Constantino 1
Charles Constantino
Professor Martin
EN 370
12/12/14
Đa aglæcean:
The Dragon and the Feud
In the second half of the poem, Beowulf has been king for fifty peaceful years. This
is shattered with the appearance of a dragon. For three hundred years, this ancient
monster slept over a massive treasure hoard hidden within a barrow in the ground. Then
one fateful day, a runaway slave stumbled upon it, and snatched up a cup from the hoard
angering the monster. In his final moments before, during, and after the fight, Beowulf and
his thane Wiglaf recall another time of strife and bloodshed, the ongoing feud with their
neighbors to the north, the Swedes. Why does the author of Beowulf choose this part of the
story to inject the history of the feud between the two tribes? Why is the final monster a
dragon? The answer is that the dragon, a satanic monster in Christianity, is a symbol for
what can be seen as the Anglo-Saxon’s duty to seek revenge on the killer of king and kin,
forever fueling a cycle of bloodshed and violence.
The dragon is the fiercest creature to come out of not only European folklore, but in
almost every culture throughout the world: a monster gifted with the power of flight,
armed with the amazing ability to breathe fire, and armored with scales that no man made
steel weapon can penetrate, makes the dragon a formidable foe. These physical attributes
are only rivaled in fierceness by the monster’s unappeasable greed. A dragon will stand
guard over mountains of gold for its entire prolonged life. All of these features make the
Constantino 2
final fight with the dragon in Beowulf the “heart of the adventure” (Sisam 9). Even the
greatest heroes cannot escape a fight with these creatures unscathed or even with their
lives. The dragon of Beowulf, however, does more than just exist as the final antagonist of
the epic. It serves the literary purpose of giving shape to the ongoing blood feud between
Beowulf’s tribe, the Geats, and their northern neighbor, the Swedes. The monster and the
hero clash in a battle of insurmountable proportion, both gravely injuring the other, and in
the process, destroy themselves. Despite the end of “đa aglæcean” (2593: those two great
beasts), the circle of violence between the Geats and Swedes is predicted by Wiglaf to
continue for many years to come.
The first element to cover is the dragon. What is a dragon, and where did they come
from? Cultures throughout the world from Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, Africa,
Australia, and even the Americas have some version of a dragon in their folklore. Robert
Blust theorizes that the modern idea of the dragon came from the observation of rainbows
by early scientists to explain powerful weather phenomena. He claims that these creatures
were the by-product of “meticulous accurate observations of weather phenomena and an
earnest but unsuccessful attempt to grasp the causality of natural events, particularly those
relating to rainfall” (519-20). In their attempt to explain these weather patterns, and with
the appearance of rainbows after an intense deluge, the mythos of the dragon was
developed.
Every culture developed some version of a dragon, but each culture regards them a
different way. While most Far Eastern dragons are seen as wise and respected creatures
the European dragon is the worst of the worst, “a sinister relic of the pre-Christian past”
(520), which makes one wonder why its origin is rooted with the rainbow, a sign of the
Constantino 3
Covenant between the Noah and God. The typical traits given to them in the stories
include: being guardians of bodies of water, such as springs; the ability to fly; scales; horns;
hair; an equine or hippo-like body structure; ambivalent sexuality; opposition to
thunder/lightning or the sun; colorful appearance; terrifies women and/or can impregnate
them with a demonic child; can breathe fire; poisonous breathe; causes floods, is an omen
of catastrophe, is an emblem of war, guards treasure, is connected to
immortality/longevity, and encircles the world (520).
With traits such as these, it is no surprise that dragons are often the antagonists in
many European stories and legends. However, what would motivate early men all over the
world to create such a fantastic and monstrous beast? Blust theorizes a physical and
symbolic motivation for their creation. The three physical motivations for the development
of dragons are: the early discovery of fossilized eggs or bones of the now extinct
archosaurs; direct observation of biological anachronisms still unknown to science, such as
the Loch Ness Monster or other cryptids and that our fear of dragons is a memory of
dinosaurs, pasted genetically, that the earliest mammals were forced to flee from during
the late Triassic (521). The two symbolic motivations are: that dragons are a symbolic
equivalent to a non-biological nature (in this case a feud) or to some physical force, a
natural disaster such as a hurricane, avalanche, or mudslide (522). Since the poet who
wrote Beowulf is believed to be a Christian monk, it makes sense that he would use a
dragon as the final antagonist and as a symbol of the pagan duty of revenge and vengeance.
In his sermons, Jesus taught his followers to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:38-39) and
to forgive those that wronged them. Therefore, the Anglo-Saxon duty and practice of
revenge would then have been heavily criticized when Christianity reached Scandinavia.
Constantino 4
In his article “Semiotics and Traditional Lore: The Medieval Dragon Tradition”
Jonathan Evans identifies three dragon motifs in Norse and Anglo-Saxon myth. Known as
“Boberg’s Index”, these traits are: fight with the dragon, flying dragon, and the dragon’s
treasure horde (87). One such early writing about a dragon is in the Gesta Danorum.
Written by the Danish monk Saxo Grammaticus in the late twelfth century, it tells the tale of
Frothi, the son of Hadingus of Denmark, who searches for adventure and riches and
overhears a song sung by a fellow countryman:
The guardian of the mount keeps the choice pile, a dragon intricately twined
and curled in multiple spirals, dragging the sinuous folds of its tail, lashing its
manifold coils and vomiting poison. (“Appendix B,” 271)
Already, the reader can see some of the character trademarks of the European dragon
found in Blust’s article.
