The Dream of the Dragon and Bear
K A R L H E I N Z G Ö L L E R
H e ( A r t h u r ) d r e a m e d that a dragon dreadful to behold, C a m e d r i v i n g over the deep to destroy his people, A t once s a i l i n g out o f the western lands,
W a n d e r i n g u n w o r t h i l y over the waves of the sea.
B o t h his head a n d his neck w h o l l y , a l l over, A d o r n e d i n azure, enamelled full fair:
H i s shoulders were scaled a l l i n clear silver, S p r e a d over the w o r m w i t h s h r i n k i n g points;
H i s w o m b a n d his w i n g s of wonderful hues.
I n m a r v e l l o u s m a i l he mounted full high;
W h o m e v e r he touched was destroyed forever!
H i s feet flourished a l l i n fine sable,
A n d s u c h a v e n o m o u s flare flew from his lips T h a t the flood, for the flames, seemed a l l on fire!
T h e n came from the East, against h i m direct A b l a c k boisterous bear above i n the clouds, W i t h each p a w like a post, and palms full huge, W i t h talons o f terror, a l l twisted they seemed L o a t h s o m e a n d l o a t h l y , w i t h locks and the rest W i t h shanks a l l m i s s h a p e n , shaggy and haired U g l y a n d furred, w i t h foaming lips
T h e foulest o f figure that ever was formed!
H e reared a n d he roared, a n d rallied thereafter T o battle he b o u n d s , w i t h b r u t a l claws:
H e so r o a m e d a n d roared, that all earth resounded.
So r u d e l y he hits out, to riot himself.
T h e n the d r a g o n d r e w near and dived in attack A n d w i t h dire b l o w s drove h i m far off in the clouds H e fares like a f a l c o n , freely he strikes
B o t h w i t h feet a n d w i t h fire he fights a l l at once!
T h e bear i n the battle the mightier seemed A n d bites h i m b o l d l y w i t h baleful fangs;
S u c h buffets he gives h i m w i t h his b r o a d claws, T h a t his breast a n d his belly were bloody all over!
H e r a m p a g e d so rudely that rent is the earth, R u n n i n g w i t h red b l o o d like rain from the skies
H e w o u l d have wearied the w o r m through the weight o f his strength, I f the w o r m h a d not wielded w i l d fire in defence.
T h e n wanders the w o r m away to the heights
C o m e s g l i d i n g from the clouds and claws h i m at once T o u c h e s h i m w i t h his talons and tears open his back B e t w e e n the tail a n d the top, ten feet i n length!
T h u s he breaks up the bear; it is brought to its death.
L e t h i m fall i n the flood, to float where he likes:
T h e y so burdened the b o l d k i n g , on board the ship,
T h a t for bale he near bursts, i n bed where he lies. (760-805)
T h e m e a n i n g o f the prophetic dreams for the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the message o f the AMA has not yet been fully recognised, although there are m a n y c r i t i c a l assessments of the D r e a m of Fortune, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h attempts to determine the genre o f the poem. I n the o n l y book-length p u b l i c a t i o n on the poem, W i l l i a m M a t t h e w s concen- trates o n the D r e a m o f Fortune alone, while s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s i n g the D r e a m o f the D r a g o n a n d B e a r i n a single sentence.1 It is, however, e v i d e n t that both dreams p l a y an essential role in s t r u c t u r i n g the poem as a n architectonic whole. T h e D r e a m of the D r a g o n a n d B e a r stands at the b e g i n n i n g o f the R o m a n c a m p a i g n , w h i c h w i l l b r i n g A r t h u r to the height o f his power, but at the same time reduce h i m to m o r a l degenera- t i o n . T h e D r e a m o f the W h e e l o f Fortune on the other h a n d , symbolises his t u r n o f fortune a n d the d o w n w a r d descent of his life a n d fate. T h u s b o t h dreams give shape to the p y r a m i d a l form of the casus.
