The Study of Dragons Reflected In Beowulf and In Korean

Abstract_The figure of the dragon is one of the highest crystallizations of human

imagination, psychology, culture and ideology. Beliefs in its actuality, ideas of its

images, and descriptions of its activities have prevailed all over the world and circu-

lated within different cultures since antiquity. The dragon has been a popular motif

in art as well as in literature almost as long as it has existed in human imaginations.

Scholars have noticed this phenomenon and made their research to solve the geo-

graphic origin of the universal dragon. Some “Finnish” scholars reconstructing the

diffusion of folk narratives, indicate that folk symbols move from “more-advanced”

to “less-advanced people.” They reject such theories of origin as polygenesis or

independent invention of folk images, the origin based in the primitive mentality or

as the expression of an unconscious archetype. Another assertion that the dragon

has been invented independently throughout the world in accordance with the cul-

tural peculiarity of each country might sound attractive to those who object to the

chauvinistic attitude of the “Finnish” scholars in searching for the original dragon.

Similarly, however, this idea is not as persuasive as that of the “Finnish” school ei-

ther, since we cannot completely deny the fact that the dragon is a cultural product

which may travel from one place to another within the same category of culture, for

example, from the Middle East to Europe, and from China to Japan and Korea. In-

stead of searching for the unique origin of the dragon which responds to the cultural

needs of each nation or for the process of diffusion of its origin from the civilized to

the uncivilized, regardless of the cultural differences between the countries, bringing

our focus to the diffusion of the dragon within the countries which are in the category

of the same or similar culture is more helpful and less controversial for the study of

the dragon. As the dragon in Beowulf is one of the products invented in the cul-

tural environment of the Scandinavian tribes, in a broader sense, that of a Western

현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호(163~193)

* Daegu University, English Language and Literature, [email protected]

The Study of Dragons Reflected In Beowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales

Lee, Dong Choon*

http://dx.doi.org/10.35281/cms.2019.06.09.01.163

164 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호

The figure of the dragon is one of the highest crystallizations of human imagina-

tion, psychology, culture and ideology. An imaginary figure, it does not actually

exist. Nonetheless, beliefs in its actuality, ideas of its images, and descriptions of its

activities have prevailed all over the world and circulated within different cultures

since antiquity. Furthermore, the dragon has been a popular motif in art as well as

in literature almost as long as it has existed in human imaginations. Scholars have

noticed this phenomenon and made their research to solve the geographic origin

of the universal dragon. Their research pursues two directions: the origin of the

dragon in one time and one place and its “wave-like” diffusion,1 and the cultural

invention independently throughout the world.2 But their approach and solution to

1 The so-called “Finnish School”holds that a tale of dragons and their images have originated in one

time and one place, and “like a wave” has diffused over an expanding geographical area. The standard

works about the Finnish School are Kaarle Krohn, Die Folkloristische Arbeitsmethode (Cambridge:

Harvard UP, 1926) and Roger Welsch, Folklore Methodology (Austin: U of Texas P, 1971). Employing

the “Finnish historical-geographical method, “Fredrich William Holiday claims that the concept of

the dragon which first occurred in the Mas d’Azil mesolithic culture of some 12,000 years ago ex-

tended from Asia to Britain and down to North Africa by about 8,000 years ago; The Dragon and the

Disc: An Investigation into the Totally Fantastic (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1973), p.98.

Another folk-lorist, Elliot Smith, identifies the dragon as a mixture of the qualities associated with

three mythical archetypes of ancient Egypt: Hathor, the great Mother/Osiris, the Water God/Horus,

the Warrior Sun God; The Evolution of the Dragon (Manchester: Manchester UP, 1919).

2 Lesley C. Kordecki, “Traditions and Developments of the Medieval English Dragon,” Ph.D. diss. Univer-

sity of Toronto, 1980, p.187; “each culture responded to some similar need in their mythology to produce

culture, so are dragons in Korean myths and folktales born through the influence of

the mother country of Asian culture, China. It is meaningful to make a comparison

and analysis of the morphology and of symbolization between the western dragon

reflected in Beowulf and the eastern dragon in Korean narratives. Beyond the con-

trasting elements which result from the cultural and ideological difference between

East and West, the universality of the dragon from a psychological angle is another

aspect to be investigated through the analysis of Beowulf.

Keywords_ Dragon, Beowulf, Morphology, psychology, symbol

165 The Study of Dragons Reflected In Beowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales

the mystery of dragon origin have their own weak points respectively. Some “Finn-

ish” scholars, including Fredrich Holiday and Elliot Smith, reconstructing the dif-

fusion of folk narratives, indicate that folk symbols move from “more-advanced”

to “less-advanced people.” They reject such theories of origin as polygenesis or in-

dependent invention of folk images, the origin based in the primitive mentality or

as the expression of an unconscious archetype.3 Another assertion that the dragon

has been invented independently throughout the world in accordance with the cul-

tural peculiarity of each country might sound attractive to those who object to the

chauvinistic attitude of the “Finnish” scholars in searching for the original dragon.

Similarly, however, this idea is not as persuasive as that of the “Finnish” school ei-

ther, since we cannot completely deny the fact that the dragon is a cultural product

which may travel from one place to another within the same category of culture,

for example, from the Middle East to Europe, and from China to Japan and Korea.

Instead of searching for the unique origin of the dragon which responds to the

cultural needs of each nation or for the process of diffusion of its origin from the

civilized to the uncivilized, regardless of the cultural differences between the coun-

tries, bringing our focus to the diffusion of the dragon within the countries which

are in the category of the same or similar culture is more helpful and less controver-

sial for the study of the dragon. In other words, as the dragon in Beowulf is one of

the products invented in the cultural environment of the Scandinavian tribes, in a

broader sense, that of a Western culture, so are dragons in Korean myths and folk-

tales born through the influence of the mother country of Asian culture, China.

The aim of this paper is two-fold. I wish to make a comparison and analysis of the

morphology and of symbolization between the western dragon reflected in Beowulf

a dragon-like creature; “Mary Bernard shows the similar view on the origin of dragon that the dragon has

been invented again and again independently throughout the world; “A Dragon Hunt,” American Scholar

33 (1964): 422-27.

3 As a counter-argument against the “Finnish” dragonologists’argument that the Chinese dragon is a devel-

opment of the Babylonian dragon which originated in Egypt, the Chinese dragonologist, Qiguang Zhao,

presents a dragon statue unearthed in 1987 as an evidence to tell that the history of dragon in China is

much older than in the Babylonian dragon; A Study of Dragons, East and West (New York: Peter Lang,

1992), pp.15-6.


and the eastern dragon in Korean narratives. Beyond the contrasting elements

which result from the cultural and ideological difference between East and West, to

study the universality of the dragon from a psychological angle is the second goal of

this paper.

The dragon in literature consists of a physical substance and an abstract symbol.

Similarly, the Beowulf-poet describes the appearance of the dragon in so great detail

as to help the reader grasp the symbolic meanings which the characteristics of a

dragon’s body imply. The dragon in Beowulf is of a “hideous” color, otherwise un-

specified (3041)4 and it flies in the sky at night with a body measuring fifty-feet in

length (3043-44). On the other hand, it also slithers like a serpent (2287-88; 2293-

94) and has reptilian physiognomy--ðá wæs hring-bogan (2561) but smooth skin

(2273). The dragon has a gaping mouth with the sharp and poisonous teethlike a

serpent (2523) and also breathes fire:

hrán æt heortan. Hord-wynne fond

eald úht-sceaða opene standan,

sé ðe byrnende biorgas séceð,

nacod níð-draca, nihtes fléogeð

fýre befangen; ................................. (2270-74a et passim)

What is striking is that the dragon in Beowulf has sub-human qualities such as

feeling joy (2270-4), pride in his treasure and nocturnal displays (3043-46), and

rage (2220; 2305). Its den is a stone burrow near the sea, and rocky cliffs guard the

approach to the barrow which is supported with stone arches--stanbogan (2545). In

its burrow is a cursed treasure buried in earlier times (2230ff). The dragon is very

old, for it has guarded the treasure for 300 years since its discovery of the empty

burrow--Swá se ðéod-sceaða þréo hund wintra/héold on hrúsa[n] hord-ærna sum

(2278-9).

4 All citations from Beowulf refer to Frederick Klaeber, Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, 3rd ed. with

Supplement (Boston: D. C. Heath, 1950).