Moreover, it is also Evans’s claim that in this text, as in many other Old English and
Norse texts, the dragon motifs described in Boberg’s Index “tend to occur within a single
narrative unit” (87). The song goes on to explain how to kill the creature:
To overcome it, stretch the skins of a bull over your shield and cover your
body with ox hides, so that you do not expose your naked flesh to the biting
venom and be burnt by the slaver it spews. (272)
The dragon of Beowulf also shares many of the traits of the dragon described in the Gesta
Danorum, showing a shared view of the place of dragons in European myth. R.M. Liuzza
makes note of this in his introduction to his translation of Beowulf: “the slaying of a dragon
is an ancient motif of which the poem’s own account of Sigemund is both analogue and
foreshadowing” (14).
Constantino 5
Equally referenced throughout Beowulf is the ongoing feud between the Geats and
the Swedes. It is not discussed in great detail until the dragon begins its own flight of
vengeance in search of the stolen cup. This feud, as opposed to the dragon’s feud, is fueled
by the killing of the Swedish king Ongentheow in battle by Hygelac’s retainer Eofor: Eofor’s
hand recalled his fill of feuds, and did not withhold the fatal blow (2488-89). It would
appear that the feud had already been going on for quite some time, but no origin is spoken
of. This gives the reader the impression that it is such an old feud that even Beowulf and
his generation do not know of its origins.
Throughout this entire section of Beowulf, the conflicts begin with the killing of an
individual of high status. The first significant line leading into the revealing of this conflict
is when the Swedes or the “Battle-Scylfings” seek out Heardred, the son of Hygelac and
cousin of Beowulf:
when the Battle-Scylfings sought him out,
those hardy soldiers, and savagely struck down
the nephew of Hereric in his victorious nation—(2204-06).
To invade a country just to kill one person shows just how much bad blood has developed
between the two tribes. The feud is then inherited and continued by Beowulf, who takes
revenge for the death of his cousin by aiding Eadgils, the only living son of Ongentheow in
overthrowing and killing the current Swedish king Onela: “He gewræc syđđan cealdum
cearsiđum, cyning ealdre bineat”, which Liuzza translates: “He wreaked his revenge with
cold sad journeys, and took the king’s life” (2395-96). With this, Beowulf claimed revenge
for Heardred and perhaps peace for his kingdom, until the dragon came, and brought
Beowulf into its “flight of vengeance” (Johnston 99).
Constantino 6
The most curious line of the poem has to be this one, describing the battle as the
dragon and Beowulf exchange blows: Næs đa long to đon, þæt đa aglæcean hy gemetton.
(2592-93: It was not long until those two great creatures came together again). Does the
author literally mean to call Beowulf and the dragon “two great creatures” or is this simply
a figure of speech? Liuzza offers some insight to this in the introduction to his translation:
“Beowulf is an intensely political poem; the poet is as intrigued by Danish diplomacy and
the bitter feud between the Geats and Swedes as he is by the hero’s battles” (15). The
primary motive for these feuds is vengeance, and “the duty of vengeance was very great in
pagan Norse culture” (Johnston 96). This supports the theory that the dragon is a symbol
of the feud (as perhaps Grendel is a symbol of the feud between Hrothgar and Ingeld). In
an interesting parallel, there is an Old Norse myth, which describing an act of vengeance
between siblings. Hod, the blind son of Odin is given a dart by Loki the trickster. When
Hod throws the dart, it strikes his brother Balder, which if it were not made of mistletoe,
would not be a problem, but since the mistletoe never took the oath never to harm Balder,
the dart kills him. Hod really is not to blame for the death, but another son of Odin kills
Hod in vengeance for Balder anyway (96). It would appear that vengeance was very
valuable to the Anglo-Saxons, even if the killer is a blood relative.
Despite the death of the dragon, peace will not so easily return to the land of the
Geats. Wiglaf, who will inherit the kingdom, laments about the bloodshed to come. Though
peace was established for a time with the Swedes due to Beowulf’s helping Eadgils, and the
son of Ongentheow ascends to the throne, he has not forgotten his feuds:
Þam æt sæcce wearđ,
wræccan wineleasum Weohstan bana
meces ecgum
Constantino 7
that friendless exile was slain in battle with the edge of that sword by
Weohstan (2612-14).
In their first attempt to unseat Onela with Heardred’s help, Eadgils’ brother Eanmund, the
exile mentioned above, quote was slain in battle with the sword Wiglaf wields during the
fight with the dragon by Weohstan, Wiglaf’s father. It would be no surprise to Wiglaf (in
fact, he is expecting it) if Eadgils came to seek revenge on Weohstan by killing his son. In
the name of vengeance, Eadgils will most likely attack the Geats and continue their feud.
One never forgets or forgives the slaying of king and kin in the Anglo-Saxon world, and like
the spiraling coils of the dragon around his hoard of gold, the feud holds tightly onto the
next generation.
Works Cited
Constantino 8
"Appendix B: Analogues to the Themes and Events in Beowulf." Trans. R M. Liuzza.
Beowulf. 2nd ed. Claremont: Broadview Editions, 2013. 265-74. Print.
Beowulf. Trans. R M. Liuzza. 2nd ed. Buffalo: Broadview Editions, 2013. Print.
Blust, Robert. "The Origin of Dragons." Anthropos (2000): 519-36. JSTOR. Web. 21 Nov.
2014.
Evans, Jonathan D. "Semiotics and Traditional Lore: The Medieval Dragon Tradition."
Journal of Folklore Research 22 (1985): 85-112. JSTOR. Web. 1 Nov. 2014.
Johnston, Ruth A. A Companion to Beowulf. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2005. Print.
New American Bible. New York: American Bible Society, 2010. Print.
Sisam, Kenneth. "Beowulf's Fight With the Dragon." The Review of English Studies 9
(1958): 129-40. JSOTR. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.