The Dream of the Dragon and Bear
K A R L H E I N Z GÖLLER
H e ( A r t h u r ) d r e a m e d that a dragon dreadful to behold,
C a m e d r i v i n g over the deep to destroy his people,
A t once s a i l i n g out o f the western lands,
W a n d e r i n g u n w o r t h i l y over the waves of the sea.
B o t h his head a n d his neck wholly, a l l over,
A d o r n e d i n azure, enamelled full fair:
H i s shoulders were scaled a l l in clear silver,
S p r e a d over the w o r m w i t h s h r i n k i n g points;
H i s w o m b a n d his wings of wonderful hues.
I n m a r v e l l o u s m a i l he mounted full high;
W h o m e v e r he touched was destroyed forever!
H i s feet flourished a l l i n fine sable,
A n d such a venomous flare flew from his lips
T h a t the flood, for the flames, seemed all on fire!
T h e n came from the East, against h i m direct
A b l a c k boisterous bear above in the clouds,
W i t h each p a w like a post, and palms full huge,
W i t h talons o f terror, a l l twisted they seemed
L o a t h s o m e a n d loathly, with locks and the rest
W i t h shanks a l l misshapen, shaggy and haired
U g l y a n d furred, w i t h foaming lips
T h e foulest o f figure that ever was formed!
H e reared a n d he roared, and rallied thereafter
T o battle he bounds, with brutal claws:
H e so roamed a n d roared, that all earth resounded.
So r u d e l y he hits out, to riot himself.
T h e n the d r a g o n d r e w near and dived in attack
A n d w i t h dire blows drove h i m far off in the clouds
H e fares like a falcon, freely he strikes
B o t h w i t h feet and w i t h fire he fights all at once!
T h e bear i n the battle the mightier seemed
A n d bites h i m b o l d l y w i t h baleful fangs;
S u c h buffets he gives h i m w i t h his broad claws,
T h a t his breast a n d his belly were bloody all over!
H e r a m p a g e d so rudely that rent is the earth,
R u n n i n g w i t h red blood like rain from the skies
H e w o u l d have wearied the w o r m through the weight o f his strength,
I f the w o r m had not wielded w i l d fire in defence.
T h e n wanders the w o r m away to the heights
C o m e s g l i d i n g from the clouds and claws h i m at once
T o u c h e s h i m w i t h his talons and tears open his back
B e t w e e n the tail a n d the top, ten feet i n length!
T h u s he breaks up the bear; it is brought to its death.
L e t h i m fall i n the flood, to float where he likes:
T h e y so burdened the bold king, on board the ship,
T h a t for bale he near bursts, in bed where he lies.
(760-805)
T h e m e a n i n g o f the prophetic dreams for the understanding of the
message o f the AMA has not yet been fully recognised, although there
are m a n y critical assessments of the D r e a m of Fortune, particularly in
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h attempts to determine the genre of the poem. In the
o n l y book-length p u b l i c a t i o n on the poem, W i l l i a m M a t t h e w s concentrates o n the D r e a m o f Fortune alone, while s u m m a r i l y dismissing the
D r e a m o f the D r a g o n and Bear i n a single sentence. It is, however,
evident that both dreams play an essential role in structuring the poem
as a n architectonic whole. T h e D r e a m of the D r a g o n and Bear stands at
the b e g i n n i n g o f the R o m a n campaign, w h i c h w i l l b r i n g A r t h u r to the
height o f his power, but at the same time reduce h i m to m o r a l degenerat i o n . T h e D r e a m o f the W h e e l of Fortune on the other hand, symbolises
his t u r n o f fortune and the d o w n w a r d descent of his life and fate. T h u s
b o t h dreams give shape to the p y r a m i d a l form of the casus.
T h i s is a feature peculiar to the AMA. K . - J . Steinmeyer has the
f o l l o w i n g to say about the allegorical meaning of dreams in classical and
m e d i e v a l literature in general:
1
. . . We can . . . investigate the dreams in Greek, Latin, O l d Norse, O l d
English and O l d High German literature; the result is always the same:
the events follow immediately after the dream report.