The morphology of the dragon analyzed above in accordance with the four main

categories--physiognomy, psychology, habitat and behavior--however, cannot be

said to be the representative form of the western dragons, though it ref lects the

characteristics--full of fire, with blazing eyes, huge bodies with wings and tail, and

hoard-guarding function in a dark area distant from human dwellings--most com-

monly found in the other dragon-lores. The Western dragon appears under such

a variety of forms and characteristics that it is impossible to present a fixed form

and a permanent residence.5 The Western dragon is a kind of arbitrary and flexible

amalgam of elements taken from various animals, which particularly evoke fear

and repulsion in men’s minds, for example, serpents, crocodiles, lions and prehis-

toric animals. Despite the western dragon’s predilection for water in all its forms-

-river, well, pool, lake and sea-- the dragon has its lair in a wood, or more rarely a

cave. On the contrary, the forms of the Korean dragons, in a broader sense those of

the Eastern dragons, are so homogeneous that most people have believed that the

dragon should have a certain uniformity in its physical shape and characteristics.

Moreover, unlike the various residences of the western dragons, the eastern coun-

terparts have been believed to live in the waters or the sky according to seasons.

The Chinese dragons, lungs, are divided into four classes according to their func-

tion in guarding the heavenly palace, giving rainfall, draining rivers, or guarding

treasures: heavenly, divine, earthly, and hidden.6 The functional classification of the

Chinese dragons seems to be based in part on the four classes of the Indian nagas

which perform the same respective functions as the Chinese counterparts: 7

Heavenly Nagas--who uphold and guard the heavenly palace

Divine Nagas--who cause clouds to rise and rain to fall

Earthly Nagas--who clear out and drain off rivers, opening the drainage courses

Hidden Nagas--guardian of treasures

5 For the study of variety in forms and characteristics of the western dragon, see Qiguang Zhao, pp.33-42;

Jacqueline Simpson, British Dragons (London: B. T. Batsford Ltd, 1980), pp.29-41.

6 Ernest Ingersoll, Dragons and Dragon Lore (New York: Payson and Clarke, 1928), p.45; Qiguang Zhao, p.8.

7 Ingersoll, p.46.


As the similarity of the classification between the Chinese lungs and the Indian

nagas suggests, it is probable that the Indian nagas had influence on the formation

of dragon-image in the East Asia, especially, China. This kind of functional classifi-

cation of dragons in China has been accepted by its neighbors, Japan and Korea, al-

though Korean and Japanese dragons existed long before they came under Chinese

influence.8

Not only in Korea but in its neighboring nations, Japan and China, all the re-

cords on dragon show that its residence is not flexible like the western dragon, but

permanent as a water deity. In particular, the Korean dragon, yong, has been be-

lieved to bury itself in the watery depths in the autumn and to ascend to the skies

in the spring. Unmistakably associated with the dragon’s habitat, water is the most

important thing--the requisite for life and happiness in an agricultural community.

Karl Wittfogel provides an effective approach to the historical function of water in

the “Oriental Society.” Wittfogel underlines the prominent role of the water-control

government in the “hydraulic society,” and explains the importance of the Eastern

dragon as water god in the concept of the “hydraulic society.” Wittfogel’s approach

is convincing enough for understanding why the mythical kings or founders of pre-

historic Korea are described both as a controller of water and as a dragon.9 In addi-

tion, in spite of various and multiple classifications of dragons depending on their

function and their characteristics, the eastern dragon with the identical structural

and representative elements, such as the nine classic resemblances, manifests itself

in ornamental representations: 10

8 Qiguang argues that Indian tales about dragons migrated into Japan and Korea through China and are now

blended with the original conceptions of dragon which each country has preserved; pp.27-30.

9 Karl A. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism: A Study of Total Power (New Haven: Yale UP, 1957). As far as I

know, though I do not know the case in Japan, it is very common in the records of Chinese mythical his-

tory that the mythical emperors of prehistoric China are usually described both as a controller of flood and

as a dragon, for instance, the legendary figure, Yu the Great, who has been believed to be a heroic king who

prevented the seasonal flood of the Yangtse River in the Xia Dynasty and brought fertility and well-being to

his people.

10 Number nine symbolizes the yang as perfect number in China. The yang which consists of the eternal prin-

ciples of Chinese cosmogony together with the yin symbolizes positivity, heat, masculinity, and light.


Most painters paint the dragon with a horse’s head and a snake’s tail. There is a

saying of three joints and nine resemblances: From head to shoulder, from shoulder

to breast, and from breast to tail--these are the joints. The nine resemblances are

the following: the dragon has the horns of a deer, the head of a camel, the eyes of a

devil, the neck of a snake, the abdomen of a clam, the scales of a carp, the claws of

an eagle, the paws of a tiger, and the ears of a cow. Upon its head it has a lump in

the shape of a boshan burner, called Chi-mu. If a dragon has no Chi-mu, it cannot

ascend the sky.11

Any dragon which does not possess this morphological structure cannot be called

a dragon, long, in the Eastern community. Comparing with the forms of animals

applied to the Western dragons, such as the snake, crocodile and even monsters of

little or no reptilian similarity, which are particularly abominable, aggressive, and

dangerous, except for a few, the animal images resembling the constituent parts of

the Eastern dragon body above are closely related with the primitive totems which

arouse a sense of awe or of reverence in human minds according to the cultural ne-

cessity. As an instance, unlike the dragon in Beowulf which is covered with smooth

skin (2273), the skin of dragons within the Eastern culture is made of fish-scales

like a carp. Though the difference in the notion of the carp exists within the three

Eastern countries--China, Korea and Japan--the Chinese have regarded it as such

spiritual animal that it can metamorphose into a dragon if it is able to leap the great

waterfall on the Yangtse River called “the Dragon Gate,” and will flow into heaven.

The Japanese’s hanging of the various kinds of artificial carp under the eaves on

some feast days tells as well that they still accept the Chinese’s belief on the spiri-

tual meaning of the carp. Differing from the idea of the carp in its neighboring

countries, the meaning of the carp has been developed in relation to one of its char-

acteristics-- “keen sleepless eyes”in our Korean culture. In Korea, the artificial carps

made of brass have been used in temples as well as in antique chests in the belief

that it watches and guards properties and treasures.

The constituent elements of the Eastern dragon taken from some benevolent ani-

11 Cited from Qiguang Zhao, pp.17-20.


mals reveal something of conventional expectations concerning the symbolic mean-

ing of the imaginary creature. As in the Chinese myths on the dragon, the Korean

mythological dragon is completely beneficent as an object of collective worship. The

dignified Korean dragon is symbolically connected with sky, water, spiritual nobil-

ity, good omen and imperial power. The link of the dragon with the sky implies the

religious disposition embedded in the mind of Koreans in the primitive times, who

worshipped the sky as an infinite transcendental place. They thought of the sky as a

place unattainable and even holy where an absolute and omnipotent being presided

over the human affairs of the earthly world, in particular, over those related to ag-

riculture. Probably, they believed that the sky-dragon was the very heavenly being

who controlled the natural phenomena, such as churning the black clouds, driving

the wave with wind and propelling the rains, because the Korean dragon is accom-

panied by clouds in most of Korean arts and literature.

It is natural that the dragon’s implication with the infinite height should arouse

some sort of aspiring deep thought and high nobility in human minds. Even the

Western scholar, Carl Jung, seeing the painted figure of a Chinese dragon, made

a similar comment: “...the dragon is all hollowed out and has a ribbonlike appear-

ance. This loss of substance shows that the dragon is not material but ‘spiritual.’”12

Moreover, the identification of the dragon with a deity who controls fertilizing

rains and winds affirms that the Korean dragon is closely related to a form of divi-

nation, Fengshui, literally translated as “wind and water.” As the direct influence

of the Chinese mysterious conception of Fengshui, a geomancy, on the Korean

conventional expectations concerning the symbolic meaning of a dragon, the Ko-

reans have believed that the dragon heralds good fortune in general, above all, the

birth of an emperor. Accordingly, it is not difficult to infer that the Eastern dragons

are very closely bound up with royal or imperial authority. As numerous Chinese

emperors claimed descent from a dragon, so do some Korean myths regarding the

foundation of kingdoms associate a dragon with the parents of kings, or record the

12 Carl G. Jung, “To Rene Kipfer,” October 21, 1960 in C. G. Jung: Letters, Book 2, ed., Gerhard Adler

(Princeton: Princeton UP, 1975), p.604.


miraculous conception of a would-be king after his mother saw a dragon ascending

to the heavens. Furthermore, the king’s affinity with a dragon was shown in the

names of things he used: the king sat on a “dragon throne,” wore a “dragon robe,”

rode in a “dragon cart,” and slept in a “dragon bed.” Both these mythical tales and

the link of sovereignty with a dragon reflect the esoteric meaning of a dragon which

has been deeply embedded in the mind of Koreans.

