how to kill a dragon
TRANSCRIPT
Universitetet i Bergen
Institutt for Lingvistiske, Litterære og Estetiske Studier
NOFI 210 – Norrøn Filologi Særemne
Høst 2014
Studentnr.: 232070
How to kill a Dragon Dragons in ancient Germanic Heroic Legend. A
Comparison.
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
The Sources .................................................................................................................... 4
What is a dragon? ........................................................................................................... 5
The Dragon in.. ............................................................................................................... 7
The Old Norse Sigurd material .................................................................................... 7
Beowulf ...................................................................................................................... 13
Nibelungenlied ........................................................................................................... 15
Comparison and Conclusion ......................................................................................... 17
Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 20
3
Introduction
Slaying a dragon is the ultimate heroic deed, be it in ancient sagas, novels, movies or
countless video games. Dragons, in different sizes and shapes, have been a popular
motif for millennia and stories about dragon-slayers date as far back as the greco-
roman classical period.
In this essay I shall examine the stories of different heroes who encounter and
subsequently kill a dragon, namely Beowulf and Sigurd/Siegfried1 and illustrate what
makes a dragon slayer from a regular hero. Therefore I will look at the Beowulf poem,
Völsunga Saga [VS], the young Sigurd poems, Þiðrekssaga af Bern [Þs],
Nibelungenlied [NL] and Der hürnen Seyfrit [DhS].2
Similar to the dragon itself, these legends are a part of the cultural canon of their
respective countries/regions in Europe up to the present day. Beowulf was made into a
Hollywood-movie and J.R.R. Tolkien, one of the great philological scholars of his time,
was undoubtedly inspired by the dragon featured in Beowulf to create Smaug in his
book The Hobbit. The Sigurd and Siegfried material have had a similar impact in
modern days. The Nibelungenlied, and to a large extent its ON counterpart(s), inspired
Richard Wagner to compose Der Ring des Nibelungen, an opera-cycle which has been
as influential and controversial as it is long - 16 hours. This and comparable modern
echoes of the medieval legends shall not be discussed in this essay. Instead I will focus
on the heroes mentioned in their medieval context and their encounters with dragons. I
will first give an outline of what is attributed to a dragon in a medieval context. Then I
will discuss the individual source material and conclude with a comparison of the
material. In the analysis I will focus on how the hero interacts with the dragon and the
outcome of the encounter in its entirety. Special attention will be paid to how fighting a
dragon affects the hero and his life.
Scholars started studying the heroic legends in the 19th century and a lot has since
then been written about Beowulf and Sigurd/Siegfried and their encounters with
dragons. Beowulf’s bane has long been in the shadow of Beowulf’s fights against
Grendel and his mother. Siegfried’s dragon fight had a similar fate. Although always
being present in the collective perception of the NL, it has often been neglected in favor
of the motif of loyalty (especially in the 19th century, when Nibelungentreue became a
well-known expression) and the character of Hagen. In contrast, Sigurd and his
encounter with Fafnir gained popularity among scholars relatively early. New papers,
books and theses on these heroes are published every year. Thus I will have to narrow
down the selection of what I will discuss in detail. Including every aspect that has been
discussed by scholars to this present day is simply not possible.
1 One can argue that Sigurd and Siegfried are in essence the same hero in different literary traditions. 2 DhS will not get an in depth analysis of its own, instead I will include it in the concluding section to
illustrate similarities and transmission.
4
The Sources
Since there are three literary traditions that shall be dealt with in this essay and the
respective material is sometimes preserved in different sagas or poems in different
manuscripts, often differing significantly in their contents, it seems helpful to include an
overview of these manuscripts.
For the ON material, the most important manuscripts are: The Codex Regius [R], which
contains the young Sigurd poems.3 It bears the shelf mark GKS 2365 4to and is dated
to c. 1260 to 1280. Since 1971 it is part of the collection of Stofnun Árna Magnússonar
in Iceland.4 Then VS, which is preserved in the MS NKS 1824b 4to in the Royal Library
Copenhagen. Dated to roughly 1400, the latter MS is considerably younger than R.5 A
second prose piece is Skáldskarpamál which is preserved in what is commonly referred
to as the Prose Edda. The Prose Edda is preserved in the MSs R (Codex Regius, not to
be confused with the Codex Regius of the Poetic Edda; dated to the first half of the 14th
century), T (Codex Trajectinus, dated to c. 1595), W (Codex Wormianus, middle of the
14th century) and U (Codex Upsaliensis, early 14th century).6 Þiðrekssaga af Bern is
preserved in three manuscripts, referred to as A, B and Mb. The first two are copies of
older MSs which are lost, making Mb the oldest (extant original) MS, dated to the late
13th century.7
All citations will be given in Old Norse.8
By far the most manuscripts of a single epic poem are preserved for the Nibelungenlied.
All in all, there are 35 surviving German manuscripts, most of which are fragmentary.
Additionally there are also fragments of a Dutch MS.9 The most important manuscripts
are A (Cgm 34, Staatsbibliothek München)10, B (Codex Sanktgalliensis 857,
Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen)11 and C (Codex Donaueschingen 63, Badische
3 these are Reginsmál, Fáfnismál, Gripisspá and Sigrdrífumál. For this essay only Fáfnismál and to a
much lesser extent Reginsmál are of interest. 4 handrit.is, “Manuscript Detail. GKS 2365 4to.” 5 Finch, Völsunga Saga 6 Faulkes, Edda. xxviii 7 Lexikon der altnordischen Literatur, ed. 1987, s.v. “Þiðreks saga” 8 All citations of the eddic poems are from Neckel, Gustav and Hans Kuhn Edda, available online through
TITUS at the University of Frankfurt (Main), citations from VS are taken from Finch, R.G. Völsunga Saga. For Skáldskarpamál I worked with the edition by Anthony Faulkes, available online at the Viking Society of Northern Research. 9 Heinzle, “The Manuscripts of the Nibelungenlied.” in A Companion to the Nibelungenlied ed. Winder
McConell, 105. 10 Handschriftencensus, “Marburger Repertorium” 11 ibid.