2
T h i s results i n the fact that the fulfilment of every event prophesied i n a
d r e a m must be sought in the passage following it. T h e relationship
between prophecy and realisation in the AMA, however, is entirely
different. J u s t as i n the Parthenon on the A c r o p o l i s each stone is
designed for a p a r t i c u l a r position, thus reflecting i n form and function
the w h o l e edifice, so, too, A r t h u r ' s dreams represent in an encoded form
his entire life, rise and fall, victory and defeat, political power and m o r a l
decay.
E v e n a superficial reading of the two prophetic dreams — especially
that o f the D r a g o n and Bear — reveals that their symbols carry the
weight o f traditional significance — harking back to archetypal concepts, but w e l l - k n o w n at the time. T h e greatest problem for the modern
reader is evaluating the degree to w h i c h the poet was b o u n d by
contemporary lore and l e a r n i n g . In the case of i n d i v i d u a l symbols it is
difficult to decide whether the author deviates consciously from established traditions, or whether he is merely ignorant of them.
B u t before we can even begin to speak in terms of the poet's i n d i v i d u a l
use o f such symbols, we have to examine their associations and
connotations i n the fourteenth century. T h i s is all the more necessary in
the case of the dragon and bear. B o t h animals are deeply rooted in
m y t h o l o g i c a l traditions w h i c h may have conditioned the author, and it
is o n l y against this background that we can determine how and why the
author deviated from the traditional symbolical pattern i n order to
p r o v i d e new meaning. It is neither possible nor necessary to pass muster
o n the entire complex of the medieval symbolism of dragon, bear [and
boar]. T h e D r e a m o f the D r a g o n and Bear as we find it i n the AMA
provides us w i t h a guideline and a goal as to the scope of the symbols to
be taken into consideration.
I n the C h r i s t i a n tradition the dragon is a symbol of evil, heresy, and
the A n t i - C h r i s t . P a r t i c u l a r l y relevant for iconographic representations
o f the dragon was Ps. 90.13, where C h r i s t is pictured as v a n q u i s h i n g
the d r a g o n . T h e representation of St M i c h a e l as dragon slayer derives
from R e v . 12. N u m e r o u s apostles of the faith followed i n his wake,
St George of E n g l a n d being the most memorable one. In processions, a
banner of the dragon preceded the Crucifix d u r i n g the R o g a t i o n D a y s
a n d followed it on Ascension D a y . T h e popular concept of the dragon
c a n be traced to the Physiologus. F o l l o w i n g Aristotle and other authorities, people were firmly convinced of the existence of dragons until the
seventeenth century.
In medieval astronomy the constellation of the dragon was regarded
as monstrum mirabile; C h a u c e r speaks of the 'tail of the d r a g o u n ' as a
' w y k k i d planete' (AstroL I I . § 4). T h e dragon and bear are often
mentioned together by astrologists. E d m u n d says of himself in King Lear:
' M y father c o m p o u n d e d with my mother under the dragon's tail, and my
n a t i v i t y was under Ursa Major: so that it follows I am rough and
leacherous.'
E s p e c i a l l y remarkable is the broad range of symbolical meanings of
the dragon, w h i c h reaches from the satanic fiend to the merciful
g u a r d i a n : '. . . they range in character from the destructive and terrible
to the benign and h e l p f u l . ' E v e n in pre-Christian times, the dragon was
regarded as the incarnation of the destructive powers in the w o r l d and in
the universe. I n nearly all mythologies he is a manifestation of anarchic
wilfulness and o f u n b r i d l e d a n i m a l power: '. . . with expanded wings,
. . . head and tail erect, violently and ruthlessly outraging decency and
3
4
5
p r o p r i e t y , spouting fire and fury both from mouth and tail, and wasting
a n d devastating the whole l a n d . ' St George's slaying of the dragon is
an archetypal legend, one not connected with the saint until the H i g h
M i d d l e Ages. A very similar feat had already been attributed to Perseus,
w h o saved A n d r o m e d a from being made a sacrificial offering to a sead r a g o n in obedience to an oracle. Even the old Babylonians had their
tales o f B e l , E n l i l a n d M a r d u k , who fought against dragons in order to
protect the w o r l d a n d the universe from destruction. A l m o s t always,
such tales centre on the victory of G o o d over E v i l , of L i g h t over
D a r k n e s s , a n d O r d e r over C h a o s .
