Were Dragons inherently "evil"?

[Pervinca Took]

Yes, that was the other bit of what Tolkien said about orcs - that they were sort of aware of good and bad but didn't often/ever act upon the 'good' instinct. I can't remember his exact words, or where they are from. Probably one of the Letters.

And indeed, welcome back Aaron!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

Yes, that was the other bit of what Tolkien said about orcs - that they were sort of aware of good and bad but didn't often/ever act upon the 'good' instinct. I can't remember his exact words, or where they are from. Probably one of the Letters.

It's from his essay on Orcs published in Morgoth's Ring. Although it's expanded quite a bit by Shippey, who has a nice discussion of Shagrat and Gorbag, their recognition of "good" conduct and their failure ever to do it.

The nature of the fear or souls or whatever of Morgoth's creatures was always problematical for Tolkien, and the writings in MR showing him wrestling with ideas philosophically and theologically without reaching a firm conclusion. As a good Catholic he was very uncomfortable with the idea of "hereditary damnation," and tried out making the Orcs beasts or automatons rather than sentient, rational beings.

Dragons, once he decided that Morgoth didn't simply "make" them, he viewed as reptilian creatures presumably bred to monstrous size and then inhabited or possessed by "evil spirits" (which one supposes must be lesser Maiar of Melkor's following, junior Balrogs). But that would only apply, one would think, to those worms spawned in the Elder Days, not to their remote egg-hatched descendants, with regard to whom the same problems as with the Orcs arise.

Of course, from a literary perspective Tolkien viewed Dragons as very avatars of evil, or at least that aspect of evil manifested in greed, possessiveness and wanton destruction (the wily lawyerliness is a (brilliant) Tolkien invention). In Beowulf and the Volsung legend T regarded the dragons as manifestations of the Primeval Darkness, the wild black forest of savagery and chaos within which human life was just a small firelit hall.

[Faramir Jones]

I've been looking in Unfinished Tales, in particular the 'Narn', and came across this dimly remembered (by me) passage, when Nienor, lost in the mist, returned to Amon Ethir:

And as she climbed so the fog grew thinner, until she came at last out into the sunlight on the bare summit. Then she stepped forward and looked westward. And there right before her was the great head of Glaurung, who had even then crept up from the other side; and before she was aware her eyes looked in his eyes, and they were terrible, being filled with the fell spirit of Morgoth, his master.(My emphasis)

The fact that so large a creature can move so fast and so silently I found genuinely scary; and then we have the emphasis that his eyes had the same spirit as his master Morgoth. Certainly Glaurung was bred by the latter as a living weapon, as Zigûr correctly says.

In terms of Chrysophylax the Rich, I agree with you, Pervinca, about him being a 'slightly more moderate beast' than Glaurung and Smaug. But we need to remember that the world of Farmer Giles of Ham is quite different from that of Middle-earth.

Giles and Chrysophylax end up haggling, as if they were in a marketplace. Giles, not being a knight, doesn't feel any obligation to actually kill that dragon, and agreed to let him keep part of his fortune in return for defending his share against the King. This he does; and Giles ends up by becoming King of the Little Kingdom. Chrysophylax stays with the latter for a long time, to the benefit of Giles; because 'a man who has a tame dragon is naturally respected'.

What is particularly interesting is that Giles decided to give Chrysophylax his liberty, and that the dragon intended to keep their agreed pact of non-aggression. The reason given is interesting:

In his bad heart of hearts the dragon felt as kindly disposed towards Giles as a dragon can feel towards anyone. After all there was Tailbiter: his life might have easily been taken, and all his hoard too. (My emphasis)

The different world and Giles' character means that one can envisage a dragon having a kind of respect for the latter. There's also the fact that his cave and the borders of Giles' kingdom are quite distant; so there would be no obvious reason for Chrysophylax to come into conflict with him and his people in the future.

[Axbolt]

^
It might also be worth adding that Tolkien, being christian, refers to dragons as snakes in some of his texts (I am un able to remember which) but since it is the snake that is evil in the garden of Eden, maybe that is suggestion that dragons are truly evil? (maybe excluding Chrysophylax however farmer files of ham is not specifically middle earth).

The question of Orcs however is diferent, I agree with William cloud hicling that Tolkien was un decided on this one, he did write in one of his letters (153) when revering to orcs:
I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad' ; but that would be going too far. Because by acsepting or tolarating there makeing-necessary to there actual existance-even Orcs would become part of the world, which is gods and ultietly good.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Axbolt

It might also be worth adding that Tolkien, being christian, refers to dragons as snakes in some of his texts (I am un able to remember which) but since it is the snake that is evil in the garden of Eden, maybe that is suggestion that dragons are truly evil? (maybe excluding Chrysophylax however farmer files of ham is not specifically middle earth).

I recall a reference in UT to Glaurung moving like a snake, but dragons seem to most often be called "worms".

Glaurung unquestionably did the will of Morgoth, whereas Smaug was pretty much his own master. Since Morgoth was the prime Evil of Arda, Glaurung would work Evil, and be no more likely to do good than he.

Smaug's evil was more self-centered, though Gandalf was greatly concerned that a resurgent Sauron could have "used" him. Since Smaug's behaviour would seem to be more autonomous, I would almost say he was more evil than Glaurung.
Whether dragons in general were irredeemable, I think, is contingent on the possibility of their ever repenting and making a conscious effort to do good. I think that is highly improbable.

[Ivriniel]

I'm not at all sure about what Tolkien quite meant by 'evil'. Certainly, there were indications of greed, and non-sexual lusted avarice, in the context of profound egocentrism or narcissism.