5
Landesbibliothek Karlsruhe)12. There are slight to very notable differences in the
individual MSs and scholarship distinguishes two different types of the epic: Based on
the last line of the poem, which is either “daz ist der nibelunge nôt” (A, B) or “daz ist der
nibelunge liet” (C) they are referred to as the nôt-type or liet-type respectively.13
The three MSs A, B and C all date to the 13th century. After several decades of heated
academic debate, known as the Nibelungenstreit, German scholars eventually agreed
on MSs A and B being the closest to a (hypothetical) original version (giving B slight
seniority over A) and C a derivative of AB.14
Although from 1826, Karl Simrock’s translation is still used widely.15
While there are many MSs for both the MHG and ON material, there is only one
preserved MS containing Beowulf, the Nowell Codex of Cotton Vitellius A.xv in the
British Library, London.16 The MS is in its current state a composite MS, consisting of
two codices bound together in the 17th century, the one containing Beowulf is referred
to as the Nowell Codex.17 It can be dated to the 11th century18
What is a dragon?
Similar to the MSs it seemed useful to include an overview over the term and concept of
a dragon. There is no such thing as the dragon. As Cutrer notes, it is almost impossible
to approach a definition for dragon.19 In the ON and MHG context we can work with the
definition of a dragon being a serpent with supernatural attributes. Cutrer further argues
that many of those attributes can be traced back or are complements to their natural
attributes. Since a snake can live in both water and on land, are able to climb trees and
often live underground, it can be seen as “[...] being a liminal creature.”20 The dragon’s
outward appearance and its abilities are the combination of the snake’s natural
attributes such as venom and size with supernatural traits and thusly amplified form a
creature larger than life.21
12 ibid. 13 Heinzle, 105. 14 ibid., 106-109. 15 For this essay I used Das Nibelungenlied, trans. Simrock, ed. Heusler. It contains both the original
MHG and Simrock’s translation. 16 Fulk et al. Klaeber’s Beowulf, xxv. 17 ibid., xxvi. 18 ibid, clxii. 19 Cutrer, “The Wilderness of Dragons”, 10. 20 ibid., 14. 21 ibid., 20-27.
6
Furthermore, it is a being that is alien to society. It is the personification of fear, a trait
common to all Germanic dragons and it disrupts the social order by hoarding gold,
thereby preventing wealth from being spread.22 This aspect is not true for the dragons of
the riddarasögur and Nibelungenlied. Still, it is important since no (peaceful) meeting of
heroes, chieftains and kings in a medieval Germanic saga can go without the exchange
of gifts. The dragon’s role in saga can be connected with ritualistic traditions, with the
dragon often seen as resembling a rite of passage or initiation. The hero kills the dragon
and thereby achieves adulthood and usually gains knowledge and/or wealth.23 Cutrer
uses the term of a liminal passage performed by the hero. By that he means that the
hero fulfills a form of passage through the fight with a dragon which has a major
changing effect on the hero and his life.
To summarise we can say, that a dragon is a very large serpent, its power is often in its
tail and its weakness the underbelly.24 It is a creature that symbolises chaos, evil and
greed and is a hero’s ultimate challenge.
The individual dragons will be looked at in detail in the context of their respective
traditions.
Serpents are very important motifs in Nordic art25 and together with birds they can be
found in pictures containing “what may be an Óðinn figure”.26 Thus the serpent could be
seen to represent the underworld whereas the birds represent the ouranic.27 Although
this is not undisputed, one might thus argue, that the serpent is in fact an Óðinnic
animal.28 This would then add a new mythological quality to the Old Norse dragon. It
would suddenly give the dragon a much wider context and bigger part in the everlasting
battles of the gods and open a wide new range of speculation about the nature of other
serpents like the Midgardsormr or Niðhöggr. It would also cast a different light on the
hero who kills a dragon. One could then argue stronger for the hero being the champion
of the gods, ridding the world of deeply rooted evils, averting global disaster and
restoring order in the world of mankind.
22 Cutrer, 31. 23 ibid, 12-13. 24 cf VS chapter 18 “[...] þá laust hann [Fafnir] höfðinu ok sporðinum svá at allt brast í sundr er fyrir varð.”
The underbelly as the weak spot will be discussed later. 25 for further reading see Acker, “Dragons in the Eddas and in Early Nordic Art.” In Routledge Medieval
Casebooks : Revisiting the Poetic Edda : Essays on Old Norse Heroic Legend. Acker, Paul ed. and Carolyne Larrington ed., New York: Routledge. 2013. 26 Cutrer, p 16. 27 Ouranic is a term Cutrer uses in his paper, it means the opposite of chthonic, i.e. beings of the sky or
heaven and is derived from the Greco-Roman god Uranus, god of the sky. 28 Cutrer, p 17.
7
Also the word and its use itself can tell us something about how dragons were imagined
in medieval (Germanic) Europe. The (English) word dragon itself is a loan word from
Latin draco, an influence that also made its way into Old Norse (dreki). Previously the
words ormr or linnormr were used.29 Similarly, the German tradition has Lindwurm
before the arrival of Drache as loan word. Lindwurm is not etymologically connected to
German Linde (English: linden tree).30 This is important to note at this point since that
tree was often used as a place for assembly and court of law in medieval German
society31. In both VS and ÞS the terms dreki and ormr are used in a way that suggests
that there is no difference in their meaning,32 whereas in Reginsmál Fafnir is described
as “i orms liki”.33 Nibelungenlied uses only lintrache in stanza 100 (Siegfried comes to
Worms and Hagen tells his story) of the MHG MSs A, B and C34. In OE the word wyrm
is used. This implies that dragons originally were not the winged, airborne creatures we
usually imagine today.35 Except for Beowulf we can then safely assume that Fafnir and
Siegfried’s dragon were perceived
The Dragon in...
The Old Norse Sigurd material
The ON Völsung cycle has been passed down to us in the form of two prose and
several poetic pieces. The poetic pieces which are of interest for this paper are
Fafnismál and Reginsmál (the latter only as context for the interpretation, since it is the
prologue to the slaying of Fafnir) which are part of the young Sigurd poems. These
poems, although given separate headlines later and marked out as individual poems,
form one cohesive unit in the original.36
The fight against Fafnir and its aftermath is important for the story of Sigurd in several
aspects. It can be seen as the last test or challenge on his way to becoming a hero and
reaching adult-/manhood. It also serves to show Sigurd as an ideal hero in a medieval
29 ibid., 10-11. 30 Wörterbuch der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, s.v. “Lindwurm”. 31 Lück, “Gerichtsstätten”. 32 Cutrer, p 11. 33 Reginsmál, stanza 14, verse 6. 34 Badische Landesbibliothek, “Nibelungenlied HS C”. 35 The dragon in Beowulf is quite different in this specific aspect (as well as others), something that will
become more apparent below. 36 Haimerl, “Sigurd - ein Held des Mittelalters.”, 81.
8
understanding. Especially the young Sigurd poems emphasise the aspect of Sigurd’s
education.37
There are three aspects that support this claim. First of all the ritualistic nature, in which
fighting a dragon can be seen in ON literature.38 The fight with the dragon takes the
place of a rite of initiation. In its course Sigurd enters what Cutrer calls a liminal state:
He is on his own, in a place with an otherworldly quality, namely on gnitaheiði. Inhabited
by a dragon, this place is shifted into a realm where the world of humans and the world
of gods meet while being part of neither. This can be seen analogue to the burial mound
often used in rituals or seen as a place/connection between the worlds. Sigurd is in this
state dead to both worlds and when he emerges victorious he is a new man. He no
longer needs the advice of Regin or Odin, as he did several times before. Together with
the fame of his deed he acquires a large amount of gold, which makes him
financially/materially independent. This aspect is very strong in VS but very minor in R,
as shall be discussed below.
The second important aspect is the fight itself and the ensuing dialogue. The analysis of
the young Sigurd poems provided by Edgar Haimerl39 is very detailed and shall thus be
the basis for the analysis in this essay. By killing Fafnir, Sigurd proves his fortitudo, the
physical strength of a hero. But he also proves sapientia, knowledge and wisdom,
although falling short in some aspects. He makes up for these shortcomings by proving
his ability to learn. His first demonstration of sapientia is digging several pits instead of
only one, following Odin’s earlier advice.40 By digging a pit in the first place he also
follows another piece of advice he had gotten from Odin. In the disguise of Hnikar he
had told Sigurd, that he who first sees his foe shall be victorious.41
In analysing the dialogue between Sigurd and Fafnir, we shall first look at the structure
of this wisdom-type dialogue. In R it is the dialogue, an educational exchange of
knowledge that is actually important in this episode. The fight is but a short prose
section and only serves as context for the dialogue, which follows in extensive verse.42
Thus the analysis of the dialogue is based on Fáfnismál.
We have two distinct units which divide into three subunits each, first Fafnir questions
Sigurd, then in part two the situation turns and Sigurd now asks Fafnir. Each part ends
with advice given to Sigurd by Fafnir.43
37 ibid., 82. 38 Cutrer, 12-13; see above. 39 In his paper Sigurd - ein Held des Mittelalters. See previous references. 40 Although this happens only in VS and Haimerls analysis focuses on R the concept is still applicable. 41 Reginsmál 22 4-6. 42 Haimerl, 88. 43 ibid.
9
Haimerl’s division of the dialogue in Fáfnismál provides a good overview and shall thus
be quoted in full:
“Teil 1: Fafnirs Fragen an Sigurd a: Nach dem Namen des Täters (Fm.1-4) b: Nach dem Namen des Rattäters (Fm.5-8) c: Fafnirs Rat an Sigurd (Fm.9-11)
Teil 2: Sigurds Fragen an Fafnir
a: Wissensgespräch (Fm.12-15) b: Sigurd hinterfragt Fafnirs Begriff von Tapferkeit (Fm.16-19) c: Fafnirs Rat an Sigurd (Fm.20-22)”44
The first part begins with Fafnir wanting to know who dealt him the deathly blow. He
calls Sigurd sveinn to belittle him. What ensues then is a senna with the typical
exchange of provocations.45 It shows Sigurd’s traits of character (i.e. lack of self-control
when provoked) and his ability to learn from mistakes. At first Fafnir manages to
provoke Sigurd into giving up his name and ancestry. Here Sigurd shows a lack of self-
control and sapientia.46 As Fafnir tries to provoke him again, this time into giving up the
name of Regin, Sigurd does not repeat his former mistake. The structure of the dialogue
further emphasises this. Fafnir’s questions in 1b exactly resemble the questions of 1a,
the first provocation is followed by an even stronger one. The difference is Sigurd’s
reaction, showing his progress.47 Instead, he goes into the offensive “[...] und behauptet
sich durch den Hinweis auf seine eben vollbrachte Heldentat [...]”.48
Yet Sigurd blatantly discards Fafnir’s advice concerning the hoard and its curse. He
does not see it as advice but as “[...] erneute Dominanzsetzung [...]”.49
In part two Sigurd now questions Fafnir about mythological, almost eschatological
matters. The fact that Fafnir is no longer the one dominating the conversation shows
that Sigurd is now also achieving intellectual dominance in addition to the physical.
Sigurd asks about the Norns and the the last stand of the gods against Surtr. These
questions resemble the beginning and end of a hero’s life as well as knowledge about
the nature of a hero.50
44 ibid. 45 Haimerl uses the terms “Pejorisierung” and “Dominanzsetzung” which mean belittlement or a
derogatory action and assertion of dominance respectively. 46 Haimerl remarks, that Sigurd should have known better, since Regin told him the story about Andavri
and Loki and thus it should have been clear to Sigurd how important it is to keep one’s name secret from one’s enemy. Furthermore the way Sigurd answers is corresponds to Andvari’s speech. 47 Haimerl, 88-90. 48 ibid, 90. 49 ibid. 50 ibid, 91.
10
As Fafnir recounts his deeds, Haimerl raises the question if he starts to reflect on his life
and regrets what he has done.51 Sigurd dismisses this and instead boasts his superior
strength. He is fascinated by the Ægishjálmr, which he subsequently takes from Fafnirs
lair before he takes any other items (except the gold, which he takes first).52
In 2c Fafnir repeats his warning and in the light of his previous thoughts on his own life
they appear even more as advice than a petite and selfish attempt to deter Sigurd from
acquiring the gold.53 When comparing Sigurd’s answer to Fafnir’s speech, Sigurd’s
growth in sapientia becomes once more apparent. Fáfnismál 20 and 21 show this:
20.
"Ræð ek þér nú, Sigurðr,
en þú ráð nemir,
ok ríð heim heðan;
it gjalla gull
ok it glóðrauða fé,
þér verða þeir baugar at bana."
21.
"Ráð er þér ráðit,
en ek ríða mun
til þess gulls, er í lyngvi liggr,
en þú, Fáfnir,
ligg í fjörbrotum,
þar er þik hel hafi."54
Sigurd chooses his words very deliberately, using the same words Fafnir used. Thus he
takes up Fafnir’s argument and turns it against him.55 Instead of his own death by the
course of the gold, he now predicts Fafnir’s death.
51 ibid. 52 ibid. 53 ibid. 54 Fáfnismál, stanzas 20-21. 55 ibid.
11
Even his last warning goes unheard, as did all his warnings and advices before, as he
points out the impending danger for Sigurd by the hands of Regin. In the end he has no
choice but to admit defeat. In his last words “þitt varð nú meira megin.”56 he recognises
Sigurd’s superiority in both fortitudo and sapientia.57
The third aspect, which in a way also includes the previous two, is Sigurd killing Regin.
While Regin has to avenge his brother and betray his apprentice and foster son, Sigurd
remains faithful. He has fulfilled the quest of slaying the dragon and it could be
expected, that he had already entered manhood. Yet he takes Regin’s order and roasts
the heart of the dragon, completely unaware of Regin’s impending betrayal which he
should have anticipated since he had just killed Regin’s brother. Once more Sigurd
needs help, this time birds come to his rescue. But by killing Regin, Sigurd finally
reaches manhood. He killed his master and has thereby proven to be superior and
emancipated. He leaves his old dwelling and now sets out into the world, this time on
his own.
After killing Fafnir, Sigurd gets a new name, he is now called Sigurd Fafnir’s bane
(Sigurðr Fáfnisbana in the ON). This illustrates how Sigurd has changed through the
course of his youth. His own deeds now carry enough weight to even become a part of
his name. It also shows that killing Fafnir was not a fight like any other nor was its only
point to give Sigurd the attribute dragon slayer. It can be considered a major milestone
in Sigurd’s life. Riding off on Grani’s back he leaves his old life behind. He leaves
behind a Sigurd who was in constant need of advice and help.
A different account of Sigurd’s youth can be found in Þiðrekssaga af Bern. In this saga,
Sigurd is not sent out to kill a dragon nor does he win a giant treasure by doing so. His
master’s name is not Regin either but Mimir, reminiscent of the giant that took Odin’s
eye.58 When reading Þs and comparing it to the Nibelungenlied and the Völsung
material it is easy to notice, that “[...] die überlieferung der Þs in ihrem kerne
niederdeutsch ist [...]”59. The way this story is narrated shows strong parallels to the
MHG Der hürnen Seyfrit. Both contain in essence the same episode about
Sigurd/Siegfried, only the name was changed to Sigurd in ON. This gives a glimpse into
the mechanisms of literary transmission from Germany to Scandinavia.60
56 Fáfnismál, 22. 57 Haimerl, 92; In my opinion Fafnir references to both the fight and the dialogue, although Haimerl
remarks that he thinks it improbable since Fafnir says “nú”. 58 cf Völuspá 28-29. 59 Polak, Untersuchungen über die sage vom Burgundenuntergang, 428; This paper deals with the end of
the Burgundians and is thus out of the scope of this essay. 60 Þs is of course not an Old Norse translation of DhS but the close connection is apparent and it can
thus be assumed that they share the underlying material.
