Isildur

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

]
Despite Elrond's words in the Council about Isildur's "refusal" to destroy the Ring when he could, he says nothing about why he or Círdan didn't simply take it from Isildur. They were afraid to touch it themselves.

I'm not sure I would classify Elrond and Cirdan's refusal to take it as they were themselves afraid to take it. According to Elrond, Isildur basically laid claim of it from the get go and would have it no other way:

"This I will have as weregild for my father, and my brother," he said; and therefor 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."~The Council of Elrond

(Bolding my emphasis)

Claiming it as weregild is also something that Tolkien might frown upon. Isildur makes a legal claim (claiming compensation and Sauron's most valuable possession for the death of his father and brother). However, it might not be seen as the moral thing to do, because Isildur is accepting payment for the death of his father and brother. He's essentially placing a value on their lives, and by accepting the payment (in gold mind you) Isildur's saying Sauron's debt is paid.

It's like Denethor using the palantir, Tolkien writes that legally Denethor (by being in a position to rule Gondor until the King returns) could use the stone. And that "legal" authority to use the stone did grant some protection from Sauron, but I imagine Tolkien would still say it wasn't the "right" thing to do.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I'm not sure I would classify Elrond and Cirdan's refusal to take it as they were themselves afraid to take it. According to Elrond, Isildur basically laid claim of it from the get go and would have it no other way

Yet, given the stakes, why not take it from him by force? The needs of the one (pun intended) do not outweigh the needs of the many.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Yet, given the stakes, why not take it from him by force? The needs of the one (pun intended) do not outweigh the needs of the many.

First of all -

https://pasteboard.co/u7em8VhAKm2m.jpg

Because while I am sure images of Schwarzenegger Gollum have appeared somewhere, I am not sure that Spock Isildur Terminator did.


In an alternate universe:

- Is it dead?
- Terminated.
- Will this melt in there?
- Yes. Throw it in.
- Adios!
- And the chip.

...

- I have come. But I do not choose now to do what I came to do. I will not do this deed. The chip is mine!

And that is how young Mr. Connor came to be the secret Lord of Skynet.


~~~


On a more serious topic now. Regardless of what Elrond and Cirdan's actual motivations were in the moment, whether it was wisdom or fear or ignorance which drove the decision, I think it is a good thing that neither tried to physically force Isildur to give up the Ring - or destroyed the Ring together with Isildur. That scenario would have been the exact picture that Sauron would relish seeing. One possibility goes thus: a selfless intention, for the greater good, logical, bound to work... because you are clearly the more wise and foresighted of this lot... and you can prevent the Doom of Arda or whatnot... at the price of your friend and ally... and any who disagree with your choice... but they are short-sighted emotional idealists, not everyone can be as wise and rational as you... And so ally turns on ally, friend turns on friend, blood gets spilled, someone defends someone else but no one agrees on what is right, the wrong people get killed, a civil war breaks loose, the Ring somehow escapes and rolls over to the Winchester to have a pint and wait for all this to blow over. And how about the other alternative, if the Ring gets pushed into the Cracks with or without Isildur from the first try? Everything goes smoothly and successfully, Elrond and Cirdan manage not to kill each other accidentally in the process, the Ring gets melted. It would be starting a new Age with coercion and force, and the idea that the end justifies the means - sort of resembles Feanor, don't you think? - sets a sour precedent, and creates perfect chance for the wheel of history to repeat itself. And the entirety of Tolkien's universe, its foundation and message, all start falling apart at the idea that such a deed could be considered a good moral start for the new Age. It would be killing the body because you failed to save the soul. It cannot be judged a good thing to do in the ideal sense. Moreover, even in the absence of the Ring, it is perpetuating the Ring's - Sauron's - Morgoth's - corruption, and therefore Sauron might not live on but his deeds would be thriving. And, I think, in a world that is more full of pathetic fallacy and prophecy than it is of cynicism, such a start to an Age would not justify itself for very long.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Regardless of what Elrond and Cirdan's actual motivations were in the moment, whether it was wisdom or fear or ignorance which drove the decision, I think it is a good thing that neither tried to physically force Isildur to give up the Ring - or destroyed the Ring together with Isildur

Oh, I don't think that's what Elrond and Círdan should have done. I was just wondering about the possible thought processes going on at that critical moment.

I got a bit off-track there anyway.
What I was trying to get across was that Isilder's claiming the Ring for his own was not a moral weakness. It started to work on him immediately.

I seriously doubt Isildur thought of the One Ring as a "weregild" in any real sense: he simply was justifying his possession of it, just as Gollum long after seized upon the idea of the Ring as his "birthday present".

Gandalf says that Bilbo was the only one who ever gave up the Ring of his own accord, and even that was a very close thing.
The greater one is, the more easily the Ring takes hold. With the knowledge that three hobbits were Ring-bearers, and two-thirds could not summon the will the give it up, I cannot blame the King of Arnor and Gondor for being unable to resist it.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Oh, I don't think that's what Elrond and Círdan should
Gandalf says that Bilbo was the only one who ever gave up the Ring of his own accord, and even that was a very close thing.
The greater one is, the more easily the Ring takes hold. With the knowledge that three hobbits were Ring-bearers, and two-thirds could not summon the will the give it up, I cannot blame the King of Arnor and Gondor for being unable to resist it.

2/3? Sam gave it up voluntarily. Gandalf didn't reference it because of course it hadn't yet happened. But Sam rather proves the larger point: his humility is proof against the Ring's temptation.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

2/3? Sam gave it up voluntarily. Gandalf didn't reference it because of course it hadn't yet happened. But Sam rather proves the larger point: his humility is proof against the Ring's temptation.

I left out Sam, because he was the only one who really knew what the Ring was when he took possession. He was forewarned, and thus more aware of the tricks it might play.

[Mithadan]

Note that while only Bilbo and Sam voluntarily relinquished the Ring, neither was attempting to actually destroy it. This is an important distinction when evaluating Isildur and Frodo's inability to cast it into the fires on Mount Doom.