To sum up, the Eastern ones have homogeneous symbolic meanings: the sym-

bol of imperial power, dispenser of life-giving water, and herald of fertility and

propitious omens. The symbolic meanings implied in Eastern dragons strikingly

contrast with those of Western counterparts. Western dragons are symbolically ho-

mogenous, representing evils or obstacles which should be removed. The dragon in

Christianity represents spiritual evil, incarnate in the figure of Satan:

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan,

which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth and his angels

were cast out with him. (Book of Revelations 12: 9)

The descriptive elements of the dragon in Beowulf--how it is constituted as an

animal, how it acts in relation to its environment, what its characteristic modes

of behavior are--provide the key indexes to understand some of the conventional

expectations concerning the symbolic meanings of a dragon which have remained

in the minds of Westerners. Above all, as in other narratives of a dragon in Western

culture, in Beowulf we find that the dragon flies (2270b-2273, 2303b-14, 2760a,

2830-33a, 3043b-45a) and even breathes fire (2270b-74a, 2305-08, 2312-23, 2333-

35, 2546b-49, 2556b-58, 2569-70a, 2580b-83a, 2593-95, 269-77a, 2779-82). These

characteristic modes of behavior which the Beowulf-dragon has are highly impor-

tant to its function as a symbol of malevolent destruction and of death. As the great

calamity afflicted by the dragon’s fire (2315-19b), Beowulf ’s special order of making

a iron shield against the fire-spewing dragon (2337-41a), and the fatal assault of

the dragon on Beowulf all signify, the dragon’s ability to fly and to breathe fire is an


aggressive tactic against no defensive action. Considering the dragon’s behavior of

spewing fire in a historical period when the architectural forms of wood or thatch

were more prevalent than the stone dwellings, the Beowulf-poet’s intention of link-

ing the dragon with fire is much more clear. All this serves to strengthen the sym-

bolic combination of fire and death.

From the Judeo-Christian point of view, the symbolic meaning of a dragon as

a fire-spewer manifests itself. If the Eastern dragon owes much of its development

to the transmission of the Hindu mythology through Buddhist evangelism, the

Christian church and the patristic underthoughts have performed the parallel func-

tion of providing the conventional implication of a dragon with death or evil in the

West. In the Old Testament, where the demonic society is represented by Egypt and

Babylon, the rulers of each are identified with monstrous beasts. Rahab in the Old

Testament (Isaiah 27: 1/51: 9) is one of the names for the Dragon slain by Yahweh

as His spiritual enemy. The Western idea of the dragon as a symbol of the satanic

in nature is more clearly revealed through the attribute of the crooked sea-serpent,

Leviathan.13

Like the dragon in Beowulf, Leviathan’s breathing fire is symbolic of spiritual

evil and death (Job 41: 18-21) and this mythical sea-monster is described as God’s

permanent enemy which should be overcome by the Slayer’s sword (Isaiah 27: 1).14

In addition to the place of dragon in the Bible, the symbolic values of the dragon in

scriptural exegesis involve the meanings of satanic seduction: heresy, pride, wicked-

ness, corruption and so on.15 Among these is the dragon of Psalm 91, which Hugh

of St. Victor describes as a beast “with fiery breath” that “kills whatever it touches;

...this is luxuria, which greatly rules the unproductive” and lazy.16

13 For further information on the link of Beowulf ’s dragon with Leviathan, see Margaret E. Goldsmith, The

Mode and Meaning of ‘Beowulf ’ (London: The Athlone Press University of London, 1970), pp.142-3.

14 The psychomachia tradition of war between evil and good flourished in the stories of saints in the Middle

Ages. Especially, St. George’s and St. Margaret’s defeat of the dragon as the Devil incarnate through grace

were popular enough to guess how deeply embedded the symbolic meaning of the dragon were in men’s

mind in those days.

15 Kordecki, p.170.

16 Kordecki, p.161.


In addition to Beowulf ’s dragon’s attribute of flaming fire, other physiognomic

details, including size and coloration, and its habitat reinforce the symbolic mean-

ings of the dragon as monstrosity, Satan, and death. The Beowulf-dragon lives un-

derground near water:

tó ðæs ðe hé eorð-sele ánne wisse,

hlæw under hrúsan holm-wylme néh,

ýð-gewinne; ............................................ (2410-12)

...................................................

................................ þonne hnitan féðan,

sto[n]dan stán-bogan, stréam út þonan

brecan of beorge; wæs þære burnan wælm

heaðo-fýrum hát; ......................................... (2544b-47a)

The key elements we can infer from the above description of the dragon’s lair are

“underground” and “water” which both share the same symbolic meaning of death.

The Beowulf-poet’s linking of the dragon with its underground habitat reinforces

its identification with darkness, the other world and death. No where is more perti-

nent to the dragon as a cast-out from this world full of light and life in the human

psyche than the subterranean world of unknown bones, decay and filth.

Moreover, the affinity of the dragon with water in the poem contrasts with that

of its Eastern counterpart with water. While Eastern dragons are regarded as the

benevolent water-dispensers for life and fertility, the dragon in Beowulf does not

possess any apocalyptic meaning. Northrop Frye points out, in the West, “water

may be an apocalyptic symbol or a demonic symbol.”17 In the dragon-section of

the poem as well, as Northrop Frye notes, the dual symbolic meanings of water co-

exist. The esoteric meaning of water as life-source is represented in Wiglaf ’s sprin-

kling water on Beowulf ’s face (2790b-91a) and his bathing Beowulf ’s hands with

water (2720b-21a) as if performing a ritual ceremony of baptism. However, it turns

17 Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1957), p.146.


out that the Beowulf-dragon does not possess the esoteric implication of the Eastern

water deity. Rather, the negative aspect of water is emphasized: Hé[Wiglaf] gewérgad

sæt,/féðe-cempa, fréan eaxlum néah,/wehte hyne[Beowulf] wætre, him wiht ne spéo[w]

(2852b-54). Even further, the description of the mere of Grendel’s mother--fýr on

flóde (1366a)--confirms that water underground is associated with the symbol of

death, fire. Considered from the standpoint of the exegetical interpretation, Frye’s

water as the attribute of “demonic world” can be inferred not only from the Bibli-

cal Deluge (Genesis vi-ix) but also through the lurking of the mythical sea-serpent,

Leviathan, in the depths of dungeon-dark waters.

It is through a clear demarcation between the world of hall and the world out-

side the hall that the Beowulf-poet makes the malevolent implications with the

dragon more distinct. Some critics might object to making a connection between

the Grendel-tribe and the dragon as God’s condemnation and death in common.18

I also agree that the differences between the two monsters and the dragon exist in

their physical appearances, the ways of their interactions with the world of hall, the

way of their attacking it. Furthermore, the dragon’s ravage of the Geats might be

justified, citing W. W. Lawrence’s argument that the dragon’s “raids were not made,

like Grendel’s, out of devilish malice, but in defense of his treasure.”19 Though we

can admit the outlined individuality of the monsters including the dragon, it would

be wrong and futile to argue that the former two monsters stand apart from the lat-

ter with a symbolic idea of their own.

In spite of the difference between the Grendel-tribe and the dragon in the weight

18 J. R. R. Tolkien was criticized by T. M. Gang and Van Meurs for disregarding the difference between the

Grendels and the dragon. Professor Tolkien defines the first two monsters and the dragon as the single

word, evil, within a contemporaneous Anglo-Saxon heritage in conjunction with the increasing influence of

Christianity; J. R. R. Tolkien, “Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics,” Proceedings of the British Academy

XXII (1936): pp.245-95. Against Professor Tolkien’s view, Gang argues that it is hard to believe that in the

dragon the poet should “present us with a symbol for the same kind of evil that is nevertheless devoid of so

many of the specific characteristics of an evil creature”; T. M. Gang, “Approaches to Beowulf,” RES N.S. III

(1952): pp.1-12; Van Meurs shows the similar argument which Gang does; J. C. Van Meurs, “Beowulf and

Literary Criticism,” Neophilologus XXXIX (1955): pp.114-30.

