The disease (as you may logically conclude from what I said) is specifically named in the books. So it is not "some disease" (unspecified) nor "catomisia" ;) (something whose name you just make up without any support for it in the text) but something named in the book.

Okay, another hint (though I am not sure if it will help or if it will confuse things more ;) If it seemed confusing to you, you would perhaps do better by ignoring it): There was a certain group of inhabitants of M-E who all had this disease by default. (This person, who is the subject of the question, was not one of them, though.)

You've got to be making this up, Legate.

No way, my good Gollum. Okay, another hint. One of the group mentioned above died recently before the person in question left its home place. These events were closely related (not totally, like one being consequence of the other, but simply related to each other). And, to add, the death of this one mentioned above was not a result of the disease. The disease itself is not lethal. But very often throughout the history of M-E, somebody died as an outcome of that disease. However, it was not the disease itself that killed them.

That's a lot of hints, I'd say. Try to put all the evidence together and try to think.

And remember, still: we are looking for one certain person about whom we read as being vulnerable to this disease. (Like I said, there were many who had this disease, and probably also some who were vulnerable to it, but about this one we know because the book says it.)

I can only think of the Sackville-Bagginses and their sort of cleptomania :D, but that does not fit more than maybe half of the hints... :confused:

No, but actually, you are far, far closer to the correct answer than all of those who posted here this far have been. You are very, very close, from several aspects.

Cleptomania?

Well, actually I was going to say Sméagol curious "disease" of greedily wanting mroe presents for himself.

After all this affected all Hobbits, and because of it he eventually had to move far away from his home place, but did not die because of it... well ok, maybe he did.

But anyway, since you said the person did not belong to the group of people affected by it by default it cannon be right...

Indeed, it isn't Sméagol. You are heading in the right direction, though. Now I think this is the time to emphasise the important thing from the original question: it is really explicitely said in the book that this person was vulnerable to some sort of disease. In the italicised part, I am not making up any metaphores of my own, I am merely recounting what the book says at some point.

And the person about whom this whole question is, just to remind of it because all the hints may have created a bit of confusing atmosphere, did not die because of this disease - at least it is not said in the books.

Wait, wait, you're tricky.
Looking for what you speak of, I cam across this quote from the UT:

Ok, so this a kind of "disease", somewhat like Sméagol's greed for treasure, their greed for knowledge.

Now, who could still be like that... Saruman?

Wow, Might, I would think you're right, except that I'm not sure if this hint

fits. :confused: And what about this hint?

It almost fits, but doesn't. Or then I'm just a little slow. :D

I guess we must just wait for Legate to come and tell you whether you're correct or not...

Exactly, it doesn't fit at all. ;)

And again, I did not possibly emphasise enough, or express clearly what I wanted to emphasise: I am stating only what is in the books. If I say it is a disease, it is a disease according to the books. In the context you quote, there is nothing about the lust for knowledge being a disease, or is it? It isn't. If you found it being called a disease, fine. But since you didn't, keep looking for a disease. ;)

Aha!

I think I have it... you truly are tricky with your questions, but I enjoy them I must admit.

Ok, so my answer is the the Master of Lake Town.

1. There was a person.
2. This person was vulnerable to a certain kind of disease.
3. This disease is a kind you won't usually find in a medic's handbook.
4. It caused this person, eventually, to move far from this person's home place.
5. That person did not die because of the disease, as far as we know.

It fits with all, as he did get the disease, it is in no medic's handbook, it caused him to go to the Northern Wastes and nothing was heard of him afterwards. Although he did die of starvation, it was not the disease which caused it. And since it is said he was "of the kind" he did belong to people having this by default.

If this is wrong too, I'll first buy me a hat, then eat it.

No need to buy a hat, and the less to eat it :) Well done! The Master of Laketown, what a nice figure, eh?

And... eeeeek... only now I looked at when the question was posted here in the first place... two days ago, it was exactly a year :eek: Oh my, I didn't think it was that long...

Please post a new one, Miggy. I hope it will take less time to solve... :rolleyes:

Yay, me!
This brings the lore-score to Legate 100 - 1 Might. :D

No, seriously, now that I got I realise I should have done better to find that out. I'll try to figure something out, though I doubt it will be nearly as impressive.

*knock knock* Anybody home?

Sorry, forgot about this one, I'll post a new one shortly.

Chosen because he liked the Sea.

Hi! I just popped in to see what was up.

I have no Tolkien books with me, so without knowing if I'm even close to being right and being fully prepared to be told I am wrong, I will guess:

Cirdan the Shipwright.

I think you're intimating Voronwe...

Bah, Beregond has it right... and so quickly! Kudos!

:D Yay!

You know that guy who was a prince? He had an unprecedented name.

~

Galador, first prince of Dol Amroth.
He was prince and noone else had this name.

Perhaps true, but not who I was looking for. :)

Well, guess I'll try again then.

What about Peregrin Took, referred to as "Prince of the Halflings"? He is the only one with that name, and there never was any other Hobbit with this "title", neither before nor after Pippin.

Interesting answer, but not what I was thinking. ;) I think my description was too vague.

Ok, what about Faramir, Prince of Ithilien?
(btw, I am running out of true princes here) :D

There are many true Princes! Not all of them remained so. :) Oh, not Faramir, no.

Hmm, how about Vinitharya, Eldacar's name when he was a prince?

Nay. This prince was unique in more ways than one. Long life in his veins would run.

Your question still remains very, very, vague, as I probably could give several answers that would all perfectly fit the description.

Ok, what about Maglor?
- name unprecedented
- prince of the Noldor
- he theoretically could still be living today in the Seventh Age, all that is told is that he never returned amongst the Elves

No... (that always intrigued me; where would Maglor go? How long could he wander alone?)

This new age prince was by parentage unique. His father died a free death.

Dior, perhaps? The first child of elves and men.

Nay, but on the right track.

Hmm...perhaps Vardamir, the son of Elros?

Off the track again. My my, I didn't intend this to be so hard...

This future King's lands encompassed even the little people.

Ah then what about Aragorn's son Eldarion?

No, not Elda.... wait...YES, YES, that's him! Eldarion, Prince of Gondor, whose name means "Scion of the Eldar" I believe, and who's parents were very distinct, being a man and an elf. Aragorn his father relinquished the throne to Eldarion and died naturally like his sires of old. The odds are in favour of Eldarion inheriting long life.

And so the torch passes to you, TM!

Remember the place where all but one lie?

Possibly Cabed-en-Aras, or its surroundings?

Nope.

Then hat about the burial mounds of the Kings of the Rohirrim?