T h e w o r d sea-dragon as a name for the V i k i n g s has, by way of contrast,
a more positive meaning. T h e Norsemen were thus called because the
p r o w o f their ships ended in a blue and red painted dragon's head. T h e
G o l d e n D r a g o n was the symbol of the House of Wessex; it was also the
ensign o f A l f r e d the G r e a t . A c c o r d i n g to Geoffrey of M o n m o u t h , U t h e r
saw a fiery b a l l in the form of a dragon in the sky, a premonition o f his
v i c t o r y over his enemies: ' M e r l i n had prophesied he should be K i n g by
means o f the d r a g o n ' ; hence his surname Pendragon, chief dragon.
I n this literary tradition, w h i c h is particularly relevant for E n g l a n d ,
the d r a g o n has mostly positive associations: it stands for kingship and
s u p r e m a c y . T h i s interpretation can be traced back to A r t e m i d o r o s '
Oneirokritika (second century AD) where we read: ' T h e D r a g o n signifies
the E m p e r o r . ' It is likely that Geoffrey was acquainted with this work.
A r t e m i d o r o s has seven dragonbirth dreams, foretelling the b i r t h of
seven sons. I n Geoffrey's version, the ray emitted by the dragon divides
into 'seven lesser rays . . . [signifying seven] sons and grandsons [that]
s h a l l h o l d the k i n g d o m of B r i t a i n . . . ' T h e battle ensign of the dragon
used by the R o m a n cohorts belongs to this tradition. A s late as the
H u n d r e d Y e a r s W a r , the English armies fought in France under the
sign o f the dragon, w h i c h signified the claim to supreme power. T h i s
s y m b o l i c a l m e a n i n g was not restricted to the English alone, as is evident
from the d r e a m of Herzeloyde where the dragon symbolises P a r z i v a l .
L i k e the dragon, the bear is a highly ambivalent symbolic a n i m a l .
N e g a t i v e associations are evident: the breath of the bear was regarded
as poisonous and his appearance in dreams was considered a bad omen,
foretelling illness or a long j o u r n e y . A c c o r d i n g to a very popular and
widespread tradition, the bear is an emblem of the sins of sloth and
gluttony, the M i d d l e E n g l i s h w o r d here signifies a m a n subject to those
p a r t i c u l a r s i n s . T h e devil himself was envisaged in the guise of a bear:
' foe deouel is beore cunnes' ( A n c r . 546), or: 'foe fende is here kynde bihynde
& assebifore ( A n c r . Reel. 139/29).
T h e ancient Teutons are said to have avoided the use of the o l d w o r d
for bear w h i c h they regarded as tabu. T h e w o r d can be reconstructed
from Avest. arsa, Greek
, G a l l , artos. T h e constellation of U r s a
M a j o r , the Greater Bear, is one of the best-known star groups. H o m e r
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
has a passage on arctus, the only star w h i c h never dips into the waves of
the o c e a n . I n nearly a l l languages the constellation is called T h e Bear,
u s u a l l y i n the feminine gender. In Anglo-Saxon countries, the constellation i n the northern sky is often called Charles' W a g o n . T h e original
n a m e , however, was A r t h u r ' s W a g o n , presumably because of the star
c a l l e d arctus. T h e explanation for the transfer of the name to C h a r l e s lies
i n his close association with A r t h u r .
E v e n the early C h a l d e a n s established a close connection between
Draco and the Bear(s): ' W i t h that people, it (Draco) was a m u c h longer
constellation than w i t h us, w i n d i n g downwards and in front of U r s a
M a j o r , and, even into later times, clasped both of the Bears in its folds;
this is shown i n manuscripts and books, as late as the seventeenth
century, with the c o m b i n e d title, Arctoe et Draco'
I n mythology the bear plays a far more positive role than might be
expected from the premises of folklore. In classical antiquity the reign
o f the she-bear was connected with peaceful c o m m u n i c a t i o n of the
nations. A u g u s t u s was associated with U r s a M a j o r : ' F o r it is Augustus
w h o brings peace to the w o r l d , who calls her to new and joyful hopes
a n d to the happiness o f re-established unity' ( O v i d , F . 6 9 7 - 7 0 4 ) . A s
the light-bearing A r c t o s - M o t h e r , the bear is associated with the light of
d a y a n d the colour white. N e a r l y always the image of the she-bear is
connected w i t h the benevolent aspects of motherhood; darker connotations are lacking. T h e association of the bear with motherhood is deeply
rooted i n almost a l l classical a u t h o r s ; the word ursa is used genus pro
genere.