Certainly, by 'vibe' (for lack of any clear tool to crisply characterise Tolkien's sense of 'what' evil was exactly), then Nazgul, Yrch, Balgrog characterise features of evil, especially Nazgul.

Dragons on the other hand? I understand they fought for Morgoth, then for Sauron, but I've not had a crisp sense of 'why' or 'what' it was about them that was evil. Certainly, I 'get' that they eat Elves, humans and so on, and operate as agents to extend a Dark Lord's realm. I suppose that makes them 'evil' at least by proxy.

But if I look into the Silmarillion, there I see Glaurung mostly beguiling, making things forget themselves, burning up Elves to make room in an abode, and flying through skies during Dagor.....up to 5 (I forget when they got wings). These things make them ****ing scary in an encounter, but not like the screech of the Nazgul.

I don't know at all how to respond to the opening post in any prescriptive way

[Faramir Jones]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Glaurung unquestionably did the will of Morgoth, whereas Smaug was pretty much his own master. Since Morgoth was the prime Evil of Arda, Glaurung would work Evil, and be no more likely to do good than he.

Smaug's evil was more self-centered, though Gandalf was greatly concerned that a resurgent Sauron could have "used" him. Since Smaug's behaviour would seem to be more autonomous, I would almost say he was more evil than Glaurung.
Whether dragons in general were irredeemable, I think, is contingent on the possibility of their ever repenting and making a conscious effort to do good. I think that is highly improbable.

I was interested in what you had to say there, Inziladun. I agree completely with what you said about Glaurung. Regarding Smaug, it's more difficult to say. Certainly he can fend for himself. Just because a being is evil, doesn't mean he or she is controlled by Sauron, Shelob being the best example of this.

When Gandalf spoke about Sauron being able to use Smaug, is it the case that he could, if he was interested, control the latter, or could at least persuade him to do things?

You rightly said, Inziladun, that Smaug's behaviour 'would seem to be more autonomous'; but there's also the fact that Morgoth appeared to let Glaurung do his own thing, allowing him to stay in Nargothrond. Was his attack on Brethil, when he was killed by Túrin Turambar, on his own initiative, or due to Morgoth telling him to get a move on?

As you said, 'Whether dragons in general were irredeemable, I think, is contingent on the possibility of their ever repenting and making a conscious effort to do good. I think that is highly improbable'. There's not, in my opinion, enough information to say conclusively one way or the other.

I'm sure this issue about whether dragons, orcs or other creatures were irredeemable was discussed by elves, men and hobbits. The poem Perry-the-Winkle, said to be written by Sam Gamgee, has a hobbit considering the possibility, at least in comic form, that a troll might choose to be good, as seen in the lament given to the latter:

'I steal no gold, I drink no beer,
I eat no kind of meat;
but People slam their doors in fear,
whenever they hear my feet.
O how I wish that they were neat,
and my hands were not so rough!
Yet my heart is soft, my smile is sweet,
and my cooking good enough.'

The proof that he is good comes when he feeds and teaches Perry-the-Winkle to become a baker. But even in the context of that poem, it's clear that trolls have a bad reputation, which Bilbo Baggins' account can't have helped:

He looked around, and who did he meet
but old Mrs. Bunce and all
with umbrella and basket walking the street;
and he smiled and stopped to call:
'Good morning, ma'am! Good day to you!
I hope I find you well?'
But she dropped umbrella and basket too,
and yelled a frightful yell.

Old Pott the Mayor was strolling near;
when he heard that awful sound,
he turned all purple and pink with fear,
and dived down underground.
The Lonely Troll was hurt and sad:
'Don't go!' he gently said,
but old Mrs. Bunce ran home like mad
and hid beneath her bed.

The Troll went on to the market-place
and peeped above the stalls;
the sheep went wild when they saw his face,
and the geese flew over the walls.
Old Farmer Hogg he spilled his ale,
Bill Butcher threw a knife,
and Grip his dog, he turned his tail
and ran to save his life.

In reality, I wonder if a troll in those circumstances might not have ended up dead very quickly, or at serious risk of being so.

[Mithadan]

Coming into this thread late. Other than perhaps Morgoth himself, Tolkien did not believe that anything with a mind was "irredeemably evil" (his phrase, not mine and not the same as "inherent"). This led him to struggle with the nature of Orcs, Trolls, and to a lesser extent dragons. I seem to recall that he reasoned that these corrupted or constructed beings could not solely be tools of the will of Morgoth and Sauron or else they would be inanimate when their masters' attention was elsewhere and would not have even the slight self-interest shown by Gorbag and Shagrat. So while he toyed with the idea that Orcs might simply be animals, perhaps apes, that were corrupted, he settled upon them being one of the sentient races in the end (though he wavered between Men and Elves as the source of Orcs and never explained the origin of Trolls).

Dragons appear to fall into a different category. The earliest conception of dragons is in Lost Tales, where they are stated as being "made" by Morgoth and having "great cunning and wisdom." However, Tolkien later reached the conclusion that Morgoth was incapable of creating any thinking entity. I suggest that dragons were bred from lesser reptiles in a fashion similar to how Carcharoth was bred and "inhabited" by "spirits" that animated them. In Morgoth's Ring, Tolkien discusses certain great Orc captains such as Boldog and states that they were inhabited by spirits of some power.

If we accept this premise, dragons are evil from the beginning because the spirits that inhabited them were evil. However, Tolkien would likely not say they were "irredeemably evil." In Letters JRRT says that even Sauron was not irredeemably evil in that he at one time served another, Aule. This creates at least the possibility of a "reformed" dragon, though public reaction might be the same as the Troll mentioned in the last post by Faramir Jones.