The anatomy of Glaurung

[skip spence]

I am fascinated by Glaurung but I never really could visualize for myself just how the father of Dragons looks like. This is an attempt to clear this out, hopefully with some help. It is a fact that he is a great reptilian-like creature with four legs. He cannot fly, but walks the earth, but how does he move about? Does he crawl on his belly like a huge snake, or would he hoist up his bulk over the ground and walk or run upright (the horror!). To be honest the last part can’t be right, all accounts tell of a crawling snakelike Glaurung. He is a Worm after all and to me that signifies a snakelike creature. But what is a “Worm”, from where did Tolkien get this term? Anyway, Glaurungs undersides was “pale and wrinkled … and all dank with a grey slime, to which clung all manner of dropping filth…”, and this is no doubt the fabled soft belly of a snake that Turin speak of. A dragon’s curse and only weak spot. The manner of movement this makes possible comes in handy quite often though, as Glaurung often sort of glides up and surprises people in CoH. Obviously he can move about almost without sound if he wishes to.

A major problem with the soft slimy belly is the immense heat that seems to emancipate from the great Worm at most times. He enters a river and it boils instantly, people near him almost faint from the heat and stench. Yet he has a slimy belly. Man, he must be gliding around on hot wax.

His upper side is covered by impenetrable armor. Do you think it would have been a bony, crocodilian crust, or thick, snakelike scales or something completely different? And what about his legs? Given that he crawls on his belly they must have been of limited use moving about. Rather used to grab onto things, such as dwarves and ponies, I suppose. One thing is certain, Glaurung has a long and powerful neck for he is able to coil back from swords and tower above his hapless victims. This would indicate an even longer tail end for balancing purposes. Yes, the more I think about it, Glaurung must basically have looked like a huge snake. Perhaps proportionately a bit thicker and shorter than most snakes, but still. His legs must have been rather modest appendixes with much less power than in his tail, yet certainly strong enough to squish a few dwarves with I suppose.

Oh and he talks too of course! Does Glaurung have vocal chords, lips and for the purpose a functional tongue? Hardly think so eh?

[Nerwen]

Oh and he talks too of course! Does Glaurung have vocal chords, lips and for the purpose a functional tongue? Hardly think so eh?

Well, if we want to get all scientific-like, perhaps he has a syrinx. (http://www.earthlife.net/birds/song.html)

[Morthoron]

Well, if we want to get all scientific-like, perhaps he has a syrinx. (http://www.earthlife.net/birds/song.html)

I didn't know Glaurung liked '2112' from Rush:
http://new.music.yahoo.com/rush/tracks/2112-overturethe-temples-of-syrinx--1636871

[Bêthberry]

. He is a Worm after all and to me that signifies a snakelike creature. But what is a “Worm”, from where did Tolkien get this term?

"Worm" comes from the Old English word, wyrm, meaning "dragon." (There are several OE words for dragon.) It is used a fair bit in Beowulf, one of Tolkien's favourite poems. You can check out one use in my sig. ;)

Perhaps Eönwë or The Squatter of Amon Rûdh can tell us more.

[skip spence]

Well, if we want to get all scientific-like, perhaps he has a syrinx. (http://www.earthlife.net/birds/song.html)

I think it would be a huge mistake to get all scientific, but disregarding that, good idea!

I didn't know Glaurung liked '2112' from Rush:
Haha. But I dunno, I always figured Glaurung were more into classical, you know Bach and the like.

You can check out one use in my sig.
Hey now, how would I do that, dear? ;-)

Perhaps Eönwë or The Squatter of Amon Rûdh can tell us more.
I sure hope so. Paint us a picture of Glaurung the Worm!

[Eönwë]

Well, what I do know is that wyrm also can mean "serpent".

What I did find through Wikipedia is this 17th century Icelandic picture of Níðhöggr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%AD%C3%B0h%C3%B6ggr)(Nidhogg) gnawing at the roots of Yggdrasill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yggdrasill):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Nidhogg.png

Looking at this, I'd say it looks pretty serpent-like.
Also, since Tolkien was inspired by Norse and Germanic mythology, I assume that he definitely uses their descriptions of dragons as inspiration and was familiar with the Northern European style of dragon.

As for modern adaptations of Norse dragons, I rather like the look of dragon in Sword of Xanten (here's a clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXVM62LvaaY)on youtube of it), which is Fafnir (and we know Tolkien liked this story - Also notice that in this movie he uses the term "Worm")

Obviously, this is only one example, and Tolkien tells us that they have four legs, which leads me to think that they are maybe more crocodillian. Because I can't imagine a dragon walking like a lizard, I'd say that their legs would be similar to a crocodile's, where they are only "half-raised", not fully like mammals or dinosaurs, but not all the way down like most lizards. I think that they waould walk a bit like this (http://www.discourse.net/archives/pix/american-crocodile-emerging-water.jpg), and would look more like this (http://www.animaldanger.com/images/crocodile.jpg), when resting, though I imagine to have a larger, rounder underside than crocodiles and more like some early dinosaurs or pre-dinosaur reptiles.