T h i s is a feature peculiar to the AMA. K . - J . Steinmeyer has the f o l l o w i n g to say about the allegorical m e a n i n g of dreams in classical and m e d i e v a l literature i n general:
. . . We can . . . investigate the dreams in Greek, Latin, O l d Norse, O l d English and O l d High German literature; the result is always the same:
the events follow immediately after the dream report.2
T h i s results i n the fact that the fulfilment o f every event prophesied i n a d r e a m must be sought i n the passage following it. T h e relationship between prophecy a n d realisation in the AMA, however, is entirely different. J u s t as i n the Parthenon on the A c r o p o l i s each stone is designed for a p a r t i c u l a r position, thus reflecting i n form and function the w h o l e edifice, so, too, A r t h u r ' s dreams represent in an encoded form his entire life, rise a n d fall, victory and defeat, political power and m o r a l d e c a y .
E v e n a superficial reading of the two prophetic dreams — especially
that o f the D r a g o n and B e a r — reveals that their symbols carry the weight o f t r a d i t i o n a l significance — h a r k i n g back to archetypal con- cepts, but w e l l - k n o w n at the time. T h e greatest problem for the modern reader is e v a l u a t i n g the degree to w h i c h the poet was b o u n d by c o n t e m p o r a r y lore a n d l e a r n i n g .3 In the case of i n d i v i d u a l symbols it is difficult to decide whether the author deviates consciously from estab- lished traditions, or whether he is merely ignorant of them.
B u t before we can even begin to speak in terms of the poet's i n d i v i d u a l use o f such symbols, we have to examine their associations and connotations i n the fourteenth century. T h i s is a l l the more necessary in the case o f the d r a g o n and bear. B o t h animals are deeply rooted i n m y t h o l o g i c a l traditions w h i c h may have conditioned the author, and it is o n l y against this b a c k g r o u n d that we can determine how a n d w h y the a u t h o r deviated from the t r a d i t i o n a l s y m b o l i c a l pattern i n order to p r o v i d e new m e a n i n g . It is neither possible nor necessary to pass muster o n the entire c o m p l e x of the medieval s y m b o l i s m of dragon, bear [and b o a r ] . T h e D r e a m o f the D r a g o n and Bear as we find it i n the AMA p r o v i d e s us w i t h a guideline and a goal as to the scope of the symbols to be taken into consideration.
I n the C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n the dragon is a s y m b o l of evil, heresy, and the A n t i - C h r i s t . P a r t i c u l a r l y relevant for iconographic representations o f the d r a g o n was Ps. 90.13, where C h r i s t is pictured as v a n q u i s h i n g the d r a g o n . T h e representation o f St M i c h a e l as dragon slayer derives from R e v . 12. N u m e r o u s apostles of the faith followed i n his wake, St G e o r g e o f E n g l a n d being the most memorable one. In processions, a b a n n e r o f the d r a g o n preceded the C r u c i f i x d u r i n g the R o g a t i o n D a y s a n d followed it o n A s c e n s i o n D a y . T h e popular concept o f the dragon c a n be traced to the Physiologus. F o l l o w i n g A r i s t o t l e and other a u t h o r i - ties, people were firmly convinced of the existence of dragons u n t i l the seventeenth century.