19 W. W. Lawrence, Beowulf and Epic Tradition (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard UP, 1928), p, 208.


of ferocity and in the outcome of the hero’s engaging with the fight of the former

and the latter, the hero’s fight with these monsters can be explained as the same

one with God’s enemies, the devils, in the Christian sense. In other words, it is not

necessary to give mythological or allegorical significance to the monsters--Grendel,

Grendel’s dam, and the dragon. It is worth remembering that the fight with three

monsters has a symbolic and traditional basis. As Andreas Haarder’s enumera-

tion of the similarities between the descriptions concerning Grendel and his dam

and those concerning the dragon confirms,20 the evidences of the sameness, both

symbolic and descriptive, in variety between the Grendel tribe and the dragon can

decidedly put those monsters in the same boat as the descendants of Cain and the

symbol of death.

As the comparison and the analysis of Eastern and Western dragons indicate in

the light of their physical substance and symbolic meaning, the Western dragon

reflected in Beowulf represents almost everything opposite to the Eastern counter-

part. The key factors serve to characterize the former; for example, fire, water, and

underground, bring the symbolic meaning of evil and death in bold relief. On the

other hand, the latter symbolizes the opposite. Another important reason for the

Western dragon to be regarded as the symbol of Satan lies in its sexuality. Not only

in Beowulf but also in other narratives on the dragon no factors which verify the

association of women with dragons manifest themselves. However, as a symbol the

Western dragon represents the “evil” or “vicious” female element which the classical

myths and the patristic thought underlie. The Beowulf-poet describes the dragon

as “he” without any distinction of sexuality between the monster and the hero. The

Chinese dragonologist, Qiguang Zhao, argues that many of Western dragons are

male in appearance, but they have the female attributes which make them more vi-

cious.21 According to his argument, the Western dragon’s female attributes started

in Egypt, where the composite wonder-beast mingled a number of qualities associ-

20 Andreas Haarder, Beowulf: The Appeal of a Poem (Akademisk Forlag, 1975), pp.209-18; Adrien Bonjour also

provides a natural link between the Grendel-tribe and the dragon as evil; Adrien Bonjour, Twelve Beowulf

Papers 1940-60, with Additional Comments (Genéve, 1962), pp.97-106.

21 Qiguang Zhao, pp.57-61.


ated with three mythical archetypes: Hather or Isis (The Great Mother), Osiris (Water

God) and Horus (The Warrior Sun God). Citing the Jungian theory of anima (female

element in the male conscious) and animus (male element in the female element),

he sees that the anima represented by Hathor--the unscrupulous killer--inside the

male dragon Trinity, Osiris, is further strengthened by Kheft--an evil goddess--and

therefore Osiris’ original role of benevolence gradually disappears. He further con-

cludes that “since then until modern times, women have been compared to drag-

ons, snakes, and fiendish monsters by ‘men’ of letters.”

Similarly, the Greeks frequently talked about the dragon as female, and con-

tribute to the evil anima of the Western dragon. Joseph Fontenrose considers the

Sphinx as the dragoness or Medusa of the Kadmos myth.22 Like Medusa, the

Sphinx which is the composite monster of a woman, a lion, an eagle, or vulture

is sometimes called daughter of Typhon, a dragon, and Echidna. In addition, we

can notice Apollo’s combat with a she-dragon (drakaina) at Delphi in the Homeric

“Hymn to Apollo.” Above all, it can be conjectured within a Judeo-Christian tradi-

tion that the relationship of the biblical serpents, including Leviathan, with females

remained as the symbol of Satan in the mind of Anglo-Saxons under the increas-

ing influence of Christianity. Even the modern scholar, Paul Newman writes, “the

lance which, in formal Christian iconography, penetrates its f lesh can be seen as

the spearhead of the patriarchal religion attempting to impale the female principle.

It represents not good-versus-evil but man-versus-women.”23 Considered from

the viewpoint of the Greco-Roman myths and the Judeo-Christian tradition, the

Western dragon, though described as “he” in appearance, bears the evil anima, or

vicious female element which corresponds to the modes of its behavior.24

By contrast, the Eastern dragon which symbolizes imperial authority is hardly

ever considered female. The dragon in Asian culture is the traditional symbol of

22 Joseph Fontenrose, Python: A Study of Delphic Myth and Its Origins (Berkeley: U of California P, 1959), p.308.

23 Paul Newman, The Hill of the Dragon: An Enquiry into the Nature of Dragon Legends (Totowa, N.J.: Row-

man and Littlefield, 1979), p.17.

24 Not only in Japan but in Korea has the snake been regarded as the female image, for instance, the old Japa-

nese sea-god were often female water-snakes.


male power. Qiguang Zhao notes that the Chinese have believed “the cosmic world

is born of the rhythmic conjunction of the two complementary eternal principles,

the yin (negativity, cold, femininity, and darkness) and the yang (positivity, heat,

masculinity, and light). He further says that the Chinese dragon retains his original

Yangrole. However, what is common between East and West is that the sexuality

of dragon is constructed through male chauvinism and patriarchy. Interestingly, as

a peculiarity of Korean culture which does not appear in its neighboring nations,

there are a quasi-dragon called Imooki and a huge serpent called Kooreungi. This

cultural specificity is likely to have resulted from the mixture of Korean traditional

concept of dragon with Buddhist monks’introduction of Indian ambivalence to-

wards the Nagas. Differing from the beneficent nature of the Korean mythical

dragon, in Korean folk-lores, these variations are described as a fiend which fills the

land with fear and mischievous magic. Like the Western dragons, they are the ob-

stacles which should be removed for the welfare and order of the land.

What is interesting is that they share a common feature; hatred and revenge

rankle in their hearts out of their failure in reaching their final goal. The former in-

dicates the creatures who have lurked for three thousand years in the depth of pond

in order to ascend to the heaven, but has failed at the last moment. The latter has

the dual functions. Similar to the Western dragon, it positively functions to guard

the property of a family. On the other hand, it is usually metamorphosed into a vi-

cious and vindictive woman who has died of pining after her counterpart who has

deserted herself. The folk-tales relating to this kind of serpent conventionally end

with the slaying of the transformed woman as an evil. Furthermore, the expulsion

of evil in patriarchal community implies the recovery of peace and stability. No

tales in other countries can show the binary opposition of sexuality under the patri-

archy more clearly than the confrontation between man as a slayer and woman as

an evil-serpent and the former’s extermination of the latter.

Contrary to the quasi-dragons, strictly speaking, the serpents of enormous size,

which are portrayed as the symbol of devilishness and womanness in Korean folk-

tales, the mythical dragons in Korea, like those in its neighbors, are not the object


to be removed as evil, but to be worshipped as a deity.25 Beyond any slayer’s reach,

the Eastern mythical dragons reside in the heaven as an object of awe, or mir-

ror themselves in the depths of the human imagination. Moreover, as mentioned

earlier, to slay the dragon or even do any harm to it has been believed to be the

parallel to challenge or treason against the imperial power. Opposite to the concept

of dragon-slaying within the Eastern culture is that of dragon-slaying within the

Western. As the various habitats of the Western dragons imply, the Western drag-

ons have penetrated into human daily life as an evil-counterpart of human beings.

In other words, as evil and good coexist everywhere in our life, the Western dragon

symbolic of evil has been employed as the conflicting element of human reality

throughout the Western narratives.26

Owing to the influence of early Christian thought, the allegorical fights between

a saint, and the dragon who represents the Anti-Christ or paganism were wide-

spread and common in the Middle Ages. Of the innumerable saints who fought

dragons, the legend of St. George was most popular and well-known to the people

of those days.27 In addition, dragon-slaying knights also abound in chivalric ro-

mances.28 Although the adventures of the dragon-slayers differ in their final goal

25 There is no difference in the notion of the mythical dragon between Korea and China. Similar to the Ko-

rean mythical dragon, the Chinese counterpart is usually sacred and often associated with the rise and fall

of a dynasty. Furthermore, it cannot be slain by anyone. Unlike a Korean dragon as the absolute object of

worshipping, however, both Chinese dragon and Japanese dragon in their respective folktales have in com-

mon with a Western dragon which should be slain as an exoteric factor. According to Qiguang Zhao, the

Indian culture of worshipping serpents was imported by Buddhist monks to China and later merged with

the Chinese original concept of the beneficient dragon in the myths; see p.126-33.

