The sinking of Numenor - a lesson to whom?

[alatar]

I stepped right over the original question, or at least that which is posed in the thread title. "To whom was the lesson directed?"

I assume that it was to the Númenóreans, showing that that which is given can be as easily taken away. Sure, these men were rewarded for their faithfulness in the breaking of Angband, but this did not give them carte blanche to do whatever caught their fancy. When they too strayed down the dark road, it lead to their ruin as well, as it does for all beings.

Even Melkor and Sauron were good once, and yet...

Anyway, the Faithful that escaped the ruin would carry the lesson forward. Some might obscure the lesson with thought of merely the "Golden Age," but that is just part of the whole story.

Another thought: Was this a retelling of the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, where united humanity attempted to build a tower all the way to Heaven (or however the story is read)? This act of pride was 'rewarded' with the dispersing of all humanity due to divinely-enacted language barriers, and so never again could humanity unite in such a prideful way - trying to reach Heaven/Aman.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

I assume that it was to the Númenóreans, showing that that which is given can be as easily taken away. Sure, these men were rewarded for their faithfulness in the breaking of Angband, but this did not give them carte blanche to do whatever caught their fancy. When they too strayed down the dark road, it lead to their ruin as well, as it does for all beings.

Anyway, the Faithful that escaped the ruin would carry the lesson forward. Some might obscure the lesson with thought of merely the "Golden Age," but that is just part of the whole story.

To whom was the sinking of Numenor directed? The answer is threefold: 1. The Numenorean survivors, 2. Sauron, and 3. the rest of mankind.

One has to consider the flood not merely as a localized punishment for Numenor. If that were the case, Ar-Pharazon and his army's destruction would have served the purpose. With Eru's involvement (and if we grant him a deity's omnipresence), it seems obvious that he would be aware that Sauron was the arch-nemesis of the whole Ar-Pharazon invasion, and would explain how Sauron was caught utterly by surprise by the virulence of the flood. Also, like the biblical flood, the lesson of god's wrath extends beyond the Israelites (or whatever Noah's folk was termed as at that point), and acts as a parable of divine retribution for later generations of mankind.

Originally Posted by alatar

Another thought: Was this a retelling of the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, where united humanity attempted to build a tower all the way to Heaven (or however the story is read)? This act of pride was 'rewarded' with the dispersing of all humanity due to divinely-enacted language barriers, and so never again could humanity unite in such a prideful way - trying to reach Heaven/Aman.

No, Al, I don't think it has anything to do with Babel. It is Tolkien's wedding of the biblical flood and the myth of Atlantis (thus Tolkien using the word Atalante). I think it was very clever of the Professor, and makes the story less allegorical and more in line with a world mythology rather than a direct link to a specific religion.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

To whom was the sinking of Numenor directed? The answer is threefold: 1. The Numenorean survivors, 2. Sauron, and 3. the rest of mankind.

One has to consider the flood not merely as a localized punishment for Numenor. If that were the case, Ar-Pharazon and his army's destruction would have served the purpose. With Eru's involvement (and if we grant him a deity's omnipresence), it seems obvious that he would be aware that Sauron was the arch-nemesis of the whole Ar-Pharazon invasion, and would explain how Sauron was caught utterly by surprise by the virulence of the flood. Also, like the biblical flood, the lesson of god's wrath extends beyond the Israelites (or whatever Noah's folk was termed as at that point), and acts as a parable of divine retribution for later generations of mankind.



No, Al, I don't think it has anything to do with Babel. It is Tolkien's wedding of the biblical flood and the myth of Atlantis (thus Tolkien using the word Atalante). I think it was very clever of the Professor, and makes the story less allegorical and more in line with a world mythology rather than a direct link to a specific religion.

I wonder, would there be a touch of the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah there also?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I wonder, would there be a touch of the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah there also?

Well, the Numenoreans were worshipping a false god (Morgoth), and then there was that whole human sacrifice thing, but if I recall the biblical version of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah had more to do with sexual perversion and inhospitality (selfishness, lack of compassion). I suppose sacrificing whole families on the pyre of Morgoth would be rather inhospitable...rude even, but it seems the Numenoreons suffered more from the sins of Blasphemy and Pride (particularly since Tolkien was usually rather vague about sexual subjects); however, there is the forced marriage of Tar-Miriel by Ar-Pharazon (which, by the degree of consanguinity, could be considered incestuous by a medieval pope, and would require a hefty donation for a dispensation).

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Well, the Numenoreans were worshipping a false god (Morgoth), and then there was that whole human sacrifice thing,

That's the main thing, I would say. In any case, in contrary to the story of Akallabeth, the biblical descriptions are usually pretty vague, but I have no doubt Tolkien was inspired by both, as well as Atlantis, as it has been already mentioned here too.

but if I recall the biblical version of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah had more to do with sexual perversion and inhospitality (selfishness, lack of compassion).

