Analysis

Most explicitly, the dragons faced by Sekandar and Beowulf embody that which makes a king bad insofar as they are inclined toward excess at the expense of those “beneath” them, and are overtly tyrannical – they rule land by means of subjugation and intimidation, reigning over the people who live in fear of them and thus bend to their will out of terror and necessity. The people conform for the sake of their livelihood; they are subjects to the dragon, as peoples are subjects to a king. Further, in the case of Zahhak, his life of vice negates his humanity, and his tendency toward evil has the consequence of turning him into a cannibalistic serpent-monster.
            However, the dragons and serpents in these stories do not merely show what makes a king bad by embodying certain characteristics; they show what makes a king bad by demonstrating for us, in opposition, how a good king behaves. In the case of Sekandar and Beowulf, they slay the dragons in their respective stories by employing reason coupled with skill in battle. The story of Sekandar and the dragon specifically demonstrates his temperance and forethought; he opts to weaken the dragon and then attack rather than rush into battle. In a similar show of admirable character, when Faridun takes the form of a dragon to his sons, Irij demonstrates his diplomacy and bravery in direct opposition to his brothers who act on either extreme of cowardice or rashness. Though Silim and Tur are next in line to the throne, they fail their father’s test of character and are deemed unfit to rule compared to Irij. Faridun eventually rewards Irij with the title of King of Iran, violating the hereditary line and suggesting that a good king is, above all, one who is brave, tempered, and thoughtful. Both these encounters with a dragon, then, give insight into what it means to be a good king.