26 The common motif of conflict between dragon and hero in Western narratives is one of the striking differ-

ences in the cultural dimension between East and West. For example, when we collate the original Chinese

painting with the Western one, the difference is clearly shown. The former drawn with simple colors, black

and white, usually depicts man in harmony with nature, or much more space is allotted to the depiction of

natural phenomena than to that of man in the Oriental painting. On the other hand, man is predominant

as the common subject of the Western paintings and more focus is on man rather than nature.

27 For the list of the Christian saints whose careers boast dragon fights, see Lloyd D. Gilbert, “The Medieval

Dragon: A Study Based on English Literature Exclusive of Romance Up to 1400,” Master’s Thesis. Colum-

bia University, 1929, pp.33-40; see also Charles Gould, Mythical Monsters (London, 1886), pp.198-9.

28 Among the most prominent are Sir Beves, Sir Torrent, Degaré, Lancelot, and Eglamour.


and in their style of pursuing it, all Western dragon-slaying tales fit a common nar-

rative pattern, that of the quest romance such as the quest for the princess, the trea-

sure, beneficent water or salt. Of these motives, the quest for the hoard is the most

frequent and the most interesting, since it touches on larger ideological issues in the

heroic tradition as in Beowulf. That is, the dragon-slayer tale in Beowulf not only

functions as a structural pattern but also as a social and psychological theme in the

heroic tradition.

Modern psychologists believe that our own unconscious can appear to us as an

animal or a dragon.29 In their view, a hero’s battle can mean the internal struggle

with his own feelings. Accordingly, the primary object of one’s quest is to conquer

oneself, more specifically, to conquer something scary and uncontrollable such as

the hidden fear, sin, and so on, which is deeply embedded in one’s mind. In his let-

ter to one of his friends Carl Jung says:

Thank you very much for the extremely interesting picture. It is a king of St.

George, whose lower half is a dragon. A most unusual picture! It is as though

consciousness were aware that the dragon is the lower half of a man, which in-

deed and in truth is the case. One can therefore take this picture as a representa-

tion of the inner conflict or of its opposite--an expression of the fact that dragon and

hero actually belong together and are one. This insight can be documented from

mythology and would have far-reaching consequences if it were examined from

the point of view of comparative religion.30 (Italics mine)

Here Jung sees the dragon and the dragon-slayer as a necessary unity represent-

ing an individual’s internal opposites. To put this another way, the human mind

consists of the contrasting factors of good represented by the slayer and of evil

by the dragon. According to Jung, the dragon is still within us, representing the

29 The part concerning the psychological approach to Beowulf has been published in the journal entitled Medi-

eval English Studies, “Dragon as a Psychological Archetype in Beowulf 2001 (9): 5-29.

30 Carl G. Jung, Letters, Book One (New Haven: Princeton UP, 1975), p.489.


“negative mother-image,” and the dragon’s guardianship of treasure symbolizes the

mother’s apparent possession of the son’s libido.

Extending the application of Jung’s theory of psychology further to the quest

motive of the hero against the dragon in Beowulf, we can realize that Jung’s idea

converges with those of other psychologists, Sigmund Freud and Jacque Lacan.

Interpreting the dragon in terms of the Freudian Oedipus complex, we can say that

the dragon represents a certain kind of oppressive factor in the hero’s psychological

growth. The battle between hero and dragon shows the archetypal theme of the

ego’s triumph over oppressive trends. Borrowing Lacanian terms of psychoanalysis,

the fear of motherhood or the dominance of motherhood in the “mirror stage”

represented by Grendel’s mother and the dragon is to be eliminated by the slayer

symbolized as the father-figure, and then the slayer as well as his people become se-

cure, in Lancanian words, attaining their manhood. Beyond the comparative study

of dragon between East and West in general, I want to direct the attention to the

nature of the dragon as the psychological archetype which is commonly described

as the hero’s other self in both Beowulf and Korean folk-tales.

Most critics of the Beowulf have agreed that the dragon-slaying episode lies sol-

idly in a Scandinavian legendary milieu.31 According to Jonathan Evans’s research,

there are at least three dozen dragons in Old Norse, but the most important one of

these is Fátnir, a dragon.32 Fátnir turns out originally to have been a human, but he

becomes monstrous in form as a result of his greed of ownership of cursed treasure.

Evans points out that this is the important element which frequently attested only

in the Old Norse texts: some dragons begin life as men but are later transformed

into dragons out of their corrupt internal motive or the effect of cursed treasure.

31 G. N. Garmonsway, Jacqueline Simpson, and Hilda Ellis Davidson, Beowulf and Its Analogues (New York:

Dutton, 1971); Jonathan D. Evans, A Semiotic of The Old English Dragon, Ph. D. diss., at the Indianna

University, 1984, especially see pp.111-51; Nora K. Chadwick, “The Monsters and Beowulf” in The Anglo-

Saxons: Studies in Some Aspects of Their History and Culture Presented to Bruce Dickins, Peter Clemoes ed.

(London: Bowes & Bowes, 1959), pp.178-93.

32 Evans, pp.115-6; the earliest form of this legend is found in the Poetic Edda, a collection of very old mythic

materials preserved in an early thirteenth-century manuscript, and it is retold in Snorri Sturluson’s Prose

Edda.


The theme of dragon shape-shifting in relation to the golden treasure in the Old

Norse texts is also ref lected in Beowulf.33 Unlike the striking contrast between

Grendel-tribe and Beowulf in the first part, the demarcation between monster (the

dragon) and human (Beowulf ) becomes vague, as if this is saying that Beowulf ’s

confrontation with the dragon psychologically means his effort to remove his inner

evil in vain.

Frederick Klaeber says that the Last Survivor who deposited the hoard in the

earth and the dragon who Beowulf fights in this episode are one and the same crea-

ture.34 Jonathan Evan extends Klaeber’s argument further so that he places the Last

Survivor, Beowulf, and the dragon in parallel through the common features among

them.35 He goes on to say that “Beowulf is a last survivor, a dying king without heir

(2799ff), of a passing people without a future, as shown in Wiglaf ’s words:

[N]ú sceal sincþego ond swyrdgifu,

eall éðelwyn éowrum cynne,

lufen álicgean; londrihtes mót

þære mægburge monna æghwylc

ídel hweorfan, syððan æðelingas

feorran gefricgean fléam éowerne,

dómléasan dæd. Déað bið sélla

eorla gehwylcum þonne edwitlíf!’ (2884-91)

That Beowulf ’s own image is mirrored in the dragon is revealed in remarkably

similar terms to describe both. Alvin Lee discusses some of the analogies between

33 Raymond P. Tripp and Peter C. Braeger argue that the dragon in Beowulf is actually a metamorphosized

man, and thus Beowulf fights a wicked king transformed into a monster for his avarice; see Raymond P.

Tripp, Jr., More About the Fight with the Dragon: Beowulf 2208b-3182 (Lanham, MD: University Press of

America, 1983), pp.12-8; Peter C. Braeger, “Connotations of (Earm) Sceapen: Beowulf ll. 2228-2229 and

the Shape-Shifting Dragon,” Essays in Literature 13 (1986): pp.327-30.

