Bilbo´s treachery

[Mithadan]

Let me clarify. It cannot be doubted that Bilbo's decision to turn the Arkenstone over to Bard was motivated by good intentions. But the decision to take the Arkenstone and later conceal it after Thorin began searching for it is a bit out of character for Bilbo. Could this be the Ring's effect (from the perspective of a coherent story)? Perhaps. He thinks to himself that Thorin's offer that he could pick and choose his share might not extend to the jewel. Thorin later names the Arkenstone to himself, but Bilbo does not come forward.

But candidly, the language used by Tolkien suggests another explanation. "Bilbo's arm went to it drawn by its enchantment." One can also refer to the poem The Hoard found in Adventures of Tom Bombadil where he discusses the power and bewilderment of treasure. The original title of this poem (it was first published in 1923 in a Leeds University magazine) Iumonna Gold Galdre Bewunden, meaning Gold of Men Enmeshed In Enchantment (See Annotated Hobbit, p. 288). This is a recurring theme in Tolkien's works, the love of treasure as a motivator towards either evil or bad decisions. I tend to favor this explanation of the Arkenstone incident.

However you slice it, Bilbo's concealment of the Ring from Gandalf and his taking and retention of the Arkenstone is not typical behavior. The cause? It could just as easily be the allure and glamor of fantastic treasure as the emerging effects of the Ring.

By the way, Gandalf's "more than meets the eye" comment after Bilbo explains his escape from Goblin Town (omitting the Ring) and the long stare that Gandalf gives to Bilbo as if he doubts some of the tale is in the original, pre-LoTR edition for those keeping score on the ring vs. Ring issue.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

But candidly, the language used by Tolkien suggests another explanation. "Bilbo's arm went to it drawn by its enchantment." One can also refer to the poem The Hoard found in Adventures of Tom Bombadil where he discusses the power and bewilderment of treasure. The original title of this poem (it was first published in 1923 in a Leeds University magazine) Iumonna Gold Galdre Bewunden, meaning Gold of Men Enmeshed In Enchantment (See Annotated Hobbit, p. 288). This is a recurring theme in Tolkien's works, the love of treasure as a motivator towards either evil or bad decisions. I tend to favor this explanation of the Arkenstone incident.

I think back to the time at Bag End where the Dwarves sang their song before setting out.
There, Bilbo listened and was "enchanted" to some extent, sharing the love the Dwarves had for jewels and such, out of character for most Hobbits in itself.
He'd had much time since then to hear the Dwarves talking about all that treasure, and had also spoken with the dragon who stole the hoard. I favor those things as influencing Bilbo's behavior.

[Ivriniel]

@ Leaf Hi there Leaf Nice to meet you! I've not 'met' one of your posts yet, so I thought I'd start with this hello, but I'll come back (to this post) to back edit, after the 'hello', in a day or so.

(I loved your post. It's deliciously inventive (in its analysis of my content) and I'm delighted to see your comments).

Kind Regards

Iv-goniel

@ Mithadan - what an awesome summation. I've updated the Summary Post (to put some new stuff in).

@ Reader.

Pondering textual analysis. in meantime

1. Text from the perspective of the historical drafter with focus upon:

a. Some ideas about Tolkien's original draft notes of LotR (see Letters and those for which he has written LotR to conform to Hobbit pre-sequel 'ring-to-Ring' - 1937 version).
b. The significance of that. The professor must have had some ideas, himself, about how to 'multiply infer/interpret' new or bridging ideas from the very one and the same text - himself. This I think goes to the 'Evil Animus' point, made, upstream. I'll --add--here the dormant or hidden Animus of the Ring - after some 3000 years and while Sauron/Necromancer was == weaker.