Let me add a note here. The second one definitely, but the first one, not - seeing sexual perversion in it was only a later meaning added to the text by later interpretators. The story itself speaks mainly about inhospitability in the worst sense - visitors come to the city, and the inhabitants not only don't offer them what they can, but actually intend harm and violence towards them. The fact that it had something to do with sex is merely the "colorite" - it's just another form of the violence when you want to rape somebody who came to your house asking for a night stay there. But overall, if I took the story, I would say it is something I could imagine even on Númenor as it's depicted during Pharazon's rule (or perhaps even in some scale during the reign of the kings before him).

[Formendacil]

If I may interject with my interpolation, I do not think Bêthberry was so much concerned with the particular sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, and how that was applicable to Númenor, but rather that she was pointing out that in the Akallabêth, as in Genesis, you have the story of a society that is deeply sinful (or evil, if you prefer) and is utterly smitten by God (Eru), with only a few survivors... Lot & Daughters/Elendili.

Interestingly, and tying back to the main question, it seems to me that the Genesis story of Lot's company not being able to look back lest they turn to salt (as his wife did) is applicable to the original question of the thread title. Whether or not this is the point of Genesis, one could certainly say, literally, that Lot's family was not to turn back in any manner. In the same way, the utter destruction of Númenor utterly prevents any sort of a turning back. Elendil's family, like Lot's, can NEVER go back (although it is interesting to note, from the legend of Meneltarma rising above the waves and the many mariners that sought it, that the Dúnedain clearly tried).

Personally, I don't think the sinking of Númenor can be considered a lesson to Sauron. If Eru had wanted him punished, I'm pretty sure that the Ilúvatar could have done quite a bit worse to him. As for Ar-Pharazôn and his crew, they either died flat out or were imprisoned. In the former case, it's hardly a lesson since the dead can't apply the lesson, and in the latter case they probably never even found out.

That really only leaves the Elendili.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

If I may interject with my interpolation, I do not think Bêthberry was so much concerned with the particular sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, and how that was applicable to Númenor, but rather that she was pointing out that in the Akallabêth, as in Genesis, you have the story of a society that is deeply sinful (or evil, if you prefer) and is utterly smitten by God (Eru), with only a few survivors... Lot & Daughters/Elendili.

Yes, Sodom and Gomorrah was indeed struck down for wickedness and only Lot and his children survived; however, could not the same be said of Noah and his family? God struck down the wicked, drowning all the evil folk (which, if you believe the bible, would be all of mankind), leaving Noah in his floating ark. In Eru's case, this was not merely striking down two cities, but a great island continent, and then he fundamentally altered the geography of the world, forever separating the Undying lands from Arda.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Interestingly, and tying back to the main question, it seems to me that the Genesis story of Lot's company not being able to look back lest they turn to salt (as his wife did) is applicable to the original question of the thread title. Whether or not this is the point of Genesis, one could certainly say, literally, that Lot's family was not to turn back in any manner. In the same way, the utter destruction of Númenor utterly prevents any sort of a turning back. Elendil's family, like Lot's, can NEVER go back (although it is interesting to note, from the legend of Meneltarma rising above the waves and the many mariners that sought it, that the Dúnedain clearly tried).

Good point, but 'no turning back' is a theme elsewhere in the bible (Adam and Eve -- and the whole human race, for that matter -- never to return to the earthly paradise of Eden).

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Personally, I don't think the sinking of Númenor can be considered a lesson to Sauron. If Eru had wanted him punished, I'm pretty sure that the Ilúvatar could have done quite a bit worse to him. As for Ar-Pharazôn and his crew, they either died flat out or were imprisoned. In the former case, it's hardly a lesson since the dead can't apply the lesson, and in the latter case they probably never even found out.

That really only leaves the Elendili.

The point is certainly arguable; however, if you read the final section of the Akallabêth concerning Sauron, "he was filled with fear at the wrath of the Valar, and the doom that Eru laid upon seas and land." Eru, ever-prescient but prone to allow free will (save for the Numeoreans blithely ignoring the prohibition against Men entering the Undying Lands), did not destroy Sauron utterly, which would be an utter removal of Sauron's free will, but gave him such an admonishment that most reasonable beings would take the hint. As it was, Sauron was forever stripped of his fair appearance and had to exist in spirit form for quite a time before being able to reassume a physical manifestation. Of course, we know that Sauron was never reasonable (being on the losing end of the War of Wrath should've been enough to show him the error of his ways).

In the end, Sauron was not destroyed by Eru, but by himself and the Ring he alone created. He chose the path of his own destruction by not heeding warnings that were so dire and ominous that one has to wonder about Sauron's mental state.