Over the centuries, many mythical creatures have captured the imaginations of mankind, but few so strongly as the dragon. As J.R.R. Tolkien once said, ‘A dragon is no idle fancy.’[1] Tolkien’s belief in those words was reflected in his creation of one of the most recognizable literary dragons, Smaug the Golden in The Hobbit. An examination of Smaug, though, reveals a resemblance to another literary dragon, that of the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf. Given J. R. R. Tolkien’s affinity for Beowulf, it is not surprising that Tolkien would adapt the dragon from that poem into his own mythology; however, Tolkien’s Smaug the Golden is not simply an adaptation of the poetic dragon, but rather a completion of it.
The section of Beowulf in which the dragon’s chalice is stolen[2] is astoundingly similar to a scene created in Tolkien’s The Hobbit.[3] As Tolkien scholar, Jason Fisher, has written there are times in Tolkien’s writings where he seems to directly borrow an episode or character from another story and place it in his own.[4] Christiana Scull and Wayne Hammond commented that the scene from The Hobbit is ‘a motif taken from Beowulf’[5] and that the chapter in which Bilbo steals the cup is ‘indebted to a similar episode in the final part of Beowulf.’ [6] However, many years before these scholars published their works, Tolkien acknowledged in a letter:
Beowulf is among my most valued sources; though it was not consciously present to the mind in the process of writing, in which the episode of the theft arose naturally (and most inevitably) from the circumstances.[7]
Even if it was not intentional, as Tolkien claims, there are still several ways in which Smaug can be seen as an adaptation of the Beowulf dragon. The connection between Beowulf’s dragon and Smaug is not only found in the theft of the cup from the dragon’s horde, it is also found in the purpose behind the dragon.
On January 1st, 1938, Tolkien gave a lecture on dragons at the University Museum at Oxford. He stated that it is ‘the function of dragons to tax the skill of heroes; and still more to tax other things, especially courage…’[8] This quality of testing the limits of a hero’s skill and courage is evident in Beowulf[9] and echoed in The Hobbit.[10] In Beowulf, the dragon is the final test of skill, and it is during this test that the Anglo-Saxon hero meets his end, but only after slaying the dragon with the help of Wiglaf. [11] ‘That for the king was the last of his hours of triumph by his own deed, last of his labours in the world.’[12] However, as for the test of courage, it is not Beowulf’s courage that is tested by the dragon –‘For himself he did not fear the contest… nor his might and courage’[13]– but that of Beowulf’s companions.[14]
The Hobbit also explores the idea of dragons being a test of skill and courage. It is against Smaug that Bilbo faces a test of his mental skills and must do his best riddling to escape. Bilbo, unlike Beowulf, faces a direct test of courage; though it takes place before Bilbo sees the dragon, ‘He fought the real battle in the tunnel alone, before he even saw the vast danger that lay in wait.’[15]
Though there are several similarities between the two dragons, there are certain aspects of the character of Smaug that do not fit in with the character of the Beowulf dragon. Indeed, while the Beowulf dragon is an antagonist, Smaug is a villain. In many ways, Smaug is more developed in The Hobbit than the dragon is in Beowulf. Fisher puts forth the idea that Tolkien does not simply borrow from a source, but writes as a response to ‘something missing from the original’.[16] Fisher also notes that Tolkien calls upon these sources in a way as to improve on them or remake them.[17] With this in mind, comparing Smaug to the Beowulf dragon reveals that Tolkien did not simply adapt the dragon from Beowulf, but in fact completed it. And, from Tolkien’s perspective, it did need completing.