12
In Þs it is the forest that occupies the liminal space.61 Sigurd enters the forest as a
young man and leaves it as an adult. He proves his rise to manhood by slaying his
master, thus finishing his time of apprenticeship (in a rather drastic fashion). He kills his
master for an obvious and a literary reason. The obvious one is of course the fact that
his master betrayed him while from a literary point of view this demonstrates that
Sigurðr has learned everything Mimir could teach him and has surpassed his master
(same as VS).
The dragon in Þs also seems less animate and more like a prop than in the rest of the
Sigurd material.
61 Cutrer uses this term to describe a place where the hero fulfills his liminal passage, cf the above
passages about the dragon and Sigurd.
13
Beowulf
Beowulf features two dragons which are slain by heroes. The first one is slain by
Sigemund. This is a tale recounted by a poet at king Hrothgar's court after Beowulf’s
victory over Grendel. It is Sigemund (Sigurd’s father in the Old Norse tradition) and not
Sigurd who slays the dragon in this version and the purpose of this part can be seen as
comparing Beowulf to Sigemund. Beowulf later on slays a dragon himself, adding to the
similarities. One can assume that the audience of the time was familiar with the full story
so briefly and incomplete narrated at this point.62 Although interesting, I unfortunately
had to exclude any further analysis of this episode, although it directly relates to the ON
material.
In the passages leading up to his last fight, Beowulf is shown as an aged but still
powerful hero. He knows this fight might very well be his last. He does not seek the
battle himself as he did with Grendel and his mother but acts as a king, responsible for
his subjects. The second dragon in Beowulf, as in the Völsung material, guards a giant
hoard of gold by laying on it in a subterranean hideout. This one even lives in a burial
mound, adding to the idea of liminality and already signifying Beowulf’s impending
doom.63
Cutrer’s concept of liminality and liminal passage can be applied here as well as to the
ON material above but neither to such big an extent nor does it provide that much
insight. The hero does fulfill a liminal passage (in dying, passing on) and the battle does
take place in a burial mound, a place, according to Cutrer, which has big ritualistic
meaning, yet seeing his fight as a rite of passage does not make as much sense as it
does with Sigurd.64
Instead, it seems more meaningful to see Beowulf as a Germanic heroic figure blended
with Christian saviour motifs. The author of Beowulf tried without doubt to reconcile the
pagan ancestors of his people with the Christian present “in a way which skillfully blends
the Germanic hero and the Christian saint.”65 If seen in this way, Beowulf has no other
choice than to confront the dragon. It is a result of his duty as a guardian, hero and
warrior. The dragon, as guardian of the hoard, has a similar motivation for the fight.
Thus they are in complete contrast, they have the share the motivation for the fight but
for completely different reasons. As keeper of the burial mound the dragon itself is an
62 Griffith, “Some difficulties in Beowulf”, 11-15; see this paper for further reading. 63 Beowulf, lines 2210-2212. 64 It must be noted here, that Cutrers paper deals exclusively with dragons in Icelandic literature and is
thus in fact not applicable to an Old English epic. Since this essay aims for comparison it is nonetheless included to demonstrate the differences. 65 Fisher, “Trials of the epic hero in Beowulf”, 171.
14
omen foreshadowing the hero’s death. Beowulf is aware that he will not survive this fight
and thereby fulfills his role as a saviour to his people.66
While in the earlier fights with Grendel and his mother,67 he was the deliverer, he is now
the sacrifice. He gives himself up for the better of his people, to rid the land once more
of demonic/evil spirits (as he did in Denmark) and win the treasure for his people. In this
context the hero is placed in the service of what Fisher calls the natural opposed to the
demonic which has to be overcome. The demonic aspect is rooted in the belief that in
the olden days elves, giants and sometimes dragons roamed the realms of man,
causing hardship for the people. The hero then is the personification of the human
struggle and Beowulf’s fifty year reign symbolizes his victory over underworldly forces,
making the land habitable for man.68
Another possible point of view is the subject of Lawrence’s paper The Dragon and His
Lair in Beowulf. He suggests that Beowulf’s death is due to the curse placed on the
hoard by those who buried it.69 Exactly how is left unclear (in the poem) but the goblet
stolen from the hoard makes its way into Beowulf’s possession. The problem with this
view (as admitted by Lawrence himself) is twofold. First there are two tellings of how the
hoard came to be. The first being the last living man of a once great clan placed it there
without cursing it. Instead there is a lament by said man about the agony of him being
the last of his kin. The second, which appears in the poem after the fight, says it was
placed in the mound by several men of great fame, who then cursed it. Lawrence
identified the later passage to be significantly older but there is not enough evidence to
say if it might have been originally Scandinavian.70 The first passage on the other hand
he assumes to be “... a late native English development…”71. But the poet makes it very
clear that he can not allow a heathen spell to be more powerful than God. Thus the
curse motif, which might have featured more prominently in older versions, is moved to
the background. Adding this Christian element obviously also brought problems to the
poet. Beowulf has to die in the end so the poet had no choice but to “leave to the old
charms and the dragon power enough to kill him [Beowulf] off.”72
Contested is also a word in line 2203, describing the man who took the cup. In said line
one usually reads “Not for his own gain. The desperate slave”. Yet the word slave is at
this point not without doubt. In the MS this part is quite badly damaged and what is often
66 ibid., 179-180. 67 cf Beowulf, lines 703-853 and 1491-1591. 68 Fisher, 172. 69 Lawrence, “The Dragon and His Lair in Beowulf”, 551-552. 70 ibid, 560. 71 ibid. 72 ibid, 563.
