is the arkenstone one of the silmarils?

Interesting, Lance. That's suggested here too:

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Arkenstone#Etymology

The etymology is interesting, for sure. Anyway, there's nothing that says it isn't the shard thrown by Maedhros, so why the hell not?

I think its Ironic (no pun intended) that at the heart of a Dwarf Kingdom, a Gem is the most valuable, venerated object. especially as Dwarves as a race are described as being drawn to precious metals rather than gems, which are an Elvish Avatars. especially those of a clear bright light, and not coloured, like from Rubies, Sapphires and other gems.

Interesting point, but then mithril was pretty shiny too. But it at least was commercially worth a mint with one small child sized mail shirt of the stuff being worth all the land and property in the entire Shire.

Ayup...

How could I have forgotten Mithril LOL. Mind you, isn't Smaug more partial to gold ? And would he mind sleeping in/on it ?

And as an aside, the Silmarils were 'constructed' and not 'Natural' like the Arkenstone. The Imperishable crystal forged by Gimli for Galadriels lock of hair would be similar, but not as good as one supposes as my Namesakes' efforts.

Maybe gold is softer for a dragon bed than mithril?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Maybe gold is softer for a dragon bed than mithril?

Never thought of that... But don't you think that Mithril is more a Moria material, and gold more a Lonely Mountain ? And not to say that each material would be exclusive to each place.

Actually I think you are right there- does Gandalf not say in Moria that it was the only place in the world where Mithril could be found?

feanor 1999 wrote:

Norc wrote:probably nothing, Azriel.

Ive got 'Something' all right Norc, But I have to assume then that yours are bigger than mine. yes ?

the fuck dude! inappropriate.

Recoveryanonymous wrote:That's not to say that I think the Arkenstone's and a Silmaril are one and the same though.
By the way Norc, is Bree back up? You saw a topic posted there. I still can't seem to get back there. I wonder if the place is officially dead.

no idea, i saw the it on facebook. i somehow get updates from the site.

I sometimes miss Bree, I cant back in even If I wanted to, it wont let me log on & I cant remember the passwords etc   Bit of a shame really, 1st its here, then its not  

I've not been back there in a while. Got fed up with the deluge of spam.

Well all I get when I go there is the webfaction site saying a new site is coming soon- but thats been there since Bree disappeared.

feanor 1999 wrote:Ayup...

How could I have forgotten Mithril LOL. Mind you, isn't Smaug more partial to gold ? And would he mind sleeping in/on it ?

And as an aside, the Silmarils were 'constructed' and not 'Natural' like the Arkenstone. The Imperishable crystal forged by Gimli for Galadriels lock of hair would be similar, but not as good as one supposes as my Namesakes' efforts.

Well, we don't know the Arkenstone was natural. We only know it was dug up (much like artifacts are now). The other evidence that suggests it is not a somatic is that the dwarves 'fashioned' it. You would think a silmaril wouldn't need any more work.

Yeah, could just have been a Silmaril, with some lesser gem accumulated around it.

Good point Lance, I had forgotten the dwarves had shaped it- yeah that makes it even less likely its a Silmaril, and it was already pretty unlikely.

Think the only piece or the description that makes it sound like one is that it shone with an 'inner' glow. That bit is what sounds ominous to me.

Maybe Feanor knocked up a rough go first before he perfected the Silmarils but didnt use the Light form the Trees but something else- Galadirels hair or something!  

After all Gandalf describes the lesser rings as 'essays in the art of ring making' so there is some precedent for a very powerful artefact having less powerful precursors in the development stage, not to mention the reference to there having been many rings of power at one point,'some more potent some less'.

Maybe there were 'essays' in the art of Silmaril forging too?

Ayup...

First off apologies Eldo... Well, She likes to press the buttons... And I wouldn't like her to think I was going erm, soft as it were...

Secondly, the Arkenstone was always described as 'the heart of the Mountain' as far as I know, so a natural gem ? As a lump of coal becomes a diamond over time. Thirdly, I have no doubt that the palantiri were probably the nearest thing to a 'test piece' that he may have made prior to the Silmarils. They were absolute one-offs.

My answer is no, even though I forgot how the question was worded.

The three Silmarils found their 'long homes' in earth sea and sky, and the joy of the victory of the War of Wrath was diminished '... for they returned without the Silmarils from Morgoth's crown, and they knew that those jewels could not be found or brought together again unless the world be broken and remade.'


JDR says

In The History of The Hobbit John Rateliff 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. But also writes: '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


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


But 'more than possible' isn't saying much 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.

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 [who in my opinion sometimes seems to be trying to suggest the Arkenstone 'might' actually be a Silmaril], notes than any similarities here do not prove that the Arkenstone was intended as a Silmaril.

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 [not that anyone said it did], no more than it makes 'the Elven-king' of The Hobbit 'Thingol' or an earlier incarnation. 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.

For myself, I think it's a stretch to interpret '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.' to mean releasing an already finished [and wondrous] gem from the earth, from something stuck to it, or around it.

