Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
The 'Arkenstone' Silmaril . . .
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

chauvelin2000
Bree

Jan 29 2015, 7:28am

Post #1 of 39 (1980 views)
Shortcut
The 'Arkenstone' Silmaril . . . Can't Post

As far as the Arkenstone itself goes (as opposed to its Light emanating from within, discussed in the post 'Of Holy Stones, Tauriel, and Light precious and pure'), there are some, including Tolkien scholar John D. Rateliff (who discusses the topic at length in THE HISTORY OF THE HOBBIT), who either believe or who have suggested as being very viable the idea — as such certainly would have meshed with Tolkien's post -1937 intent / 1966 attempt to align his developing First-Age mythology and earlier children's story with his emerging high-romance legends of the Third Age (especially in light of the dramatically altered roles of Gollum and his Ring that now in their application to his pre-WWII hobbit tale seemed requisite) — that the Arkenstone, resting anew within earth's bosom at Erebor's heart, was by Tolkien's retroactive lights one of the three indestructible Silmarils fashioned by Fëanor long ago by peerless craft in the Undying Lands of the West . . . 

From a Fiery Chasm — after the War of Wrath when the face of Middle-earth cataclysmically changed, its Beleriandic regions broken by the Valar-gods, its lands sinking beneath the waves, the Eorcanstán (OE: 'Holy Stone', or Silmaril, originating in Tolkien's First Age SILMARILLION) that in the ensuing chaos Maedhros seized scorched him, for he was evil of heart; he thereafter 'cast himself into a gaping chasm filled with fire', taking his Silmaril 'into the bosom of the Earth'. While that surely proved the end of Fëanor's last surviving son, it was certainly not the end of the indestructible Silmaril (its luminescent 'outer body', forged from crystalline 'silma', resisting all earthly marring, breaking, or mutation of any kind). Though sucked into the molten bosom of the earth, submerged in the subterranean convection currents that may well have carried it far away from Beleriand's fiery portal into which it was cast, the Eorcanstán of Fëanor (despite Maedhros' gross violation and rape of it) remained utterly unharmed. But where might those violent forces deep beneath the world's surface have carried this ancient 'Holy Gem' fashioned in the land of the gods? It may well have, as some believe, resurfaced in Erebor, at the roots of the Lonely Mountain, where volcanic eruptions may have pushed it up from the spinning currents of earth's mantle until by the hand of Fate it finally lodged, in one last burst of volcanic upheaval, within the volcano's central lava conduit — at the mountain's fiery 'heart', as it were. There, amidst the molten matter that coursed round it, it would have slowly cooled in time until at last it became cold and still (resting for centuries thereafter as might the stony-dead): quiet, and at peace, yet kindled from within by a flickering flame that would not die ... until, quite by chance, it was discovered again by dwarf-miners and craftsmen chipping away at Erebor's 'heart' to find the finest gems and most precious metals with which to fuel their kingdom's illustrious craft. 

If indeed this became the fate of one of the three 'Holy Stones' of Fëanor (for 'Arkenstone' itself derives from Eorcanstán and therefore also means 'precious, holy stone'), its once-scintillating brilliance (that emanated from the Light of the Two Trees within itself) was perhaps not quite what it used to be: for in times past it had rejoiced in refracting all light that fell upon it, returning it again in myriad splintered hues of wondrous ray. But now, if indeed having rested through lightless centuries in the pitch-black of earth's now-stony depths, its ancient gleam may also have become somewhat 'pallid' (as described in THE HOBBIT and perhaps as we see it on screen, in Peter Jackson's film), its native 'blended fire' muted as it were from its former days of glorious brilliance. And yet the very 'fates of Arda' must be bound by and locked up in it, too, as Mandos anciently prophesied; and, as its own fate was ever to be entwined with earth's bosom, it seems to have been destined to dwell ever at the Mountain's 'heart'. 

Even so, it seems the Holy Stone's emergence for a brief time from earth's rocky core (that is, during the time of the HOBBIT tale) has, in the wisdom of Ilúvatar, a purpose that is as marevellously measured as it is potent: after all, the ardent desire for the Arkenstone's reclamation that is felt among Middle-earth's varied races in the final years of the Third Age (for who has not heard 'the legend of the hoard of Thror'?) inspires quests (of Erebor, the Fellowship of the Ring), which in their courses unexpectedly create the conditions for vanquishing evil (Smaug, Sauron, the forces of Darkness), establishing alliances (Elves, Dwarves, Men), but most importantly, making vital discoveries (Gollum, the One Ring of Power, the Arkenstone itself) that prove to have profound impact and bearing upon the chances and destinies of the free-peoples of Middle-earth. The influence of the Eorcanstán-Arkenstone, therefore, ultimately proves inestimable, if such is indeed its SILMARILLION affiliation and true origin. 

As to its final fate: After the mortal fall of the Mountain Kingdom's rightful heir (beneath Erebor's bruised and bloodied knees, in the Battle of the Five Armies) the Arkenstone (the Eorcanstán cast by Maedhros when he cast himself into the fiery depths?) returned with Thorin Oakenshield to the Mountain's roots — to its 'heart' — buried in princely fashion amidst kingly accoutrements ... as is most befitting one of Fëanor's illustrious Silmarils: 'They buried Thorin deep beneath the Mountain, and Bard laid the Arkenstone upon his heart [> breast]. 'There let it lie with the last of the kings' he said, 'and may it guard all his folk that dwell here after'...' (THE HOBBIT). If indeed this Eorcanstán, this Holy Stone, is one of the 'Holy Gems' of old, it awaits within earth's bosom its final part yet to play in the destiny of Arda before the Great End — when Morgoth will finally be vanquished, the three Silmarils recovered from 'earth, sea, and sky', the Two Trees re-kindled with the Light of the Jewels, the Earth broken and re-made anew (its mountains levelled, its valleys raised — to become a sea of glass? — over which a great Light shall flow across the world: 'the 'Vision of Eru' of which the Valar speak ... a vision of what was designed to be when Arda was complete — of living things and even of the very lands and seas of Arda made eternal and indestructible, for ever beautiful and new'), and the Second Music of the Ainur shall sound. 

Until that time, that ancient hero of the War of Wrath, Eärendil, still, by the grace of the Valar and with Fate in harmonious trajectory, sails the heavens in his starcraft Vingilot wearing upon his brow one of the thrice-renowned Silmarils, keeping careful watch upon the ramparts of the sky, over the Doors of Night, ever vigilant against the return of Melkor from the Timeless Void (until that mighty Morgoth is allowed one last time to engage in final Battle upon the plains of Valinor against the forces of Light — the Dagor Dagorath 'Battle of Battles' — in which he is vanquished forever and holy Men and Elves — the Children of Ilúvatar — become the eternal victors, inheriting Earth Renewed ... and Infinitely more, when both Men and Elves are 'summoned' to the vast, starry realms of the Gods); THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH X: MORGOTH'S RING, pp. 317-18.


Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea


Jan 29 2015, 9:09am

Post #2 of 39 (1601 views)
Shortcut
For me IT IS [In reply to] Can't Post

I would like to see that happening. If somehow Silmarilion movies are made and they are stetically alike to PJ vision I would llike to see one of the silmarils looking like the Arkenstone. Not need to mention at all but that the audience find out themselves.

In the books are the same to me, Ii dont know if nobody between Gandalf or Tthranduil are able to regonize it as a silmaril for they never had seen one of those

And it makes sense of dwarves digging holes and bringing out some relics of the buried past just like the Balrog and in this case a silmaril

Totally possible and recomendable

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true

Survivor to the battle for the fifth trailer

Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero



Elthir
Grey Havens

Jan 29 2015, 1:47pm

Post #3 of 39 (1550 views)
Shortcut
JDR and the Arkenstone [In reply to] Can't Post

JD Rateliff writes a good article on this, but I don't think he uncovered any text or marginal note, for example, that shows Tolkien even questioning whether the Arkenstone might be a Silmaril (not that anyone said he did in the first place, or that Tolkien necessarily needed to note it on paper).


Plus, if I recall correctly, even Mr. Rateliff does not seem to take up what is, to my mind, a notably problematic description in The Hobbit: that the Arkenstone was said to be cut and fashioned by the Dwarves (in addition to having its own inner light, now it could better reflect light due to the way it was cut).

In the drafts this was even said of the stone (at this point called the Gem of Girion) when it was given to the Dwarves by Girion -- where Girion himself got the jewel is not said -- but I note that it already shone with an inner light even at this stage of the story as it developed.

The only explanation I have ever seen was that maybe the phrase means that the Dwarves cut some stuff -- rock or cooled lava or whatever -- around the Silmaril or clinging to the Silmaril, to then reveal an already fashioned jewel...

... but that seems strained to my mind, as if trying to clear a path for the Silmaril argument.




John Rateliff also notes the sense of finality (that the Silmarils were lost) in the 1926 Sketch of the Mythology and various versions of the 1930 Quenta Noldorinwa...


Quote
'Despite the sense of finality in the passages just quoted, Tolkien had in fact changed his mind four times in the previous fifteen years about the holy jewel's fate...' J. Rateliff History of the Hobbit




I think that's a rather important "despite" however, because the Sketch and the 1930 Qenta are still relatively close in date to the writing of The Hobbit.



Quote
'Just as the sword of Turgon King of Gondolin had somehow survived... it is thus more than possible that Tolkien was playing in The Hobbit with the idea of having one of Feanor's wondrous jewels reappear,...' J. Rateliff, History of The Hobbit




Well I supose it is 'more than possible', but that isn't saying much in the way of textual evidence in my opinion.

No doubt Tolkien changed his mind enough times, so the implication here seems to be that Tolkien might change his mind about this finality once again. Okay possible, but is there textual evidence to show that he did for his new story?

Another implication appears to be that since an item like Turgon's sword survived, maybe one of the Silmarils might too. Well again, that only goes so far I think.

A further element of the evidence appears to be the word arkenstone -- but as Rateliff himself notes, this word fits for 'precious or holy jewel', and is found in Beowulf and The Christ, for examples in Old English. Tolkien's use of the term is fitting in both cases, but this 'connection' is nothing new at this point, as the Old English snippets of the Silmarillion writings were published some time ago now in The History of Middle-Earth series.

