Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza

Posted: **Wed Dec 13, 2023 3:16 am**

I don't blame Isildur for not destroying the One Ring because he didn't have enough time to grieve and the One Ring took advantage of those feelings to become a sentimental item to him, a tangible possible result of good out of the death of his brother and father in the Last Alliance. I find it unfair that he is portrayed so negatively in the movie and I worry about his portrayal in future adaptations.

I'd like to say most of us would not have destroyed the One Ring if we were put in the same circumstances. Because grief sucks and is complicated. Isildur has the potential to be one of the most relatable of the characters if adaptations see the context of his decisions.

Text of the Scroll of Isildur:

"The Great Ring shall go now to be an heirloom of the North Kingdom; but records of it shall be left in Gondor, where also dwell the heirs of Elendil, lest a time come when the memory of these great matters shall grow dim.

It was hot when I first took it, hot as a glede, and my hand was scorched, so that I doubt if ever again I shall be free of the pain of it. Yet even as I write it is cooled, and it seemeth to shrink, though it loseth neither its beauty nor its shape. Already the writing upon it, which at first was as clear as red flame, fadeth and is now only barely to be read. It is fashioned in an elven-script of Eregion, for they have no letters in Mordor for such subtle work; but the language is unknown to me. I deem it to be a tongue of the Black Land, since it is foul and uncouth. What evil it saith I do not know; but I trace here a copy of it, lest it fade beyond recall.

[Inscription of the Ring]

The Ring misseth, maybe, the heat of Sauron's hand, which was black and yet burned like fire, and so Gil-galad was destroyed; and maybe were the gold made hot again, the writing would be refreshed. But for my part I will risk no hurt to this thing: of all the works of Sauron the only fair. It is precious to me, though I buy it with great pain."

Out of context, this scroll looks very straightforward. Isildur is simply describing the One Ring as a new heirloom for the North Kingdom (Arnor). Records of obtaining the One Ring would remain in Gondor (this scroll). Isildur was greatly burned by touching the One Ring too soon, and a shallow reading indicates that this burn is the "great pain" referenced at the end of the scroll.

In context though, one can find more meaning in this scroll, specifically the first and last sentences. In context, Isildur lost his younger brother Anarion (in horrific and traumatizing fashion) in the war against Sauron, saw an acquaintance (Gil-Galad) be immolated by Sauron, and saw his father, Elendil, be murdered. I doubt that either his younger brother or his father had the chance to say goodbye to him given the circumstances of their deaths.

And unlike elves, we don't know the fate of humans who die in Tolkien's legendarium. They leave Middle-earth and there's a possibility that wherever they go to next those relationships they formed in Middle-earth (even the familial relationships) is completely forgotten. Isildur was one of the faithful of Numenor and those thoughts probably entered his mind too.

I see Isildur's decision in the first sentence as a way to try and make meaning out of Anarion and Elendil's death. Notice how Tolkien goes into specific detail on pointing out how the records and the ring itself be separated. Elendil, the prior ruler of the North Kingdom, and the one who physically fought and wounded Sauron, certainly would symbolically get the One Ring. But the scroll would be kept in the Southern Kingdom where Isildur and Anarion ruled. This is speculation but I see this as a way of reminding people of the historical significance of his brother too.

The last sentence, "It is precious to me, though I buy it with great pain," can be both literal and metaphorical. The physical pain can be a reference to how his hand was scorched when he tried to touch the One Ring too quickly. But with the added context that his brother and father died and the only possible "good" tangible thing is the One Ring, the "great pain" can be interpreted as grief.

No doubt the One Ring took advantage of Isildur's grief and latched itself to him, but if I replace the One Ring with a silmaril or an arkenstone, then Isildur's actions still would make sense given the context. One of the ways we cope with grief is to try and find some good that resulted from it. Now the immediate counter is "you saved the world from Sauron and your realms are at peace, Isildur," but that may not be seen as an immediate good in Isildur's perspective.

The death of his father and brother leaves a power vacuum and Isildur is well aware that Numeanoreans can be corrupted. Just because Sauron was gone doesn't mean everything was fixed. Isildur needed to settle the North Kingdom. Meneldil wasn't a proven leader yet. Sauron's servants still were many. The Easterlings and Haradrim were still threats. The Black Numenoreans of Umbar were still a thing. With Gil-Galad's death, there was no High King of the Elves. With Oropher and Amdir's deaths there are less elven leadership. The Khazad-dum Dwarves shut the gates on their kingdom. The political landscape of Middle-earth needed time and Isildur needed to spend years to settle matters.

This also left Isildur little time to grieve. He simply had too many things to do, too many worries to fix. If Isildur survived Gladden Fields and saw the administrative work done by his father Elendil, the city of Annuminas, the Tower Hills, the roads, etc, that could've helped with the grief. But he didn't. The One Ring knew this and took advantage at the weakened mental state of Isildur.

