs of oxen easily maintained rather than burdensome armies of cavalry and infantry devouring
        expenses. A small barn stocked with basic necessities that nobody would envy, rather than treasure
        hoards exposed to ambushes and greed from all sides. Thus when Gyges tried to induce the god to
        agree with his vain opinion, he learned where solid and true happiness lay."

The connection is plain to see. The dangers and worries of a royal palace in contrast to the safe, carefree content of the cottage. See also Saxo's verbal borrowing from Valerius:

        "Uerum profecto beatae uitae finem Apollo non adumbratum oraculi sagacitate conplexus est.
        Quocirca insolenter fulgore fortunae suae glorianti respondit magis se probare securitate ridens
        tugurium quam tristem curis et sollicitudinibus aulam" (Valerius)

        "ut plus splendoris, ita minus securitatis aulis quam tuguriis inesse. Ceterum iniurie tam patiens
        fuit, ut honoris damno tanquam beneficio gratulari crederetur, sagaciter, ut puto" (Saxo).

The early placement of this theme signals its importance for the rest of Gesta Danorum. The deeds of the first kings are intentionally vague, or rather, generalized. Dan, the very first king, is elected king due to his manly accomplishments. Saxo suppresses the details of these due to ideological reasons, but Dan's accomplishments are martial. Kings are expected to fight and be victorious. The second king, Humlus, is betrayed and captured in civil war. The message is that kingship is fraught with very real worries of envy, betrayal and violence, even from one's family, as witnessed by Humlus and heaps of subsequent kings in Gesta Danorum. The only way to succesfully navigate kingship depends on one's personal virtues and qualities. Is this the point of view from an outsider who admired the monarchy beyond all doubt? Or is this an author well aware of the burden of kingship, presenting it at the very beginning of his work, repeatedly refining and referring to it?

Read the book, Richard!