If we're going for realistic examples, perhaps they looked a bit like Dimetrodon (http://www.search4dinosaurs.com/rm_dimetrodon.jpg)'s without the sail, or maybe more like a Proterogyrinus (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/galleries/wwmonsters/images/wallpaper/images/1280_image1.jpg)(the reptile in the picture). Or maybe more therapsid (mammal-like reptiles) such as Estemmenosuchus (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons /b/bd/Estemmenosuchus_BW.jpg) or Bauria (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Bauria_BW.jpg). Or perhaps, if they're skinnier like worms, A Doswellia (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Doswellia_BW.jpg)would be more appropriate. Though I would personally go for a cross between a Moschops (http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/ArchOLD-7/1200877797.jpg) and a Doswellia.

Ok, I've probably bored you all with knowledge of early reptiles, but I was just trying to show examples of creatures from the animal world (however extinct), which I think are similar to the Worms of Middle Earth. Obviously Tolkien did try to make his animals really work, so that's why I was taking the scientific approach here as well.

[Rumil]

I'd go for Glauring looking much like Smaug, except bigger, badder and wingless.

eg.

http://www.tuckborough.net/images/smaug.jpg

[skip spence]

Obviously, this is only one example, and Tolkien tells us that they have four legs, which leads me to think that they are maybe more crocodillian. Because I can't imagine a dragon walking like a lizard, I'd say that their legs would be similar to a crocodile's, where they are only "half-raised", not fully like mammals or dinosaurs, but not all the way down like most lizards. I think that they waould walk a bit like this (http://www.discourse.net/archives/pix/american-crocodile-emerging-water.jpg), and would look more like this (http://www.animaldanger.com/images/crocodile.jpg), when resting, though I imagine to have a larger, rounder underside than crocodiles and more like some early dinosaurs or pre-dinosaur reptiles.

If we're going for realistic examples, perhaps they looked a bit like Dimetrodon (http://www.search4dinosaurs.com/rm_dimetrodon.jpg)'s without the sail, or maybe more like a Proterogyrinus (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/galleries/wwmonsters/images/wallpaper/images/1280_image1.jpg)(the reptile in the picture). Or maybe more therapsid (mammal-like reptiles) such as Estemmenosuchus (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons /b/bd/Estemmenosuchus_BW.jpg) or Bauria (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Bauria_BW.jpg). Or perhaps, if they're skinnier like worms, A Doswellia (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Doswellia_BW.jpg)would be more appropriate. Though I would personally go for a cross between a Moschops (http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/ArchOLD-7/1200877797.jpg) and a Doswellia.

Ok, I've probably bored you all with knowledge of early reptiles, but I was just trying to show examples of creatures from the animal world (however extinct), which I think are similar to the Worms of Middle Earth. Obviously Tolkien did try to make his animals really work, so that's why I was taking the scientific approach here as well.
Cheers, those are some nice reptiles there, and at least I am not bored, quite the opposite. However, as I said, I don't believe Glaurung walked at all, so none of them quite resemble how I imagine the Dragon. Now, after browsing my books, I'm quite certain Glaurung crawled with his belly on the ground like a huge snake. Possibly (now I'm speculating) he could surprise his enemies by suddenly lifting his heavy body above ground and rushing towards them in a fit of rage, running much like a lizard. This would be extremely wearisome though, and not something he would try unless pushed.

In his rage Glaurung turned and struck down Azaghal ... and crawled over him ...
Why crawl over somebody, if you can trample him?

...suddenly Glaurung came forth with a great blast of fire, and crawled down into the stream...

A bit later:
But he was slow now and stealthy; for the fires in him were burned low; great power had gone out of him, and he would rest and sleep in the dark. Thus he writhed through the water and slunk up to the doors like a huge snake, ashen-grey, sliming the ground with his belly.


But Túrin drawing back his sword stabbed at his eyes; and Glaurung coiling back swiftly towered above him ...
If Glaurung had a shortish neck, like all the creatures you've provided pictures of, this move would've been hard to pull off. Well, that Doswellia fella perhaps could do something like that.

And how big was Glaurung, you think?