With respect to possibly new information gleaned from drafts for The Hobbit, Rateliff notes that the Arkenstone evolved out of the Gem of Girion*, which was a gem given by Girion of Dale to the Dwarves (although it is not told how Girion got this gem in any case). And as for the compared descriptions (how both jewels looked, or dealt with light), even Rateliff notes than any similarities here do not prove that the Arkenstone was intended as a Silmaril.

I realize Rateliff's commentary, however one takes it, hinges on a combination of things, and to be fair, it should be read in full, but here we have jools that an author wished to set apart as particularly notable and beautiful, so to my mind even a measure of borrowing of description would not be unexpected.

Some measure of 'literary borrowing' (or a better term that I can't think of at the moment) does not necessarily make the arkenstone a Silmaril, and I think we are still wanting textual evidence -- at least something direct I mean -- that Tolkien was actually playing with the notion of making this gem a Silmaril specifically, as there doesn't seem to be any confirming text or note in the draft stages of The Hobbit (which would be new to the case, so to speak).

I've seen a number of varied arguments on line, but so far I don't buy the idea myself.


Lindarielwen
Bree


Jan 29 2015, 1:56pm

Post #4 of 39 (1513 views)
Shortcut
That's interesting! [In reply to] Can't Post

You know, I've never thought about the Arkenstone in that way! But it is a clever idea! It could really be a silmaril, come to think about it. I wish Tolkien had told us something about it...=(


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Jan 29 2015, 3:07pm

Post #5 of 39 (1503 views)
Shortcut
Can somebody explain, as I'm not a geologist... [In reply to] Can't Post

how, if the chasm that Maedhros threw his Silmaril into was in Beleriand, (which sank under the waters at the end of the First Age) said Silmaril could turn up thousands of miles away beneath Erebor? Are we to believe that it floated in the magma beneath Arda's crust and then erupted when Erebor was formed? Come to that, do we know how old Erebor is? It may have already been in existence before the Silmaril was lost...




"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort


(This post was edited by Eleniel on Jan 29 2015, 3:08pm)


shadowdog
Rohan

Jan 29 2015, 6:25pm

Post #6 of 39 (1462 views)
Shortcut
A lot of volcanos [In reply to] Can't Post

Are formed by one of the earth's plates sliding under another and melting into lava and then erupting into a volcano. So the Silmaril might have traveled in the ground to under what became Erebor. And yes plate tectonics can move land thousand of miles over a long time. America used to be attached to Africa.


(This post was edited by shadowdog on Jan 29 2015, 6:27pm)


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Jan 29 2015, 8:38pm

Post #7 of 39 (1450 views)
Shortcut
Yes I know land masses shift and move... [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm talking about an indestructible object that is travelling well within the earth's crust. We know the land "changed" at the end of the First Age, (ie a huge part of the land mass sank) but presumably the existing land mass of Middle-earth was already formed at that point? Perhaps the sinking of Numenor at the end of the Second Age caused a few more earthquakes and volcanic eruptions in M-e then and maybe Erebor was still active before the beginning of the Third Age, but I still think it is a bit of stretch.




"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort


DanielLB
Immortal


Jan 29 2015, 9:04pm

Post #8 of 39 (1424 views)
Shortcut
No more a stretch as ... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I'm talking about an indestructible object that is travelling well within the earth's crust. We know the land "changed" at the end of the First Age, (ie a huge part of the land mass sank) but presumably the existing land mass of Middle-earth was already formed at that point? Perhaps the sinking of Numenor at the end of the Second Age caused a few more earthquakes and volcanic eruptions in M-e then and maybe Erebor was still active before the beginning of the Third Age, but I still think it is a bit of stretch.


Two blades, Beater and Biter, turning up in a Troll hoard, after Gondolin was destroyed in the First Age. The Silmarils were indestructible objects, so this one could certainly have ended up anywhere (volcanic processes were pushing the stone up and the Dwarves were digging down towards it). That's assuming the Arkenstone *is* a Silmaril, which in my opinion, it isn't. There's enough evidence other than plate tectonics to explain why it can't be a Silmaril.


(This post was edited by DanielLB on Jan 29 2015, 9:07pm)


shadowdog
Rohan

Jan 29 2015, 9:21pm

Post #9 of 39 (1420 views)
Shortcut
Not really [In reply to] Can't Post

North America is an old land mass. Yet Yellowstone hotspot has passed under North America from the Pacific and left volcanos all along southern Idaho until it reached its current location in Wyoming. It is still movie eastward and will soon (in geologic time) be under the Rockies in Montana.


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Jan 29 2015, 9:38pm

Post #10 of 39 (1414 views)
Shortcut
Ah, but Beater and Biter could easily have been carried away by the enemy... [In reply to] Can't Post

after the Fall of Gondolin. There's nothing to say they had to remain in the ruins - which of course would have meant they were indeed lost forever beneath the seas. The easiest explanation is to believe Morgoth's forces took the shiny weapons as trophies (despite or because of their reputations!) and somewhere down the line there was probably at east one "falling out between thieves" leading to them crossing the Ered Luin into Eriador and eventually turning up in the Troll hoard.


But yes, I can accept it could be possible for the Silmaril to end up under Erebor eventually. However, I personally like to believe Tolkien's intention was for the fates of the Silmarils to remain lost to sea, earth and sky until Arda is Remade, as per the prophecy.




"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Jan 29 2015, 9:55pm

Post #11 of 39 (1423 views)
Shortcut
the descriptions of the two gems are entirely different [In reply to] Can't Post

let alone the fact that the Silmarils found their homes until the breaking of the world if the Silmarillion is to be considered as a reasonable source.


tunagirll
Registered User

Jan 30 2015, 10:47am

Post #12 of 39 (1365 views)
Shortcut
Ocean more likely than earth [In reply to] Can't Post

It would be more likely for the Silmaril that was thrown into the sea to settle on the ocean floor, before being scraped off onto the tectonic plate. Given enough time, the ocean plate could eventually close, continents collide and push up into a mountain, of which the 'ocean wedge' containing the Silmaril could be part of the uplift.

It's not as likely for the earth Silmaril, because for it to 'sink', travel and 'rise' it would need to change its specific gravity in order to go down and come up - which makes no sense.


chauvelin2000
Bree

Feb 1 2015, 10:47am

Post #13 of 39 (1319 views)
Shortcut
A Holy Stone’s Journey from Silmaril to ‘Heart of the Mountain’ … [In reply to] Can't Post

Of course, THE HOBBIT was written well before LOTR was even an idea (and Gollum and the ring were never what they later became: Sméagol-Gollum and the One Ring of Power), and so any conception of the Arkenstone being related to Tolkien’s SILMARILLION mythology, by necessity, like the later Gollum story, had to be formulated by Tolkien after the fact, to 'fit' both the earlier and later legendarium as found in LOTR and the published SILMARILLION.

Tolkien's 1931-33 descriptions of the Arkenstone are strikingly similar to not only the contemporary versions of his earlier legendarium-writings describing Fëanor's Jewels but also those of the 1977 published ‘History of the Silmarils.’ The descriptions are similar even down to the details of the effects that a 'Holy Stone' has upon evil-doers: itself seemingly pure and innocent, it fiercely possesses and scorches them (but as John D. Rateliff notes, the Holy Stone (Eorcanstán) as it appears in THE HOBBIT, though indeed sharing these same powers, 'never comes into direct contact with any evil-doer [not even Thorin in the throes of his Dragon-sickness madness ever gets near enough to touch it] ... its failure to scorch Bilbo [if its powers are those of a Silmaril] is a testament to the integrity of his intentions and the rightness of his action ... the Arkenstone [like the Silmarils] inspires greed but is not itself malicious in any way...' (HISTORY OF THE HOBBIT, p. 606).

One of the most intriguing (and rather surprising) points that Rateliff makes is that, even though 'some of the most characteristic features of a Silmaril's appearance familiar to us from the published SILMARILLION [e.g., its magnifying and splintering of incoming light to refract it outward] ... derive not from [earlier versions of the mythology] but first appeared in the description of the Arkenstone in THE HOBBIT [and only then were they later] imported back into ... the [greater] legendarium ... influencing the way the Silmarils were described thenceforth...' (ibid., p. 607). This importantly shows that Tolkien, already by the early 1930s, was in fact equating linguistically (descriptively) all of the ‘Holy Stones’ of his legendarium, including the Eorcanstán of Erebor; but the fact that the descriptions of the holy gems as they first appeared in the published HOBBIT were actually feeding, and continued to feed, descriptions of the gems within the older-but-still-developing legendarium of Valinor and the Undying Lands, is powerful indication also that Tolkien earnestly contemplated the idea of associating, within the actual storylines of his legends, the Arkenstone with one of the Silmarils of Valinor.

The Gem of Girion, an early (1931) conception of the Arkenstone that never became canonical (i.e., part of Tolkien’s textual canon, as he had fully rejected that idea as well as its 'origin history' by late-1932), changed to become the Necklace of Girion; and as such, that particular 'stone' becomes a non-player in the present discussion entirely. Even so, it remains an excellent example of (and exactly what Rateliff means by) Tolkien's notoriously changing conceptions and ideas. And it's precisely this inconstant proclivity of this most celebrated Oxford don that raises the very real possibility that Tolkien contemplated -- in the dramatically changing ideas and drafts to his early SILMARILLION mythos as it developed concurrently with his emerging HOBBIT tale -- to create a philologically unmistakable, yet on its surface a rather more subtle connection between his wondrous mythical stone of the First Age, the 'Silmaril', and his similarly wondrous stone of the Third Age, the Arkenstone, or ‘Heart of the Mountain.’ And later, as with so many of Tolkien’s emergent ideas and conceptions for his growing legendarium, he found that he needed to 'retro-fit' his early HOBBIT tale not only with the earlier stories published posthumously as THE SILMARILLION, but also with THE HOBBIT’s sequel, THE LORD OF THE RINGS . . .