I n m e d i e v a l astronomy the constellation of the dragon was regarded as monstrum mirabile; C h a u c e r speaks of the 'tail of the d r a g o u n ' as a ' w y k k i d planete' (AstroL I I . § 4). T h e dragon and bear are often m e n t i o n e d together by astrologists. E d m u n d says of himself i n King Lear:
' M y father c o m p o u n d e d w i t h my mother under the dragon's tail, and m y n a t i v i t y was under Ursa Major: so that it follows I a m rough and l e a c h e r o u s . '4
E s p e c i a l l y r e m a r k a b l e is the broad range of s y m b o l i c a l meanings o f the d r a g o n , w h i c h reaches from the satanic fiend to the merciful g u a r d i a n : '. . . they range in character from the destructive a n d terrible to the benign a n d h e l p f u l . '5 E v e n in p r e - C h r i s t i a n times, the dragon was regarded as the i n c a r n a t i o n of the destructive powers in the w o r l d a n d in the universe. I n nearly a l l mythologies he is a manifestation o f anarchic wilfulness a n d o f u n b r i d l e d a n i m a l power: '. . . w i t h expanded wings, . . . head and tail erect, v i o l e n t l y and ruthlessly outraging decency and
p r o p r i e t y , s p o u t i n g fire and fury both from mouth and tail, and w a s t i n g a n d d e v a s t a t i n g the whole l a n d . '6 St George's slaying of the dragon is a n a r c h e t y p a l legend, one not connected with the saint u n t i l the H i g h M i d d l e A g e s . A very s i m i l a r feat h a d already been attributed to Perseus, w h o saved A n d r o m e d a from being made a sacrificial offering to a sea- d r a g o n i n obedience to an oracle. E v e n the o l d B a b y l o n i a n s had their tales o f B e l , E n l i l a n d M a r d u k , who fought against dragons i n order to protect the w o r l d a n d the universe from destruction.7 A l m o s t always, s u c h tales centre on the victory of G o o d over E v i l , of L i g h t over D a r k n e s s , a n d O r d e r over C h a o s .
T h e w o r d sea-dragon as a name for the V i k i n g s has, by way of contrast, a m o r e positive m e a n i n g . T h e N o r s e m e n were thus called because the p r o w o f their ships ended in a blue and red painted dragon's head. T h e G o l d e n D r a g o n was the s y m b o l of the H o u s e of Wessex; it was also the ensign o f A l f r e d the G r e a t . A c c o r d i n g to Geoffrey of M o n m o u t h , U t h e r saw a fiery b a l l i n the form o f a dragon i n the sky, a premonition o f his v i c t o r y over his enemies: ' M e r l i n h a d prophesied he should be K i n g by means o f the d r a g o n '8; hence his surname Pendragon, chief d r a g o n .
I n this l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n , w h i c h is p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant for E n g l a n d , the d r a g o n has m o s t l y positive associations: it stands for k i n g s h i p and s u p r e m a c y . T h i s interpretation can be traced back to A r t e m i d o r o s ' Oneirokritika (second century AD) where we read: ' T h e D r a g o n signifies the E m p e r o r . '9 It is likely that Geoffrey was acquainted w i t h this w o r k . A r t e m i d o r o s has seven d r a g o n b i r t h dreams, foretelling the b i r t h of seven sons. I n Geoffrey's version, the ray emitted by the dragon divides i n t o 'seven lesser rays . . . [signifying seven] sons and grandsons [that]
s h a l l h o l d the k i n g d o m of B r i t a i n . . . '1 0 T h e battle ensign of the d r a g o n used by the R o m a n cohorts belongs to this tradition. A s late as the H u n d r e d Y e a r s W a r , the E n g l i s h armies fought in France under the sign o f the d r a g o n , w h i c h signified the c l a i m to supreme power. T h i s s y m b o l i c a l m e a n i n g was not restricted to the E n g l i s h alone, as is evident from the d r e a m o f H e r z e l o y d e where the dragon symbolises P a r z i v a l .1 1 L i k e the d r a g o n , the bear is a highly ambivalent s y m b o l i c a n i m a l . N e g a t i v e associations are evident: the breath of the bear was regarded as poisonous a n d his appearance in dreams was considered a bad omen, foretelling illness or a long j o u r n e y .1 2 A c c o r d i n g to a very p o p u l a r a n d w i d e s p r e a d t r a d i t i o n , the bear is an e m b l e m of the sins of sloth a n d gluttony, the M i d d l e E n g l i s h w o r d here signifies a m a n subject to those
p a r t i c u l a r s i n s .1 3 T h e d e v i l h i m s e l f was envisaged i n the guise of a bear:
' foe deouel is beore cunnes' ( A n c r . 546), or: 'foe fende is here kynde bihynde
& assebifore ( A n c r . R e e l . 1 3 9 / 2 9 ) .1 4
T h e ancient T e u t o n s are said to have avoided the use of the o l d w o r d for bear w h i c h they regarded as tabu. T h e w o r d can be reconstructed from A v e s t . arsa, G r e e k , G a l l , artos. T h e constellation o f U r s a M a j o r , the G r e a t e r B e a r , is one o f the best-known star groups. H o m e r
has a passage on arctus, the only star w h i c h never dips into the waves of the o c e a n .1 5 I n n e a r l y a l l languages the constellation is called T h e Bear, u s u a l l y i n the feminine gender. In A n g l o - S a x o n countries, the constella- t i o n i n the n o r t h e r n sky is often called C h a r l e s ' W a g o n . T h e o r i g i n a l n a m e , however, was A r t h u r ' s W a g o n , presumably because of the star c a l l e d arctus. T h e e x p l a n a t i o n for the transfer of the name to C h a r l e s lies i n his close association w i t h A r t h u r .
