|
Tolkien may contradict himself on this point somewhere, but in the end there is no fundamental difference in the natures of Melian and the Valar: both are ealar by nature. Melian's example provides all the proof necessary that the Valar could reproduce if they took physical shape. It is not clear that this act required incarnation, nor is it clear that this act immediately resulted in incarnation. What we do know, however, is that this and other actions that are reserved for--and necessary to--the Incarnates had a "solidifying" effect on the relationship between the physical raiment and the embodied eala, eventually resulting in full incarnation. At this point they became subject to the maintenance concerns of the Incarnates, and could also be slain--the permanence of which depended on certain conditions. Presumably they would also deteriorate over time, though probably not at a more rapid rate than the Eldar, whose "enormously long lives" made them virtually immortal (in terms of natural death).
Reproduction by the Valar perhaps violated their axani (in fact, this may be explicitly stated to be so, I simply can't recall). Melkor is said to be incapable of begetting offspring despite being incarnate, but not because of the nature of the Valar. It is simply stated, for what it's worth, that "evil itself is barren." Tolkien may have been mistaken on this point, but I do not remember him providing any argument to support the claim. After all, Balrogs were evil (though perhaps not Evil Itself), and they became incarnate* somehow, and I doubt it was by overeating. Perhaps Tolkien's "begetting" includes all intercourse, whether or not it results in progeny.
*It is not, in fact, known definitively that Balrogs were incarnate. A convincing case can be (and has been) made that they were, and I don't know of any serious attempt to argue that they were not. The former fits far better than the latter.
|