2. A focus upon the Hobbit-V2 and the Allen and Unwin LotR we all know in the 21st Century on the Shelves (which was where I entered this conversation, many moons ago, and then added in a 'mini research project' where I unearthed stuff I could add in, in 1.)

a. The 'Ring'* in the Hobbit. Despite it being a children's story, in its inception, nonetheless, with its edits in the now Un-ungolianted (or de-Ungolianted, or just UN-golianted) (i.e. revised Chapter V) of the delightful 1966 Edition and so on. (i.e. the chapter that corrected the Tome has been, no doubt, a controversy of various kinds in history. I'm sure Tolkien had a headache at times. Imagine his wrath? exhaustions? when he typed up early materials for LotR, to conform to Hobbit 1, and then hears back from editors 'na, na, na, John. You need to fix the Hobbit and re-work LotR'. I've cited Letters and such, in a post that found this stuff**.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted? I'm not a trained Tolkien Scholar, so I'm happy to be corrected. Does anyone know more on this topic?

*noting that in lower case - as a ring, in the book, observes the 'duality' of this textual item, all the way through to the 21st century.
** left blank

Back later (to this post) Kind Regards

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Let me clarify. It cannot be doubted that Bilbo's decision to turn the Arkenstone over to Bard was motivated by good intentions. But the decision to take the Arkenstone and later conceal it after Thorin began searching for it is a bit out of character for Bilbo. Could this be the Ring's effect (from the perspective of a coherent story)? Perhaps. He thinks to himself that Thorin's offer that he could pick and choose his share might not extend to the jewel. Thorin later names the Arkenstone to himself, but Bilbo does not come forward.

But candidly, the language used by Tolkien suggests another explanation. "Bilbo's arm went to it drawn by its enchantment." One can also refer to the poem The Hoard found in Adventures of Tom Bombadil where he discusses the power and bewilderment of treasure. The original title of this poem (it was first published in 1923 in a Leeds University magazine) Iumonna Gold Galdre Bewunden, meaning Gold of Men Enmeshed In Enchantment (See Annotated Hobbit, p. 288). This is a recurring theme in Tolkien's works, the love of treasure as a motivator towards either evil or bad decisions. I tend to favor this explanation of the Arkenstone incident.

However you slice it, Bilbo's concealment of the Ring from Gandalf and his taking and retention of the Arkenstone is not typical behavior. The cause? It could just as easily be the allure and glamor of fantastic treasure as the emerging effects of the Ring.

By the way, Gandalf's "more than meets the eye" comment after Bilbo explains his escape from Goblin Town (omitting the Ring) and the long stare that Gandalf gives to Bilbo as if he doubts some of the tale is in the original, pre-LoTR edition for those keeping score on the ring vs. Ring issue.

That's a different argument all together. If you really want to fit the Idea of the Ring into this situation, I guess you can suspect that it played a role in the taking of the Arkenstone. I still dont find it to be a compelling argument. I don't know of any case in which the Master Ring creates or amplifies greed for worldly things.

And the notion that the taking of the Arkenstone is a out of character moment for Bilbo is a little dubious. Here's a quote from the very first chapter:

"As they sang the Hobbit felt the love of beautiful things made by hands and by cunning and by magic moving through him, a fierce and jealous love, the desire of the hearts of dwarves." It is set up from the very beginning of the story that Bilbo is receptive to this fierce and jealous love for beautiful things.

I agree with you. This explanation seems to be the more elegant and interesting one. It's well founded withing the text of the given novel and doesn't need an exterior explanation to make sense.


Edit: Inziladun beat me to it

[Zigûr]

Yes, to agree with Inzil and Leaf, it seems thematically appropriate to me in The Hobbit that Bilbo's taking of the Arkenstone is consistent with the book's own discussion of the allure of precious things. This theme, I would argue, doesn't require the Ring to be malignant in any further capacity to function in the text.

What is perhaps effective about this in The Hobbit is that the Arkenstone needs no particular "magic" to operate in this way. Its "enchantment" seems to be its own lustre and desirability.

Originally Posted by Leaf

I don't know of any case in which the Master Ring creates or amplifies greed for worldly things.

I suppose you could consider the effect the Seven had on the Dwarves ("The only power over them that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things, so that if they lacked them all other good things seemed profitless, and they were filled with wrath and desire for vengeance on all who deprived them."), but on the other hand that seems to be a peculiar effect the Great Rings had on Dwarves specifically, such that it couldn't be stated definitively that the One Ring would necessarily have the same effect on Hobbits.