The foregoing discussion helps us to understand, as indeed what follows here, Rateliff's rationale for why he even broaches in the first place the otherwise seemingly volatile subject of what he believes Tolkien intended the precise relationship to be between the ‘Holy Gems’ of Fëanor and the ‘Holy Stone’ of Thráin – and why he champions what is for some the rather controversial idea that Tolkien entertained a privately kept theory, one he was careful not to make overtly public or obvious, of ‘the Arkenstone as Silmaril’. . .

Bolstering his argument, Rateliff maintains, as have many other Tolkien scholars through the years, that leaving such a concept a ‘mystery’ is the very thing that Tolkien would have done, exactly the kind of literary-historical game he would have played: because 'asterisk' research (running after obscure philological clues or historical allusions to ‘crack’ their mystery, but which ultimately and inevitably, without conclusive evidence, must remain unanswered, with their answers tantalizingly left in the mists of history for further scholarly errantry) was a professional pastime Tolkien absolutely adored, as one of the world’s great language-origin scholars. Such was Tolkien’s eccentric bent and affinity for the history and meaning of words (or what has been called the Professor's ‘asterisk’ hobby, as Tom Shippey so originally and famously coined it in his ROAD TO MIDDLE-EARTH). For it is exactly this sort of 'cloudy' allusion -- particularly after he’d surveyed his magnum opus in the final years of his life as he contemplated how he finally wished to leave his legendarium for the world -- that Tolkien would have chosen to fall absolutely silent on. It’s exactly the sort of mysterious 'grail' question that he would have decided simply to leave 'unanswered' (just as he'd opted, even after having re-written the first few chapters, to fully abandon his 1966 revision of THE HOBBIT; and this, despite his long-held hope to align its juvenile-directed language with the high-styled language of its sequel). Ultimately, however, for Tolkien, some things were just better off left alone, undone, or 'unsaid' . . .

It is well known, for example, through his LETTERS and other writings, that Tolkien relished the 'untold story'. While he recognized that a story must certainly be told 'or there is no story,’ he also knew that the best tales, or ‘the most moving’ ones, are those that remain ‘untold’, unspoken, even shrouded in mystery. Such a holding-back of information inevitably adds to the tale-telling a mounting fascination and intrigue for the reader, but also an even greater sense of 'historical' reality. Why? Because that’s exactly what happens with real history and the nature of the sometimes cloudy, even contradictory ways, that stories and tales and legends about what 'occurred' in the past actually make their way to the present day. Tolkien had not even consciously realized with his original 1931-37 writing of the HOBBIT that Bilbo & Company had in fact stumbled into the world of his earlier (and long-extant) mythology. It was only after the fact that he realized, or in Tolkien's words, 'discovered what was already there' that this is exactly what had happened to his hobbit – that Bilbo, quite by chance (subconsciously for Tolkien), had stumbled into the author's already long-established mythic world, albeit that world as it later became known to Middle-earth’s Third-Age inhabitants.

Having made that fortuitous discovery (especially for us, who are its beneficiaries!), Tolkien still felt he could, as Rateliff maintains, draw upon his First-Age legendarium ‘without committing himself’ – meaning that, even though he now recognized Bilbo’s Third-Age world as being essentially the same mythical world as that of Valinor, Beleriand, and the 'thrice-renowned' Silmarils, he did not feel constrained in the least to be ‘canonical’, as yet no published correlation then existed between the world of his early myths (the First Age and its Silmarils) and the world as it was later to become (as told in tales of the Third Age and its Arkenstone). What Tolkien was doing, during the 1931-37 period of THE HOBBIT’s composition, he felt entirely free to do: and that was to execute ‘a one-way borrowing in which elements from the 1930 Quenta and early Annals found their way into THE HOBBIT, but that ‘unofficial’ usage did not in turn force changes in what Tolkien was still thinking of as [his original mythos] of the [yet-evolving greater] legendarium. By avoiding the use of the word silmaril and instead using the ingenious and agreeable synonym Arkenstone (Eorcanstán), Tolkien got to draw on his rich homebrew mythology, which by the early 1930s had developed a remarkable depth and sophistication, without worrying what the effect of his new story [THE HOBBIT] would be on that mythology…’ (HISTORY OF THE HOBBIT, p. 609).

That Dwarves, Elves, and Men, throughout Tolkien’s mythos, often fashioned their 'own versions' of events in very different ways (indeed often, by nature, in full contradiction to one another) is well established – so that the explanation, for example, of the origin and nature of the Dwarves, or the Mannish story of the fall of Númenor as opposed to the Elvish ‘Atlantis’ version, or the 'true' nature of the age-long dispute between Dwarves and Elves, all wildly may differ (as in real history) by just who is relating the tale (i.e., whose point of view is being advanced).

Thus, what the 'true' nature of the 'making' or 'finding' of the Arkenstone, per Tolkien's world-view, is really 'up for grabs', for look who’s telling the tale – the Dwarves – who stubbornly fashioned a rose-colored prism, as it were, through which to see their self-interested, Dwarf-centric impression of current and past events, which is precisely the way (according to the Elves, or so Tolkien tells us) in which they wished posterity to view those events. Ultimately, Tolkien left many points of his grand mythos unanswered; he wanted his readers to do the very thing he had conditioned himself to do – to ask questions about matters obscure, shrouded in the mists of Time. These were, after all, the types of questions Tolkien himself loved to ask: he relished a full-on charge into those mists, a deep delving for the 'answers' (no matter that such satisfying finalities may not actually be obtainable). And indeed, as would occur quite regularly for even a world-class philologist, no clear answers were to be found, and it was to his readers that he wished to present those same growth-promoting dilemmas (he was after all, first and foremost, a teacher).

And so, for the Dwarves therefore to maintain the conceit that they themselves had 'cut' and 'fashioned' that most precious gem, the revered Arkenstone (particularly if they well knew events to be otherwise: that their most sacred Jewel, which they'd stumbled upon, was intimately connected rather with Elvish traditions of ‘the Holy Silmarils of Fëanor’) is certainly not surprising. Conversely, that the Elves would, for their part, maintain a very different story regarding the matter of this astonishing 'advent' (which for them must have smacked of nothing short of extreme blasphemy, a blatant violation of sacred prophecy: that a ‘Holy Stone’ should be exhumed!) is highly typical of the very thing Tolkien habitually laid down as ‘canonical’ on the written page: often-contradictory versions of the 'same' events. It was part of the philosophy of the ‘illusion’ or ‘conceit’ of history – ‘true or feigned’ – that Tolkien loved and lived by. It’s a much-visited ‘conceit’ of the author's by today’s foremost Tolkien scholars – including T.A. Shippey, Verlyn Flieger, Arden Smith, Jane Chance, Michael Drout, Rateliff, and others.

Rateliff would not have addressed ‘the Arkenstone as Silmaril’ had he not seen it as a very real possibility – even extending the prospect to a probable conceit which Tolkien elected subtly to retain (as he in fact did with many other matters that he ultimately chose to leave less than clear). Perhaps, too, it was because the very similarities of these ‘Holy Gems’ (the Silmarils and the Arkenstone) were already, in detail, so sufficiently drawn and described in his writings that, in Tolkien’s mind, nothing more was really needed: that despite the Dwarvish recounting of the Arkenstone’s emergence from Mountain depths, in the end, who really could say what the ‘true’ version of events was? Even amongst the Dwarves themselves the story had changed: in LOTR's Appendices, for example, the history of 'Durin's Folk' records not that the Dwarves 'cut' or 'fashioned' it, but that Thráin I himself 'found the great jewel, the Arkenstone, Heart of the Mountain' (LOTR, p. 1072). And so, how literally should anyone ever attempt to 'interpret' Tolkien, especially when he himself feigned that he simply was the translator-redactor-transcriber of diverse histories written from the necessarily biased perspectives of many different peoples, with diversities of memory even within each culture, not to mention the myriad mindsets, backgrounds or bents of the various individual scribes who, per the conceit, wrote them down? It may be that, in the final analysis, history -- 'true or feigned' -- should not be taken too seriously.

Tolkien understood that his literary philosophy and strategies, at least, might all one day be made clear -- that his multi-faceted mythology, ultimately, through the titanic efforts of his literary-executor son Christopher, might arrive at a sufficiently lucid state for avid readers and devoted students of his legendarium to understand that, as with real-world chronicles, where many versions of the same events filter down through ‘history’, so might ‘events’ of a ‘feigned history’ likewise evolve, change, but at last come down to the present day ‘confused’ -- dependent upon the people or culture or point of view that promulgated them.

As to any real-world ‘plausibility’ of such a Silmaril-journey beneath the earth’s crust actually being made (as suggested above), it must be borne in mind that in Tolkien’s world, where Providence, Fate, 'Luck', Meaning, and ‘Chance’ all rule with the righteous application of Free Will, anything in that world might be possible (as has been rightly suggested by some in this forum) -- with lost swords and keys and secret-doors calling forth, at the uttermost end of need, brilliant rays of light and dramatic deus ex machina ‘entrances’ by Eagles in ‘the wings’. All of these enchanted, supernatural wonders stand quite apart, of course, from the real-world geoscience of plate tectonics which maintains that such a journey of virtually 'indestructible' matter beneath the earth's lithospheric mantle over extreme distances is no pipe-dream, but a physical reality -- a scientific verity (it can happen): the stuff of fact, not fantasy.

Rateliff maintains that, throughout the constant flux of Tolkien’s changing conceptions about the ‘Holy Stones’, one thing remained constant: ‘the [Silmarillion] story ended with all three of the jewels remote and inaccessible’ – as was certainly the case thereafter ... after that First-Age story, throughout the Second Age, and into the Third. Fëanor's ‘Holy Stones’ do in fact, from the final days of the ‘History of the Silmarils,’ remain remote, and -- until the Dwarves of Erebor delve deep into the heart of their Mountain to discover a scintillating Jewel – inaccessible as well:

‘Just as the sword of Turgon King of Gondolin had somehow survived the fall of his city and found its way through the ages into that troll-lair and hence [Gandalf’s] hands, it is thus more than possible that Tolkien was playing in THE HOBBIT with the idea of having one of Fëanor's wondrous Jewels re-appear, no doubt the one that had been thrown into a fiery chasm and lost deep within the earth – which is, after all, exactly where the dwarves find the Arkenstone, buried at the roots of an extinct volcano…’ (HISTORY OF THE HOBBIT, p. 609, emphasis mine).