34 Klaeber, p.209.

35 Evans, p.204.


the monster and the hero:

At the time of their encounter each is represented as an aged protector of his hall:

Beowulf is “ frod cyning/eald eþelweard” (2209b-2210a, “a venerable king, old

guardian of the homeland”) and “ frod folces weard” (2513, “old and wise keeper

of the people”); the dragon is wintrum frod (2277, “old in years”); Beowulf has

ruled for fifty years (2733); the dragon is fifty feet in length (3042). Beowulf has a

splendid dwelling (2326) and gift-throne (2326-2327); the dragon has a mighty

treasure house (2279b-2280a) and dryht hall (2320). Both are presented as war-

riors who rejoice in battle: Beowulf is called har hilderinc (3136, “hoary battle

warrior”), and a few lines earlier the poet has described the monster as hilderinc

(3124, “a battle warrior). Early in the poem when the hero is fighting trium-

phantly with Grendel’s mother, the poet uses the formula secg weorce gefeh (1569,

“the man rejoiced at his work”); a similar phrase is applied to the dragon, wiges

gefeh (2298, “he rejoiced in the war”). The hero is called niðheard cyning (2417,

“a king brave in battle”), and his foe is agearo guðfreca (2414, “alert fighter”). The

adjective stearcheort (“stouthearted”) is used in describing both of them, Beowulf

at line 2552 and the dragon at line 2288. So also is the term aglaeca, at line 2592,

where they are both included in the phrase þa aglaecan (“the warriors”). Each,

moreover, is similar in his impact on the other: “aeghwaeðrum waes/bealohycgen-

dra broga fram oðrum” (2564b-2565, “each of the hostile pair was an object of

horror to the other”).36

Doreen Gillam also points out Beowulf ’s monstrous connections to the dragon:

In the dragon fight Beowulf shares some of the characteristics of his opponent.

The dragon cannot wield ordinary weapons, and Beowulf himself, although he

does eventually use conventional arms against his adversary, declares that he

36 Alvin A. Lee, The Guest-Hall of Eden: Four Essays on the Design of Old English Poetry (New Haven and Lon-

don: Yale UP, 1972), pp.219-20.


would prefer to fight without them, as he once fought against Grendel (2518 et

seq.). The dragon is a solitary, sinister creature; Beowulf is alone and deserted by

all his followers except Wiglaf....He is, like Sigemund in his feuding, like Grendel

and the dragon in theirs, implacably hostile....he sets himself apart from other men,

almost identifying himself with the aeglaeca he is to fight.37 (Italics mine)

Furthermore, the distinction between the monster and the hero is obscured even

more by the fact that the former possesses the sub-human and diabolical qualities

that the latter (human being) does. The dragon as the allegory of individual man

in this poem not only has the diabolical associations, as mentioned earlier, in a

Christian sense, but also is portrayed as an emotional and rational being who feels

joy, pride, rage, and a chill of fear at the sight of Beowulf (2270, 2298, 2305, 23-7,

2322, 2554, 2561, 2593, 2689). The ambiguity of the line of demarcation between

the dragon and Beowulf in their grammatical descriptions culminates in the poet’s

common use of the pronoun, “he,” in indicating both:

Stiðmod gestod wið steapne rond

winia bealdor, ða se wyrm gebeah

snude tosomne he on searwum bad. (2566-68)

In the sentence above, it is hard to figure out who he is. The poet’s indication of

the contrasting figures by the same pronoun, “he,” place them on either side of a

binary opposition. In addition to the similarities in describing the monster and the

hero, it is through Beowulf ’s revelation of his side of bestiality in his fight with the

dragon, as Doreen Gillam points out above, and through the poet’s treatment of

the treasure and Beowulf ’s attitude towards it that we can get closer to the modern

psychologists’ argument that the dragon represents man’s inner opposite.

In both West and East in primitive days, people buried treasure as a ritual and

37 Doreen M.E. Gillam, “The Use of the Term aeglaeca in Beowulf at Lines 893 and 2592,” Studia Germanica

Gandensia 3 (1961): p.168.


magical purpose that it both brings forth and preserves life for the next generations.

We can infer through the burial of the Last Survivor’s hoards and the dragon’s

guardianship of them that the pagan Anglo-Saxon also understood the fetish force

in treasure. The Beowulf-poet directs so much attention to the hoard during Be-

owulf ’s fight with the dragon as to arouse the reader’s curiosity. Furthermore, the

poet emphasizes that Beowulf himself displays keen interest in the hoard. Though

some critics focus on the contrast between Beowulf and the dragon in their at-

titudes towards the treasure,38 the poet in reality downplays the altruism of the

hero’s motive for undertaking the battle:

Beowulf maðelode, béot-wordum spræc

níehstan síðe: “Ic genéðde fela

gúða on geogoðe; gýt ic wylle,

fród folces weard, fæhðe sécan,

mærðu fremman, gif mec se mán-sceaða

of eorð-sele út geséceð!”

Gegrétte ðá gumena gehwylcne,

hwate helm-berend hindeman síðe,

swæse gesíðas: “Nolde ic sweord beran,

wæpen tó wyrme, gif ic wyste hú

wið ðam áglæcean elles meahte

gylpe wiðgrípan, swá ic gió wið Grendle dyde;

ac ic ðær heaðu-fýres hátes wéne,

[o]reðes ondd attres; forðon ic mé on hafu

bord ond byrnan. Nelle ic beorges weard

oferfléon fótes trem, ac unc [furður] sceal

38 They argue that the Beowulf-poet places the dragon in contrast with Beowulf in respect to their attitudes to-

wards the hoard: Beowulf as a “treasure giver,” by contrast, the dragon as a “treasure guardian” see Edward

B. Irving, Jr., Introduction to Beowulf (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969), pp. 78-80; J. D. Ogilvy

and Donald C. Baker, Reading Beowulf: An Introduction to the Poem, Its Background and Its Style (Norman:

University of Oklahoma Press, 1983), pp.171-72.


weorðan æt wealle, swá unc wyrd getéoð,

Metod manna gehwæs. Ic eom on móde from,

þæt ic wið þone gúð-flogan gylp ofersitte.

Gebíde gé on beorge, byrnum werede,

secgas on searwum, hwæðer sél mæge

æfter wæl-ræse wunde gedýgan

uncer twéga. Nis þæt éower síð,

né gemet mannes, nefne mín ánes,

[þæ]t hé wið áglæcan eofoðo dæle

eorlscype efne. Ic mid elne sceall

gold gegangan, oððe gúð nimeð,

feorh-bealu frécne, fréan éowerne!” (2510-37)

Beowulf ’s last speech to his retainers draws attention to his desire both for fame

and for the dragon’s gold. It reveals the ambiguity of Beowulf ’s motives for engag-

ing in the battle, compared with those in his engagement with the Grendel family.

Although he refers to himself as folces weard, he does not state that he undertakes

the battle in order to protect his people. He plainly says enough that he means to

win the gold or die (2532-7). Admittedly, Beowulf ’s concern for the people can be

inferred from what is said after the fatal combat. But the focus of his last words is

also given on his thanksgiving on the treasure:

“Ic ðára frætwa Fréan ealles ðanc,

Wuldur-cyninge, wordum secge,

écum Dryhtne, þe ic hér on starie,

þæs ðe ic móste mínum léodum

ær swylt-dæge swylc gestrýnan. (2794-98)

Furthermore, Beowulf ’s care for the men’s welfare above is weakened by his royal

retainer, Wiglaf ’s speeches before and after Beowulf ’s battle with the dragon:


................................ þéah ðe hláford ús

þis ellen-weorc ána áðhte

tó gefremmanne, folces hyrde,

forðám hé manna mæst mærða gefremede

dæda dollícra. .........................(2642b-46a)

“Oft sceall eorl monig ánes willan

wræc ádréog[an], swá ús geworden is,

Ne meahton wé gelæran léofne þéoden,

ríces hyrde ræd ænigne,

þæt hé ne grétte gold-weard þone,

.......................................................... (3077-81)

Wiglaf ’s words above not only mitigate his lord, Beowulf ’s earlier words about his

concern for the people, but also reinforce Beowulf ’s selfish motives for fighting the

dragon. Wiglaf ’s words in the latter predict the misery which Beowulf ’s action will

cause his people and country.

Margaret Goldsmith notes that “in moral-allegorical interpretation, the dragon-

ish visitations can be explained as images of the wounding sins of the people.”39 It

is very interesting to see the poet’s careful description of Beowulf ’s first learning of

the dragon’s destructive rampage. The poet’s attention is given much more on the

destruction of Beowulf ’s own dwelling than on the properties of his people:

þa waes Biowulfe bróga gecýðed

snúde tó soðe, þæt his sylfes h[á]m,

bolda sélest, bryne-wylmum mealt,

gif-stól Géata. þæt ðám gódan wæs

hréow on hreðre, hyge-sorge mæst;

wénde se wísa þæt hé Wealdende

39 Margaret E. Goldsmith, The Mode and Meaning of “Beowulf ” (London: the Athlone Press of the University

of London, 1970), p.130.


ofer ealde riht, écean Dryhtne,

bitre gebulge; bréost innan wéoll

þéostrum geþoncum, swá him geþýwe ne wæs. (2324-32)

As Jonathan Evans points out, there is a particular reason for the poet’s special

treatment of Beowulf ’s own home and his use of intensifier, “sylfes,” here.40 He

further notes not only that Beowulf is not provoked particularly by the dragon’s

general destruction of property, but by its destruction of his dwelling, but also that

these passages focus on Beowulf ’s personal feelings, attitudes and responses to the

dragon’s onslaught.41 Beowulf himself sees the dragon’s attack as a sign of God’s

anger upon himself personally (2329b-31a). As I have discussed so far, the poet’s at-

tention to the dragon’s hoard and to Beowulf ’s eagerness to set eyes on the treasure,

and Beowulf ’s sense of God’s anger enable us to conclude that Beowulf ’s engage-

ment with the battle is motivated by his own spiritual evils rather than by any other

reason outside himself.