Tolkien was not reserved in declaring the faults he found with the Beowulf dragon. He wrote, ‘I find “dragons” a fascinating product of imagination. But I don’t think the Beowulf one is frightfully good.’[18] During a lecture Tolkien gave on November 25th, 1936, he stated:
Beowulf’s dragon, if one wishes really to criticize, is not to be blamed for being a dragon, but rather for not being dragon enough, plan pure fairy-story dragon. There are in the poem some vivid touches of the right kind… in which this dragon is real worm, with a bestial life and thought of his own, but the conception, none the less, approaches draconitas rather than draco…[19]
In his lecture, Tolkien did not simply criticize the Anglo-Saxon beast for being draconitas– dragon like- but continued on to describe the qualities that he thought made a draco: ‘a personification of malice, greed, destruction … and of the undiscriminating cruelty of fortune that distinguishes not good or bad…’[20] In his lecture given at the University Museum in Oxford, Tolkien expanded his definition of a dragon to include not only animal fierceness – battling for food, shelter, and mate – but also fighting out of hatred for other living things; dragons rejoice in destruction.[21] Dragons, according to Tolkien, ‘love to possess beautiful things – though they could not use or enjoy them.’[22] Tolkien states that the ‘hottest thief-haters and the cruelest thief-pursuers are usually those who possess large wealth which they cannot enjoy, but only lose. Such were dragons. Greed and hatred inspired them.’[23] Tolkien also commented that ‘a respectable dragon should be twenty feet or more. The true dragon at his least was sufficiently large to be a terrible foe…’[24]
Both Smaug and the Beowulf dragon demonstrate a ‘bestial life and thought of their own’ as well as being treasure hoarders and thief-hatters. In both scenes, after the dragons discover the theft of their treasures, their reactions are similar. In Beowulf the dragon is enraged by the theft, ‘Then was the keeper of the barrow swollen with wrath, purposing, fell beast, with fire to avenge his precious drinking-vessel… went blazing forth, sped with fire.’[25] However, Tolkien applies more bestial thought and malice to how Smaug reacts. ‘Thief! Fire! Murder!’[26]
As for the ‘personification of malice, greed, and destruction’, this trait is not quite clear in Beowulf’s dragon, but is certainly evident in Smaug. Tolkien clearly depicts Smaug as one of those who ‘possess large wealth which they cannot enjoy, but only lose’:
His rage passes description- the sort of rage that is only seen when rich folk that have more than they can enjoy suddenly lose something that they have long had but never before used or wanted.[27]
As for a dragon’s love of destruction, it is mentioned in Beowulf– ‘Nonetheless, he thought with joy of battle, of making war’[28]-but Tolkien, again, expounds on the concept. Not only is Smaug a personification of malice and destruction, it is evident by his speech that he embodies the love a proper dragon should have of destruction:
Revenge! The King under the Mountain is dead … Girion Lord of Dale is dead, and I have eaten his people like a wolf among sheep … I kill where I wish and none dare resist. I laid low the warriors of old and their like is not in the world today… My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, and my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death![29]
In his work, Tolkien fills in a noticeable void in Beowulf, that of the description of the dragon. In Beowulf, the dragon is referred to as a ‘serpent’ with bony teeth and the ability to breath fire.[30] As for Smaug, details of his appearance are generously given, ‘a vast red-golden dragon… thrumming came from his jaws and nostrils, and wisps of smoke… wings folded like an immeasurable bat… long pale belly crusted with gems and fragments of gold.’[31] This could be an example of how, as Fisher proposed, Tolkien responds to elements he sees missing in the original text.
There is one last element that Tolkien bestowed on Smaug that the writer of Beowulf did not give his dragon, that of intelligence. From the text it can be noted that the dragon of Beowulf thinks and feels,[32] but if the dragon displays intelligence, it is only through action. It is likewise with Smaug, but more evident through his speech. Tom Shippey states that Smaug has ‘the most sophisticated intelligence in The Hobbit.’[33] While talking with Bilbo, who speaks with riddles and flattery, Smaug does not only speak, but he speaks rationally:
I don’t know if it has occurred to you that, even if you could steal the gold bit by bit- a matter of a hundred years or so- you could not get it very far? Not much use on the mountain-side? Not much use in the forest? Bless me! Had you never thought of the catch? A fourteenth share, I suppose, or something like it, those were the terms, eh? But what about delivery? What about cartage? What about armed guards and tolls?[34]
To state the differences between the two dragons simply, Smaug is dynamic. Shippey wrote of Smaug as having ‘oscillations between animal and intelligent behavior’ as well as ‘the contrast between creaky politeness of speech and plain gloating over murder…’[35] This observation falls in line with what Tolkien said a proper draco should be.
