Legs or No? Did Glaurung Have Legs?

[baragund]

Here is a variation of the famous Balrog / wings-or-not discussion. I got the idea for this when my 10 year old brought home a book on dragons. (Chrys, you'd be so proud!) Anyway, Glaurung was in the book and he was illustrated without legs. He looked like a fat orange snake with a dragons head.

My first reaction was "Heck, no! That's not what he looks like!" but then I started thinking about his descriptions in the stories as a "worm" and how he "heaved up his bulk and hurled himself across the chasm" of the River Teiglin when Turin stabbed him. It could be understandable that he could be considered without legs and more snakelike than your typical dragon.

What do you think?

 

[Illuin]

Here’s a painting by J.R.R. Tolkien himself from 1927. Not sure if he stuck with the same idea later on, but Glaurung had legs at least back then.

 

[chrysophalax]

I am indeed proud, Baragund! You've obviously got a brilliant child there!

As for the description, I've always pictured him wingless, not legless. Could be because of Tolkien's painting, which I had seen at one point, but I also think that Tolkien's words describe how a huge wingless critter would cross a chasm, by heaving itself across. He was far too large to leap, I'm sure!

 

[Elthir]

Here’s a painting by J.R.R. Tolkien himself from 1927. Not sure if he stuck with the same idea later on, but Glaurung had legs at least back then.

In the Narn he is described as having great forelegs, and at one point while trying to cross the chasm, Glaurung grappled the further cliff with his mighty claws.

 

[Illuin]

by Galin
In the Narn he is described as having great forelegs, and at one point while trying to cross the chasm, Glaurung grappled the further cliff with his mighty claws.

That's a good point. Checked it out in CoH as well. Looking at Tolkien's painting, and reading descriptions about Glaurung; I picture him as an oversized, fire breathing mudskipper .

 

[Alcuin]

...I've always pictured him wingless, not legless.

He was wingless. The flying dragons did not appear until later.

I echo chrysophalax, Baragund: excellent find. But it promised to be such an interesting debate...

 

[Bucky]

Of course Glaurung had legs.......

'Heaving his bulk', well there's a lot of dragon between those two sets of legs - hence the term 'worm'.

(and Balrogs might have wings - I keep flip-flopping)

Nah, no wings.
Simply metaphor. Read the passage again.

 

[Aisteru]

Worm doesn't refer to the invertebrate that most people can find in their backyards. It is a different spelling of "wyrm" which is the Old English word for Dragon. So, they weren't called "worms" because of their resemblance to actual earthworms, rather they we called worms in reference to European dragons.

So, with that in mind, Glaurung had legs because of three things:
1) He is a dragon. All dragons have legs. Therefore, he has legs. Take that Sherlock.
2) "In the Narn he is described as having great forelegs, and at one point while trying to cross the chasm, Glaurung grappled the further cliff with his mighty claws." Originally posted by Galin
3) I have never seen a picture of Glaurung, or any dragon for that matter, without legs.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Worm doesn't refer to the invertebrate that most people can find in their backyards. It is a different spelling of "wyrm" which is the Old English word for Dragon. So, they weren't called "worms" because of their resemblance to actual earthworms, rather they we called worms in reference to European dragons.

So, with that in mind, Glaurung had legs because of three things:
1) He is a dragon. All dragons have legs. Therefore, he has legs. Take that Sherlock.
2) "In the Narn he is described as having great forelegs, and at one point while trying to cross the chasm, Glaurung grappled the further cliff with his mighty claws." Originally posted by Galin
3) I have never seen a picture of Glaurung, or any dragon for that matter, without legs.

Now THAT is a good post! I learned some Old English, and got some insight into JRR's usage of "worm." Thanks!

Barley

 

[Firawyn]

I was reading this thread and said to myself; "doesn't the Old English word 'wyrm' mean dragon?", and then I saw Aisteru's post...and well that was going to be my input.

I did a paper in highschool on how Tolkien came up with the names of his various creatures in Middle Earth, and that prompted a bit of study into Old English. Tolkien was very influenced by Old English.


Fir-

 

[Elthir]

Old English wyrm 'dragon', as has been noted, and also could be used for 'reptile, serpent, snake'. Another word was draca 'dragon, sea-monster, serpent'


In 1938 Tolkien discussed dragons for a Christmas lecture (for children), describing basically two kinds, 'creeping' and 'winged', but in general large, deadly coiling serpent creatures. JRRT appears to have thought the fabulous dragon, the old worm or great drake, was of this sort:

'A serpent creature, but with four legs and claws; his neck varied in length but had a hideous head with long jaws and teeth or snake tongue. He was usually heavily armoured especially on his head and back and flanks. Nonetheless he was pretty bendable (up and down or sideways), could even tie himself in knots on occasion, and had a long powerful tail (...) Some had wings -- the legendary kind of wings that go together with front legs (instead of being front legs gone queer) (...) A respectable dragon should be 20 ft or more.'

Hammond and Scull note that Tolkien also: '... described the history of the word dragon, and of drake and other words such as wym or worm used for the same creature,...' but here we have text described as from a 'largely unpublished lecture' and I can't seem to locate the part on the words so far. It would be interesting to hear JRRT's particular thoughts on these words in any case.

 

[baragund]

Good points all around. I'll scan the picture of the legless Glaurung out of my 10 year old's book and post it so everybody can go "Ughhh!"