Shining of its own light

How the Arkenstone shines with an inner light is not told, but as far as reflected light the skill of the Dwarves accounts for this, which, in my opinion would not have been necessary if we had a Silmaril. If I recall correctly it's also not told how the Elendilmir [the one lost by Isildur] seems to shine of its own accord, or how certain blades glow blue in the presence of orcs -- although here one naturally assumes by some artistic power of the Elves.

In any case, the 'Gem of Girion' [as literary precursor to the Arkenstone] shone with its own light too -- in this earlier conception Girion had given the Gem in payment for the arming of his sons: 'It was a great white gem, that shone of its own inner light within, and yet cut and fashioned by the Dwarves to whom Girion had given it, it caught and splintered all light that it received...' While The Dragon's Away, The History of The Hobbit part II, JDR

Also according to JD Rateliff, the Gem was: 'Initially invented to serve as a portable one-fouteenth share of the hoard to give the lie to Smaug's insinuation that the Dwarves knew all along that Bilbo could never carry away his fair share, its value and allure were greatly increased with each iteration, until instead of Bilbo's designated portion it became the one item from the hoard Thorin most wanted to reclaim and, in an ironic reversal, the one item he would have forbidden Bilbo to take.'

I doubt Tolkien intended at the outset that Bilbo's share be an actual Silmaril. Granted he could have later imagined an actual Silmaril here, but again I note that the Gem of Girion shone with its own inner light -- when it was still a Mannish payment to the Dwarves -- who cut and fashion it in order that it reflect the light as described.

Elthir says something at the end of this post

I also find an elegance to the 'end' of the Silmarils in Sky, Sea, and Earth, and am not sure that bringing one back to end up on Thorin's grave would be an improvement...

... as far as my opinion goes, anyway.

Finally a Lore Master! What took you so long?!   

Good work as always Elthir, I am in agreement with you- the version in the Silmarillion of the fate of the jewels is more satisfying to me than it being the Arkenstone.

Plus I like the idea that the dwarves of Erebor had the skill to shape something so perfectly it not only reflects light but seems to contain it too. Making it a Silmaril takes away from their craft and make sit just something they found and cleaned up a bit.

Ayup All...

As I said, the Arkenstone wasnt a construct, like a Silmaril. It was a Natural stone, One Gem found amongst the riches of all that Mountain. Not only does it function as Eithirs ' portable 14th share' it also has a symbolic value. That as of 'the Apple' from Paradise. I don't really want to go rooting maybe into something it may not be, but given the company the prof kept (CS Lewis, our Christian Copywriter) its the introduction of 'Temptation' into Paradise. Its the 'Take what you want, but don't take mine' command of God to Adam and Eve. And it obviously functions as the friction point between Bilbo and Thorin to drive the end part of the story, because once Smaug, obviously the Devil, is slain by St Michael ( Bard) there IS no real Enemy. Because Sauron plays no active part in the REAL Hobbit, unlike on celluloid, but I digress.

As the ring is still of no matter, that we can ignore it completely (or can we ?) the Arkenstone acts upon Bilbo EXACTLY like the ring has done Gollum, and touches his worser, Avaristic nature. That that a well-off, smug Gentlehobbit may have tried to keep well hidden but maybe couldn't quite just in the face of all this wealth and Fortune, even after all the adventure he has gone through. (and actually in the book, I don't think his nature alters that fundamentally as hinted at by the film)

Thinking about it too, The Dwarves didn't do so well with Gems either. Look at the fate of the Nauglamir, Treasure of Nargothrond. When Thingol wanted the Silmaril set into it, Look what it caused. The death of Thingol himself, and the subsequent sacking of Doriath. They really should have learnt their lessons, shouldn't they ?

That makes a lot of sense to me. that 1st paragraph. Ive often thought Tolkien used subtle little dips into real life/morals into his stories & he did it in such a way that is easily digested by 'common people' ? In the book I felt Bilbo had the odd moment of 'itchy fingers' & he must have been tempted, but, he did the right thing & used his noddle in using the Arkenstone as a bargaining tool. Peejers is making Bilbo a stupid, wimpy, no brain, fuckwit in my opinion, I dont think he'l let Bilbo be as bright as he is in the book. What Ive seen so far, peejers has made Bilbo to stuttered. Bumbling & stammering one minute & sly & ready to kill the next, the flow doesnt feel right IMO ?

Hiya Boots...

I'm sure the Inklings all sparked off each other all the while. In the first Part of TH, I think PJ gets Bilbos spoilt tone quite nicely, but then ends part One with that Nauseating 'Family Hug' moment on the Carrock with Thorin. I think in the book, Bilbo only gains Thorins respect after escaping the Elvenkings Halls. And we all know how Bastardised THAT is in the film...

but the hug is so cute  and whenever thorin smiles it's like we see a glimps of his heart  like, i know he turns into a real sour stupid guy when he gets the treasure, but it is nice that we see ihm smile and be all cuddly before he is corrupted by the gold.

I prefer my Thorin older, haughty, pompous, gruff and full of himself.