The Study of Dragons Reflected in Beowulf and in Korean Myths And

현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호(163~193) http://dx.doi.org/10.35281/cms.2019.06.09.01.163

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

Lee, Dong Choon*

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 circulated 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 geographic 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 cultural 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 either, 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 cultural environment of the Scandinavian tribes, in a broader sense, that of a Western

* Daegu University, English Language and Literature, [email protected] 164 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호

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

The figure of the dragon is one of the highest crystallizations of human imagination, 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 The Study of Dragons Reflected InBeowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales 165 the mystery of dragon origin have their own weak points respectively. Some “Finn- ish” scholars, including Fredrich Holiday and Elliot Smith, 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.3 Another assertion that the dragon has been invented independently throughout the world in accordance with the cultural 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 either, 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 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. 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 folktales 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 inBeowulf

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 development 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. 166 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호 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 Study of Dragons Reflected InBeowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales 167

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 reflects 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 commonly 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 prehistoric 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 counterparts 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 function 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. 168 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호

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 classification of dragons in China has been accepted by its neighbors, Japan and Korea, although 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 records 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 believed 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 prehistoric Korea are described both as a controller of water and as a dragon.9 In addition, 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 history 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 theYangtse 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 principles of Chinese cosmogony together with the yin symbolizes positivity, heat, masculinity, and light. The Study of Dragons Reflected InBeowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales 169

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 spiritual 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 characteristics-- “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. 170 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호 mals reveal something of conventional expectations concerning the symbolic meaning 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 nobility, 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 appearance. 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. The Study of Dragons Reflected InBeowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales 171 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 symbol 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 important 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 172 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호 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 linking the dragon with fire is much more clear. All this serves to strengthen the symbolic 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 function 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. The Study of Dragons Reflected InBeowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales 173

In addition to Beowulf ’s dragon’s attribute of flaming fire, other physiognomic details, including size and coloration, and its habitat reinforce the symbolic meanings of the dragon as monstrosity, Satan, and death. The Beowulf-dragon lives underground 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 coexist. 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. 174 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호 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 outside 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 latter 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. The Study of Dragons Reflected InBeowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales 175 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 counterpart. 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 vicious.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. 176 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호 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 dragons, 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 tradition 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 increasing influence of Christianity. Even the modern scholar, Paul Newman writes, “the lance which, in formal Christian iconography, penetrates its flesh 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. The Study of Dragons Reflected InBeowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales 177 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 towards 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 obstacles 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 vicious 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 patriarchy 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 folktales, the mythical dragons in Korea, like those in its neighbors, are not the object 178 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호 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 mirror 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 dragons 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 common 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 differences 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. The Study of Dragons Reflected InBeowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales 179 and in their style of pursuing it, all Western dragon-slaying tales fit a common narrative pattern, that of the quest romance such as the quest for the princess, the treasure, 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 representing 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 toBeowulf 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. 180 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호

“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 Study of Dragons Reflected InBeowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales 181

The theme of dragon shape-shifting in relation to the golden treasure in the Old Norse texts is also reflected 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 creature.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. 182 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호 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 warriors 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. The Study of Dragons Reflected InBeowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales 183

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. 184 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호 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 attitudes 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 theBeowulf -poet places the dragon in contrast with Beowulf in respect to their attitudes towards 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. The Study of Dragons Reflected InBeowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales 185

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 engaging 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: 186 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호

...... 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. The Study of Dragons Reflected InBeowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales 187

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 attention 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 engagement 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 spiritual 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. 188 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호 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 punishment 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 between 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. The Study of Dragons Reflected InBeowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales 189 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 dragon, an emotionally charged symbol. To slay a dragon [a serpent in the Asian countries] 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 reptilian 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 folktales. 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 association 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 190 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호 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-poet 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. The Study of Dragons Reflected InBeowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales 191 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. 192 현대사회와 다문화 제9권 1호

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. The Study of Dragons Reflected InBeowulf and In Korean Myths and Folktales 193

『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]