As to the so-called 'requisite' that the Silmarils remain 'forever' lost (which, it must be said, exists not in Tolkien’s canon, but in early rejected versions of his mythology), the brief HOBBIT quest-story of the Third Age does not ultimately spoil even that illusion, for nothing about the later ‘quest of Erebor’ changes the earlier state of the ‘Holy Stones’ at the conclusion of THE SILMARILLION: as if reflecting Mandos' foresight, all of the Gems are indeed, at that time, quite lost. And per Tolkien’s official canon, in such a state they would remain a great long while. And the fact that they would, after the time of THE HOBBIT and per Tolkien’s canon, remain (at the very least) remote and inaccessible, certainly concedes further, in the grand timescale of Arda, Rateliff’s ‘Arkenstone as Silmaril’. For after the interment of the Arkenstone, borne to peaceful rest on the breast of the Mountain-king, nothing changes the comprehensive truth of Mandos’ prophecy – the whereabouts of Fëanor’s precious holy gems remain yet unknown, and virtually unknowable. In the end, the short HOBBIT episode of the Arkenstone’s relatively brief emergence from earth’s bosom, becomes simply a respite (reward?) for any travails endured or crucibles suffered by the Arkenstone 'as Silmaril’. That is, notwithstanding a traumatic returning foray into ‘the Wide World’ for a time, the Arkenstone, if indeed a Silmaril, rests now peacefully once more at earth’s heart – but still lost -- until the Great End.

After the cataclysmic changes of Arda at the end of the First Age, it would have been practically impossible to ‘trace’ the movements or surmise where the great land-mass remnants of the Lonely Mountain finally came to rest, and even more difficult to guess the place where that indestructible ‘precious stone of Thráin‘ may be said to have finally lodged. This is to say that, whatever may be left of what was once the 'Lonely Mountain' of Erebor, remains even today ‘lonely’ and still ‘lost’. Neither has the long-foretold destiny of Fëanor’s Jewels ultimately changed. It remains the same as was anciently prophesied by Mandos: the ‘thrice-renowned’ gems will remain undiscoverable within ‘earth, sea, and sky’ until their final destinies call them forth to live again and indeed to rekindle life in an Arda Renewed.

Rateliff references a passage that never became a part of Tolkien’s final ‘canon’. It was instead a revision – ultimately rejected – to the old 1930 version of the Quenta Silmarillion. The passage -- a promise that 'the Silmarils ... could not be again found, unless the world was broken and re-made anew' -- looks forward as only Mandos the Vala-seer might ... into the far reaches of distant Time, to that period after the 'Holy Stone' that scorched Maedhros re-secures at last its 'final' resting place in earth’s bosom, at the 'Heart' of the Mountain. Rateliff comments that Despite the sense of finality in the passage just quoted, Tolkien had in fact at that point changed his mind four times in the previous fifteen years about the holy jewels’ fate, all in a series of unpublished works that remained in flux and were each to be replaced by a new version of the story...' (HISTORY OF THE HOBBIT, p. 609). This remark and the research behind it confirms Tolkien’s well-documented 'constantly changing views' about the ‘holy gems’ – in the company of which 'sacred stones' Tolkien was careful to include the Arkenstone (for the names of all of the gems translate to the exact same philological meaning: ‘Holy Stone’).

It's within this philological context of ‘the Arkenstone as Silmaril’ premise that Rateliff provides some rather astonishing evidence for it ... by touching upon Tolkien's first giving the Mountain-jewel its name:

'The choice of Arkenstone is significant, since in other writings Tolkien was making at the same time [e.g., the 1930 Quenta and earliest Annals of Valinor and Beleriand] he was using a variant of the same name as a term for the Silmarils themselves [including an Old English version of the Annals by 'Ælfwine of England' who translates the name Silmarils as 'Arkenstones'(!) and Silmarillion as the 'History/Fate of the Precious/Holy Stones'], forging a link between the Jewels of Fëanor and the Arkenstone of Thráin in the legendarium...' (HISTORY OF THE HOBBIT, p. 604, emphasis mine)

This idea that the Arkenstone was 'somehow linked to the Silmarils in Tolkien's mind' also gains support from the real-world language origins of the word: Old English, Gothic, Old High German, and Old Norse translations of the word all are of one accord (i.e., Arkenstone = Eorcanstán 'precious/holy stone'; HISTORY OF THE HOBBIT, p. 605). If ever textual evidence was needed for Tolkien's intent to weave a unifying, mithril-like thread throughout the fabric of his rich mythology, none could be better than this, stretching primordially from the First Age to the Third, and beyond.

I do not with my original post claim to ‘prove’ anything, of course, but instead merely propose with Rateliff a possibility -- strongly supported -- of ‘the Arkenstone as Silmaril’ -- and offer a plausible scenario of how it may have happened, as he himself suggests of the Holy Stone that Maedhros cast into the fiery chasm, and what indeed may have happened to such an ‘indestructible’ object after having passed through earth’s volcanic depths amidst apocalyptic tumult.

In these affirmations I stand with Rateliff to reiterate the compelling proposition that, in a twenty-year period (1930-50) during which he developed his ‘mythology for England’, inclusive of the ‘History of the Silmarils’ and THE HOBBIT, which culminated in the eventual emergence of a sequel (LOTR), Tolkien toyed with the idea of a Silmaril-to-Arkenstone transformation. The appearance of the Gem of Girion, in any case, does not find place in, nor should it enter, that particular discussion, for it has no ultimate bearing upon it (rather that particular Gem 'canonically' stands, in the end, as more a forerunner to its namesake Necklace; Tolkien very early on [1932] rejected any affiliation the gem might ultimately have with his precious Holy Stones, rejecting fully its primitive storyline and adoption into his Middle-earth mythos -- that is, into his textual ‘canon’).

Likely never to come to light, it must be said, is that 'incontrovertible' kind of evidence, graced by the hallmark and imprimatur of Tolkien’s own pen, stating beyond all reasonable doubt, that this transformation to Silmaril is what the author in fact intended for his pre-LOTR Arkenstone. But based on his long-held desire to one day align the various strands of his mythology into a coherent whole -- and even more importantly with the powerful 'philological' evidence that Tolkien did leave behind -- it’s not entirely clear that such incontestible evidence is in fact needed. Added to the persuasive mix is Tolkien’s penchant for intentionally leaving stories incomplete … or simply untold, lingering somewhere in the mists beyond the margins of his sub-created world. The validity of the idea of the ‘Arkenstone as Silmaril’ -- a discussion magnified by Rateliff in The History of THE HOBBIT -- is only reinforced by those tales and legends Tolkien did choose to tell, for they engender (even as does history itself) realistic ‘confusion’ as to the identity and authenticity of their ‘sources’ or origins, as well as the reliability of what they say actually occurred. Indeed, it may in fact have been Tolkien’s wish that no such ‘hard’ evidence should exist -- his intent being perhaps (as was his published, and much quoted, philosophical bent) that his readers be left free to draw their own conclusions on the matter (which would find perfect, poetical alignment with his literary philosophy of ‘applicability’).

In all that I've read and heard of Tolkienian scholarship, as also from the insightful chats of online forums, Rateliff’s suggestion of Tolkien’s intent for the Arkenstone remains for me unspoiled -- with any probability of upset contingent only upon a miraculous unearthing of some heretofore unknown but authentic Tolkienian text flatly denying any such affiliation or link (which, it follows however, would fly in the face of the precious little that Tolkien did say on the matter, most of which although authentic is philological in nature). The prompts and clues that Tolkien left behind do indeed persuade – as do Rateliff’s strands of reasoning and logic, which serve only to lend support to the Professor's own words. In the final analysis, then, I, for one, am very much impressed by the ‘Arkenstone as Silmaril’ argument. At the very least, the argument is fun food for thought. And for those who consider themselves perhaps a bit more serious about their Tolkienian scholarship and ‘delvings’ into the mythical mists than the norm might require (i.e., geeks), that argument is at the same time plausible enough to yet merit continued serious discussions of the topic.


John D. Rateliff is a leading Tolkien scholar and author of THE HOBBIT’s officially sanctioned history, which exhaustively details the complex evolution of Tolkien's writing of that ingenious children's fantasy-adventure story ... which ultimately led to the book's landmark publication more than 75 years ago.


As a sideline and related note, there exists a beautifully balanced symbolism of 'earth, sea, and sky' as that motif applies not only to Fëanor’s Silmarils, but also to the Three great Elven Rings of Power and their Keepers -- which symbolism supports Rateliff's suggestion that the Silmaril-turned-Arkenstone was originally that which was seized by Fëanor's last surviving son, Maedhros, who cast it, along with himself, into the volcanic depths of the earth . . .

Originally, in Tolkien's conception, the Three great Elven Rings of Power were 'of earth, sea, and sky', fashioned by no less a figure than Fëanor himself (rather than by Celebrimbor, as it turned out).

Galadriel was originally to have been Kemen the Ring of Earth's keeper; later, of course, she holds Nenya the Ring of Water, Elrond holds Vilya the Ring of Air, and Gandalf Narya the Ring of Fire — so that Earth, Sea, and Sky have been replaced by Air, Water, and Fire. This later arrangement better matches the later 1937 Quenta Silmarillion, in which three Silmarils are lost in the sky (Air), the volcanic fires beneath the earth (Earth > Fire), and the sea (Water).

Elrond's Ring Vilya is thus fittingly akin to his ancestor Eärendil's (formerly Beren / Lúthien's) Silmaril that sails the heavenly Airs (the pure light of which would fill Galadriel's Phial); Galadriel's 'Water' Ring Nenya, fittingly akin to Maglor's Silmaril which was 'cast ... into the sea'; and Gandalf's 'Fire' Ring Narya (< Kemen), fittingly akin to Maedhros' Silmaril which was thrown into a fiery chasm, lost deep within the earth, and which probably became the Arkenstone 'the Heart of the Mountain' — carved from earth's 'Fiery Bosom' (that is, from where it had finally lodged, buried at the heart of an extinct volcano).