With such fantastic similarities between the dragon of Beowulf and Smaug, it can be stated that, whether intentional or not, the character of Smaug does work as an adaptation of the poetic Anglo-Saxon draconitas– though only at the base level as Smaug is a more developed character, a proper draco. Considering the many ways Tolkien has intertwined the details of the Beowulf dragon in with his own concepts of dragons in order to create Smaug, it becomes clear that Smaug fills in certain gaps of the story that are, whether intentional or not, left out of Beowulf.
When ending his lecture on Beowulf, Tolkien spoke of the Anglo-Saxon poem as having an appeal that must last ‘until the dragon comes’[36]. Though Tolkien was being poetic in saying this, through his adaptation and completion of the Beowulf dragon it seems safe to state that for literary purposes, the dragon has come. And its name is Smaug.
References:
Fisher, J., Tolkien and the Study of His Sources: Critical Essays, Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 2011.
Scull, C. and Hammond, W.G., The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide: Reader’s Guide, London, Harper Collins, 2006.
Shippey, T., The Road to Middle-Earth, London, Harper Collins, 2005.
Tolkien, J.R.R., Beowulf: The Monsters and The Critics, London, Oxford University Press, 1971.
Tolkien, J.R.R. and Carpenter, H., The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, London, Harper Collins, 2006.
Tolkien, J.R.R., Wenzel, D. and Deming, S., The Hobbit, Or There and Back Again film tie in edn., London, Harper Collins, 2012.
Tolkien, J.R.R., [Translator] Beowulf A Translation and Commentary Together with Sellic Spell, London, Harper Collins, 2014.
Footnotes:
[1] J.R.R. Tolkien, Beowulf: The Monsters and The Critics, London, Oxford University Press, 1971, p. 15.
[2] J.R.R. Tolkien, Beowulf A Translation and Commentary Together with Sellic Spell, London, Harper Collins, 2014, pp. 77-81.
[3] J.R.R. Tolkien, D. Wenzel, and S. Deming, The Hobbit, Or There and Back Again, film tie edn. London, Harper Collins, 2012, pp. 249-253.
[4] Jason Fisher, Tolkien and the Study of His Sources: Critical Essays, Jefferson, N.C., McFarland & Co., 2011, p. 39.
[5] Christiana Scull and Wayne Hammond, The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide: Reader’s Guide, London, HarperCollins, 2006, p. 218.
[6] ibid., p. 85.
[7] J.R.R. Tolkien and Humphrey Carpenter, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, London, HarperCollins, 2006, p. 31.
[8] Scull and Hammond, p. 220.
[9] Tolkien, Beowulf Translation, pp. 81-94.
[10] Tolkien, Wenzel, and Deming, pp. 249-263.
[11] Tolkien, Beowulf Translation, p. 89.
[12]Tolkien, Beowulf Translation, p. 92.
[13] ibid., pp. 81-82.
[14] ibid., pp. 88-89.
[15] Tolkien, Wenzel, and Deming, p.249.
[16] Fisher, p. 39.
[17] ibid.
[18] Tolkien and Carpenter, p. 134.
[19] Tolkien, Beowulf: Monsters, pp. 16-17.
[20] ibid., p. 17.
[21] Scull and Hammond, p. 220.
[22] ibid.
[23] Scull and Hammond, p. 220.
[24] ibid.
[25] Tolkien, Beowulf Translation, p. 80.
[26] Tolkien, Wenzel, and Deming, p. 252.
[27] ibid.
[28] Tolkien, Beowulf Translation, p. 80.
[29] Tolkien, Wenzel, and Deming, p. 262.
[30] Tolkien, Beowulf Translation, pp. 80-91.
[31] Tolkien, Wenzel, and Deming, pp. 249-250.
[32] Tolkien, Beowulf Translation, p. 80.
[33] Tom Shippey, The Road to Middle-Earth, London, HarperCollins, 2005, p. 102.
[34] Tolkien, Wenzel, and Deming, p. 260.
[35] Shippey, p. 103.
[36] Tolkien, Beowulf: Monsters, p. 36.
Travel&Lit 