On the other hand, it's probably a good thing that the Ring of Thrór was lost before Thorin could inherit it - imagine how much more unreasonable he might have been had he possessed it!

[Pitchwife]

Thank you, Mithadan, for nudging this meandering/maundering thread back on track.

I've said most of what I have to say about the Arkenstone up in post #77, but I think I concur with Leaf and Inzil that Bilbo's love for beautiful things, together with the stone's own enchantment, was quite enough motivation for him to take it. Let's also not forget that the whole treasure - including, if I'm not very mistaken, the Arkenstone - had long been lain on by a dragon, and a dragon's hoard has a glamour that fascinates and awakes covetousness even more than 'normal' gold, does it not?

You know, I find that the whole scene of Bilbo taking the Arkenstone reminds me a bit of Pippin taking the palantír of Orthanc from Gandalf. Two hobbits, two stones wrought with great art in days long past, one scintillating with light, the other dark, but glowing with a heart of fire. And both hobbits grab the shiny mystery, even though both know they shouldn't. Was it just the Took in Bilbo that made him take the Arkenstone?

Now as for keeping the stone secret even after Thorin had claimed it for himself, I originally thought that quite suspicious behaviour, but Galadriel55 made a valid point that Thorin was showing increasing signs of dragon gold madness at that time, and Bilbo may have been (rightly) afraid that Old Oakenshield would blow up in his face if he learned that Bilbo had found the stone and said nothing. And I think it's fair to assume that Mr Baggins hadn't remained totally untouched by the treasure's glamour himself, as Mithadan already said.
________________________________________

Iviriniel, as for Tolkien's first drafts for LotR: it's a while since I read The Return of the Shadow, Vol. 6 of of The History of Middle-earth, in which they're all published, but IIRC he started with Bilbo leaving Bag-End for more adventures but no clear idea what these would be. One idea was that Bilbo had used up all his gold and was looking for more, driven by the dragon sickness, but he (=JRRT) found that idea unsatisfying. At some point he decided that the hero wouldn't be Bilbo himself but a younger relative of his (long named Bingo but finally renamed Frodo), accompanied by some of his friends/cousins who also went through some wild name changes, but he still had no idea what the adventure would really be about.

At that point, I think, he sat down to consider which motives he hadn't used up in TH, and, ending up with the Necromancer and the r/Ring, jotted down a note (some time in late '37/early '38, but don't pin me down on it): "The ring - where does it come from? Necromancer?" As we know, that was a fruitful idea, and everything started to gel. He first cnsidered the ring harmless if used for good purposes, but harmful if kept too long, but by and by the ring became the Ring, the One, ash nazg durbathulûk,

Once that was clear, the original version of TH Chapter 5, where Gollum was willing to give Bilbo the Ring, became, of course, untenable, because the Prof's conception of Gollum's character had changed and he realized that Gollum could never have given up his precious. So the original Ch. 5 was explained as being a cover-up by Bilbo. Only in the 1966 edition of TH, IIRC, was that chapter told as it was now, after the change, conceived to have really happened, with Gollum planning to murder Bilbo and "Thief! Baggins! We hates it forever!"

Does that answer any of your questions?
_______________________________________________

(x-ed with Gal55; our dogs are bonkers tonight.)

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

You know, I find that the whole scene of Bilbo taking the Arkenstone reminds me a bit of Pippin taking the palantír of Orthanc from Gandalf. Two hobbits, two stones wrought with great art in days long past, one scintillating with light, the other dark, but glowing with a heart of fire. And both hobbits grab the shiny mystery, even though both know they shouldn't. Was it just the Took in Bilbo that made him take the Arkenstone?

Ah! *facepalm* How could I leave this out of my example list? That's a great one, thanks for bringing it up.

[Pitchwife]

Let me return the compliments:

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

First of all, regardless of what motivated Bilbo to take the Arkenstone in the first place, I always had the feeling that after that moment of weakness he never really meant to keep it, he just didn't know how to come forwards about it

This! Haven't we all been in situations like that? I have, at least. You do something you know isn't the best of ideas and mean to put it right after a while, but the situation is never quite right for doing something about it and it gets worse the more you procrastinate. Giving the stone to Bard must have been a relief.