So the only immediate new "good" thing that resulted from all of these deaths was the One Ring. Why wouldn't Isildur find solace in it? I bet when he was in Minas Anor every single thing reminded him of his brother. In public, and in the scroll, Isildur had to save face, to demonstrate his strength because he couldn't afford to appear weak to his people. In private, it probably was a very different story. I see the One Ring providing solace to his grief in those instances.

So yeah, these Isildur memes are fun, but walk a day in his life in his shoes, wondering if he'll ever see his grandpa, dad, and brother again after he dies. Having nightmares of Anarion getting smashed by a rock or Elendil's life leaving him. Probably dreading ruling the Northern Kingdom, not being able to ask his father for advice on such-and-such, being unable to question him on why certain buildings looked the way they were, decision-making, diplomacy, etc. Add to that, how would you fare being placed in the political shoes he was supposed to fill?

Pity is one of the most powerful forces in Middle-earth and we should extend that and understanding to Isildur.

Posted: **Wed Dec 13, 2023 4:30 am**

Rivvy: Another topic! Wow, very interesting is your assessment about the Isildur scroll, I am not that well-versed in the psychs of the Edain and their weakness to fight the Ring. I know you love Isildurs character and understand your argument for more understanding. Well written. Begs the question, if Isildur had not been wounded physically and mentally... Do you think he had been able then to withstand the ring and destroy it? What is your point of view on that?

Posted: **Wed Dec 13, 2023 6:33 am**

Very first thoughts:
1. I really like the reading of 'buy it with great pain' as grief as opposed to mere physical burn. Never thought about that before.
2. Given that Frodo fails in the end, and we are supposed to understand that nobody can withstand the power of the Ring, then we should conclude that Isildur had no chance.
3. With Frodo we learn that the power of the Ring increases as he nears Mount Doom. So presumably its power was at a maximum when Isildur first took possession.
4. The whole deal with the Ring begins with the Elves. It all arose because of their refusal to accept the passage of time. The Elves are responsible for the mess, blame Isildur, and leave it to Hobbits to sort out. Isildur is a scapegoat for Elvish irresponsibility, or such is my feeling.

I did have this vision a while back that if 'A Case of Lore' worked with a live subject (the Dwarf) we could then use the court to put on trial some bigger fish, like Sauron, etc, as per the thread Devil's Advocate. I've long lost faith in the legal procedures of the plaza, but Isildur would have been a good case.

Aiks, you could always post a new topic yourself! Were you to do so it would make my day.

Posted: **Wed Dec 13, 2023 10:15 am**

Chrys: I know of your "case" but it looks for me as a piece of fun, and for the first time happening. There have never been (serious) legal procedures like yours in the open, there was the forum Mahanaxar for, only for the admins to discuss matters of the Plaza.

I notice then you think, that even Isildur would not have been wounded, he wouldn't have been able to resist the influences of the Ring. I always wondered about it, but could never take a clear idea about it. The political climate during the Third Age is a point of reflection too in Middle-Earth. Thank you for your insight!

I will wait for Rivvy's view on it too.

Posted: **Wed Dec 13, 2023 1:58 pm**

Aiks, on the case against the Dwarf I seek only justice. But with the issue in this thread I must admit an anti-Elvish bias. It has long seemed to me that they were the ones who were responsible for the mess and they let others deal with it. I'm even suspicious of the Council of Elrond, where the Elves basically debate what is the right course, with Gandalf on their side. OK I accept that Boromir probably got the wrong end of the stick, but why was Tom Bombadil not invited?

On Isildur resisting or not the temptation of the Ring, it is worth noting that Gandalf declares that he could not resist its power, not we are to take it could Galadriel. Both of them, however, have the credit of refusing it in the first place - but had they once taken it in their hand, could they then have thrown it into the fire? I think not.

Posted: **Wed Dec 13, 2023 2:28 pm**

I'm with @Chrysophylax Dives on this. Only Tom Bombadil could take the Ring without being subject to its influence.

Posted: **Wed Dec 13, 2023 2:34 pm**

But I wouldn't be so hard on the Elves. They meant good, and Tolkien undoubtedly sees himself in their wish to preserve the past. I think Bombadil was not invited to the Council because he would not understand the issue: as Elrond says, he would forget about the Ring if he was given it.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2023 5:23 am**

There's a couple more things I forgot about the situation with Isildur. Thanks to looking at a few reddit threads, I remembered this quote too:

‘Alas! yes,’ said Elrond. ‘Isildur took it, as should not have been. It should have been cast then into Orodruin’s fire nigh at hand where it was made. But few marked what Isildur did. He alone stood by his father in that last mortal contest; and by Gil-galad only Círdan stood, and I. But Isildur would not listen to our counsel.

“‘This I will have as weregild for my father, and my brother,' he said; and therefore whether we would or no, he took it to treasure it. But soon he was betrayed by it to his death; and so it is named in the North Isildur’s Bane. Yet death maybe was better than what else might have befallen him."

Pretty much direct proof that grief played a large factor in his decision to keep the ring rather than destroy it.