-------------------------------------------


Elthir
Grey Havens

Feb 1 2015, 2:03pm

Post #14 of 39 (1307 views)
Shortcut
the matter of perspective [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
That Dwarves, Elves, and Men, throughout Tolkien’s mythos, often fashioned their 'own versions' of events in very different ways (indeed often, by nature, in full contradiction to one another) is well established – so that the explanation, for example, of the origin and nature of the Dwarves, or the Mannish story of the fall of Númenor as opposed to the Elvish ‘Atlantis’ version, or the 'true' nature of the age-long dispute between Dwarves and Elves, all wildly may differ (as in real history) by just who is relating the tale (i.e., whose point of view is being advanced).



But each of these examples is noted by the internal 'author' of the tales as being a variation due to perspective.

For example, the author of Quenta Silmarillion relates: "Aforetime it was held among the Elves of Middle-earth that dying the Dwarves returned to the earth and stone of which they were made; yet that is not their own belief. For they say that Aule the Maker, whom they call Mahal, cares for them..."

The Maker is the same but the reader knows that the Elves and Dwarves have a different perspective about the fate of the Dwarves. The Hobbit itself directly notes the variant views of the Dwarvish and Elvish problem related in its chapters. And the Atlantis* matter was even to be illustrated by two existing tales: a Mannish tradition and a mixed tradition.

But what about the cutting and fashioning of the Silmaril; or morevover, other details taken as true within a given book? For myself, I think it's a slippery slope to generally point to perspective (or authorship) and claim that...


Quote
And so, for the Dwarves therefore to maintain the conceit that they themselves had 'cut' and 'fashioned' that most precious gem, the revered Arkenstone (particularly if they well knew events to be otherwise: that their most sacred Jewel, which they'd stumbled upon, was intimately connected rather with Elvish traditions of ‘the Holy Silmarils of Fëanor’) is certainly not surprising.




... in other words, to essentially claim that Bilbo's story is actually wrong on this point.

To me this argument underlines that the description I've focused on is a real problem for the Arkenstone as Silmaril theory to work. It seems to recognize the easy meaning of the phrasing that Tolkien chose for the history of the Arkenstone in The Hobbit...

... a description that JRRT never altered for the third edition of The Hobbit.

In other words, if the argument is that it was only later that JRRT desired the Arkenstone to be an actual Silmaril, Tolkien could have easily altered this one line in such a way as to keep the matter somewhat mysterious, and yet allow for the possibility.

For instance, Tolkien even altered a statement about the Sun and Moon in The Hobbit due to his changing views about the authorship and transmission of the Quenta Silmarillion -- and thus the question of whether or not is was really true that the Elves existed in a world without an actual Sun could remain one of perspective...

... yet he maintained the line that it was the Dwarves who had cut and fashioned the Arkenstone of course, and for myself I see no reason to doubt the truth of this matter.

__________
*side note: I do not think we ultimately have an Elvish version of the Fall of Numenor, but a Mannish version, The Drowning of Anadune, and a mixed version (Elvish and Mannish), or the Akallabeth.


(This post was edited by Elthir on Feb 1 2015, 2:16pm)


Elthir
Grey Havens

Feb 1 2015, 2:39pm

Post #15 of 39 (1287 views)
Shortcut
PS [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
But each of these examples is noted by the internal 'author' of the tales as being a variation due to perspective.



I probably shouldn't have said "each" there, as to be fair my example from The Hobbit about Elf and Dwarf relations is a specific example, where your reference might be more general.

But for another instance, from Appendix A: "Of this Ring something may be said here. It was believed by the Dwarves of Durin's folk to be the first of the Seven that was forged; and they say that it was given to the King of Khazad-dum, Durin III, by the Elven-smiths themselves and not by Sauron..."

Not only do we have the brief but (in my opinion) notable "It was believed by the Dwarves..." and "they say..." but we also have, in another text ("he" in the following is Sauron): "Seven Rings he gave to the Dwarves; but to Men he gave nine..." Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age

I think the "author" is nicely illustrating perspective here, but again I think this can be a slippery slope when looking at matters that don't seem to have similar hints that we might (arguably) be looking at perspective rather than "truth".

For example, not too long ago I read (somewhere on line, can't recall where at the moment) the opinion that perhaps the Appendix A description about Dwarven women was purposely misleading because Gimli didn't want to reveal the truth about this matter...

... which I think is the opposite of Tolkien's intention here: for me "the device" of using Gimli (and his friendship with other folk, especially Legolas) nicely explains how such seemingly secretive matter could have been made known to other peoples.


(This post was edited by Elthir on Feb 1 2015, 2:52pm)


Elthir
Grey Havens

Feb 1 2015, 3:04pm

Post #16 of 39 (1273 views)
Shortcut
another PS [In reply to] Can't Post

Plus I shouldn't have used "claim" with respect to your argument... I realize you are offering an interpretation rather, and 'claim' might sound harsher than intended, whether I agree or not with the larger argument.

Sorry 'bout that Smile


chauvelin2000
Bree

Feb 1 2015, 9:14pm

Post #17 of 39 (1265 views)
Shortcut
'Perspective' ... is Everything . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

... and my whole point here as well ... Yes, that's precisely what I am saying, and what Tolkien was trying to do — create different perspectives, just as real history is the culmination of such, whether or not other races are aware or not of those perspectives (conceding within even their own records alternate or differing views to their own: i.e., we believe this, they believe that, but we are certainly presenting a truer version, or simply, this is our version, etc).

As to Númenor, you are absolutely correct: Note, however, that I intentionally did not capitalize 'fall', meaning I'm not referring to the actual title of the record but rather to the event itself (as we must use intelligible words of some kind to give a generally titled description to events). And my applying 'Atlantis' to the mixed Elvish/Mannish version is simply a reference to the Elvish Quenya word for Númenor, 'Atalantë', to tie the shared drowning advent of Elves and Dúnedain to the real-world legend of 'Atlantis' — a 'lure' perhaps for the uninitiated Smile haha ... I can tell already I was too subtle in my post.

With the 'slippery slope' reference you make, we have Tolkien describing different versions of how the Dwarves themselves describe their 'Holy Stone' advent at the 'heart' of Erebor — with someone using 'cut' and 'fashioned' and someone saying that it was simply 'found' (probably the more accurate account, as per other textual corroborations, and according to Rateliff). So my scenario is just that, another scenario (a possible interpretation only, not a claim) of what 'perspectives' may have been, based on the two differing accounts of the Arkenstone encounter at the Mountain's heart — I do not claim that Bilbo's account was 'wrong' on this point, but that this is the 'storied' version he received from the Dwarves.

Bilbo merely records what he has been told of the advent; whether or not the account is a 'true' one is another matter entirely — and neither would Tolkien (as a professional transcriber) alter Bilbo's description, for it's the one Bilbo had, which derived from probably the only account of the advent that the hobbit had ever heard tell of, and with no particular reason for not believing it — i.e., why doubt necessarily an ancient story you've been told?

And so, my point is missed — Tolkien is not necessarily going to alter anything (with the Gollum story being one of those few 'necessary' exceptions, although neither will he restrict himself to that either): our revered author will generally do what any responsible translator-transcriber would do, and that is, religiously maintain the received history as it was recorded (truthfully or no, but perhaps 'by the lights' of what the original historians fully believed).

In other words, it may not be Tolkien doing the altering at all, but him simply transcribing the perspectives (both 'original' and 'altered', as these have perhaps changed over the course of time — along with the inevitably changing cultural perspectives within even the same race, or of that race's individual historians who have recorded both the 'original' and 'alternate' perspectives of the same event).

And as THE HOBBIT was written by Bilbo, recording his 'There and Back Again' exploits, his statement (as well as the Narrator's) was, in the hobbit's believing mind, 'true' (for indeed he had no reason to doubt what he'd been told by the Dwarves who 'maintained the line' of their long-cherished 'legend'). And so, that we are indeed (as is also my argument in the above posts) 'looking at perspective rather than 'truth'...' as you say, is absolutely correct, and precisely my point.

And I like your statement about Gimli and Legolas, as I also think Tolkien was using that literary device of 'perspective' to give us more information about what otherwise is an almost 'sealed off' culture to the rest of Middle-earth. It puts us 'in the know' — NICE ... Thanks for your ... 'perspectives'! haha Smile
-----------------------------


Elthir
Grey Havens

Feb 1 2015, 11:54pm

Post #18 of 39 (1246 views)
Shortcut
hints of perspective [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
With the 'slippery slope' reference you make, we have Tolkien describing different versions of how the Dwarves themselves describe their 'Holy Stone' advent at the 'heart' of Erebor — with someone using 'cut' and 'fashioned' and someone saying that it was simply 'found' (probably the more accurate account, as per other textual corroborations, and according to Rateliff).



Can you please cite the references from The Hobbit regarding this? If you simply refer to a general description of the Arkenstone being "found" then I don't see that as a variation within the tale...

... in other words, the Dwarves found the stone and cut and fashioned it so as to better reflect light. "The great jewel shone before his feet of its own inner light and yet, cut and fashioned by the dwarves, who had dug it from the heart of the mountain long ago, it took all light that fell upon it and changed it into ten thousand sparks of white radiance shot with glints of the rainbow." The Hobbit, Not at Home

That much is not a variation in my opinion. And I don't recall "the author" leaving any hints that the matter of the Dwarves cutting the stone was merely a belief of certain Dwarves, like he did with the matter of one of the Seven Rings, for instance.


Quote
I do not claim that Bilbo's account was 'wrong' on this point, but that this is the 'storied' version he received from the Dwarves.



Well I already posted about my use of "claim" in one of my earlier posts, but in any case in my opinion you are splitting a hair here: if Bilbo is reporting something from the Dwarves, then within the context of this Silmaril theory his account would be wrong nonethless.




Quote
Bilbo merely records what he has been told of the advent; whether or not the account is a 'true' one is another matter entirely — and neither would Tolkien (as a professional transcriber) alter Bilbo's description, for it's the one Bilbo had, which derived from probably the only account of the advent that the hobbit had ever heard tell of, and with no particular reason for not believing it — i.e., why doubt necessarily an ancient story you've been told?