15
interpreted as slave is really just the letter Þ followed by three illegible characters and
þeow has become the most popular reading.73 Lawrence argues that þegn is a much
more appropriate reading. He backs up his argumentation with the fact that the thief did
not try to become rich himself and later on offered the cup to his lord as a pledge for
peace. Lawrence interprets this as a feud between free men instead of a runaway slave
trying to avoid punishment by the hands of his master.74 He concludes that “The word
þeow occurs nowhere in the text.”75 When looked at it like this, it seems likely that
Beowulf himself was acting as the intermediary in the settlement of the feud. How the
cup came to Beowulf is easier to understand in this setting, since it was quite usual for a
chieftain or king to act as intermediary and receive a gift in the process.76
Although not directly linked to the fight itself, it provides an interesting insight into how it
came about.
The dragon Beowulf fights is a ferocious beast, yet connected to it are several aspects.
The most prominent of these is Beowulf’s selflessness. Without any fault of his own he
is dragged into a feud he can not win. He takes up the fight with a sense of duty and
loyalty towards his people. At this point it is obvious that he is no young hero on a
conquest anymore but rather a wise and noble king. In this respect, fighting a dragon is
an end worthy to a king of such renown.
Nibelungenlied
“Noch weiz ich an im mêre . daz mir ist bekannt:
einen lintrachen . sluoc des heldes hant;
er badet sich in dem bluote . sîn hût wart hurnîn.
des snîdet in kein waffen . daz ist dicke worden schîn.”77
This is all Hagen has to report on Siegfried’s fight with the dragon. Not a very detailed
description of the heroic deed. How he acquired his treasure is retold in great length but
since it is not connected to the dragon it shall not be dealt with here.
Yet the tale of Siegfried der Drachentöter is the best known aspect of the entire poem
today.
73 ibid, 553-554. 74 ibid, pp 554-555 75 ibid, p557 76 ibid, pp 556-557 77 Nibelungenlied, st. 100
16
The reason why the account of the dragon slaying is so short in NL is probably quite
simple: The audience knew other tales about dragons being killed, so the poet did not
see the need to include a lengthy passage about it. Mentioning it was enough to make
the audience understand what kind of hero Siegfried is. It is an attribute of showing the
exceptional strength of the hero, nothing more and nothing less.78
Another prominent aspect is in fact not very important in the poem: Siegfried’s (partial)
invulnerability. It is only important where Siegfried is not invulnerable, the spot on his
shoulder where a linden leaf covered his skin while he bathed in the dragons blood.79
Another school of thought sees Siegfried as being the same as Arminius.80 The dragon
then symbolises the clades Variana (The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest) and ON
gnitaheiði is identified with German Knitterheide, an actual place in western Germany,
where the battle is thought to have taken place.81 At least the identification of gnitaheiði
with Knitterheide is disputed and as argued against by Klaus Rossenbeck on linguistic
grounds.82
A lot of questions concerning the NL remain unresolved for me. For example how the
poem treated the relation between the human and the mythological in regards to
Siegfried being a dragon slayer.83 The way the MSs, which we have, tell the story in a
way that reduces the fight against the dragon to a mere attribute of the hero, the fight
itself being completely insignificant. Were the mythological aspects stronger in earlier
versions of NL? Were they part of separate stories, well known at the time but lost over
the past centuries? Or were they willingly omitted by the poet so his work would fit
better into the courtly society of his time? In DhS the dragon fight is included and
described in a way very similar to Þs. As discussed above, Þs came to Scandinavia
from Germany, so the dragon tale in a more detailed fashion can be assumed to have
been known in Germany. Furthermore we have to MSs of the NL, the MSs m and n,
which reference the dragon fight to a bigger extent and loaning elements of the story
78 Flood, “Siegfried’s Dragon-Fight in German Literary Tradition.” In A Companion to the Nibelungenlied
ed. Winder McConell, 43. 79 ibid., 46; see also Nibelungenlied, Aventiure 15. 80 Arminius was a German chieftain who lured the legions of the Roman military leader Varus in a trap in the Teutoburg Forest, resulting in a crushing defeat for the Romans. The battle took place in the year 9 CE. Latin clades Variana means the defeat of Varus. 81 Rossenbeck, “Siegfried, Arminius und die Knetterheide”, 17. 82 in his paper Siegfried, Arminius und die Knetterheide. 83 For further reading see Joyce Tally Lionarons essay “The Otherworld and its Inhabitants in the Nibelungenlied” which unfortunately did not make it into this essay.
17
from DhS.84 But these MSs shall not be discussed in the conclusion below. This would
go beyond at least the size, possibly also the scope of this essay.85
Comparison and Conclusion
When comparing the heroes and their dragons, we encounter several differences. I
shall outline the major differences and correspondences.
First of all, there is a major difference between the dragon in Beowulf and in the ON and
the MHG material. They do not only differ in their physical appearance but also in their
function in the story.