When we interpret the treasure that the dragon hoards as the symbol of the spiri-

tual sins such as arrogance, concupiscence and greed in a Christian sense, Beowulf

also cannot be said to be an ideal king of morality, but rather a tragic one whose

inner mind is corrupted by his evil motives and worldly outlook. The poet’s fo-

cal point of the treasure lies in, in Margaret Goldsmith’s words, “the transience of

the material world.”42 The poet’s last words on the treasure hoard is Christian and

therefore assess the value of the buried treasure as “un-useful to men” (3163-68).

The poet’s negative idea about the treasure is revealed in his doubt as to whether

it is worth the winning of the hoard, before Beowulf sets out to win it. The poet

says that the hoard Beowulf has won is not enough to guarantee the survival of his

people; rather, it serves as the factor which symbolically re-enacts the tragedy of the

lost race. Considering Beowulf ’s acts in the light of Christian values, the dragon’s

40 Evans, p.200.

41 Evan, pp. 200-1.

42 Goldsmith, p. 94.


conventional images of pride and cupidity are those which Beowulf has committed.

Furthermore, if Dragon is envisaged as God’s enemy or evil force, Hellishness sub-

consciously exists inside Beowulf himself.

We can find several factors to support the argument that the dragon is a punish-

ment sent by God for a sin committed by Beowulf. As we have seen so far, the main

spiritual evils to which Beowulf succumbs are, in Goldsmith’s view, superbia (“pride”)

and cupiditas (“greed”). Goldsmith remarks, in reference to Beowulf ’s vulnerability

to the dragon, that “the pride of men, their desire to be self-sufficient, separates

them from the sustaining hand of God.”43 That Beowulf becomes estranged from

God is indicated in the fact that he does not mention God before or during his last

fight. In contrast with Beowulf ’s frequent mention of Drhyten (665-68/685-87)

before his battle with Grendel and with Hrothgar’s words of thanksgiving to Eald-

metod after Beowulf ’s defeat of Grendel (928-946a) which confirm God’s accep-

tance of Beowulf, however, Beowulf does not mention God before or during his last

fight with the dragon.

Moreover, considering Beowulf ’s death and the further misery of his people

entailed after it in conjunction with the poet’s statement that only God can grant

to man the power to open the dragon’s hoard (3051-57), we can easily notice that

he does not retain his Lord’s favor any more by his sins. In a word, the contest be-

tween Beowulf and the dragon figures the hero’s internal battle with his own devil

inside. Therefore, it is natural that he should be shocked by the sight of the dragon

which mirrors the image of his other side (2564-65). What the hero beholds in the

glittering serpent is his own image of bestiality and cupidity. Fidel Fajardo-Acosta

remarks that “the characterization of the dragon as a nacod (2273 ‘smooth’) gryre-

fahne (2576 ‘shining horror’ or ‘horror-decorated’) reveals its ultimate function as a

mirror--a smooth, shining surface--which reflects Beowulf ’s spiritual condition.”44

Consequently, Beowulf ’s coming to the dragon’s lair means his visit to his own

43 Goldsmith, p. 63/64.

44 Fidel Fajardo-Acosta, The Condemnation of Heroism in the Tragedy of Beowulf: A Study in the Characteriza-

tion of the Epic (Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989), p. 115.


grave.

Carl Jung was right when he postulated the collective unconscious which binds

people altogether by common experience, which is subliminally retained. Both in

East and West, all people’s basic collective unconscious finds expression in the drag-

on, an emotionally charged symbol. To slay a dragon [a serpent in the Asian coun-

tries] vividly expresses and reflects an individual’s repressed memories, thoughts

and feelings, and, in Jungian terms, “the lower half of a man.” In our collective

unconsciousness lies the seemingly universal fear for the dragons/the serpents

within the category of Asian culture. Men’s unconscious archetype of their reptil-

ian foe is more genetically transmitted than culturally transmitted. As we have seen

through the analysis of the dragon-slaying tale in Beowulf in the light of Jungian

psychoanalysis, people’s universal fear of the serpents and their desire to slay them

as a symbolic means of overcoming their inner enemy is also shown in Korean folk-

tales.

As mentioned earlier in the discussion of sexuality of the dragon, the Koreans

draw the sharp distinction between the mythical dragon and the quasi-dragons,

the dragon-sized serpents. They see those serpents as the agents of revenge who

were transformed from human beings, especially, from unmarried women out of

their evil-motives. Most of Korean folk-tales regarding the serpent-slaying episode

consist of several parts: coming across of man and woman in a worse environment,

sharing their love together for a certain period, usually during a short span of night,

man’s leaving his counterpart for doing some official works, his never-returning to

her and his new marriage, his former beloved’s metamorphosis into a serpent out

of her sorrow and spite, and the frequent haunt of the serpent and its harassment in

his dream and the female serpent’s accomplishment of revenge on her former lover.

What we should not miss in the structural parts are the two things; a serpent’s asso-

ciation with woman and woman’s transformation into a serpent out of her perverse

motives. The former has been explained earlier as the product of male chauvinism

and patriarchy. To put the latter in other words, the seeds of evil in man’s mind

bring out the visitation of the serpent as Buddha’s punishment, as Beowulf faces the


dragon sent by God as a punishment.

As the demarcation of the mythical dragon representing good and the serpent

representing evil has been made under the influence of Buddhism, so its influence

on the belief that human life consists of three stages--before birth, after birth, and

after death--has deeply remained in the sentiment of Koreans. That is, man is liv-

ing now as he is as the second stage of life-span whose first one cannot be known to

us, and finally will enter into the last stage. Especially, in Buddhism, the life-style

of the last stage depends on how he has behaved in this world. According to the

degree of his good and evil behaviors in this world, he can be re-born as an animal

or human being again. At this moment of metamorphosis, what is one of the most

abhorred animals is the serpent. Those who have committed a lot of sins in this

world have been believed to be transformed into a serpent as Buddha’s punishment.

Considered from the cultural, social and ideological dimension, there might be

quite clear discrepancy of the serpent-slaying episode both in the Western narrative,

Beowulf, and Korean folk-tales. For a representative example, while the Beowulf-po-

et presents the heroic society from a sympathetic Christian viewpoint through the

dragon-slaying episode,45 the Korean folk-tales reflect a male bureaucratic society

whose conservative ideas of order and stability are propped by Confucianism and

Buddhism. But the same unconscious archetype of venomous reptiles manifests

45 The dragon-slayer episode is predominantly a literary sign of heroism. The greater the degree of the hero’s

preparation before engaging with a fight and the sharper the contrast between the hero and his opponent,

the clearer the valorization of the heroic code. As examined in the latter part of this paper, however, the

opposition between the hero and the monster is reduced, and, surprisingly, the hero in the Anglo-Saxon

poem, Beowulf, fails to overcome the dragon’s attack, unlike the heroes of the Scandinavian analogues.

Consequently, the warrior’s heroic status and the realities of the heroic age recede in time and memory. The

dragon-slaying episode in Beowulf is effectively subverted to a radically skeptical critique of the methods

and motives of the heroic ethical system. For the readings concerning a criticism of the heroic ethic through

the dragon-slaying episode, see Larry D. Benson, “The Originality of Beowulf,” The Interpretation of Nar-

rative, Morton W. Bloomfield, ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1970), pp. 1-43; Harry J. Berger and

Marshall Leicester, Jr., “Social Structure as Doom: The Limits of Heroism in Beowulf,” Old English Stud-

ies in Honour of John C. Pope, Robert B. Burlin and Edward B. Irving, Jr., eds. (Toronto: U of Toronto P,

1977), pp. 44-50; Robert L. Kindrick, “Germanic Sapientia and the Heroic Ethos in Beowulf,” Medievalia

et Humanistica, NS, 10 (1981): pp. 1-17; John Lyerle, “Beowulf the Hero and the King,” Medium Aevum 34

(1965): pp.89-102.


itself in common.