Then, in the Unfinished Tales, he was planning on entrusting the One Ring to one of the Three Elves, most likely Elrond, as he was heading to Imladris. Instead of providing Isildur relief, the One Ring was giving him more pain.

At this point, I'd like to speculate the limitations of the One Ring's power. Because the One Ring is an extension of Sauron's power, the One Ring has potential dominion only within the world of Middle-earth and Arda. However, the One Ring cannot conquer or satiate concepts that extend beyond the world of Middle-earth, like the grief of humanity. Because humanity's fate goes beyond Arda, the pain of grief extends beyond Arda as well, so the One Ring cannot "fix" grief as Sauron doesn't have as much of an understanding of it as a human (hobbits have the same fate as humans) would.

So I think a positive to what Isildur was suffering emotionally was that he soon realized that the "weregild" of the One Ring was horrible, and couldn't begin to fill the loss in his heart. I'd like to believe that the pain of grief had more sway in his life than whatever the One Ring provided. This led him to want to go to Imladris first instead of taking the longer (and safer) route to the Northern Kingdom. Unfortunately, he was killed in the Disaster of Gladden Fields.

I doubt he would've easily given the One Ring up, but at the very least he seemed aware that Sauron's work wasn't helping him at all.

@Aikári Salmarinian Tolkien said nobody could withstand it, and that holds up because it took Eru to cause Gollum to trip into the lava (or is it magma). Nobody was able to resist the ring. Perhaps Isildur would've become a ringbearer set out to destroy it, but I struggle to see Isildur destroying the ring without getting killed in the process. Eru would probably have to do another thing to create an Eucatastrophe in the One Ring's destruction.

That being said... Isildur was not weak, as we can see in the Unfinished Tales:

“By chance, or chance well used, it had left his hand and gone where he could never hope to find it again. At first so overwhelming was his sense of lost that he struggled no more, and would have sunk and drowned. But swift as it had come the mood passed. The pain had left him. A great burden had been taken away. His feet found the river bed, and heaving himself up out of the mud he floundered through the reeds to a marshy islet close to the western shore." -Unfinished Tales, The Disaster of the Gladden Fields.

And in the end, without the One Ring and even with the loss of his Father and Brother, Isildur still had the will to live. Grief had not overcome him before the orc arrows did.

@Chrysophylax Dives

I would think it would be easier to tempt an Elf because there was hope that the 3 rings' power would remain if the One were destroyed. But if the One Ring bound itself to an elf, all the One Ring would need to do is to tell the truth: without the One Ring, the 3 rings would fade and the world would inevitably decay. I'd say any elf would not give up the ring.

Same logic with the Dwarves. The 7 rings were tied to the One Ring too.

Really the only beings that have a chance of resisting the Ring's power are mortals like humans and hobbits, as their fate is beyond the governance of Arda and Eru is in charge of what happens to them.

@Ephtariat Tom Bombadil was apathetic to the One Ring. What could happen is that he'd give the One Ring to a very polite orc or troll, or accidentally drop it in a river after being bored and doing parlor tricks with it. If that happens, the One Ring could make its way to the appendages of the Watcher in the Water or Durin's Bane and a Lovecraftian Monster could emerge.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2023 6:08 am**

@Rivvy Elf We have to revise the meaning of "the most unlikely creature imaginable". xD

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2023 6:32 am**

Ephtariat wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 2:34 pm But I wouldn't be so hard on the Elves. They meant good, and Tolkien undoubtedly sees himself in their wish to preserve the past. I think Bombadil was not invited to the Council because he would not understand the issue: as Elrond says, he would forget about the Ring if he was given it.

Rivvy Elf wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 5:23 am @Ephtariat Tom Bombadil was apathetic to the One Ring. What could happen is that he'd give the One Ring to a very polite orc or troll, or accidentally drop it in a river after being bored and doing parlor tricks with it. If that happens, the One Ring could make its way to the appendages of the Watcher in the Water or Durin's Bane and a Lovecraftian Monster could emerge.

Forgive me, but there is an Elvish bias in all this. I don't doubt that Tolkien identified with the Elvish wish to deny change (and for this reason might like the plaza). But I am also sure that he identified with Sauron too - you cannot do what he did without some serious issues of control and a fixation with order. And as for good intentions, well those, in the English idiom, pave the road to hell.

Obviously, Elrond who heads the Council that did not invite Bombadil, justifies the exclusion of Bombadil. That strikes me as analogous to an early 20th century debate on women's sufferage held only by men on the grounds that women do not understand the issues. If you are inside their world the logic appears irrefutable. We must treat these Elves more critically.