Originally Posted by the same

in Bilbo's case the Ring is quite safe and happy. None of his plans appear to involve any harm (direct or indirect) being done to the Ring. If Bilbo had to give his ring to Bard and Thranduil rather than the Arkenstone - oh how the story might have gone differently. But he wasn't, so there isn't much reason for a burst of activity from the Ring.

This, I think, is also a good point. Of course the Ring would be working on Bilbo to corrupt him, but that would have been a slow and subtle process, slowed further by Bilbo's nature - which surely wasn't sterling but basically decent - and the mercy he had shown Gollum, so it wouldn't necessarily show any noticeable results in the short time span covered by The Hobbit.

[Inziladun]

Leaving aside the RL points about the Ring as conceptualized in The Hobbit vs. LOTR, can we look at another Ring-bearer to see if it seems to have pushed him to any treachery?

Frodo began his time as a Bearer after Sauron's power was greater than at the tine of the Battle of Five Armies, after the latter had returned to Mordor and openly declared himself.
Is there any indication on Frodo's part of him betraying his friends, or wanting to? Any suggestion of an usual greed that does not pertain to the Ring itself?

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

<--snip-->Does that answer any of your questions?<--snip-->

Thank you for the assistance "Earthfriend," breathed Pitchwife, "what will you do? (I'm going to from time to time resurrect that ole' thread of yours. It's gunna be one of those 'got new idea' once, that 'keep bouncing back to life'

It's very appreciated Pitchwife, ur response. I'll be back soon to (back-edit this one), as well. I've got to head out, but saw ur light on, and so quickly dropped in.

[PS]: I used to GM at Forum (about 2 years 'way back when' as GM (Game Master), not moderator. Hard going, without powers to curb, one had to invent on-post means. Thread started with my joining (by choice) the most unpopular group - the Half-Elven Foundation. We, over time, made it a 5000 post thread. As you can imagine - skirmishes and blowouts sometimes - but it was a vibrant busy place soon enough. I've always said it's 'coming back' that's best-est of all I'm going to update my sig, and put out a call to 'em. It was pre-Facebook/social media. We all lost each other when the Boards closed around 2005. I found one of them recently.[/PS]

@Mithadan (is this allowed here? or....how strict is the 'on-topic' standard? the 'ps' thing, and variations, was what some of ways we spoke at the Foundations.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Once that was clear, the original version of TH Chapter 5, where Gollum was willing to give Bilbo the Ring, became, of course, untenable, because the Prof's conception of Gollum's character had changed and he realized that Gollum could never have given up his precious. So the original Ch. 5 was explained as being a cover-up by Bilbo. Only in the 1966 edition of TH, IIRC, was that chapter told as it was now, after the change, conceived to have really happened, with Gollum planning to murder Bilbo and "Thief! Baggins! We hates it forever!"

As I think I understand things, Tolkien drafted the revisions in 1944 and sent them to Allen and Unwin in 1947, and after a bit of a misunderstanding with the publishers, the revisions appeared in the Second Edition of 1951.

Of course later on the Ace Books controversy called for more tinkering in general, but I believe the new version of chapter five was already in place, again at least generally speaking.

[Pitchwife]

You're right as usual, Galin. Thanks for the correction!

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Let me clarify. It cannot be doubted that Bilbo's decision to turn the Arkenstone over to Bard was motivated by good intentions. But the decision to take the Arkenstone and later conceal it after Thorin began searching for it is a bit out of character for Bilbo. Could this be the Ring's effect (from the perspective of a coherent story)? Perhaps. He thinks to himself that Thorin's offer that he could pick and choose his share might not extend to the jewel. Thorin later names the Arkenstone to himself, but Bilbo does not come forward.