E v e n the early C h a l d e a n s established a close connection between Draco a n d the B e a r ( s ) : ' W i t h that people, it (Draco) was a m u c h longer c o n s t e l l a t i o n than w i t h us, w i n d i n g downwards and in front o f U r s a M a j o r , a n d , even into later times, clasped both of the Bears in its folds;
this is s h o w n i n m a n u s c r i p t s and books, as late as the seventeenth c e n t u r y , w i t h the c o m b i n e d title, Arctoe et Draco'16
I n m y t h o l o g y the bear plays a far more positive role than might be expected from the premises of f o l k l o r e .1 7 In classical antiquity the reign o f the she-bear was connected w i t h peaceful c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f the n a t i o n s . A u g u s t u s was associated w i t h U r s a M a j o r : ' F o r it is A u g u s t u s w h o brings peace to the w o r l d , who calls her to new and joyful hopes a n d to the happiness o f re-established u n i t y ' ( O v i d , F . 6 9 7 - 7 0 4 ) .1 8 A s the l i g h t - b e a r i n g A r c t o s - M o t h e r , the bear is associated w i t h the light of d a y a n d the c o l o u r w h i t e . N e a r l y always the image of the she-bear is connected w i t h the benevolent aspects of motherhood; darker connota- tions are l a c k i n g . T h e association of the bear w i t h motherhood is deeply rooted i n almost a l l classical a u t h o r s ;1 9 the w o r d ursa is used genus pro genere.20
I n nearly a l l C e l t i c areas, the cultic image derived from the R o m a n c e countries was preserved i n t a c t .2 1 E v e n the orphic m e a n i n g of the bear was retained, as c a n be ascertained from bear-names on C h r i s t i a n t o m b s t o n e s .2 2 I n general we can say that the cult of the bear s u r v i v e d longest i n C e l t i c regions, as can be seen from the numerous C e l t i c coins b e a r i n g the ursine i m a g e .2 3 A gem in the Museum Florentinum is unique in that it shows, o n the one side, the she-bear as an emblem of peace, h a p p i n e s s , a n d prosperity, and on the reverse side, the Goddess of F o r t u n e (Tyche?) w i t h the attributes o f a b u n d a n c e .2 4
T h e d r e a m o f the D r a g o n a n d Bear appears for the first time i n Geoffrey o f M o n m o u t h ' s Historia Regum Britanniae (1135). I n this work there is a p a r t i c u l a r l y close connection between A r t h u r and the s y m b o l o f the bear; A r t h u r is the son o f U t h e r p e n d r a g o n (the chief d r a g o n ) , and he wears a helmet 'graven w i t h the semblance of a dragon . . . and a g o l d e n d r a g o n he h a d for s t a n d a r d ' .2 5
T h u s we can presuppose a close association between A r t h u r a n d the d r a g o n on the part o f Geoffrey. It is no less certain that Geoffrey A r t h u r , as the author o f the HRB was k n o w n to his contemporaries,2 6 knew the C e l t i c w o r d A r t h u r = 'bear'; after a l l , he claimed to have translated a b o o k o r i g i n a l l y w r i t t e n i n B r i t i s h into L a t i n . M o r e p r o b l e m a t i c a l is the
c o n n e c t i o n w h i c h E . S o u t h w a r d established between M o r d r e d and C e l t , mordraig = 'sea d r a g o n ' .2 7 A c c o r d i n g to this hypothesis, A r t h u r is to be identified w i t h the bear, a n d the dragon w i t h M o r d r e d .2 8 T h i s theory seems rather far-fetched, but it is supported by an episode in the F r e n c h Mort Artu w h i c h must be regarded as one of the major sources of the AMA. I n the F r e n c h work there is a reference to a dream of A r t h u r ' s i n w h i c h a serpent emerged from his body, with the brutal intent of b u r n i n g a n d d e s t r o y i n g his country. L a t e r A r t h u r identifies the serpent e x p l i c i t l y w i t h M o r d r e d , so that there are strong parallels to the dragon o f the AMA.29
I n the HRB A r t h u r dreams of a bear flying through the air, whose r o a r i n g makes the coasts tremble. F r o m the west he sees a flying dragon a p p r o a c h , whose g l i t t e r i n g eyes light up the entire country (patriam). A t e r r i b l e battle ensues from w h i c h the dragon emerges the victor, h a v i n g scorched the bear w i t h his fiery breath a n d cast h i m to earth.