Surely, Bombadil could have given away the Ring to a troll, or whatever. But he could also have solved the problem there and then. Forget what Elrond says and consider this note by Tolkien, which Christopher Tolkien found in the earliest drafts of 'The Taming of Sméagol':

Tom could have got rid of the Ring all along [?without further] ...... if asked! (War of the Ring, p. 98, note 5)

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2023 7:35 am**

I think that what Tolkien means is that Tom might have dropped the Ring into Mount Doom without being even tempted to keep it, but would he have been given the chance to get there? His power is tied to the land that he rules, so in Mordor he would certainly not have been able to sing his way out of any issue. Moreover, he would probably have attracted the attention of Sauron and his Nazgul, that he would have had to face without his powers. Because the only way to get rid of the Ring is in Mount Doom, that is not certainly an Elvish bias speaking, and even if they had thrown it into the sea it might have come back in a fish, like in the legend of Solomon's ring.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2023 7:41 am**

Ephtariat wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 7:35 am I think that what Tolkien means is that Tom might have dropped the Ring into Mount Doom without being even tempted to keep it, but would he have been given the chance to get there? His power is tied to the land that he rules, so in Mordor he would certainly not have been able to sing his way out of any issue. Moreover, he would probably have attracted the attention of Sauron and his Nazgul, that he would have had to face without his powers. Because the only way to get rid of the Ring is in Mount Doom, that is not certainly an Elvish bias speaking, and even if they had thrown it into the sea it might have come back in a fish, like in the legend of Solomon's ring.

Pah! Tom is the master singer. Tom would not need to go to Mount Doom, he would have sung the Ring into nothingness on the doorstep of his own house. My friend, you are still caught up in the web of Elvish thought, which can never catch Bombadil. Remove your Elvish blinkers and see the world aright!

But if we carry this on, possibly we should move to the Bombadil thread so as not to sidetrack the Isildur discussion?

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2023 7:44 am**

Ok for moving this on the Bombadil thread, but meanwhile I have to say that I don't think Tom would have so much power, not even in his land, and also I wonder whether the note by Tolkien isn't simply a reminder to add the Elrond bit about Tom Bombadil in the Council (one would have to cross-check which version of the Council was written when Tolkien wrote the note, if we may reconstruct it).

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2023 7:58 am**

You say 'OK to move to Bombadil thread' and post here! (I chide you for this, and also post here). But we have here all that we need for one of those endless Lore debates reminscent of the plaza of old - which means we are doing good in the attempt to revive Lore and should not stop.

On the reminder to add Bombadil to Council - nope. All the Council of Elrond material is done and dusted by now.

But the real issue concerns the power of Bombadil versus the Ring of Sauron. You appear to give more power to the Ring, and I to Bombadil. Is that a fair description? If not, please rephrase as you see fit - and then let us take this to the Bombadil thread and commence an endless argument for the greater glory of plaza Lore!

PS. Actually, let's not interrupt @Priya, who is in full swing. Rather, let us begin a new post. I invite you to begin.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2023 11:26 am**

Rivvy: Thank you for your thoughts and input.

And with that I am out of here.

Posted: **Wed Jul 17, 2024 6:48 pm**

Rivvy Elf wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 3:16 am I don't blame Isildur for not destroying the One Ring because he didn't have enough time to grieve ... Because grief sucks and is complicated.

So yeah, these Isildur memes are fun, but walk a day in his life in his shoes, wondering if he'll ever see his grandpa, dad, and brother again after he dies. Having nightmares of Anarion getting smashed by a rock or Elendil's life leaving him. Probably dreading ruling the Northern Kingdom, not being able to ask his father for advice on such-and-such, being unable to question him on why certain buildings looked the way they were, decision-making, diplomacy, etc. Add to that, how would you fare being placed in the political shoes he was supposed to fill?

Pity is one of the most powerful forces in Middle-earth and we should extend that and understanding to Isildur.

So, Rivvy, what you are saying is that someone in a state of grief, and no doubt shock, should be judged with compassion and charitably, right? Grief being complicated, it is hard to judge. Is that a fair reading of your argument here?

Posted: **Thu Jul 18, 2024 3:02 am**

@Chrysophylax Dives It's not a blanket statement applicable to everyone and is based on context.

That's why nowadays people scorn Cao Cao when he went on a rampage after his dad was murdered by massacring everyone he could in his invasion of Xu Province (but he wasn't scorned at the time as that was an acceptable action out of filial piety, yet the pass on those actions did not prevent Xu Province and its allies from defending themselves). If I had acted on my intrusive thoughts after my mother's death, I would want someone to "wake me up," so to speak.

I think Isildur would've went mad without the One Ring. To Isildur, the One Ring was seen as a weregild. Without the symbolism of the weregild to tether Isildur's grief, I don't know what would've happened. But if Isildur succumbed to madness, everything could've been worse. I would argue Elrond and Cirdan should have tried to procure another acceptable weregild. They should have known what grief does to elves like Feanor and Fingolfin, let alone humans. I don't think they tried hard enough. Elrond should have stuck around Isildur, helping and advising him during the transition of power, since he still had Glorfindel take up temporary leadership duties in Rivendell. Cirdan was still alive, so he could manage things in Lindon.