I want to throw out another couple ideas in regards to this. First of all, regardless of what motivated Bilbo to take the Arkenstone in the first place, I always had the feeling that after that moment of weakness he never really meant to keep it, he just didn't know how to come forwards about it without enraging the Dwarves (who would predictably be disproportionately mad at Bilbo for taking the stone and would not appreciate the effort of conscience and morality that it took to overcome the barriers to breaking the truth to them voluntarily until it would be too late - because that's what happens nearly every time Bilbo pulls off a trick). Thus, I don't see the Ring as a factor at all in keeping the Arkenstone secret. It would be natural for anyone who knows what the Dwarves are like with their gratitude and their jewels to keep something like this quiet; but also, it seems to me that Bilbo didn't want to keep that secret and was looking for an alternative way out of the situation. He does feel rather guilty about the whole thing, and most likely regretted taking the darned stone in the first place. Having the stone - and especially keeping it secret - ain't giving him any pleasure at all.

I can see how it can be argued that the Ring had a hand in pushing Bilbo to take the Stone, though I don't think that's the prime motivator. I suppose it's not out of character for the Ring to whisper thoughts like "It's just fair, you deserve it, what do you owe to them, you're not technically breaking your written contract, you're still a good Gollu... hobbit, it's the Dwarves who are the mean ones and the cheaters". But Bilbo knew when he took the stone that he just wants to feel this way to justify taking the stone. He is aware that he's making excuses for himself, and sad excuses at that. Besides, he's at the point where he appreciates unwritten bonds above written contracts, and he knows that he violates something much more important than the legal definition of "1/14 of the profits". He knows that, and he still takes the stone, because of his own inner weakness. He conquers it, of course, and he wouldn't ever be likely to repeat that mistake, but it was a moment of his own internal weakness.

Finally, I want to bring up a general pattern seen throughout the legendarium in regards to jewels and riches, a pattern in part borrowed from real-world mythologies. The most beautiful things inspire greed and almost unconscious acts of unnecessary harshness. Personalities become distorted, people become cruel and unsharing, and those who aspire to claim some of those treasures evoke a very similar response to the reaction of Ringbearers when someone broaches the subject of taking away the Ring. The First Age is filled with such examples - the Nauglamir, the hoard of Nargothrond, the Silmarili alone could fill up several pages of analysis from their creation until Maglor throws the last one into the Sea. The Arkenstone (and the rest of the dragon hoard as well) is an extension of the same pattern. The examples mentioned above by other posters (Bilbo enchanted by the Dwarves' song, his hand drawn by the stone's enchantement) are referring to this aspect of treasure. Bilbo's action is very much continuous with this pattern, Ring or no Ring - an external source isn't needed to be present to give Bilbo the push. Moreover, ascribing this action to the Ring takes away from the concept of greed and the enchantment of the treasure. Treasure does not need to have this effect anymore, this power, if it's just the Ring at work. If we assume that the Ring is a prime motivator in Bilbo's choice, or the prime reason for his weakness - it is belittling the beauty and power of the Arkenstone both as the element of the story and as a symbol. I think that goes against what the rest of the story has been trying to convey to the readers about this stone.

I think it's possible that the Ring had a hold on Bilbo, but I do not think that in this case it was a motivator. In any situation, his actions seem perfectly explicable without the presence of the Ring, so even if its influence was there, it was too subtle to be a main factor. I cannot think of any such instance, which is why I am asking you - is there any point in the story where Bilbo makes a choice that is aligned with the "desires" of the Ring, that he would not have made without it? If a good examples of that is out there, then the flip side can be argued. As it is, though, it seems that there is no strong evidence to support the Ring influence case.

Lastly, since this has been mentioned previously: yes, Isildur wasn't able to destroy the Ring after possessing it for only a few hours, and Frodo sure didn't like it when Gandalf chucked the Ring into the fireplace. But both of these situations involve some threat to the Ring - and quite a direct threat at that. On the contrary, in Bilbo's case the Ring is quite safe and happy. None of his plans appear to involve any harm (direct or indirect) being done to the Ring. If Bilbo had to give his ring to Bard and Thranduil rather than the Arkenstone - oh how the story might have gone differently. But he wasn't, so there isn't much reason for a burst of activity from the Ring.