Scatha ?

[Aldarian]

There has been earlier discussion about the dragons with names and there have been mentioned these dragons.

Glaurung (Father of the dragons)

Ancalagon (The biggest of the winged dragons)

Smaug ( well, you know our red-golden friend)


But what about Scatha? Is he a real dragon? He is mentioned in the Lord of the Rings, book 6, chapter VI when Eowyn gives a silver horn to Merry. She says that "it is from the treasure of snake Scatha" (my translation, I don't have the english version of LOTR.)

So is Scatha a real dragon ( I myself have always considered so) and if so are there any more information about him. I think that he is classified as a dragon in the I.C.E. productions but is there any canon information?

[Cirdan]

'This is an heirloom of our house,' said Eowyn. 'It was made by the Dwarves, and came from the hoard of Scatha the Worm. Eorl the Young brought it from the North. He that blows it at need shall set fear in the hearts of his enemies and joy in the hearts of his friends, and they shall hear him and come to him.'

- Many Partings, The Return of the King

Scatha was a big Worm. Worms were Morgoth's first shot at dragon-making, a kind of beta version that didn't fly.

[ThingolOfDoriath]

Yup...they were known as Cold-Drakes.

Check this out: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/c/colddrakes.html

But you can read about Scatha directly through this link: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/s/scatha.html[/quote]

[Aldarian]

Yup...they were known as Cold-Drakes.

Yep suspected as much but...

Scatha was a big Worm.

The word worm brings me an image of a ... worm. A creature without limbs. I have always imagined Scatha as a four legged dragon, without wings or ability to spit fire.

It seems that the appearance of the Scatha will be left to the dark but the conclusion is that he belonged to a sub-species of dragons which was the predecessor of the winged and Fire-Drakes. Am I right?

Thanks for the links.

[TulKas]

I don't think the worms (Glaurung counted among them) had limbs. Like your translation, they were like snakes...

[1eyedGandalf]

Didn't the dragons evolve from thr great worms. Some1 told me that.

[TulKas]

The first dragons were called worms because they didn't have wings, so I guess you could say that...

[1eyedGandalf]

Ok thx

[Goblin Feet]

Worm (n.) n.
1. A creeping or a crawling animal of any kind or size, as a serpent, caterpillar, snail, or the like.
2. Any small creeping animal or reptile, either entirely without feet, or with very short ones, including a great variety of animals; as, an earthworm; the blindworm.

I think this clears it up. In the Old English, a worm was anything that crept on the ground. With no wings to speak of, they were called worms.

[TulKas]

And I will guess that they didn't have any legs, since the term "very short ones" just does't fit with the general description of a dragon. Also, one of the most famous drawings of the battle between Turin and Glaurung shows a giant snake with no limbs...

[Zakath]

On the other hand, I always imagined them as looking like stereotypical fantasy dragons without the wings.

Legs will always be a part of the image for me.

How does Glaurung collect the treasure without limbs? Grip it with his tail? Without limbs, he'd need his tail to move around!

[Curse of Mandos]

I support the 'legs' theory, Tolkien did describe the great worms as 'crawling' aswell as other adjectives for lothargic, Dragon like movements and the word 'crawling' implies to me that they had limbs.

Also, Zakath has a good point.

[Aldarian]

I support the 'legs' theory...

As do I. I have always thought that they had limbs like the lizards do and the name "worm" came from their long neck, body and tail.

Also in finnish the word dragon is "lohikäärme" where the end "käärme" means same as the english word "snake". And still the general image of the dragon usually has four legs. Now this has nothing to do with the Tolkien but may have affected my image of the Scatha and other "worms".

[Goblin Feet]

I think its safe to assume that they were called worms because of the serpentine shape of the body and lack of wings. They most likely had legs, and perhaps a more elongated snake like shape than later dragons. Sort of like a legged sea serpent.

[Aldarian]

The word "worm" could have been used from the dragons in derogatory way. Something like an insult. "Those big worms...". Of course this would not be wise if a dragon can hear you.

Just a thought...

[Folcwine]

Actually the word Worm has origins in the Anglo-Saxon Wyrm and in the even older Germanic Ormr: both meaning "Serpent".

[Radagast the Brown]

true.

[Goblin Feet]

Very true. In consulting my copy of Beowulf:

The serpent on the ground, gruesome and vile, lying facing them. The fire dragon.

Aer hi paer gesegan syllicran wilt, wyrm on wonge. Waes se leg-draca, grimlic gryre-fah.

So In the old English, the words serpent and dragon were interchangeable in description of the single creature.

[Folcwine]

Yes as a matter of fact

the term dragon comes from the Greek drakon also meaning "serpent".

So the terms do apparently seem to be interchangable.

[Goblin Feet]

From this we can then assume that worms and dragons are one in the same as far as classical definitions are concerned. I suppose that Tolkiens vision of the whole mess is lost in antiquity.

[TulKas]

Wasn't Smaug once called a great worm? If so, that would pretty much end the argument...

[Cirdan]

[...] There was a most specially greedy, strong and wicked worm called Smaug. [...]

- An Unexpected Party, The Hobbit

[Goblin Feet]

I guess that lets the air out of the legless worm theory.

[Goblin Feet]

Off the subject, If Morgoth couldnt create life, only distort existing creatures, how did he create dragons?

The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make: not real new things of its own. I don't think it gave life to Orcs, it only ruined them and twisted them ...
(The Return of the King, p. 190)

[Radagast the Brown]

He ruined and twisted something already in existence?

[Goblin Feet]

That would be the question.

[Radagast the Brown]

or the answer.

[TulKas]

That question pretty much answers itself...

"If he can't create--only distort--how did he make dragons?"

[syzygy]

Maybe he corrupted some dinosaurs.

[dried-mango]

On the subject of how Dragons and monsters like Ungoliant and the Watcher in the Water came about, may I offer a possible answer; perhaps these were the 'evil' elements conjured up (not necessarily with intent or specific purpose) by Melkor when he spun his discord during the great Music. Tolkien wrote that when Melkor disrupted the harmony of the Music, 'negative' elements were 'written' into the Theme of Creation. It is a strong likelihood that such 'unexplainable' creatures such as Dragons, the Watcher, Old Man Willow and other similar 'nasty' beings may have originated in Melkor's discordant contribution to the Music.

There is a passage in The Letters of JRR Tolkien that lends credence to this view, but since I don't have the book with me right now, I'll have to post that quote some other time.

[Goblin Feet]

I buy it. Thanks mango.

[Aldarian]

Not a bad idea at all but i must admit that I lean to the theory that dragons were originally some other species which Morgoth twisted and corrupted. Maybe they were originally some sort of big lizards.

It is told in the Silmarillion that after Melkor had build his fortress of Utumno and his evilnes was spreading, many animals were transformed to monsters and they got horns and fangs and they covered the land with blood... Maybe the dragons were created in same way.

It is also mentioned that when Morgoth rised the wolf Carcharoth he gave it his own powers and so the wolf grew gigantic. I think that this was done with the creation of the dragons too.

Also that point that it took atleast 100 years to rise/create Glaurung speaks to the behalf that te dragons were slowly and completely corrupted from some other species.