I n nearly a l l C e l t i c areas, the cultic image derived from the R o m a n c e
countries was preserved intact. Even the orphic meaning of the bear
was retained, as can be ascertained from bear-names on C h r i s t i a n
tombstones. I n general we can say that the cult of the bear survived
longest in C e l t i c regions, as can be seen from the numerous C e l t i c coins
b e a r i n g the ursine i m a g e . A gem in the Museum Florentinum is unique in
that it shows, o n the one side, the she-bear as an emblem of peace,
happiness, and prosperity, and on the reverse side, the Goddess of
F o r t u n e (Tyche?) w i t h the attributes of abundance.
T h e dream o f the D r a g o n and Bear appears for the first time in
Geoffrey of M o n m o u t h ' s Historia Regum Britanniae (1135). In this work
there is a p a r t i c u l a r l y close connection between A r t h u r and the symbol
o f the bear; A r t h u r is the son o f Utherpendragon (the chief dragon), and
he wears a helmet 'graven with the semblance of a dragon . . . and a
g o l d e n dragon he h a d for s t a n d a r d ' .
T h u s we can presuppose a close association between A r t h u r and the
d r a g o n on the part of Geoffrey. It is no less certain that Geoffrey A r t h u r ,
as the author of the HRB was k n o w n to his contemporaries, knew the
C e l t i c w o r d A r t h u r = 'bear'; after a l l , he claimed to have translated a
book originally w r i t t e n in British into L a t i n . M o r e problematical is the
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
connection w h i c h E . Southward established between M o r d r e d and
C e l t , mordraig = 'sea d r a g o n ' . A c c o r d i n g to this hypothesis, A r t h u r is
to be identified w i t h the bear, and the dragon with M o r d r e d . T h i s
theory seems rather far-fetched, but it is supported by an episode in the
F r e n c h Mort Artu w h i c h must be regarded as one of the major sources of
the AMA. In the F r e n c h work there is a reference to a dream of A r t h u r ' s
in w h i c h a serpent emerged from his body, with the brutal intent of
b u r n i n g and destroying his country. Later A r t h u r identifies the serpent
e x p l i c i t l y w i t h M o r d r e d , so that there are strong parallels to the dragon
of the
AMA.
I n the HRB A r t h u r dreams of a bear flying through the air, whose
r o a r i n g makes the coasts tremble. F r o m the west he sees a flying dragon
a p p r o a c h , whose glittering eyes light up the entire country (patriam). A
terrible battle ensues from w h i c h the dragon emerges the victor, having
scorched the bear w i t h his fiery breath and cast h i m to earth.
T h e author uses not more than two sentences for the description of the
battle, m e n t i o n i n g only the roaring of the bear and the glittering eyes of
the d r a g o n . T h e superiority of the dragon over the bear is evident from
the very beginning. T h e r e is no mention of A r t h u r ' s emotional reaction.
H e reports the d r e a m to them that stood by ('Expergefactus ergo
A r t u r u s astantibus quod somniaverat indicavit'; X.2.U.24—5), and
these interpret the dragon as A r t h u r himself and the bear as a giant
w h o m A r t h u r w i l l defeat. But A r t h u r is not w i l l i n g to accept the
proffered interpretation, 'existimans ob se et imperatorem talem
v i s i o n e m contigisse' ( X . 2 . U . 2 9 - 3 0 ) .
Seen superficially, the dragon stands for A r t h u r as the embodiment of
o r g a n i c order and o f the idea of an E m p i r e . T h e bear, on the other hand,
stands for the giant, and at the same time for L u c i u s as an opponent o f
the concept o f ordo. B u t the name A r t h u r = 'bear', w h i c h was evidently
c o m m o n knowledge at the time, acts as a signal that the dream refers to
A r t h u r ' s victories over both the giant and L u c i u s only on a surface level.
Its true m e a n i n g lies in its function as a portent o f A r t h u r ' s downfall.