T h e author uses not more than two sentences for the description of the battle, m e n t i o n i n g o n l y the r o a r i n g of the bear and the glittering eyes of the d r a g o n . T h e superiority of the dragon over the bear is evident from the v e r y b e g i n n i n g . T h e r e is no mention of A r t h u r ' s emotional reaction.
H e reports the d r e a m to them that stood by ('Expergefactus ergo A r t u r u s astantibus q u o d somniaverat i n d i c a v i t ' ; X.2.U.24—5), and these interpret the d r a g o n as A r t h u r h i m s e l f and the bear as a giant w h o m A r t h u r w i l l defeat. B u t A r t h u r is not w i l l i n g to accept the proffered interpretation, 'existimans ob se et imperatorem talem v i s i o n e m contigisse' ( X . 2 . U . 2 9 - 3 0 ) .
Seen superficially, the dragon stands for A r t h u r as the embodiment of o r g a n i c order a n d o f the idea of an E m p i r e . T h e bear, on the other h a n d , stands for the giant, a n d at the same time for L u c i u s as an opponent o f the concept o f ordo. B u t the name A r t h u r = 'bear', w h i c h was evidently c o m m o n knowledge at the time, acts as a signal that the dream refers to A r t h u r ' s victories over both the giant and L u c i u s only on a surface level.
Its true m e a n i n g lies i n its function as a portent o f A r t h u r ' s downfall.
W h e t h e r Geoffrey's A r t h u r sees either the dragon or the bear as a herald o f his fate cannot be determined from the text. It w o u l d appear that Geoffrey i n t e n t i o n a l l y left the question open.
I n the Brut Tysylio, as translated by San M a r t e ,3 0 there is also a report o n A r t h u r ' s d r e a m i n nearly the same w o r d i n g as i n Geoffrey. T h i s is also true o f the battle o f M o n t St M i c h e l3 1 — the first and simplest fulfilment o f the prophetic d r e a m — w h i c h follows immediately after- w a r d s i n almost the same manner as i n the HRB. San M a r t e , however, d i d not translate the C y m r i c o r i g i n a l , but used the E n g l i s h translation b y Peter R o b e r t s . T h i s version can h a r d l y be called a translation, but s h o u l d rather be regarded as a c o m p i l a t i o n o f several different c h r o n i c l e s . Roberts h i m s e l f admits to h a v i n g used the Brut Gruffud ab Arthur, that is Geoffrey o f M o n m o u t h ' s HRB, as well as other 'private
sources' in a d d i t i o n to the Brut Tysylio?1 Therefore it cannot come as a surprise that R o b e r t s ' and San M a r t e ' s versions contain materials w h i c h d o not derive from the Brut Tysylio, for instance A r t h u r ' s battle w i t h the giant o f M o n t St M i c h e l , w h i c h is not to be found in the Tysylio v e r s i o n .3 3 T h e r e the c a m p a i g n against the R o m a n s follows immediately after the d r e a m .
