Quote:
Originally Posted by Inziladun
The fact that the ban was a wise move is seen in Saruman, of course. Being chained in his real body watered him down to a manageable threat for Men (with help from the Ents, naturally). Imagine a Saruman free to revel in his powers and use his own might to face Sauron. I see the outcome as the same as Saruman gaining the Ring. If he had defeated Sauron, he would simply have replaced him.
|
And speaking of Saruman, that's exactly history repeated - everything that was said about battles against Morgoth and futile hope of his repentance, all of it. A good mythical force, the Ents, battle the evil mythical Saruman head-on. And they even win. But they believe him incapable of further menace and set him free. But he still causes menace, just on a smaller scale. Interestingly, Frodo argues for forgiveness and hope of redemption again, and it's the "evil will kill evil" that does the job: Saruman's mistreatment of Wormtongue finally went a step too far.
I thought about the meaning of "the age of Men" and the transition to the Fourth Age for a long time now, and I came to a slightly different conclusion on my own. I blame globalization. During the War, many hidden (e.g. Maiar) or forgotten (e.g. Ents) forces revealed themselves. Even men of difference races came to know each other better - or at least learn about each other's existence. Things that were once stories become facts (e.g. Oliphaunts). Secrets are uncovered, and not so easily forgotten anymore. This comes as an unfortunate but necessary consequence to Aragorn's rule. When peoples live separate, scattered lives, they do not remember the same things, or rather certain things are forgotten quicker based on what is more relevant to them. The Rohirrim might have remembered Hobbits on their own, because of their legends about Holbytla, and the Druedain, because they are their neighbours; but even their neighbours Dunlendings would have had much less reason to know and remember either, and would forget both sooner - they would return to being myths or secrets of the world. However, with the Numenorian kingdom stretching from northern Arnor to southern Gondor, (probably) having ties with Erebor and Mirkwood and Dale/Laketown, everything is known. Aragorn announces that the forests belong to the Druedain, and his
entire kingdom now knows about Druedain. He announces that no Man may step over the Shire border, and
everyone knows about Hobbits. Those legends that do not die or leave stop being legends. The act of bringing them into consideration and awareness in itself strips them of mythical quality. Even something as simple as Men of different races: they seem strange and foreign to each other at first, but how long, how much mingling, until they come to know each other well enough to stop being awed by the differences? The desire to protect all the forgotten forces, and the rapid spread of information, is what strips those forces of mystery. These people are slowly becoming like us, too knowledgeable to impress. "You saw tree-giants? That's old news, my great-uncle even talked with one! They're called Ents, and they look after trees. Everyone knows
that." Or, "You saw a ghost? Our King Aragorn the Great lead a whole army of ghosts to defeat the corsairs! Everyone living between the Paths of the Dead and the Sea will tell you what they look like."
The obvious counter-argument is the references to all the nameless things that are "older than the Balrog, Sauron, etc.". So it seems like not quite all the secrets were uncovered yet, but will they still retain their mythical quality, or will they become oversized pests, or even die out on their own? More importantly, though, I want to ask if there are any
good forces that remained asleep and did not rise in that was against Sauron. It seems like both good and evil mythical forces have exhausted themselves out in that war, leaving only the things that take no sides but their own.
And of course now I also think of the other type of counter-example. In contrast to a legend (or even something unknown altogether) rising out of stories to become a known being, Radagast the Brown starts high and then gets progressively more treeish. I don't think he'll go as far as that, completely apathetic and unmoving. But neither will he be a figure known to many people. He has all the potential of becoming a legend of the Fourth Age: a man who does [insert fantastical nature-related thing], who maybe is glimpsed now and again by mortal men, but who seems to be immortal himself, and the scholarly Men would know mentions in some old manuscripts of the Wizards and of Radagast who asked the Eagles to help. So who knows, maybe the Fourth Age will not be as bare of legends as the picture I first painted.
Those thoughts aside, this thread is more about how the Ring's destruction is related to "the Age of Man". I don't know, I haven't really linked the two events in my mind. For me, hobbits and Men are different enough not to lump them together, and in my mind globalization was the explanation I stuck to for years. But just to think: the Valar didn't do much to help in the war that ended the Second Age. At least when Sauron came back they sent the Istari, but more like to inform the races of Middle-earth of the danger they are facing and to motivate them to fight. Why didn't they intervene in the Second Age? It seems the main difference is that Second Age Sauron resistance knew who it was going against, whereas Third Age people had to be reminded of old powers and convinced to fight them as opposed to wait them out.
While destroying the Ring at the hands of two (three) Middle-earthians is symbolic of ME residents taking over the responsibility for their world, I would not link it with the dominion of Men. In fact, it might have been the last mythical deed done from the perspective of Men: to most of them, hobbits were at best a legend! And only afterwards the aureole of myth fades.