The only real clue here, as far as I'm aware, is his his attempted crossing of Cabed-en-Aras, where Túrin slays him. Across it a deer once jumped, it is said. Now, how far can a deer leap? 10 metres perhaps? Now imagine a lithe but very heavy Glaurung attempting to hurl his fore-body across a 10 metre gorge. How big does he need to be in order to pull that off? I suppose the distance between his hind and fore legs would be longer that the width of the gorge, or Túrin would not have gotten the chance to stab at his vitals. However, if he was snakelike, he wouldn't need to hurl himself across so recklessly if he were that long. Hm, tricky this...
.
I'd go for Glauring looking much like Smaug, except bigger, badder and wingless.
I pretty much agree to that. Tolkien isn't the greatest illustrator the world has known though, and it is hard to picture that creature actually flying.

[FeRaL sHaDoW]

Interesting ideas, I have always seen Glauring looking like a large komodo dragon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komodo_dragon) of sorts. (Yes I am throwing another creature into the mix:D) They do kind of slither about as they walk and can run quite fast when they need to. They look very similar to the many creatures that Eönwë was thinking of. Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_xvByX2bkc&feature=related)

[Galin]

Tolkien painted a picture of Glaurung (Glorund) too -- if you have JRRT Artist and Illustrator for example, see page 51. It's early but I thought some might be interested in any case. And while not about Glaurung specifically, in 1938 Tolkien gave a lecture on Dragons (to children), using slides of his own drawings of Glorund, the 'coiled dragon' and others. In this he noted

'(...) Of course, size is also a consideration... A respectable dragon should be twenty feet or more.

The true dragon at his least was sufficiently large to be a terrible foe... It was the function of dragons to tax the skill of heroes,...'

I general he described...

'... 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 poweful tail...' (...) JRRT

There's more of this lecture published in Hammond And Scull's Reader's Guide

[skip spence]

Great Galin, you can always be trusted to provide substance, if there is any. Since I don't own that particular book, would you mind trying to tell us how the picture looks like?

So it is pretty safe to say that Glaurung is a serpent-creature. Since serpent is a synonym for snake (as opposed to lizard, crocodile, dinosaur) I suppose that Glaurung indeed looked pretty much like I tried to describe in the op. Yet I've never seen him illustrated anything like how one must assume he looks like, given the texts and background material. On my HoME XI paperback, there he is on the cover, looking rather like a monstrous grub with a dental condition:

http://maryvictrix.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/glaurung.jpg

That's just awful (although I quite like the colours on the original).

On a google-search lots of other images pop up, but none showing a lithe serpent creature. Why is that, you think?

[Galin]

I'm not sure this is allowed, but if the link works it seems there is an edition of Unfinished Tales with Tolkien's early Glorund painting used as a cover illustration.

http://www.tolkien.co.uk/Pages/ProductDetails.aspx?ISBN=9780261102156

If not allowed, apologies.

[Bêthberry]

I pretty much agree to that. Tolkien isn't the greatest illustrator the world has known though, and it is hard to picture that creature actually flying.

I suppose things hinge on what one wants in an illustrator.

Tolkien's artwork doesn't belong to the realistic tradition but to the Arts and Craft Movement. Think of the Pre-Raphaelite artists. The art belongs to a tradition of romantic idealism rather than to documentary realism.

So, for me, I rather like the quirkiness of his drawings. His Smaug captures Smaug's lust for his hoard and that's all that matters there, in my opinion. And there's a primitiveness to his Glorund that is quite anthropologically intriguing as I see it even though the drawing isn't in perspective.

Maybe Tolkien's dragons aren't terrifying, but they are satisfying in their own way.

[skip spence]

Tolkien's artwork doesn't belong to the realistic tradition but to the Arts and Craft Movement. Think of the Pre-Raphaelite artists.

I'm thinking, but nope, there's nothing there. ;)


So, for me, I rather like the quirkiness of his drawings. His Smaug captures Smaug's lust for his hoard and that's all that matters there, in my opinion. And there's a primitiveness to his Glorund that is quite anthropologically intriguing as I see it even though the drawing isn't in perspective.
Anthropologically intriguing as it may be it helps me little, doesn't it? Thanks though, Galin, I appreciate it!

You are right though, of course. One might indeed appreciate Tolkien as an illustrator, and you make a good point out of it too. Sort of, this is the kind of pictures you would find on the authentic (but fictional) Red Book. But I must say, looking at that Smaug picture I'm quite certain that Tolkien didn't intend to loose all sense of perspective, trying to be a good Pre-Rafaelite, he simply didn't know any better, which is my point about Tolkien the illustrator I suppose. He was a great writer and also a pretty decent illustrator. But if he never wrote any books, he probably wouldn't be able to support himself as an illustrator.

[Bêthberry]

But if he never wrote any books, he probably wouldn't be able to support himself as an illustrator.