And so, my point is missed — Tolkien is not necessarily going to alter anything (with the Gollum story being one of those few 'necessary' exceptions, although neither will he restrict himself to that either): our revered author will generally do what any responsible translator-transcriber would do, and that is, religiously maintain the received history as it was recorded (truthfully or no, but perhaps 'by the lights' of what the original historians fully believed).



I don't think I missed your point. Tolkien can, and did, employ this to explain the original story of Gollum and Bilbo and the Ring. I think he did this (in part) to retain the first edition Hobbit as "internal" in a sense, and maintain the "conceit" so to speak. Bilbo's not wholly truthful version is still part of the fictional Red Book, and at first Tolkien merely copied this version as it was, while he presented the more truthful version later.

But my point about Tolkien's alteration of a passage in The Hobbit (about the Sun and Moon) illustrates that Tolkien did alter the tale due to an external concern that he had about the "truth" of the Sun and Moon hailing from Trees.

So far I find your approach to be too conveniently selective about this description. Yes, generally speaking Tolkien delved into perspective, and we can raise agreed upon examples, but why this detail? What in the text leads you to believe that it's only "some said" or "some believe" that the Dwarves cut and fashioned the stone?

Also, I don't recall JD Rateliff even referencing the fact that the Dwarves cut and fashioned the stone; nor any reference to two competing internal theories about the fashioning of the Arkenstone. Did he?

Admittedly maybe I missed something in his book. I quickly skimmed over the specific section that looks at the matter of the Arkenstone and the Silmarils, and didn't check anywhere else. If he makes the argument anywhere (and I missed it) it would make things easier to point out where it hails from in The History of The Hobbit.

I'm not even wholly sure that you are saying he did make such an argument, as I'm not sure what you mean exactly when you write: "probably the more accurate account, as per other textual corroborations, and according to Rateliff"


(This post was edited by Elthir on Feb 2 2015, 12:02am)


chauvelin2000
Bree

Feb 2 2015, 12:02am

Post #19 of 39 (1242 views)
Shortcut
Correction (errata) ... [In reply to] Can't Post

... Just a remedial bit to a rather embarrassing bit of composition in my second 'A Holy Stone's Journey' post above (18th paragraph), wherein I reference mindlessly 'the Lonely Mountain' (to which I allude later in the paragraph), when I'd meant to reference instead the broken lands of Beleriand in the cataclysm that followed the War of Wrath at the end of the First Age. So that instead of ...


Quote
'After the cataclysmic changes of Arda at the end of the First Age, it would have been practically impossible to ‘trace’ the movements or surmise where the great land-mass remnants of the Lonely Mountain finally came to rest, and even more difficult to guess the place where that indestructible ‘precious stone of Thráin‘ may be said to have finally lodged...'


... the paragraph should begin as follows ....


Quote
'After the cataclysmic changes of Arda at the end of the First Age, it would have been practically impossible to ‘trace’ the movements or surmise where the great land-mass remnants of Beleriand finally came to rest, and even more difficult to guess the place where that indestructible ‘precious stone of Thráin,‘ following the events of the Third Age, may be said to have finally lodged...'


Apologies for that utterly incoherent clause that made what follows in the paragraph, I'm sure, sound rather senseless ... Blush

----------------------------------------


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Feb 2 2015, 12:03am

Post #20 of 39 (1238 views)
Shortcut
incredible post and knowledge, thank you for providing such a read [In reply to] Can't Post

I know this only briefly touches on a fraction of what you have commented on, but just looking at the possible "facts" of the Arkenstone without at all delving into all of the information you have provided I would note the following.
1) Smaug could not touch a Silmaril of legend as he would have been burnt by it. Somewhat ironic for a Fire Drake, but it is clear that the burning caused by those Holy jewels would have affected him greatly as it did Carcharoth and Morgoth. Obviously it was not ingested by Smaug but it would have burnt his exterior with no hope of any physical protection as it was the nature of the Silmaril that caused the burning. He may have possibly avoided touching it somehow in all of his treasure gathering, but as per the Silmarillion it seems unlikely that he would not have been drawn to it or be aware of it, and being aware of it he would have touched it. In fact the text of the Hobbit does let us know specifically that he is aware of his treasure down to the last item. I do not think that such an encounter that would cause him injury would be overlooked in the tale of the Hobbit, so although it was not written, I do not think it is reasonable to assume that it could have happened, scarred him and remain unwritten.
2) The Arkenstone on Thorin's breast seems very much like a lawyers loophole argument for it's final resting place being in accordance with what is in the Silmarillion.


The truth is these points I make are actually very mundane as opposed to your enlightening and truly excellent posts.


chauvelin2000
Bree

Feb 2 2015, 6:05am

Post #21 of 39 (1220 views)
Shortcut
Of 'Holy Stones' found, left untouched by Evil, and laid on Kingly breast . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In Tolkien's works, he leaves references that appear to contradict one another: For instance, in THE HOBBIT, we are told in the chapter 'Not At Home' that '...The great jewel shone before [Bilbo's] feet of its own inner light, and yet, cut and fashioned by the dwarves, who had dug it from the heart of the mountain long ago, it took all light that fell upon it and changed it into ten thousand sparks of white radiance shot with glints of the rainbow...' (emphasis mine).

This is the information obtained by Bilbo from the Dwarves and he used it to compose his 'memoirs' — the tales of his 'There and Back Again' adventure.

Even so, the author who in 1932 infused those 'cut / fashioned' words into Bilbo's tale as they applied to the Dwarves is the same author who in the later canon changed them to 'find' only, and in the LOTR Appendices gave the 'finding' job rather to the Dwarven King himself.

As such, as is certainly an author's right, Tolkien's conception of the Arkenstone's emergence in Erebor changes — or rather the conception of the ancient historians he feigns to faithfully translate and transcribe. In the LOTR Appendicies we are told, by the 'historians' of 'Durin's Folk', not that the Dwarves 'cut' or 'fashioned' it, but that Thráin I himself 'found the great jewel, the Arkenstone, Heart of the Mountain' (LOTR, p. 1072).

John D. Rateliff also makes mention of this Dwarvish perspective in The History of THE HOBBIT (p. 609), when he cites the deep resting place of the Holy Stone at Erebor's heart, 'which is, after all,' Rateliff says, 'exactly where the dwarves find the Arkenstone, buried at the roots of an extinct volcano....' quoting also Tolkien himself (p. 604), who wrote: 'But fairest of all was the great white gem, which the dwarves had found beneath the roots of the Mountain, the Heart of the Mountain, the Arkenstone of Thrain....'

And so, as stated in my post, 'Even amongst the Dwarves themselves the story had changed,' citing, per the 'Durin's Folk' canon, the great Gem as not simply having been 'found' (i.e., by the Dwarves), but rather, in the apparently changing conception, found by the King himself — Thráin I, who 'found the great jewel, the Arkenstone, Heart of the Mountain' (LOTR, p. 1072).

The difference here, clearly, being that, in the 'King's version' it is a Holy Stone that is simply discovered, for which he takes no credit for (nor does he mention) any physically imposed shaping or craftsmanship; whereas, the 'Dwarven-craftsmen version' of the tale as found in THE HOBBIT is one of the Dwarves claiming credit for the Arkenstone's creation: for both 'cutting' an apparently rough, unpolished Gem from the Mountain's heart and subsequently shaping and crafting it into what they thereafter called 'the Arkenstone' . . .

And so, this is what I mean exactly by the differing reports about the nature of the Arkenstone's emergence from the 'heart' of the Mountain: simply that we have the one statement, as it occurs in THE HOBBIT, about the Dwarves 'cutting' and 'shaping', but also the reference and statement by Rateliff to the mere 'finding' of the Stone (on which 'finding' act, or by whom, the Dwarves themselves apparently can't seem to agree, which only supports Tolkien's conceit of many different scribes all setting to parchment, as it were, styli of a different color). The conflicting accounts about who actually found the Arkenstone has the potential to call into question, or make suspect, the Dwarvish claims to actually having 'shaped' and 'crafted' the Gem.

This is why Tolkien's other written statements — which contradict the THE HOBBIT's ostensibly 'factual' details (given to Bilbo from the perspective of a revered Dwarvish history), including Tolkien's 'Durin's Folk' reference in the LOTR Appendices and the one cited by Rateliff — appear to me to be the more 'reliable' or, as I stated in my post, in the context of 'finding' as opposed to 'crafting', to be 'more accurate ... as per [these] textual corroborations, and according to Rateliff'.

With respect to ...


Quote
'...if Bilbo is reporting something from the Dwarves, then within the context of this Silmaril theory his account would be wrong nonethless...'


... Yes, Bilbo's account, then, would be (innocently) wrong (but he did not author the legends that are told to him) ... Even so, I'd say this would perhaps be more in the 'context' of King Thrain the Old's 'finding' account in 'Durin's Folk', in which he himself is reported to have simply 'found' the Jewel, with no mention in that source of his 'cutting' or 'fashioning' it.

I have to say that I'm in full agreement with you also about Tolkien's employment of his 1947 / 1954 'conceits' with respect to the 'Gollum and ring' story — the original story being Bilbo's version and the second, Gandalf's, which was the more truthfully accurate of the two. But my reference to Tolkien having to 'change things' does not reference this story-conceit at all (and perhaps this is where the confusion arose), but rather to the power and nature of the One Ring that came to be so dramatically changed — which then inspired Tolkien's clever 'retrospective' use of both versions of the tale to align, or bring into agreement, his entire Middle-earth saga while also avoiding contradiction within his own story-telling to make his Third-Age legendarium a coherent whole.

And I wholeheartedly agree with your 'Sun and Moon' statement about Tolkien, and the changing perceptions both internally and externally that were made per the author's changing views regarding the viability of maintaining the 'truth' of his creation story in a modern world in which his creation-myth would forever remain scientifically untenable. Hence my comment in the above post that ...


Quote
'...Tolkien is not necessarily going to alter anything ... although neither will he restrict himself to that either [i.e., restrict, or bar himself from making any changes or story exceptions, be they internal or external, that he might deem necessary]...'


