[obloquy]

Not necessarily. He did not clearly explain the origins or the natures of Ents and Eagles (the big talking variety).

The Ents are the 'kelvar' spoken of in Of Aule and Yavanna, in the '77.

As for the Eagles:

What of talking beasts and birds with reasoning and speech? These have been rather lightly adopted from less 'serious' mythologies, but play a part which cannot now be excised. They are certainly 'exceptions' and not much used, but sufficiently to show they are a recognized feature of the world. All other creatures accept them as natural if not common.

But true 'rational' creatures, 'speaking peoples', are all of human / 'humanoid' form. Only the Valar and Maiar are intelligences that can assume forms of Arda at will. Huan and Sorontar could be Maiar - emissaries of Manwë (4). But unfortunately in The Lord of the Rings Gwaehir and Landroval are said to be descendants of Sorontar.

(4) See p. 138.-At the bottom of the page bearing the brief text V (p. 389) my father jotted down the following, entirely unconnected with the matter of the text:
Living things in Aman. As the Valar would robe themselves like the Children, many of the Maiar robed themselves like other lesser living things, as trees, flowers, beasts. (Huan.)

Myths Transformed

as well as the following conflicting bit from the same chapter:

The same sort of thing may be said of Húan and the Eagles: they were taught language by the Valar, and raised to a higher level - but they still had no fëar.

You've seen these passages before, I'm sure. No, it doesn't provide a concrete answer regarding Eagles, but Tolkien at least addressed the issue. He didn't even bother with Dragons.

It's no less solid than assuming that they did not based upon lack of direct textual evidence.

I'm not assuming Dragons were not Maiar. I am only saying that there is no reason to believe they were. The possibility is just as speculative as that of Goldberry being Yavanna. We can draw parallels, and we can say "there's nothing to refute the theory", but that doesn't make it any more likely that it was Tolkien's conception.

And it is much more likely than Goldberry being Yavanna.

Why?

Dragons are explicitly spoken of in the text as having spirits in them.

Could you point me to this so that I don't have to hunt it down?

If they weren't Maiar then what were they?

It's possible they were beasts that were taught to speak, cf. the MT quote above. They could also have been the progeny of a Balrog/beast union. They could be puppets of Morgoth's maleficent will. Perhaps they were nothing more than the original spirit of whatever beast Morgoth started with when devising Dragons after having been infused with a healthy portion of Morgoth's own power, and 'raised to a higher level', again per the MT quote. And then, of course, they might be Maiar. None of these have any more textual support than the others, though, so comparing them to Balrogs is really next to impossible.

I have offered a couple of arguments against the Maiar theory, though. Why were they not included in the lists of Morgoth's Maiarin servants? If they were Maiar, would their apparently fiery spirits not qualify them as Balrogs, regardless of the bodies they inhabit?

In addition, when Dragons died, they were dead -- no surviving spirit. This is because they were incarnate, rather than 'clothed', and thus bound in life and death to their hroar. But this begs the question, Why would these Maiar have been incarnated, when they could just as easily have only inhabited the Dragon shell and then been able to survive its death?

Here's another theory for you: Say Glaurung, the Father of the Dragons, was a Maia. We know he did a lot of breeding for Morgoth. This would eventually have incarnated him, making his subsequent death permanent. His offspring, though not full Maiar, would've been mighty beings, and probably sentient. Well? More conjecture to add to an issue that will have to remain uncertain.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ]