The Beowulfian dragon seems to keep as jealous a watch on the mystery of its ultimate significance in the poem as on the buried hoard. And when a critic boldly tries to force the entrance of the monster's barrow, he must sooner or later reckon with a shattering counter-stroke. Though it looked as if Professor Tolkien's brilliant attempt had finally disposed of the problem, it appears that the dragon was dormant only and the retour de flamme has now come, more than fifteen years later, in the form a of competent and courageous article, vigorously questioning the legitimacy of the critic's progress. Mr. Gang's article—and this is not the least of its merits—clearly raises the question of premises and methods in Beowulf criticism, and lucidly probes the actual base of Tolkien's interpretation of the poem. We shall not venture to decide the point (much too perilous a plight for minnows to judge the Triton's issue). Moreover, to examine so dense an article in all its implications would mean an extensive study. Our modest purpose here is merely to discuss, with special reference to the dragon, Mr. Gang's main contention, viz., “that the arguments by which Professor Tolkien shows that the poem may be symbolic are not cogent, and that the internal evidence is against this view, or at least against the particular symbolism that he discerns” (p. 6).