... the above-referenced creation myth being an excellent case-in-point. And so, while I'm not exactly clear about or entirely sure where you were going with your comment about 'the Sun and the Moon' ... I nonetheless agree with it and thought your comment was well made. Smile

As far as the powers of the Arkenstone to scorch or burn a living being, the creature in question (whether man or beast) must be, as Tolkien says and Rateliff confirms (HISTORY OF THE HOBBIT, p. 606), 'evil of heart' and must come into physical contact with the Gem, which is something that Thorin or Smaug never do (at least Tolkien is, and perhaps tellingly so, silent on that point).

And we must wonder further if Thorin even qualifies as being 'evil'. Certainly he is unquestionably afflicted with 'Dragon-sickness' and absolutely possessed with acquiring the Jewel. But is he truly, as Tolkien describes Fëanor's son Maedhros, 'evil'? It may be better to view Thorin as proud, stubborn, literally 'Dragon-sick', driven as one possessed, but who, by the end of the tale, comes somewhat to his senses and appears even to have been partially redeemed of his weakness and error. But in any event, we are never told that he (nor Smaug, for that matter) actually touch or come into physical contact with the Arkenstone (which is itself pure, innocent, in no way malicious).

And finally, THE HOBBIT tells us, the precious gem did return to its resting 'heart', was buried in princely fashion with Thorin's body at the very core of the Lonely Mountain: 'They buried Thorin deep beneath the Mountain, and Bard laid the Arkenstone upon his heart [which chosen word Tolkien later changed to 'breast']. 'There let it lie with the last of the kings' he said, 'and may it guard all his folk that dwell here after'...' — no 'lawyer's loophole' for argument's sake here, but indeed Tolkien's own words, which if they can be applied to John Rateliff's argument for 'the Arkenstone as Silmaril', accord marvelously (and most fittingly) with the final resting place of a 'precious, holy' Silmaril . . .

-------------------------------


Elthir
Grey Havens

Feb 2 2015, 12:00pm

Post #22 of 39 (1201 views)
Shortcut
finding a stone, then cutting and fashioning it [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
In Tolkien's works, he leaves references that appear to contradict one another: For instance, in THE HOBBIT, we are told in the chapter 'Not At Home' that '...The great jewel shone before [Bilbo's] feet of its own inner light, and yet, cut and fashioned by the dwarves, who had dug it from the heart of the mountain long ago, it took all light that fell upon it and changed it into ten thousand sparks of white radiance shot with glints of the rainbow...' (emphasis mine).

This is the information obtained by Bilbo from the Dwarves and he used it to compose his 'memoirs' — the tales of his 'There and Back Again' adventure.

Even so, the author who in 1932 infused those 'cut / fashioned' words into Bilbo's tale as they applied to the Dwarves is the same author who in the later canon changed them to 'find' only, and in the LOTR Appendices gave the 'finding' job rather to the Dwarven King himself.




For clarity: Tolkien did not alter the line that the Dwarves cut and fashioned the stone, which remains in the third edition Hobbit of course. What you are calling a "change" is the opinion that the use of the word "find" constitutes an alteration, which I must disagree with.

And this is not John Rateliff's argument that I can find (see below), but seemingly only your argument.



Quote
As such, as is certainly an author's right, Tolkien's conception of the Arkenstone's emergence in Erebor changes — or rather the conception of the ancient historians he feigns to faithfully translate and transcribe. In the LOTR Appendicies we are told, by the 'historians' of 'Durin's Folk', not that the Dwarves 'cut' or 'fashioned' it, but that Thráin I himself 'found the great jewel, the Arkenstone, Heart of the Mountain' (LOTR, p. 1072).




Well, for example, one can't cut and fashion a diamond until someone finds it!

And if Thrain himself found it, in my opinion that in no way contradicts with the statement that the Dwarves cut and fashioned the stone. It's just a more general description in The Hobbit, to note that the Arkenstone is of Dwarvish craftsmanship...

... and if I say that the Arkenstone was of Dwarven craftsmanship, who would think I am contradicting myself if I also say a Dwarf "found" the stone, as obviously I need not mean it was found already cut and fashioned!



Quote
John D. Rateliff also makes mention of this Dwarvish perspective in The History of THE HOBBIT (p. 609), when he cites the deep resting place of the Holy Stone at Erebor's heart, 'which is, after all,' Rateliff says, 'exactly where the dwarves find the Arkenstone, buried at the roots of an extinct volcano....' quoting also Tolkien himself (p. 604), who wrote: 'But fairest of all was the great white gem, which the dwarves had found beneath the roots of the Mountain, the Heart of the Mountain, the Arkenstone of Thrain....'




I can't agree here: John Rateliff does not make mention of the Dwarvish perspective on page 609, nor (as far as I'm aware) does he make the argument you are making.

Rather you are emphasizing the word "find" in a section of a passage where John Rateliff notes that Feanor had cast his Silmaril into a fiery chasm. Then he notes that Erebor is an extinct volcano.

The suggestion is obvious but there is nothing here about "find" versus "cut and fashioned", nor that there are two seemingly distinct histories for the Arkenstone (and thus, as you suggest, the matter of perspective can be raised to question the ultimate truth of Bilbo's account on this point).

Actually I don't recall anyone make this argument before, and if I am correct that JD Rateliff never really takes on the problematic statement ("cut and fashioned"), well, to be honest I think it would be a flaw in his argument actually (again if I've missed him trying to explain this line, please provide the citation).

And on page 604, you are quoting a draft version, which in any case is still not representative of your argument, it is simply another instance of the word "find" in a draft passage Rateliff is noting there; which word (found) remains in the first edition of The Hobbit actually.


Quote
And so, as stated in my post, 'Even amongst the Dwarves themselves the story had changed,' citing, per the 'Durin's Folk' canon, the great Gem as not simply having been 'found' (i.e., by the Dwarves), but rather, in the apparently changing conception, found by the King himself — Thráin I, who 'found the great jewel, the Arkenstone, Heart of the Mountain' (LOTR, p. 1072).

The difference here, clearly, being that, in the 'King's version' it is a Holy Stone that is simply discovered, for which he takes no credit for (nor does he mention) any physically imposed shaping or craftsmanship; whereas, the 'Dwarven-craftsmen version' of the tale as found in THE HOBBIT is one of the Dwarves claiming credit for the Arkenstone's creation: for both 'cutting' an apparently rough, unpolished Gem from the Mountain's heart and subsequently shaping and crafting it into what they thereafter called 'the Arkenstone' . . .



I can't agree we are even close to clearly here.

In The Lord of the Rings Appendix A The Hobbit is footnoted at the passage concerning Thrain and the Arkenstone. The two texts are in easy agreement, and in my opinion you are creating a contradictory distinction where there is none, in order to then stamp "untrue" on a description which fits in perfectly with other passages.

In The Hobbit itself the Arkenstone is referred to as the Arkenstone of Thrain.

And the word "find" or "found" is not new to what you are naming the later "King's Version", but appears in the first edition Hobbit in reference to the Arkenstone, that it was found by the Dwarves, which it was, generally speaking of course.

One passage does not always have to repeat the information of another, or be as specific, for all of them to be in tune with the larger history of the Arkenstone.


(This post was edited by Elthir on Feb 2 2015, 12:14pm)


Elthir
Grey Havens

Feb 2 2015, 12:21pm

Post #23 of 39 (1194 views)
Shortcut
third edition [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
For clarity: Tolkien did not alter the line that the Dwarves cut and fashioned the stone, which remains in the third edition Hobbit of course.



Thus it remains in the version published in the 1960s, which detail I tried to edit in above before the "time window" closed.

As Maxwell Smart might say (I think I): "missed it by that much" Smile


chauvelin2000
Bree

Feb 3 2015, 8:12am

Post #24 of 39 (1165 views)
Shortcut
Of Tolkienian conceits and necessary assertions . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

That Tolkien's original 1937 line that the Dwarves 'cut and fashioned' the stone they dug from Erebor's heart was left unchanged by the author is absolutely correct.

Because of Tolkien's oft-employed literary device of authorial or editorial 'conceit' that permitted him the freedom to allow early works to 'stand' just as he'd originally 'transcribed' them, from the perspectives of those ancients who first 'authored' them (just as he used the device with the two versions of his Gollum story and with the many multiple-version accounts of several legendarium stories that he produced throughout the evolution of his mythology — be they Dwarvish, Mannish, Elvish), he would not necessarily have deemed it necessary to change anything that was originally written for THE HOBBIT, as such perspectives derived ultimately from the oral or written histories of any given race, and came from their perspectives which Tolkien as professional 'transcriber' would have responsibly laid down in writing just as he found them: that was his own authorial conceit.

Absolutely correct, then, is your statement that 'one passage does not always have to repeat the information of another,' as different perspectives will produce different information. But for all perspectives about the Arkenstone to be 'perfectly … in tune' with its 'larger history' depends, of course, on Tolkien's true view of the Arkenstone as its 'sub-creator'. And that view, Rateliff asserts, appears to have directly mirrored his view of the Silmarils as found in his Silmarillion mythology. Throughout his argument Rateliff offers evidence flowing from Tolkien's own pen that enables him to maintain that the Arkenstone was always 'somehow linked to the Silmarils in Tolkien's mind...' (Rateliff, p. 605).

That view, according to Rateliff and per Tolkien's philological record, is based upon the direct association Tolkien clearly made, both descriptively and philologically, between all of his 'Holy Stones' . . .

Not only was THE HOBBIT, in its description of the Arkenstone, the first of Tolkien's publications to describe the characteristic features of a Silmaril or 'Holy Stone' (as Rateliff states in his The History of THE HOBBIT, p. 607, which I reference in the above post, 'A Holy Stone's Journey'), but it was also the publication, according to Rateliff, that even later actually fed back into the Silmarillion-tales Tolkien's hallmark description of what exactly a 'Holy Stone' was: a Silmaril's 'characteristic features,' Rateliff says, as mirrored in the Arkenstone of THE HOBBIT and as those features are 'familiar to us from the published SILMARILLION … [were then] imported back [from the published HOBBIT's Arkenstone description] into … the [greater] legendarium … influencing the way the Silmarils were described thenceforth....'

That is, Tolkien's final description of a Silmaril, as found today in the published SILMARILLION, was first published in THE HOBBIT in Tolkien's description of the Arkenstone. And as such, that familiar description, according to Rateliff, did not first derive from the earlier SILMARILLION texts, but from the published HOBBIT.