Posted: **Thu Jul 18, 2024 6:07 am**

A serious question @Rivvy Elf. How much do you think madness is bound up in grief? Is it always present, or only if something pushes the person over the line?

Posted: **Thu Jul 18, 2024 7:08 am**

Rivvy Elf wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 3:02 am I think Isildur would've went mad without the One Ring. To Isildur, the One Ring was seen as a weregild. Without the symbolism of the weregild to tether Isildur's grief, I don't know what would've happened.

My intuition is that you touch here the deepest roots of Tolkien's conception of the nature of his own art. Or at least this is what I understand (so far) from reading him on Beowulf.

People seem to equate Tolkien's Beowulf with 'the northern theory of courage' = standing your ground and fighting the monsters even though you know they will win. That is certainly present, but actually Tolkien's whole reading of the poem is set against those who celebrate only the heroic courage of the old North. Tolkien's basic argument is that the poem is an elegy, which juxtaposes the heroic deeds of youth with the inevitable decline and end in old age, and he holds the last part of the poem the heart of it - where doom is faced not in terms of (only) courage but also grief. The poem ends with the lamentations of Beowulf's people, who he has left kingless, without an heir, and they and we (or the Anglo-Saxon audience) know that they are now doomed to be swallowed by the ravenous Swedes on their northern border.

In this last and most powerful part of the poem we find Beowulf, the old king, on hearing of the dragon, musing on life. Here we find the old king giving two instances of grief without mitigation. Beowulf talks not of weregild but its origin in feud - revenge killing (weregild - and so the rule of law - arises as a mutually acceptable substitute for revenge killing).

A king had two sons, and one slew the other with an arrow. The king lost one son to death, and could not avenge himself for the death by slaying the killer, for he could not slay his own son.

A man sees his son taken by the king and hanged on the gallows. He cannot take revenge on the king, and everyday must look out upon the dead body of his son.

On this second, here is some of the Old English and a rough translation:

Swa bið geomorlic gomelum ceorle
to gebidanne, þæt his byre ride
giong on galgan, þonne he gyd wrece,
sarigne sang, þonne his sunu hangað
hrefne to hroðre, ond he him helpe ne mæg,
eald ond infrod, ænige gefremman.
Symble bið gemyndgad morna gehwylce
eaforan ellorsið;

In the same way it is tragic for an old man
to abide that his son rides
young on the gallows: then he utters a dirge,
a sorrowing song, that his son hangs
for the pleasure of the raven, and he can not him help,
old and experienced, any provide;
ever is reminded each morning,
of the other-world journey of his son;

I've written elsewhere on the plaza about the way Tolkien singles out this kenning ellorsið - 'other-world journey' (Tolkien translates it 'passing'). My intuition is that Tolkien saw here what you might call the source of the art of the Anglo-Saxon poet, namely a confrontation of grief in its bleakest, starkest, most terrible, and - somehow - a way of holding onto sanity in the face of roiling madness, the result of which is artistic vision - ultimately (with a lot of discipline and time and literary craft) becoming a poem like Beowulf, or a book like The Lord of the Rings.

he sees, sad and sorrowful, in his son's dwelling
a wine-hall wasted, a wind-swept resting place
bereft of joy; the riders sleep,
heroes hidden in graves; there is not sound of harp,
revelry in the courts, such as long ago there was.
He goes then to his bed, sings a song of sorrow,
one man on account of one man; it seemed to him all too roomy,
the fields and the dwelling-place.

Posted: **Thu Jul 18, 2024 7:37 am**

I think this is the source of, well if not everything, a lot of things. Courage remains the cardinal virtue, but this last part of the poem opens the door to, for example, Tolkien's Theoden, an exploration of the courage required to reject easy counsel (Wormtongue), which then extends into a literary exploration of that bit of OFS that recounts the proper use of fairy-stories as consolation and recovery (meeting Hobbits and Ents out of old-wives' tales). Theoden harkens to Gandalf's counsel of hope, and rides to war to die if he must - as indeed is his doom. The high-point of his story comes on the external steps of Orthanc, when alone and unaided he masters the enchantment of the voice of Saruman.

Behind the journey of Theoden from Edoras to Helms Deep to Orthanc is an idea of a father grieving his son who lets himself be comforted by one who wishes only to entrap him. The story of Theoden tells how a man escaped such snares and met his doom as he should - with a little help from a wizard.

With Theoden the madness of grief is invisible, or maybe not present. All that madness is reserved for Denethor, who loses one son and lapses into pure Second Age heathenism, attempting to burn himself and his other son.

Posted: **Thu Jul 18, 2024 8:02 am**

What if any is the relationship between Isildur's doom (keeping the Ring) and the incident with the white tree back in Númenor?

Posted: **Fri Jul 19, 2024 3:38 am**

Chrysophylax Dives wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 6:07 am A serious question @Rivvy Elf. How much do you think madness is bound up in grief? Is it always present, or only if something pushes the person over the line?

Intrusive thoughts occur in most people, and if acting on the intrusive thoughts is madness, then it is always there. Grief weakens the body psychologically and physically as well, leading to more possibility of people acting on their intrusive thoughts during grief (like taking vigilante vengeance). So I believe madness is always present in most everyone. Which is why managing grief is critical to getting back to a healthy lifestyle.

Chrysophylax Dives wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 8:02 am What if any is the relationship between Isildur's doom (keeping the Ring) and the incident with the white tree back in Númenor?

For me, there was a pre-Rivvy Elf before my Mother's death when I was more outgoing, more aggressive, more of a risk-taker. Then there's a post-Rivvy Elf after my Mother's death. That first must be stated in regards to Isildur. Although his home was lost, the ones he loved lived. The Ring and the White Tree can be seen as tethers to Isildur's sanity. With the White Tree, Isildur can always reassure himself, especially with it being a visual reminder like a tree, that he did something good and worthwhile during the Fall and destruction of his home. He took a part of that home with him, so whenever Isildur looked at the White Tree, he could reassure himself accordingly.

If we go back to the text Isildur wrote: "But for my part I will risk no hurt to this thing: of all the works of Sauron the only fair. It is precious to me, though I buy it with great pain."

The only thing of worth Isildur got from the Last Alliance, other than Sauron being defeated, was the One Ring. Everything else was foul to Isildur's mind. The One Ring would be the visual reminder that Elendil and Anarion's deaths meant something. That Isildur did some good in this wretched campaign that cost so much. Without that visual reminder... I don't know what would've happened.

Posted: **Fri Jul 19, 2024 8:06 am**

@Rivvy Elf, thank you for this. I need to read over a few times and digest. My first reaction is that it is sound and robust until the last parts, where it gets cloudy. Above all, I think you underestimate the historical or social catastrophe in relation to the personal calamity of losing those he loved. If we are speaking from experience, that is my last October when for about ten days I expected likely obliteration, not just of my family but a state, a country, I'd guess that losing one's island home was extraordinarily traumatic for all of the exiles of Númenor. This is something to do with an entire context of life, everything that is mundane and hardly thought about, as well as all that is familiar and special and valued in one's environment, vanishing.

After the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans and the Jews became a people of exile, they reconstituted their religion, remade it (they had to because it had been centered on a now destroyed temple), and at the heart of what they remade was an ideal of return, an end to exile. The idea of a people in exile became the dominant identity of Jews after the first century of the Common Era. To my eyes, at least, Tolkien's depiction of the Númenóreans of Middle-earth as exiles draws on this Jewish sense of exile, albeit blending it with the basic idea that we are all exiles from Paradise, from the Garden of Eden.

My point is only that to evaluate Isildur's state of mind when he takes the Ring for himself, we should probably also take on board that the immediate loss of loved ones occurs to one who has previously seen his home, his country, his people, fall into the Sea. The psychological foundations of this man were perhaps not so strong already before the Last Alliance.

The white tree certainly gives to Isildur a symbol by which he could find sanity and meaning against the cataclysmic rupture of his life that was the destruction of his island home. It appears he did not make of this symbol what he ought; and quite possibly such symbolism could not offer enough to console, or mend the mind, in the face of such historical catastrophe.

What I hope for from this discussion, btw, is clarity on the line that you quote and the notion of weregild in relation to it. I don't feel I really get what is going on in these words.

"But for my part I will risk no hurt to this thing: of all the works of Sauron the only fair. It is precious to me, though I buy it with great pain."

Posted: **Fri Jul 19, 2024 8:36 am**

Though I don't undertand what Tolkien is doing with the idea of the Ring as weregild, the above thoughts on exile bring me to my own work on the palantíri. Elendil was the king of the exiles, but the Elves gave him three towers and in one he set up this singular Seeing Stone, and when his heart was heavy with the burden of exile, when he yearned for the world that was now lost, he could ease his heart by climbing the stairs of Elostirion and seeing the shores of Tol Eressëa.

This Elendil could do. Isildur could not. Isildur is the first king of the exiles who faces exile with no umbilical chord that feeds him a residual light of Valinor.

The Elves took the Towers and the Stone back! And as you say, Elrond and other Elf-lords turned their back on Isildur after the victory against Sauron.

It was Isildur, not his father, who faced the cold, bitter, desperate reality of mortals. Elendil died as the Third Age was born. Isildur was the first king of utter, unmitigated, exile.

I'd guess that what Isildur found precious in the One Ring was born out of a fantasy engendered by the Ring, a fantasy that allowed him not to look in the face the bitter historical reality of disenchanted life in the Third Age of Middle-earth.

Posted: **Fri Jul 19, 2024 8:46 am**

@Chrysophylax Dives I must point out that the “home” that Isildur had in Numenor was turning into a nightmare. Human sacrifices, smoke billowing up from the dark temple, the progenitor of the white tree being burned. This was no sudden catastrophe… but a slow death. What Isildur would mourn would be what Numenor was. He did not lose his home when the island fell to the sea. He lost it when Numenor fell under the darkness of Melkor.

I believe the more appropriate example would be the lost of the First Temple.

Did the island’s destruction hurt? Yes, but Isildur had time to expect it, enough time to “steal” something from the land: that became the white tree. He also was strong enough to survive the initial onslaughts of Sauron on Mithas Ithil, which he ruled, the closer of the Minas’ to Sauron. He lost that home too. But his psyche was not so damaged that he did anything stupid, like go Fingolfin on Sauron.

In that situation Isildur had that to concentrate on surviving. He did lose Minas Ithil and fled with his family to Elendil. Anarion held Gondor together and even drove Sauron back to the mountains.

This is a quote from the Silmarillion that makes it more explicit:

“For Isildur would not surrender it to Elrond and Círdan who stood by. They counselled him to cast it into the fire of Orodruin night at hand... But Isildur refused this counsel, saying: 'This I will have as weregild for my father's death, and my brother's. Was it not I that dealt the Enemy his death-blow?' And the Ring that he held seemed to him exceedingly fair to look on; and he would not suffer it to be destroyed.”

Posted: **Sun Jul 21, 2024 4:01 pm**

A good case.

I do think that the transition from 2nd to 3rd Age is a key frame of this drama, though. The Last Alliance is the last act of the Third Age, and with it something breaks between mortals and Elves. The decline of Numenor that Faramir speaks of begins now, and the very first act of the new Third Age is Isildur holding Sauron's Ring in his hand.

I think this was conceived as a drama of the age, framed by history, as much as biography and psychology. Again, even in exile Elendil could climb the stairs of Elostirion and look back into the West and ease his heart.

Blink, and that age of the world is no more and Isildur stands alone, his father's immortal friends but the shadow of their former selves. The One Ring looks precious to this first King of a disenchanted age.

Posted: **Mon Jul 22, 2024 8:06 am**

A slippery case, though. You impose your own fire and brimstone judgments on Numenor. So they were doing a bit of backsliding, a bit of idolatory. Who are you to take the moral highground? Did they really deserve to have their entire island home swallowed by the sea.

You ought to watch that Star Trek movie where Vulcan is destroyed by some mega drill.

Posted: **Mon Jul 22, 2024 9:17 pm**

*insert Gandalf conversation to Frodo in Fellowship of the Ring*

Posted: **Thu Jul 25, 2024 5:45 pm**

But there was something else in it, I think, which you don’t see yet. Even Gollum was not wholly ruined. He had proved tougher than even one of the Wise would have guessed—as a hobbit might. There was a little comer of his mind that was still his own, and light came through it, as through a chink in the dark: light out of the past. It was actually pleasant, I think, to hear a kindly voice again, bringing up memories of wind, and trees, and sun on the grass, and such forgotten things.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2024 4:31 pm**

Great thread @Rivvy Elf. As @Chrysophylax Dives commented, I also never thought of the "great pain" as grief. This new idea you prompted has led my mind off into several other connected train of thoughts. I'm going to toss them into the thread and see where things go...

Isildur's "pain" in touching the Ring is noticeable in Unfinished Tales: Disaster of Gladden Fields:

"Alas, it is not, senya. I cannot use it. I dread the pain of touching it. And I have not yet found the strength to bend it to my will. It needs one greater than I now know myself to be. My pride has fallen. It should go to the Keepers of the Three."

And

"My King," said Elendur, "Ciryon is dead and Aratan is dying. Your last counsellor must advise nay command you, as you commanded Ohtar. Go! Take your burden, and at all costs bring it to the Keepers: even at the cost of abandoning your men and me!"

"King's son," said Isildur, "I knew that I must do so; but I feared the pain. Nor could I go without your leave. Forgive me, and my pride that has brought you to this doom." Elendur kissed him. "Go! Go now!" he said.

This led me to think about Frodo's morgul wound which would "never fully heal." Frodo was wounded by the "Magic" (even though Galadriel would take umbrage with my usage of the word) of the Enemy. The wound left by the morgul blade, still caused Frodo pain on each anniversary of receiving the wound. Same as Isildur's "great pain" being burned when taking the Ring. And in the quote above, we see it causes Isildur great pain to even touch it. He "dreads the pain" to even touch it. Is that pain all in his head?

On the topic of claiming the Ring as weregild. This is something I've posted a lot about on the old plaza. Claiming the Ring as weregild and treasuring it, is where Isildur errs and his failing "the Test" Tolkien likes to put all his heroes in. Weregild was in ancient law a method of compensation paid to an injured party (in the case of the death of a family member). Now Isildur takes the most valuable item as Sauron possesses, as payment for the death of his father and brother, which you could argue was a valid, and legal claim. However, to me it's a sign of Isildur's weakness, he's basically accepting payment (and payment in gold!) for his father and brother being killed in battle. In my opinion, by making the claim of weregild he placed a value on his father's and brother's life, when he took the payment and "treasured it," it's like he's accepting the injuries Sauron caused his family are paid back.