While Sigurd and Siegfried fight their dragons as young men, Beowulf fights his as an
aged hero. Instead of marking the beginning of his adult life it marks the end of his rule
as king of the Geatas and of his life. Beowulf has been a wise king and leader for fifty
years while Sigurd is still not an adult. The exchange of knowledge is something unique
to the material found in VS and the eddic poems. It is completely omitted in
Skáldskarpamál. In Beowulf it would only appear natural that no dialogue of this kind
takes place. The dragon has no human qualities, it is a mere incarnation of evil,
whereas Fafnir, since he transformed into a dragon from a man, shows his human
nature. The dragon in Beowulf does show anthropomorphic elements, it is aware of
itself and its hoard. Yet the animalistic elements carry a bigger weight in my opinion.
The dragon does not engage in any form of non-violent dispute. Instead it searches its
hoard frantically for the missing cup, reminiscent of an enraged animal it erratically runs
in and out of its lair.
Common for both Fafnir and the dragon(s) in Beowulf is their hoarding of gold and
laying on it in an underground lair.86 Yet this is not an intrinsic feature of dragons in
Germanic heroic literature as ÞS, NL and DhS show. Also the dragon’s lair itself is
described differently. It does not seem apparent to me, that the respective author of the
ON material had a specific place in mind that could have been taken as residence by
Fafnir. The description of his lair seems more likely to resemble a place specifically
made (by him?) to be actively used by humans for work or living. It seems to have been
built with defense in mind since VS describes as the doors, their frames and the
84 Flood, 54. 85 Unfortunately I was forced to keep the analysis of the NL and related (German) material relatively
short. For further reading see: McConell, Winder ed., A Companion to the Nibelungenlied. Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1998. McConell, Winder, Mythos Drache. In Mittelalter-Mythen, 7 Bde., Bd.2, Dämonen, Monster, Fabelwesen. Müller, Elrich ed. and Werner Wunderlich ed., St. Gallen: UVK-Fachverlag Für Wissenschaft und Studium, 1999. and Tally, Joyce Ann, The Dragon's progress : the significance of the dragon in "Beowulf", the "Volsunga Saga", "Der Nibelungenlied, and "Der Ring der Nibelungen.". Michigan : U.M.I., 1983. 86 The dragon killed by Sigemund in Beowulf guards a hoard and lives underground as well, cf Beowulf,
lines 884-895
18
buildings posts being made of iron.87 At the very least it is a very sturdy construction
and might also resemble Fafnir’s riches since the usual construction material in
medieval Scandinavia was wood. The dragon’s lair in Beowulf, on the other hand, is
clearly described as a burial mound.88 Neither the hoard nor the dwelling are the
dragon’s, he took possession of both in an almost parasitic way, having no claim to
either (unlike Fafnir, who at least had a shared claim to the gold). By analyzing the way
the poet describes the mound, one can assume that the he thought of an existing place
or a type of burial mound he had seen before.89 The barrow in Beowulf can be thought
of as a megalithic passage grave.90
Fafnir and the dragons of Þs and Dhs are much more snake like than their counterpart
in Beowulf.91 They breathe poison instead of fire and can not fly. As the short
etymological excursion above suggests, one can assume that the serpentine
appearance predates the winged.
Another notable difference is the way the fight itself is narrated. While it is recounted in
great length in Beowulf (Beowulf’s own fight against the dragon) and the Sigurd material
found in VS and the eddic poems, it is already less heroic and elaborate in Þs and Dhs
and almost irrelevant in NL.
Despite these differences, the dragons share the key element of chaos, fear and
destruction. The several poets or authors and the audience must have had very similar
associations with the concept of a dragon, regardless of the literary tradition.
Another aspect which is of importance in Beowulf, VS and the eddic poems is the gold
and the curse that is placed on it. The gold plays a strong role in NL as well, but
Siegfried did not win it from the dragon (see above). While Beowulf unwillingly falls
victim to the curse, Sigurd takes the gold, knowing about the curse. It is his greed and
the curse of the gold, which, like a snake’s venom, slowly takes effect and leads to
Sigurd’s end. The curse might indeed be Fafnir’s late revenge, poison that he put into
Sigurd’s life, similar to Beowulf’s bane, with the difference of Beowulf being directly
bitten by the dragon and dying shortly thereafter, but at this point we are entering the
realm of speculation. In NL no curse is mentioned yet the hoard had the same effect,
87 cf VS chapter 20 “[...] ok af járni hurðirnar allar ok þar með allr dyraumbúningrinn, ok af járni allir
stokkar í húsinu [...]”. Note also that it says hús and not haugr or similar words that would imply anything other than a regular dwelling. 88 cf line 2212 “Who [the dragon] sat on treasure in a steep stone-barrow.” 89 Lawrence, p 572 90 ibid., p 574. He draws his conclusions from passages in the poem describing the mound. A passage
grave consists of a central chamber built from stone and covered up with earth. A passage leads into the central chamber from outside the mound. cf Lawrence p 573 91 The same can be assumed for the way the audience imagined the dragon in NL based on the usage of
lintrache, see above.
19
leading to Siegfried’s death. The cursed hoard overshadows Sigurd’s life and similarly
Siegfried’s riches spark Hagen’s envy and greed early in the story.
The aim of the essay was to discuss the way heroes fought dragons in different
Germanic literary traditions of the middle ages in respect to their individual meaning and
common motifs. I have shown how dragons were perceived and what they embodied in
a medieval context and how these perceptions relate to each other. In essence it
became clear, that a dragon had an almost universal underlying concept with each
literary tradition adding their own refinements. The highly complex relations and
connections between the individual dragons and heroes could not be fully outlined in
this essay and are a topic for an entire essay in themselves. To gain a complete picture
of the literary transmissions and links one would have to look at the heroes’ stories in
their entirety instead of one specific part.