Apart from the descriptive, Tolkien's other direct association between the Arkenstone and the Silmarils was philological. Indeed, astonishing evidence exists for that direct connection when Tolkien first gave the Mountain-jewel its name . . .

As stated in my earlier post:


Quote
'The choice of Arkenstone is significant, since in other writings Tolkien was making at the  same time [e.g., the 1930 Quenta and earliest Annals of Valinor and Beleriand] he was using a variant of the same name as a term for the Silmarils themselves [including an Old English version of the Annals by 'Ælfwine of England' who translates the name Silmarils as 'Arkenstones'(!) and Silmarillion as the 'History/Fate of the Precious/Holy Stones'], forging a link between the Jewels of Fëanor and the Arkenstone of Thráin in the legendarium...' (HISTORY OF THE HOBBIT, p. 604, emphasis mine)


Taken together, both of Tolkien's direct connections — the philological and the descriptive — importantly show that the Maker of Middle-earth, already by the early 1930s, was in fact equating from an indisputable philological standpoint as well as linguistically (descriptively) all of the ‘Holy Stones’ of his legendarium, including the Eorcanstán of Erebor. The fact that the descriptions of the holy gems as they first appeared in the published HOBBIT were actually feeding, and continued to feed, descriptions of the gems within the older-but-still-developing legendarium of Valinor and the Undying Lands, is powerful indication that Tolkien contemplated in earnest, moreover, the idea of directly associating within the actual storylines of his legends the Arkenstone with a Silmaril of Valinor. 

If Rateliff's persuasive argument for 'the Arkenstone as Silmaril' accords, then, with Tolkien's true literary intent for the Jewel (as strongly indicated by Tolkien's descriptive and philological record), literally calling the Silmarils, as he does, 'Arkenstones' in his Old English translation of the Annals of Valinor (contemporaneously written with THE HOBBIT itself in the early 1930s), then that Jewel must not have been literally dug as a raw stone from the earth, and then shaped, or 'cut and fashioned' by Dwarven-craftsmen into what they called 'the Arkenstone' (for as an authentic 'Holy Stone,' it would have been already anciently created — shaped and fashioned — by its maker, Fëanor). Logically, this would necessarily suggest (and for Tolkien, as regularly practiced) an intended embedded 'conceit' in THE HOBBIT itself: that the storied legend of the Arkenstone-advent, as the Dwarves bequeathed it and passed it down through succeeding generations (and doubtless genuinely believed) until, at last, it reached the ears of a Hobbit from Bag-End, was a not-entirely-accurate account about the actual nature of the precious stone upon its discovery.

For, if indeed an Elvish Silmaril, it necessarily had to have been simply 'found'wholly created, already shaped, 'fashioned', and polished — by Thrain the King (as per Tolkien's 'Durin's Folk' Appendix) and/or his Dwarven subjects (as per THE HOBBIT). The word 'find', then, naturally and necessarily would have to constitute an alteration by Tolkien (at least in his own mind) — not in the Dwarvish 'conceit' as may be found in THE HOBBIT, but in the actual story-telling 'facts' as laid down by Tolkien-as-editor (and mythos-subcreator) in his ostensibly 'factual' Appendices, the 'objective' annals and histories-in-brief of Middle-earth's Ages.

John Rateliff's argument is that Tolkien considered the Arkenstone a reincarnation — linguistically and philologically (if not literally) — of his legendary Silmaril (as such assertions are powerfully supported by Tolkien's own 'Holy Stone' equations, presented above). That the equation is literal is a very real possibility, according to Rateliff. Tolkien's record strongly corroborates this and suggests further, by his own record of 'Holy Stone' descriptions and direct naming correlations, that the relation or association of the 'Holy Stones' in Tolkien's mind was, in the conceits and intended subtext of his story-telling, literal.

Rateliff in his History (p. 609) does reflect in his summary the 'finding' aspect of the Arkenstone's recovery, and therefore the Dwarvish perspective of this aspect of the Jewel's emergence from 'the roots of an extinct volcano' as recorded in both THE HOBBIT (its drafts as well as original publication, referenced on p. 604) and in the aforementioned LOTR Appendix (Middle-earth's chronicles as laid down by the transcriber-editor of the legendarium, p. 1072). That emergence, Rateliff suggests, came from 'one of Fëanor's wondrous Jewels … that had been thrown into a fiery chasm and lost deep within the earth,' re-appearing at Erebor's heart — a 'more than possible idea' that Tolkien was 'playing with' in his writing of THE HOBBIT, says Rateliff (p. 609).

As you state, that suggestion by Rateliff 'is obvious.' The 'find' versus 'cut and fashioned' argument, in the logical shadow of Rateliff's proposal and although an implicit one — as also it implies indeed, as you say, 'two seemingly distinct histories for the Arkenstone': both a true history and a feigned conceit, just as with Gollum's story — is absolutely necessary if Tolkien's literal story-telling intent for the Arkenstone that Rateliff postulates as being 'more than possible' is indeed authentic (as Tolkien's own descriptive and philological records strongly indicate that it is). The recognition of that feigned conceit being necessary, together with the obvious differences that quickly become apparent in the recorded descriptions of the Arkenstone's discovery, when one accepts the probability of Tolkien's intent here, in nowise makes those descriptions, as you maintain, 'fit perfectly with other passages'.

The 'matter of perspective' (conceit) must then, per Rateliff's postulation, indeed be 'raised', as you say — not to 'question the ultimate truth of Bilbo's account on this point' (as the account is mixed in both its mere 'finding' and Dwarvish 'crafting' aspects of the Arkenstone's emergence), but rather to explain the Dwarvish tale as recounted to Bilbo ('It was found, yes — but didn't emerge from Erebor's heart in exactly the way we were told...'), who has no reason necessarily for disbelieving it — although Tolkien, in fact, by his habitual use of literary conceit and per Rateliff's excellent research and sound presentation, gives us a strong rationale for doing so.

To accept Rateliff's 'more than probable' postulate logically requires an acceptance of a Dwarvish conceit apart from the Arkenstone 'creation story' that Bilbo is told. A place that gives liberty to that conceit is found in the chronicles of Middle-earth, penned by the hand of Tolkien, the mythology's redactor and editor . . .

Of King Thrain I the chronicle of 'Durin's Folk' records: 'In Erebor he found the great jewel, the Arkenstone, the Heart of the Mountain.' It's a passage that allows for the necessary Dwarvish conceit as may be found in THE HOBBIT — one that, if Rateliff's argument is accepted, contradicts what must only be 'the finding' aspect of the Arkenstone's discovery. In this sense, what you allude to in your post's final statement as a specificity of information which should not be required for ('generally speaking') the self-same episode, in order for it to be in accord or 'in tune' with other passages in Tolkien's writings that recount the 'same' event, is here absolutely critical. You queried in an earlier post: '...why all the detail?' with reference to my 'cutting / fashioning' insistence. Such details become all-important if what Rateliff asserts to be Tolkien's true intent for the Arkenstone is accurate.

In THE HOBBIT, the details of the postulated Dwarvish conceit contradict what must be, per Rateliff's argument, the 'true' tale of the chronicle's mere discovery of an Arkenstone already cut and fashioned in an Age long past. That chronicle-entry's footnote referencing THE HOBBIT episode says nothing about the veracity of the original Dwarvish account as found in THE HOBBIT, but simply rather directs the reader to the place where the advent's original record may be found — to a story told to Bilbo from Dwarvish tradition and perspective. (In no way does such a footnote achieve, as you say, 'easy agreement' between the two texts: it simply references the Arkenstone-advent of Dwarvish legend as originally recorded by Bilbo.) The Appendix entry for the advent, on the other hand, makes the necessary allowance for Rateliff's argument of 'the Arkenstone as Silmaril' — that is, it allows for the Dwarvish conceit which is necessary to make that 'more than probable' scenario possible (as it also — rightly — refuses to deny Tolkien, as 'sub-creator' and 'Durin's Folk' chronicler, an authoritative and 'absolute objectivity', which is his right as Middle-earth's Master, to know fully the 'truth' about all that he has created).

As far as not recalling anyone making the 'cut / fashioned' argument before, you may be right. I don't know. Nowhere do I state, however, that the 'cutting and fashioning' aspect of what I view as a Dwarvish conceit in Bilbo's story is Rateliff's argument — the assertion is mine. But based on the argument that Rateliff does make, as noted above, a Dwarvish conceit, by deduction, would be absolutely necessary if Rateliff's well-researched assertion reflects Tolkien's true intent for the Arkenstone — which intent, by the bold supporting evidence of Tolkien's own hand, seems for Rateliff to be 'more than probable'.

But neither do I claim, as you assert, that the 'finding' aspect is new to what I call the 'King's version' of the Arkenstone advent (I'm fully aware that it also exists in THE HOBBIT in what I call the 'Dwarven-craftsmen' version).

What I do assert is that, in this episode of 'feigned history' as recounted in THE HOBBIT (in which — conceding the Dwarvish conceit — mixed, contradictory, or confused details exist, but which should really surprise no one familiar with real-world history or with this not-infrequent happenstance in Tolkien's 'feigned' historical writing), the 'finding' aspect of the tale, if indeed Rateliff's assertion is true, cannot be reconciled with its 'cut and fashioned' aspect — i.e., an understanding of the truth of the Arkenstone matter cannot be arrived at — unless a Dwarvish conceit is allowed which may then explain the confusion of the advent's contradictory details by offering an intelligible explanation for what really happened. And only one of the aforementioned versions of the advent, by the light of Rateliff's argument, clearly supports and can provide a logical explanation for, and therefore a clear understanding of, the discovery of a Silmaril at Erebor's heart.

-----------------------------------------------


chauvelin2000
Bree

Feb 3 2015, 4:33pm

Post #25 of 39 (1146 views)
Shortcut
Correction 2 (errata) ... [In reply to] Can't Post

In the above post, sixth paragraph, the first sentence was typed in error — it should read:


Quote
'That is, the characteristics of Tolkien's final description of a Silmaril, as found today in the published SILMARILLION, were first published in THE HOBBIT in Tolkien's description of the Arkenstone...'


First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.