W h e t h e r Geoffrey's A r t h u r sees either the dragon or the bear as a herald
of his fate cannot be determined from the text. It would appear that
Geoffrey intentionally left the question open.
I n the Brut Tysylio, as translated by San M a r t e , there is also a report
o n A r t h u r ' s dream in nearly the same w o r d i n g as in Geoffrey. T h i s is
also true o f the battle of M o n t St M i c h e l — the first and simplest
fulfilment o f the prophetic dream — w h i c h follows immediately afterw a r d s i n almost the same manner as in the HRB. San M a r t e , however,
d i d not translate the C y m r i c original, but used the English translation
by Peter Roberts. T h i s version can hardly be called a translation, but
s h o u l d rather be regarded as a compilation o f several different
chronicles. Roberts himself admits to h a v i n g used the Brut Gruffud ab
Arthur, that is Geoffrey of M o n m o u t h ' s HRB, as well as other 'private
27
28
29
3 0
3 1
1
sources' in a d d i t i o n to the Brut Tysylio? Therefore it cannot come as a
surprise that Roberts' and San M a r t e ' s versions contain materials
w h i c h do not derive from the Brut Tysylio, for instance A r t h u r ' s battle
w i t h the giant of M o n t St M i c h e l , which is not to be found in the Tysylio
v e r s i o n . T h e r e the c a m p a i g n against the R o m a n s follows immediately
after the d r e a m .
T h e W e l s h report of the dream is clearer and more precise in so far as
the bear flying up from the South is called monstrum and thus identified
as the v i l l a i n from the beginning. H e descends on the coast of France
( ' F r o m the south . . . alighting on the shore of ffraink'); this can only be
a p p l i e d to the R o m a n emperor. W h e n the author mentions the beast for
the second time he terms h i m Arthyr = 'bear', thereby establishing a
connection w i t h K i n g A r t h u r , whose close association with the dragon
was o f course p o p u l a r knowledge of the time. F r o m this it follows that
the W'elsh author saw in K i n g A r t h u r the terrible bear, and at the same
time the invincible dragon. T h e reading of the dream suggested by the
by-standers proves to be wrong; only A r t h u r ' s interpretation of the
d r e a m is borne out by later events.
33
\
\
3 4
T h e A n g l o - N o r m a n W a c e made major changes in the character of
the D r e a m of the D r a g o n and Bear. T h e characteristics attributed to the
a n i m a l s do not create pressing associations either with A r t h u r as the
leader a n d protector of the B r i t i s h , or with L u c i u s as an aggressor and
tyrant. T h e bear is nearly as powerful as the dragon himself, whose
m a i n weapon is his brute strength rather than his wild fire. B o t h
a n i m a l s are geographically determined: the bear comes 'de vers oriant';
the d r a g o n flies 'de vers occidant' (2699, 2703).
A r t h u r reports his dream to the clerks and barons. Some of them read
it as a p r e m o n i t i o n o f A r t h u r ' s victory over a giant, while others propose
divergent explanations. But they all agree in regarding the dream as a
favourable omen. A r t h u r himself believes that the dream refers to his
battle against the E m p e r o r , but he is somewhat dubious about the
matter. H e concludes: ' M e s del tot soit el C r i a t o r ' .
I n L a y a m o n ' s Brut the author himself terms A r t h u r ' s nightmare as
fearful (feorlic, 12753). T h e K i n g is so terrified at the dream that he
groans loudly when he awakes. None of those about him dares to ask
A r t h u r what the matter is, until he reports the dream of his own accord.
A c c o r d i n g to L a y a m o n the hideous bear comes in a thunderstorm
from the East, while the b u r n i n g dragon approaches from the West. T h e
sea seems aflame w i t h the reflection of the dragon's fire. T h e poet
emphasises explicitly that the dragon burns the cities of the country — a
notable parallel to the AMA [(bur) [ßes he] suelfde], C a l . 12773, borwes
he swelde, O t h o M S . ] .
T h i s is the first hint of the fact that the
dragon w i l l destroy his own country. L a y a m o n emphasises the
fierceness of the battle, w h i c h at first appears as a match of equal
strength, as well as the uncertainty of the outcome. F i n a l l y the
35
36
3 7
;
I
!
j
[
j
\
|
\
I
j
d r a g o n slays the bear, casts h i m to earth, and tears h i m to pieces.