T h e W e l s h report of the d r e a m is clearer and more precise in so far as the bear flying up from the South is called monstrum and thus identified as the v i l l a i n from the b e g i n n i n g . H e descends on the coast of F r a n c e
( ' F r o m the south . . . a l i g h t i n g on the shore of ffraink'); this can only be a p p l i e d to the R o m a n emperor. W h e n the author mentions the beast for the second time he terms h i m Arthyr = 'bear', thereby establishing a c o n n e c t i o n w i t h K i n g A r t h u r , whose close association with the dragon was o f course p o p u l a r knowledge of the time. F r o m this it follows that the W'elsh author saw i n K i n g A r t h u r the terrible bear, and at the same \ time the i n v i n c i b l e d r a g o n . T h e reading of the d r e a m suggested by the \ by-standers proves to be w r o n g ; only A r t h u r ' s interpretation of the d r e a m is borne out by later events.
T h e A n g l o - N o r m a n W a c e3 4 made major changes in the character of the D r e a m of the D r a g o n and Bear. T h e characteristics attributed to the a n i m a l s do not create pressing associations either w i t h A r t h u r as the leader a n d protector of the B r i t i s h , or w i t h L u c i u s as an aggressor and tyrant. T h e bear is nearly as powerful as the dragon himself, whose m a i n w e a p o n is his brute strength rather than his w i l d fire. B o t h a n i m a l s are geographically determined: the bear comes 'de vers oriant'; ; the d r a g o n flies 'de vers occidant' (2699, 2703).
A r t h u r reports his d r e a m to the clerks and barons. Some of them read I it as a p r e m o n i t i o n o f A r t h u r ' s victory over a giant, while others propose ! divergent explanations. B u t they a l l agree in regarding the dream as a j favourable o m e n . A r t h u r himself believes that the dream refers to his [ battle against the E m p e r o r , but he is somewhat dubious about the j
matter. H e concludes: ' M e s del tot soit el C r i a t o r ' .3 5 \ I n L a y a m o n ' s Brut36 the author himself terms A r t h u r ' s nightmare as |
fearful (feorlic, 12753). T h e K i n g is so terrified at the dream that he \ groans l o u d l y w h e n he awakes. N o n e o f those about h i m dares to ask I A r t h u r what the matter is, u n t i l he reports the dream of his own accord. j
A c c o r d i n g to L a y a m o n the hideous bear comes in a thunderstorm from the East, w h i l e the b u r n i n g dragon approaches from the West. T h e sea seems aflame w i t h the reflection o f the dragon's fire. T h e poet emphasises e x p l i c i t l y that the dragon burns the cities of the country — a notable p a r a l l e l to the AMA [(bur) [ßes he] suelfde], C a l . 12773, borwes he swelde, O t h o M S . ] .3 7 T h i s is the first hint of the fact that the d r a g o n w i l l destroy his own country. L a y a m o n emphasises the fierceness of the battle, w h i c h at first appears as a match of equal strength, as well as the uncertainty of the outcome. F i n a l l y the
d r a g o n slays the bear, casts h i m to earth, a n d tears h i m to pieces.
T h e author o f the AMA i n his representation of the d r a g o n and the bear takes u p quite a n u m b e r of motifs w h i c h can be found i n his predecessors, but he also adds a n u m b e r of essential traits. T h e dragon is c l e a r l y different from those found i n the sources. T h e author describes h i m as a magnificent a n i m a l s h i n i n g in silver and b r i l l i a n t colours.
N e a r l y a l l his features are positive ones. T h e bear, however, is a w i l d monster; a l l the epithets a p p l i e d to h i m are negative. In s u m m a t i o n , the poet calls h i m the ugliest beast ever created. I n the battle, the bear is at first not only a n even m a t c h , but seems the superior of the two; he w o u l d have defeated his opponent i f the dragon had not defended h i m s e l f w i t h his w i l d fire.