교신: 이동춘(대구대학교)([email protected], 전화: 053-850-6021)

Correspondence: Lee, Dong Choon(Professor, Daegu University)([email protected], Phone: 053-850-

6021)

2019.05.07 접수, 2019.05.08 심사, 2019.06.12 게재확정

References

Benson, Larry D., 1970, The Originality of Beowulf, The Interpretation of Narrative, Ed.

Morton W. Bloomfield. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP.

Berger, Harry J. and Leicester, Marshall, 1977, Social Structure as Doom: The Limits of Hero-

ism in Beowulf, Old English Studies in Honour of John C. Pope. Eds. Robert B. Burlin

and Edward B. Irving, Jr. Toronto: U of Toronto P.

Bernard, Mary, 1964, A Dragon Hunt, American Scholar, 33, 422-427.

Bonjour, Adrien, 1962, Twelve Beowulf Papers 1940-1960, Genéve.

Braeger, Peter C., 1986, Connotations of (Earm) Sceapen: Beowulf ll. 2228-2229 and the

Shape-Shifting Dragon, Essays in Literature, 13, 327-330.

Chadwick, Nora K., 1959, The Monsters and Beowulf, The Anglo-Saxons: Studies in Some

Aspects of Their History and Culture Presented to Bruce Dickins, Ed. Peter Clemos,

London: Bowes & Bowes.

Evans, Jonathan D., 1984, A Semiotic of the Old English Dragon, Ph.D. diss. Indianna Uni-

versity.

Fajardo-Acosta, Fidel, 1989, The Condemnation of Heroism in the Tragedy of Beowulf: A

Study in the Characterization of the Epic, Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin Mellen P.

Fontenrose, Joseph, 1959, Python: A Study of Delphic Myth and Its Origins, Berkeley: U of

California P.

Frye, Northrop, 1957, Anatomy of Criticism, Princeton: Princeton UP.

Gang, T. M., 1952, Approaches to Beowulf, RES N.S. III, 1-12.

Gillam, Doreen M.E., 1961, The Use of the Term aeglaeca in Beowulf at Lines 893 and 2592,

Studia Germanica Gandensia, 3, 145-169.


Goldsmith, Margaret E., 1970, The Mode and Meaning of ‘Beowulf.’ London: The Athlone

Press University of London.

Gould, Charles, 1886, Mythical Monsters, London: W. H. Allen & Co.

Haarder, Andreas, 1975, Beowulf: The Appeal of a Poem, Akademisk Forlag.

Holiday, Frederich W., 1973, The Dragon and the Disc: An Investigation into the Totally Fan-

tastic, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Ingersoll, Ernest, 1928, Dragons and Dragon Lore, New York: Payson and Clarke.

Irving, Edward B., 1969, Introduction to Beowulf, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Jung, Carl G., 1975, C. G. Jung: Letters, Book 1 & 2. Ed. Gerhard Adler, Princeton: Princ-

eton UP.

Kindrick, Robert L., 1981, Germanic Sapientia and the Heroic Ethos in Beowulf, Medievalia

et Humanistica, N.S., 10, 1-17.

Klaeber, Frederick, 1950, Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, 3rd Ed. Boston: D. C. Heath.

Kordecki, Lesley C., 1980, Traditions and Developments of the Medieval English Dragon, Ph.

D. Diss. University of Toronto.

Krohn, Kaarle, 1926, Die Folkloristishe Arbeitsmethode, Cambridge: Harvard UP.

Lawrence, W. W., 1928, Beowulf and Epic Tradition, Cambridge: Harvard UP.

Lee, Alvin A., 1972, The Guest-Hall of Eden: Four Essays on the Design of Old English Po-

etry, New Haven and London: Yale UP.

Lyerle, John., 1965, Beowulf the Hero and the King, Medium Aevum, 34, 89-102.

Newman, Paul, 1979, The Hill of the Dragon: An Enquiry into the Nature of Dragon Leg-

ends, Totowa, N. J.: Rowman and Littlefield.

Ogilvy, J. D. and Baker, Donald C., 1983, Reading Beowulf: An Introduction to the Poem,

Its Background and Its Style, Norman: U of Oklahoma P.

Simpson, Jacqueline, 1980, British Dragons, London: B. T. Batsford Ltd.

Simpson, Jacqueline and Davidson, Hilda E., 1971, Beowulf and Its Analogues, New York:

Dutton.

Smith, Elliot, 1919, The Evolution of the Dragon, Manchester: Manchester UP.

Tolkien, J. R. R., 1936, Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics, Proceedings of the British

Academy, XXII, 245-295.

Tripp, Raymond P., 1983, More About the Fight with the Dragon: Beowulf 2208b-3182, Lan-

ham, MD: University P of America.

Van Meurs, J. C., 1955, Beowulf and Literary Criticism, Neophilologus XXXIX, 114-130.

Welsch, Roger, 1971, Folklore Methodology, Austin: U of Texas P.

Zhao, Qiguang, 1992, A Study of Dragons, East andd West, New York: Peter Lang.


『베오울프』와 한국의 신화 및 민담에 반영된 용의 연구

이동춘*

요약_실존하지 않는 상상의 동물로서 동서양을 막론하고 예술, 신화, 그리고 문학작품에 무

수히 등장하는 것이 용이다. 용이 하나의 문화권에서 또 다른 문화권으로 전파된 경위나 과

정에 대하여 다양한 학술적인 주장들이 제기되어 왔으나, 어느 것이 옳고 그런가에 대한 정

확한 판단을 내리기는 어렵다. 다만 동서양의 문화적, 이념적인 차이들에서 비롯되는 용의 형

태 및 용에 대한 인식과 태도가 동양과 서양에서 상이한 것만은 분명하다. 중국을 이웃한 아

시아 국가들에서 용은 매우 이상적이며 신비스러운 모습을 띠는 반면, 스캔디나비아 부족들

(the Scandinavian tribes)의 문화적 환경에서 잉태된 『베오울프』(Beowulf) 속 용이나 중

세, 르네상스 시대 문화작품이나 신화에 등장하는 서양의 용은 흉악하고 무시무시한 모습을

지니고 있다. 아울러 동양에서 용은 왕권을 비롯하여 복이나 상스러운 것을 상징하는가 하면,

서양에서 용은 악 그자체로서 퇴치해야 할 대상일 뿐더러 『베오울프』를 비롯한 서양의 신화

나 문학 작품 속 영웅은 용을 퇴치하는 것을 지상의 과업으로 삼고 있다. 그러나 심리적 관점

에서 용은 동서양 사이의 차이보다는 어느 정도 보편성 내지 공통점이 존재한다. 인간내면에

존재하는 무의식의 세계는 현실에서 우리에게 종종 사나운 동물이나 용을 통해서 비추어질

수 있다고 현대 심리학자들은 보고 있다. 고대 및 중세시대의 문학작품에 등장하는 영웅들의

용과의 싸움은 피상적으로는 인간에게 해를 주는 괴물을 퇴치하는 과정인 동시에, 다른 한편

으로는 영웅의 감정 혹은 영웅의 내적인 무의식의 세계와의 투쟁을 의미한다고 말할 수 있

다. 감추어진 자신만의 공포, 결점, 그리고 죄 따위를 작품 안에서 영웅은 용의 퇴치를 통하여

정복하는 것이라고 할 수 있다. 심리분석학적 측면에서 『베오울프』의 주된 에피소드인 용와

베오울프의 전투장면들을 분석하여 볼 때, 서양에서 용은 인간의 혐오대상인 동시에 두려움

의 대상일 뿐만 아니라, 이를 제거한다는 것은 외부의 적이 아닌 인간의 내면에 존재하는 상

징적인 적을 극복하는 것이라는 사실을 알 수 있다.

주요어_ 용, 『베오울프』, 형태, 심리, 상징

* 대구대, 영어영문학, [email protected]

Documents

The Study of Dragons Reflected In Beowulf and In Korean