Skip to main content

tolkiens legendarium - Why weren't the Three Rings for the Elven-kings destroyed as well?


At the end of The Return of the King, after the One Ring is destroyed in the fires of Mount Doom, the rings were carried out of Middle-Earth.


IIRC it may have been Elrond, Galadriel, and Gandalf who carried them out separately, or Elrond carried all three out “over the sea.”


These rings are now the most powerful artifacts in Middle-Earth after the One Ring is destroyed.


Why still hold them and not destroy these rings as well?



Answer




Sauron did not directly participate in the creation of the Three Rings, so they were free of its corrupting influence. So although he did intend the One Ring to rule them all, the Three were tied to the One's power but their wearers did not become corrupted by Sauron's influence. Thus there was no compelling need to destroy them. This leaves the question of why the Three were kept, rather than discarded or destroyed just in case.


I believe the Three's power after the destruction on the One is left unresolved. During the council of Elrond (LOTR 2.II), the assembled experts don't know:



‘But what then would happen, if the Ruling Ring were destroyed, as you counsel?’ asked Glóin.
‘We know not for certain,’ answered Elrond sadly. ‘Some hope that the Three Rings, which Sauron has never touched, would then become free, and their rulers might heal the hurts of the world that he has wrought. But maybe when the One has gone, the Three will fail, and many fair things will fade and be forgotten. That is my belief.’



Galadriel seems to hold a similar opinion (LOTR 2.VII).



[Galadriel is talking to Frodo.] ‘Yet if you succeed, then our power is disminished, and Lothlórien will fade, and the tides of Time will sweep it away. We must depart into the West, or dwindle to a rustic folk of dell and cave, slowly to forget and to be forgotten.’




After the destruction of the One Ring, Gandalf has this to say (LOTR 6.V):



‘The Third Age of the world is ended, and the new age is begun […]; the power of the Three Rings is also ended. And all the lands that you see, and those that lie about them, shall be dwellings of Men. For the time comes of the Dominion of Men, and the Elder Kindred shall fade or depart.’



Finally (LOTR 6.IX), it is revealed that the Three will be worn by their respective wielders as they leave Middle-earth together:



Upon [Elrond's] finger was a ring of gold with a great blue stone, Vilya, mightiest of the Three. On [Galadriel's] finger was Nenya, the ring wrought of mithril, that bore a single white stone flickering like a frosty star.
[…] Gandalf now wore openly upon his hand the Third Ring, Narya the Great, and the stone upon it was red as fire.



The Silmarillion includes a chapter “On the Rings of Power and the Third Age”. Its summary of the events is that




[…] the One and the Seven and the Nine are destroyed; and the Three have passed away, and with them the Third Age is ended […].


But when all [the events of LOTR] were done, and the Heir of Isildur had taken up the lordship of Men, and the dominion of the West had passed to him, then it was made plain that the power of the Three Rings also was ended, and to the Firstborn the world drew old and grey.



In light of these clues, there are several reasonable theories:



  • The Three have become pretty but useless baubles, kept as souvenirs.

  • The Three's power is disminished but not extinguished.

  • The Three's power remains intact.



My interpretation is that Tolkien purposefully left this unresolved. After the end of the Third Age, the world belongs to the humans. The magic has left. This goes beyond the Three Rings: the elves had magic before the rings and will still have magic after, but their time has passed. Maybe the Three still have some power, maybe they don't, but primarily they must not leave a mark any longer: the Three must not remain, by need of historicity. The fate of the Three Rings after they have left Middle-earth is for us humans to speculate about, not know of.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...