This is the mastery of Tolkien, Isildur makes a legal argument to claim possession of the Ring, but in doing so Tolkien's showing the folly and Isildur failing "the Test." There's only one "Lord of the Ring," claiming possession of it (unless you were Sauron) was essentially Isildur signing his death sentence. Only one character failed the Test and lived. That was Frodo, the loss of the Ring and his failure at the Test, brought him great torment. This is why Elrond's words at the Council ring true, that death was better than to suffer what could have become of Isildur.

I want to delve into this idea though that Isildur's pain as being grief, because in accepting the Ring as weregild, he's accepting the "grief/injuries caused by Sauron are paid back." The Ring is all he's got left. It causes him great pain to even touch it, but as Gandalf might say "he'll never get rid of his need for it." He accepted it as payment for the death of his father and brother, if he gives that up, what does he have left. This whole process has led me to think about Frodo's chilling quote when he's succumbed to the Ring:

'Do you remember that bit of rabbit, Mr. Frodo?' he said. 'And our place under the warm bank in Captain Faramir's country, the day I saw an oliphaunt?'

'No, I am afraid not, Sam,' said Frodo. 'At least, I know that such things happened, but I cannot see them. No taste of food, no feel of water, no sound of wind, no memory of tree or grass or flower, no image of moon or star are left to me. I am naked in the dark, Sam, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades.' (Return of the King: Mount Doom)

Frodo has no memories, no images, there's nothing except him and the "wheel of fire." When his burden is destroyed, he has nothing except the memory of losing it.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2024 6:13 pm**

Hello @Boromir88, it is very good to read you again!

Weregild was in ancient law a method of compensation paid to an injured party (in the case of the death of a family member). Now Isildur takes the most valuable item as Sauron possesses, as payment for the death of his father and brother, which you could argue was a valid, and legal claim. However, to me it's a sign of Isildur's weakness, he's basically accepting payment (and payment in gold!) for his father and brother being killed in battle. In my opinion, by making the claim of weregild he placed a value on his father's and brother's life, when he took the payment and "treasured it," it's like he's accepting the injuries Sauron caused his family are paid back.

What you are saying in your post in general and in this paragraph here seems to me really right, and yet on this that I have bolded I do not agree. Two perspectives.

First, I think it anachronistic to equate a life with gold and declare the equation a sin. In those heathen days what one did if someone killed your kin is hunt down and kill the killer, or at least one of the killer's kin. This is primitive justice - you know it does not bring the dead back to life but it makes you feel better and serves as deterrence. Weregild is obviously to everyone in a society a good thing as it can end endless blood feuds between families. The gold does not bring the dead back, but then neither did killing someone else. So I don't think Tolkien is making some modern criticism of the very idea of accepting gold as weregild for a father and brother.

Second, with Tolkien it is always worth looking at Beowulf, in this case lines 150-160, or thereabouts, which state of the ogre Grendel, who terrorizes the mead hall Heorot, that he would not make peace and settle things by payment with any of the Danes of Heorot. His enmity could not be met by weregild, the usual way of resolving feuds between humans - he is fiend from Hell, at war with Humanity.

So to the degree Grendel is of the same monster kind as Sauron, I'm guessing that the problem with Isildur's notion of taking the One Ring as weregild is not about the death of his father and brother but that monsters are outside the realm of beings with which one does this kind of business - monsters do not do weregild, or not with us. So the very idea of the One Ring as weregild is maybe comparable to the kind of mistake those 9 lords made when,as mortal men doomed to die, they accepted a Ring from Sauron - looks like a normal thing to do with Rings in that day and age, but is a category mistake and leads only to wraithood, in the end.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2024 11:50 pm**

Hello @Chrysophylax Dives, thank you. I do a lot more lurking nowadays, but I'm still around.

First, I think it anachronistic to equate a life with gold and declare the equation a sin. In those heathen days what one did if someone killed your kin is hunt down and kill the killer, or at least one of the killer's kin. This is primitive justice - you know it does not bring the dead back to life but it makes you feel better and serves as deterrence. Weregild is obviously to everyone in a society a good thing as it can end endless blood feuds between families. The gold does not bring the dead back, but then neither did killing someone else. So I don't think Tolkien is making some modern criticism of the very idea of accepting gold as weregild for a father and brother.

You make a good point about weregild here, and after further thinking on this topic, I think you're right. I have remembered Smeagol claiming the ring as a "birthday present" and I think that should be interpreted the same as Isildur's claim of weregild. The sin isn't Isildur's declaration of accepting payment in gold for the death of his father and son. The sin is in Isildur failing the Test and thinking he could claim the Ring at all. The fact Isildur mentions he'll take it as weregild, is kind of a "throw away word" to justify taking it, when you consider how Smeagol thinks he should have it because it was his "birthday."

Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza

The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll

Re: The Grief of Isildur reflected in his Scroll