Dragons continue to fascinate us to the present day and so do the heroic tales of old.
There are aspects not discussed in this essay which might be considered for further
research. For example Fafnir’s transformation and the Ægishjálmr: Does Fafnir
transform because he wears it? Would it even be possible to come to such conclusions
with the source material preserved today? Another aspect in regards to the literary
tradition and transmission leaves (for now and for me) unanswered questions: the NL
and the ON Sigurd material are closely connected in many aspects but how they
became individual stories and when, how and where they developed their distinct
differences is not in clear in all instances.
Many of these questions can, have or will be answered, others might never be solved.
That is both the difficulty and the opportunity of this field. The mysteries that surround
these heroes and their legends are probably one of the reasons why they keep
fascinating many.
20
Bibliography
Badische Landesbibliothek. “Handschrift C.“ Accessed November 24, 2014. http://www.blb-
karlsruhe.de/virt_bib/nibelungen/frame-av.php?r=0.
Cutrer, Robert E. “The Wilderness of Dragons. The reception of Dragons in thirteenth century
Iceland”. Unpublished Master thesis. Háskóli Íslands. 2012. Accessed 24.11.2014.
http://skemman.is/en/stream/get/1946/12870/31221/1/Cutrer$002c_Robert_E_-
_MA_Thesis_-The_Wilderness_of_Dragons.pdf
Das Digitale Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache, s.v. “Lindwurm.“ Accessed October 25, 2014.
http://www.dwds.de/?qu=lindwurm. Finch, R. G. The Saga of the Volsungs: Edited and Translated... by R. G. Finch,.. London:
Nelson, 1965. Fisher, Peter F. “The Trials of the Epic Hero in Beowulf”. PMLA, Vol. 73, No. 3 (Jun., 1958), pp.
171-183. Accessed 24.11.2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/460234
Flood, John L. “Siegfried’s Dragon-Fight in German Literary Tradition.” In A Companion to the
Nibelungenlied. McConell, Winder ed., Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1998.
Griffith, M. S. "Some Difficulties in Beowulf, Lines 874–902: Sigemund Reconsidered." Anglo-
Saxon England 24 (12 1995). doi:10.1017/S0263675100004634. Handrit.is “Manuscript Detail. GKS 2365 4to“. Accessed November 23, 2014.
http://handrit.is/en/manuscript/view/is/GKS04-2365. Handschriftencensus. “Marburger Repertorium Deutschsprachiger Handschriften Des 13. Und
14. Jahrhunderts.“ Accessed November 24, 2014. http://www.handschriftencensus.de/1211.
Handschriftencensus. “Marburger Repertorium Deutschsprachiger Handschriften Des 13. Und
14. Jahrhunderts.“ Accessed November 24, 2014. http://www.handschriftencensus.de/1483.
Handschriftencensus. “Marburger Repertorium Deutschsprachiger Handschriften Des 13. Und
14. Jahrhunderts.“ Accessed November 24, 2014. http://www.handschriftencensus.de/1482.
Haimerl, Edgar. Sigurd - ein Held des Mittelalters. In: Alvismál 2 (1993). Accessed 24.11.2014.
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~alvismal/2sigurd.pdf
21
Heinzle, Joachim “The Manuscripts of the Nibelungenlied.” In A Companion to the
Nibelungenlied. McConell, Winder ed., Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1998.
Heusler, Andreas ed., and Karl Simrock. Das Nibelungenlied Urtext Mit Ubertragung. Augsburg:
Weltbild, 1994. Klaeber, Fr, R. D. Fulk, Robert E. Bjork, and John D. Niles. Klaeber's Beowulf ; and The Fight at
Finnsburg. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008. Lawrence, William Witherle. “The Dragon and His Lair in Beowulf”. PMLA, Vol. 33, No. 4 (1918),
pp. 547-583. Accessed 24.11.2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/456981 Lück, Heiner. “Gerichtsstätten”, In: Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte : HRG. 2.
Geistliche Gerichtsbarkeit - Konfiskation. 2nd ed., Berlin: Schmidt, 2012.
McConell, Winder, “Mythos Drache.“ In Wunderlich, Werner ed., and Ulrich Müller ed..
Mittelalter-Mythen, 7 Bde., Bd.2, Dämonen, Monster, Fabelwesen. St. Gallen: UVK-Fachverlag Für Wissenschaft und Studium, 1998.
Neckel, Gustav, and Hans Christoph Kuhn. Edda: Die Lieder Des Codex Regius Nebst
Verwandten Denkmalern. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1968. Polak, Léon. “Untersuchungen über die sage vom Burgundenuntergang. I. Die þidrekssaga und
das Nibelungenlied”. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 54. Bd.,
3./4. H. (1913), pp. 427-466. Accessed 24.11.2014.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20656899
Rossenbeck, Klaus. “Siegfried, Arminius und die Knetterheide”. Zeitschrift für deutsches
Altertum und deutsche Literatur, 103. Bd., H. 4 (4th Quarter, 1974), pp. 243-248. Accessed 24.11.2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20655994
Simek, Rudolf, and Hermann Pálsson. Lexikon Der Altnordischen Literatur. Stuttgart: A. Kröner,
1987. Sturluson, Snorri, and Anthony Faulkes. Edda. London: Viking Society for Northern Research, University College London, 1998. Sturluson, Snorri, and Anthony Faulkes. Edda: Skaldskaparmal. London: Viking Society for Northern Research, 1998.