In contrast to a l l earlier versions the description of the dragon precedes that o f the bear. T h e dragon comes over the ocean from the W e s t i n order to destroy A r t h u r ' s people: 'to drenschen hys p o p l e ' (761). T h i s statement is repeated by the philosophers when they e x p l a i n A r t h u r ' s d r e a m . T h e y stress specifically that the dragon symbolises A r t h u r : ' T h e d r a g o n a p p r o a c h i n g over the sea, i n order to destroy thy people (to d r y n c h e n thy pople, 816), means yourself.'
T h i s interpretation has a great deal more significance, since A r t h u r w h e n he speaks o f the d r e a m only shows fear of the d r a g o n , not of the bear. I m m e d i a t e l y u p o n a w a k e n i n g the k i n g tells the philosophers, w h o are well-versed i n the seven liberal arts, that he has been tormented i n his d r e a m by a d r a g o n : 'and syche a derfe beste, H a s m a d me full w e r y ' ( 8 1 1 - 1 2 ) . T h e d r e a m readers accept A r t h u r ' s premises, a n d tell h i m i n no uncertain terms that he is g o i n g to destroy his o w n people. T h e y see the bear as the tyrants w h o torment his people: 'foat tourmentez thy p o p l e ' (824). T h e philosophers a d m i t that the dream is a terrifying one, a n d therefore add a consolation and an encouragement: ' N e kare noghte, S i r C o n q u e r o u r , bot comforth thy seluen; A n d thise foat saillez ouer foe see, w i t h thy sekyre knyghtes.' (830—1)
T h e interpretation o f the philosophers, w h i c h is i n itself contra- d i c t o r y , w i l l i n the end come true. T o w a r d s the end of the poem, the a u t h o r blames A r t h u r for tormenting his o w n people: '(he) turmentez foe p o p l e ' (3153). J u s t as he h a d said of the bear, he says of K i n g A r t h u r , '(he) riotes h y m seifen' (3172). A r t h u r is, at one and the same time, the d r a g o n and bear.
A r t h u r ' s battle against the giant on M o n t St M i c h e l i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g the D r e a m o f the D r a g o n a n d Bear is the first level o f realisation o f the d r e a m . A r t h u r takes up the battle w i t h the monster 'for rewthe o f foe p o p l e ' (888). T h e description o f the giant contains s i m i l a r terms to that o f the bear, a n d conveys a barbaric a n d hideous i m p r e s s i o n . T h e disgusting features o f an entire menagerie o f animals are catalogued, i n c l u d i n g the greyhound, frog, hawk, dogfish, flounder, bear (!), d o l p h i n , wolf, b u l l , badger, boar and swine.
T h e giant is the grotesquely distorted caricature of a tyrant (tyraunt, 991) l i v i n g outside of any k i n d of law and order ('he w i l l lenge owt of l a w e ' , 996, ' W i t h o w t e n licence o f lede, as lorde i n his awen', 997). V e r y m u c h like the bear he is an incar na tion of the vice of gluttony and thus a here i n the M i d d l e E n g l i s h sense of the w o r d . H i s macabre feast described i n m i n u t e detail is a malicious analogy to A r t h u r ' s overladen banquet i n w h i c h twenty-three different dishes and eight types of wine were served.
E v e r y Easter the giant receives the homage of fifteen realms and thus owns greater treasures than A r t h u r himself, whose name is twice m e n t i o n e d by the nurse o f the murdered duchess (1009, 1016). T h e monster thus represents in a d d i t i o n the absolute perversion of the m e d i e v a l feudal system: single-handedly and w i t h brute force he subjugated kings a n d princes and decimated the p o p u l a t i o n of their countries. P a r a l l e l s are also evident at the level of the half-line: the giant receives the tribute ' o f fyftene rewmez' (1005), and A r t h u r ' s liege-men are also ' o f fyftene r e w m e z ' (837).
S i m i l a r i t i e s a n d parallels to the action of the dream are clearly recognisable. I n the same manner i n w h i c h the dragon attacks the bear, A r t h u r wades into battle. A n d just as the bear appears i n i t i a l l y to be m o r e powerful, so also the giant seems at first more than a match for A r t h u r a n d very nearly kills h i m . B u t i n the end A r t h u r , like the dragon, strikes the decisive b l o w and emerges the victor.