T h e author of the AMA in his representation of the dragon and the
bear takes u p quite a n u m b e r of motifs which can be found i n his
predecessors, but he also adds a number of essential traits. T h e dragon
is clearly different from those found in the sources. T h e author describes
h i m as a magnificent a n i m a l shining in silver and brilliant colours.
N e a r l y a l l his features are positive ones. T h e bear, however, is a w i l d
monster; a l l the epithets applied to h i m are negative. In summation, the
poet calls h i m the ugliest beast ever created. In the battle, the bear is at
first not only an even match, but seems the superior of the two; he w o u l d
have defeated his opponent i f the dragon had not defended himself with
his w i l d fire.
In contrast to a l l earlier versions the description of the dragon
precedes that o f the bear. T h e dragon comes over the ocean from the
West i n order to destroy A r t h u r ' s people: 'to drenschen hys pople'
(761). T h i s statement is repeated by the philosophers when they explain
A r t h u r ' s d r e a m . T h e y stress specifically that the dragon symbolises
A r t h u r : ' T h e dragon approaching over the sea, in order to destroy thy
people (to d r y n c h e n thy pople, 816), means yourself.'
T h i s interpretation has a great deal more significance, since A r t h u r
w h e n he speaks o f the dream only shows fear of the dragon, not of the
bear. I m m e d i a t e l y u p o n awakening the k i n g tells the philosophers, who
are well-versed in the seven liberal arts, that he has been tormented i n
his d r e a m by a dragon: 'and syche a derfe beste, H a s m a d me full wery'
(811-12). T h e d r e a m readers accept A r t h u r ' s premises, and tell h i m i n
no uncertain terms that he is going to destroy his own people. T h e y see
the bear as the tyrants who torment his people: 'foat tourmentez thy
pople' (824). T h e philosophers admit that the dream is a terrifying one,
a n d therefore add a consolation and an encouragement: ' N e kare
noghte, S i r C o n q u e r o u r , bot comforth thy seluen; A n d thise foat saillez
ouer foe see, w i t h thy sekyre knyghtes.' (830—1)
T h e interpretation of the philosophers, which is in itself contradictory, w i l l i n the end come true. T o w a r d s the end of the poem, the
author blames A r t h u r for tormenting his own people: '(he) turmentez
foe pople' (3153). J u s t as he had said of the bear, he says of K i n g A r t h u r ,
'(he) riotes h y m seifen' (3172). A r t h u r is, at one and the same time,
the dragon and bear.
A r t h u r ' s battle against the giant on M o n t St M i c h e l immediately
following the D r e a m of the D r a g o n and Bear is the first level o f
realisation o f the d r e a m . A r t h u r takes up the battle with the monster 'for
rewthe of foe pople' (888). T h e description of the giant contains similar
terms to that of the bear, and conveys a barbaric and hideous
impression. T h e disgusting features of an entire menagerie of animals
are catalogued, i n c l u d i n g the greyhound, frog, hawk, dogfish, flounder,
bear (!), d o l p h i n , wolf, b u l l , badger, boar and swine.
T h e giant is the grotesquely distorted caricature of a tyrant (tyraunt,
991) l i v i n g outside of any k i n d of law and order ('he w i l l lenge owt of
l a w e ' , 996, ' W i t h o w t e n licence of lede, as lorde i n his awen', 997). V e r y
m u c h like the bear he is an incarnation of the vice of gluttony and thus a
here i n the M i d d l e E n g l i s h sense of the w o r d . H i s macabre feast
described in minute detail is a malicious analogy to A r t h u r ' s overladen
banquet i n w h i c h twenty-three different dishes and eight types of wine
were served.
E v e r y Easter the giant receives the homage of fifteen realms and thus
owns greater treasures than A r t h u r himself, whose name is twice
mentioned by the nurse of the murdered duchess (1009, 1016). T h e
monster thus represents in addition the absolute perversion of the
medieval feudal system: single-handedly and with brute force he
subjugated kings and princes and decimated the population of their
countries. Parallels are also evident at the level of the half-line: the giant
receives the tribute ' o f fyftene rewmez' (1005), and A r t h u r ' s liege-men
are also ' o f fyftene rewmez' (837).