He didn't support himself writing books either. ;)

[skip spence]

He didn't support himself writing books either. ;)
Touché. But hey, I'm not trying to disrespect his artwork, which is not without a certain charm. Besides, many wonderful artists can't support themselves on their art but remain wonderful. Yet I suppose you did get my point, though it was poorly expressed. I meant to say that Tolkien was a better writer than he was a painter or illustrator and that naturalistic representations of Middle Earth and its inhabitants were hard for him to pull off successfully.

[Bêthberry]

I meant to say that Tolkien was a better writer than he was a painter or illustrator and that naturalistic representations of Middle Earth and its inhabitants were hard for him to pull off successfully.

My points have also been unclear, so let me explain a bit. :)

Is there any evidence that Tolkien ever wanted to be what you are calling a naturalistic illustrator? Did he ever try? I don't think so. I don't think he drew the way he did because he couldn't draw like Lee or Howe or Nasmith (for example). His style is not a default. I think he drew the way he did because that's how his artistic imagination worked.

And his illustrations were acceptable enough to his publishers for them to be used in the first edition of The Hobbit.

So it goes back to my opening comment here: "I suppose things hinge on what one wants in an illustrator."

You want "naturalistic" illustrations. Which is your taste and okay. Nothing wrong with that. But I don't think it's necessarily the case that such illustrations are the one criterion by which to evaluate the many different styles of illustrations.

Now the question of how to imagine the creatures that Tolkien's text gives us--which is how this thread started--now that's something different and an interesting question I think. There are those who say that any and all illustrations defeat the written word because they inhibit or limit the reader's imagination. Dragons especially are creatures of imagination, so maybe there's no one way to draw them to suit every reader. What is most fearful might be different for each reader. So maybe that is why the description is so tantalising but inconclusive. It's beyond naturalising. :)

[skip spence]

Is there any evidence that Tolkien ever wanted to be what you are calling a naturalistic illustrator? Did he ever try? I don't think so. I don't think he drew the way he did because he couldn't draw like Lee or Howe or Nasmith (for example). His style is not a default. I think he drew the way he did because that's how his artistic imagination worked.
I don't know what kind of illustrator Tolkien wanted to be and I have hardly read anything about the subject, although I faintly recall Tolkien saying something about how he couldn't or wouldn't draw detailed close-ups of characters. Not sure if that was because he lacked the ability or if he wanted to leave that up to the imagination of the readers or a combination thereof. Probably the last one. Having seen many (but far from all) of his ME inspired paintings and illustrations, it is my opinion that he was a decent hobby-illustrator (or Hobbit-), and not without talent, but he was also rather limited. Some of his pictures are lovely in their own way, but I think he lacked the skills and artistic vision to be considered really good. Not because he wasn't into naturalistic paintings. And hey, some of his pictures do appear to be attempts to depict motives more "realistically". That Smaug and Bilbo illustration is an example. Smaug and his hall do nor appear very stylized to me. I also recall a painting of the Shire. It is my impression is that he couldn't paint in perspective even if he tried, but I could be wrong. But appreciation of art is obviously subjective, and even though he couldn't draw or paint people and get the perspectives right, one can still enjoy his work.

You want "naturalistic" illustrations. Which is your taste and okay. Nothing wrong with that. But I don't think it's necessarily the case that such illustrations are the one criterion by which to evaluate the many different styles of illustrations.
To be fair I have never said I only appreciate naturalistic illustrations or paintings, and that is not the case either. Maybe you got that impression because of the context of this thread, where a good, realistic depiction of the dragon as the text describes him would've been godsent. But I certainly wouldn't say that Tolkien's picture of Glaurung that Galin provided was poor because it wasn't a naturalistic depiction. Actually appears too small for me to judge at all, anyway.

Now the question of how to imagine the creatures that Tolkien's text gives us--which is how this thread started--now that's something different and an interesting question I think. There are those who say that any and all illustrations defeat the written word because they inhibit or limit the reader's imagination. Dragons especially are creatures of imagination, so maybe there's no one way to draw them to suit every reader. What is most fearful might be different for each reader. So maybe that is why the description is so tantalising but inconclusive. It's beyond naturalising. I don't think all illustrations inhibit or limit the imagination. A good one may stimulate it as well. What peeves me I suppose are pictures that obviously go against what is written in the text, such as the one I provided above. Those I cannot accept. It is clear from his texts that Tolkien did not imagine his Glaurung like that. Where are his hypnotic eyes fex? Of course, like you say, the description of the dragon is inconclusive. Some characteristics can be guessed indirectly. Others are left for the imagination, which indeed is tantalizing. I like it that way too. :)