Analysis
The passage, “Sekandar Reaches A Land Where the Men Have Soft Feet and Kills a Dragon” and the illuminated manuscript “MS. Lat. Th. d. 33” are able to complement each other in numerous manners. Most notably, the poem and the manuscript reveal the ferocity of the dragon, and the broad reach that the myth of the dragon has accumulated by the 11th century. Both sources together reveal the standard image and the reputation that dragons have gained by the 11th century, which has not changed significantly in the millennium since their creation hence creating the quintessential image of the modern dragon.
Within the passage of the Shahnahmeh, Ferdowsi is able to meticulously describe the dragon as a fearsome and strong predator. The dragon is attributed as a beast with hair strong enough to “ensare elephants”, spews “noxious vapors” which can be shot as far as the moon, and has a massive maw which breathes fire (Ferdowsi, Sekandar Reaches A Land Where the Men Have Soft Feet and Kills a Dragon). Later it is also revealed that the dragon is able to survive a barrage of arrows and kill multiple men in one blast of fire. As a result, Ferdowsi is able to to successfully paint the dragon as a fierce creature. Correspondingly within the illustrated manuscript, the dragon is drawn as fierce as Ferdowsi described. The dragon is depicted as a towering creature with sharp talons and large wings. However most notably is the man held within the dragon’s maw. Such a feature reveals the true scale of the dragon, and the strength that it possesses. However, as a result of the man within the mouth of the dragon, it can be seen that the illustrator of the manuscript also wishes to depict the dragon as a predator that preys upon humans, just as Ferdowsi described.
What is more is that by the time the manuscript was created in the eleventh century, it can be seen that the myth of the dragon already became widespread and its features cemented. The earlier material, the Shahnemeh, was created during the tenth century by Ferdowsi in Persia which is now known as Iran (Bolintineanu, 2022). As previously mentioned, the manuscript depicting the dragon was drawn in the eleventh century in Worcester, England, (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. th. d. 33). As a result, it can be seen that within the century difference between the Shahnemeh and the manuscript, the myth of the dragon remained prevalent and the depictions of the dragon remained consistent. Consequently, it can be seen that either the story of the dragon traveled from Persia to England, or the myth of the dragon was an earlier creation that spread to both nations.
According to Phil Senter, Uta Mattox, and Eid Haddad’s “Snake to Monster: Conrad Gessner’s Schlangenbuch and the Evolution of the Dragon in Literature of Natural History”, the latter option is correct. The authors claim that the myth of the dragon stemmed from snakes as “classical authors applied the term dragon to large snakes” (Senter Phil, Uta Mattox, and Eid. E Haddad, 67). They begin by citing Homer’s Iliad, who “uses the term drakon in reference to a snake … that is small enough to fit beneath an altar, is able to climb a tree, eats small birds, and is something an eagle would bring to the nest to feed its young” (Senter Phil, Uta Mattox, and Eid. E Haddad, 71). As time progressed, the authors state that “The size of the drakon is exaggerated in several subsequent classical bits of folklore”, such as that “the Indians kept a dragon 500 foot long and fed it oxen” (Senter Phil, Uta Mattox, and Eid. E Haddad, 75). As a result, it is evident that Ferdowsi and the illustrator of the manuscript were not the original creator of the dragon, however they propagated the myth that had already snowballed, stemming from snakes.
Through the passage “Sekandar Reaches A Land Where the Men Have Soft Feet and Kills a Dragon” and the illuminated manuscript “MS. Lat. Th. d. 33”, Ferdowsi and the illustrator of the manuscript both depict the dragon as a fierce predator. Furthermore, both depictions ranging in creation location and time reveal the urgency that the myth of the dragon poses at the end of the eleventh century. Although both authors did not create the myth, they aided in preserving the notion of the creature and as a result are directly responsible for propelling the myth into the twenty-first century.