Similarities and parallels to the action of the dream are clearly
recognisable. In the same manner in w h i c h the dragon attacks the bear,
A r t h u r wades into battle. A n d just as the bear appears initially to be
more powerful, so also the giant seems at first more than a match for
A r t h u r a n d very nearly kills h i m . But i n the end A r t h u r , like the dragon,
strikes the decisive b l o w and emerges the victor.
O n a second level the D r e a m of the D r a g o n and Bear also refers to
A r t h u r ' s confrontation w i t h the R o m a n E m p e r o r L u c i u s . T h e imperial
ensign is the golden dragon (1252, 2026), w h i c h had traditionally led
the R o m a n cohorts into battle since ancient times. T h e R o m a n V i s c o u n t
also has a d r a g o n i n his coat of arms (2053). T h i s is further evidence of
the ambivalence o f this symbolic a n i m a l , w h i c h , in the AMA, embodies
the c l a i m to absolute power, and therewith war, death, and destruction:
' F o r thare is noghte bot dede thare the dragone es raissede' (2057). But
such commentaries can be referred to both sides of the battle — A r t h u r ' s
ensign is also the G o l d e n D r a g o n w h i c h he inherited from his father
Uther.
T h e s y m b o l corresponds to the deed. O f L u c i u s it also said that he
' t ü r m e n t t e z foi pople' (1954). H e massacres ' C o m o u n s of foe countre,
clergye and ofoer/ / foat are noghte coupable foerin, ne knawes noght in
a r m e z ' (1316—17). A r t h u r does exactly the same thing after the capture
of M e t z , as well as d u r i n g the campaign in Italy. A g a i n we find that
formulaic half-lines intimate associations which are quite evidently the
result of author intention. L u c i u s ' and his men's anticipation is
expressed in the same words as used for the giant and the bear: to 'ryotte
oure seifen' (1969).
B u t the focus o f the work is, of course, the death of K i n g A r t h u r — in
two places in the manuscript of the poem, at the beginning and the end,
it is entitled Morte Arthur. It is only from the morte perspective that the
t h i r d level o f realisation of the D r e a m of the D r a g o n and Bear can be
understood.
K i n g A r t h u r is so tortured by the dream that he falls i l l and believes
he must die. It is therefore evident that more important things are
involved than a battle against a giant or even against the R o m a n
E m p e r o r . A r t h u r ' s fate and that of his realm are at stake here.
In p r o p o r t i o n to his ever g r o w i n g success, A r t h u r becomes by degrees
more cruel, greedy, and u n b r i d l e d . T h i s is particularly evident in his
c a m p a i g n in T u s c a n y , where so many innocent people are brought to
death. A t the apex of his power A r t h u r calls out: We shall be lords over
e v e r y t h i n g that lives on earth! T h i s act of hubris leads inevitably to
m e t a p h y s i c a l guilt and therewith to downfall.
In this w a y the dream interpretation of the sages is fulfilled: A r t h u r ,
the d r a g o n , destroys his own people. T h e dragon was already an
a m b i v a l e n t s y m b o l d u r i n g the M i d d l e Ages. In the AMA, however, the
d a r k side o f A r t h u r is represented in the image of the bear (Arth). T h e
l a w - a b i d i n g and just k i n g becomes a tyrannical and barbaric conqueror,
w h o cares n o t h i n g for the laws of G o d and chivalry.
L i k e a l l other conquerors, A r t h u r falls by the sword. H e fails to pray
for the souls o f his fallen men, as is traditionally expected of noble kings
a n d heroes ( B y r h t n o t h , O s w a l d , and even G a w a i n in the poem). U n l i k e
G a w a i n , w h o explicitly states that he prays for the souls of his men and
not for himself, A r t h u r ' s only thought is for himself, his honour and his
great loss. It is true that, on a purely formal level, he dies reconciled
w i t h G o d ; a n d yet he remains recalcitrant, entrapped in worldliness to
the end. T h e last prayer he utters is one of thanks to G o d who granted
h i m sovereignty over a l l other kings and preserved h i m from shame.
T h e last c o m m a n d he utters is to have M o r d r e d ' s children killed and
flung into the water. K i n g A r t h u r has not learned his lesson.