O n a second level the D r e a m of the D r a g o n and Bear also refers to A r t h u r ' s confrontation w i t h the R o m a n E m p e r o r L u c i u s . T h e i m p e r i a l ensign is the golden d r a g o n (1252, 2026), w h i c h had t r a d i t i o n a l l y led the R o m a n cohorts into battle since ancient times. T h e R o m a n V i s c o u n t also has a d r a g o n i n his coat of arms (2053). T h i s is further evidence of the a m b i v a l e n c e o f this s y m b o l i c a n i m a l , w h i c h , i n the AMA, embodies the c l a i m to absolute power, and therewith war, death, and destruction:
' F o r thare is noghte bot dede thare the dragone es raissede' (2057). B u t such commentaries can be referred to both sides of the battle — A r t h u r ' s ensign is also the G o l d e n D r a g o n w h i c h he inherited from his father U t h e r .
T h e s y m b o l corresponds to the deed. O f L u c i u s it also said that he ' t ü r m e n t t e z foi pople' (1954). H e massacres ' C o m o u n s of foe countre, clergye a n d ofoer/ / foat are noghte coupable foerin, ne knawes noght in a r m e z ' (1316—17). A r t h u r does exactly the same thing after the capture o f M e t z , as w e l l as d u r i n g the c a m p a i g n in Italy. A g a i n we find that f o r m u l a i c half-lines intimate associations w h i c h are quite evidently the result o f a u t h o r intention. L u c i u s ' and his men's anticipation is expressed in the same words as used for the giant and the bear: to 'ryotte oure seifen' (1969).
B u t the focus o f the w o r k is, of course, the death of K i n g A r t h u r — in two places in the m a n u s c r i p t of the poem, at the beginning and the end,
it is entitled Morte Arthur. It is only from the morte perspective that the t h i r d level o f realisation o f the D r e a m of the D r a g o n and Bear can be u n d e r s t o o d .
K i n g A r t h u r is so tortured by the dream that he falls i l l and believes he must die. It is therefore evident that more important things are i n v o l v e d than a battle against a giant or even against the R o m a n E m p e r o r . A r t h u r ' s fate a n d that o f his realm are at stake here.
I n p r o p o r t i o n to his ever g r o w i n g success, A r t h u r becomes by degrees more c r u e l , greedy, a n d u n b r i d l e d . T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y evident in his c a m p a i g n i n T u s c a n y , where so m a n y innocent people are brought to death. A t the apex o f his power A r t h u r calls out: W e shall be lords over e v e r y t h i n g that lives on earth! T h i s act of hubris leads inevitably to m e t a p h y s i c a l guilt a n d therewith to downfall.
I n this w a y the d r e a m interpretation of the sages is fulfilled: A r t h u r , the d r a g o n , destroys his o w n people. T h e dragon was already an a m b i v a l e n t s y m b o l d u r i n g the M i d d l e Ages. In the AMA, however, the d a r k side o f A r t h u r is represented i n the image of the bear (Arth). T h e l a w - a b i d i n g a n d j u s t k i n g becomes a t y r a n n i c a l and barbaric conqueror, w h o cares n o t h i n g for the laws of G o d and chivalry.
L i k e a l l other conquerors, A r t h u r falls by the s w o r d . H e fails to pray for the souls o f his fallen men, as is traditionally expected of noble kings a n d heroes ( B y r h t n o t h , O s w a l d , a n d even G a w a i n i n the poem). U n l i k e G a w a i n , w h o e x p l i c i t l y states that he prays for the souls of his men and not for himself, A r t h u r ' s only thought is for himself, his honour and his great loss. It is true that, on a purely formal level, he dies reconciled w i t h G o d ; a n d yet he remains recalcitrant, entrapped in worldliness to the end. T h e last p r a y e r he utters is one of thanks to G o d who granted h i m sovereignty over a l l other kings and preserved h i m from shame.
T h e last c o m m a n d he utters is to have M o r d r e d ' s children killed and flung into the water. K i n g A r t h u r has not learned his lesson.
